Comment by davidmurdoch
1 year ago
I'm guessing you're not a huge proponent of free speech?
Community Notes seems to be highly effective at combatting misinformation, at least of the most popular tweets.
1 year ago
I'm guessing you're not a huge proponent of free speech?
Community Notes seems to be highly effective at combatting misinformation, at least of the most popular tweets.
> Community Notes seems to be highly effective at combatting misinformation, at least of the most popular tweets.
It doesn't, millions of people see it before community notes show up. Musk is sharing fake news himself[1]. This is dangerous, this impacts people emotions and their actions.
1. https://www.politico.eu/article/elon-musk-share-fake-news-uk...
So what do you propose? We can't just shut off the Internet?
Well you bin the biggest shitheads on the site and make it hard for them to make new accounts. It’s probably impossible to fix but he’s clearly not trying to fix it at all
It’s 2024 and we’re all quite “online” people who are aware how Elon is operating Twitter. Let’s not feign ignorance here.
10 replies →
I still remember when Elon was threatening to change how the block function works and how he got a community note saying that Apple's App Store rules would prohibit it, even though they said nothing about it.
Good stuff.
> I'm guessing you're not a huge proponent of free speech?
Is Musk such a proponent? His professed absolutist views have been shown to be a lie and farce many times over
Eh, better than Jack Dorsey, and almost certainly better than the government of Brazil and the UK.
He’s made “cisgender” a banned word, c’mon
6 replies →
ya, he/she preferred it when the nypost couldnt share a real article about hunter biden's laptop. I honestly cant believe people want to live in a world where anything (beyond the obvious illegal content like child porn, slander etc) is censored. If you dont like, it ignore it.
[flagged]
It is also completely ignoring, like most "free speech on social media" proponents do, the fact that what we're talking about is not only free speech, but also free reach, that is, the ability for the algorithms of the platform in question to amplify your "free speech" so that it reaches far more people than it otherwise would were you merely saying it out loud, in person, with your mouth, or publishing it on a regular website.
Due to the above, I am adamantly against "free speech" in the context of algorithm-driven social media, and I wish that people complaining about being censored on social media would stop using the term, because they're (knowingly or not) conflating two very different ideas.
2 replies →
They are propagating propaganda pieces in the very comment that you’re asking about their ignorance of these topics.
It isn’t that they don’t understand how disinformation and propaganda is powerful and problematic. It is that they actively want to push said propaganda and it is difficult to do so when you have pesky things like technology that can automatically fact check you.
That's bad but most of that takes place all the time with centralised media distributors. Its admittedly much worse on social media (for complex reasons), but censors probably aren't going to be much faster than community notes (unless you're happy with a lot of false positive censoring), and centralized government mandated censoring gives an incredibly dangerous amount of power to the censoring body that will inevitably be abused (swapping social media providers, while nontrivial is much easier than swapping government censoring bodies).
My hope is that eventually the people will develop habits such as distrusting any information without a clear chain of custody.
This is such a naive viewpoint. Are you completely unaware of how authoritarian governments falsely label things as "propaganda" or "misinformation" in order to promote their own narratives?
1 reply →
Please clearly define what you mean when you say "free speech." It's an overloaded term that confuses people every time I see it in this context.
I don't support the artificial broadcast/amplification of content that is hateful, bigoted, misinformation, etc to thousands or millions of people that otherwise wouldn't see it, were it not for an algorithm that picks it up due to it generating more eyeballs to sell advertisements to.
If we, as a society, can manage to muster the courage to regulate social media algorithms, then we can start talking broadly about free speech rights. Until then, people who want to post vile garbage should be banned permanently and forever from participating in social media sites that use unregulated and opaque algorithms. They are, of course, still free to post whatever they want on their own sites, blogs, or on social media that doesn't make use of opaque algorithms (e.g. some Fediverse sites).
I mean it in the context of being able to criticize the US government and its officials. I think that's what most from the US think is why free speech is so important.
Hate speech is a slippery slope that I'm not knowledgeable enough in to speak to more in depth.
Who is preventing someone from criticizing the US government? Maybe I’m dense but I don’t understand what that has to do with anything being discussed here.
Also, once again, even if you’re banned from saying something on social media, no free speech rights (in any sense of the term) are lost. You are free to say it elsewhere via a mechanism that does not give you automatic free reach.
10 replies →
[flagged]
[flagged]
I've just tweeted with the word cisgender. I'll try to remember to check back in tomorrow and let you know if it got any engagement.
Would you mind also trying just "cis"? That's the version that's sometimes used as a slur.
1 reply →
> "cisgender" is banned but there are people posting the N-word and inciting racial hatred to millions of views
Don't both words get equally restricted views?