Olives on Nostr: "Twitter changed their policies so paedophiles could congregate on the platform" This ...
"Twitter changed their policies so paedophiles could congregate on the platform"
This is QAnon disinformation. It is simply not true, though I didn't expect particularly honest argumentations from a Q gateway mouthpiece.
What actually happened is that Twitter was fairly free speech for many years. Remember, their slogan was that they were the "free speech wing of the free speech party". Well, the CEO said it once to the media (though, Vijaya Gadde seemed to be a bit less free speech).
Sometime in mid-2018 (a time when online platforms were facing greater scrutiny), Twitter erroneously suspended a few accounts (which did not engage in abuse and were just advocating for their own rights). They later reversed those decisions after consulting with 40 or so experts (and someone from Vice Media criticized the decision) in both human rights and even psychology. This all happened over the course of a few months.
What probably did change is that industry implemented more methods for tracking down abuse (though, it also came with a false positive footprint and collateral damage). That's not really related to any of these cases though.
Of course, it could be argued that Twitter was still overly censorious in some ways. Nonetheless, it doesn't make this conspiracy theory any more valid. Sure, we can criticize platforms for being censorious (art historically being one concern of mine), but this can be done without amplifying outright grifters (one appears to be the daughter of a Republican politician) and folk tales.
Just thought I'd comment on it, as a typical bad faith actor mentioned it.
This is QAnon disinformation. It is simply not true, though I didn't expect particularly honest argumentations from a Q gateway mouthpiece.
What actually happened is that Twitter was fairly free speech for many years. Remember, their slogan was that they were the "free speech wing of the free speech party". Well, the CEO said it once to the media (though, Vijaya Gadde seemed to be a bit less free speech).
Sometime in mid-2018 (a time when online platforms were facing greater scrutiny), Twitter erroneously suspended a few accounts (which did not engage in abuse and were just advocating for their own rights). They later reversed those decisions after consulting with 40 or so experts (and someone from Vice Media criticized the decision) in both human rights and even psychology. This all happened over the course of a few months.
What probably did change is that industry implemented more methods for tracking down abuse (though, it also came with a false positive footprint and collateral damage). That's not really related to any of these cases though.
Of course, it could be argued that Twitter was still overly censorious in some ways. Nonetheless, it doesn't make this conspiracy theory any more valid. Sure, we can criticize platforms for being censorious (art historically being one concern of mine), but this can be done without amplifying outright grifters (one appears to be the daughter of a Republican politician) and folk tales.
Just thought I'd comment on it, as a typical bad faith actor mentioned it.