I have a Twitter account, but once they stuck a fork in SubStack, I'm not trying to grow the Twit presence. Why bother? Twitter banned a lot of people, including data analysts who came up with "wrong" conclusions, by merely graphing publicly accessible info. Some journalists who gazed upon "The Twitter Files" and wrote about the ties bet…
I have a Twitter account, but once they stuck a fork in SubStack, I'm not trying to grow the Twit presence. Why bother? Twitter banned a lot of people, including data analysts who came up with "wrong" conclusions, by merely graphing publicly accessible info. Some journalists who gazed upon "The Twitter Files" and wrote about the ties between Twitter and government are now at SubStack, in some cases after they were kicked out by prior employers. Interestingly, in July, a federal court has ordered the U.S. executive branch of government to cease and desist its activities to influence the content of social media.
I agree! And yes -- I'm so glad there are people defending public access to information using the legal system. What those lawsuits are doing is incredibly important. The outcomes of those lawsuits will reveal whether there is anything that sets America apart from authoritarian regimes.
I also think it would be wise for American lawyers to start challenging what constitutes "good faith" content moderation (as required under Section 230) -- because in my opinion, what I saw happen on Twitter during the pandemic, with the manipulation of algorithms and the stifling or amplification of different information for users of different demographics, was not done in good faith.
Yaa, the social media wants to be protected from libel and slander and legal liabilities as a public utility, but they've been acting like editors and publishers for a long time, which could have put them in a more vulnerable legal category. Then the executive branches of government stepped into the day to day functioning and their activities became painfully obvious. I think that many programmers and algorithm designers don't understand the laws that protect speech, or they don't like them, and/or it's all about short term profits.
Now it almost seems as though older info on net is being torn down at an accelerated rate. It might be due to web site owners fearing the various regulations placed on the web by governments, and not having the technical acumen or resources to change or secure their sites.
Agreed! Programmers are also humans, so there's always the chance that at least some of them really enjoy the level of power they have and potentially believe they're above the law in some respects because of how hidden their work is from public view -- kind of like what we often see with corrupt government officials or corrupt law enforcement. It takes an almost divine level of wisdom and restraint to exercise power in healthy ways that are actually good for others. Hence the need for checks and balances.
And I've actually noticed that as well, about search results. The internet is so, so weird and different from what it was when I was in high school, and not in a good way at all.
I have a Twitter account, but once they stuck a fork in SubStack, I'm not trying to grow the Twit presence. Why bother? Twitter banned a lot of people, including data analysts who came up with "wrong" conclusions, by merely graphing publicly accessible info. Some journalists who gazed upon "The Twitter Files" and wrote about the ties between Twitter and government are now at SubStack, in some cases after they were kicked out by prior employers. Interestingly, in July, a federal court has ordered the U.S. executive branch of government to cease and desist its activities to influence the content of social media.
I agree! And yes -- I'm so glad there are people defending public access to information using the legal system. What those lawsuits are doing is incredibly important. The outcomes of those lawsuits will reveal whether there is anything that sets America apart from authoritarian regimes.
I also think it would be wise for American lawyers to start challenging what constitutes "good faith" content moderation (as required under Section 230) -- because in my opinion, what I saw happen on Twitter during the pandemic, with the manipulation of algorithms and the stifling or amplification of different information for users of different demographics, was not done in good faith.
Yaa, the social media wants to be protected from libel and slander and legal liabilities as a public utility, but they've been acting like editors and publishers for a long time, which could have put them in a more vulnerable legal category. Then the executive branches of government stepped into the day to day functioning and their activities became painfully obvious. I think that many programmers and algorithm designers don't understand the laws that protect speech, or they don't like them, and/or it's all about short term profits.
Now it almost seems as though older info on net is being torn down at an accelerated rate. It might be due to web site owners fearing the various regulations placed on the web by governments, and not having the technical acumen or resources to change or secure their sites.
Agreed! Programmers are also humans, so there's always the chance that at least some of them really enjoy the level of power they have and potentially believe they're above the law in some respects because of how hidden their work is from public view -- kind of like what we often see with corrupt government officials or corrupt law enforcement. It takes an almost divine level of wisdom and restraint to exercise power in healthy ways that are actually good for others. Hence the need for checks and balances.
And I've actually noticed that as well, about search results. The internet is so, so weird and different from what it was when I was in high school, and not in a good way at all.