Support NeoGAF

[Bitmap Frogs]

We as a society have been and continue progressing just fine without reverting to these archaic concepts, IMO. I make plenty of money and do my part in making advances in my field, serving as part of a greater whole, without sacrificing my well being and the things that make us all human - things as fundamental as a healthy and happy family life. I view these kinds of harsh views of work (particularly in my field of IT and tech) akin to the days of warehouse labor prior to unions and regulations. Unhealthy not just for the individual, but for society. It only serves the person at the top of the given pyramid.

Just my view on things.

People have fully internalized the narrative that worker exploitation is not only beneficial but also necessary.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

We as a society have been and continue progressing just fine without reverting to these archaic concepts, IMO. I make plenty of money and do my part in making advances in my field, serving as part of a greater whole, without sacrificing my well being and the things that make us all human - things as fundamental as a healthy and happy family life. I view these kinds of harsh views of work (particularly in my field of IT and tech) akin to the days of warehouse labor prior to unions and regulations. Unhealthy not just for the individual, but for society. It only serves the person at the top of the given pyramid.

Just my view on things.

Fair enough, but every company is different. Just like you hear about wall street bankers working long hours to rake in the bucks and retire by 40. That's the job.

If Musk wants to turn Twitter from seemingly either normal workplace or a lax place into a hardcore company that's his decision. The company has been around for 15 years and somehow cant make steady profits. The actually lose money most years. On the other hand other social media sites can make billions. Even Pinterest makes profit (barely). So maybe he wants to shake things up with cutting people and getting people to work more.

I work at normal 9-5 kind of role. Sometimes I work some evening work or weekends, but it's a pretty normal job 95% of the time. Some friends I know who work in the exact same industry are totally different. Some work to 6 or 7. But one good buddy of mine has really no hours. As long as he does his job and hits his sales targets he can go golfng all day and the execs dont care. They dont care because half the time the execs are nowhere to be found or golfing too.

So given our 3 situations, the ballbusted people could say it's not fair me and the easy peasy guy get easier hours. I could say it's not fair my buddy has no mandatory hours.

But that's life and the job. If any of us dont like it we can quit and find another job. Not the end of the world. We all get paid well, but not high tech kind of salaries you hear about where some young guy in his 20s who doesn't even manage anyone makes more than 45 year old directors in my industry.

Work hard, play hard.

 

[Syphon Filter]

Twitter has been dead for a decade now except to incels.

Says the guy with an anime avatar.

 

[Clear]

If his paranoia isn't rational then a rational response won't matter. People have called Kanye on his BS for years.

Folks need to realize these guys don't play under the same rules we do. He can quite literslly do almost anything he wants without much repercussion, save for killing; raping, etc. That kind of freedom changes your perspective and Kanye was already an arrogant guy. He doesn't care about what anyone else says or thinks and he won't be convinced otherwise.

You're changing the argument: Is it about the person(s) with the dangerous opinion, or their position and ideas?

Big difference because in my estimation you can largely neutralize bad ideas with better ideas.

Also I'm not sure whether "fixing" Kanye (by whatever means) is actually going to achieve anything as the sentiments he's expressing are wholly derivative of other anti-semitic thought historically espoused by certain elements within African-American culture.

Theres not been a shortage of members of both political parties on the platform. Most of the ones who got banned for any significant portion of the time were generally ones who either went to extreme lengths or ones who said or did things that violated the site rules.

Oh come on, everyone knew which way pre-Musk Twitter leant politically, and which side of the aisle a majority of the high profile bans landed on.

The root problem essentially is that censorship can be used as a political tool. Although the right wants to claim that its a tactic that's primarily been deployed by progressives in recent years, we all know that they themselves aren't above doing the exact same.

Isn't this where all the paranoia about the Musk takeover originates? That a billionaire not on the same side as the present administration has control!

Comical really especially after the Hunter Biden laptop debacle.

So really, are thse folks being others by virtue of people part of a certain group or as a result of their conduct not keeping in line with this term of service? Either way it hardly makes a case for there not to be a terms of service.

As previously mentioned, if an institution has a pronounced political bias then its likely that the site's rules and TOS enforcement will be shaped in service of that.

You're once again, ignoring that the site has a responsibility to regulate these things. We all understand dthis and agree with it. If someone started posting CP on Twitter and didn't get banned, we'd be looking to Twitter as culpable. This is well understood. Its the same for anything else that violates the term of service. It isn't on the indivudal users to make sure the site doesn't host that. The host is responsible to control what gets hosted.

Bad example. Posting CP is a crime. Its a transgression beyond parochial concerns like a TOS. Its unavoidable.

The problem needing address here is having heterodox views that are not themselves criminal treated as if they were.

Its either that I am forced to be exposed to that content by using Twitter, or by using Twitter THOSE folks are forced to regulate what they say. Why would you put the onus on the people who aren't doing anything wrong, rather than those causing the disruption? You csnt have it both ways.

Your rights are not impinged by the possibility that you might encounter views you find disagreeable!

On the other hand forcibly regulating other people's free-speech in order to satisfy your need not to be offended is a violation of their rights.

Its incomprehensible to me that you cannot appreciate this distinction.

Being banned form Twitter doesn't stop you from speaking your truth. Twitter doesn't have gulags. They do have rules through, just like everyone else does. You can follow those rules or you can face the repurcissions that come with not following them. Which; in the case of Twitter means you have to go elsewhere. Hardly an unlivable situation.

This is just silly. The point is that the behaviour is all driven by the same rationale. Its all about the gain and conservation of socio-political power and influence by marginalizing dissidents. Action justified by faux moral imperatives of a "greater good" being served by denying undesirables their freedoms.

 

[Grechy34]

Hard work, smarts and endlessly failing before finally succeeding (ie. a person or company coming up with a cure which took $10 billion in R&D and 30 years of manpower) is what has got humanity to where it is now. If work was assumed to be easy, we'd all be living like pilgrims with shitty log cabins and drinking river water.

Coasting in life on other people's backs is the easy way out. And because modern day life has so many things automated, a lot of people expect easy life and easy bucks doing a shit job which can be replaced by high schoolers.

Some companies demand long hours, which in return often pays well. Other jobs people can chill out with a steady 9-5 job.

Life rewards big bucks to people who put in more time, got the smarts, and simply (supply and demand related) know how to score a high paying job simply because it's hard to replace them. Instead of having 200 people apply with qualifying skills, there might be 2 people who can do the job.

A lot of these types who claim to "work hard/smarts and endlessly fail" have families but actually don't have the capacity to be involved in that aspect so attribute all the hard work they do as some kind of way out of these responsibilities. It goes both ways. I agree with your sentiments but a lot of people with your mindset fail to realise the other side of the equation. Those people that you claim are coasting and taking the easy way out at work are likely investing an enormous amount into their families.

 

[DaleinCalgary]

Musk wants it dead, and he doesn't care about the money

 

[Toons]

Section 230 says otherwise when it comes to speech. Nothing that violates the law, of course, but speech itself is protected. Even if more authoritarian areas of the world end up with a twitter that is heavily censored due to their governments, that doesn't mean the same for the US. Twitter is not responsible for the speech that users post.

Perhaps not on paper they arent legally culpable, as in they cant be prosecuted. However, them allowing that content would not only lead to ad revenue dropping but also the user base and would reflect only on the brand, the site and its owners. Its plain to see why there is a code of conduct for the site. It doesn't just prevent those eventualities, it services the mass of the users.

Its much like how you can't be legally persecuted for hate speech, or wearing a nazi tattoo, but you can be fired from your job, because if that job kept you there it would affect their business and reputation.

I think the real concerns are rules were created and enforced after the fact, rules were made that the majority of society would disagree with, there wasn't transparency, rules were inconsistently enforced due to ideological preferences, and certain people who were not violating any rules were still being intentionally suppressed.

Even if there was(I find this point rather dubious and arbitrary) that was wholly at the sites discretion, and still is. The ownership has changed obviously but the fact that the owners ultimately decided how their rules are enforced hasn't.

That Elon Musk is claiming to have a board of advisors would be a good thing on paper, because nothing is really stopping him from deciding to do it himself

 

[Toons]

You're changing the argument: Is it about the person(s) with the dangerous opinion, or their position and ideas?

Big difference because in my estimation you can largely neutralize bad ideas with better ideas.

The last decade would say otherwise.

Also I'm not sure whether "fixing" Kanye (by whatever means) is actually going to achieve anything as the sentiments he's expressing are wholly derivative of other anti-semitic thought historically espoused by certain elements within African-American culture.

Ok? If a white supremacist starts spouting their nonsense, it's historically espoused by certain elements of white culture but that doesn't mean we shouldn't shut that down.

Oh come on, everyone knew which way pre-Musk Twitter leant politically, and which side of the aisle a majority of the high profile bans landed on.

The root problem essentially is that censorship can be used as a political tool.

Being banned form Twitter isn't censorship.

Whichever which "lean" Twitter had, the fact is conservatives were anything but silenced on the platform.

As previously mentioned, if an institution has a pronounced political bias then its likely that the site's rules and TOS enforcement will be shaped in service of that.

That still doesn't make a case for there not being a terms of service.

Bad example. Posting CP is a crime. Its a transgression beyond parochial concerns like a TOS. Its unavoidable.

The problem needing address here is having heterodox views that are not themselves criminal treated as if they were.

The example is fine because I'm not speaking of legality. I'm speaking of moral implications and business reputation; all of which are relevant to the brand and its function and its base. You can take the legal element of it out entirely. CP isn't bad because it's illegal. Its bad because it's bad.

Your rights are not impinged by the possibility that you might encounter views you find disagreeable!

On the other hand forcibly regulating other people's free-speech in order to satisfy your need not to be offended is a violation of their rights.

Its incomprehensible to me that you cannot appreciate this distinction.

Because its not true. Those rights don't apply on Twitter. Those rights apply in the public sector, and were established before the ideal of anonymous speech on the internet wss ever a thing. Someone is not restricted from sharing their ideas just because they are banned from Twitter. They just have to do it somewhere other than twitter.

This is just silly. The point is that the behaviour is all driven by the same rationale. Its all about the gain and conservation of socio-political power and influence by marginalizing dissidents. Action justified by faux moral imperatives of a "greater good" being served by denying undesirables their freTwitter.

This word salad changes nothing about what I said. They arent denied their freedoms. There are places even in real life I cannot go. I can't waltz into the white house. That doesnt mean I'm not free. That means our society operates with rules and those rules keep order, reduce risk of harm to the populace and uphold the reputation of the governing body of the land.

Twitter has its own set of rules and regulations for the same purpose. You'll be hard pressed to find any scenario in times country in which you csnt be removed from a private business for your behavior.

 

[LegendOfKage]

That Elon Musk is claiming to have a board of advisors would be a good thing on paper, because nothing is really stopping him from deciding to do it himself

You might not be keeping up with all of this as much as some, but this has changed. According to Musk, activist groups insisted that he put together a board of advisors who would decide matters related to moderation, and if he didn't do this they would go after his advertisers. He then went along with their demand, and they went after his advertisers anyway, so he no longer is going forward with a board of advisors.

It does sound like the general moderation rules haven't changed, though. Maybe the enforcement of them has, but that's hard to tell.

Being banned form Twitter isn't censorship.

Yes it is, just not in a legal sense, such as a violation of first amendment rights.

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. This may be done on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient". Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions and other controlling bodies. Governments and private organizations may engage in censorship. Other groups or institutions may propose and petition for censorship. - Wikipedia

And in other interesting Twitter news:

 

[funkygunther]

that plugs the hole of verified entities being impersonated and any negative publicity coming off the back of that, but looks like blue checkmarks stay whether you're a notable person or a rando paying $8 or whatever it is...I wonder if celebrities will count as companies here

 

[Wildebeest]

Working all hours for relative pennies for the world's richest man, on a shitty messaging web app that anyone sane hates with a passion, is not curing cancer.

 

[LegendOfKage]

that plugs the hole of verified entities being impersonated and any negative publicity coming off the back of that, but looks like blue checkmarks stay whether you're a notable person or a rando paying $8 or whatever it is...I wonder if celebrities will count as companies here

Good question, perhaps somewhat answered by this addition:



If they really wanted to, I would think journalists who aren't freelancers could be "claimed" by their employers, and perhaps musicians claimed by their labels, or even celebrities claimed by their agencies. That could add another "layer" of verification and status that some might find hard to resist. Not sure if things will really work like that, though.

 

[Maiden Voyage]

 

[LegendOfKage]

Person with a Mastodon account in their Twitter bio criticizing Elon Musk on Twitter saying how they don't like how he's running Twitter while continuing to post on Twitter.


Elon Musk's response:

 

[RAÏSanÏa]

At this point, about the only exciting thing that will happen is probably months or years away. With that, I'll probably stop following the topic unless something changes.

That wasn't long...

Musk still taking that criticism personal. A grudge? Might remove that check if he doesn't get $8!

It'll be fascinating to watch the reaction to any confusion and frustration with the check change while waiting to see if there aren't any engineering, privacy, safety or other issues.

 

[Thaedolus]

 

[Grildon Tundy]

I'm what you'd call a fan of Musk, but that was funny

 

[Grildon Tundy]

That wasn't long...

Musk still taking that criticism personal. A grudge? Might remove that check if he doesn't get $8!

It'll be fascinating to watch the reaction to any confusion and frustration with the check change while waiting to see if there aren't any engineering, privacy, safety or other issues.

In any sufficiently complicated system, it's possible to see whatever patterns you wish to. I'm sure you'll find that confusion and frustration you're looking for. Have fun.

 

[Clear]

The last decade would say otherwise.

Show me a society at any time or place in human history where all criminal and antisocial behaviour was completely eliminated.

You talk like the battle against "bad ideas" is something that can be won, and we all know that's a fantasy.

Ok? If a white supremacist starts spouting their nonsense, it's historically espoused by certain elements of white culture but that doesn't mean we shouldn't shut that down.

The point is taking a single extremist out of the equation isn't going to have nearly as much effect as disempowering their general rhetoric with better argumentation.
You take down the man and you risk creating a martyr of them, dismantling their argument with wit and rationality is a far more effective response because the goal there is to rhetorically inoculate people against such bad ideas by fore-arming them with better ones.

Being banned form Twitter isn't censorship.

Yes it is. Its delusion to argue otherwise based on the size and reach of the platform.
Scale matters.

One of the most odiously disingenuous arguments levelled in defence of old Twitter was that "it's a private institution, bro".

Whichever which "lean" Twitter had, the fact is conservatives were anything but silenced on the platform.

They were banning satirists like Babylon Bee ffs! That's how ideologically captured it was!

That still doesn't make a case for there not being a terms of service.

Terms of service should exist WITHIN THE LAW, not ABOVE IT.

The example is fine because I'm not speaking of legality. I'm speaking of moral implications and business reputation; all of which are relevant to the brand and its function and its base. You can take the legal element of it out entirely. CP isn't bad because it's illegal. Its bad because it's bad.

You can't define a thing by recursively using its definition! "Bad because its bad" is nonsense argumentation. What's at the heart of this is "bad" being defined as anything non-conforming to the political beliefs of an institution and its gate-keepers.

This word salad changes nothing about what I said. They arent denied their freedoms. There are places even in real life I cannot go. I can't waltz into the white house. That doesnt mean I'm not free. That means our society operates with rules and those rules keep order, reduce risk of harm to the populace and uphold the reputation of the governing body of the land.

Its not word salad, its the functional reality. This is about power and influence.

I'm sorry, but you can't compare Twitter to the WH! One of these things is the seat of supreme executive power the other is ostensibly an online "public square"!
What is this nonsense?

 

[RAÏSanÏa]

In any sufficiently complicated system, it's possible to see whatever patterns you wish to. I'm sure you'll find that confusion and frustration you're looking for. Have fun.

The frustration of fan behavior when they lash out is one.

 

[Grildon Tundy]

The frustration of fan behavior when they lash out is one.

I don't doubt your reality, but please keep it mind it's one of billions

 

[RAÏSanÏa]

I don't doubt your reality, but please keep it mind it's one of billions

The reality you should doubt is your own.
You're a self professed fan, bias implicit making nothing you say and perceive about the situation objective as you grasp at vagueness in poetics to prevent coming to terms with the corruption of your idol.

 

[Grildon Tundy]

The reality you should doubt is your own.
You're a self professed fan, bias implicit making nothing you say and perceive about the situation objective as you grasp at vagueness in poetics to prevent coming to terms with the corruption of your idol.

I like to think making my bias explicit gives information to others to incorporate into their view of myself in hopes that they continue to try and understand where I'm coming from

 

[Thaedolus]

I'm sorry, but you can't compare Twitter to the WH! One of these things is the seat of supreme executive power the other is ostensibly an online "public square"!
What is this nonsense?

It’s not a “public square.” I don’t know why anyone keeps making this stupid argument. It exists on privately held servers, using proprietary code that someone was paid to write. McDonald’s and Disneyland are open to the public but they have every right to kick your ass out for not following their rules. Twitter is no different, and NeoGAF isn’t either for that matter. And I like the fact that this place and Twitter aren’t 4Chan, which is what having rules in place allows for.

 

[funkygunther]

calling it a public square is a little marketing trick used to give what is a member's club some extra weight and legitimacy, you can force Twitter into the definition of a public square by making certain concessions - everyone can hide their identity, everyone has to sign up, everyone has ads and promoted content served to them but you get to the point where you've made so many of these concessions that it doesn't resemble a public square at all

it's just verbiage used to sell the product, it's the public square of Theseus except it's not a philosophical problem

 

[RAÏSanÏa]

The point is taking a single extremist out of the equation isn't going to have nearly as much effect as disempowering their general rhetoric with better argumentation.
You take down the man and you risk creating a martyr of them, dismantling their argument with wit and rationality is a far more effective response because the goal there is to rhetorically inoculate people against such bad ideas by fore-arming them with better ones.

For the extremist, antivaxxer, and hate speech types it's also seen as recruiting ground. There isn't dismantling their argument, like the flat earth troll goes. These recruiters want access to people they victimize for the attention and anger.

I like to think making my bias explicit gives information to others to incorporate into their view of myself in hopes that they continue to try and understand where I'm coming from

There wasn't a doubt everything you were saying was about your own condition.

 

[Clear]

For the extremist, antivaxxer, and hate speech types it's also seen as recruiting ground. There isn't dismantling their argument, like the flat earth troll goes. These recruiters want access to people they victimize for the attention and anger.

To be honest those types worry me less than those who in their quest for "safety" are the unwitting stooges of autocrats and tyrants.

 

[Grildon Tundy]

There wasn't a doubt everything you were saying was about your own condition.

I don't disagree, I don't not doubt my "reality", and if I've made it seem like my views are meant to be taken as objective, then I have fallen short of my ideals. One of the reasons I'm interested in this Twitter convo is that I want to know how we can ever know objective reality/truth when we are inundated with an incomprehensible amount of information from good/bad/neutral actors and sources.

Other than my initial poke at you today, which I admit was:
A) made out of frustration from my view of you seeming to think your own perception was objective,
B) not starting off on the right foot and,
C) something I'm not particularly proud of, I have been trying to engage in good faith. I've seen your other posts around on GAF, and you certainly have a unique take on things but I have a hard time understanding your perspective. I'd like to better understand where you're coming from.

So can I ask you this: How do you know that your take on things is objective, or am I wrong in
assuming that you think it is in the first place? Particularly when you appear to be mind-reading Musk here:

Musk still taking that criticism personal

 

[akimbo009]

calling it a public square is a little marketing trick used to give what is a member's club some extra weight and legitimacy, you can force Twitter into the definition of a public square by making certain concessions - everyone can hide their identity, everyone has to sign up, everyone has ads and promoted content served to them but you get to the point where you've made so many of these concessions that it doesn't resemble a public square at all

it's just verbiage used to sell the product, it's the public square of Theseus except it's not a philosophical problem

It falls under FTC rulings as well which force different regulations which also matters in this definition.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

A lot of these types who claim to "work hard/smarts and endlessly fail" have families but actually don't have the capacity to be involved in that aspect so attribute all the hard work they do as some kind of way out of these responsibilities. It goes both ways. I agree with your sentiments but a lot of people with your mindset fail to realise the other side of the equation. Those people that you claim are coasting and taking the easy way out at work are likely investing an enormous amount into their families.

I totally agree that people who work less are putting those efforts into other things. It doesn't even have to be family. It can simply be chilling out at home or doing a personal hobby.

But either way, it's still up to the company what kind of work environment to do. Take it or leave it. Let's not all pretend here that every company on Earth is a ballbuster. Also, unless any of us work at Twitter, nobody knows what it's like there. All we have to go on is Musk rambling, that video of someone recording cushy settings (including free red wine out of a fountain dispenser meant for soft drinks), and people complaining they got fired.

You never know how ballbusting Musk even is when he says everyone has to work long hours. He might just be saying this shit but doesnt stick to it.

It's like every company I've worked at having half day Fridays. The CEO and HR will lecture people on it through town hall meetings and emails about you get Friday afternoons off during the summer, but are expected to work an extra hour Mon to Thurs. Same speech and memo every year.

And nobody sticks to it. Even the CEO leaves at normal times Mon-Thursday but still takes Friday afternoons off. And so does everyone else. Nobody works till 6 pm at my work to make up for the afternoon off.

 

[RAÏSanÏa]

So can I ask you this: How do you know that your take on things is objective, or am I wrong in
assuming that you think it is in the first place? Particularly when you appear to be mind-reading Musk here:

Observation and balancing what was originally said against what triggered the reaction given the behavioral history and motivation of the people involved. One was thinking of others, the other of themselves. For a sizable fee I could create a process to share.

 

[TaylorSwiftFan]

For the extremist, antivaxxer, and hate speech types it's also seen as recruiting ground.

Interesting how it wasn’t a problem before.

 

[Grildon Tundy]

Observation and balancing what was originally said against what triggered the reaction given the behavioral history and motivation of the people involved. One was thinking of others, the other of themselves. For a sizable fee I could create a process to share.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that being objective. Thanks for responding, though, and I mean it

 

[RAÏSanÏa]

Interesting how it wasn’t a problem before.

The moderation/bans took a long time debating, trial and error to even get where it was.

The amnesty might also help a new service that wouldn't have had the ban list. Now it can't be used by twitter as a lure to keep those of the twitter 1.0 community that approved of it. A new service only has to learn from twitter and provide the moderation that twitter won't to bring them over.

 

[Toons]

Yes it is, just not in a legal sense, such as a violation of first amendment rights.

This doesn't even make sense as censorship is a legal issue established by matters of law. It either isn't censorship or it is. And it's not. You're speech is not restricted because you get restricted from using one website. You can go elsewhere.

 

[Thaedolus]

To be honest those types worry me less than those who in their quest for "safety" are the unwitting stooges of autocrats and tyrants.

This is another terrible argument. Show me a “public square” where we scoff at the idea of “safety” and let dudes start jerking off in front of children. Oh wait, we don’t allow that do we?

I don’t understand how people are so afraid of an imperfect moderation system that they think it’s actually better to have total anarchy. Guess what? No system will ever be perfect. We do the best we can with the tools we have because the alternative is allowing someone’s platform and investment devolve into fucking cesspool, as has been demonstrated time and time again.

Human history is the same story of someone providing a better, sensible way to do things, then someone else pointing out there’s a minor flaw and convincing people to keep rolling around in pig shit to fix their diabetes.

 

[Toons]

Show me a society at any time or place in human history where all criminal and antisocial behaviour was completely eliminated.

You talk like the battle against "bad ideas" is something that can be won, and we all know that's a fantasy.

That doesnt mean we do nothing about it.

No ones saying anything about fomoekte elimination. Were simply saying don't give this folks the reach and exposure they so desire.

The point is taking a single extremist out of the equation isn't going to have nearly as much effect as disempowering their general rhetoric with better argumentation.
You take down the man and you risk creating a martyr of them, dismantling their argument with wit and rationality is a far more effective response because the goal there is to rhetorically inoculate people against such bad ideas by fore-arming them with better ones.

Their argument has been taken down already. Yet they still fight for it. At some point it stops becoming a teachable moment and starts becoming a group of people who refuse to be taught. We can't constantly coddle them with grace for that especially not when their rhetoric hurts people.

They don't WANT rationality or wit. They want anger and hate in turn because that validates what they are saying. Rationality and wit from the side of good people means nothing. Kanye is a gd 40 something year old grown adult. We do not need to teach him that antisemitism is bad. He should know already.

Yes it is. Its delusion to argue otherwise based on the size and reach of the platform.
Scale matters.

One of the most odiously disingenuous arguments levelled in defence of old Twitter was that "it's a private institution, bro".

Because it is. If you want to make a case for it not being exactly that, then you're gonna have a heck of a task because it is a privately owned institution. Proclaiming that it should have the same treatment as the public sector is hilariously asinine. I csn say whatever I want with complete anonymity on the site. I csnt do that under the public sector where it our normal free speech laws apply. This is a non starter.

Being banned on Twitter is not a suppression of your freedom or a violation of their speech. As a private entity they reserve the right to govrrn who they allow into their "grounds" just like any place of business has the right to do so.

They were banning satirists like Babylon Bee ffs! That's how ideologically captured it was!

This doesn't argue my point. I dont know why Babylon bee was banned so I can't speak on it. My point is conservatives were not repressed on the site at all. Many very prominent ones are and have remained there for years.

Terms of service should exist WITHIN THE LAW, not ABOVE IT.

The terms of service has nothing to do with the law. It is the discretion of the private company that creates it, as long as it doesn't break said law anything goes. Thats how it works and how it has always worked.

You can't define a thing by recursively using its definition! "Bad because its bad" is nonsense argumentation. What's at the heart of this is "bad" being defined as anything non-conforming to the political beliefs of an institution and its gate-keepers.

And as a private owner of the company Twitter is allowed to do that.

And no, something can be bad without legally being bad. It can just be morally wrong. It has nothing to do with legality of why its banned in that instance. If CP became legal, it would still be banned on Twitter for obvious reasons.

You can suggest the previous owners were biased but they are allowed to be. Unfortunately thsts the reality we live in. It doesn't change the fact that a terms of service is binding under the grounds of a private sector.

Its not word salad, its the functional reality. This is about power and influence.

I'm sorry, but you can't compare Twitter to the WH! One of these things is the seat of supreme executive power the other is ostensibly an online "public square"!
What is this nonsense?

It isn't an online public square. Theres nothing about it to fit that definition other than that a lot of people are on it. That doesnt magically change its status as a privately owned enclosed space with rules and regulations. It is a place of business, no different than any retail store or restaurant that can kick you out if you dont abide by THEIR rules.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

I like how free speech is now masterbating in front of children. FFS...

 

[Thaedolus]

I like how free speech is now masterbating in front of children. FFS...

Where do you draw the line in what’s acceptable in a “public square?”

 

[Moneal]

This doesn't even make sense as censorship is a legal issue established by matters of law. It either isn't censorship or it is. And it's not. You're speech is not restricted because you get restricted from using one website. You can go elsewhere.

https://www.aclu.org/other/what-censorship

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Where do you draw the line in what’s acceptable in a “public square?”

I think exposing yourself to children is not allowed in a public square.

 

[Thaedolus]

I think exposing yourself to children is not allowed in a public square.

I agree, but it's a form of expression. The reason to go to that extreme is that it's a shortcut to get to the point that we agree there should be limits. Maybe we'll disagree on where they should be set, but there should be limits.

On this forum we have limits too, and they're arbitrarily set by the admins. There's nothing wrong with the fact there are limits or that they're arbitrary. And it doesn't matter if those limits are set due to advertising considerations or if the guy who owns the place just prefers it that way. And Twitter is no different, because it's not a public square and it's owned by someone who bought and paid for it. If Elon wants it to become whatever he wants it to become, that's his choice now. And it was whatever the decision makers wanted it to be before that. And nobody has a right to tell them otherwise. In fact, forcing a platform to host speech they don't want to host is probably the most anti-free speech position you could possibly have.

 

[Clear]

This is another terrible argument. Show me a “public square” where we scoff at the idea of “safety” and let dudes start jerking off in front of children. Oh wait, we don’t allow that do we?

Once again, that would be a CRIMINAL act.

Are you really unable to appreciate the difference between something that breaks laws and that which is merely disagreeable to you?

I don’t understand how people are so afraid of an imperfect moderation system that they think it’s actually better to have total anarchy.

Again, this is hyperbole based in a ludicrous manichean conception of good versus evil, and order versus chaos.

Very few people really want so-called "absolute" freedom of speech, they might claim it as rhetorical point-of-entry into discussion as to where the parameters are best drawn in order to safeguard vital rights and encourage productive discussion. But everyone has their own particular red-lines.

Guess what? No system will ever be perfect. We do the best we can with the tools we have because the alternative is allowing someone’s platform and investment devolve into fucking cesspool, as has been demonstrated time and time again.

A sensible balance needs to be struck. 4chan and Resetera are both hellscapes but for diametrically opposite reasons.

Human history is the same story of someone providing a better, sensible way to do things, then someone else pointing out there’s a minor flaw and convincing people to keep rolling around in pig shit to fix their diabetes.

History "ends" when the ability to argue the merits of the current conditions becomes impossible. When no forces exist to act as a corrective moderating influence where do you think things are going to go?

 

[Thaedolus]

Once again, that would be a CRIMINAL act.

Are you really unable to appreciate the difference between something that breaks laws and that which is merely disagreeable to you?

You’re missing the point, Porn isn’t criminal (for adults in the US), should it be allowed on this site if the owner doesn’t want it here? Should someone be allowed to have porn on their tablet playing at a McDonald’s? Or rather, should McDonald’s be forced to allow them to play porn on their tablet? It’s legal, protected speech. I’d say no, they don’t have to allow that in their establishment which they want to keep family friendly.

Again, this is hyperbole based in a ludicrous manichean conception of good versus evil, and order versus chaos.

Very few people really want so-called "absolute" freedom of speech, they might claim it as rhetorical point-of-entry into discussion as to where the parameters are best drawn in order to safeguard vital rights and encourage productive discussion. But everyone has their own particular red-lines.

Agreed. And people should be able to set those red lines on the platforms they own.

A sensible balance needs to be struck. 4chan and Resetera are both hellscapes but for diametrically opposite reasons.

Sure, so patronize the platform that strikes the reasonable balance. Isn’t that the free market solution? If Ree has an audience of furries, let them serve it. Personally? Not for me.

History "ends" when the ability to argue the merits of the current conditions becomes impossible. When no forces exist to act as a corrective moderating influence where do you think things are going to go?

The ability to argue the merits of current conditions isn’t incompatible with moderation that dissuades or removes bad faith nonsense, even if the moderation doesn’t always get it right. It’s not all or nothing. And getting it wrong sometimes is still better than allowing the malfeasance of bad faith actors run amok completely unchecked.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

I agree, but it's a form of expression. The reason to go to that extreme is that it's a shortcut to get to the point that we agree there will should be limits. Maybe we'll disagree on where they should be set, but there should be limits.

Aren't free speech laws in the US pretty clear? What's wrong with copying those?

On this forum we have limits too, and they're arbitrarily set by the admins. There's nothing wrong with the fact there are limits or that they're arbitrary. And it doesn't matter if those limits are set due to advertising considerations or if the guy who owns the place just prefers it that way. And Twitter is no different, because it's not a public square and it's owned by someone who bought and paid for it. If Elon wants it to become whatever he wants it to become, that's his choice now. And it was whatever the decision makers wanted it to be before that. And nobody has a right to tell them otherwise. In fact, forcing a platform to host speech they don't want to host is probably the most anti-free speech position you could possibly have.

I'd argue censoring speech is more "anti free speech" than forcing a platform to host speech the owner(s) doesn't want.

Having a small number powerful individuals coordinate lopsided censorship feels much more dangerous to me.

 

[Thaedolus]

Aren't free speech laws in the US pretty clear? What's wrong with copying those?

Well, the 1st amendment starts with “congress shall make no law…”

It’s a restriction on Congress, not a private entity. Elon Musk is not the legislative branch. He can ban or unban whom he pleases. And forcing him or another entity to do otherwise would be infringing on their right to free speech.

I'd argue censoring speech is more "anti free speech" than forcing a platform to host speech the owner(s) doesn't want.

Having a small number powerful individuals coordinate lopsided censorship feels much more dangerous to me.

Then how do you propose to remove their ability to do so within a principled and lawful method?

 

[LegendOfKage]

This doesn't even make sense as censorship is a legal issue established by matters of law. It either isn't censorship or it is. And it's not. You're speech is not restricted because you get restricted from using one website. You can go elsewhere.

Any restriction of speech is still considered censorship. It's just the definition of the word, and it doesn't always mean a bad thing. Most of society can agree with certain censorship, but it's still censorship. I'd also argue that any censorship generally should be approached with caution. Allowing censorship almost always punishes those with a view held by the minority, or benefits those in power. "You can go elsewhere" isn't enough to change the definition.

A sensible balance needs to be struck. 4chan and Resetera are both hellscapes but for diametrically opposite reasons.

This is a really good point, honestly. Too much or too little restriction can lead to a really bad time. I can have a strong support of free speech and still want there to be rules on Twitter that apply to everyone fairly, and encourage disagreements over strongly worded hate. In fact, I do support that. Elon Musk seems to support it as well, considering all the rules that are still in place. Once again, it's largely the edge cases that people disagreed with when it comes to how Twitter ran their website.

In fact, forcing a platform to host speech they don't want to host is probably the most anti-free speech position you could possibly have.

I would say compelled speech is significantly worse, and yet we're heading in that direction in a few ways with some modern governments. Regardless, the first amendment protects speech, but so do people who value freedom of speech and protect it beyond what the government requires.

Free speech is an agreement that says "I will accept your right to speak about all sorts of things that I find offensive, untrue, and even hurtful. And I will do this because the best way to protect my own speech in the future is to standup for unpopular and divisive speech now."

Their argument has been taken down already. Yet they still fight for it. At some point it stops becoming a teachable moment and starts becoming a group of people who refuse to be taught. We can't constantly coddle them with grace for that especially not when their rhetoric hurts people.

The same could have been said in the 1950s by the overwhelming majority of society when talking about the 4 percent of people who supported interracial marriage. I'm sure there were lots of "experts" back then who would have said just about what you did. That is the concern. When you allow people in power to decide the truth, and then silence all opposing thought, it's an incredibly authoritarian and dangerous thing to accept.

 

[BadBurger]

In fact, forcing a platform to host speech they don't want to host is probably the most anti-free speech position you could possibly have.

It would be a fundamental violation of that company's first amendment rights.

I've seen people argue for this in the past, particularly for Twitter, but what people outside of the US don't understand is that such a law would certainly be struck down in court by any serious judge.

 

[LegendOfKage]

Well, the 1st amendment starts with “congress shall make no law…”

It’s a restriction on Congress, not a private entity. Elon Musk is not the legislative branch. He can ban or unban whom he pleases. And forcing him or another entity to do otherwise would be infringing on their right to free speech.

When you have governments (including the US) threatening platform holders if they don't get a handle on what people in power decide to be misinformation, we're past the point of "they're a private company and can do what they want."

Then how do you propose to remove their ability to do so within a principled and lawful method?

There's a very important ideological principal that you can choose to adopt that says you want all people to be allowed to speak, because you never want your own speech to be censored. You accept speech you do not like, and may even despise, to protect your own speech in the future. That's the agreement. Because power never stays in the hands of anyone one group, so you do not create a precedent that could silence your voice in the future.

When you want your opponent's speech to be treated the same way as your yours, you will never be accused of being a hypocrite, and you will always be standing on firm ground whenever you fight for your own right to be heard.

And that's the answer to your question. People need to demand that the platforms they use treat all speech fairly, and that those platform holders do not consider themselves to be the arbiters of truth.

 

[Unknown Soldier]