Red Mosquito

Peeps wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:That's just a long way of saying you are ok with censorship.

again since you cant seem to grasp the context. if you are on a site and you break their rules and they no longer allow you to use the site that is their right.

that is punishing someone who cant or wont follow the rules. not censorship. those people are still allowed to say what they want just not on that particular site. no-one is punishing them for speaking however they are being punished for not being able to follow the rules.

lol ok man.

What would censorship without a rule even look like? Rules suppressing speech is just censorship. Preventing certain speech doesn't magically become not censorship just because they make a rule about it. That's literally what censorship is.

What you're trying to say is that you are ok with it. I'm not. That's the disagreement.

To say nothing of the fact that the rules are purposefully vague and they are arbitrary about when and how these rules are applied. So I guess that's one way you can censor without a rule lol.

BurtReynolds wrote:To say nothing of the fact that the rules are purposefully vague and they are arbitrary about when and how these rules are applied. So I guess that's one way you can censor without a rule lol.

then maybe dont be a douche and test where those limits are. or better yet create your own twitter. should be simple enough. oh yea. those idiots that cry about being banned or shadow banned tried that and we are still waiting for it to take off

Peeps, it sounds like content moderation is what you're after. You want more of it, yeah?

Consider this:

https://reason.com/2022/04/07/why-is-fa ... ion-house/

It's not just that such censorship is bad in principle (it is!), but also that the censors are often wrong and clumsy when they attempt to deem what's true and false. Private companies like Twitter and Facebook/Meta have every right to decide their own content moderation policies, but it's not hard to notice patterns in who and what they choose to crack down on. It's not always that the information is incorrect, just that the reporting is embarrassing to favored political causes or complicates a prevailing narrative.

Free speech loving people should want less of this moderation, not more. You want neo-nazis and crackpot doctors de-platformed? I get it. Calling for that to be censored is easy. Justifying the supression of stories the rulemakers don't like gets a little harder. Think for yourself and curate your feed. Let the douchespeak on the platform sort itself out.

washing machine wrote:You want neo-nazis and crackpot doctors de-platformed? I get it. Calling for that to be censored is easy.

Can I infer from this that you do support content moderation for something like neo-Nazi hate speech? I’m trying to understand where “free speech on social media” folks are arguing that the boundaries should be drawn.

more like RM: The Mods That Failed amirite

McParadigm wrote:

washing machine wrote:You want neo-nazis and crackpot doctors de-platformed? I get it. Calling for that to be censored is easy.

Can I infer from this that you do support content moderation for something like neo-Nazi hate speech? I’m trying to understand where “free speech on social media” folks are arguing that the boundaries should be drawn.

No, I'm okay with anyone being on the platform. The slippery slope of what's a dog whistle and what isn't should be proof enough that drawing a boundary could go awry. Remember the whole "okay sign is racist" thing?

I fully support the unfollow button, McP. If Elon packs "remove the unfollow button" into this crazy ride, maybe let me off the train.

Peeps wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:To say nothing of the fact that the rules are purposefully vague and they are arbitrary about when and how these rules are applied. So I guess that's one way you can censor without a rule lol.

then maybe dont be a douche and test where those limits are.

Why do you assume that the only way to overstep arbitrary and secret limits is to be a douche? Do you really think the people who impose these limits are on your team?

Peeps wrote:or better yet create your own twitter. should be simple enough. oh yea. those idiots that cry about being banned or shadow banned tried that and we are still waiting for it to take off

"Create your own social media site"
"Create your own server farms"
"Create your own payment processors"
"Create our own government regulations"

Wow why is this not taking off?

Meditate on how it is that people could recognize that something is evil and yet still choose not to create a rule against it. I know it sounds crazy, but when you finally understand why people think it's a good idea not to make rules against every evil in the world, a whole new reality will open up for you.

washing machine wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

washing machine wrote:You want neo-nazis and crackpot doctors de-platformed? I get it. Calling for that to be censored is easy.

Can I infer from this that you do support content moderation for something like neo-Nazi hate speech? I’m trying to understand where “free speech on social media” folks are arguing that the boundaries should be drawn.

No, I'm okay with anyone being on the platform. The slippery slope of what's a dog whistle and what isn't should be proof enough that drawing a boundary could go awry. Remember the whole "okay sign is racist" thing?

I fully support the unfollow button, McP. If Elon packs "remove the unfollow button" into this crazy ride, maybe let me off the train.

Yeah, the reason I ask is that the end result of this is just the obliteration of Twitter.

The vast majority of Twitter’s revenue stream comes from advertisers. Demanding that the platform become a place where people can say the kinds of things being read in the video I posted simply results in a barrage of that type of content…content that a lot of people would not risk exposure to in order to see drill tweets and Marvel memes. Content that companies don’t want their dumb ads sandwiched between. Even Truth Social has content moderation.

A Twitter with no content moderation is a niche app. It would just be a matter of time before someone offers a moderated alternative that feels less risky to users and brands.

McParadigm wrote:

washing machine wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

washing machine wrote:You want neo-nazis and crackpot doctors de-platformed? I get it. Calling for that to be censored is easy.

Can I infer from this that you do support content moderation for something like neo-Nazi hate speech? I’m trying to understand where “free speech on social media” folks are arguing that the boundaries should be drawn.

No, I'm okay with anyone being on the platform. The slippery slope of what's a dog whistle and what isn't should be proof enough that drawing a boundary could go awry. Remember the whole "okay sign is racist" thing?

I fully support the unfollow button, McP. If Elon packs "remove the unfollow button" into this crazy ride, maybe let me off the train.

Yeah, the reason I ask is that the end result of this is just the obliteration of Twitter.

The vast majority of Twitter’s revenue stream comes from advertisers. Demanding that the platform become a place where people can say the kinds of things being read in the video I posted simply results in a barrage of that type of content…content that a lot of people would not risk exposure to in order to see drill tweets and Marvel memes. Content that companies don’t want their dumb ads sandwiched between. Even Truth Social has content moderation.

A Twitter with no content moderation is a niche app. It would just be a matter of time before someone offers a moderated alternative that feels less risky to users and brands.

I get that. Sounds like the system skews to censorship, suppression and limited speech. Twitter might become a niche app with less moderation, but so what? Isn't it kind of a niche thing outside of all of us extremely online obsessive internet nerds anyway?

Maybe this conversation/concept is better applied to the bigger fish. (see: "on the media")

Lmao twitter is absolutely not a niche thing, c'mon man.

For reference, Twitter claims that they have around 35 million active US users and over 200 million worldwide. 4Chan, which would seem to be the most popular no-mods platform (at least in the /b/ subforum), boasts only 22 million unique page views (not active users, which is presumably much, much lower) worldwide each month, and 11 million of those in the US (roughly).

Burt’s teenage idealism on display again.

There ain’t gonna be any middle anymore!

spike wrote:Burt’s teenage idealism on display again.

There ain’t gonna be any middle anymore!

washing machine wrote:Sounds like the system skews to censorship, suppression and limited speech.

If by “system” you mean “business model,” then I suppose so. But a content machine burdened by content that repulses people is a much less lucrative content machine, end of story.

If Twitter were to eject content moderation from its list of services, all that would do is evaporate its user base (not really worth having hate speech or predatory comments visible on my phone while I ride the bus, thanks) and open a market opportunity for someone else to fill. Which would just put us right back here, talking about the realities of content moderation on whatever new (and more broadly adopted) replacement platform(s).

Mickey wrote:

spike wrote:Burt’s teenage idealism on display again.

There ain’t gonna be any middle anymore!

Get that dude a Sharpie.

spike wrote:Burt’s teenage idealism on display again.

There ain’t gonna be any middle anymore!

I imagine that would be repulsive to a nihilist like yourself!