mikkergp

I don’t think it’s that each of the elements of what Twitter does won’t be recreated, but the essence of Twitter, the je ne sais quio won’t. Whatever you want to call it, the town square we all participate in. It will be recreated in the aggregate, but that won’t be the same.

> It is unfortunate that so many are willing (and able) to willfully delude themselves into denying reality.

Deny reality of what?

I don’t really understand the rest of your post, I guess your alleging they government violated the first amendment. Ok, what’s the next steps then?

> valid and true story

You lost me here. It’s a big story, proven or not, and even the New York Post didn’t know if it was valid and true at the time.

I guess, let’s say you’re right about everything. Now what. Hang them all, put social media in the hands of the government, ban moderation?

>It is stunning to me that so many otherwise intelligent people do not see the problem with big tech colluding with government officials and intelligence agencies to brazenly attempt to distort and censor public discourse - especially right before an election.

You took a giant leap from maybe people at Twitter were acting with bias. You’d need a lot more information to justify this assertion, and who is saying this wouldnt be a problem? I al saying this didn’t happen, not it wouldn’t be a problemZ

> every sphere of culture.

Please clarify because absolutelutes are too easily disproven.

Yes exactly! They asked all the right questions then realized they didn’t have justification and it was a mistaken, apologize and I hope learned from the incident. And will react faster in the future. But this is the point. They made a mistake, fine but no one said “hey, I hate Trump, maybe we should keep this down”

Never make moderation mistakes can’t be the standard.

But your point is the point as to why it’s not hubris! they weren’t trying to censor anything, they were just trying to follow their own moderation policies. This I think is why the censorship story is such a non issue, because Twitter is not an exclusive source of this information.

What did Twitter do to S&P?

> 97%+ Twitter employee donations were to Democrats?

So what’s the principle here? What’s the plan. Which companies should have to disclose the political contributions of their employees and what should they do if it’s unbalanced at more than say 60-40, randomly fire employees until it’s back in line?

Have they talked any further about releasing the algorithm? I know that was one of Musks goals

I saw that part and thought it was curious he glossed over it, I look forward to more detail in the future.

I didn’t read details about their apology, what makes you say that?

A day of deliberation is not a strong culture of censorship.

Pedophiles are bad period they’re a problem everywhere and it’s weird to try and make it partisan.

How long was she locked out for?

This part is weird, and it seems like there was an agreement between Musk and Matt not to smear Jack in this process. But if you really think there’s massive corruption at Twitter I don’t know how you think Jack should be absolved.

> . If Elon thinks this is some sort of big shock that will cause people to get excited.... I can't really see why.

I don’t think he does, I think he can literally see engagement falling in the days after a stunt and he’s trying to keep it up. Matt seemed to imply there would be another thread following this one so buckle up

I agree with you, and I’m surprised Matt glossed over it. I think the question for me as a more government trusting person is;

What is the difference between the government providing unique information, because of its potential Intelligence insights, and what is the government trying to get things taken down that are not against twitters policies

I mean, this is an event that lasted a day, they admitted their own mistakes, and they clearly deliberated over it. Like I agree with you in principal and could agree if they tried to keep it going, but they even said they should probably stop suppressing it because it was against their policies. They in fact seemed to not want to use their power.

So I guess, yeah, what do you propose gets done about it? What is the core principal here that should get applied equally across the political spectrum. If you misapply your moderation policies you should be hanged?

Here’s the thing thought. So far the emails show a team making a mistake, and being thoughtful about it. Trying to look to their moderation principals and disagreeing about the path forward. Then, later we know Jack and Yoel and most of the team apologized and admitted it was a mistake.

If these people were all conservatives and I saw this interaction I would say the same thing. So tell me a story about principals that apply universally that should make me more concerned.

> the hunter biden laptop story should have been a much bigger story.

Should it? This is the most Barbara Streisanded news story in history; There have been two years of investigations and nothing has come of it. Maybe it was just a nothingburger that also happened to have been handled by Twitter badly. Even Matt taibbi said that the suspression was a bigger story than the original article.

Except so far none of the emails have talked about political allegiance, they’ve all talked about Twitter policies.

Abuse of power by whom? Twitter or the Government?

So far Matt hasn’t said anything about this, where is the evidence to this theory? And who was doing this and how?

What’s the theory?

I don’t want SBF arrested for criminal trespass, I want him arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for the crimes he committed, and I don’t want him getting off because of the need for a speedy trial, before we know what he did.

Law enforcement should not act in bad ways to more people.

"At the risk of stating the obvious, the reason Madoff was arrested so quickly is because he confessed to every element of criminal fraud — including both the underlying scheme and his criminal intent. This meant that the FBI had both that confession and highly potent, admissible evidence of guilt in the form of testimony from his adult children (who had no apparent axe to grind)."

Right, I mean, I'm not saying he's not guilty, but does anyone at this point really understand it deeply enough to file an arrest warrant? I understand the impatience emotionally, but not logically.

How are CSAM laws only somewhat justified?

> Symbols associated with credible calls to violence.

This seems very squishy to me, I mean, fine, I don’t disagree, but it’s exactly the kind of thing old Twitter would be dragged for. Which symbols are “credible calls to violence” and who gets to decide that? Musk? I mean yes from a legal perspective he owns it, but his whole Schtick was greater transparency. If he wants to run Twitter “same as the old guard but his opinion, not theirs” ok, but then I want to stop hearing the moral grandstanding.

The world has become so weird. That elizableu person responded to one of her tweets 'Important to note, Elon Musk himself “liked” a tweet in this thread last night. If this information wasn’t valid, if it wasn’t factual, that wouldn’t have happened.' and turned her story over to 'teslarati.com'

I think it would be the “cultural value” piece