Elon Musk $44 Billion Twitter deal

Originally Posted by Pierre

Define that.

Tell me who decides what that is

Tell me who decides who polices that.


Three easy questions.

Well, Twitter defined and policed it. They did/do so primarily concerned about their appeal to advertisers and users. I imagine they'll probably do the same now.

For all the fuss about these e-mails what they show is that it was Twitter making the decisions as a private company. If they get those decisions wrong it will hurt the company. We can complain about those moderation decisions and advertisers can make those decisions costly/profitable.

Really what else do people want to happen here? Musk can now do what he wants with it.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Damien

Well, Twitter defined and policed it

Thank you but I’m asking Ian for his answers.

Originally Posted by Pierre

Thank you but I’m asking Ian for his answers.

Let's not forget that this is a discussion open to all members and you can't pick and choose who answers

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Maggy

Let's not forget that this is a discussion open to all members and you can't pick and choose who answers

Well? You seem to have missed the point of the direction of the discussion………,but I hope you’re ok.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Damien

Well, Twitter defined and policed it. They did/do so primarily concerned about their appeal to advertisers and users. I imagine they'll probably do the same now.

For all the fuss about these e-mails what they show is that it was Twitter making the decisions as a private company. If they get those decisions wrong it will hurt the company. We can complain about those moderation decisions and advertisers can make those decisions costly/profitable.

Really what else do people want to happen here? Musk can now do what he wants with it.

There in lies the essence of the problem. One man, due to his huge personal wealth, can dictate the policy of a platform used by millions of people the world over. That is the definition of the exact opposite of free speech. Pandering to the whims & diktats of a preening narcissist will only lead to trouble.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by ianch99

There in lies the essence of the problem. One man, due to his huge personal wealth, can dictate the policy of a platform used by millions of people the world over. That is the definition of the exact opposite of free speech. Pandering to the whims & diktats of a preening narcissist will only lead to trouble.

It didn't fair any better with the previous management.

Originally Posted by Pierre

It didn't fair any better with the previous management.

Correct, because America got the useless & woke Democrats turning everything to shit and try to silence their opponents by demanding Twitter bans and censorship conservative voices. Not anymore under Elon.

---------- Post added at 21:03 ---------- Previous post was at 20:56 ----------

Originally Posted by Damien

Musk can now do what he wants with it.

That’s not true, Musk still has to abide by laws in countries his company runs in, including its own.

Originally Posted by ianch99

There in lies the essence of the problem. One man, due to his huge personal wealth, can dictate the policy of a platform used by millions of people the world over. That is the definition of the exact opposite of free speech. Pandering to the whims & diktats of a preening narcissist will only lead to trouble.

Well it seems to me that anyone who disagrees with the platform/website/ownership can just unsubscribe and then it’s the new owner’s responsibility/problem on whether it remains viable. There are lots of other spaces to visit and subscribe to.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Maggy

Well it seems to me that anyone who disagrees with the platform/website/ownership can just unsubscribe and then it’s the new owner’s responsibility/problem on whether it remains viable. There are lots of other spaces to visit and subscribe to.

You are are correct up to a point. The main issue is that Twitter is a non-subscription platform open to all, including children. There are those that do not have the political & societal maturity to gauge if the content they may come across is appropriate or harmful. That is why the platform had a team to filter content that was inappropriate from both ends of the political spectrum.

You can argue, and some do, that the filter was biased. That is par for the course in today's fractured world but the principle remains that harmful content needs moderating. It is this latter aspect of Twitter that Musk is reducing. I would not be surprised if racist/homophobic/misogynist/etc. content is not already on the rise.

Originally Posted by ianch99

... but the principle remains that harmful content needs moderating.

The problem with that principle, as always, is who decides what is "harmful".

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by ianch99

There are those that do not have the political & societal maturity to gauge if the content they may come across is appropriate or harmful.

Which hasn’t changed since it’s inception.

That is why the platform had a team to filter content that was inappropriate from both ends of the political spectrum.

I’m sure a team still exists, just with different personnel.

but the principle remains that harmful content needs moderating.

It does. Define Harmful, advise who should moderate and against what criteria.

It is this latter aspect of Twitter that Musk is reducing.

Evidence?

I would not be surprised if racist/homophobic/misogynist/etc. content is not already on the rise.

Firstly, that sentence is incorrect. I won’t say why. Repeat it to yourself, you’ll work it out.

Secondly, it’s baseless and is not grounded in any factual reality.

[Ramrod]

This is a very good recap of the story so far: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/...r-us-agencies/

[ianch99]

As expected:

https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs...musk-s-twitter

In a report released Friday, the Center for Countering Digital Hate said that since Musk has purchased Twitter, there have been nearly 3,900 posts a day that include a slur against Black people — more than triple the 2022 average of 1,282. Tweets using a slur against gay people rose 58%, from 2,506 to 3,964 a day, and posts that included a transgender slur jumped by 62%, from 3,159 to 5,117.

There was also a 33% increase in posts using a disparaging term about women, according to the report.

Separately, the Anti-Defamation League said Friday that it found there was a 61% spike in antisemitic tweets referencing “Jews” or “Judaism” — excluding retweets — in the two weeks following Musk’s takeover compared to the two weeks prior. Last month, the group also reported that Twitter has taken action on about half the number of antisemitic posts as before.

And posts promoting hate toward LGBTQ+ people had wide reach in the wake of last month’s mass shooting at the gay nightclub Club Q in Colorado Springs, Colorado, being viewed tens of millions of times, the CCDH said.

Some posts claimed Club Q was “grooming” children, including one tweet that was viewed 10 million times alone. Another post with a photo of transgender person and disparaging caption was made by a user whom Twitter had previously banned but was reinstated under Musk, the report said.

The essential takeaway:

“Elon Musk sent up the batsignal to every kind of racist, misogynist and homophobe that Twitter was open for business, and they have react [sic] accordingly,” Imran Ahmed, the Center for Countering Digital Hate’s CEO, said in a statement to Twitter.

Other articles:

Hate Speech’s Rise on Twitter Is Unprecedented, Researchers Find

Santa Clara Co. DA deactivating Twitter account due to rise in hate speech after Musk takeover

Originally Posted by ianch99

As expected:

https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs...musk-s-twitter



The essential takeaway:



Other articles:

Hate Speech’s Rise on Twitter Is Unprecedented, Researchers Find

Santa Clara Co. DA deactivating Twitter account due to rise in hate speech after Musk takeover

Absolutely laughable. Opinions Posted from far left nut job entities like the NYT and ABCNews, Democrat leaning shills for Media, utter joke.

Elon posted graphical data himself showing hate speech has gone down, not up since he took over, he’s aggressively gone after child sexual abuse content, given a claim made in one of the Twitter files release that senior executives under old regime, put dealing with it on the back burner, which in my eyes, such ignorance equals just as complicit, = is a crime.

What do people want to actually happen as a result of the 'Twitter files'? So far the leaks show the moderation decisions were made by Twitter staff and were not forced to do so by the Government, the Government and the Biden campaign complained about things but the former didn't use their power to force things down and the latter didn't have the power.

So is the complaint that the Government didn't step in to put restrictions on the ability what Twitter can allow or refuse? And is telling a private company that they must permit certain content actually breaking the first amendment? After all forced speech isn't free speech.