3 ms·

> Twitter was gaining trust It's interesting how our perception of this can be so different. From my viewpoint, Twitter had completely lost all trust by activ

by xedrac 2y ago

> Twitter was gaining trust It's interesting how our perception of this can be so different. From my viewpoint, Twitter had completely lost all trust by actively silencing people they disagreed with. This got particularly bad around covid. I am not much of a Twitter/X user, but at least people aren't being silenced on a massive scale anymore.

dragonwriter 2y ago
> but at least people aren't being silenced on a massive scale anymore. This simply isn't true.
- lesuorac 2y ago
  I dunno, try explaining how bad elon is at video games and watch how fast your checkmark goes away.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
ChuckMcM 2y ago
I agree, it is interesting and that is kind of my point. What you're labeling as "perception" (not a bad label, just different) I tend to label "belief." From your comment you clearly believe that Twitter had lost trust by "actively silencing people they disagreed with" whereas I, reading the reports that the trust and safety folks were putting out, felt like the policies they had in place to moderate people who they felt were not contributing to the conversation seemed to be rooted in reasonable principles. So we had two very different beliefs leading to very different viewpoints. The original article that kicked this off talks exactly about this. Some people believe that the economy was "bad/weak", others believe that the economy is "good/strong". Two opposite viewpoints with presumably access to the same data! Its a reasonable thing to engage in discussion with people who believe differently than you do to understand their point of view and what sources of data or evidence they base their beliefs on. To give a commonly cited example, one person would say "I believe the earth is roughly 6,000 years old based on my source which is the Bible." and another person might say, "I believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old, based on the idea of nuclear decay and carbon dating." In examples like this, one can often quickly come to an assessment of whether or not it is worthwhile to re-examine one's own beliefs based on the other person's sources of evidence. It doesn't end up that you'll agree, just that you will understand why they believe what they believe.

by xedrac 2y ago

dragonwriter 2y ago

> but at least people aren't being silenced on a massive scale anymore. This simply isn't true.

lesuorac 2y ago
I dunno, try explaining how bad elon is at video games and watch how fast your checkmark goes away.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

ChuckMcM 2y ago

I agree, it is interesting and that is kind of my point. What you're labeling as "perception" (not a bad label, just different) I tend to label "belief." From your comment you clearly believe that Twitter had lost trust by "actively silencing people they disagreed with" whereas I, reading the reports that the trust and safety folks were putting out, felt like the policies they had in place to moderate people who they felt were not contributing to the conversation seemed to be rooted in reasonable principles. So we had two very different beliefs leading to very different viewpoints. The original article that kicked this off talks exactly about this. Some people believe that the economy was "bad/weak", others believe that the economy is "good/strong". Two opposite viewpoints with presumably access to the same data! Its a reasonable thing to engage in discussion with people who believe differently than you do to understand their point of view and what sources of data or evidence they base their beliefs on. To give a commonly cited example, one person would say "I believe the earth is roughly 6,000 years old based on my source which is the Bible." and another person might say, "I believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old, based on the idea of nuclear decay and carbon dating." In examples like this, one can often quickly come to an assessment of whether or not it is worthwhile to re-examine one's own beliefs based on the other person's sources of evidence. It doesn't end up that you'll agree, just that you will understand why they believe what they believe.