511–520 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, this is how social interaction in the real world, or even smaller online communities, has worked for ages. It's only on pseudonymous mega-sites like Twitter, Reddit and HN where jumping down people's throats for having an opposing viewpoint is even a thing.
People beat others or kill others over difference of opinion. And sometimes, the "difference of opinion" is that some people think a this or that minority should be killed while minority disagree.
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…
I predict the best case scenario is that he does no worse.
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…
There’s a reason the legal system said free speech is out to the point of direct imminent harm. It was the arrogance of 20 year old programmers in silicon valley who thought they could create a better legal system.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They didn’t even make a joke. They just called trans woman a man. It was hate speech, pure and simple. It’s not a crime nor hate speech to acknowledge someone’s biological sex. That’s what we do in sports and when we select partners for example. Most, if not all heterosexual men would not consider a “trans woman” to be an actual woman. Our way of selecting partners is proof of that. To punish a natural, and biologi…
How are we this far into the modern trans rights movement and people still haven't wrapped their brains around sex and gender being two distinct concepts?
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…
As long as it's legal, why ban anyone? The bar should be VERY high.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>It has only been very, very recently that we have gone from... Would you have said the same thing about ridiculing someone for being openly gay in government 30 years ago, being Catholic in government 60 years ago, or being Black in government 80 years ago?
No, because those aren't even remotely similar things. It wouldn't be a "hate crime" to call a Catholic a Protestant, or a Gay person a Straight person or a Black person a white person. It would be a hateful to deny them rights or to call for abuse. In this instance the "hate crime" is merely saying someone's biological sex is x, even if they say they are y. However, If I called a non-trans woman a man or a non-trans…
The only joke I see is "a trans person exists". The article isn't about her policies, her performance in her job, or even complexities in our evolving definition of either sex or gender like you are implying. The joke is that this person is trans. The message of that joke is the existence of a trans person in public is worthy of mockery. Therefore the only way to stop the mockery is to stop being trans or retreat from public life. I think refusing to stop that mockery until the target does one of those two things qualifies as harassment.
> No major content decisions or account reinstatements will happen before that council convenes.
This gives him at least a temporary respite from the Trump question.
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…
You are taking him at his word when he has demonstrated time and time again that he should not be taken at his word.
This is going to be an interesting claim considering that he's pro letting Trump back on the platform. That guy, despite being the president, repeatedly said things that got other people banned with their rules. Some how other leaders claimed this was a said day that he finally got punished for it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no right to zero consequences for speaking freely. I say give users the moderation power and let aggregate voting dictate content that remains visible. No one wants public control of democracy though. What these guys want is a business friendly soapbox.
Where did I claim there was? You can philosophically believe that free speech (and also know that the 1st Amendment does not apply to private companies, but that the "right" to it is a general philosophy outside of government) should exist while holding the position that you can be held accountable for some things. The question is how much a public forum should allow or not, especially one that has advertisers but is…