Asking
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

What do you think about Mr. Musk’s purchase of Twitter?

Based on what you know about Mr. Musk, are you optimistic or pessimistic about the future of the company under his leadership? If you use Twitter, will this change in ownership affect the way you engage with the platform? More specifically, are you excited about Mr. Musk’s potentially loosening Twitter’s content moderation policies or worried by it? How much do you think speech should be moderated on Twitter and other social media platforms? Do you think there are certain kinds of messages — like harassment, hate speech, misinformation or spam — that users should not be allowed to post? Why or why not?
What risks are there to less content moderation on social media? What benefits are there? In your opinion, do the benefits outweigh the risks? Why or why not?
“The deal will give Musk enormous influence over politicians, celebrities and the media, with the ability to platform and de-platform them at will,” Andrew Ross Sorkin, a Times columnist, writes in our newsletter The Morning. Do you agree with this interpretation? How do you feel about the ability of Mr. Musk, and other billionaires like Mark Zuckerberg, to make the rules for influential social media platforms?
In an Opinion essay, the author Anand Giridharadas writes that Twitter faces problems with disinformation, racism and bullying and harassment. Have you experienced these on Twitter or elsewhere on social media? Do you think the loosening of content moderation guidelines is likely to exacerbate or resolve these problems? Mr. Musk has suggested that he may make several changes to Twitter, including to its content moderation policies and its algorithm. Imagine you were in charge of a major social media platform. How would you alter it? Why?
CheekyBadger · M Best Comment
I'm not really on Twitter (or at least don't follow the sorts of people where this is applicable) but if Twitter wants to be the "public square" for debate about important matters then it is wrong that only one side is allowed to express an opinion without being called racist/homophobic/bigotted etc. I don't have a problem with terms of service that forbid bullying, hate speech etc but that's been abused - e.g if someone expresses an option about abortion being wrong they are accused of mysogeny, or if they share a scientific paper about (say) Ivermectin they are banned for spreading misinformation. Just like in the physical public square people should be free to argue their case and it is helpful to have a moderator but that moderator has to be objective and neutral and not partisan -which isn't the case with Twitter.


 
Post Comment