Elon Musk, Twitter’s next owner, provides his definition of “free speech”

Amid Twitter buyout, Musk says free speech is simply "that which matches the law."

Read the whole story

 

[Alfonse]

The comments/replies here are rather disingenuous in their presuppositions and due to moderated comment frequency, can’t be responded to individually. The Left would like you to think that it’s merely advocating against racism and hate speech (neither of which are clearly defined and are subject to change). But that’s a straw man argument to disguise the actual goal of the Left which is to promote its agenda unchallenged and to control the media narrative. This is why the Biden administration is scrambling to create a “disinformation board.” He’s hoping to mitigate the loss of Twitter and hoping we will somehow deem his group as independent arbiters of the truth. He’ll try to leverage this for political advantage in the lead up to the elections. The Left wants to be the sole arbiter of what is and what is not DISINFORMATION. You may still believe for example, that the Hunter Biden story is a Russian or Republican disinformation campaign but numerous fact checking and less biased news sources have proven it a legitimate story and one that should never have been banned. Likewise, political commentators like Tucker Carlson arguably do not engage in “hate speech” or “disinformation” any more than the numerous liberal commentators on more liberal networks. As a result, there is clearly no RELIABLE arbiter of what is and what is not disinformation and with increased sensitivity, there is always some percentage of the public who can interpret non-hate speech as hate speech. Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling has been criticized by some for "engaging in 'hate speech' toward transgender people for saying that there are two biologically distinct genders” even though upwards of 75% of the populace agrees with the statement, "[t]here are two genders, male and female." People’s views on both sides of the debate on volatile topics like gender, immigration, climate change, vaccines etc. have as much right to be heard as views on more prosaic topics such as microeconomics and international trade. It does not take a rocket surgeon to realize that a mod could easily inculcate their own political/social views when in control of shadow banning and implementing algorithmic bias. If political bias can happen at the FBI, it can certainly happen at Twitter. The potential for abuse and bias is undeniable and IF one’s goal is to make a site that is truly open to all, within the limits of law, then these issues clearly need to be addressed. Musk (thus far) simply wants to take Twitter from a platform that was shadow banning more conservative voices and censoring legitimate stories to one that allows all voices under the law. That shouldn’t be viewed as a loss for the Left unless you view it through the optics of tribal politics where the Left is losing some of it’s political influence to further its agenda on numerous economic, social, environmental and international fronts. And that is exactly what is causing all the anguish among the commenters here and more broadly across the rest of the liberal news media at large.

Wow, that's a great story.

Any moderation Twitter currently does is already allowed under the law. Even though nobody anywhere can point to examples of conservatives being banned from Twitter for advocating for smaller government and less taxes, even if Twitter did that, they are well within the law to be able to do so.

One or more of all the things that conservatives cry about Twitter doing, whether or not they are actually being done (such as banning, moderating, curating content, using algorithms, presenting the parts of the internet they want you to see, and on and on), is applicable to almost any web based platform out there - including Amazon, Netflix, Google, Facebook, Truth Social, LinkedIn, and on and on and on.

I'm still baffled by the idea that Twitter must change, because something something the law, yet every other platform can continue operating the way they do...when they all operate under the same laws, or lack of.

I'm so fucking confused by this constant nonsense.

In related Republicans-keep-proving-they-hate-free-speech-rights-they-don't-understand news:
Marjorie Taylor Greene Has A Bill To Burden Elon Musk’s Twitter With An Avalanche Of Frivolous Lawsuits

I'll admit, I really don't understand the hate boner for Section 230 either. The way I see it, if Section 230 gets repealed, every site that hosts any kind of user content will do one of 3 things -

1. Moderate and screen everything so thoroughly that only the absolute safest content makes it through, which means that almost nothing at all will get through.

Oh, stuff will get through. Just not anything arguing for anything remotely controversial. Which means that the people who decide what is and is not controversial win.

AKA: conservatives.

They hate Section 230 because most platforms don't want to become a conservative echochamber.

 

[Deleted member 276317]

SNIP]
Musk (thus far) simply wants to take Twitter from a platform that was shadow banning more conservative voices and censoring legitimate stories to one that allows all voices under the law.
[SNIP]

"Shadow banning?" Like their shadows aren't permitted to tweet any longer?

 

[Deleted member 388703]

The comments/replies here are rather disingenuous in their presuppositions and due to moderated comment frequency, can’t be responded to individually. The Left would like you to think that it’s merely advocating against racism and hate speech (neither of which are clearly defined and are subject to change). But that’s a straw man argument to disguise the actual goal of the Left which is to promote its agenda unchallenged and to control the media narrative. This is why the Biden administration is scrambling to create a “disinformation board.” He’s hoping to mitigate the loss of Twitter and hoping we will somehow deem his group as independent arbiters of the truth. He’ll try to leverage this for political advantage in the lead up to the elections. The Left wants to be the sole arbiter of what is and what is not DISINFORMATION. You may still believe for example, that the Hunter Biden story is a Russian or Republican disinformation campaign but numerous fact checking and less biased news sources have proven it a legitimate story and one that should never have been banned. Likewise, political commentators like Tucker Carlson arguably do not engage in “hate speech” or “disinformation” any more than the numerous liberal commentators on more liberal networks. As a result, there is clearly no RELIABLE arbiter of what is and what is not disinformation and with increased sensitivity, there is always some percentage of the public who can interpret non-hate speech as hate speech. Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling has been criticized by some for "engaging in 'hate speech' toward transgender people for saying that there are two biologically distinct genders” even though upwards of 75% of the populace agrees with the statement, "[t]here are two genders, male and female." People’s views on both sides of the debate on volatile topics like gender, immigration, climate change, vaccines etc. have as much right to be heard as views on more prosaic topics such as microeconomics and international trade. It does not take a rocket surgeon to realize that a mod could easily inculcate their own political/social views when in control of shadow banning and implementing algorithmic bias. If political bias can happen at the FBI, it can certainly happen at Twitter. The potential for abuse and bias is undeniable and IF one’s goal is to make a site that is truly open to all, within the limits of law, then these issues clearly need to be addressed. Musk (thus far) simply wants to take Twitter from a platform that was shadow banning more conservative voices and censoring legitimate stories to one that allows all voices under the law. That shouldn’t be viewed as a loss for the Left unless you view it through the optics of tribal politics where the Left is losing some of it’s political influence to further its agenda on numerous economic, social, environmental and international fronts. And that is exactly what is causing all the anguish among the commenters here and more broadly across the rest of the liberal news media at large.

Wow, that's a great story.

Any moderation Twitter currently does is already allowed under the law. Even though nobody anywhere can point to examples of conservatives being banned from Twitter for advocating for smaller government and less taxes, even if Twitter did that, they are well within the law to be able to do so.

One or more of all the things that conservatives cry about Twitter doing, whether or not they are actually being done (such as banning, moderating, curating content, using algorithms, presenting the parts of the internet they want you to see, and on and on), is applicable to almost any web based platform out there - including Amazon, Netflix, Google, Facebook, Truth Social, LinkedIn, and on and on and on.

I'm still baffled by the idea that Twitter must change, because something something the law, yet every other platform can continue operating the way they do...when they all operate under the same laws, or lack of.

I'm so fucking confused by this constant nonsense.

In related Republicans-keep-proving-they-hate-free-speech-rights-they-don't-understand news:
Marjorie Taylor Greene Has A Bill To Burden Elon Musk’s Twitter With An Avalanche Of Frivolous Lawsuits

I'll admit, I really don't understand the hate boner for Section 230 either. The way I see it, if Section 230 gets repealed, every site that hosts any kind of user content will do one of 3 things -

1. Moderate and screen everything so thoroughly that only the absolute safest content makes it through, which means that almost nothing at all will get through.

Oh, stuff will get through. Just not anything arguing for anything remotely controversial. Which means that the people who decide what is and is not controversial win.

AKA: conservatives.

They hate Section 230 because most platforms don't want to become a conservative echochamber.

And, as with probably about 90% of anti-230 arguments, their complaint is really with the First Amendment.

 

[ScifiGeek]

Oh, stuff will get through. Just not anything arguing for anything remotely controversial. Which means that the people who decide what is and is not controversial win.

AKA: conservatives.

They hate Section 230 because most platforms don't want to become a conservative echochamber.

That doesn't add up. The Right wing is complaining because they can't control social media, so they aren't the ones that decide what is controversial.

It's the right wing that wants to post all the controversial stuff: Vaccine misinformation, Stolen election Misinformation, Anti-LGBT+ screed, Hunter's Laptop, etc...

Repeal 230, and social media block that stuff, even more strongly to protect themselves.

Most of them hate 230, because they are imbeciles, and they think Section 230 enables moderation, when in reality, repealing 230 makes moderation an existential demand, because sites then become potentially liable for anything users post.

A smaller amount of 230 haters, do understand that 230 repeal would force tougher moderation and they are only using repeal as a threat, because it would be almost ruinous trying to host content without section 230. IOW: "Post our speech or we will do this harmful thing to you". Not that 230 will give them compelled speech, but if they can't compel speech from social media, it's just a way to inflict harm.

 

[Statistical]

The comments/replies here are rather disingenuous in their presuppositions and due to moderated comment frequency, can’t be responded to individually. The Left would like you to think that it’s merely advocating against racism and hate speech (neither of which are clearly defined and are subject to change). But that’s a straw man argument to disguise the actual goal of the Left which is to promote its agenda unchallenged and to control the media narrative. This is why the Biden administration is scrambling to create a “disinformation board.” He’s hoping to mitigate the loss of Twitter and hoping we will somehow deem his group as independent arbiters of the truth. He’ll try to leverage this for political advantage in the lead up to the elections. The Left wants to be the sole arbiter of what is and what is not DISINFORMATION. You may still believe for example, that the Hunter Biden story is a Russian or Republican disinformation campaign but numerous fact checking and less biased news sources have proven it a legitimate story and one that should never have been banned. Likewise, political commentators like Tucker Carlson arguably do not engage in “hate speech” or “disinformation” any more than the numerous liberal commentators on more liberal networks. As a result, there is clearly no RELIABLE arbiter of what is and what is not disinformation and with increased sensitivity, there is always some percentage of the public who can interpret non-hate speech as hate speech. Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling has been criticized by some for "engaging in 'hate speech' toward transgender people for saying that there are two biologically distinct genders” even though upwards of 75% of the populace agrees with the statement, "[t]here are two genders, male and female." People’s views on both sides of the debate on volatile topics like gender, immigration, climate change, vaccines etc. have as much right to be heard as views on more prosaic topics such as microeconomics and international trade. It does not take a rocket surgeon to realize that a mod could easily inculcate their own political/social views when in control of shadow banning and implementing algorithmic bias. If political bias can happen at the FBI, it can certainly happen at Twitter. The potential for abuse and bias is undeniable and IF one’s goal is to make a site that is truly open to all, within the limits of law, then these issues clearly need to be addressed. Musk (thus far) simply wants to take Twitter from a platform that was shadow banning more conservative voices and censoring legitimate stories to one that allows all voices under the law. That shouldn’t be viewed as a loss for the Left unless you view it through the optics of tribal politics where the Left is losing some of it’s political influence to further its agenda on numerous economic, social, environmental and international fronts. And that is exactly what is causing all the anguish among the commenters here and more broadly across the rest of the liberal news media at large.

Wow, that's a great story.

Any moderation Twitter currently does is already allowed under the law. Even though nobody anywhere can point to examples of conservatives being banned from Twitter for advocating for smaller government and less taxes, even if Twitter did that, they are well within the law to be able to do so.

One or more of all the things that conservatives cry about Twitter doing, whether or not they are actually being done (such as banning, moderating, curating content, using algorithms, presenting the parts of the internet they want you to see, and on and on), is applicable to almost any web based platform out there - including Amazon, Netflix, Google, Facebook, Truth Social, LinkedIn, and on and on and on.

I'm still baffled by the idea that Twitter must change, because something something the law, yet every other platform can continue operating the way they do...when they all operate under the same laws, or lack of.

I'm so fucking confused by this constant nonsense.

In related Republicans-keep-proving-they-hate-free-speech-rights-they-don't-understand news:
Marjorie Taylor Greene Has A Bill To Burden Elon Musk’s Twitter With An Avalanche Of Frivolous Lawsuits

I'll admit, I really don't understand the hate boner for Section 230 either. The way I see it, if Section 230 gets repealed, every site that hosts any kind of user content will do one of 3 things -

1. Moderate and screen everything so thoroughly that only the absolute safest content makes it through, which means that almost nothing at all will get through.

2. Moderate absolutely nothing whatsoever, ever. Every platform that chooses this option eventually pretty much becomes 8chan (or whatever chan, I don't keep up).

3. Stop hosting user content altogether. No comments, posts, message boards, etc.

I really don't see any of those as a great outcome, to be honest. And I don't think those who are trying to repeal 230 would be particularly happy with any of those results. I'd actually expect most non social-media sites, whose entire model doesn't directly depend on user content, to opt for #3.

It also doesn't help that most people to include those agitating for a repeal of 230 have no idea what it does and many would be utterly shocked and upset if they actually got their wish and it was simply repealed.

#2 is simply not possible not for any legal website. 4chan would have to shutdown without section 230. 8chan might continue to exist but only if it moves servers to parts of the world with questionable policies and operates quasi illegally any operators would be subject to arrest or civil action if they entered the US or any country with extradition to the US.

Zero moderation doesn't protect a company in the absence of section 230. You are right that most non-social media sites like say ars comments would opt for #3. The risk would be catastrophic and simply not worth it. Take libel for example without section 230 Ars would need to somehow become an expert on all truth in the universe in order to spot and takedown any statement that could be libelous no matter how mundane. It isn't just obviously libelous statements it is that essentially any statement of fact could be libelous. A seemingly obviously correct statement could be a libelous lie and open ars to civil action. No website could possibly meet that level of accurate moderation so any comment section would be a landmine of liability.

 

[Jordan83]

Oh, stuff will get through. Just not anything arguing for anything remotely controversial. Which means that the people who decide what is and is not controversial win.

AKA: conservatives.

They hate Section 230 because most platforms don't want to become a conservative echochamber.

That doesn't add up. The Right wing is complaining because they can't control social media, so they aren't the ones that decide what is controversial.

It's the right wing that wants to post all the controversial stuff: Vaccine misinformation, Stolen election Misinformation, Anti-LGBT+ screed, Hunter's Laptop, etc...

Repeal 230, and social media block that stuff, even more strongly to protect themselves.

Most of them hate 230, because they are imbeciles, and they think Section 230 enables moderation, when in reality, repealing 230 makes moderation an existential demand, because sites then become potentially liable for anything users post.

A smaller amount of 230 haters, do understand that 230 repeal would force tougher moderation and they are only using repeal as a threat, because it would be almost ruinous trying to host content without section 230. IOW: "Post our speech or we will do this harmful thing to you". Not that 230 will give them compelled speech, but if they can't compel speech from social media, it's just a way to inflict harm.

The first two paragraphs, I absolutely agree with.

The rest of it, I also agree with...with the addition of some important qualifiers. As I understand it, repeal 230, and social media and others would have to moderate more strongly to protect themselves...if they choose to moderate at all.

Meaning, they can choose not to moderate. Which means literally no moderation whatsoever. But under the absence of 230, once/if they do choose to moderate...now they have taken ownership of user created content, and can be held liable for it. All of it.

Or, they can choose to stop hosting user created content at all. Platforms like social media, which are almost entirely dependent on user created content, probably wouldn't go this route. And going the route of strict moderation will probably require too much time/cost/effort, and severely restrict their capacity to drive that precious engagement.

So, they'd probably go the route of absolutely zero moderation whatsoever. Which probably wouldn't end up very well for them, but it's probably the best of three bad choices for social media platforms.

Edit to add: If my understanding of that is wrong, I apologize and welcome being corrected. Reading Statistical's reply to me, it seems that it might be with regard to the "no moderation" aspect. I'll leave the main body of my post as-is, so that we all may learn from it, and edit the previous one too.

 

[graylshaped]

So, for dinner tonight I'm thinking about a potato-leek soup--think vichyssoise, but warm--with a chive-oil drizzle, and maybe some grilled ham and cheese sammies alongside. The soup would be made with a duck stock I spent two days simmering.

Or, we could keep debating whether Elon Musk is worth the airtime.

 

[Scifigod]

So, for dinner tonight I'm thinking about a potato-leek soup--think vichyssoise, but warm--with a chive-oil drizzle, and maybe some grilled ham and cheese sammies alongside. The soup would be made with a duck stock I spent two days simmering.

Or, we could keep debating whether Elon Musk is worth the airtime.

I'm an uncultured swine who doesn't know what half of what you just posted would taste like... But it sounds infinitely better than given more attention to Elon.

 

[graylshaped]

The Mets, of whom I am not generally a fan, have put together what so far seems to be a good team. The Angels seem too reliant on That One Guy, but also have outperformed so far this year.

 

[graylshaped]

Nor did I think the Grizzlies would get this far in the play-offs. I think this round comes down to whether they can find a way to keep make things difficult for Steph.

 

[graylshaped]

Yes, I am pony-lounging this thread, and asking for help to let it go away.

 

[graylshaped]

So, for dinner tonight I'm thinking about a potato-leek soup--think vichyssoise, but warm--with a chive-oil drizzle, and maybe some grilled ham and cheese sammies alongside. The soup would be made with a duck stock I spent two days simmering.

Or, we could keep debating whether Elon Musk is worth the airtime.

I'm an uncultured swine who doesn't know what half of what you just posted would taste like... But it sounds infinitely better than given more attention to Elon.

You correctly gleaned my intent.

 

[graylshaped]

My dog's stools, after several days of probiotics, are more solid, also.

 

[graylshaped]

Maybe I should take some probiotics. Any advice?

 

[Deleted member 276317]

 

[Deleted member 388703]

Probiotics make stools more solid

Bacterial carpentry

bacteriostabilised bioformed crystal lattice



/Scifi technobabble thesaurusizing

 

[Scifigod]

My dog's stools, after several days of probiotics, are more solid, also.

No one likes a wobbly stool. I applaud your dogs carpentry skills.

 

[nimelennar]

The comments/replies here are rather disingenuous in their presuppositions and due to moderated comment frequency, can’t be responded to individually.

Two things.

One, get to ten posts and the comment frequency goes away. Assuming you aren't banned by then.

Two, you can quote multiple people in the same post.

For instance:

Wow, that's a great story.

Please don't quote the troll in full. It makes hiding-by-downvotes less effective. If you have a point you want to respond to, please just quote that.

You don't respond individually because you're a coward and can't effectively defend anything in a conversation. It's why you post your little manifestos in a huge block of uninterrupted text

Same note to you as to Jordan83.

 

[nimelennar]

It is time for Toronto's annual disappointment with the Maple Leafs (with the Raptors having already completed their postseason for the year).

Game 1 gets underway in two hours.

On the one hand, I want to be optimistic about their chance this year. They have a really good team, and this has been, by some metrics (54 wins, 115 points), "the best regular season in franchise history."

On the other hand, I am familiar with every other run they've made in the 17 years since the '04-'05 lockout (for reference, the "Conference Quarterfinals" in '12-'13 and "Qualifying Round" in '19-'20 were the first rounds of each of those postseasons), and, well...

 

[Portlandia]

Gotta love the gaslighting and petty insults on this board. Apparently many here don’t even understand Ars’ engagement protocols let alone Twitter’s. New users who are not subscribers are limited in comment frequency and can’t post multiple comments per day on these boards. The naivety displayed by many on here vis-à-vis the ability for companies to shadow ban, engage in algorithmic bias and generally limit engagement of particular users/groups is exemplified by the fact that many commenters here don’t even understand how the Ars’ comment board works. Of course private companies are absolutely free to engage in practices that limit engagement but there are consequences as we’ve now seen play out with Twitter. Ars also isn’t regarded as a defacto “town square” and with much less visibility and representation is (arguably) non-problematic in any of its engagement practices (spam related or otherwise).

I’m FAR from being transphobic, I have multiple gay friends whose friendship I cherish and I would feel similarly fond of a trans friend if our paths were to cross. Isn’t it obvious to you that labeling people as bigots who are not in fact bigots can easily be misused just as accusations of racism are thrown about in order to silence dissent. And that determining whether someone is a bigot is often a subjective process that is subject to the whims of the most (increasingly) sensitive individuals or networks (see CNN defamation lawsuit, Jussie Smollett et al.) in the face of groups/individuals who they dislike.

I’m simply claiming that NO ONE is reliable enough to be the sole arbiter of acceptable ideas as the definition of such is subjective. As a result, the least unfair solution is to allow the constitution to be the ultimate arbiter. The fact that companies can legally engage in shadow banning and curate their content as they see fit is absolutely true but obviously has ramifications on who can be involved and precisely the reason Musk has taken on Twitter (and why so many on the Left are upset). I work in tech and know for a fact that content and engagement is curated and limited. Claiming, “companies don’t shadow ban or engage in algorithmic bias but if they do, they’re within their rights to do so” loses you the argument. Companies ARE absolutely free to do it AND they do AND Musk can buy Twitter and CHANGE it so they don’t do it. Twitter under Musk will exercise it’s right to continue to curate (albeit far more transparently and less limiting) as it sees fit and now the Left is incensed over that. The hypocrisy is sweet.

Also, I was kind and made some paragraph breaks, so we can all love each other once more.

 

[Scifigod]

Holy shit! You learned where the enter key is!

 

[watermeloncup]

Holy shit! You learned where the enter key is!

Still unreadable, though. And has the random capitalization of a nutjob.

 

[Deleted member 276317]

[SNIP]
The naivety displayed by many on here vis-à-vis the ability for companies to shadow ban [. . .]
[SNIP]

Do you have a citation from a reputable source regarding Twitter ever "shadow banning" anyone?

 

[Hack-n-Slash]

Holy shit! You learned where the enter key is!

Still unreadable, though. And has the random capitalization of a nutjob.

wHAt dO yoU MeAN?

 

[Gary Patterson]

And we're back to the whole "town square" thing, as though a private service was ever such a place.

The problem with town squares is you get the village idiot ranting for their allowed time before being pushed off the stage. Unpleasant for a few minutes, but mercifully brief. Now you've got social media, where every village's idiot can rant all day.

And they do.

When given some limit - any limit - they band together and claim some imaginary right is being taken away from them. Apparently by screeching long enough, they expect to get their way. Maybe they will under Musk, but they'll only be shouting to each other if people walk away.

Anyone can leave a town square. There is no guaranteed audience anywhere.

 

[Deleted member 276317]

Nice to have just learned that Tucker Carlson's show is the most racist ever.

 

[Wheels Of Confusion]

Hey Portlandia, there are already sites that cater to your "anything goes" free speech no-moderation policy. Why aren't you on 8-kun, or using Parler or Gab or so on and so forth?
Nobody said you're entitlted to a Twitter account.

Oh, and once again:




The hover-text: "I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express."

 

[orwelldesign]

So, for dinner tonight I'm thinking about a potato-leek soup--think vichyssoise, but warm--with a chive-oil drizzle, and maybe some grilled ham and cheese sammies alongside. The soup would be made with a duck stock I spent two days simmering.

Or, we could keep debating whether Elon Musk is worth the airtime.

I'm an uncultured swine who doesn't know what half of what you just posted would taste like... But it sounds infinitely better than given more attention to Elon.

Leeks are like giant green onions, basically.

If that helps any.

As far as grayls' further comments, I leave the following exchange seen last night on Grace and Frankie, trying to change the subject:

Q: do you follow sports?

A: no, but I understand there's people who do!



Sports! Looks like Ronnie O'Sullivan is solid to win the latest go-round at the Crucible, after waxing opponents thoroughly on his way to his (large_num) finals appearance, though his opponent and he (Trump -- but Judd, not Donald, the poor fellow) are actually quite evenly matched, historically. As I understand it, they're very, very close to a lifetime .500 vs one another. If nothing else it's interesting to see another round in their long-running rivalry.

Edit: and O'Sullivan wins his 7th title, tying with Hendry for snooker greatest of all time. That is, if Hendry hadn't recently said O'Sullivan was the greatest. (For comparison purposes, this is the equivalent of Michael Jordan saying "No, LeBron is better than I was."

 

[Hack-n-Slash]

Claiming, “companies don’t shadow ban or engage in algorithmic bias but if they do, they’re within their rights to do so” loses you the argument. Companies ARE absolutely free to do it AND they do AND Musk can buy Twitter and CHANGE it so they don’t do it. Twitter under Musk will exercise it’s right to continue to curate (albeit far more transparently and less limiting) as it sees fit and now the Left is incensed over that. The hypocrisy is sweet.

til that Portlandia doesn't know the meaning of the words "can", "should", and "hypocrisy".
... oh, and also "it's".

Edit: Removed redundantly redundant words

 

[Hack-n-Slash]

So, for dinner tonight I'm thinking about a potato-leek soup--think vichyssoise

That's sauce made from Frenchmen, right?

 

[Deleted member 388703]

Gotta love the gaslighting and petty insults on this board.

You love them so much you decided to be the primary source of both.

 

[Gary Patterson]

Hey Portlandia, there are already sites that cater to your "anything goes" free speech no-moderation policy. Why aren't you on 8-kun, or using Parler or Gab or so on and so forth?
Nobody said you're entitlted to a Twitter account.

The reason Portlandia isn't supporting those other sites is because no-one goes there. Everyone knows they're full of arseholes. Not like Twitter, and when Musk removes the shackles of moderation, people will finally be as free on Twitter as they are on Parler and Gab.

Now, will the penny drop for Portlandia, or will we circle back around to the start yet again?

 

[mpfaff]

Gotta love the gaslighting and petty insults on this board. Apparently many here don’t even understand Ars’ engagement protocols let alone Twitter’s. New users who are not subscribers are limited in comment frequency and can’t post multiple comments per day on these boards. The naivety displayed by many on here vis-à-vis the ability for companies to shadow ban, engage in algorithmic bias and generally limit engagement of particular users/groups is exemplified by the fact that many commenters here don’t even understand how the Ars’ comment board works. Of course private companies are absolutely free to engage in practices that limit engagement but there are consequences as we’ve now seen play out with Twitter. Ars also isn’t regarded as a defacto “town square” and with much less visibility and representation is (arguably) non-problematic in any of its engagement practices (spam related or otherwise).

I’m FAR from being transphobic, I have multiple gay friends whose friendship I cherish and I would feel similarly fond of a trans friend if our paths were to cross. Isn’t it obvious to you that labeling people as bigots who are not in fact bigots can easily be misused just as accusations of racism are thrown about in order to silence dissent. And that determining whether someone is a bigot is often a subjective process that is subject to the whims of the most (increasingly) sensitive individuals or networks (see CNN defamation lawsuit, Jussie Smollett et al.) in the face of groups/individuals who they dislike.

I’m simply claiming that NO ONE is reliable enough to be the sole arbiter of acceptable ideas as the definition of such is subjective. As a result, the least unfair solution is to allow the constitution to be the ultimate arbiter. The fact that companies can legally engage in shadow banning and curate their content as they see fit is absolutely true but obviously has ramifications on who can be involved and precisely the reason Musk has taken on Twitter (and why so many on the Left are upset). I work in tech and know for a fact that content and engagement is curated and limited. Claiming, “companies don’t shadow ban or engage in algorithmic bias but if they do, they’re within their rights to do so” loses you the argument. Companies ARE absolutely free to do it AND they do AND Musk can buy Twitter and CHANGE it so they don’t do it. Twitter under Musk will exercise it’s right to continue to curate (albeit far more transparently and less limiting) as it sees fit and now the Left is incensed over that. The hypocrisy is sweet.

Also, I was kind and made some paragraph breaks, so we can all love each other once more.

Having gay friends doesn't preclude you from doing things like defending Rowling's regressive views on trans people. You also commented about the left wanting to indoctrinate kids in relation to DeSantis' bigoted policies. That "indoctrination" as you seem to be calling it is simply educating kids on the types of relationships that exist and promoting acceptance. You can't gaslight someone who says something like "the fact that Desantis promotes parental rights for parents and their children over the Left’s (apparent need and) inability to wait to indoctrinate until 4th grade", they're already over the edge. Rowling is a TERF, she doesn't care for trans people, she wasn't trying to give a biology lesson free of context, she posted that because she doesn't like trans people and wants them to know it.

People bring up bigoted speech because that is what happens when you do light touch moderation. Also the "town square" metaphor is idiotic. Town squares still exist in towns everywhere, they're owned by the town and aren't filled with bigots and weirdos constantly because they're physical spaces and geography limits that. Twitter is a private space and there is precedence for what light moderation looks like, 8kun is out there for your perusal right now. You haven't addressed because you simply can't address the fact that not banning hate speech gets you an environment friendly to hate.

 

[Jordan83]

I’m simply claiming that NO ONE is reliable enough to be the sole arbiter of acceptable ideas as the definition of such is subjective. As a result, the least unfair solution is to allow the constitution to be the ultimate arbiter. The fact that companies can legally engage in shadow banning and curate their content as they see fit is absolutely true but obviously has ramifications on who can be involved and precisely the reason Musk has taken on Twitter (and why so many on the Left are upset).

I'm sorry, what?

The ramifications of Twitter deciding who can be involved ONLY APPLY TO TWITTER. They can only decide who can be involved on THEIR platform. Period. The end.

Yes, I'm type-shouting at you, because I just can't figure out where you fucking people keep getting this crazy ass idea that Twitter is apparently the only place that anything can be discussed. It's fucking insane, and I really wish it would stop.

 

[Wheels Of Confusion]

Don't you guys get it? If you're shadow-banned on Twitter, you're shadow-banned in real life!

 

[graylshaped]

Gotta love the gaslighting and petty insults on this board. Apparently many here don’t even understand Ars’ engagement protocols let alone Twitter’s. New users who are not subscribers are limited in comment frequency and can’t post multiple comments per day on these boards. The naivety displayed by many on here vis-à-vis the ability for companies to shadow ban, engage in algorithmic bias and generally limit engagement of particular users/groups is exemplified by the fact that many commenters here don’t even understand how the Ars’ comment board works. Of course private companies are absolutely free to engage in practices that limit engagement but there are consequences as we’ve now seen play out with Twitter. Ars also isn’t regarded as a defacto “town square” and with much less visibility and representation is (arguably) non-problematic in any of its engagement practices (spam related or otherwise).

I’m FAR from being transphobic, I have multiple gay friends whose friendship I cherish and I would feel similarly fond of a trans friend if our paths were to cross. Isn’t it obvious to you that labeling people as bigots who are not in fact bigots can easily be misused just as accusations of racism are thrown about in order to silence dissent. And that determining whether someone is a bigot is often a subjective process that is subject to the whims of the most (increasingly) sensitive individuals or networks (see CNN defamation lawsuit, Jussie Smollett et al.) in the face of groups/individuals who they dislike.

I’m simply claiming that NO ONE is reliable enough to be the sole arbiter of acceptable ideas as the definition of such is subjective. As a result, the least unfair solution is to allow the constitution to be the ultimate arbiter. The fact that companies can legally engage in shadow banning and curate their content as they see fit is absolutely true but obviously has ramifications on who can be involved and precisely the reason Musk has taken on Twitter (and why so many on the Left are upset). I work in tech and know for a fact that content and engagement is curated and limited. Claiming, “companies don’t shadow ban or engage in algorithmic bias but if they do, they’re within their rights to do so” loses you the argument. Companies ARE absolutely free to do it AND they do AND Musk can buy Twitter and CHANGE it so they don’t do it. Twitter under Musk will exercise it’s right to continue to curate (albeit far more transparently and less limiting) as it sees fit and now the Left is incensed over that. The hypocrisy is sweet.

Also, I was kind and made some paragraph breaks, so we can all love each other once more.

How are the consistency of your stools?

You seem to be fairly clenched, and enquiring minds wonder what impact that has on your morning ritual. Or is a regular thing? Does it just blurt out at random times?

Please be honest. This is for science.

 

[graylshaped]

I’m simply claiming that NO ONE is reliable enough to be the sole arbiter of acceptable ideas as the definition of such is subjective. As a result, the least unfair solution is to allow the constitution to be the ultimate arbiter. The fact that companies can legally engage in shadow banning and curate their content as they see fit is absolutely true but obviously has ramifications on who can be involved and precisely the reason Musk has taken on Twitter (and why so many on the Left are upset).

I'm sorry, what?

The ramifications of Twitter deciding who can be involved ONLY APPLY TO TWITTER. They can only decide who can be involved on THEIR platform. Period. The end.

Yes, I'm type-shouting at you, because I just can't figure out where you fucking people keep getting this crazy ass idea that Twitter is apparently the only place that anything can be discussed. It's fucking insane, and I really wish it would stop.

It is worth noting your comment appears on a platform other than Twitter.

 

[graylshaped]

So, for dinner tonight I'm thinking about a potato-leek soup--think vichyssoise

That's sauce made from Frenchmen, right?

Two or three fingers in a high-powered blender, with the bone fragments trained out. Exactly. Plus some other accoutrements, which is amusingly, a French word.

 

[Scifigod]

Don't you guys get it? If you're shadow-banned on Twitter, you're shadow-banned in real life!

Oh! I've seen that happen to people! Those shadows don't fuck around when they ban you.
https://youtu.be/-Y2wqkD2KVM

 

[graylshaped]

I steamed some artichokes the other night before grilling them, with some garlic and mint in the liquid, and kept the liquid thinking I could maybe use it in cooking pasta, but am now think I'll just toss it int potato-leek soup.

Thoughts?