Pedo guy megalomaniacal manchild officially owns Twitter

[Reputator]

48 minutes ago, Kal-El814 said:

Citation needed. Also referring to moderation as thought suppression is cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs. 

 

See your favorite dictatorship of choice.

[TUFKAK]

8 hours ago, mclumber1 said:

 

Donald Trump, assuming he wins the election in November.  He gets to decide which speech gets limited.

Which is exactly what other nations did! Oh wait.

 

free speech absolutism is a stupid as herp-derp shall not infringe!

[Reputator]

10 minutes ago, TUFKAK said:

Which is exactly what other nations did! Oh wait.

 

free speech absolutism is a stupid as herp-derp shall not infringe!

 

More herp derp than promoting ignorance by suppressing the free exchange of ideas?

 

I guess never being exposed to opposing ideas makes you smarter!

[legend]

15 minutes ago, Reputator said:

I guess never being exposed to opposing ideas makes you smarter!

 

I think you're begging the question. No one is advocating for preventing people from being exposed to opposing ideas. I know you think that's the natural outcome of any regulation on speech, but that's the point being questioned.

[TUFKAK]

30 minutes ago, Reputator said:

 

More herp derp than promoting ignorance by suppressing the free exchange of ideas?

 

I guess never being exposed to opposing ideas makes you smarter!

Yep; I definitely need to consider the positive arguments for the final solution in greater depth to be “open minded” or something. Or that vaccines contain microchips to turn the frogs gay. 
 

I can say whatever I want is the intellectual equivalent of I can own a middle battery cause mah writes!

[LazyPiranha]

A theory is only worth a damn if it holds up to testing.  We’re deep into the path of “the cure for bad speech is more speech” and clearly that isn’t the case.  That idea maybe, slightly carries water in a world where both sides of a debate are civil and a viewer can decide based purely on a sober representation of facts, but that’s not the world we live in.  One side of the coin cheerfully resorts to harassment, violence, intimidation, and threats, and the other doesn’t.  It’s the reason Nazi Punks Fuck Off was a thing, punks had this shit figured out fifty years ago.  If you tolerate a nazi in your midst, then ALL of the nazis are coming, and soon enough no one will be left but nazis because everyone else doesn’t want to put up with them.  Chuds want to invade spaces, make everyone else feel uncomfortable and unwanted so the only people left in the space are chuds.  It’s the entire point.  It’s their raison d’être.  It’s why gamergate and other similar campaigns were born into the world, find a space the leans young male and then poison the well to drive everyone else away.
 

As for the leopards eating my face argument, that’s bullshit too.  Let’s not pretend these proto-fascist dipshits give a single flying fuck about legal precedence or history, they’ll pull whatever levers they want and if no lever exists they’ll fucking build it first then pull it.  You think if no mechanism exists for censorship they’ll leave speech they don’t like be for the love of the game?  In junior high, my history teacher had a framed quote on his wall from Nixon saying if the president does it that means it’s not illegal.  He had it up as a joke, showing the hubris of a deeply corrupt man.  Now it’s the law of the land.  
 

As for being exposed to opposing ideas making you smarter?  Does anyone feel smarter for having heard that the earth is flat, that aliens built the pyramids because clearly brown people couldn’t be smart, that George Soros is somehow cutting a check to everyone, that the Clinton’s murdered multiple people, or that George Bush shot a missile at the pentagon to steal a bunch of gold?  No.  

[TUFKAK]

2 minutes ago, LazyPiranha said:

A theory is only worth a damn if it holds up to testing.  We’re deep into the path of “the cure for bad speech is more speech” and clearly that isn’t the case.  That idea maybe, slightly carries water in a world where both sides of a debate are civil and a viewer can decide based purely on a sober representation of facts, but that’s not the world we live in.  One side of the coin cheerfully resorts to harassment, violence, intimidation, and threats, and the other doesn’t.  It’s the reason Nazi Punks Fuck Off was a thing, punks had this shit figured out fifty years ago.  If you tolerate a nazi in your midst, then ALL of the nazis are coming, and soon enough no one will be left but nazis because everyone else doesn’t want to put up with them.  Chuds want to invade spaces, make everyone else feel uncomfortable and unwanted so the only people left in the space are chuds.  It’s the entire point.  It’s their raison d’être.  It’s why gamergate and other similar campaigns were born into the world, find a space the leans young male and then poison the well to drive everyone else away.
 

As for the leopards eating my face argument, that’s bullshit too.  Let’s not pretend these proto-fascist dipshits give a single flying fuck about legal precedence or history, they’ll pull whatever levers they want and if no lever exists they’ll fucking build it first then pull it.  You think if no mechanism exists for censorship they’ll leave speech they don’t like be for the love of the game?  In junior high, my history teacher had a framed quote on his wall from Nixon saying if the president does it that means it’s not illegal.  He had it up as a joke, showing the hubris of a deeply corrupt man.  Now it’s the law of the land.  
 

As for being exposed to opposing ideas making you smarter?  Does anyone feel smarter for having heard that the earth is flat, that aliens built the pyramids because clearly brown people couldn’t be smart, that George Soros is somehow cutting a check to everyone, that the Clinton’s murdered multiple people, or that George Bush shot a missile at the pentagon to steal a bunch of gold?  No.  

Very close minded of you to not consider those opposing views my guy.

[LazyPiranha]

10 minutes ago, TUFKAK said:

Very close minded of you to not consider those opposing views my guy.

You’re god damned right

[Reputator]

33 minutes ago, legend said:

I think you're begging the question. No one is advocating for preventing people from being exposed to opposing ideas. I know you think that's the natural outcome of any regulation on speech, but that's the point being questioned.

 

The notion that it is a slippery slope is my entire argument. I don't think it's possible to have a fine toothed comb to weed out the undesirable speech while leaving the whole relatively untouched, because I don't think humanity, and I don't think the desire for control by nefarious parties would be capable of that.

[Xbob42]

5 hours ago, Xbob42 said:

Also, there's a huge difference between an individual's right to say whatever, and a corporation artificially inflating very specific types of opinions using an algorithm. 

image unrelated

[Kal-El814]

2 hours ago, Reputator said:

See your favorite dictatorship of choice.

 

This is just a fart in the wind, it doesn’t actually mean anything.

 

“Doing something might make things worse,” is silliness. We’re not at some kind of stable, platonic neutral on this topic, let alone an ideal. In 2024 it is essentially impossible to be online without being absolutely bombarded with misinformation weaponized for algorithmic engagement. Just Meta alone has done what is likely irreparable social and public harm by lying about the pivot to video which absolutely devastated print / local news media and Meta has been reliably associated with contributing to ethnic cleansing in Myanmar. The individual and corporate consequences for this have been, essentially, fucking zero.

 

So crowing about how it could be worse is just masturbation. It could be a whole lot fucking better, too.

[legend]

52 minutes ago, Reputator said:

 

The notion that it is a slippery slope is my entire argument. I don't think it's possible to have a fine toothed comb to weed out the undesirable speech while leaving the whole relatively untouched, because I don't think humanity, and I don't think the desire for control by nefarious parties would be capable of that.

 

I know it is, but just asserting the outcome that is being challenged isn't very compelling. Granted other people are mostly shit posting in this thread too, so maybe carry on if that's all we're doing  

[legend]

7 minutes ago, Kal-El814 said:

 

This is just a fart in the wind, it doesn’t actually mean anything.

 

“Doing something might make things worse,” is silliness. We’re not at some kind of stable, platonic neutral on this topic, let alone an ideal. In 2024 it is essentially impossible to be online without being absolutely bombarded with misinformation weaponized for algorithmic engagement. Just Meta alone has done what is likely irreparable social and public harm by lying about the pivot to video which absolutely devastated print / local news media and Meta has been reliably associated with contributing to ethnic cleansing in Myanmar. The individual and corporate consequences for this have been, essentially, fucking zero.

 

So crowing about how it could be worse is just masturbation. It could be a whole lot fucking better, too.

 

This is generally my position. Are we really just gonna shrug an insist it's impossible to develop any better policy than :: gestures around :: this?

[Reputator]

You guys have no idea what that policy would look like. Just making broad strokes statements that things should be better because people say things that hurt people doesn't give justification for (and I can't believe I'm having to argue with this) fucking revoking the 1st amendment. This is a core tenant of this nation and what allows things like free press, but you want to install moderators because you think any variation of how that can go wrong is somehow better, ignoring the dictatorships, the fiefdoms, the long standing precedent that instigated the whole idea of the 1st amendment in the first place.

[Kal-El814]

3 minutes ago, legend said:

This is generally my position. Are we really just gonna shrug an insist it's impossible to develop any better policy than :: gestures around :: this?

 

I also refuse to accept that people are as tied to “free speech” as they seem to think. I assume most people here think Purdue shouldn’t be allowed to say that OxyContin is not addictive when the evidence doesn’t support that. Why does every wellness grifter get to say that their powders will reboot your gut?

 

Nobody here that I’ve seen is advocating to make it illegal to criticize the government or to restrict the press.

[Kal-El814]

Just now, Reputator said:

You guys have no idea what that policy would look like. Just making broad strokes statements that things should be better because people say things that hurt people doesn't give justification for (and I can't believe I'm having to argue with this) fucking revoking the 1st amendment. This is a core tenant of this nation and what allows things like free press, but you want to install moderators because you think any variation of how that can go wrong is somehow better, ignoring the dictatorships, the fiefdoms, the long standing precedent that instigated the whole idea of the 1st amendment in the first place.

 

Citation. Fucking. Needed.

[Reputator]

Just now, Kal-El814 said:

 

Citation. Fucking. Needed.

 

Jesus fucking christ.

[Kal-El814]

Just now, Reputator said:

 

Jesus fucking christ.

 

Literally nobody here has advocated for revoking the first amendment, what absolute boobery..

[Reputator]

3 minutes ago, Kal-El814 said:

 

Literally nobody here has advocated for revoking the first amendment, what absolute boobery..

 

Right, you want free speech with censorship. Totally makes sense and not at all diametrically opposed.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Listen if I can’t make actionable threats then there’s no such thing as free speech. Slippery slopes and all

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

“Shall make no law” right up there and stronger than “shall not infringe”

[Kal-El814]

Just now, Reputator said:

Right, you want free speech with censorship. Totally makes sense and not at all diametrically opposed.

 

We already have limits on free speech, I have no idea what you’re going on about at this point. I cannot just walk up to you and tell you I’m going to murder you. I can possess pornography if I want to but I couldn’t possess child pornography legally. I could not slander nor libel you without expecting some kind of penalty. I cannot extort you. I can’t violate copyright laws in certain circumstances and expect First Amendment protection, for crying out loud. I’m sure I’m forgetting some, too.

 

I’m sorry but if you can’t tell me your problem with something like Germany’s laws against antisemitism and Holocaust denial without it just boiling down to “slippery slope bad” I don’t know what to tell you.

 

Again literally nobody here is advocating for repealing the First Amendment; I’m certainly not.

[Kal-El814]

11 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Listen if I can’t make actionable threats then there’s no such thing as free speech. Slippery slopes and all

 

If I can’t commit rape by deception, haven’t we let the terrorists win? I tell women I’m someone else for my own security, which is sacrosanct.

[TUFKAK]

No see guys if you dont let Nazis say nazi shit then you inevitably get… more Nazis.  

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

4 hours ago, Kal-El814 said:

I’ve yet to see convincing arguments that stuff like Germany’s laws against antisemitism and Holocaust denial are bad beyond reflexive American opposition to regulation…

 

Those laws have been used to explicitly shut down pro-Palestinian activities in Germany or have had a chilling effect on them.

 

Sure, that was probably/definitely an overzealous application of the laws, but there's a tangible example that transcends the "reflexive American opposition to regulation".

[Kal-El814]

18 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

Those laws have been used to shut down pro-Palestinian activities.

 

Sure, that was probably/definitely an overzealous application of the laws, but there's an example that transcends the "reflexive American opposition to regulation".

 

See this is what I’m talking about.

 

I agree that is bad and and to your point is an overreach of what the laws were intended to accomplish. And while I think “slippery slope” in a vacuum is not especially helpful I am sympathetic to the notion that any such law (or exception to broad free speech laws; whatever) have the potential to be used as a hacksaw and not a scalpel.

 

That said…

 

I still think the topic needs to be addressed more broadly. Brazil banning X in general strikes me as not particularly good even though I wish the platform and its owner would hop onto a Space X rocket aimed at the sun. I assume that some of the intent around protecting organizations that give “a platform” to hateful content was with the notion that you wouldn’t want the government to be able to stop a paper or news broadcast from being able to report on crime, conflict, wars, etc. And that should be protected; again, I’m not advocating for the creation of state controlled media here.

 

But two of the biggest platforms in the west, Twitter and Facebook, have both demonstrated that they will tip the scales in favor of engagement as opposed to truthfulness. And when it comes to things like global politics or even personal health, I find it REALLY difficult to accept that the most effective way to do the least amount of harm (I’m being as charitable as I can be here) is to just leave it up to the users. I don’t think you get to most Republicans thinking the 2020 election was stolen / fraudulent without the algorithmic boosting of known lies.

 

It also strikes me as an immensely privileged POV as well. As a straight, white, cis, male, American, the notion that algorithmic boosting is going to end up with me getting liquidated or harassed anytime soon is fairly laughable. 25,000+ dead Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar aren’t in a position to have a take on this anymore from the dirt.

 

So I don’t know. This isn’t a position I’ve had forever, I felt very differently about it in high school, college, and grad school before the extent to which private companies are willing to engage in catastrophically destructive behavior became apparent. The status quo doesn’t seem sustainable without an absolute ton of human collateral damage.

[TUFKAK]

33 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

Those laws have been used to explicitly shut down pro-Palestinian activities in Germany or have had a chilling effect on them.

 

Sure, that was probably/definitely an overzealous application of the laws, but there's a tangible example that transcends the "reflexive American opposition to regulation".

Wasn’t that due to a speaker who had called for violence against Jews being scheduled to speak though? The dude banned from Germany at that.

 

I think there’s a valid distinction between pro Palestinian activities and kill the Jews rhetoric.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

5 minutes ago, TUFKAK said:

Wasn’t that due to a speaker who had called for violence against Jews being scheduled to speak though? The dude banned from Germany at that.

 

I think there’s a valid distinction between pro Palestinian activities and kill the Jews rhetoric.

 

There's absolutely a valid distinction, but the German authorities and civil society appear to erring on the side of over caution.

[Jwheel86]

I'm of the mind we're too far gone for any new type of speech restrictions by the US Government to not be abused by the Right the second they get power. Same reason I think the Left's anti gun culture is dangerous, you're never going to get back the guns that are out there, and do you really want the Right being the only one's armed?

 

Germany was able to get those laws in place AFTER that element of their society had been beat down post 1945. We're not there yet, but I think we're starting to see the rejection of National Populists and their insanity online. The excitement for Harris isn't because she's particularly exciting, it is the expression of everyone saying 'thank god a normie', Same thing with Walz and the weird thing, it's the normies starting to bully the National Populists back into their cave. However long it took for society to get into this mess is how long it'll take to get out. 

 

That said! I think if an online figure, page, whatever, gets over X following on a social media platform, it should be required to disclose it's finances. I'm convinced a significant portion of the Right's online figures are being propped up by outside actors. 

[Xbob42]

You can already effective use slap suits to silence individuals (including politicians) and smaller corporations, so we also get the "consequences" of free speech enacted by those with more power, not even the government itself. It's like we get multiple downsides and very few tangible upsides. Woo, free press, now they're allowed to call themselves a news network while smirking and just making shit up, lying to your face, 24/7.

 

I don't know if I'd frame it as free speech vs not free speech or whatever, but I do think, like with guns, we need sensible legislation against bad actors, designed in a way to minimize potential harm by future bad actors using it in their own favor. Sounds tricky as hell, but when it stops being a human talking to another human and a fucking AI bot farm controlling the entire narrative, I think that's actually suppressing actual free speech more as it's drowned out by endless noise.

[TUFKAK]

7 hours ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

There's absolutely a valid distinction, but the German authorities and civil society appear to erring on the side of over caution.

With some of the absolute vile shit that’s being said at these protests it’s easy to make the connection. Assuming it’s comparable to what I’ve heard here in SF, let’s just say it makes Globalize the Intifada and River to Sea seem tame, I can understand their hesitancy in that context.

[Greatoneshere]

Free speech isn't just no-holds-barred free speech; there are plenty of laws that put all kinds of limits on free speech between the government and individuals, between individuals and other individuals and between individuals and organizations/corporations. There are so many different tiers to libel and slander laws, what applies if you're a public figure or just a private citizen, and more. 

 

This idea that it's "free speech" or "no free speech" is a false dichotomy. We don't have unrivaled, uncensored free speech. Suggesting additional limits on certain kinds of free speech is debated amongst legislatures all the time, this is yet another time we're discussing it. I think there definitely needs to be a clamp down on misinformation and disinformation and to suggest that violates free speech or is a "slippery slope" is merely to suggest two things: 1) you didn't already know the US puts limits on speech; and 2) you don't understand that there are ways to impose limits without actually going down that slippery slope.

 

To do nothing is certainly not the answer.

[legend]

I think it's fine to be critical, even desirable, of new proposals on how to moderate speech. We do have be thoughtful and careful about how we implement new policies. However, when other changes in society -- in this case technological and social in the form of algorithmic social media -- allow for significant social harms under the old policy, taking the position of "it's impossible to do better" is just nuts to me. 

 

This is not the only area where this attitude is present and it always drives me nuts. It happens even in something as fast moving as programming languages where some people refuse to accept that a programming language can be improved upon and we should just settle. These people are eventually proven wrong, but they make it very hard to get to something better faster.

 

Assuming it's impossible to do better and refusing to entertain ways to do better is an incredibly poisonous attitude that stifles progress in virtually all aspects of human life.

[Jwheel86]

1 hour ago, Greatoneshere said:

I think there definitely needs to be a clamp down on misinformation and disinformation and to suggest that violates free speech or is a "slippery slope" is merely to suggest two things

 

What is the mechanism for rules making, enforcement, and due process? The details are where these things die. 

 

1 hour ago, Greatoneshere said:

To do nothing is certainly not the answer.

 

Does your something, executed badly (this is America we're talking about here), only make the problem worse by giving political ammo to the far right populists in your game of whack a mole? 

[mclumber1]

 

Both should be "real shit", but since the first one involves Musk, many people ITT applaud the actions taken in Brazil. 

 

When the government can determine without any sort of trial or due process what is misinformation and what is not, abuses will absolutely take place.