3 ms·

Maybe you are not aware, but for many of the main contraversies about bans on Twitter, the main debate is about what constitutes a threat. It's never clear-cut

by erlich 4y ago

Maybe you are not aware, but for many of the main contraversies about bans on Twitter, the main debate is about what constitutes a threat. It's never clear-cut threats or incitement. As evidenced in the Twitter Files. And there is no objective measure.

eyelidlessness 4y ago
As you’re well aware I replied to a very well specified hypothetical and I responded to its specific conditions. It was about clear threats by participating persons against a non participating person. Continuing to interject suspicion of the hypothetical target of those clear threats is very much an example of bad faith.
- erlich 4y ago
  I am questioning the premise of the hypothetical as unrealistic. Now if you want to solely debate your hypothetical, then how about you simply don't reply to my branch of inquiry? No one is forcing you to. You choose the debates you want to engage in. The point of HN is for intellectual curiosity - which I would think involves exploring many branches of discussion. It's not about trying to win debates.
  - eyelidlessness 4y ago
    > I am questioning the premise of the hypothetical as unrealistic. You… think it’s unrealistic that two people with no other distinguishing characteristics than letters A & B might make threats and incite others on a social media platform with no limits to their doing so, against another person with no distinguishing characteristic other than the letter C? How can that possibly be good faith? > Now if you want to solely debate your hypothetical, then how about you simply don't reply to my branch of inquiry? I’m not even trying to debate anything, I noticed that you moved the goalposts and pointed it out in hopes you’d appreciate the clarification, not that you’d triple down and insist that even a very simple proposition of two people abusing an unmoderated platform should be turned around to scrutinize their targeted victim without any shred of reason to think their target had anything to scrutinize other than your apparent determination to find it. Don’t you realize that you’re demonstrating exactly the kind of bias I earned about?

by erlich 4y ago

eyelidlessness 4y ago

As you’re well aware I replied to a very well specified hypothetical and I responded to its specific conditions. It was about clear threats by participating persons against a non participating person. Continuing to interject suspicion of the hypothetical target of those clear threats is very much an example of bad faith.

erlich 4y ago
I am questioning the premise of the hypothetical as unrealistic. Now if you want to solely debate your hypothetical, then how about you simply don't reply to my branch of inquiry? No one is forcing you to. You choose the debates you want to engage in. The point of HN is for intellectual curiosity - which I would think involves exploring many branches of discussion. It's not about trying to win debates.
- eyelidlessness 4y ago
  > I am questioning the premise of the hypothetical as unrealistic. You… think it’s unrealistic that two people with no other distinguishing characteristics than letters A & B might make threats and incite others on a social media platform with no limits to their doing so, against another person with no distinguishing characteristic other than the letter C? How can that possibly be good faith? > Now if you want to solely debate your hypothetical, then how about you simply don't reply to my branch of inquiry? I’m not even trying to debate anything, I noticed that you moved the goalposts and pointed it out in hopes you’d appreciate the clarification, not that you’d triple down and insist that even a very simple proposition of two people abusing an unmoderated platform should be turned around to scrutinize their targeted victim without any shred of reason to think their target had anything to scrutinize other than your apparent determination to find it. Don’t you realize that you’re demonstrating exactly the kind of bias I earned about?