Sure the platform moderation problem always will stir a censorship / FoS discussion.
But the article lists forms of abuse (e.g. detailed death threats) that are or definitely should not be legal in my view.
This might be a subjective observation, but all in all Twitter has become an even more hateful and extremely unpleasant place on the internet since Musk took over. Dangerous I'd say even.
Even after reading one interesting thread (without a login), I quickly get suggested plain hate speech or far-right content. This extends to Musk himself, as the article already explains.
Another thing are conspiracy memes designed to stir up hate, which Musk also happily shares.
I don't even need any more screenshots or examples for this, every brief Twitter experience that I have from time to time seems to confirm to me how it's rapidly gotten even worse than before.
https://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-lululemon-2015-9?...
Edit: the linked article suggests it wasn’t “a reason” but rather “the reason” for the name, I was being too forgiving
That seems very different from someone choosing it to laugh at how some people can’t say it.
It's just a bunch of stuff that was already known or internal conversations that don't shift the needle one way or the other. "Social media company has discussion about how to apply moderation practices" isn't news unless you're looking to make a quick buck of pretending that it is. (Especially if you can frame it in such a way that whatever camp you belong to is being silenced and censored.) Neither are things like algorithmic deprioritization or shadowbanning. These are bog-standard moderation tools. It's well... not news. There's nothing to report there unless you want the report to be "social media company does what every other social media company does, more at 11".
Twitter has always been transparent about government requests, they literally have a site dedicated to listing that[0]. It used to be updated every year but ironically 2022 data isn't available because I guess Musk fired everyone involved with it/didn't think it is a priority to keep updated (ironic given the supposed claims of the Twitter Files.)
The closest thing I ever saw to something being interesting is that certain accounts have immunity against Twitters regular flagging system, instead being marked with "only let the higher-ups make decisions".
I think there's an interesting discussion to be had about how fame apparently gives you the option to break most rules on a social media site unless blowback becomes so significant that the upper management decided you're not worth the trouble, but that's not the discussion that's being held. (This is, if I had to guess, entirely because of the significant overlap between "famous person who thinks Twitter Files matter" and "famous person with immunity against the rules", but I admit that that is just a guess.)
[0]: https://transparency.twitter.com/en/reports/information-requ...
I am very very much in doubt that it was publicly _known_ (not theorised) that the government was asking Twitter to delete _legal_ but _undesirable_ tweets!
When the government is suggesting Twitter to censor specific users/subjects/tweets, is that not close to (if not outright) violating the first amendment?
So maybe I'm just not in the loop, I don't know how to keep up with the latest techniques of our enlightened overlords. Which media sources should I be following, to correct this apparent deficiency?
Congress requested for information on whether or not Twitter was properly following the consent decree when Musk gave Tabibi and the others access to the files. Twitter is legally required to assess the possible privacy impact of anything surrounding user data. That's all that was requested. They did not request Twitter to stop providing the journalists access, just that they had done the necessary precautions to avoid accidentally leaking out sensitive user information.
Tabibi of course screamed that he was being censored by the government. I leave you to your own conclusions there.
[0]: After the entire legal team resigned en-masse when they had to put their signatures down for something, presumably the new Twitter Blue. Musks current policy is that engineers are independently liable for FTC violations, which I'm pretty sure is not how it's supposed to work.
How would that work? How did Twitter spend millions on the UK Government and how would that result in the BBC not reporting on a Twitter related issue?
1) A lot of Twitter users are anonymous or have fake names.
2) The story is about the volume of hate, so why would individual names be relevant?
3) Twitter trolls are often seeking attention (Musk himself being a case in point), so naming them just rewards their behavior.
