4 ms·

1.) Yes. 2.) Although I'm a philosopher working in related areas and know plenty of people working on hate speech, I confine myself strictly to problems in met

1.) Yes. 2.) Although I'm a philosopher working in related areas and know plenty of people working on hate speech, I confine myself strictly to problems in metaethics and value-based decision making. So I don't draw the line. Generally, this is done by lawmakers and judges applying the law. For example, using Nazi symbols or publicly supporting wars of aggression is illegal in Germany. 3.) Judges and lawmakers. > For instance, you mention conspiracy theories; do you think we should ban users who tweet about conspiracy theories? Yes, for certain types of politically instrumentalized conspiracies that get intentionally amplified. The same for misinformation and fake news accounts, especially those run by state agencies like the FSB. But that's about moderation, not about illegal posts. Of course, any working social media need strong moderation. The lack of moderation is one of the reason why Twitter is such a horrible place - but there are other causes, it basically encourages toxic behavior and passive aggression due to its rules and their inconsequent and inconsistent enforcement. However, moderation and blocking speech for legal reasons are two very different issues. I was suggesting that there is also a lot of illegal content on Twitter (according to local laws, not necessarily US law). When looking for #ukraine most notably open support of genocide, racist slurs, support for war crimes and the breaking of the Geneva Conventions such as displaying movies of POWs under duress, advocating torture, and supporting the bombing of civilians. There is also a high overlap with hate speech against the LGBT communities, mostly because many of the violently pro-Russian posters are also MAGA people from the US. As for your doubts about what I see on Twitter, I took the liberty to quickly compile a short list of questionable and toxic accounts that pop up just by "exploring" for #ukraine Top and Latest (today, right now). To put this into context, you're right that the majority are pro-Ukraine. However, there is a danger of committing a fallacy of misleading two-sidedness in this case. Ukraine is the victim, Russia the aggressor. See my comment above about the German law. Supporting one or the other is not on a par, neither morally nor according to the law. @Kanthan2030 @21WIRE @DravenNoctis @georgegalloway @WithyGrove @LanaAsanin @Jewels_MsJay @Qujuz @2cnlkh68 @THEENDGAMEWAR1 @MettsnBock @BowesChay @mazzenilsson @DasRgen4 @Judgenap @RealScottRitter @amitashi1985 @EmpireCide @Ri1_AAA @AdamStorm98 I'm not claiming that all of them are posting illegal content, but e.g. the last one wrote a post why a police officer should get the firing squad for being "woke" and a "lesbo". It's just the typical content you get on Twitter.

avindroth 3y ago
Thank you for the detailed response. Correct me if I am wrong, but I have a suspicion you don’t use Twitter, you study it. Thus you are viewing the fringes, but perhaps not aware of the average user’s experience. AFAIK Twitter uses a demoting algorithm in order to demote offensive content. A different form of moderation that doesn’t silence. I don’t think the previous iteration of Twitter with strong moderation made it a better social media site (nor a forum for free speech). I can only speak to my own experience using Twitter near daily, but I have almost never come across hateful content (in whichever political bend it may take). I actually found it a great resource for my interests like AI, psychology, etc. Thus statements like: > The lack of moderation is one of the reason why Twitter is such a horrible place - but there are other causes, it basically encourages toxic behavior and passive aggression due to its rules and their inconsequent and inconsistent enforcement. Or > It's just the typical content you get on Twitter. run very counter to my own experience on the platform. Do you actually use Twitter? What kind of people do you follow? How does it differ from your own experience with other social media sites?
- jonathanstrange 3y ago
  I neither study Twitter nor would it be correct to say I use it. I started browsing it with an account last year when I got a (somewhat morbid) interest in watching Ukraine war footage. As long as you take everything with a grain of salt, it has a certain informational content for such purposes. I literally only enter #ukraine and watch a few posts. Following no one, two random followers. What shocked me was that they even allow obvious Russian propaganda accounts very freely, e.g. "Manchester Chronicle" that probably originates directly from FSB. I think it's crazy, given how Russia is at least an indirect adversary to the US and EU in this war. So you're right, the difference in use likely accounts for different experiences. I suppose Twitter shows all kinds of content to capture users who can then customize it to their preferences. This doesn't work for people who aren't interested in information bubbles, yet nevertheless think free speech should reasonably restricted by law and by moderation.
  - avindroth 3y ago
    Right. Don’t you think it’s a bit of a stretch to make strong evaluations of a platform if you use it very rarely, in a non-usual manner? Do you care to qualify your statements like: > …Twitter is such a horrible place Or > [hateful content] is the *typical* content you get on Twitter I agree there’s abominable things on Twitter - that’s what you get with a platform (now) focused on free speech. But you have to sort of go out looking for it. I think Twitter has done a good job championing freedom of speech while making it not so “hateful” for the average user. > I think it's crazy, given how Russia is at least an indirect adversary to the US and EU in this war. Why is this crazy? In general, would you like Twitter to ban sources that advocate for US adversaries in war? > This doesn't work for people who aren't interested in information bubbles, yet nevertheless think free speech should reasonably restricted by law and by moderation. I think you are conflating your unusual access pattern with the experience of people who don’t follow anyone (which is also rare). In addition, characterizing the act of following people as engaging in information bubble is very, very reductionist. Any decent intellectual would know to filter their sources and create a good information “bubble”; I want to hear from X because they are trustworthy, I want to read from Y because they are smart, etc. Without that information “bubble” every piece of information is of equal priority (and thus much waste in time). Just because people throw the word around doesn’t mean it’s a bad thing. That withstanding, one can truly fall into a lull where you don’t get any opinions of the opposing side. But the solution is not to reject information filters altogether - that’s just random chance, intellectual laziness. But above all, what I have issue with mostly is one’s (strong) evaluation of something without a serious attempt to understand it. Perhaps a bit intellectually dishonest, no? Do you use other social media platforms? Do you see value in social media at all?

avindroth 3y ago

Thank you for the detailed response. Correct me if I am wrong, but I have a suspicion you don’t use Twitter, you study it. Thus you are viewing the fringes, but perhaps not aware of the average user’s experience. AFAIK Twitter uses a demoting algorithm in order to demote offensive content. A different form of moderation that doesn’t silence. I don’t think the previous iteration of Twitter with strong moderation made it a better social media site (nor a forum for free speech). I can only speak to my own experience using Twitter near daily, but I have almost never come across hateful content (in whichever political bend it may take). I actually found it a great resource for my interests like AI, psychology, etc. Thus statements like: > The lack of moderation is one of the reason why Twitter is such a horrible place - but there are other causes, it basically encourages toxic behavior and passive aggression due to its rules and their inconsequent and inconsistent enforcement. Or > It's just the typical content you get on Twitter. run very counter to my own experience on the platform. Do you actually use Twitter? What kind of people do you follow? How does it differ from your own experience with other social media sites?

jonathanstrange 3y ago
I neither study Twitter nor would it be correct to say I use it. I started browsing it with an account last year when I got a (somewhat morbid) interest in watching Ukraine war footage. As long as you take everything with a grain of salt, it has a certain informational content for such purposes. I literally only enter #ukraine and watch a few posts. Following no one, two random followers. What shocked me was that they even allow obvious Russian propaganda accounts very freely, e.g. "Manchester Chronicle" that probably originates directly from FSB. I think it's crazy, given how Russia is at least an indirect adversary to the US and EU in this war. So you're right, the difference in use likely accounts for different experiences. I suppose Twitter shows all kinds of content to capture users who can then customize it to their preferences. This doesn't work for people who aren't interested in information bubbles, yet nevertheless think free speech should reasonably restricted by law and by moderation.
- avindroth 3y ago
  Right. Don’t you think it’s a bit of a stretch to make strong evaluations of a platform if you use it very rarely, in a non-usual manner? Do you care to qualify your statements like: > …Twitter is such a horrible place Or > [hateful content] is the *typical* content you get on Twitter I agree there’s abominable things on Twitter - that’s what you get with a platform (now) focused on free speech. But you have to sort of go out looking for it. I think Twitter has done a good job championing freedom of speech while making it not so “hateful” for the average user. > I think it's crazy, given how Russia is at least an indirect adversary to the US and EU in this war. Why is this crazy? In general, would you like Twitter to ban sources that advocate for US adversaries in war? > This doesn't work for people who aren't interested in information bubbles, yet nevertheless think free speech should reasonably restricted by law and by moderation. I think you are conflating your unusual access pattern with the experience of people who don’t follow anyone (which is also rare). In addition, characterizing the act of following people as engaging in information bubble is very, very reductionist. Any decent intellectual would know to filter their sources and create a good information “bubble”; I want to hear from X because they are trustworthy, I want to read from Y because they are smart, etc. Without that information “bubble” every piece of information is of equal priority (and thus much waste in time). Just because people throw the word around doesn’t mean it’s a bad thing. That withstanding, one can truly fall into a lull where you don’t get any opinions of the opposing side. But the solution is not to reject information filters altogether - that’s just random chance, intellectual laziness. But above all, what I have issue with mostly is one’s (strong) evaluation of something without a serious attempt to understand it. Perhaps a bit intellectually dishonest, no? Do you use other social media platforms? Do you see value in social media at all?