Be a free speech platform, how about that?
Can I call for the death of someone on this platform?
Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders
91–100 of 373 posts
Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders
#92Be a free speech platform, how about that?
Except maybe it's a bit more complex than your ridiculously simplified pithy one-liner. Seriously, what the fuck is that even supposed to mean? It's literally duckspeak – a reflexive slogan uttered without any thought. It elides all of the complexity of understanding what free speech is, or what a platform is.
Your response was less constructive then the one you replied to, not only did you fail to adequately explain what is wrong with asking a platform to be a place for free speech, but you failed while using truly reductive decisive rhetoric that just serves to make someone dig into their position instead of being open to hearing why they’re wrong.
Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders
#93A Republican Congresswoman was just locked out of her Twitter account prior to some kind of Dem resolution, at least if you believe https://www.mrctv.org/blog/marjorie-taylor-green-reportedly-... as a source of truth. Nothing to see here, move along.
I'm not seeing your point here. Do you like this? Not like it? Why? I feel like this is exactly the type of feedback they're asking for.
I offer data, not a conclusion. And it's data that is well-timed, given the statement.
What do you think?
Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders
#94> let radicalized employees ban anyone they want
> never release details of how the censorship algos work
> spend lots on PR firms and lobbyists in the hope to get your product nationalized as a utility
> ban a United States President
> already possess a bajillion recommendations in your tweet database about what to do
> ask anyways to create the illusion of group participation and community building
ok twitter
Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders
#95The only reasonable policy is to ban all world leaders from Twitter. As world leaders, they can speak elsewhere. If someone is accused of being a world leader, and you have adequate identification, it's fairly easy to confirm or deny. In the case of a disputed election, maybe both candidates could be considered leaders until the dispute is resolved.
I think this is a useful idea. They have platforms already, and we give them platforms on TV and in papers.
Unfiltered access to their hyperbole seems to be a net-negative.
Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders
#96Basically, we know that governments and leaders are going to punish us for taking sides in political fights. So we are going to pretend that the side we took is supported by the "public"
Please don't nationalize/regulate us.
Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
The deer incident?
I think the streamer you're referring to was just the focal point and scapegoat for a lot of the outrage over the very unequal and sometimes disturbing way Twitch moderates content.
I agree people were already mad but you would have to go pretty far out of your way to find someone with worse optics, she definetely brought a lot of heat to it herself.
Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders
#98A Republican Congresswoman was just locked out of her Twitter account prior to some kind of Dem resolution, at least if you believe https://www.mrctv.org/blog/marjorie-taylor-green-reportedly-... as a source of truth. Nothing to see here, move along.
marjorie taylor green requires more detail than simply “a republican congresswoman” - she’s blamed forest fires on jewish space lasers, among other racist, homophobic, and transphobic conspiracy theories
Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders
#99Simple answer to this entire issue: If it’s not illegal, don’t censor or moderate it in any way. Social media companies like Twitter realize that this is the most reasonable approach, but it effectively removes their ability to manipulate... so of course they continue to censor and moderate in a biased fashion.
My gut says that you are right.
I think the election fraud nonsense suggests it might not be that simple. Bad actors in positions of power are abusing these services to the point where we have real conflict occurring.
How do we account for these edge cases?
Re: Calling for public input on our approach to world leaders
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except maybe it's a bit more complex than your ridiculously simplified pithy one-liner. Seriously, what the fuck is that even supposed to mean? It's literally duckspeak – a reflexive slogan uttered without any thought. It elides all of the complexity of understanding what free speech is, or what a platform is.
People tend to conflate freedom from persecution due to speech with freedom to say whatever, wherever. They are not the same.
Oddly, until recently they were. It only became different recently and obv xkcd popularized the idea, but if freedom of speech isn’t associated with freedom from persecution it’s not really free speech.
Everyone in the world has the right to free speech because they can literally talk and say whatever they want, but if the society that speech is spoken in doesn’t agree to allow that speech to be spoken freely (as in beer) it’s not a truly progressive society. Apparently the brits have been struggling with this for years[0]
[0] https://sealedabstract.com/rants/re-xkcd-1357-free-speech/in...