221–230 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You cannot have the former without the latter.
As a PoC imo diversity of ideas/viewpoints is much more important
I think it's fair to say that ideas/viewpoints are very important, but to ignore the reality of groups of people frequently targeted is silly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I have no idea why anyone gives a damn what the content moderation policies might be. Because falling afoul of them doesn't just make your tweets not show up in Discover to people who don't know you. It means you can't tweet to your friends either. To be clear, your post has completely valid reasons to not care if moderation is too lax , but you do still need to care if it's too strict .
Right. The best balance is to be more lenient on speech moderation, but have fewer algorithmic recommendations and push less "controversial" or popular content onto users' feeds.
> fewer algorithmic recommendations and push less "controversial" or popular content onto users' feeds.
There is not ANY 'algorithmic' content on my Twitter feed. Zero! What are you referring to?!
Advertising and freedom-for-jackasses doesn't mix well.
but what about "full self moderating?!" jokes aside. there actually could be some opportunity to do some really cool stuff like some kind of experimental political science. like, mechanisms for population clustering and distribution of representation. like, running human clustering algorithms and then using the size of those clusters to allocate representation. a blueprint for future attempts at stable democracy that…
Finally, diversity of ideas, and not diversity of skin color.
You cannot have the former without the latter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And conversely the US is one of the most restrictive nations on earth when it comes to speech that supposedly infringes Copyrights or can be interpreted as defamation/slander. The premise that US has anything resembling freedom of speech is completely untrue.
Libel/slander are famously hard to prove in the US. Sure you're not thinking of the UK? Are peer nations substantially more liberal on copyright infringement than the US? I haven't really heard of that. Really, it seemed like other countries like Japan and Germany were stricter.
If calling public figures actors is all it takes for them to successfully sue for millions, the bar seems incredibly low.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think one reasonable policy could be "form a council of diverse viewpoints and only ban someone if they all (or mostly all) agree the person should be kicked off" and another reasonable policy could be "form a council fo diverse viewpoints and ban someone if one (or a couple) think the person should be kicked off. I think its fair to say the committee will end up being a scapegoat - but to be charitable to the idea…
Your first policy is reasonable, but your second is definitely not.
If Elon ran roughshot in making decisions without considering consequences, he ends up in the same fundamental root cause problem twitter is already in. He understands this and hence why he's not making changes on read-only friday.
This sort of justifies the viewpoint that despite all his bluster, Elon will probably run Twitter the way a "reasonable executive" would. Not just release the hounds. Keep the advertisers happy, but try to reduce the reliance on advertisers. Keep moderating content to reduce abuse, maybe eliminate the high profile banning but a person on the ground will have largely the same experience. (probably less action on more…
>maybe eliminate the high profile banning but a person on the ground will have largely the same experience It's either going to be a double standard or not. I moderated a busy gaming site for years. Users have nothing to do but re-post what got someone else banned and then complain things aren't consistent. I would find the idea that a politician gets to say things, but I don't completely absurd.