The Twitter Debate

[F250 29,228]

3 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

I think this ship sailed long ago.  To be honest, if you're (the royal you) too stupid to understand how social media algorithms work and target people, you're their main mark.  It's very obvious how this shit works and it's not hard to not fall for it.  Stupid people gonna stupid.

What ship?

Captainant is correct. The issue is not Section 230, content moderation, algorithms, etc.. All of that is just noise that keeps the masses distracted.

The problem is the monetization of personal data. The fact that this isn't a controversial topic that never gets discussed means the vast majority of the population is completely ignorant on how any of this works.

The Europeans started regulating these things close to 30 years ago. They continue to refine their regulations while people in the U.S. sit around with their thumbs up their ass arguing about Elon Musk. It's a fucking distraction.

[F250 29,228]

48 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Don't regulate the speech. Regulate the mechanisms that SM platforms abuse to micro target and push conspiracy only to those most vulnerable to it.

Protect our privacy, and all the rest will follow. We need a general data protection regulation.

For those in the industry.

After months have been spent ensuring that EU customer data has been stripped of any data that violates GDPR.

Someone asks "Shouldn't we do this for U.S. customers?"

Your tech company

[Immaculate Vibes 114]

5 hours ago, SydneyCarton said:

 

He's been a right wing hero of sorts for awhile. Loves him some Trump.

I've got friends with different perspectives than me, and are all about "free speech" and dismissive of disinformation and the dangers it posed. But we generally agree on one thing, although not the implementation of it:

Social Media should be regulated. They should be regulated like a utility, or something similar. The world has changed, and these things should fall under some purview of the FCC. They're too big, they're too integrated into daily society, and they're too powerful of a tool to be left in the hands of companies with zero recourse by the government. These companies started as a business, but I'm sorry, theyre now integrated into the seam of our every day life and communication, even moreso than television or anything else.

I can see advantages and things Musk can do if he takes things private. But I can see the downside of one man having all that power. It's too much power, no different than the advantages of an authoritarian regime. 

They need to be regulated by the federal government. Period. 

 

4 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

I’m starting to think it should be regulated, but that’s a whole can of worms. Is Twitter like TV and the FCC should regulate it as such 

Or is it the same as standing on the corner and yelling insane shit, hoping someone joins your cult?

 

 

Wow what a shocker. A presumably anti censorship oligarch bids on Twitter and suddenly we need some regulation of it. L O fucking L. 
 

For the record I’m not a fan of one person controlling that much of our “town square” discussion. I also suspect he would like to censor more than he leads on. He would be great for EV stuff, he’s a pushover for China etc. But the fact that so many people have their hair on fire over it, makes me think it would be a net positive. 
 

That said, I don’t think the powers that be let it happen. Twitter is too powerful and too important to the messaging of all levels of the establishment. They can’t let a seeming maverick/outsider take control. The government will step in somehow and stop it or make it not worth Elon’s time. Guarantee it. 

 

21 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

He absolutely is allowed to buy Twitter and moderate it any way he sees fit, but it has nothing to do with free speech. It has to do with power. If he wants to reinstate Trump, that is fine. He can implement any policy he wants as owner. Again, this is not about free speech. This is about the power to control what speech is allowed on Twitter 

Nothing would be better for Democrats than Trump back on Twitter roaming freely. Without him online, there’s no crazy tweets to ask Rs about. It was a great way to divide Rs. 

[Biff Tannen 46,282]

15 minutes ago, F250 said:

What ship?

Captainant is correct. The issue is not Section 230, content moderation, algorithms, etc.. All of that is just noise that keeps the masses distracted.

The problem is the monetization of personal data. The fact that this isn't a controversial topic that never gets discussed means the vast majority of the population is completely ignorant on how any of this works.

The Europeans started regulating these things close to 30 years ago. They continue to refine their regulations while people in the U.S. sit around with their thumbs up their ass arguing about Elon Musk. It's a fucking distraction.

Exactly.  The ship of being able to really do anything about it has sailed.  Great, Europe enacted GDPR.  You think there is ANY way anything like that ever happens in the US?  I don't.  

[Immaculate Vibes 114]

2 hours ago, Brian Fantana said:

I, personally, am not a fan of American oligarchs controlling mass communication platforms.

That’s the joke, I know. 

[SizzleChest 8,314]

2 minutes ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

That’s the joke, I know. 

But you tell it so poorly.

[F250 29,228]

1 minute ago, Biff Tannen said:

Exactly.  The ship of being able to really do anything about it has sailed.  Great, Europe enacted GDPR.  You think there is ANY way anything like that ever happens in the US?  I don't.  

Yes it can happen if people demand it. Politicians will not move forward without pressure and since nobody is asking for regulation then nothing gets done.

The biggest problem right now is there is zero political pressure because ignorance.

The only person in Congress pushing for it is Senator Wyden the author of Section 230. I will admit that the fact that a 72 year old Senator is the only champion of digital privacy is pretty sad but that's really the fault of the general population.

Anyways, regulation can happen but the conversation needs to change. Arguing over Elon, Trump, Zuckerberg, etc.. is the wrong conversation.

 

[Biff Tannen 46,282]

1 hour ago, F250 said:

Yes it can happen if people demand it. Politicians will not move forward without pressure and since nobody is asking for regulation then nothing gets done.

The biggest problem right now is there is zero political pressure because ignorance.

The only person in Congress pushing for it is Senator Wyden the author of Section 230. I will admit that the fact that a 72 year old Senator is the only champion of digital privacy is pretty sad but that's really the fault of the general population.

Anyways, regulation can happen but the conversation needs to change. Arguing over Elon, Trump, Zuckerberg, etc.. is the wrong conversation.

 

I want to live in your world.  Congress routinely goes against issues that have 70%+ public support in order to side with corporations. 

[F250 29,228]

42 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I want to live in your world.  Congress routinely goes against issues that have 70%+ public support in order to side with corporations. 

The thing is there is political anger at Big Tech from both sides of the aisle. Sadly both sides keep fucking a chicken out of stupidity. Still there is an appetite for reform by both sides they just need direction.

 

[Bullneck 19,640]

 

 

[Biff Tannen 46,282]

1 hour ago, Bullneck said:

 

 

Not entirely accurate, but ok.

[Bullneck 19,640]

1 minute ago, Biff Tannen said:

Not entirely accurate, but ok.

What's the story, morning glory?

[Bullneck 19,640]

2 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Not entirely accurate, but ok.

Elon Reeve Musk was born on June 28, 1971, in Pretoria, South Africa.^[9] His mother is Maye Musk (née Haldeman), a model and dietitian born in Saskatchewan, Canada,^[10][11][12] but raised in South Africa. His father is Errol Musk, a South African electromechanical engineer, pilot, sailor, consultant, and property developer who was once a half-owner of a Zambian emerald mine near Lake Tanganyika.^[13][14] M

[Bullneck 19,640]

4 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Not entirely accurate, but ok.

While he's the face of the electric-car maker today, Elon Musk did not start Tesla.

Martin Eberhard and Marc Tarpenning were co-founders of Tesla, aiming to produce what became the Tesla Roadster. They attracted investment from Musk, who was granted a chairman of the board position with his investment in 2004, during Tesla's first funding round. This week CNBC posted a video interview (conducted in 2019) with the two co-founders recounting the early days of Tesla

 

Eberhard and Tarpenning founded Tesla in July 2003, although the company remained in stealth mode until July 2006, when it revealed the Roadster. Musk was named CEO (the company's fourth) in October 2008, the year the Roadster entered limited production.

Prior to starting Tesla, Eberhard and Tarpenning collaborated on one of the first e-readers—the Rocket e-Reader—before moving on to electric cars. A fan of sports cars, Eberhard said he invested in failing EV startup AC Propulsion, and proposed the use of lithium-ion batteries.

[fattyflattie 4,640]

7 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Not entirely accurate, but ok.

Par for the course for that fucking hack. He’s been suspiciously quiet about the several mass shootings he typically cares so dearly about. Wonder what has been different in Sacramento and NYC? Weird. 

Edited April 16, 2022 by fattyflattie

[Biff Tannen 46,282]

Yes, I read his biography.  To say he "didn't invent anything" is a broad statement and up for debate, but at the very least he has definitely been the one of the main impetuses (?)  behind three of the largest technical innovations of the 21st century.  He was certainly a guiding light if nothing else, no matter his transgressions along the way. 

[Immaculate Vibes 114]

2 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

Yes, I read his biography.  To say he "didn't invent anything" is a broad statement and up for debate, but at the very least he has definitely been the one of the main impetuses (?)  behind three of the largest technical innovations of the 21st century.  He was certainly a guiding light if nothing else, no matter his transgressions along the way. 

He’s done some shady shit especially with the solar city debacle. Watching the Netflix doc on spacex gave me some respect for him though. His passion for it comes through. I don’t know what he innovated or invented behind spacex but he’s the driving force behind it. Pretty cool. 

[Zeus 6,894]

Twitter is dogshit, I don't think Elon could polish that turd but it's funny watching him make these lunatics seethe.

[Zeus 6,894]

21 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

Yes, I read his biography.  To say he "didn't invent anything" is a broad statement and up for debate, but at the very least he has definitely been the one of the main impetuses (?)  behind three of the largest technical innovations of the 21st century.  He was certainly a guiding light if nothing else, no matter his transgressions along the way. 

Using Tesla's name for his shitty cars was hack though

[Biff Tannen 46,282]

1 hour ago, Zeus said:

Using Tesla's name for his shitty cars was hack though

Lulz, go drive one and then get back to me on that.

[Neonmoon 38,130]

They studied if there was political bias and basically found Republicans were 4 times more likely to get suspended by Twitter because Republicans are way more exposed to, and thus share, some batshit insane misinformation websites 

[Captainant 28,631]

56 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

They studied if there was political bias and basically found Republicans were 4 times more likely to get suspended by Twitter because Republicans are way more exposed to, and thus share, some batshit insane misinformation websites 

That's a great thread and provides some real data to cut at the daily texan talking points. 

[Biff Tannen 46,282]

2 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

They studied if there was political bias and basically found Republicans were 4 times more likely to get suspended by Twitter because Republicans are way more exposed to, and thus share, some batshit insane misinformation websites 

aka Republican voters are by and large complete fucking morons.  news at 11.

[Fudge Nuggets 19,491]

On 4/15/2022 at 3:22 PM, Immaculate Vibes said:

Wow what a shocker. A presumably anti censorship oligarch bids on Twitter and suddenly we need some regulation of it. L O fucking L. 

We’ve been calling for regulation of social media for years.

[Immaculate Vibes 114]

2 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

They studied if there was political bias and basically found Republicans were 4 times more likely to get suspended by Twitter because Republicans are way more exposed to, and thus share, some batshit insane misinformation websites 

I don’t even have to click. The guy has pronouns in his bio? For a guy, that’s like weapons grade #2A #maga In your profile. 
 

The basis of the debunking is that Rs are more likely to spread disinformation. Disinformation like what? Who decides what is disinformation? Covid was likely a lab leak? Or the vaccine doesn’t stop transmission?

give me a break. 
 

[Immaculate Vibes 114]

27 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

We’ve been calling for regulation of social media for years.

Not that hard evidently. Nothing happened. I bet if Elon pulls off this takeover, social media regulation will somehow get over the finish line. 

Edited April 18, 2022 by Immaculate Vibes

[Anastasis 23,727]

4 minutes ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

Who decides what is disinformation?

Cloak Room poll majority has a good track record. 

[Fudge Nuggets 19,491]

5 minutes ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

Not that hard evidently. Nothing happened. I bet if Elon pulls off this takeover, social media regulation will somehow get over the finish line. 

Lots of shit with wide approval never gets done, i.e. pot legalization. If Elon’s little bitch fit is what it takes to make social media regulation a reality, then great.

[Captainant 28,631]

18 minutes ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

I don’t even have to click. The guy has pronouns in his bio? For a guy, that’s like weapons grade #2A #maga In your profile. 
 

The basis of the debunking is that Rs are more likely to spread disinformation. Disinformation like what? Who decides what is disinformation? Covid was likely a lab leak? Or the vaccine doesn’t stop transmission?

give me a break. 
 

That's a fucking doozie of a false equivalency lol. Pronouns are equivalent to Sandy hook truthers and Jan 6 defendants, fucking lmao

And as far as "who decides disinformation?" It's not a declarative thing - it's critically analyzing an article or publication to see if they actually have data or evidence to back what they're saying vs relying on bullshit "people are saying" rhetoric strategies while dodging any direct answer to a question.

Granted that is your and annies posting style, so I understand why y'all are so punchy about it.

[Immaculate Vibes 114]

1 minute ago, Captainant said:

That's a fucking doozie of a false equivalency lol. Pronouns are equivalent to Sandy hook truthers and Jan 6 defendants, fucking lmao

And as far as "who decides disinformation?" It's not a declarative thing - it's critically analyzing an article or publication to see if they actually have data or evidence to back what they're saying vs relying on bullshit "people are saying" rhetoric strategies while dodging any direct answer to a question.

Granted that is your and annies posting style, so I understand why y'all are so punchy about it.

I have no idea why you brought up Sandy Hook Or January 6th?

I mentioned profiles with 2A or Maga. All that means to me is that they are no where near the center on any issue. A guy with pronouns in his bio is no where near the center on any issue. 
 

Don’t try to put some Sandy Hook shit on me. That’s lame af. 

[Anastasis 23,727]

5 minutes ago, Captainant said:

it's critically analyzing an article or publication to see if they actually have data or evidence to back what they're saying vs relying on bullshit "people are saying" rhetoric strategies

Foremost disinformation expert CaptainAnt chiming in to ground us all in reality. 

[Captainant 28,631]

2 minutes ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

Sandy Hook Or January 6th?

 

2 minutes ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

profiles with 2A or Maga.

There's a straight line in the propogation of sources, narratives, and talking points there. Alex Jones talks up the crazy shit, Tucker Carlson cleans it up and spreads it, and then it's incorporated into republican dogma.

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

Foremost disinformation expert CaptainAnt chiming in to ground us all in reality. 

Don't you have a patient-doctor interaction to leech fees off of? Go bother someone who's too sick to fend you off

[Anastasis 23,727]

2 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Don't you have a patient-doctor interaction to leech fees off of? Go bother someone who's too sick to fend you off

Tell us all more about disinformation. 

[Immaculate Vibes 114]

9 minutes ago, Captainant said:

 

There's a straight line in the propogation of sources, narratives, and talking points there. Alex Jones talks up the crazy shit, Tucker Carlson cleans it up and spreads it, and then it's incorporated into republican dogma.

 

You talk about false equivalencies, but you linked second amendment supporters directly to sandy hook truthers. You’re fucking full of shit. Own it or not, but know that it’s clear. 
 

It makes it clear that you’ve been exposed to disinformation to come up with the immediate linkage. 

Edited April 18, 2022 by Immaculate Vibes

[Captainant 28,631]

2 minutes ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

You talk about false equivalencies, but you linked second amendment supporters directly to sandy hook truthers. You’re fucking full of shit. Own it or not, but know that it’s clear. 

Now you're putting words in my mouth. I'm talking about the radical people who have gun culture so tight to their identity it's (as you put it) their pronouns on their twitter bio.

Those folks are not your run of the mill gun owner. Those are folks who listen to infowars and fw:fw:fw:fw how every mass shooting is just another celebration day for those ebil libs to try and TAKE UR GUNS and LUBURTY!

I'm a gun owner, hunter, and sporting shooter. But gun culture in this country is fucking toxic, and those chuds are at the core of it.

[Anastasis 23,727]

5 minutes ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

You’re fucking full of shit. Own it or not, but know that it’s clear. 

But don't you know how many dead bodies you are responsible for?

[Anastasis 23,727]

1 minute ago, Captainant said:

fw:fw:fw:fw

but post a politico article unrelated to any actual evidence nor intelligence and hide behind the skirt of CiTiNg uS iNtElLiGeNCe and it is all copacetic. 

[Captainant 28,631]

21 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

but post a politico article unrelated to any actual evidence nor intelligence and hide behind the skirt of CiTiNg uS iNtElLiGeNCe and it is all copacetic. 

So it's fun to restate the basic facts we're talking about vis-a-vis "the laptop":

• Politico article was about how their reporters had spoken to multiple folks from the USIC on how the Hunter Biden laptop story is being pumped as disinformation.
• Hunter Biden laptop was "discovered"/brought to the discourse by Rudy Guliani without any chain of evidence or forensic analysis to corroborate their claims

So I just want to be sure I understand your position here, since you rarely ever actually say anything besides a #bothsides or mindless contrarianism: Are you arguing that we should be taking the Hunter Biden laptop story seriously, and consider it top-tier reporting that is being #CENSORED(!!!) by the twatterz and therefore violating your 1A rights?

[Anastasis 23,727]

1 minute ago, Captainant said:

Are you arguing that we should be taking the Hunter Biden laptop story seriously, and consider it top-tier reporting that is being #CENSORED(!!!) by the twatterz and therefore violating your 1A rights?

How brain damaged are you?

You cited a politico piece about a letter signed by former IC officials, many of them actually serving as political pundits on network news channels or otherwise affiliated with political interests, where they themselves said that they had no evidence to support what they were saying, and you tried to pass it off as "US Intelligence", degrading people for making arguments that amounted to "people are saying". 

Do you really subject yourself to no critical self reflection?

[TwiceHorn 32,155]

1 hour ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

The basis of the debunking is that Rs are more likely to spread disinformation. Disinformation like what? Who decides what is disinformation? Covid was likely a lab leak? Or the vaccine doesn’t stop transmission?

 

Is Qanon a right-wing or left-wing movement?

Is the stolen 2020 election a right-wing or left-wing thing?

Is ivermectin and all the other stupid Covid shit a right-wing thing or a left-wing thing?

There is more objectively untrue shit spewing from the right these days than the left.

[Anastasis 23,727]

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

There is more objectively untrue shit spewing from the right these days than the left.

The same twatter heads that soaked their brains in the steele dossier, pee pee tapes, and alfa bank DNS logs are now lecturing people on disinformation when it comes to stories about crack heads doing crack head shit.  And they do so with a straight face and expect nobody to notice. 

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20,999]

4 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

The same twatter heads that soaked their brains in the steele dossier, pee pee tapes, and alfa bank DNS logs are now lecturing people on disinformation when it comes to stories about crack heads doing crack head shit.  And they do so with a straight face and expect nobody to notice. 

So fucking what?

The right wing/conservatives attacked the US capitol and tried to throw an election.


 

 

[Anastasis 23,727]

12 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

So fucking what?

The right wing/conservatives attacked the US capitol and tried to throw an election.


 

 

That will be a warm blanket to wrap yourself up in when those wingnuts control the house and senate next year and you are trying to figure out why.  

[Captainant 28,631]

9 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

That will be a warm blanket to wrap yourself up in when those wingnuts control the house and senate next year and you are trying to figure out why.  

Lol well it's certainly not because Twitter enforced it's terms of service and actioned people who were propogating false and dangerous information that's likely to lead to violence. Like how vaccines are the mark of the beast, or that Democrats are eating babies under pizza joints, or that the election was stolen 

[Anastasis 23,727]

3 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Lol well it's certainly not because Twitter enforced it's terms of service and actioned people who were propogating false and dangerous information that's likely to lead to violence. Like how vaccines are the mark of the beast, or that Democrats are eating babies under pizza joints, or that the election was stolen 

I know right.  Next thing you know I am going to get talking points about the rules based world order from a poster that thinks that the CIA is responsible for the greatest period of peace that the world has ever seen.  Truly delusional shit.  

[elfenix 34,820]

hey look it's this conversation again

[956 Worldwide 35,621]

Nothing so perfectly illustrates the house of mirrors reality that today’s conservatives live in than their inability to distinguish between mistakes, opinions they don’t agree with, truth they don’t like, and actual propaganda. It really is all the same to them and they’re proving it on this thread. 

[HenryJames 67,608]

 

[Neonmoon 38,130]

Final tidbit from the study. Lol

 

[DigglerontheHoof 21,568]

More proof that GQP is full of morons.