Support NeoGAF

[Kraz]

The real reason for tall the hatemongering against him is this:



The establishment media simply cannot allow this to happen, that is why they are whipping their audience into a frenzy. They are the true enablers of hate, not Musk.

"entertainment is pushing civilization towards suicide"

Sounds more like an overdramatic personal problem, "oh my show isn't the right, woe is me! Woe is the world!". Quite the schizophrenic justification to accept blindly.
It's interesting that Musk thinks twitter can save civilization from suicide by fighting something called "the work mind virus" in the entertainment industry. How does that work?
Would like to see Elon walk through the meanings since it sounds similar to other recent remarks by anti-Western threats to see if they're the same.

The counter narrative however, cannot be right wing. Because then you are just replacing one destructive, biased, and divisive narrative with another.

Centre ground. Balance. That's what Musk has to strive for, and I'm not convinced by the way he talks that he understands that.

He's approaching almost the entire established social and user structure of Twitter as hostile and as something that can be controlled instead of managed. It's the community itself that sets the so-called Twitter narrative and to create a counter-narrative would be to go against that community. No end of the world fabrications involving are convincing to sane people.

 

[ManaByte]

He's approaching almost the entire established social and user structure of Twitter as hostile and as something that can be controlled instead of managed. It's the community itself that sets the so-called Twitter narrative and to create a counter-narrative would be to go against that community. No end of the world fabrications involving are convincing to sane people.

Never heard of Shadowbanning, huh? Guess what accounts were the ones who got Shadowbanned? Hint: they didn’t have #StayWoke T-Shirts.

 

[Kraz]

Never heard of Shadowbanning, huh? Guess what accounts were the ones who got Shadowbanned? Hint: they didn’t have #StayWoke T-Shirts.

If that's an issue then investigate the circumstances of why it's happening and change it without jumping to it's the end of the world. That might be giving to much credit to everyone involved.

 

[Guilty_AI]

If that's an issue then investigate the circumstances of why it's happening and change it without jumping to it's the end of the world. That might be giving to much credit to everyone involved.

Translation:
Only one side is allowed to make noise and act like its the end of times. The other has to lower their heads, keep their mouths shut even if they're correct and shoudn't be allowed to call out bullshit they personally witnessed.

 

[Kraz]

Translation:
Only one side is allowed to make noise and act like its the end of times. The other has to lower their heads, keep their mouths shut even if they're correct and shoudn't be allowed to call out bullshit they personally witnessed.

The difference is hate speech is real and 'woke mind virus that threatens civilization with suicide through entertainment' isn't.

There's a small group of people, harmful and harmless, that insinuate themselves under a tent and try to make their existential problems extend to everything and everyone and will make things up versus those that face real threats.

 

[Guilty_AI]

The difference is hate speech is real and 'woke mind virus that threatens civilization with suicide through entertainment' isn't.

No. You think hate speech, as its being presented, is real. And you think there is no hateful rhetoric from the 'stay woke' side.

And this line of thought is, ironically, what people are calling out and criticizing the most. Because they're so baselessly certain they're correct in their views, they see taking extreme measures and the silencing of people as justified. Its exactly how authoritarian regimes operate, there's always some "just cause" with no room for doubt.

 

[3liteDragon]

 

[BadBurger]

This is where the fun begins /Anakin

 

[Kraz]

No. You think hate speech, as its being presented, is real. And you think there is no hateful rhetoric from the 'stay woke' side.

And this line of thought is, ironically, what people are calling out and criticizing the most. Because they're so baselessly certain they're correct in their views, they see taking extreme measures and the silencing of people as justified. Its exactly how authoritarian regimes operate, there's always some "just cause" with no room for doubt.

No, you misunderstand. In reality, in the greater world, hate speech actually exists versus "woke mind virus that controls entertainment leading civilization to suicide" which doesn't. One's a real threat, one isn't. That's where certainty can enter.

Also, the discussion wasn't about me, but about those people making complaints regarding the matter who perceive renewed existential threat to themselves, theat to those close to them and their home community from Twitter now.

 

[strange headache]

Centre ground. Balance.

If you want balance you must give both sides a voice and cut out the far fringes. Otherwise you risk shifting the Overton window towards extremism.

 

[Grildon Tundy]

.

 

[Nobody_Important]

You interpretation of these tweets is completely false. Have it straight from Elon himself:







The real reason for tall the hatemongering against him is this:



The establishment media simply cannot allow this to happen, that is why they are whipping their audience into a frenzy. They are the true enablers of hate, not Musk.

Everything he says there is about direct calls to violence. Nothing about hate speech which is what my post was about.

 

[strange headache]

Everything he says there is about direct calls to violence. Nothing about hate speech which is what my post was about.

What you consider hate speech, many others consider reasonable.
If you're really so worried about "hate speech" why don't you address the numerous hit pieces and the outright hatemongering orchestrated by the establishment media against Musk?

We all know why, because for you that's the "right kind of hate", the one you feel is justified.

 

[Guilty_AI]

No, you misunderstand. In reality, in the greater world, hate speech actually exists versus "woke mind virus that controls entertainment leading civilization to suicide" which doesn't. One's a real threat, one isn't. That's where certainty can enter.

You can insist all you want. No one has a firm grasp of reality, thats why we always need a healthy dose of self-doubt - and free speech.

When we don't have either, we end up in a endless cicle of self-feeding bias. We only accept facts that confirm what we believe, and we only spread (or allow to spread) information that conforms to those views, while making an effort to erase those that don't - regardless of whats truth or false. A process that keeps further enclosing people on their own bubble.

You speak in absolutes, as if there's no room for discussion of your views of the world. And because "you're definitely correct", you think its ok to take extreme measures. Thats the most dangerous aspect of what we call the 'woke virus'.... and a characteristic that marked many authoritarian regimes.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

What you consider hate speech, many others consider reasonable.
If you're really so worried about "hate speech" why don't you address the numerous hit pieces and the outright hatemongering orchestrated by the establishment media against Musk?

We all know why, because for you that's the "right kind of hate", the one you feel is justified.

Exactly. See my post #2179 for my sliding scale.

Not only is everyone's definition of hate speech different, but everyone also has a different tolerance of allowing or disallowing content. They dont necessarily go together. Someone could have the most hardcore definition of hate speech, but not care one bit if it's posted or said.

Typically, people are self serving and only criticize things that go against them.

But if it's no skin off his back he likely wont give a shit. It's like someone caring a lot about a random dude getting killed in his city on the other side of town. But a ferry sinks in the Phillipines killing 500, but doesn't give a shit. Someone shuns hate speech if done to them, but if it's against the opposition it's fair game, funny or indifferent. A lot of people are probably anti-violence, but I think just about everyone has checked out random gruesome LiveLeak videos (back in the day when it was no holds barred and still around) and not cared one bit.

 

[Chaplain]

 

[gothmog]

What you consider hate speech, many others consider reasonable.
If you're really so worried about "hate speech" why don't you address the numerous hit pieces and the outright hatemongering orchestrated by the establishment media against Musk?

We all know why, because for you that's the "right kind of hate", the one you feel is justified.

Lets not pretend that Musk hasn't earned his fair share of hate. The dude spouts as much nonsense as any celebrity or politician. The worst part is without blocking him Twitter has basically become a social media site dedicated to his horseshit.

 

[Grildon Tundy]

I'm pretty sure plenty of people resent royalty, lottery winners, AND self-made billionaires. Also, someone assuming what happens in another person's "subconscious" is by definition mind-reading. So unless they have that power, it's a fantasy.

If only there was a website where I could engage in criticism of this person directly and let him know.

 

[Deleted member 1159]

I'm not sure why it's big news that Trump might come back to Twitter when his Truth Social posts get screencapped and blasted out to the masses the instant he says anything on there...usually by the people who hate him the most and don't want him on there.

 

[Kraz]

You can insist all you want. No one has a firm grasp of reality, thats why we always need a healthy dose of self-doubt - and free speech.

When we don't have either, we end up in a endless cicle of self-feeding bias. We only accept facts that confirm what we believe, and we only spread (or allow to spread) information that conforms to those views, while making an effort to erase those that don't. A process that keeps further enclosing people on their own bubble.

You speak in absolutes, as if there's no room for discussion of your views of the world. And because "you're definitely correct", you think its ok to take extreme measures. Thats the most dangerous aspect of what we call the 'woke virus'.... and a characteristic that marked many authoritarian regimes.

Fallibilism is a consideration and something I've mentioned in regards to science and critical thinking in the covid thread specifically to disinformation, and repetitive attempts to get the same antivaxxer disinfo into discussion by trying to take advantage of the ever present unknown and different levels of medical literacy.

Retreating to "how do you really know?" sounds like them and like the flat earth troll and wasting peoples time. Calling obvious bullshit as the bullshit is not authoritarian.

But if it's not, since you seem defensive of its reality, then the woke mind virus which will destroy civilization through entertainment control should be easy to explain how that works and take scrutiny. It's quite a prediction to qualify from the quality of the quantity. I'm curious what woke mind virus could even mean in the context of the entertainment industry and how that is going to end civilization. Especially the end of civilization part and how twitter figures into this.

 

[BadBurger]

No. You think hate speech, as its being presented, is real. And you think there is no hateful rhetoric from the 'stay woke' side.

And this line of thought is, ironically, what people are calling out and criticizing the most. Because they're so baselessly certain they're correct in their views, they see taking extreme measures and the silencing of people as justified. Its exactly how authoritarian regimes operate, there's always some "just cause" with no room for doubt.

No, he's correct. Meaningless phrases like "woke mind virus" are histrionics that will be defined differently by different people. It's a vague phrase used to demean and malign - and most recently dehumanize certain groups. Meanwhile hate speech is well defined and can be easily identified. What you've been attempting to do is gaslight us into believing that hate speech doesn't exist, which is a fundamentally absurd assertion.

I'm not sure why it's big news that Trump might come back to Twitter when his Truth Social posts get screencapped and blasted out to the masses the instant he says anything on there...usually by the people who hate him the most and don't want him on there.

It has serious ramifications for Twitter beyond the superficial drama that is drawing eyes. It will influence advertisers, platform owners like Apple and Google, investors, etc.

I'm pretty sure plenty of people resent royalty, lottery winners, AND self-made billionaires. Also, someone assuming what happens in another person's "subconscious" is by definition mind-reading. So unless they have that power, it's a fantasy.

If only there was a website where I could engage in criticism of this person directly and let him know.

Yea, people individually dislike others for all manner of reasons. The article / editorial - whatever it is - is obtuse and reductive.

 

[funkygunther]

so many words when “u jelly” would get the same point across

 

[Toons]

Yes, someone needs to. For this or the previous ones.
The 'right thing' isn't an universal concept that exists besides humanity, it is not the same as 'the grass is green'. It is something we build ourselves, and will keep building.

Many things you consider obvious nowadays, and sneers your antecessors for not knowing or believing, while seated on your privileged historical seat with many decades or centuries of historical, social and philosophical development over them, they weren't always obvious.

And thinking you've reached the peak of righteousness in human history, thats normal. Our antecessors who claimed homossexuality was a disorder that needed to be treated thought the same. You think you're better than them due to a meagre few decades of extra knowledge that didn't exist on their time? Congratulations, you fell for one of the most common historical traps humans can fall into.

This is some of the most nonsensical BS I've read in some time.

And this is the problem I have with you free speech absolutists a lot 9f the time. Ultimately, you're just holding water for terrible, awful ideologies and people.

NO ONE needs to make some declaration that interscdial marriage is ok. I could give a rats ass what ancient history people thought about it. Ancient history people also thought that rain was granted by statues made out of stone. And that's coming from a man of faith myself.

They also thought the earth was the center of the solar system, and that a giant turtle carried the earth on its back.

All of these are well understood to be not the case. It is absolutely a privilege to be a live in a time when technology and science allow us to know that these things aren't true, and I intend to utilize that privilege, not to attempt to justify someone espousing false ideologies, but to seek out more truth. That should be all of our goals.

What you're doing only benefits those who wish to do harm to innocents. I csnt stand for that. There is no basis for these ideologies.

Labelling something as harmful because you want it removed is, on the other hand. How do you guarantee the two aren't being treated as the same?

Its not harmful because I want it removed. Its harmful becayse it harms people and we can see the results of that in reality.

 

[Guilty_AI]

Fallibilism is a consideration and something I've mentioned in regards to science and critical thinking in the covid thread specifically to disinformation, and repetitive attempts to get the same antivaxxer disinfo into discussion by trying to take advantage of the ever present unknown and different levels of medical literacy.

Retreating to "how do you really know?" sounds like them and like the flat earth troll and wasting peoples time. Calling obvious bullshit as the bullshit is not authoritarian.

Except this "obvious bullshit" we're talking about is far from obvious. We're talking about philosophical and moral concepts, not material things such as the real shape of the earth which can be observed. Its a very poor equivalency.

Besides, if you talked with anti-vaxxers enough you'd understand that the fundamental issue that creates such movements isn't science, or lack of understanding in it. Its government mistrust. The pseudo-scientific arguments that come out of such communities are merely attempts to justify already existing bias, and the real solution for them shouldn't be through medical knowledge arguments, but to give them reasons to trust the governments intentions.
More people would understand this if they didn't immediatly dismissed and silenced those people.

 

[strange headache]

But if it's not, since you seem defensive of its reality, then the woke mind virus which will destroy civilization through entertainment control should be easy to explain how that works and take scrutiny.

No, he's correct. Meaningless phrases like "woke mind virus" are histrionics that will be defined differently by different people. It's a vague phrase used to demean and malign - and most recently dehumanize certain groups.

In many countries the word "woke" has been added to the dictionary. European politicians are also now becoming more and more aware of it, for example the French minister of education who sees it as a major issue. It also has become a major subject of discussion amidst the German CDU/SCU. Her is Belgium's minister of justice condemning the spread of American ‘wokeness’ into Belgian politics.

Wokeness does exist and has become a major problem.

 

[Guilty_AI]

No, he's correct. Meaningless phrases like "woke mind virus" are histrionics that will be defined differently by different people. It's a vague phrase used to demean and malign - and most recently dehumanize certain groups.

Same can be said about hate speech.

Meanwhile hate speech is well defined and can be easily identified. What you've been attempting to do is gaslight us into believing that hate speech doesn't exist, which is a fundamentally absurd assertion.

Well defined by a dictionary, but not well defined in its uses.... and applications.
I'm not saying it doesn't exist, i'm saying its purposefully misused and misinterpreted as a tool of censorship. A way to... gaslight... people into associating certain ideas with "hateful ideologies".

 

[Toons]

The folks trying to argue no one really knows what hate speech is are hilarious, and in fact displaying either their lack of understanding of what hate speech is, or their stance that some hate speech should actually he considered acceptable.

Posting articles critical of Elon Musk is not hate speech. Posting tweets expressing disdain for Elon musk is not hate speech. Elon musk is an indivudal who's reputation is defined by HIS OWN behavior.

Hate speech does not concern the indidvual, it is about being judged by a group you fall into not by behavior but by identity. This doesn't mean if you criticize a minority or something you are using hate speech. It means if you are criticizing someone BECAUSE they are a minority, or attributing whatever you are cirticizing them to being a minority, then you are.

This is why I drew up the comparison of hating ice cream truck drivers. That is a job someone chooses to have. You are not born an ice cream driver.

You can however be born asian, black, or gay.

This isnt complicated and those trying and failing spectacularly to muddy the waters on what is and isn't hate speech are so obviously doing so without a real foundation, much like they are trying to argue that Twitter is somehow in a bizarre justification, equivalent to the public sector even though it offers things rhe public sector doesn't and is in no way similar. It is ENTIRELY one sided logic that is meant to allow enough room for actual legitimate hate speech to be spread and perpetuated without recourse by suggesting "maybe its not ACKSHUALLY hateful amirite".

Its the equivalent to Terrence Howard arguing that the value of 1 is in Flux so that he can be allowed to say 1 x 1 is 2 and be correct.

 

[EviLore]

Absolute free speech platforms already exist, and they're infinitely worse cesspools than Twitter will ever be. The only people who care about being able to post hateful and deranged things freely on a social platform are hateful and deranged people. Civil society has no need for it, and advertisers want nothing to do with it.

Twitter's content moderation policies could stand to be tweaked for consistency and fairness, certainly, and that is apparently on the agenda.

 

[Guilty_AI]

This is some of the most nonsensical BS I've read in some time.

And this is the problem I have with you free speech absolutists a lot 9f the time. Ultimately, you're just holding water for terrible, awful ideologies and people.

NO ONE needs to make some declaration that interscdial marriage is ok. I could give a rats ass what ancient history people thought about it. Ancient history people also thought that rain was granted by statues made out of stone. And that's coming from a man of faith myself.

They also thought the earth was the center of the solar system, and that a giant turtle carried the earth on its back.

All of these are well understood to be not the case. It is absolutely a privilege to be a live in a time when technology and science allow us to know that these things aren't true, and I intend to utilize that privilege, not to attempt to justify someone espousing false ideologies, but to seek out more truth. That should be all of our goals.

What you're doing only benefits those who wish to do harm to innocents. I csnt stand for that. There is no basis for these ideologies.

This privilege you gained was obtained through free speech and the exchange of ideas, that includes many wrong ones.
You wish to destroy the very same things that'd allow you to seek more truth.

Its not harmful because I want it removed. Its harmful becayse it harms people and we can see the results of that in reality.

And we've already known for a long time the harm strictly controlled speech causes.

If you really want to know, i'm not saying people should be allowed to say whatever they want. We just need clear, well defined, unbiased rules that are applied equally across the board. Rules that strive to stop actual harm, not "harmful ideas". Unfortunately that isn't the case nowadays.

 

[Kraz]

Except this "obvious bullshit" we're talking about is far from obvious. We're talking about philosophical and moral concepts, not material things such as the real shape of the earth which can be observed. Its a very poor equivalency.

Besides, if you talked with anti-vaxxers enough you'd understand that the fundamental issue that creates such movements isn't science, or lack of understanding in it. Its government mistrust. The pseudo-scientific arguments that come out of such communities are merely attempts to justify already existing bias, and the real solution for them shouldn't be attempts to silence them, or even convince them through medical knowledge, but give them reasons to trust the governments intentions.

Maybe it's not obvious to the oblivious.

Musk is making business decisions believing that he is preventing some undefined woke mind virus that somehow controls all entertainment which will somehow invariably lead to the inevitable suicide of all civilization with twitter.
That's quite the claim. Funny in light of the earlier discussion about self importance and cults of personality.

A skeptical analysis of any possible details shouldn't be overlooked.

 

[BadBurger]

Twitter's content moderation policies could stand to be tweaked for consistency and fairness, certainly, and that is apparently on the agenda.

I'm guessing that won't happen until Musk finds his new CEO (pretty sure he said he is looking for someone to take over for him). For now he's moderating by fiat, which I assume is one of the biggest reasons so many advertisers placed their campaigns on hold.

 

[Deleted member 1159]

This privilege you gained was obtained through free speech and the exchange of ideas, that includes many wrong ones.
You wish to destroy the very same things that'd allow you to seek more truth.


And we've already known for a long time the harm controlled speech causes.

If you really want to know, i'm not saying people should be allowed to say whatever they want. We just need clear, well defined rules, that are applied equally across the board. Unfortunately that isn't the case nowadays.

The internet and the anonymity it grants reduces the consequences for using freedom of speech in ways that would get your ass kicked in real life.

If you go around shouting the N word at people in real life, you’re finna get your ass kicked.

You do it on 4Chan and nobody bats an eye because nobody knows who you are and can’t do anything about it. You don’t suffer reputational damage for acting like a fucking asshole because you’re interacting with people on the other side of the globe, anonymously. This brings out the worst in people, which has been demonstrable for decades now.

This comic was posted 18 years ago and it’s never been more true:

Yeah, sometimes a good idea or two might get thrown out with the bath water of disgusting bullshit, but for the most part, good (even if imperfect) moderation works pretty well compared to the alternative.

 

[Guilty_AI]

Maybe it's not obvious to the oblivious.

As my grandfather once said, nothing more dangerous than obvious moral conundrums.

Yeah, sometimes a good idea or two might get thrown out with the bath water of disgusting bullshit, but for the most part, good (even if imperfect) moderation works pretty well compared to the alternative.

And you need to define properly what constitutes that 'good moderation'. I've already said my piece of what i think good moderation is:

Clear, well defined, unbiased rules that are applied equally across the board. Rules that strive to stop actual harm, not "harmful ideas".

 

[ManaByte]

If it wasn’t for Twitter no one would really know what’s going on in China right now.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

The internet and the anonymity it grants reduces the consequences for using freedom of speech in ways that would get your ass kicked in real life.

If you go around shouting the N word at people in real life, you’re finna get your ass kicked.

You do it on 4Chan and nobody bats an eye because nobody knows who you are and can’t do anything about it. You don’t suffer reputational damage for acting like a fucking asshole because you’re interacting with people on the other side of the globe, anonymously. This brings out the worst in people, which has been demonstrable for decades now.

This comic was posted 18 years ago and it’s never been more true:

Yeah, sometimes a good idea or two might get thrown out with the bath water of disgusting bullshit, but for the most part, good (even if imperfect) moderation works pretty well compared to the alternative.

It's evolved beyond that in a dumbass way. Back then there were no giant social media sites. It was confined to headsets and forums. I never had a headset playing Unreal but did my share of typing trash talk for laughs. But that's as far as it goes. Most people probably didnt even see my cheesy messages in the bottom corner.

Now you got retards doing it for fame and click revenue using their real name and picture. Literally trying to make a career out of it. Bad mouthing bosses and leaking internal memos for the world to see is even fair game..

It's bad enough to have loud people on social media, but also silly for anyone to sign up and argue with them. Let them all be morons and sit back reading their posts,

 

[Deleted member 1159]

And you need to define properly what constitutes that 'good moderation'. I've already said my piece of what i think good moderation is:

That’s not a bad definition, but there’s a glaringly obvious problem of how subjectively any of that will be applied.

I might think it’s harmful to promote ivermectin as an alternative to getting an actual COVID vaccine. We can see objectively in the data that areas with higher vaccine hesitancy have higher death rates than areas with greater vaccine acceptance.

Someone else maybe heard on a podcast that’s nonsense spread by big pharma shills.

If I own the forum and decide “nah I don’t want that anti-vax nonsense on my site,” is that a problem? The anti-vax sentiment is also very correlated to political affiliation, so that moderation policy is also going to have all the appearances of political bias for people who disagree with it.

So I’m left thinking that the dream of a perfect moderation system you’re envisioning is a good goal to have, but likely impossible to actually achieve. But it’s still better than what would be the alternative hellscape that unrestricted speech would unleash. Which is again, quite demonstrable over the history of the internet.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

That’s not a bad definition, but there’s a glaringly obvious problem of how subjectively any of that will be applied.

I might think it’s harmful to promote ivermectin as an alternative to getting an actual COVID vaccine. We can see objectively in the data that areas with higher vaccine hesitancy have higher death rates than areas with greater vaccine acceptance.

Someone else maybe heard on a podcast that’s nonsense spread by big pharma shills.

If I own the forum and decide “nah I don’t want that anti-vax nonsense on my site,” is that a problem? The anti-vax sentiment is also very correlated to political affiliation, so that moderation policy is also going to have all the appearances of political bias for people who disagree with it.

So I’m left thinking that the dream of a perfect moderation system you’re envisioning is a good goal to have, but likely impossible to actually achieve. But it’s still better than what would be the alternative hellscape that unrestricted speech would unleash. Which is again, quite demonstrable over the history of the internet.

Everyone's definition of freedom of speech is different. And no doubt one person's freedom of speech will be be freer if it supports their views, and more restricted if it's a view that pisses them off.

 

[Guilty_AI]

That’s not a bad definition, but there’s a glaringly obvious problem of how subjectively any of that will be applied.

I might think it’s harmful to promote ivermectin as an alternative to getting an actual COVID vaccine. We can see objectively in the data that areas with higher vaccine hesitancy have higher death rates than areas with greater vaccine acceptance.

Someone else maybe heard on a podcast that’s nonsense spread by big pharma shills.

If I own the forum and decide “nah I don’t want that anti-vax nonsense on my site,” is that a problem? The anti-vax sentiment is also very correlated to political affiliation, so that moderation policy is also going to have all the appearances of political bias for people who disagree with it.

So I’m left thinking that the dream of a perfect moderation system you’re envisioning is a good goal to have, but likely impossible to actually achieve. But it’s still better than what would be the alternative hellscape that unrestricted speech would unleash. Which is again, quite demonstrable over the history of the internet.

The issues you mention have existed from before the internet and social media, and as i've mentioned in a previous comment are largely related to mistrust in government institutions. Its a mistake thinking stopping their spread on social media will stop their spread in real life. In fact, i think being able to clearly see their thought process in the internet can be used into helping improving the situation.
You could for example see the arguments they use, then use counters against them in vaccine campaigns (preferably without antagonizing them since that would just drive them further away). Might not work for all, but it will for some, or their family members.

As for some random forum on the internet, like NeoGAF or even ReeeEra, unlike twitter or Facebook or Reddit with large userbases capable of affecting public opinion, i don't think it really matters much what their respective owners decide. Evilore deciding "No anti-vaxxers allowed here!" or "Yeah, gimme that Anti-vaxxer juice!" ultimately won't move the world scale, so doing whatever he wants is fine (not to mention this is primarily a gaming forum)

And yeah, there is no perfect moderation. The fundamental issue we disagree here is that i think gray should be white, while you and other users think gray should be black.

 

[strange headache]

What is that?

- User signups at an all time high
- User active minutes breaking records
- Hate speech impressions are lower
- Impersonation spiked before Musk bought Twitter and before Twitter blue
- Encrypted DMs are coming
- Longform tweets and video

Turn out, people really do love free speech.
And here I thought Musk is a big dumdum and Twitter is dying.

 

[Kenpachii]

What is that?

- User signups at an all time high
- User active minutes breaking records
- Hate speech impressions are lower
- Impersonation spiked before Musk bought Twitter and before Twitter blue
- Encrypted DMs are coming
- Longform tweets and video

Turn out, people really do love free speech.
And here I thought Musk is a big dumdum and Twitter is dying.

The 0.1% make sound, the 99,9% see business as usual.

 

[BadBurger]

Explains a lot

 

[FunkMiller]

Explains a lot

Sounds eminently possible, judging from his recent behaviour. The man certainly isn’t cut from the same cloth as the likes of Bezos and Gates. And the people at Space X should probably be applauded for handling Elon in a way that has been a positive for both him and them.

 

[ManaByte]

Sounds eminently possible, judging from his recent behaviour. The man certainly isn’t cut from the same cloth as the likes of Bezos and Gates. And the people at Space X should probably be applauded for handling Elon in a way that has been a positive for both him and them.

He’s the modern day Howard Hughes.

 

[thefool]

 

[BadBurger]

Sounds eminently possible, judging from his recent behaviour. The man certainly isn’t cut from the same cloth as the likes of Bezos and Gates. And the people at Space X should probably be applauded for handling Elon in a way that has been a positive for both him and them.

He reminds me of this (admittingly simplistic and lacking in nuance) infographic

 

[dr_octagon]

The internet and the anonymity it grants reduces the consequences for using freedom of speech in ways that would get your ass kicked in real life.

If you go around shouting the N word at people in real life, you’re finna get your ass kicked.

You do it on 4Chan and nobody bats an eye because nobody knows who you are and can’t do anything about it. You don’t suffer reputational damage for acting like a fucking asshole because you’re interacting with people on the other side of the globe, anonymously. This brings out the worst in people, which has been demonstrable for decades now.

This comic was posted 18 years ago and it’s never been more true:

Yeah, sometimes a good idea or two might get thrown out with the bath water of disgusting bullshit, but for the most part, good (even if imperfect) moderation works pretty well compared to the alternative.

The point around anonymity, some people won't care even with their full name. Facebook is an example where people will post all sorts and they don't care.

The anonymity has legit reasons to exist, not least of all whistle blowers and moderation alongside it makes sense. 4chan being the extreme as you mentioned, nobody wants a stream of racism and trash being posted everywhere.

Before social media, there were messageboards and people might have instructions for making bombs or promoting other illegal activities. They could be traced and arrested. Anonymity was to a certain point and for majority of people, they won't be involved in such things.

I don't think we need to fall to either extremes of no anonymity or a free for all.

 

[HoodWinked]

Explains a lot

this is drivel. yes an intern knows the company politics, this is just him inserting his own spin on why he hates him. SpaceX requires security clearances that fuckwit was in an intern position wouldn't be anywhere near top level management.

 

[Toons]

This privilege you gained was obtained through free speech and the exchange of ideas, that includes many wrong ones.

No, it was obtained through research, study and discussion. Not simply allowing BS to be spouted. Galileo went against the grain with his thesis that the earth wasn't centered in the middle of the universe. He was punished for this. But his was backed by actual evidence and research. And thus; by virtue of reality being reality, he was ultimately proven to be right.

The idea that interracial marriage was bad or against god or the nstursl order or whatever has always been a power play and a matter of evil and inequality, not disputed perspectives on reality.

Comparing the two is disingenuous, and, in effect, an argument for the latter type of misinformation, not an argument for free speech. And the funny part is, we wouldn't allow someone trying to argue that the earth ess the center of the universe into the scientific field. Theyd be allowed to say it but not on the platform with which they'd be most heard and revered, because obviously this is a settled matter. Much like the matter of interracial marriage is. Its only proponents now are not in seeking of truth or knowledge, they are simply hateful.

And we've already known for a long time the harm strictly controlled speech causes.

If you really want to know, i'm not saying people should be allowed to say whatever they want. We just need clear, well defined, unbiased rules that are applied equally across the board. Rules that strive to stop actual harm, not "harmful ideas". Unfortunately that isn't the case nowadays.

Stopping harmful ideas is how harmful acts are avoided. None of the most hateful and abhorrent acts we see today are done on a whim. They are backed by ideology, ideas and agendas that are allowed to fester and be spread to others.

We have a responsibility to fight against the spread of those ideals just as much as we do the actions themselves.

Sure, suppressed speech csn be done in a negative sense, but the solution is never an anything goes scenario, and it certainly isn't one that allows known hate speech. Those are settled issues.

 

[BadBurger]

He’s the modern day Howard Hughes.

To tell you the truth, if I was at SpaceX at the time I would have been too nice to do that to him, seeing as he hadn't done all of the things he has since. I would have just avoided him. But yea, I guess there are some parallels.

this is drivel. yes an intern knows the company politics, this is just him inserting his own spin on why he hates him. SpaceX requires security clearances that fuckwit was in an intern position wouldn't be anywhere near top level management.

Just like at my company, many SpaceX internships are paid and they perform many of the same duties actual employees do. They're listed on SpaceX's website, and you can view the average salaries on Glassdoor.

 

[Kenpachii]

Explains a lot

Hair plug comment already made the rest useless to read. Dude seems to generally hate the guy for some reason.