101–110 of 235 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m talking about Greenwald and Snowden.
Did you have a rationale argument against the points he raises? Or just trying to smear him?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I get the complication of the position. Occams razor puts me back to the plain option that twitter is simply controlled by us gov.
I don’t understand how “Twitter is controlled by the government” is the simplest explanation. Do you actually use Twitter? I feel like Twitter had an outsized representation along social media giants. It’s one of the smallest by MAU; and has a history of management problems. Isn’t occans razor here that is just a poorly run company?
I don't use twitter. Because of Elon I wanted to test and do have an account right now. I connected to my canadian political folks and chess people. I liked lots of things, but I never commented or retweeted. I then commented on a chess person with a positive tweet and I was quietly censored. Absolutely no way should have my account been treated this way.
>I feel like Twitter had an outsized representation along social media giants. It’s one of the smallest by MAU; and has a history of management problems. Isn’t occans razor here that is just a poorly run company?
If you're listed on the S&P500, you can't say that's poorly run. Poorly run would never have gotten there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think so, but to indulge my own cranky theories: Perhaps Elon Musk's takeover attempt was done at the behest of the US government to take control of the platform under the cover of "censorship". Musk himself indicated he wanted to make the platform more miserable for the "extremes" on both the left and right (both perceived as being anti-government) - leaving you with the establishment consensus unharmed in t…
That's a cool idea. Largely speaking you can see Elon's point of view. He was on Babylon Bee's show. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvGnw1sHh9M 2.4 million views in last 3 months. In this video they in detail discuss the problem with political banning. 2 months later, Babylon Bee got banned off twitter for a joke. Clear political banning and violation of section 230.
The idea is you won't get banned for making jokes about trans stuff, but you'll instead get banned for saying something bad about US global hegemony. It's not a culture war issue so nobody is going to care that you got censored.
Suppression of liberty and free speech is against the founding ethos of America. Should we abandon that ethos, we have abandoned the very idea of America. -- "Better to die on your feet than live on your knees." ~ Emiliano Zapata -- "Live Free or Die" ~ U.S. state of New Hampshire -- "Give me liberty or give me death!" ~ Patrick Henry -- “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety…
We already have a sizeable portion of the population that wants people that don't agree with them to be silenced. And as long as they can all still buy their cattle feed at Wal-Mart, nothing is going to change for the better.
Quoted post unavailable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t understand how “Twitter is controlled by the government” is the simplest explanation. Do you actually use Twitter? I feel like Twitter had an outsized representation along social media giants. It’s one of the smallest by MAU; and has a history of management problems. Isn’t occans razor here that is just a poorly run company?
>I don’t understand how “Twitter is controlled by the government” is the simplest explanation. Do you actually use Twitter? I don't use twitter. Because of Elon I wanted to test and do have an account right now. I connected to my canadian political folks and chess people. I liked lots of things, but I never commented or retweeted. I then commented on a chess person with a positive tweet and I was quietly censored. Ab…
This is no different than HN's shadowbans but I don't see people complain about free speech on HN to the same frequency on Twitter. Further still, the fact that you are only just now creating an account further reinforces to me that most people don't actually use Twitter and their entire perception of the platform comes from news headlines. Twitter has the least amount of moderation of all the social media giants. Try posting porn on Facebook and seeing how long that lasts.
When you say your tweet was censored, you mean it's no longer on your timeline? If your tweet was deleted Twitter would have sent you an email about it. If you are complaining that that you can't see it in the user's replies, well any large twitter user is going to have many replies, and a message from a new account will likely not make the top of the fold.
>If you're listed on the S&P500, you can't say that's poorly run. Poorly run would never have gotten there.
Enron??? The many dot coms?? Lehman Brothers?? There hasn't been a major stock market correction in nearly 15 years; there are plenty of companies out there that are swimming naked. Twitter management is no stranger to public executive issues with it's board + CEO.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>What is this talk about “the algorithm,” as in Musk saying “they should open source the algorithm.” Is this the traffic boosting and suppression mechanism? If for example you make a post that says "Vaccines cause autism". They dont have enough humans to moderate this. They write an algorithm that generally sees that and you get shadowbanned or equivalent. What are all the subjects in which you may not talk about on…
It's not biased to moderate something like "vaccines cause autism". It's been legally and scientifically established as outright misinformation. The genesis of that theory was a disgraced researcher who pushed fraudulent claims with misrepresented data. The paper was retracted for "scientific misconduct". And yet now moderating false claims that have a detrimental effect on public health outcomes is seen as a "leftis…
"But that will make them to stop that part of their business entirely, or make it way more expensive and force them to take an actual editorial stance! And their viral-ness will suffer a ton!"
Yes, exactly, that's the point.
They've created this medium, then they decide what to push with it. They should be responsible for that, or else back away from how they're currently operating.
So there are 3 ways the government could influence Big Tech: 1. Infiltration. An agent or asset could be in a position of power to enact desired policies and changes, provide a backdoor or whatever; 2. Jurisdiction. The platform falls under US jurisdiction so is subject to various forms of law enforcement, secret or otherwise. National Security Letters, FISA warrants, pen registers, that sort of thing; and 3. Propaga…
Its much more interesting i think because in the end, its a game of who remains in power, the public domain (government, theoretically) or the private domain (large Corp). The Chinese CP decived to crack down on to-big-to-fail, where as we in the west ...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>We used to fund distributed disruptive technologies to subvert Soviet censorship. Chinese censorship was seen as proof of our superior freedom 20 years ago. Now it is viewed with envy by those in power. What moral high ground do we hold now? The bigger point to discuss. If twitter is under control of the US government. I have no idea if it is or not, it just seems to be the case. You dont get to make the comment 'tw…
>You dont get to make the comment 'twitter is private, free speech only applies to government' because twitter == government. it's true, twitter == government but not twitter === government. Meaning that the conversion happens in the underlying JIT engine where government hacks twitter to do what it wants. So the idea is that you could make a first amendment complaint against the government for hacking twitter if it…
Let's not start coding political documents in JavaScript now. (Insert additional joke about the interpreter engine running on 9 robed meat processors).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was somewhere in the interview where she mentioned about how careful she was at copying FB files because of her previous experience working in intelligence. I am sorry I don't feel like listening to the whole thing again to give you the specific time marker. https://youtu.be/_Lx5VmAdZSI
>... previous experience working in intelligence Previous? But just moments ago you said... >... she works for US intelligence. And even still, the comment you reference is pretty innocuous if you have actual context. She has publicly stated that she worked alongside intelligence assets at a "threat intelligence unit" at Facebook[1]. [1] https://twitter.com/Rasha_Abdul/status/1496788958084280320