Twitter's Fucked • Hacker News Board

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#141

Post by MustardTiger » Wed, Jul 27, 2016, 4:40 PM UTC

exolymph wrote: post #120

snaky wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conservatives are ok with freedom of speech, 'safe zones' are invented by progressives.

What other people choose do with their privately-owned platforms does not limit anyone's freedom of speech, as the law currently stands.

You are confusing freedom of speech with "the right to freedom of speech". Me restricting your freedom of speech is still restricting your freedom of speech, it is just legal and does not violate the first amendment. The government restricting your freedom of speech is not legal, and violates the first amendment.

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#142

Post by johncolanduoni » Wed, Jul 27, 2016, 4:40 PM UTC

Neetpeople wrote: post #105

ivraatiems wrote: post #3

Yep. Yep, yep, yep. And Twitter's response is to ban some, but not all harassers, using the algorithm of "whoever is high profile and we don't like politically." That gives said harassers surprisingly legitimate reasons to claim censorship by Twitter as a company, despite the fact that they were in clear violation of Twitter's ToS and deserved to be banned. I refer of course to the Milo Yiannopoulos situation (edit:…

I have personally lost the belief that you can actually change someone's opinion on almost anything. So an echo chamber doesn't have to be a bad thing. I think people overestimate the value of having your beliefs challenged, does it ever really change someone's mind? If that's the case, you might as well view twitter as entertainment and to clue into the things you care about, in which case it can be pretty useful.

HN changes my opinion on things all the time. If your beliefs never have to stand up to challenge, your faith in them being correct should be very slim.

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#143

Post by CiPHPerCoder » Wed, Jul 27, 2016, 4:40 PM UTC

  > There are four types of content that can earn you retweets:
  > 
  > 1. Indignant
  > 2. Insulting / Harassing
  > 3. Cute / Funny
  > 4. Insightful / Intelligent

...

  > Of these four kinds of content, two are inherently violent, 
  > and the other two have the potential for violence (mean jokes, condescension).

Today I learned that sharing an intelligent/insightful comment is potentially violent enough to be worth commenting on.

I guess I'll just make dumb and obvious statements from now on, since I value peace.

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#144

Post by snaky » Wed, Jul 27, 2016, 4:40 PM UTC

exolymph wrote: post #120

snaky wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conservatives are ok with freedom of speech, 'safe zones' are invented by progressives.

What other people choose do with their privately-owned platforms does not limit anyone's freedom of speech, as the law currently stands.

Freedom is not about the law.

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#145

Post by forloop » Wed, Jul 27, 2016, 4:41 PM UTC

> (edit: I said the article didn't mention. I missed the mention.)

Amazing your comment is top—given you didn't read the article.

> The man deserved what he got

From what I've seen (I'm no expert on the subject), that's debatable.

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#146

Post by atemerev » Wed, Jul 27, 2016, 4:41 PM UTC

MrZongle2 wrote: post #138

atemerev wrote: post #33

People are tired from crybullies. We need a place where freedom of speech still matters. Freedom of speech doesn't include invading someone's privacy (this is illegal; doxxing, stalking etc. should be banned and actively fought against). But if you can't handle insults, it is not anyone's job to prevent them. There's always "Block" button, and then, there's always "delete account" button.

"People are tired from crybullies. We need place when freedom of speech still matters." That's not going to exist in any medium that is controlled by a single organization, whether that's a government, nonprofit, or corporation. If one person (or a small group of people) can pull the plug, eventually it will get pulled.

4chan (the horror!) still seems to be alive.

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#147

Post by MustardTiger » Wed, Jul 27, 2016, 4:41 PM UTC

67726e wrote: post #7

I don't think the author knows the definition of "violence"

He does, he is being deliberately dishonest to get attention. Ironic, given his criticism of twitter as a medium.

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#148

Post by snaky » Wed, Jul 27, 2016, 4:42 PM UTC

drabiega wrote: post #130

snaky wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conservatives are ok with freedom of speech, 'safe zones' are invented by progressives.

The liberals are who take safe zones too far are the same type of people as the conservatives who view any disagreement with them as censorship.

> conservatives who view any disagreement with them as censorship

What are you talking about?

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#149

Post by benten10 » Wed, Jul 27, 2016, 4:43 PM UTC

Finally! In HN I have finally truly found the loving, caring crowd that really cares about ethics in game journalism above everything else! Keep up the good work folks!

Re: Twitter's Fucked

#150

Post by glomek » Wed, Jul 27, 2016, 4:43 PM UTC

> Free speech has a legal definition, and Twitter doesn’t qualify.

The legal definition of free speech is based on a moral principle, for which Twitter does qualify.

When a platform such as Twitter or Facebook becomes the de facto public square, then a ban from Twitter or Facebook is a de facto ban from the public square.

I don't care about Milo in particular, but I do care about the fact that censorship by Twitter or Facebook is real censorship.