121–130 of 373 posts
If the Tweet violates guidelines then remove it from any kind of public listing of Tweets, but leave it for people who specifically follow that person.
Perhaps mark it with a special "click here to open" kind of thing.
But don't ban/block anyone for something that is not illegal. It's as simple as that: follow local law, and block only what's actually illegal.
On Twitter you can find promoted full blown propaganda paid for by hostile (to the US at least) state sponsored news agencies and government officials. These same governments ban Twitter in their own countries and would never allow similar content on their own platforms. Twitter's solution here is to insert a tiny "State affiliated" footer text below the account name. Can you imagine in the Cold War-era NBC being all…
twitter is available freely on the Internet in any country that doesn't block it. with that in mind it's extremely difficult to remain "neutral" or be expected to be the arbiter of truth.
there are some obvious (easy) ways to implement constraints against state-affiliated propaganda outlets but with the above in mind what is "propaganda" to a European audience might just be news in a FVEY country. facebook has the same problem and I think it's not solvable in a "fair" way.
Say if they really went after anything that is "propaganda" should they also be pointing out that Bellingcat is having very strong ties with Atlantic Council (and collaborates with GCHQ), or should @NatSecGeek be called out for only doxing non-US organizations and individuals? There simply are too many small players that participate in InfoOps and their alignment isn't always as straight forward.
note: I personally think both bellingcat/NatSecGeek do excellent work but none of them are unbiased (or unaffiliated) which means they will at times end up as useful idiots (whether it suits them or not).
I have quite literally no idea what the correct answer is, and I reckon anyone who claims to have an easy answer is lying, because the landscape is fundamentally different to anything we've seen before. Twitter is both a public forum and a private enterprise. The decisions it makes—not just in terms of moderation, but in terms of structure and incentive—substantially affect the spread of mis/disinformation. Is it the…
>The decisions it makes—not just in terms of moderation, but in terms of structure and incentive—substantially affect the spread of mis/disinformation. If we can't trust individuals to digest information themselves, what are we doing? I find the premise troubling. People can disagree and interpret events differently. Without that, there's very little to discuss.
We're realizing that it's no longer as simple as "people should just know better", because the forces they're up against are armed with all the latest psychological tricks to induce belief even in people who /do/ know better.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
If it's not illegal, don't censor or moderate it in any way. More speech is better than less speech; Uncensored speech is in fact the antidote to the supposed problems that Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc. disengenuously claim to be solving.
Can we agree that calls for violence is a limit of speech that is good?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Plenty of it by our own government and allies as well. Maybe we can be a little more principled than "good guy nations" and "bad guy nations" if the goal is truth?
Who's truth is more truthful, who's lies are more harmful/helpful?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who's truth is more truthful, who's lies are more harmful/helpful?
I was struck by the Chinese embassy that got banned a couple months ago. They said that their fight against radical islam is good for uighur women.. which is propaganda but also the exact same propaganda that western interventionists use all the time. One is ok, the other is not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can I call for the death of someone on this platform?
Can you do that on the television, telephone, radio or in a newspaper in America?
Are we agreeing that there are in fact limits on Freedom of Speech?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was struck by the Chinese embassy that got banned a couple months ago. They said that their fight against radical islam is good for uighur women.. which is propaganda but also the exact same propaganda that western interventionists use all the time. One is ok, the other is not.
I don't think it's comparable - however yes, bad actors and bad actions are decentralized to a degree. The different between China and the US is the CCP is in "permanent" tyrannical control vs. the US et al have democratic elections and at least the society, the people, have the chance to evolve society to elect better people who will steer the ship better towards the ideal global society.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess I will break all of this down for you, since you did ask. 1) Twitter calls for public input on their approach to their handling of accounts of government officials. This individual is a government official and this is an instance of handling their account. 2) Well-timed. They called for this input on March 18th. This instance of account handling is from March 19th, approximately one day later. This makes it "…
This may be all be true[1], but none of it explains your "nothing to see here" trailing remark. [1] Though there's activity on her account from 15 hours ago. In addition if someone is banned from Twitter, doesn't Twitter take their tweets offline/hide them?
I don't know what Twitter does with people's tweets. Frankly, I find the platform almost too chaotic to look at for more than a few seconds. It feels like a roomful of ping-pong balls with text on them, whizzing at your head, only loosely clustered.