Another angle to consider - let's say you're running some event where people have gathered for discussion -- maybe a work meeting or conference for instance. In any group of people, there's inevitably a small number who are quickest and loudest to talk. Is it better for the overall conversation and everyone there to let these voices dominate, even to the point of crowding out other voices, or are such situations enhanced by the moderator working to allow and encourage the quieter voices to participate?
Successful moderation is difficult. Too heavy handed and it'll kill the vibe, too light and its ineffective, but when done well I think the result is a far richer experience. This isn't something that fits in well with the "free speech" framing, but I think it's worth considering in the broader context of online spaces. What kinds of experiences do we want to see and participate in online? What does responsible moderation, the kind that's not about the rather tired censorship/speech dichotomy but about encouraging interesting and enjoyable interaction, look like?
Join the great migration and bring a dog photo. I've been on the beta for 2 weeks and it's nothing like the Twitter dumpster fire. It may take a week or so to get in, as they're being very cautious about bots and poison pill accounts (conspiracy nerds). Rules of appropriate use are easy enough for anyone to understand and yes, even a bit woke because that's a good thing.
Remember when social media was fun, introduced you to big ideas and cool people, and actually made you smarter? Remember when it didn't waste your time and make you angry or sad? When you could disagree with someone without being threatened or insulted? We want to bring that back with Post.
Another angle to consider - let's say you're running some event where people have gathered for discussion -- maybe a work meeting or conference for instance. In any group of people, there's inevitably a small number who are quickest and loudest to talk. Is it better for the overall conversation and everyone there to let these voices dominate, even to the point of crowding out other voices, or are such situations enhanced by the moderator working to allow and encourage the quieter voices to participate?
Successful moderation is difficult. Too heavy handed and it'll kill the vibe, too light and its ineffective, but when done well I think the result is a far richer experience. This isn't something that fits in well with the "free speech" framing, but I think it's worth considering in the broader context of online spaces. What kinds of experiences do we want to see and participate in online? What does responsible moderation, the kind that's not about the rather tired censorship/speech dichotomy but about encouraging interesting and enjoyable interaction, look like?
Musk was invited on stage at a Dave Chapelle gig last night in SF. Crowd started booing. Dave tried to rescue it, but the crowd kept booing. Someone posted about it on Twitter, then someone else asked if anyone has video, so someone else posted video and that account got suspended (surprise!) so here it is on YouTube.
I don't think the behavior of the drivers has much to do with the fact that Musk is a leaky sack of wet manure. I doubt that, in California, many of the drivers are fans of his MAGA agenda. They're just a-holes.
See New Jersey Coalition v. J.M.B, 138 N.J. 326 (1994).
I did. The ruling opens by saying (boldface mine): “The question in this case is whether the defendant regional and community shopping centers must permit leafletting on societal issues. We hold that they must, subject to reasonable conditions set by them. Our ruling is limited to leafletting at such centers, and it applies nowhere else.”
The opinion goes on to state: “There will be no pursuit or harassment of shoppers.” And: When it comes to speech, leafletting “is the least obtrusive and the easiest to regulate,” coming, as it does, “without megaphone, soapbox, speeches or demonstrations.”
I look forward to hearing you elaborate on the logic analogizing this decision to Twitter.
By the way, the implementation of this is a farce. I've tried it at the Short Hills Mall. Was restricted to four hours at a spot outside a remote mall entrance near the parking lot. Probably the least-trafficked place in the mall.
Elon had an exchange with former CIA Dir Brennan, who said "Good people in democracies need a more effective way to prevent attention-craving, emotionally immature, & highly devious individuals, esp those of means, from being socially, culturally, & politically destructive."
Elon replied, "Your house is glass".
Saving @nohero the opportunity to "out" me, I'm posting my comment (great video, by the way):
Elon had an exchange with former CIA Dir Brennan, who said "Good people in democracies need a more effective way to prevent attention-craving, emotionally immature, & highly devious individuals, esp those of means, from being socially, culturally, & politically destructive."
Elon replied, "Your house is glass".
Saving @nohero the opportunity to "out" me, I'm posting my comment (great video, by the way):
Two thoughts:
1. That wouldn't be "outing" you.
2. On the Twitter you have many posts with misinformation and with affirmation of some pretty awful assertions. I haven't referred to them here. Interestingly, there are a lot of very good points which have been made in this thread over the last few days which you may argue with on the Twitter, but not here.
[Edited to add] The Brennan statement you refer to is a short clip from an obviously longer interview, "It does bear the hallmarks of Russian disinformation". At the time, nobody had access to any facts to confirm the claims that had been made.
Here's what Brennan says, "So, I think there are a lot of issues related to this New York Post story that reportedly referenced the Hunter Biden emails, and as I and several of my former colleagues have pointed out publicly, that it does bear the hallmarks of Russian disinformation.
"Now, we don't know whether or not that is the case, but there's just a lot of things that are cropping up now that may not be what they appear at first blush, and I do think it's important that John Ratcliffe or Christopher Wray provides the underlying data or analysis to support their conclusions and assertions."
Join the great migration and bring a dog photo. I've been on the beta for 2 weeks and it's nothing like the Twitter dumpster fire. It may take a week or so to get in, as they're being very cautious about bots and poison pill accounts (conspiracy nerds). Rules of appropriate use are easy enough for anyone to understand and yes, even a bit woke because that's a good thing.
I've been on it for about 3 weeks and reading some things (and only did one test post), but it's still sparsely populated. I think it's more like a microblogging site than a discussion like the Twitter is (although MOL is still better for that).
Musk was invited on stage at a Dave Chapelle gig last night in SF. Crowd started booing. Dave tried to rescue it, but the crowd kept booing. Someone posted about it on Twitter, then someone else asked if anyone has video, so someone else posted video and that account got suspended (surprise!) so here it is on YouTube.
"some" in the crowd.
it was enough for Chapelle to spend a couple of minutes talking about it. so there's that.
Elon's creating a Twitter public square based on First Amendment-like criteria. That's anathema to James and @nohero, and what's behind the attacks.
How’s that working in Iran and China? Heck, how about France? Or India? Russia? Pakistan? Tanzania? Venezuela?
What's the "that"?
It's a serious question. Please clarify what's the "that".
If it was a serious question, you would look through your post, find the “that” and actually understand what I’m asking here. But you’re not a serious person, hence the flurry of late night one paragraph meaningless troll posts.
It occurred to me yesterday that before Musk bought twitter I had no real opinion of him at all, good or bad. Since then I’ve learned there’s a weird cult of Musketeers who are prepared to jump in front of any valid criticism to defend him like they’re his online secret service.
It occurred to me yesterday that before Musk bought twitter I had no real opinion of him at all, good or bad. Since then I’ve learned there’s a weird cult of Musketeers who are prepared to jump in front of any valid criticism to defend him like they’re his online secret service.
Same here. Now, Musk's current activities are reviving news stories about how he's consistently been kind of a jerk, like the time he called someone a "pedophile" because he was jealous.
It occurred to me yesterday that before Musk bought twitter I had no real opinion of him at all, good or bad. Since then I’ve learned there’s a weird cult of Musketeers who are prepared to jump in front of any valid criticism to defend him like they’re his online secret service.
True. And there are also those whose new mission in life seems to be pearl clutching about Musk and Twitter, 24/7.
To whom are you responding?