Comment by partiallypro | Hacker News Reader

Comment by partiallypro | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com