Elon Musk Twitter Trainwreck Mega-Thread

[Jake Chambers]

22 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Dude, these are capitalist corportations. Their #1 priority is not safety but money. That's your free market at work. Hard to make money when Nazis swarm over your biz platform.

Yeah, protecting people from disinformation is femininizing culture. 

Although correct, and Elon musk being far worse than the previous twitter leadership, the previous leadership was also way too biased towards the left. They were very strict with deleting disinformation from the right while disinformation from the left, which also exists albeit less than on the right, was all allowed to be on. No matter how you want to phrase it this is a lack of integrity. They should have deleted all disinformation and not just look one way. I don't really understand how this is not obvious to you, how you are almost partisan to the previous twitter corporations way of handling things. Like I said Elon is a lot worse and unhinged but I really don't get why you are defending the previous board so hard. They were obviously in cahoots with democrats and the european union. I understand why, since a degree of that is necessary to combat nazis and disinformation, but to just allow leftists disinformation and hate is way too far of a reasonable track. The twitter board was very biased just like Elon musk, It's just that Elon musk's way of mishandling is a lot more explicit and the consequences more dire because nazi trolls and hate outweigh leftists trolls and hate. 

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Jake Chambers said:

They were very strict with deleting disinformation from the right while disinformation from the left, which also exists albeit less than on the right, was all allowed to be on. No matter how you want to phrase it this is a lack of integrity. They should have deleted all disinformation and not just look one way. I don't really understand how this is not obvious to you,

1) It is not at all clear that disinformation from left was less removed than from the right. This is just an assumption you have. It has not been validated.

2) You must keep in mind that disinformation from right and left is not symmetrical. The right spread a lot more disinformation so under a just system they would get more removal. Covid denial was largely right wing. Most conspiracy theories are also right wing. The left does not have people like Alex Jones or Tucker Carlson or Sean Hannity or Nick Fuentes or Kanye West.

3) It is impossible for a platform to delete all misinformation perfectly. You are living in a dream.

4) Moderation mistakes will always exist, just like police mistakes will exist.

5) Any group of moderators will have bias. You think Elon Musk and his team will not be biased? You are kidding yourself.

6) The notion that Twitter will go unmoderated is complete nonsense. It will always be heavily moderated, the question is merely in which ways and by who?

7) You must evaluate each moderation decision on a case by case basis. You cannot just assume the moderation was unwarranted. Many of these peoplr who got downranked probably posted plenty of bad stuff, disinform, racism, hate, trolling, etc. They are not innocent politcal actors, they are professional propagandists.

Edited December 9, 2022 by Leo Gura

[Jake Chambers]

Of course misinformation antics were vastly disproportionate on the right side. Twitter was right to stand against it. However I don’t like how it just allows them to act on their leftist agenda without shame, even though that is 5x less problematic than Elon musk, it’s still dumb and infuriating because it is a bunch of people together at twitter dictating what is true and what is hate. For example outright banning Jordan Peterson for deadnaming Elliot Page. Yes his comment was distasteful but it’s simply not hatespeech. Peterson actively goes against  Nazis and antisemitism. The far right hates him. It shows how seething people at twitter were at Peterson for simply having a strong opinion on trans people. It was not hate and should have been allowed on the platform. Peterson is basically gatekeeping right-leaning youngsters from becoming full blown nazis. But twitter banned him like he was a nazi. That and their lies about shadowbanning outright shows their problematic lack of integrity.

Again Elon is way worse, but this lack of acceptance and pushing away of right leaning people just makes a lot of people more nazis. It’s like the left simply can’t accept that there are moderate right wingers. All right wingers are disgusting and evil people in their eyes. 
 

Silicon valley loves to spout leftist cultural values while they are basically the epitome of late stage capitalism and almost demonic technical consumerism. They disallow and hate Andrew Tate while promoting the Kylie Jenners and Dan Bilzerians. Even though the influence of those characters is what led people to be so shallow and like Tate in the first place.

 They gave generation Z social media without any restriction from a young age without any regard for collective mental health. All the people who designed their systems literally put their kids on schools where phones and social media are not allowed etc. Social media has truly messed up a lot of things and people.

1/6 of youngsters in my first world country are seriously considering suicide. I think social media is the main one to blame.

They should have just not allowed politics on social media in the first place. No trump, no nazis, no liberals, no conservatives, no communists. Just leave them on their forums and just have twitter for fun things. It’s not like there is any proper political discussion on twitter anyway, just echo chambers. 

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Jake Chambers said:

For example outright banning Jordan Peterson for deadnaming Elliot Page. Yes his comment was distasteful but it’s simply not hatespeech.

1) JP was not outright banned. He was simply told to delete his trolling tweet and he would have full account access. He refused. He said, "I would rather DIE than delete that tweet." He choose the ban for himself.

2) His deliberate deadnaming of Page was a violation of objective Twitter terms of use. This wasn't even a grey area. He was given a clear reason for his strike.

3) If JP wasn't being an asshole, no one would censor him for his views.

Quote

They disallow and hate Andrew Tate while promoting the Kylie Jenners and Dan Bilzerians. Even though the influence of those characters is what led people to be so shallow and like Tate in the first place.

You have to look at whether people are actually violating terms of use of the platform. That's usually what people get banned for. People do not get banned just for being unlikable. Someone can be unlikable and simply not get banned because they don't tweet anything that violates terms of use.

Hitler would be allowed on Twitter as long as he didn't post anything violating terms of use. And this is not a mistake. Just like with policing, the police should not arrest you unless you break a clear law. They should not arrest people just for being unlikable in some vague general sense. Nor should Twitter.

You cannot judge these things in the abstract. You must look at the actual things these people are posting and see what violates terms of use. If someone is posting Hunter Biden's dick pics or denying that vaccines work, that violates terms of use regardless of who they are.

Quote

1/6 of youngsters in my first world country are seriously considering suicide. I think social media is the main one to blame.

That's a very complex issue.

Edited December 9, 2022 by Leo Gura

[Raze]

 

Edited December 10, 2022 by Raze

[Leo Gura]

Every social media platform combats and takes down thousands of child porn every month. If not, they would be overrun with it.

Of course they don't catch all of it.

These debates about moderation are so silly because people find one example out of 10 million pieces of content and then use it to argue the whole system is broken. You can cherrypick data like that all day long when your platform deals with 100s of millions of pieces of new content each month.

It's the same problem as demonizing all of police for one bad arrest video out of 1000s.

These kinds of critiques are not done in good faith by people who genuinely care about understanding the challenges of policing and moderation. This stuff is extremely difficult and no one is acknowledging that. If you ran these platforms I guarantee that you would not have a better solution because mankind has not invented it yet.

There is not a single human alive on this planet who has a solution to the moderation problem. It's a problem as big as human cloning. So to sit there and criticize is extremely foolish and disingenuous. It's like criticizing astronauts on the moon from your couch.

Edited December 10, 2022 by Leo Gura

[Raze]

5 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Every social media platform combats and takes down thousands of child porn every month. If not, they would be overrun with it.

Of course they don't catch all of it.

These debates about moderation are so silly because people find one example out of 10 million pieces of content and then use it to argue the whole system is broken. You can cherrypick data like that all day long when your platform deals with 100s of millions of pieces of new content each month.

It's the same problem as demonizing all of police for one bad arrest video out of 1000s.

These kinds of critiques are not done in good faith by people who genuinely care about understanding the challenges of policing and moderation. This stuff is extremely difficult and no one is acknowledging that. If you ran these platforms I guarantee that you would not have a better solution because mankind has not invented it yet.

There is not a single human alive on this planet who has a solution to the moderation problem. It's a problem as big as human cloning. So to sit there and criticize is extremely foolish and disingenuous. It's like criticizing astronauts on the moon from your couch.

No one is saying that they have to be perfect. However we are getting conformation they barely even tried or funded anti child exploitation measures and were more interested in shadow banning and banning conservatives. Now they are self righteously attacking Musk for removing the restrictions on conservatives when they themselves let a far more serious problem slip beneath them.

[integral]

Model: The Octalysis Framework for Gamification & Behavioral Design

 

Edited December 11, 2022 by integral

[Leo Gura]

 

[Leo Gura]

On 12/9/2022 at 6:05 PM, Raze said:

we are getting conformation they barely even tried or funded anti child exploitation measures and were more interested in shadow banning and banning conservatives.

I highly doubt this is true and I have not seen any such confirmation.

I cannot take Musk's accusations at face value.

You are telling me that a hyper Green, progressive moderation team was not worried about child exploitation? I don't buy this at all. Also, "child exploitation" is a very vague term. You can have all sorts of exploitation that is difficult to catch because it does not appear obviously wrong like child porn. Remember, most of this moderation is done with AI. How is AI gonna identify "child exploitation" unless there's some obvious nudity in it or the like?

This narrative that the mod team was only interested in shadowbanning conservatives has not been demonstrated AT ALL. To demonstrate that we'd need to see some emails of Twitter employees colluding against conservatives and also not against socialists, communists, etc. We have no idea what kind of communist or antifa channels they shadowbanned.

Edited December 12, 2022 by Leo Gura

[Scholar]

11 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

I highly doubt this is true and I have not seen any such confirmation.

I cannot take Musk's accusations at face value.

You are telling me that a hyper Green, progressive moderation team was not worried about child exploitation? I don't buy this at all. Also, "child exploitation" is a very vague term. You can have all sorts of exploitation that is difficult to catch because it does not appear obviously wrong like child porn. Remember, most of this moderation is done with AI. How is AI gonna identify "child exploitation" unless there's some obvious nudity in it or the like?

This narrative that the mod team was only interested in shadowbanning conservatives has not been demonstrated AT ALL. To demonstrate that we'd need to see some emails of Twitter employees colluding against conservatives and also not against socialists, communists, etc. We have no idea what kind of communist or antifa channels they shadowbanned.

The argument would be that the company made an active effort to pursuit certain kinds of speech because of fear of public backlash, where as the topic of child exploitation is not really part of the public consciousness and therefore not worth pursuiting as actively as contemporary cultural issues. AI's don't make independent decisions, they make decision based on training data and so forth. To make an AI better at detecting child exploitation takes ressources that you might not even think of investing in that area, because you are focused on investing them in areas you evaluate as more pressing to the interests of the company.

Edited December 12, 2022 by Scholar

[Oeaohoo]

15 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

You are telling me that a hyper Green, progressive moderation team was not worried about child exploitation? I don't buy this at all.

This isn’t overly surprising. The pioneering intellectuals of “Stage Green” all signed a petition to drastically lower the age of consent: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_petition_against_age_of_consent_laws. The normalisation of child sexuality is one of the logical conclusions of the “Stage Green” form of moral relativism - that is, of a “relativism” which ironically imposes itself absolutely. According to this immature form of relativism, every moral stricture of the past has to be violated in the name of “liberation from the super-structures of oppression”. As we move further into Stage Green, increasingly fundamental strictures have to be “challenged”, and protecting children from sexualisation is one of the most fundamental for most people. Not to mention that “Stage Green” culture is characterised by a low-level obsession with sexuality in general. “Free your mind and your ass will follow”…

Whilst I don’t believe in the Spiral of Progress, even those who do must admit that “Stage Yellow” must transcend this dogmatic relativism through a more profound form of inclusivity, one which is capable of meeting people where they are at rather than forcing a pet ideology onto them. Many people are converted to right-wing ideology today as a result of this and closely related issues. The demonisation of “Stage Green” today is often fuelled by the desire of ordinary parents to protect their children from miseducation, perversion and, in the worst case, exploitation. Of course, the “lower Stages” are hardly immune to this problem either. In most cases, though, they don’t go around actively and openly celebrating it like the more extreme advocates of “Stage Green” relativism do today.

[Leo Gura]

@Oeaohoo The people who most lower age of consent is right-wingers. They would marry children if allowed.

That you don't understand this is silly. Stage Blue is all about marrying children. Children's rights don't even exist at Stage Blue.

Edited December 12, 2022 by Leo Gura

[Oeaohoo]

48 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

@Oeaohoo The people who most lower age of consent is right-wingers. They would marry children if allowed.

That you don't understand this is silly. Stage Blue is all about marrying children. Children's rights don't even exist at Stage Blue.

Yeah, that is the strange thing about this issue. The people who complain about the sexualisation of children today are appealing to the moral tenet of “children’s rights”, when even the doctrine of formalised “human rights” in the modern sense was only developed within Classic Liberalism and fully cemented in Europe after the Second World War. This is one aspect of the contemporary “conservative” perspective which has never really resonated with me for precisely this reason.

It’s not that I hadn’t understood this objection, I was just framing the issue in more narrow present-day political terms. It is true that the Classical Liberal tradition - which is all that most contemporary Conservatives really seek to conserve, even if they sometimes dress it up in religious garb - granted children certain rights, and it is true that some of the more extreme factions of the progressive Left want to subvert these rights.

The issue of “Stage Blue” attitudes towards child marriage as a whole is much broader than this. In the present-day, in the “developed” world, most Conservatives are opposed to child marriage because they are heavily influenced by the Liberal tradition. The postmodern Left has “progressed” away from Liberalism towards deconstruction and absolutist moral relativism.

In Spiral Progress terms, this is a “Blue-Orange” reaction to “Green” and an issue that you wouldn’t hear so much about from people who were solidly “Blue”. The main thing I was drawing attention to is that many people today are being pulled back from “Green” relativistic pluralism towards “Orange” forms of Conservatism by people making these complaints, and that from the progressive point of view this is a problem.

Edited December 12, 2022 by Oeaohoo

[Leo Gura]

2 hours ago, Oeaohoo said:

protecting children from sexualisation is one of the most fundamental for most people.

If you look at this statement objectively, you will see that it is rather nonsense.

Children are not "sexualized". Teens are naturally horny creatures. They don't need "sexualizing". Humans naturally have sex at a young age. This has been the case through all of human history. If anything, teens need to be held back from sex, which most schools do by preventing skanky dress and the like. Protecting teens from sex is a modern day social invention. It is a good invention, but an invention nevertheless.

Edited December 13, 2022 by Leo Gura

[Tyler Robinson]

2 hours ago, Oeaohoo said:

This isn’t overly surprising. The pioneering intellectuals of “Stage Green” all signed a petition to drastically lower the age of consent: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_petition_against_age_of_consent_laws. The normalisation of child sexuality is one of the logical conclusions of the “Stage Green” form of moral relativism - that is, of a “relativism” which ironically imposes itself absolutely. According to this immature form of relativism, every moral stricture of the past has to be violated in the name of “liberation from the super-structures of oppression”. As we move further into Stage Green, increasingly fundamental strictures have to be “challenged”, and protecting children from sexualisation is one of the most fundamental for most people. Not to mention that “Stage Green” culture is characterised by a low-level obsession with sexuality in general. “Free your mind and your ass will follow”…

I think instead of calling it green, we should call it Toxic Green. Or let's say a toxic faction of Green. It's bad cherry picking to portray the entire hemisphere of Green using a few nutters out there. It's almost as bad as using the example of male hating vile feminist and then using her as some scapegoat to discredit the whole movement of feminism. 

Using bad apples to overthrow the good ones, a classic fallacy and a trap. I'm sure most Green supporters wouldn't be happy about the sexualization of children. 

So it's really a moot point or just too much generalizing. I'm not saying it shouldn't be criticized. 

 

[Leo Gura]

When it comes to those French intellectuals challenging consent laws, I would suspect they did that simply because they are radicals who wanted to break down all the repressive religious rules that are placed on sex at stage Blue. It's that hippie, stage Green "free love" mentality. Which of course has some problems. You can't be too free with sex.

Blue is a weird stage. It both controls and represses sex, but also tends to be okay with children getting married and the like.

Edited December 13, 2022 by Leo Gura

[Oeaohoo]

8 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

If you look at this statement objectively, you will see that it is rather nonsense.

Children are not "sexualized". Teens are naturally horny creatures. They don't need "sexualizing". Humans naturally have sex at a young age. This has been the case through all of human history. If anything, teens need to be held back from sex, which most schools do by preventing skanky dress and the like. Protecting teens from sex is a modern day social invention. It is a good invention, but an invention nevertheless.

I haven’t personally looked into this, partly because I’m not interested and also because it is quite perverse, but - with respect to the accusation of things that haven’t been appropriately moderated on sites like Twitter and Facebook - this isn’t a matter of horny teens. It’s a matter of underage kids being sexualised before they have the capacity to understand what is being forced on them. It’s obvious that this is what is being referred to by child exploitation, and it seems a bit insincere to pretend that this is just people over-reacting to horny teens.

[Leo Gura]

Obviously sexual exploitation happens and should be policed. It's just hard to identify.

BTW, Musk disbanned Twitter's comittee of experts who advised on child exploitation and other forms of abuse. Now he's flying by the seat of his pants. The notion that Musk understands the nuances of child exploitation is laughable.

Edited December 13, 2022 by Leo Gura

[NK13]

This is what @Leo Gura means, when he talks about moderation. It's tough shit.