Joe Rogan Experience #1258 - Jack Dorsey, Vijaya Gadde & Tim Pool

This comic routinely used as a "Gotcha". However it so over simplifies the position that we are in. Youtube now totally owns online video, there isn't any competitors that are even close. Facebook has almost half the world signed up to its platform. This isn't someone's online forum or a news site. These companies completely own their respective parts of the industry. The major social media sites like Youtube, Twitter, Facebook are so large they are considered to be a "public private space" (I forget the exact legal term). These platforms agree to DMCA safe harbour where they are considered to be a "platform" and not a "publisher". That means they shouldn't be censoring anyone on their political opinions and must be politically neutral (otherwise they are taking on the role of a publisher as they are acting as an editor), now IANAL but there is certainly an argument that can be made. Whether a judge would rule it so, who knows. This is worth watching: [VIDEO] Tim Pool in this video manages to point out quite clearly how Twitter terms of service are political and they don't even realise it.

I wish larger tech companies would follow Jack Dorsey's path and have more open communication about their policies. His debate with Tim Pool on the Joe Rogan podcast[0] especially provided insight into why they're making these type of decisions. [0] [VIDEO]

> Why are free speech absolutists only supporting fascists? They aren't. You're totally free to advocate instituting a Marxists state, the execution of the bourgeoisen masse, and forming a communist society on Gab. Gab has the blanket policy that any legal speech is okay on their platform (and yes, calling for the execution of the bourgeois is legal in the US. Non-specific threats of violence are legal as per Brandenburg v. Ohio). There's nothing fascist about that in and of itself. The fact that Gab is filled with fascists is because of displacement. Fascists got banned from all the major platforms, so the only ones that don't ban them like Gab and 4chan are full of them. Free speech absolutists are disproportionately made of up right wingers these days, likely because the right wing is being subject to harsher censorship. I think it's unambiguously true that most big tech platforms are overtly biased in their policing. People are getting banned for tweeting "learn to code" to journalists (in mockery of how some suggested that laid off coal miners should learn to code). And by comparison, verified leftist Twitter users outright advocated for the doxxing and violence of the Covington high school students with no apparent repercussion. This podcast with Jack Dorsey, Twitter's global lead for trust and safety, and Tim Pool gives some good insight into the situation: [VIDEO] > Where are the people advocating for the destruction of intellectual property rights, for widespread dec

I don't agree with every call Twitter makes, but I find Dorsey to be by far the most interesting public figure in the social media game. His two JRE interviews[0][1] and his Tales from the Crypto interview[2] are all worth checking out, IMO. He seems to think Twitter should use a blockchain in the future, and that small social circles should have a system for internally moderating content without needing it to be okay by Twitter's standards, but obviously they're still currently taking down content that breaches their policies in $CURRENT_YEAR. I'm really interested in seeing where Twitter goes, I think Dorsey plays realpolitik sometimes but I don't think he has the same goals as Zuckerberg. I could be wrong, and Dorsey could just be a next-level showman, but I'm hopeful that he might do something truly interesting with the platform. I've still never made a Twitter account. [0]: [LINK] [1]: [VIDEO] [2]: [LINK]

I encourage you to watch a Joe Rogan episode from last year when he brought Jack Dorsey, a Twitter VP, and Tim Pool. [1] The reason this episode is relevant to your comment discussion is that Pool presents that there is this paradigm problem where certain policies intended to bring "inclusion" end up excluding something like half of the U.S. population. This paradigm Twitter management is stuck in prevents them from understanding how people outside their paradigm view their actions, and this results in effectively banning a enormous set of the population from popular discourse. It is hard to evaluate if this is exclusively an American issue because, really, there are so few other countries that speak English. [1] [VIDEO]

That's weird because I watched as left-leaning accounts got banned one after the other over the years. Maybe you think it's biased a certain way because of who you follow and listen to. I never thought I would recommend an episode of Joe Rogan, but the one where he had Vijaya Gadde on provided a lot of insight into how Twitter thought about moderation. It was a lot more nuanced than I expected. [VIDEO]

Jack Dorsey (CEO) and Vijaya Gadde (global lead for legal, policy, and trust and safety) from Twitter recently was interviewed on Joe Rogan's podcast along with Twitter critic and journalist Tim Pool. Link to the stream here: [VIDEO] I have some criticisms of Twitter that tightly align with what Dr. Doyle experienced, what was discussed on Rogan's podcast, and my own experiences: * Twitter is not a free speech platform, regardless of what Mr. Dorsey and Ms. Gadde say. They have prior assumptions that guide their decision making especially when it comes to identifying what is called hate speech. * Twitter is largely guided and controlled by progressive ideals. The people that make decisions there admittedly live in a bubble. Tim Pool does a very good job of pointing this out. * Twitter is a giant echo chamber. The limited functionality of the platform make it that way. * Twitter cannot be completely free speech because it allows it's algorithms to run wild. We've already seen where ML can be viewed as racist ( [LINK] , [LINK] ). Presumably Twitter's algorithms can be shaped in such a way to allow extreme progressive ideals to make decisions. * Unlike Reddit, which has decentralized command over it's sub-reddits, Twitter has a centralized decision making body of which is too small to look closely at the nuance and detail of every report. * The suggested jury review system only re-enforces the echo chamber problem Twitter already has. It's different than American/English common

While I agree with you, Tim Pool (as well as many others) made a good point recently about the fact that when platforms are as powerful as being able to influence elections, maybe allowing them to define the structure within which we communicate might not be a good idea. I am a free market guy, so for me these companies ought to have the right to determine the parameters within which their users can operate on their service. However, with things such as EUCD and GDPR rules, introducing competitors to the established networks becomes harder and harder for each day, which only benefits the existing platforms. So when the platforms are biased and competition is hindered by red-tape and regulations, we cannot expect alternatives to popup that can compete with said entities. All of this leads me to believe that things will only get worse as I don´t see a way out of this clusterfuck we´re in. [VIDEO] Edit: why the downvotes? :S