I do not think this “misinformation” is the horrible problem you claim. Humankind has had gossip and false information throughout our existence.
The problem with regulation is Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who will watch the watchers?
The founders decided that the best solution is no regulation by the government. Let opposing views be heard. The Left has the anti-constitutional “Progressive” view that we should be ruled by wise bureaucrat dictators. They are also horrified by this crack in their cultural hegemony.
And asking him would prove what exactly? It’s all about trying to smear Biden.
And it’s impossible to prove you didn’t assassinate JFK. Do we need a congressional inquiry into it?
In the past we felt the actions were aimed towards the truth. Now the actions are very clearly not aimed towards the truth. Plenty of bans are being handed out for saying non-controversial things Musk doesn’t like.
There was an intermediate step that got skipped because they saw it would be meaningless–the second checkpoint would be met before the data from the first got processed. That’s your “delay”–there’s no point in doing something you know will be overtaken by events before you can complete it.
You don’t understand. Republican = good, Democrat = bad. Don’t confuse yourself with the facts!
The difference is in most areas there isn’t outrageous content for the algorithms to find. Thus they do a pretty good job of finding things you might like. When there is outrageous content they become very good at leading you down the rabbit hole because there’s no understanding of causality–the people that like the outrageous stuff generally also like the not as outrageous stuff. (You can see the same effect on Amazon–buy parts/supplies for something and it will try to sell you the something. Lacking any concept of causality it doesn’t realize you must already have the something and thus almost certainly do not want another.)
Remember how Musk was complaining about all the bots on Twitter? That’s a big part of the problem here–it’s not what people want to talk about, it’s bots making artificial traffic.
Look at what China pulled recently–flooding Twitter with porn that would show up for anyone trying to find information about the protests. That wasn’t a bunch of Chinese people wanting to talk about porn, that was the government shouting down messages they didn’t like with the power of server farms. And the guys who would have put a stop to it aren’t there anymore.
Why do you keep posting Babylon Bee stuff? That’s satire!
It’s about determining the truth. You’d rather avoid asking such questions, because you are afraid of the truth. If it’s determined that there’s nothing there, there’s nothing there - but you dont want to determine that because you’re afraid there might be something there. So you simply declare it to be nothing, then forbid anyone from determining anything.
Contrary to what you want to claim, this is what perpetuates the so-called conspiracy theories moreso than anything else.
It’s very simple to prove that I did not. Unless you are afraid that I might have, thus you dont want to ask the necessary questions knowing you might not like the answers.
And you are completely (and intentionally) avoiding the point - when there is no proof either way, insisting it’s fake is just as much misinformation as insisting it’s true.
In the past, you felt the actions werre aimed towards protecting your beliefs. Now it’s challenging your beliefs and it is deemed outrageous.
If true, then why all the banning of the people who wanted to talk about it? I’d tend to agree that this is a big part of the problem, but we are complaining about the subsequent “solution” that is entirely unrelated to what you claim to be the problem. This was not the problem being addressed.
I declare it impossible to actually learn anything useful from investigating it because it’s impossible to determine it’s veracity. Thus it isn’t worth spending time on.
What perpetuates conspiracy theories is people who want to feel smart. They want to think they know something which the establishment does not and they’ll jump on anything that appears to support their position, no matter how unreasonable. (Really, now, how do you pick up a sheet of molten metal by grabbing it by the top? Yet I saw such as 9/11 “evidence”.)
And you can prove you don’t have a time machine that permitted you to do it?
Hint: It’s generally impossible to truly prove a negative.
No. He’s banning for anything he doesn’t like with no regard for right/wrong.
That’s been true for ages, possibly for as long as humans have had the ability to communicate. Somehow we’ve survived, and, IMHO, done so successfully.
I’m not sure I understand your fascination/phobia with the laptop, but …
I declare it possible to actually learn something useful from investigating it because it’s veracity has not been investigated. Thus it is worth spending time on.
What perpetuates conspiracy theories is purposeful opacity.
Easily. If I had a time machine, I would go back and try to teach you a respect for diveristy of thought and free speech.
That’s been the Twitter way for quite a few years. Oh! You mean with no regard for your party’s definition of right/wrong.
None needed. Adjustments can be made incrementally as methods are found to identify bots/Chicomms/Russians/Republicans and anyone else on your list.
These types of discussions need do some humor from time to time, and if I find something good and relevant I’ll post it. The fact that it’s not always obviously satire just goes to show the state of things these days.
This also is not the problem for which banning people is the solution. That solution is intended to stop the word-of-mouth, while preserving the megaphone for your own preferred views.
I think we all agree on this. Only I’d replace “views” with “truths”.
And I also think if it was a choice between everything or nothing, we’d all agree that nothing would be far more harmonious and pleasant to live with. But what’s good for the goose must also be good for the gander, and that’s where the contension and objections come from - it’s allowing all of the ‘right’ views (regardless of factual support) while allowing none of the ‘wrong’ views (regardless of factual support) that has created most of the controversy.
And through tens of thousands of newspapers and tens of thousands of televsion stations, which provided very limited opportunities for opposing views, or even discussion of opposing views.
No one is asking for that. They’re asking that opposing views (regardless of your opinion of their validity) be “allowed” to be written.
I suspect that all of them are in disagreement with your party’s views/propaganda/lies.
You keep mentioning banning people and quoting me as if I oppose your position. I’ve only been talking about banning algorithms – micro-targeted advertising, content-steering, amplification.
I’m not arguing with you about where the objections come from. Turning off the algorithms should be applied across the board.
Yeah, but people at newspapers and television stations used to be more responsible about what they publish, so there was less risk of falsehoods spreading around.
I disagree, but don’t have the time to pull hundreds of examples from newspapers in the last century, unless you mean “used to be” was before Biden was elected.
Take, for example, Stanford’s Dr. Jay Bhattacharya ) who argued that Covid lockdowns would harm children. Twitter secretly placed him on a “Trends Blacklist,” which prevented his tweets from trending.
Wow! If these were conservatives, you’d have a hat-trick / trifecta!
Historically mistreated person of colour
Underpaid teacher
Hard working, underpaid immigrant, just trying to make a better life for his family.
Can you imagine the outrage? The political, monetary, and personal damge would be extraordinary. If just one of those Twitter employees were white, well now you can board up your windows, check your ammo, and prepare for more “peaceful protests.”
So what is this a picture of? Because it looks like someone’s profile page. Which wouldnt have such “secret” notations visible. I’m not a Twitter user and my only knowledge of this story is from this link, so I’m confused. Is it a screenshot of the internal Twitter moderation page? If so, where did it come from?
