Interesting that the quoted “hard questions” about failure to remove Nazis is in direct opposition to the criticism Twitter has received on, for example, the second Joe Rogan interview.
When I view what Dorsey is saying through the lens of the Rogan interview, I don’t see a push towards “algorithmic feeds” which you have already, but towards something where the users actually have more control over what they see, not less. But it’s impossible to tell from these short quotes.
What’s fascinating is the ambiguity of goals and responsibilities Twitter has regarding “hate speech” and so forth.
The quotes in the article seem to indicate questions presuming toxic viewpoints need to have their platform removed, the questions in the Rogan interview work from the assumption stifling speech is bad, and Dorsey keeps saying he is concerned about the safety of individual users.
It’s bewildering because I’m not sure anyone really understands what anyone else is even trying to accomplish.
From some comment Tim Pool made afterwards it appears that they got the impression Jack didn't really understand this was a major issue or the depths of dangerous stifling of speech they were participating in by potentially banning people who were just labeled "Nazi" because it's now a synonym for what you call someone you don't like or agree with.
It sounds like he's been looking into the issue and taking some executive action to stop the platform from being controlled by a single ideology group.
When I view what Dorsey is saying through the lens of the Rogan interview, I don’t see a push towards “algorithmic feeds” which you have already, but towards something where the users actually have more control over what they see, not less. But it’s impossible to tell from these short quotes.
What’s fascinating is the ambiguity of goals and responsibilities Twitter has regarding “hate speech” and so forth.
The quotes in the article seem to indicate questions presuming toxic viewpoints need to have their platform removed, the questions in the Rogan interview work from the assumption stifling speech is bad, and Dorsey keeps saying he is concerned about the safety of individual users.
It’s bewildering because I’m not sure anyone really understands what anyone else is even trying to accomplish.