“Twitter will be forming a content moderation council with diverse viewpoints” • Hacker News Board

Re: “Twitter will be forming a content moderation council with diverse viewpoints”

#301

Post by hitpointdrew » Fri, Oct 28, 2022, 8:42 PM UTC

valtism wrote: post #256

hitpointdrew wrote: post #182

Finally, diversity of ideas, and not diversity of skin color.

Why not diversity of skin color? Diversity is both of these things. It is true that you can have more diversity in a room of people of one race than a room of people of all different races, but it's more common that you will find diversity across lines like race, gender, age, etc.

I am not against diversity of skin color, but I also don't think that should be the goal. You assemble a group of people that have a diversity of ideas, if the group you end up with happens to be diverse in skin color and sexual orientation, then fine who cares? But those aren't the defining characteristics or the ultimate goal, a broad spectrum of ideas is.

Re: “Twitter will be forming a content moderation council with diverse viewpoints”

#302

Post by virgildotcodes » Fri, Oct 28, 2022, 8:43 PM UTC

hitpointdrew wrote: post #267

virgildotcodes wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the same boring ideas of that diverse group of men, women, LBGTQ people and PoC are that we need to strive for equality between all of these groups... that is exactly the point.

> that we need to strive for equality between all of these groups That is fucking terrifying and most centrality undesirable, unless you mean equality of opportunity, then absolutely. But equality of outcome is the worst possible thing anyone could ever strive for.

Yes, I am saying we need to neurally castrate every intelligent person to be no smarter than the dumbest person. We need to cut the tendons of every person who is more athletically capable than the most disabled person. We need to burn down everyone's houses so that we can all share cardboard boxes alongside the homeless.

Yes. Yes. This is what the position is. Don't let anyone ever try to tell you otherwise.

There is no equality of opportunity for groups of people that have had generation after generation of systemic oppression, exclusion and poverty.

You don't do that to an entire subculture of people for hundreds of years, and then think you can snap your fingers and say "Okay cool, segregation is over so now we all have equal opportunity!"

There is so much that goes into being a successful person that is subtle, environmental, learned through exposure, enabled by connections and passed down through generations. Same goes for the flipside which is called the cycle of poverty.

There's a lot of damage that needs to be undone, which will take active investment on behalf of society at large to accomplish.

I'm too tired to write out an essay on the history of racism in the US and why that history is still a massive burden on the descendants of those people today. This information is widely available if you genuinely want to understand.

Re: “Twitter will be forming a content moderation council with diverse viewpoints”

#303

Post by kelseyfrog » Fri, Oct 28, 2022, 8:44 PM UTC

fckgw wrote: post #277

mytailorisrich wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Twitter has become the de facto standard, so IMHO moderation should only ask one question: "is this tweet legal?" If the answer is 'yes' then it should be allowed. Of course, a corollary is that they should be able to filter content on a per country basis because, obviously, what's legal differs from country to country, but I think there is no escaping that for any platforms which claim to be global.

Sounds like a great way to foster a community filled with racist, unwelcoming, and generally toxic but perfectly legal content. Just like every other "free speech" platform devolves into.

Allow me to coin a hyperstitious and eponymous law.

Frog's Law of Social Media: free speech or advertising revenue - choose one.

Re: “Twitter will be forming a content moderation council with diverse viewpoints”

#304

Post by unsupp0rted » Fri, Oct 28, 2022, 8:44 PM UTC

paulmd wrote: post #247

fazfq wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"You may not enter" is the literal definition of banning someone

If you can come back by removing the offending element, you aren't really banned. "No offensive t-shirts" is not the same thing as being banned lol

If the offending element is one's personality or one's beliefs, then yes, one can come back by removing that, but it's the same thing as not coming back.

Re: “Twitter will be forming a content moderation council with diverse viewpoints”

#305

Post by moralestapia » Fri, Oct 28, 2022, 8:44 PM UTC

jszymborski wrote: post #25

mikkergp wrote: post #7

This sort of justifies the viewpoint that despite all his bluster, Elon will probably run Twitter the way a "reasonable executive" would. Not just release the hounds. Keep the advertisers happy, but try to reduce the reliance on advertisers. Keep moderating content to reduce abuse, maybe eliminate the high profile banning but a person on the ground will have largely the same experience. (probably less action on more…

A bunch of accounts like The Babylon Bee and Ye have been unbanned w/o input from any such committee of diverse viewpoints. I don't have much faith that Musk will not act unilaterally in service of his friends and allies.

It seems the "private company can do what they want" argument is becoming quite unpopular all of a sudden :^)

Re: “Twitter will be forming a content moderation council with diverse viewpoints”

#306

Post by Krasnol » Fri, Oct 28, 2022, 8:45 PM UTC

matwood wrote: post #142

Krasnol wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Based upon his build up, this will be a fig leaf/scapegoat . I don't see anything in his behaviour which would justify your "optimistic" outlook. Sure it won't degenerate in one of those gutter platforms right away but I doubt he'll be able to maintain an acceptable level as long as he's directly involved. He just doesn't make the the impression of an adult person. imho this may end up being really good for the rest…

Musk had to borrow quite a bit of money to close the deal. Those looming debt payments will force real business decisions.

He lost money before on his childish outbursts. Why is this supposed to be different?

Re: “Twitter will be forming a content moderation council with diverse viewpoints”

#307

Post by pessimizer » Fri, Oct 28, 2022, 8:47 PM UTC

tibbydudeza wrote: post #58

"In Europe, the bird will fly by our rules."

If this is a reference to twitter following European law, I don't see why they wouldn't.

People's complaints about Twitter moderation aren't about the law, they're about governments being able to indirectly make de facto, unconstitutional law through either informal demands and threats to, or overly chummy and profitable relationships with, media companies. It's not hard to figure out why media and payment consolidation and monopolies are allowed/encouraged. They're ideal for government.

I don't understand how orchestrated bans across media companies and payment processors can be allowed when price-fixing isn't. They're behaving as trusts.

Re: “Twitter will be forming a content moderation council with diverse viewpoints”

#308

Post by virgildotcodes » Fri, Oct 28, 2022, 8:47 PM UTC

drstewart wrote: post #276

valtism wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not diversity of skin color? Diversity is both of these things. It is true that you can have more diversity in a room of people of one race than a room of people of all different races, but it's more common that you will find diversity across lines like race, gender, age, etc.

>It is true that you can have more diversity in a room of people of one race than a room of people of all different races Since it's clear that diversity without race differences can exist, but diversity without different ideas can't exist, then why care about race at all?

Because people have major blindspots to experiences they haven't lived through themselves. The sum total of all human experience has not yet been recorded in books, and those hypothetical books are not required reading for all humans, and even if they were, some people just wouldn't absorb the information due to their own biases.

Re: “Twitter will be forming a content moderation council with diverse viewpoints”

#309

Post by PartiallyTyped » Fri, Oct 28, 2022, 8:47 PM UTC

intrasight wrote: post #289

Twitter is not a megaphone. So tired of news sites using that analogy. I can choose what I see on Twitter.

Not only that, such services - unlike a megaphone or the agora - are a) incentivised to keep you there, b) algorithmically curate the content that you view, and c) are businesses and their responsibility is first and foremost the shareholders and not the public.

Re: “Twitter will be forming a content moderation council with diverse viewpoints”

#310

Post by SpaceManNabs » Fri, Oct 28, 2022, 8:47 PM UTC

ryzvonusef wrote: post #272

SpaceManNabs wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In my country, these opinions are uttered so openly and commonly that it does not even raise an eyebrow I don't think we should frame free speech standards based on Pakistan, if your bio is correct.

I am indeed in Pakistan, and the point I am trying to make is, why not? "Diverse" council, right? My region comprises of a BILLIONS people, and twitter is a global website, why do you expect Twitter to ban hate speech acc to what average American internet person wants, but not acc to rules of other countries? Remember, I am not talking merely about legally limited speech, I am talking about stuff that causes societal…

> India? definitely, too big a market to ignore

My personal opinion and absolutely dissociated from my employer: I am not going to talk about economic decisions or market pressure, but free speech standards should also be not framed around India's standards. A diverse council shouldn't have to include viewpoints that are wrong. Defining wrong is certainly a difficult measure to elaborate, but free speech standards that include some religious persecution are definitely in that wrong category. Bigots will always say that they aren't bigots.