JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Twitter isn't the government.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Elon & Twitter
- Thread starter Buckminster
- Start date
- Status
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Never said it was. People are saying things like ‘misinformation shouldn’t be allowed’. That word was defined by what the government dubbed it to be.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Can you link those official government policy documents defining that word?
mspohr
Well-Known Member
So if a bot posts the same lie on multiple platforms, you believe it?
I guess we’ll find out soon once the ministry of truth releases it.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
I think the EU and China are already far ahead of the US on that front.
Elon's ministry of truth will have to take a back seat
Not sure what you mean. It’s not Elon’s, it’s Biden’s.
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
I think that's mainly because a few of its loudest voices have confused "right to free speech" with "right to be free from the consequences of what you say"
They also tend to confuse the rights of private companies with those the government.... which is weird because those same people are first in line to defend someone who runs a private business and wants to refuse service to a minority class.
See also:
Go read 8chan for 10 minutes and it'll make perfect sense.
100% unmoderated speech, open to anyone, anonymously, in a format you can automate no less, leads to extremely high garbage to noise ratios including outright illegal speech.
Not even Elon is calling for this- because it produces a horrific garbage result.
So your question is almost like saying "there has never been any argument that I have heard advocating for reducing spam email or robocalls that makes any sense to me"
Except even more so because those don't usually call for killing all minorities or violently overturning election results or distributing child porn. 8chan (and other less famous 100% free speech platforms) all have done those.
I apologize, I’m not advocating for %100 unmoderated speech, but I can see how my post reads that way. Like most things it’s a sliding scale. Between %100 unmoderated to %100 moderated. Either end is bad. Many people think the US has gone to far towards moderated (or selectively moderated I suppose). It seems Elon is aiming to move it slightly towards the unmoderated direction when it pertains to speech people disagree with (rather than calls for violence like you mentioned). He also is saying he wants to make the algorithms public so any bias can be seen.I think that's mainly because a few of its loudest voices have confused "right to free speech" with "right to be free from the consequences of what you say"
They also tend to confuse the rights of private companies with those the government.... which is weird because those same people are first in line to defend someone who runs a private business and wants to refuse service to a minority class.
See also:
Go read 8chan for 10 minutes and it'll make perfect sense.
100% unmoderated speech, open to anyone, anonymously, in a format you can automate no less, leads to extremely high garbage to noise ratios including outright illegal speech.
Not even Elon is calling for this- because it produces a horrific garbage result.
So your question is almost like saying "there has never been any argument that I have heard advocating for reducing spam email or robocalls that makes any sense to me"
Except even more so because those don't usually call for killing all minorities or violently overturning election results or distributing child porn. 8chan (and other less famous 100% free speech platforms) all have done those.
I see many posts asking what you do about ‘disinformation’ or ‘misinformation’. Who gets to define those terms? A lot of things over the past couple of years were deemed to be that, only later did it turn out that they were at least partially true. (Wuhan lab leak, Hunter laptop, the reverse with Trump Russia collusion…)
EVNow
Well-Known Member
Starlink will not be available in censored and controlled places like China (largest population) without also being censored. Starlink can do unusual things like provide coverage in war torn areas, but it won't be useful for getting information into China where it would matter most.
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
Once enough of the sats have the laser links there'd be no way to censor the information, since it would never need to touch a china-based ground station.
You could make the receivers illegal of course but there'd still be folks who smuggled and used them anyway.
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
I appreciate the clarifications, that is indeed a perfectly reasonable approach.... though I see 2 issues--- if you agree a line has to be drawn on what speech is allowed and what it not, there's always going to be people unhappy with where you draw it.
Elon will draw it where it makes him happier- it remains to be seen if that place makes more or less people happy than where it is now, and what impact that has on twitters future.
The other issue is if you make your algorithms public, it becomes far easier for the bots and manipulators to abuse them.
This isn't a new debate of course, folks were making the same calls 10+ years ago about google making theirs public- and they refused for the same safety and security reasons.
Trusting google is a better alternative to further empowering a huge # of already intentionally bad actors to be able to act badly much more effectively.
If you can't trust google, you can use a different platform you trust more- who again would be better off not making it easy for the bots and bad actors making everything "transparent"
Elon seems to think he can "beat" the bad actors while making his code public. We shall see how that works out in reality if he actually goes through with it.
I agree that who gets to define those is a difficult issue.
But if you refuse to even make the attempt you get... well... we've seen a fair bit of what you get.
Brandolini's law tells us someone needs to do this job, especially in an age where otherwise anyone can anonymously, and in an entirely automated fashion, grab an infinite number of bullhorns and post an infinite amount of misinformation.
All of this is precisely true. More to the point, since this is a Tesla forum... there is no rational way to argue his purchase of Twitter is good for the health of the company, and therefore it is not good for his stated key mission of reducing carbon emissions and fighting climate change.,
He is erroding that effort for an impulsive whim because he is addicted to tweeting. His stated reasons for buying Twitter are rationalizations.
Some of my friends are already making comments about owning the cars coming to have a faint whiff of wearing a red baseball hat.
He needs everyone possible to consider buying the cars. This is not helping.
My personal experiences and the experiences of the people I trust, shape my views of the world. Not the data churned out by some organization that was paid to do that work
Last edited:
All I know is whatever they were doing, pre Elon, substantially effected those on the right. I think both sides should get to speak, that’s the only way we can at least try to find the actual truth in the middle.
- Status
