[ExI] bee having fun

Dan TheBookMan danust2012 at gmail.com
Fri Apr 29 23:43:02 UTC 2022

On Apr 29, 2022, at 1:35 PM, spike jones via extropy-chat <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat <extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org> On Behalf Of BillK via extropy-chat
>>> ... OK then, what if… a government gives itself the power to flag a prole’s posts anywhere and eventually decides to ban the disobedient prole from everything?
>> spike
>> _________________________________________
>> ...I heard that Musk was planning to ban anyone that disagreed with his free speech plans........;)
> BillK
> _______________________________________________
> {8^D
> If you read what Musk says he wants to do with Twitter, he never said anything about taking down or turning off content filters.  All he said in his statement is about that is to make the filtering algorithm public.
> Think on this please.
> Those suggesting that Musk's ownership of Twitter is a bad thing are arguing in favor of keeping the filtering algorithm secret.  This is suggesting that secrecy in this context is a good thing and by extension, that unaccountable power is a good thing.
> Alternative interpretations please?  Anyone here wish to argue that unaccountable power is a good thing?  Do elaborate please.

The main argument I can see for not having transparent filters — aside from the libertarian argument that Twitter is a private owned web space, so its owners can apply whatever rules they want as long as they violate no one’s rights (and you don’t have any inherent right to post what you want in their space — just like a magazine or newspaper can refuse to publish your commentary if they so please) — is that transparency might make gaming the system relatively easy. By gaming I mean someone who intends to poison the space but simply follows the rules to a fault.

By the way, it’s not unaccountable power either. There are other social media and the whole wide internet that aren’t under Twitter’s control. And Twitter isn’t like a government. It can’t force you to fund it or to participate. In the same way, you could say you don’t want to have person X in your home. You need not be accountable for anyone for your decision to exclude X — provided it’s really your home and X has no claim to it. Your reasons for excluding X can even be capricious, even stupid. 



More information about the extropy-chat mailing list