Soldato
You simply cannot say with any authority this is the case.
The ongoing Elon Twitter saga: "insert demographic" melts down
- Thread starter Energize
- Start date
- Status
You simply cannot say with any authority this is the case.
This is 100% the case. You have to go looking for Nazi related content quite deliberately, people tried to repeat what Media Matters claimed to do and were unable to. Therefore it's inconceivable a regular user saw what someone couldn't who deliberately tried to.
Soldato
Jesus how simple do you have to be;
1) you stated a claim, based on no knowledge. Add in your opinion or something, because your talking like its a fact when its an opinion.
2) the algorithms behind this will trigger for different people in different ways. Thats hardly news.
3) at one point in time you will get different results to any other point in time.
4) trying to recreate does not mean you will get the same results, see 2 and 3 above.
It's not 'free' speech if you are punished, curtailed or coerced to say certain things because of a fear of what may happen if you say them* - that is not my understanding of free. That's what the 'consequences' people talk about being dished out when someone says something they (or their tribe) do not like. Heretics. Tell their employer! To the national press! Ban them!
I'm not buying the 'what society, on the whole, desires or values' in a brand thing either. Everyone that uses a product thinks the same? Yea right, what a world that would be, how very utopian. How's it working out for Disney?
Advertising, is about image. Everything nowadays is framed somehow as sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic etc, and it costs (not just in monetary terms) companies when the spotlight is shone on them for ANY reason. So they run away. They say the right things. They are vapid, hollow, soulless corps that only care about the bottom line. This is not FREEDOM, this is fear in my eyes. Control via capitalistic structures.
So what happens? Everything just funnels down an ever narrowing gap of what can/can't be said towards a sterile toilet bowl of brown ESG blandness. A complete cleansing of free discussion. I like my **** to smell, it's natural at least. I'd take all of the nasty crap I have ever seen on the internet a 100x over, than see the internet, culture and public discourse become a giant echo chamber akin to Orwell's 1984.
Exploring ideas in public has become dangerous.
You run a real risk of losing your livelihood, your home, your family. Maybe it always was, but I've only become aware of the effects over the last 10 years.
It happens on this forum too, the owners don't want discussion about religion, trans, terrorism, certain wars etc on the public facing parts of the forum. It's too controversial and testing to have free reign with it. It's bad for image. It's difficult to moderate. So they hide it. They curtail the opportunity to discuss. Shut it down. It's just sad as that exposure to wide ranges of views is something I have always valued. The more polarised, and entrenched people become in these types of threads, they become less interesting and more demented.
I am never going to be on the side of advertisers.
I'm not surprised we've ended up in this position though. I remember all the calls of, "well, they have this platform, how do they monitise it?" discussion years ago. Well here you go, they made money by feeding "values" into your face non stop every day. Values that if you don't hold, then you are a heathen and must burn!
How the hell are these companies getting any returns on their investments btw? Who buys stuff off the back of social media advertising?
*criminal and clear incitement to violence not included.
I'm not buying the 'what society, on the whole, desires or values' in a brand thing either. Everyone that uses a product thinks the same? Yea right, what a world that would be, how very utopian. How's it working out for Disney?
Advertising, is about image. Everything nowadays is framed somehow as sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic etc, and it costs (not just in monetary terms) companies when the spotlight is shone on them for ANY reason. So they run away. They say the right things. They are vapid, hollow, soulless corps that only care about the bottom line. This is not FREEDOM, this is fear in my eyes. Control via capitalistic structures.
So what happens? Everything just funnels down an ever narrowing gap of what can/can't be said towards a sterile toilet bowl of brown ESG blandness. A complete cleansing of free discussion. I like my **** to smell, it's natural at least. I'd take all of the nasty crap I have ever seen on the internet a 100x over, than see the internet, culture and public discourse become a giant echo chamber akin to Orwell's 1984.
Exploring ideas in public has become dangerous.
You run a real risk of losing your livelihood, your home, your family. Maybe it always was, but I've only become aware of the effects over the last 10 years.
It happens on this forum too, the owners don't want discussion about religion, trans, terrorism, certain wars etc on the public facing parts of the forum. It's too controversial and testing to have free reign with it. It's bad for image. It's difficult to moderate. So they hide it. They curtail the opportunity to discuss. Shut it down. It's just sad as that exposure to wide ranges of views is something I have always valued. The more polarised, and entrenched people become in these types of threads, they become less interesting and more demented.
I am never going to be on the side of advertisers.
I'm not surprised we've ended up in this position though. I remember all the calls of, "well, they have this platform, how do they monitise it?" discussion years ago. Well here you go, they made money by feeding "values" into your face non stop every day. Values that if you don't hold, then you are a heathen and must burn!
How the hell are these companies getting any returns on their investments btw? Who buys stuff off the back of social media advertising?
*criminal and clear incitement to violence not included.
Soldato
Yet again.
Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence.
If there was a demand for products that could be supplied by companies that were lets say "completely non PC" then someone would step up and supply them.
Simply the demand is too low. The number of people who think that way and want to be able to safely sit in a space that allows them to do so seems to be too low, otherwise someone would step in, as every, loud voices does not equal high support.
The fact they don't, tells me no one is convinced that the scared of the blue haired women mob are large enough in number to support a business.
There is a reason its called progression and progressive and that has more momentum than the people who think we should stay at a point in time, or even regress.
Most people think things should get better, the only real difference is what that actually means.
Maybe Musk will find that post transition to a fully (because its far from it now in cases) platform for free speech that 1) many people want that so badly they will fork out loads of their own cash, and 2) companies who are like minded will advertise there with big wallets.
I doubt it, but its always possible.
Exploring ideas in public has always been dangerous.
Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence.
If there was a demand for products that could be supplied by companies that were lets say "completely non PC" then someone would step up and supply them.
Simply the demand is too low. The number of people who think that way and want to be able to safely sit in a space that allows them to do so seems to be too low, otherwise someone would step in, as every, loud voices does not equal high support.
The fact they don't, tells me no one is convinced that the scared of the blue haired women mob are large enough in number to support a business.
There is a reason its called progression and progressive and that has more momentum than the people who think we should stay at a point in time, or even regress.
Most people think things should get better, the only real difference is what that actually means.
Maybe Musk will find that post transition to a fully (because its far from it now in cases) platform for free speech that 1) many people want that so badly they will fork out loads of their own cash, and 2) companies who are like minded will advertise there with big wallets.
I doubt it, but its always possible.
Exploring ideas in public has always been dangerous.
Last edited:
I think it’s important that there are places that allow absolute free speech… but that’s not where I want to spend my free time.
I like moderated places (e.g. right here!) where I don’t have to worry about NSFW content or people filling my eyeballs with absolute drivel. I don’t find bastions of free speech, like 8chan, to be very pleasant places.
I like moderated places (e.g. right here!) where I don’t have to worry about NSFW content or people filling my eyeballs with absolute drivel. I don’t find bastions of free speech, like 8chan, to be very pleasant places.
Soldato
'Echo chambers' exist on both sides of the spectrum, you only need to visit Parler, Gab, Truth Social etc to see that.
But not improbable given you can't say with 100% certainty that it didn't occur.
I respectfully disagree with all you posted.
Especially progress. Unless you can specify what we are progressing towards, it's a hollow statement. Hitler made progress, for example and I'm sure that is not what you meant.
The bit I have quoted. That is your opinion.
How far would you take your statement? It's not absolute, is it? How do you define what speech should be punished, who is the judge? How is it tested for fairness, consistency and ensure it does not fall to mob rule?
It is an easy opinion to hold when you share many of the same values of the current social narrative or are willfully swayed to keep in favour with peers - it's human nature to want to fit in with the crowd after all, it's a survival instinct. Will you about turn on your beliefs should the balance of public opinions change? Have you thought about changing your name to Kier Starmer?
Last edited:
Soldato
Fine but you could argue Musk has himself fallen foul of that given he has (supposedly) complied with more government requests for censorship under his ownership - https://restofworld.org/2023/elon-musk-twitter-government-orders/.
And sure, you have to comply with local law(s) but there is argument to thinking it's a bit hypocritical to be shouting 'free speech for all' from the rooftops whilst being more complicit in censoring users (and handing their data over) than the previous owners who, apparently, weren't open to free speech.
Local law and government, which is perhaps a bit unfortunate in a few countries.
Subjectivism?
For illegal speech, yes. What about socially questionable, unacceptable or ignorant speech? It's not illegal, but is maybe not pallatable to sensitive types. That's what I'm concerned about, and that is what people point towards when claiming is not free from "consequences".
When the risks are high, clever people that notice this take their views off air, take them private and/or temper them around current discourse. They keep things civil. The views do not go away though.
That's what's currently happening. Also, tribalism. Some people just get attacked based on which 'side' they align with. Good luck if you fall in the centre of a subject though, or are undecided and looking for clarity or understanding. That's bigot territory nowadays.
Last edited:
Soldato
I respectfully disagree with all you posted.
Especially progress. Unless you can specify what we are progressing towards, it's a hollow statement. Hitler made progress, for example and I'm sure that is not what you meant.
The bit I have quoted. That is your opinion.
How far would you take your statement? It's not absolute, is it? How do you define what speech should be punished, who is the judge? How is it tested for fairness, consistency and ensure it does not fall to mob rule?
It is an easy opinion to hold when you share many of the same values of the current social narrative or are willfully swayed to keep in favour with peers - it's human nature to want to fit in with the crowd after all, it's a survival instinct. Will you about turn on your beliefs should the balance of public opinions change? Have you thought about changing your name to Kier Starmer?
Progress, in everything, in balance
Progress to better healthcare, housing, maybe wealth distribution, opportunity, equality, ability to be yourself without fear of prejudice or even worse etc etc
Hitler didn't make progress no. Well maybe in the minds of a few sickos.
Freedom of speech has always been recognised as not being free from consequence. You could for example not have libel should your speech have no consequence.
It is generally put in place by law. If you live in a country with good laws and fair laws then in general the population as a whole are instrumental in forming them via politics.
I am not forming and holding my views to simply comply with the norm. I try to avid emotion and look at both sides and form my views that way.
So very much no my views will not change on a whim (unless further evidence comes to light) in line with popular opinion.
For example, my views that Brexit was a really dumb thing, was not swayed by the prior popular opinion it was a good thing, nor with the current popular opinion it was a bad thing.
Twitter has to obey the law in the countries it operates, Elon Musk said that quite clearly. It's a popular social media website, it isn't trying to be Telegram. If Germany or Turkey tells it to take down a users post by court order then it has to comply. Are you saying Twitter should ignore court orders otherwise there's no free speech?
Soldato
Citation
Citation
Citation
Citation
Citation
At this point it just sounds like you're trying to make a big roar out of made up stories in your head.
Brexit being dumb was very much the popular public opinion before the vote. It's why it was such a shock when it came down as a win for the opposite view. It's like the "shy Tories".
Suppressing view points does not challenge them in any meaningful way, or make them go away. It just hides them, tucks them away for a rainy day.
It's why "free speech" or as close as you can get to it, is so important. Not really for the reason anyone can say what they want, but that you know they can, and then you see it and challenge it in a way to condemn, reason or attempt to persuade against in honest conversations. Discussions sometimes lead you down paths where your own mind is changed!
@Mercenary Keyboard Warrior for my part in this discussion, I am not concerned with illegal speech. Libel is a legal concept. I am talking about social free speech. Social media has amplified the voices, in turn it has also amplified the shunning and mobbing of the masses that look to tear down views they do not like. That doesn't sound like progress to me, that's like me shouting "witch!" because you did or said something I couldn't understand.
Some people see the world differently, and they shouldn't be punished for it. Diversity of thought and approach has its values, as much as we may dislike the likes of the hideous creatures in the public eye nowadays.
Shouldn't this include people's personally held beliefs? Not everyone is the same, so this should naturally include quite a wide range of viewpoints, including some that oppose others within the same subject - that would be healthy.
Punishing people for thinking "wrongly" is tyrannical.
Suppressing view points does not challenge them in any meaningful way, or make them go away. It just hides them, tucks them away for a rainy day.
It's why "free speech" or as close as you can get to it, is so important. Not really for the reason anyone can say what they want, but that you know they can, and then you see it and challenge it in a way to condemn, reason or attempt to persuade against in honest conversations. Discussions sometimes lead you down paths where your own mind is changed!
@Mercenary Keyboard Warrior for my part in this discussion, I am not concerned with illegal speech. Libel is a legal concept. I am talking about social free speech. Social media has amplified the voices, in turn it has also amplified the shunning and mobbing of the masses that look to tear down views they do not like. That doesn't sound like progress to me, that's like me shouting "witch!" because you did or said something I couldn't understand.
Some people see the world differently, and they shouldn't be punished for it. Diversity of thought and approach has its values, as much as we may dislike the likes of the hideous creatures in the public eye nowadays.
I've not quoted all of your post, but wanted to quote this part in bold to address directly.
Shouldn't this include people's personally held beliefs? Not everyone is the same, so this should naturally include quite a wide range of viewpoints, including some that oppose others within the same subject - that would be healthy.
Punishing people for thinking "wrongly" is tyrannical.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 13 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 25,429
It's also proven to be the correct view. Not only that but it's clear to see that Brexit was part of Russia's war on Europe (hance the lies to persuade 'the public'. A referendum win by 3% isn't normally binding (as it's not enough of a popular view) and also if you look at how many people actually voted for it, it wasn't a popular view across the nation.
Last edited:
Commissario
Except that pre Musk Twitter would actually wait for the court order...and routinely fought for users if Twitters lawyers looked at a request and saw that it didn't seem to meet the legal requirements (one of the reasons Twitter had local offices was specifically so they could accurately comply with local laws*).
Post Musk he's not even requiring a court order, a simple request is enough for stuff to be done, possibly because in Musk's fight for free speech he's got rid of all the lawyers that used to actually look into what was requested and make sure that the requests met the legal requirements.
The funny thing is, that Musk and co point to the fact that the likes of the FBI actually had to pay for Twitter to act on court orders etc as a point that Twitter was in the pay of the FBI, not that those payments were legally required by congress specifically as a way to limit to how much pressure the likes of the FBI could put on a service by making it so that the law enforcement agency had to cover all the reasonable costs of enforcement (thus making it very expensive for any law enforcement agency to try and shut down "free speech" with spurious court orders etc).
*And Musk showed exactly how much he understood of the law when he basically broke various laws in both the US and the rest of the world when he started sacking people without the notices or requirements needed under everything from state to country wide laws.
Last edited:
Yes Twitter is complying with the law, even without a court order, although there's a lot of "partial" compliance. I'm not sure why this is a bad thing, looking at some of the requests from Germany for example, they're dealing with pornography being visible to minors.
The FBI weren't making requests based on someone breaking the law, this is conflating two separate issues, the FBI were using back channels to have things removed that actually weren't illegal - especially given American free speech laws. Germany and America have very different laws. If Elon Musk broke the law regarding sacking people, then I assume he's being sued to the gills given he sacked 80% of the company, I'm surprise Twitter can operate with the amount of lawsuits that must be filed on all those illegal sackings.
Last edited:
All good points, but not really changing the point I was making, which was: the popular public position before the vote was that it was dumb. The actual vote didn't reflect the popular public opinion. Therefore, popular public opinion isn't always to be trusted as how things actually are.
The correct position was that it was dumb. The vote proved that misinformation and lies being allowed on social media is dangerous because people can't be trusted to filter and assimilate information and ended up voting for the incorrect choice. Hence proving regulation on what is posted is needed.
Last edited:
- Status