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

Status
Not open for further replies.
wesimmo said:
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.
Click to expand...

Incorrect decision/choice/party... implies there is a correct (i.e. only, single, ultimate, final) one.

Think about what you've just posted.

I fear for our way of life.
 
Last edited:
Fubsy said:
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.

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.
Click to expand...

No the public opinion was the public opinion, which is what they voted for.
What your saying is that the perceived public opinion was wrong, which may be a point, but the opinion was clearly what they voted for, yes a bit like shy tories.

I have no issue with free speech, but equally I have no want to demand private companies to be forced to have to allow people who they disagree with to be forced to allow that.
Companies take their position, most will look for the optimum financial position.
If they decide banning someone who posts "edgy" stuff is better for their bottom line in order to ensure they have better uptake from non controversial posters. Then i am all for that.

I am VERY much against forcing companies too allow any old rubbish and nonsense views to be published. Especially if those companies could be manipulating what you see. (as we know they all do).

I think your getting a bit carried away with the tyranical and supression thing. I am starting to think its saying more about your views than in general here. I may be wrong but those who vent most about suppression and not being able to speak freely seem to have the unpopular views in general.

Do you believe companies should not be able to limit whats posted on their platform? Should these forums be forced to allow medical threads for example, or NSFW content, or NSF juniors content. Or do you respect the platform owners wishes that what is posted complies with their wishes.
 
Fubsy said:
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".
Click to expand...
What are you deeming as "socially questionable, unacceptable or ignorant speech"?
As what you may think is just some "sensitive types" getting uppity over 'ignorant speech' or something that is 'socially questionable', would in fact, or could be argued to, fall under the POA/RRHA (in the UK).

Roar87 said:
Twitter has to obey the law in the countries it operates...
Click to expand...
Yes, I stated it did.

Roar87 said:
Are you saying Twitter should ignore court orders otherwise there's no free speech?
Click to expand...
If you re-read what i wrote you will see that i mention that there is data that appears to show TwitX under Musk has been more complicit in complying with government requests for user data and censorship of the platform than previous ownership. It could therefore be seen to be a tad hypocritical from someone that is stating TwitX is a place for free speech when the data seems to suggest the opposite is true.

At no point did i say, suggest, think, mime or act out in a game of charades that "Twitter should ignore court orders otherwise there's no free speech" - you said/suggested that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JRS
Jono8 said:
However, it is everyone else right to not use said website, or pay for advertising on it. That is other people using THEIR freedom to choose what THEY want to do or say.
Click to expand...
they all still use google advertising though... youtube has just as much crap on it as twitter if not more.

It's just a bandwagon to hate twitter.
 
Last edited:
Mercenary Keyboard Warrior said:
No the public opinion was the public opinion, which is what they voted for.
What your saying is that the perceived public opinion was wrong, which may be a point, but the opinion was clearly what they voted for, yes a bit like shy tories.
Click to expand...
Think we're on the same page of understanding now. That misunderstanding of the popular public opinion is what the private companies are sometimes basing their decisions on. Disney, for example, are missing the target audience recently - what's driving this if not a misunderstanding?
Mercenary Keyboard Warrior said:
I have no issue with free speech, but equally I have no want to demand private companies to be forced to have to allow people who they disagree with to be forced to allow that.
Companies take their position, most will look for the optimum financial position.
If they decide banning someone who posts "edgy" stuff is better for their bottom line in order to ensure they have better uptake from non controversial posters. Then i am all for that.
Click to expand...
This would be a stance I'd have sympathy for if it wasn't my view that the whole reason there is such HIGH engagement in these sites (including this thread) is because of the controversial posters. As a test, Elon does nothing, says nothing for a few days, this thread drops down the GD first page like a stone until a poster brings Elons latest hot take into the thread to bump it back up.
Mercenary Keyboard Warrior said:
I am VERY much against forcing companies too allow any old rubbish and nonsense views to be published. Especially if those companies could be manipulating what you see. (as we know they all do).
Click to expand...
While I do agree mostly here, removing stuff is a form of manipulation. I like the community notes approach on Twitter.
Mercenary Keyboard Warrior said:
I think your getting a bit carried away with the tyranical and supression thing. I am starting to think its saying more about your views than in general here. I may be wrong but those who vent most about suppression and not being able to speak freely seem to have the unpopular views in general.
Click to expand...
Yes, some of my (sometimes totally ignorant and uninformed) views are suppressed. I want to learn more though, and I usually do that through discussion and exploration of ideas. How does one explore sensitive subjects when there is a fear that one mistake could ruin your life? I am fully aware that some subjects are controversial to talk about, debate, flesh out and be challenged on without drawing attention and potentially being 'othered' and handed out consequences - the world is not rational anymore when allowing people to explore.

People wince when certain topics are brought up. They are uncomfortable - because they know if the wrong thing is said, you can be punished. Some just don't care for exploring or discussion - society has told them the acceptable position and they are happy to go along with it because it's easy - I include my own wife in this category.

I find this position worse than people having bad takes; at least they are still trying to understand. It's interesting to see people state the socially accepted position and then try to defend it as if it were there own, they are sometimes horrified to find what they have been believing in.
Not every self proclaimed anti-racist will believe in the following statement for example:
"The only remedy to racist discrimination is anti-racist discrimination. The only remedy to past discimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination."

The notion that there is only one right way to think about a certain subject is a dogmatic way for a society to function. It's not healthy and is equally problematic on the extremes of the groups that hold hard positions.

Mercenary Keyboard Warrior said:
Do you believe companies should not be able to limit whats posted on their platform? Should these forums be forced to allow medical threads for example, or NSFW content, or NSF juniors content. Or do you respect the platform owners wishes that what is posted complies with their wishes.
Click to expand...

Since I've been on here, the above has NEVER been allowed (Bar Feek's older Xmas babe threads). They are a different type of content than opinion based speech - albeit medical opinions could be allowed with a disclaimer, but why take the chance? I hope you or I would never follow medical advice from an overlocking forum any way.

However OcUK has reacted to the perceived social risk, and thusly the financial risk, of having certain subjects in the main GD forum. That's a balanced approach that I appreciate, but is evidence yet again that popular public opinion holds power, and can curtail speech or influence where certain speech can be allowed. I.e. Ukraine/Russia is safe for GD, Israel/Palestine? Too spicy and has to be in SC.

I also remember the questionable views and reputation this forum had for far right opinions - I got a lot from those years of seeing those views being challenged - without those opinions being out, open and challenged by some of the excellent posters on here I may not have the more liberal tendancies I have now.
 
Last edited:
visibleman said:
What are you deeming as "socially questionable, unacceptable or ignorant speech"?
As what you may think is just some "sensitive types" getting uppity over 'ignorant speech' or something that is 'socially questionable', would in fact, or could be argued to, fall under the POA/RRHA (in the UK)
Click to expand...

Happy to be educated, or pointed in the way of information, to help understand this point.

I'm mainly talking about people conversing in difficult, contended areas of social discourse (e.g. gender, race, sex, religion) there is a trend now for either extremes from activists in these realms to weaponise people's employment as they know that the social position has power, rightly or wrongly.

People being intentionally hateful or inviting violence on people isn't something I'm defending here for avoidance of doubt.
 
arknor said:
they all still use google advertising though... youtube has just as much crap on it as twitter if not more.

It's just a bandwagon to hate twitter.
Click to expand...
Let's pretend that this is 100 percent correct and not at all a very uneducated view of something that really is simple to understand, has been said many times before, but still, it's too hard to read and take in the truth, so let's go with your view as truth and fact.

Isn't this still Elon's problem? Regardless of how you dismiss any critiques to twitter as just being bandwagon hate to twitter, it is still a problem Elon isn't yet capable of dealing with.

It reminds me trump. In that everyone would dismiss any critque of trump as "orange man bad", not realising that at the end of the day, that is still a problem for Trump and something he wasn't able to over come. Every time trump tried to do anything, he wasn't able to get his message across. He didn't win voters that he needed. He failed to over come the issues facing him. As "pointless and ridiculous" as you may want to think they are, it's still a big problem.

And that applies to Elon. He isn't able to over come this issue. 2 years ago there wasn't this desire to see Elon fail, but the exact opposite in fact. For whatever lame, pointless, petty reason you want to list as to why people dislike Elon, it is still a problem Elon has and this effects his companies, twitter more so than any.

If he doesn't figure out the solution to this issue, Elon and "free speech" suffers.

Do you think Elon is reaching out? Maybe you don't think he has to, but then what you have to see is that Elon will continue to create more "rocket man bad" people, and this creates a bigger problem every day.
 
unwashed potato! said:
Isn't this still Elon's problem? Regardless of how you dismiss any critiques to twitter as just being bandwagon hate to twitter, it is still a problem Elon isn't yet capable of dealing with.
Click to expand...
no one has dealt with it.... twitter are being held to higher standards than everywhere else.


googles to big to boycott and can hit back harder I'd imagine, so lets pick on the little guys to make us look uber woke and pander to the far left
 
arknor said:
no one has dealt with it.... twitter are being held to higher standards than everywhere else.


googles to big to boycott and can hit back harder I'd imagine, so lets pick on the little guys to make us look uber woke and pander to the far left
Click to expand...

Just laughed my spleen right off of its mountings at Elon and The Website Formerly Known As Twitter being referred to as "the little guys".

Never change arknor :p
 
arknor said:
no one has dealt with it.... twitter are being held to higher standards than everywhere else.


googles to big to boycott and can hit back harder I'd imagine, so lets pick on the little guys to make us look uber woke and pander to the far left
Click to expand...

Problem with Twitter is, as well as being held to the *same* standards as the other platforms by governments, they have the added bonus of Elon prancing around with his self adorned target patches, front and back for the whole world to take aim at. If it isn't intentional, it's down right crazy. If he's crazy, no one should really be laughing.
 
arknor said:
no one has dealt with it.... twitter are being held to higher standards than everywhere else.


googles to big to boycott and can hit back harder I'd imagine, so lets pick on the little guys to make us look uber woke and pander to the far left
Click to expand...
So again, it's Elon's issue. How is Elon going to deal with it? How is Elon going to solve the Elon problem that's you've decided which is that people hold him/twitter to a higher standard?

Do you have any ideas that aren't just moaning?
 
Jono8 said:
Twitter and the richest man in the world are "the little guys"
Click to expand...
Tiny compared to Facebook and google and struggling to be profitable.

elon is he even the richest man in the world now? and all his wealth is trapped in Tesla and spacex

didn't he over leverage himself buying twitter for a really dumb price?


lets say you want to boycott youtube, google is going to just out right adsense ban you.

Boycott facebook? yea and then what about the other apps they own?

twitters problem is it's just twitter and they have no other apps/sites that are really popular where advertisers can't afford to not be.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom