Elon Musk buys Twitter to bring back Free Speech

[Scylla Rhiadra]

1 minute ago, Arielle Popstar said:

You are right, it isn't just a partisan issue but it is one of the biggest outlets for it. In threads past there have been quite a few who hate the hate and yet were happy when alternate views were shut down.

Possibly. Then let us agree to agree: hate and oppression are always dangerous.

Edited May 1, 2022 by Scylla Rhiadra

[Arielle Popstar]

12 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

There has never been, and never will be, total freedom.

Without censorship the strong rise to the top and trample the more vulnerable.  So we must come together and talk it out, decide exactly what should be censored so as to protect all citizens.

It's messy, and always in process.

What are we going to talk about if censorship has shut down any alternate viewpoints? That statement is not making sense.

[Luna Bliss]

1 minute ago, Arielle Popstar said:

In threads past there have been quite a few who hate the hate and yet were happy when alternate views were shut down.

One can only take so much of your anti-vax ivermectin focus. 

[Arielle Popstar]

6 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I have not.

This isn't a partisan issue. Hate is destructive and corrosive of democracy, regardless of its origin.

ETA: You will note (or maybe not -- at least one other person here missed it, or is purposefully ignoring it) that I very carefully did not associate "fascism" in my comment above with the Right. And that's because there are autocratic, divisive, and hateful voices on the Left as well. I spend some of my time battling them precisely because they represent a betrayal of what I believe progressive politics should be: open, inclusive, and dialogic.

Well it is good of you to acknowledge that then, very few would but it is the only way some agreement could be reached  to lead to a better future. No one and no party is 100% wrong or 100% right.

[Luna Bliss]

2 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

16 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

There has never been, and never will be, total freedom.

Without censorship the strong rise to the top and trample the more vulnerable.  So we must come together and talk it out, decide exactly what should be censored so as to protect all citizens.

It's messy, and always in process.

What are we going to talk about if censorship has shut down any alternate viewpoints? That statement is not making sense.

We make laws to restrict people who harm others, simple as that. I believe it has to be "extreme harm" before censorship occurs on Twitter.

[Arielle Popstar]

2 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

One can only take so much of your anti-vax ivermectin focus. 

Perhaps you have some tunnel vision? We have discussed other topics then just that. But obviously they were the only ones that were important to you.

[Ayashe Ninetails]

Twitter doesn't permaban lightly. Moderation is too inconsistent/lazy for that. It takes repeated TOSbreaking to even get your tweets deleted (bots not included - those do get yeeted on occasion), let alone entire accounts flushed.

If someone got banned, chances are they were doing a lot more than tweeting an opposing view. The big, big bans I know of and personally saw go down years ago had to do with inciting actual violence and spreading deep, deeeeep conspiracy theories.

[Coffee Pancake]

6 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

You are right, it isn't just a partisan issue but it is one of the biggest outlets for it. In threads past there have been quite a few who hate the hate and yet were happy when alternate views were shut down.

If alternative views harm or marginalize people based on identity, then those alternatives aren't worth considering.

We can disagree about everything all day long, but not whether certain groups of people have the right to exist or participate.

[Arielle Popstar]

Just now, Luna Bliss said:

We make laws to restrict people who harm others, simple as that. I believe it has to be "extreme harm" before censorship occurs on Twitter.

define "extreme harm". I have noticed your definition over different threads is very liberal, especially when it impacts those you see as vulnerable but does not extend to those who are impacted when they do not qualify as some sort of victim to be saved.

[Coffee Pancake]

1 minute ago, Ayashe Ninetails said:

(bots not included - those do get yeeted on occasion)

They purge suspected bots from time to time, but it only triggers a requirement to verify a phone number or something .. which can be hard to do when an organization is running thousands of accounts,

[Luna Bliss]

Just now, Arielle Popstar said:

4 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

We make laws to restrict people who harm others, simple as that. I believe it has to be "extreme harm" before censorship occurs on Twitter.

define "extreme harm". I have noticed your definition over different threads is very liberal, especially when it impacts those you see as vulnerable but does not extend to those who are impacted when they do not qualify as some sort of victim to be saved.

Extreme harm can only be defined by knowing the specific circumstance.

Your "noticing" is distorted. All people are vulnerable, some more than others, and context has to be taken into account too.

What, exactly, are you attempting to accuse me of?

[Eirynne Sieyes]

34 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

The truth is never inflammatory.

Anything can be inflammatory depending on how it is said. Nevertheless, it seems we disagree on what is truth. So be it. 

[Luna Bliss]

2 minutes ago, Eirynne Sieyes said:

39 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

The truth is never inflammatory.

Anything can be inflammatory depending on how it is said. Nevertheless, it seems we disagree on what is truth. So be it. 

I said nothing about how truth is stated -- I said the truth is never inflammatory itself. 

[Ayashe Ninetails]

Just now, Coffee Pancake said:

They purge suspected bots from time to time, but it only triggers a requirement to verify a phone number or something .. which can be hard to do when an organization is running thousands of accounts,

Yeah, I figured bot moderation was handled differently (probably automatically) as they seem to disappear in groups.

But someone sitting down and reading through tweets and making judgment calls on what to remove/keep who to ban/not ban on a regular basis? Not happening. They're lazy as hell over there. 😂 It's why social platforms and games keep trying to train up AI/bots to handle that sort of mess. Nobody wants to spend the time or resources doing that manually.

Now if a big big big verified account breaks the rules over and over and over, I suspect it'll trigger something. But again, Twitter favors labeling misinfo and stressing context and transparency over removing content entirely.

[Silent Mistwalker]

1 hour ago, Lindal Kidd said:

Well, either we have a free press, or we don't. Is there some middle ground? How much government censorship is acceptable?

Twitter isn't the press. Just saying. If people want to allow themselves to die from a horrible thing like Covid-19 it's not my problem. I do draw the line at lying to me about a drug that was not meant to be used as a cure for Covid but as an animal de-wormer, which btw, dosages for domestic animals are not the same as for human consumption. It's quite a bit more in reality. 

Edited May 1, 2022 by Silent Mistwalker

[Arielle Popstar]

Just now, Luna Bliss said:

I said nothing about how truth is stated -- I said the truth is never inflammatory itself. 

But truth can and does often hurt when it is acknowledged but is often interpreted as a harm because of that hurt when it is vocalized by another.

[Silent Mistwalker]

32 minutes ago, Istelathis said:

Is nuking social media from orbit an option? 

 

Can we please press the red shiny button, please?  I think it has single handedly driven people to the point of insanity, it is a threat to our country, and well, I just want to see it burn.

 

*moves over on the Group W bench and pats the bench next to her

[Luna Bliss]

2 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

5 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

I said nothing about how truth is stated -- I said the truth is never inflammatory itself. 

But truth can and does often hurt when it is acknowledged but is often interpreted as a harm because of that hurt when it is vocalized by another.

Scylla said some people on this thread are advocating fascism.  That's simply the truth. And you don't have to be aware that's what you're doing for this to apply.

It's up to you if you are one who is doing this and choose to feel hurt by it.

[Eirynne Sieyes]

33 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I have not.

This isn't a partisan issue. Hate is destructive and corrosive of democracy, regardless of its origin.

ETA: You will note (or maybe not -- at least one other person here missed it, or is purposefully ignoring it) that I very carefully did not associate "fascism" in my comment above with the Right. And that's because there are autocratic, divisive, and hateful voices on the Left as well. I spend some of my time battling them precisely because they represent a betrayal of what I believe progressive politics should be: open, inclusive, and dialogic.

@Scylla RhiadraIt doesn't matter which political side the fascist accusation is levied at. A fascist accusation is an inflammatory and profoundly unhelpful comment to make. It will encourage the opposite of the open and inclusive dialog you seek.

Edited May 1, 2022 by Eirynne Sieyes

[Scylla Rhiadra]

1 minute ago, Eirynne Sieyes said:

It doesn't matter which political side the fascist accusation is being levied at. A fascist accusation is an inflammatory and profoundly unhelpful comment to make. It will encourage the opposite of the open and inclusive dialog you seek.

it is, as I noted, a literal description of a view that chooses to invest power in a few unaccountable individuals rather than in our democratic institutions.

I'm sorry you find it "inflammatory." I chose the word, as I said, carefully: it's not one I throw about.

Free speech in action, I guess?

[Eirynne Sieyes]

5 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Scylla said some people on this thread are advocating fascism.  That's simply the truth. And you don't have to be aware that's what you're doing for this to apply.

It's up to you if you are one who is doing this and choose to feel hurt by it.

Hmmm... There is a middle ground here, yet you seem to be making the argument - which I am strongly opposed to - that it is OK to shame, disparage or name call someone because you feel like it and choose to disregard how the target person may handle it. 

[Love Zhaoying]

1 hour ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

they would rather hand over custodianship of our civil and human rights to wealthy and powerful individuals.

..individuals who they agree with politically, at least to some extent..

That's how I read the thread.

[Eirynne Sieyes]

15 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I'm sorry you find it "inflammatory." I chose the word, as I said, carefully: it's not one I throw about.

Free speech in action, I guess?

Free speech has to be respectful.

If it isn't conversation will quickly degrade into the disparaging, vitriolic mess that is all too common here and elsewhere.

Edited May 1, 2022 by Eirynne Sieyes
grammar

[Love Zhaoying]

21 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

But truth can and does often hurt when it is acknowledged but is often interpreted as a harm because of that hurt when it is vocalized by another.

I'm sorry the truth hurts you so much.

[Rowan Amore]

1 minute ago, Eirynne Sieyes said:

Free speech has to be respectful.

If it isn't it will, conversation will quickly degrade into the disparaging, vitriolic mess that is all too common here and elsewhere.

Perhaps Elon could follow your advise.