5 ms·

Are you suggesting that, in respecting people’s right to have opinions GP doesn’t like, GP must make an account and, in their view, endorse those opinions? Or a

Are you suggesting that, in respecting people’s right to have opinions GP doesn’t like, GP must make an account and, in their view, endorse those opinions? Or are you suggesting that in merely not liking or endorsing those opinions, GP is somehow denying their right? Does this just apply to Twitter, or should GP also join every forum allowing public signup, to give fair and balanced attention to each of their respective viewpoints?

AnthonyMouse 2y ago
Using a service that doesn't suppress some opinions you don't like is not an endorsement of those opinions. Or else you'd better figure out whether it's easier to cancel your home internet after you no longer have a phone number or the other way around so you know which one to cancel first.
- jimnotgym 2y ago
  Twitter does suppress opinions though. Go on there and criticise Donald Trump or Israeli policy in Gaza and see how quickly you get shadow banned. It probably works for liberal causes too. A few years ago criticising Jeremy Corbyn could get you shadow banned. I think any subject where you get a whole community sharing your heresy with each other and mass reporting you will suffer...except somehow the far right seem to be able to stay in my timeline despite my best efforts....because Twitter wants to trigger me.
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    Their shadow banning system is and always has been just completely broken. It's probably the single most broken part of the site. A major problem with it is that the site is organized by user, so if you reply to someone then it's disproportionately their followers who see it. The quickest way to get shadow banned, then, is to try to debate zealots, because by doing it where they congregate they'll mass report you for contradicting their dogma and then you get shadow banned. It's not about what the dogma is, which is why everybody thinks the site is biased against them. They see reasonable people they agree with getting shadow banned, and yet tons of buttheads don't because they are mostly congregating with people who agree with them and the feed then showing their posts to random people doesn't get them shadow banned because most random people aren't zealots who report non-abusive posts just because they disagree with them. The algorithm is just asinine.
- eyelidlessness 2y ago
  What’s your point? How does it relate to my comment?
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    > GP must make an account and, in their view, endorse those opinions The view that having an account on a service is an endorsement of every opinion of everyone else who uses the service is baloney.
    - eyelidlessness 2y ago
      You’ve twice focused on contradicting an opinion I did not express, but you haven’t told me how it relates to the questions I posed. It’s quite clear you disagree with the other person about whether signing up for Twitter is an endorsement of anything in particular. So are you saying that to imply that you do think they’re obligated to sign up for Twitter? What does your point have to do with my questions at all?

AnthonyMouse 2y ago

Using a service that doesn't suppress some opinions you don't like is not an endorsement of those opinions. Or else you'd better figure out whether it's easier to cancel your home internet after you no longer have a phone number or the other way around so you know which one to cancel first.

jimnotgym 2y ago
Twitter does suppress opinions though. Go on there and criticise Donald Trump or Israeli policy in Gaza and see how quickly you get shadow banned. It probably works for liberal causes too. A few years ago criticising Jeremy Corbyn could get you shadow banned. I think any subject where you get a whole community sharing your heresy with each other and mass reporting you will suffer...except somehow the far right seem to be able to stay in my timeline despite my best efforts....because Twitter wants to trigger me.
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  Their shadow banning system is and always has been just completely broken. It's probably the single most broken part of the site. A major problem with it is that the site is organized by user, so if you reply to someone then it's disproportionately their followers who see it. The quickest way to get shadow banned, then, is to try to debate zealots, because by doing it where they congregate they'll mass report you for contradicting their dogma and then you get shadow banned. It's not about what the dogma is, which is why everybody thinks the site is biased against them. They see reasonable people they agree with getting shadow banned, and yet tons of buttheads don't because they are mostly congregating with people who agree with them and the feed then showing their posts to random people doesn't get them shadow banned because most random people aren't zealots who report non-abusive posts just because they disagree with them. The algorithm is just asinine.
eyelidlessness 2y ago
What’s your point? How does it relate to my comment?
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  > GP must make an account and, in their view, endorse those opinions The view that having an account on a service is an endorsement of every opinion of everyone else who uses the service is baloney.
  - eyelidlessness 2y ago
    You’ve twice focused on contradicting an opinion I did not express, but you haven’t told me how it relates to the questions I posed. It’s quite clear you disagree with the other person about whether signing up for Twitter is an endorsement of anything in particular. So are you saying that to imply that you do think they’re obligated to sign up for Twitter? What does your point have to do with my questions at all?