Elon Musk Twitter Trainwreck Mega-Thread

[Leo Gura]

No company is perfect but Google is one of the best managed companies in the world.

If you got problems with how Google does business, you got problems with business period.

You also have to appreciate the scale that Google operates on. This ain't some mom-and-pop shop. In the end Twitter is a tiny company and a small platform. It does not compare to Google or YT at all. People treat Twitter like it is the size of Facebook or YT. But it's an order of magnitude smaller. And yet still Musk will have a nightmare moderating it.

People just don't appreciate how challenging it is to run, manage, and safeguard such massive platforms from exploiters and devils. This requires a decade of expertise just to appreciate. Which is why these companies have entire buildings full of experienced staff working 24/7 to deal with it. If anything, they are understaffed and underfunded. The critique of these platforms is not that they over-regulate, it's that they are too cheap and negligent so they under-regulate. So Musk has completely misdiagnosed the problem. He should be hiring more moderators, not firing them and letting all the trolls back.

Imagine if tomorrow I let every banned user of this forum back on. That's effectively Musk's plan for Twitter. It's colossally dumb.

Edited November 26, 2022 by Leo Gura

[Thought Art]

I feel like Twitter gets a lot of press but who really uses it?

[Leo Gura]

7 minutes ago, Thought Art said:

I feel like Twitter gets a lot of press but who really uses it?

Influencers.

[Thought Art]

36 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Influencers.

Hm

[Mada_]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Imagine if tomorrow I let every banned user of this forum back on. That's effectively Musk's plan for Twitter. It's colossally dumb.

Twitter's mission statement reads "to give everyone the power to create and share ideas and information instantly without barriers."

By this logic I guess Elon Musk's decision to give Trump back his account and reduce regulation falls in line with "everyone" having the power to share without barriers. 

This forum has a much more niche and explicit intention than Twitter seems to, so its understandable you moderate the way you do. 

 

At the end of that Netflix Documentary, they basically boiled down all of the problems with social media to not answering the question "what is truth?". You seem to have a fair grasp on the truth Leo, maybe you could moderate for Musk lol. 

[Bobby_2021]

8 hours ago, Hatfort said:

What's big? Hunter Biden doing drugs and having sex? We kind of like that on the left, good for him. We are not grannies like you.

Was he using his last name for his own benefit and business? So what. I'm not against that either.

Why did twitter censor the NY post story then, convinently before the elections? 

[Hatfort]

57 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Why did twitter censor the NY post story then, convinently before the elections? 

To feed right-wing conspiranoics for longer? Not that they need much either, they kind of produce their own garbage from nothing anyway.

[Danioover9000]

   And this is why social media is mostly toxic, and why one must exercise caution and not wing social media websites.

[Forestluv]

10 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

 In the end Twitter is a tiny company and a small platform. It does not compare to Google or YT at all. People treat Twitter like it is the size of Facebook or YT. But it's an order of magnitude smaller. 

Even though Twitter is a relatively small size, it seems to have a large influence on driving social / political / media narratives. 

[Gesundheit2]

@Danioover9000 Dude, I think you just gave me a stroke. I thought it's Yarco the apolitical commenting.

[Leo Gura]

9 hours ago, Mada_ said:

Twitter's mission statement reads "to give everyone the power to create and share ideas and information instantly without barriers."

This mission statement requires heavy moderation.

Libertarianism does NOT maximize effective freedom. It simply allows a few people to monopolize the whole field and enslave everyone else.

The reason to moderate is precisely to protect the public square from shitslingers and bad actors who ruin free speech. Allowing Nazis to plot government coups does not increase free speech.

Edited November 26, 2022 by Leo Gura

[Forestluv]

9 hours ago, Mada_ said:

Twitter's mission statement reads "to give everyone the power to create and share ideas and information instantly without barriers."

That sounds good idealistically. Yet paradoxically, having no barriers reduces the overall power for everyone to create and share ideas. 

People often have an either / or mindset in which there must be either maximum 100% moderation or 0% moderation. Yet it is more nuanced. Too many barriers, as well as too few barriers, will reduce overall power to create and share ideas. 

[Bobby_2021]

8 hours ago, Hatfort said:

To feed right-wing conspiranoics for longer? Not that they need much either, they kind of produce their own garbage from nothing anyway.

Or maybe lefties are sexually repressed. Else why would you censor something normal in the left. 

Edited November 26, 2022 by Bobby_2021

[Danioover9000]

@Gesundheit2

3 hours ago, Gesundheit2 said:

@Danioover9000 Dude, I think you just gave me a stroke. I thought it's Yarco the apolitical commenting.

   OH, I see, so you're the one who reported my profile picture. Well, screw you and Elon Musk for heavy trolling.

[Leo Gura]

@Danioover9000 He didn't report you. I removed it of my own initiative.

User profile images with Pepe frogs and other toxic right-wing memes are not allowed here.

Edited November 26, 2022 by Leo Gura

[mr_engineer]

2 hours ago, Forestluv said:

That sounds good idealistically. Yet paradoxically, having no barriers reduces the overall power for everyone to create and share ideas. 

You don't really need to be able to share your ideas with the entire world. You need to only be able to share them with like-minded people so that you can work together. 

What censorship does, is it gets in the way of doing that. It promotes ideas that support their agendas, while censors ideas that get in the way of their agendas. My point is that - don't assume that their censorship is purely unbiased. Or, their definition of 'hate-speech' is purely unbiased. 

You have the right to ignore what you don't like. You don't have to censor it. And if it offends you, that's your problem. 

Cancel-culture is the real enemy here. That we all need to be collectively standing up against. Cuz it creates echo-chambers and separations. This will only escalate conflicts. 

[Danioover9000]

@Leo Gura

15 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@Danioover9000 He didn't report you. I removed it of my own initiative.

User profile images with Pepe frogs and other toxic right-wing memes are not allowed here.

   Oh, alright then. I thought it was a coomer meme but whatever. Don't forget @Yarco and @KH2 then. ?

Edited November 26, 2022 by Danioover9000

[Danioover9000]

@Forestluv

3 hours ago, Forestluv said:

That sounds good idealistically. Yet paradoxically, having no barriers reduces the overall power for everyone to create and share ideas. 

People often have an either / or mindset in which there must be either maximum 100% moderation or 0% moderation. Yet it is more nuanced. Too many barriers, as well as too few barriers, will reduce overall power to create and share ideas. 

   Is that you @Forestluv? Welcome back from the long hiatus!

@mr_engineer

18 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

You don't really need to be able to share your ideas with the entire world. You need to only be able to share them with like-minded people so that you can work together. 

What censorship does, is it gets in the way of doing that. It promotes ideas that support their agendas, while censors ideas that get in the way of their agendas. My point is that - don't assume that their censorship is purely unbiased. Or, their definition of 'hate-speech' is purely unbiased. 

You have the right to ignore what you don't like. You don't have to censor it. And if it offends you, that's your problem. 

Cancel-culture is the real enemy here. That we all need to be collectively standing up against. Cuz it creates echo-chambers and separations. This will only escalate conflicts. 

   Fundamentally you are right, until it's contextualized relative to the potential harm and harms related to misinformation. That's when censorship becomes useful. Bad if you are the one censored with the harmful ideology, view and prescriptive claims that lead to danger and damage to others

Edited November 26, 2022 by Danioover9000

[mr_engineer]

1 minute ago, Danioover9000 said:

Fundamentally you are right, until it's contextualized relative to the potential harm and harms related to misinformation. That's when censorship becomes useful. Bad if you are the one censored with the harmful ideology, view and prescriptive claims that lead to danger and damage to others

This is some Orwellian 'Ministry of Truth' stuff. We, the state, have the truth. And you get to believe us or shut the fuck up. No room for disagreement. 

The point of discourse is to debate and have a civil discussion. Censorship is the opposite of that. 

[Danioover9000]

@mr_engineer

15 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

This is some Orwellian 'Ministry of Truth' stuff. We, the state, have the truth. And you get to believe us or shut the fuck up. No room for disagreement. 

The point of discourse is to debate and have a civil discussion. Censorship is the opposite of that. 

   So, is it okay in our discourse to give descriptive, graphic details of terrorist actions, and show graphically disgusting evidence of how to mutilate body parts, and how to construct a drone bomb, in a public setting where it's live and broadcasted, for everyone watching regardless of demographic?