Elon Musk's tweets unleashed a wave of hate(bbc.co.uk) |
Elon Musk's tweets unleashed a wave of hate(bbc.co.uk) |
Sure the platform moderation problem always will stir a censorship / FoS discussion.
But the article lists forms of abuse (e.g. detailed death threats) that are or definitely should not be legal in my view.
This might be a subjective observation, but all in all Twitter has become an even more hateful and extremely unpleasant place on the internet since Musk took over. Dangerous I'd say even.
Even after reading one interesting thread (without a login), I quickly get suggested plain hate speech or far-right content. This extends to Musk himself, as the article already explains.
Another thing are conspiracy memes designed to stir up hate, which Musk also happily shares.
I don't even need any more screenshots or examples for this, every brief Twitter experience that I have from time to time seems to confirm to me how it's rapidly gotten even worse than before.
https://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-lululemon-2015-9?...
Edit: the linked article suggests it wasn’t “a reason” but rather “the reason” for the name, I was being too forgiving
It's just a bunch of stuff that was already known or internal conversations that don't shift the needle one way or the other. "Social media company has discussion about how to apply moderation practices" isn't news unless you're looking to make a quick buck of pretending that it is. (Especially if you can frame it in such a way that whatever camp you belong to is being silenced and censored.) Neither are things like algorithmic deprioritization or shadowbanning. These are bog-standard moderation tools. It's well... not news. There's nothing to report there unless you want the report to be "social media company does what every other social media company does, more at 11".
Twitter has always been transparent about government requests, they literally have a site dedicated to listing that[0]. It used to be updated every year but ironically 2022 data isn't available because I guess Musk fired everyone involved with it/didn't think it is a priority to keep updated (ironic given the supposed claims of the Twitter Files.)
The closest thing I ever saw to something being interesting is that certain accounts have immunity against Twitters regular flagging system, instead being marked with "only let the higher-ups make decisions".
I think there's an interesting discussion to be had about how fame apparently gives you the option to break most rules on a social media site unless blowback becomes so significant that the upper management decided you're not worth the trouble, but that's not the discussion that's being held. (This is, if I had to guess, entirely because of the significant overlap between "famous person who thinks Twitter Files matter" and "famous person with immunity against the rules", but I admit that that is just a guess.)
[0]: https://transparency.twitter.com/en/reports/information-requ...
I am very very much in doubt that it was publicly _known_ (not theorised) that the government was asking Twitter to delete _legal_ but _undesirable_ tweets!
When the government is suggesting Twitter to censor specific users/subjects/tweets, is that not close to (if not outright) violating the first amendment?
So maybe I'm just not in the loop, I don't know how to keep up with the latest techniques of our enlightened overlords. Which media sources should I be following, to correct this apparent deficiency?
How would that work? How did Twitter spend millions on the UK Government and how would that result in the BBC not reporting on a Twitter related issue?
1) A lot of Twitter users are anonymous or have fake names.
2) The story is about the volume of hate, so why would individual names be relevant?
3) Twitter trolls are often seeking attention (Musk himself being a case in point), so naming them just rewards their behavior.
That seems very different from someone choosing it to laugh at how some people can’t say it.
So no, I don't consider that to be a free speech violation; nobody went to jail, nobody was threatened into being silenced by the government. By all metrics, that is not a free speech violation. Section 230 allows internet service providers (that's not just your ISP; anyone with an internet site that allows for user-generated content is an ISP for this law) to make their own decisions[1]. Twitter made their own decisions based on the information given.
If we're talking first amendment though, Twitter also had a rather notable history of butting in on lawsuits that actually would affect the government crossing a free speech boundary to give its own input on those cases, specifically to prevent the US right to free speech from being neutered[2]. (And with another great irony, Musk fired the person who was chiefly responsible for that because she also was the person that signed off on Trump getting suspended.)
EDIT: Also as for it being known - yeah it was. No social media site really hides this. Reddit, Twitter, Facebook, they all have openly discussed the fact that at some point, the government will just ask you to take stuff down. Each of those sites has their own limitations on what they allow. Reddit is for example rather compliant with those requests (since Reddits entire success is due to staying just below the surface of the attention of the news) while Facebook has been infamously flip-floppy with say, the Christchurch shooter video where they weren't sure on whether or not to comply with the request from the NZ government.
[0]: https://transparency.twitter.com/en/reports/countries/us.htm...
[1]: This is without delving into the broader section 230 conversation, which also has come under fire. No comment on that.
[2]: https://www.techdirt.com/2022/10/28/elon-musks-first-move-is...
- When the government (with their regulatory powers, monopoly on legitimate violence, etc) asks a private company to do something, the coercion is implicit. Just like if a heavily armed thug looms over you and asks, in a threatening tone of voice, for your wallet—the "or else" doesn't need to be aired out loud.
I think a major part of the Twitter files is exactly the fact that all of these social networks have close working relationships with tons of government and government funded agencies, where these groups can just send along lists of people and topics that they want removed on dubious grounds (this is not the same as things like getting a warrant or court order which I'm assuming the transparency report is about).
The recent release includes things like "true facts about covid vaccines that might cause hesitancy". You can have whatever opinion you want about what they should and shouldn't be platforming, but I for one agree that these organizations shouldn't be able to casually tap twitter/fb/etc on the shoulder and nix random legal speech.
Congress requested for information on whether or not Twitter was properly following the consent decree when Musk gave Tabibi and the others access to the files. Twitter is legally required to assess the possible privacy impact of anything surrounding user data. That's all that was requested. They did not request Twitter to stop providing the journalists access, just that they had done the necessary precautions to avoid accidentally leaking out sensitive user information.
Tabibi of course screamed that he was being censored by the government. I leave you to your own conclusions there.
[0]: After the entire legal team resigned en-masse when they had to put their signatures down for something, presumably the new Twitter Blue. Musks current policy is that engineers are independently liable for FTC violations, which I'm pretty sure is not how it's supposed to work.
No one from twitter was there.