> One thing I really like about Twitter is that you can choose to follow who you want. If you don't want to see memes making fun of you, just don't follow accounts that post/retweet these memes.
My experience of Twitter is the opposite. Someone I follow posts something I think is intelligent and polite, and the replies are filled with people launching tangential attacks and making weird accusations.
A tweet is like a tiny conference talk whose attendees are self-selecting. Yet random strangers all over the world are able to detect the in-progress talk, parachute in, and yell crazy things, and nobody can take away their microphone.
> It's sad that Twitter is banning satire accounts. I'm against all censorship of lawful speech, and condemn Twitter and any social media platform that participates in this kind of censorship.
But suppose hoards of people with political opinions you detest start creating accounts that pose as "your side", using the worst possible arguments for your positions, insulting everyone, and making "your side" look stupid and cruel. Is that a kind of speech you want to protect?
> Someone I follow posts something I think is intelligent and polite, and the replies are filled with people launching tangential attacks and making weird accusations.
You can still curate this experience. There are accounts that I will never read the replies from, and there are accounts that I know will have great replies.
There are other accounts where I will. I ban, mute, and use the "don't show retweets from this user" feature liberally.
> suppose hoards of people with political opinions you detest start creating accounts that pose as "your side", using the worst possible arguments for your positions, insulting everyone, and making "your side" look stupid and cruel. Is that a kind of speech you want to protect?
If you're talking about the NPC accounts, they are clearly satire by their tweeting style and avatar.
Actual subversive impersonation is tricky, but I would hope that those kinds of accounts get outed by the side of the people they are subverting and the side they are subverting can condemn those arguments, positions, and tactics.
> Would you distinguish satire from impersonation? ... is clearly self-identifying as a satire of Donald Trump. Nobody is going to confuse that account with the real one.
> But suppose hoards of people with political opinions you detest start creating accounts that pose as "your side", using the worst possible arguments for your positions, insulting everyone, and making "your side" look stupid and cruel.
Personally I'd distinguish satire from impersonation in this case as the banned accounts have:
- Grey flat colored faces
- A nose made out out of two straight black lines
- The username "npc" followed by a number
For example, every avatar the image underneath the headline in the article linked to in this page:
My experience of Twitter is the opposite. Someone I follow posts something I think is intelligent and polite, and the replies are filled with people launching tangential attacks and making weird accusations.
A tweet is like a tiny conference talk whose attendees are self-selecting. Yet random strangers all over the world are able to detect the in-progress talk, parachute in, and yell crazy things, and nobody can take away their microphone.
> It's sad that Twitter is banning satire accounts. I'm against all censorship of lawful speech, and condemn Twitter and any social media platform that participates in this kind of censorship.
Would you distinguish satire from impersonation? Eg, https://twitter.com/RealDonalDrumpf?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7... is clearly self-identifying as a satire of Donald Trump. Nobody is going to confuse that account with the real one.
But suppose hoards of people with political opinions you detest start creating accounts that pose as "your side", using the worst possible arguments for your positions, insulting everyone, and making "your side" look stupid and cruel. Is that a kind of speech you want to protect?
reply