Twitter 3.0

[JWags85]

[TSmith34, Inc.]

  come on richard, you know they are NOW all so very concerned about "disinformation" flooding the networks.  all the russian shenanigans, the big guy,  the big guy and the smartest guy he knows, wuhan, etc and all that malarkey

Yes, those are some of the many examples of the right-wing disinformation that Twitter was concerned about flooding the network. Do you have some sort of point?

[MU82]

  come on richard, you know they are NOW all so very concerned about "disinformation" flooding the networks.  all the russian shenanigans, the big guy,  the big guy and the smartest guy he knows, wuhan, etc and all that malarkey

come on roQQet, you forgot child-eating sex rings, jewish space lasers, actors subbing for sandy hook kids, rigged elections, the wonders of horse de-wormer and all that stuff

[Uncle Rico]

  come on richard, you know they are NOW all so very concerned about "disinformation" flooding the networks.  all the russian shenanigans, the big guy,  the big guy and the smartest guy he knows, wuhan, etc and all that malarkey

7 out of 10.  The lack of ellipses is concerning. 

Probably won't make it onto any dental school literature

[tower912]

Cancelled like this guy?   

https://www.businessinsider.com/twitter-trust-safety-yoel-roth-fled-home-elon-musk-report-2022-12#:~:text=Stepped%2Dup%20threats%20of%20violence,with%20personal%20attacks%20from%20Musk.


Where does doxxing fellow scoopers fall on the cancel culture spectrum?

[Uncle Rico]

Cancelled like this guy?   

https://www.businessinsider.com/twitter-trust-safety-yoel-roth-fled-home-elon-musk-report-2022-12#:~:text=Stepped%2Dup%20threats%20of%20violence,with%20personal%20attacks%20from%20Musk.


Where does doxxing fellow scoopers fall on the cancel culture spectrum?

That's different

[Hards Alumni]

People have been getting kicked off of Twitter for years, without recourse, and in many cases only because of their political points of view. And the Left either denied it was happening or applauded it as absolutely necessary for the public good.

But now there's a new Sheriff in town, hell bent on restoring some çredibility and balance to the medium, and the wailing from the Left is deafening.

Get used to it.

Fantasyworld.  White Nationalism, Racism, Transphobia, etc are not political views.  They're hate speech and were against the established TOS.

If they sheriff continues to run his town like this, he will find that he's made a $44 billion dollar error because it'll be a ghost town.

The next thing you're going to tell me is that the UN is a 'lefty' organization.

Get a grip.

[Hards Alumni]

Cancel culture is the biggest myth out there.     There is no cancel culture.     There is a group of people deciding you are the A-hole and that they are done listening to you.    That is it.    Cancel culture is no more than a subset of humanity deciding someone is an A-hole.  Some people who have spent their entire adult lives without pushback for their hot takes are suddenly deeply wounded to find that they are thought of as the A-hole.


This isn't some new phenomenon.    Like anti-vaxxing Karens, it seems like more than it used to be because the internet tends to magnifies opinion.       But there have always been Birchers anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theorists.     Just as there as always been people who decide they are done listening to the A-hole du jour.         

preach

[Hards Alumni]

I think someone uses the term "cancel culture" when they feel that another person or entity has been unfairly ganged up on and ostracized based primarily on rumors, lies, or missing pieces to the story. "Unfairly" can also include things like bringing up someone's inappropriate social media posts randomly from many years ago for no other reason than to get vengeance. Many times it's taken way out of context. For example, that happened to Josh Hader recently.

Also, even if the person in question should be rightly ostracized, the "mob" usually doesn't stop there and friends, family, and coworkers are often harassed and threatened in the process.

I think that's at least what the term should mean. It shouldn't mean that people should be free to say whatever they want with no accountability, which is what most here seem to be focused on.

Oh, Josh Hader's comments were taken in context.  But he easily could have said, "that was a long time ago and I've grown as a person and no longer think that way".  Which is basically what he did.  And he wasn't cancelled!  Holy crap!

[CountryRoads]

Oh, Josh Hader's comments were taken in context.  But he easily could have said, "that was a long time ago and I've grown as a person and no longer think that way".  Which is basically what he did.  And he wasn't cancelled!  Holy crap!

I don't disagree. I didn't state it well and meant to separate "things taken out of context" as a separate issue from Hader-like situations.

[murara1994]

Fantasyworld.  White Nationalism, Racism, Transphobia, etc are not political views.  They're hate speech and were against the established TOS.

If they sheriff continues to run his town like this, he will find that he's made a $44 billion dollar error because it'll be a ghost town.

The next thing you're going to tell me is that the UN is a 'lefty' organization.

Get a grip.

Then why all the whining.  If you and the other journos don't like it, don't use the site.  He bought it, he can do what he wants with it.

[CreightonWarrior]

I'm here for Twitter 4.0

[The Sultan]

Then why all the whining.  If you and the other journos don't like it, don't use the site.  He bought it, he can do what he wants with it.

No one is stating otherwise.

And no one is whining.

[MU82]

He bought it, he can do what he wants with it.

Yes, he is free to be a hypocrite and to promote QAnon nonsense. And you are free to pretend he's doing something for the greater good. Nobody has said otherwise.

[MUBurrow]

I think the most enduring lesson here will be that until further notice, no social media platform is sufficiently endurant or of sufficient social value to legitimately implicate any free speech or first amendment conversation.  I know that I and most here didn't think there was a real first amendment issue with "cancelling" folks on Twitter, so I don't want to create a straw man. But the issue was generally perceived to be evolving into a close enough call that the discussion was meaningful.  Watching Elon drive Twitter into the ditch serves as a valuable lesson about how tenuous a single platform's hold on discourse really is.

[murara1994]

No one is stating otherwise.

And no one is whining.

The journalists who got banned  yesterday aren't doing any whining?  Are you actually serious?

[The Sultan]

The journalists who got banned  yesterday aren't doing any whining?  Are you actually serious?

You quoted Hards and said "you." Sorry for thinking that...you know...you meant him. 

I have no idea what the journalists are doing or saying.

[CountryRoads]

I think the most enduring lesson here will be that until further notice, no social media platform is sufficiently endurant or of sufficient social value to legitimately implicate any free speech or first amendment conversation.

Somewhere along the line, the concept of free speech on social media was extended to "free reach" as well. The reach is what has everyone up in arms, not the speech itself. A social media platform has the obligation to allow people to express themselves (which they do), but they don't have the obligation to show that to anyone else that doesn't ask (search) for it. I'm confident in saying that reach is and has been heavily biased on Twitter, but it all sort of ends up back to the point that they can really do whatever they want in that regard in order to be a profitable business.

[Pakuni]

The journalists who got banned  yesterday aren't doing any whining?  Are you actually serious?

Source?

[Pakuni]

Somewhere along the line, the concept of free speech on social media was extended to "free reach" as well. The reach is what has everyone up in arms, not the speech itself. A social media platform has the obligation to allow people to express themselves (which they do), but they don't have the obligation to show that to anyone else that doesn't ask (search) for it. I'm confident in saying that reach is and has been heavily biased on Twitter, but it all sort of ends up back to the point that they can really do whatever they want in that regard in order to be a profitable business.

Why does a social media platform have an obligation to allow people to express themselves?

[The Sultan]

Somewhere along the line, the concept of free speech on social media was extended to "free reach" as well. The reach is what has everyone up in arms, not the speech itself. A social media platform has the obligation to allow people to express themselves (which they do), but they don't have the obligation to show that to anyone else that doesn't ask (search) for it. I'm confident in saying that reach is and has been heavily biased on Twitter, but it all sort of ends up back to the point that they can really do whatever they want in that regard in order to be a profitable business.

On the bolded...  What kind of "obligation" do social media platforms have to allow people to express themselves? Certainly not legal. And I would argue not ethical or moral either.

Perhaps they have a contractual obligation to uphold their terms of service, but those are usually very broadly written and give any benefit of the doubt to the company.

I think the whole freedom of speech v. freedom of reach thing is just parsing words.  The owners of a private company, social media or otherwise, can set the rules in which it operates.  As long as those rules don't conflict with the law, and it is clear in this case they they do not, then...well...that's life.

[CountryRoads]

Why does a social media platform have an obligation to allow people to express themselves?

I think it's just implied of any US based social media platform that has hundreds of millions of users and offers a general scope of potential communities and discourse to offer that much. I think if a user posts about their religion, they would not expect to be banned for it on such a platform. The same shouldn't be expected or smaller niche communities (MUScoop) where the allowable discourse is much more limited.

[shoothoops]

"Cancel culture," is just a new term for accountability. It has often been used by people who aren't getting their way while often targeting marginalized people for their support. Repeat a word or phrase over and over in a negative tone to muddy the waters. "Woke" is one of these terms. I suppose it was easier to say over and over than "aware". They are so aware vs saying they are so woke. The target audience often doesn't have the deepest attention span, so buzz words and phrases it is.

"Free Speech for me, but no free speech for thee," applies to the same group of people about a wide variety of topics. Just insert a different name or title or topic. This is for me but not for thee, with the goal often being power and money.

Free speech is of course not freedom of consequences. And consequences can come in a variety of ways too.

[The Sultan]

I think it's just implied of any US based social media platform that has hundreds of millions of users and offers a general scope of potential communities and discourse to offer that much. I think if a user posts about their religion, they would not expect to be banned for it on such a platform. The same shouldn't be expected or smaller niche communities (MUScoop) where the allowable discourse is much more limited.

What your describing is an expectation. Not an obligation where someone is legally or morally bound to action.

[rocket surgeon]

Hard to tell if FBI was working for/with Twitter or Twitter working for/with FBI?  Having lunch together on regular basis??  Elon wasn't kidding when he said he was buying a crime scene

Gee, makes ya wonder if the same was going on with Facebook, Google, et. al.??  Umm nope, not wondering much anymore.