Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

joeysflipphone t1_jdrfmxa wrote

Reply to comment by [deleted] in Twitter loses bid to throw out complaint by Australian Muslim group over ‘hateful’ content | Twitter by ZealousidealClub4119

Twitter saw a nearly 500% increase in use of the N-word in the 12-hour window immediately following the shift of ownership to Musk. Within the following week, tweets including the word “Jew” had increased fivefold since before the ownership transfer.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/how-we-rise/2022/11/23/why-is-elon-musks-twitter-takeover-increasing-hate-speech/

https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/02/tech/twitter-hate-speech/index.html

102

Panzer1119 t1_jds3tz9 wrote

And how much of it is intentionally caused just to harm Elon?

−85

lyan-cat t1_jds4ocd wrote

Wait, that's your excuse?!

So lame.

64

firehawk_hx t1_jds6md2 wrote

lmao dude really just went “false flag!?!” like Elon himself doesn’t post bigoted and transphobic shit on his personal account 😂

61

Panzer1119 t1_jds4zpz wrote

There are certainly people who do this, and as long as you can’t prove how much are "real" it’s inappropriate to just say the platform got worse because Elon took over.

−72

BlainWs t1_jds85bl wrote

But it did, whether or not it was false flag, there was a verifiable increase in the usage of hate words after he took over.

That's a fact.

42

Panzer1119 t1_jdsa8ja wrote

Yes, but correlation isn’t causation, and some people try to blame it all on Elon.

−71

Cult_ureS t1_jdsrcw2 wrote

Apparently some people try to blame it on anyone but Elon.

But sure, get us that magical unicorn data that differentiates between who was being honest in their usage of nggr and j*w who wasn't. So we can look through it. I'll wait.

19

Panzer1119 t1_jdsrj75 wrote

Which wouldn’t be wrong, or did Elon write all these Messages himself?

Even if he is the reason for everything bad, other people are the ones that write these bad messages.

−3

Cult_ureS t1_jdsroy5 wrote

If there were keyword filters that he ordered removed, then yes, it's his fault.

11

Panzer1119 t1_jdsru04 wrote

But only indirectly.

−3

Cult_ureS t1_jdss58a wrote

You're proving my point, NaziTank.

10

Panzer1119 t1_jdsvbmn wrote

Ah, so when you run out of arguments, you resort to an ad hominem?

−3

stutte t1_jdt1i0z wrote

Its not an ad hom, your user name is literally the name of a Nazi Tank.

15

eosh t1_jdt1n35 wrote

Yes but that was supposed to be only a dog whistle seen by other fascists

10

[deleted] t1_jdt2ifo wrote

[removed]

−3

Cult_ureS t1_jdtubv3 wrote

Hezbollah1119: But since when are Gods exclusively for militant Islamists? "Hezbollah" is literally just "Party of God" in Lebanese. There are so many different Gods and parties in the world…

2

Panzer1119 t1_jduu45y wrote

Yeah if that’s true, what’s the problem?

Or do you consider every God, people claim there is, as evil?

Are the Tanks defending the Ukraine evil?

1

No_more_hiding t1_jdtv90l wrote

So you're saying Elon is powerless to stop it? Pretty pathetic way to run a company if you can't even moderate the huge surge in hate speech on your own platform.

6

Panzer1119 t1_jduue11 wrote

No, there is a limit to what is disproportionate.

People murder each other every day, yet the governments, where murder is illegal, can’t cope with it or what?

No, because it would require so much intervention (censoring) to stop it completely, that it’s better to let some people do it.

−1

No_more_hiding t1_jdv939m wrote

So Elon thinks a 500% increase in hate speech is proportionate.....I think you've hit the nail on the head there. It's a deliberate act by him.

2

Panzer1119 t1_jdva65c wrote

The problem are the people who think this increase would be a problem.

1

No_more_hiding t1_jdvbsx1 wrote

What kind of person thinks it's not a problem? Hateful people. Crikey, there's no reasoning with broken human beings with no moral compass.

2

Panzer1119 t1_jdvfm42 wrote

Because the people writing that stuff didn’t begin to think that way just because Elon took over Twitter.

They are real people with real concerns or just hate. Just censoring them won’t help, it makes them even more angry.

1

No_more_hiding t1_jdvp470 wrote

No, it inflames and normalises hate. It makes it seem acceptable. Just read any history about normalised hate speech and what happens. Read about how to deal with anger - if you feed the wolf it grows. But presumably you are not in one of the minorities that this hate is directed towards, so you think it's ok and don't feel threatened, and empathy is not your strong point

1

Panzer1119 t1_jdvq8nf wrote

You don’t have to be in no minority to not feel threatened.

That’s like the take "if you aren’t a women you don’t know much about female bodies".

No, a man, that studied the human anatomy for decades, probably knows much more about the (female) human body than an average woman.

1

No_more_hiding t1_jdvtk5f wrote

That doesn't make sense at all. You can know things on an academic level, but you will never know exactly what something feels like. I'm a woman and I know it hurts to be kicked in the balls but I don't know exactly what it feels like, likewise a man won't know exactly what having a period or giving birth feels like.

However some of us have empathy, but you clearly don't because you can't even imagine how it feels to have rising hate and calls for death and violence towards you because of a certain characteristic outside of your control.

1

Panzer1119 t1_jdvv8vr wrote

But I wasn’t talking about feelings, just knowledge.

It’s even the opposite, I can imagine the rising hate and violence of certain things outside of my control, because the cancel culture is something like this.

It’s outside of my control and it feels like hate against people who don’t support everything they say or do.

And it’s not just an exaggeration, my depression is partly due to the rising probability of "being canceled" for stuff that was misunderstood or that was arbitrarily or wrongly deemed bad.

1

No_more_hiding t1_jdw2ed2 wrote

I think you need to look up the definition of hate speech and examples of it. It's not saying something that could be misunderstood. It's saying something extremely blatant, hateful and often calls for violence. I'm not going to give examples because I don't want to be banned!

Your worries about cancel culture are disproportionate. Those people who are supposedly cancelled are usually still in the public eye, still spouting their views freely, but play the victim. Perhaps therapy would help if it's giving you depression to get reassurance that the things you're no likely reading online are not in actual fact happening.

1

Panzer1119 t1_jdwaxgu wrote

I wasn’t talking about hate speech, but the accusation of not having empathy or that I couldn’t imagine how it feels having rising hate.

There are indeed "cancel culture things" happening, I already experienced some, at least e.g. downvotes etc.

Or people that assume things about you that either aren’t true, way too exaggerated or couldn’t be known by them without direct proof (like for example the accusation of having no empathy).

1

No_more_hiding t1_jdwn3jp wrote

If you think hate speech is acceptable and are defending it, you have a seriously questionable understanding of empathy.

If you have depression because of downvotes and are afraid it means you're being cancelled, then you should look at getting some help with that.

1

lordreed t1_jdw1d4y wrote

>it’s better to let some people do it.

No government, not even the Vatican a nation of priests, has the tools to completely stop murders from occurring even if they wanted to. Unlike moderating an Internet platform, which clearly has the tools to reduce hate speech.

1

Panzer1119 t1_jdwblqu wrote

Yes, some have those tools. They even form the basis of some global fear.

Nuclear Weapons.

No more people means no more murderers happening?

I just wanted to show that some means aren’t appropriate or are too serious interference with fundamental rights.

1

lordreed t1_jdwe3nz wrote

That is not a of serious suggestion or else you don't need nuclear bombs to accomplish it. Also it would only make sense in this context if the suggestion for fixing Twitter was to end the service all together. I am not sure why you are so set against the content moderation that so obviously working before the Musk takeover of Twitter.

1

Ponk2k t1_jdvqq6r wrote

The fact that the moderation team got shredded by him it's a good guess it's causation

3

Panzer1119 t1_jdvqzn7 wrote

Yes, but how much of it?

It is definitely a reason for it, but it’s also true that there are people who hate him and who might take part in spreading more hate on Twitter just to harm him by increasing the statistics for hate speech.

−2

Ponk2k t1_jdvrhxv wrote

I'm sure there's trolls in there but loads who don't like him just left. Throw in the fact that he unbanned some heinous shits who just love themselves some racism and gutted moderation you're really reaching to not blame him.

2

Panzer1119 t1_jdvrzhu wrote

Personally, I don’t need to justify what he does, i can just accept it and don’t care that it allegedly is bad.

But I don’t want to see people ignoring the fact that he isn’t at fault for 100% of the bad things that happen.

0

Ponk2k t1_jdvt0ye wrote

I think it's well established that his personally driven changes have been horrific for the platform. That's not some conspiracy nonsense, that's cold hard fact.

He's made himself the platform, therefore it is his fault.

Advertisers have list confidence and it's generally regarded as a laughing stock. They'll be teaching this as a cautionary tale in buisness schools for decades.

1