Merged: Musk buys Twitter!/ Elon Musk puts Twitter deal on hold....

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Quote:

If Musk actually attempts to implement an If-it's-legal-then-it's-allowed policy, then it will not last more than a week. Spam, targeted harassment, doxxing, and even some forms of threat and defamation will be on the table.

This is a peculiar complaint, given that threats and defamation are already not legal and so would be prohibited under such a scenario.

A few problems....

- Cases of threats and defamation may be illegal (or subject to civil penalties), but threats may not be treated seriously by the government, and launching a civil case (in order to handle defamation) is a costly undertaking for some people

- The relatively long delays in bringing a case to trial means that a person will have to be exposed to those sorts of things for an extended period of time

[Frank Newgent]

Why is twitter such a big deal? Here in the US about one in five use it to express opinions. I don´t understand the fuss.

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B

Silly me.

My thought was that the stock might really go up with Musk in charge.

Kinda missed the implications of the whole “going private” part.

You’re not the only person I’ve heard that didn’t understand that. At least you didn’t say it o no the radio.

Also, not a bad return if he can close it in 30 days.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

A few problems....

- Cases of threats and defamation may be illegal (or subject to civil penalties), but threats may not be treated seriously by the government, and launching a civil case (in order to handle defamation) is a costly undertaking for some people

- The relatively long delays in bringing a case to trial means that a person will have to be exposed to those sorts of things for an extended period of time

I think you are confused. Nothing about Musk’s statements even suggests that Twitter should not or would not take action in such cases. Quite the opposite, in fact. These are precisely the sort of cases wher he’s saying they should take action.

[mumblethrax]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

A few problems....

- Cases of threats and defamation may be illegal (or subject to civil penalties), but threats may not be treated seriously by the government, and launching a civil case (in order to handle defamation) is a costly undertaking for some people

- The relatively long delays in bringing a case to trial means that a person will have to be exposed to those sorts of things for an extended period of time

There's also the problem that Twitter's liabilities differ from those of its users. They are not responsibly for defamatory content posted by their users, for example. "If it's legal, it's permitted" has an ambiguous referent, but why would a free speech maximalist have a policy against defamatory speech if he didn't have to?

[The Great Zaganza]

The fact that Musk wants to take Twitter off the stock market suggests that he wants to do things that don't comply with financial oversight.

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

There's also the problem that Twitter's liabilities differ from those of its users. They are not responsibly for defamatory content posted by their users, for example. "If it's legal, it's permitted" has an ambiguous referent, but why would a free speech maximalist have a policy against defamatory speech if he didn't have to?

Free speech maximalism makes little sense. A person declaring they will not allow any of a certain content on their property is engaging in free speech. It is all speech.

[mumblethrax]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

Free speech maximalism makes little sense. A person declaring they will not allow any of a certain content on their property is engaging in free speech. It is all speech.

So a permissive publication cannot be distinguished from a censorious one. You, like Musk, have an incoherent theory of free speech.

[catsmate]

Excellent news.
Both for the shareholders, who've offloaded an eternally unprofitable albatross, and governments (as he'll rapidly justify massive state regulation of social media).

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by catsmate

Excellent news.
Both for the shareholders, who've offloaded an eternally unprofitable albatross, and governments (as he'll rapidly justify massive state regulation of social media).

Why would that happen?

I know that there is talk of modifying Section 230, which right-wingers (and some on the left) have been demanding.

The right-wingers are not going to like it when they get what they want, but why should there be massive state regulation of social media?

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Why would that happen?

I know that there is talk of modifying Section 230, which right-wingers (and some on the left) have been demanding.

The right-wingers are not going to like it when they get what they want, but why should there be massive state regulation of social media?

You do realise there's a whole big planet outside the USA? Like the Digital Services Act, which is engendering the expected USAian hysteria.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Frank Newgent

Why is twitter such a big deal? Here in the US about one in five use it to express opinions. I don´t understand the fuss.

Makes life easy for "journalists".

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by catsmate

You do realise there's a whole big planet outside the USA?

Yes, I do.

There is also a world outside the EU. If you want to refer to some EU legislation, maybe give me a hint instead of making people guess at your oblique references.

Originally Posted by catsmate

Like the Digital Services Act, which is engendering the expected USAian hysteria.

I have not heard about it or any hysteria about it. I'll have a look though, thanks

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

So a permissive publication cannot be distinguished from a censorious one. You, like Musk, have an incoherent theory of free speech.

Not along some sense that one is more pro-free speech, no. They are the same.

[Matthew Best]

There’s a lot of whining in this thread and probably for good reason. But at the same time shouldn’t we be celebrating the fact that an African American is now the owner of one of the worlds biggest media outlets?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mumblethrax]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

Not along some sense that one is more pro-free speech, no. They are the same.

Go ahead and characterize the difference without doing so in terms of being more or less pro free speech.

"Censorship is freedom" is an amusingly Orwellian position for a doctrinaire libertarian to land on, but not at all a surprising one.

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

Go ahead and characterize the difference without doing so in terms of being more or less pro free speech.

"Censorship is freedom" is an amusingly Orwellian position for a doctrinaire libertarian to land on, but not at all a surprising one.

When one censors with their property, one is engaging in speech. If I declare I won't bake any cakes with a Christian message, I am engaging in speech. The cake would have been an act of speech, my censorship with my property is an act of speech. Either action increases speech. Heck, they even engaged in speech by telling me their message that was rejected.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by crescent

So the debate:
Is twitter doing this - deleting followers to leftists and adding bot-followers to rightists?
Is Musk doing this via bots? (He does not yet control the company, the legalities will take time)
Or is this just twitter users, left leaning users abandoning twitter and right-leaning users joining (or rejoining, or making use of it again after not quitting but not much making use of it)?

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

It's the last one. It's the only explanation that really makes sense.

A bit of follow-up on this:

https://twitter.com/politicalmath/st...98717714731009

Looks like 2 things happened. First, some users did deactivate accounts, but the numbers were actually fairly small. Your link with stats on Obama's followers show a drop of 5,063 followers. But that's out of 131,761,904 million followers. That's 0.004%.

But the second thing which happened, and which your links didn't show, is that some of the freakout about this was due to a change in rounding which some people didn't notice. So it made some people think that there were much bigger dropoffs than there actually were. See link for more details.

[mumblethrax]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

When one censors with their property, one is engaging in speech.

This is immaterial. The question is whether an act of censorship can be characterized as promoting free speech.

Quote:

If I declare I won't bake any cakes with a Christian message, I am engaging in speech.

You've twice conflated declaring an intention to do something with actually doing it. This is a tell--you don't consider your position strong enough to defend without this sleight of hand.

Quote:

The cake would have been an act of speech, my censorship with my property is an act of speech. Either action increases speech. Heck, they even engaged in speech by telling me their message that was rejected.

Like I said, this is incoherent. You could just as easily characterize state censorship as a speech act, and claim that the state censoring speech "increases speech". This is foolish, since an act of censorship definitionally limits free speech (ie, free expression), and the relevant question is whether it creates an environment conducive to free speech, not how much speech there is in toto. Totalitarian societies have no problem generating huge quantities of propaganda, which also counts as speech, so I'm afraid just weighing up all the utterances in the world is not a useful exercise.

You've also failed to characterize the difference between our two hypothetical publications without doing so in terms of their attitudes towards free speech, the only thing I asked you to do.

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

This is immaterial. The question is whether an act of censorship can be characterized as promoting free speech.


You've twice conflated declaring an intention to do something with actually doing it. This is a tell--you don't consider your position strong enough to defend without this sleight of hand.


Like I said, this is incoherent. You could just as easily characterize state censorship as a speech act, and claim that the state censoring speech "increases speech". This is foolish, since an act of censorship definitionally limits free speech (ie, free expression), and the relevant question is whether it creates an environment conducive to free speech, not how much speech there is in toto. Totalitarian societies have no problem generating huge quantities of propaganda, which also counts as speech, so I'm afraid just weighing up all the utterances in the world is not a useful exercise.

You've also failed to characterize the difference between our two hypothetical publications without doing so in terms of their attitudes towards free speech, the only thing I asked you to do.

What?

Quote:

You've twice conflated declaring an intention to do something with actually doing it.

In the choosing to not bake a cake? What else should I do besides declare it? Stare at the couple in silence? Take their money and not show up to work? It seems saying I won't take their business is the actually doing it.

State censorship is certainly an act of speech. And there are certainly positions with views about government power that would mean state censorship was more speech.

You asked me to characterize the difference between two things I don't think are different.

ETA: And I just realized this is a different thread topic

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

State censorship is certainly an act of speech.

No. State censorship is a threat of violence.

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

No. State censorship is a threat of violence.

Threats are clearly speech, too.

[BobTheCoward]

When people talk about Twitter being bad....how are they experiencing Twitter? Why are they reading bad tweets?

It seems twitter is what you make of it by choosing where you go?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

Threats are clearly speech, too.

Then everything is speech, which renders the category meaningless.

Which is pretty much where every conversation with you ends up eventually.

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Then everything is speech, which renders the category meaningless.

Which is pretty much where every conversation with you ends up eventually.

Are you seriously arguing that threatening someone isn't speech? People shouldn't do it but it comes with a pretty clear expression of opinion. I'm not left in the dark about the value they are trying to convey.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Quote:

If Musk actually attempts to implement an If-it's-legal-then-it's-allowed policy, then it will not last more than a week. Spam, targeted harassment, doxxing, and even some forms of threat and defamation will be on the table.

Quote:

This is a peculiar complaint, given that threats and defamation are already not legal and so would be prohibited under such a scenario.

Quote:

A few problems....

- Cases of threats and defamation may be illegal (or subject to civil penalties), but threats may not be treated seriously by the government, and launching a civil case (in order to handle defamation) is a costly undertaking for some people

- The relatively long delays in bringing a case to trial means that a person will have to be exposed to those sorts of things for an extended period of time

I think you are confused.

Errr... not really.

Quote:

Nothing about Musk’s statements even suggests that Twitter should not or would not take action in such cases. Quite the opposite, in fact. These are precisely the sort of cases wher he’s saying they should take action.

You are right... he HASN'T said that Twitter would not take action in those cases. The problem is, he hasn't said he would leave their current moderation policies in place either.

It is quite possible that Musk will do a good job with twitter. He promised action against things like spambots (which would be a good thing, especially if he also targets things like misinformation.).

Much of the problem comes from descriptions of Musk as a "free-speech absolutist". (I think he himself has labeled himself as such.) That in itself is an extremely vague term, but it probably has many people worried. Because if you are a "free speech absolutist", a lot of people assume that means all speech (whether good or bad/hate speech, accurate or inaccurate, will be given an equal chance on the platform.)

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

When people talk about Twitter being bad....how are they experiencing Twitter? Why are they reading bad tweets?

It seems twitter is what you make of it by choosing where you go?

A person can be affected by Twitter despite never even using the platform or personally reading any of the tweets.

Misinformation about Covid can cause the disease to spread to twitter users and non-twitter users alike. Russian disinformation through twitter might have affected enough voters in the 2016 election to allow Stubby McBonespurs to become president, even though many voters don't have twitter accounts..

Most of us here at ISF are probably smart enough to recognize the problems with Twitter, but they can still be affected by low-information individuals who lack the rationality to recognize the pitfalls.

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

A person can be affected by Twitter despite never even using the platform or personally reading any of the tweets.

Misinformation about Covid can cause the disease to spread to twitter users and non-twitter users alike. Russian disinformation through twitter might have affected enough voters in the 2016 election to allow Stubby McBonespurs to become president, even though many voters don't have twitter accounts..

Most of us here at ISF are probably smart enough to recognize the problems with Twitter, but they can still be affected by low-information individuals who lack the rationality to recognize the pitfalls.

Do critics mean that or a bad user experience?

[ahhell]

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum

Elon Musk has absolutely no clue what he is stepping into.



If Musk actually attempts to implement an If-it's-legal-then-it's-allowed policy, then it will not last more than a week. Spam, targeted harassment, doxxing, and even some forms of threat and defamation will be on the table.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

This is a peculiar complaint, given that threats and defamation are already not legal and so would be prohibited under such a scenario.

Seriously, isn't that what twitter is most famous for? Its like those reporters out there kvetching about billionaires buying media outlets when they work for Jeff Bezos or recently worked for Carlos Slim.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

Quote:

Most of us here at ISF are probably smart enough to recognize the problems with Twitter, but they can still be affected by low-information individuals who lack the rationality to recognize the pitfalls.

Do critics mean that or a bad user experience?

You will have to ask the individual critic about what exactly their criticism is based on.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

You are right... he HASN'T said that Twitter would not take action in those cases. The problem is, he hasn't said he would leave their current moderation policies in place either.

Why is that a problem? You don't need to keep their current policies in place to remove threats and defamation.

Hell, you don't even need to keep their current policies in place to remove harassment.

Quote:

Much of the problem comes from descriptions of Musk as a "free-speech absolutist". (I think he himself has labeled himself as such.) That in itself is an extremely vague term, but it probably has many people worried. Because if you are a "free speech absolutist", a lot of people assume that means all speech (whether good or bad/hate speech, accurate or inaccurate, will be given an equal chance on the platform.)

First, "equal chance" != not censored. The platform can still selectively promote speech without having to ban stuff.

But let's look at what speech he has specifically said shouldn't have been censored from Twitter. I'm only aware of one: the Hunter Biden laptop story.

And he's right: that story was accurate, it was not harassing, it was not threatening, it was not defamatory. It should not have been censored. You don't have to be a free speech absolutist to recognize that.

As I said, that's the only one I'm aware of, but I don't follow Musk all that closely. It's quite possible he's given other examples that I haven't seen, and maybe you are aware of some. So do you have any examples of speech that Musk has said shouldn't have been censored? Is any of it speech that you think should be censored? If so, why?

[mumblethrax]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

What?

What is it that you don't understand, apart from everything?

Quote:

State censorship is certainly an act of speech. And there are certainly positions with views about government power that would mean state censorship was more speech.

Yes, and people who have not taken on a deranged ideology will recognize that characterizing this as free speech is a threat to free speech. Again, "free speech" does not simply mean "more speech".

Quote:

You asked me to characterize the difference between two things I don't think are different.

Well, no, I'm trying to pin you down to a position. Earlier you suggested only that they could not be distinguished in terms of free speech, now you say that they cannot be distinguished at all. I'll let the basic error in the view that censoring speech is equivalent to not censoring speech to speak for itself.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by Frank Newgent

Why is twitter such a big deal? Here in the US about one in five use it to express opinions. I don´t understand the fuss.

It may be one in five overall, but among the media, celebrities and elites, it's more like nine in ten.

[ahhell]

Originally Posted by Frank Newgent

Why is twitter such a big deal? Here in the US about one in five use it to express opinions. I don´t understand the fuss.

Fairly miss leading, about 1 in 5 folks in the US use twitter. 80% of tweets are from about 10% of users though.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...s-and-twitter/

Originally Posted by Brainster

It may be one in five overall, but among the media, celebrities and elites, it's more like nine in ten.

Its a minority of a minority that makes much use of it, they are among the most influential minorities in the US though.

[BobTheCoward]

Originally Posted by mumblethrax

What is it that you don't understand, apart from everything?


Yes, and people who have not taken on a deranged ideology will recognize that characterizing this as free speech is a threat to free speech. Again, "free speech" does not simply mean "more speech".


Well, no, I'm trying to pin you down to a position. Earlier you suggested only that they could not be distinguished in terms of free speech, now you say that they cannot be distinguished at all. I'll let the basic error in the view that censoring speech is equivalent to not censoring speech to speak for itself.

This is its own thread

[mumblethrax]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

This is its own thread

Not as far as I'm concerned.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Yeah, exactly. It sounds as though he is ready to give up on Terms of Services.

This is literally the argument I once heard Tim Pool make on Joe Rogan's podcast before I understood who Tim Pool was. It sounded ridiculous even then. Don't get me wrong, you can have a platform that basically allows anything except illegal speech, but it will become a cesspool quickly and won't be the kind of place that people will want to hang around. I mean, these kinds of platforms do exist, don't they? Gab and Parler, etc... but there is a reason why these are fringe sites.

If Twitter goes that way, someone else will start up a new platform that will eventually become popular. The reason why previous attempts have not worked is because people basically like Twitter, and it is well understood that the alternatives are fringe loonies.

Oh look, Musk tweets a meme of Tim Pool against a Twitter executive. Musk really is giving the impression that his views on Twitter are indeed those of Tim Pool on Rogan.

[angrysoba]

Of course, Tim Pool’s point itself could be seen as just as circular as the Twitter exec’s and in fact it allows Pool to say that anything he wants is left wing bias. If you think January 6th was a dangerous event and maybe people should not be tweeting their support of it if they can plausibly be seen to be inviting it then sure you can call it “left-wing bias” if your interpretation of the context is biased in favour of crazy right-wing bias: ie the claim the election was stolen! I guess right-wingers have just embraced post-modernism.

[angrysoba]

And of course there are predictable outcomes for people Musk puts in his sights including those who are ostensibly his future employees….

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

And of course there are predictable outcomes for people Musk puts in his sights including those who are ostensibly his future employees….

There are nut jobs on Twitter. This isn’t news. But what exactly is your point? Should Musk refrain from saying anything critical because some nut jobs might say nasty things in response? That’s just a heckler’s veto, and why would we ever want to go down that road? Evaluate what he said on its own terms. Was he wrong? Was it actually the right thing to censor the Hunter Biden laptop story, even though it was true?