to think Elon Musk is shining direct sunlight on a very grubby state of affairs?

[LondonWolf]

Just staggered at what's coming out tbh. When he first bought Twitter there were several lengthy threads on here lamenting that Twitter would soon move to the Right and be full of hate. Now it appears that no one was bothering to work on child protection, child sexual abuse and exploitation routinely unaddressed, and Twitter employees were working directly with the FBI and government to censor stories some which arguably had direct impacts on how people would vote. Are there any threads on here discussing what's coming out like there were screening about how horrific it was all going to be, because I can't see any?

it suits him to dabble in the controversial to get more clicks. Twitter business model is dead without ad revenue.
Agree, but it seems to me that things that generate clicks and the things that generate ad revenue are not necessarily aligned...

Yes, that's fine because twitter was and is a private company who can allow whatever content or narrative they want on their site. It's not against any law or right for twitter to push agendas or narratives their owners/board support.

If this has changed due to change in ownership then good.

I hope biological reality is now not being silenced.

Agreed.

The censorship on Twitter was dreadful, and the stuff over Hunter Biden'd laptop.... Well talk about subverting democracy.

However to not acknowledge the enormous reach Musk has himself and implications of him posting something like that is naive.

Well people have reach. That's true of all sorts beyond Musk. I presume you're okay with many of them though, because you agree with them.

I don't see anything problematic with what he's said, on a platform with lots of other voices empowered to disagree with him. No one in any position to act on his request will give it the time of day. Plenty will argue against it.

Yes, that's fine because twitter was and is a private company who can allow whatever content or narrative they want on their site. It's not against any law or right for twitter to push agendas or narratives their owners/board support.

This willfully ignores the huge influence Twitter has on public debate. That needs to be acknowledged. Do you not see an issue with perfectly legitimate/scientific views being suppressed? I'm surprised at that to be honest. Whose interests does that serve?

Anything as powerful as Twitter needs external oversight and clear boundaries and rationale as to what can be posted. That applies to Musk as much as it should have applied to Dorsey.

A lot of this debate is predicated on people believing there is a 'right' narrative. We need to be more questioning of this, it's getting us in lots of trouble.

@@entropynow what are your feelings about the fact that EM has said that his priority is getting rid of all the CSE content on Twitter, content that previous to the takeover was allowed to stand despite complaints from actual victims that videos of their abuse were on the platform, for anyone to see? Is that on your radar at all, or is gender critical people not being banned for making reality based tweets your number one complaint? Have to say, it seems an odd priority to have.

This is a very important post, and the "Musk is evil" brigade must not be allowed to conveniently memory hole it.

We’ve all heard about it so how, pray tell, was it suppressed

All the evidence of how it was suppressed including screenshots of people's accounts that were set to 'Do not amplify' (in other words, hide) and screenshots of emails, has been posted on Twitter.

During Covid many scientists and doctors who questioned the narrative had their accounts hidden (Do not amplify) or just removed altogether.

Trending hashtags were also suppressed, giving users a false impression of what people felt was most important to talk about. I remember complaining at the time and being told I was a fool and conspiracy theorist, well turns out the conspiracy was true.

I'm not even convinced that he wanted to buy Twitter. I think he's a disruptor who said he wanted to buy it to shake things up but reluctantly had to buy it when legal pressure was put on him. And now he's having to spin it that he bought it to defend 'free speech'. Complete bullshit. But now he's trying to claw back his billions by running it as a business (which is I guess fair enough) and yes, getting rid of the dead wood.

It’s taken a year for a congressional hearing to determine Trumps comments did incite riots whilst acknowledging he did not specifically call for violence - his followers interpreted it like that as it suits their aims. Whilst we can have a nice debate here with differing views, we’re probably not extremists, several people are and will act on what influencers tweet/say.

Nancy Pelosi’s husband was attacked with a hammer from someone looking to “knee cap” her due to a sustained campaign against the democrats. That’s ok as it’s free speech and no one has that level of influence apparently.

I actually think it’s funny people think Musk has no power. Anyone remember the quote from Obama, “I’m the effing president and I can’t do anything”. Musk has real power as is not constrained by much regulation.

So who are the committee of the great and good he’s assembled - or is it just him?

I don't know anything about Musk, past or present wrt the big picture. I cannot do otherwise than think it is a good thing if children abuse material is now not tolerated on twitter. And, if there is willingness to allow people to report it, and remove it.

I would wonder why people would have any problem with that. It does question why the previous management allegedly looked the other way, or allegedly didn't prioritise clamping down on child exploitation.

@TheKeatingFive

No one in any position to act on his request will give it the time of day.

Categorically not true if you look at anything in US politics with regards to QAnon, conspiracy theorists, attacks on politicians (here in the UK as well), riots etc.

If that’s not true, why does Fauci have security detail, even before this tweet?

"several people are and will act on what influencers tweet/say."

If someone has millions of followers, then there will always be several who take things too far. My own view is that if it gets to several thousand, such as Jan 6, then we need to start holding people to account.

"So who are the committee of the great and good he’s assembled - or is it just him?"

No idea but I am going to suggest that whoever it is, they will be hard pressed to do a worse job than the previous committee of the great and good that not only allowed Twiter to be awash with child porb but wrote thesis on why kids should be able to hook up with adults on Grindr, and amxde tweets qestioning if teacher/pupil relationships were always a bad thing?

None of that seemed to bother most of the folks currently getting exercised over Musk's takeover of the platform though, so hey ho.

Categorically not true if you look at anything in US politics with regards to QAnon, conspiracy theorists, attacks on politicians (here in the UK as well), riots etc.

There are legal triggers to prosecution which are not going to be enacted because of Musk's tweet.

He hasn't incited violence in any way, which would apply to the examples you quote. It's not the same thing.

Is it not unusual for a university to withdraw access to a previously available thesis like that? I can't think of any good reason why they would do it. Plenty of dubious ones.

To the casual onlooker, it is almost as if child abuse/exploitation was previously protected on the twitter platform. Can it be really be a bad thing if the services of those people are dispensed with? I hope they don't go on to tout this stuff on other platforms.

"Is it not unusual for a university to withdraw access to a previously available thesis like that?"

One might also ask, if the University are no longer willing to stand by the thesis, what happens to the PhD that was awarded for it?

Can I ask why you quoted the first part of my post but left of the last part that literally said "there is certainly room for a discussion around whether Article 10 needs updating now that social media is so dominant and influential"?

You're not trying to suppress views to suit your own narrative are you?? 👀

But to answer your question, no I don't see an issue with any views being suppressed by private entities, regardless of how much I disagree/agree with the narrative they have set.

Should religous groups be forced to entertain views contrary to their beliefs because they're "scientific fact"? Also what is your criteria for scientific fact exactly?

Would you extend this ban on supression of opposing views into other areas or other private organisations? Should the NFU be forced to promote veganism on their website or the Labour party to champion Tory policies at their conferences?

Also what is your criteria for scientific fact exactly?

Well do you think humans can change sex? Would you accept the fact that they can't as scientific fact?

Should religous groups be forced to entertain views contrary to their beliefs because they're "scientific fact"?

Thats not the issue in question though. Should religious groups be free to air those views? Yes. Should others be free to express contrary opinions? Yes of course.

What was happening was GC women being banned for expressing scientifically robust views that only a few short years ago wouldn't have been deemed even slightly controversial. On a hugely influential platform that directly impacts public discourse very significantly.

I still find it totally bewildering that people accept all this as fine. How did public debate come to this?

@Dotellhimpike The thing is, no one on this thread who’s said they don’t agree with the current incarnation of Twitter has said they thought the previous version was perfect or even dealt with CSE adequately. I’ve said upthread that the way it was previously dealt with was shocking. It’s not an either/or situation.

And it should be entirely possible for a platform to remove and prevent CSE without also opening the floodgates to far right accounts. Again, it’s not an either or situation. Neo Nazi and far right rhetoric harms minority groups, and minority groups include women and children.

Has it changed much on Twitter now, can GC women state facts without banning?

If not I hope Musk’s ownership means that happens

Should the NFU be forced to promote veganism on their website or the Labour party to champion Tory policies at their conferences?

Its more like waking up one day and finding the flat earthers have taken over the biggest platform in the world and are banning people from expressing their views that the earth is round.

Has it changed much on Twitter now, can GC women state facts without banning?

Yes it has. And in fairness it had improved before that, since the heyday of TWAW.

But great to see a lot of the GC voices coming back.

@TheKeatingFive The problem there was Twitter’s hateful conduct policy including “misgendering and deadnaming” as hateful conduct, wasn’t it? So repeatedly stating to or about transgender people that men can’t be women or that person specifically couldn’t be a women would result in banning, is that right?

I've just had a read through this and think the section you are referring to mainly relates to the tail end of chapter 6. But the summary in the PP is either a gross oversimplification or a deliberate misrepresentation of the argument (and given they've ignored the context of the rest of that chapter, and the 5 that preceeded it, I can take a guess at which it is).

But just to illustrate the point, the concluding remarks around that particular point were;

"Grindr may well be too lewd or too hook-up-oriented to be a safe and age-appropriate resource for teenagers; but the fact that people under 18 are on these services already indicates that we can’t readily dismiss these platforms out of hand as loci for queer youth culture. Rather than merely trying to absolve themselves of legal responsibility or, worse, trying to drive out teenagers entirely, service providers should instead focus on crafting safety strategies that can accommodate a wide variety of use cases for platforms like Grindr — including, possibly, their role in safely connecting queer young adults."

In the context of the rest of the thesis that's not a call for children to be made accessible to men but for social media platforms to take responsibility and ensure the safety of all users.

"And it should be entirely possible for a platform to remove and prevent CSE without also opening the floodgates to far right accounts. Again, it’s not an either or situation. Neo Nazi and far right rhetoric harms minority groups, and minority groups include women and children."

Define 'far right'?

Thing is, I myself, a Corbyn voting lifelong lefty get accused of being Far Right on a regular basis on Twitter. So much so that I am now extremely sceptical of any accusations levelled against others. As I said uopthread, the benchmark shopuld be the law. If it's legal to say it then it shoud be permitted. As for "rhetoric harms" I say take it to the authorities then, make your case, demonstrate the harm and show the causal links. Hell, if you can demonstrate it to me I will be there with you.