Linda Yaccarino pressed about the chaos on X. She seems detached from reality
cnn.com
cnn.com
Twitter never had this, and was never ready for Musky-boy when he bought the place.
The behind-the-scenes presence and work of these handlers are also what engineered such a “tech bro” cult of personality around Musk, such that he acquired legions of deluded fanboys who thought he was playing 4D chess when he was always two drool bubbles away from munching on the carpet.
So I can understand it when people have an unrealistically idealistic view of Musk. The social engineering done by his handlers has been exemplary, if only because they were trying to leverage this useful idiot into making their company greater than it could have been without his name attached to it. They had to do what they did from behind the scenes, completely hidden, in order for investors and other involved entities to not lose confidence.
Emphasis mine. Yaccs, now Yacx, reminds me of that lady who was Hitler's private secretary. You have done no killing in the camps, none of the shooting, you didn't formulate those laws and regulations to help in the genocide, none of that. You just did your 9-to-5 job like a regular girl. Right next to and at the beck and call of your idealized and, in your view, slightly misunderstood and wrongly demonized (by some) boss. But it's this very proximity, both the physical and the syntactic, that will be your undoing. You willingly opened the door to his echo chamber and walked right into the heart of it, the epicenter. When your boss is physically gone forever one day, when his enterprise lies in ruins and bankruptcy, then no matter what your afterlife will look like, you will never get to leave that close syntactic and narrative proximity, ever. Even if you lay down your steno pad tomorrow and declare distance and independence, writers will always keep writing about you as "Ms So-and-so, who once was part of the innermost circle around The-one-who-we-shall-not-name, ...". Before that day, just in order to keep returning to that cherished office of yours, you must amplify whatever BS is cooked up there, and cook up your own distortions and outright lies. It's not an option, it's vital.
To those who are mad at me for drawing a tired, frivolous analogy to a certain unpopular historical figure (who is easily magnitudes more of a villain than E.M.), let me say, One, the story is true, and the lady fessed up late in her life when she was like 90yo. Two, I could've chosen from any number of absolute boss + smart but obedient aide situations, past and present. This particular story is just a reminder that once you're inside, the sky is the limit when it comes to reality distortion fields. They are physically real, in the sense that they destroy people's lives, both inside and outside of The Circle.
Hopefully, at least the EU takes actions against Twitter / X.
[1] https://www.coe.int/en/web/no-hate-campaign/reporting-to-nat...
Strong accusation. It’s wrong.
Very easy to test. I made a new account, put Careers, Business, and Technology as interests, followed one person (Elon Musk) as bare minimum. Searching #Ukraine shows pro-Ukraine posts and mostly atrocities by Russia. There’s virtually no difference in search with my own personal account.
What are you on about?
However, you're right in that I should have prepared better ways of proving this. I'll document the respective posters and accounts in the future and will report them more systematically. I encourage others to do the same, and instead of reporting to Twitter directly report to the links in [1].
> What are you on about?
Excuse me?
[1] https://www.coe.int/en/web/no-hate-campaign/reporting-to-nat...
1) Do you think freedom of speech is important?
2) How do you draw the line between free speech and hate speech?
3) Who should draw the line?
For instance, you mention conspiracy theories; do you think we should ban users who tweet about conspiracy theories?
Second and third questions optional if you don’t think freedom of speech is important.
2.) Although I'm a philosopher working in related areas and know plenty of people working on hate speech, I confine myself strictly to problems in metaethics and value-based decision making. So I don't draw the line. Generally, this is done by lawmakers and judges applying the law. For example, using Nazi symbols or publicly supporting wars of aggression is illegal in Germany.
3.) Judges and lawmakers.
> For instance, you mention conspiracy theories; do you think we should ban users who tweet about conspiracy theories?
Yes, for certain types of politically instrumentalized conspiracies that get intentionally amplified. The same for misinformation and fake news accounts, especially those run by state agencies like the FSB. But that's about moderation, not about illegal posts. Of course, any working social media need strong moderation. The lack of moderation is one of the reason why Twitter is such a horrible place - but there are other causes, it basically encourages toxic behavior and passive aggression due to its rules and their inconsequent and inconsistent enforcement.
However, moderation and blocking speech for legal reasons are two very different issues. I was suggesting that there is also a lot of illegal content on Twitter (according to local laws, not necessarily US law). When looking for #ukraine most notably open support of genocide, racist slurs, support for war crimes and the breaking of the Geneva Conventions such as displaying movies of POWs under duress, advocating torture, and supporting the bombing of civilians. There is also a high overlap with hate speech against the LGBT communities, mostly because many of the violently pro-Russian posters are also MAGA people from the US.
As for your doubts about what I see on Twitter, I took the liberty to quickly compile a short list of questionable and toxic accounts that pop up just by "exploring" for #ukraine Top and Latest (today, right now). To put this into context, you're right that the majority are pro-Ukraine. However, there is a danger of committing a fallacy of misleading two-sidedness in this case. Ukraine is the victim, Russia the aggressor. See my comment above about the German law. Supporting one or the other is not on a par, neither morally nor according to the law.
@Kanthan2030 @21WIRE @DravenNoctis @georgegalloway @WithyGrove @LanaAsanin @Jewels_MsJay @Qujuz @2cnlkh68 @THEENDGAMEWAR1 @MettsnBock @BowesChay @mazzenilsson @DasRgen4 @Judgenap @RealScottRitter @amitashi1985 @EmpireCide @Ri1_AAA @AdamStorm98
I'm not claiming that all of them are posting illegal content, but e.g. the last one wrote a post why a police officer should get the firing squad for being "woke" and a "lesbo". It's just the typical content you get on Twitter.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I have a suspicion you don’t use Twitter, you study it. Thus you are viewing the fringes, but perhaps not aware of the average user’s experience.
AFAIK Twitter uses a demoting algorithm in order to demote offensive content. A different form of moderation that doesn’t silence. I don’t think the previous iteration of Twitter with strong moderation made it a better social media site (nor a forum for free speech).
I can only speak to my own experience using Twitter near daily, but I have almost never come across hateful content (in whichever political bend it may take). I actually found it a great resource for my interests like AI, psychology, etc.
Thus statements like:
> The lack of moderation is one of the reason why Twitter is such a horrible place - but there are other causes, it basically encourages toxic behavior and passive aggression due to its rules and their inconsequent and inconsistent enforcement.
Or
> It's just the typical content you get on Twitter.
run very counter to my own experience on the platform.
Do you actually use Twitter? What kind of people do you follow? How does it differ from your own experience with other social media sites?
What shocked me was that they even allow obvious Russian propaganda accounts very freely, e.g. "Manchester Chronicle" that probably originates directly from FSB. I think it's crazy, given how Russia is at least an indirect adversary to the US and EU in this war.
So you're right, the difference in use likely accounts for different experiences. I suppose Twitter shows all kinds of content to capture users who can then customize it to their preferences. This doesn't work for people who aren't interested in information bubbles, yet nevertheless think free speech should reasonably restricted by law and by moderation.
> …Twitter is such a horrible place
Or
> [hateful content] is the *typical* content you get on Twitter
I agree there’s abominable things on Twitter - that’s what you get with a platform (now) focused on free speech. But you have to sort of go out looking for it. I think Twitter has done a good job championing freedom of speech while making it not so “hateful” for the average user.
> I think it's crazy, given how Russia is at least an indirect adversary to the US and EU in this war.
Why is this crazy? In general, would you like Twitter to ban sources that advocate for US adversaries in war?
> This doesn't work for people who aren't interested in information bubbles, yet nevertheless think free speech should reasonably restricted by law and by moderation.
I think you are conflating your unusual access pattern with the experience of people who don’t follow anyone (which is also rare). In addition, characterizing the act of following people as engaging in information bubble is very, very reductionist. Any decent intellectual would know to filter their sources and create a good information “bubble”; I want to hear from X because they are trustworthy, I want to read from Y because they are smart, etc. Without that information “bubble” every piece of information is of equal priority (and thus much waste in time).
Just because people throw the word around doesn’t mean it’s a bad thing.
That withstanding, one can truly fall into a lull where you don’t get any opinions of the opposing side. But the solution is not to reject information filters altogether - that’s just random chance, intellectual laziness.
But above all, what I have issue with mostly is one’s (strong) evaluation of something without a serious attempt to understand it. Perhaps a bit intellectually dishonest, no?
Do you use other social media platforms? Do you see value in social media at all?
No, I don't think so. (But you're also asking in a rhetorically clumsy way that makes it almost impossible to give the answer you'd prefer to hear.)
I'm evaluating Twitter based on my experience and based on the studies mentioned in the article we're discussing, according to which hateful content has drastically increased on Twitter recently.
Do you honestly believe I should instead just take your word for it and ignore both personal evidence and studies? That would make no sense.
> I agree there’s abominable things on Twitter - that’s what you get with a platform (now) focused on free speech. But you have to sort of go out looking for it.
I just laid out that you do not have to go out looking for it. I gave a fairly decent number of examples that really popped up when I entered one hashtag. Moreover, take into account the context of our discussion. My assessment appears to be backed up by recent studies.
> I think Twitter has done a good job championing freedom of speech while making it not so “hateful” for the average user.
I don't think so, based on my experience and what I've read about Twitter's problems. That's why I think the EU should take action against the company to at least limit the plain illegal content more than they do right now.
> I think you are conflating your unusual access pattern with the experience of people who don’t follow anyone (which is also rare).
My personal access patterns are not the problem, though. The problem is the content Twitter allows, some of which violates applicable laws in EU countries that I fully appreciate and endorse. Other content is just appalling and toxic and should be moderated.
About your information bubbles I sort of agree. I just wanted to make you aware that one's "customization experience" can be another one's information bubble, and that bubble can be positive or negative. If more toxic content and disinformation is available, more negative consequences will occur.
> Why is this crazy? In general, would you like Twitter to ban sources that advocate for US adversaries in war?
To some extent Yes. At least disinformation campaigns directed by state actors need to be stopped. Despite a lot of US affinity with the Nazis during WW2 before Pearl Harbor, I don't think it would have been acceptable for a US company to widely provide free propaganda outlets for German Nazis in all US media and all across the US. But perhaps I'm wrong. Be that as it may, providing adversaries with a direct opportunity to conduct influencing campaigns in your country is in my opinion fairly crazy. AFAIK, both NATO and the US intelligence community mostly agree with me on that one.
That's common sense. However, from a more moral perspective, I want first and foremost any advocates of genocide and illegal wars of aggression to be banned. That could also include people from the US in certain instances (e.g. think about the Iraq War).
> But above all, what I have issue with mostly is one’s (strong) evaluation of something without a serious attempt to understand it. Perhaps a bit intellectually dishonest, no?
No, because your premise is false. You're intellectually dishonest for presuming I made no serious attempt to understand it. As I've said, I know plenty of people who actually do research hate speech on social media, and have heard a few talks about it here or there. I have reasons to believe to have a solid understanding of the subject matter and what's wrong with Twitter. That being said, it's not in any way a primary interest for me personally.
> Do you use other social media platforms? Do you see value in social media at all?
Yes, of course. We're on one of them. HN is my favorite because of the strong moderation. Reddit is my second favorite, as long as you avoid certain topics. Twitter and Facebook are in my opinion garbage, but Facebook has somewhat improved recently and Twitter seems to have declined in quality.
No. Also, maybe this is unclear, but I am questioning your decision when you posted your original comment (when my anecdote was unavailable).
If I were you, I would hesitate from making broad generalizations like “[hateful content] is typical content on Twitter”. A very strong statement, but sensible given your unusual access patterns. I would not make the general claim about Twitter that way (other than what studies mention), but seems like you are generalizing your cherry-picked experience.
I actually concede the points about the objective increase in hateful tweets on the site. It would be odd for them to not increase, given that all the banned accounts were reinstated; this is obvious. Similarly, we would reasonably expect less hate speech in countries that penalize them. Free speech was espoused in spite of these increases (for deeper, second/third-order consequence reasons).
To make it clear: I never said Twitter adopting free speech would lead to less hate speech on the platform. I am merely responding to your incendiary generalizations of the platform without having seriously used it.
There’s a sense in which we vary in our sensitivity towards strong moderation and limiting freedom of speech. I think freedom of speech is a hard-won right of history, something preserved for us by our ancestors so that we may enjoy it. It is also fragile, and the default human state is to diminish freedom of speech for exploitation. To me, it’s precious and serves as a backbone of a truly democratic society, but perhaps you may differ.
This leads to an interesting difference between HN and Twitter; I enjoy HN and its strongly moderated nature (there are several other strongly moderated platforms I enjoy).
But Twitter seems different. It acts as both a personal and commercial outlet for news. Personal identities are far stronger; silencing an account is silencing an identity. The consequences of limiting free speech differ.
EDIT: I also took a more careful look at your original comment with the Twitter accounts. I honestly cannot find any problematic accounts after having looked through maybe 30 posts on Top. Did you take most of them from Latest? That would make sense, but you are basically giving Twitter a very short window to respond to things. Besides, it’s not the *existence* that matters, it’s whether they are promoted or not. Because for the average user, they will see tweets with much engagement. I would be happy to see any studies on the average Twitter user’s feed, and see the amount of hateful content. If you can demonstrate that (by some sensible definitions) the average Twitter user sees a lot of hateful content, I would gladly change my mind.
Two more points:
First, you seem to make similar generalizations as you accuse me of making, based on your personal experiences with the platform. I see no problem with this, after all we can only judge these kind of platforms by testing and using them. It's futile to get into discussions about "how much bad content" there is, these are empirical issues and we seem to disagree about them. Elon Musk has been accused of blocking access of third-party researchers, if that's true than I'd say that's a bad sign.
Second, that it's not the existence that matters is Twitter / X's rationale. This might be a reasonable take on moderation issues but it is absolutely not adequate for the legally relevant cases. Whether it's illegal hate speech, child pornography, copyright infringement, or other illegal content, the "it's hard to find and we're demoting this kind of content" defense does not hold and will lead to fines. The content needs to be removed from the servers, and it's also not a bad idea to permban users posting it repeatedly (rather than, as indeed just happened, allowing someone like that who was banned in the past back to Twitter and even paying him money).
Anyway, nice discussion. Have a good weekend!