Twitter er det vigtigste sted for ytringsfrihed i Vesten. Kun her kan man konfronteres uden for sin boble. Derfor er det bekymrende, at Musk har hyret den censur-glade Linda Yaccarino, i et forsøg på at få annoncørerne tilbage. Musk hyrede Yaccarino til det job efter at han havde haft følgende samtale med hende
Yaccarino: So you got a massive platform. You have a vision that is a spectrum of just daily open sourced conversation. And they can conduct their lives, their business, their commerce, whatever they can do on your platform. That’s a pretty big vision.
But in the middle should be advertising opportunity. That sounds like a great opportunity. I can talk about my brand, I can get my customers to communicate, and then they could also buy stuff. That sounds pretty good, right?
Musk: Yes! You’ll be able to buy things just directly on Twitter. One click, boom, done.
Yaccarino: But they need to feel that there is an opportunity for them to influence what you are building. That vision, what we are doing here, wheter it’s me trying to push and prod you on your tweets, fx you’ve said you probably shouldn’t tweet after 3 am.
Musk: Well, I’ve got…
Yaccarino: Probably good advice for all of us.
Musk: I’ve got myself into trouble a few times.
Yaccarino: I’m very aware of those.So after 3 am – you travel all over the world, Lord knows how you handle timezones in space. Will you commit to be a little more specific and not tweet after 3 am? People in this room would like to see that! Don’t make them feel more confident.
Musk: I will aspire to tweet less after 3 am. But it is important that… If I were to say yes you can influence me, that would be wrong. That would be very wrong. That would be a diminishment of freedom of speech.
Yaccarino: But I want to be specific about influencing. It’s more of an open feedback loop for the advertising experts in this room to help develop twitter into a place where they will be excited about investing more, product development; ad safe content moderation. That’s what the influence is.
Musk: I think… It’s totally cool to say that you wanna have your advertising appear in certain places in Twitter and not in other places. But it is not cool to try to say what Twitter will do. And if that means losing advertising dollars, we lose it. But freedom of speech is paramount.
So Twitter 1.0 had a very well populated, much loved Influence Council. I think we need to change the name. Elon does not want to be influenced, but it was really a recurring feedback loop from your key stakeholders, your advertisers, where they had recurring access or would or would have recurring access to you. Would you commit from this stage today to reinstate that council, to be named later?
Musk: Well, I don’t think it should be influence council. I would be vary of creating a backlash among the public bacause if the public thinks that their views are being determined by a small number of CMOs in America, they will be, like, I think, upset about that.
But feedback, I think is appropriate. And at the end of the day, if somebody spending money for their ad campaign, it need to yield results for their organization or ir doesn’t make sense.
Yaccarino er altså meget opmærksom på at Musk har tweetet noget kontroversielt og vil flytte Twitter over til at blive annoncørernes platform for deres kunder, frem for brugernes platform, som annoncørerne har adgang til. Læren af, hvad der i Musks ører er cool forklarede Linda Yaccarino således til investorerne, at indholds-moderationen, altså censuren, er tilbage på Twi… X. Og at lovlige, men tovlige ytringer vil blive markeret, dæmpet og ikke kunne deles.’
We have built brand safety and content moderation tools that have never existed before in this company. And we have introduced a new policy to the specific point about hate speech called freedom of speech, not reach. So if you’re gonna post something that is illegal or against the law, you’re gone. Zero tolerance. But more importantly, if you’re gonna post something that is lawful but it’s awful you get labelled.
You get labelled, you get de-amplified, which means it can not be shared, and it is certainly demonetised — back to your direct point about brand-safety. So they are protected from the risk of being next to that content. It’s really important to note that once a post is labelled and it can’t be shared and the user sees that, 30% of the time they take it down themselves. Staggeringly they take it down.
Men det er ikke kun Yaccarino, der kvæger sig ved ytringsfriheden. Det gør den etablerede presse også. Her er Yaccarino i samtale med en typisk repræsentant for journaliststanden
Yaccarino: …[R]educing that hateful content from being seen is one of the best examples on how X is committed to encouraging healthy behavior online. And today I can confidently sit in front of you and say that 99,9% of all posted impressions are healthy.
Spørger: How do you define healthy though. Is porn healthy? Are conspiracy theories healthy?
Spørgeren vil selvfølgelig have en definition på, hvad der er ‘sundt’ indhold. Men man kunne også spørge hende, hvad hun mener er en konspirationsteori. Er det en konspirationsteori at efterretningsvæsenet spionerede mod Donald Trump? At Covid19 slap ud fra et laboratorium? At Hunter Bidens computer med alle familiens ulovligheder var ægte?
Yaccarino: You know, it goes back to my point about our success with freedom of speech, not reach. And if its lawful but it’s awful, it’s extraordinarily difficult for you to see it.
Spørger: But how many millions of people follow Kanye West. Lawful but awful. And he is allowed back on?
Spørgeren er mere bekymret fordi Kanye West, eller Ye, som han foretrækker det nu for tiden, er tilbage på Twitter, eller X, som de foretrækker det nu for tiden, end at ytringsfriheden bliver angrebet. Og Ye, som han nu kalder sig selv, er bare ‘awful’ fordi den præmis accepteres automatisk og uden kritik. Ye har ikke ret til et forsvar, når man en gang er fordømt, er man blandt de fordømte.
Yaccarino: You know Kanye, who hasn’t rejoined the platform yet, but is planning to do so, will operate within the very specific policies that we have established, that we are clear on, that everyone who is watching this, or listening on Spaces, can access themselves. And we have an extraordinary team of people who are overseeing, hands on keyboards, monitoring all day every day to make sure that that 99,9% of impressions remain at that number.
But we also have to remember what’s at the core of free expression: You might not agree with what everyone is saying. We wanna make it a healthy debate and discourse but free expression at its core will really, really only survive when someone you don’t agree with says something you don’t agree with. And what a great place we would live in if we were able to return to a healthy constructive discourse amongst people that we don’t agree with.
Twitter har sine egne foruroligende regler
More than half a billion people from around the world gather on X to talk about their interests in real-time, and that includes elections. X enables people to directly engage on important topics with elected representatives, local or national leaders and fellow citizens.
During elections, X works to get in front of a range of tactics that people use to target the process. To do this we hire the right people, update our policies and evolve our product.
Our people: We’re currently expanding our safety and elections teams to focus on combating manipulation, surfacing inauthentic accounts and closely monitoring the platform for emerging threats.
Our policies: We have rules in place to help protect the safety and authenticity of conversations on X. During elections, our Civic Integrity Policy provides an extra layer of protection that is applied for a limited period of time before and during an election. We’re updating this policy to make sure we strike the right balance between tackling the most harmful types of content—those that could intimidate or deceive people into surrendering their right to participate in a civic process—and not censoring political debate.
The policy will also be aligned with our updated enforcement philosophy, Freedom of Speech, Not Reach. We will add publicly visible labels to posts identified as potentially violating the Civic Integrity Policy, letting people know when their reach has been restricted.
Building on our commitment to free expression, we are also going to allow political advertising. Starting in the U.S., we’ll continue to apply specific policies to paid-for promoted political posts. This will include prohibiting the promotion of false or misleading content, including false or misleading information intended to undermine public confidence in an election, while seeking to preserve free and open political discourse. We’ll also provide a global advertising transparency center so that everyone can review political posts being promoted on X, in addition to robust screening processes to ensure only eligible groups and campaigns are able to advertise.
Our product: We continue to scale Community Notes, an innovative tool that empowers a vetted and growing group of people to add context to posts when they see something that could be wrong, misleading or requires another point of view. X shouldn’t determine the truthfulness of disputed information; rather, we should empower our users to express their opinions and openly debate during elections, in line with our commitment to protecting freedom of expression.
Community Notes is available globally with contributors in 44 countries, and is fully open-sourced. We’re already seeing real impact—people are on average 30% less likely to agree with the substance of a post after reading a Community Note about it, and they’re also less likely to reshare it. All promoted posts are eligible for Community Notes, including promoted political posts.
Our work is ongoing. These increased investments in people, policy and product will further ensure our communities have access to open, accurate and safe political discourse on X.
Det er særligt vigtigt at censurere op til valg, fordi der er den fri meningsudveksling særligt farlig. Som man kan se herunder, så er det farligt at tro, at man autoritativt kan faktatjekke. Uenigheden om dødeligheden da pandemien startede, skyldtes, at overvejende kun testede hvis der var symptomer eller mistanke om kontakt med en smittet. Det gjorde at der var et stort skyggetal, som bestod af symptomfri eller folk med symptomer, som de ikke antog for enten Corona eller alvorlige.
MONOKULTUR 
Skriv en kommentar