Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

chatterbox272 t1_iv3w3yh wrote

Reply to comment by cyborgsnowflake in [D] Sigmoid Social, an alternative to Twitter by and for the AI Community by regalalgorithm

  1. Reportedly hate speech on the platform has gone through the roof, people may not want to even risk having to put up with that. It was already bad at times, so it getting worse is concerning.
  2. Musk has been very clear with his intended direction of the platform. Continued use of the platform is acceptance of that direction. Essentially the "vote with your wallet" kind of thing, except it's "vote with the advertising revenue twitter would make from having you on the platform"
  3. Musk is a pretty controversial person in general, and now that he owns Twitter he profits from you being on that platform. Leaving Twitter because you don't want to support Elon Musk might be a reason.
  4. Relevant to this community, Twitter purged their entire "responsible AI" team in the layoffs. As with point 2, leaving because you don't support that decision.
  5. Leaving because you never liked Twitter and you now might have an alternative available with the community considering moving. Or even if you did like Twitter but like Mastodon more.

For me I'm weaning out mostly on point 5, never really liked Twitter but tolerated it because there was/is value in the community. If the community is moving I'll jump on the opportunity to move. 2 is also a factor, I don't believe in the absolutist free speech point of view and won't participate in that version of Twitter for the same reason I don't browse 4chan.

The things that have changed over the past week may be minor from certain points of view, but they can also be the straw that broke the camel's back. If people already weren't too fond of Twitter, any one of the minor changes might be enough to finally push them over the edge.

17

cyborgsnowflake t1_iv41jx1 wrote

  1. Its Musk's fault that trolls and disaffected posters have started a meme of repeatedly typing in the nword in response to the takeover.
  2. What direction is that? He mostly gave some boilerplate about freespeech balanced with safety. Do you object to any of those concepts? In practical terms the only major change will probably be that overall moderation will remain similar (too much imo) but everyone may be moderated on a more equal basis rather than just one side getting the banhammer while people cheering violence against politicians like Rand Paul, openly planning DDOS attacks, and calling for MAGA kids to be 'fed into the woodchipper' get softer treatment. Twitter is not suddenly going to be filled with Tweets planning assassinations of politicians and child porn because there is no evidence Elon is planning to go that way and even if he wanted to the state won't allow it.
  3. Controversial maybe to Dems/leftwingers and as this study shows https://morningconsult.com/2022/06/23/elon-musk-favorability/ largely due to politics.
  4. Leaving aside the whole can of worms about what a massive con the current implementation of 'AI ethics' is many employees of Twitter have made it clear they won't work with Musk and don't share his vision. He's running a business not a charity that specializes in giving out six figure salaries to people who hate and want to sabotage their benefactor. Would YOU keep people on who disliked and didn't want to work with you and made it abundantly clear in your business? Tons of people are fired every day for less and with far less generous benefits What makes these guys so special?
  5. These alternatives have been present for years. If people cared about any of the nonpolitical things they claimed they would have left years ago.
  6. Oh I would be pleased as peach if everyone would move enmasse to decentralized uncontrolled platforms. But I think this Leftwing exodus will fizzle for the same reason the rightwing exoduses fizzled. Big Social media is built on the network effect. Not on the inherent superiority of their philosophy compared to smaller platforms that Dems were trumpeting up until a few months ago. The people claiming they're leaving won't be able to stay away from Twitter because...besides everyone else being there, being left alone from the depredations of the Dark Lord Musk isn't what they want. They want control.

I would put better odds that eventually they're going to try to drive him off of control or force Musk to up the censorship to a more acceptable level or get kicked out than some nirvana of wildly popular decentralized social media springing up anytime soon.

−2

IWantAGrapeInMyMouth t1_iv4du3d wrote

I don’t think a 23 point swing in favorability and a growth in unfavorability in literally every group over the span of 2 months illustrates the point you’re attempting to make about Musk only growing in unpopularity due to “politics”. And that’s grown since June. But I’d love to see proof on one sided bans against the right, because this feels like the standard whining and false equivalency the right loves to espouse without any evidence. It’s wild to me that people who regularly simplify and misrepresent issues get into a data based field.

10

cyborgsnowflake t1_iv4lbsp wrote

I didn't say only due to politics, I said largely. He's been the subject of heavy negative coverage starting around the time he started to really jump into politics that is probably partisan driven. but can have effects across party lines. But even disregarding that there are still huge differences between ideological groups. So yeah, politics isn't an irrelevant factor here.

In terms of your other question, Twitter keeps the best information to themselves and of course aren't going to release anything that makes them look bad and most of the media run interference for them but slightly more independent studies like these have found they suspend Republicans 5x more than Democrats.

https://www.newsnationnow.com/business/tech/is-twitter-really-biased-this-study-takes-a-look/

Of course most academics are also on team Progressive so they handwave it away with 'lulz misinformation'. But they can't deny the validity of the central fact that conservatives are targeted more.

−1

IWantAGrapeInMyMouth t1_iv4p5zw wrote

Politics isn’t irrelevant but it is a dumb wedge case you’re making because your explicit bias in favor of right wing politics. I think it’s pretty much a no brainer that people on the left are going to like a guy less when he explicitly repeats right wing talking points, but that doesn’t explain the poll you linked showing republicans also liking him less over that same time frame. He’s becoming more unpopular with everyone, it’s just happening faster with people he’s explicitly setting out to upset, shocking.

Republicans being suspended more than democrats isn’t proof of bias against the right. I’m asking for data that specifically shows a double standard for the same actions. You’re not showing that. I imagine open fascists have the highest suspension rate of any political party but I don’t think that’s “one sided banning”, open fascists are just way more likely to explicitly break TOS, lol.

3

MindlessIntroduction t1_iv56g22 wrote

>wedge case

Also what is this? Did you mean its an edge case. And if so how?

Also using the word "dumb" and the term "no brainer" doesn't help people trying to understand your points any better.

1

cyborgsnowflake t1_iv4w2v7 wrote

So you've moved the goalpost after I showed you how wrong your assumption was. Now showing some disparity among x race/gender/political groups isn't in itself enough to justify action or even curiosity? And further you'll proactively assume its a nothingburger rather than have an open mind? And you'll keep moving the goal posts.

Great! I've got you thinking like a 'FAR RIGHT racist sexist homophobic transphobic' conservative now. So what if blacks are arrested more? They probably commit more crime! So what if women are paid less? They probably don't work as hard on average! The groundwork is laid. Just shift the groups you apply your new logic to a bit and you too will know the pleasure of playing whack a mole with Big Tech in no time with your fellow 'neonazi fascist' rightwingers. Glad I could teach you something.

0

IWantAGrapeInMyMouth t1_iv4z01s wrote

Mate when your argument relies on comparing oppressed groups in society that are oppressed due to no reason other than something they cannot change to people who openly choose to follow an ideology, the comparison starts to fall apart. You being right wing doesn’t make you oppressed, lol. You can just stop being right wing at any point.

I’m asking for proof that right wingers are suspended at a higher rate for the same actions. You don’t have anything to prove that, so you’re just guessing. Why are you interested in a data based field when you can’t demonstrate correlation that removes confounding variables?

3

cyborgsnowflake t1_iv7fbit wrote

Mate when your argument relies on comparing oppressed groups in society that are oppressed

Either a correlation matters or it doesn't, how sorry you feel for a group plays no scientific role.

You being right wing doesn’t make you oppressed, lol. You can just stop being right wing at any point.

People can flip their deepseated beliefs like a light switch. Sounds scientific to me!

I’m asking for proof that right wingers are suspended at a higher rate for the same actions. You don’t have anything to prove that, so you’re just guessing.

I gave it to you. Republicans are suspended at a 5x for the same actions of talking on twitter just like Dems do. What confounding variables are you talking about?

0

MindlessIntroduction t1_iv55ubr wrote

So even though you concede that "Republicans are being suspended more than democrats" and Republicans lean more politically right you don't believe this is proof that there is a bias against right leaning people because Republicans are also "open fascists"?

I am not sure this is your logic because you also state that "open fascist" is a distinct "political party". Presumably a party distinct from Republicans. Not that i've ever heard of them.

I think the onus might be on you to prove that the data doesn't take account of this phenomenon that you refer to (not that i can understand what it is exactly). Since ATM its conjecture and you have the hard data you've asked for

−1

IWantAGrapeInMyMouth t1_iv58far wrote

Where did I say republicans are open fascists? I said open fascists would be the most likely to be banned and the most likely to break tos terms, and this wouldn’t constitute unfair or unequal banning. Try rereading

4

MindlessIntroduction t1_iv59upl wrote

But then what do Republicans have to do open fascists then?

−1

IWantAGrapeInMyMouth t1_iv5aobf wrote

Explaining that one ideology may lead its followers to violate TOS more. If you want things specific to people who aren’t open fascists, AFAIK no democrats are posting QAnon shit which gets bans. Very few dems post about vaccine conspiracies. Etc etc etc. if one political party has a contingent of voters who violate terms of service more, they’re going to be banned more. Y’all just gloss over that part to pretend people who choose to do these things that they know violate TOS are victims

3

chatterbox272 t1_iv4ic65 wrote

I was just proposing some candidate reasons. Your political journalism article is only relevant to Americans, and there's plenty of other people who live in other places who don't give a rats about it.

Like I said, I never liked twitter in the first place so I'm going to follow anyone who moves to mastodon and let that take over as much of my twitter usage as possible. I might not get off it entirely, but I'd like to try. I personally dislike Elon's consistent over-promise-under-deliver strategy that he applies to the genuinely cool tech his companies develop. So if rolling back my twitter usage means that I see and hear less of/about him then great.

8

cyborgsnowflake t1_iv4j5ii wrote

Go ahead, like I said I want people to move off centralized platforms.

1

sabouleux t1_iv4fx15 wrote

Sure, if you completely set aside the fact that a very vocal subset of right-wing discourse is anchored in overt racism, bigotry, misogyny, misinformation, conspiratorial thinking, and at its very worst, downright stochastic terrorism, you can start making absurd arguments about the right being silenced. This propensity to dangerous speech is completely impossible to ignore, given any kind of non-delusional analysis of the MAGA campaign, and of the online communities that have formed around it. If your side of the political spectrum creates disproportionate quantities of this kind of speech, a disproportionate quantity of it will be moderated away, given a sane approach to moderation. Musk is implicitly denying any of this exists through his stance on moderation, and that is terrible news for the state of online discourse.

7

cyborgsnowflake t1_iv4j2o8 wrote

Anyone can just say the other side is the radical one.

But an indisputable fact is that a gigantic chunk of our new speech platforms are in the hands of the same Sillycon Valley clique that embraces the same values and outlooks of one of the most leftwing/'progressive' areas in the world. As flawed and as part of this clique as Musk may be, their dismay over this shows this is a step toward greater ideological diversity.

−8

sabouleux t1_iv5r9oa wrote

> Anyone can just say the other side is the radical one.

No, there is no “both sides” argument to be made here.

One side still refuses to acknowledge the result of a democratic election, and has called for insurrection. One side wants to violate the bodily autonomy and freedom of religion of its citizens and impose a radical interpretation of Christianity onto their lives, with the openly stated goal of criminalizing abortion, denying access to contraception, and forcing religion through public schools. One side wants to end the right to gay marriage, and deny critical healthcare to transgender people, going against recommendations set by all major respectable healthcare associations, and by peer-reviewed research in the field of psychology. One side is openly racist, misogynistic, and bigoted, and refuses any kind of acknowledgment or criticism of this.

These are not ideologies that come from cherry-picked social media posts. These are ideologies that have been amplified to an extreme by central political figures — namely Trump, Mitch McConnell, Marjorie Taylor Green — that have been echoed by their party through their votes, political tactics, and their platform’s stated goal.

The other side is barely suggesting reforms that would make life infinitesimally more equalitarian, but it mostly lacks the unity and decisiveness to make meaningful changes to the system. Coming from Canada, seeing Americans treat their left as if it was some kind of radical entity seems completely ridiculous. Your left is our right. You still are the last first-world country without a functioning public healthcare system. You still have terrible economical barriers to higher education. You still have a system that is built to keep the rich rich, and keep the poor poor. Your left has been unable to meaningfully address these issues partly because of infighting and because of barriers set by the right.

Both sides are not playing the same game. One is playing a dangerous game that can end democracy if left unchecked.

5

cyborgsnowflake t1_iv77mi4 wrote

One side still refuses to acknowledge the result of a democratic election

Like the 2000 election people still say was stolen by Bush II and the SC. And the 2016 election which is the result of Russia 'hacking' the election!

One side wants to violate the bodily autonomy and freedom of religion of its citizens and impose a radical interpretation of social justice onto their lives

Like how the Left wants to ban everything from large sodas, to plastic bags, to what you are allowed to eat, to the straws you get to use, and the cars you drive, to choosing who you work with and work for, prescribing a specific way to have sex, restricting your rights to self defense, to in certain countries banning men from getting private paternity tests and forcing them into 18 years of servitude for a child that isn't theirs. To robbing you of opportunities because you are not the right skin color or sex. I can literally go on forever listing the ways the Left dictates how you should live your life.

These are not ideologies that come from cherry-picked social media posts. These are ideologies that have been amplified to an extreme by central political figures — namely Biden, Nancy Pelosi , AOC — that have been echoed by their party through their votes, political tactics, and their platform’s stated goal.

The other side is barely suggesting reforms that would make life infinitesimally more equalitarian, but it mostly lacks the unity and decisiveness to make meaningful changes to the system. Coming from the world outside of 21st century Western urban areas, seeing Americans treat their right as if it was some kind of radical entity seems completely ridiculous. Your right is our left.

I don't know where this meme came from that the Left is some outcast ideology in America but its not remotely true for anyone who uses their brain for a few seconds. For one thing theres already tons of Leftwingers on this popular American site. Far more than conservatives. A typical San Franciscan Leftist isn't all that much more rightwing than a London or Parisian one. at least from a social justice perspective in fact they may be even more strident given a lot of this type of thought originates from American academia. The MSM in America and Europe parrot the same globalist neoliberal/left line. If you watch mainstream news in America the 'far right' is brought up as a point of concern far more than the 'far left'. Just put the term into google and you will see it is used in news stories far more often.

Claiming MSNBC/HUFFPO are biblethumping crossburners compared to their European counterparts just makes you look silly..

You still are the last first-world country without a functioning public healthcare system.

You're all over the place. We're talking about twitter and moderation and you want to open up a debate about healthcare.

Both sides are not playing the same game. One is playing a dangerous game that can end democracy if left unchecked.

We must restrict speech (from the other side) and delegitimize every election our opponents win while claiming they do it to us for democracy!

−1