6 ms·

No one uses unmoderated platforms. Twitter has a fiduciary duty to make sure their platform has a good reputation with users and advertisers. That means moderat

No one uses unmoderated platforms. Twitter has a fiduciary duty to make sure their platform has a good reputation with users and advertisers. That means moderation.

andrew_ 4y ago
I suspect we could go around and around as to what constitutes moderation versus ideological censorship. I hope that we can agree that the feds putting pressure on the scales is wrong during any administration, and that transparency in moderation is a good thing.
- etchalon 4y ago
  "The Feds putting pressure on the scales" is a fairly broad term for something every level of the state does in multiple, almost incalculable ways.
  - roflyear 4y ago
    In my experience, and I don't mean this as an insult, people who think this stuff is such a big deal are either young and immature and don't understand how things work, or extremely naïve. I have family who are surprised that the government surveils people, like it is some kind of conspiracy. I disagree with government surveillance, but inevitably they use these examples as why "the XYZ are bad" where XYZ is ... whatever they don't like. Clintons, globalists, democrats, republicans, trump, jews, whatever.
    - etchalon 4y ago
      I generally agree. A lot of outrage, especially online outrage, reads to me like people finding things for the first time and being shocked by it. Even when those things are incredibly routine, or dictated by a well-intentioned law.
ohCh6zos 4y ago
All of the really fun platforms are unmoderated, but they keep getting taken down due to pressure campaigns.
- HDThoreaun 4y ago
  They get taken down because they can’t make any money so no one is willing to fight for them.
JSavageOne 4y ago
Twitter as a public platform has a duty to uphold freedom of speech and not censor viewpoints it doesn't like. Amazing that people in a country founded on free speech are trying to defend censorship.
- 1MachineElf 4y ago
  I agree with your second point, but your first one is simply not true. My hope is that Mastodon, because it is not for-profit, will take up the role of public platform upholding free speech.
  - JSavageOne 4y ago
    I don't see what there is to disagree as the first. Either you're a platform or a publisher, and the difference is whether the company is legally liable for the user's content. Twitter claims itself to legally be a platform, and therefore on a legal basis should uphold free speech (not to mention on a moral basis). If they want to be a publisher then they can do that and destroy their site, and everyone will migrate off to competitors.
    - mullingitover 4y ago
      > Either you're a platform or a publisher, and the difference is whether the company is legally liable for the user's content. This trope is so old and so wrong that there's a techdirt article specifically written to debunk it and save everyone the irreplaceable moments of their lives spent arguing about it[1]. [1] https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act/ https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referre...
      - JSavageOne 4y ago
        Ok I stand corrected on this law, which basically says that companies aren't liable for user-generated content (the article could've just said that in the first line). Either way from a moral perspective doesn't change the fact that a platform censoring viewpoints is a violation of the principal of free speech, and morally reprehensible in a free democratic society. Twitter tried to be the Orwellian Ministry of Truth, and I'm glad that Twitter's new management recognizes the error of their former ways and is committed to not repeating the same Orwellian mistakes.

No one uses unmoderated platforms. Twitter has a fiduciary duty to make sure their platform has a good reputation with users and advertisers. That means moderation.

andrew_ 4y ago

I suspect we could go around and around as to what constitutes moderation versus ideological censorship. I hope that we can agree that the feds putting pressure on the scales is wrong during any administration, and that transparency in moderation is a good thing.

etchalon 4y ago
"The Feds putting pressure on the scales" is a fairly broad term for something every level of the state does in multiple, almost incalculable ways.
- roflyear 4y ago
  In my experience, and I don't mean this as an insult, people who think this stuff is such a big deal are either young and immature and don't understand how things work, or extremely naïve. I have family who are surprised that the government surveils people, like it is some kind of conspiracy. I disagree with government surveillance, but inevitably they use these examples as why "the XYZ are bad" where XYZ is ... whatever they don't like. Clintons, globalists, democrats, republicans, trump, jews, whatever.
  - etchalon 4y ago
    I generally agree. A lot of outrage, especially online outrage, reads to me like people finding things for the first time and being shocked by it. Even when those things are incredibly routine, or dictated by a well-intentioned law.

ohCh6zos 4y ago

All of the really fun platforms are unmoderated, but they keep getting taken down due to pressure campaigns.

HDThoreaun 4y ago
They get taken down because they can’t make any money so no one is willing to fight for them.

JSavageOne 4y ago

Twitter as a public platform has a duty to uphold freedom of speech and not censor viewpoints it doesn't like. Amazing that people in a country founded on free speech are trying to defend censorship.

1MachineElf 4y ago
I agree with your second point, but your first one is simply not true. My hope is that Mastodon, because it is not for-profit, will take up the role of public platform upholding free speech.
- JSavageOne 4y ago
  I don't see what there is to disagree as the first. Either you're a platform or a publisher, and the difference is whether the company is legally liable for the user's content. Twitter claims itself to legally be a platform, and therefore on a legal basis should uphold free speech (not to mention on a moral basis). If they want to be a publisher then they can do that and destroy their site, and everyone will migrate off to competitors.
  - mullingitover 4y ago
    > Either you're a platform or a publisher, and the difference is whether the company is legally liable for the user's content. This trope is so old and so wrong that there's a techdirt article specifically written to debunk it and save everyone the irreplaceable moments of their lives spent arguing about it[1]. [1] https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act/ https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referre...
    - JSavageOne 4y ago
      Ok I stand corrected on this law, which basically says that companies aren't liable for user-generated content (the article could've just said that in the first line). Either way from a moral perspective doesn't change the fact that a platform censoring viewpoints is a violation of the principal of free speech, and morally reprehensible in a free democratic society. Twitter tried to be the Orwellian Ministry of Truth, and I'm glad that Twitter's new management recognizes the error of their former ways and is committed to not repeating the same Orwellian mistakes.