Elon Musk Buys Twitter

[SeaMonster]

4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Okay, that may be a fair case of over-moderation. You have to take into account that no moderation will ever be perfect.

Twitter needs to have a moderation overview board similar to Facebook, like an appeals court, where big moderation decisions can be submitted for reversal.

I don't think Twitter is really entitled to the trust of the public after errors of this magnitude (after all the sanctimonious lectures we received for 4 years about "election interference".)  What we need is what Musk is apparently offering -- algorithmic transparency, evenhandedness in moderation, and an end to creepy shenanigans such as shadow-banning -- as well as erring on the side of more free speech rather than more moderation.

[Leo Gura]

19 minutes ago, SeaMonster said:

I don't think Twitter is really entitled to the trust of the public after errors of this magnitude.

I wasn't talking about trust. I was talking about setting up an independent appeals board. This board should be totally independent of Musk or any corporate owner.

19 minutes ago, SeaMonster said:

What we need is what Musk is apparently offering -- algorithmic transparency, evenhandedness in moderation, and an end to creepy shenanigans such as shadow-banning -- as well as erring on the side of more free speech rather than more moderation.

That's not going to solve it.

"Evenhandedness in moderation" is precisely begging the question.

[Tanz]

Its a very smart buy from him and he will make even more money.  Im doubtful that society will improve in any significant way because he owns it though.  

[yetineti]

@Leo Gura The problem with an appeals board is the delay. Some of the stories ‘moderated’ have been pretty ‘timely.’ 
 

Over all though, perhaps we need more moderation than Musk may be bringing but less than what we have. Uncertain; we’ll see what Musk does.

[Raze]

https://nypost.com/2022/04/29/twitters-chief-censor-making-17m-per-year-could-be-fired/

[SeaMonster]

On 4/27/2022 at 8:36 PM, Leo Gura said:

I wasn't talking about trust. I was talking about setting up an independent appeals board. This board should be totally independent of Musk or any corporate owner.

Set up by whom and consisting of whom? And why would any owner of Twitter agree to some kind of WWII type board on a permanent basis?  There has to be federal legislation passed that creates such a board for it to have any legitimacy, and such legislation would not be passed or would not withstand legal scrutiny if it did.  

On 4/27/2022 at 8:36 PM, Leo Gura said:

That's not going to solve it.

"Evenhandedness in moderation" is precisely begging the question.

The issue of fairness arises no matter who is in charge of being fair.  At the very least one can have clear and simple rules, less room for arbitrary decisions and a decision process open to the public.  This will go a long way towards solving it.  

[Bobby_2021]

On 4/28/2022 at 0:50 AM, Leo Gura said:

Okay, that may be a fair case of over-moderation. You have to take into account that no moderation will ever be perfect.

I won't merely call it over moderation, neither is it a mistake. It is intentionally censoring content, for a political agenda. 

I agree to have an appeals court.

But the problem remains. 

Who is to decide to what type of content to censor? That must be decided a grounded stage yellow person who see the legitimacy of both sides and make subtle distinctions and nuances.

Edited April 30, 2022 by Bobby_2021

[Husseinisdoingfine]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FRc1INkWUAcPdQW?format=jpg&name=4096x4096

[Leo Gura]

On 4/28/2022 at 8:55 PM, mw711 said:

@Leo Gura The problem with an appeals board is the delay. Some of the stories ‘moderated’ have been pretty ‘timely.’

Look, nothing is ever gonna be perfect here.

On 4/29/2022 at 4:35 PM, SeaMonster said:

Set up by whom and consisting of whom?

Consisting of the least biased and most conscious people that can be found.

Quote

And why would any owner of Twitter agree to some kind of WWII type board on a permanent basis? 

Obviously Musk could be king. But if he is wise he would set up an independent nonpartisan board.

Not a WWII type board but a Supreme Court type board.

We have solved this problem long ago in society by creating courts and judges who get elected and serve some term.

Why did Mark Zuckerberg set up such a board but not Twitter? Twitter is behind even Facebook on this.

14 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

But the problem remains. 

Who is to decide to what type of content to censor? That must be decided a grounded stage yellow person who see the legitimacy of both sides and make subtle distinctions and nuances.

Well, that problem runs through all governance. Who is to decide which laws to write, which laws to pass?

Yes, ideally laws are written and arbitrated by the most developed, unbiased, conscious, wise people. Such people are rare and they are not perfect, but they do exist. It's no harder than finding a good CEO, CFO, or CTO.

Twitter can set up elections for judges appointed to the board. But the only people who could qualify for the position are those who demonstrate nonpartisanship, intelligence, consciousness, and wisdom. Partisan hacks would automatically be disqualified. Such a system is not hard to establish if Musk really wanted to make Twitter great.

[yetineti]

8 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Look, nothing is ever gonna be perfect here.

Fair enough.

[BuddhistLover]

Managing a Business, Forum, school, church, or other organization is a lot harder than one would originally think. Personally I don't think I could ever do what Elon, or Leo do in managing these big organizations, especially with extraverted thinking blind spot. They make this management thing look easy, it takes a lot of analysis and mental handling to be a great manager. 

[Raze]

 

[Leo Gura]

What's shocking to me is that Ted Cruz doesn't have an outright ban.

[Bobby_2021]

On 5/3/2022 at 4:03 AM, Leo Gura said:

What's shocking to me is that Ted Cruz doesn't have an outright ban.

For what exactly?

Banning people's representatives are not a joke. No matter how low conscious they are, they represent a significant chunk of the population and they hold lots of power.

If they feel like they are not heard or outright banned, it will lead to further backlashes in indirect ways. 

Edited May 4, 2022 by Bobby_2021

[BuddhistLover]

To be honest, I think that if you have a lot of power there's only one thing you're going to do with all that power, and that's take care of people. People who chase power to abuse others are just narcissists. I mean what are going to do with all that power: Take care of yourself and others. That's really all that power buys.

"So if you're power hungry get ready to take care of some HUMANS!"

 

[Leo Gura]

6 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

For what exactly?

I was joking. Sorta.

[Bobby_2021]

https://youtu.be/rqidN8mCGTQ

Trump to make a comeback on twitter.

Elon Musk likely to reverse the Trump Ban.

[Leo Gura]

[Hardkill]

4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

I never thought that Trump coming back to a big-tech platform would ever become a real possibility.

If Trump gets back on Twitter then wouldn't that set a precedent for all of the other big-tech platforms including Facebook, Instagram, and Google for Trump coming on all Big tech platforms by the beginning of next year in time for him to begin his 2024 presidential run during the next two years? 

I know that all of the largest social media companies have already faced serious legal repercussions for allowing Trump to post countless totally toxic and extremely dangerous statements on each of their platforms. However, I am now starting to get frightened by the possible scenario of Trump's return to all social media.

Edited May 12, 2022 by Hardkill

[Danioover9000]

   I think they even have a documentary about Elon Musk taking over Twitter.