3 ms·

He probably got scared by advertisers or Apple or something. Ideally in my opinion, Twitter should have a setting by default that hides all of that content, bu

He probably got scared by advertisers or Apple or something. Ideally in my opinion, Twitter should have a setting by default that hides all of that content, but if you disable it you get 4chan-like moderation (so anything that's legal). In countries with a lesser degree of freedom of speech (I think swastikas are illegal in Germany for example), you wouldn't be able to disable that setting.

scythe 4y ago
My idea, which I've posted before, is that you require users to pay to turn off the filter. (After all, if they're bad for ad revenue, they can't be "the product".) This also mostly enforces region-locking, at least requiring some effort to bypass.
- luckylion 4y ago
  In what way would it enforce region-locking, and why would that be a good thing?
  - scythe 4y ago
    Usually your payment method is tied to your country of residence (bank/currency), and from the platform's perspective (as a business) region-verification locks on content/behavior are demanded by national governments.
    - luckylion 4y ago
      Ah, so it would verify country of origin and then allow you to unlock some filter, while also applying a new one based on the country? Finally a problem that bitcoin reliably solves! "Here's my money, I'm from the internet, we have no censorship laws".
- giantrobot 4y ago
  But that leads to dog wagging. Twitter as a platform would be incentivized to encourage hate speech etc in order to have something to entice people to pay to access it.
  - scythe 4y ago
    That is a concern. But I suspect the market for a moderated ad-supported Twitter is quite a bit larger than that for a paid unmoderated Twitter, and the elasticity you have to "promote hate speech" without really alienating people is not large — people already got mad at Facebook for counting "angry react" as engagement, and that's not even close to being hate speech. On the other hand, it also incentivizes aggressive moderation of the free section, since malingerers can be told to pay up.
- ilyt 4y ago
  Pay to access to people arguing rudely is terrible business model
bink 4y ago
The last time I dealt with Apple's app store terms of service that was a critical part. You couldn't default people into pornography or hate speech. There had to be a login and an option to enable adult content. I think he'll find that even if he complies with that rule people will still leave. Forcing an opt-in for one client doesn't prevent them from sending harassing messages to others.
someNameIG 4y ago
Issue with that though is that a lot who post offensive content want to actually offend, they just don't want to share it with fellow free speech absolutists. So you'll have some trying to get around that filter (e.g. instead of "groomer", they say "gr00mer".

scythe 4y ago

My idea, which I've posted before, is that you require users to pay to turn off the filter. (After all, if they're bad for ad revenue, they can't be "the product".) This also mostly enforces region-locking, at least requiring some effort to bypass.

luckylion 4y ago
In what way would it enforce region-locking, and why would that be a good thing?
- scythe 4y ago
  Usually your payment method is tied to your country of residence (bank/currency), and from the platform's perspective (as a business) region-verification locks on content/behavior are demanded by national governments.
  - luckylion 4y ago
    Ah, so it would verify country of origin and then allow you to unlock some filter, while also applying a new one based on the country? Finally a problem that bitcoin reliably solves! "Here's my money, I'm from the internet, we have no censorship laws".
giantrobot 4y ago
But that leads to dog wagging. Twitter as a platform would be incentivized to encourage hate speech etc in order to have something to entice people to pay to access it.
- scythe 4y ago
  That is a concern. But I suspect the market for a moderated ad-supported Twitter is quite a bit larger than that for a paid unmoderated Twitter, and the elasticity you have to "promote hate speech" without really alienating people is not large — people already got mad at Facebook for counting "angry react" as engagement, and that's not even close to being hate speech. On the other hand, it also incentivizes aggressive moderation of the free section, since malingerers can be told to pay up.
ilyt 4y ago
Pay to access to people arguing rudely is terrible business model

bink 4y ago

The last time I dealt with Apple's app store terms of service that was a critical part. You couldn't default people into pornography or hate speech. There had to be a login and an option to enable adult content. I think he'll find that even if he complies with that rule people will still leave. Forcing an opt-in for one client doesn't prevent them from sending harassing messages to others.

someNameIG 4y ago

Issue with that though is that a lot who post offensive content want to actually offend, they just don't want to share it with fellow free speech absolutists. So you'll have some trying to get around that filter (e.g. instead of "groomer", they say "gr00mer".