And as always on this forum, people claim they are correct but won't cite anything. The Rogan accusation template all over again.

So I will do a bit of TRANSCRIPT which means this post will run very long.



you know no one here is going to listen to a 3+ hour podcast by Rogan with Tim Pool, so you can claim whatever you want is in there but I did listen to 2 hours and in the first 2 hours Tim did the usual right wing thing.

He absolutely claimed Milo and Alex jones were victims of arbitrary rules applied unfairly because they are right wing, and then the Lawyer gave him the details he was unaware of and he immediately backed away as those of proof of unfair moderation and then went to his other complaint which is Carlin Meme. He was criticizing them for having their own biases in their rules, which he got them to admit everyone does (thus gotcha) while pushing that the rules then are biased and the cure is to move more to what he and the right thinks is more fair, which are just their set of ALSO arbitrary rules.

He specifically said in a stuttering mess when confronted by the lawyer, when he was suggesting that any diversion from Free Speech indictable offenses was 'an arbitrary imposition of ones bias and rules' that he was not advocating for an 8Chan like free speech zone.

So then what does he think is the answer? It is not Twitter deciding what arbitrary rules should be used but rather guys like him and more right leaning people.


Very specifically re Milo : (not typing out the whole thing but here is my quick transcript while listening to that 4 minutes or so again)

Twitter lawyer - we have very specific rules that target actions and not groups or ideologies. It is usually a 3 strikes. Meaning we notify, give time to correct. Allow a second mistake and then ban on 3rd.

Tims gotcha - "and yet you have people like MIlo who was just mean to a person and yet you banned him permanently. We have Alex Jones who berated a CNN reporter and got permanently banned

Twitter lawyer : actually Tim, those are just your impression and not what actually happened. So lets first talk about Milo. (pulls up MIlo file)

Twitter lawyer : Milo has a lot of rule breaks going back to 2014 but lets focus on the final 3 and the 3 strikes concept.

1st offense - He claimed to be a Buzz Feed reporter in his Bio and as a verified account you cannot do that. Even in parody the rules are clear you must state it is parody as people will see the Verified Account and believe you. Impersonation is a very specific offense and always an offense.

2nd - He doxxed someone. Second offense

3rd - Third was him threatening someone (but they still did not ban him there)

4th - posted a bunch of fake tweets that were incitement of abuse against Leslie Jones. He posted doctored fake tweets that would lead people to believe Leslie Jones was saying some horrendous things against others to get that person abused and when he was told they were fake and wrong and should come down he refused and got banned.

5th thing was that it seems he was coordinated with a bunch of other accounts that were all coordinating to attack Leslie Jones.

Tim : Ok MIlo is a contentious figure and I won't agree with anything he did or said.

Tim : Ok so why did you ban Alex Jones.

Twitter lawyer: These are 3 specific incidents. 1st a violent video of a child being thrown to the ground and crying. 2nd was "incitement to violence" (she reads a lengthy screed from Alex). 3rd strike, was verbal altercation between Alex and a Journalist where Alex posted the content of the altercation on Twitter, which violated their rules due to the

Tim : ok so we can agree with you, when you say Alex and Milo broke the rules, he made a threat, etc, but ultimately it your judgment (Twitter) that is making the call and we must trust you to make the right calls.

And that is it.

Two for two Tims agrees he can agree but his complaint comes back to 'but it is ultimately your judgment and all judgment is biased'.

He seems to believe that is his gotcha as he circles that point constantly. The idea that anything above full free speech requires 'judgement'. Judgment is subject to bias. Thus it is bad.

His solution is they must be faired to right wing posters by shifting that judgment in a way that the right would agree more. Thus use his and there (right wing) judgement more and not their own.

Again it is the Carlin Meme of look, I just think my opinion on how to moderate makes more sense to me, and thus it is correct and you should agree and see it that way too and do it my way.

The proper answer to Tim is simply 'yes it is judgement based rules but those rules then apply equally to all whether left or right' The same rules that get Milo or Alex banned will get anyone banned. You don't like we use set up our own rules and think it should be based on your rules but too bad. Your bias is not better than ours. Sorry.

the key to twitters rules,as the lawyer explained over and over is 'targeted attacks'. You can say reprehensible things but if you target them specifically to a person or an action (incite) then you will be at risk at banning after repeat offenses.

Don't target a person, don't target a group, don't target an action. If you do, whether left, right or centre, you will be at risk of banning.

Tim Pool might prefer a different key to their rules than 'targeting' but too bad.

It would run afoul of Twitters current rules of targeting a group.

As the lawyer explained, first it needs to be reported by someone. Once reported they do look at the context. If it is seen as a 'targeting rally cry, with the intent or potential side effect of directing violence at a group (landlords) they will cite it as an offense and it may be one infraction towards a ban.

They said even in very egregious posts almost no one gets banned on 1st offense. It is almost always a 3 strikes (cited strikes as they often let many minor go before giving the 3rd cited infraction) before a ban.

It's not just social issues. Major corporations also align with left wing orthodoxy that Biden won in 2020, vaccines are not deadly or dangerous etc. That those views split people on the right as nothing to do with who has power, it's just that many obvious facts are denied by 50% of right wingers. If you're going to declare everything that only the dumbest 25% of republicans reject as left wing orthodoxy, well yeah, the economy/universe will be left wing.

Nearly every freedom you/we have was taken away from some conservatives at some point fighting against it--welcome to reality. Including the original ones when we told a king to get bent

Maybe it just turns out that generally free&open societies are good for business?? If 'woke' was a term back in the CW days that's pretty much exactly how those decrepit&depressed southern towns would've described the northern towns full of life and commerce.

It's a strange time for the right wing in the United States to complain about being silenced. I would argue that the right wing has shoveled bullshit more successfully in the last six years than at any point in my lifetime.

no

If it generates engagement, then social media algorithms will shove it in your face.

A poster in this thread (I don't remember who) said something about people being unwilling to debate certain issues on social media, and instead called for them to be cancelled.

A sentiment like that stems from an understanding of social media like a unregulated public square. We can imagine me standing in the square and making a very stupid point, then you walk up to me and correct me. Great, I said something stupid, I got corrected. Maybe I'll do it again, maybe I won't.

However, this is not what happens in a social media algorithm. What happens in a social media is that I say something stupid, you call me out on it, and voila: You have increased the engagement to my message. The algorithms will notice how my stupidity drives traffic, and will therefore amplify people who say this stupid thing in the future. My stupidity will be recommended to people who might agree with it, because maybe they will say the same or pass on the link, which will in turn drive even more traffic.

It can be a good mechanism for when people say something clever or important ("The volcano is erupting!"), but it's pretty bad when people say something stupid or dangerous ("your immune system can handle volcano eruptions!").

In some ways, the debate over social media algorithms reminds me of the debates around email spam in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Not everyone remembers, but there was real concern during that period that email spam was going to overwhelm, or at least significantly diminish, the utility of the medium. There also was concern about how to implement anti-spam measures without curbing free speech.

Email spam is more obviously a negative externality than content driven by social media algorithms is. The extent to which the analogy holds probably depends on the extent to which you regard content driven by social media algorithms as solicited ("please send me xyz") or unsolicited.

The truth is that it is somewhere in-between solicited and unsolicited.

Youtube shoves a load of derp in my face that it thinks I will want to watch because I have searched certain topics, its ratio of look at this click bait derp to look at this actually researched nuanced take is scary bad.

As much as you may be right the left is not that far behind

Also why did Twitter allow the Doxing by Taylor Lorenz and the doxing of folks that donated to CDN Truckers.


As well anyone that believes Trump when he says he would not return to twitter is a fool


What amazes me is the argument was always Twitter is a private company the can censure anyone they choose. Now the left is outraged that a private company will allow free speech

Were is their outrage at a billionaire owning the Post

I think it's probably because people think it will turn into the cod chat or worse. Then again everyone can just leave and watch the site fall apart. If most people wanted 4chan to be their everyday internet experience--I kinda think it would already be the case.

Even if all your negative opinions about Musk are true the above post may not be. There are some billionaires who realize that a bankroll above a certain amount is insignificant in comparison to the feelings they get from megalomania or perhaps even altruistic endeavors. They will thus risk big losses, like Musk already has, to avoid losing that feeling.

I think there's an enormous gap between how Twitter has been censoring to date and 4 chan. Musk is going to take Twitter somewhere between those 2 extremes. If he does go the 4 chan route Twitter will be replaced by something else.

Senator Josh Hawley in promoting his last book did a massive media tour under that was headlines as him and his book being cancelled.

I think he toured over a dozen major media outlets and forums with his 'I have been cancelled message' and it worked as that message got his book bought and sent on to the best sellers list.

it is just a successful grift for the GOP as they in fact do the bulk of the real canceling thru legislation and seeking out the firing of teachers and others very effectively.

People need to stop saying this.

No version of Twitter will allow 'Free Speech".

This was the argument Tim kept going back and forth on as a criticism to the Twitter lawyer, but when asked if what he was really advocating for was a Twitter that only moderated based on what could be prosecutable and winnable as a Free Speech violation, he stuttered and stammered, and eventually got out that 'no, he realizes that can't be the standard'.

Heck I am not sure if even 8Chan is that wide open (don't know anything about either chan tbh).

So if lozen and Tim agree they are not advocating for Twitter to be a free speech platform then what is being argued is WHO will moderate and WHAT their exclusion and rules will be.

Tim kept coming back to 'the problem is we must trust Twitters current discretion and intentions' but what is his solution to that? Trust his Tim's or yours 'lozen's' or 'Elons', as someone is ALWAYS imposing rules and another group will always find something to oppose in them.

The Free Speech comment is just a cannard. It is never relevant in this discussion.

You can say that about almost anything. I'm in favour of banning gun. No you're not you're says someone. You're just arguing about who should be allowed what guns and where.

There's lots of nonsense as always but underneath is a very real discussion about free speech. The same one you argue about with cancel culture.

Yeah I get what your saying but let me ask you this

Should Donald Trump be allowed back on twitter and tweet like he had been?
Should Twitter have banned talk about the Wuhan Lab?
Should twitter have banned the link to Hunter Biden Story
Should twitter have banned discussion about vaccines

Not sure what distinction you are making Chez.

But I am certain neither Tim nor lozen is advocating for Free Speech as the guiding principle only. Tim said as much when challenged.


So where does that leave us?

It means any decision to then moderate above a level of 'Free Speech' is what Tim referred to as an arbitrary imposition of some rules.

His point being, 'we don't like the lines you have drawn', 'how can we trust you'.


There is no solution to that. Twitter can hand the reigns of 'arbitrary ruling making to Tim and the right' and it will still be arbitrary and hated and not trusted by some. Twitter can hand the 'arbitrary rules to extreme elements on the left' and same.

The point being it is just a non point or silly point to couch ones argument in 'Free Speech' when the person is not arguing free speech at all and is just arguing 'my arbitrary rules suit me better'.


The reason they put 'Free Speech' out as the reason is because they think it gives them moral high ground as opposed to saying "i want the rules to favour my position and not yours'.

No, not under the rules they have now he should not be allowed back. They were right to ban him under the rules they had then.




Hard for me to say as I did not follow the chat.

BUt what I will say is that Twitter has ever right to try and compose rules to address what they see as CT's and MisTruths being spread on their platform and to ban them.

That has nothing to do with any Results based thinking that might show what they believed to be wrong after the fact.

So as of today the Controlled Demolition theory of the Twin Towers is accepted as a CT and Twitter has a right to deny its proliferation. If tomorrow shocking new incontrovertible proof comes out it was a controlled demolition, Twitter WAS NOT WRONG, in prior decision. They just need to correct it.

But Twitter has an obligation, imo to carefully consider the preponderance of evidence when they make a decision and as long as they can show they did that, then it is their call.



Same as above but with an added twist.

In the case of Hunter Biden, Twitter and the rest of the world was already aware that Donald Trump ALWAYS looks to try and smear his political opponents with some big lie in the run up to an election. Noting that I feel every media outlets has an obligation to not play into his games, give him his wins, only to clarify it was all fake, after the election is over. The FBi uses a similar logic heading into elections knowing the 'investigation' can be damaging and a finding of nothing, after the fact does not fix that.

For instance, if you, lozen, are running for office and the election is tomorrow, I can go file today, with zero evidence or proof a lawsuit calling you a pedophile solely to damage your campaign. I can send the 'Filing' to all the Newspapers who can print a big headline 'lozen accused of Pedophilia' but I would expect them to not do so, despite them having every legal right to do so. They are not accusing you and just reporting that I did in a filing. Most News outlets would not do so without trying to verify the story realizing the damage that could be done.

Twitter and FB and others knowing Trump and his smears have an obligation to not be used by him in that regard and should absolutely block such story proliferation until they see some facts come in.

See my first reply. Twitter has every right to follow the preponderance of the evidence and to change and correct as the data does.

I do not accept Results based Thinking saying decision making based on rules is only right if things work out and it was wrong if they do not. It is the methodology as applied to their own rules that makes it right or wrong, regardless of result.

You would have bet even money that the NY Post story was untrue when it first came out?

They were not banned because they had a low probability of being true, nor is there a policy against this. Instead the stated reason for suppressing the hunter biden story was because it violated the at-the-time hacked material policy.

Rules dont imply not being in favour of free speech. An example taken from forum history would be some undesriable making a post with some unwanted point. let's assume that is allowed becauae of free speech. Some group dont want that person to be heard so they have a strategy of making a number of tactical replies with the sole intention of preventing the person's point being heard* . Banning that tactical response is pro free speech even if it means rules & modding.

Also bannign extreme speech acts deson't mean you're not in favour of free speech. It's a matter of degree not abosolutes (as with guns and justa bout ever#ything. I'm not in favour of free speech but many who support restrictions on what they consider to be criminal level (in fact or opinion) disagree with me. To say they dont support free speech is missing the point.

I have no doubt that on the free speech spectrum, me and musk/etc are not close. We will ~all accept and support rules as necessary but the difference is very much about free speech.


* some might smugly and ridiculously say that there's no right to be heard budeliberatly preventing soemone being heard is the same as preventing speech.

How can that be? Cuepee said something different.

I read the news article, not Cuepee's post.

Obviously I was joking. Meanwhile though Cuepee's general contention that conspiracy theories shouldn't be printed unless the preponderance of the evidence favors it seems wrong. Why not print 25% shots and note that experts consider it unlikely to be true?