you know Elon was running the company when this happened, right? which makes it completely orthogonal to your point.

Seems like an important detail to consider!

If you turn a blind eye to the behaviour of someone you agree with, even if they're doing something that is against the rules (or the spirit of the rules) but you come down hard on someone else for actions that are the same (or lesser); then it's a problem for me.

But "they got suspended 6 times for legitimate reasons and then the continued to behave badly while staying just inside the written bounds of the rules" isn't really a story.

Like the Wikipedia page does a good job of https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libs_of_TikTok#:~:text=terro.... Summarizing the suspensions, which were for misgendering and harassing trans people, primarily. That's the majority of what LTT produces, banal anti-trans propaganda. If you think that's funny, well, that's on you.

"Wikipedia Is Badly Biased" by founder Larry Sanger: https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/

To put this another way: they're providing a useful service to document the absolute nonsense that some trans activists spout.

But on the broader topic of what the drag queens are up to, just look at this for example: https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1581050195399561217 - why should this type of performance be considered acceptable to show to kids?

I'm glad this account is holding these people to account.

Yeah, I'm not convinced.

The original comment is referencing Twitter having donated to Democrats. This would be a 'major' donor in my estimation.

And you never answered my ultimate question -- is your anecdote particularly useful here?

This is the crux of our disagreement. You are considering "Twitter" as a singular entity making donations, while I consider employees of Twitter as individual entities, 98% of whom donated to Democrats. I believe the latter is the context, while you do not. If you're correct on the context, then I would agree. As I mentioned before, it's very common for organizations/big business to donate to both parties.

I would direct you to the grandparent where the context was set:

> So we have a company headquartered in SF, and I think something like 98% of twitter's political donations went to democrats, and the employees acted as constant activists whenever the executives didn't take action against high level conservatives (I'll leave aside whether that action was justified or not).

That reads to me as 'Twitter the organization', not 'Twitter the people in the organization'. I suppose it could be either, but I have never heard that kind of wording for a company as its constituent employees instead of as a monolith. I am open to a different interpretation if you can guide me through it and it seems plausible to me, but if there is no reconciling the disparate readings then I suppose we shall have to admit to an impasse.

It's becoming more common. I wouldn't say it's fully "common" yet.

I think the most public example was the recent gubernatorial election in Illinois. Incumbent Governor Pritzker donated money to a very far-right candidate, Darrin Baley, so that he would get the Republican nomination, and push moderate voters toward Pritzker in the general election.

It was all very well documented in Illinois newspapers during the election, and the New York Times did at least one piece about it, too.

The Times also noted that after the election, Biden gave a speech where he made a statement that this was not an acceptable practice. He didn't call out Pritzker by name, but if you were following the Illinois election, you know who he was talking about.

I personally think the concept of stochastic terrorism is a rhetorical trick to associate legal speech with terrorism, but I think the argument applies just as well to ElonJet.

This is an interesting term that is worth exploring. A problem with it is that it could apply to huge swaths of people and organizations, e.g. Fox News, the Republican Party, CNN, Democratic Socialists, etc

Basically anything that you don’t like is now considered terrorism.

Free speech is completely dead under this logic.

She was instigating acts of extreme violence. Surely you’re joking. Or tell us how you really feel about certain extremely vulnerable & marginalized members of our society more, I guess.

If you’re trying to insinuate the Charles Manson defense, which has been a common theme regarding one side of the political spectrums views on LibsofTikTok, I do not particularly wish to engage in any further discussion.

I follow that account and have never seen any instigation of any violence of any kind. More likely, a certain "side of the political spectrum" has decided that redefining language is a good idea, and making anything they disagree with "violence" seems to be a defining characteristic of that group. You added "extreme violence" to double down on it, but faking outrage doesn't help the discussion any.

It isn't true, it's sophistry.

Not the kind of left that the rest of the world see's as left, but that weird US-coastal left leaning that sometimes depicts some races as inhuman and other races as infantalised.

So believe me when I say: What Elon is doing is not better, it's more of the same, but towards the right wing and his interests.

The answer to bias is not bias in another direction, the answer is neutrality, and he has proven he can't be neutral.

Glenn Greenwald:

"This thread proves 3 things:

1) Twitter execs were regularly meeting with FBI over what to censor.

2) Twitter's censorship was almost 100% aligned with the Dem Party.

3) Twitter's chief censors were deranged ideologues abusing their power over our discourse to silence dissent."

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1601591994165256192

If Greenwald isn't credible enough, I don't know what to say.

I don't know people expect moderation to work, but it's inherently messy and imperfect because humans are messy and imperfect, and past a certain point you always end up having to trust the instincts and judgement of moderators.

As someone who has moderated large group before, my main reaction is "this stuff is surprising to people?"

The bias and hand wringing about censoring people whom they even admitted hadn't actually broken any rules disclosed in by Taibbi and Weiss deserved no charity. It was worse than people had imagined.

And you're just going to ignore this part?

>2) Twitter's censorship was almost 100% aligned with the Dem Party.

That's not "moderation". That's "partisan censorship".

The text shared was this:

===== Site Policy Recommendation Site Policy recommends placing @LibsOfTiktok ([LTT] 1.3M followers, not verified) in a 7-day timeout at the account level meaning, not for a specific Tweet] based on the account's continued pattern of indirectly violating Twitter's Hateful Conduct Policy by tweeting content that either leads to or intends to incite harassment against individuals and institutions that support LGBTQ communities. At this time, Site Policy has not found explicitly violative Tweets, which would result in a permanent suspension of the account. This type of enforcement action [repeated 7-day timeouts at the account-level] will not lead to permanent suspension, however: should LTT engage in any other direct Tweet-level violations of any of Site Policy's policies, we will move forward with permanent suspension.

Assessment Since its most recent timeout, while LTT has not directly engaged in behavior violative of the Hateful Conduct policy, the user has continued targeting individuals/allies/supporters of the LGBTQIA+ community for alleged misconduct. The targeting of at least one of these institutions =====

It’s inaccurate to say that LoTT didn’t violate the rules. LoTT didn’t directly violate the rules. Weiss chose to cut the text off before getting to the description of what happened as a result of LoTT’s tweets.

So at this point you can ask a more nuanced question: what do you do about indirect violations which you believe in good faith have potentially harmful results? Such as, say, bomb threats?

I’m not going to try and answer that here because it’s a really difficult question and I don’t think we’d reach an answer. I will say that I think it’s important to acknowledge that the question itself is reasonable. The Twitter Files fail to acknowledge that.

I will also note that Weiss selectively quoted the text in her screenshot. “Since its most recent timeout, while LTT has not directly engaged in behavior violative of the Hateful Conduct policy…” became “LTT has not directly engaged in behavior violative of the Hateful Conduct policy.” That changes the meaning of the sentence and obscures the question I raised above. I would also like to know if Twitter determined that LoTT directly engaged in such behavior before the most recent timeout; it seems very relevant.

Finally, we have no idea how lopsided the enforcement was because we don’t have the complete dataset. Showing us a handful of cases selected by unclear means is hardly enough data to form conclusions!

Was there much interesting in there? I mostly remember it opening with the Dems having a direct line for reporting, with the examples shown of it being used being mostly nudes of Hunter&company, that i assume won't surprise anyone when being acted upon. Now there shouldn't be direct lines, but a fair report&enforcement system instead. But i somehow doubt that will get any better under musk...