Every time I read one of these threads I wonder if I'm somehow seeing different screenshots that what the author is talking about, because they're always full of some of the most uncharitable interpretations possible. The tweet linked reads like a biased summary of a biased summary.
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?"
Re:ElonJet Is Now Suspended
by NaturalPhallacy on Wednesday December 14, 2022 @05:36PM
(#33991697)
>the most uncharitable interpretations possible
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".
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.