131–139 of 139 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many will report antifa accounts. It will be a shitfest whatever Twitter does: ban - they are pro fascists and can't distinguish between "good" violence versus "bad" violence, no ban - they have double standards for left versus right.
There's a such thing as good violence?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does Mastodon roll out these bans coordinated across the federated instances?
The administrators of popular mastodon instances share "block lists" manually. That's the level of coordination. Shared lists: https://github.com/tootcafe/blocked-instances https://github.com/MastodonBlocklist/blocklist https://github.com/ticki/mastodon-blacklist and others
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep the verified check was simply a way to impose class distinction. You should hit up Mastodon/GnuSocial.
Be wary of Mastodon for their Embrace/Extend of GNU Social, as well as their banning of entire chunks of the federated network. Find a good GNU Social site, and bask in the freedom. it feels like Twitter when it first started.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Be wary of Mastodon for their Embrace/Extend of GNU Social, as well as their banning of entire chunks of the federated network. Find a good GNU Social site, and bask in the freedom. it feels like Twitter when it first started.
Does Mastodon roll out these bans coordinated across the federated instances?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> there needs to be a force that checks these organizations when they step over the line. Why? Consumers are not paying twitter for a product or service and use of twitter is not a necessity.
> use of twitter is not a necessity This is arguable. Our country is changing massively, and because of the network effect[1], social media platforms condense to only a few winners, currently mostly Facebook and Twitter I believe. This oligopoly[2] means that a handful of sites basically run what is considered the internet for most people. In America, we have a constitutional right to free speech. If in our country,…
> that a handful of sites basically run what is considered the internet for most people.
That is the result of individual choices made by those people. That's like lamenting that a handful of musicians basically produce what is considered music for most people... So what?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Nobody has ever held Trump accountable for anything. Hilariously, Twitter holds a lot of power over Trump due to controlling his popular account. They could hold him accountable. They choose not to. Insane. Trump is the elected president of USA, one of the most important country on Earth. The fact that you suggest a private company should police his speak is insane to me.
Of course not. He is welcome to issue a press release and even post in on his own website - it is just that nobody reads is there, so he has to post on Twitter. Fun aside, as being forced to house soldiers on your property is enumerated as forbidden, and that the president is the commander in chief, does that mean Twitter could kick him out based on that?
If you want to take it literally, USA is not Trump's property.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That ad was rejected because of a line that was linked libelously untruthful. In the article you linked it says that Twitter would run the ad with the offending line edited out. I believe that particular decision was probably somewhat about disagreeing with her politics, but moreso about stopping outright lies ("fake news") from propagating on their platform when they could stop it.
Regardless of whether the claims in the video are true or 100% false, Twitter is willing to silence speech from a political candidate under (at the very least) these circumstances.
There's nothing wrong with Twitter operating a highly moderated platform. Hacker News is a successful example. In both cases though, it's a huge problem that there aren't alternatives that do off truly uncensored speech. At the very least, there needs to be a force that checks these organizations when they step over the line.
Hacker News is successful because it is still yet relatively small. It will not scale.
Hacker News scaled from hundreds of users to hundreds of thousands of users and is still very high quality. Worse in some ways and better in others. Reddit scaled to tens of millions.
Just because Twitter is run by people that can't scale it doesn't mean it's not possible to scale it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hacker News is successful because it is still yet relatively small. It will not scale.
Exactly. It's essentially an example of a benevolent dictator model. Right now the people moderating are doing a great and largely unbiased job, but if you try to scale, you'll bring in new people, and gradually the quality of those moderators will vary with the larger group.
Reddit's sub-reddit moderator system is just one example of how to scale moderation to millions of users. If a moderator gets out of hand, reddit admins step in or users move to a new subreddit.
There are a virtually unlimited number of systems like this one could create and make work.