4 ms·

Good, it sounds like Elon has been making a lot of positive changes at X. I just listened to his livestream about free speech and antisemitism with that set of

by Dig1t 3y ago

Good, it sounds like Elon has been making a lot of positive changes at X. I just listened to his livestream about free speech and antisemitism with that set of famous Rabbis, I was really impressed. I think the shift towards free speech is the best thing for democracy. We can only hash out ideas, both bad and good, by allowing more discussion of difficult subjects. The Community Notes feature, added after the transition, has been one of the best tools for dealing with bad ideas and misinformation. It strikes a great balance between combating misinformation and censorship, and I think it can do a much better job (allowing the people themselves to fight misinformation by tagging things with additional context) than the actual election team at X was doing.

rideontime 3y ago
Allow me to correct your misinformation: BirdWatch, as it was previously known, existed before the transition. Elon’s only contribution was changing its name to something more boring. It is very likely that those who designed and implemented it no longer work there. https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/product/2021/introducing-birdwatch-a-community-based-approach-to-misinformation https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/product/2021/introduci...
- Dig1t 3y ago
  Ah interesting, I did not know that. I was wrong about it existing before the transition. I was not a Twitter user before the transition and I don't know much about social media beyond X. I still think it is a good thing, I've seen many examples of its usage combating wrong or misleading things and the community note is often more important and more entertaining than the original tweet. Increasing its usage I think is a great thing for democracy. Side note: are all instances of being wrong considered misinformation? Can I start telling my wife that she's spreading misinformation every time she says something that isn't correct?
  - rideontime 3y ago
    Yes.
15457345234 3y ago
In addition, it's unwise to consider this outlet a reliable source of information for anything to do with twitter; their 'thing' prior to the buyout seemed to be tweeting videos that quite consistently went hyper-viral. Post the buyout they seem to be having a degree of difficulty achieving the same virality. One may speculate as to why that is.
vgt 3y ago
How do you feel about reports that misinformation and hate speech is on the rise on this platform? Such as [0] ? And do you think it's hypocritical for a "proponent of free speech" to threaten to sue entities that quantify and observe such a rise? [1] [0] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/sep/26/eu-warns-elon-musk-that-twitter-x-must-comply-with-fake-news-laws https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/sep/26/eu-warns-... [1] https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/31/tech/twitter-lawsuit-hate-speech-watchdog/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/31/tech/twitter-lawsuit-hate-spe...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- Dig1t 3y ago
  According to X itself, which has the best data, all objective measurements of hate speech are down actually. Elon was just talking about it in his latest interviews with the Rabbis. They have seen a 30% drop in antisemitic content. The Guardian and CNN have both been writing extremely biased articles about X and Elon ever since the takeover, so these articles have to be read with an eye for the bias. As stated in your linked article though, X is complying with all the required laws from the EU. If the EU wants to start censoring people in their country, X has stated that it will follow the laws and comply.
adamredwoods 3y ago
>> I think the shift towards free speech is the best thing for democracy. I disagree, in my opinion. Deliberately creating hate, passing lies as truth, are things that can work against democracy. Consider the free speech by saying that the voting system was rigged. Creating distrust in the voting system will destroy democracy, as it is trust in some type of voting system that ALLOWS democracy. Consider how much effort a former president in the US tried to manipulate that process to remain in power. Consider how "free speech" can create hate for minority groups that don't have a democratic majority? Bills that pass against minority groups, is this "the best thing" for democracy? I'll never forget this verdict, how members of a religious organization can "protest" at funerals. Disgusting, but I will respect the verdict. https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-snyder-v-phelps https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-a...
- billy99k 3y ago
  [flagged]
- Dig1t 3y ago
  Yes you are right that allowing speech that questions election integrity does create some instability. But the way to deal with that instability is not censorship. Censorship just convinces people even more that something nefarious is going on. Especially in the case of elections because the people doing the censoring are the ones whose power is being questioned. Similarly, overt censorship only emboldens hateful groups. The only way to combat these bad ideas is to allow them to be discussed and defeated in the greater marketplace of ideas. e.g. someone going down the path of antisemitism will not get a chance to hear the other side of the argument unless the topic is allowed to be discussed openly. There are other nice examples of Klan members making conversions after having open discussions with people in a safe environment, when they were reached out to. This type of conversation is not possible in an environment where top-down censorship is happening. If you look at history, top-down censorship has been one of the best tools used by dictators to seize and keep power, and if you allow it’s use for good intentions, eventually it will be used for evil. But consider a future where an election really is rigged, I’m not saying it happened in the US, but it DOES happen in many countries such as Russia and it is not a complete impossibility. Without freedom of speech, democracy really is doomed. The people in power will be able to keep power and silence any dissent. Imagine a future where a demagogue attempts to seize power and create a dictatorship, if there is an established precedent that it’s okay to silence speech for “safety” reasons, all the person has to do is classify all dissent as unsafe or racist, or whatever the moral panic of the day might be. The US has not existed for very long, most countries have had to fend off dictatorship in their history and it’s not impossible that we will face the same thing at some point. Protected free speech is one of the best tools we have to fend it off. Speaking truth to power is more important than protecting people’s feelings.

by Dig1t 3y ago

rideontime 3y ago

Allow me to correct your misinformation: BirdWatch, as it was previously known, existed before the transition. Elon’s only contribution was changing its name to something more boring. It is very likely that those who designed and implemented it no longer work there. https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/product/2021/introducing-birdwatch-a-community-based-approach-to-misinformation https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/product/2021/introduci...

Dig1t 3y ago
Ah interesting, I did not know that. I was wrong about it existing before the transition. I was not a Twitter user before the transition and I don't know much about social media beyond X. I still think it is a good thing, I've seen many examples of its usage combating wrong or misleading things and the community note is often more important and more entertaining than the original tweet. Increasing its usage I think is a great thing for democracy. Side note: are all instances of being wrong considered misinformation? Can I start telling my wife that she's spreading misinformation every time she says something that isn't correct?
- rideontime 3y ago
  Yes.

15457345234 3y ago

In addition, it's unwise to consider this outlet a reliable source of information for anything to do with twitter; their 'thing' prior to the buyout seemed to be tweeting videos that quite consistently went hyper-viral. Post the buyout they seem to be having a degree of difficulty achieving the same virality. One may speculate as to why that is.

vgt 3y ago

How do you feel about reports that misinformation and hate speech is on the rise on this platform? Such as [0] ? And do you think it's hypocritical for a "proponent of free speech" to threaten to sue entities that quantify and observe such a rise? [1] [0] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/sep/26/eu-warns-elon-musk-that-twitter-x-must-comply-with-fake-news-laws https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/sep/26/eu-warns-... [1] https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/31/tech/twitter-lawsuit-hate-speech-watchdog/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/31/tech/twitter-lawsuit-hate-spe...

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Dig1t 3y ago
According to X itself, which has the best data, all objective measurements of hate speech are down actually. Elon was just talking about it in his latest interviews with the Rabbis. They have seen a 30% drop in antisemitic content. The Guardian and CNN have both been writing extremely biased articles about X and Elon ever since the takeover, so these articles have to be read with an eye for the bias. As stated in your linked article though, X is complying with all the required laws from the EU. If the EU wants to start censoring people in their country, X has stated that it will follow the laws and comply.

adamredwoods 3y ago

>> I think the shift towards free speech is the best thing for democracy. I disagree, in my opinion. Deliberately creating hate, passing lies as truth, are things that can work against democracy. Consider the free speech by saying that the voting system was rigged. Creating distrust in the voting system will destroy democracy, as it is trust in some type of voting system that ALLOWS democracy. Consider how much effort a former president in the US tried to manipulate that process to remain in power. Consider how "free speech" can create hate for minority groups that don't have a democratic majority? Bills that pass against minority groups, is this "the best thing" for democracy? I'll never forget this verdict, how members of a religious organization can "protest" at funerals. Disgusting, but I will respect the verdict. https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-snyder-v-phelps https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-a...

billy99k 3y ago
[flagged]
Dig1t 3y ago
Yes you are right that allowing speech that questions election integrity does create some instability. But the way to deal with that instability is not censorship. Censorship just convinces people even more that something nefarious is going on. Especially in the case of elections because the people doing the censoring are the ones whose power is being questioned. Similarly, overt censorship only emboldens hateful groups. The only way to combat these bad ideas is to allow them to be discussed and defeated in the greater marketplace of ideas. e.g. someone going down the path of antisemitism will not get a chance to hear the other side of the argument unless the topic is allowed to be discussed openly. There are other nice examples of Klan members making conversions after having open discussions with people in a safe environment, when they were reached out to. This type of conversation is not possible in an environment where top-down censorship is happening. If you look at history, top-down censorship has been one of the best tools used by dictators to seize and keep power, and if you allow it’s use for good intentions, eventually it will be used for evil. But consider a future where an election really is rigged, I’m not saying it happened in the US, but it DOES happen in many countries such as Russia and it is not a complete impossibility. Without freedom of speech, democracy really is doomed. The people in power will be able to keep power and silence any dissent. Imagine a future where a demagogue attempts to seize power and create a dictatorship, if there is an established precedent that it’s okay to silence speech for “safety” reasons, all the person has to do is classify all dissent as unsafe or racist, or whatever the moral panic of the day might be. The US has not existed for very long, most countries have had to fend off dictatorship in their history and it’s not impossible that we will face the same thing at some point. Protected free speech is one of the best tools we have to fend it off. Speaking truth to power is more important than protecting people’s feelings.