• OT? - Censorship Mecanisms

    From George.Anthony@21:1/5 to All on Tue Apr 26 19:02:42 2022
    These liberal toddlers don’t know what to do when they can’t dictate and control the narrative.

    “…Musk would undo censorship mechanisms they had worked to implement over the years…”

    https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/twitter-employees-distraught-over-musk-acquisition-too-in-shock-to-speak-report

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bfh@21:1/5 to George.Anthony on Tue Apr 26 15:35:14 2022
    George.Anthony wrote:
    These liberal toddlers don’t know what to do when they can’t dictate and
    control the narrative.

    “…Musk would undo censorship mechanisms they had worked to implement over
    the years…”

    https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/twitter-employees-distraught-over-musk-acquisition-too-in-shock-to-speak-report


    If there's a company building safe spaces, we probably should invest
    in it.

    --
    bill
    Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From George Anthony@21:1/5 to George.Anthony on Tue Apr 26 13:17:45 2022
    On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 12:02:45 PM UTC-7, George.Anthony wrote:
    These liberal toddlers don’t know what to do when they can’t dictate and control the narrative.

    “Our country was founded by geniuses, but it's being run by idiots LIKE TRUMP”

    https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/twitter-employees-distraught-over-musk-acquisition-too-in-shock-to-speak-report

    Now now Fido Trump has his own Truth Social no need for him to have Twitter distorting his vision, hmm does he actually have one?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Technobarbarian@21:1/5 to bfh on Tue Apr 26 13:58:51 2022
    On 4/26/2022 12:35 PM, bfh wrote:
    George.Anthony wrote:
    These liberal toddlers don’t know what to do when they can’t >> dictate and
    control the narrative.

    “…Musk would undo censorship mechanisms they had worked to
    implement over
    the years…”

    https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/twitter-employees-distraught-over-musk-acquisition-too-in-shock-to-speak-report



    If there's a company building safe spaces, we probably should invest in it.


    lol Congratulations. You've found someone more excited about
    Twitter than yourself. Some portion of their 7,000+ employees. I was
    wondering how many people this would be and found this.

    "After years of leadership squabbles, demands for change from activist investors and the boundary-testing tweets of Mr. Trump, Twitter’s more
    than 7,000 employees are accustomed to turmoil. But some of them say the takeover by the mercurial billionaire has hit them in ways other company
    crises have not.

    Employees said they worried that Mr. Musk would undo the years of work
    they had put into cleaning up the toxic corners of the platform, upend
    their stock compensation in the process of taking the company private
    and disrupt Twitter’s culture with his unpredictable management style
    and abrupt proclamations.

    But Mr. Musk also has fans among Twitter’s rank-and-file, and some
    employees have welcomed his bid. In an internal Slack message seen by
    The New York Times that asked if employees were excited about Mr. Musk,
    about 10 people responded with a “Yes” emoji. A Twitter spokesman
    declined to comment."

    https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/25/technology/twitter-employees-elon-musk.html#:~:text=After%20years%20of%20leadership%20squabbles,employees%20are%20accustomed%20to%20turmoil.

    People being people I tend to suspect that for most folks, most of
    the time, most of their serious unease centers around compensation and
    "stock compensation" now that there isn't going to be any stock. Many of
    the employees are some of the people Mr.Musk is buying out. Do you think
    it might feel a bit different if you no longer own part of the company
    you're working for? For many of the modern technology companies it's a
    big deal.

    Those "toxic corners" will remain a problem for the new owner. When
    you get right down to where the rubber meets the road those free speech "absolutists" aren't as absolute as you might think. You're merely one
    local glaring example of this.

    "Elon Musk, the world’s richest man, is spending $44 billion to acquire Twitter with the stated aim of turning it into a haven for “free
    speech.” There’s just one problem: The social platform has been down
    this road before, and it didn’t end well.

    A decade ago, a Twitter executive dubbed the company “the free speech
    wing of the free speech party” to underscore its commitment to
    untrammeled freedom of expression. Subsequent events put that moniker to
    the test, as repressive regimes cracked down on Twitter users,
    particularly in the wake of the short-lived “Arab Spring”
    demonstrations. In the U.S., a visceral 2014 article by journalist
    Amanda Hess exposed the incessant, vile harassment many women faced just
    for posting on Twitter or other online forums.

    "Over the subsequent years, Twitter learned a few things about the
    consequences of running a largely unmoderated social platform — one of
    the most important being that companies generally don’t want their ads running against violent threats, hate speech that bleeds into
    incitement, and misinformation that aims to tip elections or undermine
    public health.

    With Musk, his posturing of free speech — just leave everything up —
    that would be bad in and of itself,” said Paul Barrett, the deputy
    director of the Center for Business and Human Rights at New York
    University. “If you stop moderating with automated systems and human
    reviews, a site like Twitter, in the space of a short period of time,
    you would have a cesspool.”

    Google, Barrett pointed out, quickly learned this lesson the hard way
    when major companies like Toyota and Anheuser-Busch yanked their ads
    after they ran ahead of YouTube videos produced by extremists in 2015.

    Once it was clear just how unhealthy the conversation had gotten,
    Twitter co-founder and former CEO Jack Dorsey spent years trying to
    improve what he called the “health” of the conversation on the platform.

    The company was an early adopter of the “report abuse” button after U.K. member of parliament Stella Creasy received a barrage of rape and death
    threats on the platform. The online abuse was the result of a seemingly positive tweet in support of feminist campaigner Caroline Criado-Perez,
    who successfully advocated for novelist Jane Austen to appear on a
    British banknote. Creasy’s online harasser was sent to prison for 18 weeks.

    Twitter has continued to craft rules and invested in staff and
    technology that detect violent threats, harassment and misinformation
    that violates its policies. After evidence emerged that Russia used
    their platforms to try to interfere with the 2016 U.S. presidential
    election, social media companies also stepped up their efforts against political misinformation.

    The big question now is how far Musk, who describes himself as a
    “free-speech absolutist,” wants to ratchet back these systems — and whether users and advertisers will stick around if he does.
    [snip]

    https://apnews.com/article/technology-business-elon-musk-facebook-fc2598d6409997d4d5bccd09592eca98

    "A decade ago, Twitter executives, including the chief executive, Dick
    Costolo, declared that the social media site was the “free-speech wing
    of the free-speech party.” The stance meant Twitter would defend
    people’s ability to post whatever they wished and be heard by the world.

    Since then, Twitter has been dragged into morasses over disinformation peddlers, governments’ abuse of social media to incite ethnic violence
    and threats by elected officials to imprison employees over tweets they didn’t like. Like Facebook, YouTube and other internet companies,
    Twitter was forced to morph from hard-liner on free expression to speech
    nanny.

    Today, Twitter has pages upon pages of rules prohibiting content such as material that promotes child sexual exploitation, coordinated government propaganda, offers of counterfeit goods and tweets “wishing for someone
    to fall victim to a serious accident.”

    The past 10 years have seen repeated confrontations between the
    high-minded principles of Silicon Valley’s founding generation of social media companies and the messy reality of a world in which “free speech” means different things to different people. And now Elon Musk, who on
    Monday struck a deal to buy Twitter for roughly $44 billion, wades
    directly into that fraught history.

    Successive generations of Twitter’s leaders since its founding in 2006
    have learned what Mark Zuckerberg and most other internet executives
    have also discovered: Declaring that “the tweets must flow,” as the
    Twitter co-founder Biz Stone wrote in 2011, or “I believe in giving
    people a voice,” as Mr. Zuckerberg said in a 2019 speech, is easy to say
    but hard to live up to.

    Soon, Mr. Musk will be the one confronting the gap between an idealized
    view of free speech and the zillion tough decisions that must be made to
    let everyone have a say.

    His agreement to buy Twitter puts the combative billionaire, who is also
    the chief executive of Tesla and SpaceX, at the white-hot center of the
    global free-speech debate. Mr. Musk has not been specific about his
    plans once he becomes Twitter’s owner, but he has bristled when the
    company has removed posts and barred users, and has said Twitter should
    be a haven for unfettered expression within the bounds of the law.

    “Free speech is the bedrock of a functioning democracy, and Twitter is
    the digital town square where matters vital to the future of humanity
    are debated,” Mr. Musk said in a statement announcing the deal.

    Mr. Musk is a relative dilettante on the topic and hasn’t yet tackled
    the difficult trade-offs in which giving one person a voice may silence
    the expression of others, and in which an almost-anything-goes space for expression might be overrun with spam, nudity, propaganda from
    autocrats, the bullying of children and violent incitements."
    [snip]

    https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/26/technology/twitter-elon-musk-free-speech.html

    I need more popcorn. I'm expecting a fun show.

    TB

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Technobarbarian@21:1/5 to George Anthony on Tue Apr 26 15:28:45 2022
    On 4/26/2022 1:17 PM, George Anthony wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 12:02:45 PM UTC-7, George.Anthony wrote:
    These liberal toddlers don’t know what to do when they can’t dictate and >> control the narrative.

    “Our country was founded by geniuses, but it's being run by idiots LIKE TRUMP”

    https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/twitter-employees-distraught-over-musk-acquisition-too-in-shock-to-speak-report

    Now now Fido Trump has his own Truth Social no need for him to have Twitter distorting his vision, hmm does he actually have one?

    Here's a fun read on the troll problem Elon bought.

    "Twitter should have died long ago — let Elon Musk take it out back and
    shoot it
    Amanda Marcotte, Salon
    April 26, 2022"

    "There's a scene in the first of the "Matrix" movies — the only decent
    one, IMHO — where one of the resistance fighters, Cypher (Joe
    Pantoliano), betrays the cause in order to get reinstated in the
    simulated reality of the Matrix. His reasoning is sympathetic enough:
    Life in the "real world" is a miserable slog, with crap food, bad
    clothes and uncomfortable lodgings. Inside the Matrix, however, life is
    far more comfortable — even if it's all an illusion. "I know this steak doesn't exist," Cypher explains, but he is willing to give up his
    compatriots in order to experience it.

    It's a compelling scene that helps explain that kind of existential
    tradeoff. Viewers are meant to ask themselves if they would really give
    up freedom — which, let's face it, can sometimes seem like an abstract
    ideal — in exchange for a really good steak. Most of us, no doubt,
    believe we wouldn't take that trade. But if you spend even 15 minutes on Twitter, you realize how many people are willing to be sucked into an
    evil alternate reality created by computer algorithms that appear to
    hate the human beings they feed upon — even without offering a delicious
    cut of meat steak as bait. All it takes is endless, asinine
    conversation, driven and dictated by the worst people in our society.

    Elon Musk is buying Twitter for a sum of money so large as to be
    meaningless to all normal people. That's enraging many or most Twitter
    users, but it also feels appropriate. After all, that platform is
    largely controlled by trolls. So why shouldn't one of the biggest trolls
    on the platform own it outright? It's a little like Snoop Dogg buying
    Death Row Records. Of course, trolls never wrote "Gin and Juice." They
    are just draining the life out of our democracy.

    As I argued a couple weeks ago, when Musk first started making sounds
    about buying Twitter, his plan to let the already obnoxious troll
    problem spiral out of control will likely sound the death knell for the
    social media behemoth. Trolls are good for business on social media, up
    to a point. But if they take over too much, they run all the normal
    people off. Then the trolls leave too, because they're hapless and
    forlorn without non-trolls to troll. Soon it's just a ghost town, like
    Donald Trump's utterly pointless platform Truth Social.
    [snip]

    The problem, however, is that Twitter offers incentives that distract
    people away from genuinely important stories and redirect them toward
    stuff that, in a marginally sane world, just wouldn't matter much. (Or,
    often, wouldn't matter at all.) When journalists are addicted to
    Twitter, they start letting those warped priorities shape their
    coverage, often for the worse

    For instance, as Heather Digby Parton wrote for Salon on Monday, it's an absolute travesty that one of the biggest political scandals in American history is unfolding right now, but it's barely making a ripple in media coverage. Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, exploited his shadow staff position in the White House to aid Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the corrupt murderous de facto ruler of Saudi Arabia, and was rewarded with
    $2 billion. Kushner even appears to have helped MbS cover up the
    gruesome murder of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi. In a
    pre-Twitter era, this story would have been an all-consuming media
    scandal. It's got everything: Murder, intrigue, huge sums of money and
    an international villain so sinister he could have come from a Bond film.

    But the story of Kushner and the prince has barely surfaced in the
    current media environment. I blame Twitter. Twitter favors stories that
    allow users to engage self-righteous preening, or at least cheap dunks
    on easy targets. As I write this, for instance, a top trending topic is "Marshall Law." That refers to Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene's efforts,
    after the 2020 election, to pressure Donald Trump into staging a
    military coup. Of course that's an important story — in theory. But in practice, the substance of the story is being ignored in favor of a
    morbid fascination with Greene's apparent ignorance. (Just in case
    you're not on Twitter and have been living in a hermitage, she
    misspelled "martial law" as "Marshall.")

    This isn't about the danger that folks like Greene and Trump pose to
    democracy. It's about extremely online liberals who can't resist a
    chance to show off their superior command of grammar and spelling,
    compared to the right-wingers they hate, and it's about the fact that
    mockery matters more to the Twitter algorithm than the potential end of democracy does. Something like Kushner's Saudi scandal — which is
    fascinating to read about, but doesn't drive "engagement" or angry
    debate on social media — doesn't even stand a chance in such an environment.."
    [snip]

    TB

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)