Read on Twitter
A little too late plus the account is not back. If you make a mistake and you acknowledge that mistake, the next logical step is to make amends (which Twitter hasn't done) The precedence stays set.
But even bigger than this problem is the "echo chamber" problem in which.. https://twitter.com/jack/status/1349510769268850690
But even bigger than this problem is the "echo chamber" problem in which.. https://twitter.com/jack/status/1349510769268850690
there can be no external debate if there's no internal debate.
The effect of the dangerous precedence set is visible in Uganda where 80% of the population are youth and get their information from social media.
But the precedence as allowed Uganda to ban social media.
The effect of the dangerous precedence set is visible in Uganda where 80% of the population are youth and get their information from social media.
But the precedence as allowed Uganda to ban social media.
One might argue that the Ugandan government were going to do that anyway. But at least it'll have been an unpopular decision capable of causing more protests. One may also argue that this is not Museveni's first election and if he didn't do it in any of the others, there's
nothing to suggest he'll do it now.
But in every argument and debate there are two sides.
One may argue that the decisions we make in life are always a choice between two evils where we are always searching for lesser evil since we can't have everything we truly want.
But in every argument and debate there are two sides.
One may argue that the decisions we make in life are always a choice between two evils where we are always searching for lesser evil since we can't have everything we truly want.
So we make choices.
On one side of the coin: Facebook could allow Museveni do his propaganda.
Cons: Allowing a dictator carryout propaganda on their platform.
Pros: Facebook remaining accessible to millions of Ugandan youths.
On the other side: Remove Museveni
On one side of the coin: Facebook could allow Museveni do his propaganda.
Cons: Allowing a dictator carryout propaganda on their platform.
Pros: Facebook remaining accessible to millions of Ugandan youths.
On the other side: Remove Museveni
Cons: Access to Facebook denied.
Pro: "FB get to take a stand."
But both decisions must then be weighed on the lesser evil scale.
This is where the "echo chamber" problem comes in.
When FB and Twitter only fill their staff with liberals who are only interested in taking a
Pro: "FB get to take a stand."
But both decisions must then be weighed on the lesser evil scale.
This is where the "echo chamber" problem comes in.
When FB and Twitter only fill their staff with liberals who are only interested in taking a
stand. Thy take decisions that do not consider the other side of the coin.
Result:Actually silencing the opposition to Museveni.
The only place such opposition can safely gather is on social media. It'll be tantamount to putting themselves in physical danger if they did it in
Result:Actually silencing the opposition to Museveni.
The only place such opposition can safely gather is on social media. It'll be tantamount to putting themselves in physical danger if they did it in
Uganda streets.
They are open to harassment and intimidation by the armed forces which have become a tool in the hands of the govt.
So, the safer option remains social media where they are able to share information and tackle the government's own propaganda with facts.
They are open to harassment and intimidation by the armed forces which have become a tool in the hands of the govt.
So, the safer option remains social media where they are able to share information and tackle the government's own propaganda with facts.
Imagine if we didn't have social media during our own protest. Most of the organization was done here.
That is what has been denied to the Ugandan youths now because of this dangerous precedence that was set.
The youths want a change and they can all clamour for it on
That is what has been denied to the Ugandan youths now because of this dangerous precedence that was set.
The youths want a change and they can all clamour for it on
social media, have conversations and exchange ideas on how to carry out the change they want to see.
The overwhelming majority of them will effectively counter the government's propaganda by providing evidence to the contrary.
The Nigerian government would have successfully
The overwhelming majority of them will effectively counter the government's propaganda by providing evidence to the contrary.
The Nigerian government would have successfully
denied the Lekki massacre if we weren't posting live evidence on social media.
So one may argue that the con of letting a dictator carry out propaganda on Facebook is outweighed by the pro of continued access to Facebook by Ugandans.
Less of two evils.
So one may argue that the con of letting a dictator carry out propaganda on Facebook is outweighed by the pro of continued access to Facebook by Ugandans.
Less of two evils.
In every decision we make, we shouldn't only care about our own side in it, there's another side. There are always other sides which cannot be examined as long as tech giants continue to hire "based on their (liberal) values."
The talk of inclusivity never comprises ideological
The talk of inclusivity never comprises ideological
inclusivity.
This leads to the echo chamber problem where debate doesn't happen.
With no such internal debate, the company can never promote external debate because it doesn't know what such debate would look like and everything that's not in agreement becomes "conspiracy
This leads to the echo chamber problem where debate doesn't happen.
With no such internal debate, the company can never promote external debate because it doesn't know what such debate would look like and everything that's not in agreement becomes "conspiracy
theory."
Twitter and other tech giants cannot promote intellectual ideological debates if their internal hiring policy doesn't reflect the ideological spectrum of ideas that's represented on their platforms.
Everyone is carried away by "taking a stand" without inviting debate.
Twitter and other tech giants cannot promote intellectual ideological debates if their internal hiring policy doesn't reflect the ideological spectrum of ideas that's represented on their platforms.
Everyone is carried away by "taking a stand" without inviting debate.
And that's how millions of Ugandan youths have become disenfranchised.
The action although taken by the government was inspired by Facebook's censorship probably emboldened by the actions of Twitter and AWS.
The decision taken by Twitter was a terrible one because it'll
The action although taken by the government was inspired by Facebook's censorship probably emboldened by the actions of Twitter and AWS.
The decision taken by Twitter was a terrible one because it'll
inspire the actions of dictators and neo-dictators like Museveni who will use it has a back drop to infringe on universal basic human rights.
This will also lead to forcing conversations that are not reflective of the aggregate opinions held by whatever society is being observed
This will also lead to forcing conversations that are not reflective of the aggregate opinions held by whatever society is being observed
The criminal justice system already provides the channel to deal with criminals. It is not tech company's jobs to punish these people. Let the criminal justice system do that.
It'll be considered a "takeover" of government and dictatorship if the legislative houses of a
It'll be considered a "takeover" of government and dictatorship if the legislative houses of a
democratic government were to be filled by people who all have the same ideological leanings.
So, I think tech companies should consider that ensuring everyone they hire leans left will create such a "takeover."
The society is changing. Tech companies cannot continue to act
So, I think tech companies should consider that ensuring everyone they hire leans left will create such a "takeover."
The society is changing. Tech companies cannot continue to act
aloof like they don't understand the power they hold.
If we won't let government's be run by people who all hold the same ideological beliefs. Why shouldn't tech companies who have such powers recognize that they have the obligation to preserve speech and ideas, even the ones
If we won't let government's be run by people who all hold the same ideological beliefs. Why shouldn't tech companies who have such powers recognize that they have the obligation to preserve speech and ideas, even the ones
they disagree with.
The people who hold the ideas that are being censored don't magically disappear, they find other ways. And AWS de-hosting Parler is even more dangerous because when these people can't find a space anymore, they push back and that leads to actual physical
The people who hold the ideas that are being censored don't magically disappear, they find other ways. And AWS de-hosting Parler is even more dangerous because when these people can't find a space anymore, they push back and that leads to actual physical
confrontations.
The right to freedom of speech encourages debate because the world needs debate. It is the only way to arrive at a popular consensus amongst billions of unique persons.
The ONLY other option is dictatorship.
Humans have to agree to disagree to move forward.
The right to freedom of speech encourages debate because the world needs debate. It is the only way to arrive at a popular consensus amongst billions of unique persons.
The ONLY other option is dictatorship.
Humans have to agree to disagree to move forward.
It is the ONLY way!
Whatever fallout Twitter is witnessing now is by not taking cognizance of that little "fact."
Deplatforming Trump will bring a sandstorm that has not even begun to occur yet unless reversed.
It'll also affect Twitter's bottom line.
Whatever fallout Twitter is witnessing now is by not taking cognizance of that little "fact."
Deplatforming Trump will bring a sandstorm that has not even begun to occur yet unless reversed.
It'll also affect Twitter's bottom line.
Like Adam Smith says, "the -not so- invisible hands of the market" will take its course.
Less people having access to Twitter because banned in their countries will affect Twitter's profitability.
I guess being a politicized platform is not a good business model.
Less people having access to Twitter because banned in their countries will affect Twitter's profitability.
I guess being a politicized platform is not a good business model.
