Elon Musk buys Twitter to bring back Free Speech

[Love Zhaoying]

10 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

Honestly?  Do we really need to worry about Musk allowing ALL free speech on Twitter?   Seems it might be just HIS free speech and those he agrees with and those who agree with him that will be free...

Elon Musk and free speech: Track record not encouraging (cnbc.com)

Apparently we need him to allow things that are the "absolute truth", as determined by someone. Is that still free speech? Only if "total lies" are allowed too. IMHO.

[Silent Mistwalker]

19 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

Honestly?  Do we really need to worry about Musk allowing ALL free speech on Twitter?   Seems it might be just HIS free speech and those he agrees with and those who agree with him that will be free...

Elon Musk and free speech: Track record not encouraging (cnbc.com)

Quote

But by controlling the social network, Musk can protect his ability to keep using Twitter to promote his companies, investments and himself, as he wants to be seen.

 

He can promote himself as he wants to be seen to his heart's content. It won't change anything for me. He's just another megalomaniac planet killer to me.

[Love Zhaoying]

A thought: even if outright lies are allowed on Twitter, other websites will still fact-check tweets and post that (even if somebody restricts the fact-checks from Twitter).  Fact-checkers save the world.

[Ayashe Ninetails]

2 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

A thought: even if outright lies are allowed on Twitter, other websites will still fact-check tweets and post that (even if somebody restricts the fact-checks from Twitter).  Fact-checkers save the world.

Technically, they're already allowed by the current moderation policy. The only info I've ever seen labeled and/or removed is Covid-related misinfo. Supposedly, there's also a policy against manipulated media, but there's still plenty of that floating around on there.

Twitter seems to favor labeling tweets as potentially misleading over outright removal. They claim they'll remove if the potential for offline harm is "severe." 

When do we take action and what actions do we take?
We manage the risk of public harm in many ways. The combination of actions we take are meant to be proportionate to the level of potential harm from that situation. People who repeatedly violate our policies may be subject to temporary or permanent suspensions. 

Depending on potential for offline harm, we limit amplification of misleading content or remove it from Twitter if offline consequences could be immediate and severe.

https://help.twitter.com/en/resources/addressing-misleading-info

[kali Wylder]

I don't know that much about twitter.  I am not a regular user of the platform.  I've read more tweets recently than I did in the previous however many years it's existed.  I am naturally suspicious of mega rich people like Elon Musk. He is way too fond of himself and I'm not impressed.

It seems to me like Elon Musk just wants to own Twitter to protect his own right to say whatever mean things he wants to say about anyone he doesn't like.  Can they shut him down when he owns it?  Will he shut anyone else down who criticizes him once he owns it?  That's too much power in the hands of one unscrupulous man.

When he says he wants to protect "free speech", I don't think he particularly wants to protect anyone else but himself. 

[AnthonyJoanne]

5 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Apparently we need him to allow things that are the "absolute truth", as determined by someone. Is that still free speech? Only if "total lies" are allowed too. IMHO.

 

We've already discussed this ... but the topic (if not the forums) was rolled back. Twice.

No 'authority' is acceptable when it comes to determining truth.

Every government on the planet has, at one time or another, been found to be corrupt and/or breaking their own laws. EVERY SINGLE ONE. I'm not saying that every government today is corrupt, but I'd be willing to bet a significant chunk of change that there isn't a single government today that doesn't have corruption at some level.

Now we're seeing those same governments creating departments to "combat misinformation".

And to pick the most heavily reported one ... the Biden's administrations "Disinformation Governance Board" is going to be headed by a person who literally claimed that the now confirmed-by-the-New-York-Times Hunter Biden laptop was a "Trump campaign product" and that it was "a Russian influence op".

That same person was very impressed by the now completely discredited Steele Dossier.

That person is a partisan political hack.

And THAT person is going to be in charge of deciding what is and what isn't the truth.

Even though that person, in the past (while Trump was President) said "I would never want to see our executive branch have that sort of power" about the very job she has just accepted.

That may work for you right now.

But will it work for you when the other side are in power and a partisan political hack who has very different opinions to you gets to determine what is misinformation and what is not?

No government, or any other organisation for that matter, is sufficiently trustworthy to be given the power to determine what is true and what is not.

 

 

[Moondira]

17 minutes ago, AnthonyJoanne said:

 

We've already discussed this ... but the topic (if not the forums) was rolled back. Twice.

No 'authority' is acceptable when it comes to determining truth.

Every government on the planet has, at one time or another, been found to be corrupt and/or breaking their own laws. EVERY SINGLE ONE. I'm not saying that every government today is corrupt, but I'd be willing to bet a significant chunk of change that there isn't a single government today that doesn't have corruption at some level.

Now we're seeing those same governments creating departments to "combat misinformation".

And to pick the most heavily reported one ... the Biden's administrations "Disinformation Governance Board" is going to be headed by a person who literally claimed that the now confirmed-by-the-New-York-Times Hunter Biden laptop was a "Trump campaign product" and that it was "a Russian influence op".

That same person was very impressed by the now completely discredited Steele Dossier.

That person is a partisan political hack.

And THAT person is going to be in charge of deciding what is and what isn't the truth.

Even though that person, in the past (while Trump was President) said "I would never want to see our executive branch have that sort of power" about the very job she has just accepted.

That may work for you right now.

But will it work for you when the other side are in power and a partisan political hack who has very different opinions to you gets to determine what is misinformation and what is not?

No government, or any other organisation for that matter, is sufficiently trustworthy to be given the power to determine what is true and what is not.

 

 

Why are you, as an Australian, so obsessed with American politics?  I notice that the  Australian YouTube news channel Sky News is as well. And our far-right Fox news channel here always cites them.

I guess I'm asking, is this a thing in Australia?

Edited May 1, 2022 by Moondira

[Coffee Pancake]

Long time Twitter user ... it's an absolute unsafe unmitigated s-hole.

It's flooded with bots, interest managed accounts and actual nazis (not hyperbole). There are complex and deeply coded sub cultures that evade moderation (eg 🧦 is a fascist white supremacist calling card - Socks -> SS)

It's engineered to be a sprawling culture war battle ground. On purpose. The platform depends on this mechanic for it's survival.

Twitter do have a lot of rules, but they are enforced selectively if at all. Repubs complain about getting "silenced" a lot , but in general Twitter are far more likely to let them break the rules as it's "in the public interest". 

[Moondira]

4 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

Long time Twitter user ... it's an absolute unsafe unmitigated s-hole.

It's flooded with bots, interest managed accounts and actual nazis (not hyperbole). There are complex and deeply coded sub cultures that evade moderation (eg 🧦 is a fascist white supremacist calling card - Socks -> SS)

It's engineered to be a sprawling culture war battle ground. On purpose. The platform depends on this mechanic for it's survival.

Twitter do have a lot of rules, but they are enforced selectively if at all. Repubs complain about getting "silenced" a lot , but in general Twitter are far more likely to let them break the rules as it's "in the public interest". 

The far-right in the States are jumping for joy over this Twitter takeover. If that isn't enough to give one pause I don't know what would be.

[Moondira]

21 minutes ago, AnthonyJoanne said:

And to pick the most heavily reported one ... the Biden's administrations "Disinformation Governance Board" is going to be headed by a person who literally claimed that the now confirmed-by-the-New-York-Times Hunter Biden laptop was a "Trump campaign product" and that it was "a Russian influence op".

That same person was very impressed by the now completely discredited Steele Dossier.

That person is a partisan political hack.

Maybe where you got your information to decide the above is the actual side where the political hacking is occurring.

[Istelathis]

47 minutes ago, AnthonyJoanne said:

No government, or any other organisation for that matter, is sufficiently trustworthy to be given the power to determine what is true and what is not.

I feel the same way, a ministry of truth can easily be abused by whatever political party that may be in charge.  I think the only thing one could hope for, is that social media to be regulated so that it can no longer be weaponized by ideologues.  I doubt that will ever happen.  I think many people see it more so as a tool to shape the world rather than a social platform, and due to this we see a constant stream of misinformation along with manipulation we had previously mostly seen with politics.

Regulating the algorithms, to no longer make suggestions for content would be a big step in the direction to take away the ability of social media to be weaponized.  Free speech would not be impacted by this, but of course, I don't think it is free speech some people are concerned with, rather, they want a tool to push whatever agenda they may be supporting.  One could easily create a webpage, and post just about anything they want, but that Internet barely exists anymore.  In its place, are mostly just social media sites.  

I remember when social media was mostly just a place people took pictures of their food, and often updated the most miniscule of details of their day to day lives. 

Edited May 1, 2022 by Istelathis

[Scylla Rhiadra]

By far the most dispiriting thing about this thread, for me, has been the evidence that there are some people who have so lost faith in democracy and democratic institutions (or perhaps never had them to start with) that they would rather hand over custodianship of our civil and human rights to wealthy and powerful individuals.

Democracies are deeply imperfect; there is no end of historical evidence of their failures. But they are, by nature, dynamic: they change and they grow. And, more to the point, they are responsible to us. If they are flawed, it is because we are. And as we grow and learn, so do they. Western democracies such as those in Canada and the US unjustly interned citizens of Japanese heritage during the Second World War. It was a shameful act -- and we are now rightly ashamed of it. We have learned from it.

The thinking from some people seems to be that it is much better to depend upon the stewardship of billionaires with whom we "agree" than experience the horrors to be visited upon us by a four or five year term in office by a party that we don't like. Such people have more faith in the small handful of self-interested powerful individuals than they do in the 10s or 100s of millions of their fellow citizens.

I'm going to use a word that I'm actually very careful not to throw about carelessly. It is too often misused.

But such a view is literally fascist.

 

[Eirynne Sieyes]

 

11 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I said no such thing.

On the contrary, I was suggesting that the frequently unpleasant tone here is characteristic of what we might expect to see more of on Twitter if Musk's own frequently negative voice, and a more liberal acceptance of negativity, sets the tone for discourse there. The entire premise of my remarks is that that, and the tone that has developed here, is not a good thing. That's not "condoning" the tone here: it's saying it exemplifies what we don't want.

@Scylla RhiadraYou said, "...and a more liberal acceptance of negativity sets the tone for discourse there." And certainly here. Perhaps you did not condone this thread's behavior, but you did rationalize it. (We misbehave because of the tone Twitter set.) 

If this tone is what we don't want here, then why are we engaging in it? Because of Twitter's tone?

Edited May 1, 2022 by Eirynne Sieyes

[Scylla Rhiadra]

1 minute ago, Eirynne Sieyes said:

Perhaps you did not condone this thread's behavior, but you did rationalize it. (We misbehave because of the tone Twitter set.) 

I didn't "rationalize" it: I explained it. And explicitly said it was the wrong tone, while arguing that it exemplified one of the dangers that certain kinds of "free speech" can raise.

Are you seriously accusing me of being "toxic" here?

Do you have an actual point you'd like to make?

 

[Ayashe Ninetails]

3 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

Long time Twitter user ... it's an absolute unsafe unmitigated s-hole.

It's flooded with bots, interest managed accounts and actual nazis (not hyperbole). There are complex and deeply coded sub cultures that evade moderation (eg 🧦 is a fascist white supremacist calling card - Socks -> SS)

It's engineered to be a sprawling culture war battle ground. On purpose. The platform depends on this mechanic for it's survival.

Twitter do have a lot of rules, but they are enforced selectively if at all. Repubs complain about getting "silenced" a lot , but in general Twitter are far more likely to let them break the rules as it's "in the public interest". 

Yup, also a long-time daily user (it's open in a tab on my desktop damn near 24/7), and I'll co-sign on all of this (though I actually did not know about the socks...I probably shouldn't find that hilarious but I kind of do).

I do my best to avoid the deepest, darkest, sweatiest pits of the platform and keep myself mostly tuned in to superficial drama Twitter, stan Twitter (as a curious observer, not a participant), business Twitter, art Twitter, Black Twitter for the hilarity, meme Twitter for the memes, politics/activist Twitter to stay aware of current events, and gaming/nerd Twitter for the culture. I'm aware of the shadier sides of the platform, but there's no way in the world I'd touch even half of those hashtags when they occasionally show themselves.

[Luna Bliss]

40 minutes ago, AnthonyJoanne said:

 

We've already discussed this ... but the topic (if not the forums) was rolled back. Twice.

No 'authority' is acceptable when it comes to determining truth.

Every government on the planet has, at one time or another, been found to be corrupt and/or breaking their own laws. EVERY SINGLE ONE. I'm not saying that every government today is corrupt, but I'd be willing to bet a significant chunk of change that there isn't a single government today that doesn't have corruption at some level.

Now we're seeing those same governments creating departments to "combat misinformation".

And to pick the most heavily reported one ... the Biden's administrations "Disinformation Governance Board" is going to be headed by a person who literally claimed that the now confirmed-by-the-New-York-Times Hunter Biden laptop was a "Trump campaign product" and that it was "a Russian influence op".

That same person was very impressed by the now completely discredited Steele Dossier.

That person is a partisan political hack.

And THAT person is going to be in charge of deciding what is and what isn't the truth.

Even though that person, in the past (while Trump was President) said "I would never want to see our executive branch have that sort of power" about the very job she has just accepted.

That may work for you right now.

But will it work for you when the other side are in power and a partisan political hack who has very different opinions to you gets to determine what is misinformation and what is not?

No government, or any other organisation for that matter, is sufficiently trustworthy to be given the power to determine what is true and what is not.

 

 

Governments and wealthy oligarchs both have faults, no doubt about that.

But why are you trusting the oligarchs over government? 

What we need to do is create better government, better laws, to monitor the influence of the wealthiest who have excessive control over our lives.

[Arielle Popstar]

24 minutes ago, Moondira said:

The far-right in the States are jumping for joy over this Twitter takeover. If that isn't enough to give one pause I don't know what would be.

Well that then puts them on an equal footing with what the far left has been doing there for a few years now but Musk's message to both sides is:

 

Quote

For Twitter to deserve public trust, it must be politically neutral, which effectively means upsetting the far right and the far left equally

Be good riddance to both of them.

[Arielle Popstar]

8 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Governments and wealthy oligarchs both have faults, no doubt about that.

But why are you trusting the oligarchs over government? 

What we need to do is create better government, better laws, to monitor the influence of the wealthiest who have excessive control over our lives.

Because in many (all) cases the oligarchs are or are supported by the government and vice versa. It is a very symbiotic relationship and always has been.

[Arielle Popstar]

40 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

Long time Twitter user ... it's an absolute unsafe unmitigated s-hole.

It's flooded with bots, interest managed accounts and actual nazis (not hyperbole). There are complex and deeply coded sub cultures that evade moderation (eg 🧦 is a fascist white supremacist calling card - Socks -> SS)

It's engineered to be a sprawling culture war battle ground. On purpose. The platform depends on this mechanic for it's survival.

Twitter do have a lot of rules, but they are enforced selectively if at all. Repubs complain about getting "silenced" a lot , but in general Twitter are far more likely to let them break the rules as it's "in the public interest". 

If that was actually the case then twitter employees should have no issue with the Musk buyout and yet they do. From all reports it has been some major doom and gloom along with wailing and gnashing of teeth. 

[Luna Bliss]

1 minute ago, Arielle Popstar said:

11 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Governments and wealthy oligarchs both have faults, no doubt about that.

But why are you trusting the oligarchs over government? 

What we need to do is create better government, better laws, to monitor the influence of the wealthiest who have excessive control over our lives.

Expand  

Because in many (all) cases the oligarchs are or are supported by the government and vice versa. It is a very symbiotic relationship and always has been.

Then we do what's within our power -- vote.  We can't directly affect the oligarchy in most cases but we are still a democracy in the US and so we have the potential to affect outcomes through elections.   Until 2024 that is when we likely change into an autocracy.

 Thanks so much for your help in our movement toward autocracy all these years!   /sarcasm

[Coffee Pancake]

4 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Well that then puts them on an equal footing with what the far left has been doing there for a few years now 

The left want healthcare. 

The right want's to criminalize people and make it a crime to support, serve or parent those people.

[Ayashe Ninetails]

The employees are worried about advertisers pulling out. And their job security (understandably).

[Coffee Pancake]

Just now, Ayashe Ninetails said:

The employees are worried about advertisers pulling out. And their job security (understandably).

and the culture change .. Elon has a very poor reputation as a leader in the companies he runs.

[Arielle Popstar]

1 minute ago, Coffee Pancake said:

The left want healthcare. 

The right want's to criminalize people and make it a crime to support, serve or parent those people.

The left wants the state to have autonomy over everyone's body as well as the education of their children.

The right wants freedom from governmental interference.

[Luna Bliss]

12 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

40 minutes ago, Moondira said:

The far-right in the States are jumping for joy over this Twitter takeover. If that isn't enough to give one pause I don't know what would be.

Well that then puts them on an equal footing with what the far left has been doing there for a few years now but Musk's message to both sides is:

 

Quote

For Twitter to deserve public trust, it must be politically neutral, which effectively means upsetting the far right and the far left equally

Be good riddance to both of them.

You're letting your obsession with vaccine issues and Ivermectin influence the issues too much.  Issues on the 'left' involve so much more though.

Twitter skews right. And Musk does too. And that's what Twitter will increasingly move toward.