The question of reinstating Trump has been seen as a litmus test of how far Musk will go in making changes.

@ganymede@lemmy.ml
link
fedilink
14
edit-2
9M

do i want to live in a world where anyone using hate filled rhetoric like trump can reach as few people as possible? yes.

did i think banning any public figures on twitter was about as stupid as twitter having so much power in the first place? yes.

do people like trump do more harm with a live twitter account vs banning them which polarizes their followers even more which leads to more harm? i have no idea

as for musk, did he specifically personally single out trump for unbanning? if yes, that is very troubling.

or did he talk about having very few permbans and journalists asked about specific cases including trump, and musk said that case falls under the general reasons he already gave re. min permbans? if yes, we need to wait a bit longer to see where he really stands imo

@rysiek@szmer.info
creator
link
fedilink
49M

do people like trump do more harm with a live twitter account vs banning them which polarizes their followers even more which leads to more harm? i have no idea

The consensus is: yes, platforming alt-right authoritarians like Trump leads to more harm, including more people radicalized, and more people silenced by abuse they and their followers dish out on such platforms.

as for musk, did he specifically personally single out trump for unbanning? if yes, that is very troubling.

Yes he did, in the article he talks specifically about Trump.

or did he talk about having very few permbans and journalists asked about specific cases including trump, and musk said that case falls under the general reasons he already gave re. min permbans? if yes, we need to wait a bit longer to see where he really stands imo

The problem is not that Company X decides to ban a person or platform a person. The problem is that such a decision by Company X has such gigantic consequences. And that comes directly from the fact that Twitter is a centralized walled-garden monopoly.

Think of it this way: if any e-mail provider (even Gmail) “banned Trump”, that would be way less of an “issue”. Why? Because there are many other mail servers he can go set up an account on. So this particular e-mail provider’s decision is no longer “censorship” really, it’s “I really don’t want to do business with that toxic person”.

And that’s where we need to get to with social media. Centralization is a danger to democracy.

@ganymede@lemmy.ml
link
fedilink
2
edit-2
9M

The consensus is: yes, platforming alt-right authoritarians like Trump leads to more harm, including more people radicalized, and more people silenced by abuse they and their followers dish out on such platforms.

i could certainly see how it might be worse, because they just statistically reach fewer people. and perhaps also because it helps establish a line for what constitutes being too obnoxious, so other people will tend to moderate themselves a bit too because they know we dislike this offensive attitude.

what worries me is we’re only seeing our side of that line, where we think its nice now because the problem has “gone away” - and honestly it has been nicer lately lol.

but has it really gone away? or are we just more comfortable now because its happening behind a fence we can’t and don’t want to see past?

imo it seems a bit too early to call where all the harm is eventually going to land and take root. i imagine at this stage, although it could very well be true, calling it a consensus is pretty optimistic, unless there’s details i’ve missed?

Yes he did, in the article he talks specifically about Trump.

i read the article, imo its not yet clear whether he singled trump out or journalists steered it that way. if he has general ban policies which trump doesn’t (yet) fall under, that is an entirely different conversation than if musk is specifically unbanning trump because he wants more people like trump in the world. if i’m missing something or there’s a much more complete source out there let’s know.

The problem is not that Company X decides to ban a person or platform a person. The problem is that such a decision by Company X has such gigantic consequences. And that comes directly from the fact that Twitter is a centralized walled-garden monopoly.

Think of it this way: if any e-mail provider (even Gmail) “banned Trump”, that would be way less of an “issue”. Why? Because there are many other mail servers he can go set up an account on. So this particular e-mail provider’s decision is no longer “censorship” really, it’s “I really don’t want to do business with that toxic person”.

And that’s where we need to get to with social media. Centralization is a danger to democracy.

100% agree with everything you said about centralized walled-garden monopolies. that was part of my point, who made twitter this central power to begin with? it’s completely ridiculous.

@rysiek@szmer.info
creator
link
fedilink
29M

I think we mostly violently agree here.

One thing I’ll add is that banning Trump from Twitter is not a “solution”, it’s harm reduction. Nobody is saying the problem “went away”. And in the end it doesn’t matter why Musk would un-ban Trump. The end result is the same, and so he’s actions would either be willfully malicious or woefully ignorant.

Mad
link
fedilink
39M

100% agree with all of this

Very good analysis. Agree!

Trump has huge potential for generating outrage (read: ad revenue). Muskie wants to get his investment back. It’s a no-brainer.

@crulife@lemmy.ml
link
fedilink
8
edit-2
9M

deleted by creator

Dessalines
banned
link
fedilink
2
edit-2
9M

removed by mod

Subscribe to see more stories about technology on your homepage


  • 0 users online
  • 13 users / day
  • 36 users / week
  • 82 users / month
  • 380 users / 6 months
  • 14 subscribers
  • 1.11K Posts
  • 3.76K Comments
  • Modlog