Andaith
a year ago
> It comes down, in the end, to whether or not you believe that the “digital town square” Musk talked about when he bought Twitter can really exist and, if it can, whether it is of any benefit to anyone.
I'd argue the moderation is the issue. It's one thing to have a discussion between different ideologies, but there's no more conservatives to discuss anything with. They've left twitter too, and the only people left are... not engaging in good faith discussions, to be polite about it.
Users seem to have an expectation of(or rather a desire for) civility, moreso than echo chamber agreement, but the current owner of twitter seems to think that restricting hate-speech is restricting free-speech. Then, for whatever moderation is left, all the most popular alt-right accounts also get an exemption from that, which encourages all their followers to be their worst version of themself.
legostormtroopr
a year ago
I don't think its just moderation - but also that fact that most people don't have opinions worth listening too.
When you think about the town square, anyone could set up a soap box, say anything and be heard by anyone... anyone within a 50m radius depending on background noise. Standing in the town square didn't give you the ability (or right) to be heard by anyone in any town square.
But nowdays, you can (and sometimes are obligated to) have an opinion on anything. Local politics in a country on the otherside of the planet - go right ahead. Opinions on the mid-east that most people are not qualified to provide, sure thing!
And worse, if the echo chamber deems that "silence is violence" not only can you not refrain from expressing your opinion, silence means you have out-group-think, so either agree or be removed.
Twitter was fun... for a bit. But its quite obvious that this idea that anyone can have an idea, and everyone can hear it is just plain bad for society.
In most of the world you have free speech - go outside and use it. But online for the world to hear... maybe thats just overrated.
embeng4096
a year ago
Agreed. I find it interesting that "silence is violence" people are assuming that silence means you agree with the opinions being expressed around you. So if you're in an echo chamber with those same people, while they chant slogans or pat each other on the back about whatever their issue du jour is -- if you're silent, by their logic, theoretically you're agreeing with them. But in practice, they think you being silent is disagreement, not silent support as is assumed for everything else except their views.
squigz
a year ago
> In most of the world you have free speech - go outside and use it. But online for the world to hear... maybe thats just overrated.
Can't have both. You can either have a free Internet where everyone, including yourself, are free to say what they want, or you don't.
ChocolateGod
a year ago
> But nowdays, you can (and sometimes are obligated to) have an opinion on anything
Seen in many of these echo chambers people state that if people don't actively campaign for something, they're scum of the earth, as bad as X Y Z and people with the polar opposite view of them and not welcome on the platform these echo chambers use.
I find platforms like Mastodon have had an effect of strengthening these echo chambers and the extremity of peoples views, emboldening the division of society and ultimately being self-harming.