Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
The only thing I’m ideologically opposed to is non-transparent moderation. But I’m not in favor of doing anything about it. Twitter can do whatever it likes and it can moderate anything, for any reason it likes. If people don’t like it, they can go elsewhere.
BUT, if Twitter wants to make indefensibly poor decisions, it can take shit for it. And it should not be trusted. And if a crazy billionaire sees bias and decides to buy it because of its bad decisions, and turn it into something that robs those mobs - right and left - who use Twitter to call for squelching of info and views they don’t like, well... Good. The market has spoken.
|
That's fine. All moderation tends not to be transparent, for reasons that are clear to anyone who pays attention. You're ideologically opposed to moderation. I'm often not a fan of it either, but not because I think Twitter is run by the woke. I'm not a fan because it's inconsistent, capricious, easily gamed, and difficult to correct. I think that social media companies have a social responsibility to do it right, and can't be bothered, and I think the people who are working at them and enabling stuff like COVID disinformation and ethnic cleansing of the Rohynga ought to take a long look in the mirror. I have a much bigger problem with Facebook and Google (esp. Youtube) on this score than Twitter, because both of them algorithmically promote harmful crap to make themselves money. Twitter might like to do this more, but has the wrong basic model for it. The thing I like most about Twitter is that I can decide whom to follow, and when they start messing with that basic architecture, that pisses me off, as a user.
