611–620 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, banning users from posting a published news story is "permissive".
Since when is "published" a meaningful quality barrier to content? Any idiot with a WP site can "publish" a "news story". Besides, if I reply to your tweet, "My child just died in a fire." with an article about how fire deaths are among the most painful ways to die, it doesn't really matter much how "published" that "news story" is, it's hateful and has no place on the Internet.
Well that’s where we (you and I, but also us collectively as a country, it seems) disagree.
I don’t care that it’s hateful, and I think it should have a place on the internet, and so long as we allow monopolies on the internet, then it needs to have a place on whatever monopoly platform there is.
Anyone who thinks they should be deciding what is “hateful and has no place on the internet” is EXACTLY who should NOT be deciding such things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Huh, wha?
Well, the problem I see is the following: - Claim that Twitter is a private corporation and its their rules (Btw, you can check my history in 2020 where I did support purge of Trump from social media, but I am now comtemplating). - But, anyone who starts a new platform (let's assume similar to r/conservative which is absolutely not neo-nazi or fascist), gets intense pushback from the existing incumbents not with mark…
>But, anyone who starts a new platform (let's assume similar to r/conservative which is absolutely not neo-nazi or fascist), gets intense pushback from the existing incumbents not with market forces,
Not with market forces? You mean to say that censorship is what is actually holding Gab back from mainstream adoption? This sentiment has always been incredibly myopic. I don't know why American conservatives are always surprised when their flavor of politics aren't popular. For some reason Europe and the rest of the West, who are farther left than Americans, cease to exist and the reasons why sites like Gab aren't huge is because of censorship.
Hypothesis: this is not about Elon running Twitter, controlling society, insuring free speech, or any other such thing. It's simply that he wants insurance against being de-platformed, and now he has it.
but 9% seems very expensive way to do that, I think most likely he just likes it and has benefited greatly by the platform. the question, is it worth investment?
This is great news! Twitter and the rest of the rotten and censorious platforms could use a proper shake-up. Hope the authoritarians and political repressives and anyone who works on the content moderation team all resign in protest! Good riddance!
jfyi, if this is in reference to a certain viral tweet going around, you got trolled.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
9% is a hell of an insurance policy. I don't disagree, the man does not do small things, but I do wonder if he just bought insurance for more people than himself.
>? 9% is a hell of an insurance policy I mean, you say that. But the literal former president of the USA got de-platformed from twitter, and we don't hear about him nearly as much as when he had a twitter. Maybe it is actually worth that amount of money, if entire elections can be influenced like that.
What was the influence Trump's banning had over the election?
This is great news! Twitter and the rest of the rotten and censorious platforms could use a proper shake-up. Hope the authoritarians and political repressives and anyone who works on the content moderation team all resign in protest! Good riddance!
Very unclear if this should have ended in a /s or not - which is more of a reflection of the world in which we live in rather than the comment itself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I give his tenure as CEO 6 months at most before he's forced out by the board, or resigns for ideological differences. The changing wind that Elon is going to usher in is going to be fundamental and sweeping, and I wouldn't be surprised to see an exodus of employees follow.
An employee exodus from Twitter would only be a good thing in my eyes. They're all too ideological from my experience.
This is the biggest thing to happen to twitter since the trump presidency. Both big for twitter, and awful for society.
Most people (or at least HNers) would agree that decreasing the likelihood of another Trump presidency would be a good thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>? 9% is a hell of an insurance policy I mean, you say that. But the literal former president of the USA got de-platformed from twitter, and we don't hear about him nearly as much as when he had a twitter. Maybe it is actually worth that amount of money, if entire elections can be influenced like that.
>entire elections can be influenced like that. What was the influence Trump's banning had over the election?
Especially since it occurred after the election, that's a good question.