I know it’s a private platform which can subjectively censor speech and ban those whose ideas don’t align with those in charge. However, curious in a broader sense what if any ramifications the deep thinkers of the crossfire board believe the Musk takeover have on the platform, political climate and society at large?
- Thread starter lawpoke87
- Start date
Exactly… which is what is it has been doing for years and is a big part of the reason that Elon is purchasing it. I personally think this is a big win for free speech, and a bellwether of more positive changes ahead!
I'm not a fan of any single person having undue influence on public speech. That goes doubly if Musk were to take the company private.
I also think that public forums should have some degree of moderation and agreed upon standards of conduct within reason.
There will always be standards on what can be posted on public forums. Some are objective (child pornography) while other are subjective. The question has always been what are those subjective standards and are they selectively enforced based on political or other bias.
One other thing you have to consider is that a lot of the identification of things posted against the standards and practices of public forums is done via machine learning these days on platforms on Twitter's scale. Machine learning models have inherent biases based on how they are coded and the assumptions made in the models and the historical data used to train them. The issue is more complex than it seems.
As far as particular types of speech, I think twitter has acted well within its code of conduct on regulating speech. I don't think Musk is the person you want regulating speech considering he's the one trying to get the teen that's been tracking his flights banned.
Anxious to see the biases which went into writing those codes and how overt and planned. My guess is most of the coding was very deliberate. Not sure who I want regulating Twitter. It’s certainly a good thing those who banned posters who suggested Covid originated in a lab are gone.
My guess is Twitter’s content moderation posture will only change for a few high profile cases but otherwise for the most part won’t be noticeable to 99% of users. Hopefully it will be more transparent than it is now. Or maybe they’ll add a feature to allow users to “opt-in” to content moderation or something along those lines that can satisfy a sufficient number of people on both sides. In any case I don’t expect Twitter to be any less of / more of a terrible place than it already is.
My hope is that he requires posters to authenticate who they are and that they are real, live people instead of bots. That would support more responsible behavior, eliminate a high number of the meaningless posts plus enhance people's confidence in using the site. FB should do the same thing. Actually Rivals does a reasonable job of screening here already.
My hope is that the algorithms used in the past will be made public and there will be transparency with any algorithms currently used.
Bias in model coding is a much more complex issue than just "if a then b". Sometime the model you're building will reinforce inherent societal biases without even being aware that you're doing it.
Which is why I would like to see those algorithms which have been used become public. Hoping to see transparency going forward.
There is absolutely no realistic way to do that. You should be just as concerned about the data used to train the models and the biases that those datasets impose on the models as you should the code itself.
I simply want as much transparency as possible. Would also like more done to verify real users and eliminate bots. I obviously believe free speech is a fundamental right and strict scrutiny should be applied when censoring the same.
I guess its a reasonable job, however, they have let 5 versions of your bot sneak through...
Releasing the algorithms would give more than the users a more specific knowledge of what would get through and what wouldn't.
It would give the corporate market, influencers, foreign and domestic terrorists, etc more ability to push bots around the edges and find the most efficacious & possible ways to manipulate users. You know staff for politicians would be poring over them.
It would give the corporate market, influencers, foreign and domestic terrorists, etc more ability to push bots around the edges and find the most efficacious & possible ways to manipulate users. You know staff for politicians would be poring over them.
I think Staff for one side already has them... i blocked so many DNC related tweets this cycle..
I just deleted it from my phone. Have to delete my account later. Dude has a god complex and I'm not participating in it anymore.
I would honestly rather give my data to the Chinese via Tik Tok than feed Elon's ego and his skewed sense of morality.
I would honestly rather give my data to the Chinese via Tik Tok than feed Elon's ego and his skewed sense of morality.
Yet we had zero problems with the silencing of speech and banning those who initiated the same. Interesting choices being made.
Was more directed towards all those who supported these social media sites working with the federal government to flag posts for government review and then censor and/ban those responsible. The same people who now are leaving Twitter due to political views. Which makes sense in some round about way as they supported the suppressing of speech due to political views
I'm not leaving because of my speech being curtailed. I'm leaving because the platform has STOPPED curtailing speech in a cogent manner and because the platform's owner has literally analogized himself to God. And he acts as a god who picks and chooses speech he allows and doesn't allow at his own whim rather than through any legitimate standard determined by responsible parties.
The platform for a long time was toxic.... it started to get better through hard work of the Twitter employees and then he decided to light their work on fire.
Do you have examples of speech which has been censored and individuals which have been banned since Elon took control?
As far as a legitimate standard I would argue there was none. Once this platforms decided to report speech to the federal government and then act as an arm for the Fed’s to silence and ban posters for speech with which they disagreed they became nothing more than a willing puppet aimed at attacking our first amendment rights. We’re a better and safer country now some of those people are gone. Unfortunately, there are still those who support the same
Disagree. Allowing unabated speech is not a good thing, and it leads to things like armies of Russian bots / impersonators disseminating false information in efforts of praying on the weak minded.
That's already happened to the detriment of our country.... and will continue to happen as long as you don't moderate your platform appropriately.
where in the first amendment does it say moderated speech, or only speach you agree with
On a private platform (one that can clearly be bought and sold) there can and should be moderation. Heck, even the board we're talking on right now has moderation.
The 1st amendment does not say anything about the conduct to which a business or a church decides to hold themselves. It only says that the government will not restrict speech.
(For instance I invite you to go into a local Oklahoma Baptist Church and start shouting about the glories of Satanism during a sermon and continue to do so even when asked politely to stop. See how quickly you will be asked to leave, and if you refuse, see how quickly they call the police to arrest you for trespassing. The church would prefer to moderate the speech that it associates itself with because they perceive certain types of speech as immoral)
Stop. I’m talking about the federal government working along side social media platforms to censor legitimate speech and ban said speakers. Legitimate speech which the federal government does not want disseminated. I have provided example after example of legitimate speech which has been banned. I remember the days when liberals advocated the 1st Amendment and the protection of human rights. Some of the stuff I now read on this board is downright disgusting
Could you please give an instance in which the US government has worked with a platform to ban legitimate speech and such a ban wasn't imposed for any other reason than government intervention (for example that wouldn't include cases where the platform decided it was morally against the speech, or it perceived a threat to its financial performance due to user backlash etc...) . I haven't yet seen it.
Just one of many examples. The fact you’re not aware of such instances is more than troubling. Especially now you’re getting off Twitter due to “censorship” by a private citizen. Can you now provide examples of recent Twitter censorship?
Looking forward to the release of emails related to the censoring of Hunter’s laptop story and whether the story was ever discussed with government officials. It’s almost a certainty the answer is yes. Same for Covid lab leak.
Opinion | Twitter Becomes a Tool of Government Censorship
Alex Berenson was kicked off the site at the White House’s urging. That’s a violation of the First Amendment.
www.wsj.com
you dont censor bad thought and speech, you defeat it withs debate and facts
Again, I'm not getting off of twitter due to "Censorship". I'm getting off of twitter due to the allowance of anarchy... and this guy is a perfect example.Just one of many examples. The fact you’re not aware of such instances is more than troubling. Especially now you’re getting off Twitter due to “censorship” by a private citizen. Can you now provide examples of recent Twitter censorship?
Looking forward to the release of emails related to the censoring of Hunter’s laptop story and whether the story was ever discussed with government officials. It’s almost a certainty the answer is yes. Same for Covid lab leak.
Opinion | Twitter Becomes a Tool of Government Censorship
Alex Berenson was kicked off the site at the White House’s urging. That’s a violation of the First Amendment.
Berenson has since declared that he will sue the Biden administration for infringing upon his free speech by compelling Twitter to take action against his account.
This was not the end of the drama, though. Last week, Berenson published a Substack post that included screenshots of a conversation on Twitter’s internal Slack messaging system from April 2021, obtained during the course of the lawsuit. The images show employees discussing a recent White House meeting at which members of the Biden administration were said to have posed a “really tough question about why Alex Berenson hasn’t been kicked off from the platform,” as one Slack message put it. Another alleges that Andy Slavitt, who was at the time a senior adviser to Joe Biden on the administration’s COVID-19 response, specifically mentioned a “data viz that had showed [Berenson] was the epicenter of disinfo.” Berenson has since declared that he will sue the Biden administration for infringing upon his free speech by compelling Twitter to take action against his account.
Once again, legal experts say that his case is unlikely to succeed. Berenson faces a “very high bar” in proving that a private company behaved as a state actor, Evelyn Douek, an Atlantic contributor and assistant professor at Stanford Law School, told me. According to both her and Goldman, the Slack messages that Berenson published don’t amount to proof that the government pressured Twitter to remove Berenson’s account. But Douek is generally perturbed by the evidence of informal pressure by government officials to constrain speech. “It does strike me as unusual,” she said. “It’s certainly unusual to get records of it.”
Andy Slavitt told me that he did participate in a meeting with Twitter but doesn’t recall bringing up Berenson by name. “Twitter sets its own policies, and I wanted to understand them, whether they’re good or bad,” he said. I asked him about an MIT data visualization, widely circulated around that time, that described an “anti-maskers network” with Berenson as an “anchor.” Had he brought up that data-viz in the meeting? He said it was possible: “I don’t doubt it, because we tried to use examples.” But he denied having asked Twitter to get rid of Berenson, with whom he claimed to have only passing familiarity. “I think his name was in a magazine article,” he said. “I don’t remember anything else about him.”
While this certainly tows the line of what's permissible, I'm not willing to say that I would be upset with a government employee coordinating the government's response to an epidemic questioning why, against Twitter's own internal policies and procedures, a user was allowed to broadly disseminate misinformation to the detriment of public safety. (No different than rules that might be imposed on speech during war time... which is always how I've asserted the Covid Pandemic should have been treated)
I will concede that I can see where this would become dangerous if used to stop things that the government just didn't want being said (like what's currently happening in Russia) especially if what was said was actually true. In any case, I think it's why it's important to put good representatives and beauracrats into office. I think the power to suggest a person should be removed from a platform was in this case used with good intent and led to a positive outcome in removing a liar from an echo chamber; while in places where poor representatives took office (like Russia) the same power is being be misused.
In any case I don't think the power should be precluded from the government just because it could potentially be misused by malicious parties.... there are many, many, many similar powers that we don't give a second thought to investing in the government which are beneficial when placed in one person's hands and detrimental in another's. That's also why we've seen such a power being exercised as law in many Western Countries to deal with the misinformation that rose out of the Covid Epidemic.
Last edited:
What about when someone (like you) is unwilling to debate with facts and instead just repeats lies with no remorse? What about when people (like you) are unable to distinguish facts from lies that other people, who even when confronted, refuse to stop lying?
Last edited:
Twitter filed to get lawsuit tossed. They failed based on law and facts presented. At which point they quickly settled with Berenson for an undisclosed amount as well as issuing an apology. There are several WSJ articles (and others) detailing the cozy arrangement between social media sites, the Biden Admin, and subsequent censorship. More info is sure to come as records will now be released. Also…please don’t use an Atlantic contributor’s opinion in this matter. The reasons are obvious.
Again…you are leaving because you disagree with the political leanings of the new owner and claim he is censoring legitimate speech (you still haven’t shown me examples as I requested). Yet you have no issues with the federal government directing social media sites to censor the speech of private citizens. Speech which is critical of said government or its policies. An ignorant and indefensible position based on years of history.
I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT MUSK IS SENSORING LEGITIMATE SPEECH. I'M SAYING THAT HE IS NOOOOOOOOT SENSORING WHAT SHOULD BE ILLIGITIMATE SPEECH ON A PRIVATE PLATFORM AND USING HIS OWN FOLLOWERS TO EXCUSE HIS DECISIONS. Many people who don't agree with his strategies and moral positions don't follow him so they don't vote in his sham polls.
I'm leaving because he's giving amnesty to people who don't deserve amnesty.
Video Game chats have better moderation than what Musk is building. No thank you.
Last edited:
+he is a jerk who treats his employees like trash.
I never used Twitter much anyway. Totally disgusted by how he treats people.
Business or politics what I am interested in is character. Philosophy comes after character IMO. Now I understand who Musk is and would not touch him or his companies with a ten foot pole.
Last edited:
So you have more of a problem with allowing all speech than a company working with the federal government to censor and ban speech critical of said government. Supporting such “moderation” is pure ignorance when viewed in an historical perspective. I understand you have political bias here but surely you can still acknowledge this was outrageous behavior by these two parties.
Last edited:
