Elon Musk Twitter Trainwreck Mega-Thread

[Bobby_2021]

8 hours ago, Hatfort said:

What's big? Hunter Biden doing drugs and having sex? We kind of like that on the left, good for him. We are not grannies like you.

Was he using his last name for his own benefit and business? So what. I'm not against that either.

Why did twitter censor the NY post story then, convinently before the elections? 

[Hatfort]

57 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Why did twitter censor the NY post story then, convinently before the elections? 

To feed right-wing conspiranoics for longer? Not that they need much either, they kind of produce their own garbage from nothing anyway.

[Danioover9000]

   And this is why social media is mostly toxic, and why one must exercise caution and not wing social media websites.

[Forestluv]

10 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

 In the end Twitter is a tiny company and a small platform. It does not compare to Google or YT at all. People treat Twitter like it is the size of Facebook or YT. But it's an order of magnitude smaller. 

Even though Twitter is a relatively small size, it seems to have a large influence on driving social / political / media narratives. 

[Gesundheit2]

@Danioover9000 Dude, I think you just gave me a stroke. I thought it's Yarco the apolitical commenting.

[Leo Gura]

9 hours ago, Mada_ said:

Twitter's mission statement reads "to give everyone the power to create and share ideas and information instantly without barriers."

This mission statement requires heavy moderation.

Libertarianism does NOT maximize effective freedom. It simply allows a few people to monopolize the whole field and enslave everyone else.

The reason to moderate is precisely to protect the public square from shitslingers and bad actors who ruin free speech. Allowing Nazis to plot government coups does not increase free speech.

Edited November 26, 2022 by Leo Gura

[Forestluv]

9 hours ago, Mada_ said:

Twitter's mission statement reads "to give everyone the power to create and share ideas and information instantly without barriers."

That sounds good idealistically. Yet paradoxically, having no barriers reduces the overall power for everyone to create and share ideas. 

People often have an either / or mindset in which there must be either maximum 100% moderation or 0% moderation. Yet it is more nuanced. Too many barriers, as well as too few barriers, will reduce overall power to create and share ideas. 

[Bobby_2021]

8 hours ago, Hatfort said:

To feed right-wing conspiranoics for longer? Not that they need much either, they kind of produce their own garbage from nothing anyway.

Or maybe lefties are sexually repressed. Else why would you censor something normal in the left. 

Edited November 26, 2022 by Bobby_2021

[Danioover9000]

@Gesundheit2

3 hours ago, Gesundheit2 said:

@Danioover9000 Dude, I think you just gave me a stroke. I thought it's Yarco the apolitical commenting.

   OH, I see, so you're the one who reported my profile picture. Well, screw you and Elon Musk for heavy trolling.

[Leo Gura]

@Danioover9000 He didn't report you. I removed it of my own initiative.

User profile images with Pepe frogs and other toxic right-wing memes are not allowed here.

Edited November 26, 2022 by Leo Gura

[mr_engineer]

2 hours ago, Forestluv said:

That sounds good idealistically. Yet paradoxically, having no barriers reduces the overall power for everyone to create and share ideas. 

You don't really need to be able to share your ideas with the entire world. You need to only be able to share them with like-minded people so that you can work together. 

What censorship does, is it gets in the way of doing that. It promotes ideas that support their agendas, while censors ideas that get in the way of their agendas. My point is that - don't assume that their censorship is purely unbiased. Or, their definition of 'hate-speech' is purely unbiased. 

You have the right to ignore what you don't like. You don't have to censor it. And if it offends you, that's your problem. 

Cancel-culture is the real enemy here. That we all need to be collectively standing up against. Cuz it creates echo-chambers and separations. This will only escalate conflicts. 

[Danioover9000]

@Leo Gura

15 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@Danioover9000 He didn't report you. I removed it of my own initiative.

User profile images with Pepe frogs and other toxic right-wing memes are not allowed here.

   Oh, alright then. I thought it was a coomer meme but whatever. Don't forget @Yarco and @KH2 then. ?

Edited November 26, 2022 by Danioover9000

[Danioover9000]

@Forestluv

3 hours ago, Forestluv said:

That sounds good idealistically. Yet paradoxically, having no barriers reduces the overall power for everyone to create and share ideas. 

People often have an either / or mindset in which there must be either maximum 100% moderation or 0% moderation. Yet it is more nuanced. Too many barriers, as well as too few barriers, will reduce overall power to create and share ideas. 

   Is that you @Forestluv? Welcome back from the long hiatus!

@mr_engineer

18 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

You don't really need to be able to share your ideas with the entire world. You need to only be able to share them with like-minded people so that you can work together. 

What censorship does, is it gets in the way of doing that. It promotes ideas that support their agendas, while censors ideas that get in the way of their agendas. My point is that - don't assume that their censorship is purely unbiased. Or, their definition of 'hate-speech' is purely unbiased. 

You have the right to ignore what you don't like. You don't have to censor it. And if it offends you, that's your problem. 

Cancel-culture is the real enemy here. That we all need to be collectively standing up against. Cuz it creates echo-chambers and separations. This will only escalate conflicts. 

   Fundamentally you are right, until it's contextualized relative to the potential harm and harms related to misinformation. That's when censorship becomes useful. Bad if you are the one censored with the harmful ideology, view and prescriptive claims that lead to danger and damage to others

Edited November 26, 2022 by Danioover9000

[mr_engineer]

1 minute ago, Danioover9000 said:

Fundamentally you are right, until it's contextualized relative to the potential harm and harms related to misinformation. That's when censorship becomes useful. Bad if you are the one censored with the harmful ideology, view and prescriptive claims that lead to danger and damage to others

This is some Orwellian 'Ministry of Truth' stuff. We, the state, have the truth. And you get to believe us or shut the fuck up. No room for disagreement. 

The point of discourse is to debate and have a civil discussion. Censorship is the opposite of that. 

[Danioover9000]

@mr_engineer

15 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

This is some Orwellian 'Ministry of Truth' stuff. We, the state, have the truth. And you get to believe us or shut the fuck up. No room for disagreement. 

The point of discourse is to debate and have a civil discussion. Censorship is the opposite of that. 

   So, is it okay in our discourse to give descriptive, graphic details of terrorist actions, and show graphically disgusting evidence of how to mutilate body parts, and how to construct a drone bomb, in a public setting where it's live and broadcasted, for everyone watching regardless of demographic?

[mr_engineer]

2 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

@mr_engineer

   So, is it okay in our discourse to give descriptive, graphic details of terrorist actions, and show graphically disgusting evidence of how to mutilate body parts, and how to construct a drone bomb, in a public setting where it's live and broadcasted, for everyone watching regardless of demographic?

This is illegal stuff. So, no. The law is very obviously being broken in these cases. 

But, what about the protests in Europe?! What about the Canadian truckers?! Why were they censored?! These are normal, working-class people protesting against the problematic government policies. This is criminal-level censorship by social-media. 

[Danioover9000]

@mr_engineer

11 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

This is illegal stuff. So, no. The law is very obviously being broken in these cases. 

But, what about the protests in Europe?! What about the Canadian truckers?! Why were they censored?! These are normal, working-class people protesting against the problematic government policies. This is criminal-level censorship by social-media. 

   Wait, I thought you were entirely for no censorship? Why are you back peddling?

   Why is censorship about protests in Europe or Canadien truckers a bad thing? What about the Kyle Rittenhouse situation? Why did they censor some of those images?

[mr_engineer]

Just now, Danioover9000 said:

@mr_engineer

   Wait, I thought you were entirely for no censorship? Why are you back peddling?

You are obligated to follow the law, as a social-media platform. My point is that your position as Twitter should be for free-speech. And you censor very sparingly, where you have to co-operate with law-enforcement. 

1 minute ago, Danioover9000 said:

Why is censorship about protests in Europe or Canadien truckers a bad thing? What about the Kyle Rittenhouse situation? Why did they censor some of those images?

You are censoring the voice of common people in a so-called democracy. The people responsible for this should be hanged, honestly. 

It distorts the public's idea of public perception. And it demoralizes individuals who are not for these restrictive government-measures. People whose livelihoods, businesses got destroyed by the lockdowns and now by the climate-policies. 

[Hardkill]

6 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

This mission statement requires heavy moderation.

Libertarianism does NOT maximize effective freedom. It simply allows a few people to monopolize the whole field and enslave everyone else.

The reason to moderate is precisely to protect the public square from shitslingers and bad actors who ruin free speech. Allowing Nazis to plot government coups does not increase free speech.

I totally agree. However, it unfortunately looks like we may have too many people in the US who believe in absolute free speech and limited moderation. Do you think there will ever come a day when most Americans will be convinced by what people like you are saying?

Edited November 26, 2022 by Hardkill

[Danioover9000]

@Hardkill

Just now, Hardkill said:

Unfortunately, it looks like we may have too many people in the US who believe in absolute free speech and limited moderation. How will most Americans these days ever support much needed moderation of all content?

   Ye old faithful method: default to next generation.