The new CEO of Twitter
-
I think if you take social media as public interaction, I don't see how it can be taken any other way.
wrote on 1 Dec 2021, 06:36 last edited by xenon 12 Jan 2021, 06:39@jolly said in The new CEO of Twitter:
I think if you take social media as public interaction, I don't see how it can be taken any other way.
There are many online communities for specific religions, political ideologies, etc.
I used the reddit as an example because it has 2X the traffic of twitter. There many, many, many heavily curated and moderated communities on reddit. (I got banned from multiple Trump subreddits in 2016/2017 for obvious reasons. I've been banned from some leftist ones as well.)
Is that a public square?
-
wrote on 1 Dec 2021, 19:00 last edited by
-
@xenon said in The new CEO of Twitter:
@jolly said in The new CEO of Twitter:
What can you legally do in a public square?
I'm not talking about moderating illegal content - I'm talking about moderating spaces to only allow a certain type of discourse.
Think of a church - it's a heavily moderated space in terms of the ideas that will be tolerated. You can't just open up the doors and say "this is a public square now". The church will be drowned out by people who don't like religion.
A public square would mean that any public square is open to anyone - and no one could be moderated.
Twitter is a public square. A church is not. It's very simple.
wrote on 1 Dec 2021, 19:13 last edited by Doctor Phibes 12 Jan 2021, 19:15@jolly said in The new CEO of Twitter:
Twitter is a public square.
Actually, I don't think that analogy works. Twitter is like a shop that is situated on the side of a public square. The internet is a public square, Twitter is a private company. If a shop is really, really successful, it doesn't suddenly have to allow people to say and do what the hell they like in there.
-
wrote on 1 Dec 2021, 19:39 last edited by
That would be the case if Twitter was a small shop that held a dozen people.
If my name was Stalin, I would love the way Twitter is currently set up. Facebook, too. He who controls the information, controls the public.
-
That would be the case if Twitter was a small shop that held a dozen people.
If my name was Stalin, I would love the way Twitter is currently set up. Facebook, too. He who controls the information, controls the public.
wrote on 1 Dec 2021, 19:44 last edited by xenon 12 Jan 2021, 19:51@jolly said in The new CEO of Twitter:
That would be the case if Twitter was a small shop that held a dozen people.
If my name was Stalin, I would love the way Twitter is currently set up. Facebook, too. He who controls the information, controls the public.
But you're the one arguing that the government should send them a notice saying:
"You've become too powerful, we set your rules now."
Well intentioned rules to begin with, for sure.
Also - let's look at the actual issue with censorship. Let's take the Hunter Biden stories. The real problem was not twitter blocking links to articles. I read many many articles about the censorship. The real issue was left-leaning sources not reporting on it.
Regulating social media doesn't fix that.
-
@jolly said in The new CEO of Twitter:
That would be the case if Twitter was a small shop that held a dozen people.
If my name was Stalin, I would love the way Twitter is currently set up. Facebook, too. He who controls the information, controls the public.
But you're the one arguing that the government should send them a notice saying:
"You've become too powerful, we set your rules now."
Well intentioned rules to begin with, for sure.
Also - let's look at the actual issue with censorship. Let's take the Hunter Biden stories. The real problem was not twitter blocking links to articles. I read many many articles about the censorship. The real issue was left-leaning sources not reporting on it.
Regulating social media doesn't fix that.
wrote on 1 Dec 2021, 21:51 last edited by@xenon said in The new CEO of Twitter:
@jolly said in The new CEO of Twitter:
That would be the case if Twitter was a small shop that held a dozen people.
If my name was Stalin, I would love the way Twitter is currently set up. Facebook, too. He who controls the information, controls the public.
But you're the one arguing that the government should send them a notice saying:
"You've become too powerful, we set your rules now."
Well intentioned rules to begin with, for sure.
Also - let's look at the actual issue with censorship. Let's take the Hunter Biden stories. The real problem was not twitter blocking links to articles. I read many many articles about the censorship. The real issue was left-leaning sources not reporting on it.
Regulating social media doesn't fix that.
Right. What you're really talking about is implied consensus through coercion. But the problem is that social media is the explicit tool used to enact that coercion. It's manufacturing consent.
What's hilarious to me is that this is one of those bizarre scenarios in which conservatives would whole-heartedly agree with an idea formulated by Noam Chomsky.
-
@xenon said in The new CEO of Twitter:
@jolly said in The new CEO of Twitter:
That would be the case if Twitter was a small shop that held a dozen people.
If my name was Stalin, I would love the way Twitter is currently set up. Facebook, too. He who controls the information, controls the public.
But you're the one arguing that the government should send them a notice saying:
"You've become too powerful, we set your rules now."
Well intentioned rules to begin with, for sure.
Also - let's look at the actual issue with censorship. Let's take the Hunter Biden stories. The real problem was not twitter blocking links to articles. I read many many articles about the censorship. The real issue was left-leaning sources not reporting on it.
Regulating social media doesn't fix that.
Right. What you're really talking about is implied consensus through coercion. But the problem is that social media is the explicit tool used to enact that coercion. It's manufacturing consent.
What's hilarious to me is that this is one of those bizarre scenarios in which conservatives would whole-heartedly agree with an idea formulated by Noam Chomsky.
wrote on 1 Dec 2021, 22:00 last edited by xenon 12 Jan 2021, 22:01@aqua-letifer said in The new CEO of Twitter:
@xenon said in The new CEO of Twitter:
@jolly said in The new CEO of Twitter:
That would be the case if Twitter was a small shop that held a dozen people.
If my name was Stalin, I would love the way Twitter is currently set up. Facebook, too. He who controls the information, controls the public.
But you're the one arguing that the government should send them a notice saying:
"You've become too powerful, we set your rules now."
Well intentioned rules to begin with, for sure.
Also - let's look at the actual issue with censorship. Let's take the Hunter Biden stories. The real problem was not twitter blocking links to articles. I read many many articles about the censorship. The real issue was left-leaning sources not reporting on it.
Regulating social media doesn't fix that.
Right. What you're really talking about is implied consensus through coercion. But the problem is that social media is the explicit tool used to enact that coercion. It's manufacturing consent.
What's hilarious to me is that this is one of those bizarre scenarios in which conservatives would whole-heartedly agree with an idea formulated by Noam Chomsky.
Agreed. But I think we'd have to get very heavy-handed with government intervention if we were to try and legislate that coercion out of existence.
Social media allows groups of ideologues to coerce others. Twitter is just the tool of the day.
I think we need to learn how to deal with the impulse to coerce.
This is what happens when you decentralize media power.
-
@aqua-letifer said in The new CEO of Twitter:
@xenon said in The new CEO of Twitter:
@jolly said in The new CEO of Twitter:
That would be the case if Twitter was a small shop that held a dozen people.
If my name was Stalin, I would love the way Twitter is currently set up. Facebook, too. He who controls the information, controls the public.
But you're the one arguing that the government should send them a notice saying:
"You've become too powerful, we set your rules now."
Well intentioned rules to begin with, for sure.
Also - let's look at the actual issue with censorship. Let's take the Hunter Biden stories. The real problem was not twitter blocking links to articles. I read many many articles about the censorship. The real issue was left-leaning sources not reporting on it.
Regulating social media doesn't fix that.
Right. What you're really talking about is implied consensus through coercion. But the problem is that social media is the explicit tool used to enact that coercion. It's manufacturing consent.
What's hilarious to me is that this is one of those bizarre scenarios in which conservatives would whole-heartedly agree with an idea formulated by Noam Chomsky.
Agreed. But I think we'd have to get very heavy-handed with government intervention if we were to try and legislate that coercion out of existence.
Social media allows groups of ideologues to coerce others. Twitter is just the tool of the day.
I think we need to learn how to deal with the impulse to coerce.
This is what happens when you decentralize media power.
wrote on 1 Dec 2021, 22:24 last edited by@xenon said in The new CEO of Twitter:
@aqua-letifer said in The new CEO of Twitter:
@xenon said in The new CEO of Twitter:
@jolly said in The new CEO of Twitter:
That would be the case if Twitter was a small shop that held a dozen people.
If my name was Stalin, I would love the way Twitter is currently set up. Facebook, too. He who controls the information, controls the public.
But you're the one arguing that the government should send them a notice saying:
"You've become too powerful, we set your rules now."
Well intentioned rules to begin with, for sure.
Also - let's look at the actual issue with censorship. Let's take the Hunter Biden stories. The real problem was not twitter blocking links to articles. I read many many articles about the censorship. The real issue was left-leaning sources not reporting on it.
Regulating social media doesn't fix that.
Right. What you're really talking about is implied consensus through coercion. But the problem is that social media is the explicit tool used to enact that coercion. It's manufacturing consent.
What's hilarious to me is that this is one of those bizarre scenarios in which conservatives would whole-heartedly agree with an idea formulated by Noam Chomsky.
Agreed. But I think we'd have to get very heavy-handed with government intervention if we were to try and legislate that coercion out of existence.
Social media allows groups of ideologues to coerce others. Twitter is just the tool of the day.
I think we need to learn how to deal with the impulse to coerce.
This is what happens when you decentralize media power.
Again, public square. There are multitudes of things you can and cannot do in a public square. This is not rocket surgery. We've had this stuff 99% figured out since the 19th century.
It's simply not that hard.
-
@xenon said in The new CEO of Twitter:
@aqua-letifer said in The new CEO of Twitter:
@xenon said in The new CEO of Twitter:
@jolly said in The new CEO of Twitter:
That would be the case if Twitter was a small shop that held a dozen people.
If my name was Stalin, I would love the way Twitter is currently set up. Facebook, too. He who controls the information, controls the public.
But you're the one arguing that the government should send them a notice saying:
"You've become too powerful, we set your rules now."
Well intentioned rules to begin with, for sure.
Also - let's look at the actual issue with censorship. Let's take the Hunter Biden stories. The real problem was not twitter blocking links to articles. I read many many articles about the censorship. The real issue was left-leaning sources not reporting on it.
Regulating social media doesn't fix that.
Right. What you're really talking about is implied consensus through coercion. But the problem is that social media is the explicit tool used to enact that coercion. It's manufacturing consent.
What's hilarious to me is that this is one of those bizarre scenarios in which conservatives would whole-heartedly agree with an idea formulated by Noam Chomsky.
Agreed. But I think we'd have to get very heavy-handed with government intervention if we were to try and legislate that coercion out of existence.
Social media allows groups of ideologues to coerce others. Twitter is just the tool of the day.
I think we need to learn how to deal with the impulse to coerce.
This is what happens when you decentralize media power.
Again, public square. There are multitudes of things you can and cannot do in a public square. This is not rocket surgery. We've had this stuff 99% figured out since the 19th century.
It's simply not that hard.
wrote on 1 Dec 2021, 22:52 last edited by xenon 12 Jan 2021, 22:55@jolly said in The new CEO of Twitter:
@xenon said in The new CEO of Twitter:
@aqua-letifer said in The new CEO of Twitter:
@xenon said in The new CEO of Twitter:
@jolly said in The new CEO of Twitter:
That would be the case if Twitter was a small shop that held a dozen people.
If my name was Stalin, I would love the way Twitter is currently set up. Facebook, too. He who controls the information, controls the public.
But you're the one arguing that the government should send them a notice saying:
"You've become too powerful, we set your rules now."
Well intentioned rules to begin with, for sure.
Also - let's look at the actual issue with censorship. Let's take the Hunter Biden stories. The real problem was not twitter blocking links to articles. I read many many articles about the censorship. The real issue was left-leaning sources not reporting on it.
Regulating social media doesn't fix that.
Right. What you're really talking about is implied consensus through coercion. But the problem is that social media is the explicit tool used to enact that coercion. It's manufacturing consent.
What's hilarious to me is that this is one of those bizarre scenarios in which conservatives would whole-heartedly agree with an idea formulated by Noam Chomsky.
Agreed. But I think we'd have to get very heavy-handed with government intervention if we were to try and legislate that coercion out of existence.
Social media allows groups of ideologues to coerce others. Twitter is just the tool of the day.
I think we need to learn how to deal with the impulse to coerce.
This is what happens when you decentralize media power.
Again, public square. There are multitudes of things you can and cannot do in a public square. This is not rocket surgery. We've had this stuff 99% figured out since the 19th century.
It's simply not that hard.
Practically what you're saying is that large online forums must have zero moderation - outside of illegal acts.
-
@jolly said in The new CEO of Twitter:
@xenon said in The new CEO of Twitter:
@aqua-letifer said in The new CEO of Twitter:
@xenon said in The new CEO of Twitter:
@jolly said in The new CEO of Twitter:
That would be the case if Twitter was a small shop that held a dozen people.
If my name was Stalin, I would love the way Twitter is currently set up. Facebook, too. He who controls the information, controls the public.
But you're the one arguing that the government should send them a notice saying:
"You've become too powerful, we set your rules now."
Well intentioned rules to begin with, for sure.
Also - let's look at the actual issue with censorship. Let's take the Hunter Biden stories. The real problem was not twitter blocking links to articles. I read many many articles about the censorship. The real issue was left-leaning sources not reporting on it.
Regulating social media doesn't fix that.
Right. What you're really talking about is implied consensus through coercion. But the problem is that social media is the explicit tool used to enact that coercion. It's manufacturing consent.
What's hilarious to me is that this is one of those bizarre scenarios in which conservatives would whole-heartedly agree with an idea formulated by Noam Chomsky.
Agreed. But I think we'd have to get very heavy-handed with government intervention if we were to try and legislate that coercion out of existence.
Social media allows groups of ideologues to coerce others. Twitter is just the tool of the day.
I think we need to learn how to deal with the impulse to coerce.
This is what happens when you decentralize media power.
Again, public square. There are multitudes of things you can and cannot do in a public square. This is not rocket surgery. We've had this stuff 99% figured out since the 19th century.
It's simply not that hard.
Practically what you're saying is that large online forums must have zero moderation - outside of illegal acts.
wrote on 1 Dec 2021, 22:55 last edited by@xenon said in The new CEO of Twitter:
@jolly said in The new CEO of Twitter:
@xenon said in The new CEO of Twitter:
@aqua-letifer said in The new CEO of Twitter:
@xenon said in The new CEO of Twitter:
@jolly said in The new CEO of Twitter:
That would be the case if Twitter was a small shop that held a dozen people.
If my name was Stalin, I would love the way Twitter is currently set up. Facebook, too. He who controls the information, controls the public.
But you're the one arguing that the government should send them a notice saying:
"You've become too powerful, we set your rules now."
Well intentioned rules to begin with, for sure.
Also - let's look at the actual issue with censorship. Let's take the Hunter Biden stories. The real problem was not twitter blocking links to articles. I read many many articles about the censorship. The real issue was left-leaning sources not reporting on it.
Regulating social media doesn't fix that.
Right. What you're really talking about is implied consensus through coercion. But the problem is that social media is the explicit tool used to enact that coercion. It's manufacturing consent.
What's hilarious to me is that this is one of those bizarre scenarios in which conservatives would whole-heartedly agree with an idea formulated by Noam Chomsky.
Agreed. But I think we'd have to get very heavy-handed with government intervention if we were to try and legislate that coercion out of existence.
Social media allows groups of ideologues to coerce others. Twitter is just the tool of the day.
I think we need to learn how to deal with the impulse to coerce.
This is what happens when you decentralize media power.
Again, public square. There are multitudes of things you can and cannot do in a public square. This is not rocket surgery. We've had this stuff 99% figured out since the 19th century.
It's simply not that hard.
Practically what you're saying is that large online forums must have zero moderation - outside of illegal acts.
Not quite, but you're getting warmer.
-
@xenon said in The new CEO of Twitter:
@jolly said in The new CEO of Twitter:
@xenon said in The new CEO of Twitter:
@aqua-letifer said in The new CEO of Twitter:
@xenon said in The new CEO of Twitter:
@jolly said in The new CEO of Twitter:
That would be the case if Twitter was a small shop that held a dozen people.
If my name was Stalin, I would love the way Twitter is currently set up. Facebook, too. He who controls the information, controls the public.
But you're the one arguing that the government should send them a notice saying:
"You've become too powerful, we set your rules now."
Well intentioned rules to begin with, for sure.
Also - let's look at the actual issue with censorship. Let's take the Hunter Biden stories. The real problem was not twitter blocking links to articles. I read many many articles about the censorship. The real issue was left-leaning sources not reporting on it.
Regulating social media doesn't fix that.
Right. What you're really talking about is implied consensus through coercion. But the problem is that social media is the explicit tool used to enact that coercion. It's manufacturing consent.
What's hilarious to me is that this is one of those bizarre scenarios in which conservatives would whole-heartedly agree with an idea formulated by Noam Chomsky.
Agreed. But I think we'd have to get very heavy-handed with government intervention if we were to try and legislate that coercion out of existence.
Social media allows groups of ideologues to coerce others. Twitter is just the tool of the day.
I think we need to learn how to deal with the impulse to coerce.
This is what happens when you decentralize media power.
Again, public square. There are multitudes of things you can and cannot do in a public square. This is not rocket surgery. We've had this stuff 99% figured out since the 19th century.
It's simply not that hard.
Practically what you're saying is that large online forums must have zero moderation - outside of illegal acts.
Not quite, but you're getting warmer.
wrote on 6 Dec 2021, 01:07 last edited by@jolly said in The new CEO of Twitter:
@xenon said in The new CEO of Twitter:
@jolly said in The new CEO of Twitter:
@xenon said in The new CEO of Twitter:
@aqua-letifer said in The new CEO of Twitter:
@xenon said in The new CEO of Twitter:
@jolly said in The new CEO of Twitter:
That would be the case if Twitter was a small shop that held a dozen people.
If my name was Stalin, I would love the way Twitter is currently set up. Facebook, too. He who controls the information, controls the public.
But you're the one arguing that the government should send them a notice saying:
"You've become too powerful, we set your rules now."
Well intentioned rules to begin with, for sure.
Also - let's look at the actual issue with censorship. Let's take the Hunter Biden stories. The real problem was not twitter blocking links to articles. I read many many articles about the censorship. The real issue was left-leaning sources not reporting on it.
Regulating social media doesn't fix that.
Right. What you're really talking about is implied consensus through coercion. But the problem is that social media is the explicit tool used to enact that coercion. It's manufacturing consent.
What's hilarious to me is that this is one of those bizarre scenarios in which conservatives would whole-heartedly agree with an idea formulated by Noam Chomsky.
Agreed. But I think we'd have to get very heavy-handed with government intervention if we were to try and legislate that coercion out of existence.
Social media allows groups of ideologues to coerce others. Twitter is just the tool of the day.
I think we need to learn how to deal with the impulse to coerce.
This is what happens when you decentralize media power.
Again, public square. There are multitudes of things you can and cannot do in a public square. This is not rocket surgery. We've had this stuff 99% figured out since the 19th century.
It's simply not that hard.
Practically what you're saying is that large online forums must have zero moderation - outside of illegal acts.
Not quite, but you're getting warmer.
I guess my perspective on no censorship online is informed by places like 4chan.
Online forums without moderation can devolve into filth pretty fast. (Filth is not necessarily illegal)