[flagged]
Oh, I'm looking forward to the civil discussion sure to follow in this thread!
Seems to have turned out fine I guess your faith was warranted.
Elon Musk's tweets unleashed a wave of hate
41–50 of 57 posts
Re: Elon Musk's tweets unleashed a wave of hate
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
The thing is that "the Twitter Files" just... broadly aren't interesting. It's just a bunch of stuff that was already known or internal conversations that don't shift the needle one way or the other. "Social media company has discussion about how to apply moderation practices" isn't news unless you're looking to make a quick buck of pretending that it is. (Especially if you can frame it in such a way that whatever ca…
Alot of people found the Twitter files very interesting indeed, just not the left-wing media.
[dead]
Re: Elon Musk's tweets unleashed a wave of hate
#43Funny how the BBC keeps complaining about Musk's Twitter take over but refuses to cover the Twitter Files he's been releasing. Guess those government millions are put to good use.
> Funny how the BBC keeps complaining about Musk's Twitter take over but refuses to cover the Twitter Files he's been releasing. Guess those government millions are put to good use.
How would that work? How did Twitter spend millions on the UK Government and how would that result in the BBC not reporting on a Twitter related issue?
Re: Elon Musk's tweets unleashed a wave of hate
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
The thing is that "the Twitter Files" just... broadly aren't interesting. It's just a bunch of stuff that was already known or internal conversations that don't shift the needle one way or the other. "Social media company has discussion about how to apply moderation practices" isn't news unless you're looking to make a quick buck of pretending that it is. (Especially if you can frame it in such a way that whatever ca…
> "Legal demands" include a combination of court orders and other formal demands to remove content, from both governmental entities and lawyers representing individuals. I am very very much in doubt that it was publicly _known_ (not theorised) that the government was asking Twitter to delete _legal_ but _undesirable_ tweets! When the government is suggesting Twitter to censor specific users/subjects/tweets, is that n…
No? They just used the same reporting functionality everyone else had available from what I can tell. Twitter has, at least according to the transparency report also more often than not just straight up rejected the requests from the government (the last known report data shows that they only complied 40% of the time[0]). Twitter basically received a report, practically no different from if you or someone else clicked on the report button in their interface and then decided whether or not to act on it. There would be no consequences to saying "no", which again, according to their transparency report, they did more often than not.
So no, I don't consider that to be a free speech violation; nobody went to jail, nobody was threatened into being silenced by the government. By all metrics, that is not a free speech violation. Section 230 allows internet service providers (that's not just your ISP; anyone with an internet site that allows for user-generated content is an ISP for this law) to make their own decisions[1]. Twitter made their own decisions based on the information given.
If we're talking first amendment though, Twitter also had a rather notable history of butting in on lawsuits that actually would affect the government crossing a free speech boundary to give its own input on those cases, specifically to prevent the US right to free speech from being neutered[2]. (And with another great irony, Musk fired the person who was chiefly responsible for that because she also was the person that signed off on Trump getting suspended.)
EDIT: Also as for it being known - yeah it was. No social media site really hides this. Reddit, Twitter, Facebook, they all have openly discussed the fact that at some point, the government will just ask you to take stuff down. Each of those sites has their own limitations on what they allow. Reddit is for example rather compliant with those requests (since Reddits entire success is due to staying just below the surface of the attention of the news) while Facebook has been infamously flip-floppy with say, the Christchurch shooter video where they weren't sure on whether or not to comply with the request from the NZ government.
[0]: https://transparency.twitter.com/en/reports/countries/us.htm...
[1]: This is without delving into the broader section 230 conversation, which also has come under fire. No comment on that.
[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/2022/10/28/elon-musks-first-move-is...
Re: Elon Musk's tweets unleashed a wave of hate
#45Funny how the BBC keeps complaining about Musk's Twitter take over but refuses to cover the Twitter Files he's been releasing. Guess those government millions are put to good use.
The thing is that "the Twitter Files" just... broadly aren't interesting. It's just a bunch of stuff that was already known or internal conversations that don't shift the needle one way or the other. "Social media company has discussion about how to apply moderation practices" isn't news unless you're looking to make a quick buck of pretending that it is. (Especially if you can frame it in such a way that whatever ca…
Wasn’t they so uninteresting that US congress tried to silence them last week so that they wouldn’t die of boredom?
Re: Elon Musk's tweets unleashed a wave of hate
#46I'm reminded of the Chris Rock joke about Lululemon and their $100 no-hate yoga pants. But given that price they actually hate poor people.
But they hate them without racism.
Is this sarcasm? I thought a reason of choosing the name “lululemon” was that it can be difficult to pronounce for some
https://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-lululemon-2015-9?...
Edit: the linked article suggests it wasn’t “a reason” but rather “the reason” for the name, I was being too forgiving
Re: Elon Musk's tweets unleashed a wave of hate
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
The thing is that "the Twitter Files" just... broadly aren't interesting. It's just a bunch of stuff that was already known or internal conversations that don't shift the needle one way or the other. "Social media company has discussion about how to apply moderation practices" isn't news unless you're looking to make a quick buck of pretending that it is. (Especially if you can frame it in such a way that whatever ca…
Wasn’t they so uninteresting that US congress tried to silence them last week so that they wouldn’t die of boredom?
That was something else; Twitter has a consent agreement with the FTC surrounding the privacy of its users (after they got hacked some time ago). Musk has been very negligent on actually making sure the paperwork is correct[0].
Congress requested for information on whether or not Twitter was properly following the consent decree when Musk gave Tabibi and the others access to the files. Twitter is legally required to assess the possible privacy impact of anything surrounding user data. That's all that was requested. They did not request Twitter to stop providing the journalists access, just that they had done the necessary precautions to avoid accidentally leaking out sensitive user information.
Tabibi of course screamed that he was being censored by the government. I leave you to your own conclusions there.
[0]: After the entire legal team resigned en-masse when they had to put their signatures down for something, presumably the new Twitter Blue. Musks current policy is that engineers are independently liable for FTC violations, which I'm pretty sure is not how it's supposed to work.
Re: Elon Musk's tweets unleashed a wave of hate
#48Re: Elon Musk's tweets unleashed a wave of hate
#49Funny how the BBC keeps complaining about Musk's Twitter take over but refuses to cover the Twitter Files he's been releasing. Guess those government millions are put to good use.
The thing is that "the Twitter Files" just... broadly aren't interesting. It's just a bunch of stuff that was already known or internal conversations that don't shift the needle one way or the other. "Social media company has discussion about how to apply moderation practices" isn't news unless you're looking to make a quick buck of pretending that it is. (Especially if you can frame it in such a way that whatever ca…
Maybe you were in the loop about this. But I didn't know that US government officials, politicians, and law enforcement were pressuring Twitter to censor 1A-protected speech, in violation of the Constitution. I didn't know that Twitter was regularly complying with these blatantly illegal censorship requests. I didn't know that organizations like Hamilton 68 and the Global Engagement Center (goverent agency) were blatantly lying about random private citizens being foreign agitators, and that the media was breathlessly repeating these lies.
So maybe I'm just not in the loop, I don't know how to keep up with the latest techniques of our enlightened overlords. Which media sources should I be following, to correct this apparent deficiency?
Re: Elon Musk's tweets unleashed a wave of hate
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "Legal demands" include a combination of court orders and other formal demands to remove content, from both governmental entities and lawyers representing individuals. I am very very much in doubt that it was publicly _known_ (not theorised) that the government was asking Twitter to delete _legal_ but _undesirable_ tweets! When the government is suggesting Twitter to censor specific users/subjects/tweets, is that n…
No? They just used the same reporting functionality everyone else had available from what I can tell. Twitter has, at least according to the transparency report also more often than not just straight up rejected the requests from the government (the last known report data shows that they only complied 40% of the time[0]). Twitter basically received a report, practically no different from if you or someone else clicke…
- No, the government and politicians don't use the same reporting functionality as us plebes, they e-mail Twitter Safety directly, as revealed by the Twitter Files.
- When the government (with their regulatory powers, monopoly on legitimate violence, etc) asks a private company to do something, the coercion is implicit. Just like if a heavily armed thug looms over you and asks, in a threatening tone of voice, for your wallet—the "or else" doesn't need to be aired out loud.