941–950 of 1001 posts
Free speech absolutism, eh? It only sounds good until the reality hits. There already exist platforms which have it. Twitter becoming one of them is not compatible with keeping ad revenue (and probably carries legal risks on top of that).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the real physical world has freedom of speech and it works pretty well If someone were to enter a privately owned "public square" in the physical world and start yelling racial slurs, they'd be removed by the cops.
No, that is protected and has been for decades: Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And you have Bernie supporters shooting up GOP softball games, democrats setting fire to court houses, and radical groups running over Christmas parades attendees because they were white. Still not as bad or unstable as the 1960s.
There’s a key difference: Darrell Brooks didn’t launch his attack for Democratic goals and no Democrat supports his actions. The protesters in Portland did not have the support of Democratic leaders and tended to criticize them almost as heavily they do Republicans. James Hodgkinson was definitely a leftist but his actions got immediate and complete rejection from Democratic leaders, including Bernie Sanders unequivo…
Ah election deniers...
Like:
Joe Biden, 2019: “I absolutely” agree that Trump is an “illegitimate president.”
Hillary Clinton, 2019: The election was “stolen.”
Jimmy Carter, 2019: “Trump didn’t actually win the election in 2016. He lost the election and was put into office because the Russians interference on his behalf.”
Kamala Harris, 2019: “Absolutely right” that Trump “didn’t really win.”
Karine Jean-Pierre, 2016: It was a “stolen election.”
Jerry Nadler, 2017: It was a “tainted” and “illegitimate” election.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Comedy is a final bulwark against uncritical thinking, and can be used to deflate ludicrous ideas that are otherwise culturally unassailable. Comedy can inspire thoughfullness and push back against societal norms. Comedy can also be a way to normalize bullying marginalized people. Being a troll and saying 'But wait, I'm being funny!' still makes you a troll. It's not like the account in question was trying to genera…
The wider philosophical point is, if a man has gender dysphoria, does that mean he is a woman, or just wants to be a woman? If the latter, there should be no issue in a satirical publication making the point that a man who wants to be a woman getting awarded a "Woman of the Year" accolade is nonsensical.
The editors shouldn't go to jail, but its obviously the type of hate content that will drive away users and advertisers and twitter was wise to ban it. It adds nothing to the discussion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Comedy is a final bulwark against uncritical thinking, and can be used to deflate ludicrous ideas that are otherwise culturally unassailable. Comedy can inspire thoughfullness and push back against societal norms. Comedy can also be a way to normalize bullying marginalized people. Being a troll and saying 'But wait, I'm being funny!' still makes you a troll. It's not like the account in question was trying to genera…
You’re not punching down when the near entirety of all cultural institutions, journalists, and technology platforms have mobilized to protect your target from all question and criticism. When you can be censured, deplatformed, and even lose your job for stating an objective truth like “men cannot get pregnant”, your words, by any possible definition, are punching up .
Unfortunately that isn't really true. Trans folks, especially trans women face discrimination and violence on a daily basis in society. You see, they actually exist in the real world and somehow Twitter mods can't keep people from saying and doing terrible things in real life.
>When you can be censured, deplatformed, and even lose your job for stating an objective truth like “men cannot get pregnant”, your words, by any possible definition, are punching up.
Spare me and your culture war nonsense. I'm sure you believe that white men are under attack and marginalized.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“Eutrophication is the process by which an entire body of water, or parts of it, becomes progressively enriched with minerals and nutrients, particularly nitrogen and phosphorus. It has also been defined as "nutrient-induced increase in phytoplankton productivity" What is happening to Reddit?
One missing part of the definition is that the increased nutrients cause algae to overgrow and reduce oxygen supply in the water, killing the fish The process is similar to what's happened to reddit: new users come in like agricultural runoff, which leads to overgrowth of more suffocating aspects of the site culture
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Stop using bad user-hostile platforms and they'll either improve to win back users or they'll become obsolete and die as people flock to better alternatives. There's no point in migrating to some perfect encrypted federated free software platform and being alone because everyone I know is still using Instagram.
Maybe just stop using social media. If you're interesting your friends will contact you still. If you're not interesting, go get a hobby and become interesting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Every time I've reported something it's taken well over a week for Twitter to respond; all denied, and all of them were very clear-cut cases IMO (I don't have the exact phrasings at hand, but all involved people fantasising about smashing someone's face in with a brick because they didn't like something they said). I don't expect moderation to be 100% consistent or 100% perfect, but now it just seems like such a rand…
I'm not sure what country you're in, or what the law is in the US, but I think there's a difference between saying "I want to to smash their face in with a brick" and "someone should smash their face in with a brick" It seems to me that the call to action or lack thereof is salient. That being said I have no idea if this was the reason why it was allowed. There's no transparency.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But you are not making any points here, just basically a stunt. My point is that allowing "anything that's within the law" will lead to some pretty unpleasant stuff. > If Twitter is the de facto standard and akin to an utility why should they make decisions on what's allowed beyond lawfulness? I don't think Twitter is the "de-facto standard" or akin to an utility, and the problem is that by allowing such content yo…
You're still attempting to take my comments to the extreme instead of making a substantial reply on any of my points (unfortunately). In addition, whether a certain moderation approach would "drive away people" is a strawman. This is not the question.
That was not my intention; I'm genuinely trying to engage constructively and in good faith.
You stated that "anything that's within the law should be allowed", and I'm trying to examine what that would mean and what effects it would have. With an extreme example, yes, but that is the sort of stuff that would be allowed under your proposed policy. Now, if you think that's an acceptable trade-off: fair enough, I can't argue with that. But I don't think it can merely be brushed aside with "that's extreme", because in my experience things like that will be posted, usually by a small (but very active) group of people.
> In addition, whether a certain moderation approach would "drive away people" is a strawman. This is not the question.
The question is what effect this policy would have. This is, in my opinion, one of them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“Eutrophication is the process by which an entire body of water, or parts of it, becomes progressively enriched with minerals and nutrients, particularly nitrogen and phosphorus. It has also been defined as "nutrient-induced increase in phytoplankton productivity" What is happening to Reddit?
One missing part of the definition is that the increased nutrients cause algae to overgrow and reduce oxygen supply in the water, killing the fish The process is similar to what's happened to reddit: new users come in like agricultural runoff, which leads to overgrowth of more suffocating aspects of the site culture
On the one hand a social network that appeals to everyone will appeal to no one, on the other hand an internet built on the idea of exclusivity just seems. Incompatible? I’m not sure what the word is but there’s a paradox here somewhere.