4 ms·

Isn't he going to be bringing back people who were banned off the platform, that's more democratic. US has a bunch of problems but the one thing you used to get

Isn't he going to be bringing back people who were banned off the platform, that's more democratic. US has a bunch of problems but the one thing you used to get right is freedom of speech before big tech had so much influence, I thought the major purpose of Elon wanting to buy twitter was to uphold freedom of speech as it is written in the constitution, given it's something of a town square now.

helf 4y ago
- onethought 4y ago
  Can you give some examples of silencing his dissenters? Or where he has undermined democracy to make money? I'm genuinely curious if I've missed these, as I'm not familiar with any by my own recollection.
  - fzeroracer 4y ago
    You mean other than the time where he harassed someone, called them a pedophile and hired a detective to investigate and try to dig up dirt on them because they got under his skin? That guy, who now has everything anyone has ever said in private messages on Twitter?
    - weberer 4y ago
      Who was that?
      - cyberpunk 4y ago
        Wasn’t it that diver who saved all those children in Thailand or… whereever?
        aceazzameen 4y ago
        Yes.
    - onethought 4y ago
      So that isn't an example of silencing dissenters, or of undermining democracy. I agree it's some pretty ugly character on show. But that wasn't what I was asking.
- Nomentatus 4y ago
  His absolutism doesn't extend to bots. His absolutism probably doesn't extend to having no real recommendation algorithm, and just random views for everyone. If he throws in a PageRank-like algorithm a la the central Google algorithm; or even just the choice of that, you might get the equivalent of some pretty solid moderation. Google definitely has holes and problems, but it can't be considered absolutist re free speech.
cycrutchfield 4y ago
rpd9803 4y ago
- megaman821 4y ago
  At this point people like you are just being pedantic. Uses of First Amendment and Free Speech are clearly referring to having a large window of acceptable speech. If people want to include porn, gore, harassment and spam in their colloquial definition of free speech, it is exceptional enough that should point it out up front.
- skissane 4y ago
  “Free Speech” != “1st Amendment”. The later is a US constitutional amendment which aims to protect the former, but other US laws also protect free speech (state constitutional provisions, statute law)-the Bill of Rights is legally just a minimum, so other laws are allowed to go even further. Non-legal factors (culture/etc) also have a role to play in protecting free speech. And of course, other countries have free speech as well (to varying degrees), but the US constitution has nothing to do with that.
lapcat 4y ago
> one thing you used to get right is freedom of speech before big tech had so much influence Before big tech, there were no global platforms where anyone could just speak to millions/billions of people for free (as in money). You weren't "censored" by big tech because there was nothing much to censor. In the past, if you wanted to reach a massive audience, you had to go through the traditional news media, big book publishers, major TV stations, or the like, and they were definitely selective about who was allowed to speak. Also, the so-called "town square" where strangers gather to discuss politics in public is largely or entirely a myth. There are of course public spaces, but what happens on Twitter is not what happens in real physical town squares. And of course there are city council and other government meetings, but they are strictly controlled by government officials, not a free-for-all free speech zone.
- Nomentatus 4y ago
  Indeed, the fringers scraped together enough cash to mimeograph a few dozen leaflets and tucked them under cars windshield wipers; but that didn't get them far. They might be able to take out a cheap ad in a rag magazine advertising a self-published book, but that's about it. There weren't boards to put up posters, and putting a poster on a telephone pole (etc) was a crime (recent court cases have changed that without a change in the law, where I am.)
jerojero 4y ago
There are different views on what freedom means. In my experience, and I used to run a "freedom of speech" channel back in IRC many years ago where I allowed anything as long as it wasn't illegal. These sort of measures end up restricting freedom of speech much more than enabling it. The reason is very simple, if people are allowed to say anything; then harassment becomes the norm and because a lot of the targets of these harassment are more sensitive then they end up leaving. You might think this is okay, but I tend to disagree, as I believe when people harass others out of a platform that it constitutes a form of violence. Of course, I think this is actually a very complicated subject. And that's precisely my point on why I believe we need to have better conversations on what do we actually want. But as things stand now, this conversation is always reduced to what Elon Musk now thinks should happen. To me, this form of monarchic governance is sub-par to what is required for a platform as big as twitter.
- amadeuspagel 4y ago
  Twitter is fundamentally different form and IRC channel. In an IRC channel, everyone sees every message, that's why moderation is necessary. On twitter, people themselves choose who to follow and block, they themselves moderate their own experience.
  - pmoriarty 4y ago
    You could ignore people on IRC too, choose whether or not to join a particular channel or not, and choose which people to message in private. The problems I've run in to on it is that that some channels on IRC were run by powertripping assholes, and you'd get banned for disagreeing with them or having different opinions.... even if you were perfectly polite, didn't threaten or harass anyone, etc. Of course, you could just go somewhere else... on to another channel, another network, or off IRC entirely... the internet's a big place. Still, the fact that some popular channels were dominated by assholes and there weren't viable alternatives to them sometimes is a problem for people wanting to participate in a large public space.
    - amadeuspagel 4y ago
ss108 4y ago
Impressive deployment of buzz words.
hagbarth 4y ago
People will leave pretty quickly if there is no moderation. People don't want to be in such places. Just check the missing popularity of Parler.
- amadeuspagel 4y ago
  Network effects are a perfectly sufficient explanation for why people don't use parler. Can you name one example where people switched from a bigger to a smaller network, because the bigger one allowed too much freedom of speech?
  - lupire 4y ago
    Why don't "free speech" networks ever grow to be the bigger one in the first place?
    - amadeuspagel 4y ago
      Twitter and facebook did grow big when they were free speech networks.
harimau777 4y ago
I think it's somewhat more complicated than that. Traditionally there was more friction to speech. I don't even mean just that the average person doesn't have access to a national platform like CNN. Even something like mailing out fliers had non-trivial costs. It's the same reason why junk mail is generally less of an issue than email spam. In a traditional town square, people are not anonymous and the "square" was local enough for there to be social consequences to actions. On Twitter, many of the posters are anonymous and even those who aren't often live on the other side of the country.

helf 4y ago

onethought 4y ago
Can you give some examples of silencing his dissenters? Or where he has undermined democracy to make money? I'm genuinely curious if I've missed these, as I'm not familiar with any by my own recollection.
- fzeroracer 4y ago
  You mean other than the time where he harassed someone, called them a pedophile and hired a detective to investigate and try to dig up dirt on them because they got under his skin? That guy, who now has everything anyone has ever said in private messages on Twitter?
  - weberer 4y ago
    Who was that?
    - cyberpunk 4y ago
      Wasn’t it that diver who saved all those children in Thailand or… whereever?
      - aceazzameen 4y ago
        Yes.
  - onethought 4y ago
    So that isn't an example of silencing dissenters, or of undermining democracy. I agree it's some pretty ugly character on show. But that wasn't what I was asking.
Nomentatus 4y ago
His absolutism doesn't extend to bots. His absolutism probably doesn't extend to having no real recommendation algorithm, and just random views for everyone. If he throws in a PageRank-like algorithm a la the central Google algorithm; or even just the choice of that, you might get the equivalent of some pretty solid moderation. Google definitely has holes and problems, but it can't be considered absolutist re free speech.

cycrutchfield 4y ago

rpd9803 4y ago

megaman821 4y ago
At this point people like you are just being pedantic. Uses of First Amendment and Free Speech are clearly referring to having a large window of acceptable speech. If people want to include porn, gore, harassment and spam in their colloquial definition of free speech, it is exceptional enough that should point it out up front.
skissane 4y ago
“Free Speech” != “1st Amendment”. The later is a US constitutional amendment which aims to protect the former, but other US laws also protect free speech (state constitutional provisions, statute law)-the Bill of Rights is legally just a minimum, so other laws are allowed to go even further. Non-legal factors (culture/etc) also have a role to play in protecting free speech. And of course, other countries have free speech as well (to varying degrees), but the US constitution has nothing to do with that.

lapcat 4y ago

> one thing you used to get right is freedom of speech before big tech had so much influence Before big tech, there were no global platforms where anyone could just speak to millions/billions of people for free (as in money). You weren't "censored" by big tech because there was nothing much to censor. In the past, if you wanted to reach a massive audience, you had to go through the traditional news media, big book publishers, major TV stations, or the like, and they were definitely selective about who was allowed to speak. Also, the so-called "town square" where strangers gather to discuss politics in public is largely or entirely a myth. There are of course public spaces, but what happens on Twitter is not what happens in real physical town squares. And of course there are city council and other government meetings, but they are strictly controlled by government officials, not a free-for-all free speech zone.

Nomentatus 4y ago
Indeed, the fringers scraped together enough cash to mimeograph a few dozen leaflets and tucked them under cars windshield wipers; but that didn't get them far. They might be able to take out a cheap ad in a rag magazine advertising a self-published book, but that's about it. There weren't boards to put up posters, and putting a poster on a telephone pole (etc) was a crime (recent court cases have changed that without a change in the law, where I am.)

jerojero 4y ago

There are different views on what freedom means. In my experience, and I used to run a "freedom of speech" channel back in IRC many years ago where I allowed anything as long as it wasn't illegal. These sort of measures end up restricting freedom of speech much more than enabling it. The reason is very simple, if people are allowed to say anything; then harassment becomes the norm and because a lot of the targets of these harassment are more sensitive then they end up leaving. You might think this is okay, but I tend to disagree, as I believe when people harass others out of a platform that it constitutes a form of violence. Of course, I think this is actually a very complicated subject. And that's precisely my point on why I believe we need to have better conversations on what do we actually want. But as things stand now, this conversation is always reduced to what Elon Musk now thinks should happen. To me, this form of monarchic governance is sub-par to what is required for a platform as big as twitter.

amadeuspagel 4y ago
Twitter is fundamentally different form and IRC channel. In an IRC channel, everyone sees every message, that's why moderation is necessary. On twitter, people themselves choose who to follow and block, they themselves moderate their own experience.
- pmoriarty 4y ago
  You could ignore people on IRC too, choose whether or not to join a particular channel or not, and choose which people to message in private. The problems I've run in to on it is that that some channels on IRC were run by powertripping assholes, and you'd get banned for disagreeing with them or having different opinions.... even if you were perfectly polite, didn't threaten or harass anyone, etc. Of course, you could just go somewhere else... on to another channel, another network, or off IRC entirely... the internet's a big place. Still, the fact that some popular channels were dominated by assholes and there weren't viable alternatives to them sometimes is a problem for people wanting to participate in a large public space.
  - amadeuspagel 4y ago

ss108 4y ago

Impressive deployment of buzz words.

hagbarth 4y ago

People will leave pretty quickly if there is no moderation. People don't want to be in such places. Just check the missing popularity of Parler.

amadeuspagel 4y ago
Network effects are a perfectly sufficient explanation for why people don't use parler. Can you name one example where people switched from a bigger to a smaller network, because the bigger one allowed too much freedom of speech?
- lupire 4y ago
  Why don't "free speech" networks ever grow to be the bigger one in the first place?
  - amadeuspagel 4y ago
    Twitter and facebook did grow big when they were free speech networks.

harimau777 4y ago

I think it's somewhat more complicated than that. Traditionally there was more friction to speech. I don't even mean just that the average person doesn't have access to a national platform like CNN. Even something like mailing out fliers had non-trivial costs. It's the same reason why junk mail is generally less of an issue than email spam. In a traditional town square, people are not anonymous and the "square" was local enough for there to be social consequences to actions. On Twitter, many of the posters are anonymous and even those who aren't often live on the other side of the country.