Post

That one weird trick that lets you pretend that you took over Twitter to restore free speech, but regularly ban/shadowban/deboost those you don't like: just claim anything you don't like is spam.

There's a conversation I've had many times with people who insist that there should never be any content moderation or trust & safety. I just ask "what do you do about spam?" And the answer is often a variation of "well, of course you get rid of spam, but that's different." Except, it's not...

It's very easy to classify anything you don't like as "spam." As Elon is doing here. But once you've started down that slope you've already admitted you recognize the need to moderate *some* content. It's just a question of where you draw the borders.

Elon draws borders only slightly differently than most other sites, but he does draw borders, as any website realizes it must. It's just that he then lies and claims he's the only one who supports free speech. And a lot of silly people believe him.

I should also note that I think I got this framing of "Do you think we should ban spam? / Okay, we've now established you believe in content moderation, we're just haggling over where to draw the lines" from @dwillner.bsky.social who is the best there is at explaining trust & safety.

You're very kind! But yes, once you're removing spam, NCII, and CSAM (which ~everyone trying to run a usable site for mainstream audiences does) you've crossed the rubicon. You're doing content moderation. The only question is just "what do you think is like those things and why?"

Imho, content moderation is a lot like Frodo ending up with the One Ring (i.e. as a burden and obligation). Congrats, you run a very important site and have made a bunch of money. Unfortunately, you have to carry this cursed ring to a volcano while the of Darkness tries to kill you. Good luck!

I want to print out this post, wrap it around a brick, and drop it on a lot of people's feet