I find it fascinating that the USA lacks these kinds of education systems. Trade schools exist for software developers, too. Some companies in Europe even prefer trade school over university education, as the later often have not really learned the trade of software engineering.
The U.S. used to have strong trade programs but eventually college degrees were seen as the only way and as a class gateway. Unfortunately, this was short sighted and leaves us with the current situation where many folks have college educations that they are not using and we have a shortage of folks in important trades.
Is every single movement pre-programmed? Or does the Atlas interpret more general commands, such as "move to point b, grab rectangular object a, move to point c, throw object a to position d"?
The robot is able to balance by itself during complex dynamic movements, has it's own vision system to know where to plan to put its feet, etc.
What it doesn't have is any intelligence - it's not making any high level decisions, only these type of low level foot/limb placement/movement and balance decisions necessary to execute the sequence of moves it has been choreographed to execute. Maybe not so much different than an accomplished ballet dancer faithfully executing a choreographed dance - the overall plan is fixed (even if the dancer could change it), but there's still considerable skills needed to execute the sequence!
I believe there's a difference between different Boston Dynamics robots in terms of degree of autonomy though - how high level the "choreographed" instructions can be. Their "Spot" dog-like robot seems more capable in this regard than the humanoid "Atlas", despite Atlas being much more impressive in terms of dynamic balance etc.
Well, in a way this is the core/low-level plumbing on which further abstractions can be built. This is an essential and very complex problem in and of itself, that’s why I dislike comments like “it is preprogrammed”.
Adding “dumb” intelligence on top is not too hard. (Of course, the holy grail would be AGI on top)
Yes, Atlas is extremely impressive. There's a huge difference between choreographed ("do a backflip off the crate onto the floor") and being "preprogrammed" to do everything - it's obviously extremely adaptive or it would not be able to do these dynamic moves in real world conditions, or handle being kicked/shoved around in the way Boston Dynamics like to abuse their robots!
I'm not sure of the utility of Atlas as a form factor though. It's too mechanically complex to ever be cheap or expendable. The humanoid form factor also gives expectations that it should be intelligent, but even when we do eventually figure AGI out, it'll probably be decades later (if ever!) that we get the power requirements down to the point it could be deployed in a battery powered device.
Among other things, he is one of the founders of Ycombinator. He is quite known in the tech world. You've might stumbled across one of his essays which are frequently linked here.
> It only spends the legal minimal amount for charity, 5% (way less than taxes that would go to build roads, hospitals and schools). The rest is invested in a portfolio that, by the magic of being in a non profit, can make billions without paying any tax.
To clarify, 5% of what? Of capital in the non-profit? Of revenue generated by the non-profit? Something else?
Huh, I'm one of several mods for a Sub-Reddit. Works fine. Only things that changed are a) my own comment quality standard is higher and b) the way I read other comments. Now, I scan comments for rule infractions, which lessens my reading enjoyment a bit.
Also never observed a problem between mods and other users in other Sub-Reddits. Maybe because mods on Reddit are not that visible?
Depends on the subject matter as well. I've moderated a - large - forum for years and in the beginning I was also a user of the site. That quickly led to people figuring out that the moderator is a part of the scene and so you get people that try to get into your good book and others that try to set each other up. Every word you write gets lawyered over and so on. If your Sub-Reddit doesn't have those problems count yourself lucky. But personally I think that the way dang here does it is perfect (see: sucking up ;) ), he only enters the conversation to explain his moderation actions, but does not actually take a position on any of the issues discussed, thus leading to perceived impartiality (he still gets plenty of flak but imo that is undeserved).
> (he still gets plenty of flak but imo that is undeserved)
Yeah I don't think it's possible to escape the criticism even without taking a position. That said, of the two options, I agree that not wading in may have less of a chilling effect and thus encourages more interaction.
It gets more complicated behind the scenes. If you're making a lot of content moderation decisions without disclosing them, you may be introducing bias without realizing it. Eventually people are going to be hip to that. Platforms are rife with this right now: selective invisibility, visibility filtering, ranking, visible to self, reducing, deboosting, and "disguising a gag" are all words platforms use internally or externally to justify non-disclosure of content moderation decisions. Without public awareness of the existence of these secretive moderation decisions, administrators may feel they have to use them in order to compete with other forums.
I think transparent moderation is the sustainable way forwards for social media, and I recently made my case for that here:
> Huh, I'm one of several mods for a Sub-Reddit. Works fine.
Reddit is mostly anonymous, which can make people think they can do whatever they want as moderators/users without any repercussions. Of course that isn't true: all of our actions impact our own behavior, attitude etc.
> Also never observed a problem between mods and other users in other Sub-Reddits. Maybe because mods on Reddit are not that visible?
It happens all the time. These r/Libertarian [1] and r/LibertarianUncensored [2] threads may be the most succinct examples of how far users/mods will go to make their voices heard. I list many more in my talk [3].
It's funny you mention /r/libertarian x) I was shadow-banned for saying (verbatim) "Imposing your will through violence is always illegitimate" (the context was Chile's 1973 coup).
Have to agree. I’m bewildered by the (social) media reaction so far. People, the app still works. Over a thousand employees will continue to work for Twitter.
As far as I understand, Twitter is financially in a terrible state. Huge changes have to happen. Let’s all just wait and see how it will turn out.
Sure, but the "collapse" is terrible management here lol. Terrible, by the metric of his own inconsistent actions. To suddenly reverse the decision of accidentally laying off 80% of your workforce is hilarious.
People aren't saying the app isn't working. If you lay off all of HR will your company still run tomorrow? Of course. Lay off all of engineering will the app still run tomorrow? Of course (most likely lol).
The collapse is the implied result of all these terrible decisions. Terrible decisions which imply terrible leadership. And companies can only survive terrible leadership for so long.
I have a hard time believing that comment. I know people who graduated recently with a software developer degree. Some in their late 20ties and the degree is not from a university. They got instant job offers. If you have a degree and can actually write code, you're in.
Disclaimer:
This isn't going to help you, just a self-meta comment about most of the other comments here. I'm wondering if someone else feels like this.
---
It's funny to read all of this, because it always felt like this for me.
I think I skipped the "this is fun and easy" part and went straight to the "what is all of this? Why are there so many frameworks? What are all those annotations? How are they all mixed together and somehow this works but only if written in arcane ways? Why is everything so overengineered and complicated?"
I also never thought the problems I'm solving are significant in any way. So doing it for the paycheck alone is my default mode of operation.
I never stopped feeling confused by the tech I'm using. There is just too much tech. Each new project another round of more tech to learn. As consequence, I now focus on understanding a base layer of project related tech in order to get things done. Most of it is going to be irrelevant with the next project anyway.
I have a hot take on this topic: Your feed says more about you than Twitter in general. If you see toxic Tweets, that's because you follow people who post toxic Tweets or engage with toxic Tweets. Don't follow these people.
Here is a guideline for a good Twitter experience:
1. Everyone who is negative, irrational, too political and so on gets unfollowed.
2. Everyone who is interesting gets followed.
3. Unfollow is more important than follow, because negative Tweets are more attention grapping.
The most difficult part about Twitter is to start out and curate your feed from nothing. But once you have that, it's one of the best social media tools out there.
I agree with you very strongly. My Twitter feed, which I cull carefully, is deeply rewarding and enriching for me.
At the same time, doing that feed management feels increasingly like swimming upstream against Twitter's desires. First, they started showing tweets that people I follow simply liked. Now they suggest "topics" all the time.
I have to spend more and more time reminding Twitter not to do that garbage. But, overall, I still find the time spent is worth it in return for the quality of conversation and education I get in return.
Reddit is like this for me 10x, with very little effort required to maintain my feed. Spend a few minutes picking a handful of healthy subreddits and unsubscribing from the giant ones and Reddit easily becomes one of the best sites out there.
In my experience, many subreddits that should be healthy are too small to engage a serious community. For example, r/statistics ends up with teenagers posting homework questions. OTOH the big ones are indeed trash. The only thing to do is to follow fashion. Wallstreetbets was funny and insightful, then funny, now neither. NonCredibleDefense is funny and relevant at the moment. Nothing lasts.
Subs like /r/sysadmin ban this sort of question and tend to be mostly populated by working professionals.
Communities where all the top 10 hottest posts are made by newbies generally never grow into great subs. That sort of thing should be prob reserved to /r/askfoo or something.
Yes, subreddits really are communities: unique spaces populated by real humans and cultivated by actual human moderators. Each has its own microclimate and culture.
While in principle, you might assume certain topics should have a community of a certain size and caliber, there's no guarantee that such a community exists if the right set of humans haven't happened to coalesce around it.
That's just the nature of human group behavior. You might live in a city that has enough disco fans to support a thriving disco night every Saturday, but there's no guarantee that the right DJs and nightclub will get together to make it happen.
Also, twitter lists have stood the test of time and seem to bypass any changes they've made to force algorithmic view. That, or using an alternate client (eg. tweetbot, Echofon)
And likewise with YouTube. I often see folks complain about the junk YouTube is feeding to them or their kids, but I find nearly all their recommendations are fully in line with the stuff the family does regularly seek out and watch. To the point where some evenings I'll just visit youtube.com and expect to find something interesting, versus using many of the streaming services I pay for (Netflix, Hulu, Disney, etc.).
This makes sense. These platforms are in the "engagement" business. They're trying to have you spend more time by suggesting content you will watch, not turn you off and have you close the tab.
Yes, I have YouTube Premium and it is, by far, the best money I spend every month on video.
During the pandemic, my family settled into a routine of watching some YouTube every evening before we get the kids in bed. The recommendation system has dialed in our tastes very well and basically get an enriching, relaxing, enjoyable ~30 minutes or so of shared experiences every night specific to our hobbies and interests.
When we pick up a new interest, it's quick to notice and start recommending related stuff. When we move on, it doesn't tend to take long to get it to stop recommending stuff in that category.
It definitely tends to overfit, but it's so much better than most other systems and I will absolutely take that over it recommending garbage-but-popular content.
Also, most of my music listening these days is DJ mixes on YouTube.
My twitter using SO has complained that twitter constantly suggests tweets to her from people she is specifically not following due to their toxicity (and also doesn't care to block because doing so would potentially generate drama).
I have so, so may people on my Twitter feed muted for this reason. Toxic crap gets immediately muted - sometimes blocked. Have practically zero patience for crap so Twitter is quite nice for me. If you want to engage in a screaming contest you certainly can but that's not for me.
I just asked: Muting would make it so you couldn't see their part in conversations, which is a problem for their non-toxic content showing up in conversations that you're a part of.
What do you do when someone somewhat important in your industry puts out 20% abusive/toxic content (and that 20% is probably 90% of their engagement)? If you ban them you create drama, if you mute them you're still cutting yourself out of potentially important non-toxic conversations.
But when you don't ban/mute them twitter seems to want to constantly show you their hottest hottakes-- the very reason that you're not following them. (I'm not even sure if muting is enough to prevent the recommendations).
> If you see toxic Tweets, that's because you follow people who post toxic Tweets or engage with toxic Tweets.
False; Twitter’s algorithm pushes lots of stuff you don't directly follow and is very clearly heavily driven by subject categorization (which is often also hilariously bad), as well as stylistic categorization (or maybe instead of it, as I see very little indication that the latter plays a role.) So, if you see toxic posts, it probably means you engage with tweets ON SUBJECTS on which some people post toxic takes, or follow people who post tweets on such topics.
It doesn't require any direct interaction with toxic tweets or individuals.
> False; Twitter’s algorithm pushes lots of stuff you don't directly follow
I don't see any of that, on the official mobile app with timeline set to "latest Tweets". The only stuff from non-followed accounts I see are ads, and those aren't even terrible.
I do use the killfile zealously though.
I like Twitter precisely because it puts me in control over which accounts I get to see. It's the only social network that I still enjoy using.
This is my experience as well. Perhaps people use different clients and experience it differently. I use the web client almost exclusively and I often see toxic replies to people I follow or, occasionally, subjects I've engaged with before. It would be worth exploring alternative clients that show me only tweets from people I follow, and hides all responses unless I choose to dig in.
As someone with mostly high-quality follows, the "promoted" posts I get in my feed are so utterly trashy and obvious it's embarrassing. A lot of the "featured" posts are also way outside my interests and frequently posted out of context to the point that they don't make sense.
Do you happen to not receive Twitter's "recommendations"? I follow your steps religiously and I still get constantly bombarded by terrible "we think you'll like this" notifications that cannot be turned off.
The app and website both have "latest" feeds. You don't get that kind of recommendation in that feed. The closest to that kind of thing that I see are the trending topics on the right bar, which aren't in the feed.
I use Tweetbot for both MacOS and iOS. All I see are tweets and retweets from people I follow. Occasionally someone will go on a rant or tweet incessantly about their fantasy football team, and I mute them for a while. I can also mute words, hashtags, or people.
Now if Twitter removes 3rd party client access, well, yeah, I guess I'll see where my followees go. Or find another source of entertainment/news.
I use Tweetbot after trying Twitterrific for awhile. My only complaint is that sometimes a thread won't work in Tweetbot, and I'll have to open it in the website. If I had to use the website, or the official Twitter client, I'd stop using Twitter completely.
Nope, you don't see those while using nitter.net, an alternative Twitter front end. You only see the tweets, and you don't even have to be forced to login to see them.
> that's because you follow people who post toxic Tweets
You need to be really brutal with muting anyone who creeps into your timeline and posts something you dislike, and turning off the retweets or just unfollowing people who bring the people you find yourself muting into your timeline.
Like straight away see something you don't like then hit mute.
For me positive reactions are way more prominent then negative ones—at least for me. Negative reactions are often hidden under a “Show more replies” button, or relegated quite far down the scroll. And then there is always the block feature, which can do wonders in cleaning up your feed.
I've only been on Twitter for less than year. I mostly follow journalists, some publications and a few industry experts. They are mostly rational people who post insightful things, but a few will dip their toes into nonsense takes on society or just feeding trolls who bark at them. I just unfollow. I found that my follows list topped out a little over 100 and just stopped because I would delete as quickly as I added. I never post and have no followers.
As someone who deleted Facebook after maybe two years on the platform and never took up anything else, I find Twitter to be slightly useful. I get insight from a handful of people for whom Twitter is their best outlet. I use it very much as source of information. It sucks as much as anything else when it comes to discourse. For my usage, I would see Twitter moderate content much, much more strictly than they do now. The most valuable creators don't come within 100 miles of violating any ethical boundaries and I'd reckon the vast majority of readers (and ad clickers) don't post much at all and will be completely unaffected by any moderation rules.
> If you see toxic Tweets, that's because you follow people who post toxic Tweets or engage with toxic Tweets.
This only works if you treat Twitter as read only. Any Tweet that reaches a sizable enough audience will have people interact with it and its author in a toxic way. The level of the toxicity will often depend on the specific author and certain types of people definitely receive more toxicity than others.
One bummer is that you then need to cut off people who were perfectly reasonable folks but failed to follow advice like yours and fell victim to twitter brain worms-- now spewing toxic hot takes themselves because that's all their feed was full of. Your answer isn't complete because twitter's toxicity tends to be contagious and when someone I know falls to it, I suffer too even when I've successfully avoided it myself.
I don't even use twitter but I've lost friends because they became intolerable after being radicalized by the twitter hot-take feed. It sucks. Also ignoring it or even avoiding the platform completely doesn't solve the problem when toxic twitter traffic has made you a target.
1. you literally can not control everything in your twitter feed if using twitter's apps. it will make things appear there which it thinks you'll like (this is obviously ignoring ads as that's not something you should expect to really control)
2. the toxicity is primarily in replies and interactions not always in posts. the posts which are toxic can still appear in your feed via RTs and simply looking at trending topics.
I agree you can do a lot to control your experience on twitter, but it simply isn't that simple unless you have a small <500 follower account.
I would be extremely careful about making introspective judgments based on an algorithm that somebody else wrote. It can change at any time, and you don’t know how it works (unless you work at Twitter). You might have some idea about the basics, but it can decide to show you crazy shit at any time, and it might not be related at all to who you are as a person.
I agree. Most of twitter requires self curation. Before following anyone I:
- check their liked items. Is this something I agree with or want on my timeline? Are they being consistent with their online persona? (Is a Christian account going out and liking pics of scantily clad people?)
- check their replies for how they talk to others. Ctrl+f for words or topics I just don’t want to see (and already have muted).
- check their following list. Who are the following? Do I want to see their 3p retweets in my feed?
Regarding the “topics” feature, I almost always click “I don’t want to see this” and I’m at the point where I never see that feature. It’s related to what you “like” so ymmv on how accurate it is for you. Additionally, I never follow tags or trends. That’s just asking for noise.
I’ve effectively created a twitter account that is isolated to “homesteading/gardening/farm twitter” and I’m pretty pleased with the experience. It’s everything I want and nothing I don’t.
It didn’t come without some online weed pulling though ;)
Agreed save for the last line - the character limit means nothing complex can ever be successfully discussed there. Which excludes basically every important subject, leaving quick news and jokes as the only viable uses of the platform for anyone of sense.
Both of which I enjoy, but that's hardly cause for lavish praise.
> the character limit means nothing complex can ever be successfully discussed there. Which excludes basically every important subject, leaving quick news and jokes as the only viable uses of the platform for anyone of sense.
Definitely not my experience, or that of anybody I know who curates their feed carefully. It certainly promotes shallower conversation, and forces irritating kludges like threads. But it's simply not true that it categorically precludes complexity or depth.
Brevity isn't incomposability. If it was, your argument applies to sentences. If it did, humans wouldn't be able to successfully discuss anything complex.
My impression is that twitter has algorithms to try to maximize "engagement", and by "engagement", I mean conflict. I follow very few people, and the people I follow post things that are tech-related... But twitter will regularly try to show me inflammatory political tweets. These tweets are not coming from people I follow. I'm careful not to take the bait, but twitter definitely does try to bait you.
I think the other half of the equation is using the recent tweets view. Whenever I accidentally end up in the algorithm view I can tell right away because of how much irrelevant BS appears.
I agree with most of this except: On the desktop browser I still get recommendations in the sidebar for celebrity / politics / news bullshit despite not following any accounts close to these topics. I hate it. In the mobile official app I get just a shitload of ads I hate for all the same style stuff. It's just seemingly impossible to get rid of the outrage machine fully.
I've started using twitter heavily over the past year, and honestly as long as you keep it focused and immediately unfollow anyone who starts tweeting unrelated things it's a pretty decent experience.
Just pick a theme, and follow people who tweet about that theme. If they go off track, just unfollow them.
That only works if the prevalent and approved opinions make Twitter a happy place for you. For the rest of us though, it's a very political and sometimes evil place.
I wonder if you use the default Twitter client. Also, what you put there is not how Twitter suggests you use Twitter. Which says more about Twitter than you.
> I have a hot take on this topic: Your feed says more about you than Twitter in general. If you see toxic Tweets, that's because you follow people who post toxic Tweets or engage with toxic Tweets. Don't follow these people.
But a major source of toxic tweets is buying up all of Twitter.
$420 funding secured, "Thailand guy is a Pedo", constant attention-seeking, COVID19-conspiracy theories, etc. etc. Elon Musk's Twitter Account is one of the worst.
To see that this man is about to become the owner of Twitter really doesn't strike much confidence in me.
> Musk was part of the "not that bad", COVID19 is like the flu, etc. etc. conspiracy theorists.
How is that a conspiracy theory? That's an opinion. Everyone has them. Why would you label him a conspiracy theorist for having an opinion you disagree with?
edit: why also is conspiracy theorist considered a pejorative? Conspiracy turns out to be the stuff of history.
At this point, we can say that "COVID19 will be done by April 2020" is a laughably incorrect response to the COVID19 issue entirely. Elon Musk was 100% the "like the flu", "Gone by April", "Lockdowns are stupid", "masking doesn't work" (etc. etc. etc.) bullshit train.
Everybody has their bad takes on various subjects. Elon Musk's COVID19 hot takes are among the worst I've seen. Others include some rather shitty behavior, like calling the Thailand guy a pedo for instance.
All-in-all, Elon Musk is NOT a good poster on Twitter, and if he takes over Twitter, I don't think I have much confidence in the long-term benefits of the platform. Its as if other online-trolls decided to take over various media outlets.
-------
Do you remember the 2020 election with any decent amount of memory? "COVID19 will go away as soon as the election is over", etc. etc. Tons of terrible takes on the subject. Musk was just part of that, and I daresay that falls into fall on conspiracy nut now that we can look back upon the pandemic with 2+ years of hindsight.
But if the COVID19 issue is a bad example / too political for your tastes, then I pivot to the Thailand Pedo guy tweets instead, which hopefully you can agree with me are uncalled for?
I disagree with you about Covid. That said we don't need to get into it. Just saying that arguments like:
> ..."COVID19 will go away as soon as the election is over", etc. etc. Tons of terrible takes on the subject...
are not terribly likely to sway me. In the same nature as you thinking people like that are crazy, I personally find your views to be wild. But it's nice we can both voice them and remain civil.
> Musk was just part of that, and I daresay that falls into fall on conspiracy nut now that we can look back upon the pandemic with 2+ years of hindsight.
Particularly:
> falls into fall on conspiracy nut now
Conspiracy is when a group of people conspire. To have a bad opinion is not to be a conspiracy theorist. If you want to call him a nut for a bad opinion, fine, but I just don't think conspiracy theorist makes sense when it has nothing to do with groups of people conspiring.
> But if the COVID19 issue is a bad example / too political for your tastes, then I pivot to the Thailand Pedo guy tweets instead, which hopefully you can agree with me are uncalled for?
Maybe I'll check out the Pedo guy tweets. I'm not on twitter, and don't know to which you refer.
Frankly I couldn't care much less about Musk. I care a great deal about free speech and throwing conspiracy theorist around as a pejorative.
The use of conspiracy theorist as a pejorative is an echo chamber way of attacking the message deliverer and dismissing what they have to say out of hand without consideration of their message. We do that too much in today's society, and considering the corruption present, we really shouldn't.
> All-in-all, Elon Musk is NOT a good poster on Twitter, and if he takes over Twitter, I don't think I have much confidence in the long-term benefits of the platform. Its as if other online-trolls decided to take over various media outlets.
Sure, maybe fair. I don't know. I feel that if he removes moderation and adds free speech, then it will be a net positive.
If any billionaire puts their slant on content moderation, I think its a net negative whether I agree with them or not. So, if he somehow does _just_ bring free speech back, then good. If not, then twitter will just be another biased platform as it has been, but with a new bias.
> Sure, maybe fair. I don't know. I feel that if he removes moderation and adds free speech, then it will be a net positive.
Do you even Jan 6th insurrection?
Donald Trump was removed from the platform because he has, and continues, to be a Jan6th conspiracy theorist. Donald Trump still believes he won the 2020 election.
-----
There's also a severe amount of Russian propaganda going around the internet right now. Do you support letting the Russian bots reign free on Twitter?
Russia / Moscow are clearly trying to use the internet to spread false information on Ukraine.
------
In any case, having a "jackass" as the leader of Twitter (Pedo Tweet, Elon Musk "funding secured $420", and other such lies) is definitely a reason to leave the platform IMO. Elon Musk will attract other high-profile jackasses at a minimum.
The dumbass celebrity shitposting is the worst part of Twitter. I like Twitter mostly as an RSS-like replacement (since RSS itself is not as popular these days), with well-intentioned bloggers sharing information on a "push to serve" basis.
But the long-back-and-forth of 2-sentence long debates is... not useful for any form of discussion. It generates traffic and ad-revenue for sure, but its not useful to me. Good debates need longer-form formats, blogposts with multiple paragraphs and data to discuss.
I think "thread-reader" and 1/x and 2/x style long-form posts help a lot, but Twitter really isn't designed for medium-form discussion.
This is gross language. I assume apparently implying something so obvious as to make my points absurd?
Regardless free speech should be welcomed in this case too. People can then just ridicule his opinions and tear them down directly. It's not like he can't reach his audience on Gab or some other network.
For background, I'm not pro-Trump. I'm libertarian and think both sides of the spectrum are just legs of the same body that stomps on our freedoms and makes us poor.
> Do you support letting the Russian bots reign free on Twitter?
With regards to propaganda I think I have an operating brain. As such, I can make up my own mind. As for bots, I do think it would be nice if we could come up with a technical solution guaranteeing a human is posting the tweet.
> In any case, having a "jackass" as the leader of Twitter (Pedo Tweet, Elon Musk "funding secured $420", and other such lies) is definitely a reason to leave the platform IMO. Elon Musk will attract other high-profile jackasses at a minimum.
Sure.
> since RSS itself is not as popular these days
Which is really too bad. I really love RSS based podcasting though!
> 2-sentence long debates is... not useful for any form of discussion
> This is gross language. I assume apparently implying something so obvious as to make my points absurd?
Jan 6th insurrection is what started this "Twitter moderation debate" when Donald Trump was banned from the platform.
This is absolutely central to the entire discussion, and I'm trying to remind you of it. What should we, as an internet / online society do, to bad actors and/or trolls?
I think the solution chosen is obvious. We ban bad actors from online platforms of note. Russia (particularly Russian propaganda sources like RT) are another group, like Trump, who likely deserve the axe.
Once you and I agree that some actors deserve to be banned from online platforms, there's not much else to discuss. Its simply a matter of moderation, who truly deserves it or not. I think that moderation is a difficult and thankless job (I've done it myself on occasion).
But I absolutely see value in moderating forums / discussions. Twitter banning some bad actors is just a continuation of the online moderation model that we've used for so many years (since USENET at least).
-------
The #1 thing going all across conservative media right now, is how Elon Musk (might) bring Trump back to Twitter and reverse the Trump ban. Is this hypothetical something you'd support?
There's "free speech", and then there's "inciting rebellion against our entire system of government". And alas, I don't think that supporting the Jan 6th insurrection falls under the "free speech" camp, and that Donald Trump's ban should remain firm.
If a group of people want to spread conspiracy theories about the inadequacy of our election systems, then they no longer fall under "free speech" and are instead well within the category of "high treason" and/or "enemy of the state". That's the kind of talk that almost took down our entire country, and still threatens to do so in the next election cycle.
> This is absolutely central to the entire discussion, and I'm trying to remind you of it.
I don't think there's much to remind me of. I'm not on twitter and never really had the debate until now.
> What should we, as an internet / online society do, to bad actors and/or trolls?
Point out where they're factually incorrect. Ignore them. Ridicule them.
> I think the solution chosen is obvious.
This doesn't make it right.
> Once you and I agree that some actors deserve to be banned from online platforms, there's not much else to discuss.
I don't agree. And frankly, you just pointed out a a slippery slope that is exactly why I think you shouldn't ban anyone.
> But I absolutely see value in moderating forums / discussions.
I'm on the fence. Moderation is probably fine, but I don't like when megacorps do it. Centralization of power is my biggest concern.
> The #1 thing going all across conservative media right now, is...
I don't care. In my mind conservative and liberal media, cable news networks, and NPR, Etc... are just mouthpeices for the government and or corporatocracy. So long as the funding comes from a government or advertising, it's junk media in my mind.
> There's "free speech", and then there's "inciting rebellion against our entire system of government".
I would like you and me to peacefully rebel against our current system of government. Stop voting and stop paying taxes. Stop registering your vehicle, and stop getting government involved in marriage licensing. Let the whole dirtly system dissolve so we can be free individuals.
There, I openly incited rebellion. I'm sure you disagree, but that's not the point.
> I don't think that supporting the Jan 6th insurrection falls under the "free speech" camp
I disagree. But I think we're running in circles now.
> If a group of people want to spread conspiracy theories about the inadequacy of our election systems, then they no longer fall under "free speech" and are instead well within the category of "high treason" and/or "enemy of the state".
Wow, that's pretty dogmatic. Who watches the watchers? At some point a hammer like that will be used against perfectly peaceful people. Your statement sounds like it belongs in 1984 bequeathed by the Ministry of Truth. What if there at some point is an issue with the voting systems?
> particularly Russian propaganda sources like RT
One man's propaganda is another's BBC. BBC and NPR are both sponsored by governments that have bad track records of abuse of human rights. Why is Voice of America still allowed to operate on Twitter?
> Point out where they're factually incorrect. Ignore them. Ridicule them.
Good luck with that.
Trump, and his followers, today still believe the election was stolen. I don't believe there's any way to convince them otherwise. The only thing that can happen is to mitigate the damage.
You're welcome to try to convince them. I've done what I can from my side.
> Ridicule them.
That doesn't work for state-sponsored propaganda sites like RT. These groups have access to huge amounts of state-sponsored money and hire troll-farms from 3rd world countries to gaslight the discussion.
The opposite occurs, I'm ridiculed more often than not with these ridiculous discussion points. Its a losing battle because I fight fair, while they fight by buying up troll farms.
Unless I myself use a ton of fake accounts to build up a fake-following and build up a fake discussion, there's pretty much no hope at actually reaching critical mass and making discussion points move.
-------
The same occurs with billionare-level supporters like Elon Musk and/or Trump. They have the money to buy up false support and astroturf their supporters. You're up against literal professionals, who are paid per tweet to make the discussion look like their sponsored billionare is winning the discussions.
Its not quite as bad as state-sponsored propaganda like RT, but still bad.
You are naive. You aren't aware of the tactics being used in the modern social networks or how poisoned the discussion has become.
--------
> Why is Voice of America still allowed to operate on Twitter?
Are you seriously comparing BBC and Voice of America to RT? What side of the Ukrainian war are you on?
> I disagree. But I think we're running in circles now.
You're free to disagree, and I'm free to think of you as naive fool for doing so. At best, you're unaware of the tactics. At worst, you're in tacit support of them and are trying to convince me that the pro-Trump Jan6th insurrection crowd is a reasonable group that can hold a discussion with.
Alas, my experience says otherwise, and there's nothing you can say to convince me otherwise. Because I have actually talked to many Jan6th truthers and alt-right people on my own time. I've also discussed the Russian/Ukraine issue with pro-Russian / RT-supporters.
Its not like their "free speech" has disappeared off the face of the internet. I still seek them out for debate and they're readily available to discuss the issues with me.
> Good luck with that.
> You're welcome to try to convince them. I've done what I can from my side.
Bit defeatist, but fair enough.
> Its a losing battle because I fight fair, while they fight by buying up troll farms.
Now who's the conspiracy theorist? Who's they!?
Just ribbin' you. : )
> You are naive. You aren't aware of the tactics being used in the modern social networks or how poisoned the discussion has become.
I've read some articles and have found most of this to be unconvincing. I think you're probably right that Twitter lends itself to bad conversation. But, just because a bunch of bots show up with false information or call me a dork, doesn't mean I have to believe them. I can verify sources, and quantity != quality when it comes to shitposts.
> Are you seriously comparing BBC and Voice of America to RT? What side of the Ukrainian war are you on
I'm on the side that understands without governments there aren't wars.
> You're free to disagree, and I'm free to think of you as naive fool for doing so.
Yup.
> Because I have actually talked to many Jan6th truthers and alt-right people on my own time.
Not unique to your experience. Many of that view run in my circles.
> Alas, my experience says otherwise, and there's nothing you can say to convince me otherwise.
Okay. Well talking to an immovable wall isn't a good look, so I'll drop it.
> Its not like their "free speech" has disappeared off the face of the internet.
Yup, which is why I don't care too much about Twitter either way. I'm just an advocate for free speech.
@dragontamer,
Thank you for the extended discussion. I'm going to try to get some work done.
Hope you have a great evening (assuming it's near night wherever you are)
> I can verify sources, and quantity != quality when it comes to shitposts.
I feel I have the ability to figure this stuff out too.
Unfortunately, the people I care about do not have such ability. And they trust these online personalities (who are largely supported by bots) more than my discussion points or arguments.
Yes, I'm defeatist, but there's a reason for that. I don't think my friends being dumbasses / unable to handle propaganda is a reason to cut them out of my lives, but it is very disconcerting to me how terrible at logos they've become, and how much ethos/pathos sways them these days.
These are people close to me: my mother, coworkers, my sister, etc. etc. I enjoy a spirited debate with them now and then still but its not to actually convince them of any facts, but only for me to check up on how far the propaganda train they've gone. Actually trying to convince them of anything doesn't work, and is not the point of discussions in my experience.
The fact remains: online personalities (be they Ben Shapiro, Joe Rogan, Trump, etc. etc.) hold more sway to these people than my own words. I cannot win the ethos or pathos battle, only the logos battle (but that's only one peg of the rhetorical triangle). Without any support of ethos or pathos, its all for naught.
That's why rhetoric is ethos + pathos + logos. We can't just focus on the logos leg. Figuring out ways to punish the ethos (ex: banning Trump from Twitter, to diminish his reputation) seems like the only answer.
Any attempts for me to diminish ethos on my own only leads to an ad hominem attack which is easily deflected and diminishes my own logos.
> Hope you have a great evening (assuming it's near night wherever you are)
That is certainly an important factor. I think it goes even deeper.
China doesn't recognize human rights as we know them. The collective, represented by state interests (CCP), is above all. Hence any individual right can be sacrificed for the greater good. Aka state interests.
And that's why situations like this shutdown in Shanghai can unfold. It's a deeply philosophical problem that China hasn't resolved, despite ample opportunity to learn the lesson.
Oh please, spare me. So what did "ample opportunity to learn the lesson" mean?
"Observed often enough by now," we don't need to talk any specifics, _obviously_ Western ideals are superior! End of history and all that jazz, huh? I was hoping for more critical thought when you rightly mentioned this to be a "deeply philosophical problem."
I understood parent as: The unnecessary deaths count in China since the Great Leap is obvious and provides the learning opportunities. But sadly none are taken and death toll is ongoing. But hopefully someday learning and philosophy can take place as it did in the West after the war. If I read that right, what in there is so inflamatory to you?
He seems to have a problem with the idea that the western world figured something out that China hasn’t (yet). Or the idea that different values cause different outcomes.
Or the issue is that I’m not making much of an argument? Seemingly implying that my conclusion is obvious. In that case, I apologise for not going into more detail here.
