The ongoing Elon Twitter saga: "insert demographic" melts down

Status
Not open for further replies.
PlacidCasual said:
Yes you're correct those with powerful levers to disenfranchise the voice of others live in an echo chamber of like minded people. Which is in no way problematic.
Click to expand...

But they aren't attempting to disenfranchise actual voters at the ballot box. I know what my anger would be focussed on.

The idea that Twitter is an echo chamber is frankly laughable. I see no end of right wing and even far right wing voices on there.
 
Colonel_Klinck said:
Give it a rest dowie, your inability to just admit you were wrong gets boring after 10 posts of waffle.
Click to expand...

You're just repeatedly replying with more posturing, why not actually try to discuss the points or read and understand what I've written.

I'm more than happy to admit I'm wrong, I literally did that a few posts back re: another poster Matt... guess what he did, he actually presented an argument, something you don't seem to be able or willing to do. Repeatedly replying to me while dodging any reasonable discussion then wanting to claim it's boring etc.. is rather ridiculous given I've both clarified things for you and pushed for you to try and engage more constructively several times now.

No one is forcing you to read my posts or to reply to me but if you're going to do so why not actually be a bit more constructive, telling me three times in a row that there is some uncertainty/estimate re: the rough estimate I've put forward is just telling me something I'm already well aware of, you're not proving anyone wrong there you're just demonstrating you've not read or paid attention to what has been said.
 
Colonel_Klinck said:
But they aren't attempting to disenfranchise actual voters at the ballot box. I know what my anger would be focussed on.

The idea that Twitter is an echo chamber is frankly laughable. I see no end of right wing and even far right wing voices on there.
Click to expand...

I think my point has been lost. Chroniclard suggested that the evidence that 98.7% of Twitter employee donations were to Democrat candidates showed that the smartest etc voted lefty/Democrat.

I suggested that if the assertion that 98+% of Twitter employees supported the Democrats has any truth, then the people who control and moderate Twitter may exist in an echo chamber with like minded individuals. They also have the power to put that common view into practice.

It does not, I agree, disenfranchise voters. I specifically said voice, apologies for mixed metaphors. I didn't say Twitter the platform was an echo chamber although it seems an argument that by only following like minded people you could make it one. I agree all political hues are probably represented. No just the place of employment itself would be an echo chamber if everyone voted the same way.
 
dowie said:
You're just repeatedly replying with more posturing, why not actually try to discuss the points or read and understand what I've written.

I'm more than happy to admit I'm wrong, I literally did that a few posts back re: another poster Matt... guess what he did, he actually presented an argument, something you don't seem to be able or willing to do. Repeatedly replying to me while dodging any reasonable discussion then wanting to claim it's boring etc.. is rather ridiculous given I've both clarified things for you and pushed for you to try and engage more constructively several times now.

No one is forcing you to read my posts or to reply to me but if you're going to do so why not actually be a bit more constructive, telling me three times in a row that there is some uncertainty/estimate re: the rough estimate I've put forward is just telling me something I'm already well aware of, you're not proving anyone wrong there you're just demonstrating you've not read or paid attention to what has been said.
Click to expand...

I think the problem is that you aren't debating with good faith actors, they literally think you are evil, do you get that? They're not here to speak honestly and openly and have nuanced discussion, they're here to win an argument, and if they can't win they'll just troll or flame or try and get you banned. It's obvious what your point was about the Twitter employees, even if the 99% thing wasn't 100% accurate, we broadly know the majority of people working at Twitter and similar companies are heavily left leaning, this is the Demographic that work and live in those specific areas of California.
 
chroniclard said:
All this fuss and still just boils down to righties whining they can't lie. :cry:
Click to expand...
Lol so true.

Roar87 said:
I think the problem is that you aren't debating with good faith actors, they literally think you are evil, do you get that? They're not here to speak honestly and openly and have nuanced discussion, they're here to win an argument, and if they can't win they'll just troll or flame or try and get you banned. It's obvious what your point was about the Twitter employees, even if the 99% thing wasn't 100% accurate, we broadly know the majority of people working at Twitter and similar companies are heavily left leaning, this is the Demographic that work and live in those specific areas of California.
Click to expand...

Marjorie Taylor Green. Is that you?
 
I'm still curious as to how people want to rid the internet of people saying things that aren't true. Also people will from time to time simply say things they believe to be true but later turn out not to be, we shouldn't treat people who say things that aren't true like they've committed a crime against humanity. I believe Tony Blair wasn't correct about weapons of mass destruction, I actually don't believe he intentionally lied about that, but he wasn't telling the truth with the benefit of hindsight because the intelligence he was given was incorrect for example. People are allowed to make mistakes in good faith.
 
chroniclard said:
Do you actually believe the likes of Trump and his right wing cult of loons were making good faith mistakes, I mean trump lied over 30,000 times in good faith..... :cry:
Click to expand...

I believe it doesn't matter what you *think* people's intention is on lying, I believe that you shouldn't censor people because you a) often can't be sure they're lying b) can't be sure they're intentionally lying.

People should be allowed to say things that aren't true, because otherwise you would never be able to discuss ideas. This is how Science works for example, people voice a theory and then it is reviewed by their peers and proven to be incorrect. People need to be allowed to say things that are incorrect.
 
The comparison with science is poor to be honest. It's nothing like that, trump's "big lie" caused deaths, terror and loads of gullible people to be jailed. Not to mentioned nearly ruining democracy in the US
 
chroniclard said:
The comparison with science is poor to be honest. It's nothing like that, trump's "big lie" caused deaths, terror and loads of gullible people to be jailed. Not to mentioned nearly ruining democracy in the US
Click to expand...

So again you're getting into specifics about Trump, this isn't about any government, it's about being able to say thing's which are not true on social media. It is important for people to be able to say things which aren't true. You have to counter those arguments with better arguments. I'm sorry this is difficult for you to grasp and you're angry that people you don't like can say things you don't like. The alternative is that one day your voice will be shut down, so when the next Boris Johnson comes along and does something you don't like, you may have your posts deleted because someone decides they're "lies", irrespective of whether they're the truth or not.
 
Apex said:
Said no one ever. Maybe that's why you're still curious and not finding out an answer to your make believe answer
Click to expand...
Aye

If people wanted that then the chances are twitter would be utterly empty.

I think the closest thing people have said is that it's not a good idea for actively dangerous lies to be left up, or for things that are likely to cause legal issues for the platform to remain up.
 
Roar87 said:
So again you're getting into specifics about Trump, this isn't about any government, it's about being able to say thing's which are not true on social media. It is important for people to be able to say things which aren't true. You have to counter those arguments with better arguments. I'm sorry this is difficult for you to grasp and you're angry that people you don't like can say things you don't like. The alternative is that one day your voice will be shut down, so when the next Boris Johnson comes along and does something you don't like, you may have your posts deleted because someone decides they're "lies", irrespective of whether they're the truth or not.
Click to expand...

Just no. This doesn't work. You can't counter a lie once it's spread and done the damage. No amount of debate or facts will convince people of things once it's out there. Brexit, trump, Boris....all were counteracted by facts, all failed to counteract the lies.

There is no reason a private company should allow a free for all on their platform.

It's not about not liking something, it's about not promoting lies.
 
Roar87 said:
I'm still curious as to how people want to rid the internet of people saying things that aren't true. Also people will from time to time simply say things they believe to be true but later turn out not to be, we shouldn't treat people who say things that aren't true like they've committed a crime against humanity. I believe Tony Blair wasn't correct about weapons of mass destruction, I actually don't believe he intentionally lied about that, but he wasn't telling the truth with the benefit of hindsight because the intelligence he was given was incorrect for example. People are allowed to make mistakes in good faith.
Click to expand...

Roar87 said:
So again you're getting into specifics about Trump, this isn't about any government, it's about being able to say thing's which are not true on social media. It is important for people to be able to say things which aren't true. You have to counter those arguments with better arguments. I'm sorry this is difficult for you to grasp and you're angry that people you don't like can say things you don't like. The alternative is that one day your voice will be shut down, so when the next Boris Johnson comes along and does something you don't like, you may have your posts deleted because someone decides they're "lies", irrespective of whether they're the truth or not.
Click to expand...


No one is trying to stop people like you or I lying on social media.

Do you think social media shouldn't be fact checking anything? You don't think disinformation and misinformation can damage society if left unchecked? We saw and continue to see the damage certain accounts can do in regards to the covid vaccine. Most of the vaccine disinformation was coming from a handful of accounts and look at the damage they have caused. You can get medical experts to refute these lies but its too late, the damage is done, no amount of counter arguments is going to change their minds, you've lost the battle already and even the war with millions of people. Kicking people off social media isn't great but sometimes its the lesser evil and these companies have platforms the are being used in ways to cause maximum damage for various ideological reasons, they are nuts or maybe some just because they want to see the world burn.
 
Allnamestaken said:
Guys you should know by now, don't fall down a Dowiehole.
Click to expand...

He did it deliberately, it's not hard to avoid a dowie hole, other posters in this thread have engaged in actual arguments and paid attention to what was said.

If you're going to throw in dumb replies that demonstrate you've not actually read or understood the argument being made or seemingly misrepresent it then you'll get a reply pointing that out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom