JWSC

crowley said:

JWSC said:

crowley said:

JWSC said:

foregoneconclusion said:

JWSC said: Musk is fed up with arbitrary removal of prominent people for allegedly spreading disinformation according to Twitter's appointed fact checkers.

Examples?

Too numerous to list.  And I won’t waste my time with a request than can be verified easily by you, should you care to do so.  You have the interwebs at your disposal.

It would likely be quicker to type a single name than it would to type "too numerous to list".

Go for it.

The only person am really aware of is Robert Malone.  I'm not in your bubble.  if you can give a name, just one, I'd appreciate it.  As I said, if the number are too numerous to list then there's almost certainly a single name that is quicker to type than "Too numerous to list.  And I won’t waste my time with a request than can be verified easily by you, should you care to do so.  You have the interwebs at your disposal."  

You wasted much more of your time than you needed.  Almost as if you don't actually have an answer and are just stalling for time.

I do have answers.  They're easy to find.  I'm familiar with Dr. Malone, his history, and all that transpired.  But I'm not going to play that game where I list a name and then someone says, "Well, they said something wrong, or something bad, or something I strongly disagree with."  Not going there.  It's not the point.

The point is that 20-something Silicon Valley people with no particular expertise feel free to silence others that have expertise in their respective fields.  When Twitter fact checkers are wrong, and they frequently are, they are not held accountable.  That is not acceptable behavior for a large publicly traded social media company.  They are ill suited to the task of determining what constitutes disinformation.  And it is not their place to do so.  They end up doing a great disservice to all.

crowley said:

JWSC said:

foregoneconclusion said:

JWSC said: Musk is fed up with arbitrary removal of prominent people for allegedly spreading disinformation according to Twitter's appointed fact checkers.

Examples?

Too numerous to list.  And I won’t waste my time with a request than can be verified easily by you, should you care to do so.  You have the interwebs at your disposal.

It would likely be quicker to type a single name than it would to type "too numerous to list".

Go for it.

StrangeDays said:

byronl said:

hopefully twitter’s censorship problem will get better

They don't have a censorship problem. They're a private website with a terms of use agreement, just like Alex Jones' own web forums and Trump's Truth Social do. If users violate the agreed upon terms of use, it's completely fine for them to be booted. What the terms are is up to the company, Twitter doesn't allow spreading disinformation, threatening people, calls for violence, etc. That's fine. ...

Calls to imminent violence should be acted upon by law enforcement.  Social media would have a legal responsibility to shut these calls down.  But when it comes to purported disinformation I could not disagree more.

We hear and see disinformation every day coming out of the mouths of politicians of all stripes.  Many politicians sprinkled their opinions with truths that are only a slice of the total picture, which are designed to appeal to their voters.  And these truths are often commingled with lies, fabrications, and wild exaggerations.  Yet it is all unquestioningly accepted as political posturing and debate.  Shutting down scientific enquiry is equally egregious and indefensible.

Jack Dorsey was deeply uncomfortable with what Twitter and Facebook had become.  Some believe that is why he left the company.  He no longer believed in what he unwittingly helped to create, in social media's lack of diversity, and in the power these huge companies wielded over so many.  The private company argument holds no water with behemoths like Twitter and Facebook, which have unrivaled power to silence and destroy those with views they do not agree with or believe are untrue.  Traditional media is bad enough.  Social media has only made it worse.  You want to throw the legal argument of 'terms of use' or 'terms of service' agreements around then something else needs to happen in the form of regulation, of which I'm not a fan.  But these companies are too powerful and have too broad a reach to let that fly as a valid reason.

I had no stake in Parlor.  I could have cared less.  I wasn't interested in joining.  But to witness Silicon Valley act almost in unison with political and media allies to shut down potential competition was deeply disturbing.  Trust has been lost and it will be sometime before it is restored, if ever.

foregoneconclusion said:

JWSC said: Musk is fed up with arbitrary removal of prominent people for allegedly spreading disinformation according to Twitter's appointed fact checkers.

Examples?

Too numerous to list.  And I won’t waste my time with a request than can be verified easily by you, should you care to do so.  You have the interwebs at your disposal.

I was absolutely thrilled to hear that Musk had bought into Twitter to become the largest shareholder.  Since that announcement the interwebs has gone into overdrive expounding on why Musk would do such a thing.  Purported reasons vary from Musk wanting to profit quickly on the stock price jump, or perhaps make it a long term investment, or maybe he wanted to push cryptocurrencies through Twitter, or perhaps he feared that his Tweets might be labeled disinformation.  Most of these reasons are baloney.

Anyone who has been following Musk knows perfectly well why he bought Twitter stock.  Musk is fed up with arbitrary removal of prominent people for allegedly spreading disinformation according to Twitter's appointed fact checkers.  It's one thing to have fact checkers state that 2+2≠5.  But when these 20-something Silicon Valley fact checkers, who are not subject matter experts, start removing prominent scientists and other experts in their respective fields from Twitter, that's a bridge too far.  These so-called fact checkers have no business doing this.  Companies like Twitter and Facebook are far too powerful to be left in the hands of non-experts who conclude something is disinformation because someone says something that is not considered the norm or the consensus.  That kind of censorship retards the advancement of new knowledge.  It allows the loudest and most politically connected voices to set a narrative that is incredibly difficult to overcome, even when new facts and data come to light.

Over the last several years we have witnessed repeatedly what was once deemed disinformation by powerful people turn out to be true.  The fact checkers did society a great disservice then and they continue unabated.  The knee-jerk reaction by many in Silicon Valley to censor dissenting views is outrageous and it needs to be put to a stop.  Hurray for Elon Musk stepping in to make a positive change!