6 ms·

> a real, current problem. Those are always more important than future problems. You mean like addressing climate change, vs spending trillions trying to terra

> a real, current problem. Those are always more important than future problems. You mean like addressing climate change, vs spending trillions trying to terraform a planet to make it barely habitable.

rglover 4y ago
Maintaining free speech will allow people to discuss and shed light on actual—not heavily manufactured—issues like the climate change movement being used as a distraction while banks and corporations implement natural asset corporations. [1] [1] https://unlimitedhangout.com/2021/11/investigative-reports/un-backed-banker-alliance-announces-green-plan-to-transform-the-global-financial-system/ https://unlimitedhangout.com/2021/11/investigative-reports/u...
- kmonsen 4y ago
  There is no evidence there is more free speech on Twitter after the Elon takeover. It's just different people being banned and for more arbitrary reasons.
  - whythre 4y ago
    I think it is way too early to make that call.
    - kmonsen 4y ago
      Fair point, but as of now I think it's a valid statement.
    - kmonsen 4y ago
      I guess now we have enough data? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33983878 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33983878
  - TEP_Kim_Il_Sung 4y ago
    At least he managed to get red of CP.
  - JoshCole 4y ago
    I could understand saying something like the totality of the evidence doesn't support the conclusion that there is more free speech after Elon's takeover. So that is probably what you mean. What you actually said though is factually inaccurate. There is evidence both for and against more free speech on Twitter. If someone can't admit that, chances are they are plagued with cognitive dissonance and highly partisan in their reasoning. For example, there is evidence that Twitter has granted amnesty to accounts that were previously censored and according to stated motivations this was done for the sake of freedom of speech. I happen to suspect that you are right and that currently some rulings are made with input outside the policy team and that this is currently happening more frequently than it used to. One thing that convinces me of this is that I frequently see people reaching out to Elon Musk directly and reporting that they have been censored in some way or the other. Then these cases seem to be resolved, with the other person praising him for ending the censoring of their political thoughts, which implies that he intervened in a policy decision. However, I'm not sure I could call this proof that banning decisions are made more arbitrarily than before since these are blacklist removing interventions rather than bans. So basically, when you claim that is now more arbitrary than it was before, that comes across to me more as your own speculation than anything definitive. We don't have proof of that. In sharp contrast, anyone who claims that the previous ownership did make arbitrary decisions does have proof. It is now a matter of public record that in some high profile cases (I happen to agree with some of them, but that is beside the point) Twitter did make arbitrary decisions rather than policy rooted decisions. In fact they did this often enough in decisions that weren't as high profile that there was a category label in the moderation reason, being called a one off. It seems the current Twitter wants to be much more transparent than the former. So it might be that at some point in the future we will be able to see the moderation metrics: if we could, then we could answer your implication with with actual data. Filter by moderation justification field and get a count both positive and negative and we would have a much better sense of whether decisions were being made arbitrarily.
    - kmonsen 4y ago
      My comment was not as serious as yours. I would say that I don't really know why Alex Jones is still banned from Twitter. It's unclear what the guidelines are. And in my view the "poll" to get Trump back showed there is no policy. But as you said it's early days with not much evidence. Perhaps it will work itself out.
- hkpack 4y ago
  At this point I think we just need to accept, that every issue of every severity is widely used by parties, who know how to benefit from it. It doesn't actually prove or disprove the issue (and its severity itself). For example: climate change is heavily used by people who know how to gain power by fighting it. It doesn't disprove the issue itself. All effective strategies includes natural forces, because it is very difficult to fight against them. So no wonder why climate change (as being a massive natural force) is used by people in power for their benefit.
  - rglover 4y ago
    > It doesn't actually prove or disprove the issue (and its severity itself). It does when you consider that the very people who are promoting that severity are doing what I linked above behind the scenes and their own behavior hasn't changed at all (e.g., all of them flying private jets to Egypt for COP, having multiple pieces of real estate, etc). The harsh truth is that the very people who are responsible for telling people to panic are, in fact, not panicked at all and are using fear as a smokescreen to take absolute control over the entire world (zero hyperbole in that statement). It's classic sleight of hand, just on a global scale. Because many people in the West lack any spiritual grounding, they've latched on to climate change (think about the term alone; of course the climate changes—it always has) as a pseudo-religion and defend it to absolutely irrational ends. This is why anyone who even remotely questons it gets labeled as a heretic ("climate change denier"). You may as well be saying "you're denying my god" which explains the often-hysterical backlash you get.
    - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
      > The harsh truth is that the very people who are responsible for telling people to panic are, in fact, not panicked at all... True. Or, at a minimum, they aren't doing anything concrete that you would expect if they actually believed what they're saying. > ... and are using fear as a smokescreen to take absolute control over the entire world (zero hyperbole in that statement). Zero? Really? I'm calling baloney on your claim here.
      - 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
ben_w 4y ago
I know it’s not my money so I don’t get a say[0], but I kind wish Musk had spent that $44 billion making a factory that makes shipping-crate sized Sabatier-process units to turn CO2 into methane. Needed for Mars, useful for Earth. [0] and, indeed, have used that argument against his critics when Musk was just a plucky upstart spending mere hundreds of millions on making the prototype that led to the Falcon

rglover 4y ago

Maintaining free speech will allow people to discuss and shed light on actual—not heavily manufactured—issues like the climate change movement being used as a distraction while banks and corporations implement natural asset corporations. [1] [1] https://unlimitedhangout.com/2021/11/investigative-reports/un-backed-banker-alliance-announces-green-plan-to-transform-the-global-financial-system/ https://unlimitedhangout.com/2021/11/investigative-reports/u...

kmonsen 4y ago
There is no evidence there is more free speech on Twitter after the Elon takeover. It's just different people being banned and for more arbitrary reasons.
- whythre 4y ago
  I think it is way too early to make that call.
  - kmonsen 4y ago
    Fair point, but as of now I think it's a valid statement.
  - kmonsen 4y ago
    I guess now we have enough data? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33983878 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33983878
- TEP_Kim_Il_Sung 4y ago
  At least he managed to get red of CP.
- JoshCole 4y ago
  I could understand saying something like the totality of the evidence doesn't support the conclusion that there is more free speech after Elon's takeover. So that is probably what you mean. What you actually said though is factually inaccurate. There is evidence both for and against more free speech on Twitter. If someone can't admit that, chances are they are plagued with cognitive dissonance and highly partisan in their reasoning. For example, there is evidence that Twitter has granted amnesty to accounts that were previously censored and according to stated motivations this was done for the sake of freedom of speech. I happen to suspect that you are right and that currently some rulings are made with input outside the policy team and that this is currently happening more frequently than it used to. One thing that convinces me of this is that I frequently see people reaching out to Elon Musk directly and reporting that they have been censored in some way or the other. Then these cases seem to be resolved, with the other person praising him for ending the censoring of their political thoughts, which implies that he intervened in a policy decision. However, I'm not sure I could call this proof that banning decisions are made more arbitrarily than before since these are blacklist removing interventions rather than bans. So basically, when you claim that is now more arbitrary than it was before, that comes across to me more as your own speculation than anything definitive. We don't have proof of that. In sharp contrast, anyone who claims that the previous ownership did make arbitrary decisions does have proof. It is now a matter of public record that in some high profile cases (I happen to agree with some of them, but that is beside the point) Twitter did make arbitrary decisions rather than policy rooted decisions. In fact they did this often enough in decisions that weren't as high profile that there was a category label in the moderation reason, being called a one off. It seems the current Twitter wants to be much more transparent than the former. So it might be that at some point in the future we will be able to see the moderation metrics: if we could, then we could answer your implication with with actual data. Filter by moderation justification field and get a count both positive and negative and we would have a much better sense of whether decisions were being made arbitrarily.
  - kmonsen 4y ago
    My comment was not as serious as yours. I would say that I don't really know why Alex Jones is still banned from Twitter. It's unclear what the guidelines are. And in my view the "poll" to get Trump back showed there is no policy. But as you said it's early days with not much evidence. Perhaps it will work itself out.
hkpack 4y ago
At this point I think we just need to accept, that every issue of every severity is widely used by parties, who know how to benefit from it. It doesn't actually prove or disprove the issue (and its severity itself). For example: climate change is heavily used by people who know how to gain power by fighting it. It doesn't disprove the issue itself. All effective strategies includes natural forces, because it is very difficult to fight against them. So no wonder why climate change (as being a massive natural force) is used by people in power for their benefit.
- rglover 4y ago
  > It doesn't actually prove or disprove the issue (and its severity itself). It does when you consider that the very people who are promoting that severity are doing what I linked above behind the scenes and their own behavior hasn't changed at all (e.g., all of them flying private jets to Egypt for COP, having multiple pieces of real estate, etc). The harsh truth is that the very people who are responsible for telling people to panic are, in fact, not panicked at all and are using fear as a smokescreen to take absolute control over the entire world (zero hyperbole in that statement). It's classic sleight of hand, just on a global scale. Because many people in the West lack any spiritual grounding, they've latched on to climate change (think about the term alone; of course the climate changes—it always has) as a pseudo-religion and defend it to absolutely irrational ends. This is why anyone who even remotely questons it gets labeled as a heretic ("climate change denier"). You may as well be saying "you're denying my god" which explains the often-hysterical backlash you get.
  - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
    > The harsh truth is that the very people who are responsible for telling people to panic are, in fact, not panicked at all... True. Or, at a minimum, they aren't doing anything concrete that you would expect if they actually believed what they're saying. > ... and are using fear as a smokescreen to take absolute control over the entire world (zero hyperbole in that statement). Zero? Really? I'm calling baloney on your claim here.
    - 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

ben_w 4y ago

I know it’s not my money so I don’t get a say[0], but I kind wish Musk had spent that $44 billion making a factory that makes shipping-crate sized Sabatier-process units to turn CO2 into methane. Needed for Mars, useful for Earth. [0] and, indeed, have used that argument against his critics when Musk was just a plucky upstart spending mere hundreds of millions on making the prototype that led to the Falcon