4 ms·
It's fair to assume he cut moderation teams because they were intimately involved with suppression of speech at the behest of the government and political inter
by upsidesinclude 4y ago
It's fair to assume he cut moderation teams because they were intimately involved with suppression of speech at the behest of the government and political interests.
Determining those moderators which have been witting participants in the chilling of free speech is more difficult than axing a great many of them that underperformed and keeping the few with real tangible contribution.
- SpelingBeeChamp 4y agoWhy do you think that is “fair to assume?” To me, it sounds like wild conjecture.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- upsidesinclude 4y agoThe groups did a fair amount of censoring and controlling political information. He bought Twitter to stop that from happening. So, it's safe to assume, in my opinion, that he fired a bunch of people that care more about their ideology than they care about fair or honest debate or acting in accordance with the principals of freedom or the United States
- SoftTalker 4y agoMusk has stated that Twitter interfered with elections. I'm not sure what evidence he's provided for that, but he did say it.
- shadowfox 4y agoGiven his usual proclamations, (e.g. level-5 self driving) I think it is fair to assume that he is not very high on evidence.
- toofy 4y agohe has said a lot of things that are wildly inaccurate.
- freejazz 4y agoAnd Trump still hasn't conceded 2020... who cares what people say when it's nonsense?
- nonethewiser 4y agoYou dont need to assume. Twitter has openly stated their political and ideological values that drive moderation.
- concordDance 4y agoWhere?
- snowwrestler 4y agoBeing “intimately involved with suppression of speech at the behest of the government and political interests” exactly describes the job of removing child sexual assault content.
- upsidesinclude 4y agoAre you familiar with logical fallacy? Yes, bad things are on the internet. That is in no way the content or information I'm describing, nor does it fall into the category of legal free speech. Bringing up illegal things to argument the suppression of legal speech is, I don't know, moronic. You are perpetuating a tired trope and I haven't the energy to persist with this discussion
- upsidesinclude 4y agohttps://twitter.com/elizableu/status/1599484564832854017?cxt=HHwWgoCp6ZevwbIsAAAA https://twitter.com/elizableu/status/1599484564832854017?cxt... This is where you get bent. Your logical fallacy is detailed here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion I hope that, despite what you are implying, this success by Musk is not upsetting to you.
- abigail95 4y agoA better word is partisan or authoritarian interests.
- upsidesinclude 4y agoHey, it begs the question, how many authoritarian and partisan tactics can one utilize before being considered an partisan authoritarian?