<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char";
margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.PlainTextChar
{mso-style-name:"Plain Text Char";
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-link:"Plain Text";
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72" style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>…> On Behalf Of BillK via extropy-chat<br>...<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> Thanks for that Giulio.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>>... Here is a challenge to all who have a public speech platform: you <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> don't need to be non-partisan, you don't even need to be fair. Just be transparent.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> Let everyone see how you roll. Be open. It's what we always did here <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> on this forum: transparency. Keeping a filtering algorithm secret is <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> unaccountable power, which always leads to corruption. So... wield <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> the power, accept the accountability that goes with it, be transparent.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><snip><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> spike<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>> _______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>...Transparency is a two-edged sword.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>I don't use Twitter and I suspect you don't either.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>But nowadays, we are dealing with the 'Cancel' generation who are very easily offended if someone doesn't use the latest Newspeak terminology and support the latest trending opinions.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>When the Twitter crowd of trolls decide to pile on someone, the volume of tweets containing hatred and prejudice is unbelievable.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>It has driven some people to suicide.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Surely you have read about this despicable behaviour?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>Twitter and Facebook moderators make little attempt to stop such hatred campaigns.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>>…Fortunately some old-fashioned email lists (like Exi-chat) are still able to allow free speech that doesn't menace other list members or ruin the list atmosphere.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>BillK.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText>_______________________________________________<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='color:black'>Ja to all. We have always made it clear what is allowed and what is not. In an email group, we are among friends. We should never abuse each other or abuse the forum, and the moderators shouldn’t allow it. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='color:black'>A platform can be partisan, I have no problem with that. We live in an age when businesses, mass media and even government, is dividing into two and becoming openly partisan. I am OK with that, so long as they don't pretend to be otherwise. (In the states, our own federal law enforcement has become openly partisan. I am not OK with that, because we help pay for it.)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='color:black'>Let the public see how the media platform filtering algorithm works, let them download the filtering algorithm and test their posts before they post to Twitter or other publisher pretending to be a platform. The publishers pretending to be platforms can right ahead and do that, just don't be sneaky about it. Google used to be the Don't Be Evil company, well, they should all be the Don't Be Sneaky companies. Be partisan if you wish, just be transparent. Tell us where you stand on libertarians and free speech please.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='color:black'>Regarding hate speech on Twitter: I am not a user. I signed up a month ago to follow Elon Musk (because I am a fan of him) then it took me eleven tries to get thru an apparently defective bot filter. Eventually got thru. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='color:black'>The lead software engineer posted something that might have been a joke but I don't know: he said he had "proactively banned" Elon Musk. I interpreted that as he banned Musk based not on what he posted but rather on what they were afraid he would post.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='color:black'>Apparently it is genuine. I just went to Jay Holler’s own Twitter site and here it is:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><img width=534 height=201 style='width:5.5625in;height:2.0937in' id="Picture_x0020_1" src="cid:image003.jpg@01D8594C.CF467F40"><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='color:black'>OK so… we have people who are opposed to Musk buying Twitter in order to free speech, but not wanting to appear to oppose free speech. No matter how skilled the commentator, defending that position is just a very difficult task. It’s harder than being the defense attorney for Charles Manson. I haven’t yet seen anyone do it effectively. Anyone seen a reasonable argument for why Musk owning Twitter is really a bad thing? Do share please. They all come across as saying “I am OK with unaccountable power so long as I am the one wielding it.”<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoPlainText><span style='color:black'>spike<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></body></html>