351–360 of 580 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Still trying to process my emotions on learning that @twitter blacklisted me. The thought that will keep me up tonight: censorship of scientific discussion permitted policies like school closures & a generation of children were hurt." https://twitter.com/DrJBhattacharya/status/16010379837793894...
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Does Weiss and/or Taibbi have unrestricted access to read users DMs right now?" Now that would be interesting.
Quoted post unavailable.
Why is this flagged ??
It's also fact there are brigades and bots operating on HN and NGAF.
I have been responsible a bit of content moderation myself, and interacted with mods on various forums. It's possible that this is responsible for some of my views, summarized here. - The "secret" aspect of all this can be largely ignored. Twitter is under no obligation to tell its users exactly how their Tweets are moderated. I am sure most moderation tools are secret, including whatever Twitter (or for that matter,…
Twitter is under no obligation to tell its users exactly how their Tweets are moderated. Twitter has no legal obligation to do so. I think a lot of people would hesitate about engaging with a platform that actively has its thumb on the scale. I would really rather not have the thought in the back of my mind that invisible, unaccountable forces are the reason my views aren't popular, not that I'm an asshole with stupi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How can tech self-regulate itself Would it be a stretch to suggest 'the government'?
Outside of removing things like CSAM wouldn't it be illegal for the government to tell social media how it must moderate? I'm from the US though so not an expert or it's laws.
Similar laws could be expanded to other major communication platforms.
Why is anyone surprised that the major/globally operating social media companies have extensive internal systems for controlling the content that appears via their platforms? Irrespective of whether or not you agree with individual decisions, the fact that such systems exist should not be a surprise. These companies operate within legal frameworks across multiple jurisdictions that have endless variations of restrict…
It’s not the fact that these systems exist, it’s that Twitter denied that they did for years, despite all the evidence to the contrary.
twitter has denied what for years? if you're implying they denied they moderate, delete, or derank content, this is absolutely not true.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do understand that if/when you get banned from here it will because you're being rude and disrespectful. Not because we are all trying to push some left wing agenda.
> you're being rude and disrespectful. I don't see any of that in the above comment. Did they edit it to make it less so?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is there in the thread > 3. Take, for example, Stanford’s Dr. Jay Bhattacharya (@DrJBhattacharya) who argued that Covid lockdowns would harm children. Twitter secretly placed him on a “Trends Blacklist,” which prevented his tweets from trending.
> who argued that Covid lockdowns would harm children. Using science or using propaganda? The issue, as I'm trying to make as abundantly clear as possible, is that we still don't know what the offending tweet says. Therefore we cannot actually conclude if the down weighting was appropriate or not. If he said "I have a paper which shows that under lockdown children are performing worse on tests" then I'd be upset. But…
What exactly are you insinuating?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're right it's not. I gather if you want to get two sides to talk who aren't talking, i.e. those who support that message vs. those who don't, you need to appeal to both.
I think there might be a reason two sides aren't talking. Conservatives: Rope, tree, journalist: some assembly required Fuck Joe Biden Fuck your feelings These are all t-shirt slogans you can buy at conservative political events, and they're quite widespread rather than exceptional. Also conservatives: Why am I being shadow banned, this is viewpoint discrimination! To be clear, there are obnoxious people and outright…
Both sides can certainly find a reason not to speak to each other. The left claims the right is hateful, the right claims the left is obscene. It's always been like that, with one having the power to censor the other.
Here's an example [1]. One side, a well known entrepeneur/investor, is arguing for no censorship, and the other side, a well known disinformation researcher [2], argues for limits of the reach of certain content. One has blocked the other, so they no longer communicate directly.
Five years ago, someone at Twitter might have observed this interaction and decided, "I'm going to secretly action content. That will satisfy both the disinfo labeler and the anti-censorship crowd." Yet in doing so, as we can see, nobody is satisfied. They're still not talking to each other, and they don't understand why. The reason is due to the secrecy built into all of these platforms where an unknown third party is actioning content without anyone involved in the conversation knowing about it.
See also Free speech for me--but not for thee : how the American left and right relentlessly censor each other [3] (Nat Hentoff, 1992)
[1] https://twitter.com/noUpside/status/1599532506252214272
[2] https://www.wired.com/story/free-speech-is-not-the-same-as-f...
[3] https://archive.org/details/freespeechformeb0000hent/page/n9...