6 ms·

Ok, use whatever word you want to describe it. The point being that some people think that all legal speech, or legal "insert whatever word you want to describ

by stale2002 3y ago

Ok, use whatever word you want to describe it. The point being that some people think that all legal speech, or legal "insert whatever word you want to describe what twitter now allows" should be allowed on the platform. So talking about "Twitter as a private entity" is not really a valid response, and actually works against you. It is not a valid response because twitter the private entity is now choosing to allow this stuff, whatever you want to call it. > When you call the police In the context of these types of conversations, people are usually saying that they want all legal behavior to be allowed on the platform, not illegal behavior.

wpietri 3y ago
> people are usually saying that they want all legal behavior to be allowed on the platform People saying that are generally people who have not tried to run a for-profit social media site. Or even thought about it much, really. To have a functioning social media platform these days, you need a lot of users and a lot of advertisers. This means you need the site to feel reasonably safe and welcoming to all concerned. However, many of those people and brands do not want to spend time around many of the things that are in a typical T&S policy. Which is why all major platforms converged on pretty similar policies, and why the anything-goes platforms tended to stay niche and look like incel Klan rallies. It's not like Jack Dorsey really cared about anybody but Jack Dorsey. Ceteris paribus, he would have been happy to stick with Twitter's original "free speech wing of the free speech party" ethos, if only because it saved a lot on moderation costs. But he recognized that his platform could either have the racist shitgibbons or the people that said shitgibbons got their kicks from attacking, by which I mean the great bulk of humanity. There's also the moral and practical vacuity of treating "whatever the legislature voted on" as the correct standard for anything except criminal enforcement, but let that pass for now.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

wpietri 3y ago

> people are usually saying that they want all legal behavior to be allowed on the platform People saying that are generally people who have not tried to run a for-profit social media site. Or even thought about it much, really. To have a functioning social media platform these days, you need a lot of users and a lot of advertisers. This means you need the site to feel reasonably safe and welcoming to all concerned. However, many of those people and brands do not want to spend time around many of the things that are in a typical T&S policy. Which is why all major platforms converged on pretty similar policies, and why the anything-goes platforms tended to stay niche and look like incel Klan rallies. It's not like Jack Dorsey really cared about anybody but Jack Dorsey. Ceteris paribus, he would have been happy to stick with Twitter's original "free speech wing of the free speech party" ethos, if only because it saved a lot on moderation costs. But he recognized that his platform could either have the racist shitgibbons or the people that said shitgibbons got their kicks from attacking, by which I mean the great bulk of humanity. There's also the moral and practical vacuity of treating "whatever the legislature voted on" as the correct standard for anything except criminal enforcement, but let that pass for now.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]