By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

ConservagameR said:

-Right. But any time I've ever asked anyone for examples of that happening on Twitter, it's just people breaking TOS.

When your terms of service are like most, at to, rules, rules, rules, oh, and we can discipline or ban you for anything just because we feel like it, then ya, obviously every time they take action it's people breaking the rules.

What kind of civilized democratic society or company makes rules like, when the management is displeased they can justifiably chop off you head?

Can you show us any terms of service from any of the platforms you are refering to that includes a paragraph that says something to the effect of "we can ban you for any reason if we feel like it?"

Because that's not how it works. When someone gets suspended, one or several specific rules will be referenced as the reason for the suspension.

-Well that's what I mean. You're either saying that there are things in the guidelines that shouldn't be there, or that mods were not enforcing the guidelines, or that they did it incorrectly, etc. So I'm wondering what specifically it is that you have a problem with.

Guidelines should be quite specific. I'm just in a bad mood or I don't like your hat color, isn't a reasonable reason to discipline someone.

Getting banned for asking too many questions, many of which weren't even questions, just because the person being asked didn't like it, seems ridiculous. Then to assume I didn't care about the answers makes no sense either since the questions all made a point based on the topic being discussed. Why asking some questions, which the answers to will prove my point, isn't an acceptable way of making a point, makes very little sense, other than to silence someone you simply don't agree with. It does make sense, if you're on the side of an argument that you're losing that you wish to win but don't think you can with words.

Trolls continually find ways to skirt the rules. We could add new paragraphs forever, and never catch up.
At the same time, rules have to be coherant and condensed enough for readers to be able to find what they're looking for with relative ease. And that won't be the case if it's as long as the bible.

If someone says "That's a nice daughter you have there. It'd be a shame if something happened to her..."

You could argue that's not against any rules, because they're just showing concern for the daughter.
But it's the intent that matters. In which case it can be a threat.

How we determine whether something is a missunderstanding or malicious is not on a whim. We look at a users post history, and often times we've discussed and kept an eye on the user for months/years before before we see that several dots form a line.

Wasting people's time is one of the most disrespectful ways to behave towards others online.
I am not super familiar with your case. But I do know that several moderators, myself included, reached out to you multiple times beforehand and tried to guide you towards more proper conduct in those threads. And usually when I ask you a direct question about what seems to be the root of a lot of the issues surrounding you, which seems to be how you consume your news (even just a few days ago in the Xbox article when I asked you where you got the idea that Xbox were saying the things you said about Playstation) you tend to not give a direct answer about that.

And so you repeat the process again in another thread. And seemingly this one too, as I'll get to further below.

ConservagameR said:

-I'd argue that one person controling any platform where ideas are exchanged is a bad idea.
We have multiple moderators who discuss issues as a group for this reason. If one overlooks an important detail, three others may catch it. If one person thinks we should go with solution #1, and five others think we should go with solution #2, we try to find a compromise that everyone is happy with. And/or we go with what the majority thinks.

How diverse the mods are matters quite a bit. That's why Elon has mentioned the Twitter team or council, will be extremely diverse for this reason. If you have nothing but white people, wouldn't the likelihood of racism be higher? If everyone is conservative wouldn't the likelihood of politicism be higher? If the majority of the group see's things one way, and they operate mostly in a democratic fashion, then what about the minorities most of the time?

I do agree that different points of view is important for things like this. Even just in a general sense, another person can catch a detail you missed while brainstorming.
But it's not likely that Elon has gotten to know the moderation team on Twitter (which is also probably massive sonsidering their traffic.)

A PC guy on our staff often gets accused of being biased towards a particular console.
Many times we've been accused of doing A, when we actually did B. For example, someone made a thread a couple of month ago saying that we locked a thread because it was too controversial. They didn't ask any of us, or say it in a speculative way. They just stated that we did.

But we locked the thread at the request of the thread creator himself, who has a right to request a lock.

An outside perspective can often get the wrong idea about how these things are handled if they don't make an effort to get to know the facts first.

Elon Musk decided to buy this company before he could have concievably gotten to know the moderators. And I doubt he had the time to do that afterwards either. But no matter who he puts in charge there, he is still making company wide decisisions himself because he's the majority owner.

ConservagameR said:

-I think the government should only get involved if the platform fails to moderate content that goes into illegal territory. But the biggest problem with twitter are shitty people, and missinformation. And I only imagine those problems getting amplified with Musk in charge.

If you're going to have an open platform, then it has to be just that, open to everyone, besides those who break the law, as you said. If you're going to pick and choose who speaks and what's seen, now you've got to play by different rules since you're not an open platform, or at least you're supposed to, if the rules were being properly enforced that is.

I take it you're against the governments actions of working with (large) platforms to silence things like misinformation, which isn't illegal?

A platform that is meant to be welcoming to everyone, cannot also support intolerant people who make others feel unwelcome simply because of how they were born, (for ex LGBT people and people of color) because that creates a paradow where you allowing those people to thrive chase the other people away.

So you have to chose where you draw the line. Do you want the bullies, or the bullied?
Most companies draw a line at discriminating against how people were born.
Regarding disinformation, the line is usually drawn at the point where it is considered harmful.

If you just draw the line at what is or isn't legal, it's going to be a very unbearable experience for most people.

Regarding government involvement pertainign to missinformation, there are laws about that.
Here's one example:

18 U.S. Code § 35 - Imparting or conveying false information

b) Whoever willfully and maliciously, or with reckless disregard for the safety of human life, imparts or conveys or causes to be imparted or conveyed false information, knowing the information to be false, concerning an attempt or alleged attempt being made or to be made, to do any act which would be a crime prohibited by this chapter or chapter 97 or chapter 111 of this title—shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

For example, urging people to march on the capital to fight for an election you know you lost by claiming it was stolen, which leads to what happened on Jan 6 where people lost their lives, could potentially fall under this.

ConservagameR said:

-Shitty people and missinformation will be the biggest winners coming out of this, imo.

As to the N word Elon article, if you spent any time on 4chan at all, you'd know they are mostly to blame, as they did that as a community to simply rub it in the faces of those on Twitter who were happy about how things used to be and who didn't like Elon taking over now. They do things like this all the time to stir the pot, though it's rarely to simply cause chaos, as the majority of the time they're simply making a point. Those specific threads there weren't full of racist pics either, but of NPC pics with tears, and much laughter about those unhappy with Elons ownership.

Some, like the media, know this looks bad on them, and will hurt their own use of Twitter, so they spin it to make it seem like there's a huge increase of racists on the platform. While a tiny minority might actually be saying the N word as actual racists, the vast majority are just rubbing in Elon's control over Twitter now.

The article I screenshotted mentioned that much of it originated from 4Chan and trolls trying to test the limits.

Use of N-Word Jumps 500% After Elon Musk Buys Twitter (
Much of this hate speech was organized on platforms like 4chan, said the Network Contagion Research Institute, which analyzes content posted on social media to detect potential threats. In addition to testing whether their trolling would slide under the new management, NCRI lead intelligence analyst Alex Goldenberg said users were trying to “to make as big a mess as possible for Twitter’s new management.”

But if their objective was to rub it in the faces of those who prefered how Twitter was handled before Elon, then they're kinda proving their fears to be correct.
The point here is that an increase in racist emboldenment is expected if Twitter allows things like hate speech for the sake of "freedom of speech".
ConservagameR said:

Elon was replying to Hillary's early conspiracy theory misinformation about the attacker being a Maga conservative or that Maga conservatives led to him becoming radicalized.

There is far more pointing to him being a liberal coincidentally.

What did I recently learn about getting ahead of the narrative as to pointing out who the bad guy is and how I'm the victim apparently?

Now we are at the part regarding what I said about "And so you repeat the process again in another thread. And seemingly this one too, as I'll get to further below."

The conspiracy theory by Hillary you're refering to is her citing a New York Times article that had interviewed people he knew, and posted a link to what very evidentally is his blog. Unless there's another person named David DePape living in the same town that just happened to stop posting updates the day before the attack and ever since then. It's even been deleted now.
But you can still check it out through TheWaybackMachine. Here's a selection of some of the posts as they appeared on Oct 28:

Since you claimed "There is far more pointing to him being a liberal", let's take a look, shall we?
Timestamps will appear as they did on Oct 28.

There's a lot to unpack in this first screenshot, and we haven't even scrolled down yet.
First of all, let's appreciate the categories.

- Aliens
- Climate Hysteria
- Communism
- Covid
- Da Jewbs (jews)
- Gamer Gate
- Groomer Schools
- Immigrants
- James Lindsey (who describes "the Social Justice movement" as his "ideological enemy")
- PedoGate

If we scroll down there's also:

- Trannies
- VoterFraud

That sure sounds very liberal of him, right?

In the first blog post in the image above, it references a video from a guy complaining about social justice being taught in college.
In the second one, he says that film critics are "fucking commie gate keepers".

Complaining about the Steel dossier, anti semitic comments about jews buying up land in Ukraine for cheap, "sick Jewing going on", unvaxxed people are chads, quoting Bible scriptures, etc.

Going a bit further back in time on his blog, there's also concerns about pedophilia, anti-white racism and “elite” control of the internet.
One of his blog posts suggested that there had been no mass gassing of prisoners at Auschwitz. Another linked to a video defending Hitler.

And on Oct19 he posted this:
"Trump you NEEEEEEEED to make Tulsi your VP in 2024.
Of the ENTIRE democrat presidential candidates in 2020. She was the only democrat candidate who WASN’T running on a platform of being an insane mentally unwell demagogue."

This is extreme-far-right-Q-Anon-conspiracy level shit.

So where did you get the information that made you think"There is far more pointing to him being a liberal"?

You need to give a direct answer to this question.
Link us to where you read/heard this, and explain which parts convinced you of this. As I did you the courtesy of not only linking to his blog, but also highlighting the content that unquestionably reveals that he couldn't be further from liberal.

Last edited by Hiku - on 04 November 2022