I'm not interested in supporting anything that comes from Facebook....I don't even have Instagram and for my own sanity, I haven't posted on or viewed twitter for several weeks now. I feel better for it. I think the question is, do we really need yet another social media platform? Of course Zuckerberg is going to have a go, his fortunes have taken a knock lately.....thousands of staff laid off, his Metaverse failed to capture anyone's interest. I'll stick with substack.
Nice article Alasdair. Agree that the deal breakers and usability issues you highlight need fixing rapidly to have any chance of replacing Twitter. But choosing between Twitter and Threads seems like choosing between the frying pan and the fire! @nigeltwitt
Agreed. The experience on each is a world apart currently, and both very far from perfect. But if your primary concern is the ethics/privacy/morality of each company then it is more like between the nuclear fission reactor and the imploding neutron star.
I confess to being pretty utilitarian about this issue.
I’m very optimistic about Threads. The obvious feature adds you mention should be forthcoming. And while moderation will be needed to avoid the worst harassment, I already sense a different ethos - Threads users seem inclined to block bad actors on sight.
As for “misinformation,” I think Twitter’s Community Notes feature is actually the one good thing they have going. No censorship, but nonsense gets called out.
You have to ask yourself,-Why would an organization named the Center for Countering Digital Hate be so concerned about anti-vax statements? Have they run out of hate to counter?I've listened to RFK Jr.'s vaccine concerns and many of them are reasonably framed. Funny how the article with all the numbers and stats didn't list the top claims containing the "disinformation" that is supposedly being spread. The best way to counter disinformation is to debate it on the merits, not censor it. Censoring only fuels conspiracy theorists. Debunking is an overused term these days- just state the opposing and supported facts, transparently, and with all/any of the warts associated with them. Then, let people make their own decisions.
This has been done to death for all of these accounts. They are organised spreaders of false information. Free speech cannot mean anyone is allowed to say anything they like, whenever they like, or too much harm can be done. In my opinion, organised, funded purveyors of false information who seek to profit from the harm they cause should be censored. The bar should be high, but these people or organisations meet that threshold.
With all due respect, do you think it was right to ban Alex Berenson from Twitter? I'm also curiously watching the Missouri v Biden case. I'd rather focus on thoughtful debate than censorship. If John Q. Public is allowed to have a voice, then debate his views. With so many topics being off limits to discuss over the past few years, I don't have any faith in the self-appointed arbiters of "truth". And it's getting harder to figure out what the truth really is. That's why most of my substack subscriptions frequently have guests with opposing viewpoints. Then I can make up my own mind on the evidence presented.
The Truth really is like a lion. It defends itself.
Berenson was certainly wrong about a lot of stuff, but he was saying new things which were wrong and needed correcting. This is a grey case where I think you would usually give benefit of the doubt, so long as it is not overtly malicious.
For e.g. calling for "Nuremburg 2", or inciting hatred/violence towards physicians or vaccine scientists is of course completely unacceptable and should lead to a ban.
"Inciting hatred" seems awfully broad. Knowing about the origin of covid is surely going to cause hatred and calls for justice. That still shouldn't be banned.
Facebook actively suppressed posts relating to news about lockdown protests, or police and civil rights abuses during covid, both domestically and especially abroad. This was not "disinformation" but rather truths that were inconvenient to the US regime. They have not admitted to this or atoned in any way, but we can be fairly certain by now that it was all done at the bidding of the US administration. FB and all its offshoots can go right into the trashcan. I hope you stay on Substack because I will not be following you on anything "Meta."
I'm not interested in supporting anything that comes from Facebook....I don't even have Instagram and for my own sanity, I haven't posted on or viewed twitter for several weeks now. I feel better for it. I think the question is, do we really need yet another social media platform? Of course Zuckerberg is going to have a go, his fortunes have taken a knock lately.....thousands of staff laid off, his Metaverse failed to capture anyone's interest. I'll stick with substack.
Nice article Alasdair. Agree that the deal breakers and usability issues you highlight need fixing rapidly to have any chance of replacing Twitter. But choosing between Twitter and Threads seems like choosing between the frying pan and the fire! @nigeltwitt
Agreed. The experience on each is a world apart currently, and both very far from perfect. But if your primary concern is the ethics/privacy/morality of each company then it is more like between the nuclear fission reactor and the imploding neutron star.
I confess to being pretty utilitarian about this issue.
I’m very optimistic about Threads. The obvious feature adds you mention should be forthcoming. And while moderation will be needed to avoid the worst harassment, I already sense a different ethos - Threads users seem inclined to block bad actors on sight.
As for “misinformation,” I think Twitter’s Community Notes feature is actually the one good thing they have going. No censorship, but nonsense gets called out.
Yes community notes was an excellent introduction - generally considered the golf standard in content moderation.
Certainly preferable over censorship except in the most extreme examples.
I thought you were going to say the competitor is Substack! I have never heard of Threads.
Check it out! And follow me 😊
Sounds fair enough!
You expect a Meta owned company to have benign censor free algorithms? HAHAHAHA
I'm not sure what you're referring to. I quite clearly said that moderation was the most difficult part.
Please don’t take offense, but I have to ask. Were you compensated by Meta for writing this review?
No of course not?!
You have to ask yourself,-Why would an organization named the Center for Countering Digital Hate be so concerned about anti-vax statements? Have they run out of hate to counter?I've listened to RFK Jr.'s vaccine concerns and many of them are reasonably framed. Funny how the article with all the numbers and stats didn't list the top claims containing the "disinformation" that is supposedly being spread. The best way to counter disinformation is to debate it on the merits, not censor it. Censoring only fuels conspiracy theorists. Debunking is an overused term these days- just state the opposing and supported facts, transparently, and with all/any of the warts associated with them. Then, let people make their own decisions.
This has been done to death for all of these accounts. They are organised spreaders of false information. Free speech cannot mean anyone is allowed to say anything they like, whenever they like, or too much harm can be done. In my opinion, organised, funded purveyors of false information who seek to profit from the harm they cause should be censored. The bar should be high, but these people or organisations meet that threshold.
With all due respect, do you think it was right to ban Alex Berenson from Twitter? I'm also curiously watching the Missouri v Biden case. I'd rather focus on thoughtful debate than censorship. If John Q. Public is allowed to have a voice, then debate his views. With so many topics being off limits to discuss over the past few years, I don't have any faith in the self-appointed arbiters of "truth". And it's getting harder to figure out what the truth really is. That's why most of my substack subscriptions frequently have guests with opposing viewpoints. Then I can make up my own mind on the evidence presented.
The Truth really is like a lion. It defends itself.
Thank you for responding to my previous post.
Sounds very reasonable
Berenson was certainly wrong about a lot of stuff, but he was saying new things which were wrong and needed correcting. This is a grey case where I think you would usually give benefit of the doubt, so long as it is not overtly malicious.
For e.g. calling for "Nuremburg 2", or inciting hatred/violence towards physicians or vaccine scientists is of course completely unacceptable and should lead to a ban.
Not sure that bans are entirely justified. Maybe, in some cases.
Temporary suspensions seem more consistent -- very few crimes in the penal system lead to life sentences or execution.
"Inciting hatred" seems awfully broad. Knowing about the origin of covid is surely going to cause hatred and calls for justice. That still shouldn't be banned.
Facebook actively suppressed posts relating to news about lockdown protests, or police and civil rights abuses during covid, both domestically and especially abroad. This was not "disinformation" but rather truths that were inconvenient to the US regime. They have not admitted to this or atoned in any way, but we can be fairly certain by now that it was all done at the bidding of the US administration. FB and all its offshoots can go right into the trashcan. I hope you stay on Substack because I will not be following you on anything "Meta."