Moderation makes sense when somebody is hijacking your platform and ruining the experience for everyone else.

How does someone ruin anything for anyone on twitter, when you can just unfollow/block on your own, and follow whomever you want?

Seems to me that "moderation" these days is the same as "censorship". The same way the EU decided that their citizens cannot think for themselves and need to be protected from Russian lies like small children.

I'd very much like Elon to take over Twitter, since he has clearly expressed he doesn't believe in pre-emptively censoring anyone just because their views are not aligned.

> How does someone ruin anything for anyone on twitter, when you can just unfollow/block on your own, and follow whomever you want?

So if we don’t ignore bots or “troll farms” (or whatever they are called these days) then it’s pretty clear how the experience of any user on the platform can be “ruined”. If you’re spending a ton of time blocking / unfollowing instead of engaging with others on the platform, then that could be one way that many “someone’s “ can ruin Twitter for others.

> If you’re spending a ton of time blocking / unfollowing

Do you really spend hours doing that? I use twitter and really don't need to do all that maintenance, and there are TONS of trolls and nasty people.

What are you doing on twitter that requires such high maintenance?

Personally I do not spend much time on twitter, I was merely trying to provide examples of things that could ruin it for people

>Seems to me that "moderation" these days is the same as "censorship".

Extremely funny that you say that in a forum that is so heavily moderated.

>I'd very much like Elon to take over Twitter, since he has clearly expressed he doesn't believe in pre-emptively censoring anyone just because their views are not aligned.

Yes, as we all know Elon Musk is an extremely trustworthy person and I'm sure he will go out of his way to keep his word (as he has always done in his life) in order to do good to the world, even to his own detriment. /s

My god, some people are very gullible.

> Yes, as we all know Elon Musk is an extremely trustworthy person

He refused to ban Russian media through Starlink when everyone was banning them and anything that smelled like russian. So I'd say he can take the heat for free speach when it truly matters.

Of course, he refuses to ban things when that doesn't impact his bottom line! (and in fact gives him good pr)

But that's easy enough, it's free. But we do see how much he truly cares about freedom when his $$$ is on the line, say when he goes full gilded-age union-busting on his employees for example.

I'll re-evaluate my views on him in that case. So far, my case stands.

> Moderation makes sense when somebody is hijacking your platform and ruining the experience for everyone else.

It makes sense to you. Moderation makes sense to me in very different circumstances.

> The same way the EU decided that their citizens cannot think for themselves and need to be protected from Russian lies like small children.

But there is vast amounts of empirical evidence that this is correct. Why in the world would you think otherwise?!

Every single argument that can be made in favor of speech restrictions can be made in favor of voting rights restrictions as well.

Nope.

The idea behind freedom generally is that despite the fact that most people don't behave optimally, it is unjust to curtail their right to behave suboptimally, so long as that behaviour doesn't directly impact others.

So we agree then, because the spread of misinformation causes damage for other people, clearly.

> so long as that behaviour doesn't directly impact others

I'm not sure how one person being misinformed directly harms another. Can you elaborate? Surely the misinformed person would have to act to directly harm another person, which is already covered by existing laws I imagine.

Never said I was. But neither you nor the government (nor me for the sake of argument) can decide what's propaganda and what's actual information.

Let people decide that on their own.

No one is saying they are, only that they'd like the opportunity (read the right) to make up their own mind, and be wrong about things.

It's kind of sad egoism that people think they are immune to misinformation or propaganda.

Mark Twain said something along the lines of it's 10x more difficult to convince someone they've been duped, then duping them in the first place.

Everyone, definitely including intelligent people, are very susceptible to propaganda and misinformation.

Who gets to decide what's propaganda and what is not? You? The government?

How many of the positions you strongly advocate for here on HN would you estimate are ultimately the result of misinformation or propaganda that you've fallen victim to?

First " since he has clearly expressed he doesn't believe in pre-emptively censoring anyone just because their views are not aligned. "

This is completely false. Nobody is barred from Twitter pre-emptively, and nobody is barred because their 'views are not aligned'

More importantly, it's naive to believe that the commons can decipher the truth.

They cannot - neither can you or I - in a world of total disinformation.

The 'truth' does not rise to the top, rather, the ideas that are the most seductive, that appeal to our impulses and beliefs, are the ideas that rise to the top and especially if there are potent interests - and there always are i.e. Economic or Political, that 'free forums' will be controlled by those interests which will likely have nothing to do with any kind of 'truth' - which is in the public good.

People are busy, and the world is complicated - so we need centres of credibility.

For example - Doctors and Medical Information.

That's a hugely regulated sector, because we don't want Yahoos selling you 'Cures for Cancer' when they don't work at all. And there would be a Trillion dollar business there, if were allowed, causing untold harm. We already have a lot of problems there actually.

There is no 'free speech' in Medical Information.

I'll use your own example against you:

Do you think that Europeans are magically smarter than Russians? How is it that large number of Russians, even those who technically have access to 'outside information' come to such a deluded view of reality established by Putin?

Why do you think that Europeans are going to magically enlightened and not susceptible to his made up reality?

Putin has not 'cut off' Russia, he just needs to raise the barriers a little bit (i.e. VPN), because most people will just watch the propaganda otherwise.

That way, he can create a 66% buy-in in Russia.

If he can aggressively drive his misinformation into Europe, he could create a 15% support, and maybe 25% disinclination, enough to tilt the tables in many political situations, based on complete fabrications.

In the Weimar Republic, Stalin had direct control over 17% of the Bundestag via his direct control over the German Communist Party achieved through control over popular information ie propaganda in the commons.

30% of the USA public believes that the election was stolen, which is a lie.

If you take a survey among progressives about police violence against African American and ask them to put some numbers down (i.e # of unarmed African Americans being killed by police) - you'll get outrageous answers, not really based on any kind of reality.

And both of those things are problems even in the current system which has 'some integrity'.

All un-moderated public places turn into chaos very quickly - that's the first problem.

More importantly - they will be used by forces to create the reality they want.

It's fine to have a view of what Twitter should and should not be of course, if you want Elon there, that's great.

But nobody who is not a Twitter investor should really care that much about 'fiduciary responsibility'. The 'Truth' is a much, much more important public good that some random guys economic interest.

> so we need centres of credibility

I don't disagree, however I would hold that these centers establish themselves naturally, in absence of any regulation. There is a reason that one's reputation was of paramount importance before this regulation came into being. Well-raised people didn't fall for quackery simply because they were taught only to transact with reputable purveyors.

I personally would very much like to make my own decisions based on the information available, and I don't need the government to limit my options or hold my hand in any way. I also have no problem with letting misinformed people fail to the full extent that their failure implies, including pursuing quackery for their medical ailments. I fundamentally don't think it is the government's job to protect people from their own misfortune or personal failure.

The problem with "the truth" is that it substantially doesn't exist, beyond reproducible scientific inquiry. How do you know, for sure, as a matter of scientific fact, that the election wasn't tampered with in any way? I'm not suggesting that it was, only that it is unknowable. As with any question of the historical record, all we can do is look at the facts available to us and apply our best judgement. These questions are fundamentally ones on which free people should be entitled to disagree.

I don't want an authority dictating what is and isn't the "right" interpretation of history or current events, simply because no authority can be relied on to get this 100% right. Being forced to conform to one lie is far, far worse than hearing many.

> Nobody is barred from Twitter pre-emptively, and nobody is barred because their 'views are not aligned'

Maybe so. What about branding accounts as "pro X" or "anti X"? Because Twitter's been doing that, albeit much less explicitly. You can see now that some journalists get the tag "Russian affiliated" just because they try to report on all sides the same way. Isn't that akin to taking a stand against or something? Why would you need to brand someone on their views if not to censor them in a way?

> it's naive to believe that the commons can decipher the truth

Where's the enlightened group of individuals that decide what truth is and is not? Who decides who's a common, and what parameters do you use? I'd really like to know.

> The 'truth' does not rise to the top

If you mean your twitter feed, certainly not. But on the long term, it surely does.

> that 'free forums' will be controlled by those interests which will likely have nothing to do with any kind of 'truth' - which is in the public good

So, you're saying that the Twitter board knows what's best for the public good and what's not. They're the enlightened ones then? How did they attain this state?

> Why do you think that Europeans are going to magically enlightened and not susceptible to his made up reality?

I'm saying they should decide for themselves. Nobody should tell you what you can and cannot read. That's your right, and that includes listening to lies. If you want people to see beyond lies, teach them to recognize those lies instead. Critical thinking is what's required.

Of course, then they'll also be able to see through YOUR lies, so maybe that's what they don't want?

> If he can aggressively drive his misinformation into Europe

Forget about Putin. How will you be able to tell misinformation from truth in your own government, when instead of pushing for critical thinking, you push for banning people?

---- "You can see now that some journalists get the tag "Russian affiliated" just because they try to report on all sides the same way. "

No. That's not what that means.

'Russian Affiliated' does not mean 'taking the side of Russia'. It literally means 'Russian Affilated'. That's factual and relevant, not a bias.

---- "Where's the enlightened group of individuals that decide what truth is and is not?"

Doctors and Medical Researchers get to decide what medicines work and which one's don't. Not Pilots and Aerospace Engineers.

Engineers, Pilots get to decide what constitutes 'safe to fly'. Medical researchers do not.

And you (assuming you are neither) do not get to decide that.

Imagine if we didn't have systems of integrity for flight safety and medical technology.

Would you be in a position to run clinical trials on every drug you consumed?

Are you going to run flight safety tests on every plane before you get on?

Of course not.

We have to create systems of integrity or nothing will work.

Now - if you want to go on the internet and do your own medical research, you can do or say (almost) anything you want so long as you are not causing harm.

------ "The 'truth' does not rise to the top. If you mean your twitter feed, certainly not. But on the long term, it surely does."

The 'truth' does not rise to the top in the commons. The truth only rises to the top if conscientious people decide to create systems in which it does.

Generally 'free expression' is required for the truth to come to the fore, but in completely open systems, the person with the most seductive narrative will determine what most people believe, about most things.

Again using medical example: were it not for regulatory constraints around what people can say about drugs they are selling it would be a 'free for all'. Medical tech would go back to pre-Englightenment era, it would be a disaster. We'd have to immediately start to develop systems of trust back in that community one way or another.

----- "So, you're saying that the Twitter board knows what's best for the public good and what's not. They're the enlightened ones then? How did they attain this state?"

I didn't imply anything like this.

Twitter employees don't know anything about anything, they don't have to and it's not relevant.

But they do know that Person A is Person A - meaning they can legitimize names. They also know what consensus is around some medicines like Ivermectin, because they have access to trusted resources. Then find out which journalists work for which government. They know if the US election was stolen or not.

And of course they know what a violent threat is when they see it more or less.

And so they act on that.

That's not 'Enlightenment' of any kind.

------- "I'm saying they (Europeans) should decide for themselves. Nobody should tell you what you can and cannot read"

You're misunderstanding the situation, and misunderstanding human nature.

Nobody is telling Europeans what to think. They are making it more difficult for sources of propaganda to misinform - and that's a big difference.

We are all mostly passive with respect to the information we consume. Most of it we just absorb by seeing it on the news or whatever. That means, if someone can take control of 'common sources of information' then they can fill the commons with misinformation.

This idea that even intelligent people are immune to propaganda is false. If you let Putin control 50% of the news, he will spew all sorts of information, hide other bits, in a way that will allow him to manipulate people.

If everyone went out and actively researched everything it would be less of a problem.

'The Commons' makes decisions based on what they consume on a passive basis, that's the reality of it.

Nobody is banning anything in Europe, or anywhere else. 'Twitter' is not the Internet, it's just a little thing.

If Europeans want to actively go and watch Russian TV, read Russian blogs, and absorb every bit of Putin propaganda - they are free to do so.

But we are not going to allow Putin or those like him to infest our public commons with bullshit.

"Xi and the CCP/Chinese Government make a bid to buy Google, for a 20% premium."

If this were to happen, the bid would be reviewed by the CFIUS -- https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/international/the-co... ; based on the review, the transaction could be blocked by executive order.

Of course it would not pass muster, which is my point.

There is a giant 'non market force' at play there a certain kind of regulatory apparatus which most people understand exists for good reason.

This regulatory condition obviously supercedes 'fiduciary responsibility' of the Board.

Communications is a protected industry because powerful foreign interests can take control of narratives, precisely because people in the commons - including you and I - are fairly easily pursuaded.

'Truth' is really hard to do, it's a public good and it's why at the national level we have protections - and - it's why both Twitter, Google etc. as 'sources of information' fall under a different perspective of governance than say, a 'cracker company'.

I know you're arguing in good faith but don't you think putting crazy hypotheticals like Xi buying any US company is a little silly? There are probably better examples to further your point.

> Xi and the CCP/Chinese Government make a bid to buy Google, for a 20% premium. They also bid to buy Twitter, Facebook and Microsoft. All for 20% premium. Should shareholders do 'the right thing' and sell?

The right thing isn't necessarily selling. In that case the right thing is to consider the offer and decide if it's worth it or not. In this case the answer would probably be "No" and the US Government probably wouldn't let it happen either.