Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Maybe you want to read that thread again, because you're missing the point. You and Elon both think Twitter should just let anything go because so what if a few people are offended. The issue is not that a few people get offended. The problem is that lots of people get hot and bothered and start doing things IRL that have real-world consequences.

That's not Twitter's responsibility. That's not anyone's responsibility except for the nuts doing crazy things IRL.

The duty to "Combat misinformation" should not belong to platforms. They should be allowed to ban what they deem abhorrent or with which they do not desire to be associated. But they should not be compelled to act as "information quality control" for some ever shifting definition of society's best interests.

If people want to believe nonsense, that's on them. If they act badly as a result, we have law enforcement to address that.

This idea of pre-emptive avoidance of bad behavior via manipulation has a Huxley/Orwell stink to it. A kissing cousin intellectually to China's "Social Credit" policy. I think invoking Orwell is a Godwin's Law violation of sorts (not Huxley, who I think isn't appreciated enough), but here, that smell is so pungent its apt.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

That's not Twitter's responsibility. That's not anyone's responsibility except for the nuts doing crazy things IRL.

The duty to "Combat misinformation" should not belong to platforms. They should be allowed to ban what they deem abhorrent or with which they do not desire to be associated. But they should not be compelled to act as "information quality control" for some ever shifting definition of society's best interests.

If people want to believe nonsense, that's on them. If they act badly as a result, we have law enforcement to address that.

This idea of pre-emptive avoidance of bad behavior via manipulation has a Huxley/Orwell stink to it. A kissing cousin intellectually to China's "Social Credit" policy. I think invoking Orwell is a Godwin's Law violation of sorts (not Huxley, who I think isn't appreciated enough), but here, that smell is so pungent its apt.

Which Orwell book are you referencing? Coming Up For Air? Keep the Aspidistra Flying? Down and Out In Paris and London?

I can’t think of a single thread that will tie those three.

Or do you mean Animal Farm and 1984? Because if that is what you mean than you are as poorly read as Ty himself.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Which Orwell book are you referencing? Coming Up For Air? Keep the Aspidistra Flying? Down and Out In Paris and London?

I can’t think of a single thread that will tie those three.

Or do you mean Animal Farm and 1984? Because if that is what you mean than you are as poorly read as Ty himself.

Why I Write Some editions include “A Hanging.” You’ll get everything I said in one place perhaps, in under 100 pages.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Why I Write Some editions include “A Hanging.” You’ll get everything I said in one place perhaps, in under 100 pages.

So when you say “Orwell” you mean 100 pages of provably 10,000 he wrote, and none of what the mob (hi Ty!) thinks of as Orwellian?

Do you not see how you are either poorly read, or not a good advocate for your point?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

So when you say “Orwell” you mean 100 pages of provably 10,000 he wrote, and none of what the mob (hi Ty!) thinks of as Orwellian?

Do you not see how you are either poorly read, or not a good advocate for your point?

No. Edify me, wise one who writes in riddles.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

That's not Twitter's responsibility. That's not anyone's responsibility except for the nuts doing crazy things IRL.

It's cute that you have your own ideas about who should be responsible for such things, but so do governments, and what Twitter and other internet companies have found is that they need to do some policing or the governments decide to step in.

eta: BTW, that idea is core to the Twitter thread I shared that kicked off this exchange, and then I repeated it, but you still seem to have missed it completely, so I am repeating it again. Each time shorter, to help you follow. Maybe you got emotional on this topic and had a hard time dealing with the logical arguments being made?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

It's cute that you have your own ideas about who should be responsible for such things, but so do governments, and what Twitter and other internet companies have found is that they need to do some policing or the governments decide to step in.

eta: BTW, that idea is core to the Twitter thread I shared that kicked off this exchange, and then I repeated it, but you still seem to have missed it completely, so I am repeating it again. Each time shorter, to help you follow. Maybe you got emotional on this topic and had a hard time dealing with the logical arguments being made?

The default to "you're missing the point" is old, Ty. The point you're referencing cannot be missed. My point, which is in response to it, is that no platform should be engaged in such policing, period. Whether compelled by posters on it, or by the govt. If I was not explicit, or expansive, enough, my position includes (necessarily, but apparently this may not be obvious to you) the argument that under no circumstance should a platform or the govt be engaged in culling content to weed out "misinformation."

Bullshit and manipulative lies have been with us forever. If people are susceptible to them, well, that's the price of living in a country that values free expression. And that price includes me having to suffer the behaviors of the deluded and manipulated. I'd much prefer that over policy makers or corporate sorts determining what is and isn't appropriate for people to read.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The default to "you're missing the point" is old, Ty. The point you're referencing cannot be missed. My point, which is in response to it, is that no platform should be engaged in such policing, period. Whether compelled by posters on it, or by the govt. If I was not explicit, or expansive, enough, my position includes (necessarily, but apparently this may not be obvious to you) the argument that under no circumstance should a platform or the govt be engaged in culling content to weed out "misinformation."

This is as helpful as saying that no one should go to prison for a crime they didn't commit. Yes, we "should" have governments that don't try to convict innocent people. But in the real world, the one that we live in, prosecutors are sometimes more interested in getting a conviction than in getting at the truth. If you are an individual subject to that kind of government regulation, you change your behavior because of what the government might do. For Twitter and other online businesses, the same is true. It doesn't do any good to say the government should leave them alone -- it's not going to happen.

Setting the government aside, the idea that platforms should not cull "misinformation" is just incredibly wrong. For example, eBay is a platform. People list things on it. If they are lying about what they're selling, eBay wants to to weed out that "misinformation" because, duh, fraud. If you're defrauded on eBay, you don't go back, and governments start to care, so eBay has a super legitimate interest in doing that sort of culling.

(Now pretend you're a government. Fraud and libel are not OK in meatspace. You're going to pretend they're OK when they happen online? Uh, no.)

This is basically the point that thread is making. Online platforms back into content moderation for reasons like the one I just described, not because they are interested in taking sides in political disputes. They very much don't want to take sides in political disputes.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

That's not Twitter's responsibility. That's not anyone's responsibility except for the nuts doing crazy things IRL.

Sure. Sounds great for its stock price.

They should be allowed to ban what they deem abhorrent or with which they do not desire to be associated.

Which they have done. What are you on about?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

That's not Twitter's responsibility. That's not anyone's responsibility except for the nuts doing crazy things IRL.

The duty to "Combat misinformation" should not belong to platforms. They should be allowed to ban what they deem abhorrent or with which they do not desire to be associated. But they should not be compelled to act as "information quality control" for some ever shifting definition of society's best interests.

If people want to believe nonsense, that's on them. If they act badly as a result, we have law enforcement to address that.

This idea of pre-emptive avoidance of bad behavior via manipulation has a Huxley/Orwell stink to it. A kissing cousin intellectually to China's "Social Credit" policy. I think invoking Orwell is a Godwin's Law violation of sorts (not Huxley, who I think isn't appreciated enough), but here, that smell is so pungent its apt.

The question for twitter is very commercial - what kind of a product do they want to offer?

I happen to like a product that is not full of all kinds of bots and where people follow the relatively few simple rules of the forum. https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-an.../twitter-rules I think Twitter has discovered the hard way that enforcing its few rules and keeping bots contained are really essential to what they do. Somewhere Kate Klonick did a history of rules on social media that is quite good and that tracks how the big platforms discovered that the bro-culture free-for-all sucks and creates a hellscape that becomes a truly bad product, and how they learned to love the light-handed content moderation they all now do, because it keeps them alive and functioning.

If you or Elon want a different product, there is always Truth social (oh, wait, no, they banned people the day they opened up for saying mean things about Trump and Trumpers). Or maybe Parler (answering the question of whether if a racist screams in forest and no one hears him, is he truly a bigot?). Or, if all else fails, invite Elon on to lawtalkers with you.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

The question for twitter is very commercial - what kind of a product do they want to offer?

I happen to like a product that is not full of all kinds of bots and where people follow the relatively few simple rules of the forum. https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-an.../twitter-rules I think Twitter has discovered the hard way that enforcing its few rules and keeping bots contained are really essential to what they do. Somewhere Kate Klonick did a history of rules on social media that is quite good and that tracks how the big platforms discovered that the bro-culture free-for-all sucks and creates a hellscape that becomes a truly bad product, and how they learned to love the light-handed content moderation they all now do, because it keeps them alive and functioning.

If you or Elon want a different product, there is always Truth social (oh, wait, no, they banned people the day they opened up for saying mean things about Trump and Trumpers). Or maybe Parler (answering the question of whether if a racist screams in forest and no one hears him, is he truly a bigot?). Or, if all else fails, invite Elon on to lawtalkers with you.

I've no objection with culling bots and marketing spam within Twitter. Where it gets sticky is culling a doc who questions vaccinations, or a newspaper running a now verified story about a politically relevant person's laptop.

That's massaging facts, controlling narratives, attempting to craft consensus. Somewhere, the ghost of Edward Bernays must be laughing like Monty Burns.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I've no objection with culling bots and marketing spam within Twitter. Where it gets sticky is culling a doc who questions vaccinations, or a newspaper running a now verified story about a politically relevant person's laptop.

That's massaging facts, controlling narratives, attempting to craft consensus. Somewhere, the ghost of Edward Bernays must be laughing like Monty Burns.

Enjoy Parler then.

We have seen again and again that you are a victim of disinformation, and believe some truly bizarre shit that's been fed to you.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Enjoy Parler then.

We have seen again and again that you are a victim of disinformation, and believe some truly bizarre shit that's been fed to you.

No, "we" haven't. You state this, but its not true.* The only question is if you incorrectly believe it or you're intentionally stating something that isn't factual because, well, who's going to spend the time to flag the proofs its a lie?

I do not care about the Biden laptop story. I don't think it's relevant. I think the docs questioning vaccines were nuts.

But I also know (not think, or believe, but know, because this is a fact not up for debate) that both stories were not of such a deviant nature that their preclusion was warranted.

As to the laptop, even the Times and Twitter admit that story was true and was of public interest and that its preclusion from Twitter and news other than the Post was a naked effort to put a finger on the scale of the election. Everyone knows why this was done. People feared it might get Trump re-elected. I don't think the latter was true, but the former indisputably happened.

You're okay with it because I think you think the existential threat was such that the ends justified the means. That's a perfectly defensible position. Own it.

As to vaccine doubting docs, there was not even a pretext offered. They were openly precluded because they were deemed threats to the public good.

I agree with that. I think those docs did harm. And I didn't mind seeing them deplatformed.

But I'm uncomfortable with this sort of thing because it is crafting consensus. Chomsky warned about big business and govt gaining the ability to control what people could see or hear, and he was right. Media consolidation has created some awful indirect censorship. I'm not sure it's much better when you put "people who [often quite inaccurately] think they know what's best" or "people who [almost always incorrectly] consider themselves better able to filter content than the hoi polloi" - of which groups you and I are card-carrying members - in charge of consensus manufacture.

And it's a canard to argue that platforms suck when filled with "bro-culture" sorts. If you don't wish to see what you don't wish to see - on any platform - you can simply avoid it. Platforms only suck when they're sanitized and number of views expressed on them narrowed. That's how you get echo chambers.

______
* The "we" thing is weak. Own your point.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

But I'm uncomfortable with this sort of thing because it is crafting consensus.

No one is comfortable with this sort of thing, least of all the platforms themselves, who are not "crafting consensus" and do not want to be in that business at all. They want people to behave and not cause problems so the platforms can monetize them, but people keep misbehaving in different ways and causing problems, and they have to do moderation, which is impossible to do well or at scale, and then governments and politicians get involved, and CEOs have to waste their time going up to the Hill, etc. etc.

Having you looked at Facebook or Twitter or Tiktok lately? "Crafting consensus?" What are you, nuts? Consensus was when every town had one or two newspapers and a few TV stations and they all said the same centrist stuff in order to avoid scaring away advertisers. With social media, everyone can post anything they want, and the basic incentives -- say something edgy and different, stand out, get people rlled up -- are the complete opposite of "crafting consensus."

You are worrying about free speech problems from the 1970s, but it's half a century later and things have changed.

Platforms only suck when they're sanitized and number of views expressed on them narrowed. That's how you get echo chambers.

Take it from someone who worked at a platform: Platforms suck when there is zero moderation. Rank the following in order of where you spend money: Amazon, eBay, Craigslist. In that order, right? Who is doing sanitation and who isn't? Here's a hint: Jeff Bezos is the richest guy in the world, Pierre Omidyar is wealthy but not Jeff Bezos, and Craig Newmark is the answer to a trivia question.

The platforms that become echo chambers are the ones like 4Chan where anything goes, because then no one normal wants to go there.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

They want people to behave and not cause problems so the platforms can monetize them, but people keep misbehaving in different ways and causing problems, and they have to do moderation, which is impossible to do well or at scale, and then governments and politicians get involved, and CEOs have to waste their time going up to the Hill, etc. etc.

I don't doubt that they want to do that. But is a story about Biden's laptop misbehavior? The Post puts out all kinds of salacious and tawdry stuff everyday and Twitter allows it. But a story about a laptop is considered beyond the pale? Into what bucket of misbehavior did that fall?

That was more bowing to pressure from people who were scared of Trump getting re-elected. And that is indeed consensus crafting. It's precluding a wider audience from hearing a story that might influence how they vote.

I agree that banning anti-vax docs can be viewed as misbehavior. That can lead to direct harm.

Take it from someone who worked at a platform: Platforms suck when there is zero moderation. Rank the following in order of where you spend money: Amazon, eBay, Craigslist. In that order, right? Who is doing sanitation and who isn't? Here's a hint: Jeff Bezos is the richest guy in the world, Pierre Omidyar is wealthy but not Jeff Bezos, and Craig Newmark is the answer to a trivia question.

CL also has a really shitty architecture. It's not user friendly.

I think Twitter ran perfectly when it still had the political crazies on board. Trump was a dumpster fire. His tweets were a comedic gift that kept on giving. "Covfefe." It was just fantastic. He'd spawn a litany of hysterical reactions, against and in favor of him, and often very funny memes. Sure, the place is much more measured and sensible and mature. But it was a lot more fun when we had a nut with millions of followers ranting about Barney Frank's nipples. You have to admit that.

The platforms that become echo chambers are the ones like 4Chan where anything goes, because then no one normal wants to go there.

Reddit's not bad. Not user friendly, but you get a good mix of differing views there and people aren't afraid to push limits.