Twitter Exec Is Questioned About “Learn to Code”(youtube.com)
youtube.com
Twitter Exec Is Questioned About “Learn to Code”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwIYHwbojQo
8 comments
Interesting, because I felt anger and annoyance listen to the exec talk without emotion, who ended up trying to dodge the questions with claims of "context" or that she, the lead of the legal team, doesn't know what he is talking about.
I had a very similar reaction and was surprised to see the difference between Vijaya and Dorsey responding to his claims with documents and first-hand knowledge, just for him to rattle off some news articles that are making claims without any tangible proof other than 'well this guy says he was banned for no reason'. I don't blindly believe what Vijaya and Dorsey are saying but to put your faith into articles and hearsay doesn't seem to be any better.
There were also times that he made a series of assumptions leading up to a question and it left Vijaya and Dorsey to somehow demolish every assumption because he wasn't satisfied with the answers they gave.
For example, at one point he explains how he thinks Twitter is such a big influence and at such odds with the US laws that they are facing regulation to allow 'free speech' on a 'private-public' platform (his words, not mine) and kept digging into this point without considering that his fundamental assumptions are wrong (Twitter is a monopoly and should be using US free speech laws as their basis for content moderation). Instead he just keeps getting more frustrated as they can't answer the question without first addressing the assumptions that made him ask the question in the first place.
There were also times that he made a series of assumptions leading up to a question and it left Vijaya and Dorsey to somehow demolish every assumption because he wasn't satisfied with the answers they gave.
For example, at one point he explains how he thinks Twitter is such a big influence and at such odds with the US laws that they are facing regulation to allow 'free speech' on a 'private-public' platform (his words, not mine) and kept digging into this point without considering that his fundamental assumptions are wrong (Twitter is a monopoly and should be using US free speech laws as their basis for content moderation). Instead he just keeps getting more frustrated as they can't answer the question without first addressing the assumptions that made him ask the question in the first place.
His nervous system is a lot more activated. The contrast with Rogan is striking. It makes me wonder if Rogan's ability to stay relaxed is part of his appeal. I haven't watched him much, but it seems like even when he's ranting, he kind of remains in a physical state of good cheer. That is easier to listen to.
>got my fight or flight reflex up just by listening to him talk
Same thought but didn't have the words for it.
I haven't listened to his JRE episode yet from a couple of episodes ago, but I don't really want to feel like that the whole couple hours.
Same thought but didn't have the words for it.
I haven't listened to his JRE episode yet from a couple of episodes ago, but I don't really want to feel like that the whole couple hours.
It’s a great episode, highly recommend it.
He's just being tough on them because there are a lot of people who are legitimately frustrated and concerned with the recent shift in policy these giant social networks are adopting to combat the backlash being thrown their way for their platforms influence over the 2016 election that gave Trump the slight edge he needed to win the election.
I can sympathize somewhat with their position being a conservative because I understand that their job is to create the most profitable product and its hard to take a more conservative position on things when frankly our base tends to be of much less volume because were often defending unpopular ideas based on higher order philosophical principals we feel are worth protecting no matter the cost.
For example, I dont like white supremacists or racists, but at the same time i think its important we allow those ideas to persist in a democracy because we see any censorship as a slippery slope that it might seem like a good idea at first to go down but just because it seems to be the quicker and most straight forward path to get down off the mountain (which btw is where we all want to get to in a polite society) that doesnt mean we dont end up tripping halfway down and tumbling to the bottom with broken bones.
In other words if we start down this path with seemingly good intentions whats to say were not going to be trying to take further steps in this supposedly moral direction just because in order to be continuously progressive and push such an agenda that gets you the votes, you need to invent some new issue and solution to progress towards.
In other words what do democrats campaign on to remain in power when they actually achieve a Utopia?
Isnt that kind of a conflict of interest for democrats then if they want power for the sake of just being in power?
Btw in all fairness i should point out that the Republicans are all about creating crisises for them to campaign on being to solve as well. (hence the fact we dont take libertarians very seriously within our caucus)
All im saying is that at the end of the day, we need conservative and liberal ideals to promote a healthy democracy and sometimes the liberals get it right and sometimes the conservatives do.
When it comes to my gut feelings on the issues of free speech we need to be less concerned about the individual's voice and whats being said and be more concerned by the volume we give to select voices to say things so loud they can drown everybody else out.
I can sympathize somewhat with their position being a conservative because I understand that their job is to create the most profitable product and its hard to take a more conservative position on things when frankly our base tends to be of much less volume because were often defending unpopular ideas based on higher order philosophical principals we feel are worth protecting no matter the cost.
For example, I dont like white supremacists or racists, but at the same time i think its important we allow those ideas to persist in a democracy because we see any censorship as a slippery slope that it might seem like a good idea at first to go down but just because it seems to be the quicker and most straight forward path to get down off the mountain (which btw is where we all want to get to in a polite society) that doesnt mean we dont end up tripping halfway down and tumbling to the bottom with broken bones.
In other words if we start down this path with seemingly good intentions whats to say were not going to be trying to take further steps in this supposedly moral direction just because in order to be continuously progressive and push such an agenda that gets you the votes, you need to invent some new issue and solution to progress towards.
In other words what do democrats campaign on to remain in power when they actually achieve a Utopia?
Isnt that kind of a conflict of interest for democrats then if they want power for the sake of just being in power?
Btw in all fairness i should point out that the Republicans are all about creating crisises for them to campaign on being to solve as well. (hence the fact we dont take libertarians very seriously within our caucus)
All im saying is that at the end of the day, we need conservative and liberal ideals to promote a healthy democracy and sometimes the liberals get it right and sometimes the conservatives do.
When it comes to my gut feelings on the issues of free speech we need to be less concerned about the individual's voice and whats being said and be more concerned by the volume we give to select voices to say things so loud they can drown everybody else out.
I don't think those ideas (white supremacy or racism) should persist at all. Intolerance should not be tolerated.
The slippery slope is a fallacy, but for some reason, people seem to be okay with using it in their rhetoric.
As for your question, I am not sure. If it truly is a utopia (a place where everything is perfect) what would there be that should be changed? I would think that everyone is cool with the status quo.
It's not a conflict of interest if they (Democrats) still see that there is progress to be made. However, that won't be the case assuming there is a Utopia; maybe they'll campaign based on what color people have to wear. Who knows what the exact campaign issues in a Utopia would be?
The slippery slope is a fallacy, but for some reason, people seem to be okay with using it in their rhetoric.
As for your question, I am not sure. If it truly is a utopia (a place where everything is perfect) what would there be that should be changed? I would think that everyone is cool with the status quo.
It's not a conflict of interest if they (Democrats) still see that there is progress to be made. However, that won't be the case assuming there is a Utopia; maybe they'll campaign based on what color people have to wear. Who knows what the exact campaign issues in a Utopia would be?
His words were saying "by having twitter delete #learntocode tweets, you've muted a protest", but his tone was more like "I want to fight you".