Twitter is better

[Mike Parrish]

lol, is this where you're getting your talking points?
 

 

 

[Mike Parrish]

The GOP this week.

 

 

[jross]

Could you be focusing on the wrong thing?  

 

[Theo Brixton]

Here is an opinion piece by Democratic congressman Ro Khanna. He clearly lays out why the censorship of the NY Post article on Twitter was an issue every American should be concerned about, regardless of political affiliation: 

Twitter’s Duty to Protect Free Speech

[Mike Parrish]

1 hour ago, Theo Brixton said:

Here is an opinion piece by Democratic congressman Ro Khanna. He clearly lays out why the censorship of the NY Post article on Twitter was an issue every American should be concerned about, regardless of political affiliation: 

Twitter’s Duty to Protect Free Speech

Paywall

[jross]

54 minutes ago, Mike Parrish said:

Paywall

Paywall defeated

https://web.archive.org/web/20221205235834/https://www.wsj.com/articles/twitters-duty-to-protect-free-speech-elon-musk-social-media-democracy-new-york-post-ideas-freedom-11670281265

[Mike Parrish]

3 minutes ago, jross said:

Paywall defeated

https://web.archive.org/web/20221205235834/https://www.wsj.com/articles/twitters-duty-to-protect-free-speech-elon-musk-social-media-democracy-new-york-post-ideas-freedom-11670281265

That's not a bad take.

 

[mspart]

Yes not a bad take.   But it is 2 years too late and the news was suppressed from a sizable group that got their news via twitter. 

mspart

[BobDole]

On 12/4/2022 at 6:19 AM, jross said:

Musk paid a ridiculous amount of money to reveal a serious concern about the power and misuse of information control.  That misuse should be a bipartisan concern.  Beware that next time it could be used against you.

Twitter is a private company, they can suppress information as they please. Just like CNN and Fox News caters to their own specific crowds, Twitter can also. If Twitter was a government entity then we have a real story. 

The power of social media is really scary. Even on a site like this I can access DM's at my pleasing if I wish. I could spill the beans that you sent granny basketball a love letter two days ago. The Hunter Biden story is just the untold part of running social media. It's the same for CNN not saying anything about it or Fox News making it a big deal.

Even on Facebook, their algorithms promote posts you are more likely to engage with. Whether it's pictures of puppies or political stuff that gains your clicks. Social media and websites in general work hard to keep you on there AND engaged. One of the best things about a board like this is people will spend a lot of time on here reading and engaging. Thus Willie gets more money for ad revenue.

As stated previously many pages before, social media has a tightrope to walk. Running something like Twitter or even something smaller like this site comes with a lot of tough questions. Do we let trolls run amuck here? Do we allow someone to say prominent people in the wrestling world are bad people? If we let trolls run amuck the site will be unbearable and people will leave. Multiply those questions and problems by the millions and you have Facebook and Twitter. 

[Mike Parrish]

Add in regulatory concerns (EU in particular).

[jross]

25% of the USA population have Twitter accounts versus <1% watch Fox News.  At what point is a business big enough to warrant regulation consideration?  Twitter warrants consideration.  Fox News is a small fry.

[Mike Parrish]

1 hour ago, jross said:

25% of the USA population have Twitter accounts versus <1% watch Fox News.  At what point is a business big enough to warrant regulation consideration?  Twitter warrants consideration.  Fox News is a small fry.

Contact your legislators.

[BobDole]

1 hour ago, jross said:

25% of the USA population have Twitter accounts versus <1% watch Fox News.  At what point is a business big enough to warrant regulation consideration?  Twitter warrants consideration.  Fox News is a small fry.

What regulations would you want on social media? 

[jross]

Twitter humorously states that they are committed to ensuring the enforcement of Twitter Rules as fair, unbiased, proportional... and they outwardly look the part with their documentation.  Twitter publishes counts around legal demands to remove content, government requests for account information, and actions taken on user accounts.  It stops short of showing what was moderated and amplified.  https://transparency.twitter.com/

Given we have smoking evidence that the actions are unfair, biased, and not proportional... this proposal is a great place to start gaining trust.

Transparent content moderation.  https://sriramk.com/transparent-content-moderation

+Transparent amplification to start.

[BobDole]

34 minutes ago, jross said:

Twitter humorously states that they are committed to ensuring the enforcement of Twitter Rules as fair, unbiased, proportional... and they outwardly look the part with their documentation.  Twitter publishes counts around legal demands to remove content, government requests for account information, and actions taken on user accounts.  It stops short of showing what was moderated and amplified.  https://transparency.twitter.com/

Given we have smoking evidence that the actions are unfair, biased, and not proportional... this proposal is a great place to start gaining trust.

Transparent content moderation.  https://sriramk.com/transparent-content-moderation

+Transparent amplification to start.

Here is the deal though, if you don't like their product don't use it. If you feel their dealings are unfair and biased don't use their product. I don't like CNN or Fox News' product, thus do not watch either channel. I also do not like Oprah's channel, hence I don't watch it.

You wanting the government to force a private company to "show their work" is kind of scary. Would you also like the government to tell Willie(or a former presidential candidate) to divulge posts that were deleted and users that were censored or banned?

This fairness that you seek will never be there no matter who is running Twitter. It seems as if Musk is right leaning, do you think that if a politician he supports asks for something to be censored or promoted he won't do it? I'd guess he would. It is the same as if Cael would call Willie(and he answers) and says hey this poo poo head is saying I'm involved with some illegal activity on your board please take it off. I'm guessing he takes it down, but just a hunch.

Unfortunately our political parties have driven a stake between Americans and made use pawns in their game. They thrive on divisiveness. They have made it so that we are forced to pick a side when 95% of us are in the middle. When they do that people who have power in media(social and print) have the ability to promote or suppress things they do not like. 

Asking for fair, unbiased, proportional enforcement will not happen, what you think should be removed may not be what I think should be removed. Unfortunately for right leaning people they are the heavy minority in the tech world and thus they think the nerds are picking on them. Maybe it's revenge for the high school bullying.

[BerniePragle]

9 hours ago, BobDole said:

Here is the deal though, if you don't like their product don't use it. If you feel their dealings are unfair and biased don't use their product. I don't like CNN or Fox News' product, thus do not watch either channel. I also do not like Oprah's channel, hence I don't watch it.

You wanting the government to force a private company to "show their work" is kind of scary. Would you also like the government to tell Willie(or a former presidential candidate) to divulge posts that were deleted and users that were censored or banned?

This fairness that you seek will never be there no matter who is running Twitter. It seems as if Musk is right leaning, do you think that if a politician he supports asks for something to be censored or promoted he won't do it? I'd guess he would. It is the same as if Cael would call Willie(and he answers) and says hey this poo poo head is saying I'm involved with some illegal activity on your board please take it off. I'm guessing he takes it down, but just a hunch.

Unfortunately our political parties have driven a stake between Americans and made use pawns in their game. They thrive on divisiveness. They have made it so that we are forced to pick a side when 95% of us are in the middle. When they do that people who have power in media(social and print) have the ability to promote or suppress things they do not like. 

Asking for fair, unbiased, proportional enforcement will not happen, what you think should be removed may not be what I think should be removed. Unfortunately for right leaning people they are the heavy minority in the tech world and thus they think the nerds are picking on them. Maybe it's revenge for the high school bullying.

100%.

Fundamentally no different than TV before, radio before that, and newspapers before that.  Many, many elections were influenced by the media previously to social media.  The difference being social media is media on steroids with respect to this.  Much like nuclear power, the jeanie is out of the bottle and not going back in.

[jross]

18 hours ago, BobDole said:

Would you also like the government to tell Willie(or a former presidential candidate) to divulge posts that were deleted and users that were censored or banned?

The Intermat is not comparable and no reason for goernement regulation.  The best government is the least government as my general principle.  FWIW: publishing who is banned and the reason is something I would choose to do if I was running the forum.  I'd have forum rules posted like 'don't dox other users.'  I'd warn or ban someone that did it, and post it "Johnie is on probation for 10 days for violating the rule on doxing users.'  

[jross]

18 hours ago, BobDole said:

You wanting the government to force a private company to "show their work" is kind of scary.

 Twitter, Google, and Facebook monopolize the public communication square.  If I want to share life happenings with grandma casually, it will be Facebook.  Facebook has ~80%, Google has ~90%, and Twitter has ~25% penetration in the USA population.  They are applying censorship bias that influences elections, the government is involved in censorship, and the average person has no idea.  Folks on this forum tell me I have a tin foil hat when presented with reliable evidence.

Why is it that when a company goes public, it must share financial earnings regularly?  They must follow the strict rules laid out by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the government body which oversees capital markets and protects investors. 

Edited December 8, 2022 by jross

[Ban Basketball]

7 minutes ago, jross said:

The Intermat is not comparable and no reason for goernement regulation.  The best government is the least government as my general principle.  FWIW: publishing who is banned and the reason is something I would choose to do if I was running the forum.  I'd have forum rules posted like 'don't dox other users.'  I'd warn or ban someone that did it, and post it "Johnie is on probation for 10 days for violating the rule on doxing users.'  

If you ever get in a position to ever have to do so,  I'll offer my consultation fees on how to ban people. 

[jross]

Can’t wait to see what’s coming tonight.

 

[MPhillips]

1 hour ago, jross said:

Can’t wait to see what’s coming

Still waiting...

[Mike Parrish]

TL;DR - Twitter is a private company and doesn't want whackadoodles polluting their brand and killing their advertising...

 

 

[jross]

Twitter unrolled

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1601007575633305600.html

[Theo Brixton]

The censorship of covid wrongthink facilitated some of the most regressive policies toward urban blacks since the war on drugs. It's almost as if for some people that "black lives matter" only when they can be weaponized against their political opponents...

 

[jross]

Twitter was a public company then, and I was a part-owner when this BS was happening.

1. Head of legal policy and trust lied when they said, "We do not shadow ban.  And we certainly don’t shadow ban based on political viewpoints or ideology.”
2. They blocked searches of individual users; limited the scope of a particular tweet’s discoverability; blocked select users’ posts from ever appearing on the “trending” page; and blocked content from inclusion in hashtag searches.  All without the user's knowledge.

Read the unroll; can you also spot the continued use of racist terminology? [hint: its a label]