Elon buys Twitter

[Crissa]

It’s actually pretty easy for users to curate their social media, just like their personal life. My Twitter is pretty limited. I follow Elon, a few information sources i like, my favourite hockey team. My feed is a peaceful place where the world agrees with me and I tend to check it only at the end of the day to put me in a happy place before bed. The only way I would encounter people or opinions that bother me is if I seek them out. I don’t, not on Twitter.

When it comes to scam, steal or abuse we have to be careful. Social media isn’t a court of law. A “scam” can be hard to define. My Facebook was plagued with MLM marketing a while back. No, I don’t need Monet, my hair is fine. Is it a scam? To me it is, it’s a pyramid scheme. But not to others. I don’t think Facebook should give them the boot, but again I had the option of blocking them if I want. If something is outright theft, it should be turned over to the police. With abuse, again you can block abusers. If someone is going beyond “simple” abuse and, for example, sending penis pics to random women, this should be the area of law enforcement. Just like if they were sending them in the mail. There are laws against sexual harassment and exposure. Countries have been passing dick pic laws. It shouldn’t be social media’s job to police- they should get jail time.

I’ve seen enough of social media companies trying to be moral and legal judges. Heck, real judges have a hard enough time getting it right. My wife - immune compromised and triple vaxed at the time- shared a post on Facebook asking other women about the effects of Pfizer on her periods. (It’s a real, known issue that should be discussed). It was flagged as misinformation and replaced with a picture of a unicorn shitting rainbows. I wouldn’t believe the unicorn thing if I hadn’t seen it myself. If a FB employee can be that stupid and immature, I would put no limits on their willingness to shape narratives and politics.

This is called 'muddying the water'.

It's the opposite of a slippery slope argument, where you roll out obviously worse things. But instead, you become apologetic for the worst things by showing these just vaguely annoying things.

It's very dishonest, and disrespectful of those who have been piled on, stalked, swatted, or just victims of crime or deadly advice.

This is no intended insult: It's easy for you to curate because you are not a woman, minority, or target for your job or position. You don't have a disability, and are well enough informed and educated to avoid the obvious scams. And you have the time to waste here.

But that doesn't work when you want to involve more than a few people. The reason there are so few women here is not because women innately dislike trucks. The reason there are fewer minorities here isn't because they dislike trucks.

-Crissa

PS, I do moderate on other sites. I have been online for thirty years. Literally. And last week, I had to deal with the owner of one site being SWATed and the forum attacked by trolls because he acted to deny Russia access to a base disk access tool he curated. No, the forum I was moderating was just a motorcyclist one, but the trolls didn't care and attempted to damage it because it was his. We lost users from the constant spam and attacks. How do you tell a non-malicious new user from a malicious one? Well, when they begin spamming or being malicious. And I had to ban them, each one.

 

[PK3]

Free speech has to be open to everyone, yes there are idiots out there that says bad things.

Look at history, has one person or another convinced others to do atrocious things.
2+2 can equal anything depending on context, if you consider 2 dimentions, heck 2 steps forward and 2 steps backwards is 4 steps but 0 change in position. That simple problem has so many assumptions and abstractions that almost anything could be true given the right context.

Everything can be proven false. If someone says something false one day should any truth they say be forbidden? Trump said dumb things and the election was stolen which all current evidence shows is false, but he also said that the Hunter Biden laptop emails were real and pointed at corruption. The Biden campaign and many major news organizations reported the laptop as a fake and propaganda. The DOJ now authenticated it and admits it is real and does show corruption, should those media organizations now be cancelled as well? the current president banned for false information? What about Trump when he was actually correct, or because he was wrong on the election he is always wrong?

Politicians (both sides) can legally lie to the public and not be held accountable.

Free speech needs to be free because if monitored then it will be abused to push the monitors agenda or be subject to the monitors context which may or may not represent others. If you don't like someone saying drink bleach to cure covid then teach people to be reasonable and responsible to verify what they read. Technically drinking bleach might cure covid so it is not false, but it is missing key details and context which goes back to 2+2 = 0. Because your context says it false does that mean everyone else interprets it the same way? Hiding bad information from people on social media does not help them from hearing it from there crazy neighbor.

 

[Crissa]

Free speech has to be open to everyone, yes there are idiots out there that says bad things.

Look at history, has one person or another convinced others to do atrocious things.
2+2 can equal anything depending on context, if you consider 2 dimentions, heck 2 steps forward and 2 steps backwards is 4 steps but 0 change in position. That simple problem has so many assumptions and abstractions that almost anything could be true given the right context.

Everything can be proven false. If someone says something false one day should any truth they say be forbidden? Trump said dumb things and the election was stolen which all current evidence shows is false, but he also said that the Hunter Biden laptop emails were real and pointed at corruption. The Biden campaign and many major news organizations reported the laptop as a fake and propaganda. The DOJ now authenticated it and admits it is real and does show corruption, should those media organizations now be cancelled as well? the current president banned for false information? What about Trump when he was actually correct, or because he was wrong on the election he is always wrong?

Politicians (both sides) can legally lie to the public and not be held accountable.

Free speech needs to be free because if monitored then it will be abused to push the monitors agenda or be subject to the monitors context which may or may not represent others. If you don't like someone saying drink bleach to cure covid then teach people to be reasonable and responsible to verify what they read. Technically drinking bleach might cure covid so it is not false, but it is missing key details and context which goes back to 2+2 = 0. Because your context says it false does that mean everyone else interprets it the same way? Hiding bad information from people on social media does not help them from hearing it from there crazy neighbor.

No. Apologia for convincing people to kill themselves is not the same as discussing math.

Also, a 'step back' would be a negative step on that axis. So it wouldn't be 2+2=0, it would be 2+axis(2)=2+(-2)=0

I already have my spouse lecturing me on math.

-Crissa

 

[TheLastStarfighter]

This is called 'muddying the water'.

It's the opposite of a slippery slope argument, where you roll out obviously worse things. But instead, you become apologetic for the worst things by showing these just vaguely annoying things.

It's very dishonest, and disrespectful of those who have been piled on, stalked, swatted, or just victims of crime or deadly advice.

This is no intended insult: It's easy for you to curate because you are not a woman, minority, or target for your job or position. You don't have a disability, and are well enough informed and educated to avoid the obvious scams. And you have the time to waste here.

But that doesn't work when you want to involve more than a few people. The reason there are so few women here is not because women innately dislike trucks. The reason there are fewer minorities here isn't because they dislike trucks.

-Crissa

PS, I do moderate on other sites. I have been online for thirty years. Literally. And last week, I had to deal with the owner of one site being SWATed and the forum attacked by trolls because he acted to deny Russia access to a base disk access tool he curated. No, the forum I was moderating was just a motorcyclist one, but the trolls didn't care and attempted to damage it because it was his. We lost users from the constant spam and attacks. How do you tell a non-malicious new user from a malicious one? Well, when they begin spamming or being malicious. And I had to ban them, each one.

What I have done is posted with logic. Logic must be solid to form any kind of fair rules.

What you have done, is avoid disputing the logic and instead attacked me as an individual. In debating, it's a common admission of defeat. Can't dispute the post, dispute the poster. You didn't discuss what I said, but rather said what I said is invalid because of who I am. That's sad.

Also, you don't know me. You know I'm male and from Canada. At least I say I am, and that I'm an engineer. Everything else, you've made stereotypical assumptions based on that. You assumed my race, gender, orientation, health status and that I haven't been exposed to harassment, crime or trauma. And with exponentially more posts than I do, you have a lot more times to waste.

You should look in the mirror and think about your fact-less assumptions, and try to do better. And not base the validity of opinions based on who a person is.

For the record, I have no problem with bans and censorship in online forums such as this one. It's a club, you join a club, you know the rules. The large social media sites have transcended from clubs to communication utilities. On those, moderation should be very limited.

 

[TheLastStarfighter]

The following link especially applies to my two pot beef stew criticism



(passing off my bad behavior as, it’s a joke)

we are not in agreement on our positions but, pausing the conversation in these fora before being banned ??

See, on my free speech Twitter we wouldn't have to worry!

 

[John K]

2+2 can equal anything depending on context,

Incorrect, 2+2=4 period.

The statement is not up to interpretation. Attempts to obfuscate borders on gaslighting.

 

[Crissa]

What I have done is posted with logic. Logic must be solid to form any kind of fair rules.

What you have done, is avoid disputing the logic and...

...I only disputed your logic. You did not post with logic, you posted with an argument style filed with fallacies, which I pointed out.

Yes, I made assumptions. The point was that you had used your experience (which is a fallacious logical argument) to say it was easy for everyone to curate their media streams. I noticed that you didn't bother to actually focus on the facts or logic presented.

Not only do media hosts have no reason to be part to someone's spam, scams, or abuse - they're liable if illegal activity is brought to their attention and they do not take action. They may be liable if someone is injured and they did nothing.

And most of all, many people are silenced by spam, scams, and abuse. Far more than are complaining about their misinformation, scams, spam, and abuse was interrupted.

-Crissa

 

[charliemagpie]

It all makes sense until you go to a country where Internet is controlled, and you have to worry about saying the wrong thing.

Laws make people accountable for what they say.

The issues we face are the causes at the sharp end to use a platform to promote their agenda's. And of course, this has given birth to an opposite wing to counteract that force. The world operates with perpetual opposition.

In the earliest days of the internet, this didn't exist. It was civil. It didn't take long for it to become a lawless state.

We are judging outcomes by using current conditions.

What would a free social platform look like and behave like, if it evolved the 'Musk' way ?

 

[Ogre]

In the earliest days of the internet, this didn't exist. It was civil. It didn't take long for it to become a lawless state.

There were trolls in the dawn of the web.

I recall a truly heinous troll from usenet’s alt.mountain-biking or maybe it was alt.bicycling.off-road.

Trolls existed on AOL.

Trolls existed on Compuserve.

Trolls existed on BBSs.

When the first digital bridge was made to connect people… trolls moved in under it.

 

[Luke42]

For that I would need to share your perception of math notation.

It could be 22.

(Reality is not just what we have been taught it is. How otherwise would we gain more insight of the world around us?)

I took a class about this very idea in college called "Modern Algebra".

In that class, we defined our own symbols and operators - and then explored how they work.

If the new mathematical system you create is internally consistent, it's not quite as open-ended as it would seem. But there are still a lot of possibilities.

Anyone who really wants to dive into this idea should really take that course.

 

[JBee]

Incorrect, 2+2=4 period.

The statement is not up to interpretation. Attempts to obfuscate borders on gaslighting.

Lol. Only if you have been taught that notation. Which is more in Germany?
USD$10,001 or Euro 10,001?

You can only explain within the confines of definition, which in turn can only exist by agreement of those that use the terms. Any agreement on terms, or definition is based on shared perception. Shared perception is your culture and it in turn defines you. None of that makes it fact, just common ground that you share with others.

Which is why the nature of social media allows groups of like minded people to assemble and find eachother, that previously were alone with their thoughts. Be they good or bad.

True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing. - Socrates

The scientific method is defined by this quality, in that "observation" of experimentation should support the hypothesis. However, who taught you the colour red, and is that really red or some shade? Is red really the same electrical signal each brain recieves via an optical nerve? By which means can you describe what has never been yet observed? By analogy?

Just by using language in itself creates bias, any description, is based on your current knowledge of what you have perceived and retained as definition over time.

Perhaps that is why you think "facts" exist? Everything ever said by man can only be an approxiamtion of the truth at best, because to know "the truth" would be to know all things.

And we all know that although you think you are that special one, none of us here agree that you are! ?

 

[John K]

@JBee

scientific method? Cool kids use DMAIC

I’m Greek so this song is definitely about me.

 

[CyberGus]

OMFG

ELON GIVE US CYBERTRUCK NEWS AND KILL THIS THREAD

 

[Ogre]

0


New Cybertruck phot.


‘’’look at that mud!

 

[JBee]

@JBee

scientific method? Cool kids use DMAIC

I’m Greek so this song is definitely about me.

Or just rapid reiteration.

Lets talk feedbacks loops.

We need to stop amplifing ideas that are not our own and have not been verified by experimentation.

Repeat.