See the entire conversation

I've now been asked multiple times for my take on Elon's offer for Twitter. So fine, this is what I think about that. I will assume the takeover succeeds, and he takes Twitter private. (I have little knowledge/insight into how actual takeover battles work or play out) (long ๐Ÿงต)
9,364 replies and sub-replies as of Apr 16 2022

I think if Elon takes over Twitter, he is in for a world of pain. He has no idea.
There is this old culture of the internet, roughly Web 1.0 (late 90s) and early Web 2.0, pre-Facebook (pre-2005), that had a very strong free speech culture.
This free speech idea arose out of a culture of late-90s America where the main people who were interested in censorship were religious conservatives. In practical terms, this meant that they would try to ban porn (or other imagined moral degeneracy) on the internet.
(Remember when it seemed very important to certain people that we ban things like this?)
Many of the older tech leaders today (@elonmusk, @pmarca, etc, GenXers basically) grew up with that internet. To them, the internet represented freedom, a new frontier, a flowering of the human spirit, and a great optimism that technology could birth a new golden age of mankind.
I believe that too. But I also ran Reddit.
Reddit was born in the last years of the "old internet" when free speech meant "freedom from religious conservatives trying to take down porn and sometimes first-person shooters." And so we tried to preserve that ideal. That is not what free speech is about today.
It's not that the principle is no longer valid (it is), it's that the practical issues around upholding that principle are different, because the world has changed.
The internet is not a "frontier" where people can go "to be free," it's where the entire world is now, and every culture war is being fought on it. It's the MAIN battlefield for our culture wars.
It means that upholding free speech means you're not standing up against some religious conservatives lobbying to remove Judy Blume books from the library, it means you're standing up against EVERYONE, because every side is trying to take away the speech rights of the other side.
(It's also where Russia is fighting a real war against us, using free speech literally. But that's another story too)
Free speech may be noble, but here's what's it's like these days:
All my left-wing woke friends are CONVINCED that the social media platforms uphold the white supremacist misogynistic patriarchy, and they have plenty of screenshots and evidence ...
... of times when the platform has made enforcement decisions unfairly against innocuous things they've said, and let far more egregious sexist/racist violations by the other side pass. Woke friends: it's true, right? You have LOTS of examples.
All my alt/center-right/libertarian friends are CONVINCED the social media platforms uphold the woke BLM/Marxist/LGBTQ agenda and they ALSO have plenty of screenshots and evidence of times when...
... the platforms have made enforcement decisions unfair against them for innocuous things they've said merely questioning (in good faith) the woke orthodoxy, and let far more egregious violations by the other side stand.
Right-wingers and libertarians: it's true, right? You can remember PLENTY of examples.
Neither side is lying. Mostly, it's really because enforcement is hard, and there are LOTS of errors. There's a separate emerging problem (more FB than Twitter) where AI models make inhumane/dystopian judgments that can't be appealed, but that's a separate issue.
Both sides think the platform is institutionally biased against them. "All the top executives and board members are men." "Silicon Valley employees are overwhelming woke and left-wing."
I want you to pause for a minute and think about your political alignment and whether you're on the left or right of this issue, because you probably think one of those things.
And the old GenX tech titans are right there with you - vaguely left-wing but also center-right - seeing their version of "censorship" - and drawing all the wrong conclusions from it about what's happening with the management of social platforms.
Elon is one of those, because he doesn't understand what has happened to internet culture since 2004. Or as I call it, just culture.
I KNOW he doesn't, because he was pretty late to Bitcoin, and if he'd been plugged in to internet culture he would've been on Bitcoin way earlier.
Elon's been too busy doing Actual Real Things like making electric cars and reusable rockets and fucking actresses/singers, so he has a Pretty Fucking Good Excuse For Not Paying Attention but this is also something that's hard to understand unless you've RUN a social network.
I'm now going to reveal the institutional bias of every large social network (i.e. FB, Twitter, Reddit):
Are you ready?
Here it is...
They would like you (the users) to stop squabbling over stupid shit and causing drama so that they can spend their time writing more features and not have to adjudicate your stupid little fights.
That's all.
They DON'T CARE ABOUT POLITICS. They really don't. Donald Trump was not de-platformed for being right-wing. I talk a bit about this in my thread about Omega Events:
An exception to the rules will ALWAYS eventually occur, no matter how universal or all-encompassing you think your rules or principles are.
Yes, the execs are (whatever demographic) and the employees are (whatever politics) but they don't care about it. They don't.
Facebook's userbase has at various times been left-leaning, then right-leaning, then bifurcated. So has Reddit's. Twitter's also. The social platforms don't care.
They kind of care about money, but mostly they wish you would shut up and be civil.
But that is impossible: they (we) made a platform where anyone can say anything, largely without consequence, so people are going to be their worst selves, and social networking is now The Internet, and everyone is on it (thank you @chamath), saying WHATEVER THE HELL THEY WANT.
But the platforms have to be polite. They have to pretend to enforce fairness. They have to adopt "principles." Let me tell you: There are no real principles. They are just trying to be fair because if they weren't, everyone would yell LOUDER and the problem would be worse.
What happens is that because of the fundamental structural nature of social networks, it is always possible for a corner case to emerge where people get into an explosive fight and the company running the social network has to step in. Again: Omega Events
Because human variability and behavior is infinite. And when that happens, the social network has to make up a new rule, or "derive" it from some prior stated principle, and over time it's really just a tortured game of Twister.
You really want to avoid censorship on social networks? Here is the solution: Stop arguing. Play nice. The catch: everyone has to do it at once. I guarantee you, if you do that, there will be NO CENSORSHIP OF ANY TOPIC on any social network.
Because it is not TOPICS that are censored. It is BEHAVIOR. (This is why people on the left and people on the right both think they are being targeted) The problem with social networks is the SOCIAL (people) part. Not the NETWORK (company).
"The best antidote to bad ideas is not to censor them, but to allow debate and better ideas." How naive.
"Debate" is a vague term, and what a social network observes that causes them to "censor" something is masses of people engaging in "debate" - that is to say: abusive volumes of activity violating spam and harrassment rules, sometimes prompting off-site real-world harm.
This is what you think of when you hear "debate." This is not what is happening on social networks today.
Example: the "lab leak" theory (a controversial theory that is now probably true; I personally believe so) was "censored" at a certain time in the history of the pandemic because the "debate" included ...
massive amounts of horrible behavior, spam-level posting, and abuse that spilled over into the real world - e.g. harrassment of public officials and doctors, racially-motivated crimes, etc.
It was "censored" not because it was a wrong idea, but because ideas really can - at certain times and places - become lightning rods for actual, physical, kinetic mob behavior.
That is just an unpleasant, inconvenient truth that all of you (regardless of your political leaning) need to accept about speech. Ideas really ARE powerful, and like anything else that is powerful, yes, they can be DANGEROUS. I'm sorry, it's just true.
It would have been perfectly acceptable if the lab leak theory were being discussed in a rational, evidence-based manner by scientists on Twitter, but that is not what happened.
Replace "lab leak theory" with whatever topic you think has been unfairly censored, and the reason it was censored (or any other action taken against it) is not because of the content of that topic, I ABSOLUTELY ASSURE YOU.
It is because at Certain Times, given Certain Circumstances, humans will Behave Badly when confronted with Certain Ideas, and if you are The Main Platform Where That Idea is Being Discussed, you cannot do NOTHING, because otherwise humans will continue behaving badly.
Here is what I think about Twitter: I think the last few years of @jack's administration have been the best years of Twitter's history.
I think Jack really matured as an exec, his prior experience with Twitter, then his success with Square (i.e. doing it wrong, then doing it right) really raised him to a world-class CEO level, and Twitter finally got to be "pretty good."
And "pretty good" is about as good as any social network can possibly be, in my opinion. (@jack, if you are reading this, my hat's off to you. Saying this as one of the few people who have ever run a social platform: you showed the world how it should've been done)
There is a reason why Jack has a crazy meditation routine and eats one meal a deal and goes on spiritual retreats. Because it takes an INHUMAN level of mentality to be able to run something like this.
Because the problems are NOT about politics, or topics of discussion. They are about all the ways that humans misbehave when there are no immediately visible consequences, when talking to (essentially) strangers, and the endless ingenuity they display trying to get around rules.
These last few years, @jack did a really good job. And whoever the midwits were who didn't think so have kicked him out, and now Elon thinks he's going to come in and fix some problems.
Elon is not going to fix some problems. I am absolutely sure of this. He has no idea what he's in for. (He might hire back Jack, which might be ok, but I don't know if Jack wants the job. Who knows. All the tech titans are buddies, kind of)
Elon is going to try like heck to "fix" the problems he sees. Each problem he "fixes" will just cause 3 more problems.
And the worst part, the part that is going to hurt ALL OF HUMANITY, is that this will distract from his mission at SpaceX and Tesla, because it's not just going to suck up his time and attention, IT WILL DAMAGE HIS PSYCHE.
I mean, it's not like he isn't already an emotionally damaged guy. (Sorry Elon, it's pretty obvious) But he has overcome a lot. And he does not need more trauma from running Twitter.
And I know I'm not just projecting my own traumas from the time of running Reddit, because:
Mark Zuckerberg talks about e-foiling in the mornings to avoid having to think about bad news coming in that's like "being punched in the face."
Ellen Pao was horrifically scarred by her run as Reddit CEO and the active harrassment, far beyond merely adjudicating community misbehavior.
Jack has his meditation retreats and unusual diets and spiritual journeys - he's an odd guy yeah - but I'm pretty sure some of that is so he can cope with All You Fucking Assholes.
Never heard much from Dick Costolo, but I haven't seen him do much stand-up improv since he left Twitter, have you? Dick might still be recovering.
It's not a fun job, and it's not like how anyone on the outside imagines. Elon is a very public personality, and he will be faulted by ALL SIDES any time Twitter Does Anything to Solve A Problem, even if he isn't the CEO.
"Why is chairman of the board @elonmusk standing by while @<newtwitterceo> is doing X, which is wrecking Y?" "@elonmusk, how can you allow X horrible thing to happen? I thought you were against censorship!"
So: my take is this: @elonmusk, I'm all with you on the Values Of The Old Internet. This is not The Old Internet. That is gone. It is sad. It's not because the platforms killed it.
It is because we brought all of our old horrible collective dysfunctions onto the internet, and the internet is very fast and everyone can say anything to anyone, and the place where that happens the most is on the social platforms.
(It doesn't happen very often on e.g. Amazon, except when it does, and of course that's when Amazon Censors You!)
It is hard. It is VERY hard. Like eating glass, as Elon would put it. But it is not as hard as running a social network. And if Elon knows what's good for him AND HUMANITY, he won't do it - he will stick with the Real Atoms, which is what we really need.
If you like this thread, here's some more stuff about what I'm working on and how you can support it:
One of the things we work on at Terraformation is seed banking: creating low-cost working seed banks and educating others on how to do seed banking. I'm going to explain why that's a crucial element of forest restoration as a climate solution.
And if you want the Next Big Thing:
If you want to know the next big thing in "real atoms" investment macro-trends, I'll tell you right now. (1/x)
Addenda: a few people have interpreted this thread as meaning that I support or that it was a justification for censorship. (That is a reasonable misinterpretation) but it is not true.
I am very much against censorship. I am, for example, against the censorship of every topic that the social networks blocked during the pandemic especially. I have personally been harmed by this.
However, I also understand many non-obvious things about the complex dynamics that arise in large social network platforms, and I will tell you this:
Censorship is inevitable on large social network platforms. If you run one of sufficient size, you will be FORCED to censor things. Not by governments, or even by "users," but by the emergent dynamics of the social network itself.
Someone also said something like, "it's unacceptable that anyone be considered the omniscient arbiter of what's true or not" (sorry if I'm misquoting you; there's a lot of replies) I also agree with that. It is impossible for anyone to do, and also terrible.
Yet, the structure and dynamics of running a large social network will FORCE you to do it. IIRC, almost every large social platform started out wanting to uphold free speech. They all buckle.
And it's not because certain ideas are good or bad, or true or false. It has to do purely with operational issues that arise with humans that disagree in large numbers on digital platforms.
The social platforms aren't censoring you (or some idea you like) because they disagree with you. They are censoring because they are large social platforms, and ideas are POWERFUL and DANGEROUS.
(That is the whole point. Ideas wouldn't be worth much if they weren't dangerous or powerful. But you can't always control what people are going to do with powerful things)
What they censor has little to do with what is true or false. It has a little bit to do with whatever the current politics are, but not in the way you probably expect.
Let me be clear: if you run a large social network, you will be forced by inexorable circumstance to censor certain things, you will be forced to "arbitrate" on topics you have an (inevitably) limited understanding of, and it will all be really really shitty.
(The alternative is just collapse of the platform, so I guess you do always have a choice - but then you're not a social platform anymore)
The process through which all of that will happen is painful, which is why I don't think Elon should do it. It is not a good use of his time, and I think his time is uniquely valuable and limited.
there's no distinction between supporting censorship of social media and believing censoring social media is necessary because ideas are powerful. except enthusiasm perhaps :p why not censor abusive behavior without censoring specific ideas like lab leak? difficulty scaling?
Trying to bring order to chaos to mitigate harm is difficult when the chaos is like a hurricane and you can only look through a telescope. You never know what exactly to censor or why, and you're going to fuck up a lot, but you have to do it sometimes. That's my takeaway.
your thoughts?
Generally agree. I think what Elon is doing is extremely dangerous and brave.
Great thread. Thanks for taking the time to write it ๐Ÿ™ ๐Ÿ‘
Great thread with some hard-won insights. Extrapolating the trajectory of spoken words to books to internet to social media... The only way social media ideastorms become less impactful is when something even faster/more persuasive becomes the dominant mode of 'debate'.
This may be the single best/most accurate thread on social media ever authored, props! ๐Ÿ™๐Ÿป๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿป๐Ÿ’ช๐Ÿป
(Also- are there pilot projects of your current venture somewhere? HI, elsewhere? I write about trees. Sometimes.)
Well said. Couldnt agree more.. Elon is wasting his time.
savethread censorship
Hey layinka, Your thread has been compiled and published to the PermaWeb forever, visit permabot.xyz/t/thread/p/d4d… to view it.
Permabot - Thread by yishan
Your social media posts/threads on the permaweb forever
permabot.xyz
This is a good thread. But humans have nuclear weapons and if you haven’t noticed… Censorship is polarising. It’s good that these groups fight online in a limited way. Online silo’s become real world silo’s and that super bad for the future.
Respect for yr experience running a social network at a larger scale than I have. Social tech & Freedom are extremely important, & we do need a hero here. There is a monoculture leading the major US social networks. We need a leader of his caliber to put a team in place.
This Thread is Saved to your Notion Workspace. These tags were saved to the thread [Goodread]
This is the greatest tweet thread ever ๐Ÿ”ฅ๐Ÿ”ฅ๐Ÿ”ฅ๐Ÿ”ฅ
So in nutshell..No social network - which allows 7 billion irrational people to be the real self- can be easily managed and live with free speech principles. Becoz thr are 7 billion irrational & uncensored individuals! ๐Ÿคท‍โ™€๏ธ
Very enlightening thread. Thank you for taking the thought and time needed to write it.
Your operational nous around social networks shines through in your articulation. Thanks for sharing!
Fantastic. You addressed so many questions. Fundamentally “free speech” is a concept that only exists in a world with a functioning platform or government. Take either one away and “free speech” ceases to be.
Question - a common narrative (supported by anecdotal info) is that the social networks don’t in fact want everyone one to get along as all the animus drives engagement. If the currency is eyeballs, then it makes sense to drive strong emotional responses. You disagree?
Agreed. I think what he means is the product dev and support teams want civility, but the owners like Zuckerberg of $FB thrive off of chaos on their platform
There’s a tipping point where the emotional responses (or charged ideological bonding) become dangerous. So platforms built on “friction-driven engagement” have a real balancing act.
I don't think that's how TikTok works... And isn't that one (in)famous for having the strongest engagement?
This is all painfully bleak
An insightful thread, but there's a lacuna in it. To quote you, ideas are POWERFUL and DANGEROUS, which means that people who are interested in power are very interested in controlling ideas, affecting which spread and which wither. It's not all "if you could only behave"
The point is that the people building these platforms are not those trying to gain power by controlling ideas.
THANK YOU FOR THIS THREAD! And thank you @CoolAssPuppy for bringing it to my attention.
Tell yourself whatever so you can sleep at night.But the truth is that Twitter among others has introduced censorship. Plain and simple. Stating arguments why it is done does not change that it is done. And it shouldn’t be done, anytime, anywhere. That what the democracy is about
You promoted freedom of speech until you got benefit from it. Once it hits you back you are suddenly defending censorship. But it does not work that away. Btw, censorship is a slippery slope, once you are ok with it, sooner or later it will hit you as well.
Reread the thread Do it again and again until you actually understand it because it’s pretty clear you don’t and are just being reactionary and it’s your default response
I read his whole tweet & it felt so good reading it. The amount of information & reasoning is perfect. And then, unfortunately, I found your reply - which just.. idk.. I don't understand how anyone can say something so dumb immediately after reading this genius thread.
Many points here that are true, I know since I run a social network, but your assessment of there being no sides taken is not true. Elon probably took this action after the banning of @TheBabylonBee. That one case is ridiculous. Also the Hunter laptop. The valley is taking sides.
Maybe @elonmusk thinks that fixing social networks is equally or more important than a marginal hour of work on Tesla or SpaceX. Re: qualifications/difficulty, he has the most active popular Twitter account and started/salvaged some of the hardest startups — hard to beat that.
Imagine witnessing twitter rig an election and still playing the “both sides” card.
Insightful thread - glad you wrote it.
tldr; if people are able to communicate without restriction it may lead to actual change
terrible thread from a blowhard nerd. go back outside
Your head is so far up your own ass you're trying to put it in Elon's.
Do you think it’s possible to open source different moderation filters? This way platforms can shift responsibility away from themselves and the people can choose the level of censorship they want in their feeds
I don't think that addresses the root causes he identifies in the thread. If the speech is leading to real world harm, just giving users the ability to opt out into their own filter bubbles doesn't fix the issue.
The platforms can still reserve the right to moderate and deplatform in more extreme situations where things do lead to real world harm. For cases of abusive replies and bot spam, maybe open source can innovate faster than in-house teams.
Wow @yishan - I’m having a bit of PTSD flashbacks from being part of team that ran Excite.com Communities (web 1, pre-FB, pre-Twtr) we had much of the same dilemmas and much of the same results, smaller scale. Thx for ๐Ÿงต
Trying to control human behavior through censorship (content moderation) is futile. It forces people to find other ways to convene & w/o refute. It's a modern day public square being controlled by unelected officials who think they know whats best for everyone.
Your writing has a voice that's been in The Shit. Appreciate you distilling years of actual experience into this thread.
You do know you can own and to some degree control something without running it? The only question Elon or any other needs to ask is if there's upside and if this potential upside fits into his plans all and all.
Seems like the proper analogy for managing a social architecture is herd management. Some users get culled if they take more effort to manage than they are worth. This feels harsh to users because they aren't playing a game with the same goal.
Stability is the general goal, but like any organization there are multiple agendas at play. That said, the critique that exercising control over the speech of other is anathema to free speech is not wrong.
This is the best thread I read all year. Thank you for your insights @yishan
This is insightful. It sounds like you think there is no solution to the eventual crumminess of all social networks. But question: its pretty easy to use reddit in a way that avoids bickering (you subscribe to your preferred subs). Couldn't we use algorithms on Twitter . . .
. to categorize tweets by general topic area? I.e., "politics," etc. Couldn't we then let users toggle on/off these tweets from their feed? A user can already do this by selectively following others based on topic area, but bickering always seems to slide into the feed.
You're currently in the 'reasonable discourse about running social networks' category - but did you know that monkeys are blue? Either I'm censored for breaking the rules of categories, or you can't avoid monkeys being blue, which is the point. Rules = censorship because assholes
spot on,don't remember blocking someone on @Reddit ,on $twtr I block people constantly,on @Stocktwits I have thousands of followers I assure u my block is way longer,subscriptions may help but for some reason on twtr far left liberals subscribe to @FoxNews just to cause trouble
With you on most of this, including the thesis, but people should know where our "collective dysfunctions" primarily come from and why simply reacting to them makes companies look like they're trying to be "woke" tylerberbert.substack.com/p/mobs?s=w
You say they aren’t biased but the Hunter Biden laptop story censorship showed egregious bias Same with the COVID and vax conversations It’s clear they are biased one way when it really counts, pretending otherwise is just ignoring the reality of the situation
If you invite people to your house, you need to kick people out if they do things that might burn the house down. Not hard to understand. Imagine inviting the entire world to your house and trying to make sure your house stays intact…
The problem is who you choose to kick out. The guy with the matches or the guy who he’s blaming for making him mad?
Doesn't matter, whoever u choose their friends will hate u for it.
Biggest problem with Reddit are the default sub mods
Current path is indefensible. Disruption will happen at some point. Might take a different form than "making censor/promote/demote algos public". But ^ has potential. Culture wars might shift away from platform blaming to gaming the algorithm. New arms race beyond that.
Can you tell me why Twitter can't eliminate bots?
I agree with so much but you do not mention bots. In the social media culture wars, bots are mercenaries hired to turn the tide in political discourse, amplify disinformation, and farm outrage. Twitter gave us a report/block option to police the problem ourselves. Useless.
Saved! Thank you for adding a thoughtful note alongside the "save thread" โ˜บ๏ธ๏ธ Stats: • 50 saves of this thread (ranked #750) • 85 total saves of yishan's threads (ranked #608)
Enjoyed reading this.
Interesting thread with some good points. I need to raise that there is actual censorship on social. It's just not what ppl think. It boils down to Advertising and corporate guidelines, honestly.
Very nice thread - thanks for writing it
This thread completely misses the driving force of the entire problem. The incentives. It's not the media, it's the business model.
OMG THAT TOOK ME 30 MINUTES! Why dont ya read me an encyclopedia and the bible while you're at it!
When you personal attack someone for their actions and talk like you know everything you lost my interest in an credibility. Once you go personal you show what people are calling a “side” now. “There is more than one way to skin a cat.”
Perhaps — Discovering a way to thrive despite the inherent difficulties and pains of free speech in the Information Age is one of the requisite steps to pass The Great Filter.
Yishan- bad take man
yeah, but don’t omit the fact that elon is a giant bullshit artist who did not create tesla. he is a bad actor thru n thru.
Elon doesn't make rockets or electric cars himself, Elon is an entrepreneur who knows how to hire talented people to do a great job
Your video is ready. Do you want it removed? Reply to me saying "remove" or "delete"
Your video is ready. Do you want it removed? Reply to me saying "remove" or "delete"
Your video is ready. Do you want it removed? Reply to me saying "remove" or "delete"
Your video is ready. Do you want it removed? Reply to me saying "remove" or "delete"
Your video is ready. Do you want it removed? Reply to me saying "remove" or "delete"
Your video is ready. Do you want it removed? Reply to me saying "remove" or "delete"
Your video is ready. Do you want it removed? Reply to me saying "remove" or "delete"
Your video is ready. Do you want it removed? Reply to me saying "remove" or "delete"
Your video is ready. Do you want it removed? Reply to me saying "remove" or "delete"
Your video is ready. Do you want it removed? Reply to me saying "remove" or "delete"
Very informative, interesting, insightful. Seems like the "humanity's technological evolution outpacing its emotional, & rational evolution/progress" theme. Even a gentle breeze can turn into a rabid hellhound tornado online. People being people is humanity's greatest threat.
This line infuriates me. We didn’t go from cave to internet by being anything other than people! It’s hard, but it isn’t anything more than a new environment. When we make people the problem we make containing people the solution. Bad idea!
I really appreciate your thoughts on this issue. I’m a free speech absolutist but even I can understand and appreciate the nuance around the issue as it pertains to social media, which you brilliantly articulated. Thanks for that, and for your work at Reddit. Cheers!
Today belongs to Jesus.๐Ÿ™
Well said. Despite him clearly being a dick, have nothing but positive things to say about Musk. He is one of few doing big things that make a difference rather than making millions hit a big red button more. We need more musk's, not more Zuckerbergs
This misses the deeper point, which is that our most fundamental tools for processing collective perceptions can't / shouldn't be managed centrally / opaquely, yet the path-dependencies of social-media-as-startup mean they are. If Musk can decentralize Twitter, I'm here for it.
And yes, I'm aware of the paradox of something perhaps needing to become more centralized (acquisition by a single person) before becoming less so (if said person's vision is actually a less centralized one).
Central planners and abusers of power think they always know what's better for you, though. "Just stop fighting back or arguing and we'll leave you alone." Not likely. There is a good reason I don't engage on reddit. It's a social retribution engine. This guy sucks at life.
Elon won’t even know where to start
It seems he’s already started with a fairly effective gambit.
Man you really cut through the volume of bullshit in the thread the right way.
dude i ain't reading all that.
Awesome thread. This needs to be seen by everyone but unfortunately won’t be seen by anyone(relatively speaking).
Good thread. Although, there are big differences from you and Elon M so many if your points can be made invalid.
I honestly don't want this to destroy Elon. He already drives himself way too hard and is getting older. Although he says life can't be all about solving problems,he has a real need to solve problems he sees. He is frustrated with Twitter and wants to fix it.
I think it's true he is a bit stuck on the old internet when it was starting and he was in Silicon Valley getting in on it,it ultimately led to where he is today,but things are so different now and he just doesn't spend enough time to know.
Elon doesn't exactly have many escapes from this shit. He doesn't take vacations,he doesn't do much except work and it's obvious he doesn't sleep much. He doesn't GIVE himself many escapes because he believes what he does is so important.
It's also true he is very emotional and pretty much wears his heart on his sleeve. Being asked in interviews about his heroes trashing SpaceX brought him to tears and he seems to take things pretty hard. That's just how he is.
I'm not sure how mentally and emotionally he could handle having Twitter but he cannot be CEO. That would be bad,if he's doing this,someone else needs to be CEO. Being blamed for everything will not be good for him.
Ultimately,I understand why he wants this and Im with him,I think what he wants is good,and Twitter is not willing to do it on their own,so he thinks doing this will force it. I hope he isn't making a mistake and it doesn't hurt him and his companies.
How do you explain 4chan then? It permits almost any speech and is almost completely unmoderated. It has existed longer than any network you've mentioned in this thread, and yet it is still wildly popular, despite its dated UI that is extremely unfriendly to newcomers/normies.
Thank you for sharing this. As another GenX internet person, what's really pulled me into the now of just culture is Tik Tok. The internet ain't what it used to be and trying to enforce those archaic notions is both harmful and, as you say, wasteful of precious time.
I like to think more people's time is uniquely valuable too than we initially expect, but I'm glad I came across your page today and I'm grateful for that.
1/ Aggregate the content of those cheering Elon owning Twitter to make a "free speech" platform – those accounts produce a much higher content % of social media destroying bile and behaviour.
2/ Increase bile, decrease engagement. Twitter popularity crasahes and burns and Elon losses. Or Elon steps moderation back up and an absolute storm of bile gets directed at him.
3/ To which any attempt to decrease that ego destroying sadness with "cute tweets" or further moderation only steps up the shit storm of poison memes.
I agree with the sentiment of this thread but with one big caveat. Social networks so far have all been about making money. Add users, advertisers follow, get rich. What if Elon didn't care about the ROI of his $54.20/share. What if to him it was essentially like opening a public
park where anyone could come and spew whatever nonsense they please? Now one could say 4Chan is the last remaining remnants of that that Old Internet concept but I think a platform like Twitter could be enough of a change to refresh it. But that is not to say the other problems
you late out will still exist and at some point there will be some limits to completely open expression.
that's naive of course he will care about ROI
Then see the thread above for why it isn't an easy road ahead...
Oh wow, there’s a lot of wisdom in this, Yishan. I’d love to see you work this up into an article.
Reminds me of an article my lib-leaning yet compassionately-neutral practitioning prof posted once. It said censorship comes more from peers than authorities. Maybe not 100% but definitely not 0. Reporting people makes work for admins & brings unnecessary attention to oneself
A thought provoking thread. One interesting thing to think about is: what would Elon would actually do with the platform? And the most obvious answer is that he would open source it somehow. Which could, potentially, work. At least sounds like an improvement.
This final sentence is where you lose me. I cannot imagine a more overvalued human being than Elon Musk.
That was a long rant…Fix the lack of education and morality in society and the rest will fix itself.
Shit take. I doubt you know Elon more than I know Cleopatra. Also, Reddit is not twitter, even if there’s plenty of users below median iq on both platforms. Finally, I think he know what he is doing, and I think he’s right this time.
Appreciate the thread, but could you name one single account here that is left/woke and complaining being targeted?
Maybe he should just buy it & pull the plug on the whole program. At this point it’s doing more harm than good to the world….
This Thread is Saved to your Notion Workspace. These tags were saved to the thread [Megathread]
you lost me on 2 points: 1. interchanging of speech and behavior on SMs, not sure if faulty logic or Twitter style? 2. PROOF that ideas spill/manifest in the world in dangerous ways directly caused by SM; no anecdotes, but proof. sounds like 90s video games debate. & still wrong
I really enjoyed your thread, but, if you feel there is no bias, why are there so few, if any, suspensions/account lockouts of high-profile far left accounts, especially those that promote violence, while twitter suspends a satire comedy site in the Babylon bee?
This is a great thread, but it’s not quite convincing to me. You assert that ‘there are these situations where a social media will just HAVE to censor/mediate, or the platform will…’ but do you have a good example? The lab leak issue - why did the platforms *HAVE* to block it?
Because muh “scientists were in danger”. Lmfao. Dude is just a rabid pro censorship advocate, there’s nothing redeeming in the entire thread.
Yeah, I don't understand. "I think right now that it's true, but in the past they had no other way than to censor it because running social networks are weird" or something. WTF?
Come on Nic. This isn’t fair. Many people changed Their views on the pandemic & ensuing policy based on better understanding the virus , development of treatment, etc. I clearly remember you being pro lockdowns and “stomping the curve” in the early days of the pandemic
I doubt you would be so gung-ho on being pro lockdown.
๐Ÿ’ฏ it's like someone tries very hard to come up with reasons to ban books, but there is no good reason whatsoever and doesn't matter if you're on the right or left. Banning books is dumb. Just like censorship is dumb.
Fucking redditor ๐Ÿ˜‚
Because there were already an instance of racial attack on Asians, and leaving it uncontrolled would cause more instances like that.
In an entire nation one can always find "an instance" of that sort of event if one looks hard enough. "The people I don't like inspire hate crimes!" is a great excuse to shut down voices you disagree with but is almost never rigorously justified.
David Duke existed before 'net & people knew who and what he was. No censorship was required. Free market of ideas took care of him. The idea that you need to put ear muffs on people, or tape on their mouths shut to stop unpopular ideas on 'net...is lunacy.
“His time is uniquely valuable” - I fully agree. Why is he doing this? Is it a platform play to ensure some level of access and control of the Global Megaphone? ๐Ÿ“ข. Perhaps a starting play for Presidency ?
Elon's not born in USA. = No presidency
The first thing he could do is to get rid of the character limit of tweets.
I am a bit worried he just wants to turn it into his propaganda platform. But optimistically maybe he can make it better. (but I am not sure I understand the problems you have described.) I hate twitter now - ever since they monetized it. Not sure twitter can technically ....
be what it was initially trying to be (without crashing due to volume issues).
Epic. The only solution really is to have everyone in their school years run a social network. Some countries have national service. We have this. No other way.
How do you or anyone else determine the value of someone’s time and how can anyone external to one’s self be responsible for setting someone else’s priorities?
F*ck me.. that’s a lot of words.. free speech fixes this
Wtf is wrong with just using the block, mute and unfollow buttons? Solves problems in a jiffy. And much simpler than overanalysing.
I read your thread, I don't think u get it (all censorship favored the left) it is Freedom of speech and the entire western democracy is at stake now
You actually believe that only the right was censored? The Faux Propaganda Machine has your number. politico.com/news/2020/10/2…
Huge antifa accounts that did nothing wrong have been taken down. There is censorship on both sides, quit lying
Can't tell if you are being sarcastic or were in the Capitol Rotunda on Jan 6th, 2021 ...
The thing is, I'm an older zoomer, and even I remember a time of much freer internet. It seems like as little as 10 years ago, these platforms were committed to the principal of free speech. It seems like the culture war poisoned this ideal.
I wonder if it's somehow possible to return the internet to the principle of free speech. But I don't see it happening any time soon.
Trump shouldn’t be banned. ๐Ÿ’ฏ
So many assumptions in here that don’t align with reality
Literally so biased to his own beliefs and experience. I was involved in internet culture and never came away with this take whatsoever.
Once he said Elon doesn’t understand culture I knew the rest was going to be more bad takes. The dude literally made electric cars cool desirable status symbols
Can confirm. I was pretty active before the censorship wave of 2015 on reddit. The real reason is money. They wanted to sanitize the platform to attract investors and advertisers.
How does your logic morally approve of banning Trump?
But all this bad behavior spreads and takes control because of the advertising algorithm. It magnifies content that evokes strong emotions. When twitter has to spend time censoring content, it's fighting its own advertising system. This discussion is incomplete without adtech.
This is true
Absolute cringe.
Straightforward solution: Close all external APIs. Force all users to prove identity. Allow all to say whatever they want to say. Charge those with a large following a fee to use the platform. Done.
You guys are imposing a new, secular, progressive moral order on the rest of us, & enforcing it using your authority. No mention of 'hate speech,' grooming, gender theory, CRT or any of it. Your TOS represents these 'moral' standards, not ours. This is the elephant in the room.
Is it just a coincidence that most of your employees & upper management also supports this remaking of the moral dictionary? This is just a meaningless observation, tangential to the conversation? I don't think so, and I don't think you think so either.
I made it to the end! I actually read all the way to the end. Tldr: Elon, you don't want none of this shit man. Your time is better spent on more important things.
“They DON'T CARE ABOUT POLITICS. They really don't.” Is that why Zuckerberg spent almost half a billion dollars on the 2020 election because he doesn’t care about politics?
Zuckerberg's election spending was 'carefully orchestrated' to...
A former federal election official called the $400 million-plus that Mark Zuckerberg spent a “carefully orchestrated attempt” to influence the 2020 vote.
nypost.com
you gotta see it both sides as “they are playing the political game” AKA that manouvering you posted and “they don’t want to adapt the platform to the political game” AKA they “don’t care” about politics - they don’t want to care in a sense of feature development
You seem very convinced of some things there, but if it were actually true that social media companies didn’t want to control the narrative, they would simply let users choose their own moderators, and they don’t. Maybe true for you personally, but not those with leverage over it
If you’d been on the internet of the early 2000s, you’d be aware that all platforms of that era attempted their own form of community moderation. When platforms achieve a certain critical mass, community moderation is no longer enough.
Ironically, Reddit is probably the best example of this.
I didn't say community moderation. I said, choose your moderator.
Which has most of the same drawbacks as community moderation but to a degree worse. How useful is a system of moderation in which misinformation is censored only for those who already know enough to pick an effective moderator? The degree of selection bias would be staggering.
You mean to say, a Jury of Peers is worse than a government-appointed judge?
You're in favor of parenting adults, I'm not. What are you afraid of?
wow.. what a stupid take
how would users choose moderators? how often are mod elections? how can we remove a moderator for abuse of power?
That’s a very long thread to say you don’t know what his intentions are. Almost impressive…
incredible self-serving nonsense from someone who ruined something beautiful to make himself wealthy. i know it doesn’t eat at you because you’re too arrogant, but it should. it should eat you hollow
Ideas are dangerous... You give up on the principle of freedom to spread ideas because somewhere some human decided to be the worst version of themself.
This whole thread is just your way of saying, sorry, guys, we have succumbed to the bullying of people who blamed our platform for an action of an individual, self-governing person, who alone is accountable for their behavior.
Treat your users like babies and they will become babies.
What this novella failed to address is just how many accounts spewing garbage into the network are NOT authentic human beings with real morals and authentic opinions. Some accounts purposely threaten the real lives of others. Violent threats, doxxing, etc.
And the real societal repercussions of networks manipulating their algorithms to increase the disinformation and drive up the discourse. Bad actors like Cambridge Analytica and others using the platform for evil. These should be the focus of regulation, not topic censorship IMO.
Furthermore, no single entity should be allowed to have so much control over something that is now so intrinsically linked into all of our lives. I think it’s worth considering redefining “social networks” as public infrastructure and regulating it. ๐Ÿค”
and me… same page ๐Ÿ‘‡๐Ÿป
I’m don’t believe any individual or institutions should own social media, or more generally media companies. It should be an open and verifiable protocol. Everything is a step toward that.
Remarkable. Thank you.
Excellent thread, I completely agree. I who have little followers so not a big voice … but you don’t discuss the impact of bots exploding untruths to drive a narrative. To me, there is where the true danger manifested and what the social networks need to contain.
The 90’s were not just about pr0n & censorship. We cared about privacy & having an anonymous place to explore the dark side. It was always an anti-social social network (BBS>>IRC>>chat). Privacy & identity have since been diluted but are still as relevant as free speech.
O sea que las redes sociales son según tu como los gobiernos, se obediente, no protestes, se un buen esclavo sumiso y toma tu cuenco de arroz
Taking Tweeter private and eliminating the army of bots is more important right now. Tweeter should be the platform of ideas and civil discourse. With many layers on it.
How much of a subscription fee would you be willing to pay to have Twitter privately owned?
If an idea is dangerous, who decides this ? Dangerous to who ?
My problem with Facebook in particular, apart from its brain rotting algorithms, is that it allowed bad actors to harvest and weaponise people's data to influence democratic processes. This had very little to do with free speech and everything to do with greed.
To say that there isn’t a very concerted effort to push everything left is idiotic. There is a real agenda to divide people and the social leaders are behind it.
Says the guy who ran the most censored and free speech eliminating platform via Reddit. The place where it's pay to play in any major sub. You can tell your opinion on this is based in self absorbed, narcissistic way because "people asked you". Your ideologies aren't widespread
Or he will handle it all better than any of you ever did.
Also take a look at all the replies in this thread and notice the lack of support for anything you've spewed. This would have been flagged on Reddit in 2 seconds.
He would had been downvoted to oblivion and then banned by the power-hungry moderators ๐Ÿ˜‚
Agree to Disagree with you and Wish @elonmusk succeeds and opens up the @Twitter algirothms and stops any type of hidden agenda and restores the principle of Freedom that is timeless Freedom of expression that should be timeless too Humanity survival and progress for good
This lengthy thesis was enough to catch @elonmusk’s attention. Here’s something that’s become painfully evident that you missed: if the past 2 years have shown us anything, it’s that there not only is but should be real world consequences for your online behavior (censorship).
That goes double for the Big Social Media. They have been carrying on and unabashedly pushing an overt agenda that is distinctly as odds with our country’s founding principles. It’s no surprise to me that their online behavior manifests real world consequences. It’s about time.
It must be hard being a god. Policing everyone. Everyone complaining. Needing to control it all. But…what would happen if you just Let It All Go? Allow free will.
I made it to the end of the internet... But seriously, very interesting read on the state of censorship in social media and explanation of how the "free" internet of the early 90s to late 2000's is a thing of the past. ๐Ÿ‘
Remember what they took from you.
You haven't been paying attention if you think they call it down the middle.
(No comment)
Just because you couldn’t hack it doesn’t mean Elon can’t. He’s already done several impossible things. Not everyone is a genius with an eidetic memory. How about you just doff your hat and wish him luck?
great insight and many well balanced thoughts - but, imo, not the right conclusion. @elonmusk has obviously spent a lot of time on thinking about twitter already. he won't waste time on execution details. he uses money to move it in the right direction. and i think it's worth it.
holy shit bro go outside jesus chirst lord in heaven save this lost soul
I got stupider reading this ๐Ÿคฆ๐Ÿป‍โ™‚๏ธ
you seen this? A lot of food for thought.
You severly misunderstand the 1A. It literally gives any US citizen the right to say anything they want about anything they want The only people on the planet that is allowed to discipline(censor) me is my mother, father, & God Go read the Constitution. Then read the Bible
I have a question, what if the unending misbehavior is the result of trying to keep it in a bottle? When people first meet they can be a little hyper, try to impress, but they normalise and relax over time.
Also I don't remember being rude, being a mass societal harm. Certainly not illegal. And most countries have laws and infrastructure to deal with violence irl, and most of those don't "Minority Report" pre-arrest pre-criminals.
Also char. counts make hyperbole inevitable. Tweets are a lot of the problem. People can't express themselves properly on this site, people read past each other a lot because we literally can't couch our own thoughts properly without 100 tweet thread to dump two paragraphs.
It is always good to have the administrative perspective. The idea that the reason they holed the lab leak theory is because people were mean is utter nonsense however. power lets the politics in both intentionally and unintentionally. All you really have to do is follow the $
Can anyone name a social network that *collapsed* because of controversial debate on the platform? I can't think of any. I can't see why a platform would care about the nature of traffic - unless the platform were under social pressure, or threatened by authorities
& it was pretty obvious with the lab-leak theory that the censorship was *not* driven by real-world ramifications but instead by: - misplaced concerns about racism. - Anti-Trumpism. - Chinese governmental influence. Remember - the theory wasn't merely censored, but condemned.
Great thread Yishan, feels like an accomplishment reaching the end.
I have an idea for Twitter. Why not open the moderation algorithm so there could be competing ones? People could even write their own. Then everyone could decide which one to use. Users would then be in charge of their experience instead of an all-powerful Wizard of Oz
Absolutely brilliant. Thanks for this thread ๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿ‘
And that’s exactly right, why expend the time and energy on Twitter? Unless he sees the potential to democratise tyrannical regimes using Starlink and Twitter.
"Ideas really ARE powerful, and like anything else that is powerful, yes, they can be DANGEROUS." Congrats, this argument is what pretty much every dictator, since the beginning of dictators, has based his rule on, i.e. people can't be trusted to think for themselves. โฌ‡๏ธ
But what most people who value freedom understand is that you can't defeat a dangerous idea by ignoring it or suppressing it. You can only defeat an idea by engaging it with other ideas. And anyone who says differently is really an autocrat at heart.
Well,there are several things you said here I agreed: (1) It is about human behavior/reaction & consequences from those reaction regardless of politics/topics (2) It's about words & idears are POWERFUL & DANGEROUS.Words matter.Often people said,"It's just words not stick & stone"
(3) I agreed that FACTS changed over time based as more evidences arise after valid investigations. We can't based truth on rumors(which caused more new problems in proportion to the original one.)It is also worse to wrongly acuse someone for crime they didn't commit. Enuf said..
I think @elonmusk will fine being a CEO of @Twitter. Many said Elon Musk can't do many things in the past, and he had proven them all wrong. From PYPL, TSLA, SpaceX, SolarCity, Boring Company, etc. and everything is/was doing greater than ever. @jack has specific ideas of what...
what @Twitter should be and he procrasinated with features like "edit button" & its consequences a lot. The reason I said procasinate is b/c u either decided it's bad or good for Twitter and execute it. Not testing it for 2-3 years. Up to these days, TW is still pondering of ...
consequences of "edit button"?! @elonmusk will likely not do that. He will have "edit button" and if something proves it to be wrong for TW and all, gone "edit button" in a snap OR improve/change. That made him a good CEO & executor of any companies.
Why Should Georgio be censored for his beliefs in Ancient Aliens? Should he not be allowed to discus HIS truth with other likeminded individuals on this platform? Maybe you'd suffer less Emotional damage if you just stopped Trying! Let users decide!
All you need to do is listen to the Rogan podcast with vijaya and Jack. They ARE biased against right
This is not what a "Debate" looks like. This is one man giving a speech while others watch. THIS is what a "debate" looks like.
TL;DR "the public is either too stupid or easily mislead, so we need to decide for them." Authoritarians are self aware enough to recognize this sounds bad, so they dress it up with incredible mental gymnastics to justify it. Disturbing.
You have highlighted the complexity involved in managing a Social Platform, however, that does not mean that the work cannot be done much better.
This Thread is Saved to your Notion Workspace. BTW, you can add tags to the saved tweets and threads by typing them in the mention as hashtags, e.g: #notion #marketing #self_development ...
So you make a deal with the devil (censorship) to keep a platform alive when hot topics come up? That never ends well…
This is an EXCELLENT thread, thank you for taking the time to compile it.
Dude I think you’re biased because you worked at like the shittiest social platform in the world
The main thing I don’t see anyone talking about in the short time I spend in this gutter trash of a site now, is @elonmusk is gonna make money no matter what happens and maybe, just maybe that’s the bottom line. Maybe you mentioned that but I quit reading halfway through.
And when you have long money like he does, he can get in Bitcoin late and still make more than me or you or anyone else. So once again, money is the bottom line.
It’s not the job, or right, of any company to override free will and police behavior -period-. We aren’t children and we have the right to our free will, including the natural consequences, good and bad, if that leads to “real world” harm, there are already laws in place for that
1. Why are there no clear rules published? 2. Why are the decisions not justified? 3. Why is there no transparent arbitration process? 4. Who gets to decide truth and danger? 5. Why are censors and rule-makers simply appointed, with no accountability towards those they censor?
Very, very good insight. It’s the behaviour that should be censored. Is there AI for that? Maybe that’s what @elonmusk means by saying he is going to make $TWTR great again? Or maybe the whole thing is a ruse and @elonmusk isn’t serious about buying the company.
Sounds like "enforcement" is the issue in itself.
"and I think his time is uniquely valuable and limited." is it though?
Well said. It must be hubris on Musk’s part, because this is a fool’s errand and he set himself up for the winner’s curse.
One final point to make. Your arguments are made so much more impressive by your use of capitalization. It really does add to the merit of your arguments when you uppercase words like "DANGEROUS" and "LOUDER" and "ALWAYS." Kudos for the persuasive effect.
Yes yes wouldn't want the peasants to get any DANGEROUS IDEAS. Better they stay in line and know their place. Be a shame if you couldn't control the information they receive, then how ever would you influence how people think. Sic Semper Tyrannis
I’m genuinely curious, do you believe that there is a practical solution to this problem. Unfortunately, one that requires everyone to stop being cruel is unlikely. Even though almost impossible, what do you think the consequences of completely dismantling social media would be?
he's using his time wisely. he's just making money out of this. like everything he lays some attention on. let him be.
With this post; are you done? I sure hope you reflected on what you've wrote, because I think you were writing on the fly. Sure, alot to say, mumbling would have also sufficed. Is it just me, because all I got was you describing & endorsing BIG BROTHER. Not 4 me. Stick to seeds.
Why do the networks think they need to moderate just provide the tool stop up vote and down vote and let the masses have a discussion. Enable more blue checks. Require real personas within democratic societies. Eggs can exist but it only in places where free-speech is banned
Respect your thoughts and the very unique background that informs them. Respect. But I disagree a lot. I've seen the tech management rooms. To assert that it's a desire for Peace And Quiet and not self- serving would be naive for anyone else. (1/2)
You don't deplatform the sitting POTUS because you want politeness. You don't silence major news stories. The arrogance of the behavior is similar to that of your analysis. Be it you @elonmusk @jack whomever. Talk to normal people. This is getting crazy.
This is a great thread, But you got one thing wrong... Elon Musk is the man we not only want to run things but he's the man we NEED. You say he won't be a good fit but I strongly disagree. A man who worries about Humanity and speaks 100% the truth is 100% the guy we want as boss.
I cannot stomaches it any further. I stoped where I last commented. if I am needed for trial, I accept. this man is guilty of murder and treason. that's just as far as I got. @NSAGov do it. thank you. bleed the pigs.๐Ÿฉธ ืื‘ืจื” ืงื“ื‘ืจื”๐Ÿฉธ game over.
This is the longest thread I have ever seen in Twitter
This Thread is Saved to your Notion Workspace. BTW, you can add tags to the saved tweets and threads by typing them in the mention as hashtags, e.g: #notion #marketing #self_development ...
Elon wants to improve the lives of people in many different ways You don’t need to direct a person like that It’s psychopathic to tell someone they’re wasting their time when they are a responsible adult clearly choosing to do what fulfills thm Also for the record, not a waste
You sound informed, but I disagree with your conclusions The problem could be solved by user-controlled filters in lieu of universally-imposed ones But a vocal minority of elites insist on controlling the scope of permissible discourse—which regardless of justification is wrong
fwiw I am of neither a left or right persuasion—rather I am opposed in principle to paternalistic authoritarianism in all its myriad forms
Good read... furthers my opinion Jack and Mark both should step down. The job is too much for them at this point. Go meditate and stop letting outside noise dictate your choices.
great read thanks
This was such an interesting thread — thank you.
Nope. Where is the banned democratic president? Why was the hunter biden laptop story banned, but not the fake news russiagate? Why were people banned for supporting rittenhouse but not grosskreutz? It goes on and on, and in one direction. Your rewrite doesn't fly.
Despite your authoritative tone, much of what you're saying simply isn't true. Certain ideas are simply censored, not because of behavior, but because of the ideas themselves. For instance, tweets which examine alleged racial differences in cognitive ability would be censored.
Unless of course said tweets reach the "right" conclusion. But if they reach the "wrong" conclusion, then that's hate speech, and the tweets are removed, and that's censorship, no matter how distasteful we might find said tweets. You're not honestly engaging with what's happening
I respect your statement, but I think you have a mixed storm of ideas in your head. Unfortunately, I believe that there is censorship in the network on Twitter and that Twitter must change to respect that freedom of expression. (1/2)
On one side, the algorithm must be open source to guarantee freedom and, on the other hand, set aside by the mainstream of today's tech titans of the limiting "progressive left culture" of ideas and thoughts. (2/2)
If Elon Musk proposes to improve and open freedom of expression more precisely on Twitter than it is currently, it is cause for celebration... Or are you a globalist thinker with an ideological bias who cries at the possibility of openness and freedom on the net?
Saved! FYI, if you see a "@readwise save..." already, you can like it to save this thread to your Readwise without cluttering yishan's replies ๐Ÿ“š Stats: • 98 saves of this thread (ranked #200) • 138 total saves of yishan's threads (ranked #401)
Nothing worthwhile is easy @yishan Elon is an example of this. I think you might underestimate his ability to lead and organise people to execute a greater vision.
Cool story bro can I have my time back? You start off strong but then you continue to speak about what’s going on inside peoples hearts and minds which is foolish. @elonmusk is neurologically different and his head is built for the modern world in a way that most people are not.
TLDR: Good start that turned into you projecting a lot of stuff on others.
Given your long thread, you have been extremely convincing that the best minds like @elonmusk should be on this seemingly “unsolvable” problem. Probably there are other people who will be able to do Mars, albeit a little slower. Mars can wait.
As long as speech isn't breaking the law, nothing should be censored. And it's not about money to the executives, otherwise they'd allow maximum speech outside of breaking laws. The executives and employees are just as much involved in the political fight as the users are.
Best thread I have read for a long time. ๐Ÿ’ฏ “The problem with social networks is the SOCIAL part. Not the NETWORK” well said. Hope Elon agrees with you.
Whoever asked for your opinion hopefully will learn not to do so in the future. I think you are out of touch at best, but likely disingenuous. @elonmusk already did what we needed, called out the censorship BS. Nothing has been done as you put forth. You bring shame to your name
The reality is this censorship, must stop. I grew up with the internet, as it grew up. The thing I realized then is still true today, the only difference is now there exist a plethora of garbage to sift through to find the truth. but the hope it offered us is still alive.
You really referenced that utterly biased post about why Trump was banned? Since that post and subsequent replies you didn't re- examine your position? You're still 'there'?
87 posts? Really? Even in reader mode, this “long” thread is an injustice. Say what you have to in 140, else don’t. That’s the mission statement. People will do what they want - free speech, war, virus experiments…. Pray for good luck, fight your battles - no preaching
I guess Elon can hire a trusted lieutenant or two, so his time won’t be an issue. I think one solution to the civility issue is to abolish the delete function. Whatever one tweeted will remain for good as a matter of public record and everyone can cite it.
The internet that you think died, as reddit came into it, never died, the internet is still freedom, look at this here, @elonmusk very action here is keeping that dream alive, just because you've been defeated in your attempts at it, doesn't mean it's gone at all, you lost the...
your faith is all, which is understandable given the pressures you must of experienced in your role. But, that's not a justification for that actions that have been propagated on this platform, as the rest of them post covid. It's been an attempt to destroy critical thought.
US culture has always bent an ear toward conspiracy theories & unfounded speculations, culture has also been quick to reject the same in the face of evidence. Tabloids in the 80’s, Art Bell in the nineties. Platform should empower users to moderate content and validate cynicism.
Why was the NY Post banned for running the Hunter Biden story before the election? ๐Ÿง
You're missing the point, and the point is to go head on into the pain of your insanity and lives with the clarity of a priest. If your notion is that harassment and attacks will "damage" him, you're missing the reason why it is even being done.
"He should be making cars and rockets, not fixing our psyches." Lol, Kingdom Comes.
All of this you just said for nothing. Twitter is for talking - if someone takes that to the streets and harms people that what we have cops for. Stop with your super long mans plantation of what an argument is. Arguments happen if you can’t control yourself JAIL DUH
take his advice!
Next time just write “I’m a commie”
Hope you read this: David Duke existed before 'net & people knew who and what he was. No censorship was required. Free market of ideas took care of him. The idea that you need to put ear muffs on people, or tape on their mouths shut to stop unpopular ideas on 'net...is lunacy.
You’re like “we’re forced to create problems to stop OTHER problems from happening !” That’s what you don’t understand - that’s the difference between you commies and us freedom lovers … it’s the problems we are willing to accept that makes us absolutely different, free = risk
Great post! I have faith though. People are discovering their dark sides through internet, and dark sides of current global systems. That’s ๐Ÿ‘๐Ÿป This is just another phase, a painful one. After which we will move into a brighter one, I (want to) believe๐Ÿ™๐Ÿป๐Ÿ™‚
Great thread. Read fully. Huge respect for this take. And for such a thorough examination of the situation. I can say, I have some disagreements. Not really with the premises, but mainly with a few of the conclusions.
I'm not trying to be reductive. I understand the complexity of what @yishan is saying. However, the two big ideas: a) proclaiming that sm is inexorably forced to censor and b) being personally opposed to any kind of censorship, are incongruent imo.
The conclusion that Elon would be overwhelmed by leading Twitter I think is a bit faulty. But again, a lot of weight should be granted to @yishan 's opinion here just based on his experience, I concede.
I just think the preconception presented here that an attempt to overhaul the seemingly inept leadership is all for naught is a pessimistic perspective. I think it doesn't give enough to the idea that positive change is possible.
I understand you have a lot of insight, but you can’t claim banning Trump wasn’t political. Some censorship is inevitable, or it would all be porn and crypto. But, banning science? If that is inevitable, then this is a cult
Great to understand the problem with social media - question is, first how to define it better. And second how to solve it. Maybe Elon has the smarts, guts, means, motivation, audacity, tools (Optimus) and followers/ engineers to solve it. @elonmusk
Like if you made it all the way.
To say there was no "censorship" or "moderation" was wrong in the pre-facebook days. A common saying was "don't feed the trolls". Now there's a lot of trolls and the social contagion has spread. Normies kind of ruined it by infecting themselves and normalizing trolling.
Trolls aren't being banned enough. In real life they would have been thrown out of the institution they were causing intentionally causing chaos in. That's what I partially agree with you on. But the trolls have to go or the fire only spreads.
This thread jumps around a lot my take away is... It assumes that not being on the internet means you don't have freedom of speech. This assumes that a person not on the internet has less worth. Elon wants twitter because it helps drives his self esteem 1st & wealth 2nd.
Good thread. The hybridization of broadcast virality and private discussion means social networks that aren’t private (or with topic algorithms) need to be regulated like broadcast licenses.
This Thread is Saved to your Notion Workspace. BTW, you can add tags to the saved tweets and threads by typing them in the mention as hashtags, e.g: #notion #marketing #self_development ...
You're full of shit.
Summary: Let ppl go at each other/compete without referee or police, things will get nasty and injuring. Have referees or police they will complain why only they are treated unfairly and only see the human errors of refs/LEO. Human nature at work.
This whole thing hinges on 2 key premises: 1) That there is an 'old' free speech & a 'new' free speech There isn't. Free speech is free speech 2) Censorship's equal on both 'sides', & thinking otherwise is just due to bias This is clearly, observably untrue. We all know it
So the solution is leave tw to the ‘dimwits’ who kicked Jack? Nah. Don’t tell others what to do, let Elon have a go. Tw issue is not only censorship, they have a report system tailored down for specific things (*) but have never done a thing about p~dos. They always come back.
(* which certain groups use to mass report and silence dissident opinions, and these reports are never reviewed, just enforced because “a lot of people said it so it must be true” Thats how some friends find themselves IP-blocked, because apparently in the TOS -
- theres a rule for ‘circumventing a ban’ but the accounts of pds always come back an are never taken down under the same premise. Which makes one think they have some kind of special protection) So no. I’d rather let someone new take over.
Good luck, I'm sure a bunch of people believes you but I don't. Yes they don't care about politics ;) yes Jack is Christ reborn okay? Maybe he "meditate" so much because he knows all the bad and evil he got into society. ;)
If only I could’ve “liked” the whole thing to save time.
An excellent summary of the problems of social media in a real and politicised world ๐Ÿ‘
Oh my! The problem is us, the humans. Fixing us is like playing wack-a-mole unsuccessfully. The comments to this thread prove it. Bravo! Brave writing here.๐Ÿ‘Œ๐Ÿฝ
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this, I appreciate your insight into this
This Thread is Saved to your Notion Workspace. BTW, you can add tags to the saved tweets and threads by typing them in the mention as hashtags, e.g: #notion #marketing #self_development ...
Remember chat rooms? Bring them back, unmoderated, self moderated & site moderated.
So metaphorically Global Free Speech is a large heavy boulder and every social network is a platform upon which it rests, but they’re all too flimsy to hold it so cracks soon appear, then they have a choice to build a support underneath (censorship) or else the platform shatters.
You are underestimating Musk's manipulative skills(he is superior in terms of intelligence to both the previous and the current twitter CEOs)which have brought him to the point he is.He may put front committees of publicly trusted people to do his bidding and most will go with it
This is a long drawn out thread basically for you to just say: >You've sold out >And you need to turn in your 90s cred card
Twitter (and all of these sites) becoming an uncensored cess pool that people log-off from would be an unquestionable good. Monoculture is bad. Someone in New york being fired because someone in California saw their objectionable tweet is bad. Let it rip.
Yes, let it all dissolve into a Usenet-like decentralized network that's not a "platform" run by a company anymore. Let it all die.
What would mean the collapse of the platform? ๐Ÿคจ๐Ÿค”
I think he means it would eventually drive most users off the platform meaning you no longer are a social media platform.
Why would the platform collapse if people argued a lot or even if their speech led to forming groups and those groups having violence? What's the scenario? What would have happened if youtube and fb allowed "antivaxxers" to spread their "disinfo"?
Of course this is PARTLY tongue-in-cheek, but a platform can't exist without users & at the rate covid was killing people if anti-vaxxers are allowed to spread stupidity, eventually the users are 6 ft under & i hear the cell service sucks that far down
So why are platforms promoting abortions instead of having kids when the population of high gdp countries have below replacement level fertility rates?
Maybe this is his endgame, to collapse Twitter.
Would be a noble end game for him- let’s see if he does it. We can all live in the present moment where we are and breathe freely.
So you’re fine with market manipulation. Got it.
This is a circular line of reasoning that excuses your claim that there is no choice but to censor. Why would Twitter die if anyone could say anything? Emergence is vague until you define it. Trickling into meatspace is not sufficient, we have laws to handle that.
Collapse is a good solution here
If you take away the consequences of people’s bad actions, you can’t expect them to learn from the process. Leeman brothers should have fallen. So should Twitter. Don’t come and make out like twatter must survive at all costs.
I don’t know why I’m still reading this many posts into a totally absurd thread, but you just keep begging the question over and over and over. Did you do this intentionally? Like, rather than assert “X IS ALWAYS TRUE, TRUST ME I RAN REDDIT”, could you try making an argument?
Amazing thread. Been looking for arguments of why it's a bad idea that Elon owns Twitter. Didn't yet consider that it could make him distracted and/or unstable. Seeing a couple of pros, also. Curious what you think about them?
Musks takeover could mean that Twitter can go private and not have the same growth/profit pressure ๐Ÿ‘‰ Less bots ๐Ÿ‘‰ More algorithmic/moderation control by users and communities ๐Ÿ‘‰ More data openness, enabling decentralisation of clients and social graph ๐Ÿ‘‰ More open discourse
Also, what is the mechanism by which the platform will collapse?
This is such utter bollocks. The problem is Millennials and Zedders have been so mollycoddled they don't know how to put up with being offended. They're going to have learn just like every generation did before them. Words are not 'violence'. They're just words.
Bollocks. Where’s the evidence for a collapse?
er ... Truth Social?
Perhaps the alternative is to get rid of anonymous speech platforms in favor of those requiring accounts that are connected to authenticated, real-life individuals.
1/ I appreciate your perspective. Have to say though, it's a little weird to hear someone setting a forest fire blame the trees for the conflagration.
2/ If all social networks were just neutral public commons, essentially billions of people all talking about the same time and same volume, I'd agree with your garment rending over the classless masses and their barbarian ways. But the giant networks aren't neutral.
3/ Once Twitter and Facebook and others found engagement drives revenue, and that boosting engagement was good for the bottom line, they started handing out megaphones to people. Turns out anger, hate, and division drove engagements, and this profits, the highest.
4/ So guess who gets the megaphones? And guess who drives the conversations? And guess who turns FB and Twitter into hotbeds of conspiracy theories, mob hysteria, doxing, and hate campaigns that literally kill people? You can see why many folks are dusting off their tiny violins
5/ If the major organs of public speech online undertook reforms to tone down the rhetoric, stop handing out kindling and you wouldn't have to put out so many fires later. Make the public square neutral again. If you stop handing out megaphones to the lowest common denominator...
6/ Then you won't be called to account in silencing them. Stop pretending the social media companies themselves are innocent bystanders throwing their hands up in the air. You aren't responsible for people being crazy, but you are for elevating them.
Why? Why would it collapse if there is a lot of engagement happening on the platform?
False premises — about Trump “inciting insurrection” and woke leftists being censored, too— tell me you are trying to sound objective, but are not.
And your definition of spam is a tell. Stopping it means social nets should also let their leftist human moderators define non leftist ideas as dangerous? Sounds like something a left wing exec would conveniently say to rationalize their one sided-ness.
Ideas can be dangerous? It depends on one’s values. Communists like Stalin/Mao/Pol Pot killed 100m people. Yet Americans still argue for Communism. Dangerous? Censoring them— like the Communists did their opponents— would be.
The prevailing millennial view that “everything is different now” is alternatively naive, uninformed and narcissistic. Your “content moderation” isn’t saving the world. Censoring ideas is totalitarian & usually leads to violent conflict. See Ukraine.
The *really* hard problem here seems to be what FB encountered -- userbase in some random country (Myanmar?) where you have ~no employees and no connection, but where you have users, doing very local bad things. (Or rural Indian stuff, etc.)
You find people who know the ground and you hire them to police the T&Cs. It's not censorship, it's contractual. It's also quite expensive and hard, but no more than technical infrastructure. I've done some of this stuff, they can do it too. And no, Musk is not the man for this.
I think Myanmar has also been uniquely difficult in the past because they haven't standardized on Unicode (instead predominantly using Zawgyi), so all of the methods a company might use to try and automate the detection and enforcement fall apart pretty quickly there.
Automated tools are useful, but there is no substitute for humans who can understand what other humans do. The policy here would be to only allow use of the languages you can deal with. |t sounds sectarian, but it's essential. You cannot provide service otherwise.
Ok so you believe Myanmar should be barred from the global internet until they are a wealthy enough population to be worth spending lots of money supporting? And Unicode's not specifically language, it's encoding of language, which is a more specific and less generalized problem
I'm talking as a provider of a singular social network, not the God Of The Global Internet. People conflate FB and that, but there is a difference. If you can't support people properly, you shouldn't offer them your service. Others who can, can. What's wrong with that?
The media is the voice of the left’s agenda. The 1st amendment applies to government actions. However, most media outlets are in effect agents spreading the leftist government’s agenda. Such biased censorship is unacceptable should be enjoined rather than permitted by contract.
I've been part of the media at every level from editorial assistant to executive editor. Nobody has ever tried to enforce, or even talk about, a political agenda with me. How would your claim work, in practical terms, while being completely shielded from the workers?
It’s at the highest levels. Things may have been different before, and it seems that they were, but surely intelligent people these days can compare what’s really going on to what the mainstream media reports.
You're not answering the question. What mechanisms can Impose the top level agenda you posit on an independently minded workforce which questions its management as much as anything else? How does that work?
I don’t believe that they’re independently-minded anymore. Employees know what the higher-ups want them to say, and in the same vein, media organizations hire those with the “correct” agenda who will obey cheerfully.
I think you’re using something anecdotal that doesn’t have anything to do with this. This isn’t about a direct order for agenda, in silicone Valley the bias is already instilled, we know that much. What is discussed is how much they don’t like a political person, party or idea,
If this is discussed in agreement amoung your workforce that has the ability to censor, you will get censorship in one direction, and that’s obvious. The upper managent should be instilling protecting the people you don’t like and agree with the most. That’s what free speech
Looks like. Now have you ever had upper management tell you to protect the speech from people you don’t like? That’s the real question, not pushing an agenda that is already rampant in the room.
No. Nobody at any level had anything approaching that kind of discussion. Èditorial standards were set by editors. You knew the commercial imperatives of the organisation, which is how political influence is really set, but nothing as crass as you posit.
I just do not believe that politics isn’t discussed like this in silicone valley. This isn’t Journalism either, it’s literally graduates of a tech industry that most know lean very far in a political bias. Let’s not be obtuse about this.
All I can say is that things have really changed. Mainstream media is infested with bias. Many are finally starting to understand. Btw, people are allowed to have different beliefs than you and that does not make them bad people.
"running" is tiresome, tiring. Haven't met a newspaper editor who wasn't tired. Haven't met a policeman who wasn't not tired. Editor doesn't know why-if his next meal will be funded, Policeman knows why-who funds the salary forever. Read-it having become reditor must be tiring.
you have infinite more experience then I, and yet I must dispute the crux on which your whole thread lies. If humanity cannot behave on the internet, then we cant behave on the internet. No need to adjudicate, arbitrate, whatever. If it is our nature to destroy ourselves, let it.
you regard @jack as a wise sage, he was simply the most successful of fools. Playing god will have any mans mind turn to mush given enough time. I dont think @elonmusk intends to do much more than keep the servers on.
What if we gave everyone what they want? Backend: uncensorable data Multiple Frontends: filters based on the preferences of the user niche No one to yell at about taking down the backend data as it can't be done - but your circle gets protected from unwanted content.
Well, that is what i do 2 years. Free Speech project on VIZ readdle.me
federated networks like Mastodon *sort of* hit that angle, but in a very different way, as there's no single "backend" or source of truth - but let me also tell you, you probably don't *want* one. If you have a thing that can't delete and is public, you'll get in trouble quickly.
Both because no doubt some horrible things will end up there and even if the backend is distributed, someone somewhere will be judged as responsible for making it accessible - and also more benignly, because holding personal data with no delete function breaks laws like GDPR.
Any large scale truly uncensorable storage that is successful beyond a small niche of enthusiasts will inevitably hit issues there. For the same privacy reasons it also seems fundamentally undesirable, as it means if you ever accidentally overshare, it's out there forever.
Public posts are not personal data. But say someone leaks personal data. All front ends that wish to comply will filter out such content.
Mm. It doesn't become legal to have child pornography on servers you own just because you "can't censor it".
Relying exclusively on moderation and censorship is futile. The issue with social networks is rather systemic. The freemium model is no longer needed, these are not longer Start-ups, they need to switch to a subscription model or at least authenticate users to stop noise & abuse.
What was the specific failure mode of reddit, given that communities there are free to moderate themselves? the dynamics you describe obv hold true for FB/twitter, but im curious how less "flat" networks end up in the same situation
(i ask because i help run a reddit-like web3 site that's starting to gain traction, and this is an important thing we'll need to consider in the medium/long-term)
Define "failure". Reddit is still up. If you mean the "disappearance" of "free speech" you need to define that. When did it exactly end and why?
what structural fact forced the platform to take explicit action re political topics
I don't know, you tell me since you are claiming Reddit "failed" ๐Ÿ™‚
It's not clear where the "force" is coming from.
And we judge such censorship as good, bad or indifferent. For Twitter? Well.....Censored.
What inexorable circumstances? Do you mean critical editorials? Protests? Loss of advertisers? Employees from the left (or right) quitting? I think a lot of these problems can be solved by a subscription model / ownership by a $250+ billionaire who doesn’t care
As a past forum builder and moderator I can attest to just how difficult it can be even when dealing with a few hundred or a few thousand members. There is something inherit in social networks that bring out the very worst in many. It's not the networks it's the people 100%
You only care about your ability to sell ads, my man
Your thread is unexpectedly applicable to the agonizing process of parenting a twice exceptional (gifted and challenged) teenage boy.
Forced by inexorable circumstance = forced to censor stuff by the actual people "behind the scenes" with insane powers. Their mission started with free speech, but now they find themselves choosing between forced censoring or "things" may start happening to their friends & family
Agreed. The only missing brick in the reasoning (and an important one, as discovered in legal history) is being told why you are being censored and having the right to appeal. Basic principles of fair trail are often still missing from what has become the central agora.
Not exactly. Free speech / censorship resistance is a fundamental right. I think the issue here is concentrated power and the ethics associated with choosing to arbitrate potentially dangerous ideas / situations.
All this verbiage and still opaque about what is driving the censorship. “Why we do what we do is beyond your understanding, peon, but trust me, we're really torn up about it. I have to huff chamomile on my sabbaticals just to live with myself” is the short version of all of that
Can you explain why you think they are "forced by inexorable circumstance" to censor certain things? What is your best example of a dangerous/powerful idea that needs to be censored by an authority?
Wanted to say thanks for sharing your thought in raw. If only we the people can be respectful and keep a door open to reconcile. Have you seen decentralised social? ๐Ÿ˜ซ I guess that’s one way to remove the regulation of social in social network. Can’t stop toxicity or crime.
The disease in this rationale are the assumptions beneath “if you run” a well designed “large social network” will “run itself” “you” will begin and end at design “inexorable circumstance” created by users can be defused only by users when @birdwatch cannibalizes Twtr c. 2042
Thanks, I've read the whole thread and close to this place things started appearing quite abstract and categorically bold to me: "non-obvious complex dynamics", "inexorable circumstance". Would you please provide any examples of what you meant?
Otherwise the whole point seems like sth standing not far away from a statement "it will be forced anyways because otherwise the whole thing would not exist. I've been there, I know". Even if that true, it feels like A's been said without saying B which brings many doubts.
Hi Yishan, you don’t know me and probably don’t have to care what I have to say but at least I can say it freely. First I want to thank you for your article. 1/6
In the beginning it’s all about left or right which may be because of the two big US parties, which can devide a country as there is no real inbetween and Twitter has an even broader international audience, who may see the world a little different.2/6
In my opinion the biggest issue is that people don’t take responsibility for their actions anymore neither for what they are saying nor what they are reading/watching, as everyone should just check the sources on their own or at least question them sometimes.3/6
Of course violence and cursing should be censored or at least age restricted and warned beforehand by the platform, but the viewer also has a responsibility as the one who posted it.4/6
And as long as you(not you specifically) don’t understand something(in this case the basics of web2.0), you shouldn’t use it and then just blame the creator for your irresponsibility.5/6
As always education is key. In the end we should be happy to have the possibility to speak freely and have people fighting for it as in some countries this isn’t possible at all.6/6
Most parents try to be fair - their children will often say things “are not fair!” Most siblings know they have the capacity to be cruel and even physically abusive. Most parents are two steps behind and only want peace and a nice dinner. This is the new internet. Let’s grow up!
Then surely nothing stops us from a revision of the rest of what we considered natural rights. Even more easy since we're dealing with bastardized versions of them.
This is a very different view from Curtis Yarvin. He feels like you that ideas are very powerful. But because the platforms are tools of those who desire power, they get co-opted by those who are already in power through indirect mechanisms. O
This is a lie. There have been many instances of them censoring truthful facts that would shine a negative light on democrats.
In which way then? When large groups disagree on the platform, how do they collapse the platform? Operationally = technically? How will arbitrarily, taking down a couple of large accounts, regardless of the facts, contribute? Or prevent real world, detrimental phenomenon?
…because Someone has designed an #algorithm which imposes THEIR choice on the conversation, and suddenly, boom - #censorship. #Shareholders #Elon
Man, I came to the valley to work with guys like YOU. But you seem to opt out about one thing: getting so rich so young is an issue. What does @elonmusk really want if not more money, more ‘power’, more ouya to his fever. It’s a price we, the users, pay and it’s not right.
Read entire thread. Here is the summary “well I ran Reddit and couldn’t do it, so nobody else — not even @elonmusk can do it!!!!” Sorry bud, but you ain’t it.
You keep saying “politics”. Fuck your politics. Maybe you shouldn’t be in bed with IC and State Department? We aren’t all idiots. Good luck dealing with the upcoming consequences of your actions.
Again a perfect reason for a mind like @elonmusk to take over this. This may be a bigger issue which is worth Musk’s time than going to Mars.
One question to prove we can trust you. 100% of people who get this question wrong are ideological zombies. How many genders are there?
So this is support for the fact of political bias.
What were the “current politics” when Trump was in office? Aka political bias
Omg you are f. super. If i could tip you I would. Brilliant. Greetings from Sweden.
The problem is a product problem not a moral problem. The products are designed to massively amplify, which can have dire side effects. "OMG we put oil on the highways to help things go faster and idiots keep driving off the cliff!!"
Yes, ideas can be dangerous, but they are pretty innocuous when the village idiot can only reach his village. The product is designed to massively accelerate ALL ideas, without wondering if that's a good idea or acknowledging the volume of stupidity that we humans are capable of
Agreed -- apart from "always" (because you can't control what people are going to do)
Your job is not to control. You can't control humans. We have like thousands of years of human condition history. Don't be obtuse.
Rude.. ideas are meant to be free. Basically you are saying they don't like radical ideas to spread. Figured as much. I am trying to spread some.
It's the dick pic problem... So many more exposures than IRL.
can you say something more concrete about this? I want to know some juicy inside example if you'd be kind enough to share
This is the key, but I think social media is at its best when it's dangerous. The promise of the old internet was exactly that it disaggregated power in ways that were powerful and dangerous. Platforms should stand behind it rather than re-accumulating power to themselves.
Obviously most will succumb, but if Elon pushes Twitter to hold out longer then it's all for the better.
But 95% of the times what they’re censoring are useless left vs right banter becoz a bunch of guys are reporting that tweet and not on merits of the tweet. That is the flaw - Platform taken over by mobs. It is easy to fix mobs without censorship- Trust &Identity. Prblm is not big
Also, free speech comes with responsibility. e.g. you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater. Or incite people to act violently. Brandenburg v. Ohio.
Explain how Trump's ideas and leadership were dangerous. You can't, without choosing a political side.
I think this assertion needs more support. Conventional wisdom is ideas are borderline worthless. "Sticks and stones..."
"Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas." Joseph Stalin
Well, hunter biden laptop was a big one that affected where we are today, with war and all… pretty big deal to censor something as factually accurate as that before an election.
๐Ÿค”
So what? The platform is not responsible for the consequences of speech. Let ideas, powerful or not, to fly around freely. If people want to kill each other on the streets over them, so be it. It's not Twitter responsibility to prevent or avoid that.
that would make sense if the far left idea weren't running rampant without impunity
Like saying "a man is not a woman"?
But isn't that one of the major reasons why @elonmusk is getting involved?? Twitter users are being indoctrinated into IDEAS & NARRATIVES that aren't necessarily aligned with the word TRUTH.
Partially true. There is a definite bias.
Ivermectin, masks were something to "control" you with, vaxes contain microchips, etc. All ideas. News outlets used to be subject to standards. Now, on social media ppl will die with no standards on this front, same as w/ hate speech directed at any group like Jews, gays, etc.
That's precisely why ideas need to be allowed to flourish or be criticised freely. There are many with great institutional power of all kinds with powerful and dangerous ideas too. Why be afraid of competing ideas if this is not the case?
maybe we should allow humans to be in danger more often and then we would have a bit more respect for the fragility of life and human relationships under duress
How would you determine which ideas are powerful and dangerous without applying your own views? You might be holding back an important change in society due to your personal meddling with the data.
Have you ever read Wired for Culture by Mark Pagel?
Elon is aware of the latter which is why he wanted to make it a private company to fix the core problem. He has enough money so he can fend off all the various lawsuits that are inevitably coming at anyone that dares to be a platform for unpopular opinions.
It's not the power of ideas, but the power of pathology and pain. This is what a social network should fight, not ideas.
Allowing ideas that conform to only one way of thinking is even more dangerous
That's exactly why there should be absolutely no censorship on a "platform".
What are those issues? Isn’t a simple solution to just not censor anything except threats/incitement of violence, and anything illegal?
That doesn't sound simple at all
Simpler than trying to enforce arbitrary principles for what is and isn’t allowed
"Threats/incitement of violence, and anything illegal" is not cut in stone. That's both very much up for interpretation and it also depends entirely on the laws of many different countries. It's never just that simple, when the scale is pretty much the entire planet.
I guess, but at the moment they (I assume) already try to remove illegal things plus a load more things that are against their terms of service. My proposal is dumping the TOS stuff and stick to illegality only.
Please, expound the operational issue(s) that necessitate censorship
to be clear, the operational issues that are independent of the ideas that end up being censored
Can you elaborate on the “operational issues?” It’s hard for this user to understand how, for example, some shitty people talking about topic X (lab leak for example) means that ALL discussion of topic X must be banned for the good of the network.
Spoken like someone who has truly operated at a level few comprehend
It humans that disagree with whatever "absolute truth" agenda the corpos and media subscribe to. And by subscribe to I mean author.
Yishan, great thread. Was wondering if you had examples of these sorts of topics and behaviors that force people’s hands?
I'm open to the idea that this is true, but I'm having trouble imagining how it is. You're saying that it's true, not showing that it's true. What terrible thing would have happened if, say, the lab leak hypothesis went uncensored, or the Hunter Biden laptop story, etc.?
People would have been shitty to each other on a massive scale, but so what? I'm too naive to see why this "forces" social media networks to intervene.
Disagree in theory, though in practice it may be true. I’d think with substantial pain experienced, eventually, community leaders will be formed and lead and sub communities will develop moral code to coexist — roughly as well as we do in physical planet.
You can't ignore chasing the money either. They didn't simply buckle, they saw how best to maximise their market share and profits. Financial pressures drive a LOT of censorship.
What about Telegram?
reminds me of what @fr_brennan has said about 8chan in interviews.
Every search engine tried to rank search results as accurately as possible they buckled, then came Google. You were a moderator at Reddit, of course this is the way you see the world. You're no Larry Page, let @elonmusk do his thing, no doubt he can make Twitter ๐Ÿ’ฏ better.
Also, recommendation algorithms by definition are censorious. Any platform that filters information is making amplification decisions constantly. So given that social platforms have no choice but to be in that business, the best thing they can do is be reasonable.
"not by governments" Ridiculous. We know for a fact that the US government has been active in nudging tech oligarch's into anti-free speech compliance, at many different levels, both overt and covert. I can't believe you would so quickly dismiss that. It taints the entire thread
I like the idea of a zero censorship free for all, but authenticating users is tantamount. Like, registering is a bit of a pain in the ass. You need to provide your social security # and some check stubs. Kind of like getting food stamps.
By what mechanism exactly do the "emergent dynamics" "force" it? I thought social networks buckle to censorship b/c of concrete commercial or legal risk, e.g. public opinion turning away users or facing liability. ISPs have legal protection, why not social networks?
I don't understand this statement. Are you forced to censor for operational reasons like infrastructure or network limitations?
Tilting censorship towards one ideology is as dangerous as anything that preceded the evil of the twentieth century Accreditation for propagandists, like @PolitiFact and @mmfa…is paving the path to hell Half the country is being demonised & ignored How do you think that ends?
Nah. From Twitter trash talk to actually burning down cities, there is a chasm, which can only be bridged by systematically funded organizations. Imagine Elon shouts “burn down the Capitol Hill!” on Twitter, nobody will take action. If you disagree, again, please name one example
What if I design a platform that will disallow me (or anyone else) to censor anything? Where, by design, general censorship is impossible?
You didn't really explain why you think this, apart from a vague idea that soc network functionaries have to serve as a kind of referee/traffic cop; in your mind, of course, these law and order types are apolitical and their actions are NEVER influenced by their politics (cough).
So far you have made almost no point in this long as fuck thread.
In fact here’s a good example. Literally as I hit “reply” with this tweet I had to be told “most users don’t talk like this” and had to hit “reply anyway”. It’s bullshit and you know it. Death to twitter long live the new flesh.
Really a great thread overall, and this part specifically reminds me of the discussions I've heard and read from old MUD ops and early gaming communities, stuff @raphkoster has talked about a lot in community building and online social dynamics.
I disagree here. The problem with social networks was not the emergent behaviour. It was the desire to create a centralised network. Without it things are very different
To see the impact, look at difference in spam handling between email and WhatsApp / SMS. Email is decentralised, spam sucks and you cannot complain to anyone. Most detection/prevention is at receiver level. Nobody thinks it is a potential free speech problem.
Look at WhatsApp/SMS. FB / govt take the 'responsibility' to eliminate spam. Most prevention is at source level via content moderation (templates, URL whitelisting). Once you have content moderation, censorship creeps in - a centralised institution is very vulnerable to activism.
Social networks are all bullshit… remember you are the product ๐Ÿคช
Worth remembering the Council of Europe new notion of media (@coe no longer #Europe47 now #Europe46) (I’ll also mention it at the top of this excellent thread) #NewNotionOfMedia #NNoM search.coe.int/cm/Pages/resul…
I don’t think this is true at all.
Here comes the rationalization…. People with this mentality run these networks don’t forget that. They really believe this shit makes it “necessary” to censor. But don’t worry, it’s good apparently.
You clearly have not been paying attention to what is happening in the scientific area regarding this all @parsifalar is a perfect example so everything U SAID U could acquiesce & put it in a balloon & let it go up cuz that's where it belongs. @elonmusk LET THY HUE SHINE
did you take ivermectin?how were you harmed?
“moderation” and “censorship” are subtly very distinct things. A free for all platform without any moderation unravels into nasty chaos. “Moderation” privilege can certainly be abused into “censorship” with an agenda. The most ancient problem hasn’t found a modem solution yet
On its face, your thread is a justification for censorship. You said outright that certain ideas can be harmful and must be suppressed. Odd how you don’t own it now. I see what all you’re trying to say in your thread but I disagree wholeheartedly.
The past couple years of Twitter have been the worst ever. Twitter was much better before they decided to act on suppressing its users.
Twitter is better when people get to speak their mind without a moderator. Some of its best users have been silenced in some form. It’s becoming a place for the left to smell their own farts and it’s even getting stale to them. Fairness is good but that’s not happening anymore.
You actually said social media companies are justified to find and prevent behaviours that could hypothetically influence people to break laws (rather than behaviour that actually breaks laws). (Your lightning rod anology.) How is that not censorship?
Good ๐Ÿงต! But I think you’ve focused on “religious” talks as a main factor when in reality that kinda ended in the late 90s! Social topics is where FoS becomes a hot topic. Gender equality & orientation, women’s rights & equal pay, BLM vs ALM, LGB(T)Q vs Sports…
i take your point on civil discourse but man, running reddit really turned your brain into mush to think twitter is primarily censoring topics based on the level on civil conversation taking place. take a look at literally any other topic to see that's not true
True about the Water thing. Chicago is poised to be the richest city in the US due to Lake Michigan and the Chicago River. The former controls a good part of the outflow from the lakes and helps regulate the flow of the Mississippi River. Huge power regarding water rights.
Gosh man. Put down the kool aid. Musk is a crook. He is not here to fix anything. Gosh he cancels out many ppl himself who speak against Tesla. Whistleblowers are swatted , critics harassed. Musk is just trying to control Twitter as that’s how he manipulates his stock price.
Desalination. Cool stuff. Nice resource for sodium, too. Couse next big thing in battery stuff for example is sodium-ion-batteries. Reach out to @MaxFichtner for more about this topic. Plus, you don't have to put the brine back to the ocean if you're not interested to the salt.
The fact that you see water as The Next Big Thing to capitalise and exploit might explain why ‘tech titan’ mentality is bad for us and for you.
Oh hey, forgot that was you. I might be getting one of those things. ๐Ÿ™Œ๐Ÿป
What about if I think this thread is stupid
Fucking love this thread. Thank you.
All you've done here is show you're part of the problem and blind to it
I love this!
That’s incredible.
Saving seeds is a great idea, if the soil quality doesn't collapse. Please check out the amazing work in Regenerative Ag that's actively rebuilding soil quality NOW - re-greening the Chihuahuan Desert & restoring grasslands globally.
Support Holistic Management & Regenerative Agriculture | Savory Institute
We're a Global Movement of RegenerativeFarmers & Land ManagersOur NetworkConscientiousConsumers & BrandsLand to MarketCommittedChampions &
savory.global
Love your project. How will you amend the soil, which is depleting fast around the world.
Phenomenal thread Thank you for sharing! ๐Ÿ™ƒ
Didn't Sean Parker say that?
Wordcel proving he has zero idea how the world works Free speech/marketplace of ideas has conclusively ALWAYS been the best approach. But NOW is different b/c TOO MUCH? People fight for power and control of resources via money, govt & politics. Ignore that. It’s peons bitching.
I could - and anyone with my personality type could - nail it starting tomorrow.
Yo, #BasicPrinciples just add a "tag as [name of fallacy]" feature, and that'll fix lots of silly arguments @elonmusk Don't remove upon tagging, just show how many people tagged a post as "ad hominem" or "strawman".
Indeed, even though Twitter has a lot to be fixed as a public company and as a social media, I’d rather have @elonmusk working on real things such as EVs and space
thank you very much for these posts. The one question i have left is: what person should?
The motherfuckers got billions to make himself feel better, he's spending billions just so he can buy a new toy
Hey dude there’s actually Real Atom work harder than planting trees
Yall scared thats what the real deal is.
Twitter probably has a bigger impact on the Real Atoms than you want to admit.
Not once did I see you say that censorship should be their to stop misinformation and lying on social media.
<ignores actual thread topic, picks up on the aside, because well just because> Have you also looked into regenerative farming techniques? Seems to me they have huge carbon sink potential.
It's amazing how many rich dudes walk off into the sunset with their money claiming things are too hard. The actual lesson is the failure to build and scale a thinking organization, but then the current incentives are tied to rewarding functional dark triangle behavior.
That's interesting. Have you heard of Ten Billion Tree Tsunami project?
Curious about @elonmusk's view on forest restoration as a means to fight climate change?
I would happily give my remaining life to a project like this. I happen to have two degrees in Forestry, and am married to a botanist. Where do I apply?
I love this idea! I'm an IT guy (for over 35 years), but I would love to be involved in something like this. Well done.
Eh, id say it's cause the internet became accessible to everyone instead of just the more technically literate (and on average slightly more mature.. maybe) crowd. And the less technically literate tend to be crybabies.
There was a time the greater internet fucked theory felt so true. Then we removed anonymity and it turns out some people are just fuckwads
You're in part blaming people, but without either: --clarifying why Twitter/other 'social media' are UNSOCIAL media, representing a #common/community failure; or --noticing that Twitter/etc. serve a role as circuses that distract us from larger shared problems. Consider #Ostrom.
you and this guy should have a few beers this weekend. figure this all out. we don't want Titter to fuck your work on SpaceX & Tesla - sincerely, a fan
The "great promise" of the old internet was that it could give a voice to the voiceless and… then we realized that that's not always a good thing.
What if that has nothing to do with it and it’s just an ingenious pump and dump scheme? Because can the government enforce anything when the purported motive revolves around a constitutionally protected right?
I’m still wondering here if ur just naive enough or desperatey wanna believe in yer own eristic to assume that the man who created paypal didnt know bout BTC rather than having waited to shill it to the mass. I mean… u can’t be serious, honestly.
*sigh* it's so sad; there was so much promise and hope there.
Ever heard of just ignoring shฤฑt? Yeah ignore whiners. That's another thing we did in the '90s.
bro I am so lost but the length of this thread you coulda wrote a book. how much time you got on your hands to write the thread…imagine. all the ppl harrassing other ppl too got too much time on their hands
u rich ain’t you ๐Ÿ•›๐Ÿ•ง๐Ÿ• my man got so much time writing a long thread you must be sportin like 16 rolexes
Ha!! It's already started
WILL NOBODY THINK OF THE BILLIONAIRES?
Random tidbit about Dick Costolo's tenure as CEO... Costolo is a major booster for @UMichFootball, which makes him subject to certain NCAA rules. Michigan once had to self-report a violation of those rules because Costolo tweeted at a recruit (which he's not allowed to do).
So the CEO of Twitter caused @UMichFootball to commit an NCAA violation... over Twitter. ๐Ÿคฃ
he's the strongest example of your point; apparently fell into the angry left twitter vortex. i don't know him but i bet pre-twitter dick c would not have said this.
***TWEET OF THE WEEK AWARD***
I rly think there just needs to be a No Asshole rule/required agreement on social media. And it will be very funny implementing it. Ie, if anyone's mean on Twitter, they get an ai counselor until nice again I personally find it hugely fun to be polite & anonymous on social media
And if we're seeing tons of anonymous hateful comments online, it's bec ppl are hurting & rly need a therapist & using social media as unofficial therapist to get out nastiness inside. ->Social media might work well as medium to purge emotional bile.
Huge opportunity to improve mindset of humanity here. Screw free speech, let's get everybody healthy 1st.
& actually, democracy won't last w/o a society of *healthy minds* speaking freely Free speech for, say, a nation of mentally hateful ppl, will lead to a form of gov where a power-hungry bad guy will abuse society of mentally weak people for self-gain God bless you here, Elon
The generalization ๐Ÿ’€ If I am gonna be accused of the crime then I may as well commit it and go off and be horrible ???
That Ellen Pai shit was fucked up
Wrong mentality / personality for the job. Given anything as an option, she chose a completely accountability free role: activist.
And now reddit bans subreddits at the drop of a hat. Fatpeoplehate must have looked like an Omega event but then staff would have realized that school holidays just needed to end.
She is married to a gay conman sexual harasser fraudster. Reddit is the least of her problems.
She deserved it though, right? We aren’t going to seriously claim she didn’t earn a lot of that hate?
Pao shouldn't have killed the website we all loved if she didn't want any backlash. Stop being vague and give us some real examples why subs like fatpeoplehate had to go. Wait, I'll tell you: Bad press followed by pressure from investors.
Ellen Pao was a saint. As a regular Reddit user, I wish we could have her back.
Ellen Pao had Reddit threads removed that called out her litigation and loss against Kleiner Perkins. She directly benefited from censorship and an abuse of corporate power. She was overly controlling over her image and is a very poor example of someone who should be pitied.
Exactly. It was at this very point in the thread that I realised it would have to be parody.
An yes Ellen Pao, a famous example of CEOs not caring about politics ๐Ÿ˜‚๐Ÿคฆ‍โ™€๏ธ
well, well, well, if it isn’t the consequences…
I really liked this until you started praising @jack. That fake guru tilted an election for his political beliefs and admitted it. He deserves to be remembered as the guy who founded Twitter and got kicked out of it despite his service to the regime. He should enjoy his billions.
Why the fuck not? I love this thread and respect your perspective but the consequences of Elon's failures are not failure for society. Even if it means less electric cars and less billionaires in space (neither of which are triumphs for society). Corporations are expendable.
This thread doesn’t recall history very accurately.
Very long drawn out crock of bullshit.
What a fucking tool. Imagine excusing truth being censored because the discourse offended your sensibilities. Enjoy virginity.
Wow, you just called out and judged someone else's emotional psyche after talking about people behaving badly on the internet without civil discourse?
Man Shows his emotions = Emotionally Damaged. ^ That's an absurd, incorrect statement from an emotionally repressed man.
In other words: yell your lungs out. @elonmusk is sick and dangerous. But thanks for the thread.
Leapin' lizards, Sandy!
This was an very informative thread. But, the things u stated is what @elonmusk already has battled. Being the wealthiest comes with these problems & expectations & then some. Can u imagine corporations asking u to end World Hunger? While u bring foreign ideals/inventions to life
Great move. Call an Asperger’s patient, that became the wealthiest person on the planet, emotionally damaged. The Left 101.
Ok what are your thoughts on this? Sounds like you probably have a left wing bias tbh.
idk man if they’re the workaholic type then it probably doesn’t make much difference to just pile a little bit more on
You’re not the only one bewildered by this focus on Twitter or social media. As one of my anthropology professors said to me, “human behaviour is messy”
What puzzles me: with all those $billions to spend, why Twitter of all things? He loves space flight so why not instead build a great cosmology/physics institute with a Texas U, or new telescope, an institute for our @TXMedCenter or expand STEM education?
Elon Musk wants to buy Twitter, make it 'maximally trusted'
In 10 days, Tesla CEO Elon Musk has gone from popular Twitter contributor and critic to...
houstonchronicle.com
Not sure the world needs SpaceX or Tesla anymore except as competitive milestones (Tesla getting Big Auto to go green is it's biggest contribution IMO). But this thread is ๐Ÿ”ฅ๐Ÿ”ฅ๐Ÿ”ฅ Well done.
Your pessimism is showing!
Free speech and leave people tf alone. Easy. Done.
I think every person on social media should be required to take a "manners class" to join. Then, anyone who breaks their manners gets a message telling them to "BE NICE" and a req to retake "manners class" + req video chat w ai to pass "manners test" before rejoining. Haha ๐Ÿ˜„
I completely have the same thought.. Controlling behaviour of 5 people is difficult.. This is about millions...
๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ ๐Ÿ’ฏ
please, please take this to heart. Your energy and time is better spent at @Tesla and @SpaceX . You’ve already inspired countless others…let them fight this battle.
Are you imagining @elonmusk sitting in front of his Twitter clicking on approve/reject button on every tweet? I really think your world view of how the business world works has been scared by your days as moderator of Reddit. Or are you applying to the role in disguise?
He’s already irrecoverably damaged in legacy.
why you are worrying about his psyche bro he doesn’t even worry about his own psyche obviously since he regularly has sleep deprivation and Cannot imagine sleeping alone ever at all?
that’s what happens when you have too much money, a astronomical ego and zero talent or actual knowledge.
Elon seems to orient his life around huge goals (make humans a multi-planetary species, replace all gasoline cars in the world with electric), how will he manage in the social media world where there is seemingly no end goal? It just the continued management of user frustrations.
Its like you've never heads of First Principles.
This seems a bit narcissistic to conclude, no?
I'd be pretty interested in knowing which part of Elon's current reflexions would yield to more problems. Limited-time edits, time outs instead of perma bans, ending bot spam/crypto scam, moderation & content pushing algo transparency are long overdue.
๐Ÿคก
valid points. vague conclusions as fact. miss twitter is pro far left and ignore (election meddling) either purposely or blindly. conclude Elon’s time wasted on $twtr ignoring $tsla #boring #SpaceX #starlink and Musk’s a generational phenomenon capable beyond ur imagination. ๐Ÿ™๐Ÿฝ
Your opinion, Is this why he is filthy rich? He can only improve this trashy social media platform. This all begs the the question, what use is this platform anyway?, what does it produce?, what real value is it. It would be like buying the Brooklyn bridge
Ironically, while I believe Jack is the best CEO for Twitter, I don't particularly support bringing him back. I think he deserves a break. I'm ok with Twitter being kind of suboptimal. I just don't think Elon should be sucked in.
This is a outstanding thread. Great post
Do you have titan “away days”?
"All the tech titans are buddies". That's also the problem; they're a cabal, with a very leftist, globalist view of the world. Where's the diversity of thought?
Yesterday was a flagship day in corporate media. It was the day they were forced to explicitly state what has long been clear: they not only favor censorship but desperately crave and depend on it. Even if Musk doesn't buy Twitter, never forget what yesterday revealed.
would be a great addition to the squad
Musk has fixed hard problems. Maybe he will come up with something on this too
You keep Jack did a good job. What’s an example?
That you, @profgalloway? ๐Ÿ˜œ To be clear: I'm pretty well convinced that $TWTR is insufficiently monetized, so the reasons for asking @jack to step aside as a capitalist may outweigh the assessment that he's managing shitty human behavior well.
have you at least read what jack twitted few weeks ago bout his regrets on merging social media and big corporates like black rock?
You have very valid points. But suggesting that any “board” or “person” is given the right to determine “bad” behavior, is where down to the core actual ethics comes into play. Who chooses where to draw the line, and who is allowed to play “god” when it comes to “bad” and “good”
Unfortunately throughout history some things need to happen in order for society to get an actual grasp and understand what’s going on around them. This all stems from the trust the government in the US has lost in its people over the last 20-30 years.
Tech thinking they need to shackle the commoners to the floorboards while the first, second, and fourth estate have a big orgy is EXACTLY the problem Musk is pointing out. "Misbehavior" is Duke putting on a buffalo hat and stealing podia but not big corps killing thousands.
You have been reading Schopenhauer lol. You are right.
I wish social media sites had a way to let a person know, "hey, you crossed a line. Rather than saying X, try saying it like Y instead- you'll get a better result" rather than censoring or banning. Some people don't know how to debate & need to be taught
Authentic question: does the intentional spreading of lies and misinformation count as ‘misbehaving’ in your algorithm? Even if one is being civil in their delivery, ‘fake news’ is harmful as well. Just curious on your take…
"when there are no immediately visible consequences", This is the root cause of the behavior (not topic) problem, which is in reality an incentive structure problem, and Elon's a genius at establishing incentive structures (youtu.be/sp8smJFaKYE?t=…).
RAW Elon Musk Interview from Air Warfare Symposium 2020
2020 Air Warfare Symposium Fireside Chat with Elon Musk, Chief executive officer of Space Exploration Technologies Corp (SpaceX).AFA's Air Warfare Symposium ...
youtube.com
"Because the problems are NOT about politics" Said [a man who benefits more than 99.9% of other humans on this planet from the USA's current "politics"].
Yes!!! Which is why I posit that #Identity #Authenticity lies at the core of the problem re #socialmedia platforms. By that I mean the full spectrum of nuances associated with identity i.e., all the "nyms" rather than some mythical canonical identity pegged to one identifier.
The fundamental reasoning behind the notion of a #SemanticWeb was all about the fact that anyone could say anything about anything. Thus, it was vital that the concept of using a #hyperlink as a denotation tool extended beyond documents to any thing humanly imaginable.
Net effect, you end up with a #hypermedia realm where entities (things) and their relations (or links) to other entities become both accessible and computable using the human mind and/or a variety of programming languages. #Web20 doesn't understand or care about any of this.
Neither does #Web3. The #hypermedia realm I describe enables the use of agent profiles and content #metadata to provide a richer substrate for computation informed by #reasoning and #inference. Basically, #ExplainableAI rather than #BlackBoxAI (which was always DOA).
That, and, more importantly, there is an echo-chamber that encourages anger and victimhood. Anger draws ratings, viewers, eyeballs, etc. They've decided that explaining the gray areas is boring so they the stoke the lizard brain. A feature not a bug.
It leads to an audience of angry, psychotic nuts who will, I dunno, try to overrun the Capitol.
We need real fucking men to be running shit, not fucking wet wipes
Hard disagree on this. While I don't blame @jack himself, there is a clear political bias in twitter moderation and it was on full display in this conversation with Vijaya Gadde.
Tim Pool Tells Twitter Exec They Have a Liberal Bias | JRE Twitter Special
Taken from Joe Rogan Experience #1258 w/Jack Dorsey, Vijaya Gadde, and Tim Pool: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZCBRHOg3PQ
youtube.com
First there was chaos. Then rules. Then being “nice”, then…
save thread
Saved! FYI, if you see a "@readwise save..." already, you can like it to save this thread to your Readwise without cluttering yishan's replies ๐Ÿ“š Stats: • 53 saves of this thread (ranked #673) • 89 total saves of yishan's threads (ranked #586)
A meal for every deal. Wow.
you're exactly the sort of person I would expect to have his lips fastened to a tech billionaire's ass
No he was pretty much doing the same if not more when he resigned as CEO back in early 2010's.
That's NOT why he fasts and meditates and goes on spiritual retreats.
Control Twitter, accelerate Space X. The prevailing narrative is identity politics where ‘experience’ is valued over evidence. Pro-science problem/solution thinking produces tangible, societal and technological progress.
People are a-holes. Social media reflects that fact.
I agree with this 100%, he kept it simple, and didn't add too much emotion to the interactions.
Thank you @jack you really did something special, no matter what
Sounds like a copout to me.
Aww @jack he likes you ๐Ÿ˜Š
Agreed in full. Twitter always had nominal terms of service (TOS) but in the earlier years was focused on growth and tended to wink at them. Once they began enforcing them, Twitter vastly improved. Recall the time Milo Yiannopoulos set his hordes to attack Leslie Jones.
I mean... I wouldn't say he ran the company fiduciarilly in the way a "world class CEO" would. But obviously I don't give a shit about Twitters profitability, so from my perspective, I'm happy that he ran it like it did. Twitter is more than a company, or are least it should be
Holy Cow is this wrong.
seconded
Here is what I think about Twitter: I think the last few years of @jack's administration have been the best years of Twitter's history.
Where you see Jack, it’s a general manager who ran Twitter in one of the many incarnations of Twitter’s corporate structure in Jack’s tenure. That GM left Twitter years before Dorsey, but cast a long, mikshake-shaped shadow, and things went really well for some time.
There you prove your bias. Twitter poll by Elon proves you wrong. 2 milion people a 70% majority found twitter cencorship unfair and dumb. Why did youtube remove dislike button? It did not stop any bad behaviour.
You have some great points, but 10 years ago I could build a bubble for things I was interested in in twitter, now I get friends' liked posts, and other "you might be interested in" posts in my feed from people i don't follow. This amplifies reactions to "non civil" posts.
So no accountability for people that do bad things when they hear something they think is true?
This is a big, paternalistic assumption. Why do you have this belief? Maybe humans behave badly regardless, but worse when censored. Have you tried doing nothing and found it *net* worse? The primary anti-censorship argument is that the "cure" is worse than the disease.
All of this leads to the stance that porn and shooters should be banned, not because of the content, but because some humans when confronted with that content, act it out in real life with real world consequences. I ASSURE YOU
The problem here is that if you define "bad behavior", there is zero space for calling what you do avoiding incivility. It's taking a value-based stance, always
A tremendous contextual thread w clarity on underlying human dynamics! In designing group / community change initiatives I architect "skin in the game" into the structure: There's segmentation lag to behaviors & good examples w feedback can drive ~99% +follow-on & -mitigation.
So, if we're Americans, seeing the Woke Communist agenda come to fruition, our elections physically manipulated, and our institutions hijacked, we cannot just do NOTHING right? Yet that is what you'd argue is necessary, to prevent impoliteness. Trump was banned for his politics
TL;DR: I ran Reddit so I think I understand internet, politics and culture. But I’m really just a lost collectivist trying to rationalize things inside my bubble of cognitive dissonance.
All other things constant, perhaps. But who says all things are constant? In fact, they rarely are. Change is inevitable. Accountability changes the entire equation and ecosystem. People behave much differently when they cannot hide behind a fake handle.
So punishing truthtellers is better for humanity sometimes…..but only when certain people see fit. They didn’t silence ideas everywhere, just from one platform. It doesn’t cancel anything about the people that believe it, they just made the twitter echo chamber happy
Disagree. It's not the role of a platform to censor discussion of ideas because of possible real world actions. Actions are separate; they're not your responsibility. We have police for that.
You sound so convinced. It’s hubris to think that anyone knows what is best for everyone. The problem with a heavy handed censorship on platforms is that you have to be right. Last time I checked, nobody is that perfect.
Freedom is not perfect, but it’s the best we got.
Yup. The only thing more dangerous than freedom is not-freedom
Incredible to me that you think it's up to you and a few other silicon valley dwellers to decide what should and shouldn't be a lightning rod No such censorship was applied to details surrounding George Floyd. Only certain "lightning rods" are allowed to exist it seems
This (yours) is the dangerous idea. Ironic.
Leftists/neocons are mad that they lose debates all the time and their ideas are not competitive without silencing their opposition. Thats what tech censorship is really about and really motivated by, not this thread trying to come up with a convoluted, nuanced explanation.
Can you please elaborate more on why is doing nothing not the best option? Why do you have to censor? Why not promote greater use of the mute or block function? Let the speech, listening is optional. Dozens of tweets and you forgot that ๐Ÿ˜‚
What is behaving badly?when ? If lab leak is REAL , and it will cause violence and spread, does media has right to censor it? It is TRUE. Just saying. This is the problem. And why do I see 10 comments in section but i look inside only 4 are visible.
So Big Tech does nothing about the Russia collusion bs and other stories harmful to the right for years, but needs to act if it’s a story damaging to the left? I’m sorry but your take doesn’t hold water or else it wouldn’t be so one-sided
This is physics. If the oligarchy misbehaves, there needs to be a reaction in order for the nation-state to persist. Accountability works differently in the real world. Control of information is control of culture. It corrupts a living system of checks and balances
"behaving badly" is a perfect phrase to use if you desire to take arbitrary amounts of self-justifying, corrective power over someone else
Let them Or make it worse by trying to censor
Define "badly" If 1 human can behave well, logically all can. Let people fight to this end freely on a platform that informs them accurately how liked or disliked their views are. This will curb the extremes a little. Twitter doesn't offer a balancing act. But then I am naive
And who control those who run the media and spread disinformation to influence the masses? We do and at certain times we cannot do nothing either. Censorship isn’t democratic. Either ppl are good enough for a full debate, either they let others have it. No censorship needed.
Are you God? Why do you get to decide what is "Behaving badly", why are YOU the holder of truth? This thread is bullshit. Cencoring is not due to bad behaviour. It is to re-enforce the state approved narratives. Banning Trump had no effect on anybodys behaviour on twitter.
those humans can get blocked by other humans and learn that they get blocked if they behave badly (and also sometimes blocked for reasons beyond their control just because their content is triggering to some although completely fine for others)
And this is one of the most common authoritarian excuses: "We know better than you what, when, how and if something can be discussed. It's for your own good. We know better."
“humans will continue behaving badly” this mentality is why everyone us so keen for elon to purge the whole lot
Yeah Chinese virus racist, Indian virus kosher, all without bias. Pull the other one !
Agree GenX cared about free speech as abstract value (and others largely don't), but as social media became ~all of culture, regulation has become a tactical political battleground far more than you accept here, esp post-2016. Covid discourse was censored from external pressure.
I personally think that the internet could be mostly fixed if everyone older than GenX was required to learn and pass a test on "netiquette" (remember that??) before being allowed to use the internet.
Younger, you mean? But also boomers, yes. Actually the right thing is probably to expose people to tiny highly-local internet among family members/friends/school first before broader internet, for a while, then link to a small number of external peers, then meet those peers IRL.
But especially agree with conclusion that Elon getting infected by running a social media site would be bad for him, and SpaceX, and thus humanity (and that Jack did a good job; my issues are with the next 2-3 tiers of Twitter staff). Hopefully he delegates 100%.
He can delegate and esp if he hires back Jack and they just keep running it, it will continue to be "pretty good" (i.e. as good as it can be), but he will take unnecessary damage getting blamed for everything in addition to Jack.
The ideal thing would be if he set up a blind trust/etc. to own it. Especially possible if somehow he only throws in $1-5B of his own (which he probably COULD donate) and external funding for the rest.
He touches it he owns it forever.
Yeah, but I don't think there's any benefit to him to do that: he already dominates Twitter right now, and it's not like it's a good financial investment. (Really he should buy Reddit if he wants a social network)
I think the financial investment for him w.r.t. Twitter is product innovation, specifically around crypto.
The *real* question here is "what could Elon do which would most break the simulation" -- maybe he should do a 4chan/8ch/DA/FA rollup.
I was with you up to a point, but this simply is not true. Yes, the censorship/suppression/amplification is not purely anti-left or anti-right, but it does pertain to -content-, not just bad behavior. Man, we've all seen it 1000x, someone trying to discuss an idea calmly, & being
Had the same thought when I was reading through this thread and got to this tweet.
2/ zapped/banned, or slapped with 'disinfo' labels, accounts banned just for who they follow in ban sweeps, etc. They let ideologue groups tell them what to filter. 'No one can talk about Hunter's laptop or disagree w/ Fauci/CDC, here's some 'trending hashtags but we zapped a
3/ few we dislike, haha. -We have seen it 1000x-. We can already block/mute. We do not need nannytech 'adjudicating disputes' or enforcing 'civility'. We never did. Who elected this goofball to decide who can be heard?
Twitter CEO: “Most people can speak but our role which is particularly emphasised is WHO can be heard.” Is this admission to the chilling effect of throttling and shadow-banning accounts? My account loses about 100-200 followers, daily. twitter.com/AKA_RealDirty/…
lol - 911 Truth - nuf said
Cool explain why we couldn’t link to NYP article about Biden laptop in DMs around election, and explain harder why a sitting US Pres was de-platformed, and obvious conservative satire is tagged “misinformation”—but bias is all in my imagination.
Honest question: Do you think this is the same reason the social networks shut down the NYPost Hunter Biden story before the election? Or do you think that move might have been 'preemtive' to head off *potential* rancor and maybe violence?
if you're so sure, why don't you try responding to every person bringing up the holocaust that it wasnt 6 million and that the camps in the west weren't death camps. both uncontroversial facts that most orthodox historians accept.
I don’t think this holds up across the board no matter the political affiliation of the topic involved. I think you are doing your best to boil this down to a simple user behavior problem but it is much more complex than that. It’s a company policy and structure issue imo
You don't address the immense manipulation by those seeking to profit. Politically. Financially. Those manipulations drive discourse.
Also, isn't describing his relationships with the mothers of his kids as "fucking actresses/singers" a bit insulting?
Now do the Laptop from Hell.
Perhaps not the best forum to expound upon, but you can’t expect “i assure you” to convince any skeptic. If you want your argument to be taken seriously you’ll need to provide convincing evidence. If not here, then elsewhere.
This is why Russia censored the western media (and the West Russian media). It would have caused internal instability because of this "mob behaviour".
So tell me jackass- what happens when the scientists have all been bought and paid for by the government- and there is an agenda they are protecting? You are so wrong in so many ways
If have to disagree and point to the New York post story on hunter Biden.
Why not shut down Twitter altogether and ask go to Nature to share ideas? It's bizarre the idea that just some people can discuss something, specially a conspiracy theory that was spot on right! There's ample evidence of why scientists didn't publish: conflicts of interest.
It can't be rationally discussed because there is no evidence - that's the point
Ok but you could create a blue/orange or whatever color you want approval if you are a serious epidemiologist. They were censor also
It also didn’t happen because the most powerful scientist in this country were part of the suppression effort
You’re talking about one side that you’ve seen on Twitter. There’s actually been tons of real talk about the origin of the virus from people like @K_G_Andersen @angie_rasmussen @EricTopol and many others. There is a signal to noise ratio that is important.
This is a flawed argument bcz even scientists and scientific community didn't discuss it outside of Twitter for quite a while and many were dismissed without considering or weighing the evidences properly. So my question is why did this happen outside of Twitter bubble?
Ofc this is not what happened, because instead of educating children about weaknesses of human brain (like confirmation bias), about scientific evidence vs anecdotal, about evidence based debate, we're teaching them stuff they won't ever need. Bans are workaround, not a solution.
Everyone can discuss any topic.
It *couldn't* be discussed in an "evidenced-based" manner because the media -lords and their political masters decided it wasn't the narrative that would advance the agenda. Trump needed to be the enemy at the time, not the CCP.
You would know about this reality and it makes sense. However if the “experts/TWTR” don’t want to talk about the lab leak then it just adds to the story. Any “mob” should be able to talk about what they want. It’s not up to TWTR or some expert and in this case the mob was right.
It has been debated on by scientists, just not on twitter, but on channels which are used by scientists and which are shielded from all the hate spewing mob you find on social networks.
so you want a situation where china for example can be uncivil, motivate anger and incivility and thereby bury a story.
True: people on BOTH sides of this issue—and pretty much any issue; this issue considerably less than many—behaved obnoxiously. When Twitter has its finger on one side of the scales, obnoxious behaviour does not explain which side of the scales it chooses
This “censorship” spilled into academia. This is a disingenuous and elitist argument. Your colleagues implemented a solution for which the consequences prevented the success of the hunt for patient zero. It enabled an oligarchic coup d’etat of the political narrative.
One of the people who did painstaking work in uncovering the lab leak, is an anonymous person from India, @TheSeeker268. May not be a scientist.
But why does it need to be scientists?
It couldn't happen. Because it was being censored, fueling frustration, anger, scepticism, mistrust, and conspiracy theories
The guy that created the mRNA tech got banned for discussing mRNA in covid vaccines. How much expertise should by required to be allowed “free speech” ?
In fact, this IS what was happening. Rational, civil discourse was censored. I was willing to accept the premise of your thread in good faith until I arrived at this part. Patently false.
Yes the source is very important before sharing a tweet...
Nothing happened and you get scared, while now we see the results of scientists pushing zero covid yet these ideas were and still are free to roam apparently.
It's unacceptable for you to think that anyone can omnisciently determine which ideas are acceptable and which are dangerous. Full stop.
This thread is really enlightening, even from the angle of someone who lives in an authoritarian country, where ideas are powerful, thinking is dangerous and therefore banned, social media is in total control and full of monitoring and orthodox ideology and bullshit.
The whole POINT of powerful ideas is to be dangerous. (I wrote an addenda to the thread about this; sorry I misquoted you)
BLM was torching cities as FAANG was donating billions.
It's fine to highlight that nuance, as long as it's not used to draw an incorrect conclusion that "speech is violence".
Yes, without censorship, unpleasant things like people voting for the wrong guy resulting in dangerous real-world outcomes would happen. Thanks God!
“You (say) law is above freedom of utterance.. I reply.. you can have no wise laws.. unless there is free expression of the wisdom of the people & alas, their folly with it. But if there is freedom, folly will die of its own poison & wisdom will survive.” William Allen White
This is really gob smackingly wrong. Are you saying the hunter Biden story was rabble rousing and dangerous?
The pen..is mightier than the sword
Thank you for trying to keep us civil. Social media proves we’re still just vicious monkeys.
If it were true that incitement of offsite violence, property destruction, etc. motivated the banning of the lab leak theory, then hysterical BLM related posts would have been banned too. But they weren’t.
You're arguing that people talking about the lab leak hypothesis on the internet was dangerous content that required censorship. You even wrote dangerous in all caps to emphasize how scary it is for people to be talking about forbidden subjects. You were born to be a slave.
Who the victim? Who the slayer? Speak. Socrates
I will never blur the line between ideas and physical violence. And I will never engage in physical violence. And I'm near certain that addressing physical violence as such addresses the issue. If I didn't believe that, I would be actively hunting and killing Socialists.
Shut up, people were bored sitting on their arse lockdown at home... Its not your responsibility. The telephone company is not responsible for what people say....?
equating speech to harm is textbook woke propaganda.
Of course ideas can be dangerous, but everyone will have a different definition of what is defined as dangerous, this can easily be manipulated by any particular ideology or group and that is the most dangerous thing of all.
This is precisely how Putin uses speak today
A clear definition of hate speech or speech with harmful intent (ie, lies to manipulate, inciting harm/violence, etc) needs to be defined, implemented. Freedom of speech really is freedom to speak "well" "wisely" "helpfully" etc I think it may be hard, but impt to try
Which is why we need ideas to flourish. The more we talk the more deep it gets.
By this same logic Floyd George story should have been suppressed, no? Cities burned and people died. Now while your argument in the abstract may be correct, you do not acknowledge that "safety" is not an objectively used criterion, but a politically motivated one.
You’re just redirecting the danger into an echo chamber instead of amplifying the discord into actionable revolution. How will a corrupt political class be usurped if you impose restrictions on dissenting behavior?
No it's not. It is what people do with them that can be dangerous. Those behaviors are usually pathological in nature, because some of our culture is pathogenic. We need it to change. Censorship prevents this change.
The power to censor whatever you want is more dangerous. Donald Trump tried to censor the EXISTENCE of the virus, as fake news and a hoax.
Censorship is a very dangerous idea, particularly when its inevitability is presumed
Like shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre is free speech, right?
We absolutely do not need to accept that speech leads to violence. People being allowed to use vibrations in their inner ear to excuse loss of composure is the problem. If someone yells fire in a crowded theater, and you go ape shit and trample a 6 year old, you are the ass hole
Speech is only as dangerous as the person speaking it. But it’s part of FREEDOM. It comes with the territory. Just like the 2nd amendment. Some people are gonna do some terrible things with that right. But it comes with the territory. Gotta let it ride.
Ideas are living things. They have a personality, interests, ambitions.
I don't understand your message. If ideas are so powerful, it's not just behaviour that social medias want to moderate. They also want to moderate ideas and steer the public discourse, because, in a functioning democracy, where the public discourse goes, there goes lawmaking
This is the main FEATURE of free speech. This notion of "well speech may lead to violence so we can't have that" misses the point. Humans have had that throughout history. You don't protect speech to allow the sharing of nana's recipes.
In the past two months I've seen the open sharing of how to make improvised weapons in Ukraine, and Twitter doesn't care at all EVERYONE supports violence when it's politically aligned, even when guaranteed to cause harm.
This is “short skirt theory” Blaming the behavior on a thing, then banning the thing or the people who wear/say the thing. This is the kind of idiocy that bans high schoolers wearing shorts or tank tops because boys “can’t control themselves” Don’t act like this idiocy is ok
You can tell a lot about our regime by which violence they allow, encourage, fundraise for, spin, and even promote on primetime television. Versus which peaceful groups were banned for being “dangerous”
Are you saying there's no way to minimize bad behavior around a lightning-rod topic without banning the entire topic? Is it impossible for moderation to be based on the *quality* of discourse rather than the content?
Could there be a market in content moderation/recommendation separate from the communication platform?
This is an important point. I do feel the "town square" analogy really doesn't hold with social networks because these networks can mobilize a large number of people to action very quickly, making them fundamentally different from the "town square."
The story was true and the censorship of the topic likely wasted time and resources of researchers trying to develop solutions.
It's no longer censored because the official story lost credibility and pressure from above diminished. Ideas do not have moral agency, people do
And that is essential to the course of the development of #culture. If you omit the negative consequences of ideas, you do not permit the culture of a people to develop guardrails and meta-level reflexes about those kinds of ideas.
You are acting like everyone is shortsighted about this because there could be real consequences and real people could be harmed But over a 1000+ year time frame, everyone will return to dust and only the culture will persist. I think it is you who is being shortsighted.
Oh? Why is that, then? When in a hole, stop digging. Every "mob" you nobly prevent with paternalistic action, you will pay for down the road. You used to understand that, before you were groomed by powerful people to see things their way.
With respect, you’re wrong about twitter’s censorship actions. If you think they suspended the Post’s account over Hunter’s laptop for any reason other than protecting the politician they most agree with, you’re willfully denying reality.
This is what Elon and other "free speech absolutists" don't understand: That weaponized free speech leads not just to real-world harrassment and even violence, but in extreme cases genocide. No one is a free-speech absolutist if they pause to think about it for a minute.
Excuse me? This story was censored and labeled as disinformation likely causing scientists to waste time and resources in developing solutions to the pandemic.
Weird example given the since then released emails showing intent to quash t idea by CDC and NHS officials despite it being what they thought was true... I do appreciate the broader line of thinking though
wants to try. If not Twitter then something else. You know this angle of argument isn't new at all. I'm one of those that goes back to accessing BBS's on VAX. There is capture at the moment that needs to be addressed imo. I'm sorry you've lost the spirit to fight.
I'd prefer it didn't and would prefer to have mediums where "wise gentlemen wisely saving the world form itself" can not function effectively or at all
Why was that story and Hunter Biden labelled as "disinformation" rather than your explanation?
Kinetic mob behavior? From lab leak?
That is BS because you are making subjective judgements about what *might* cause behavior? Based on biases, not on evidence.
"idea bad because you might do bad thing if you hear it" Don't you see how authoritarian that is? Not to mention arrogant? Who gave you the clairvoyance to see what path leads where?
Name one example, please.
The attacks against asian people because of the "China Virus" "Debates", the storming of the American Capitol Building because of the "Stolen" election "Debate". The list does go on but those are recent and violent mob behaviour brought about by misinformation on social platforms
Please provide news urls that firmly establishes the causal relationships between 1) some people’s words on Twitter and 2) real-world events.
Like during the pandemic the #blm riots and terror?
Censorship can lead to mob behavior as well. Elections are full of BS, smoke screens, and half truths. Big tech interfered in information flow of the last election b/c it cherry picked the BS. Look at the result.
That is also a dumb statement. Where are you getting this from? The real world we have laws that distinguish between mobs and protests, they just need to be enforced. You are suppressing organizing, which is a fundamental right.
So why all the BLM movement wasn’t censored? It caused rods all over the country (USA)
Who's the decider?
Again if the algorithm was open source, and users had ability to choose their newsfeed algorithm, what are you even worried about? Lets users choose exactly what they want to see in their newsfeed. And let the police handle crimes, that is their job.
What are the criteria that a person should take into consideration before sharing a certain idea in order to avoid censorship? Assuming the lab leak theory is true and I want to discuss it on twitter, how do I accomplish that without causing “damage” that would see me censored?
That's the problem. You shouldn't CENSOR certain "ideas" that might cause mob behavior. These site algorithms cause the most mob behavior so if anyone is responsible for that it's YOU guys. You could at least let the truth out.
There is no justification sufficient for censoring information that is of material importance to the public. WE NEEDED to know that it was most probable that a lab within blocks of a wet market was studying viruses of a kind that broke out at said market and killed millions.
Why do we need to know that? What difference does it make to your personal life if you knew that was what happened?
Censorship is MORE dangerous. It kills civilizations, not just individuals. Pick the lesser evil.
Your assumption is that civil debate will create more positive change than real world consequences for fuckery. Maybe that’s why Rome is currently going thru a controlled demolition. By “stepping in”, you’ve enabled a Leviathan that is dragging us underwater.
So what...Maximilian Robespierre will never be put to bed ...ever. He was real.Sometimes (France 1789-1794)Happens because of everything you said in your thread. Everyone fails society, then society invents an apparatus to remove shit heads actual heads. Incl Robespierre.
Yes. And if Twitter's "censorship" regarding Russia stays like this, then we will have a mass MOBilization. Twitter can be an instrument to unlock a total war.
This post is exactly the reason why people like @elonmusk should buy twitter. To save it from individuals who are willing to suppress truth in anticipation of a “kinetic” mob.
Everything related to BLM would have been censored in Summer 2020 if this were true.
Those letters the feds show up with demanding you do something for them and barring you from ever taking about it that Snowden revealed seems the far more likely cause for this trend.
If that’s the unrevealed method by which determining what is “dangerous” is arrived at then well played.
Yes, especially when you censor them, and wow them off as fake news and lies instead of listening, debating, or just ignoring
I always blame the lightning, never the rod. Speech is not behavior, and is never kinetic.
47 tweets in and their point is finally said: Social media companies ought to find and prevent behaviours that could influence people to break laws.
Isn't that literally the function of the laws themselves?
this is absolutely false and you know it. It was censored for being "wrongthink" and going against the status quo narrative.
It was communicated for being censored as "misinformation". That these things on hindsight weren't misinformation at all makes it all worse for Twitter and the like.
It's just that you can't prove it anymore, they've already done the cleaning, there's no way to prove anything, everything is like whispers in the wind
So I guess it was just a very convenient coincidence that this was being censored at the same time politicians and others were colluding to discredit this idea and label it misinformation or conspiracy? ๐Ÿค”
Carefully researched journalism from Vanity Fair is hardly a blog post from some conspiracy yahoo blaming Fauci and subsequently leading to threats to his life. Would those crazies even read this article?
Part of me thinks this might be a test question on your part .. but to take it straight up, it's possible that the article is still false but no longer incendiary.
Fantastic thread ๐Ÿ‘ this should be the first chapter of a book about free speech of social media.
Interesting theory, but how does this fit with media operations being shut down (eg the NY Post)?
Is this true? I thought it was more of a "frontlash" or pretext like the big campaigns against harassing Muslims after 9/11, when nobody was actually harassing them. I did not see any online or real activity around lab leak.
It was censored due to the TOPIC, it was irreconcilable with the recommendations of WHO et al..
Let me get this straight - the lab leak theory was censored because SocMedia execs and mods wanted to prevent spam, protect minorities from hate crimes and public officials from harassment? You can't possibly believe this.
Yea he lost me here.
Bro you’re very naive to think this was the reason.
This is such a lie.
So you don’t think anyone would be racially motivated by the cover story that covid came from weird Chinese people eating bat soup in wet markets? You think blaming a government would be more likely to cause hate towards the general Asian population? I kinda doubt it
Wow! And you think that’s why lab leak theory was banned? You are the naive one..
Ah man, bullshit. Block an entire debates in the world over few criminals in NYC being xenophobic….
Censoring it just made it worse. People couldn't spread their theories online without their rights being violated, and their efforts being undermined by the all powerful network. No wonder they took it to the real world instead
This is such a misdirection of what actually goes on.
Prove it, talk is cheap- those on top turned off debate valve with BS arguments and became their enforcement arm-time to pay your dues for being SO Wrong- it is called Karma
context and timing, too. there's a certain person who spreads lots of rumors and conspiracy theories. when he's pushing it, it's prudent to be wary. i don't remember if he pushed it specifically but that was absolutely the operating enviro at the time.
It is very much not “probably true.”
Oh, so you’re an insane person that believes in bullshit conspiracy theories. Good to know.
Ew you lost me at this
Lab leak is by no means "probably true".
Yeah he had my attention until spouting this conspiracy. It’s been shown to be more probably not true than true but whatever.
Enjoying this thread, but do some reading on the lab leak theory. Recent studies have largely discredited it.
You were doing so good (except for a few weird ideas) until this lab leak BS. Literally drained my will to read anymore because you can't process information effectively enough to rule out your unsubstantiated suspicions.
Probably true ... My god
Sorry, but you clearly don't understand the first thing about viral evolution, which is kind of weird because we've been watching it unfold in real time for the last two and a half years
Then set a rule for spam, nobody likes spam.
Go back to reddit. You think it's the right thing to censor true information because people might do something bad with it. Oh no, can't trust the plebs. Liars deserve the harassment. Crimes should be dealt with by the law, not company policy.
Sorry, you are wrong on that, academia and elements of the government and big tech discredited the lab leak as it was perceived as helping Trump. To this day scientists have moral dilemmas about publishing lab leak papers as it may be seen as pro-Trump.
The lab leak theory is almost CERTAINLY not true, dude. There is incredible evidence for two zoonotic crossover events at the market. The lab leak theory is *plausible*, but no evidence actually supports it.
Right... If most experts are saying a natural origin is much more likely, and there is no solid evidence for the lab leak hypothesis... It's probably because it isn't true. Occam's razor applies here.
That is really good point @yishan , but have you thought about anyone would benefit from that even might have been causing it as that is their usual solution to any problem. For example #TiananmenSquareMassacre #UyghurGenocide
And that is the worry of most people, can @elonmusk stay natural as he doing business with them and twitter has been a tool for activists to expose them?
Gonna have to disagree on this one. The mainstream media labeled the lab leak theory as racism and actively called for its censorship. Fauci lied under oath about funding gain of function research, and the "fact checkers" used this as justification for the censorship.
“now probably true”
Where the lab leak theory went off the rails to me when two things got intertwined and implied to be the same: 1) China was engineering some virus to intentionally harm a group of people, 2) In the course of normal scientific research, something got created & got out...
The former spawned all sorts of conspiracy theories and discord, and unfortunately drowned out issues of lab safety standards and such among other things.
It's hardly happening in (US) politics, either.
People move a debate to the digital space when it is not possible in reality because of obvious profit and power interests that have ample incentives to establish a cancel culture that has been a worldwide phenomenon for two years now.
I think the root cause to that is that anonymous posting is allowed. If everybody were forced to use their real name, people would be more gentle.
You lost me here, or you just don't know history, because abolitionists in the south were routinely murdered, no police, sherif, or courts even notified.
๐Ÿ”ฅ๐ŸŽฏโœŒ๐Ÿปโฃ There's debate & discourse, both of which are good & things we should do. Neither of which invites just anyone to debate with any other 1 person that shows up. There's a thing called "Structure " applied so it doesn't devolve into a free for all where no 1 hears anything
Saved! FYI, if you see a "@readwise save..." already, you can like it to save this thread to your Readwise without cluttering yishan's replies ๐Ÿ“š Stats: • 47 saves of this thread (ranked #833) • 82 total saves of yishan's threads (ranked #632)
This is why experts in technology shouldn't be mediating this. Way outside of their lane.
SLEEPING GIANT IS ON UNTIL TODAY
This is just dumb, Yishan. Massive people engaging in "debate" is utterly necessary for the functioning of our democracy. Abusive volume spam and off-site real world harm are different things and lumping these concepts together to make your point just makes you look stupid.
Leave people tf alone. Stay out of it. Be a telephone company..? I don’t understand why you won’t? Way less effort, hassle & $. Real men handle their business and leave others to handle their own. Maybe it’s a nerd thing.. always calling for the ‘teacher’ to settle your business.
We need real fucking men to be running shit, not fucking wet wipes
So what you are saying is, the more outraged someone is the more likely Twitter will censor the opposing view?
"Debates" have never been perfectly civil, perfectly safe, etc. Many people have fought, died, and killed for ideas throughout human history. The idea that Twitter can censor ideas to keep us safe is insane. We have two choices: either let the messy debates rage on and hold...
individual bad actors accountable via the justice system, or censor ideas and foment an entire society and culture full of distrust, polarization, and make us so ineffective that the we rot from within. There is no good option, only a less bad one...
The "noble lies" and "noble censorship" need to stop. We need to focus on real world, pragmatic solutions that actually work 80% of the time. It's the best we can possibly do in a society this large and this diverse. Your efforts at creating safety are creating the opposite.
Remember how you were so quick to call @elonmusk and @pmarca gen-xers who were anti religious nuts, pro p0rn and therefore zealots of freedom of speech? I say you have severe PTSD from your Reddit moderation days and everything you say is heavily biased.
*almost never prompting
Discussing the possibilities of Covid with early treatment with appropriate cheap and widely available drugs does not seem naive to me. Very much censorship in this area where it is about profits and control of a certain narrative.
It’s not helpful to condemn a perfectly sensible statement. It holds true for IRL, not the internet. Doesn’t mean it’s wrong.
Ideas need opposition to prove their worth and evolve. Same with scientific theories (see Popper's falsifiability). If you think you have found the Truth but have to crush all opposition, then your ideas are stagnant and stand on weak ground.
Your cynicism is showing!
What's the alternative to debate, if not tyranny? What are you arguing for? Or is this just pure nihilism?
They cancel debates now. ๐Ÿคท๐Ÿป‍โ™‚๏ธ
I don't think it's naive. Sure it won't get rid of the bad ideas. But it also won't make martyrs of them. It won't violate the rights of those who have the bad ideas. Simply ignoring is better than censoring. Weve all started to believe that we're entitled to not being offended
How naive would be for the one validating censorship and promoting restraint. Free speech was made to talk about weather. On topics important enough you’ll always find an army of snowflakes ready to silence any alternative POV.
That's called free speech. The thing you just said was good? That's it. Turns out you don't like it after all. See the problem? Do you? It's in you.
I can’t speak on Twitter or Reddit because I have never been banned on either and frankly I find twitters “hey you sure you want to post this” message refreshing but none of what you said really describes FB where people get banned for words that aren’t even words.
Someone can threaten to rape me in flowery words and I report it and it’s kept up .(this actually happened) But I write men are the monkeys paw regarding a post about dumb things women did to keep a man that backfired and apparently was promoting hate speech. When I tried to
Appeal and explain I was referring to a short story about being careful what you wish for they upheld the ban. I never know what’s going to set off a ban, there is no transparency on what they want so no it’s not behaviour it’s a war on topics and language
This is obviously false when applied to certain TOPICS. There is no middle ground on acceptance on adult content. There is no "polite white supremacists stance". You can't make it all about behavior.
Reread the thread. That's EXACTLY what @yishan said.
But the algorithm that forces engagement over content IS the problem
A little further down you spoke in glowing terms about @jack who openly admits his left leaning bias. He held up political placards when he came here.
I can safely say that left leaning tweeps in India and the cabal that funds them are much more abusive and biased in their online behaviour. All of us who oppose them be they right or center of right are shadow banned. /2
We're mostly a civil bunch relying on data, facts and published work to get our point across. Lost count of the number of times RW handles are suspended for no reason. Who are we kidding? Same thing on FB. The algorithms are biased. Because their owners are. /end
if humans sucked less, none of this would be necessary. do better, people. we have the ability.
The problem is that TOPICS are censored. We have the entire "misinformation" suppression of things like the "lab leak theory. But that aside the ideological blinders people have results in different topics being coded as uncivil, so no prescribed code of conduct will be neutral
๐Ÿคท‍โ™‚๏ธ
I'm pretty sure the problem is also the network, because the network itself is also social -- centralised platforms do not have the democracy and representation it needs for the governing it does. Building protocols instead of apps/platforms might help.
Curiously the "behavior" that gets censored on Twitter is contesting the US state department narrative.
The hostile behavior is symptom of what is a greater issue of tribalism. People are nasty to those from a different "team." Trying to remain team-less is also a challenge on its own, since both teams will treat you like you're on the other side, depending on the topic.
Loved reddit when you were at the helm, and I generally find myself nodding along with most of this thread, but I think there are absolutely topics that you can get banned for even if you aren't harassing or attacking anyone. Remember the /r/GenderCritical ban?
This is the tweet. That's it. Nothing left to say.
This is simply not true. First b/c it's a matter of definition ("talking about topic X" can be considered a behaviour). Second (as an example), people get banned all the time for questioning the official WHO/Fauci narrative on Covid even if in the most polite and civil manner.
I run LibraryThing, a tiny social network. This particular point hit home for me very hard. I think I can add to it. LibraryThing doesn't have the developed speech code of some other sites, but we have an unusual behavior code—members are not allowed to insult each other.
That is, LibraryThing members can criticize words or ideas, but they can't insult other members. The combination works because the people with horrible ideas don't want to *discuss horrible ideas*. That's not what drives them. They want to fight people, indeed to hurt people.
So bad people flame out quickly. This even works for disinformation. Being the best educated, smartest site this side of MensaDate helps, but it's also that people who spread anti-vax lies are more motivated by the desire to call others idiots than to discuss fringe microbiology.
While I don't pretend that what works for a small site will work for a global one, I do think they key is to understand why people behave badly and aim at that. Most of all, aim to *make it less fun for them to do so*. Twitter, unfortunately, is designed exactly the opposite way.
Great points.
I would believe that if there were no algorithms or no data mining. But those are stories for another thread.
Amen. Blaming the network is always going to be easier that reflecting on your own shitty behaviour.
Ivermectin was censored for "behaviour"? ๐Ÿ˜‚
I agree with this..!
The topic of Hunter Biden’s laptop wasn’t censored during the campaign?
Completely wrong. Stuff gets removed that has nothing to do with behavior.
Amazing to think Musk could be the next Ellen Pao. Taking vitriolic attacks from the people whose free speech he otherwise tried to defend. Of course, be won't have misogyny counting against him.
Nancy Pelosi's trading account being tracked -> banned. First thing, off the top of my head.
Incredible oversimplification and or naivety. How many nice and civil tweets have been zapped as disinformation, even when true?
BULLSHIT scientists have been banned all over the past two years. due to the TOPICS, nothing else. u know what the problem is? NOBODY BELIEVES IN YER BS ANYMORE, that’s it. so here a nice behavior to justify yer point: GO FUCK YERSELF, U BLOODY DICTATOR
Imagine saying topics aren’t censored when we just lived through Covid-19 censorship at every level.
Bro what planet are you living on? Right wing point of views are clearly targeted for censorship. Progressives push for grooming 5 year olds and no repercussions from Twitter, until a sane person who opposes such cruel practices and calls them out as such, gets censored.
That's not true. People on the right who are perfectly polite get censored when they bring up the wrong topics.
You are ignoring state actors, company driven efforts that relentlessly working on subverting public opinion.
Or should I say "dismissing"?
Stop trying to control behavior.
This is flat out false. The NY Post story about Hunter Biden's laptop was a forbidden TOPIC. Behavior had nothing to do with it. The same goes for many other topics.
While there may be examples "on the left" the exception does not make the rule. I've yet to hear them saying they're targeted However, read over some of the comments re EM taking over Twitter. My God, the victimhood of those poor imaginarily targeted conservatives is astounding.
I followed this thread pretty much all the way through and you make some great points and observations, but it can’t be only behavior & not “topics” cuz there were certain topics like the Covid leak theory or Hunter’s laptop that got censored, no matter how nice the user was.
Topics are not censored? Are you sure? Vaccine effectiveness. Lockdowns. ANTIFA/BLM riots. Covid origins. Hunter's laptop. Want any more examples?
It’s not topics apart from hunter Biden laptop because that was not good for the overlords, I mean democrats.
Hunter's laptop begged to disagree. Sorry, the foundation of your whole argument thus crumbles.
And here is where you are wrong. The fact is that in reality, it's exactly the opposite of what you said. Topics (more like way of thinking) is what is censored, not behavior. We see this every day.
That’s incorrect. Anti “vaccine” opinions were censored, no matter how polite and accurate they were
I was with you through most of this but this is where you lost your way. It’s twit employees with their finger on the delete button, that don’t agree with the SuBSTANCE of a twit, that are the prob. They’ve been enabled. By you know who. Be honest w yourself.
So maybe have repercussions for "bad behavior" actors? People who are constantly and overly mean, rude, negative?? Haha, I learned my manners from internet!๐Ÿ˜‚๐Ÿ‘
Yes, people will behave as they always have. But you’re too easy on the networks; they’re wholly dependent on ongoing engagement so they’re designed to optimise that behaviour and will pay lip service to preventing bad behaviour to protect engagement and therefore revenue.
Your reasoning seems legit (and long), but you're wrong, I've seen plenty of very respectful people being censored here, because of the topic and not because of the behaviour, for example Robert Malone. The platform is censoring based on topic. not behaviour.
if you don't see it is because you are probably biased yourself
There are plenty of topics that are algorithmically demoted, this is just straight up not true Hell, last election Youtube even went as far as to suspend accounts of those questioning the election results. & dont even get me started on covid related topics
It doesn’t seem that way to me. But perhaps that is because “behavior” is do hard to define, and so simply falls back to “topics” -and more specifically, keywords or other weak model around topics
Tons wrong w the thread. I'll just point out that categorizing behavior (what's good/bad) is itself an inherently political act; it's people (w their politics) who categorize not some algorithm (even those are scripted by, yep, political animals). #Millennials
Please explain where and how the wholesale censorship of the New York Post's true, newsworthy story on Hunter Biden's laptop falls under this "behavior is censored" standard.
This must be the worst take I’ve ever seen here.
You’re being disingenuous. Reddit shutdown gender critical channels made up of mainly liberal lesbians. Twitter used to ban GC people for simply stating “a woman is an adult female.” GCs fought long & hard to bring some semblance of balance. The network is the problem.
this is provably wrong. its explicitly topics. right now google is banning anti-ukraine stuff, regardless of behavior
*COUGH* COVID *COUGH* *COUGH*
This also is not true. Some account on Twitter got banned just for posting 2 tweets side by side of what other accounts had said. Not even adding thier own commentary
Don’t trust any comments here i have been scammed twice ๐Ÿ˜ฉ๐Ÿ˜ฉ if you need help write to EVAN_HACKS on instagram he is an unban pro. he fix mine
I don't have a problem with them censoring behavior. But that definitely is NOT all that they're doing. Perhaps they are censoring in both directions, but they ARE censoring legitimate concerns.
The Hunter Biden emails story is a prime example of egregious censorship of ideas. As tech experts they KNEW the emails could be authenticated and had the means to verify the story but instead chose to label it as "fake news".
You’re dreaming. Topics are absolutely banned, because they don’t fit into an acceptable box.
No. You’re literally punished or removed for talking about things that are forbidden. You are either a liar or a fool.
That's odd. I vaguely remember censorship of the NY Post Hunter Biden laptop story. What "behavior" did the Post display that was worth censoring? Some of your lengthy rant I do agree with. But c'mon. They are not censoring behavior & stories of the left. Just those on the right
BEHAVIOR or OPINIONS / THOUGHTS?
Preposterous thread
I think about this often:
This for me is a good point. When i hear someone say twitter has "become too woke and you cant say anything on it anymore" I think, well ive never been censored & i cant imagine wanting to act in a way which gets me censored. so it must just be ppl who want to behave horribly
I don't dislike this thread just because you're wrong and talking nonsense. Its your inability to be concise that offends. It doesn't require a 50 tweet thread to say "people I dislike should be censored".
This is stupid. Human nature is not like this. Let it be. You don’t HAVE to be polite on your platforms. You don’t HAVE to invent and enforce new rules.
Lol...sure. its just a coincidence. If I want to be a dirty misogynist pig I should be able to be a dirty misogynist pig.
But they don't want to do that, nor do they want the conversation. They want to win. That's what this has always been about.
What would the point of that be, when everybodybody lies 100 times a day and I don't? (The 100 times is a placebo quotation not actual count)
That IS censorship. Calling out lies is arguing and not nice to the people currently in charge of the internet
that's not how things work
Sorry. But that’s a lie and either portrays ignorance or something more nefarious. The platforms removed scientists/doctors/etc and while they had differing viewpoints from the purported ‘narrative’, they were certainly civil and not violating any omega event rule.
Lol. Utter moral imbecility on display. "Stop arguing. Play nice. The catch: everyone has to do it at once." That's right folks, you have to "play nice" with [people who literally want you dead and erased, and don't give a fuck about anything but power and dominance].
I call bullshit! This is patently false for @TwitterIndia. It is a den if leftist ideologues that overwhelmingly strike down pro-nationalist and often innocuous content.
This whole thread is coherently delusional. If only it were true.
Is it time/experience that the human kind need to adapt to massive social connectivity? We have evolved only communicating with several hundred ppl for thousands of years and only the last split second on evolutionary scale been exposed to mass social connectivity
I stopped here
This doesn’t make sense.
“stop debating” — SUCH A NICE THING TO SAY IN A FKN DEMOCRACY.
Key to this: Anonymous posters who shit post without consequence can ALWAYS stir things up. Removal of anonymity will impose self restraint to post things they are willing to defend IRL. Eliminate anonymity and everyone will play nice(r).
Quora has a “be nice” policy that is decently enforced, civility really is the only censorship principle that probably most people can agree on. “Be nice” censorship would weed out the more vulgar and blatant harassment posts, subtle jabs would pass through
Let people argue, and be vulgar if they wish. What's wrong with that? You can always block them. They can be racist, vulgar, hateful, spiteful, judging, who cares. Let it be. The beauty of freedom.
Lmao, you sure you're not 8 years old my nibba?
Oh GOD! I can tell you have a terrible childhood where you got hit really hard by parents when you didn't "Play nice". Stop arguing? WTF making arguments is the best thing for the world. When no arguments are allowed, guns get pulled out.
How the hell do you play ‘nice’ accurately under someone else’s perception of nice? This is censorship
You really want to avoid censorship on social networks? Here is the solution: Stop arguing. Play nice. The catch: everyone has to do it at once. I guarantee you, if you do that, there will be NO CENSORSHIP OF ANY TOPIC on any social network.
Imagine arguing for censorship for the greater good, saying the solution is for everyone to just get along, and calling others naive
This reminds me of the old "zipper" merge argument/technique! It only works if everyone does it no matter what your view on it is.
"Playing nice" isn't going to solve the problem of spreading fake news (remember COVID disinfo?), conspiracy theories or genocide denial.
I agree with a lot of this but there are definitely social networks where certain topics themselves are censored because of a political belief that they cannot be discussed in good faith even if everyone in the discussion is behaving themselves. Reddit admins real guilty of this.
But, you know that's impossible when some algorithms prefer negativity. Lot of issues with that too, even if the argument is People love to argue.. why make algorithms to help support that?
Who wasn’t playing nice when they banned the hunter laptop story? This thread is very disingenuous.
The solution “Stop arguing. Play nice. “The catch: everyone has to do it at once.” And we all know THAT (the catch) is impossible!!
This is easily proven false mate (good thread tho). People (Dr’s or biologists) who state simple facts about gender (a topic) get removed while having been completely nice and kind and reasonable .. and importantly factually accurate. So this point isn’t true.
Mate. You’re an anti-vaxxer propagandist, so your idea of “good doctors” = quacks. In honor of Yishan, I will wish you a good day rather than calling you what I think you are. **curtsy**
But un a plataform whete opinions will be held, points of view exchanged, arguments will happen. I dont see the point of having a rude argument but me trying to be polite might be taken as rude for someone else...and thats how it begins besides people not caring to be polite.
My goodness, what a transformational moment it would be for people on social networks to actually consider the impact of what they say before committing it to record. Even more provocative, what if they decided to say nothing at all? We can dream.
Twitter bots, the majority of which originated in Ru do not “play nice”. They only insult & provoke. Therein lies a problem the far right & sometimes Left magnify.
I already offered up the solution. You’re welcome.
It’s all solvable with one simple “I promise not to act outraged” check box.
That's how human beings are, are you saying stop acting like a human when you're online? You can't say the solution is for the problem to go away, sorry try harder.
If you want people to behave correctly, a great improvement would be making it impossible to be anonymous. Or at least give me the choice to read only real verified accounts.
This is simply not true. Civil posts about topics are censored all the time on social media. Twitter suspended The New York Post's account just for reporting on Hunter Biden's laptop, countless YouTube videos have been removed for talking about unacceptable topics, etc, etc...
I’ve been on the internet since Usenet times in the Reagan Administration. What happened there is *exactly* what’s playing out now; the only difference is the size of the stage & the money involved.
So..self-censorship? Who decides which comments are dangerous vs in the spirit of debate?! You say so yourself ‘fix’ one problem, create 3 more. Online & off (the Real World) our chimp brain reacts first & we need to learn breathing before we hit Reply, or taking a nap first.
WRITING WISHFUL THINKING IN CAPITALS DOESN’T MAKE IT ANY MORE TRUE
Or the platform can just let users block each other and the problem solves itself…unless maybe the user is a minor and needs some kind of parental guidance
You are wrong. If we were to follow your theory Social media platforms wouldn’t exist. Things you need to censor: violence, abuse, criminal activity. Whatever the direction of a discussion or idea goes you don’t have a say in it, you can only contribute to it or walk away.
Congratulations, you just defined self-censorship! Yes, it would be nice if everyone would be polite and civil and agree with everyone else. But real-life people and real-life societies don't. And wasn't "you make me punish you!" one of the hallmarks of abusers behaviour?
This is the stupidest fucking thing anyone has ever said. Lol Stop saying things and we won't have to censor you!
Nope. Sorry. I might have been with you until you said everyone has to "play nice" as the solution. That's exactly what the political right wants, and what they use as their main tactic so they appear more civil as they literally strip rights away from marginalized people.
*insert meme "we want to defend our rights / we want to kill you / I dont see any difference" *
told me once that social media these days is all about human behavior on steroids.And the focus on ads and interaction has an addiction is the fuel to that fire. So, it’s not only about human nature online and being more Internet-media literate.The incentives play a role
I glanced at it, saw a lot about decision-making, so before I invest the time to read it, please answer this one question: Do you reject the notion that there is such a thing as non-action?
Not on a surface reading of your question that I based on broad definitions (yet leaving room for my having misunderstood!) But I think of action/non-action space as being downstream from decision-making space, if that helps.
Sounds like our legal system.๐Ÿง
Your definition of the "Omega Event" is relative.
How come they try the obscurity+dictatorial approach? Is it really better not to explain the reasoning behind a decision? And for whom?
Does it have to tho?
And is that not a substantial part of how social spaces spiral out of control? "We *have* to let these awful people talk about these awful things because they're doing it somewhat politely and we can't look like we're taking sides, after all."
This is what Elon won't do.
This is the entire problem in a nutshell. No they don't. They self-appointed that responsibility, which as American companies operating under Constitutional principals, they had no obligation to do so. Who GAF if people yell louder? Enforce the laws of meatspace and we're done.
The reason I don't use reddit anymore AT ALL is not because it was runnover by a left wing mob but because of the moderators. You are incredibly obtuse or disingenuous if you think these platforms do not have a bias both to whatever flavor their user base is and profit
Oh yeah , things are running smoothly atm
Sure, that’s why Zuck spent $450 million on left wing interference in the election on behalf of far left Democrats
‘They are just trying to be fair’ who decides whats fair and whats not? That is a huge problem. They lean more left so for them thats ‘fair’
Complete free speech is the only level playing field. What happened to ‘sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me’. And if people are organising to break bones, today you can’t stop them, but at least people you can see it.
Sitting president.
Maybe if twitter limited the number of times any given user can reply to a post and its chain of replies, besides the original poster. People may be more civil, & hesitant to argue if the OP is guaranteed the last word.
Also, allow anyone to like the OP, but only allow the original poster to like replies on the reply chain. That would take away a lot of satisfaction people get from being dicks.
How to run a polite social plataform without censorship?
Welcome to Twitter where you're free to say the most bigoted, vicious, sociopathic shit you can imagine, but we draw the line at telling someone to fuck off - that's rude.
Make twitter have one unique account per person and no anonymous accounts allowed. Then see who says what they want
your generation abdicated scaled moderation strategies
Which is why I hate the "we can't say anything anymore" spiel. Because the problem is exactly the opposite. We say whatever the hell we want, and unfortunately, arrogance being a thing, we tend to double down even when it's bullshit that we say.
thank you @chamath ๐Ÿคฃ๐Ÿคฃ
This is possible. Avoid anonymity on the network and you will have less problem. You will always have some crazy dude like in real life but majority won’t show their baddest side with no anonymity. @elonmusk
Seems there could be a model to better mimic irl social interaction, eg reputation and shunning help moderate most interactions. One’s reputation could start weak, grow stronger along various axes, even differing across various communities, and we could set our own thresholds.
I’m sure others closer to it have thought about it harder, I’m just not sure what’s the hold up :)
because they are allowed to be anonymous! Flaw # 1
oh no we're in the ghost house tour
yes it is possible, it exist and its called 9gag
Wait what? for someone who is into personal development and wellbeing, how is censorship of basic health related information a cause for concern in " instigating bad behaviour" category ?
If you go into, say, a grocery store and start yelling and screaming and spitting on people, you will be removed with however much force is needed. No one yells about THEIR free speech rights, and rightly so.
Yup, it’s called free speech. You lefties get upset very easily, even when obtaining an affectionate ribbing from a righty etc. If your Mum and Dad didn’t love you, it’s probably because you’re unlovable! Don’t take it out on society. (Please) X
It’s the squabbling that makes them money.
This is also not true. Their algorithms and incentives are specifically built to drive engagement by triggering emotional responses from their users. Years of optimizing for emotional outrage and advertising revenue have led us here. Don’t try to paint tech co as saints here.
If this is true, then why didn't they create an algorithmic feed that reduces conflict instead of elevating? Say, a post gets a lot of abusive language (easy to identify). The algorithm should then hide that post to reduce conflict, instead of rewarding it with more exposure.
The reason, obviously, is conflict means more engagement, more engagement is more views, more views more money. Can't say they "kind of" care about money and wish people would be civil while building a system that profits off of increasing conflict and letting bots muck about
(In keeping with your theme though, I appreciate the thread though I disagree with some foundational assumptions)
^^This. Money (more specifically, KPI's proving they're making money) is the motivating factor. And that 'if it bleeds, it leads' has shifted from being tongue in cheek secondary effect, to being the main drive.
They sure spend a lot of time monetizing their platforms to not care about money.
and i understood that hate is the most attention catching leading more money to these platforms and thats why their algos produce such a diviaive content for people to watch...
No they don’t — they wish we will continue to spend time on their platforms and give it our attention. All else equal? Give it our attention and don’t fight. But, first and foremost — give it our attention.
All they care about is money
Why did Zuckerberg meet with Trump, then? Btw I love Reddit
Incorrect. They quite literally only care about $. That's why digital advertising has always called people "users". They just want your eyeballs. That's all that matters so they can turn around and sell advertising around it. I should know. I sold your eyeballs for over 13 years.
You, as a human being, do not matter to these companies. Your demographics and offline/online shopping behaviors are the only things they see of value in you. You're not a human being to them. You're simply a CPM.
Except Twitter doesn’t care about making money. $1 of Twitter stock in 2013 is $1.08 today. Twitter cares about control of minds and supporting D policies. Period.
They absolutely only care about money. Civility is a way for them to be more appealing to the main stream but also controversy generates ad revenue. These are publicly traded companies dude, not day care centers. Why do you think it took so long to ban trump. Money machine
Lol, kind of care about money!? Goddamn you should sit this one out.
But if we shut up and stop ‘engaging’ so much they’ll make less money right?
Was with you until you suggested that tech companies are in it for something besides the money.
Then why suppress important information that could swing elections!!!! You are WRONG
Rein in your damn ago, you can write some code, it doesn’t mean you have much useful to say outside of it. Your views are the usual toxic reactionary pedestrian techbro nonsense, stop embarrassing yourself.
๐ŸคŒ they literally actively encourage the opposite
Shut up yourself Yishan. You have an inflated sense of your own self importance. Now listen, Are you listening? Wait for it…. No one cares. ( and annoyed at kk for recommending I read your message, even if only for a joke).
They only care about money, its all money, nothing else. To think about it as anything but a monetary issue is muddying the waters. Civility doesn't drive engagement, they want you to be angry and post, so you'll spend more time on their sit being advertised to. You know nothing!
You can get back your funds refunded to your wallet reach out to willls_tools on Instagram provide him with detailed information about the transaction
Do you have the transaction details?Then contact Willls_tools If you do have it or any details regarding the scam, contact Willls_tools on Instagram He helped to recover scammed crypto
Reddit is insanely woke dude
Ok but what about all the stories about FB knowing their platform was radicalizing people and doing nothing about it even as it led to genocide in Myanmar? I think FB might be an exception here (though your core message can still resinate w in that)
You can’t explain the Hunter Biden media blackout without accepting that they do care about the argument. Trump was proof it was bias.
Actually reddit is the worst culprit. The fact mods are un moderated leads to a lord of the flys scenario. Political sub reds are the worst kind of cancel culture social media you can find. With mods drunk on their own power crafting little echo chambers. Just sayin like
Not sure about this part in particular, but good thread nonetheless. Pretty sure they care about politics. Especially if they’re seeking therapy over just the *thought* about Elon buying them out.