[ExI] what would any of us have done differently?
john at ziaspace.com
Wed Dec 14 17:58:36 UTC 2022
> John your message was cut off.
Is anyone else seeing this? I'm seeing the full text from the message that
was sent from the list server.
Repasted here, but with all of the silly stylized quotes and apostrophes
replaced, which may be why the email system considers it "charset:
> Is there an active block feature? You are right, I am not an
> experienced Twitter user. The dramatic transition is not so much in
> content but rather in openness. Elon is confessing everything, probably
> in hopes that his company doesn't get its corporate butt sued off.
Your optimism is refreshing, but unfortunately it's misplaced.
Elon gets butthurt at the slightest things. He reacts in ways that show he
has no understanding of others and no empathy. He does not see other
humans as in any way equals to himself.
But if we ignore the fact that he's simply a shitty person and separately
evaluate the idea that Twitter is somehow more open, is it?
No. Flatly, no. People have had more account suspensions without
explanations, all sorts of content has been made unavailable, and there
are too many examples to simply say it's a "coincidence" or unintentional.
Scroll down just a wee bit, and you'll see a screenshot of Elon's own
tweet contradicting the actions mentioned in that tweet. Also note his
rather childish assertion that it's "a direct personal safety risk", which
illustrates his complete inability to see other humans as equals in any
way (for those without imaginations, it's because he says that people
harassing other people is "protected" and concerned people should contact
the police, but that's another discussion).
Or see my own post about how Twitter is screwing around with search terms:
> Cool, let's investigate, shall we? Let us start with why this Ray Epps
> (or whoever framed him) isn't in prison, even though we have the bastard
> on multiple videos inciting a riot in which people died.
Selective prosecution has always been an issue, as is the fact that
certain investigations literally take years. But that's another
> > Overall I am mostly just kind of shocked that there really is a belief
> > out there that Twitter has changed much at all or that it even could
> > change so much so quickly?
> The payroll has changed much and changed quickly.
That has nothing to do with the content aside from the negative effects of
laying off whole moderation teams. But if you're asserting that the
moderation teams were the issue that's being fixed, you should say that.
> Will, for some time now I have ridden a hobby horse about the use of
> machines in elections. Now I have two of them: first, replace the
> machines in elections with humans, and second, replace the humans with
> machines in Twitter.
This is why I had to reply, when I don't respond to so many other
If you think Twitter, particularly led by Elon Musk, should be involved in
elections, I'd have to say you've drank the Flavor Aid.
> So we count votes with human volunteers and do moderation by open-source
> public-available software.
How is that in any way related to "machines in Twitter"? Do you think
Twitter is open?
Computers are wonderfully complex, and that leads to a glaring problem
when considering how they could be used to keep an election honest -
complexity makes hiding nefariousness easy.
Take, for instance, Ken Thompson's legendary writeup, "Reflections on
The point is that we can't, and shouldn't, trust that which we can't
directly test for ourselves, whether or not we actually do test ourselves.
The option should always be there, and it clearly isn't in any way with
anything at Twitter.
A computerized voting system that is above reproach is possible, but only
if everyone has full access to every part of it, and all the data that
goes in to it. This would be great for another discussion, but in essence,
if every part of it is broken down to where each piece could be
implemented on a Commodore 64 in BASIC in ways that people with high
school level math skills could understand, then hundreds of ways of doing
each step would be made, and if none are in disagreement, it'd be next to
impossible to manipulate those parts. Do the same with putting the parts
together, and, well, you get the idea.
None of us have access to Twitter's servers. Even if they published the
source code for everything, we still couldn't trust their servers. They
(Twitter) could be running code that's different from what they published.
They could manipulate data in real time. Twitter could be running their
software under hypervisors that are used to manipulate data in flight, and
any of a number of groups could be manipulating that - Twitter employees,
datacenter employees, the NSA...
The point is we can't, and shouldn't, ever trust the output of code that
we can't run ourselves, or rewrite ourselves, on our own hardware.
Twitter will never, ever be that.
More information about the extropy-chat