Twitter

[Gavster]

I don’t believe in dividing people into ‘good’ and ‘bad’ silos, it’s far better to acknowledge the complexity of human existence. Michael Jackson might be an abhorrent child abuser but his music still slaps.

Ok, now try Jimmy Saville.

Yeah, then we can do Hitler too of course I'm not going to start rating people who have committed abhorrent crimes. I was making a point about complexity of categorisation, rather than inviting a "hot or not" review of convicted kiddy fiddlers.

The whole Tate popularity is a symptom of deeper issues anwyway. He's been talking online for years, however he only catapulted into popularity this year. Andrew Tate's popularity is the result of guys feeling isolated, rejected, or at the extreme, becoming incels in their Goon caves (I learned about that one yesterday. Don't google it, it's very NSFW and ). The cause of isolated men that are attracted to Tate's message comes from way more innocuous sources, such as online dating's negative effects. If loads of guys weren't feeling dispossessed, then Tate wouldn't have an audience. Banning him had little effect, in fact, when he was uniformly banned from ALL social media platforms, the amount of content about him skyrocketed and he became the most googled person in the world, the ban was the best free marketing for his message. That's why I prefer people like Tate to be visible on social media, because completely banning them gives them even more kudos in their world and cements their community even more.

[ZedLeg]

I don’t agree, deplatforming arseholes is effective.

There are plenty of people who have been banned from the main sm platforms and have sunk into obscurity. It’s even happened to Trump to a degree.

You’re never going to completely get rid of shitty people and 9 times out of 10 you aren’t going to change their minds with reasoned discussion. Push them into the margins where the harm they do is minimised.

[drcarlos]

I don’t believe in dividing people into ‘good’ and ‘bad’ silos, it’s far better to acknowledge the complexity of human existence. Michael Jackson might be an abhorrent child abuser but his music still slaps.

Ok, now try Jimmy Saville.

Yeah, then we can do Hitler too of course I'm not going to start rating people who have committed abhorrent crimes. I was making a point about complexity of categorisation, rather than inviting a "hot or not" review of convicted kiddy fiddlers.

The whole Tate popularity is a symptom of deeper issues anwyway. He's been talking online for years, however he only catapulted into popularity this year. Andrew Tate's popularity is the result of guys feeling isolated, rejected, or at the extreme, becoming incels in their Goon caves (I learned about that one yesterday. Don't google it, it's very NSFW and ). The cause of isolated men that are attracted to Tate's message comes from way more innocuous sources, such as online dating's negative effects. If loads of guys weren't feeling dispossessed, then Tate wouldn't have an audience. Banning him had little effect, in fact, when he was uniformly banned from ALL social media platforms, the amount of content about him skyrocketed and he became the most googled person in the world, the ban was the best free marketing for his message. That's why I prefer people like Tate to be visible on social media, because completely banning them gives them even more kudos in their world and cements their community even more.

[Gavster]

I don’t agree, deplatforming arseholes is effective.

There are plenty of people who have been banned from the main sm platforms and have sunk into obscurity. It’s even happened to Trump to a degree.

You’re never going to completely get rid of shitty people and 9 times out of 10 you aren’t going to change their minds with reasoned discussion. Push them into the margins where the harm they do is minimised.

That's a poor example, because Trump's failure to be re-elected and inability to get back into the media is what caused his decline, not his Twitter ban. Every president shrinks from public view after their last term. And if he had been re-elected, they would have kept him on Twitter. It just so happened that Biden's inauguration and Trump's ban occurred at the same time.

There's an interesting ongoing debate in the literature around eating disorders, whether the presence of online eating disorder communities promotes unhealthy behaviours, or whether it provides a space to those who need help. While there is unhealthy content that glorifies EDs, you'll also find plenty of evidence of recovery from EDs, which would also be erased if we decided to ban ED communities.

The problem with de-platforming is that it's an insidious method that cedes power of judgement to a privileged few. I've seen it at a lower level in universities (academia is notoriously toxic for this) where Professors/Directors in universities will deplatform lesser known researchers and it's horrid to see. We're not talking about anything as provocative as Tate either, we're simply talking about two people who are both good at the same thing, and the one who is in power uses it to deplatform the other.

[ZedLeg]

That’s not deplatforming though that’s just being a dick.

Trump was just a high profile example I could name ten other people it worked with off the top of my head.

Don’t want to get too personal with this but the “let them expose themselves in public” viewpoint is quite privileged. It’s easy to say it when what the people are saying doesn’t affect you.

[V8Granite]

Considering some of the hate that on here it doesn’t surprise me that he gets pretty reactionary with his location, whether it’s a stupid thing to try and control or not.

OV9 forum, welcome to Pistonheads

Dave!

[Rich B]

Publishing a vehicle licence number isn't doxxing. HTH.

reposting the freely available location of an aircraft isn't either tbf.

[Gavster]

That’s not deplatforming though that’s just being a dick.

Trump was just a high profile example I could name ten other people it worked with off the top of my head.

Don’t want to get too personal with this but the “let them expose themselves in public” viewpoint is quite privileged. It’s easy to say it when what the people are saying doesn’t affect you.

Honestly I don't mind, I find this debate interesting! To clarify, are you saying that it's a privileged position because I'm not the victim of Tate's mysoginy?

[tim]

Publishing a vehicle licence number isn't doxxing. HTH.

reposting the freely available location of an aircraft isn't either tbf.

Not quite the same though, is it.

Posting "haha look at those fucking shorts on this guy driving R1CHB" is the equivalent of "haha look at this rich cunt who owns a private jet N628TS", neither of which is doxxing.

Not the same as "click on this link/follow this page and it'll show you the precise location of where the driver of R1CHB is", which is far more "you can go here and kill this person" than "if you can figure out where this object is based upon this information which is written in big on teh outside of it for everyone to see, then this person might be in it so you can kill them".

It's subtle for hard of thinking or quick of shit-posting though, I'll grant you that (and I don't suggest you fit into either of those categories).

In any case my own personal view is he overreacted based upoin his "unique" personality and way of thinking, and what happened to a car with his kid in it.

[ZedLeg]

Or one of the impressionable guys he sucks in with his bullshit.

It’s more of a general argument though, you see people say “disinfect with sunlight” a lot but while you’re disinfecting these people are causing real harm.

To keep it vaguely on topic let’s look at Musk. IMO he’s a victim of this type of thing, whether it’s his autism or just social awkwardness he’s desperate to be liked and he’s constantly trying to gain the approval of the worst cunts on the internet.

[Rich B]

Publishing a vehicle licence number isn't doxxing. HTH.

reposting the freely available location of an aircraft isn't either tbf.

Not quite the same though, is it.

Posting "haha look at those fucking shorts on this guy driving R1CHB" is the equivalent of "haha look at this rich cunt who owns a private jet N628TS", neither of which is doxxing.

Not the same as "click on this link/follow this page and it'll show you the precise location of where the driver of R1CHB is", which is far more "you can go here and kill this person" than "if you can figure out where this object is based upon this information which is written in big on teh outside of it for everyone to see, then this person might be in it so you can kill them".

It's subtle for hard of thinking or quick of shit-posting though, I'll grant you that (and I don't suggest you fit into either of those categories).

In any case my own personal view is he overreacted based upoin his "unique" personality and way of thinking, and what happened to a car with his kid in it.

I would imagine that if you were a nutter/paparazzi who wanted to track his jets locations for nefarious reasons, clicking on one of the legal websites that tracks jets wouldn't really be beyond you.

Though in reality, there's zero evidence this supposed attack had anything to do with his jet being "tracked". It could have just been (ironically for this post) this guy being there And knowing and recognising Elon's car number plate.

I still don't really believe the story anyway.

[Simon]

He's taking this anti-doxxing thing TOO FAR now....

[Alex88]

To keep it vaguely on topic let’s look at Musk. IMO he’s a victim of this type of thing, whether it’s his autism

I think it's Asperger's that he says he has.

There's a very interesting YT account called Common Sense Skeptic. They have a video breaking down Musk's claims that he has Asperger's and why it's BS (as well as addressing the other nonsense he spouts).

[Beany]

Musk is now banning references to other social media sites, even in DMs.



Chefs-kiss.png

[Beany]

Which just sounds petty till you realise it's "legally shaky" in the EU



Shame he keeps sacking his lawyers, eh?

[tim]

not even law until next may, plus a further 6 months to be compliant, and it's not a given that Twitter even qualifies as a Gatekeeper. More cherry-picked noise methinks.

It's a weird-ass move though.

[Beany]

I guess we'll find out if Twitters actual compliance/legal staff (not just Musk with a hangover) think they're a Gatekeeper based on whether there's an unscheduled rollback of the feature, early next week.

The EU are already looking quite closely at Twitter, I imagine someone - anyone - at Twitter might want to avoid ruffling any more feathers given the EUs tendency to do X% of revenue fines, rather than X% of profit....

[nuttinnew]

To keep it vaguely on topic let’s look at Musk. IMO he’s a victim of this type of thing, whether it’s his autism

I think it's Asperger's that he says he has.

There's a very interesting YT account called Common Sense Skeptic. They have a video breaking down Musk's claims that he has Asperger's and why it's BS (as well as addressing the other nonsense he spouts).

Will watch it in a bit, ta.

[Alex88]

Cool. The guy's other Musk videos are really interesting as well.

[ZedLeg]

Someone needs to take his phone away