That's right. Twitter has problems, but that's not one of them. What are the problems?
1. It has a free speech problem. The defacto public town square doesn't believe in free speech!
2. It has a political problem. Twitter bends the knee to the loudest activists and is sympathetic to a specific political party. The town square has been captured by a political party. It doesn't matter which one because being captured by any party is a problem. The town square must be neutral. Free and open debate is paramount for society to progress.
3. It has an anger problem. Twitter rewards anger and fear.
4. It has a transparency problem. How does the algo work? Who are they shadowbanning and downranking and why? What topics do they remove on trending? Which do they boost?
I’d add a minor item to the list: it is progressively raising garden walls. I do not have a twitter account, I will not give my mobile number to twitter to get one. Right now I can still follow the few accounts I find interesting with nitter and browser favorites. The twitter website itself has become unusable.
Before labeling "problems" I wish people would define what is the ideal social platform? What are the qualifications and rules everyone must follow for a "speech" to be free of unequal censorship?
> What are the qualifications and rules everyone must follow for a "speech" to be free of unequal censorship?
I'd say the first and only rule is that there aren't any rules that everyone must follow. There will be subpockets with different subcultures, with each one building and enforcing their own set of rules, but no single centralized style of enforcement.
No commercial network with a company backing it could ever offer a space like that, because they are liable to monitor and moderate the worst content that goes through their property, thus creating a single centralized culture based on the company's values.
> I'd say the first and only rule is that there aren't any rules that everyone must follow. There will be subpockets with different subcultures, with each one building and enforcing their own set of rules, but no single centralized style of enforcement.
That sounds like a free market. A government provides a minimal container and you’re free to create your own sub-pocket with your own rules inside of that structure. If you don’t like the rules of sub-pocket A (ex. Twitter), you can go create sub-pocket B (Truth Social). And they have no centralized style of rule enforcement because they are their own unique private enterprises.
Maybe the problem isn’t Twitter. Maybe the problem is expecting Twitter to act like an unbiased government when they’re not. They’re a for-profit sub-pocket with their own subculture. Just like Reddit, YT, FB, TikTok, etc. They’re all competing for eyeballs and ad dollars while independently enforcing their own rules.
A free society, yes. A free market no, because you are not setting prices for making transactions for exchanging limited products; the information distributed through the network can be indefinitely replicated and multiplied.
The different 'subpockets' will be competing for expansion as organisms in an evolutionary environment, but describing it was a market would be using the wrong model. The trend of simplifying every free organizations as markets is harmful to rational analysis, and I'd say it comes from over-reliance on a set of values that see it as the only valid tool for solving every problem - i.e. an irrational prejudice. We should do better in our analysis of the evolving world, since society is going through never-seen changes and applying old recipes will limit our understanding.
So basically like old reddit then.. Sadly we see how that turned out in the end. But yeah, I do agree that would be the best.. But even better would be to kill off SM entirely and return to dedicated sites/forums.
> The defacto public town square doesn't believe in free speech!
Twitter is not “the defacto (sic) town square”. The claim that it is is most typically deployed as an argument that it should be regulated. The rest of this comment continues apace. These are standard talking points in the (right wing) drumbeat to try and curtail free speech by regulating Twitter (and other social media companies).
Somehow you got it twisted that the right is the one controlling or attempting to control free speech. Clearly you’ve not been on HN long as it was nearly exactly on party lines, with the left wanting to stifle the speech of some, and the right wanting it completely open.
>>These are standard talking points in the (right wing) drumbeat to try and curtail free speech by regulating Twitter (and other social media companies).
Government mandating tech companies to censor information is supported by a far higher percentage of Democrat voters:
Well hey, in this case it seems that Elon musk has purchased 9% of Twitter and is likely going to use that influence to make Twitter's moderation promote open discourse more.
I hope you don't complain about this ever in the future and just accept that Elon is allowed to pressure Twitter to change it's moderation policy to support the principles of open discourse more.
Man, you should see how the same type of people are reacting on twitter right now and around the net.. The cries of "private exception" have suddenly become "NO NOT THAT WAY!" overnight. lol
1. Twitter has a terms of service, and advertisers don't want their adverts next to hate speech.
2. there are SO MANY right wing people on twitter, tweeting away merrily. They adhere to the Terms of Service.
3. Once again, I mostly see that coming from accounts with a certain political bent
4. Fair
The way most of these platforms work your ad is actually never “next to” anything anymore. Most people don’t associate online ads the same way as say a TV show. It is expected that you would get unrelated ads to your content when the content you consume is diverse, unlike TV ads which are very specifically on one topic. Then depending on if you view on mobile, ads again aren’t even part of the broader message. They take up the whole screen and aren’t associated with content again. Sponsorship, meaning your ad specifically supports the product, and online ads are different.
>Twitter has a terms of service, and advertisers don't want their adverts next to hate speech
Why? Does an ad get contaminated by association?
Or it's a minority who gets to call what's "hate speech" and what's not, and pushes advertisers to not want to risk this (who wouldn't give a fuck otherwise)?
People buying ads certainly think so. Or more specifically they think their brand or product denoted in the ad will be associated with the context in which it appears.
Shadowbanning is very real on many platforms. It is a method designed to ban a user without pushback from the user and minimize the ability of them to work around the ban. Explicitly lying to users like this, even the bad ones, should be something that is banned the by government. If you paid money for a service and they tricked you into not receiving the service without telling you this wouldn’t be allowed, but for some reason it’s okay to trample on the expectations of users when giving out free service.
No, it's that there is a healthy balance on the site, and the people who get banned have typically posted some REALLY unsavoury stuff - and plenty of left wing people have also been banned for posting unsavoury stuff.
I follow links onto twitter sometimes, though I dont use it. how does it have a "free speech problem?" what does this even mean in practical terms. I think that talking point is completely made up.
One cannot make a comment on the site that’s counter-narrative without having the mob of social activists bombarding you, and ultimately canceling you.
It actually doesn’t clearly say any at all. Like literally.
Random Joes that have no voice will not be banned. Make a name for yourself and start gaining followers and you most certainly will unless it’s too damaging to twitters reputation. Their sporadic treatment of these types of people are what allow you to hide behind this reasoning, they keep you guessing on their procedures.
Hm, #1 and #2 here just seems like a copy/paste of a conservative talking point.
You're literally in the middle of a discussion about how Twitter isn't the "de facto" public town square, because nearly nobody actually authors original tweets.
In any event, fuck the public town square. That's where slaves were sold, that's where gay men were stoned, that's where people were hanged for all manner of terrible reason that had nothing whatsoever to do with justice.
Twitter, as awful as it is, is many orders of magnitude better than the town square. May we never return to those times again.
Free speech is a core liberal value. I can't believe how many people are confused about this.
[Free speech and the open town square is how we got away from the atrocities you outline. There is no societal progress without free speech, which twitter is actively clamping down on. It's regressive and taking us back to when dominant ideas couldn't be challenged.]
Agreed, but what's actually unbelievable is that people seem to not realize that it goes both ways, and I'm just as free to shame and ridicule someone for their speech as they are to express their shitty little racist ideas.
[No, we got away from the practices I mentioned above through discussion that did not take place in a "public" town square.
Basically anywhere else, but certainly not the "public" town square. One reason, among many, is that a "town square" is not nearly as ubiquitous as you seem to believe, historically. Dominant ideas can easily and are frequently challenged on Twitter and in modern discourse generally, it's just not tolerant of the racist, awful ideas that some might want to discuss.
It's not going to lead to progress to continue to discuss how one race is superior to another, for example, and yet that's all some groups seem to want to talk about.]
Sure. No one is arguing you shouldn't be able to ridicule someone online (I guess it depends on who you're ridiculing right?). But I don't think you should get banned from the platform for doing so. That's the problem people have with Twitter. Especially since its very inconsistently applied and very out of touch with what the overwhelming majority of the country believes.
There's also a cultural aspect that can't really be solved by Twitter, like petitioning someone to be fired for making a gay joke ten years ago.
Don't the owners of twitter get some say? If you can't keep your argument with some nazi p.o.s. dialed down to an 8, why should they have to host either of you? I mean they own the platform, you and the nazi can take it to DMs on some other platform.
I guess that the "appeal" was ruled reasonable and zuby made it back? Of course Washington Examiner will never follow up on the matter as they're well known, like Fox, to print front page knee jerks and way-back-page retractions.
Or just disproving your statement. Depending on your mental capacity.
Or was your statement made such that only the right wing makes such headlines?
Or are you russian and just trying to sow division?
Which is it?
Also you still didn’t change what I said, just avoided it by trying to claim “whataboutism”. Fight it all you want, it’s not going to change the truth.
Your implication that only Fox spits out clickbait. You seem to be dead set on hiding behind whataboutism and ignoring the facts. You want to smear Fox’s name, but fight veraciously to defend CNN. That’s all anybody needs to know, and is clearly on display in your comments here.
>That's where slaves were sold, that's where gay men were stoned, that's where people were hanged for all manner of terrible reason that had nothing whatsoever to do with justice.
That's also how you get slaves fred, labour laws passed, and so on. Most revolutions started on public squares (and public cafes, and such). And further progress was created by open dialogue, in books and other discourse spaces. Which people thinking like the above wanted to stiffle.
And, no, the "public square" wasn't what brought slavery for example.
It was more the discussion in the "polite"/"good" upper echelons of society, for their own benefit. The same people who run and profited from that racket. And the same, good, rich and aspiration class people who wrote diatribes against gays, or intented scientific racism, eugenics, and other such novelties.
In other words, by the same kind of classes who today dictate what the unwashed masses should talk about and what not, now.
I would love to hear what you think would happen to you if you had openly discussed the equality of man irrespective of race in the "public" town square in a southern plantation town in the 1850s.
I would further love to hear what you think would happen if you did that while committing the "crime" of being black.
Getting made fun of on Twitter seems like a substantially less severe consequence than what would happen if you proposed radical ideas in the "public town square" throughout history.
>I would love to hear what you think would happen to you if you had openly discussed the equality of man irrespective of race in the "public" town square in a southern plantation town in the 1850s.
I would love to hear how you think the idea of giving up slavery was discussed and eventually won over in the North itself (who kept slavery well after the revolution).
I would also love to know why you think the public square means addressing everybody (like giving a lecture or declaring some platform), as opposed different people being able to discuss things with others in a public space.
>I would further love to hear what you think would happen if you did that while committing the "crime" of being black.
The same thing that would happen if you commited what is considered a crime against today's order on a modern public space.
>Getting made fun of on Twitter seems like a substantially less severe consequence than what would happen if you proposed radical ideas in the "public town square" throughout history.
That's only because 99.999% of it is of less consequence - compared to people discussing the abolition of slavery or setting up a revolution back then.
Try something that the current establishment considers threatening and equivalent to the above, and see how far you stay (a) on Twitter (b) in a job, (c) out of jail.
So you accept that the "public" town square was highly discriminatory, suppressed non-conformist thought, was consistently violent, and oppressive to people of minority racial groups?
...and you want more of that? Gotta start to question your motives here, friend. Not seeing any real upside to this, and I'm starting to wonder if the goal is maybe to take the voice away from the people who are, for the first time, finally getting a say in how the world is governed, because you don't like what's being said.
>So you accept that the "public" town square was highly discriminatory, suppressed non-conformist thought, was consistently violent, and oppressive to people of minority racial groups?
No, but nice strawman.
I only accept (rather, I know, don't have to "accept" or not "accept" as hand given) that the public square was at the main representative of the general sentiment, but also the space to discuss and break from it.
It hasn't been always and/or globaly "consistently violent, and oppressive to people of minority racial groups". Often it was more progressive than the elites towards those groups, who had more of a chance to discuss their ills and suggestions in the public square than in the "englightened" spaces of the rich, the government/powerful, and the upper-middle class, which peddled more in the conformist ideas of the time, were the ones who actually profitted from slavery - and of course the ones that owned plantations...
>Not seeing any real upside to this, and I'm starting to wonder if the goal is maybe to take the voice away from the people who are, for the first time, finally getting a say in how the world is governed, because you don't like what's being said.
You got it backwards. You don't like things being said. I don't like things not allowed to be said.
The "public" town square as you've described it has literally never existed. You're asking to return to a time that simply never happened. You talk about strawmen, but you've invented from whole cloth a concept from history that simply did not exist. In classic conservative fashion, you want to "go back" to some idealized era of history that didn't in any way look the way your rose colored glasses seem to tell you it did, and you completely throw out the outright racist, sexist attitudes that pervaded literally everything happening in prior centuries.
Just logistically, how did these "public" town squares function? Were they periodic meetings? Did people just walk to the center of town and start shouting? Who spent their time in these town squares, when they could be working/providing for their family? Since they didn't actually exist in history, there's nowhere I can look this up, and I'm curious about what you think happened historically.
Setting aside this made-up "town square" concept for a moment, you really seem to want to allow some speech, but to not allow other speech, and that is really the problem here.
If you want to allow all speech, then you necessarily must allow for speech that (successfully) calls for the "cancelling" of people who speak, as well.
In other words, either you support Twitter's ability to express itself through the banning some users for their speech (which it does exceedingly sparingly to begin with, people are not banned for ideas, but for specific expressions of those ideas), or you only selectively support free speech. You don't get to have it both ways.
Very well put. (all of it) It's astounding how many people can't look past the little things they don't like in order to see the ridiculous level of danger that comes from an anti-speech POV.. ESPECIALLY for minorities and other so-called marginalized groups. I mean we are at the point of critical thought where "all i need to do is stop people with the wrong opinions from talking" is seen as a sane, healthy and safe POV! What if YOU aren't the one making the decision though?
The position that Twitter can’t ban people is the anti-speech position.
Only one side of the argument wants people to say anything they want, once you realize association is a form of speech. The side that supports Twitter’s expression of speech is closer to “everyone gets a say” than the side forcing Twitter to publish content it doesn’t want to.
You still get to speak, just not on Twitter. You don’t get to trample on Twitter’s rights. That’s anti-speech.
> I would love to hear how you think the idea of giving up slavery was discussed and eventually won over in the North itself (who kept slavery well after the revolution).
Certainly not in public squares. If I think about it , Black freedom and black rights came from not from discussion but action. Forcing Everyone , everywhere to look at the issue it was by hitting the hearts and minds of Americans brought the newspaper and television that allowed Civil Rights movement to propagate that it did.
It was Media , not the public square that won our rights. Not white men who suddenly found a guilty conscience and talked about it. Hell the discussion had to forced.
1. It has a free speech problem. The defacto public town square doesn't believe in free speech!
2. It has a political problem. Twitter bends the knee to the loudest activists and is sympathetic to a specific political party. The town square has been captured by a political party. It doesn't matter which one because being captured by any party is a problem. The town square must be neutral. Free and open debate is paramount for society to progress.
3. It has an anger problem. Twitter rewards anger and fear.
4. It has a transparency problem. How does the algo work? Who are they shadowbanning and downranking and why? What topics do they remove on trending? Which do they boost?
What else?