Support NeoGAF

[strange headache]

1A is an important protection from the government that I fully support. However, all of the mainstream internet operates within far stricter boundaries than free speech absolutism. And for good reason, since it would not create an environment friendly to advertisers or appealing to most members of society.

The issues many people had with Twitter's content moderation policies are with regards to enforcing questionable ideologies, e.g. banning people for their pronoun use or for stating obvious biological fact, and partisan election interference, e.g. censoring the NY Post story. Those could easily be addressed by a reasonable policy standard without going 1A absolutist.

This^

Free speech, protection rights and fair representation are not mutually exclusive concepts. I don't think anybody is arguing for an absolutist position, as individual protection laws clearly need to be respected still. Much of the criticism aimed at Musk is totally hyperbolic, because they equate free speech with abuse in order to make censorious moderation policies more palatable.

That being said, while monetization is obviously important for private companies, advertisers who are primarily interested in public reach and not truth seeking, hold way too much power over content moderation.

 

[LegendOfKage]

1A is an important protection from the government that I fully support. However, all of the mainstream internet operates within far stricter boundaries than free speech absolutism. And for good reason, since it would not create an environment friendly to advertisers or appealing to most members of society.

The issues many people had with Twitter's content moderation policies are with regards to enforcing questionable ideologies, e.g. banning people for their pronoun use or for stating obvious biological fact, and partisan election interference, e.g. censoring the NY Post story. Those could easily be addressed by a reasonable policy standard without going 1A absolutist.

Seeing the that Musk has said the far right won't be happy either, I don't see him allowing slurs. It's opinions I want to see protected (all of them), not how hateful we can be to each other in the name of free speech. GAF did / does a solid job of separating the two.

And thanks for allowing us to talk about a serious topic like this, as long as we can steer clear of the us vs them culture war polarization trap. It would be nice if we could find a way to discuss serious issues more often without partisan bickering.

As for the subject at hand, I thought this was an interesting take on the topic, although it does get political before and after the part that I timestamped.

 

[BadBurger]

What ever happened to "Twitter is a private company, they can make their own rules. If you don't like it, just make your own platform"...?

That's still the prevalent opinion. Nothing has changed.

 

[strange headache]

That's still the prevalent opinion. Nothing has changed.

Not if people are now clamoring to outright ban the whole platform.
What happened my friend? You used to be cool, man!

 

[Goalus]

I wouldn't worry about the first part, but the second is a concern. Bezos hate Musk and likely holds a grudge because of the SpaceX contracts. Wouldn’t be shocked if he has AWS pull the plug for any tiny reason. Musk should be calling Rumble.

I think MS will be happy should that happen.

 

[CrankyJay™]

Seeing the that Musk has said the far right won't be happy either, I don't see him allowing slurs. It's opinions I want to see protected (all of them), not how hateful we can be to each other in the name of free speech. GAF did / does a solid job of separating the two.

And thanks for allowing us to talk about a serious topic like this, as long as we can steer clear of the us vs them culture war polarization trap. It would be nice if we could find a way to discuss serious issues more often without partisan bickering.

As for the subject at hand, I thought this was an interesting take on the topic, although it does get political before and after the part that I timestamped.

I am just playing devil’s advocate for clarification, but what if the opinions ultimate conclusion is based in hate? Can’t you technically say you’d think the world would be a better place without a certain group of individuals while refraining from slurring them?

 

[DeepEnigma]

Hope that's true. Though the source is obviously iffy.

Big brain.

 

[LegendOfKage]

I am just playing devil’s advocate for clarification, but what if the opinions ultimate conclusion is based in hate? Can’t you technically say you’d think the world would be a better place without a certain group of individuals while refraining from slurring them?

My view is that actions and beliefs should always be allowed to be questioned. If your argument is "the culture of this group should change" then you're attacking actions, beliefs, or false perceptions of those actions and beliefs, and that is a conversation that should be allowed.

You can do all of that without slurs. Slurs are not needed to make any point, and they only detract from people's arguments. They're only useful in revealing people to be needlessly hateful. In real life, I think there's an argument to be made for allowing them (as the US constitution does), because they are useful in unmasking genuine hate, and presenting the user as someone not to be listened to.

I think you can also make the argument that allowing speech that most people find repulsive and disagreeable helps protect all speech, because it never allows the government to draw a line that they can move at a later time to help them silence people who are critical of their actions. I think that's a concept that organizations like the ACLU used to understand. The civil rights movement of the '60s for example would have probably been impossible without the protections given by freedom of speech, to name just one example.

But when it comes to the internet and the more anonymous nature of online platforms, I can understand why just about everywhere doesn't allow slurs, including this forum. I'm doubtful Musk's version of Twitter will allow them either, and I think that's a good thing.

 

[ManaByte]

Twitter is plummeting on the AppStore charts. Down to #7.

Truth is still #1.

 

[HoodWinked]

Twitter is plummeting on the AppStore charts. Down to #7.

Truth is still #1.

what if twitter becomes the sane place.

the nutty right go to Truth Social and the nutjob left go to Counter Social

 

[Nobody_Important]

what if twitter becomes the sane place.

the nutty right go to Truth Social and the nutjob left go to Counter Social

That would be nice. But Truth is only #1 right now because it only recently became widely available. So that is the surge of nutters and curious people checking it out.


That will die down in the next week or so.

 

[DragoonKain]

Yes, the media sites are so disingenuous in acting like everyone wants to run to social media and use the N word all day. They are just pulling that narrative out of their ass with no basis whatsoever.

In reality, most people just want to be able to have normal discourse on there and say factual things or mock things they find absurd without being booted off because someone’s feelings got hurt and cried “hate speech”

 

[NeoMengy]

On Era trolling is defined as having an opinion outside of the groupthink.

This is accurate, and it's a lesson I've learned the hard way over time.

I've been temp banned several times on the "other" forum for voicing opinions outside their echo chamber, and I caused a literal frenzy in that same thread Cranky Jay got perma banned in simply for raising the possibility that Musk might have bought Twitter because he might really want to improve free speech in the world. The Era groupthink thought I was a stupid & insane person for even thinking such a thing because to the majority over there think Elon is an evil, attention seeking, lying billionaire who only wants more money and power and could never, EVER, want to actually accomplish anything else in life.

It's scary to be honest. Anyone thinking outside the groupthink are either attacked, warned, silenced, or all three. There is no room for discussion over there, only compliance. It is LITERALLY what Elon is trying to stop on Twitter and they can't even see it...

 

[nush]

It is LITERALLY what Elon is trying to stop on Twitter and they can't even see it...

Thier lack of self awareness is one of the most entertaining things. Like the male feminist with a mail order bride, you can't make this shit up.

 

[ManaByte]

what if twitter becomes the sane place.

the nutty right go to Truth Social and the nutjob left go to Counter Social

I don’t think they’re going to Counter Social after they found out the hackivist admin can read their DMs. Journalists can’t communicate with secret accounts of high level politicians and VIPs if someone is reading those DMs.

 

[BigBooper]

Wow, just looked at counter social in the play store. The conversations in the screenshots sure make it seem shit. All Trump man bad, and cheering leftist heroes.

 

[pleaseinsertdisctwo]

Elon’s tweets about Adderall and Wellbutrin really pissed me off.

 

[BigBooper]

Elon’s tweets about Adderall and Wellbutrin really pissed me off.

Why?

 

[pleaseinsertdisctwo]

Why?

As an Adderall user, him saying that it makes people angry is total bullshit. Maybe that’s the case for people that take it that don’t have ADHD, but for me, I know for a fact that it’s significantly harder for me to regulate my emotions without Adderall in my system. Any time I have EVER gotten really angry has been when I don’t have it in my system, and this includes times before I was prescribed.

He should know that medications affect everyone differently. He’s a very powerful guy and tweeting stuff like this is irresponsible and it’s already annoying being someone that has to rely on stimulants to get by.

 

[strange headache]

The f*ck are truth and counter social? Sounds dumb.
Can't people just share a common platform and accept that there are different opinions on things?

Plenty of people here that I regularly butt heads with, but I wouldn't want them gone and neither do I think that they are bad people in RL. Even though they are wrong ( ), they usually help me nuance my thoughts or lead me to assume a more moderate position. It's a good thing!
Information bubbles are already bad enough, but this balkanization of social media platforms will only exacerbate radicalization and polarization.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Any time I have EVER gotten really angry has been when I don’t have it in my system, and this includes times before I was prescribed.

I think that's his point, like any drug dependency. Everyone I knew who was on it, got irritable and grumpy when they were fiending for that dopamine drip (when they ran out). Then you had the reverse wiring types where Xanax would act like Adderall to them and Adderall would mellow them out like a Xanax.

With that said, we are a dopamine junky species, with or without synthetics in one form or another.

As he elaborates more on here.


I know several who have started micro-dosing psilocybin treatments as well, and it has worked tremendously for them over these prescribed synthetics with dangerous side-effects. Far, far less irritability and felt more "at peace" with themselves.

 

[BigBooper]

As an Adderall user, him saying that it makes people angry is total bullshit. Maybe that’s the case for people that take it that don’t have ADHD, but for me, I know for a fact that it’s significantly harder for me to regulate my emotions without Adderall in my system. Any time I have EVER gotten really angry has been when I don’t have it in my system, and this includes times before I was prescribed.

He should know that medications affect everyone differently. He’s a very powerful guy and tweeting stuff like this is irresponsible and it’s already annoying being someone that has to rely on stimulants to get by.

I understand why you disagree with him. I don't understand why that would really piss you off. As far as I can tell, he didn't disparage anyone taking it.

Don't let the hate mongers control you.

 

[pleaseinsertdisctwo]

I think that's his point, like any drug dependency. Everyone I knew who was on it, got irritable and grumpy when they were fiending for that dopamine drip (when they ran out). Then you had the reverse wiring types where Xanax would act like Adderall to them and Adderall would mellow them out like a Xanax.

With that said, we are a dopamine junky species, with or without synthetics in one form or another.

As he elaborates more on here.


I know several who have started micro-dosing psilocybin treatments as well, and it has worked tremendously for them over these prescribed synthetics with dangerous side-effects. Far, far less irritability and felt more "at peace" with themselves.

Please read my post again. I made a point to mention the fact that this includes the times long before I was ever prescribed. And no, my post isn’t the same thing Elon is saying. At all

 

[pleaseinsertdisctwo]

I understand why you disagree with him. I don't understand why that would really piss you off. As far as I can tell, he didn't disparage anyone taking it.

Don't let the hate mongers control you.

This is true. I guess it’s just because there’s already a stigma towards people that are prescribed stimulants so I’m insecure/defensive about it.

 

[LegendOfKage]

The f*ck are truth and counter social? Sounds dumb.
Can't people just share a common platform and accept that there are different opinions on things?

Plenty of people here that I regularly butt heads with, but I wouldn't want them gone and neither do I think that they are bad people in RL. Even though they are wrong ( ), they usually help me nuance my thoughts or lead me to assume a more moderate position. It's a good thing!
Information bubbles are already bad enough, but this balkanization of social media platforms will only exacerbate radicalization and polarization.

I think this is the real value in twitter, and why I don't even think musk overpaid. It's an established platform that currently has a reputation to serve a more liberal agenda, but it's used by people on the left, right, moderates, and everyone in between. Artists, musicians, bloggers, actors, businesses, politicians, you tubers, authors, and so on. If you're someone who needs to promote your work, there's a very good chance you have a twitter account. The thing is, with the polarization in the world now, anyone starting a new platform I think would have a lot of difficulty getting the media to report on it as neutral platform. It would be forced to take a side in the culture war before establishing a user base that has a multitude of worldviews and options, which would limit its reach and its audience.

Twitter is as neutral of a platform as you can find right now, and updates could take it in any number of directions. Something that can't be made anymore has a pretty high level of value, but for some reason I don't see many talking about that aspect.

 

[cormack12]

So how will Musk monetize twitter?

First one sounds like the edit function
I reckon the second might be access to versioning (e.g. see deleted tweets, tweets before edits)
The monetize news/retweets thing sounds interesting, where you can only RT blues if you pay (e.g. BBC embedding tweets)
Biggest cost saving will be staff cuts obviously
Executive pay looks to be getting slashed

 

[NickFire]

1A is an important protection from the government that I fully support. However, all of the mainstream internet operates within far stricter boundaries than free speech absolutism. And for good reason, since it would not create an environment friendly to advertisers or appealing to most members of society.

The issues many people had with Twitter's content moderation policies are with regards to enforcing questionable ideologies, e.g. banning people for their pronoun use or for stating obvious biological fact, and partisan election interference, e.g. censoring the NY Post story. Those could easily be addressed by a reasonable policy standard without going 1A absolutist.

I agree with everything but the word "easily" in your last sentence. I think the policy standard itself could be easy if the extremists are left at the kids table while the adults hash things out, but determining a sound method of enforcement will be incredibly difficult I suspect. It's the enforcement issue that seems to cause all of the trouble to me. Talking about twitter and facebook specifically.

 

[Mistake]

So how will Musk monetize twitter?

First one sounds like the edit function
I reckon the second might be access to versioning (e.g. see deleted tweets, tweets before edits)
The monetize news/retweets thing sounds interesting, where you can only RT blues if you pay (e.g. BBC embedding tweets)
Biggest cost saving will be staff cuts obviously
Executive pay looks to be getting slashed

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

 

[nush]

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

 

[haxan7]

 

[LegendOfKage]

 

[BigBooper]

He's saying all the right things. I hope he can figure out how to make it work without tying into ad programs like he's suggested.

I just hate the design of Twitter though. The ephemeral way discussions work is not nearly as cool as the old fashioned forum.

 

[Boss Mog]

Emperor Palpatine aka George Soros is apparently lobbying companies who advertise on twitter to boycott. Why am I not surprised... Confirms for me that Elon buying twitter is a good thing if one of the most evil people on the planet is against it.

Soros, Clinton and Obama staffers and Europe govs in anti-Musk letter

Elon Musk on Tuesday demanded more information about the funding of 26 groups who signed a letter to Twitter advertisers, warning that Musk threatens to turn Twitter into a 'cesspool'.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[SJRB]

STOP MAKING SENSE!!!!! YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE EVIL!!!! I HATE YOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

 

[Whitecrow]

He is clearly understimating people hability to turn everything into shit.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Emperor Palpatine aka George Soros is apparently lobbying companies who advertise on twitter to boycott. Why am I not surprised... Confirms for me that Elon buying twitter is a good thing if one of the most evil people on the planet is against it.

Soros, Clinton and Obama staffers and Europe govs in anti-Musk letter

Elon Musk on Tuesday demanded more information about the funding of 26 groups who signed a letter to Twitter advertisers, warning that Musk threatens to turn Twitter into a 'cesspool'.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Pure. Evil.

 

[gizmopub999]

He’s trolling on an epic scale

 

[dolabla]

 

[DeepEnigma]

Bye, bye, Parag, you short lived clown. Take the lawyer with you.

 

[Amiga]

This was just haggling after all, Alwaleed rolled over his investment in Twitter..

 

[ManaByte]

FTC closing in. They'll never let him take it.

 

[DeepEnigma]

FTC closing in. They'll never let him take it.

Corrupt to the core.

 

[ManaByte]

Corrupt to the core.

They're bringing up anti-trust. What other social media platforms does Musk control?

 

[DeepEnigma]

They're bringing up anti-trust. What other social media platforms does Musk control?

Again, corrupt to the core.

 

[NickFire]

Again, corrupt to the core.

FTC to review Musk’s $44B Twitter buy under anti-trust: report

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is reviewing Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s $44 billion deal with Twitter, setting up a deadline for a possible antitrust review, according to a Thursday report.

www.foxbusiness.com

"A person familiar with the matter told Bloomberg the agency will decide next month whether to do an in-depth antitrust probe of the Twitter deal – a move that could delay its closing by months."

They know 100% there are no anti-trust issues. If they go this route it is completely intended to block free speech on twitter until after the mid-terms I bet.

 

[DragoonKain]

They aren’t gonna stop Elon

 

[ManaByte]

They aren’t gonna stop Elon

 

[IntentionalPun]

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.

 

[LegendOfKage]

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.

People generally don't want blatant racism and slurs allowed on a platform they are using. That's not what people who are concerned about freedom of speech care about, at least as an ideal upheld by privately or publicly owned companies.

I also fully support the idea that people shouldn't be permanently banned. Permanent bans go against the idea that people can grow and change throughout their lives.

 

[ManaByte]

Permanent bans go against the idea that people can grow and change throughout their lives.

Twitter judges people from the moment of their birth though. If you said something wrong when you were five you must be marched into the gulag.