Twitter Co-Founder Apolgizes for Trump

[xxlt]

Q: Should Trump have Evan Williams arrested?
Q: Will Trump have Williams arrested?
Q: Over under on Trump tweets denouncing Williams?

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2017/05/21/twitter-co-founder-apologizes-for-helping-elect-trump.html

[Dill]

(05-22-2017, 02:24 PM)xxlt Wrote: Q: Should Trump have Evan Williams arrested?
Q: Will Trump have Williams arrested?
Q: Over under on Trump tweets denouncing Williams?

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2017/05/21/twitter-co-founder-apologizes-for-helping-elect-trump.html

For me, the kernel issue in that article is stated here.

The 45-year-old Silicon Valley entrepreneur criticized the internet for rewarding extremes calling it “broken.” Williams said that he was wrong for thinking that the world would be a better place if there was a platform for everyone to freely speak and exchange ideas.

I fear he was right about that.

[*bfine32*]

(05-22-2017, 07:06 PM)Dill Wrote: For me, the kernel issue in that article is stated here.

The 45-year-old Silicon Valley entrepreneur criticized the internet for rewarding extremes calling it “broken.” Williams said that he was wrong for thinking that the world would be a better place if there was a platform for everyone to freely speak and exchange ideas.

I fear he was right about that.

For real? Who do you and that dude think should not be able to freely speak?

[NATI BENGALS]

Did you say drink some Evan Williams?

[Yojimbo]

Maybe he's referring to the fact that starting during the Democrat primary Google wouldn't offer any auto completes about Hillary Clinton referring to emails, corruption, criminal, war, coup and many other negative associations that all other search engines (Bing, Yahoo, etc.) would. Probably just a coincidence that a Google exec was her chief technology officer on the campaign.

[Dill]

(05-22-2017, 08:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: For real? Who do you and that dude think should not be able to freely speak?

For a start, ISIS operatives who urge Muslims living in the US to wreak havoc on US citizens and property around them.

People of all stripes who provide information on how to build bombs might be next.

People who use social media to harass or bully others would also be considered. Revenge porn sites, for example, should not be legal.

Free speech is only part of the issue. Ownership and control of media may actually be more important.

Whom would you prevent from speaking?

[*bfine32*]

(05-22-2017, 09:28 PM)Dill Wrote: For a start, ISIS operatives who urge Muslims living in the US to wreak havoc on US citizens and property around them.

People of all stripes who provide information on how to build bombs might be next.

People who use social media to harass or bully others would also be considered. Revenge porn sites, for example, should not be legal.

Free speech is only part of the issue. Ownership and control of media may actually be more important.

Whom would you prevent from speaking?

I hesitate to say whom I would prevent from having a platform, from which, to speak freely.  Of course no one should speak publically in a manner that encourages others to commit crime.

But of course we both know that is not the type of free speech the twitter dude and you were referring to.

[Dill]

(05-22-2017, 09:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I hesitate to say whom I would prevent from having a platform, from which, to speak freely.  Of course no one should speak publically in a manner that encourages others to commit crime.

But of course we both know that is not the type of free speech the twitter dude and you were referring to.

We do? And how do "we" know that?

[*bfine32*]

(05-22-2017, 10:45 PM)Dill Wrote: We do? And how do "we" know that?

We don't know for sure, just an assertion based on the content of the article from which the quote and the affirmation came. I suppose we could ask one of the sources if he would be forthright.

[Dill]

(05-22-2017, 10:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote: We don't know for sure, just an assertion based on the content of the article from which the quote and the affirmation came. I suppose we could ask one of the sources if he would be forthright.

I think both sources would say they were unwilling to offer a speech platform to people whose intent was to commit crime or cause mayhem.

The question raised by the passage I selected is, what happens if totally free speech sends a nation down the path to destruction, or at least leads to a great deal of mayhem and suffering?  You don't like Nazi examples, but there are other countries in which free speech gives those who would end democracy a foot in the door. Turkey and Russia are contemporary examples. Free speech has been very problematic in Egypt. Egyptian liberals were for it until they realized that a lot of people who exercised the right did so to argue for limits on others' free speech--and won an election.

Forbidding free speech is also the basis of anti-democratic politics. So it would not be a simple solution, or a desirable principle.

How would you manage the problem, or do you dispute there is a problem?   

[*bfine32*]

(05-22-2017, 09:28 PM)Dill Wrote: For a start, ISIS operatives who urge Muslims living in the US to wreak havoc on US citizens and property around them.

(05-22-2017, 09:36 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But of course we both know that is not the type of free speech the twitter dude and you were referring to.

(05-22-2017, 10:45 PM)Dill Wrote: We do? And how do "we" know that?

(05-22-2017, 10:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I suppose we could ask one of the sources if he would be forthright.

(05-22-2017, 11:20 PM)Dill Wrote: I think both sources would say they were unwilling to offer a speech platform to people whose intent was to commit crime or cause...............

Never mind.

[Dill]

(05-22-2017, 11:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Never mind.

Actually, I do mind. I thought through a serious (if preliminary) answer to what I considered a genuine question.

You, apparently, were up to something else.

[*bfine32*]

(05-22-2017, 11:27 PM)Dill Wrote: Actually, I do mind. I thought through a serious (if preliminary) answer to what I considered a genuine question.

You, apparently, were up to something else.

I will say the article linked in the OP and the title of the thread made twitter dude's comments seem more directed at Trump than his overall views on social media after I read the entire interview on a separate site. So I was wrong in my assertion. While being critical and apologizing for any role his medium played in Trump's election; he focused more on extremism.  

[Dill]

(05-22-2017, 11:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I will say the article linked in the OP and the title of the thread made twitter dude's comments seem more directed at Trump than his overall views on social media after I read the entire interview on a separate site. So I was wrong in my assertion. While being critical and apologizing for any role his medium played in Trump's election; he focused more on extremism.  

Not a problem, then. The statement I singled out I did not take to be Trump-directed, but concerned with how the line is drawn between "dangerous" speech and merely unpleasant or different.  I think that in other countries, there are situations in which free speech could be dangerous; in theory it could be in the United States. The danger could come from radical Islamists or Nazi/klan types. Perhaps also from people who disrupt college speakers with violence. But the danger is not there now.

Cases like Turkey's though, are troubling, since, so far as I know, those supporting Erdogan are not directly advocating violence or anything immediately dangerous. They are just supporting parliamentary representatives who in turn ratify laws centralizing power in Erdogan. His opponents are losing the public debate. The result will soon (if it is not already) be a country with no pretense to allowing free speech and a free press.

[xxlt]

(05-22-2017, 07:06 PM)Dill Wrote: For me, the kernel issue in that article is stated here.

The 45-year-old Silicon Valley entrepreneur criticized the internet for rewarding extremes calling it “broken.” Williams said that he was wrong for thinking that the world would be a better place if there was a platform for everyone to freely speak and exchange ideas.

I fear he was right about that.

But wasn't that what the town square was called way back in jolly old England?

Was it a bad idea centuries ago too?

And if it is a bad idea, what are the implications for the idea of democracy?

[xxlt]

(05-22-2017, 08:10 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Did you say drink some Evan Williams?

                                          

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-22-2017, 08:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: For real? Who do you and that dude think should not be able to freely speak?

Oh, sweet baby Jesus.

He was taking about making the world a better place. Not taking away their free speech.

This is a good question example his concern because you completely focused on something he never suggested.

[THE Bigzoman]

You

(05-22-2017, 07:06 PM)Dill Wrote: For me, the kernel issue in that article is stated here.

The 45-year-old Silicon Valley entrepreneur criticized the internet for rewarding extremes calling it “broken.” Williams said that he was wrong for thinking that the world would be a better place if there was a platform for everyone to freely speak and exchange ideas.

I fear he was right about that.

But if it makes you feel better, I wouldn't trust anyone in being the arbiter of what's okay and who should or should not be given a platform. This is my whole beef with language and discussions about bad soeech, Who decides what's bad and what isn't?

[CKwi88]

(05-22-2017, 07:06 PM)Dill Wrote: For me, the kernel issue in that article is stated here.

The 45-year-old Silicon Valley entrepreneur criticized the internet for rewarding extremes calling it “broken.” Williams said that he was wrong for thinking that the world would be a better place if there was a platform for everyone to freely speak and exchange ideas.

I fear he was right about that.

Your bold part here has a spin on it. The actual quote is:

Quote:Evan Williams


“I thought once everybody could speak freely and exchange information and ideas, the world is automatically going to be a better place,” “I was wrong about that.”

It very well could just be me, but the word "automatically" makes a fairly big difference in what he was saying there. 

Platforms like Twitter and Facebook among others  (youtube comes to mind) are great for the exchange of information and ideas. However, it is it's much more than that. Along with the information and ideas, you also get conspiracy theories, hate speech, bullying, fake news, live streams of suicides and beating...the list goes on. I think that the latter is what Williams regrets about Twitter. While there is the easy way out in saying that people need to do their own research or ignore it, the reality is that people don't, and that's how we get to conspiracy theories like Obama being a Kenyan born Muslim Homosexual married to a Transsexual. Or how Trump enjoys getting peed on by Russian hookers on Putin's payroll. 

Those sorts of "ideas and information" certainly do not make the world a better place. And unfortunately Twitter has been the biggest platform for such absurdities to gain traction. 

[Dill]

(05-28-2017, 01:29 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: Your bold part here has a spin on it. The actual quote is:


It very well could just be me, but the word "automatically" makes a fairly big difference in what he was saying there. 

Platforms like Twitter and Facebook among others  (youtube comes to mind) are great for the exchange of information and ideas. However, it is it's much more than that. Along with the information and ideas, you also get conspiracy theories, hate speech, bullying, fake news, live streams of suicides and beating...the list goes on. I think that the latter is what Williams regrets about Twitter. While there is the easy way out in saying that people need to do their own research or ignore it, the reality is that people don't, and that's how we get to conspiracy theories like Obama being a Kenyan born Muslim Homosexual married to a Transsexual. Or how Trump enjoys getting peed on by Russian hookers on Putin's payroll. 

Those sorts of "ideas and information" certainly do not make the world a better place. And unfortunately Twitter has been the biggest platform for such absurdities to gain traction. 

I agree with you. The "free marketplace of ideas" doesn't function according to the ideal, which presumes people with complete information are comparing ideas like consumer products.