Yes. Because people won't look through the edit history for the same reason they don't read the fine print or studies that are cited. I'm pretty sure making it easier to misinterpret what tweets say is going to be even worse
> I'm pretty sure making it easier to misinterpret what tweets say is going to be even worse Good. Let's stop pretending that meaning is contained in tweets.
> Let's stop pretending that meaning is contained in tweets.
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.
There was a ban hammer for breaking out the news that Hunter Biden lost a laptop , containing sensitive emails and compromising photos. Twitter even blocked NYPost for this. 1 year later both NYTimes and WAPO both reported the laptop as real (and at least some damaging emails as real too) - that kind of news story. This kind of ban does not belong in a democratic society, it's a banana republic move.
You're missing the part where Twitter is not part of the federal government. And for the federal government to step in and order what a private company must publish is an actual banana republic move.
I think people are really over-analyzing this move. I think it's motivated by prestige, not money, nor is free speech the heart of the matter. Twitter is a stagnant company. They have thousands of engineers that in the span of a decade don't seem to produce much at all, nothing visible or memorable anyway. Long-lasting Twitter problems (culture, spam, algorithm issues) never seem addressed. User growth is stagnating…
Edit, with a history of edits visible. Otherwise, it's b.s.
It means nobody is allowed to police public discourse and that anyone who wants to be a dick can be a dick and if others don’t want to deal with it they can ignore it. The only complications have always been situations where private enterprise dominates or impedes on public discourse.
In the US, this isn’t accurate at all. > It means nobody is allowed to police public discourse No, it means the government cannot restrict speech. > Freedom of speech, also called free speech, means the free and public expression of opinions without censorship, interference and restraint by the government. [0] Most people assume “free speech” means “nobody” can restrict it, but it is in fact only “by the government”.…
Yes, but the paradox is that, because the government can't properly regulate speech (outside of the categories you listed), speech is heavily regulated by private operators, starting with you at your house, going to newspapers, TV, and Twitter, Facebook, etc. Everyone has their own rules, some explicit, some secret, most entirely arbitrary, and there is never a proper appeals process.
I think people are really over-analyzing this move. I think it's motivated by prestige, not money, nor is free speech the heart of the matter. Twitter is a stagnant company. They have thousands of engineers that in the span of a decade don't seem to produce much at all, nothing visible or memorable anyway. Long-lasting Twitter problems (culture, spam, algorithm issues) never seem addressed. User growth is stagnating…
>A perfect target for Musk to come in, do a few sweeping changes, and get out. Thereby proving once again that he gets shit done where others can't. Case closed.
Ha! You are drinking straight from the hose pipe and having a hangover. Not having a Edit button was a strategic decision from Twitter and not a competency one. For the longest time, Facebook did not have Dislike button and still don't; sometime back, they added few options instead. It was their product vision that drove the decision behind their feature selections.
It means nobody is allowed to police public discourse and that anyone who wants to be a dick can be a dick and if others don’t want to deal with it they can ignore it. The only complications have always been situations where private enterprise dominates or impedes on public discourse.
Sure, now you're just laundering the explanation into what public discourse is.
That is exactly where the conversation should be. It’s a world more productive than implicating false dichotomies of government authority vs. private authority, or polite vs. annoying.
This is the biggest thing to happen to twitter since the trump presidency. Both big for twitter, and awful for society.
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. That’s why free speech policies shouldn’t be dictated by partisan concerns. You never know who will be in control of your social media platform in the future.
Tell that to Elon Musk. He regularly silences his critics.
I think people are really over-analyzing this move. I think it's motivated by prestige, not money, nor is free speech the heart of the matter. Twitter is a stagnant company. They have thousands of engineers that in the span of a decade don't seem to produce much at all, nothing visible or memorable anyway. Long-lasting Twitter problems (culture, spam, algorithm issues) never seem addressed. User growth is stagnating…
It means nobody is allowed to police public discourse and that anyone who wants to be a dick can be a dick and if others don’t want to deal with it they can ignore it. The only complications have always been situations where private enterprise dominates or impedes on public discourse.
In the US, this isn’t accurate at all. > It means nobody is allowed to police public discourse No, it means the government cannot restrict speech. > Freedom of speech, also called free speech, means the free and public expression of opinions without censorship, interference and restraint by the government. [0] Most people assume “free speech” means “nobody” can restrict it, but it is in fact only “by the government”.…
Ah, come on, man...
{tearfully removes Eiffel 65 from karaoke party playlist}