Big brother Tesla

[AuroraSaab]

I think it's a bit naive if anyone imagines Twitter was previously rigorously and fairly moderated. It wasn't. It never has been.

I don't want to see Twitter become any more of a cess pit than it is already, but I'm not sure that Musk has ever said there will be no moderation at all. Twitter has certainly long tolerated things like accounts with MAP (minor attracted person, ie paedophile) in the profile, and allowed some very vitriolic content to stand, so the idea that the moderating doesn't follow a particular agenda already is, as I say, naive or disingenuous.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.in...graphy-sexual-abuse-promote-b2177842.html?amp

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost...-allegedly-refusing-to-remove-child-porn/amp/

 

[albion]

Obviously it has always been that the most prominent tweets are monitored.

And any reduction in the number of content monitors will likely be part of an oncoming workforce cull.

 

[matticus]

I think it's a bit naive if anyone imagines Twitter was previously rigorously and fairly moderated. It wasn't. It never has been.

I don't want to see Twitter become any more of a cess pit than it is already, but I'm not sure that Musk has ever said there will be no moderation at all.

Well, the adjective and 2xadverbs you start with are all subjective, so I can't really agree/disagree!

But do you not think he's made it clear he wants LESS moderation? I can't find a very objective quote, but there is this:

Elon Musk, in his effort to buy Twitter, signaled that under his ownership, the company would allow all speech that the First Amendment protects. “By ‘free speech,’ I simply mean that which matches the law,” he tweeted on April 26. “I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law.”

If your post was mainly to criticise the current moderation, then you may well have a point. (and my text above was wasted ... )

 

[AuroraSaab]

Yes, I'm criticising current moderation. Despite complaints they often fail to remove content that most people would find objectionable. Death threats and pro-paedophilia accounts don't always contravene their terms and conditions for example. It's not that Twitter aren't aware of them.

As Albion says though, Musk cutting the number of moderators wouldn't improve that. It would require a change in emphasis in the direction of moderation.

Quite interesting to see what happens with all the celebrities and blue tick accounts who said they would leave if he bought Twitter. They seem to staying at the moment.

 

[stowie]

Yes, I'm criticising current moderation. Despite complaints they often fail to remove content that most people would find objectionable. Death threats and pro-paedophilia accounts don't always contravene their terms and conditions for example. It's not that Twitter aren't aware of them.

As Albion says though, Musk cutting the number of moderators wouldn't improve that. It would require a change in emphasis in the direction of moderation.

Quite interesting to see what happens with all the celebrities and blue tick accounts who said they would leave if he bought Twitter. They seem to staying at the moment.

An interesting article on The Verge - Welcome to Hell, Elon.

I think it highlights a whole raft of issues associated with owning social media, but the biggest bear-trap is assuming it is an engineering issue rather than a social one. Plus that social media is really simply a medium to get eye-balls on advertising space. And if the social media space becomes a toxic dumpster-fire then advertisers will run a mile. If anyone needs a "safe space" it is corporate advertisers promoting carefully curated brands.

 

[AuroraSaab]

The main thing I think about social media is how transient the appeal is. I don't do Facebook but apparently young people don't either these days. As you say, brands have no loyalty either. They will adopt whatever platform, and take whatever stance is required, in order to sell the most stuff. They'll be edgy if edgy sells, and conservative if conservative sells.

Tiktok and Twitter are having their moment but it could be different in 5 years time. Meta looks like being a very expensive swing and a miss for Zuckerberg. I don't think Musk will abandon moderation as much as people imagine. He still wants to make money.

 

[Deleted member 49]

I liked this....

View: https://twitter.com/EricIdle/status/1587882795723997184?t=VPvErB0uKwo-zkyQn3bUIg&s=19

 

[AuroraSaab]

I don't get why celebrities are whining over paying for a blue tick. If you don't want one don't pay for it. You'll have to drop down to just being one of the regular Twitter plebs though.

At the moment Eric Idle has 500k followers to whom he can promote any book, film, or project, for free. $8 a month for an advertising platform that reaches half a million people (not including re Tweets) doesn't seem bad value. Celebrities just don't like paying for stuff and I think they simply don't like the idea that being a Blue Tick won't be quite as exclusive as it was if anyone can buy one.

People always imagine they are bigger than the platform. None of those who said they would leave Twitter seem to have done so yet.

 

[matticus]

None of those who said they would leave Twitter seem to have done so yet.

Perhaps it's a form of negotiation; if Musk makes it sufficiently crap, they will leave - but they hope that by threatening that sanction, they will moderate* his ... changes to the platform.
To be fair, loads of regular Twitter plebs are making the same threat.

[*dya see what I did there??]

 

[icowden]

I don't get why celebrities are whining over paying for a blue tick. If you don't want one don't pay for it.
At the moment Eric Idle has 500k followers to whom he can promote any book, film, or project, for free. $8 a month for an advertising platform that reaches half a million people (not including re Tweets) doesn't seem bad value.

I don't think it's about paying. It's about what appears to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of the blue tick. The blue tick was brought in to certify that the person posting was *actually* the person posting. So we know that Eric Idle is Eric Idle when he posts messages. it wasn't an enhanced subscription, it was a necessary feature to stop people impersonating famous people.

 

[albion]

Those 500k are likely a captive audience generating good advertisement money .
People like Eric Idle are usually paid. He is a 'celebrity guest'.

The problem lies with the quality of the rest, that impacting advertising spend.
Miracle water and other remedies will now spend big. Or is it bigly?

 

[Deleted member 49]

I don't think it's about paying. It's about what appears to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of the blue tick. The blue tick was brought in to certify that the person posting was *actually* the person posting. So we know that Eric Idle is Eric Idle when he posts messages. it wasn't an enhanced subscription, it was a necessary feature to stop people impersonating famous people.

So could a parody/Eric Idle not buy a blue tick ?
I think it's a good idea paying for it anyway.Makes it easier to spot all the mugs giving Elon their money.

 

[AuroraSaab]

I get the verification thing. I just don't think $8 a month is too much to pay. And yes, having Eric Idle on the platform will bring in advertising, but there are plenty of celebrities with bigger numbers of followers. He's one of literally of hundreds of thousands of 'celebrity guests'. It's a mutually beneficial platform and people rarely join Twitter just to follow a single individual. Unless there are 500k people who follow Eric, and only Eric, I think he will surprised how quickly the public move on.

Looks like Musk is insisting they all come back to the office too. Well, all the ones he hasn't sacked anyway.

 

[BoldonLad]

I don't think it's about paying. It's about what appears to be a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of the blue tick. The blue tick was brought in to certify that the person posting was *actually* the person posting. So we know that Eric Idle is Eric Idle when he posts messages. it wasn't an enhanced subscription, it was a necessary feature to stop people impersonating famous people.

I am not a twitter user, so, cannot answer from experience, but, does it work?, I understood that one of the problems of twitter was fake accounts etc etc

 

[icowden]

I am not a twitter user, so, cannot answer from experience, but, does it work?, I understood that one of the problems of twitter was fake accounts etc etc

Yes. That was the point. In order to get a blue tick you have to jump through quite a lot of hoops to prove that you are you. You have to prove that you are:

Authentic (official website, photo ID, official email address),
Notable - so news coverage, google trends, wikipedia, industry references, follower or mention count,
Active - twitter account must have a profie name and image, be active, have a confirmed email address or phone number and you must not have had any lockouts in the last 12 months (excluding successful appeals).

Having satisfied all of those, twitter will give you a blue tick so that people know you are you.