Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Elon Musk Offers to Buy All of Twitter
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
People really are underestimating how unsuccessful a platform would be that "allows anything as long as it's legal".
That's an unpleasant place to be for all but the loudest voices.
It becomes unpleasant for women and minorities -- or basically anything with nuance.
It's fine for that sort of platform to exist - absolutely!
But to think Twitter would be better if it just "allowed everything that was legal"... is very shortsighted and simplistic.
That's an unpleasant place to be for all but the loudest voices.
It becomes unpleasant for women and minorities -- or basically anything with nuance.
It's fine for that sort of platform to exist - absolutely!
But to think Twitter would be better if it just "allowed everything that was legal"... is very shortsighted and simplistic.
You guys should really go read that thread I posted above - it's so good and so spot on..
"You really want to avoid censorship on social networks? Here is the solution:
Stop arguing. Play nice. The catch: everyone has to do it at once.
I guarantee you, if you do that, there will be NO CENSORSHIP OF ANY TOPIC on any social network."
"Because it is not TOPICS that are censored. It is BEHAVIOR.
(This is why people on the left and people on the right both think they are being targeted)
The problem with social networks is the SOCIAL (people) part. Not the NETWORK (company)."
"Example: the "lab leak" theory (a controversial theory that is now probably true; I personally believe so) was "censored" at a certain time in the history of the pandemic because the "debate" included ...massive amounts of horrible behavior, spam-level posting, and abuse that spilled over into the real world - e.g. harrassment of public officials and doctors, racially-motivated crimes, etc."
"Why is this link not being censored now? Hypocrisy? Because the facts changed?"
"It was "censored" not because it was a wrong idea, but because ideas really can - at certain times and places - become lightning rods for actual, physical, kinetic mob behavior."
"That is just an unpleasant, inconvenient truth that all of you (regardless of your political leaning) need to accept
about speech. Ideas really ARE powerful, and like anything else that is powerful, yes, they can be DANGEROUS.
I'm sorry, it's just true."
"You really want to avoid censorship on social networks? Here is the solution:
Stop arguing. Play nice. The catch: everyone has to do it at once.
I guarantee you, if you do that, there will be NO CENSORSHIP OF ANY TOPIC on any social network."
"Because it is not TOPICS that are censored. It is BEHAVIOR.
(This is why people on the left and people on the right both think they are being targeted)
The problem with social networks is the SOCIAL (people) part. Not the NETWORK (company)."
"Example: the "lab leak" theory (a controversial theory that is now probably true; I personally believe so) was "censored" at a certain time in the history of the pandemic because the "debate" included ...massive amounts of horrible behavior, spam-level posting, and abuse that spilled over into the real world - e.g. harrassment of public officials and doctors, racially-motivated crimes, etc."
"Why is this link not being censored now? Hypocrisy? Because the facts changed?"
"It was "censored" not because it was a wrong idea, but because ideas really can - at certain times and places - become lightning rods for actual, physical, kinetic mob behavior."
"That is just an unpleasant, inconvenient truth that all of you (regardless of your political leaning) need to accept
about speech. Ideas really ARE powerful, and like anything else that is powerful, yes, they can be DANGEROUS.
I'm sorry, it's just true."
While I agree in part, it isn't up to private companies and politics to make that decision.
Hopefully we can learn from the many mistakes that occurred but I doubt it unless we replace or seriously revamp the methods that were utilized.
It has to be up to them
They are running private companies!
These aren't government run or funded public entities.
They can get sued for not doing things about many behaviors on their platforms.
Again - this is really why Elon's best move is roll his own service and run it as he thinks is best and users that prefer that will gravitate towards it.
More ways to experience and interact with other people and information are the answer.
I promise you, we'll never have "one service" that is the only "public square online".
It simply will not happen. The world is too big, too diverse and too polarized
And if it somehow does happen?
It will be a public service, not a private entity.
It sort of would have to be.
Yet another wonderful article breaking down how out of his depth Elon really is on this particular challenge.
It's not his fault -- everyone in the world is struggling with this.
Human nature, interaction and all that comes along with that is orders of magnitude more complicated to manage and build around than anything ever accomplished -- including electric cars, rockets and satellites.
www.techdirt.com
The closing paragraph:
"The simple fact is that dealing with human nature and human communication is much, much, much more complex than teaching a car how to drive by itself. And there is no perfect solution. There is no “congrats, we got there” moment in content moderation. Because humans are complex and ever-changing. And content moderation on a platform like Twitter is about recognizing that complexity and figuring out ways to deal with it. But Musk seems to be treating it as if it’s the same sort of challenge as self-driving — where if you just throw enough ideas at it you’ll magically fix it. But, even worse than that, he doesn’t realize that the people who have actually worked in this field for years have been making the kind of progress he talked about with self-driving cars — getting the curve to move in the right direction, before hitting some sort of ceiling. And Musk wants to take them all the way back to the ground floor for no reason other than he doesn’t seem to recognize that any of the work that’s already been done."
It's not his fault -- everyone in the world is struggling with this.
Human nature, interaction and all that comes along with that is orders of magnitude more complicated to manage and build around than anything ever accomplished -- including electric cars, rockets and satellites.
Elon Musk Demonstrates How Little He Understands About Content Moderation
Lots of talk yesterday as Elon Musk made a hostile takeover bid for all of Twitter. This was always a possibility, and one that we discussed before in looking at how little Musk seemed to understan…
www.techdirt.com
The closing paragraph:
"The simple fact is that dealing with human nature and human communication is much, much, much more complex than teaching a car how to drive by itself. And there is no perfect solution. There is no “congrats, we got there” moment in content moderation. Because humans are complex and ever-changing. And content moderation on a platform like Twitter is about recognizing that complexity and figuring out ways to deal with it. But Musk seems to be treating it as if it’s the same sort of challenge as self-driving — where if you just throw enough ideas at it you’ll magically fix it. But, even worse than that, he doesn’t realize that the people who have actually worked in this field for years have been making the kind of progress he talked about with self-driving cars — getting the curve to move in the right direction, before hitting some sort of ceiling. And Musk wants to take them all the way back to the ground floor for no reason other than he doesn’t seem to recognize that any of the work that’s already been done."
When the impact of the company can drive social development and/or modify elections, the decisions of that company have moved from private to public.
That is something none of the laws here in the US can currently handle.
Then nationalize Twitter I guess?
It's not really easy to solve.
Also, we must remember...
The actual "public square" is really the Internet, not any one service that happens to reside on the internet.
You can do basically anything you want online (in terms of free speech).
People wanting x,y,z service to comport itself a certain way have the freedom to not use that service and go say anything they want on their own site or other location of their choice.
The tension here is that people want to "say what they want" where it garners the most attention (platforms).
It's a sticky wicket
I'm more in favor of folks starting up their own sites and services online to congregate as they please and say what they want in those venues -- as opposed to basically always doomed efforts to make any one particular platform/location online "everything to everyone"
btw - I agree Elon is not the goto person for decisions on this.
One aspect of the article I do not agree with; the Internet is not the town square. Items like Instagram, FaceBook, TikTok, and Twitter are the Town Squares. There are many. The internet is the landscape these Town Squares are built upon.
I'd say those are more like small town squares of their own, within a larger landscape of the overall internet.
Just like in life, different towns have different people who act, speak and enjoy differently
We should want as much variety in those as possible -- so folks can find and enjoy the spaces best for them.
Again - staying on my message -- Elon should create his own.
Maybe he ends up doing that with Twitter?
(sort of a waste of billions though if you're going to change a ton about it)
That's the challenge. Technological development has outpaced our laws. Nationalize Twitter? No, but there needs to be some method to regulate (?) sites with this type of broad impact.
If you want to call it and treat it like an actual town square, as we perceive that in the law -- it needs to be publicly owned and controlled.
Again - I can't emphasize this enough..
More services - more places to interact and engage and disperse users is the answer here.
Everyone has become sort of numb due to the last decade of unchecked conglomeration and consolidation.
We need to get back to spreading out online -- packing more and more of civilization into less and less spaces will not work. I promise you it won't. It's antithetical to humanity as we know it.
A great point and contradiction raised in that piece...
"Hate speech is generally seen as forms of expression designed to harass, humiliate, or incite hatred against a group or class of persons based on various characteristics about them (generally including things like race, religion, sexual identity, ethnicity, disability, etc.)."
"...in the US, hate speech is entirely protected under the 1st Amendment."
"But keeping hate speech legal is very different from saying that any private website must keep that speech on the platform. Indeed, keeping hate speech on a private platform takes away from the supposed “trust” and “broadly inclusive” nature Musk claimed to want. "
tldr:
Hate speech is not illegal.
Hate speech also makes things miserable and awful for huge swaths of society.
So which is it?
Start moderating what's allowed so that things are inclusive and enjoyable for the most people - or allow people to say anything they want as long as it's "legal"?
The answer ends up being -- "Well, ok we'll moderate some stuff, because we don't want it to be awful**"
**remember -- what is "awful" or "hate speech" or even "the actual truth" is usually subjective
Thus begins the road every social platform - ever - heads down.
It's always choices, tradeoffs, subjective decisions and ultimately very imperfect and displeasing to a large number of people.
"Hate speech is generally seen as forms of expression designed to harass, humiliate, or incite hatred against a group or class of persons based on various characteristics about them (generally including things like race, religion, sexual identity, ethnicity, disability, etc.)."
"...in the US, hate speech is entirely protected under the 1st Amendment."
"But keeping hate speech legal is very different from saying that any private website must keep that speech on the platform. Indeed, keeping hate speech on a private platform takes away from the supposed “trust” and “broadly inclusive” nature Musk claimed to want. "
tldr:
Hate speech is not illegal.
Hate speech also makes things miserable and awful for huge swaths of society.
So which is it?
Start moderating what's allowed so that things are inclusive and enjoyable for the most people - or allow people to say anything they want as long as it's "legal"?
The answer ends up being -- "Well, ok we'll moderate some stuff, because we don't want it to be awful**"
**remember -- what is "awful" or "hate speech" or even "the actual truth" is usually subjective
Thus begins the road every social platform - ever - heads down.
It's always choices, tradeoffs, subjective decisions and ultimately very imperfect and displeasing to a large number of people.
Last edited:
Instead of this, he should worry about his racism problem within his factories that have resulted in multiple lawsuits and a HUGE 15 million dollar verdict this week.
What kind of manager is he, if things like that are happening in his factories? Either he has spread himself too thin, or just doesn’t care.
Plus, I don’t like the idea of one guy throwing his weight around buying things unrelated to his core business just because he doesn’t like them.
What kind of manager is he, if things like that are happening in his factories? Either he has spread himself too thin, or just doesn’t care.
Plus, I don’t like the idea of one guy throwing his weight around buying things unrelated to his core business just because he doesn’t like them.
More would be nice.
How about scale?
Then you have FB that buys these "town squares". Or they collaborate with a couple of others and force close "town squares". Spreading out? Not seeing that happening. Looks more like centralizing. Or consolidating.
Problem is disproportionate size and actual impact.
While I agree with your sentiment, I don't see it as being realistic.
What we need is a change to social media of this type. Especially true when the majority of the public gets their "news" from social media. A very few self-censored social media.
btw - Hate speech may be protected but the impact/result of that hate speech can be criminal. Kind of like yelling "FIRE!!!".
Anti-trust needs to be enforced and brought forward into the modern era and realities
We've got to stop letting the few gobble everything up before it even gets a chance to become something.
The article talks about that exact situation (yelling fire part)
But your point about hate speech results is why a platform will end up banning it..
And the definition of it is subjective, which means it starts to swallow up things in the bans that incense some people who claim they are being censored..
...do you see how the problems get going?
IMO, sites like Twitter need to change. Whether someone like Elon is that method ... End of the day we need a fair, open, regulated "town square" where talk can occur.
This feels honestly a bit too dismissive of all the work Twitter has actually done to this point.
Are they perfect?
No. That will never exist.
But they have teams of people who have been doing their best on very very hard problems (borderline unsolvable) for a long time.
We shouldn't rush to assume there is some "great fix" just waiting in dear Elon's magic hands.
That piece from TechDirt breaks it down so well.
If I may just offer one tangental thought here, since it relates to Apple and this forum.
You know how everyone likes to point out that "you see more of the negative about Apple because overwhelmingly it's the people who are upset that tend to post about it"?
That's also true about Twitter and content moderation policies!
You don't tend to hear from the HUGE swaths of different types of people who've been very positively impacted by the moderation efforts and enforcements over time.
Whether it was gamer gate stuff or doxxing victims or any number of examples -- Twitter has done a lot and gotten a lot better for a lot of people!
You know how everyone likes to point out that "you see more of the negative about Apple because overwhelmingly it's the people who are upset that tend to post about it"?
That's also true about Twitter and content moderation policies!
You don't tend to hear from the HUGE swaths of different types of people who've been very positively impacted by the moderation efforts and enforcements over time.
Whether it was gamer gate stuff or doxxing victims or any number of examples -- Twitter has done a lot and gotten a lot better for a lot of people!
He could perhaps disable blocking tools and ability to mute hashtags. Twitter is for people who want to talk and reads others opinion not for muting them
There's certainly a more perfect solution than "let's permanently ban everybody we don't like."
Disable blocking and muting?
Twitter would be a completely unusable hell scape without those tools.
You can't have a functional platform that's "inclusive and enjoyable to use" if anybody can endlessly bother (or harass -- but "legally") anyone else to their hearts content.
That depends upon what someone does of course -- but I agree with your overall point, yes
- Status