Hacker News Reader

Comment by mike00632 | Hacker News Reader

"NO RISK"?

There is a very clear risk of transformating the social media titan that is Twitter into Truth Social, a sideshow of a forum that is dedicated to the worship of one man. That would plummet the stock price.

View on HN

This is a fear based on nothing that I keep seeing peddled by people with no experience moderating anything in their entire life, and don't remember early Twitter. Other companies have actually censored theirselves into irrelevance (almost happed to OnlyFans, already happened to Tumblr, Yahoo, etc.) So a model with more fair and transparent moderation would likely be a business boon. Twitter is not at all transparent on why some things are allowed to stay while others are banned entirely.

Also the shareholders would get cash, they would no longer own the company at all and the future of the company would no longer be of their concern. Musk could shut it down and it wouldn't matter to investors, they'd already have their money.

I don't think you can really analogize much about Twitter from the examples of OnlyFans and Tumblr... the porn/adult-content situation is a whole different can of worms than the stuff people get mad at Twitter about.

There are a bunch of dead subreddits, forums, sites, etc due to over moderation. Facebook is kind of a dead platform itself, being carried along by other properties, in part because of moderation mismanagement (also in part due to a changing demo.) And their moderation has actually been better than Twitter's in terms of transparency. There is certainly a delicate balance, there's no denying that, but there has to be some level of transparency and accountability for the censors or it just doesn't work. You can't have the whims of a moderator determine the fate of accounts with no explanation or consistency. Twitter has been an utter failure in this regard, even Jack had no explanation for some content bans and inconsistencies. The current CEO is even more aloof, or just supports the lack of transparency outright.

A more fair moderation system doesn't mean Twitter is going to turn into 4Chan. Everyone seems to hint that is going to happen, but have 0 evidence to support their claim. It just seems like some people are afraid some speech they disagree with might once again be allowed, like during early Twitter...it's almost like a power thing.

Fair moderation is one thing. What people who say Twitter has a free speech problem have something else in mind. They want a platform where they can say whatever bigoted things they want then hide behind it because “hurr durr free speech”, that never works. Twitter is already toxic, can you imagine the things that would be said with no moderation

Thats a strawman. I hate right wing bigots as mich as you do, but I don't think Musk belongs to that crowd. Here is what he actually said: (a) censorship decisions should be made by courts not private companies (b) moderation should be transparent (c) priorisation algorithms should be open source.

I think this is a sane and principled stand that is very different from: "I want to enable bigots."

A platform should have the right to have whatever speech that they deem appropriate. A court deciding that literally contradicts your argument. 2. Moderation is up to each private organization, they can moderate, moderate lightly, heavily moderate, etc, it’s their company and their choice 3. “They should” aka it’s their choice. You don’t have a sound argument at all

allowing abusive people to remain on the platform until the abused somehow get court orders, definitely doesn't sound very sane to me

rather, it sounds like a way to turn twitter into another in a long line of mostly-empty "freedom"-touting social networks that prioritized tolerance of abuse over user experience

as a Twitter shareholder, I'd prefer ElMu not ruin it, or my investment, like that

You can’t moderate a free speech platform, that’s the thing. So I can realistically harass someone online and be well within my bounds of “free speech”. I can say the most vile things ever and be well within my bounds of free speech

This is a common misconception. A free speech platform does not mean, and has never meant, absolute free speech.

There are tens and possibly hundreds of exceptions to free speech as demanded by US law, and they are free speech purists.

What people say must still be legal and harassment is basically not legal. I have big problems to a) see where people see their free speech limited, i.e. examples and b) there are plenty of platforms with much more laissez-faire to no moderation. But the latter has its price, those communities tend to be quite repelling to most people.

To me it seems a theoretical discussion about the definition of free speech that is mixed up with a business discussion which makes no sense.

What qualifies as harassment on a social media platform? It’s quite easy to say you’re exercising your rights. Elon and alt right conservatives want a no moderation platform where they can say anything. If that’s what they want to do, go for it but it will die because the same things always happen, echo chamber that repels everyone except a niche group

>That would plummet the stock

From the point of view of the investors, there is no risk. If offer is accepted, they get their bags of cash and walk away with hopefully more than what they paid for those share. Musk could shut down the business to the ground on day 1 and they still get to keep their cash (I wish he would).

Not for the current shareholders, who would have cashed out by then. They would have no stake in MuskTwitter (tm).

That's less of a concern if you've just liquidized your position though is it?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com