Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Twitter and Elon Musk


If you ran Twitter, what would you do?  

91 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, John123 said:

IIRC the Bee's Tweet/article were a satirical take on a  magazine (Time?) naming this person woman of the year or something like that.  Like it or not, funny or not, it was a valid satirical take.  Some people in today's society need to learn to take a joke.  The world is a better place with humor in it, whether you like a particular joke or not.

It was all fun and games when we were mocking young earth creationists a few years ago for thinking that human beings used to ride around on dinosaurs.  Now that the shoe is on the other foot, we have to take these strange quasi-religious beliefs with the utmost seriousness.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

I get that concern, but Twitter is way better than you might expect from the brevity requirements.  The character restrictions force people to be direct in whatever arguments they want to make, and a lot of posts take the form of pointing people toward interesting stories, blog posts, etc. that you might not see otherwise.  If you followed the right people, you were consistently weeks ahead of the CDC during the pandemic, for example.  (Of course, if you followed the wrong people, you were stockpiling ivermectin, so YMMV I guess).

If you stockpiled ivermectin early enough, you could have sold it at a pretty big markup later, so there is that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, PhillipPhoto said:

When something is so obvious, saying it outload can be funny.  

 

11 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Yeah.  They're skewering people who don't see that.  It's a "the emperor has no clothes" thing.


Thanks, I guess I still don’t see how it can both be a “boring statement of fact” but also funny.  I’m trying to think of another example of this type of humor and coming up empty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Again I wouldn’t know for sure but my guess is that most people simply follow whoever they already like, and if we’re talking politics it’s just another form of confirmation bias- but an even more simplistic and dumber form than any other I can think of. 

That's not Twitter's fault.  If people are actively looking for confirmation bias, they could just as easily do it elsewhere, like by watching nothing by Fox/MSNBC opinion shows or reading nothing but Gateway Pundit or the liberal equivalent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

Thanks, I guess I still don’t see how it can both be a “boring statement of fact” but also funny.  I’m trying to think of another example of this type of humor and coming up empty.

The earth has been around for much longer than 9000 years.  I'm sure the internet contains examples of jokes aimed at folks who believe otherwise.

I should add here that part of what makes religious fundamentalists great targets for humor is because a) they tend to be humor-deficient themselves and b) they tend to not realize how strange their views are to normal people.  The parallels here with the trans rights movement are very strong.

 

Edited by IvanKaramazov
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, IvanKaramazov said:

The earth has been around for much longer than 9000 years.  I'm sure the internet contains examples of jokes aimed at folks who believe otherwise.

I think the point is that none of them consist entirely of the bland, truthful statement "The earth has been around for much longer than 9000 years."  At the very least, even if one labeled that a joke, no one would find it funny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, IvanKaramazov said:

The earth has been around for much longer than 9000 years.  I'm sure the internet contains examples of jokes aimed at folks who believe otherwise.

 

Oh, I think it’s possible to make a joke about trans people but it needs a punchline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Juxtatarot said:

 

I'd like to ask you the same question I asked Ivan.  If you "ran" Twitter, what changes would you make to its Hateful conduct policy?  I'm especially curious if you'd remove the sentence about misgendering.

I can imagine a situation where misgendering was harassment but Levine is a   public figure, that seems different.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

Oh, I think it’s possible to make a joke about trans people but it needs a punchline.

Well, I'm not the world's most physical guy
But when she squeezed me tight she nearly broke my spine
Oh my Lola, lo lo lo lo Lola
Well, I'm not dumb but I can't understand
Why she walked like a woman but talked like a man
Oh my Lola, lo lo lo lo Lola, lo lo lo lo Lola

Now thats how its done!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Juxtatarot said:

I'd like to ask you the same question I asked Ivan.  If you "ran" Twitter, what changes would you make to its Hateful conduct policy?  I'm especially curious if you'd remove the sentence about misgendering.


The sentence about misgendering is in the section on "repeated slurs." I don't know why repetition is required, but as long as it is, if this is the Bee's first offense, it appears not to have run afoul of the rule.

Also, whether the Bee intended "to dehumanize, degrade or reinforce negative or harmful stereotypes" seems pretty questionable. I suspect their intent was to make a joke without necessarily dehumanizing anyone. (Admittedly, that intent would have been easier to discern if the joke had been remotely funny.)

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I voted definitely wouldn't suspend but I'd like to change it to probably wouldn't suspend. Having grown up in an extremely religious Southern Baptist/quasi-Evangelical family, it's very easy to see how the trans rights community's consistent stiff-necked inability to handle this type of humor and repressive desire to denounce/ban/shun anyone who even slightly deviates from their ideology shares extremely strong parallels with the religious right's moral majority and their angry flailing against anyone and anything that offended them in the late 21st century. But at the same time, I can see an argument for this maybe crossing a line of personal attack and would be willing to listen to (and might possibly be swayed by) Levine if she felt strongly enough that the Bee's tweet was seriously hurtful to her.

 

Edited by Possum
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, timschochet said:

1. Twitter sucks. 
2. The Babylon Bee is awful and unfunny. 
3. Twitter can do what it likes. It’s not censorship, it’s not “cancelling”. It’s a private company. 
4. While there are many positives to social media I’m convinced the world would be a better place if Twitter never existed. 
5. Did I mention Twitter sucked? 

Twitter is my favorite social media-news source by far. Granted I use it 80% for soccer, but it’s great. The experience is dependent on who you follow. If you follow nice people, your feed will be a nice feed.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

I can imagine a situation where misgendering was harassment but Levine is a   public figure, that seems different.  

For the record, my position would be different if this was directed at some random person who was just minding their own business.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

 


Thanks, I guess I still don’t see how it can both be a “boring statement of fact” but also funny.  I’m trying to think of another example of this type of humor and coming up empty.

It didn’t come up empty to their core reader.  Is it different than SNL making satire skits about the R’s for four years?  (I don’t have a problem with that either).  This is part of the cancel culture I hate, BB is for conservatives.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

I do find it humorous (and a little painful) that people are debating this based on whether they personally thought the satire was funny. 

Yep.  It seems like this is a common theme that comes up in our various threads about censorship or moderation or cancel culture or whatever we're calling it.  People worry a lot about whether the statement in question is accurate or correct or funny or whatever instead of dealing with the core issue of whether or not the statement in question should be suppressed.  If people think that "That's not funny" is a good reason for suppressing a particular belief, they should just say so out loud. 

Honestly, I think a lot of people have an extremely difficult time separating "ideas I disagree with" from "ideas that should be suppressed."  MT isn't among those people, of course, but I do think a lot of posters fall into that category.

  • Like 4
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

Like, a lot of people believe in god, but I’m an atheist.  If I wrote “there is no god”, it states something blindingly obvious to me.  But it isn’t very funny.

This is wrong, god liked one of my tweets this month.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

Like, a lot of people believe in god, but I’m an atheist.  If I wrote “there is no god”, it states something blindingly obvious to me.  But it isn’t very funny.

Good example.  And it is hilarious because most atheists wouldn't go around claiming there is no god. 

Edited by PhillipPhoto
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

I do find it humorous (and a little painful) that people are debating this based on whether they personally thought the satire was funny. 

My personal opinion on whether the account should have been suspended (or banned or whatever) has nothing to do with whether I think the tweet was funny.  It wasn't funny and I wouldn't have suspended the account.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:

My personal opinion on whether the account should have been suspended (or banned or whatever) has nothing to do with whether I think the tweet was funny.  It wasn't funny and I wouldn't have suspended the account.

 

i thought it was hilarious.  :shrug:

 

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It all comes back to it's their sandbox. Twitter can do whatever they want on their platform.

They spend a lot of money on infrastructure and employees and probably snacks on building what they have built. And no one who is complaining (or not complaining) pays anything to read, post and interact. I get an enormous amount of value (and potential mental health issues) from Twitter. It's honestly the first place I go when I want to know about anything going on at the surface level.

If I posted "My all-time favorite Dallas Maverick is Dirk Nowitzki" and Twitter told me to take down that post or I would be banned, well, thank God we have Luka. Is it morally right? Is it bullying? Is it hypocritical? Doesn't matter, if I like their product, it's the choice I have to make.

Don't like it? Go build your own Twitter.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Bogart said:

It all comes back to it's their sandbox. Twitter can do whatever they want on their platform.

They spend a lot of money on infrastructure and employees and probably snacks on building what they have built. And no one who is complaining (or not complaining) pays anything to read, post and interact. I get an enormous amount of value (and potential mental health issues) from Twitter. It's honestly the first place I go when I want to know about anything going on at the surface level.

If I posted "My all-time favorite

Dallas

Maverick is Dirk Nowitzki" and Twitter told me to take down that post or I would be banned, well, thank God we have Luka. Is it morally right? Is it bullying? Is it hypocritical? Doesn't matter, if I like their product, it's the choice I have to make.

 

Don't like it? Go build your own Twitter.

 

Well, the problem is we're pretty much at the point where these "private" businesses are acting as proxies of government.  And only proxies of left and far-left government. 

Telling someone to "go start your own social media" is akin to telling someone to go build their own car.  It's not easy doing ANY of that stuff and it's incredibly convenient for you to say that considering almost all of these companies are in lock step with your political side of the aisle.

It's not any different than telling someone to "learn to code" after losing their job at the factory.

Edited by BladeRunner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

 

Well, the problem is we're pretty much at the point where these "private" businesses are acting as proxies of government.  And only proxies of left and far-left government. 

Telling someone to "go start your own social media" is akin to telling someone to go build their own car.  It's not easy doing ANY of that stuff and it's incredibly convenient for you to say that considering almost all of these companies are in lock step with your political side of the aisle.

It's not any different than telling someone to "learn to code" after losing their job at the factory.

 

Most people I know don't use Twitter, at all. Wouldn't miss it. No one NEEDS Twitter. And if you do, then you follow their rules. 

And these companies are not lockstep with the left like you think, they follow the best interest of their shareholders and where the money is. It's always the opposite side that we think someone is on. Makes it easier to play victim when we don't like something. I personally don't like FB and so I don't use it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

I do find it humorous (and a little painful) that people are debating this based on whether they personally thought the satire was funny. 

 

44 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Yep.  It seems like this is a common theme that comes up in our various threads about censorship or moderation or cancel culture or whatever we're calling it.  People worry a lot about whether the statement in question is accurate or correct or funny or whatever instead of dealing with the core issue of whether or not the statement in question should be suppressed.  If people think that "That's not funny" is a good reason for suppressing a particular belief, they should just say so out loud. 

Honestly, I think a lot of people have an extremely difficult time separating "ideas I disagree with" from "ideas that should be suppressed."  MT isn't among those people, of course, but I do think a lot of posters fall into that category.

I haven’t seen anyone here actually agree with the suspension. It’s possible I missed one or two but it generally seems that there’s universal agreement on the suspension being heavy-handed which has then mostly moved us to:

1. Was it funny? (no)

2. Twitter is bad if you’re bad at Twitter (tim)

Edited by McBokonon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Maurile Tremblay said:


The sentence about misgendering is in the section about "repeated slurs." I don't know why repetition is required, but as long as it is, if this is the Bee's first offense, it appears not to have run afoul of the rule.

Also, whether the Bee intended "to dehumanize, degrade or reinforce negative or harmful stereotypes" seems pretty questionable. I suspect their intent was to make a joke without necessarily dehumanizing anyone. (Admittedly, that intent would have been easier to discern if the joke had been remotely funny.)

 

With the "and/or" I think one occurrence is enough but I'm no lawyer.   

I'm curious why they require intent.  It seems an unnecessary hurdle for Twitter.  That said, "intending to degrade" could be a low bar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mile High said:

Divorce is coming.  

Nope. Conservatives are going to lose. 
 

I don’t write that to be trite, or trollish. I simply base it on history- our society is constantly changing, becoming more and more progressive, more accepting: and with every change that has occurred over the last 100 years or so, whether it’s race, sex, sexual orientation, gender, etc., conservatives begin by fighting it, angrily insisting they will never accept it, and then ultimately they surrender and move on to the next issue they will fight for a time. They always lose in the end. Always. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Joe Bryant said:

You may have seen this story. Babylon Bee Twitter Account suspended

 

Twitter is obviously a zillion times bigger than this forum. But I can roughly relate to them as we both have to moderate our platform.

I will say if someone had posted on this forum the post Babylon Bee did, they would get a suspension from here. But not a permanent suspension. (I don't know what Twitter has done in this case)

BUT we're also way different than Twitter as Twitter is a zillion times larger and more important as a communication platform. 

I'm glad I don't have to decide how to moderate satirical posts on Twitter. 

If you ran Twitter, what would you do in this case?

 

It's kind of dumb, and punches down (the mortal sin for comedy IMO), but Babylon Bee is usually half funny and you know what they're trying to do.  Satire should be given a very long leash IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

Like, a lot of people believe in god, but I’m an atheist.  If I wrote “there is no god”, it states something blindingly obvious to me.  But it isn’t very funny.

 

Now imagine you're in a church, at a funeral or something, and the preacher guy just got done with a long elaborate prayer comforting the deceased's love ones that they're in a better place and they'll all reunite together in heaven.... THEN you hit em w that zinger.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Insein said:

Since they seem to only use it to go after political ideologies and not actual harmful people (they allow pedophiles to openly sell their product on Twitter), I would say the entire policy is useless. 

 

I feel like people only claim the bolded because they're pretty certain noone wants to throw out the search terms that would prove them wrong, and of course, they'll never provide actual evidence as then they could be seen as partaking.   Did you read an article that claims this or do you know first hand?   Pretty sure the FBI has a whole division or two devoted to enforcing laws on that.  Ask Pete Townshend. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, timschochet said:

Nope. Conservatives are going to lose. 
 

I don’t write that to be trite, or trollish. I simply base it on history- our society is constantly changing, becoming more and more progressive, more accepting: and with every change that has occurred over the last 100 years or so, whether it’s race, sex, sexual orientation, gender, etc., conservatives begin by fighting it, angrily insisting they will never accept it, and then ultimately they surrender and move on to the next issue they will fight for a time. They always lose in the end. Always. 

Let's talk in May when Roe is overturned.

I also think we're very likely win on affirmative action, but I believe that's a year away yet.

Edited by IvanKaramazov
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, timschochet said:

Nope. Conservatives are going to lose. 
 

I don’t write that to be trite, or trollish. I simply base it on history- our society is constantly changing, becoming more and more progressive, more accepting: and with every change that has occurred over the last 100 years or so, whether it’s race, sex, sexual orientation, gender, etc., conservatives begin by fighting it, angrily insisting they will never accept it, and then ultimately they surrender and move on to the next issue they will fight for a time. They always lose in the end. Always. 

 

Civilization usually collapses before that happens.  :shrug:

Then we start all over again.  Probably a good thing.  We got too many people with too much time on their hands making things up to be outraged about and trying to force change for change's sake.  We're at the point now where 50% of the population can't (or won't) tell you what a woman is.  That, to me, is a pretty big indicator we've gone too far and that a lot of people have it too easy.  Just ask the Romans.

Adversity tends to remind you what the REAL important things in life are: family, friends and being alive.  You don't have time for anything else.

Edited by BladeRunner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, cockroach said:

 

I feel like people only claim the bolded because they're pretty certain noone wants to throw out the search terms that would prove them wrong, and of course, they'll never provide actual evidence as then they could be seen as partaking.   Did you read an article that claims this or do you know first hand?   Pretty sure the FBI has a whole division or two devoted to enforcing laws on that.  Ask Pete Townshend. 

No. I've seen people I follow get temp banned for calling them out. This was back in 2017 but he's still calling them out on his newer account. 

https://twitter.com/ThatUmbrella/status/1459568844637450240?t=tXc4dfi5mIwVo0gCiIZw1A&s=19

Here's an old one I found. They delete the tweet but rarely the account. If they do then the CP salesmen just make a new one and keep going. 

https://twitter.com/adoor_abowl/status/1255338503455547392?t=d9j-WSzMUfUApOj3urFaBw&s=19

Most of his old ones are deleted now once hi account suspension. Point is there are these people out there on Twitter and not much is actively done to stop it. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dinsy Ejotuz said:

Satire should be given a very long leash IMO.


I think any type of humor should basically be exempt from all kinds of politically correct constraints. There should be a humor exception that gives safe harbor to any honest attempt at edginess even if it happens to cross over the boundary into offensiveness. There's no way to find the limits of tolerability without testing them, and testing those limits properly means occasionally transgressing them. That's okay, all in the service of a good laugh.

But to qualify for the humor exception, a jest needs to be at least minimally funny. I'll die on this hill.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Witz said:

Serious question @Joe Bryant- why would you suspend someone here if they made that same comment? 

I think I know why but would like to hear what your reasoning would be. 

Because it's being not excellent and it's mean.

We mostly try to be not mean here. And that seemed mean. 

I'll also fully admit we don't always get it right.

You said you thought you knew. What did you think it was?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:


I think any type of humor should basically be exempt from all kinds of politically correct constraints. There should be a humor exception that gives safe harbor to any honest attempt at edginess even if it happens to cross over the boundary into offensiveness. There's no way to find the limits of tolerability without testing them, and testing those limits properly means occasionally transgressing them. That's okay, all in the service of a good laugh.

But to qualify for the humor exception, a jest needs to be at least minimally funny. I'll die on this hill.

 

Many people who understand the context of the tweet and article it was based on do find it minimally funny.  Or does it have to be minimally funny to you for you to defend it?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:


I think any type of humor should basically be exempt from all kinds of politically correct constraints. There should be a humor exception that gives safe harbor to any honest attempt at edginess even if it happens to cross over the boundary into offensiveness. There's no way to find the limits of tolerability without testing them, and testing those limits properly means occasionally transgressing them. That's okay, all in the service of a good laugh.

But to qualify for the humor exception, a jest needs to be at least minimally funny. I'll die on this hill.

 

Well, that eliminates Trevor Noah, Samantha Bee and the cast of SNL. 

  • Laughing 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder how many complaints Twitter received about the tweet?  I also wonder how many people from the left follow BB, Gateway Pundit, etc?  The same goes for the right following sites from the left.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, FairWarning said:

I wonder how many complaints Twitter received about the tweet?  I also wonder how many people from the left follow BB, Gateway Pundit, etc?  The same goes for the right following sites from the left.  

I doubt many follow Babylon Bee.  The few articles I've read weren't as clever or funny as the Onion.  This seems like one of their better jokes and getting banned has brought them attention. They will probably delete and re-join Twitter when people forget about them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Joe Bryant said:

Because it's being not excellent and it's mean.

We mostly try to be not mean here. And that seemed mean. 

I'll also fully admit we don't always get it right.

You said you thought you knew. What did you think it was?


Thank you for the reply. My thought as to why was the same as you outlined. It wouldn’t be ‘excellent’.

That said it is a very slippery slope. Where is the line in the sand where things that are said are acceptable vs unacceptable? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Insein said:

No they shouldn't be but Twitter has never been very consistent with their TOS. It's worded in a way to make it so they can basically ban anyone for any reason at any time without equal application. 

Unfortunately they are the largest at what they do and platforms that have tried to compete either gain little traction or are eliminated by the oligarchy as a threat to their market share. So nothing anyone can do about it except not use it.

Gotta love capitalism.  Destroy your enemies. See them driven before you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I ran twitter, a whole lot of people would be banned.  If you can't be funny, witty, or informative, you gone.

I would have banned Babylon Bee a loooong time ago, tbh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Joe Bryant changed the title to Twitter and Elon Musk

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
  • Create New...