Jump to content

Twitter is better


jross

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Nailbender said:

       I don't want child porn distributed. Preventing speech that break laws or facilitates breaking the law would be a good guide. Other than that I don't understand most of your other examples?

     I don't see how having some arbitrary person or a computer program hiding certain speech is helpful in any way. You don't think society exposing it as wrong or bad would be more effective? 

 

We see things differently.  Horse dewormer?   Russia targeting tossup districts with lies and propaganda 3 days before an election to get their choice elected?  Glorification of Hitler and Holocaust denial?   C'mon.  You can't be serious.

MOST of society rejects bad ideas, but the scale of audience differentiates it from a person on a street corner.  People who subscribe to dangerous and crazy ideas may be small in proportion but that doesn't make them small in number.

From a platform demographics standpoint, what do you think will result from free speech absolutism?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Mike Parrish said:

There's been a lot of "Buh mah free speech" screeching on here with mentions of criminal liability and first amendment ramifications.

Twitter is a private company that can decide what they allow, outside of illegality, on their property.

I don't currently like how they're deciding things, but that's something different.

Glad to see you're not on that side of things.

 Twitter is and has always been mostly disgusting. It has little to nothing to do with who runs it. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

We see things differently.  Horse dewormer?   Russia targeting tossup districts with lies and propaganda 3 days before an election to get their choice elected?  Glorification of Hitler and Holocaust denial?   C'mon.  You can't be serious.

MOST of society rejects bad ideas, but the scale of audience differentiates it from a person on a street corner.  People who subscribe to dangerous and crazy ideas may be small in proportion but that doesn't make them small in number.

From a platform demographics standpoint, what do you think will result from free speech absolutism?

      I am serious. If you want to save the world from bad ideas, speak out against them. I don't want to decide what is misinformation for anyone else and I definitely don't want others deciding it for me.

      I'm sure Twitter's desire to moderate content on its platform is to keep it from becoming a product they don't want it to be. I see nothing wrong with that, I just don't like the previous or existing product. It's most of the worst parts of us already, even with moderation.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Nailbender said:

      I am serious. If you want to save the world from bad ideas, speak out against them. I don't want to decide what is misinformation for anyone else and I definitely don't want others deciding it for me.

      I'm sure Twitter's desire to moderate content on its platform is to keep it from becoming a product they don't want it to be. I see nothing wrong with that, I just don't like the previous or existing product. It's most of the worst parts of us already, even with moderation.

 

I understand your point of view.  People are too immature and they need supervision.  I can't imagine a more ineffective mechanism to ostracize Neo-Nazis than giving them a platform to spread their message to billions.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

I understand your point of view.  People are too immature and they need supervision.  I can't imagine a more ineffective mechanism to ostracize Neo-Nazis than giving them a platform to spread their message to billions.

     Who will be the arbiters of the "supervision"?

      I want no less freedom for anyone else than I want for myself. The Nazi message has already been spread the world over and rejected more than accepted. Twitter won't change that.

     Your underlined sentence is shocking to me. It's a point of view that is extremely authoritarian. So much so, I can't believe you typed it. I don't think you understand my point of view at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Nailbender said:

     Who will be the arbiters of the "supervision"?

      I want no less freedom for anyone else than I want for myself. The Nazi message has already been spread the world over and rejected more than accepted. Twitter won't change that.

     Your underlined sentence is shocking to me. It's a point of view that is extremely authoritarian. So much so, I can't believe you typed it. I don't think you understand my point of view at all.

Laws and norms of society are the primary driver.  One of which is a balance between freedom of expression and the purposeful destruction of society.  Social media can and is used to spread good messages and evil, so it is relevant to the message.

Shocking? What?  It is an acknowledgement of the human experience.  Laws, rules and regulations exist for a reason.  In every society and endeavor.  What is the inevitable result of a social media platform with zero rules?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

Laws and norms of society are the primary driver.  One of which is a balance between freedom of expression and the purposeful destruction of society.  Social media can and is used to spread good messages and evil, so it is relevant to the message.

Shocking? What?  It is an acknowledgement of the human experience.  Laws, rules and regulations exist for a reason.  In every society and endeavor.  What is the inevitable result of a social media platform with zero rules?

People hearing all the information and deciding for themselves is not a "purposeful destruction of society." 

As for your last question, I don't claim to know. Why don't you tell me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Nailbender said:

People hearing all the information and deciding for themselves is not a "purposeful destruction of society." 

As for your last question, I don't claim to know. Why don't you tell me. 

The organization of klan meetings followed by cross burnings is. So is the rigging of elections.  And an endless number of others.

The result is failure of the platform and a outrageous behavior.  Criminal and otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

The organization of klan meetings followed by cross burnings is. So is the rigging of elections.  And an endless number of others.

The result is failure of the platform and a outrageous behavior.  Criminal and otherwise.

    The klan isn't making a comeback on Twitter. Just stop. The world won't end if Twitter doesn't censor posts.

Expecting someone else to protect us from the things you're worried about is asking for trouble. To stop them we all need to stand up to them.

     You still haven't answered me. Who should decide what we all get to see and what we don't?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Nailbender said:

    The klan isn't making a comeback on Twitter. Just stop. The world won't end if Twitter doesn't censor posts.

Expecting someone else to protect us from the things you're worried about is asking for trouble. To stop them we all need to stand up to them.

     You still haven't answered me. Who should decide what we all get to see and what we don't?

Is the klan even allowed on Twitter?  You give people way, way too much credit.  There is no standing up.  That is the attention they crave.  Note that I am not saying people can't believe or express whatever they want, crazy and otherwise.  I am saying if I am responsible for a platform there are going to rules.  Teenagers bullying each other into anorexia?  Hate speech? Propaganda? Nope, nope, nope.

I've given you the best answer I can. Shorter answer is the platform itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

Is the klan even allowed on Twitter?  You give people way, way too much credit.  There is no standing up.  That is the attention they crave.  Note that I am not saying people can't believe or express whatever they want, crazy and otherwise.  I am saying if I am responsible for a platform there are going to rules.  Teenagers bullying each other into anorexia?  Hate speech? Propaganda? Nope, nope, nope.

I've given you the best answer I can. Shorter answer is the platform itself.

Fair enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Nailbender said:

     Who will be the arbiters of the "supervision"?

      I want no less freedom for anyone else than I want for myself. The Nazi message has already been spread the world over and rejected more than accepted. Twitter won't change that.

     Your underlined sentence is shocking to me. It's a point of view that is extremely authoritarian. So much so, I can't believe you typed it. I don't think you understand my point of view at all.

The people who own the website.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Nailbender said:

I thought we covered that? Can we stop complaining about how it's run now?

People can complain about how someone runs a website.
That's opinion.

Stating that the previous people violated the law by running it the way they wanted, without ever citing the theoretically violated statute, is what's wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Mike Parrish said:

People can complain about how someone runs a website.
That's opinion.

Stating that the previous people violated the law by running it the way they wanted, without ever citing the theoretically violated statute, is what's wrong.

People can do a lot of things. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Mike Parrish said:

You don't see the difference between, "New twitter moderation sucks" and "Old twitter moderation was illegal and people should be prosecuted" ?

So according to your take on things, the cake shop owners should never have been sued for not making the wedding cake for the gay marriage??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mike Parrish said:

You don't see the difference between, "New twitter moderation sucks" and "Old twitter moderation was illegal and people should be prosecuted" ?

Moderation always sucked and probably will continue to. There are just different people complaining. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

anybody see the recent stuff about him firing engineers because they're telling him the truth about how he's not as popular as he thinks he is? he threw a temper tantrum because his super bowl tweet generated less views than biden's. the new "fix" for this problem is to make the algorithm amplify his tweets x 1000.

can't imagine a more pathetic loser. he's like an old school schizophrenic roman emperor.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Latest Rankings

  • College Commitments

    Noah Hall

    Liberty, Virginia
    Class of 2024
    Committed to Bellarmine
    Projected Weight: 165

    Jack Castagneto

    Bishop Kelly, Idaho
    Class of 2024
    Committed to North Dakota State
    Projected Weight: 133

    Easton Cooper

    DC Everest, Wisconsin
    Class of 2024
    Committed to Chattanooga
    Projected Weight: 125, 133

    Cade Gilbert

    Marlow, Oklahoma
    Class of 2024
    Committed to Little Rock
    Projected Weight: 157

    Jayden Ignacio

    Aztec, New Mexico
    Class of 2024
    Committed to Adams State
    Projected Weight: 285
×
×
  • Create New...