It's impossible to detect negative sentiment purely by text. It's an unsolvable problem.
Brute force stats like Naive Bayes is still as good as it gets on platforms like Twitter where speech patterns are too short and irregular for traditional NLP to be very useful.
There are no coherent long form texts generated by AI models but 280 characters is very easy because people will give the author the benefit of the doubt and interpolate the missing context.
Sentiment analysis is way worse than that in adversarial scenarios, where a human is trying to outwit the machine.
My prediction for this whole thing: Elon Musk [again] gets swept up by AI hype, tries to replace humans with software, and it doesn't work. Like at Tesla, so at Twitter.
That would seem to violate causality.
"You are not allowed to criticize the CCP" is speech.
"I order you to kill/hang that vice president" is speech, and the dead don't speak.
(I'm not a lawyer.)
[0] https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/inciting-to-...
The Brandenburg Test doesn't apply to free speech absolutism.
He's not a "free speech absolutist."
As is the plan to "deboost" negative and hateful tweets - I'll remind the court that when Youtube did the same thing, many people here considered even demonetizing and downranking content to be censorship, and antithetical to free speech.
> By “free speech”, I simply mean that which matches the law.
I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law.
If people want less free speech, they will ask government to pass laws to that effect.
Therefore, going beyond the law is contrary to the will of the people.
Source: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1519036983137509376
If you want to argue Musk's position on free speech is anything else, "absolute" or otherwise, kindly cite your sources.
Even if you want to dismiss this, he still isn't following his own principles, since again, he's clearly banning legal speech.
Back to the twitter context: if I bought twitter and simply did nothing at all, anyone would be free to post anything, because in order to stop it, I'd have to act, which I already said I won't do.
Yes... speech I'm allowed to (and do) ignore. You're not making the point you think you're making.
Given the strawman, I guess that you don't have an answer.
That isn't my argument at all. My argument is that for you to stop me from shouting over your speech, you would be limiting my speech. I could argue that I am shouting so that everyone can hear me. I could be shouting important things. Limiting my speech is censorship.
Free speech absolutism is a paradox. The only way to resolve that paradox is to limit speech that limits the fundamental (so-called "God-given") rights of others.
You could argue that, yes. What you can argue doesn't matter. I can also, equally, argue that I am free to DDoS someone I don't like, because there is no technical limitation to my doing so, and that anyone attempting to stop that is inhibiting my free speech or free use of whatever hardware I control. Where does anyone argue that? Where has anyone argued this version of free speech that you are presenting the fallacies of? I have never heard even the most die-hard free speech supporter advocate that someone is free to follow you around all day, yelling to drown out your voice. And if this free speech absolutism is a position that no one holds, why are you arguing against it?
>"I order you to kill/hang that vice president" is speech, and the dead don't speak.
This started by you giving the example of an order to kill someone as being free speech that so-called free speech absolutists would logically protect. But the thing that is actually a problem, in that example, is that you are (presumably) using whatever existing power you have to unlawfully kill someone. The fact that someone could literally say those words to cause that effect in no way mandates that free speech advocates defend literal murder.
Musk is a free speech absolutist, by his own admission. His followers are likely similar.
> I have never heard even the most die-hard free speech supporter advocate that someone is free to follow you around all day, yelling to drown out your voice.
It's a contrived example, but despite that free speech absolutism allows for it.
I don't think his concept of free speech absolutism matches yours. Given the other things I've heard (something about moderation teams with diverse voices, and this news about deboosting) it seems more likely that you're arguing against a strawman here.
>It's a contrived example, but despite that free speech absolutism allows for it.
Does the free speech absolutism you're arguing against allow for sonic cannons? Doxxing? Lighting burning crosses on people's yards? If so, again, it's pretty far away from any form of free speech I've ever heard a free speech advocate actually... advocate for. I'm asking this seriously; can you point me to anyone honestly arguing for that as a social ideal?
Edit: In fact, this topic roused some curiousity in me, so I went to look up what the actual philosophical roots of "free speech absolutism" were. The first result[0] is rather creepily relevant, discussing Elon Musk's bid on Twitter and his self-admission as a free speech absolutist. Very relevant to your arguments are the following passages:
> Free speech absolutism has its roots in philosophical theories dating back to the 17th century, but it was first discussed as a defined principle by the 20th century free speech advocate and philosopher Alexander Meiklejohn.
> His writing focused on the United States, and much of his thoughts were put forth in the context of American constitutional law. In fact, the very idea of “absolutism” – that there are certain absolute principles in political, philosophical, ethical, or religious matters – is an American idea. In theory, a free speech absolutist would be extremely hesitant (or refuse) to draw a line between free speech and hate speech in most contexts, and in all contexts where the speech could possibly be considered political speech.
> This commitment to self-rule, in Meiklejohn’s view, justified and formed the basis of the constitutional right to unfettered free speech guaranteed by the United States Constitution, and warranted its absolute nature, meaning it should not be weakened or watered down to bend to other social values.
> However, his understanding didn’t extend to private speech about issues not of public concern. So, while your right to publish your views about a social issue is safeguarded, even if others may take offense, Meiklejohn believed that you can’t rely on free speech protection to shout casual abuse at someone on the street. (emphasis added)
So yes, even the original, definitive free speech absolutist disagrees that your example is allowed by the principles of free speech.
[0]: https://www.liberties.eu/en/stories/free-speech-absolutist/4...
When did I mention sonic cannons? WT actual F.
The point is that free speech advocates do not argue in favor of DDoS attacks, or using sonic cannons to destroy houses.
They also do not support following someone around, all day, and not allowing them to run away from you.
Since free speech advocates do not argue in favor of this, it is dumb for you to argue against a position that nobody believes.
Free speech isn’t just “I can say whatever I want.”
It’s also “nobody can make me say something I don’t want to.”
And then also “I don’t have to listen to anything I don’t want to.” (You are here.)
And finally, “I can’t stop other people from listening to what they want to hear.”
This is the point of “if a tree falls in a forest and nobody js around to hear…” Speech is communication which is bidirectional, it can’t be free unless both sides are free to engage or not.
Any syntactially correct but illogical thing, basically. The textbook example is "have you stopped beating your wife? yes or no, asshole".
Most humans aren't very good at being rational. Undermining someone's capacity for correct reasoning and effective communication is a whole dark art - one that is fundamental to our entire social reality. Also known as "trolling", in the offline world - as "bullying", or if you want to be academical about it, "exercising soft power".
Of course, it's only considered reprehensible if an individual does it.
Freedom of speech is freedom from censorship or moderation. Not freedom from discomfort
Or when Twitter and Facebook coordinated to falsely label a true story "Russian disinformation" days before an election, literally preventing people from sharing it with each other privately on the world's largest communications networks. Whether Hunter Biden smoking crack with prostitutes would impact the election, or is even anyone's business, is questionable to me. But so is having billionaire tech CEOs decide what people can discuss through private communications with the express intent of suppressing information related to a political campaign.
The same goes for credit card monopolies like VISA and Mastercard coordinating to destroy businesses like Mindgeek because of moralist outrage from another "side."
The possibility that Twitter was configured the way it was when he bought it for a reason apparently didn’t occur to him.
I hate my job :) -> probably loves their job.
I love my job :( -> probably hates their job.
Without emoji sarcasm is often hard to detect even for a human.
What do I really mean?
Putin is a piece of shit who bombed my family! I’m sorry Dave, I can’t allow you to post that.