If I want to see the live news...yes.
The ongoing Elon Twitter saga: "insert demographic" melts down
- Thread starter Energize
- Start date
- Status
BBC Interview was planned by the journalist, or were earlier posts ironic.
whole interview only seems to be on twitter - why didn't beeb publish it all
whole interview only seems to be on twitter - why didn't beeb publish it all
Caporegime
Yeah this was an epic fail by the Beeb. Should have kept their powder dry for a properly planned interview with an experienced journo.
When someone from Speakers Corner has to debate Elon Musk
The guy might as well find a new career now if he's not sacked soon
Whatever trust he used to get this interview authorised, horribly backfired, and he's undermined everything he was incompetent at representing including his employer.
Associate
That’s your 10th post in this thread alone mentioning speakers corner lol.
It seems you don’t take your own advice (from page 467)
Let's talk about Elon Musk not speakers corner ********
Last edited:
From the brief clip in that Tweet, it's more like debating someone who has been banned from SC for being unable to cite evidence for their claims.
The reporter was poorly prepared, he should have had the various data driven studies that have been done and proven a rise in 'hate speech' to hand.
Ah yes, the data driven studies for 'hate speech', a term so loosely defined it can mean anything you want at any moment. That's some real hard science.
Permabanned
The BBC should have sent one of their more experienced and reputable interviewers like Martin Bashir.
Can you give me an example of hate speech being "so loosely defined that it can mean anything you want at any moment" in one of these studies please?
Considering that any study that didn't explicitly define what it set out to examine or measure, would be extremely unlikely to make it through peer review without being torn apart and pulled from publication; then if you're correct it should be extremely easy for you to provide such an example.
Yep, that's exactly what it was like.
Last edited:
Soldato
Woaaa hold your horses sunshine, this is GD. We don't do your fancy evidence round these here parts, get back to your circle jerk SC land if you want actual evidence of anything
This is GD, your supposed to go with feels, claims of impartiality, comments about skinny arms, self imposed rules on replying to people that make you feel superior etc etc
After a look around at news coverage, they don't really care. They wanted to hear Elons answers.
I see a few people who are not pleased the interviewer wasn't prepared enough to debate on the subjects being questioned and would rather they had the chance at the interview.
Give it 24h to see if anything changes in the coverage but seems like it'll go down as a wasted opportunity.
I see a few people who are not pleased the interviewer wasn't prepared enough to debate on the subjects being questioned and would rather they had the chance at the interview.
Give it 24h to see if anything changes in the coverage but seems like it'll go down as a wasted opportunity.
Woaaa hold your horses sunshine, this is GD. We don't do your fancy evidence round these here parts, get back to your circle jerk SC land if you want actual evidence of anything
This is GD, your supposed to go with feels, claims of impartiality, comments about skinny arms, self imposed rules on replying to people that make you feel superior etc etc
Indeed...
Musk asks for evidence in support of a claim = Genius debat0r!
Regular of SC asks for evidence in support of a claim = Dumb SC Libs, always wanting stupid evidences! It's just common sense dontcha know!
Well, this New York Times article from December 2022 mentions that slurs against gay men and black Americans had increased, I'm not sure it's possible to know that it was a slur used against a Black American, or even if the slur was also being used by a Black American. How is it possible to identify the skin colour of someone being insulted and someone doing the insulting based on a blank Twitter profile? How can this possibly be considered science? The article mentions that slurs increased from 1,200 per day to
3,800 per day, yet one individual could set up a couple of bot accounts that would easily account for that increase. There are over 500 million Tweets sent each day, yet we're talking about an increase of 2,000 that could actually have been made by one user setting up a couple of bots, and this is evidence of a rise in hate speech on Twitter. The studies are laughably bad. Then you get some idiotic journalist suffering from confirmation bias posing it as a serious question to Elon who then rips him apart accordingly, probably because he took 2 minutes to look at the data himself and realised what a joke it was
Hate Speech’s Rise on Twitter Is Unprecedented, Researchers Find (Published 2022)
Problematic content and formerly barred accounts have increased sharply in the short time since Elon Musk took over, researchers said.
Last edited:
Soldato
Has the full video of the BBC interview been released? Or is it just the Twitter Space audio?
"I'm shooketh"
Well, this New York Times article from December 2022 mentions that slurs against gay men and black Americans had increased, I'm not sure it's possible to know that it was a slur used against a Black American, or even if the slur was also being used by a Black American. How is it possible to identify the skin colour of someone being insulted and someone doing the insulting based on a blank Twitter profile? How can this possibly be considered science? The article mentions that slurs increased from 1,200 per day to
3,800 per day, yet one individual could set up a couple of bot accounts that would easily account for that increase. There are over 500 million Tweets sent each day, yet we're talking about an increase of 2,000 that could actually have been made by one user setting up a couple of bots, and this is evidence of a rise in hate speech on Twitter. The studies are laughably bad.
Hate Speech’s Rise on Twitter Is Unprecedented, Researchers Find (Published 2022)
Problematic content and formerly barred accounts have increased sharply in the short time since Elon Musk took over, researchers said.www.nytimes.com
Why are you linking to news articles? Why would you not provide the study itself? Have you read the study that this article is referencing? Do you understand what controls were, or were not put in place?
You linking to a news article that is reporting that researchers have found an increase in hate speech, is not evidence that "these studies have defined hate speech so loosely that it can mean anything you want", which is the claim that you've been asked to provide evidence for.
Let's try this again, you were asked the following:
In response to your claim regarding the studies themselves:
If you're correct, then surely you can provide an example of a study that measured an increase in hate speech, but failed to strictly define it, right?
Maybe you can, I don't know i've not read them; but you linking to a news article accompanied by some completely hypothetical blurb from yourself about why you think they might be wrong, does not constitute evidence of anything.
Last edited:
I have no examples of studies GordyR because I wasn't the person citing them in the first place, my post wasn't even in reference to a study but speaking about the term hate speech in general. There's obviously no set definition because it's subjective, the bar of hate speech would be very low for some people and much higher for others. So how do you define that? Is making a joke about English people hate speech? Maybe for some people it is, other people wouldn't think it was.
I see, that's fair enough; although this feels a little bit like that interview now, don't you think?
Anyway, I'm a bit confused by other parts of your response and would like to pick you up on a couple of things:
This seems odd given that you were responding to someone who absolutely was talking specifically about the studies; and then in your response you said:
Roar87 said:
Why would you explicitly mention the data driven studies, even to the point of make a sarcastic comment about them not being real hard science, if you weren't talking about data driven studies?
I don't know, maybe it's me, but I don't think that it's unreasonable to think that someone who mentions data driven studies, is in fact talking about data driven studies.
Still, I appreciate the clarification.
Well no, not really.
In studies that set out to examine hate speech, you should expect to find hate speech explicitly defined, and if they've done their job properly then you should expect to find that definition properly adhered to throughout their research. If they weren't consistent in any way, then you should expect the peer review process to correct for their failings.
Perhaps reading the studies in question to find out precisely how they defined it would help?
Just a suggestion.
Last edited:
- Status