So create free market plugins to filter based on preferences.
Imagine: scam protection plugin. spam protection plugin. anti racism plugin.
Let users vote who gets ears. If users say they want to silence racists, by saying racists things a user ends up being blocked by all the people who want to silence all racists. Users then vote and racists know that algorithmically they cannot heard because they know the majority have silenced them. But they also aren't enraged that they are being silenced because they aren't. They're just blocked by the user base who doesn't think their words have value.
If twitter does not allow as much free speech as possible, that speech simply ends up moving to other platforms anyways. So much to all the pro censorship crowd's chagrin, their censorship isn't actually doing anything except protecting their ears from hearing what they don't want to hear, and in reality making the other side band together even more fiercely. Might as well keep all the speech and just allow people to choose their own protection.
You never have to listen to them if that's what you choose. Let people choose what gets silenced instead of letting some authority choose for you. Giving up that power has historically lead in only one direction, and I don't see why its any different in this case. Adults are not children. Let them discern what is right and what is wrong.
The only way forward is to keep free speech available, and we can keep it and have protections for those who want it, so why not?
Cause that's what I want to do with my free time... install plugins operated by... who knows... to filter out the blatant racism I don't even have to see if I just don't use the website.
But... I don't use social media, so maybe I'm not the one this would appeal to.
You wouldn't have to install them. They would be toggled on in the app by default with a modal or some notification ensuring you know what you're being protected from.
If you are okay with the default protections, closing that modal is one [x] away.
If for some reason you want spam, then toggle it back on.
We could go a step further and ban the bad actors entirely so they don’t pollute the pool. Just allowing them in the feed introduces all kinds of engineering headaches. How are retweets handled? Replies? Etc. it would be a huge distraction to support the bad actors instead of removing them.
> Just allowing them in the feed introduces all kinds of engineering headaches. How are retweets handled? Replies? Etc. it would be a huge distraction to support the bad actors instead of removing them.
HaHa, nice try Xi Jinping.
Retweets that originate from filtered tweets simply don't get included in the filtering person's feed. Same with replies.
Engineering wise, these features should be peanuts for the HN crowd.
Imagine: scam protection plugin. spam protection plugin. anti racism plugin.
Let users vote who gets ears. If users say they want to silence racists, by saying racists things a user ends up being blocked by all the people who want to silence all racists. Users then vote and racists know that algorithmically they cannot heard because they know the majority have silenced them. But they also aren't enraged that they are being silenced because they aren't. They're just blocked by the user base who doesn't think their words have value.
If twitter does not allow as much free speech as possible, that speech simply ends up moving to other platforms anyways. So much to all the pro censorship crowd's chagrin, their censorship isn't actually doing anything except protecting their ears from hearing what they don't want to hear, and in reality making the other side band together even more fiercely. Might as well keep all the speech and just allow people to choose their own protection.
You never have to listen to them if that's what you choose. Let people choose what gets silenced instead of letting some authority choose for you. Giving up that power has historically lead in only one direction, and I don't see why its any different in this case. Adults are not children. Let them discern what is right and what is wrong.
The only way forward is to keep free speech available, and we can keep it and have protections for those who want it, so why not?