Support NeoGAF

[haxan7]

Elon Musk says he would reverse Twitter's Trump ban | CNN Business

Elon Musk said Tuesday that he would restore former President Donald Trump’s banned account on Twitter if his deal to acquire the company is completed.

www.cnn.com

Some.. interesting quotes.



So if tweets are.. "or otherwise destructive to the world"... bans/deletions.. and.. "shadow bans"?

Sounds like... the moderation of a web site, outside of strict legal reasons..

AKA not freedom of speech.

No one including Musk wants a free for all. There has to be some reasonable limits. I thought that was obvious to everyone. No one wants Twitter to become 4chan, including Musk obviously.

 

[Nobody_Important]

Elon Musk says he would reverse Twitter's Trump ban | CNN Business

Elon Musk said Tuesday that he would restore former President Donald Trump’s banned account on Twitter if his deal to acquire the company is completed.

www.cnn.com

Some.. interesting quotes.



So if tweets are.. "or otherwise destructive to the world"... bans/deletions.. and.. "shadow bans"?

Sounds like... the moderation of a web site, outside of strict legal reasons..

AKA not freedom of speech.

Free speech does not mean freedom from consequences. You are free to say whatever you want on Twitter. Just type up your greatest hits and hit enter. However if it's found to violate the ToS then (even if Musk owns Twitter) the Tweet will be deleted, censored, or you will be suspended/banned if what you said is bad enough. That wouldn't be violating your freedom of speech because Twitter is not the government. They are not obligated to show each and every post from each and every person. Especially considering that they are a business and advertisers would not be happy if Twitter became a cesspool of hate like 4chan. So yes there will be rules that people have to abide by. That's just how it is.


Its no different than what happens on Gaf or in the real world. If you go to a restaurant and make a scene by suddenly deciding that NOW is the time to spread your ideas about how God isn't real they can ask you to leave the restaurant or even say you can't come back. That wouldn't violate your freedom of speech either.

 

[IntentionalPun]

Nobody_Important : right, which is why nobody should be invoking "Freedom of Speech" when talking about content moderation that has it's own guidelines outside the law... like Musk did over and over and over.

It's a pointless buzz word in the end because as it turns out... being able to type whatever you want and hit "post" on a web site is not a freedom.

 

[///PATRIOT]

Free speech does not mean freedom from consequences. You are free to say whatever you want on Twitter. Just type up your greatest hits and hit enter. However if it's found to violate the ToS then (even if Musk owns Twitter) the Tweet will be deleted, censored, or you will be suspended/banned if what you said is bad enough. That wouldn't be violating your freedom of speech because Twitter is not the government. They are not obligated to show each and every post from each and every person. Especially considering that they are a business and advertisers would not be happy if Twitter became a cesspool of hate like 4chan. So yes there will be rules that people have to abide by. That's just how it is.


Its no different than what happens on Gaf or in the real world. If you go to a restaurant and make a scene by suddenly deciding that NOW is the time to spread your ideas about how God isn't real they can ask you to leave the restaurant or even say you can't come back. That wouldn't violate your freedom of speech either.

You're full of shit. You do know the TOS is mostly applied against conservative, but you turn your eyes because you actually like it that way.

Everybody here knows how the liberal vitriol looks like in conservative politicians Twitter feeds vs Biden or other democrats feeds. Go ahead look.

 

[Nobody_Important]

You're full of shit. You do know the TOS is mostly applied against conservative, but you turn your eyes because you actually like it that way.

Everybody here knows how the liberal vitriol looks like in conservative politicians Twitter feeds vs Biden or other democrats feeds. Go ahead look.

I have already said before that the moderation on Twitter is inconsistent and shitty. I have also said before that social media as a whole is basically a plague on society.

 

[TaylorSwiftFan]

Free speech does not mean freedom from consequences.

It should be though, unless it is causing someone damage.

 

[Goalus]

Free speech does not mean freedom from consequences. You are free to say whatever you want on Twitter.

You are free to say whatever you want in China, too. You just have to face the consequences.

 

[Nobody_Important]

You are free to say whatever you want in China, too. You just have to face the consequences.

 

[///PATRIOT]

You didn't like they turned your argument against you?
Can you see this is not a Nazis vs Allies issue?

Oh and by the way. China also argues that they must control the information and what others people say for the greater good.

 

[strange headache]

Free speech does not mean freedom from consequences.

2016 called, they want their worn out slogans back.

 

[Meicyn]

You are free to say whatever you want in China, too. You just have to face the consequences.

Not a good analogy. Comparing China to Twitter is pretty far-fetched. If you criticize the government in China, you’re likely to be punished or imprisoned by the government. If you criticize the government in the USA, the government isn’t going to do squat.

That being said, my stance hasn’t changed on Twitter. When Twitter banned Trump, I saw it as a private company doing what they do. I hold the same stance now as Musk plans to unban him. I think the treatment of Twitter access as some kind of entitlement is bizarre, but it’s not my company. Musk can and will do whatever he wants with it.

 

[Aggelos]

 

[Mistake]

Free speech and ToS are two different things, let’s not go off the rails here. I know twitter has an enforcement bias, but it’s only against free speech if they become an arm of the government.

As for the china comparisons, I’ve personally seen people get detained and fined over wechat posts, so it’s not that similar. Might happen in other places, but not the US

 

[strange headache]

Not a good analogy. Comparing China to Twitter is pretty far-fetched.

He is not comparing China to Twitter, merely demonstrating the conceptual retardedness of that principle.

The corrupting influence of power is the reason why we invented representative democracies. They limit the individual's political power so that it cannot be arbitrarily wielded against others. Representative democracies guarantee freedom of speech by precisely limiting the destructive power of mobs and witch-hunts and minimizing the harm that can be inflicted upon individuals for saying unpopular things.

You don't need free speech laws for mainstream opinions, you need them to protect minority opinions. Do people who say the truth but are in the minority need to suffer the consequences from the angry majority? Lots of truths started from an unpopular minority position, like evolution, heliocentrism and global warming.

That principle only works if you assume that the truth always maintains a majority position within a society, but history has shown that such is absolutely not the case.

 

[Meicyn]

He is not comparing China to Twitter, merely demonstrating the conceptual retardedness of that principle.

The corrupting influence of power is the reason why we invented representative democracies. They limit the individual's political power so that it cannot be arbitrarily wielded against others. Representative democracies guarantee freedom of speech by precisely limiting the destructive power of mobs and witch-hunts and minimizing the harm that can be inflicted upon individuals for saying unpopular things.

You don't need free speech laws for mainstream opinions, you need them to protect minority opinions. Do people who say the truth but are in the minority need to suffer the consequences from the angry majority? Lots of truths started from an unpopular minority position, like evolution, heliocentrism and global warming.

That principle only works if you assume that the truth always maintains a majority position within a society, but history has shown that such is absolutely not the case.

You have conflated freedom of speech with entitlement to a platform. I am all for protecting minority opinions. For example, I am a homosexual. Obviously, I do not agree with Westboro Baptist Church’s all-time favorite “God hates fags” slogan. I respect their right to protest wherever they choose to do so. I am not in alignment with some of my peers who would seek to quell their right to say that stuff.

However, if they are denied access to social media, I do not see that as a violation of their rights. At all. They aren’t owed a platform. No one is. Walk your happy ass outside and say whatever you want. If the government comes a’knockin, I’ll be right there to advocate on your behalf. But if some losers on Twitter get riled up and get you banned from the service? Oh well. Too bad. You aren’t entitled to a Twitter account.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

You aren’t entitled to a Twitter account.

Agreed.

It's a private business that can or cannot allow you access. Which should be their choice. Even though it does seem scummy Twitter leans left on purpose, it's still their business and workers. It's just social media. It's not like they are judge and jury over something life threatening.

Nobody can say or do whatever they want in government buildings either. And those are the people who set policies and are all about freedoms. So if government can shut someone down, why would a private business be allowed to do what they want?

 

[ManaByte]

Agreed.

It's a private business that can or cannot allow you access. Which should be their choice. Even though it does seem scummy Twitter leans left on purpose, it's still their business and workers. It's just social media. It's not like they are judge and jury over something life threatening.

Nobody can say or do whatever they want in government buildings either. And those are the people who set policies and are all about freedoms. So if government can shut someone down, why would a private business be allowed to do what they want?

The problem comes when that social media platform holds so much power it can interfere with a national election, which is a point Musk himself has brought up multiple times and people seem to want to memory hole for reasons.

 

[Nobody_Important]

You didn't like they turned your argument against you?
Can you see this is not a Nazis vs Allies issue?

Oh and by the way. China also argues that they must control the information and what others people say for the greater good.

They didn't turn anything. Comparing moderation on a social media website to the brutal tactics of a dictatorship is fucking stupid.

Hence the eyeroll.

 

[Torrent of Pork]

I'm a free speech absolutist. I disagree with Nobody_Important on a shit-ton of issues, but I would never seek to hinder his ability to express himself. I'm a homosexual who would fight for the WBC to have the legal ability to call me a demon.

If you can't accept that other people have opinions that you vehemently disagree with, than you're a weak-willed bitch who isn't worth the time of day.

 

[DeepEnigma]

You don't need free speech laws for mainstream opinions, you need them to protect minority opinions.

Something the authoritarian mainstream and the not learned from history followers always fail to grasp, every 100 years or so.

 

[ManaByte]

So the government wants Twitter to allow verified accounts to EDIT OTHER PEOPLE'S TWEETS.

 

[Meicyn]

Quite a dumbshit take from Nina. You can already add context to a person’s tweet. It’s called replying.

 

[///PATRIOT]

Quite a dumbshit take from Nina. You can already add context to a person’s tweet. It’s called replying.

It's about controlling others. The bitch is a narcissist.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Twitter's CEO fires top product exec as company cuts costs

Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal has fired the company’s general manager of consumer products Kayvon Beykpour in order to "take the team in a different direction."

ca.movies.yahoo.com

Twitter's CEO fires top product exec as company cuts costs​

Karissa Bell
·Senior Editor
Thu, May 12, 2022, 1:40 p.m.·2 min read


There's a new shakeup happening at the top of Twitter. CEO Parag Agrawal has fired the company’s general manager of consumer products Kayvon Beykpour in order to "take the team in a different direction." Bruce Falck, the company’s general manager for revenue, is also leaving, the company confirmed. Beykpour, who had been with the company for seven years, was on the paternity leave at the time.

The shakeup comes alongside a companywide pause on hiring as Twitter tries to cut costs. A said the company is “pausing most hiring” and “pulling back on non-labor costs.” It will likely fuel more uncertainty at Twitter, which has been reeling since the company accepted Elon Musk’s offer to buy the company. Agrawal has reportedly told employees the company's current execs don’t know what direction Musk will take the platform. Musk has said he has no confidence in Twitter’s current management, and that he has a new CEO in mind for when the deal closes.

Despite all that, Agrawal is making big changes of his own. Most notably, by firing Beykpour, a longtime product executive who is well-liked in and outside of Twitter. “The truth is that this isn’t how and when I imagined leaving Twitter, and this wasn’t my decision,” he wrote in a thread about his departure. “Parag asked me to leave after letting me know that he wants to take the team in a different direction.”

In a memo, Agrawal cited the company’s failure to hit goals for revenue and user growth, The New York Times reported. Musk has made clear he has even more aggressive goals for the platform. He recently stated that he intends to grow Twitter’s user base to nearly a billion users by 2028.
Twitter isn't the only major platform looking to cut costs. Meta has also said it intends to pull back on its hiring plans, and has ended some projects in its Reality Labs division.

 

[nush]

In the leaked audio clip, the board of directors all knew they’d probably be fired lol

 

[DeepEnigma]

So the government wants Twitter to allow verified accounts to EDIT OTHER PEOPLE'S TWEETS.

dIsInFoRmAtIoN, cItIzEn

 

[ManaByte]

 

[StreetsofBeige]

I dont follow Twitter user activity, but when Twitter promotes number of users, is that all users? Or active ones? I kniw a shot load of people who made an account and never posted one tweet. The account would be made like 9 years ago, 10 followers and 10 followed. That doesn't mean they dont use it where they read other people's stuff, but I'm sure some of them literally dont use it at all.

I bet you could segment off 10%+ of users who dont do anything.

 

[BattleMonkey]

2016 called, they want their worn out slogans back.

Never stopped conservatives or their one joke they have

 

[Nobody_Important]

Elon Musk Says “Committed” To Twitter Deal Just After He Announced It Was “On Hold” – Update

Elon Musk now says he’s “still committed to acquisition” of Twitter, hours after he tweeted that the $44 billion deal is “temporarily on hold,” sending Twitter stock …

deadline.com

 

[ManaByte]

Zack Snyder’s Fan-Voted Oscar Wins May Have Been Rigged by Bots

Two reports reveal that “thousands of fake votes” were cast for zombie thriller Army of the Dead for #OscarsFanFavorite and Snyder’s cut of Justice League for #OscarsCheerMoment.

www.vanityfair.com

 

[darrylgorn]

At some point we'll all agree on fair speech, depending on the context.

 

[Maiden Voyage]

Interesting take on recent events.

Musk Holds All The Cards: We See a Significant Risk That The Twitter Deal Gets Repriced Lower – Hindenburg Research

hindenburgresearch.com

 

[EviLore]

Interesting take on recent events.

Musk Holds All The Cards: We See a Significant Risk That The Twitter Deal Gets Repriced Lower – Hindenburg Research

hindenburgresearch.com

Good analysis, and Hindenburg Research is legit. He basically took down Nikola Motors solo.

 

[CrankyJay™]

Good analysis, and Hindenburg Research is legit. He basically took down Nikola Motors solo.

Appropriate name

 

[LegendOfKage]

 

[ManaByte]

 

[ManaByte]

Donald J. Trump

Only a stupid person would buy Twitter for that price, and Elon is not a stupid person. Besides, how can the deal go through when he may have illegally bought his shares? Would be very unfair to all of those shareholders, past, present, and future, who got “screwed.” I appreciate the offer, but...

t.me

 

[NecrosaroIII]

The problem comes when that social media platform holds so much power it can interfere with a national election, which is a point Musk himself has brought up multiple times and people seem to want to memory hole for reasons.

There are tons of private businesses and citizens that are powerful enough to affect elections though.

 

[Spukc]

I never get triggered by elon
But this came close asshat

 

[Vicetrailia]

I think people forget that there is a reason 4chan is what it is. All the stuff allowed there is only acceptable to the niche that is there. And even there they all hive together in groupthink in their secular communities.

Even in Twitters current state it has been growing less and less popular amongst celebrities in favor of Instagram and Tik Tok, and a lot of credit goes to their safety features; the ability to avoid harassment.

In reality people don't want to be harassed and see hoards of people calling them vile names. People call it being afraid of people "you disagree with" or being "thinned skinned". But in reality people don't want the bullshit that comes from the internets version of free speech. In real life you can do something about it, and the average person doesn't tolerate it, but on the internet it is up to the platform holder what can be done.

So no, the version of free speech desired is sociopathic, and people don't tolerate it. If it came to twitter, twitter would die.

 

[ManaByte]

Even in Twitters current state it has been growing less and less popular amongst celebrities in favor of Instagram and Tik Tok, and a lot of credit goes to their safety features; the ability to avoid harassment.

This, 100%. Instagram has great mitigation tools. Twitter is shit in comparison.

 

[Wheeljack539]

20% of the total number of accounts are bots! And Elon thinks it's still higher!

I was reading several days ago that Twitter has a 330 million userbase so 20% would be around 66 million.

Twitter is screwed.

 

[ManaByte]

20% of the total number of accounts are bots! And Elon thinks it's still higher!

I was reading several days ago that Twitter has a 330 million userbase so 20% would be around 66 million.

Twitter is screwed.

 

[Vicetrailia]

 

[Wheeljack539]

As usual the comments are pretty damn sad.

Spoiler

If they're actual accounts.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Haha fuck Twitter. I hope this kills their platform, I've always hated the Twitter format and some of the worst examples of humanity and also the best examples of bots infested that shitty place. Elon still gets what he wants if Twitter dies, he can create a better platform of his own in it's place.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Musk is exposing potential bot fraud. He'll be able to buy Twitter for a quarter on the dollar at this rate and Twitter execs may go to jail.

 

[ManaByte]

 

[RAÏSanÏa]

Twitter is useful for keeping up to the moment with announcements from numerous levels of government, services, entertainment and professionals. As long as moderation remains appealing for most people globally than it won't be an issue making them quit. The opposite would seem to be true in that users have become more invested when they favour the way their feeds are kept clean. Not that there couldn't be improvement or changes.