|
Personally I like Blue Sky atm because I can look at interesting posts and not see garbage reply after garbage reply from blue checkmarks. Its certainly not as useful as Twitter used to be but a refreshing change is nice. OgNar fucked around with this message at 22:34 on Sep 8, 2023 |
#
?
Sep 8, 2023 22:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 13:39 |
|
Crossposting from GBS:Talorat posted:Posting this again for the new page:
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2023 22:40
|
|
|
OgNar posted:Personally I like Blue Sky atm because I can look at interesting posts and not see garbage reply after garbage reply from blue checkmarks. Curated spaces are always superior to public free-for-alls. The day BS goes public is the day it starts being poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2023 22:46
|
|
|
Musk’s X sues to block California’s content moderation lawquote:AB 587 passed in September 2022, requiring social media platforms to submit a "terms of service report" semi-annually to California's attorney general, providing "a detailed description of content moderation practices used" and "information about whether, and if so how, the social media company defines and moderates" hate speech or racism, extremism or radicalization, disinformation or misinformation, harassment, and foreign political interference. Under the law, social media platforms must also provide information and statistics on any content moderation actions taken in those categories. Apparently disclosing moderation policies is really draconian, or something.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2023 22:59
|
|
|
Isn't filing a lawsuit basically publicly admitting that your moderation sucks?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2023 23:04
|
|
|
Clarste posted:Isn't filing a lawsuit basically publicly admitting that your moderation sucks?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2023 23:09
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Musk doesn't want to have to do moderation or pay moderators ftfy
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2023 23:54
|
|
|
The California law does not require Twitter to moderate content, only to publicly disclose whatever moderation policies and actions they have. It might expose the fact that Twitter isn't enforcing its stated policies; or unevenly enforcing them (it's this one, I bet).
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 00:18
|
|
|
Yeah, they don’t want to have to issue a public statement along the lines of “we received 10,000 reports of nazi accounts and banned 5 of them. Our number of moderators is now zero, because the last one got fired for that”
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 00:22
|
|
|
CopywrightMMXI posted:I have 3 blue sky codes and can PM then to people who want them. I'm interested if there's still any left.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 00:27
|
|
|
Family Values posted:The California law does not require Twitter to moderate content, only to publicly disclose whatever moderation policies and actions they have.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 00:50
|
|
|
If someone has a spare code, I'd appreciate it E: thanks! Jon fucked around with this message at 03:51 on Sep 9, 2023 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 01:10
|
|
|
Space Cadet Omoly posted:Yeah, blue sky is going to be big eventually as Twitter starts to clear out, so if you're an artist getting an account now and sitting on it until it opens up to the general public will probably be a good long term investment. i guess this is where i'm thinking too, even if i'm still not very happy with any of jack's influence being present. at the same time, deleting twitter has been pretty sweet. id ask if artists should really jump right into another rat race, but then again... artists dont got mucha choice, do they 
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 01:14
|
|
|
Family Values posted:Musk’s X sues to block California’s content moderation law This bodies well for when the EU starts asking about moderation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 01:18
|
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:It might be on shaky ground since under the First Amendment there is basically zero legitimate government interest in policing Twitter's moderation policies in any of those categories. The law doesn't actually police the policies in any way, though. It merely requires services to make their moderation policies publicly available. It's a transparency bill, not a policing bill. Musk's lawsuit appears to be claiming that forcing Twitter to disclose its moderation policies is a violation of Twitter's First Amendment "right not to speak", and also that forcing Twitter to disclose its policies is equivalent to pressuring it to change those policies because the public backlash to their policies would be severe.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 01:41
|
|
|
"Your Honor, our practices are so disgusting and despicable to anyone of sound mind that you must allow us to perform them in secrecy."
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 02:06
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The law doesn't actually police the policies in any way, though. It merely requires services to make their moderation policies publicly available. It's a transparency bill, not a policing bill.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 02:07
|
|
|
Space Cadet Omoly posted:Yeah, blue sky is going to be big eventually as Twitter starts to clear out, so if you're an artist getting an account now and sitting on it until it opens up to the general public will probably be a good long term investment. I could be wrong but I think that between Blue Sky kind of dropping the ball by being closed registration and just the general failure of competitors to Twitter to take off, that we're not really going to see another thing like Twitter, maybe not for generations. The inverse of what happened before MySpace, kinda, where you had competing platforms (Xanga, Livejournal, etc) rather than just the one monolithic force. The fascists will continue to stick with X until it finally literally ceases to function or gets shut down by some governmental agency after Musk decides to start allowing CSAM or something equally mental. The liberals and other centrists will likely - as I think they have been - flee to Reddit and other platforms. And so on and so forth. Like, by accident, I think Musk did the one good thing in his life and killed both Twitter and the concept of the single monolithic social media platform. I could of course be wrong and it's all wishful thinking, but yeah. My gut and signs are making me think that at least for the near future I think we'll have several competing platforms, likely divided by political leanings, rather than some single new big dick platform that comes in and takes Twitter's crown.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 02:40
|
|
|
I think BlueSky is generally fine, but there just aren't enough people there currently. I visit sometimes but most of the people I follow are not posting a ton.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 02:42
|
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:It's "transparency" about something that the government has no authority to regulate, and the only way it has teeth is if there are consequences for not reporting or inaccurately reporting what their moderation process is, which puts a burden on their ability to moderate their platform as they choose. I really don't think the courts are going to look at this favorably. It's just as stupid as all of the conservative social media laws that are getting instantly dumpstered in court. Platforms are already required to post their privacy policies publicly; is this really much different? Transparency for consumers can be a legit interest.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 02:43
|
|
|
We require food sellers to label their ingredients on the package. Why shouldn't we require meme sellers to label theirs too? There is no first amendment right to hide things that might be harmful to the consumer. Honestly appealing to the first amendment right away feels more like it's for publicity than anything else; it feels closer to a trade secret issue to me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 02:49
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Platforms are already required to post their privacy policies publicly; is this really much different? Transparency for consumers can be a legit interest. Content control on a privately-owned platform is.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 02:52
|
|
|
Is there a specific court case to that effect? Admittedly I have not done any research on this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 03:09
|
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:It's "transparency" about something that the government has no authority to regulate, and the only way it has teeth is if there are consequences for not reporting or inaccurately reporting what their moderation process is, which puts a burden on their ability to moderate their platform as they choose. I really don't think the courts are going to look at this favorably. It's just as stupid as all of the conservative social media laws that are getting instantly dumpstered in court. Do you follow the same logic about any other companies that do business with the public? Auto manufacturers: 'forcing us to disclose the contents of our car warranties is a draconian violation of our right not to speak'
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 03:20
|
|
|
YouTube made a change recently (not sure if it’s global or A/B testing) where if you have watch history disabled then the home feed is just plain empty with a big message about how they can’t algorithmically show you suggested videos. YouTube please stop threatening me with a good time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 03:22
|
|
|
Clarste posted:We require food sellers to label their ingredients on the package. Why shouldn't we require meme sellers to label theirs too? There is no first amendment right to hide things that might be harmful to the consumer. Honestly appealing to the first amendment right away feels more like it's for publicity than anything else; it feels closer to a trade secret issue to me. quote:(A) Hate speech or racism. It's paragraphs 4 and 5 that run in to trouble. 4 requires quote:(4) A detailed description of content moderation practices used by the social media company for that platform, including, but not limited to, all of the following: Notably, the bill contains no limiting language (that I can see?) on the 5 categories listed - "if you choose to define these categories in your terms of service, you must complete these disclosures" is one thing. There's no "if" in the bill, they must report on actions that fit whatever (unclear) definition of the 5 categories. That forces editorial decisionmaking (and arguably compels speech) via classification. It mandates additional work and financial liability as a result of making moderation decisions. 230 isn't particularly vague on the subject. Musk grabbed a former MPAA shitbird for the suit, and I suspect the blatantly  parts of the filing were for Musk's benefit (Pronouns! Overreach! Censorship!)... but sadly on the whole this feels like another case of the old clickhole "worst person you know" article.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 03:39
|
|
|
Family Values posted:Do you follow the same logic about any other companies that do business with the public? Auto manufacturers: 'forcing us to disclose the contents of our car warranties is a draconian violation of our right not to speak' Paracaidas posted:It requires the companies to submit their terms of service as well as a summary on if their terms of service explicitly define If there's any kind of penalty for that, then that puts a burden on their ability to moderate their own site at their discretion, because anything they do (or decline to do), they have to submit an updated policy to the government first. If there is no consequence for it, then it's just meaningless.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 03:57
|
|
|
Consumers having information available about a product so they can decide whether or not they want to use it isn't useless. I'm not a lawyer but that sounds like a very flimsy argument.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 04:01
|
|
|
What is the point of making people sign a terms if service contract if one party can just do whatever the hell they want regardless of the contract? Maybe this is a foreign concept to idiots like Musk, but when you sign a contract you are also bound by it, not just the poor sucker on the other end. Edit: For what it's worth, appealing to "editorial freedom" like it's some catch-all seems pretty dumb to me. There are limits to editorial freedom. If you choose to put CSAM up on your private website that is still loving illegal. The first amendment is not and has never been overly broad. Clarste fucked around with this message at 04:41 on Sep 9, 2023 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 04:38
|
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:I suspect this might still run into the problem because the question is what happens if they submit a ToS that is (in some random dipshit's opinion) inconsistent with the moderation actions taken?  It's about as narrowly tailored as I can imagine, it serves a legitimate public interest, and random dipshit's lawsuits are still preempted by Section 230. The provides no new cause of action for moderation decisions even in the case of inconsistency (I suspect because they knew they couldn't get votes for a bill that's even more DOA)I don't see that portion as more onerous than the Children's Television Act disclosure and complaint procedures, and the CTA was explicitly impacting editorial decisions. Some highlights from the 2000 FCC guidance: quote:Licensees are also required to designate a children's liaison at the station responsible for collecting comments on the station's compliance with the CTA quote:The Reports are prepared on a quarterly basis and must be placed in the station's public inspection file. Stations are required to publicize the existence and location of the reports Clarste posted:Edit: For what it's worth, appealing to "editorial freedom" like it's some catch-all seems pretty dumb to me. There are limits to editorial freedom. If you choose to put CSAM up on your private website that is still loving illegal. The first amendment is not and has never been overly broad. quote:Nothing in this section shall be construed to impair the enforcement of… any other Federal criminal statute As to being overly broad, when the coauthor of a senate bill 22 Republicans and 21 Democrats are cosponsoring states the intent of the bill is to keep social media from turning our kids trans, "does social media have too many first amendment protections?" isn't top of mind for me. What is the top thing conservatives should be taking action on? As answered by Marsha Blackburn posted:Well, there are a couple of things, of course, protecting minor children from the transgender in our culture and that influence. And I would add to that watching what’s happening on social media.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 04:59
|
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:It's "transparency" about something that the government has no authority to regulate, and the only way it has teeth is if there are consequences for not reporting or inaccurately reporting what their moderation process is, which puts a burden on their ability to moderate their platform as they choose. I really don't think the courts are going to look at this favorably. It's just as stupid as all of the conservative social media laws that are getting instantly dumpstered in court. I mean, the states have general "health, safety, and morals" legislative power under the 10th Amendment. It's quite broad except insofar as it is limited by the rest of the US Constitution or their own state laws and constitutions. Nitrousoxide fucked around with this message at 15:23 on Sep 9, 2023 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 14:36
|
|
|
I would take a Bluesky code, I guess. I never really used Twitter but I can see a couple reasons to get in now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 15:01
|
|
|
I’ve got like 3 of them, message me and I’ll send one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 21:50
|
|
|
RoboChrist 9000 posted:I could be wrong but I think that between Blue Sky kind of dropping the ball by being closed registration and just the general failure of competitors to Twitter to take off, that we're not really going to see another thing like Twitter, maybe not for generations. Good.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2023 23:14
|
|
|
Prism posted:Good. The arab spring was a strong enough force for good that it overwhelms whatever other nitpicking anyone can direct at it
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2023 15:20
|
|
|
RoboChrist 9000 posted:I could be wrong but I think that between Blue Sky kind of dropping the ball by being closed registration and just the general failure of competitors to Twitter to take off, that we're not really going to see another thing like Twitter, maybe not for generations.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2023 16:41
|
|
|
It'll eventually have to open, but it's probably going to remain closed until they 1) fix some system architecture issues and 2) come up with a reliable method to reduce the number of bots.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2023 17:47
|
|
|
Morrow posted:It'll eventually have to open, but it's probably going to remain closed until they 1) fix some system architecture issues and 2) come up with a reliable method to reduce the number of bots. Did Twitter ever come up with a reliable way to reduce the number of bots? Because it doesn't seem like they did.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2023 17:56
|
|
|
Space Cadet Omoly posted:Did Twitter ever come up with a reliable way to reduce the number of bots? Because it doesn't seem like they did. installing Elom Musk as their CTO seems to have driven down overall traffic, but it didn't help with the bots.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2023 18:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 13:39 |
|
|
Twitter's numbers have gone down because it's a paradise for bots and racism now. Actual people have left it while the bot population has flourished. Not to mention, it just sounds like a porn site now. In a way, I appreciate Musk. He fail son'ed so hard that everyone has gone back to making GBS threads on ceos and rich fucks. Disney Iger is no longer a sweet prince but just another shitbag. The Warner Bros ceo with the Chiklet teeth got booed at a university ceremony. They're just as stupid as everyone else, and it's awesome.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2023 18:20
|
|