4 ms·

I'm starting to realize when he talked of the "public square," he didn't mention it as a "democratic public square." The question I'm asking myself now is less

I'm starting to realize when he talked of the "public square," he didn't mention it as a "democratic public square." The question I'm asking myself now is less about whether this policy would result in a good change, but more about the process to make such policies. Is it just me who wants more of a voice/representation in how our platforms are governed?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
nickthegreek 4y ago
The only vote you get is whether you continue to have an account or not. It’s not ideal, but it is more than nothing. For those interested in exercising that vote: https://help.twitter.com/en/managing-your-account/how-to-deactivate-twitter-account https://help.twitter.com/en/managing-your-account/how-to-dea...
- jimkleiber 4y ago
  Slightly more than nothing. Like being in a dictatorship but being allowed to leave all your friends and family behind (and work perhaps) to go to a land that may not have any of those things. Yes I'm being dramatic yet I think we may keep bumbling through until we figure out some new form of governance for massive online platforms besides the current form of CEO decided (with maybe board of directors oversight, assuming the CEO isn't the chairperson and has captured the board).
  - nickthegreek 4y ago
    Good analogy. There are many people who have a harder decision to make due to work/life entanglements into the network that can’t be easily replaced. There are several facebook groups that I need on occasion that keep my account active there.
    - jimkleiber 4y ago
      Thank you. Yes, it's easy for some people to move countries, as they don't have a house or a job or kids or other things that tie them down. Ironically, I think it's one of the main things the US Embassy checks when foreigners are trying to get tourist visas: how much do they have tying them down to their home country so they will be unlikely to overstay their visa? I think what happens in these situations is that people often start to organize to gain more say in the decision making process, whether that's unionizing in the workplace or political protests and/or revolutions. What I'm wondering is what will we do, those of us who have invested so much time and energy into building our digital homes and businesses in these digital nations? Just leave? Stay and organize? Organize how? I don't personally like the idea of organizing as a user union or something, as I find unions to often be an antagonistic response to company management. I hope that we would start to see ourselves more like digital citizens of these digital nations and organize to try to have more representation in the decision-making processes of these platforms that may govern much more of our social interaction than our analog governments do.
dfxm12 4y ago
our platforms Unless you're Elon Musk, Twitter is not your platform. Twitter is not a public square. It's some guy's personal media platform and he lets others use it at his pleasure.
- jimkleiber 4y ago
  Yes, I wish it would go in the other direction and we'd have more ownership of such platforms as users/creators/informal workers, at least in the decision making process, if not in the profit sharing as well. In a way, I'd argue us users of many social media platforms are both consumer and producer. But I agree, it is his platform now. Ugh.
  - AndrewDucker 4y ago
    Spin up your own Mastodon instance and you'll have your own part of a social network that you have control over.
    - jimkleiber 4y ago
      I'm not so excited to have a federation of digital towns trying to interact with each other. I believe in the benefit of having overarching communities with shared rules and rule-making processes. The analog equivalent I imagine would be to have no countries and only towns where each town has control over its laws and when towns interact, they try to create treaties. I, on the other hand, would prefer we even had much stronger coordination above the nation-state level. But perhaps I'm not grasping the rule-making process of Mastodon, just feels very independent and not sure how it handles inter-instance conflict.
tonfreed 4y ago
Conservatives getting banned for trivial crap while death threats and child porn stay up and you're only just noticing this now?
- jimkleiber 4y ago
  I noticed how the process before seem to be decided by a CEO and board, and now it seems to be decided purely by a CEO, therefore having less oversight and more control in the hands of one person. Previously, they had set up a Trust and Safety Council, which the new CEO recently disbanded. So for me, it's not about the specific decisions being made (what to ban and what to keep) but rather the process of how to make those decisions and I see that process becoming more and more in the hands of one person.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

nickthegreek 4y ago

The only vote you get is whether you continue to have an account or not. It’s not ideal, but it is more than nothing. For those interested in exercising that vote: https://help.twitter.com/en/managing-your-account/how-to-deactivate-twitter-account https://help.twitter.com/en/managing-your-account/how-to-dea...

jimkleiber 4y ago
Slightly more than nothing. Like being in a dictatorship but being allowed to leave all your friends and family behind (and work perhaps) to go to a land that may not have any of those things. Yes I'm being dramatic yet I think we may keep bumbling through until we figure out some new form of governance for massive online platforms besides the current form of CEO decided (with maybe board of directors oversight, assuming the CEO isn't the chairperson and has captured the board).
- nickthegreek 4y ago
  Good analogy. There are many people who have a harder decision to make due to work/life entanglements into the network that can’t be easily replaced. There are several facebook groups that I need on occasion that keep my account active there.
  - jimkleiber 4y ago
    Thank you. Yes, it's easy for some people to move countries, as they don't have a house or a job or kids or other things that tie them down. Ironically, I think it's one of the main things the US Embassy checks when foreigners are trying to get tourist visas: how much do they have tying them down to their home country so they will be unlikely to overstay their visa? I think what happens in these situations is that people often start to organize to gain more say in the decision making process, whether that's unionizing in the workplace or political protests and/or revolutions. What I'm wondering is what will we do, those of us who have invested so much time and energy into building our digital homes and businesses in these digital nations? Just leave? Stay and organize? Organize how? I don't personally like the idea of organizing as a user union or something, as I find unions to often be an antagonistic response to company management. I hope that we would start to see ourselves more like digital citizens of these digital nations and organize to try to have more representation in the decision-making processes of these platforms that may govern much more of our social interaction than our analog governments do.

dfxm12 4y ago

our platforms Unless you're Elon Musk, Twitter is not your platform. Twitter is not a public square. It's some guy's personal media platform and he lets others use it at his pleasure.

jimkleiber 4y ago
Yes, I wish it would go in the other direction and we'd have more ownership of such platforms as users/creators/informal workers, at least in the decision making process, if not in the profit sharing as well. In a way, I'd argue us users of many social media platforms are both consumer and producer. But I agree, it is his platform now. Ugh.
- AndrewDucker 4y ago
  Spin up your own Mastodon instance and you'll have your own part of a social network that you have control over.
  - jimkleiber 4y ago
    I'm not so excited to have a federation of digital towns trying to interact with each other. I believe in the benefit of having overarching communities with shared rules and rule-making processes. The analog equivalent I imagine would be to have no countries and only towns where each town has control over its laws and when towns interact, they try to create treaties. I, on the other hand, would prefer we even had much stronger coordination above the nation-state level. But perhaps I'm not grasping the rule-making process of Mastodon, just feels very independent and not sure how it handles inter-instance conflict.

tonfreed 4y ago

Conservatives getting banned for trivial crap while death threats and child porn stay up and you're only just noticing this now?

jimkleiber 4y ago
I noticed how the process before seem to be decided by a CEO and board, and now it seems to be decided purely by a CEO, therefore having less oversight and more control in the hands of one person. Previously, they had set up a Trust and Safety Council, which the new CEO recently disbanded. So for me, it's not about the specific decisions being made (what to ban and what to keep) but rather the process of how to make those decisions and I see that process becoming more and more in the hands of one person.