Elon Musk wants a free speech utopia. Technologists clap back.
- Thread starter bnew
- Start date
Black Sinatra
Raised Glass to the Squandered Potentials..
its not the banning of people. This is obvious and I don't know how we pretend that it is. I personally want to see that algorithm as that's what is key. Social Conditioning/Engineering is my long time subject of interest. Everything else is fearmongering, hyperbole, and frailty.opposing ideas..
people are not getting banned for being anti-socialist, pro-police, anti-union, pro big business, pro-religion, etc..
what opposing ideas or discourse are people getting banned for that you think shouldn't?
How the Twitter Algorithm Works in 2022 and How to Make it Work for You
snippet:
sure they could share the algorithm and devs can fork and modify it for other projects.
ALonelyDad
Veteran
he has aligned himself with the right wing community, he's way too deep now. His twitter account is a joke lol
Only thing china is right about, putting their billionaires in there place
.
Last edited:
Broke Wave
The GOAT
That is exactly the argument I'm trying to propose here. If you could address that for me that would be great and enlightening. Thanks.
Reflected
Living in fear in the year of the tiger.
It's not something I have thought about in-depth because I don't think we are anywhere near that point, you can check the stats on this but I remember reading that a large majority of people in developed nations do not use Twitter and of the % that do, an even smaller % of the the user base actually posts on the site. But I recognize the ramifications that could be present in an environment where a platform such as Twitter becomes the main platform for getting speech out and in that event an individual being banned from the site would be almost equal to being silenced in public. In that hypothetical world, I would say it would be wise to question who sets the standards of morality, provides the limits on speech, and their justification for bans. You would need some sort of "objective" abritor over the situation. And in that situation, the government would have to step in, in an ideal world, you could trust those members to handle things properly. As of right now, I don't think government should be stepping in unless it is a matter of concern regarding the security of the nation, so propaganda being pushed through Facebook and Twitter, which did see subpoenas issued to the leaders of these platforms with the intention of making them aware of such a problem and getting their assurance that they would address it given the impact it could have, or the impact it did have on the country.
It's a sticky situation because it's a matter of how much governmental reach we want in our lives as that's the only way one could regulate a business such as Twitter, personally, I more for giving complete control to government, but that would be in a perfect/utopian world, where the government truly has the best interest of the people in mind and there is no possibility of it going wrong. Obviously in the real world we can't control for that so I think it's important to carefully assess where we let government in versus where we don't, and in America of all places, you only need 1 election cycle for it all to go to hell. I should also note that I'm not a free speech absolutist, so that greatly affects my thoughts on the matter.
The OG JBO was completely unmoderated..
shyt was like the wild west..
We had to be stopped..
The meat measuring dynasty had to end breh.
I miss that one long ass thread by British breh that was a rep chain
People have proven and continue to prove they are not smart enough to handle certain information.
You are a non Jewish white guy right? I don’t really expect you to be sensitive to the threats posed by the radicalization of young white boys online.
If you’re black, then pull your head out of your ass with that absolutist free speech nonsense on privately owned platforms.
I'm not in here advocating for absolitist free speech but if these platforms in their current states don't allow for hate speech, and people like Elon are advocating to change that, how is it that white men have been and are continuing to be radicalized on these same privately owned platforms right now?
All this talk of free speech from Elon is bullshyt. He's focused on leverage. Rich guys at that level, in general, are focused on leverage. If Elon buys twitter he gets:
1. Political leverage. He can use the threat of twitter going full nazi/far right white supremacists to try and get something, be it benefits or what not, from democrats. He can do the same for republicans but instead of threat of going far right is their fear of dems talking points dominating the platform, the same way they claim the such is occurring with the media - consider that each side is mostly concerned about this effects their ability to attract donors.
2. It is known that he has done work with the military. Now this will let him do bullshyt with the NSA and CIA. Nothing special but having this kind of platform is useful to those agencies. This gives him a level of leverage.
3. He's a white south African and even more so, a boer. They're the most annoying breed of white. I'm not even trying to be racist, it's just the truth. I'm sure some may be okay but overall, they're on some fukkshyt, think themselves better than everyone, including other whites which is why they tend to come into conflict when they interact with other whites at times, and have a weird hatred for blacks, especially "the bantu" (say the word "bantu" around a white south African and watch their face contort with irritation and even anger). Ever since apartheid ended, they've been on some fukk shyt. They were before but holy shyt, they're low key mad about losing their "place in the world" and so a lot of things many of them do is aimed at some weird revenge for shyt. He knows this shyt will radicalize white people and he's all for it. His past conduct shows this and in his mind, he probably thinks "that's what you get".
4. His ego. He's always been an egotistical bytchmade fukk. This is him just being obvious enough that it is hard to ignore.
Like someone said, it's not about free speech. He don't give a damn about that.
1. Political leverage. He can use the threat of twitter going full nazi/far right white supremacists to try and get something, be it benefits or what not, from democrats. He can do the same for republicans but instead of threat of going far right is their fear of dems talking points dominating the platform, the same way they claim the such is occurring with the media - consider that each side is mostly concerned about this effects their ability to attract donors.
2. It is known that he has done work with the military. Now this will let him do bullshyt with the NSA and CIA. Nothing special but having this kind of platform is useful to those agencies. This gives him a level of leverage.
3. He's a white south African and even more so, a boer. They're the most annoying breed of white. I'm not even trying to be racist, it's just the truth. I'm sure some may be okay but overall, they're on some fukkshyt, think themselves better than everyone, including other whites which is why they tend to come into conflict when they interact with other whites at times, and have a weird hatred for blacks, especially "the bantu" (say the word "bantu" around a white south African and watch their face contort with irritation and even anger). Ever since apartheid ended, they've been on some fukk shyt. They were before but holy shyt, they're low key mad about losing their "place in the world" and so a lot of things many of them do is aimed at some weird revenge for shyt. He knows this shyt will radicalize white people and he's all for it. His past conduct shows this and in his mind, he probably thinks "that's what you get".
4. His ego. He's always been an egotistical bytchmade fukk. This is him just being obvious enough that it is hard to ignore.
Like someone said, it's not about free speech. He don't give a damn about that.
