Twitter going private?

[Cirris]

I don't really like the guy, but this would absolutely be good news. Censorship in the media like Twitter does where they pick and choose what people see needs to go.

My prediction is that he doesn't actually end up buying it.

Honestly, it would be best for Elon if The board refused his offer and he sells off and moves on.

Make a profit and expose the board as fools on a sinking ship.

---------------------

Honestly, if Twitter didn't ban Babylon Bee for a silly gender joke, Elon wouldn't have bothered with Twitter at all.

 

[Frankie Spankie]

I don't really like the guy, but this would absolutely be good news. Censorship in the media like Twitter does where they pick and choose what people see needs to go.

My prediction is that he doesn't actually end up buying it.

You say that like he wouldn't censor people he doesn't like himself. To me there's only 2 reasons he's even talking about this:

1 - It's a pump and dump so he can make some quick millions.
2 - He wants to pick and choose who gets censored himself.

 

[beowulf]

Well the board is expected to officially reject the offer and to prevent the hostile takeover they will use the poison pill defense.

 

[ORRFForever]

I don't really like the guy, but this would absolutely be good news. Censorship in the media like Twitter does where they pick and choose what people see needs to go.

My prediction is that he doesn't actually end up buying it.

I agree.

First, he's overpaying - it's a dying brand.

Second, in the coming years, he'll get it cheaper - assuming someone else doesn't snap it up first.

If he doesn't get Twitter, in a few years, he will thank his lucky stars.

 

[HomelessPepper]

You say that like he wouldn't censor people he doesn't like himself. To me there's only 2 reasons he's even talking about this:

1 - It's a pump and dump so he can make some quick millions.
2 - He wants to pick and choose who gets censored himself.

3 - he wants to give a platform to the wackjob right-winger politicians that suppress worker and human rights so that he can continue with and expand on the exploitation of his workforce.

 

[Church Hill]

Praise Elon Musk who values free speech enough to make this move. Those claiming that he doesn't understand that free speech protects people from their government are missing the point by a mile and a half.

 

[Jussi]

Praise Elon Musk who values free speech enough to make this move. Those claiming that he doesn't understand that free speech protects people from their government are missing the point by a mile and a half.

So what you're saying is that HFBoards should be unmoderated everywhere?

 

[Church Hill]

So what you're saying is that HFBoards should be unmoderated everywhere?

No, moderation will definitely be required to detect people threatening or calling for violence, for example. But moderation is explicitly not necessary to determine what content is "true" versus "misinformation", since the track record of Twitter wrongly banning and deleting tweeters and tweets for saying things that ended up being true is long and sordid.

Keep in mind: if you agree with censoring the content that has already been censored, that's all well and good, but you may start getting your knickers in a twist when you see the cycle oscillate the other way and the decision makers evolve into those you wish didn't have that kind of power.

 

[Jussi]

No, moderation will definitely be required to detect people threatening or calling for violence, for example. But moderation is explicitly not necessary to determine what content is "true" versus "misinformation", since the track record of Twitter wrongly banning and deleting tweeters and tweets for saying things that ended up being true is long and sordid.

Keep in mind: if you agree with censoring the content that has already been censored, that's all well and good, but you may start getting your knickers in a twist when you see the cycle oscillate the other way and the decision makers evolve into those you wish didn't have that kind of power.

IT's f***ing private company. Freedom of speech stops applying the second the user clicks "Agree to these terms".

 

[Church Hill]

IT's f***ing private company. Freedom of speech stops applying the second the user clicks "Agree to these terms".

I'm not arguing that private companies don't have the right to do what we're discussing. Twitter should not be prosecuted because they are not breaking any law, I'm only saying that I prefer to live in a world where Twitter is open source and uncensored.

 

[mouser]

No, moderation will definitely be required to detect people threatening or calling for violence, for example. But moderation is explicitly not necessary to determine what content is "true" versus "misinformation", since the track record of Twitter wrongly banning and deleting tweeters and tweets for saying things that ended up being true is long and sordid.

Keep in mind: if you agree with censoring the content that has already been censored, that's all well and good, but you may start getting your knickers in a twist when you see the cycle oscillate the other way and the decision makers evolve into those you wish didn't have that kind of power.

Well said. If we moderated HFB to filter posts by what’s true or not our forums would be a barren wasteland.

Posters are entitled to their opinions, right or wrong here. The vast majority of our moderation comes down to being civil to your fellow forum members.

 

[beowulf]

I'm not arguing that private companies don't have the right to do what we're discussing. Twitter should not be prosecuted because they are not breaking any law, I'm only saying that I prefer to live in a world where Twitter is open source and uncensored.

And that's how you end up with tons of racism, bootery, false information etc. A company should have the right to cut out bad content.

 

[beowulf]

Well said. If we moderated HFB to filter posts by what’s true or not our forums would be a barren wasteland.

Posters are entitled to their opinions, right or wrong here. The vast majority of our moderation comes down to being civil to your fellow forum members.

Excuse me? this place is highly moderated and a ton of stuff is removed.

 

[Church Hill]

And that's how you end up with tons of racism, bootery, false information etc. A company should have the right to cut out bad content.

They do have the right, nobody is saying they don't have the right.

As for the claim about increased levels of false information without content-based censorship: it's missing the point. Two notes:

1. Twitter still has plenty of misinformation in its present hyper-moderated state
2. Calling for censorship means allowing for an individual or group to decide which content is allowed. You may love that group's composition today, but in 5 years it may become populated by MAGA-hat-wearers who censor CNN, WaPo, and the other liberal media networks for "misinformation", which every media source produces regularly, especially right before an election. Sound like a good idea?

 

[KeithIsActuallyBad]

You have to wonder why Musk didn't go after Gab, Parler, Gettr, Truth Social, and I'm sure I'm missing a few others...

Sadly, this era has exposed how dangerous misinformation can be. But either you let those people run around and do damage as they please or remove them and make them martyrs which only strengthens their cause.

Make no mistake, Musk might be a billionaire but it's just another one of his flights of fancy. He pretends to be "one of us" with memes and jokes but he just wants your money and adoration, nothing more.

 

[beowulf]

They do have the right, nobody is saying they don't have the right.

As for the claim about increased levels of false information without content-based censorship: it's missing the point. Two notes:

1. Twitter still has plenty of misinformation in its present hyper-moderated state
2. Calling for censorship means allowing for an individual or group to decide which content is allowed. You may love that group's composition today, but in 5 years it may become populated by MAGA-hat-wearers who censor CNN, WaPo, and the other liberal media networks for "misinformation", which every media source produces regularly, especially right before an election. Sound like a good idea?

So Nazis and white nationalists or jihadists should be allowed to post whatever they want? When information is known to be patently false it should just be allowed? Inciting people to violence should just be allowed? No limit?

 

[Osprey]

Excuse me? this place is highly moderated and a ton of stuff is removed.

Sorry to butt in, but he didn't say otherwise. He said that they don't moderate what's "true" and that most of the stuff that they remove is incivility towards other forum members.

So Nazis and white nationalists or jihadists should be allowed to post whatever they want? When information is known to be patently false it should just be allowed? Inciting people to violence should just be allowed? No limit?

He addressed that earlier when he said that "moderation will definitely be required to detect people threatening or calling for violence, for example."

 

[RandV]

They do have the right, nobody is saying they don't have the right.

As for the claim about increased levels of false information without content-based censorship: it's missing the point. Two notes:

1. Twitter still has plenty of misinformation in its present hyper-moderated state
2. Calling for censorship means allowing for an individual or group to decide which content is allowed. You may love that group's composition today, but in 5 years it may become populated by MAGA-hat-wearers who censor CNN, WaPo, and the other liberal media networks for "misinformation", which every media source produces regularly, especially right before an election. Sound like a good idea?

No that sounds like a terrible idea as Twitter will simply become irrelevant. There are already platforms like this and they're fringe for a reason. What-about-ism doesn't really work here.

People really need to stop framing these things from a political perspective of rights and freedom, these are private business selling a product (hint: it's you) that operate under different principles and are primarily concerned with their bottom line. I'd say there's two general fears here: a toxic environment driving people away, or things get out of hand in such a way that the government decides to step with regulations.

Realistically, if Twitter was completely uncensored and unmoderated I'm sure it would quickly turn into a 4chan-like cesspool.

 

[Church Hill]

So Nazis and white nationalists or jihadists should be allowed to post whatever they want?

Yes. Caveat:

Inciting people to violence should just be allowed?

No. Language which is illegal, such as calling for violence, cannot be tolerated.

No that sounds like a terrible idea as Twitter will simply become irrelevant. There are already platforms like this and they're fringe for a reason.

The reason something like GETTR is fringe is not because of their free-speech policies, it's because they're terminally late-to-market.

People really need to stop framing these things from a political perspective of rights and freedom, these are private business selling a product (hint: it's you) that operate under different principles and are primarily concerned with their bottom line. I'd say there's two general fears here: a toxic environment driving people away, or things get out of hand in such a way that the government decides to step with regulations.

Realistically, if Twitter was completely uncensored and unmoderated I'm sure it would quickly turn into a 4chan-like cesspool.

Didn't understand your point here exactly but I don't think anybody is calling for zero moderation, and if they are I disagree with them.

 

[Gardner McKay]

Excuse me? this place is highly moderated and a ton of stuff is removed.

Because posters are consistently calling other posters assholes and that is against our rules. We don't typically moderate posters saying something along the lines of "the Avalanche suck". That is an opinion. An incorrect opinion, but an allowed opinion.

That kind of opinion on twitter would be flagged as fake news/misinformation or w/e the term is now, because it doesn't align with the prevailing school of thought.

Which, I think is what is driving Elon's desire to purchase twitter.

 

[Beau Knows]

Because posters are consistently calling other posters assholes and that is against our rules. We don't typically moderate posters saying something along the lines of "the Avalanche suck". That is an opinion. An incorrect opinion, but an allowed opinion.

That kind of opinion on twitter would be flagged as fake news/misinformation or w/e the term is now, because it doesn't align with the prevailing school of thought.

Which, I think is what is driving Elon's desire to purchase twitter.

If I start a thread on the main board titled something like "The Avalanche are running a pedophile ring in the basement of Ball Arena" that I supported with complete nonsense, I'm pretty sure it would be removed for being a lie.

 

[mouser]

If I start a thread on the main board titled something like "The Avalanche are running a pedophile ring in the basement of Ball Arena" that I supported with complete nonsense, I'm pretty sure it would be removed for being a lie.

It would be removed for being trolling. Such a thread would be a huge step from simply being wrong to actively trying to create problems on the forum.

 

[Beau Knows]

It would be removed for being trolling. Such a thread would be a huge step from simply being wrong to actively trying to create problems on the forum.

But in this hypothetical, I actually believe that and have all kinds of crazy "evidence" to back it up. It's not trolling, it's my opinion.

 

[mouser]

But in this hypothetical, I actually believe that and have all kinds of crazy "evidence" to back it up. It's not trolling, it's my opinion.

It still circles back to the fundamental issue being someone creating trouble on the forums, which is trolling. Whether what's being said is truthful or not takes a back seat.

 

[Beau Knows]

It still circles back to the fundamental issue being someone creating trouble on the forums, which is trolling. Whether what's being said is truthful or not takes a back seat.

Call it what you want, it's the same thing as twitter removing or flagging similar conspiracy theories on their platform. They just don't call it "trolling".