Two thoughts: 1) the Twitter-Elon debate is really interesting to think about in contrast to the net neutrality debate from a few years ago, and 2) the mindset arguing for more aggressive content moderation bears a concerning similarity to the change in mindset on college campuses that Haidt and Lukianoff talk about in “Coddling of the American Mind.”
On point 1. Net neutrality proponents argued (amongst other reasons) that it was critical in order to have the free flow of information and not have some content privileged over others. The Venn diagram of people who supported net neutrality but now want more social media content moderation is pretty close to a single circle. Those two positions seem to be in conflict.
On point 2. Haidt and Lukianoff note that younger generations respond to conflict and speech they don’t like by going to an authority and seeking punishment for the other person rather than engaging with the person or simply removing themselves from the situation. Ex., if there was an objectionable campus speaker, the response wasn’t to personally skip the event but to try and get the administration to cancel it. I’m always amazed the clarion call is for more moderation from the top rather than a more liberal use of the block and mute buttons. Blocking/muting accounts you find objectionable in combination with light-touch moderation to get rid of bots and such seems better than the report-and-suspend/ban regime currently in place.
I agree with the idea that less moderation than we have is better. I think outright harassment and vulgarity could still be banned if it offers no argument but just an attack. As long as users can control access by blocking and muting I will be fine. Why not let users control the algorithms? Some might prefer one approach over another. Maybe allow people to weight the value of those they follow.
I would argue that Twitter, with its character limits and built-in mob summoning function (QT) is a poor platform for “arguing through our differences” and is a better tool for harassment and intimidation. I can’t really see how spamming Jews with photoshops of them in gas chambers, despite being within the bounds of the law, is helpful to our discourse or something that can be “argued through”
Apr 29, 2022·edited Apr 29, 2022Liked by David Lat
“Censoring certain views doesn’t make them go away; it just makes them go underground. It’s better to have them out there, in the light of day, so we can see them—and defeat them.”
This is a moral axiom, I suppose but it doesn’t seem borne out by history. Removing anti-democratic ideologies from the bounds of acceptable discourse and marginalizing them before they can gain traction and overthrow liberal democracy seems quite effective in practice (see the postwar German constitutional order compared to the tolerance for groups like the Freikorps in prewar Germany — Germany is now significantly above the US in the V-Dem index). Is there any evidence that marginalizing ideologies makes them more powerful?
My biggest concern is shifting an important platform for news and information, as well as friendship and community-building, from being governed by a corporate structure which is more accountable to stakeholders, to a single individual, one who has shown through past actions that he is not the free-speech advocate he claims. Musk is fine with "free speech" when it's not criticism directed at him or his companies, see e.g. Cooley lawyer issue, Thailand cave rescue. Musk strikes me as a very thin-skinned individual who is quick to retaliation. I am concerned at someone with such an attitude being in sole control over "the public town square", as he calls Twitter.
Apr 29, 2022·edited Apr 29, 2022Liked by David Lat
My first thought in any discussion of Twitter is "Why?" Why would anyone try to make a public argument in 280 characters? Why would anyone read one? If, as I perceive, the only people who read and write tweets spend hours of each day trying to get each other's attention, why should the other 95% of the world care?
Having said that, I think less onerous moderation would be good - good for users and good for the platform. Maybe even good for the public.
I am pretty close to a free speech absolutist, but I recognize that some level of moderation is necessary to keep the platform from devolving into a cesspool that repels most of the people it wants to attract. But it's a bad idea for moderators to imagine they are better able to assess "truth" than writers or users. It would be even worse if the moderators see their role as promoting their preferred agenda.
Apr 29, 2022·edited Apr 29, 2022Liked by David Lat
I find it hard to get riled up about all this. It all strikes me as a teacup sized tempest.
And to be fair, I think the idea of more transparency in Twitter in terms of the algorithms is probably a good thing. It will not cure conspiracy - in fact it will probably spawn plenty of news ones on the left, the right, and the zany. Not that I am expecting we will get any actual improvements. Indeed I suspect the only people who will materially benefit from all of this are the lawyers :)
I don’t think it particularly matters whether Trump is allowed to resume his Twitter account, or whether he accepts such an offer. That’s because - if nothing else - Musk seems prepared to stop what I call the unpersonning approach to content moderation. Remember, as things stand today not only is Trump banned, but linking to anything he posts on another service is banned. Even if that post is innocuous.
All Musk really needs to do is stop this unpersonning and allow other users to post links to whatever Trump says on Truth (unless that specific statement violates Twitter rules) and anything halfway interesting Trump says will spread far and wide on Twitter.
Two thoughts: 1) the Twitter-Elon debate is really interesting to think about in contrast to the net neutrality debate from a few years ago, and 2) the mindset arguing for more aggressive content moderation bears a concerning similarity to the change in mindset on college campuses that Haidt and Lukianoff talk about in “Coddling of the American Mind.”
On point 1. Net neutrality proponents argued (amongst other reasons) that it was critical in order to have the free flow of information and not have some content privileged over others. The Venn diagram of people who supported net neutrality but now want more social media content moderation is pretty close to a single circle. Those two positions seem to be in conflict.
On point 2. Haidt and Lukianoff note that younger generations respond to conflict and speech they don’t like by going to an authority and seeking punishment for the other person rather than engaging with the person or simply removing themselves from the situation. Ex., if there was an objectionable campus speaker, the response wasn’t to personally skip the event but to try and get the administration to cancel it. I’m always amazed the clarion call is for more moderation from the top rather than a more liberal use of the block and mute buttons. Blocking/muting accounts you find objectionable in combination with light-touch moderation to get rid of bots and such seems better than the report-and-suspend/ban regime currently in place.
I agree with the idea that less moderation than we have is better. I think outright harassment and vulgarity could still be banned if it offers no argument but just an attack. As long as users can control access by blocking and muting I will be fine. Why not let users control the algorithms? Some might prefer one approach over another. Maybe allow people to weight the value of those they follow.
I would argue that Twitter, with its character limits and built-in mob summoning function (QT) is a poor platform for “arguing through our differences” and is a better tool for harassment and intimidation. I can’t really see how spamming Jews with photoshops of them in gas chambers, despite being within the bounds of the law, is helpful to our discourse or something that can be “argued through”
“Censoring certain views doesn’t make them go away; it just makes them go underground. It’s better to have them out there, in the light of day, so we can see them—and defeat them.”
This is a moral axiom, I suppose but it doesn’t seem borne out by history. Removing anti-democratic ideologies from the bounds of acceptable discourse and marginalizing them before they can gain traction and overthrow liberal democracy seems quite effective in practice (see the postwar German constitutional order compared to the tolerance for groups like the Freikorps in prewar Germany — Germany is now significantly above the US in the V-Dem index). Is there any evidence that marginalizing ideologies makes them more powerful?
My biggest concern is shifting an important platform for news and information, as well as friendship and community-building, from being governed by a corporate structure which is more accountable to stakeholders, to a single individual, one who has shown through past actions that he is not the free-speech advocate he claims. Musk is fine with "free speech" when it's not criticism directed at him or his companies, see e.g. Cooley lawyer issue, Thailand cave rescue. Musk strikes me as a very thin-skinned individual who is quick to retaliation. I am concerned at someone with such an attitude being in sole control over "the public town square", as he calls Twitter.
My first thought in any discussion of Twitter is "Why?" Why would anyone try to make a public argument in 280 characters? Why would anyone read one? If, as I perceive, the only people who read and write tweets spend hours of each day trying to get each other's attention, why should the other 95% of the world care?
Having said that, I think less onerous moderation would be good - good for users and good for the platform. Maybe even good for the public.
I am pretty close to a free speech absolutist, but I recognize that some level of moderation is necessary to keep the platform from devolving into a cesspool that repels most of the people it wants to attract. But it's a bad idea for moderators to imagine they are better able to assess "truth" than writers or users. It would be even worse if the moderators see their role as promoting their preferred agenda.
We need more free speech not less-the current regime at Twitter is strangling the First Amendment
I find it hard to get riled up about all this. It all strikes me as a teacup sized tempest.
And to be fair, I think the idea of more transparency in Twitter in terms of the algorithms is probably a good thing. It will not cure conspiracy - in fact it will probably spawn plenty of news ones on the left, the right, and the zany. Not that I am expecting we will get any actual improvements. Indeed I suspect the only people who will materially benefit from all of this are the lawyers :)
I don’t think it particularly matters whether Trump is allowed to resume his Twitter account, or whether he accepts such an offer. That’s because - if nothing else - Musk seems prepared to stop what I call the unpersonning approach to content moderation. Remember, as things stand today not only is Trump banned, but linking to anything he posts on another service is banned. Even if that post is innocuous.
All Musk really needs to do is stop this unpersonning and allow other users to post links to whatever Trump says on Truth (unless that specific statement violates Twitter rules) and anything halfway interesting Trump says will spread far and wide on Twitter.