Muskovite Birds of a Feather: Notes on the Great Twitterpation

Would it work for a social platform to ban anyone who was not anonymous?

If you identified yourself in the real world you could not be a member.

Apart from that nobody would be banned for anything at all and obnoxious posts could be countered by anyone who thought they needed to be

Eventually "ghettos" of various opinions would be created but they would be open to anyone (including the authorities) to examine, support or ridicule-just so long as it was done anonymously.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That depends entirely on your definition of "work".

If shitpost traffic satisfies investors and advertisers, then, sure.

How do you expect people will actually behave?

†​

Speaking of ghettos, though, remember that part of the idea of what goes at Sciforums intends toward a circumstance in which people can post vile racism, and our expectation is that everyone else should just leave it alone; that is, taken to idyll, Sciforums should host bigotry and everyone else should know better than to waste their time. That is, our idyll is one in which, for instance, a black person is just supposed to shrug off the white supremacism, even if it's waved in their faces. Remember, nobody forces you to read; nobody forces you to respond. And that's how site Administrators want it.

But these "'ghettos' of various opinions" that "would be created but … be open to anyone (including the authorities) to examine, support or ridicule" are an interesting projection in terms of what what anyone really expects to happen. You're basically asking for a bad-faith, chan-level marketing op. Moreover, look at what happens in a place like this, where anonymity is left to the individual. Even when it disrupts other discussions, remember that nobody is forcing you to read the supremacism, nobody is forcing you to respond, and nobody is forcing you to care.

In that circumstance, one of the idyllic outcomes is that Black people and women will be smart or complaisant or good enough to just shut the fuck up so as not to hurt a supremacist's feelings. It's one thing if we ought to wonder about a standard like that, in and of itself, but imagine binding it to a doxxy war ban contest: What do you think people will do?

Remember how the doxxy wars go: Antifascists identify rightists and lean on institutions to respond; right-wingers release the names of people who disagree with them, and thugs show up at those people's houses. And remember how many people who say they were fired, canceled, or censored for their politics, or just for being a conservative, are actually referring to being neo-Nazis, affiliated with rightist gangs that break laws, or even breaking the law themselves. And toward all that, remember that people do not respond to what actually happened, but, rather, what they believe happened.

If we start with the basic, observable reality about social media anonymity—i.e., that people behave differently, more boldly and generally less reliably, than when not anonymous—and follow through to the logical end, the general expectation is that you're describing an orgy of bad faith and shitposting. Beyond that, it depends on what it means for a social platform to work. If that definition includes some manner of self-sustenance, making it work gets a lot more complicated. But if the site has secure funding that doesn't depend on advertising or subscription fees, then yes, a social media platform requiring anonymity could be made to work.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I am sorry to say ,Tiassa but even though you are replying to a post of my own in which I obviously have an interest....
I am sorry to say that your style of posting is so turgid and self important that I cannot now find the means to address or even fathom ,really what you are saying.

You seem to have cornered the market in this kind of "communication"

I am not sure whether or not you have understood what I was trying to suggest .(perhaps you did but you have ,so far and in the process lost my interest in the possibly your intention)

I was tempted to give you advice as to how you might have responded in some kind of sn intelligible way but I am sure you already know this and have discounted it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I wonder if he'll be cynical enough to use the repeated refreshes from threading failures as evidence of increased traffic and impressions.

But that's the thing. It feels like a petty potsherd, but a few days ago he did a bit about reduced hate-speech impressions↱, and it's an arbitrary at best statistic. Compared to forty-four billion dollars, though, what is petty? This is a dangerous kind of range for me, in which I keep thinking things can't be as simplistic and stupid as they look, and am very frequently wrong.

The hate-speech stat is that kind of stupid: Down one-third from a deviant spike, baselined according to a deviant period, measured according to mysterious criteria by unknown irregular staff. The current traffic statistics are unclear at first glance, but it is almost impossible to not wonder if the numbers will include all the refreshes from threading failures.

 

So, the question, "How do you expect people will actually behave?" bothers you that much?

 

P

No,that was the part of your post that I thought I might address (out of politeness since it was a question addressed to me) but ,being unable to wade through the rest of your post which presumably bore some relation to that question I just gave up .

Like I said ,I was sorry and it is very rare for me to fail to give someone the courtesy of a reply to a question (in real life I even search for a logical reply to every day greetings such as "how are you?")

If you cannot couch your communications in such a way that your interlocutors enjoy discussing with you ,then just take the consequences and maybe just debate in your own head?

 

How? As in, you need an email to register but then you are never identified other than a unique username? That would work just fine.
As in, you may not provide any identification to the system? That can also work, but will immediately lead to a forum of all porn/Viagra/Russian bride ads since there is no way to track who is a reliable user and who is a spammer.

The important part is to maintain a linear representation with a unique username, so that reputations could be generated.

The larger problem would be that the forum would quickly become 100% ads.

 

Isn't the common sense reading of Giordief's post that of posting as an anonymous person instead of as a celebrity, President, etc?

Isn't it almost implied that spammers, bots, ads would be eliminated nightly just like at any other site?

The point being that if one had to post anonymously undue influence wouldn't be given to what they post and that most groups can self-moderate rather than having a central moderator who decides what points one can and cannot make? It's not reasonable (IMO) to think that anyone is advocating for spam, bots, ads, etc, is it?

For instance, on this site (SF) some would "moderate" any opinions not like their own and in that case all you are left with is a blog rather than a discussion forum.

I don't think Elon is doing a good job and he is certainly being heavy-handed but if the central point is to have less moderation and let ideas speak for themselves, that's hardly a radical concept except for when you have to worry yourself about what the advertisers may think or do.

 

On facebook and twitter I think it is more the rule than the exception for the user to be easily identifiable in real life(I didn't so much have the forums like this where anonymity is the rule rather than the exception)

Here ,and in similar websites the question doesn't seem to arise as most of us don't broadcast our personal details in such a way that one could be intimidated from airing one's views however bizarre or extreme (within the limits of moderation policies and legal exposure)
No ,I had in mind (as per the OP title those platforms where abhorrent (or indeed admirable) ideas can come together and effect real change in the real world.

The Maga groups can use the platforms for intimidating public officials and ,contrarily groups in Iran can organize independently of the theocratic dictatorship.

It seems to me the system is dangerous and unstable and I wondered whether a purely anonymous platform might have benefits(escape the government censorship but on condition that the platform does not come into direct conflict with the government)

But ifhe users of my putative system commit illegal acts ,then as you say the legal system must get involved and identify the users.

So my system breaks down.

Maybe the problem is the government having its dirty fingers in the legal system?

 

The government is the legal system.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

An exaggeration, surely.

Are you saying that the principle of judicial independence is only honoured in the breach?

We do have the jury system also .And if the highest court(s) can be protected against corruption from the prevailing government then we should be able to enjoy the honest rule of law.

 

Yes - but that's why I had questions. Is it that they must be anonymous to other people on the site, but identified to the site itself? Or is it 100% anonymity, with no ID on the site? If that's the case there is no user persistence, and that's a problem.

Again depends. That requires moderation, and with that moderation comes limits on behavior on the forum.

There are many ways that has been attempted, but none work 100%. Karma is one way, but that quickly leads to the ghettos he was talking about - and results in far less free speech.

Agreed. But as always the devil is in the details.

 

Not here. We have three branches of government - executive, legislative and judicial. Our justice system is literally one of the three branches of government.

 

Ah well,by "government" I had in my head the other branches of government ie that the judicial branch was to a degree independent of the other two.

It is so important as a bulwark against bad governance that even when it is corrupted it remains the great hope for a civil society.

I think we are getting off track from Twitter though.

I see Musk is complaining that Apple has an intention to remove its app from its app offerings(if that is the right description)

 

Hopefully that's true - but that is independence of a branch of government rather than independence FROM government.

So far the only person to claim that is Musk. I would wait until Apple says it themselves.

It is worth noting that Apple removed Parler over the large amount of hate speech and incitement to violence on that site, but then allowed them back on after they agreed to better moderation.

 

Something goes here about brand↑ safety↑, or, as Aaron Rupar↱ puts it, "brand safety!"

Apparently, Elon Musk decided to call out Apple, "Do they hate free speech in America?" and then followed up by calling out Apple CEO Tim Cook, directly.

Or, as Max Burns↱ put it:

EXEC: Mr. Musk, sir, the brands are leaving Twitter.

MUSK: Have we tried insulting them?​

And Carl Bergrstrom↱ suggests:

My guess is that Musk is trying to manufacture a feud with Apple so he can claim retaliation when the twitter app is removed from the app store for violating Apple's TOS.​

The thing about pulling Twitter from the app store is that I almost can't wait to find out what the threshold actually is. This is Tim effing Cook. Almost nobody has the clout to muscle him on this, so I wonder at two different thresholds. There is a business threshold that will make Tim Cook buckle, and then there is the point that either Cook or someone he trusts enough to convince him decides to take this personally and just settle the question. But both, the insurance and ego fight thresholds actually feel like really distant boundaries with extraordinary implications. And, honestly, if there is a Twitter can be dangerous enough that Apple has an insurance-related reason to drop the app, Elon Musk is probably the one who can take us all there.

Spoiler

​

 

“How much does the App Store take from revenue?

As of July 2022, Apple takes a standard 30 percent commission rate for App Store transactions and regular subscriptions.”

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1597301968208556032?s=20&t=JqwnpXzFaY2OyjhZ0nlRiA

 

"Secret"? Elon is kind of daring Apple to act.

Maybe Apple should call Elon out for lying. You know, via Twitter. See how he reacts.

 

Yes, we love it when tech giants abuse their market powers and dominate smaller tech companies. Monopolies make the world go round. Fair competition, pfft…begone. [sarcasm]