All this and it turns out what actually was going on was Twitter mods were not allowed to do anything about libsoftiktok
OK but put aside private companies can blah blah blah for a minute. Do you want to live in an open society where this is a common value?
That was kind of the liberal view on speech and debate around thirty years ago. The last ten that attitude has shifted dramatically and I find it disturbing. Free speech isn’t a just a protection against governmental suppression of speech, it’s a shared societal value. Or rather, it was. Maybe it isn’t anymore.
My point being that large firms like Twitter, Facebook, Google, and Apple have concentrated power over who can say what. Are they as powerful as the government? No, but they’re extremely powerful. So even if they weren’t lying about how they were manipulating speech, I think that how they are manipulating speech is still important and newsworthy. It’s more important if they’re lying about it, but honestly I can’t imagine that these firms are being particularly truthful or open about exactly what they’re doing.
4 Likes
I don’t think that’s anti free speech as Section 230 concentrates power over speech into the hands of a few powerful corporations. People are still going to Do Speech after Section 230 gets repealed, they’re just going to do it differently.
2 Likes
Maybe? Im not sure modern America being a true open society is in the cards at this point. Im most worried about outright facism under GOP rule.
My point being that large firms like Twitter, Facebook, Google, and Apple have concentrated power over who can say what. Are they as powerful as the government? No, but they’re extremely powerful. So even if they weren’t lying about how they were manipulating speech, I think that how they are manipulating speech is still important and newsworthy. It’s more important if they’re lying about it, but honestly I can’t imagine that these firms are being particularly truthful or open about exactly what they’re doing.
Yeah this ties in, I think being ruled by powerful tech overlords isnt great either. Repeal 230 and break them up.
1 Like
The shift has been due to a rational reaction to witnessing the downside to free speech on social media. A decade ago, content moderation on social media was a theoretical exercise. Maybe sunlight really is the best disinfectant, who knows. And then we found out. Not sure what is ‘disturbing’ about that.
All of this silliness has the theme of “but they ‘unfairly’ moderated the right”, when so far the only insinuation the government has been involved in moderation is this Tweet saying the Republican President’s team made requests and they were honored.
Re: your point about large firms having too much power To regulate expression, I generally agree. I don’t think what Musk is doing is going to make that dynamic any better, in fact I think it’s going to make it much worse, because he’s concentrating control over speech in even fewer hands and he has shown zero commitment to allowing open public debate. He is just using the concept as a club to get reactionary support and adulation.
1 Like
i think i’d be vote number 1 for regulating the internet in a more public utility type of way… add in some public accommodation type anti-discrimination regulations. but i doubt that’s ever a realistic possibility.
also the repeal 230 stuff means way MORE censorship from these platforms. which may or may not be good depending on your views.
1 Like
Imagine giving the smallest, brownest, lumpiest, most corn-filled shit about whether or not if the previous owners of Twitter, now long gone, might have prevented #gasthejews from appearing on the trending sidebar no one looks at.
Imagine.
9 Likes
My ignorance is just as valid as your informed opinion!
1 Like
People who want to voice their own objectively reprehensible views are reasonably concerned about the silencing of other peoples’ objectively reprehensible views. I can understand why they care.
I would like to see some examples where official statements or senior officials have denied black lists. Not saying it didn’t happen, I am just not familiar with any and would be curious to see what they said.
How do you know if a maple leaf is upside down. I don’t think there is any way to tell!
Yeah, this is conspiracy theory 101 stuff. My other favorite conspiracy theory trope is arguments that go something like “When we looked into the records, we found absolutely no evidence of wrongdoing. Which is EXACTLY what it would look like if they covered everything up. MAKES YOU THINK! DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH!”
3 Likes
It’s like Jordan Peterson 2.0
“Dr. Peterson has no experience” assessing “the reliability of confessions,” Justice Greenberg wrote in her ruling.
Justice Greenberg observed that Peterson got basic facts about the case wrong too.
Justice Mainella was apparently so unimpressed by Peterson’s “proposed expert evidence,” he expressed “concern about the decision to attempt to proffer Dr. Peterson as an expert witness on areas that he was clearly not qualified.”
The judge concluded that offering Peterson as an expert witness “unnecessarily complicated and delayed the trial” and expressed concern about the “detrimental impact on the justice system of attempting to use dubious expert opinion.”
In the end, the court restricted Peterson’s proposed evidence “significantly,” even recommending he use “scripting” to prevent him from rambling to the jury on topics “not pertinent to the matter before the court.”
The Court of Appeals, Manitoba’s highest court, sided with the trial judge, stating it was “satisfied that the judge did not err in her determination as to the admissibility of expert evidence” from Peterson.
the appeal court…concluded that the defendant’s right to a fair trial was compromised since the jury did not receive adequate information on “the phenomenon of false confessions.”
4 Likes
Public companies can absolutely discriminate against any non protected class.
Twitter could ban people who use iPads if they want or blacklist people who single space after a period.
I am going to agree with this. Social networks moderating based on strong scientific consensus is not some kind of conspiracy.
If a guy at Stanford wants to amplify his message that goes directly against consensus then he needs to start with making his peers believe it.
They are not entitled to have you provide them a megaphone. And you don’t have to be a relevant phd to make these moderator determinations.
oof
2 Likes
I don’t think people understand the dramatic impact repealing 230 would have on the internet in total. Especially that it would entrench even further the big internet companies.
On top of that moderation would be extreme, and lots of websites would simply cease to exist. You would likely see everything pre-moderated, or you will just have user generated content disappear entirely. To me this would be awful. The best part of the internet is all the user generated content. Take that away and you have a new stand next to a shopping mall.
3 Likes