4 ms·

To be fair - old Twitter was already about to launch a competing product. It got canned at the last minute due to their inability to moderate which is really im

To be fair - old Twitter was already about to launch a competing product. It got canned at the last minute due to their inability to moderate which is really important for adult content https://www.theverge.com/23327809/twitter-onlyfans-child-sexual-content-problem-elon-musk https://www.theverge.com/23327809/twitter-onlyfans-child-sex...

hashar 3y ago
> inability to moderate which is really important for adult content Given Elon Musk twitted about moderation being censorship (twist: it is not), what could go wrong!?!
- madeofpalk 3y ago
  This is one where “won’t someone thing if the children” (underage and non-consensual) is relevant. It tends to be a lot more… universally agreed upon limits to whatever you think free speech is.
- mewpmewp2 3y ago
  His position was about moderating legal content. He thinks moderating legal content is censorship. He is in favor of taking down illegal content. If people think currently legal content should be taken down they should appeal to change the laws and it shouldn't be part of at least their platform to judge the legal content. That's his position, not my position.
  - jcranmer 3y ago
    That's what he says his position is. He bans people who post the movements of his private jet. He also has had Twitter file lawsuits against people merely for saying mean things about Twitter. Of course, it's also possible that he's a complete idiot and has no idea what the First Amendment actually permits in speech, like he stopped paying attention after Schenck v US.
    - mewpmewp2 3y ago
      Yeah, that is hypocritical. He should be congruent in his views and in any ambiguity in content disfavoring him he should lean towards giving benefit of the doubt to prove lack of bias. Although in this case there didn't seem to be any ambiguity, he should have not banned the account.
    - ohnoitsahuman 3y ago
      Just because he's a hypocrite, doesn't mean we should censor more.
    - leereeves 3y ago
      Filing lawsuits is entirely consistent with a position that the courts, not private companies, should regulate speech online. Then there's Jack Sweeney, the guy tracking Elon and his private jet - who, by the way, was accused of facilitating stalking by Taylor Swift. For him, X made a policy against any account "doxxing real-time location info of anyone". Does anyone here actually want to argue that tracking real-time location info should be allowed?
      - bostik 3y ago
        I'll bite. Real-time tracking of a person or their ground transport: not ok. Real-time tracking of a person's plane: ok. And the reason for such a distinction is that planes can only land on specific ground slots. That also means that real-time tracking of a person's helicopter falls under "not ok". And by extension, the same will hold for flying taxis, once they take off[tm]. We don't (yet?) live in a world where shoulder mounted surface-to-air missiles, outside of war zones, are a realistic threat.
        leereeves 3y ago
        Once a stalker knows a specific place and time to find their victim, they can simply follow them until they have an opportunity to do worse. "Missiles" are just a straw man. Hopefully Taylor Swift will follow through, Sweeney will be sued or even prosecuted for stalking, and we'll find out if this really is legal.
  - longdustytrail 3y ago
    He just banned posting the identity of pseudonymous accounts which is definitely not illegal. He also banned posting public information about the movements of his private jet which is also definitely not illegal. This stuff would easier to take seriously he was consistent about it. At this point it’s kind of insulting
- johnyzee 3y ago
  > Elon Musk twitted about moderation being censorship And instead, X has implemented hellbanning, where nobody outside X knows who is being censored and why. People just slowly figure out that, actually, no one sees their posts. At least with outright <scare-quote> "moderation" you would know that you had been cancelled.

hashar 3y ago

> inability to moderate which is really important for adult content Given Elon Musk twitted about moderation being censorship (twist: it is not), what could go wrong!?!

madeofpalk 3y ago
This is one where “won’t someone thing if the children” (underage and non-consensual) is relevant. It tends to be a lot more… universally agreed upon limits to whatever you think free speech is.
mewpmewp2 3y ago
His position was about moderating legal content. He thinks moderating legal content is censorship. He is in favor of taking down illegal content. If people think currently legal content should be taken down they should appeal to change the laws and it shouldn't be part of at least their platform to judge the legal content. That's his position, not my position.
- jcranmer 3y ago
  That's what he says his position is. He bans people who post the movements of his private jet. He also has had Twitter file lawsuits against people merely for saying mean things about Twitter. Of course, it's also possible that he's a complete idiot and has no idea what the First Amendment actually permits in speech, like he stopped paying attention after Schenck v US.
  - mewpmewp2 3y ago
    Yeah, that is hypocritical. He should be congruent in his views and in any ambiguity in content disfavoring him he should lean towards giving benefit of the doubt to prove lack of bias. Although in this case there didn't seem to be any ambiguity, he should have not banned the account.
  - ohnoitsahuman 3y ago
    Just because he's a hypocrite, doesn't mean we should censor more.
  - leereeves 3y ago
    Filing lawsuits is entirely consistent with a position that the courts, not private companies, should regulate speech online. Then there's Jack Sweeney, the guy tracking Elon and his private jet - who, by the way, was accused of facilitating stalking by Taylor Swift. For him, X made a policy against any account "doxxing real-time location info of anyone". Does anyone here actually want to argue that tracking real-time location info should be allowed?
    - bostik 3y ago
      I'll bite. Real-time tracking of a person or their ground transport: not ok. Real-time tracking of a person's plane: ok. And the reason for such a distinction is that planes can only land on specific ground slots. That also means that real-time tracking of a person's helicopter falls under "not ok". And by extension, the same will hold for flying taxis, once they take off[tm]. We don't (yet?) live in a world where shoulder mounted surface-to-air missiles, outside of war zones, are a realistic threat.
      - leereeves 3y ago
        Once a stalker knows a specific place and time to find their victim, they can simply follow them until they have an opportunity to do worse. "Missiles" are just a straw man. Hopefully Taylor Swift will follow through, Sweeney will be sued or even prosecuted for stalking, and we'll find out if this really is legal.
- longdustytrail 3y ago
  He just banned posting the identity of pseudonymous accounts which is definitely not illegal. He also banned posting public information about the movements of his private jet which is also definitely not illegal. This stuff would easier to take seriously he was consistent about it. At this point it’s kind of insulting
johnyzee 3y ago
> Elon Musk twitted about moderation being censorship And instead, X has implemented hellbanning, where nobody outside X knows who is being censored and why. People just slowly figure out that, actually, no one sees their posts. At least with outright <scare-quote> "moderation" you would know that you had been cancelled.