So you’re fact checking me because Twitter banned some occupy movement people years ago? I know you can do better.
-
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
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
Do better than pointing out your claim is factually wrong?
Perhaps first you can do better by not posting untrue things in the first place and save everyone some time?
I know you’re currently searching for leftest that have been banned from Twitter. I’ll wait.
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
Why would I bother?
Are 80 examples of you being wrong not enough of them for you to stop posting untrue claims?
How many examples specifically would be needed for you to switch to posting true things?
This dude will spend all night looking for that one Taliban guy that was banned years ago but won’t find a single modern day main stream leftest that has been banned on Twitter for complying with the rules. That was my original claim.
Conservatives get banned even if they comply with the rules.
Conservatives get banned even if they comply with the rules.
Bet TSLA
Active Member
I believe you might believe that. Of course you provide no evidence. Try providing an example of a right winger who was banned despite following the rules. Then provide evidence that the rules were followed. You know, like you actually have something true to say and know it's true for a reason beyond that it makes you happy to think it's so.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Just a few days ago TYT host Rayyvana was banned from twitter.
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
I did.
I cited a huge # of left-wing folks banned in 2018. There were 80 of them at the time, and plenty of news coverage on it.
Ok, so now we have established that "80 examples of rjack1281s claims being untrue" is not sufficient for you to admit it and stop posting untrue things.
How many examples are enough for you to switch to not posting untrue things?
Because increasingly it sounds like there's literally no amount of examples of you being wrong that will do that. And shows why it would've been a waste of time to cite the many others that also prove your claim wrong.
Which is unfortunate, but unsurprising.
Also! This is a great example of Brandolinis law in action
One guy posts a false claim. Then he demands others invest a ton of their time proving him wrong. And then literally no amount of doing so has any impact on them.
Good luck to Elon in finding a way around said law, because nobody else has so far.
Twitter has also banned plenty of people for harassment, misleading vaccination claims and a host of other reasons. In terms of politicians with suspensions & bans they were very clear of what rules weren't being followed and gave them plenty of opportunities to fix / correct / stop.
This is the problem I have with Elon taking over Twitter. If he brings back the ability for politicians to straight up misinform then he is picking a side. If he doesn't bring this back then he is picking the other side.
This is the problem I have with Elon taking over Twitter. If he brings back the ability for politicians to straight up misinform then he is picking a side. If he doesn't bring this back then he is picking the other side.
There is active discussion among moderators about when to lock this thread and ban further discussion about the twitter purchase. The argumentative nature of the last page or so brings this outcome closer.
Over the last few days, I've been thinking about what Musk might have in store for Twitter beyond the obvious and immediate. He could implement tipping and in-app purchases using dogecoin. He always wanted to build a type of online bank at X.com and PayPal, so maybe he will integrate some other no-fee crypto custody, banking, and payments features. The "X Project" mentioned in the deal slide deck could be something like that.
Last edited:
Bet TSLA
Active Member
Elon thinks big, and he knows that newspapers are not the future. Social media platforms are.
So I think this is Elon's play to go one up on Bezos (yet again). It's a competition to have the best and most respected source of public truth. I doubt Bezos even knows there's a battle on yet.
So I think this is Elon's play to go one up on Bezos (yet again). It's a competition to have the best and most respected source of public truth. I doubt Bezos even knows there's a battle on yet.
FlatSix911
Porsche 918 Hybrid
One option is pretty obvious from Musk's stated opinion that you should pick and choose among journalists: disintermediate the publication by allowing tips directly to journalist accounts. Musk would go from zero to hero among journalists in no time.
The key is to make tipping as frictionless as possible. In my view, Americans at least would go wild tipping their favorite journalists (and charities and advocacy organizations, and yes even politicians...).
If Musk approaches this from a free speech infrastructure perspective, there's a lot of low hanging fruit.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Good old Fact Checking checking Elon.
Or another graph that doesn't show the left all that innocent. Both sides are radical. But hey pick and choose what you want to believe.
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
Your own chart appears to show far right wing violence happening at roughly 2.5-3 times the rate of far left overall.... Both sides are radical, but one is pretty clearly more actually violent and law breaking about it- particuarly over the last decade or so (as that ratio appears to be similar to (or sometimes even smaller a ratio than) almost the previous 10 years per factcheckings chart.)
So as FactChecking points out, that means a neutral arbitrator would ban that side significantly more often, though still be doing some banning on both sides.
Which is literally what we have seen happen on twitter and other platforms.
This strikes me as a really bad idea insofar as getting informative news. Cafeteria plan news means that people only get what they want to hear, instead of being informed by a broad variety of sources. It's partly what has happened since the move from physical newspapers to click news, but at least with news outlets, they can subsidize the less click-worthy stories by subscription fees. Not to get all old-man on readers, but the nice thing about an old newspaper is that you could read it cover to cover and get a broad set of information on topics you wouldn't necessarily have chosen otherwise, but might round out your interests.
Humans are moved more by storytelling than they are by facts. We are moved more by outrage than we are by simple information. The idea of humans as rational actors in economics and psychology has long been abandoned, so the concept that we'd pick only the most accurate news to "tip" seems very unlikely. Humans would pick the most compelling and emotion-inducing articles and those would rise to the top. The incentives for journalists would be to create more of these. People like Alex Jones have been able to profit off of this particular combination for years. A platform without guardrails would result in a lot of Alex Jones types across all subsets of political and ideological views. I seriously doubt it would incentivize long form, multi-reporter investigative journalism that may or may not pay off. The financial model would certainly be much more lucrative for spewers of emotion-inducing nonsense.
- Status
