Slightly off topic but someone was convicted and faces ten years of prison for tweeting a meme about voting for Biden by a Facebook hashtag.
I've seen numerous instances of this meme appealing to supporters on both sides. Can't imagine someone on the other side getting thrown in jail for that. It's obviously inforced extremely subjectively, which is my point. Pretty wild that you can go to prison for such a long time for that.
I think in general this "election interference" is often used as a cover for politicians to exert pressure on social media and curtail speech. Often when you read about it it seems so clear cut (protect our democracy is the new protect the children). But govt forces often use it to censor.
> for tweeting a meme about voting for Biden by a Facebook hashtag.
Gee, that's a funny way of saying "for deliberately and repeatedly trying to trick voters into mis-voting with a planned group-campaign of impersonation and fraudulent ads."
Just because "tweets" and "Facebook" and "hashtags" etc. are tools being used doesn't automatically make something pure and innocent: All the same elements could appear in a financial fraud/scam or a bloody tribal genocide.
> Mackey conspired with other influential Twitter users and with members of private online groups to use social media platforms, including Twitter, to disseminate fraudulent messages that encouraged supporters of presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to “vote” via text message or social media which, in reality, was legally invalid.
Tricking people into throwing away their vote by casting it through invalid methods is a lot more than "tweeting a meme."
The vote by text for someone I don't like thing is a meme. I've seen it 100 times in reddit. Do you think it was never tweeted by anyone else and widely disseminated? I think the platforms scrubbed the meme off the sites but I'm positive I've seen it on Reddit front page and Twitter a lot
From your very own article you helpfully linked, it was found that he was spreading false information about (text) voting, causing anyone who didn't know better to become disenfranchised, a violation of their rights as an American citizen and absolutely prosecutable if you want a country based on laws, justice, and equality.
Quoted from the article: "As proven at trial, between September 2016 and November 2016, Mackey conspired with other influential Twitter users and with members of private online groups to use social media platforms, including Twitter, to disseminate fraudulent messages that encouraged supporters of presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to 'vote' via text message or social media which, in reality, was legally invalid."
Good, it sounds like Elon has been making a lot of positive changes at X.
I just listened to his livestream about free speech and antisemitism with that set of famous Rabbis, I was really impressed. I think the shift towards free speech is the best thing for democracy. We can only hash out ideas, both bad and good, by allowing more discussion of difficult subjects.
The Community Notes feature, added after the transition, has been one of the best tools for dealing with bad ideas and misinformation. It strikes a great balance between combating misinformation and censorship, and I think it can do a much better job (allowing the people themselves to fight misinformation by tagging things with additional context) than the actual election team at X was doing.
Allow me to correct your misinformation: BirdWatch, as it was previously known, existed before the transition. Elon’s only contribution was changing its name to something more boring. It is very likely that those who designed and implemented it no longer work there. https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/product/2021/introduci...
Ah interesting, I did not know that. I was wrong about it existing before the transition. I was not a Twitter user before the transition and I don't know much about social media beyond X.
I still think it is a good thing, I've seen many examples of its usage combating wrong or misleading things and the community note is often more important and more entertaining than the original tweet. Increasing its usage I think is a great thing for democracy.
Side note: are all instances of being wrong considered misinformation? Can I start telling my wife that she's spreading misinformation every time she says something that isn't correct?
In addition, it's unwise to consider this outlet a reliable source of information for anything to do with twitter; their 'thing' prior to the buyout seemed to be tweeting videos that quite consistently went hyper-viral. Post the buyout they seem to be having a degree of difficulty achieving the same virality. One may speculate as to why that is.
According to X itself, which has the best data, all objective measurements of hate speech are down actually. Elon was just talking about it in his latest interviews with the Rabbis. They have seen a 30% drop in antisemitic content.
The Guardian and CNN have both been writing extremely biased articles about X and Elon ever since the takeover, so these articles have to be read with an eye for the bias.
As stated in your linked article though, X is complying with all the required laws from the EU. If the EU wants to start censoring people in their country, X has stated that it will follow the laws and comply.
>> I think the shift towards free speech is the best thing for democracy.
I disagree, in my opinion. Deliberately creating hate, passing lies as truth, are things that can work against democracy. Consider the free speech by saying that the voting system was rigged. Creating distrust in the voting system will destroy democracy, as it is trust in some type of voting system that ALLOWS democracy. Consider how much effort a former president in the US tried to manipulate that process to remain in power.
Consider how "free speech" can create hate for minority groups that don't have a democratic majority? Bills that pass against minority groups, is this "the best thing" for democracy?
I'll never forget this verdict, how members of a religious organization can "protest" at funerals. Disgusting, but I will respect the verdict.
Yes you are right that allowing speech that questions election integrity does create some instability. But the way to deal with that instability is not censorship. Censorship just convinces people even more that something nefarious is going on. Especially in the case of elections because the people doing the censoring are the ones whose power is being questioned. Similarly, overt censorship only emboldens hateful groups. The only way to combat these bad ideas is to allow them to be discussed and defeated in the greater marketplace of ideas.
e.g. someone going down the path of antisemitism will not get a chance to hear the other side of the argument unless the topic is allowed to be discussed openly.
There are other nice examples of Klan members making conversions after having open discussions with people in a safe environment, when they were reached out to. This type of conversation is not possible in an environment where top-down censorship is happening.
If you look at history, top-down censorship has been one of the best tools used by dictators to seize and keep power, and if you allow it’s use for good intentions, eventually it will be used for evil.
But consider a future where an election really is rigged, I’m not saying it happened in the US, but it DOES happen in many countries such as Russia and it is not a complete impossibility. Without freedom of speech, democracy really is doomed. The people in power will be able to keep power and silence any dissent.
Imagine a future where a demagogue attempts to seize power and create a dictatorship, if there is an established precedent that it’s okay to silence speech for “safety” reasons, all the person has to do is classify all dissent as unsafe or racist, or whatever the moral panic of the day might be.
The US has not existed for very long, most countries have had to fend off dictatorship in their history and it’s not impossible that we will face the same thing at some point. Protected free speech is one of the best tools we have to fend it off. Speaking truth to power is more important than protecting people’s feelings.
> Yes you are right that allowing speech that questions election integrity does create some instability. But the way to deal with that instability is not censorship. Censorship just convinces people even more that something nefarious is going on.
Holding aside whether to use the word "censorship" or "moderation" (and whichever word we choose is politically motivated rhetoric), you're making an unsupported empirical claim that I find questionable.
Ideas are contagious, and very bad ideas are capable of spreading and doing significant damage. See all the disastrous revolutions that killed millions of people, 20th century fascism, among other examples of bad ideas that spread via free speech. This speech was a critical part of the chain of causality that led to mass death.
Contrary to popular sloganeering, the reality is that more speech doesn't always correct bad ideas, and in many cases has no impact.
> If you look at history, top-down censorship has been one of the best tools used by dictators to seize and keep power
That's correct, but how did those dictators gain power in the first place? Often via speech. They used their freedoms (of speech) to undermine freedom (of speech). Hitler wouldn't have gotten into power if he didn't convince over 30% of the population to vote for him via the words that came out of his mouth. This is the Tolerance Paradox, which has unfortunately become cliched but is still as relevant as ever.
> Without freedom of speech, democracy really is doomed.
You've constructed a false binary. I don't think anyone wants to make it illegal or impossible to question elections. The best idea I've heard is that there needs to be some trial in front of a court, where the evidence is brought forward. If the person lied, they go to prison for doing damage to democracy -- analogous to defamation being a crime (but in this instance, the defamation is against society more broadly//the state, instead of an individual). If the person told the truth, then some other people go to jail for rigging an election. If the person made an innocent mistake; well, that's also up to the courts to decide. What I don't want is a media circus, where nothing gets resolved and everyone becomes cynical.
24 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 302 ms ] threadI've seen numerous instances of this meme appealing to supporters on both sides. Can't imagine someone on the other side getting thrown in jail for that. It's obviously inforced extremely subjectively, which is my point. Pretty wild that you can go to prison for such a long time for that.
I think in general this "election interference" is often used as a cover for politicians to exert pressure on social media and curtail speech. Often when you read about it it seems so clear cut (protect our democracy is the new protect the children). But govt forces often use it to censor.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/social-media-influencer...
Gee, that's a funny way of saying "for deliberately and repeatedly trying to trick voters into mis-voting with a planned group-campaign of impersonation and fraudulent ads."
Just because "tweets" and "Facebook" and "hashtags" etc. are tools being used doesn't automatically make something pure and innocent: All the same elements could appear in a financial fraud/scam or a bloody tribal genocide.
Tricking people into throwing away their vote by casting it through invalid methods is a lot more than "tweeting a meme."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number
I just listened to his livestream about free speech and antisemitism with that set of famous Rabbis, I was really impressed. I think the shift towards free speech is the best thing for democracy. We can only hash out ideas, both bad and good, by allowing more discussion of difficult subjects.
The Community Notes feature, added after the transition, has been one of the best tools for dealing with bad ideas and misinformation. It strikes a great balance between combating misinformation and censorship, and I think it can do a much better job (allowing the people themselves to fight misinformation by tagging things with additional context) than the actual election team at X was doing.
I still think it is a good thing, I've seen many examples of its usage combating wrong or misleading things and the community note is often more important and more entertaining than the original tweet. Increasing its usage I think is a great thing for democracy.
Side note: are all instances of being wrong considered misinformation? Can I start telling my wife that she's spreading misinformation every time she says something that isn't correct?
And do you think it's hypocritical for a "proponent of free speech" to threaten to sue entities that quantify and observe such a rise? [1]
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/sep/26/eu-warns-...
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/31/tech/twitter-lawsuit-hate-spe...
The Guardian and CNN have both been writing extremely biased articles about X and Elon ever since the takeover, so these articles have to be read with an eye for the bias.
As stated in your linked article though, X is complying with all the required laws from the EU. If the EU wants to start censoring people in their country, X has stated that it will follow the laws and comply.
I disagree, in my opinion. Deliberately creating hate, passing lies as truth, are things that can work against democracy. Consider the free speech by saying that the voting system was rigged. Creating distrust in the voting system will destroy democracy, as it is trust in some type of voting system that ALLOWS democracy. Consider how much effort a former president in the US tried to manipulate that process to remain in power.
Consider how "free speech" can create hate for minority groups that don't have a democratic majority? Bills that pass against minority groups, is this "the best thing" for democracy?
I'll never forget this verdict, how members of a religious organization can "protest" at funerals. Disgusting, but I will respect the verdict.
https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-a...
e.g. someone going down the path of antisemitism will not get a chance to hear the other side of the argument unless the topic is allowed to be discussed openly.
There are other nice examples of Klan members making conversions after having open discussions with people in a safe environment, when they were reached out to. This type of conversation is not possible in an environment where top-down censorship is happening.
If you look at history, top-down censorship has been one of the best tools used by dictators to seize and keep power, and if you allow it’s use for good intentions, eventually it will be used for evil.
But consider a future where an election really is rigged, I’m not saying it happened in the US, but it DOES happen in many countries such as Russia and it is not a complete impossibility. Without freedom of speech, democracy really is doomed. The people in power will be able to keep power and silence any dissent.
Imagine a future where a demagogue attempts to seize power and create a dictatorship, if there is an established precedent that it’s okay to silence speech for “safety” reasons, all the person has to do is classify all dissent as unsafe or racist, or whatever the moral panic of the day might be.
The US has not existed for very long, most countries have had to fend off dictatorship in their history and it’s not impossible that we will face the same thing at some point. Protected free speech is one of the best tools we have to fend it off. Speaking truth to power is more important than protecting people’s feelings.
Holding aside whether to use the word "censorship" or "moderation" (and whichever word we choose is politically motivated rhetoric), you're making an unsupported empirical claim that I find questionable.
Ideas are contagious, and very bad ideas are capable of spreading and doing significant damage. See all the disastrous revolutions that killed millions of people, 20th century fascism, among other examples of bad ideas that spread via free speech. This speech was a critical part of the chain of causality that led to mass death.
Contrary to popular sloganeering, the reality is that more speech doesn't always correct bad ideas, and in many cases has no impact.
> If you look at history, top-down censorship has been one of the best tools used by dictators to seize and keep power
That's correct, but how did those dictators gain power in the first place? Often via speech. They used their freedoms (of speech) to undermine freedom (of speech). Hitler wouldn't have gotten into power if he didn't convince over 30% of the population to vote for him via the words that came out of his mouth. This is the Tolerance Paradox, which has unfortunately become cliched but is still as relevant as ever.
> Without freedom of speech, democracy really is doomed.
You've constructed a false binary. I don't think anyone wants to make it illegal or impossible to question elections. The best idea I've heard is that there needs to be some trial in front of a court, where the evidence is brought forward. If the person lied, they go to prison for doing damage to democracy -- analogous to defamation being a crime (but in this instance, the defamation is against society more broadly//the state, instead of an individual). If the person told the truth, then some other people go to jail for rigging an election. If the person made an innocent mistake; well, that's also up to the courts to decide. What I don't want is a media circus, where nothing gets resolved and everyone becomes cynical.