5 ms·

Twitter Files Part 4

26 points by Khaine 4y ago

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
benmmurphy 4y ago
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1601720455005511680.html https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1601720455005511680.html The banning of Donald Trump was very arbitrary and involved a lot of 'mind reading' and 'fortune telling'. This is clear from the justification: > After close review of recent Tweets from the @realDonaldTrump account and the context around them we have permanently suspended the account due to the risk of further incitement of violence. In a way this justification is always trivially true. Trump could always have a seizure or someone could hack his account and if your redline is zero risk of incitement then this redline is always being breached. But of course twitter is not going to try and quantify the risk because if you applied this crazy level (or some level that is less crazy) to any other politician then people will wonder why Trump is being singled out. Was the risk of violence from Trump continuing to tweet higher than other Democratic politicians from continuing to tweet during the BLM riots? More people were killed during the BLM violence than the 'election denying' violence. Seems a bit suspect that one resulted in politicians being banned while another didn't. If I was running twitter my standard would be the US incitement to violence standard which would mean Trump wouldn't be banned nor would any Democratic politician.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- rat87 4y ago
  Yes much much higher. Trump was praising a violent coup. Trump was singled out, he was allowed to get away with shit for far too long because Twitter didn't want to deal with the hassle that banning him would cause even though he broke their policy often
afinlayson 4y ago
Sounds like Elon is ok with civil war as long as it’s tweeted. I don’t know why any ceo would want to be part of Jan 6 like event in any capacity regardless of politics.
- cinquemb 4y ago
  - afinlayson 4y ago
    consequences isn’t silencing people… I don’t think we should want a world where people bigger / stronger / richer than you or me can do whatever to our detriment. If you disagree let’s do something about legal system first then worry about social media.
    - cinquemb 4y ago
      I'm not worried about social media, and even though I think its highlights often the vapid and banality of our societies, I'm not going try to stop someone from waddling in the cesspool. >I don’t think we should want a world where people bigger / stronger / richer than you or me can do whatever to our detriment. What "we" want, matters not. I have no desire to change the course of a legal system. People bigger / stronger / richer than you or me try everyday to influence all sorts of decisions i make, some important me, some not so important to me. I'm not going to rely upon a legal system to instill some misguided sense of protection from them on the ones I find most important to me and will take matters into my own hands, no matter how futile it will be.
      - afinlayson 4y ago
        So you’d honestly want social media to be more like legal system than both being better? Personally I’d like to see more optimism in the world.
        cinquemb 4y ago
rektide 4y ago
Incredible crybabying. Never going to stop. There's no constitutional right to make companies carry your voice & these entities can & should make decisions for themselves as the need arises & as they see fit. There should also be more competitors & outlets, so we arent in this position of obsessing about one company's choices, so we arent so fixated. Finding a bunch of conservative instigators to feed the files to, to deliberately damage & sabotage the history here,... this is all pretty scummy.
- taolegal 4y ago
  > There's no constitutional right to make companies carry your voice Ok so it's fine to start carte blanche censoring liberals?
  - acdha 4y ago
    It’s legal, and it already happens on sites like Parler or Truth Social. A smarter question is how that impacts the desire of most people to be on the site. Twitter’s rules were focused on behavior which most people find offensive rather than political viewpoints, and that meant that lots of people wanted to be there. The sites which only allow certain viewpoints tend to be a lot less enjoyable, and usually end in infighting as the purists turn on each other. Unsurprisingly, it turns out to be a bad business move to limit your potential user base and exclude advertisers who aren’t exclusively targeting that same narrow demographic.
  - rat87 4y ago
    Twitter censors liberals and leftists all the time. They just don't raise aa big of a stink about it as conservatives. Part of it is working the refs and part is the large increase in racist and conspiracy theories among right wing people in recent times.
friendlypeg 4y ago
The engagement declines with each new release. That is what happens when you keep crying wolf. It's not even trending on Twitter.
acdha 4y ago
Is there anything new here? This seems like it’s confirming the general public understanding before — Trump was given considerable leeway as a world leader, but when the January attack happened there was internal discussion which led to an executive decision that they didn’t want to continue hosting him. Now we have more Slack messages but it doesn’t seem like they change anything substantially.
- encryptluks2 4y ago
  Musk is trying to appeal to right wing grifter supporters here capable of believing in QAnon. It doesn't need to make sense to everyone.
  - acdha 4y ago
    Yeah, it’s disappointing to see it here without context or analysis. Watching people pretend not to know that every popular social network has tools like this or that it’s a secret has been sad.

26 points by Khaine 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1601720455005511680.html https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1601720455005511680.html The banning of Donald Trump was very arbitrary and involved a lot of 'mind reading' and 'fortune telling'. This is clear from the justification: > After close review of recent Tweets from the @realDonaldTrump account and the context around them we have permanently suspended the account due to the risk of further incitement of violence. In a way this justification is always trivially true. Trump could always have a seizure or someone could hack his account and if your redline is zero risk of incitement then this redline is always being breached. But of course twitter is not going to try and quantify the risk because if you applied this crazy level (or some level that is less crazy) to any other politician then people will wonder why Trump is being singled out. Was the risk of violence from Trump continuing to tweet higher than other Democratic politicians from continuing to tweet during the BLM riots? More people were killed during the BLM violence than the 'election denying' violence. Seems a bit suspect that one resulted in politicians being banned while another didn't. If I was running twitter my standard would be the US incitement to violence standard which would mean Trump wouldn't be banned nor would any Democratic politician.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
rat87 4y ago
Yes much much higher. Trump was praising a violent coup. Trump was singled out, he was allowed to get away with shit for far too long because Twitter didn't want to deal with the hassle that banning him would cause even though he broke their policy often

afinlayson 4y ago

Sounds like Elon is ok with civil war as long as it’s tweeted. I don’t know why any ceo would want to be part of Jan 6 like event in any capacity regardless of politics.

cinquemb 4y ago
- afinlayson 4y ago
  consequences isn’t silencing people… I don’t think we should want a world where people bigger / stronger / richer than you or me can do whatever to our detriment. If you disagree let’s do something about legal system first then worry about social media.
  - cinquemb 4y ago
    I'm not worried about social media, and even though I think its highlights often the vapid and banality of our societies, I'm not going try to stop someone from waddling in the cesspool. >I don’t think we should want a world where people bigger / stronger / richer than you or me can do whatever to our detriment. What "we" want, matters not. I have no desire to change the course of a legal system. People bigger / stronger / richer than you or me try everyday to influence all sorts of decisions i make, some important me, some not so important to me. I'm not going to rely upon a legal system to instill some misguided sense of protection from them on the ones I find most important to me and will take matters into my own hands, no matter how futile it will be.
    - afinlayson 4y ago
      So you’d honestly want social media to be more like legal system than both being better? Personally I’d like to see more optimism in the world.
      - cinquemb 4y ago

rektide 4y ago

Incredible crybabying. Never going to stop. There's no constitutional right to make companies carry your voice & these entities can & should make decisions for themselves as the need arises & as they see fit. There should also be more competitors & outlets, so we arent in this position of obsessing about one company's choices, so we arent so fixated. Finding a bunch of conservative instigators to feed the files to, to deliberately damage & sabotage the history here,... this is all pretty scummy.

taolegal 4y ago
> There's no constitutional right to make companies carry your voice Ok so it's fine to start carte blanche censoring liberals?
- acdha 4y ago
  It’s legal, and it already happens on sites like Parler or Truth Social. A smarter question is how that impacts the desire of most people to be on the site. Twitter’s rules were focused on behavior which most people find offensive rather than political viewpoints, and that meant that lots of people wanted to be there. The sites which only allow certain viewpoints tend to be a lot less enjoyable, and usually end in infighting as the purists turn on each other. Unsurprisingly, it turns out to be a bad business move to limit your potential user base and exclude advertisers who aren’t exclusively targeting that same narrow demographic.
- rat87 4y ago
  Twitter censors liberals and leftists all the time. They just don't raise aa big of a stink about it as conservatives. Part of it is working the refs and part is the large increase in racist and conspiracy theories among right wing people in recent times.

friendlypeg 4y ago

The engagement declines with each new release. That is what happens when you keep crying wolf. It's not even trending on Twitter.

acdha 4y ago

Is there anything new here? This seems like it’s confirming the general public understanding before — Trump was given considerable leeway as a world leader, but when the January attack happened there was internal discussion which led to an executive decision that they didn’t want to continue hosting him. Now we have more Slack messages but it doesn’t seem like they change anything substantially.

encryptluks2 4y ago
Musk is trying to appeal to right wing grifter supporters here capable of believing in QAnon. It doesn't need to make sense to everyone.
- acdha 4y ago
  Yeah, it’s disappointing to see it here without context or analysis. Watching people pretend not to know that every popular social network has tools like this or that it’s a secret has been sad.