Advertisement



  1. Things you need to know about the new ‘Conversations’ PM system:

    a) DO NOT REPLY TO THE NOTIFICATION EMAIL! I get them, not the intended recipient. I get a lot of them and I do not want them! It is just a notification, log into the site and reply from there.

    b) To delete old conversations use the ‘Leave conversation’ option. This is just delete by another name.
    Dismiss Notice

Twitter bought by Elon Musk

Discussion in 'off topic' started by messengerman, Apr 25, 2022.

  1. DonQuixote99

    DonQuixote99 pfm Member

    All in all, I see some reason to fear the great starship project may crash. It certainly is stunning in its meglomania, may be the most stunning project since those Mesopotamians tried to build a ziggurat to heaven.
     
  2. kensalriser

    kensalriser pfm Member

    I do hope some schadenfreude is coming my way. Even the smartest psychos can be undone by events.
     
  3. Mike & Van

    Mike & Van Banned troll

    Twitter needs to be a freer space for discussion, at the minute, and facebook, that's even worse, it's clumsy algorithms don't recognise sarcasm, irony or wit. So Musk at the helm is welcome for anyone who recognises the value in free speech, rather than 'free for me, but not for thee'.
     
  4. Tony L

    Tony L Administrator

    As stated upthread Musk speaks with all the perspective of someone who has never moderated any internet platform. It is exceptionally easy for rich white straight men to get all sanctimonious about such things as they have never, and will never be the ones on the receiving end of cyber-bullying, bigotry etc. Twitter is far from perfect as-is, but everything Musk has said suggests he would make it an even more hostile environment for those who are the victims of modern alt-right hate campaigns etc (racial minorities, LGBT+ communities, even medical professionals offering abortion services are frequently doxxed, stalked, attacked in real life after having their addresses published openly online).

    If I get moderation wrong here I upset an audiophile or two and maybe cost myself some annual income. If Twitter gets it wrong people get killed, either directly by white-supremacists, terrorists etc, or by highly vulnerable people being being bullied into suicide (e.g. transgender folk have a >50% attempted suicide rate as-is, and that’s before being stalked and doxxed by fascists or religious bigots). I really don’t think Musk understands the weight of responsibility here. This is the reason I am so firmly against his takeover bid. There is a duty of care that needs to be factored-in to any successful social media business and “free speech” in the far-right context (the only way it tends to be used these days) ensures it is a weapon to be used to punch downwards.
     
  5. Mike & Van

    Mike & Van Banned troll

    It isn't just well off Libertarians who are affected by Free speech issues, it's ordinary folk, one's who couldn't afford to lose their jobs or a legal defence in a libel trial. Meanwhile in autocracies like China and Russia, where free speech is severely circumscribed, the people need to be able to look to the West as the ideal. The examples you give of the 'victims' of free speech are almost entirely partisan, you do not mention the victims of Trans activists being doxxed, such as Rowling's address been posted on Twitter, or the real world harassment of Kathleen Stock, or indeed the people who have lost their livelihoods because of their unfashionable beliefs. I know the US is in a scary place at the moment, but free speech is a basic right, and if the GOP get into power again, just think how entitled they will feel to circumscribe free speech in more serious ways. The right and left both use the free speech issue against each other, in bad faith, they do the same with the concept of democracy, these both need reclaiming. I find the phrase 'punching downwards' to be overused, perhaps when the user doesn't want to engage with the argument, it's also a bit patronising, as if the subjects aren't capable of defending themselves. Besides all that, these huge platforms are only ever going to be moderated by bots, you can't even post a Hitler cat on FB anymore! Twitter could be a doorway into more serious radicalisation, of course direct incitement to violence should never be tolerated, and the Orange man was a disgrace with his Capitol Hill shenanigans. But the rest of us need a platform where we don't have to hide our entirely reasonable beliefs, without fear of a pile on, or censure of some description. It's up to people to speak respectably and responsibly, and my own theory of a minimum word count, rather than the maximum one currently in place, would deter a lot of the silly bullying, name calling, and just generally idiots who can't post a coherent argument.
     
  6. Joe Hutch

    Joe Hutch Mate of the bloke

    I would permanently ban anyone who used an apostrophe incorrectly. That would sort out the wheat from the chaff, the sheep from the goats and so forth.
     
    Cheese and miktec like this.
  7. Joco

    Joco pfm Member

  8. Tony L

    Tony L Administrator

    In arguing for moderation I am arguing for moderation! I detest the way Rowling is using her enormous power and wealth to make the lives of others exponentially more vulnerable such a misery. The more I’ve looked into this the less respect I have for her, but doxxing is doxxing and I don’t support it in either direction.

    “Free speech” is a right under law to some limited degree. There is no such right at someone else’s venue or platform. As an example I do not platform people with far-right views here. They get banned and can f*** right off. I am 100% within my rights to do that, as is any venue to choose what they platform and why. If folk want a far-right site things like Trump’s ‘Truth Social’ or the Daily Mail comments page are available. If Twitter goes down that path millions of us will leave. There are always alternatives available and we all choose where to post, where to place our content. I’d never even register at such sites. That is ‘free speech’, there is no right to be an arsehole where you are not wanted or welcomed. All good platforms ban the real shitheads. It is a necessary balance as the bad stuff drags any site down real fast as the good people swiftly leave.
     
  9. Sue Pertwee-Tyr

    Sue Pertwee-Tyr Pending

    And even the legal right of free speech isn’t completely free. Many jurisdictions ban hate speech, or speech inciting violence, or promoting seriously illegal activity.
     
  10. laughingboy

    laughingboy pfm Member

    Glad to hear you say that "direct incitement to violence should never be tolerated'.

    If you have time, here's a Twitter thread about the 18-year old from Buffalo, New York who shot 13 people, killing 10, in a Tops Friendly Markets supermarket six days ago. It describes how an interest in 4chan deepened into beliefs about anti-semitism, 'great replacement' and white supremacy. None of these were necessarily 'direct incitement to violence'. And yet, 10 people - 10 black people - are dead. They didn't get the chance to defend themselves.

    https://twitter.com/oneunderscore__/status/1527713922928852993
     
  11. Joco

    Joco pfm Member

    The only place you’re not going to face a ‘pile on’ or abuse for ones views, if not illegal but controversial, is an echo chamber. A.I just isn’t anywhere near being able to identify polite, if forceful debate vs abuse without bad language, it’s too clumsy. I fear your hope for a civilised debate on an open channel is at best, naive.
    The majority of your post leaves me shaking my head wondering what you’re actually looking for, as S.M is a hard place to be when you take a stand now, and attitudes on many subjects are hardening. I really can’t be bothered with the controversial stuff it changes no ones attitude.

    You seem to lightly dismiss the dangers of radicalisation, tell that to the relatives of a growing number of people killed by the radicalised, just look at the loons following Qanon and suchlike.
    Sorry, virtually everything you posted appeared to ignore the outcomes when carried to their Logical conclusion.
    You are of course free to respond, but as a proponent of free speech I’m sure you won’t be offended if I don’t reply.
     
  12. Mike & Van

    Mike & Van Banned troll

    My only desire is for beliefs - both mainstream and extreme, reasonably argued, not to be subject to censure. At the moment, fashion dictates that it's OK for a teenager to willingly undergo a mastectomy for cosmetic reasons cheered on by right thinking Liberals, while it's not OK to talk about immigration controls without being called the F word. There is nothing intrinsically immoral about extremist views, they are simply far from the centre, do you think that 20 years ago we would be arguing over the definition of a woman for instance? Fashion dictates what is acceptable, the concept of free speech ensures everyone's democratic right to at least air - if not put into action - their views. Also, when people migrate from mainstream platforms to their own special interest sites, then they lose the ability to debate with others whose views will differ.
     
  13. laughingboy

    laughingboy pfm Member

    Firstly, I note that you haven't engaged with my post at all, but instead have clarified the reasoning behind your position.

    My point is this: what happens online does not stay online - it spills into the real world. Since you have accepted that direct incitement to violence is too dangerous to be allowed, you know this too. What you seem less prepared to accept is that some of the gravest real world consequences - deaths, suicides - flow from statements that are not direct incitements to violence.

    When the outcomes are the same - needless death - why draw the line at direct incitements to violence?
     
  14. Nick_G

    Nick_G pfm Member

    Extremism makes people believe in absurdities. Those that can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities...
     
    DonQuixote99 and Sue Pertwee-Tyr like this.
  15. ralphj

    ralphj pfm Member


    Fashion dictates what is acceptable, the concept of free speech ensures everyone's democratic right to at least air - if not put into action - their views.

    And to ignore you which right I will exercise right now!
     
  16. miktec

    miktec unissued


    They aren't ... so what exactly is your problem?
     
  17. Nick_G

    Nick_G pfm Member

    By definition, extreme beliefs cannot be argued for by reason.
     
  18. Sue Pertwee-Tyr

    Sue Pertwee-Tyr Pending

    How extreme would beliefs need to be to attract censure under Rizo’s rules, I wonder?
     
  19. Mike & Van

    Mike & Van Banned troll

    Because as I said perfectly reasonable beliefs are being censored and at times their advocates even censured, all because they are being thrown into the same sinbin as extremism, who is to judge what is labelled extremism anyway? When people accept these limits to free speech, they never imagine that tomorrow their speech might be subject to censorship.
     
  20. Mike & Van

    Mike & Van Banned troll

    That depends on who is being called an extremist, would you say Communists are broadly extremist? Is Jeremy Corbyn an extremist? many would label him so.
     

Share This Page





Advertisement


  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice