Author Topic: #Tweetstorm 14:1-5  (Read 3758 times)

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: #Tweetstorm 14:1-5
« Reply #50 on: May 02, 2022, 06:27:51 PM »
I should add that I think there's a lot of room to try to debate both the line and the implementation of restrictions. FOSTA/SESTA, for instance, wound up scrubbing everything of a sexual nature, sometimes ensnaring art and medicine in its filters. I have grave misgivings about the government getting involved in these content decisions. The law on its face isn't overbroad, but the reality of its implementation made it easier for websites to use a much less discerning filter. To this point, Musk's approach would create more government carveouts, potentially. Ones that prevent any provider from carrying content it deems unacceptable.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: #Tweetstorm 14:1-5
« Reply #51 on: May 05, 2022, 03:45:01 PM »
]Electoral-vote.com has an interesting article outlining the major problems with such a simple standard.
Quote
Election misinformation: It is legal to say that Donald Trump won the 2020 election. It is also legal to announce that due to technical problems, the election has been postponed from Nov. 8 to Nov. 9, so don't waste your time trying to vote on Nov. 8 because the polls will be closed then. But be sure to vote on Nov. 9.

Of course, there was far more consequence in recent elections in the suppression of true information that would have swayed voters.  In throttling one party's communications more aggressively than the other.  Of removing politicians from one party on dubious grounds while applying no consequences to those of the other party for active disinformation. 

At the end of the day, you can check the official website to determine voting day, you'll also be exposed to numerous advocates and print sources exposing the false date.  But if the media censors relevant data then the right to vote is a sham.

Quote
Medical Misinformation: Tweets saying that COVID-19 and polio and measles vaccines cause autism and sterility and ED are legal. Tweets saying that no public health authority at any level can tell you what you can do or cannot do are legal. There is a very long list here.

Most of which is within the legitimate realm of opinion.  The fact is there is an enormously long list of long term side effects and consequences in the field of medicine for treatments that were once considered the cutting edge of medical technology.  Real harms that were only determined over time.  A proposal to ban "medical misinformation" is a proposal to hide anecdotal accounts that frequently are the only basis for generating interest in a study, the only way survivors connect. 

It's just a fact that our bureaucratic processes on medicine and medical facts are NOT designed to, and NEVER will generate certainty, and arrogant as all get out to raise them to the level of justifying suppression of contrary accounts.  It's not that difficult for someone to get a reputation as a crackpot if its warranted.

And Musk's strongest statement is to end bots.  If a real human has to live with their reputation that problem takes care of itself.

Quote
Deepfakes: The technology for making extremely convincing fake videos is getting better by the day. ...

True, and the media spreads them as easily as twitter.  Having politically motivated suppression of what "must be" a deep fake isn't helpful, nor is suppressing real videos because they've been "denied" and no one can prove them to be true.

Quote
In a few years, almost anything will be possible. Currently Twitter bans misleading videos. That would end if Musk allows everything that is legal. It will lead to a proliferation of deepfakes like the one above.

This is going to happen regardless.  Having twitter open means they will be capable of being directly countered.  Having it censored just means the left's deepfakes will stay up and real videos critical of the left will be removed as "deepfakes."

Quote
Impersonating others: Currently you can't pretend on Twitter to be someone you aren't. If you are impersonating someone else for the purpose of fraud, it is illegal. Otherwise, it generally isn't. If you later claim it was satire, it is very likely protected speech and legal.

Except Musk directly addressed this.

Quote
Spam: Spam that simply advertises some product or service is certainly legal. Expect vast amounts of spam on Twitter if "legality" is the only test.

Or expect you'll have the switch to ban spam at your control.  And added bonus no more spam bots, only a real person permanently blacklisted.

Quote
Hateful content: Twitter currently has a policy against hateful content. You can't compare Black people to monkeys, fat women to pigs, Jews to Nazis, and a whole range of other outrageous parallels that are perfectly legal to say. Once the Musk rules take over, expect tons of this, aimed at many different groups.

This policy was always wrong headed.  People have a right to hate and express hate.  You should have a right to filter it out.  You don't need a woke censor to choose to suppress this or note.

Quote
Porn: Pornography is legal is the U.S. Expect large amounts of it in the New Twitter. Some of the acts might be very gross. Revenge porn (naked photos or videos of your ex posted with the intent to humiliate that person) are legal in some places and illegal in others. Expect lots of it from people who live in states that don't have laws against it.

Again, filters take care of this.  If the system is permissive you can have extremely harsh punishments for publishing porn outside of the filtered area.

Why do you need Woke Parent to control this for you?

Quote
Graphic violence: Twitter currently bans violence that is excessively gory or depicts sexual violence. Some of it might be illegal, but a lot of it is not illegal. Expect loads of it.

If it's illegal its bannable.  Otherwise, in what way does a filter not resolve this?

Quote
Terrorist manifestos: People who commit mass murder or terrorist acts often have some ideological story to tell. These people don't suddenly lose their First Amendment rights to tell their story if they are convicted of a crime. Twitter currently bans this kind of stuff. The new policy would allow it.

If it's incitement its illegal.  Twitter does not currently ban this.  They selectively ban it.  Multiple examples recently of mass killers who have long social media histories of spewing hate, terrorist threats and threats of violence, but since it's against "white people" its never been removed, restricted or throttled. 

The list really doesn't go "on and on" and most of it is imagined.  Nothing you said is not resolvable by barring illegal content, removing bots and providing access to good filters.  No need for Woke Parent to make the content decisions for you.

Ouija Nightmare

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: #Tweetstorm 14:1-5
« Reply #52 on: May 05, 2022, 05:12:54 PM »
What’s funny is there seems to be a general feeling on the conservative side that Musk is somehow their natural ally.

Musk would peddle his own underage daughters in a brothel if he found it to his advantage.

He has no moral compass as you would recognize it. He’s neurodivergent and plays by a rule book very few people are capable of understanding.

He’s very likely buying Twitter with the desire to shape politics and the world with it. He will let free speech fly then shape the narrative with algorithms. If you don’t understand how this is done you’re already playing out of your league.

To what end? His own. What might those be? Magic 8 ball says…


yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: #Tweetstorm 14:1-5
« Reply #53 on: May 05, 2022, 05:59:56 PM »
What’s funny is there seems to be a general feeling on the conservative side that Musk is somehow their natural ally.

Musk would peddle his own underage daughters in a brothel if he found it to his advantage.

He has no moral compass as you would recognize it. He’s neurodivergent and plays by a rule book very few people are capable of understanding.

He’s very likely buying Twitter with the desire to shape politics and the world with it. He will let free speech fly then shape the narrative with algorithms. If you don’t understand how this is done you’re already playing out of your league.

To what end? His own. What might those be? Magic 8 ball says…

Good point. Who knows how he'll manipulate the push algorithm. The economic interest it to maximize engagement, meaning crazy emotional claims from the fringes get the most engagement. If he doesn't have the same immediate return economic return focus on the attention it allows for all kinds of scenarios good and bad. However, if it becomes an unregulated cesspool of crazy content it will lose its economic value as well as any value to public discourse (if it had any). We'll see where Musk takes it. My biggest concern are his other business exposures in China that may make him susceptible to pressure to censure for or provide data to the Chinese government behind the scenes. Also it could become an American right wing radicalization organizing tool again. Alex Jones, et al, will love the bigger platforms to spread their lies and con their followers again.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: #Tweetstorm 14:1-5
« Reply #54 on: May 05, 2022, 07:40:26 PM »
Even his name sounds like a Bond villan.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: #Tweetstorm 14:1-5
« Reply #55 on: May 05, 2022, 10:29:14 PM »
Hm. I think you're all underestimating what "neurodivergent" means in his case. I don't think he cares about the kind of stuff you'd imagine a megalomaniac does. Maybe you can guess what his priorities would be, maybe not, but I don't think they'll be stock things like "take over the world if I can" type of stuff, which is what I would expect of most narcissistic CEO's.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: #Tweetstorm 14:1-5
« Reply #56 on: May 06, 2022, 01:06:33 AM »
Explain attacking somebody who criticized his submarine move as a theatrical offer by calling him a pedophile without it being about his ego and narcissism.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: #Tweetstorm 14:1-5
« Reply #57 on: May 06, 2022, 09:36:50 AM »
Explain attacking somebody who criticized his submarine move as a theatrical offer by calling him a pedophile without it being about his ego and narcissism.

I guess I can't. But that doesn't really contradict what I said.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: #Tweetstorm 14:1-5
« Reply #58 on: May 06, 2022, 10:02:57 AM »
...
Quote
In a few years, almost anything will be possible. Currently Twitter bans misleading videos. That would end if Musk allows everything that is legal. It will lead to a proliferation of deepfakes like the one above.

This is going to happen regardless.  Having twitter open means they will be capable of being directly countered.  Having it censored just means the left's deepfakes will stay up and real videos critical of the left will be removed as "deepfakes."
...

Quote
Hateful content: Twitter currently has a policy against hateful content. You can't compare Black people to monkeys, fat women to pigs, Jews to Nazis, and a whole range of other outrageous parallels that are perfectly legal to say. Once the Musk rules take over, expect tons of this, aimed at many different groups.

This policy was always wrong headed.  People have a right to hate and express hate.  You should have a right to filter it out.  You don't need a woke censor to choose to suppress this or note.
...

How often do you troll around on 8chan? I don't, its not a good section of internet. Forcing everyone to block every internet troll is harmful to user experience and society. Forget being a public woman on twitter with no content standards. How many lude remarks and harassing messages are okay per day? How many people would walk right up to violent threats? You manage to participate as a civil member of society on this forum despite our moderation rules. Smaller scale but same idea. To foster civil discussion we have some standards. Some members walk fine lines around those standards but generally it works to allow people to largely discuss ideas without threatening each other or devolving into trading insults. Saying twitter shouldn't have any standards because people should be free to express hate as much as they want is crazy. Why can't twitter try to have a reasonable user experience without every Jew on twitter having to block every white nationalist neo nazi bone head who wants to say horrible things to them constantly. If someone is harming the user experience for the majority of users by expressing hate and being hurtful constantly, twitter (as a private entity) has the right to kick them off. The government can't put them in jail for their speech but getting kicked off twitter isn't a government action, first amendment doesn't apply.

The problem with your solution of just block them is that for many people (women, Jews, black people, probably everyone else) their whole twitter experience would end up being consumed by blocking the worst million online trolls before they could actually engage with whatever community they wanted to in the first place.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: #Tweetstorm 14:1-5
« Reply #59 on: May 06, 2022, 10:35:23 AM »
Even if people had control of perfect opt in filtering that meant you'd never see somebody talking about subhuman n*ggers unless you deliberately choose to, it is in society's best interests to limit the spread of that message and reinforcement of behavior that inevitably leads to harm to the object of their hatred. That hatred might manifest as street altercations, murder, or verbal assault. Being able to see that there are millions of other racists subscribed to r/whitepower encourages racists to feel like it's normal and just another point of view. I mean like, sure that's pretty much what r/tuckercarlson is, but they have to speak in coffee at least.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: #Tweetstorm 14:1-5
« Reply #60 on: May 06, 2022, 12:05:23 PM »
Narcissism doesn't include wanting to take over the world. Assuming you agree he is a narcissist, then you should adjust your understanding of narcissism. But as far as taking over the world goes, your argument is also flawed as musk may not want to take over earth, he does want to take over Mars.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: #Tweetstorm 14:1-5
« Reply #61 on: May 06, 2022, 12:27:33 PM »
Interesting how people get so worked up over the speculation of what a person may or may not do. I suspect that if we kept track we would discover that we were more often wrong then write, of course when the time comes for such reflection we have moved on to other issues to speculate on. Such fun.

Visionaries are interesting to watch especially the early years. What I've notice that as they age their ability to envision the next big things appears to decline. Not sure why. Like a musician that have 1 to 10 year career of creating new material get to a point where they can't. My feeling is that Elon has reached that point and this twitter ownership is that last gasp to stay relevant but I'm not attached to that feeling.  Lately I keep thinking about the  Zen Farmer or maybe story. Maybe Musk ownership of Twitter will be a good maybe it won't, likely it will be both at the same time.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: #Tweetstorm 14:1-5
« Reply #62 on: May 06, 2022, 01:02:25 PM »
Narcissism doesn't include wanting to take over the world. Assuming you agree he is a narcissist, then you should adjust your understanding of narcissism. But as far as taking over the world goes, your argument is also flawed as musk may not want to take over earth, he does want to take over Mars.

I didn't say I thought he was a narcissist. What I was saying is that comparing him to some default greedy corporate narcissist isn't going to give you predictive power over what he will do.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: #Tweetstorm 14:1-5
« Reply #63 on: May 06, 2022, 11:14:22 PM »
He’s very likely buying Twitter with the desire to shape politics and the world with it. He will let free speech fly then shape the narrative with algorithms. If you don’t understand how this is done you’re already playing out of your league.

To what end? His own. What might those be? Magic 8 ball says…

So my choice is between letting an overwhelmingly woke group control every major communication tool or taking a risk on what Musk will do?  You have to be kidding if you think that the better option is not take the guaranteed loss rather than taking a chance that Musk may be better.

How often do you troll around on 8chan? I don't, its not a good section of internet. Forcing everyone to block every internet troll is harmful to user experience and society. Forget being a public woman on twitter with no content standards.

So your "argument" is that someone would have to filter millions of people by name?  Sounds like a complete garbage argument on your point.  If you'd listened you'd know the goal is to give smart filters.  They'll get better over time.  Heck it'd be surprising if you don't start seeing validation filters that let groups certify their adherents.

Quote
How many lude remarks and harassing messages are okay per day?

Okay for what?  How many suppressed voices are okay per day?  Is it okay if only a million legitimate and true opinions are suppressed?  It's just a flat lie that harassment is stopped, those on the left are free to spew hate pretty much at will.  Heck they're free to reverse bully people and have the moderators take their side.

Quote
How many people would walk right up to violent threats?

Which are still illegal.  Ergo complete bad faith argument on your part.

Quote
You manage to participate as a civil member of society on this forum despite our moderation rules. Smaller scale but same idea.

And?  Would this forum be what it is and was if the moderators just banned everyone who has wrong thoughts?  Cause that's what you're advocating.  No more debate, no more arguments, no more convincing anyone, just shutting down voices that you don't want heard. 

Pretending it's about stopping abuse is a lie.  Its the motte and bailey argument.  there's no true conflict between stopping illegal threats and not interfering with legitimate opinions.  But we already know how the left twists things.  It's now violence if you don't speak up about something.  Ergo a violent threat and you can be silenced if you don't use the approved forms and pump up the "right" themes.

Quote
To foster civil discussion we have some standards. Some members walk fine lines around those standards but generally it works to allow people to largely discuss ideas without threatening each other or devolving into trading insults.

Sure.  But if the standards are that no one can make any arguments on topics that the left declares off limits then you don't have a civil discussion, you don't have a discussion of ideas at all.  You have an echo chamber pretending to be something more.

Quote
Saying twitter shouldn't have any standards because people should be free to express hate as much as they want is crazy.

Well it's also a strawman.  Musk told you the standards.  People are aloud to express hate.  You seem to think that's all about an unwilling audience, an attack on someone.  That's what filters are for, to stop anyone from being able to force hate on you. 

I'm struck by your unconsidered opinion that two people who want to discuss something hateful between themselves should not be able to do so.  That somehow its adding merit to society to interfere in that interpersonal communication.  That what people say among themselves, even on twitter, is anyone elses business.

What's next, can they come to your house because Alexa is listening to the hate you spew at home? 

Quote
Why can't twitter try to have a reasonable user experience without every Jew on twitter having to block every white nationalist neo nazi bone head who wants to say horrible things to them constantly.

False narrative, if the filters are intelligent, they never have to see those tweets.  If the person is real, "Nazi boneheads" will be identified pretty quickly and their reach - decided on a purely voluntary basis - will be practically non-existent.

Why do you insist on pretending that these filters are being used to go after Nazis, when they've actually been used for such things as to ban the New York Post for publishing true information about the Presidents son?  To bar politicians - which directly goes to political speech - for violations of woke preferences?  When they've ignored black nationalists broadcasting actual intent to kill white people?

Your standards and claims are false.

Quote
If someone is harming the user experience for the majority of users by expressing hate and being hurtful constantly, twitter (as a private entity) has the right to kick them off. The government can't put them in jail for their speech but getting kicked off twitter isn't a government action, first amendment doesn't apply.

Its a lie.  When the government is behind the content decisions, when they signal who they want banned, when they threaten to regulate if things are done, it's absolutely the government behind content decisions. 

But to the bigger point, your argument for a woke nanny is no counter argument to letting the twitter users control their own filters.  In what way is managing your own filters creating harm?

Quote
The problem with your solution of just block them is that for many people (women, Jews, black people, probably everyone else) their whole twitter experience would end up being consumed by blocking the worst million online trolls before they could actually engage with whatever community they wanted to in the first place.

Only if you believe in the most basic and stupid form of user controls.  Reality is that most of the content moderation is generated by the algorythms as influenced by the woke writers and the woke nannys who can force a decision.  There's nothing stopping twitter from putting control of those decisions in their users hands.  Heck, there's nothing stopping them from keeping the woke nannys and letting you opt in.  The goal is that others should be able to opt out.

Why are you so scared of letting others make their own decisions on this?

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: #Tweetstorm 14:1-5
« Reply #64 on: May 07, 2022, 09:22:32 AM »
Why are you so scared of letting others make their own decisions on this?

January 6th.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: #Tweetstorm 14:1-5
« Reply #65 on: May 07, 2022, 09:49:47 AM »
Why are you so scared of letting others make their own decisions on this?

January 6th.

I’m surprised you don’t see the danger as well. Considering your rightful concern about people openly calling for the killing of white people or cops. Such actors shouldn’t be given a public megaphone to recruit and radicalize. They can say all the nasty crap they want drinking in their backyard. We don’t need to have a forum that lets them easily and relatively anonymously broadcast that to the world.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: #Tweetstorm 14:1-5
« Reply #66 on: May 08, 2022, 09:47:17 PM »
...Reality is that most of the content moderation is generated by the algorithms as influenced by the woke writers and the woke nannies who can force a decision.  There's nothing stopping twitter from putting control of those decisions in their users hands.  Heck, there's nothing stopping them from keeping the woke nannies and letting you opt in.  The goal is that others should be able to opt out.

Why are you so scared of letting others make their own decisions on this?

Wikipedia uses a form of mob rule where all posters can express pro or con comments on input they disagree with. Most input is fairly well documented - but a few years ago one of the Wikipedia founders admitted he personally took down thousands of scientific documentations on Global Cooling because it countered his personal beliefs in AGW. No apologies for doing so - just more ends justifies the means.

This is one of the aspects Musk has targeted. Too much disinformation spread as truth without any attempt at real documentation., and vice- versa, truth attacked as disinformation because the mods don't like to be out-argued.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: #Tweetstorm 14:1-5
« Reply #67 on: May 09, 2022, 08:15:09 AM »
Or disinformation attacked as disinformation, like when Alex Jones got the boot for saying the Sandy Hook Massacre was not real. Which was doing real harm, as proven by a court judgement. Musk's "all things legal standard" would have ignored his dangerous disinformation. Note that what he did wasn't illegal, as in criminal, at least no one has tried to charge him criminally.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: #Tweetstorm 14:1-5
« Reply #68 on: May 09, 2022, 07:19:46 PM »
Why are you so scared of letting others make their own decisions on this?

January 6th.

You're scared of a protest that went too far?  Or are you scared of the active disinformation campaign pretending that it was an insurrection?  Or are you scared of the abuse of power that involved impeaching a sitting President in connection with it?  Or is it something else?

My guess is that you're not scared at all.  It's just convenient to pretend that something about a protest by a small number of people that didn't go as far as countless other protests that you agree with, somehow is a justification to overrule the right to free speech as too dangerous.  That's the argument of an autocrat.

I mean honestly, the leaking of the draft SC opinion and the targeting of the Justices by protesters seeking to influence their opinions is far more an attack on the operations of our government, than temporarily delaying a ceremonial "counting" of the vote that isn't required under Constitution at all? 

If Jan 6 had been investigated by reasonable people, rather than radical partisans, you might be able to make a persuasive case.  But the world we got is a bunch of known liars who announced their conclusions before they investigated and have done little but grossly abuse their authorities since have controlled the investigation.  So you got nothing persuasive.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: #Tweetstorm 14:1-5
« Reply #69 on: May 09, 2022, 07:22:34 PM »
Or disinformation attacked as disinformation, like when Alex Jones got the boot for saying the Sandy Hook Massacre was not real. Which was doing real harm, as proven by a court judgement. Musk's "all things legal standard" would have ignored his dangerous disinformation. Note that what he did wasn't illegal, as in criminal, at least no one has tried to charge him criminally.

What was dangerous about it?  Seriously, that's like arguing that the crazies who claim the moon landing was fake were dangerous.  Almost as crazy as not banning any talk of COVID escaping from a lab... oh wait, we did do that for no reason that's actually articulable.

Letting Alex Jones speak on this discredited him to virtually everyone that heard him.  Suppressing it would have discredited him to virtually no one.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: #Tweetstorm 14:1-5
« Reply #70 on: May 09, 2022, 07:44:30 PM »
Or disinformation attacked as disinformation, like when Alex Jones got the boot for saying the Sandy Hook Massacre was not real. Which was doing real harm, as proven by a court judgement. Musk's "all things legal standard" would have ignored his dangerous disinformation. Note that what he did wasn't illegal, as in criminal, at least no one has tried to charge him criminally.

What was dangerous about it?  Seriously, that's like arguing that the crazies who claim the moon landing was fake were dangerous.  Almost as crazy as not banning any talk of COVID escaping from a lab... oh wait, we did do that for no reason that's actually articulable.

Letting Alex Jones speak on this discredited him to virtually everyone that heard him.  Suppressing it would have discredited him to virtually no one.

Letting Alex Jones speak got the affected families doxed and death threats. Because crazy to 99.9% of people still leads to a lot of badly misinformed people when your audience is in the millions. I’m not arguing locking him up. Just taking away his megaphone and ability to reach millions.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: #Tweetstorm 14:1-5
« Reply #71 on: May 09, 2022, 08:47:46 PM »
Or disinformation attacked as disinformation, like when Alex Jones got the boot for saying the Sandy Hook Massacre was not real. Which was doing real harm, as proven by a court judgement. Musk's "all things legal standard" would have ignored his dangerous disinformation. Note that what he did wasn't illegal, as in criminal, at least no one has tried to charge him criminally.

What was dangerous about it?  Seriously, that's like arguing that the crazies who claim the moon landing was fake were dangerous.  Almost as crazy as not banning any talk of COVID escaping from a lab... oh wait, we did do that for no reason that's actually articulable.

Letting Alex Jones speak on this discredited him to virtually everyone that heard him.  Suppressing it would have discredited him to virtually no one.

The moon landing hoaxers don't inspire people to make death threats to rocket scientists and people working at SpaceX. If they did, I'd fully expect people to start removing that bull as well.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: #Tweetstorm 14:1-5
« Reply #72 on: May 09, 2022, 08:55:49 PM »
Letting Alex Jones speak got the affected families doxed and death threats. Because crazy to 99.9% of people still leads to a lot of badly misinformed people when your audience is in the millions. I’m not arguing locking him up. Just taking away his megaphone and ability to reach millions.

Making fun of AOC got mini-AOC's family doxed and death threats, Libs of Tiktok?  Doxed and death threats.  Any number of doxed people receive death threats.  Should that be the standard?  Should anyone that's been doxed and threatened have the right to remove the speakers that create the circumstances?

I know you love taking Trump down for Jan 6, but how about taking AOC down for the threats of her followers?  I suspect you believe its "completely different" but it's not.  Its actually exactly the same thing.  Crazy crap AOC says is actually more directly linkable to the harms and threats of her followers than what Trump said.  That's before you even consider, the deliberate calls for dangerous situations and violence from people like Maxine Walters or dozens of others on the left.

I mean heck, Psaki and the Biden administration failed to even pretend to discourage the promotion of dangerous situations for SC justices.  If your Jan 6 fears are even remotely good faith, you should be screaming your head off about their complete disregard for the operations of a entire branch of our government.  Mobs are never supposed to influence the courts (and attempting to influence the decision of a judicial officer is a crime - not sure why people are fixating on the irrelevant classification of documents laws).

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: #Tweetstorm 14:1-5
« Reply #73 on: May 09, 2022, 09:00:58 PM »
Or disinformation attacked as disinformation, like when Alex Jones got the boot for saying the Sandy Hook Massacre was not real. Which was doing real harm, as proven by a court judgement. Musk's "all things legal standard" would have ignored his dangerous disinformation. Note that what he did wasn't illegal, as in criminal, at least no one has tried to charge him criminally.

What was dangerous about it?  Seriously, that's like arguing that the crazies who claim the moon landing was fake were dangerous.  Almost as crazy as not banning any talk of COVID escaping from a lab... oh wait, we did do that for no reason that's actually articulable.

Letting Alex Jones speak on this discredited him to virtually everyone that heard him.  Suppressing it would have discredited him to virtually no one.

The moon landing hoaxers don't inspire people to make death threats to rocket scientists and people working at SpaceX. If they did, I'd fully expect people to start removing that bull as well.

So see my prior post.  Remove all left wing politicians for their inspiring of anti-fa violence.  And no disputing that their responsible, the standard you're articulating is unproven and barely sourced responsibility.   It should apply both ways.

In fact, the people who make death threats should be the ones in trouble, not the people who make the "inspiring" posts (which really aren't inspiring of the conduct).  If real people are connected to the accounts that should be easy to do.  Those death threats are coming electronically, why not dox those people.  Won't take long to week out such illegal content and then there's no more "harm."

So pretty much it's a ridiculous strawman to argue that you have to ban people from stating their opinions because "other people" make death threats.  It's a stupid standard if it's actually applied, but its not actually applied, its just an excuse to ban opinions that you disagree with.  Classic motte and bailey.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: #Tweetstorm 14:1-5
« Reply #74 on: May 09, 2022, 09:22:03 PM »
Making fun of AOC got mini-AOC's family doxed and death threats, Libs of Tiktok?  Doxed and death threats.  Any number of doxed people receive death threats.  Should that be the standard?  Should anyone that's been doxed and threatened have the right to remove the speakers that create the circumstances?

I have a feeling that if Occupy Wall Street were to happen now it would also result in doxxing and death threats, rather than the peaceful protest it was at the time.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: #Tweetstorm 14:1-5
« Reply #75 on: May 09, 2022, 10:32:48 PM »
Quote
In fact, the people who make death threats should be the ones in trouble, not the people who make the "inspiring" posts (which really aren't inspiring of the conduct).  If real people are connected to the accounts that should be easy to do.  Those death threats are coming electronically, why not dox those people.  Won't take long to week out such illegal content and then there's no more "harm."

What exactly do you mean by "in trouble"? If you mean, "with the law" then I agree. If you mean "with the terms of service" I do not. But we just keep going around on this so I withdraw the question. When the first person gets murdered because nobody shut up a maniac, then I hope the "free speech amplified by private companies no matter what it is as long as it isn't illegal" crowd can sleep comfortably with the world unfolding according to their vision, including Musk.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: #Tweetstorm 14:1-5
« Reply #76 on: May 10, 2022, 12:10:09 PM »
Why are you so scared of letting others make their own decisions on this?

January 6th.

You're scared of a protest that went too far?  Or are you scared of the active disinformation campaign pretending that it was an insurrection?  Or are you scared of the abuse of power that involved impeaching a sitting President in connection with it?  Or is it something else?
...

A protest that went too far killing police at the capital? A protest that went too far erecting gallows and saying they were going to hang the vice president and speaker of the house? A protest that lowered the American flag to raise a Trump flag over the capital? A protest fueled by rage generated by lies that the President told? Yes all those things concern me. Impeaching Trump was the least that should be done to that demagogue. There is a direct logical chain from his lies, his rally, his call to march to the capital, to fight to keep from losing your country to the violence at the capital that day. McConnel and Graham saw it that day calling Trump morally and practically responsible for what happened. Prison for incitement would be reasonable. I know incitement is almost impossible to prove in America but he caused death with his words that day.

What scares me is that when you let people form their own information bubbles online all the crazies can find each other and form self reinforcing groups. Getting those 10,000 most extreme people together on one day with the most extreme of those having planned for breaching the capital led to the violence we saw. Without those self reinforcing extremist bubbles most of those people would have never shown up or if they had would have never thought to storm the capital. The same thing is possible on the left if they start going all out on misinformation. Imagine a hypothetical super extremist wing of BLM, ones that say the police are at war with people and they need to respond with a war on the police. Parts of BLM have been suspended on twitter for walking too close to that line and its a good thing. Having those self reinforcing information hate bubbles is dangerous on the right and the left.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: #Tweetstorm 14:1-5
« Reply #77 on: May 10, 2022, 12:27:37 PM »
...
So see my prior post.  Remove all left wing politicians for their inspiring of anti-fa violence.  And no disputing that their responsible, the standard you're articulating is unproven and barely sourced responsibility.   It should apply both ways.

In fact, the people who make death threats should be the ones in trouble, not the people who make the "inspiring" posts (which really aren't inspiring of the conduct).  If real people are connected to the accounts that should be easy to do.  Those death threats are coming electronically, why not dox those people.  Won't take long to week out such illegal content and then there's no more "harm."
...

So I should be free to create an anonymous twitter account post non stop that someone is a Nazi child abuser. Create deep fakes that purport to show them doing those things, publish their address and then be completely free of responsibility if someone gets violent against that person? Even if all that crap is false? Most of it is defamation but that's what you are arguing for, twitter can't stop me. What if my account is anonymous or located in Russia? Can't sue then, it just gets to stay up and continue defaming and ruining peoples lives? Free speech right? Twitter just has to host and broadcast to the world the most despicable content that damages reputations and lives because ... freedom?

No one is arguing that these people go to jail for their lies and disinformation. Just that we let platforms have some standards as to what is acceptable and help prevent radicalization and extremism. Should twitter have kept ISIS accounts active? Help them broadcast their message of hate to the world and recruit more followers?

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: #Tweetstorm 14:1-5
« Reply #78 on: May 10, 2022, 12:38:21 PM »
Quote
Remove all left wing politicians for their inspiring of anti-fa violence

I would love to see the attempt to paint Bernie Sanders as someone inspiring violence. Just saying that something is wrong and should be fixed is not inciting violence. Mitch McConnell, for all that I dislike him, is not culpable. The politicians on the left are not the ones posing with rifles and spouting quotes about refreshing the tree of liberty with blood. Repeating over and over how tyranny must be opposed with armed rebellion. And calling left wing politicians tyrants.

Ouija Nightmare

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: #Tweetstorm 14:1-5
« Reply #79 on: May 10, 2022, 02:26:30 PM »
...
So see my prior post.  Remove all left wing politicians for their inspiring of anti-fa violence.  And no disputing that their responsible, the standard you're articulating is unproven and barely sourced responsibility.   It should apply both ways.

In fact, the people who make death threats should be the ones in trouble, not the people who make the "inspiring" posts (which really aren't inspiring of the conduct).  If real people are connected to the accounts that should be easy to do.  Those death threats are coming electronically, why not dox those people.  Won't take long to week out such illegal content and then there's no more "harm."
...

So I should be free to create an anonymous twitter account post non stop that someone is a Nazi child abuser. Create deep fakes that purport to show them doing those things, publish their address and then be completely free of responsibility if someone gets violent against that person? Even if all that crap is false? Most of it is defamation but that's what you are arguing for, twitter can't stop me. What if my account is anonymous or located in Russia? Can't sue then, it just gets to stay up and continue defaming and ruining peoples lives? Free speech right? Twitter just has to host and broadcast to the world the most despicable content that damages reputations and lives because ... freedom?

No one is arguing that these people go to jail for their lies and disinformation. Just that we let platforms have some standards as to what is acceptable and help prevent radicalization and extremism. Should twitter have kept ISIS accounts active? Help them broadcast their message of hate to the world and recruit more followers?

There’s an import point we need to know before making that assessment.

Have you ever enjoyed reading books. More importantly have you ever participated in activities associating with those vile creatures known as librarians?



Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: #Tweetstorm 14:1-5
« Reply #80 on: May 10, 2022, 02:26:59 PM »
A protest that went too far killing police at the capital?

And this is why your team should never be in charge of the levers of censorship.  It's a bold and repeated lie that a police officer was killed.  Of the seven deaths "connected" to the Jan. 6 riot only Ashley Babbit was actually killed by an intentional act.  2 other civilians died of natural causes - heart attack and stroke that were most likely aggravated by the events, and 1 civilian died of a drug overdose and may have been trampled.

3 officers died. 2 killed themselves after that day and the only one actually reported as killed during the protest died from a series of strokes.  It was never the case that any of them were killed during the riot.

So no, it's active disinformation on your part to push that angle.

Quote
A protest that went too far erecting gallows and saying they were going to hang the vice president and speaker of the house?

Symbolism.  Do I need to go back and find old posts made on this board about such classic "legitimate" protests as Kathy Griffith with Trump's severed head?   Or how about all the times Trump or another Republican have been hung in effigy?  What makes one thing political speech and the other your form of a nightmare?  Heck, it only takes a second to pull up hundreds of such images on google.  Yet, I've NEVER ONCE heard you call for banning anyone who has shared them on social media.  Seems to me that the only difference in content you don't have a problem with and that which is terrifying demonstrates a clear need to erase the rights of the people is which team generated it.

Quote
A protest that lowered the American flag to raise a Trump flag over the capital?

That's an obscure reference.  I find one article on it that says a flag was torn down from a balcony and that an attempt to replace it occurred.  I'm not struck by any particular feeling that this was even remotely the most egregious thing that's happened to a flag at a legitimate protest let alone a riot.  In fact there are thousands of images of worse happening to flags at left wing protests that you've never condemned.

Sounds like this is just part of a laundry list compiled by someone else.

Quote
A protest fueled by rage generated by lies that the President told?

I agree, but Biden wasn't yet the President at that time, so I'd rephrase it as lies a candidate told.  Maybe that's a little too generous, Biden's senile, its really the lies of his handlers.

Quote
Yes all those things concern me.

No they don't, if they did, you'd have a consistent position when they occur based on the events themselves, but that's not the case.  You have no problem with worse acts being ignored, endorsed or even amplified if they come from the proper team.

Quote
Impeaching Trump was the least that should be done to that demagogue.

Impeachment was an abuse of political power by Pelosi and her gang.  It's diminished us all to impeach a President twice without a basis in a high crime or misdemeanor.  In fact, it was beyond an abuse to impeach Trump for the high crimes of Biden and his son.

Quote
There is a direct logical chain from his lies, his rally, his call to march to the capital, to fight to keep from losing your country to the violence at the capital that day.

There's a direct logical chain from creating a system of voting that is susceptible to fraud, impossible to verify, impossible to challenge and impossible to overturn, to creating distrust in the results of the elections held by those votes.  There's a direct logical chain extending from efforts of one party to maximize the opportunities to commit fraud and eliminate any ability to catch fraud and people in the other party determining the elections are suspect.

There's no logic at all for anyone that claims they want to have fair elections to oppose efforts to make it verifiable that they were fair.  Yet that's where we find ourselves, the party that claims its impossible for cheating to influence an election will fight to the death to make it impossible to catch cheating.

In any event, Trump had and has every right to claim he was cheated.  He'll never be able to prove it because there is no way to verify the fraud.  There's also NO WAY to verify that the results were legitimate but this all about burden shifting.  There's more than enough evidence of illegal influence on the election, of illegal voting and even of systematic activities that would be capable of generating a fraudulent result, but there will never be any proof and in our system the, generally, impossible burden is on the person that loses the official election.

Quote
McConnel and Graham saw it that day calling Trump morally and practically responsible for what happened.

"Practically responsible" I love that part of the criminal code.  You've found guilty beyond the shadow of.. oh wait.. I mean you're "practically responsible," so we'll roast you alive.  Nothing Trump said even remotely approaches the legal standards for incitement, which is the only even barely plausible basis such a claim.

And McConnel and Graham, and really most all politicians, are in the same boat.  They know the elections are not secure, but their own power is only created by those elections.  In admitting the truth they'd be admitted to the risk that none of them are exercising legitimate authority.  Don't get me wrong, most would still be in power with a verified legitimate election, but none of them are really sure they'd be part of the "most" and I'm sure many of them already know they wouldn't be.

Quote
Prison for incitement would be reasonable. I know incitement is almost impossible to prove in America but he caused death with his words that day.

His words weren't even close to incitement.  This is just you calling for the imprisonment of political prisoners.  Congrats on advocating openly for becoming a banana republic.

It's also a lie that his words caused death.  Even if you wanted to run with such a crazy theory, there are many many people more directly responsible, including Pelosi - without whose decisions the riot never gets passed being a protest; the media - whose lies and manipulations tilted the election and without which it was probably Trump being inaugerated that day - granted more people may have died in that circumstance because the left would have openly advocated for violence (and you'd have been on here telling us how it was justified and not how its so scary that your own opinions as a member of the left need to be permanently banned from social media).

Quote
What scares me is that when you let people form their own information bubbles online all the crazies can find each other and form self reinforcing groups.

Given some of the nonsense you repeated above, you may be more unaware of when an information bubble has formed than you think.  A lot of your claims are contrary to reality or even known to be debunked, yet they keep re-appearing from the those bubbles.

Quote
Getting those 10,000 most extreme people together on one day with the most extreme of those having planned for breaching the capital led to the violence we saw.

Lol.  Seriously, most of the people involved were less extreme than the average left wing protestor.  Some were very extreme, but even they are far less extreme than the molotov cocktail and rock throwing anit-fas that are a constant hallmark of the riots endorsed by the left, let alone the actual insurrectionists that set up the CHAZ-CHOP in Seattle.

Quote
Without those self reinforcing extremist bubbles most of those people would have never shown up or if they had would have never thought to storm the capital. The same thing is possible on the left if they start going all out on misinformation.

The delusion here is amazing.  The left is the party of propaganda, misinformation and disinformation.  I mean honestly, the left immediately and falsely labelled this an "insurrection."  That's an active disinformation claim - it was obvious from the start that it was a rally that turned into a generally low energy riot.  Nothing but inadequate security kept it from getting out of hand as there was absolutely no evidence of planning to invade the capital by the crowd as a whole.  The left - including the media - has repeatedly labelled Trump's claims about the election as a Big Lie - they're not, they're an opinion that is more reasonable than they'd like to admit.  What is a Big Lie is the medias false claims about the election itself.  They didn't verify it's legitimacy, because the truth is they CAN'T do it either.  No one can.  Leftists are right now passing around intentional disinformation about what's in the SC opinion overturning Roe, what it means if Roe is overturned (i.e., telling people that abortion becomes illegal rather than a decision of the state) and literally calling for direct action against and even violence targeting the SC to try and illegally interfere with their judgement. 

The left is literally doing exactly what they claimed Trump was doing, but that Trump didn't do.

Quote
Imagine a hypothetical super extremist wing of BLM, ones that say the police are at war with people and they need to respond with a war on the police.

That's actually just mainstream BLM for the most part.  Did you want to create something even more extreme?

Quote
Parts of BLM have been suspended on twitter for walking too close to that line and its a good thing.

And yet the Southern Poverty Law Center is still used as a trusted source for moderation decisions. 

Quote
Having those self reinforcing information hate bubbles is dangerous on the right and the left.

True, but this isn't a both sides do it problem for the most part.  Its a problem of the left that's magnified by their overwhelming control of the media and social media.  Being a Democrat is the ultimate in "priviledge" when it comes to expressing opinions and hearing opinions you want to hear.  If we had balance in the market place of ideas the ideas of the left would have to have merit to win the day, instead they just look to clear the field so they're all that's left.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: #Tweetstorm 14:1-5
« Reply #81 on: May 10, 2022, 03:17:07 PM »
...

Symbolism.  Do I need to go back and find old posts made on this board about such classic "legitimate" protests as Kathy Griffith with Trump's severed head?   Or how about all the times Trump or another Republican have been hung in effigy?  What makes one thing political speech and the other your form of a nightmare?  Heck, it only takes a second to pull up hundreds of such images on google.  Yet, I've NEVER ONCE heard you call for banning anyone who has shared them on social media.  Seems to me that the only difference in content you don't have a problem with and that which is terrifying demonstrates a clear need to erase the rights of the people is which team generated it.
...

I don't troll around on those parts of the internet and am largely off social media. Hanging in effigy has a history, good or bad. I generally wouldn't consider simply those images to be calling for acts of violence. They walk the line and I really have no issue if twitter/youtube/facebook ban people who repost them, particularly if they add violent captions.

I'm more concerned about the information bubbles, of which you think I'm a part of despite not being on any real social media. But largely because I don't believe the things you do about "Hunter Biden's" laptop. Hunter got a cushy job because his dad was vice president. The evidence indicates he committed some tax law violations and potentially some foreign lobbying standards. The DOJ is currently investigating with a grand jury. Maybe he goes to jail. Maybe Biden pardons him. Maybe he gets acquitted. I don't believe the narrative that the laptop was his and contained child porn and the FBI ignored that and said lets go after him for tax evasion instead.

Are you claiming that the Republican administrations in Georgia and Arizona were in deep with the Democrats to rig the election against Trump? Our election has good fraud controls, not perfect fraud controls. States are getting better about auditing standards and verification. They aren't perfect, but they aren't is no way to prove any fraud. See Mark Meadows. See the idiot Republican in Pennsylvania who got caught voting for his dead mother. Clearly there are controls in place that flag this issues and allow them to be detected. Did we catch every individual who double voted? No. Was there potentially some small time ballet harvester out there? Probably. Are the controls and investigations good enough to detect something on the order of 10,000 votes? Yes. So quit equating I no one can verify that 100% of votes are valid with we can say with a very high degree of confidence that 99.99% of votes are valid.

For the BLM lets take it one step farther than the war language. If there was an account that was doxing police officers and making repeated claims that the doxed officers were part of a secret death squad that was running around killing black people. Maybe they mix some real police violence video in with some selectively edited and doctored up. Does that cross the line for you? It does for me. I don't want that community building up to the size of millions the way Alex Jones did. Its dangerous. So do you support taking something like that off twitter and twitter has taken down things on the left that are much milder than that. You just don't hear much about it because none of the absolutely disconnected from reality people on the left rise to reach an audience of millions before they get de-platformed.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: #Tweetstorm 14:1-5
« Reply #82 on: May 10, 2022, 05:02:35 PM »
So I should be free to create an anonymous twitter account post non stop that someone is a Nazi child abuser.

Nope, you should be free to do that from your personal account and to own the consequences of that decision, including that your victim would likely win a defamation case against you.  Anonymous trolls are part of the problem.  But should you be banned, and silenced?

What if it turns out that the person is question really is a Nazi that escaped justice that is abusing children?

Quote
Create deep fakes that purport to show them doing those things, publish their address and then be completely free of responsibility if someone gets violent against that person?

Free of responsibility?  Nope.  And I don't read Elon as claiming that he's going to support the creation of completely anonymous attack accounts.  In fact, he's commitment to trying to end the use of bot accounts, which I interpret to mean that he's looking to make you responsible for your own posted content.

Quote
Even if all that crap is false? Most of it is defamation but that's what you are arguing for, twitter can't stop me.

Nope.  Never argued for your strawman, neither did Elon.  Defamation is illegal, it would get pulled down if you couldn't adequately defend it and you'd be liable for it.

Quote
What if my account is anonymous or located in Russia? Can't sue then, it just gets to stay up and continue defaming and ruining peoples lives? Free speech right?

Still illegal, per Musk's statements it would come down.

Quote
Twitter just has to host and broadcast to the world the most despicable content that damages reputations and lives because ... freedom?

Because strawman.  Honestly, even if what you claimed were the case, if you have solid filters you never have to see that content - nor does anyone else.  If you have control of the nanny filters, you could downgrade that type of content.  And heck, nothing stops them from developing even better tech.  Maybe you'll be able to follow the filters of others, or contribute a group filter, or even opt into the exact nanny filters you'd prefer to impose on everyone else.

Quote
No one is arguing that these people go to jail for their lies and disinformation.

No one is arguing that today.  Yesterday no one was arguing that it was okay to strip away peoples speech rights, or okay to get people fired for stating fairly mainstream politic views, or for contributing to campaigns, no one was doxing private donors to charities, or claiming that Congress has the right to demand phone records of their oppponents without a warrant.

I have no doubt that the next obvious step will be to jail people for disinformation.  After all you've already made the case that medical disinformation could cause a harm, just like Trump's "practically responsible," so to would be the person that spread such disapproved information.  There is no question that's where this is headed.

Quote
Just that we let platforms have some standards as to what is acceptable and help prevent radicalization and extremism. Should twitter have kept ISIS accounts active? Help them broadcast their message of hate to the world and recruit more followers?

Twitter still has active accounts from terrorists, and leaders of terrorist nations, they have zero problem spreading racist messages so long as they say they're anti-racist.  Why is that okay and only the opinions of your political opponents are labelled as dangerous?

You're not advocating for standards, you're advocating for censorship.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: #Tweetstorm 14:1-5
« Reply #83 on: May 10, 2022, 05:26:12 PM »
Getting rid of the bot's and fake accounts will go along way in cleaning things up.
I also think twitter users should not be anonymous. If you going to say something stand by it.

The form of communication is still to linear for my liking.  Probably why its so easy to miniplate. 

I'm pretty sure were years away from fully understanding the impact of this type of communication. That guy in the Philippines has been pretty good at manipulating it and even re-writing his fathers history.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: #Tweetstorm 14:1-5
« Reply #84 on: May 10, 2022, 05:58:39 PM »
Are you claiming that the Republican administrations in Georgia and Arizona were in deep with the Democrats to rig the election against Trump?

It doesn't take deep, it takes just little bits.  GA settled a suit by DNC activists prior to the election by agreeing to override multiple legislature approved controls on the election.   There were direct, measurable impacts of that settlement on how votes were counted, what was deemed a legal vote and the measures taken to validate they were cast by legal voters.  All those settlements were in favor of counting illegal and fraudulent votes rather than risking excluding a vote.  Raffensberger signed that settlement in a suit led by none other than Marc Elias of Perkins Coie.  Based on that action alone, Raffensberger had a self-interest in ensuring that the results of the election not be overturned - which would review his own participation in fraud and in illegally modifying the vote rules to permit that fraud.  Big surprise he also rigidly controlled and prevented any outside review of the underlying election materials. 

Don't know as much about AZ.

Quote
Our election has good fraud controls, not perfect fraud controls. States are getting better about auditing standards and verification. They aren't perfect, but they aren't is no way to prove any fraud. See Mark Meadows. See the idiot Republican in Pennsylvania who got caught voting for his dead mother. Clearly there are controls in place that flag this issues and allow them to be detected.

Yep, you can - in some circumstances - catch a dead voter, if they vote by mail and if the envelope is post marked and retained.  There are very few controls on the actual kinds of mail voter fraud that most likely influenced the election.  Voting stolen or abondoned ballots - particularly in the jurisdictions controlled by Dems that mailed unsolicited live ballots, manipulating the votes of the elderly - even when caught difficult to prove, heck stuffing extra ballots held in trunks under tables into the official tally after the observers leave (but forgetting about a security camera).  Even with witnesses, avadavits and other circumstantial evidence impossible catch or undo once the ballots are actually tallied (which de-links them from any security measures entirely). 

Heck, multiple Dem controlled jurisdictions not only used Covid as an excuse to ban effective poll watchers by forcing them to be at a distance, some went further and actually erected visual barricades to prevent poll watchers from seeing.  Cause that's the "hallmark of free and fair elections," literally preventing poll watchers from being able to watch the ballots be tallied.

Quote
Did we catch every individual who double voted? No. Was there potentially some small time ballet harvester out there? Probably. Are the controls and investigations good enough to detect something on the order of 10,000 votes? Yes. So quit equating I no one can verify that 100% of votes are valid with we can say with a very high degree of confidence that 99.99% of votes are valid.

Except nothing you just claimed is based on anything but speculation.  There is no confidence of 99.99%, there is no confidence at all.  There were massive ballot harvesting operations, that's just a fact.  They involved thousands of politically active and even radical collectors that collected hundreds of thousands if not millions of votes.  In many locations more than enough to tip the election.  And there's no reason more reason to believe that more than a tiny fraction are legitimate than to believe that virtually all were.  There is no verifiable evidence, and there are numerous accounts of what appeared to be fraud.

Quote
For the BLM lets take it one step farther than the war language. If there was an account that was doxing police officers and making repeated claims that the doxed officers were part of a secret death squad that was running around killing black people. Maybe they mix some real police violence video in with some selectively edited and doctored up. Does that cross the line for you? It does for me.

I would be more than happy for Congress to pass a law that criminalizes the intentional doxxing of a person.  Maybe ask yourself why they haven't before you clamor for business to censor people at the behest of political insiders - which is exactly what they are doing.

Quote
I don't want that community building up to the size of millions the way Alex Jones did. Its dangerous. So do you support taking something like that off twitter and twitter has taken down things on the left that are much milder than that. You just don't hear much about it because none of the absolutely disconnected from reality people on the left rise to reach an audience of millions before they get de-platformed.

Again, Alex Jones spread conspiracy theories and was known for that.  You have liberals that spread hate and conspiracy theories, like say Joy Reid with her 2.1 million twitter followers and television hosting gig that are not only completely unhinged but also not taken down and in fact repeatedly amplified.  Or people like Adam Schiff, with his 3 million followers, who've used their seat in the House to spread outright lies and disinformation free from any risk of punishment at law, and have faced absolutely no consequences on twitter for their role in spreading dangerous disinformation.  Many of his lies have been amplified by twitter statements and no response.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: #Tweetstorm 14:1-5
« Reply #85 on: May 11, 2022, 01:36:59 PM »
...

Quote
I don't want that community building up to the size of millions the way Alex Jones did. Its dangerous. So do you support taking something like that off twitter and twitter has taken down things on the left that are much milder than that. You just don't hear much about it because none of the absolutely disconnected from reality people on the left rise to reach an audience of millions before they get de-platformed.

Again, Alex Jones spread conspiracy theories and was known for that.  You have liberals that spread hate and conspiracy theories, like say Joy Reid with her 2.1 million twitter followers and television hosting gig that are not only completely unhinged but also not taken down and in fact repeatedly amplified.  Or people like Adam Schiff, with his 3 million followers, who've used their seat in the House to spread outright lies and disinformation free from any risk of punishment at law, and have faced absolutely no consequences on twitter for their role in spreading dangerous disinformation.  Many of his lies have been amplified by twitter statements and no response.

Is Joy Reid a host of the view? Name sounds familiar. If she is actively spreading lies and hate then report the posts to twitter and ask for her account to be banned. I really have no problem taking megaphones away from people who sow division through lies and misinformation.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: #Tweetstorm 14:1-5
« Reply #86 on: May 11, 2022, 01:47:15 PM »
From what I've seen in the progression of Musk's tweets on the subject, by the time he actually owns Twitter he'll have come around to essentially the current moderation policies. Once you get past the Right's delusion of persecution, you're confronted with the fact that existing policies are the content-based equivalent of tombstone technology. Most rules exist because their absence proved their necessity.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: #Tweetstorm 14:1-5
« Reply #87 on: May 11, 2022, 01:56:13 PM »
From what I've seen in the progression of Musk's tweets on the subject, by the time he actually owns Twitter he'll have come around to essentially the current moderation policies. Once you get past the Right's delusion of persecution, you're confronted with the fact that existing policies are the content-based equivalent of tombstone technology. Most rules exist because their absence proved their necessity.

His statements have been essentially that unless it is criminal for twitter to publish it, it will be allowed.  Twitter is more substantially more stringent than that.  Twitter has policies on disinformation and abusive behavior that it at least gives occasional weak enforcement of (if you are famous it is really really difficult to have twitter enforce the policies, if you are a nobody they are more likely to do so).

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: #Tweetstorm 14:1-5
« Reply #88 on: May 11, 2022, 02:02:18 PM »
His statements have been essentially that unless it is criminal for twitter to publish it, it will be allowed.  Twitter is more substantially more stringent than that.  Twitter has policies on disinformation and abusive behavior that it at least gives occasional weak enforcement of (if you are famous it is really really difficult to have twitter enforce the policies, if you are a nobody they are more likely to do so).

I think he's had more tweets as he's realized the shortcomings of allowing any legal speech.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: #Tweetstorm 14:1-5
« Reply #89 on: May 11, 2022, 02:10:05 PM »
The funny thing is you'd think it's actually advantageous to have nefarious people posting on Twitter, because then there's a public log of all their statements.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: #Tweetstorm 14:1-5
« Reply #90 on: May 11, 2022, 02:11:36 PM »
...

Quote
Our election has good fraud controls, not perfect fraud controls. States are getting better about auditing standards and verification. They aren't perfect, but they aren't is no way to prove any fraud. See Mark Meadows. See the idiot Republican in Pennsylvania who got caught voting for his dead mother. Clearly there are controls in place that flag this issues and allow them to be detected.

Yep, you can - in some circumstances - catch a dead voter, if they vote by mail and if the envelope is post marked and retained.  There are very few controls on the actual kinds of mail voter fraud that most likely influenced the election.  Voting stolen or abondoned ballots - particularly in the jurisdictions controlled by Dems that mailed unsolicited live ballots, manipulating the votes of the elderly - even when caught difficult to prove, heck stuffing extra ballots held in trunks under tables into the official tally after the observers leave (but forgetting about a security camera).  Even with witnesses, avadavits and other circumstantial evidence impossible catch or undo once the ballots are actually tallied (which de-links them from any security measures entirely). 
...

Voting stolen ballots would be rather obvious when the person to whom the ballot was sent to shows up to vote and is informed they have already voted. Voting abandoned ballots risks the same discovery method. Instead of collecting lots of cell phone tracking data to discover mules. Maybe they could have just accessed the public voting records from jurisdictions that they think fraud occurred. Have a phone poll and ask people about their election participation. If someone says no they didn't vote, you have your evidence of a crime. If there are 100,000s of thousands of these people and you know which jurisdictions they are in then that type of polling operation can't be much more expensive than buying up all that cell phone data and tracking down surveillance footage to splice together in a misleading way. But no one decided to find any evidence of fraud (or they did try and failed so they said nothing). Trump had 500 million dollars to spend on this. The fact he didn't pursue any real investigations should tell you what he really thinks. You can do data analysis comparing polling, past voting results, historical voter turnout, with what happened in the current election and get circumstantial evidence for fraud. The right hasn't done any of that. The suitcases myth you are spreading is more disinformation. The Georgia SBI looked at the video and concluded those weren't suitcases but just the regular secure ballot storage cases. Nothing weird, other than a late call to ask people to stay late because of all the pressure to get things counted fast and Republican legislatures refusing to allow for the processing of mail in ballots before election day.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: #Tweetstorm 14:1-5
« Reply #91 on: May 11, 2022, 02:12:24 PM »
But what if they are not able to remember what they posted?  I mean maybe it was their assistant? Or someone hacked their account? Or they were drunk? I  mean people can not be held responsible for what they post?  Just ask MTG.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: #Tweetstorm 14:1-5
« Reply #92 on: May 12, 2022, 11:14:53 AM »
And how about libel?  Will Twitter allow libelous tweets?

But how will Twitter determine a tweet is libelous until after it is proven in court?  But to get a judgement, you have to show that actual harm to a person's reputation was done.  So Twitter will ban libelous content only after it has helped to cause harm to a person or a company?  ???

And how hard it is going to be for companies to sue Twitter for libelous content that they say Twitter should have know was libelous?  Sure, they may lose in court most of the time, but how many times will it take before Twitter decides it doesn't want to be sued anymore?  ;D

As NobelHunter pointed out, Twitter's current moderation polices didn't come from out of the blue, or from some hopes of censoring a specific ideology.  They came from experience, and from responding to the problems they had without these policies. 

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: #Tweetstorm 14:1-5
« Reply #93 on: May 12, 2022, 12:03:11 PM »
But how will Twitter determine a tweet is libelous until after it is proven in court?  But to get a judgement, you have to show that actual harm to a person's reputation was done.  So Twitter will ban libelous content only after it has helped to cause harm to a person or a company?  ???

And how hard it is going to be for companies to sue Twitter for libelous content that they say Twitter should have know was libelous?  Sure, they may lose in court most of the time, but how many times will it take before Twitter decides it doesn't want to be sued anymore?  ;D

Wait, I don't get it. Why is Twitter any different from some other media publication in this sense? If something is printed that's libelous you sue the person making the statement. You *might* ask for a retraction if it's a reporter saying it erroneously in a story, but if it's an op-ed you can't sue the newspaper for it! Part of this goes to Seriati's point about the identity of the users being transparent. I sort of like the South Korea system where internet usage requires your social identity being linked to your account. No throwaways.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: #Tweetstorm 14:1-5
« Reply #94 on: May 12, 2022, 12:08:34 PM »
The problem is that "all legal speech" means Twitter can't delete tweets that are only potentially libellous.

yossarian22c

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: #Tweetstorm 14:1-5
« Reply #95 on: May 12, 2022, 12:28:12 PM »
The problem is that "all legal speech" means Twitter can't delete tweets that are only potentially libellous.

All legal speech includes a lot of stuff. Revenge porn is legal in a lot of states. Break up with someone with nude photos of you in the wrong state and they can splash them on your twitter feed or @/# them at you (however that works). Sure you can block/filter it but do all your friends and family have it blocked? Its legal, can't take it down. Can't ban the person who did it. Someone wants to recruit for the local KKK, plan rallies outside black churches on Sunday mornings. Not illegal they haven't killed anyone yet. Someone wants to take photos of cops in front of their house with the location tagged, post it with the question "Are they part of a death squad targeting minorities?" Answer is no. Just a question probably walks the line very close to illegal speech but would take a court case to decide. Libel and defamation are very hard to prove. It isn't an immediate call for violence. Just take a look at what the "all legal speech" zones of the internet become? Extremist hotbeds and recruiting grounds, Islamic terrorists, neo-nazi racists, et all. Musk may do us all a favor and kill twitter as a mainstream tool. But I doubt he wants to completely lose his investment. So he'll probably just relax the moderation a little. Do a couple high profile things like let Trump back on. And then start banning activists in Taiwan. Got to keep the Tesla supply chain from China flowing.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: #Tweetstorm 14:1-5
« Reply #96 on: May 12, 2022, 01:06:29 PM »
I mean let's be fair: I think Musk's main objection is to having particular political viewpoints given advantageous treatment on left-leaning platforms, which in reality should be regulated more like public utilities. And I agree in general with that assessment. You should not be denied internet by your ISP for being a Republican, a Klan member, or anything else that doesn't conform with a good-looking optic from the point of view of the board. I think there are a lot of fringe cases (such as revenge porn) which were not at the forefront of his mind as he came up with the idea that Twitter should be more of a public square and less of an echo chamber. That may mean he has more work cut out for him than he would have thought. But I don't think it's reasonable to throw the baby out with the bathwater and insist that the goal of taking away bias in moderation means he has to let everything under the sun exist on Twitter. Yes, his statements literally imply he will do almost no moderation, but let's give him the benefit of doubt until proven otherwise and see how he deals with these fringe cases. It's not exactly like it's easy. But the fact that it's hard doesn't make his main view wrong per se.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: #Tweetstorm 14:1-5
« Reply #97 on: May 13, 2022, 03:24:34 PM »

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: #Tweetstorm 14:1-5
« Reply #98 on: May 16, 2022, 08:24:24 PM »
Quote
Porn: Pornography is legal is the U.S. Expect large amounts of it in the New Twitter. Some of the acts might be very gross. Revenge porn (naked photos or videos of your ex posted with the intent to humiliate that person) are legal in some places and illegal in others. Expect lots of it from people who live in states that don't have laws against it.

The bottom line it that, to save his bottom line, Twitter isn't going to be that much different from what it is today, as far as censoring content is concerned.  Otherwise, it will probably disappear as a go-to place for content.

Uhhh, there was pornographic content on Twitter well before Musk bought out Twitter, and it was allowed under the TOS, there simply were restrictions when it came imagery which also exist under US Law, and additional proscriptions where real people were involved.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: #Tweetstorm 14:1-5
« Reply #99 on: May 16, 2022, 08:30:09 PM »
For those interested, there's an in-depth article published by the Brookings Institution.

Quote
Segregating ourselves so we do not have to listen to people who differ from us is not a remedy for the information externalities that make hate speech and misinformation so dangerous even to people who are not exposed to it. People cannot remain indifferent to what other people in society believe because what other people believe affects them. If enough people reject vaccines and other public health measures, we are all at risk from the next pandemic. If enough people become racists or intolerant of the LGBTQ community, significant parts of our community are not safe in their own society. And how are we going to agree on what to teach our children if there is no uniform public platform where we can exchange ideas?

By the same token, you do realize just how insulting it is that many people seem firmly convinced that there are "Millions of racists in waiting" just needing to encounter that one moment where another racist says just the right thing and BOOM they're instantly transformed into a diehard racist who thinks the German SS didn't go far enough.