OT: Current Affairs and Politics

[Gronk]

They sure can. But they probably shouldn’t be surprised when it plays into the right wingers hands over fake news. Particularly when Trump got voted in largely because of it

Trump should not tweet anymore just to spite them.

 

[Gary Gutful]

Not sure I want kids being recommended a snuff vid or S&M porn in their PewDeePie sidebar, personally.

Thats very clearly illegal. Very different.

As with just about anything it's about balance.

Which our laws deal with.

But it's also a moot point cos private entities can do whatever they like in terms of censoring their content

I was never suggesting they can't. I thought the discussion was about what they should do rather than what they can do.

 

[Gary Gutful]

Unmoderated was a term that I probably should not have used. They are not proposing to moderate tweets. The original ^^ article flags tweets that are potentially erroneous or misleading and recommends that the user fact checks statements or claims.

There has been a study into fact vs fiction by MIT and I am sure that the Board take its findings very seriously.

The massive new study analyzes every major contested news story in English across the span of Twitter’s existence—some 126,000 stories, tweeted by 3 million users, over more than 10 years—and finds that the truth simply cannot compete with hoax and rumor. By every common metric, falsehood consistently dominates the truth on Twitter, the study finds: Fake news and false rumors reach more people, penetrate deeper into the social network, and spread much faster than accurate stories.

https://www.theatlantic.com/technol...gest-study-ever-fake-news-mit-twitter/555104/

Will be interesting to see how consistently tweets get flagged from both sides of politics. Greenpeace haven't said anything truthful for decades but I doubt Twitter will focus much on them.

 

[Gary Gutful]

They sure can. But they probably shouldn’t be surprised when it plays into the right wingers hands over fake news. Particularly when Trump got voted in largely because of it

Exactly. Its just a dumb move and really obvious what the motives were.

 

[84 Baby]

Trump should not tweet anymore just to spite them.

Or if Twitter really were the paragon of truth, they’d do it for all sides of politics. Or for none

 

[Bazal]

Thats very clearly illegal. Very different.
.

S&M porn is illegal?

Shit, brb.

It's a deliberately OTT example, sure. But it very quickly demonstrates how most people who say they dont want censorship actually do, to an extent.

 

[Gary Gutful]

S&M porn is illegal?

Shit, brb.

It's a deliberately OTT example, sure. But it very quickly demonstrates how most people who say they dont want censorship actually do, to an extent.

It is when you stream it to children.

With respect, all you've actually demonstrated is that it is wrong to do something illegal.

 

[Gronk]

Or if Twitter really were the paragon of truth, they’d do it for all sides of politics. Or for none

Are they only applying "fact check" advice to Trump or other posts that get flagged by their algorithms ?

 

[Bazal]

It is when you stream it to children.

With respect, all you've actually demonstrated is that it is wrong to do something illegal.

Plenty of stuff on YouTube is technically illegal to stream to children. It's an OTT example, but more obvious than beer tasting channels or whatever. That's why I chose YouTube, as a multi age platform, and that's why it's censored. With respect, you seem to want censorship based on your own opinions on what should and shouldn't be censored. Which is fine, and what Twitter have done.

I totally understand that it will also play it to Orange Utrumps hands. They probably expect it will too

 

[Gary Gutful]

Plenty of stuff on YouTube is technically illegal to stream to children. It's an OTT example, but more obvious than beer tasting channels or whatever. That's why I chose YouTube, as a multi age platform, and that's why it's censored.

Beer tasting channels are pretty good. My favourite is the Master of Hoppets.

With respect, you seem to want censorship based on your own opinions on what should and shouldn't be censored. Which is fine, and what Twitter have done.

I don't want censorship based on my opinions. Not sure how you arrived at that.

My argument is simple:
1. I don't trust anything that Trump says.
2. I don't trust that Google, Twitter or anyone else will fairly and equitably moderate or censor all sides of politics. They are inherently biased and run the risk of creating an echo chamber if they go too far. Its a slippery slope full of slippery semen.

I totally understand that it will also play it to Orange Utrumps hands. They probably expect it will too

Which is exactly why I originally suggested it was such a dumb move.

 

[Bazal]

Beer tasting channels are pretty good. My favourite is the Master of Hoppets.


I don't want censorship based on my opinions. Not sure how you arrived at that.

My argument is simple:
1. I don't trust anything that Trump says.
2. I don't trust that Google, Twitter or anyone else will fairly and equitably moderate or censor all sides of politics. They are inherently biased and run the risk of creating an echo chamber if they go too far. Its a slippery slope full of slippery semen.


Which is exactly why I originally suggested it was such a dumb move.

I don't disagree that it's a dumb move. I don't think it falls under necessary censorship, but it's not my business to run. Personally I don't think the f**king POTUS should even be on Twitter, whoever he or she is. I just also feel that your point about no censorship was equally incorrect.

Tbh I've been watching a lot of Whiskey Tribe lately. My God they're massive f**kwits, but they're funny f**kwits

 

[Gary Gutful]

Are they only applying "fact check" advice to Trump or other posts that get flagged by their algorithms ?

 

[Gary Gutful]

I don't disagree that it's a dumb move. I don't think it falls under necessary censorship, but it's not my business to run. Personally I don't think the f**king POTUS should even be on Twitter, whoever he or she is. I just also feel that your point about no censorship was equally incorrect.

Tbh I've been watching a lot of Whiskey Tribe lately. My God they're massive f**kwits, but they're funny f**kwits

Fair enough mate.

Haven't seen Whiskey Tribe. It seems like everyone has a f**ken YouTube Channel these days. I should start one up where I review all of the clothesline pegs and give them a score out of 43.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

I'm against Twitter, YouTube or anyone else censoring stuff because they don't like it. Its a slippery slope and will ultimately do their brand more harm than good. Its also virtually impossible to fairly police.

Yep. 'Fact checking' implies there's a final arbiter of the facts. Like 'scientific' peer review circle jerks deciding the science supports whatever shitbrained ideology they have in common, despite total inability to replicate any of the peer reviewed results.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Thats very clearly illegal. Very different.


Which our laws deal with.


I was never suggesting they can't. I thought the discussion was about what they should do rather than what they can do.

The argument about the ethics of social media corporations controlling public discourse always seems to come to a jarring halt with some version of well-the-law-says-they-can. But laws can and should change when they no longer suit the technology of the day.

 

[84 Baby]

Are they only applying "fact check" advice to Trump or other posts that get flagged by their algorithms ?

Does it matter? I’m sure it’s mostly Trump and by doing so all their doing is giving credence to his takes on media. They’d almost be better off banning him. What use is disagreeing with someone who’s rhetoric is that you’re disagreeing with them? It’s childish but still it’s worked for him

 

[Gary Gutful]

The argument about the ethics of social media corporations controlling public discourse always seems to come to a jarring halt with some version of well-the-law-says-they-can. But laws can and should change when they no longer suit the technology of the day.

Definitely.

 

[Gronk]

Does it matter? I’m sure it’s mostly Trump and by doing so all their doing is giving credence to his takes on media. They’d almost be better off banning him. What use is disagreeing with someone who’s rhetoric is that you’re disagreeing with them? It’s childish but still it’s worked for him

The background to this is Trump trying to stop postal votes in the 2020 election. So they have only flagged false and misleading tweets pertaining to elections.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-05...r-of-interfering-in-us-2020-election/12290140

A Twitter spokesman said the fact-checked tweets had been singled out because they related to election integrity.

The company had refused to take action on other tweets from the President, which have fuelled a murder conspiracy theory about the death of a former congressional staff member two decades ago.

That's despite the woman's widower pleading with Twitter to remove them for furthering the false claims.

 

[Gronk]

Yep. 'Fact checking' implies there's a final arbiter of the facts. Like 'scientific' peer review circle jerks deciding the science supports whatever shitbrained ideology they have in common, despite total inability to replicate any of the peer reviewed results.

Yes we should always make room for alternative facts.

 

[strider]

Not censoring is a pretty slippery slope too, mate. I'd argue worse than some censorship

Selective censorship just makes them look like they have agendas .... of course there are particularly harmful things that should be censored, but trump rants arent really one of them

Agree with gary