Twitter is better

[Plasmodium]

2 minutes ago, Nailbender said:

       I don't want child porn distributed. Preventing speech that break laws or facilitates breaking the law would be a good guide. Other than that I don't understand most of your other examples?

     I don't see how having some arbitrary person or a computer program hiding certain speech is helpful in any way. You don't think society exposing it as wrong or bad would be more effective? 

 

We see things differently.  Horse dewormer?   Russia targeting tossup districts with lies and propaganda 3 days before an election to get their choice elected?  Glorification of Hitler and Holocaust denial?   C'mon.  You can't be serious.

MOST of society rejects bad ideas, but the scale of audience differentiates it from a person on a street corner.  People who subscribe to dangerous and crazy ideas may be small in proportion but that doesn't make them small in number.

From a platform demographics standpoint, what do you think will result from free speech absolutism?

[Nailbender]

18 minutes ago, Mike Parrish said:

There's been a lot of "Buh mah free speech" screeching on here with mentions of criminal liability and first amendment ramifications.

Twitter is a private company that can decide what they allow, outside of illegality, on their property.

I don't currently like how they're deciding things, but that's something different.

Glad to see you're not on that side of things.

 Twitter is and has always been mostly disgusting. It has little to nothing to do with who runs it. 

 

[Mike Parrish]

Just now, Nailbender said:

 Twitter is and has always been mostly disgusting. It has little to nothing to do with who runs it.

All social media is brain poison.

Twitter has gotten objectively worse since Elmo bought it.

[Nailbender]

2 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

We see things differently.  Horse dewormer?   Russia targeting tossup districts with lies and propaganda 3 days before an election to get their choice elected?  Glorification of Hitler and Holocaust denial?   C'mon.  You can't be serious.

MOST of society rejects bad ideas, but the scale of audience differentiates it from a person on a street corner.  People who subscribe to dangerous and crazy ideas may be small in proportion but that doesn't make them small in number.

From a platform demographics standpoint, what do you think will result from free speech absolutism?

      I am serious. If you want to save the world from bad ideas, speak out against them. I don't want to decide what is misinformation for anyone else and I definitely don't want others deciding it for me.

      I'm sure Twitter's desire to moderate content on its platform is to keep it from becoming a product they don't want it to be. I see nothing wrong with that, I just don't like the previous or existing product. It's most of the worst parts of us already, even with moderation.

 

[Plasmodium]

5 minutes ago, Nailbender said:

      I am serious. If you want to save the world from bad ideas, speak out against them. I don't want to decide what is misinformation for anyone else and I definitely don't want others deciding it for me.

      I'm sure Twitter's desire to moderate content on its platform is to keep it from becoming a product they don't want it to be. I see nothing wrong with that, I just don't like the previous or existing product. It's most of the worst parts of us already, even with moderation.

 

I understand your point of view.  People are too immature and they need supervision.  I can't imagine a more ineffective mechanism to ostracize Neo-Nazis than giving them a platform to spread their message to billions.

[Nailbender]

36 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

I understand your point of view.  People are too immature and they need supervision.  I can't imagine a more ineffective mechanism to ostracize Neo-Nazis than giving them a platform to spread their message to billions.

     Who will be the arbiters of the "supervision"?

      I want no less freedom for anyone else than I want for myself. The Nazi message has already been spread the world over and rejected more than accepted. Twitter won't change that.

     Your underlined sentence is shocking to me. It's a point of view that is extremely authoritarian. So much so, I can't believe you typed it. I don't think you understand my point of view at all.

[Plasmodium]

8 minutes ago, Nailbender said:

     Who will be the arbiters of the "supervision"?

      I want no less freedom for anyone else than I want for myself. The Nazi message has already been spread the world over and rejected more than accepted. Twitter won't change that.

     Your underlined sentence is shocking to me. It's a point of view that is extremely authoritarian. So much so, I can't believe you typed it. I don't think you understand my point of view at all.

Laws and norms of society are the primary driver.  One of which is a balance between freedom of expression and the purposeful destruction of society.  Social media can and is used to spread good messages and evil, so it is relevant to the message.

Shocking? What?  It is an acknowledgement of the human experience.  Laws, rules and regulations exist for a reason.  In every society and endeavor.  What is the inevitable result of a social media platform with zero rules?

[Nailbender]

5 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

Laws and norms of society are the primary driver.  One of which is a balance between freedom of expression and the purposeful destruction of society.  Social media can and is used to spread good messages and evil, so it is relevant to the message.

Shocking? What?  It is an acknowledgement of the human experience.  Laws, rules and regulations exist for a reason.  In every society and endeavor.  What is the inevitable result of a social media platform with zero rules?

People hearing all the information and deciding for themselves is not a "purposeful destruction of society." 

As for your last question, I don't claim to know. Why don't you tell me. 

[Plasmodium]

2 minutes ago, Nailbender said:

People hearing all the information and deciding for themselves is not a "purposeful destruction of society." 

As for your last question, I don't claim to know. Why don't you tell me. 

The organization of klan meetings followed by cross burnings is. So is the rigging of elections.  And an endless number of others.

The result is failure of the platform and a outrageous behavior.  Criminal and otherwise.

[Nailbender]

7 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

The organization of klan meetings followed by cross burnings is. So is the rigging of elections.  And an endless number of others.

The result is failure of the platform and a outrageous behavior.  Criminal and otherwise.

    The klan isn't making a comeback on Twitter. Just stop. The world won't end if Twitter doesn't censor posts.

Expecting someone else to protect us from the things you're worried about is asking for trouble. To stop them we all need to stand up to them.

     You still haven't answered me. Who should decide what we all get to see and what we don't?

[Plasmodium]

Just now, Nailbender said:

    The klan isn't making a comeback on Twitter. Just stop. The world won't end if Twitter doesn't censor posts.

Expecting someone else to protect us from the things you're worried about is asking for trouble. To stop them we all need to stand up to them.

     You still haven't answered me. Who should decide what we all get to see and what we don't?

Is the klan even allowed on Twitter?  You give people way, way too much credit.  There is no standing up.  That is the attention they crave.  Note that I am not saying people can't believe or express whatever they want, crazy and otherwise.  I am saying if I am responsible for a platform there are going to rules.  Teenagers bullying each other into anorexia?  Hate speech? Propaganda? Nope, nope, nope.

I've given you the best answer I can. Shorter answer is the platform itself.

[jross]

3 hours ago, Mike Parrish said:

All social media is brain poison.

Twitter has gotten objectively worse since Elmo bought it.

With objectivity?  

[jross]

4 hours ago, Nailbender said:

You have to be the most partisan person on this board. 

I had the same thought until he made one positive statement for Trump and one criticism of Biden.

[Nailbender]

48 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

Is the klan even allowed on Twitter?  You give people way, way too much credit.  There is no standing up.  That is the attention they crave.  Note that I am not saying people can't believe or express whatever they want, crazy and otherwise.  I am saying if I am responsible for a platform there are going to rules.  Teenagers bullying each other into anorexia?  Hate speech? Propaganda? Nope, nope, nope.

I've given you the best answer I can. Shorter answer is the platform itself.

Fair enough.

[Mike Parrish]

2 hours ago, Nailbender said:

     Who will be the arbiters of the "supervision"?

      I want no less freedom for anyone else than I want for myself. The Nazi message has already been spread the world over and rejected more than accepted. Twitter won't change that.

     Your underlined sentence is shocking to me. It's a point of view that is extremely authoritarian. So much so, I can't believe you typed it. I don't think you understand my point of view at all.

The people who own the website.

[Mike Parrish]

lolololol

https://www.platformer.news/p/elon-musk-fires-a-top-twitter-engineer

 

Snowflake

[Nailbender]

2 hours ago, Mike Parrish said:

The people who own the website.

I thought we covered that? Can we stop complaining about how it's run now?

[Mike Parrish]

16 hours ago, Nailbender said:

I thought we covered that? Can we stop complaining about how it's run now?

People can complain about how someone runs a website.
That's opinion.

Stating that the previous people violated the law by running it the way they wanted, without ever citing the theoretically violated statute, is what's wrong.

[Nailbender]

9 minutes ago, Mike Parrish said:

People can complain about how someone runs a website.
That's opinion.

Stating that the previous people violated the law by running it the way they wanted, without ever citing the theoretically violated statute, is what's wrong.

People can do a lot of things. 

[Plasmodium]

This latest round of twitter in Congress was humiliating for maga.

[Mike Parrish]

4 minutes ago, Nailbender said:

People can do a lot of things. 

You don't see the difference between, "New twitter moderation sucks" and "Old twitter moderation was illegal and people should be prosecuted" ?

[Bigbrog]

10 minutes ago, Mike Parrish said:

You don't see the difference between, "New twitter moderation sucks" and "Old twitter moderation was illegal and people should be prosecuted" ?

So according to your take on things, the cake shop owners should never have been sued for not making the wedding cake for the gay marriage??

[Nailbender]

1 hour ago, Mike Parrish said:

You don't see the difference between, "New twitter moderation sucks" and "Old twitter moderation was illegal and people should be prosecuted" ?

Moderation always sucked and probably will continue to. There are just different people complaining. 

[uncle bernard]

anybody see the recent stuff about him firing engineers because they're telling him the truth about how he's not as popular as he thinks he is? he threw a temper tantrum because his super bowl tweet generated less views than biden's. the new "fix" for this problem is to make the algorithm amplify his tweets x 1000.

can't imagine a more pathetic loser. he's like an old school schizophrenic roman emperor.

[headshuck]

Aren’t there thousands of disgruntled former employees ranting from their kitchens right now? Many have probably picked up gigs working with the “media.”