[Technology] Elon Musk and Twitter

[Triggaaar]

They allowed plenty of misinformation. All the time.

When you remove Trump but allow groups like the Taliban to operate on twitter that says a lot about those who were in power on twitter.

It says the clowns who were running the moderation side of twitter were incredibly biased through their own political lens.

No it doesn't. Trump continued to lie on Twitter, and was threatening democracy in the US. The Taliban are an evil regime, but they are trying to stay in the rules of what can and can't be posted on the platform. So far, as long as they don't break the rules, they don't get banned.

Seems the people who are losing their shit over Musk buying twitter are those who LOVE a bit of authoritarianism to shut down any dissenting views that don't match their own.

Wrong again. Trump and co can post political views as much as they like. It's the blatant lies that got Trump banned, not his views.

Those people deeply desire an Orwellian world where they are in charge of everything and want to control group think.

Wow, you are really mixed up about politics. The people opposing Trump are liberals.

 

[Swansman]

Left-wing people say Twitter is filled with right-wing people.
Right-wing people say Twitter is filled with left-wing people.

In reality I think most of the activity on Twitter is just bot accounts.

Like I said yesterday, if Elon Musk really wants to allow a wider array of opinions and perspectives, then it is excellent. If he just wants to turn censorship in another direction than what may have been the case previously, then it is all a bit pointless.

 

[Guinness Boy]

TikTok is a far bigger cancer on society than Twitter is.

Why is free speech on Twitter good but free speech on TikTok bad?

Are you going to use the word “groomers”?

 

[beorhthelm]

Other than companies or organisations, maybe politicians, why would anyone pay for a tick ?

tbf there are a lot of people that care about their followers being duped by fakes. where reputation matters, the blue tick is important. there's nothing else in the UI to authenticate someone (or generaly on t'interweb).

 

[Curious Orange]

There is a lot of talk about free speech, and that is a good thing, people should be allowed to express opinions.

This is distinct from lying. Lying is not an opinion, shouldn't be referred to euphemistically as "misinformation" or "alternative facts", it is not free speech, and the perpetrators of lies should be called out and sanctioned.

 

[Swansman]

There is a lot of talk about free speech, and that is a good thing, people should be allowed to express opinions.

This is distinct from lying. Lying is not an opinion, shouldn't be referred to euphemistically as "misinformation" or "alternative facts", it is not free speech, and the perpetrators of lies should be called out and sanctioned.

I think lying is probably included (or rather, not excluced) in the free speech-concept in most constitutions.

But if we're going to "call out and sanction perpetrators of lies", we'd first need some Ministry of Truth to clear up what is truth and what is lie. Who should get that job?

 

[highflyer]

My theory is that Musk (like other silicon valley tech-twats) sees himself as a hyper-intelligent good guy that should be in charge of the world.

Twitter is the strongest argument available against democracy as it shows just how incapable a large body of people are when it comes to constructing or following a rational, informed, debate about pretty much anything of consequence. And that what most people are really interested in is shallow, consumer-led crap.

So:

Buy twitter
'Free' twitter.
Let it run wild for a while
Point at it and say 'that's why I should be in charge'
Job done.

 

[JBizzle]

I think lying is probably included (or rather, not excluced) in the free speech-concept in most constitutions.

But if we're going to "call out and sanction perpetrators of lies", we'd first need some Ministry of Truth to clear up what is truth and what is lie. Who should get that job?

So on your previous post, in relation to bot accounts, it's not about free speech or censorship, it's about cancelling down obvious bot accounts created to spread misinformation. That doesn't seem overwhelmingly hard to do.

Ultimately, it's the anonymity that causes the issue. People sign up and verify their identity and all of a sudden people seem much les keen to use their free speech in the manner you so often see.

 

[Swansman]

So on your previous post, in relation to bot accounts, it's not about free speech or censorship, it's about cancelling down obvious bot accounts created to spread misinformation. That doesn't seem overwhelmingly hard to do.

Ultimately, it's the anonymity that causes the issue. People sign up and verify their identity and all of a sudden people seem much les keen to use their free speech in the manner you so often see.

My comment on Twitter being infested with bots was more about the quality and importance of the Twitter thingie. "Holy well, my favorite/least favorite politician got two billion likes and retweets for his plucky ideas, must really mean something"... and then if you look into these likes and retweets, 90% are made by bots..

Anonymity causes and solves issues. It makes people more likely to be rude etc. but it also makes people to tell how they really feel.

If you remove anonymity from social media, it removes the opportunity for hundreds of millions, maybe billions, to criticise governments etc. You're right that people will absolutely be less keen on using their small amount of free speech if they have to leave a signature that'll make them end up in jail or hanged.

 

[GrizzlingGammon]

The man of free speech has gagged his employees from talking about the situation.

 

[Triggaaar]

tbf there are a lot of people that care about their followers being duped by fakes. where reputation matters, the blue tick is important. there's nothing else in the UI to authenticate someone (or generaly on t'interweb).

So don't you just set up a fake account and then pay the $8 a month for the tick?

 

[Curious Orange]

I think lying is probably included (or rather, not excluced) in the free speech-concept in most constitutions.

But if we're going to "call out and sanction perpetrators of lies", we'd first need some Ministry of Truth to clear up what is truth and what is lie. Who should get that job?

I kind of accept your first point, though it is a rather grey area as the context and motivation behind the lie would rather determine whether society would accept it as free speech.

As for your second point, why on earth would you need a 'Ministry of Truth'? Lies are exposed by ordinary people and competent journalists on a continual basis.

Oh, and then we do have a judicial system as well, you know, for dealing for things like fraud and defamation...

 

[Swansman]

I kind of accept your first point, though it is a rather grey area as the context and motivation behind the lie would rather determine whether society would accept it as free speech.

As for your second point, why on earth would you need a 'Ministry of Truth'? Lies are exposed by ordinary people and competent journalists on a continual basis.

I mean if you're going to have someone banning out people who lie, you have to have someone decide what is lies and what isn't.

Take the Uyghurs in China. A lot of westerners are going to say "China are lying when they say it just some ordinary re-education camp for extremists" and a lot of Chinese are going to say "The West is lying when they say we're running some sort of death camp for Uyghurs". Who is going to decide which ones are lying?

 

[beorhthelm]

So don't you just set up a fake account and then pay the $8 a month for the tick?

that wouldnt work. i expect the same process to aquire the blue tick by invitation/nagging, some validation of the person, now with an added fee.

 

[sparkie]

Twitter needs to work out the balance between "Free Speech" and allowing lies and abuse.

Ie. The more the "Free Speech", the more the lies and abuse.

If it wants to become more of a lies and abuse platform, then it may be that more users leave, and more advertisers lose interest.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

so why does everyone seem to care so much? why people simply not shrug and move on?

With the caveat that what is published on a UK accessible platform should be subjected to UK laws, yep.

Musky may start to think differently about no curation if he loses his sponsors. I assume the platform makes money via advertising. At the end of the day money talks.

For the record I have never used twitter and never would. Mrs T doesn't use it either.

 

[beorhthelm]

I kind of accept your first point, though it is a rather grey area as the context and motivation behind the lie would rather determine whether society would accept it as free speech.

As for your second point, why on earth would you need a 'Ministry of Truth'? Lies are exposed by ordinary people and competent journalists on a continual basis.

Oh, and then we do have a judicial system as well, you know, for dealing for things like fraud and defamation...

trouble is often the people and journalist are perptuating the lies, because they suit a particular narrative. thats the flaw in free speech, its not necessarily correct or inoffensive, then people call for some moderation, the moderation has bias, then people scream about free speech and so on.

 

[Curious Orange]

trouble is often the people and journalist are perptuating the lies, because they suit a particular narrative. thats the flaw in free speech, its not necessarily correct or inoffensive, then people call for some moderation, the moderation has bias, then people scream about free speech and so on.

Yes, it is a tricky balancing act, though I'd argue that any 'journalist' that perpetuates a lie to suit a narrative would be more accurately labelled a propagandist.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

Why is free speech on Twitter good but free speech on TikTok bad?

Are you going to use the word “groomers”?

Why are you asking me a dumb question?

Nobody even mentioned free speech.

All that was said is tiktok is cancer. Which it is.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

There is a lot of talk about free speech, and that is a good thing, people should be allowed to express opinions.

This is distinct from lying. Lying is not an opinion, shouldn't be referred to euphemistically as "misinformation" or "alternative facts", it is not free speech, and the perpetrators of lies should be called out and sanctioned.

So then if someone says they are a woman but they have a penis to many people they are telling a lie and a simple DNA test can prove that.

So if someone perpetrates that lie should they be called out and sanctioned?

At present it's the opposite, the lie is defended over the truth.