Social Media Discussion

[Unagi]

Why would banning bots be considered an action against the principles of free speech (as I assume we all agree Twitter can do whatever it wants and not actually violate Constitutionally protected Free Speech).

Is it as simple as banning bots? and/or... Is banning bots simple?

[Skinypupy]

The remedy for abuse of free speech is more speech, not censorship.

With limitations set by the hosting organization's T&Cs, of course. Unless they want it to turn into 4chan, which is the outcome time and time again when "unlimited free speech" on the internet is left to its own devices.

That's not exactly a business model for success.

[Blackhawk]

Free speech should not include falsehoods and lies.

Rubbish. The remedy for abuse of free speech is more speech, not censorship. As a far more distinguished gent than I aptly put it:

"Reason and free inquiry" - that I agree with. What does manipulation of the masses with blatant falsehoods, endangering people's safety and lives, have to do with reason?

And when Jefferson said that, I seriously doubt that he envisioned a platform in which people could be manipulated into only ever hearing one side of an argument by literally only hearing the words of half of the participants in the debate?

Did Jefferson imagine people causing deaths and the destruction of democracy by being convinced that facts weren't as important as what they preferred to be true? Is that Jefferson's "reason and free inquiry?"

It seems to me that manipulating people so that they only ever heard a tiny part of the story is just another form of censorship.

This isn't about free speech, it's about countering a cult.

[Smoove_B]

This isn't about free speech, it's about countering a cult.

A cult that is also actively targeting the education system in the United States - which potentially helps to bolster an ability to process and recognize misinformation.

It's quite a system we've created here.

[LawBeefaroni]

The beginning of the end of Twitter….

This is the weirdest buy in history. I don't know what investor thought giving Musk money to ruin a platform was a good idea.

Somebody that wanted that ex-president to have more influence? I'd say more, but we're not in R&P.

There is now a level in TSLA stock price that if it falls below, banks will own a large part of TSLA possibly a majority. It's an unlikely level I imagine, but it's really a no-lose situation for them.

[LawBeefaroni]

Musk is a troll and loves sowing chaos. Of course he'll unban Trump.

Trump needs to promote Truth Social/DWAC. He won't go back to Twitter right away. Except maybe to say how much it sucks and coke on over to Truth Social.

[Max Peck]

Trump is fundamentally lazy. Needing to promote his own platform hasn't resulted in him actually putting in the work to promote his own platform so far, so why would that matter to him once he can go back home to Twitter?

[Skinypupy]

coke on over

[stessier]

Why would banning bots be considered an action against the principles of free speech (as I assume we all agree Twitter can do whatever it wants and not actually violate Constitutionally protected Free Speech).

Is it as simple as banning bots? and/or... Is banning bots simple?

Is banning bots simple - I'd say no.

As to why I asked about it, it was because of Max's comment:

Have you made a lot of progress by debating with Russian troll farms and Chinese bots?

My thought it working to take down the bots doesn't reflect on free speech principles.

As for the rest, I'm fine if Twitter wants to ban people and I'm fine if they let everything go. I just don't want the government getting involved.

[stessier]

Trump is fundamentally lazy. Needing to promote his own platform hasn't resulted in him actually putting in the work to promote his own platform so far, so why would that matter to him once he can go back home to Twitter?

Yeah - he's only posted over there once, I hear, and when he tried to promote it last night, he messed up the name.

[LawBeefaroni]

The beginning of the end of Twitter….

This is the weirdest buy in history. I don't know what investor thought giving Musk money to ruin a platform was a good idea.

Somebody that wanted that ex-president to have more influence? I'd say more, but we're not in R&P.

There is now a level in TSLA stock price that if it falls below, banks will own a large part of TSLA possibly a majority. It's an unlikely level I imagine, but it's really a no-lose situation for them.

Looks like someone did the math. No idea if this is accurate or not but it's the general idea:

[dbt1949]

Somehow I'm always a little happy when billionaires lose money.

[Daehawk]

[malchior]

The beginning of the end of Twitter….

This is the weirdest buy in history. I don't know what investor thought giving Musk money to ruin a platform was a good idea.

Somebody that wanted that ex-president to have more influence? I'd say more, but we're not in R&P.

There is now a level in TSLA stock price that if it falls below, banks will own a large part of TSLA possibly a majority. It's an unlikely level I imagine, but it's really a no-lose situation for them.

Looks like someone did the math. No idea if this is accurate or not but it's the general idea:

Someone else did the math on the bridge loan and the interest payment will be $1B or so per year for a company already losing $200-400M per year. This is a pure emotional play or some scam. Some are speculating he wants an out to sell off Tesla positions. Probably a little of all of the above and more. Still he'll likely be pushed hard to monetize it quickly.

[Rumpy]

The thing is that while Musk and his ilk like to talk big about free speech, is that what they really would like to do is continue unabated spewing hate speech without consequence under the banner of free speech. Musk now owning Twitter is an easy open door into the kinds of behavior he's been seen as supporting such as right-wing extremists (donating to a trucking convoy run by extremist hate groups who've wanted to form a government, if anyone's forgetting). That's greatly alarming. It's a slippery slope.

[Blackhawk]

Somehow I'm always a little happy when billionaires lose money.

Except that they usually just lose it to other billionaires.

[Daehawk]

Republicans only want free speech as far as themselves being able to say what they want. Anyone else should shut up. When Twitter banned Trump all they could do was shout infringement of the 1st amendment. But mention trans rights and they ignore their own rhetoric.

[malchior]

I'm trying to avoid too much P&R here but there is a bit of an upside here - for society potentially. Most social media has been at some level a little curated. They are generally public companies with larger concerns and couldn't support the expansive American model of free speech. These networks are global businesses and have to do some level of tamp down and adhere to local community standards and laws.

This is where you cross with the idea that they also might be society poison and their algorithms could be breeding hate, mental illness, and division. In that light, Facebook *almost* faced some consequences when Haugen spoke out last year. Facebook was able to smoke and mirros/conquer and divide their way out of the net but they were in serious trouble. If Musk, tears up the social contract and goes full 'freedumb' it might spark a conversation that actually matters about how we all interact on these platforms.

[Anonymous Bosch]

This isn't about free speech, it's about countering a cult.

It is about freedom of speech, thought, and expression if "countering a cult" boils down to a euphemism for censorship, because as another political thinker famously put it:



There are countless cults of one sort or another with whom I'd vehemently oppose every flavour of BS they espouse. But as strongly as I may disapprove of what they say, I remain firmly convinced in their right to say it.

[stessier]

There are countless cults of one sort or another with whom I'd vehemently oppose every flavour of BS they espouse. But as strongly as I may disapprove of what they say, I remain firmly convinced in their right to say it.

I too remain convinced they have a right to say it. I am not convinced any private entity is required to give them a forum to say it.

[Blackhawk]

It is about freedom of speech, thought, and expression if "countering a cult" boils down to a euphemism for censorship

I am tired of seeing the terms 'freedom of speech' and 'censorship' being bandied about like bludgeons with no attempt made to justify their application.

I absolutely believe in freedom of speech for views I don't like. What I don't believe in is the freedom to manipulate people with blatant lies in a manner that kills humans for the liar's profit. That isn't a view I don't like, that's an action performed with intent that actively does real harm. If I convince a child to jump off of a building to his death, I can't claim 'freedom of speech' to justify it. Limits on freedom of speech or expression? What about libel? Sedition. Incitement to suicide. Revealing classified information. Viable threats. Incitement to violence. Abuse. Slander. Perjury. Child pornography. False medical claims. False advertising.

Freedom of speech has limits, as some speech has consequences that do real, genuine harm. That alternative anything-goes anarchy is a world most of us - including the most freedom-loving - would want no part of.

It isn't so black-and-white as 'Anything anybody wants, all the time, no matter what.'

I can find lots of 'famous quotes' to back those points up, too.

[dbt1949]

What about saying racist remarks?

[Unagi]

If I convince a child to jump off of a building to his death, I can't claim 'freedom of speech' to justify it.

I honestly think this is a perfect analogy. No one would say, "There should have been someone there to convince them otherwise... but you gotta let the battle of ideas play out".

[hepcat]

Freedom of speech ends when lives are put in danger. That’s really the only line that should be drawn. Don’t yell fire in a crowded theater and all that.

As for insulting and besmirching others, that’s why we have libel laws.

[Blackhawk]

What about saying racist remarks?

Protected, and it should be, as long as it isn't also inciting people to violence.

But again, none of that applies to businesses. The government shouldn't be able to silence racist speech, but Twitter and Facebook don't have to allow it any more than I have to in my living room. That isn't what 'freedom of speech' is about.

[stessier]

Don’t yell fire in a crowded theater and all that.

That's not a thing and somewhere in the desert, Mr Fed is twitching.

[hepcat]

Oh, I’m sure it’s not. However, I’m like Blackhawk in that I believe the right to freedom of speech should end when it results in violence or harm. I realize that the Supreme Court actually struck down that assertion many moons ago, but I still feel it’s worth adhering to…at least on a personal level. I would never directly call for someone’s death in a serious manner in a public setting. But again, this is a personal interpretation of the first amendment by someone who owns a copy of Kevin Costner’s The Postman.

[Holman]

We typically imagine freedom of speech as the right of some nasty individual to say something offensive. That's not the problem we're facing on social media.

What we're facing is access for malicious purveyors of misinformation and disinformation on a global scale, with their ability to drown out accurate and important information. Fact-checking takes work; time and volume are always on the side of the liars.

Twitter is about to get worse, and not just because shitposters will be more free to post slurs.

[Daehawk]

If Musks only lets what idiots do and say go by and bans or removes what he doesn't like then I see lots of lawsuits.

[Unagi]

If Musks only lets what idiots do and say go by and bans or removes what he doesn't like then I see lots of lawsuits.

Based on what law ?

[Holman]

What's funny is that the types you would expect are crowing about how they're unleashed and are suddenly no longer being "shadow banned" or "suppressed by the algorithm" or etc. They're claiming that Twitter is a freer place today and that they're seeing it in their engagement numbers.

The fact is that nothing has changed. Shareholders haven't even approved the purchase. Musk won't have actual control of Twitter for another five or six months.

[Unagi]

That's pretty hilarious.

[Zarathud]

The fact is that nothing has changed. Shareholders haven't even approved the purchase. Musk won't have actual control of Twitter for another five or six months.

I think Musk just bought AOL except he’s going to cause it to jump the shark. Users are going to abandon it.

[Anonymous Bosch]

It is about freedom of speech, thought, and expression if "countering a cult" boils down to a euphemism for censorship

I am tired of seeing the terms 'freedom of speech' and 'censorship' being bandied about like bludgeons with no attempt made to justify their application.

I absolutely believe in freedom of speech for views I don't like. What I don't believe in is the freedom to manipulate people with blatant lies in a manner that kills humans for the liar's profit. That isn't a view I don't like, that's an action performed with intent that actively does real harm. If I convince a child to jump off of a building to his death, I can't claim 'freedom of speech' to justify it. Limits on freedom of speech or expression? What about libel? Sedition. Incitement to suicide. Revealing classified information. Viable threats. Incitement to violence. Abuse. Slander. Perjury. Child pornography. False medical claims. False advertising.

Freedom of speech has limits, as some speech has consequences that do real, genuine harm. That alternative anything-goes anarchy is a world most of us - including the most freedom-loving - would want no part of.

It isn't so black-and-white as 'Anything anybody wants, all the time, no matter what.'

I can find lots of 'famous quotes' to back those points up, too.

Of course freedom of expression has its limits, and no one is suggesting otherwise. Musk himself has said he wants to allow "all legal speech on Twitter," and followed-up with the following:

The extreme antibody reaction from those who fear free speech says it all.

By “free speech”, I simply mean that which matches the law.

I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law.

If people want less free speech, they will ask government to pass laws to that effect.

Therefore, going beyond the law is contrary to the will of the people.

Alas, the lines for what is legal can be blurry, and tends to vary from one nation to another. But colour me sceptical that the same bloke responsible for materially helping Ukrainians stave off Russia's invasion wouldn't blink an eye at the notion of a platform he owns and operates being used to (metaphorically) convince children to jump off of buildings to their death.

[Kraken]

What about saying racist remarks?

Protected, and it should be, as long as it isn't also inciting people to violence.

But again, none of that applies to businesses. The government shouldn't be able to silence racist speech, but Twitter and Facebook don't have to allow it any more than I have to in my living room. That isn't what 'freedom of speech' is about.

Very true. The question at hand is to whether a platform should be responsible for squelching speech that crosses the line and incites violence or insurrection. Section 230, which underpins the whole internet, says "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." Twitter is under no obligation to police its content, but neither is it obligated to disseminate it.

[Rumpy]

We typically imagine freedom of speech as the right of some nasty individual to say something offensive. That's not the problem we're facing on social media.

What we're facing is access for malicious purveyors of misinformation and disinformation on a global scale, with their ability to drown out accurate and important information. Fact-checking takes work; time and volume are always on the side of the liars.

Twitter is about to get worse, and not just because shitposters will be more free to post slurs.

Yep, that's about the gist of it. I agree. It's going to get Topsy-turvy. It's like the problem of a individual vs a swarm. You can control an individual once he gets out of control, but much harder when it's a collective.

[malchior]

The 'legal free speech' argument is why a lot of folks are suspicious. It is potential path into exactly the same problem that we saw on other platforms - such as 8chan.

Who gets to decide the limits of speech on the Internet? The shooting in El Paso, Texas, has brought new urgency to that question. The suspect is thought to have posted a screed against Hispanic immigrants on 8chan, an online message board. After the shooting, 8chan lost the support of a crucial network services company. NPR's Martin Kaste reports on the debate over policing Internet speech.

[Max Peck]

Legal free speech according to which laws in which countries where Twitter operates?

[Daehawk]

I wonder if its ok after the change just to just cuss Trump and GOP in big nasty wording or send the same in tweet form at them? :0

[Kurth]

If I convince a child to jump off of a building to his death, I can't claim 'freedom of speech' to justify it.

I honestly think this is a perfect analogy. No one would say, "There should have been someone there to convince them otherwise... but you gotta let the battle of ideas play out".

I also think this is a perfect analogy, but maybe for a different reason. The question it begs is, "who are we as a society?"

If we're a bunch of children, then relatively unfettered free speech is a frightening and dangerous prospect.

If we're intelligent, self-interested, thinking adults, welcome to the battle of ideas. May the best ones win.

I know what I used to think. Not so sure anymore.