Let's all break Twitter

I'm going to show a content spoofing technique which allows you to "break" Twitter layout and likely helps to bypass their automatic word filters. I've used this technique in the past mainly for making funny and art tweets, but in light of the recent events involving Elon Musk and the state of Twitter administration in general I think everyone should know how to "break" the website as a form of resistance. It also seems appropriate to teach such technique on a cyberpunk-themed website. While it doesn't hurt Twitter's infrastructure in any way (it's just text), it does generate some interesting visual results. I will try to write everything down! :)

BLANK TWEET So there's this thing on Unicode called Variation Selectors. According to Wikipedia "they are currently used to specify standardized variation sequences for mathematical symbols, emoji symbols, 'Phags-pa letters, and CJK unified ideographs corresponding to CJK compatibility ideographs". The thing is, they're invisible! So we can make a tweet like the one in the image. Twitter doesn't like invisible characters so it has a few rules to forbid you to make a blank tweet. Simply pasting the Variation Selector won't work. But if you add a normal space after of before the selector, they won't consider the tweet blank anymore and will publish it normally. After this, Twitter will trim your tweet so that it doesn't start or end with normal spaces, leaving only the Variation Selector and finally making the tweet blank.

AN ABSURD AMOUNT OF NOTHING If you want to, you can even generate an absurd amount of nothing by adding a Variation Selector followed by a line break. Repeat this process till you hit the characters limit and you might get an almost 3000 pixels tall tweet which will either make your followers annoyed or completely confused. Teach them how to do it and the timeline will turn into a mess! It didn't fit on the screenshot but it's a lot a white space.

BYPASSING TWITTER FILTERS Let's suppose "fish" became a forbidden word and that tweeting it could either result in a temporary ban, a shadowban or even a complete ban from Twitter. You could try to avoid this by writing "f***" and hoping that your followers will understand what you meant. Or you could paste Variation Selectors between the letters of "fish", turning the word into something like "f&#xFE00i&#xFE00s&#xFE00h". By doing this you should be able to circumvent automatic Twitter filters while keeping the appearance of the word. You can't see them cause they're invisible, but in the image the tweet at the top has Variation Selectors between the letters of "fish".

By pasting VS in-between letters you can also hide your tweets from searches. As you can see in the image, the "spoofed" tweet doesn't show up when searching for "fish". People could try searching for the VS instead, but they would need to know which one of the 16 base characters + 240 supplementary selectors you have used. And still, I believe only the blank tweets would show up.

Twitter has much stricter rules for which characters you can use when it comes to your profile, and blank ones are explicitly prohibited. But they aren't blocking Variation Selectors. By pasting Variation Selector 18 (which I randomly picked) and a normal space you can have a blank name like this

Or like this, with Variation Selector 9 (which I also randomly picked) + normal space

How to bypass twitter filter for bloody images?

You can also have a giant bio full of nothing if you do the same process as for the blank tweet. IMPERSONATING TWITTER If you ever tried to put the word "Twitter" on your profile name, you might have noticed Twitter won't let you do it. That's something they do to prevent people from impersonating the platform. VS can also circumvent this. This is actually a pretty bad thing they will likely want to fix, but I don't know how they'll do it as Variation Selectors seem to be an important block of characters for some scripts and emojis.

To get Variation Selectors you can go here: https://www.compart.com/en/unicode/U+FE00 https://www.compart.com/en/unicode/U+E0100 Then you must choose one, copy it's HTML entity and use a HTML entity encoder/decoder to convert it to copyable (invisible) text

#58910 ** these links, actually https://www.compart.com/en/unicode/block/U+FE00 https://www.compart.com/en/unicode/block/U+E0100 #58908 I haven't used Twitter in a while so I don't know the current state for image filtering. There are some techniques to spoof AI recognition of images, but we would need some more details on how their filter works

Simply start using RTL language. It is still broken in many ways across 99% of the software and it's not easy to fix.

>>58913 RTL?

>>58914 Right-to-left, like Hebrew.

Can we just ignore twitter instead? All you're achieving is giving them content and engagement

>>58916 This, stop being a retard.

>>58916 Where's the hacker spirit in that lain? It's a neat little trick, no harm if someone tweets out this instead of tweeting something else.

>>58953 it's futile. Twitter's cold corporate audience is no match.

>>58909 This seems to be a trivial fix for them with some pattern matching >f[︀︀︁︂︃︄︅︆︇︈︉︊︋︌︍︎️]*i[︀︀︁︂︃︄︅︆︇︈︉︊︋︌︍︎️]*s[︀︀︁︂︃︄︅︆︇︈︉︊︋︌︍︎️]*h

Neat tricks, thanks for the info OP. I'm slowly being forced back on to social media after an extended absence so I've been thinking a little about this recently. I'm going to go a bit off topic but I've had some thoughts about twitter that are tangentially related to this subject... Even without the edgy aesthetics I suspect that image board sites like this one, attract people who are, if not actively disdainful of the business, at-least aware of social media's limitations. There's a definite nostalgia for the old ways, when pressures to conform with the in-group wasn't as high, there was more room for creativity and you could voice a question or discuss an opinion without indelibly linking it to your professional identity. Things inevitably get ugly and political. However, although Twitter has plenty to dislike about it, I don't believe the problem is with the company itself. The problem is the necessity for a real identity when using any of the big sites. The problems I listed with social media have always existed to a certain extent in the real world but with pseudanonymity and voluntary engagement, people are simultaneously more liberated and less vulnerable to the more toxic social dynamics. In an depersonalized(not sure if this is the right word) environment like this, aspects of the old culture naturally flourish. As much as I'd like to say we can simply ignore the big businesses away, the fact is; the larger platforms are slowly but surely eating or outlasting boards like this one. As much as I love this place and want it to grow, I feel that getting discovered by a major influencer at this point would absolutely destroy the place. At the same time ,my (possibly our?) TikTok abstinence has neither stopped it from reaching the #1 spot in every app store or the brains of everyone my age or younger. On top of this, without a space to practice anonymous discussion, the concept becomes un-sellable to the younger generation and the benefits are lost to everybody. People (myself included) love to think of this as a secret clubhouse but without any fresh blood the scene dies, we need to export the culture if we want it to have longevity. Rather than taking the passive isolationist approach to the nu-internet can the old anarchic internet environment be adapted to work on the big platforms? I've noticed that the anti social media crowd have gathered here already and I'd be interested in hearing their thoughts on this one as well. Instead of pretending wer're too cool to show up on a mainstream websites wouldn't our efforts be better spent on finding ways of evading 2FA (any ideas on spoofing mobile numbers), avoiding algorithmic moderation (they can't shoot all of us) or hiding discussions in plain sight (does DDT run on top of any major platforms)? TLDR: how do we make social media more like lainchan?

>>59017 i don't have anything to add but i agree with you. good thoughts. I don't believe DDT works with any major social media, although that would be neat. also, spoofing mobile numbers would be awesome. hate 2fa!

Neat technique for dodging the bot, but I ultimately don't really see the use case here. If a tweet can still get manually reported and derezzed you're just delaying the inevitable, considering the absolute state of the sort of people twitter's rules cater to. Slacktivists are all about putting way too much effort into finding and spreading things to target. Twitter's whole model is social virus spread, so you'd be putting out your message until you're actually noticed enough for people to start sharing it, someone who dislikes what you're saying will see it through the grapevine, they'll start sharing it to their own social net with some variant of REPORT THIS BAD THING AND RT WITH A MESSAGE TO DO THE SAME, and you'd be manually derezzed. It's just the automatic ban system except you waste more time between accounts, since you're not really getting any more "message out" between two and fifty followers. Anyone see what I'm missing?

Okay but whats the point of any of this if im still required to have a phone number to use twitter

>>59063 I don't think this is the point of the thread. The point is more about finding ways to bypass Twitter user's word filters / limitations (Or any filter website's filter like maybe even lainchan filter here) can't say s◌h◌i◌t without saying soykaf :) (Pretty sure i fuked it up lol. i have much to learn)(Yes... Dodging filters on Lainchan is low IQ. Dodging corpo filters is high IQ. Good luck, chummer.)

Neet thred OP, >(does DDT run on top of any major platforms)? Why not use stegnographic embedded text in images, and just use the username as the password to read them?

>>59105 DDT takes all the friction out of the process by detecting it for you, if you did this you would have to manually check images

>>59107 it could be a sekrit club if someone posted links on a stegno blog to get things started, and those links had just people posting on subjects. The fun would be in the scavenger hunt of people communicating in only images, and to the average passer by, its just a bunch of replied images to one another. Similar to DDT, but manual. As the small communities grow, there would be plenty of opportunities to expand user bases. IIRC there are no automated screening capabilities in most content moderation for detecting hidden text in images, unless it creates an abnormally large image.

Can somebody please tell me what DDT stands for?

>>59111 DesuDesuTalk See /layer/

https://sandlab.cs.uchicago.edu/fawkes/ Sabotage their image recognition AI. Doesn't only apply to twitter, use on clear view, palantir, Facebook, etc.

This is good if you happen to have a Twitter account and you want to bypass censorship. But I don't see what this achieves, just like I don't see what Twitter itself achieves as a practical use for anything.

They're gonna fix it if too many people do that

you can use zero width joiner as well. They're not going to get rid of it, it's a required character in emojis and kanji and soykaf. actually i haven't tried it here, s‍hit‍ I use them on facebook to avoid turning emoticons into fuarrrking emoji. but facebook actually is fighting them a bit, on full web fb the zero width joiner has a tiny amount of width, like a half space or something. the emoticon trick still works if you stick the ZWJ at the beginning or end of the emoticon, but still. they ARE aware of these things and they're going to fight back btw, you can use pyperclip to add strange characters to your clipboard. here's a zero width joiner: pyperclip.copy(u'\u200d')

>>58990 >>59207 I'm with except I do think it's kind of neat and worth sharing for any Lains that are shall we say, double agents and use social media. It's all futile, always in the end, and not just when Twitter is the target.

Just tell people to check out GNU Social/Mastodon/Pleroma already.

>>59808 Mastodon is nice, but it need a web version like nitter.net does to Twitter.

>>59817 I have to add superfluous words to my post in order to get past the retarded filters this site uses but fundamentally my good Lain, the question is simply "why" as in why would you want such a thing? For what reasons?

Twitter certainly won't be a platform for free speech because we can't spread state secrets. It's just so that Musk has control over political speech machine now it seems. I suppose it could work if they kill/hit more people. I suppose ethics are shifting towards overpopulation, climate change.

>>58899 >resisting twitter because of elon musk And what convinced you to be an authoritarian fascist that hates free speech ?

>>59845 If you think Elon Musk cares about your freedom of speech I have some news for you. No one concerned with truth or reality spends much if any time on microblog apps in the first place, and don't expect that to improve now. It'll just be a different flavor of diarrhea from now on.

https://www.reuters.com/technology/musk-says-44-billion-twitter-deal-hold-2022-05-13/ This fuarrrker is already bringing up mechanism to compromise free speech. Who will decide what is fake? Trumpists?

>>59869 Twitter never cared about free speech. Now a guy who at least says he will increase free speech and NOW is the time you want to destroy the website. You're a deranged authoritarian free speech hater, clearly. Like most people are, and like what is currently extremely fashionable among leftists.

>>59894 Nobody really ever wants complete freedom. When somebody asks for freedom, they do so with the intention of taking away yours. We need to stop playing these word games where we act like freedom is something desirable. I want a police state where my enemies are legally crushed.

>>59928 >You're a deranged authoritarian free speech hater, clearly. Like most people are, and like what is currently extremely fashionable among leftists. Minorities want free speech because it's the only way they can be heard. Majorities hate free speech because life would be easier without dissent. Who is political minority or majority swaps round regularly like a pendulum. Unless someone can actually explain to you why they believe free speech is a good thing, just assume they are a temporarily embarrassed authoritarians.

>>59931 >>59928 >>59869 >>59934 Off topic. Plz create a general free speech thread so we can call each other stupid without reaching any consensus, just like any other political issue. Best do it now while you still legally can! :)

>>59931 >When somebody asks for freedom, they do so with the intention of taking away yours. What freedom do you think you are losing when someone else is granted free speech?

>>59937 >What freedom do you think you are losing when someone else is granted free speech? You are probably talking to someone who agrees with all the establishment talking points and therefor basically already has free speech (nobody ever got derezzed from Twitter for saying kill all white men). So what they are actually concerned about is losing a privilege not losing any kind of freedom.

>>59943 >establishment talking points >kill all white men You really have no idea how deranged you sound right now. You also probably missed when a ton of leftoids got kicked off of social media around the same time as the white supremacists a couple of years ago. It was "extremism" in general that was cracked down on, not just the people in your virtual circle-jerk.

>>59934 I'm the one you quoted, and I agree with you, it certainly seems like 99% of people utterly hate actual free speech. >>59931 Libertarians want freedom. Authoritarians like you, which unfortunately is the large majority of people, are authoritarian control freaks. >>59945 He's right, you are the crazy delusional person here. All anti-establishment thought is derezzed to some degree, that is correct. But anti-white racism is celebrated by the system, on twitter and on every other mainstream platform.

>>59937 It's like how you'll be derezzed for posting porn on Gab. They were derezzed from Twitter, so they wanted "free speech", but what they meant was "free speech for me and the things I like". It's a cop-out. Not to say that I think people should be posting porn, but people only ever seem to fight for free speech when they're the out-group. There was a time when America was more conservative. It was the left that fought for the right to speak about buttsex being good. Conservatives wanted them pushed out of the public square for talking about it. Now America is more liberal. Now conservatives are fighting for the right to speak about buttsex being bad. Liberals want them derezzed off of Twitter for talking about it. People only advocate for free speech when it benefits their ideology. Everybody wants a police state, it's just not fashionable to admit it.

>>59949 >Libertarians want freedom, authoritarians want control This is almost true. I don't want to control. I want somebody else to control. I simply don't hold freedom as a virtue or something to be valued, really. Really, if anyone's a control freak, it's the libertarian. Libertarians can't stand giving any authority over to a state. They need full control.

>>59949 > He's right, you are the crazy delusional person here. That was my first post in the thread though. Lay off with the gotchas and try having an actual debate for once, see what happens. If there was 100% free speech this is how you would waste it? Ok.

>>59951 ...until they become the ones in control. Every radical movement that advocated for freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, etc has cracked down on those things when they got the upper hand. Same with guns for that matter; can't have their rivals (or the allies that helped them attain power) posing an armed threat to them now. This is always what happens.

>>59955 Precisely. This is why I don't pretend anymore. The regimes who have fought the hardest for freedom have become the most tyrannical (America, France, &c.). If you start with the state's absolute authority in mind, you can properly structure it.

>>59945 >You really have no idea how deranged you sound right now. Did it ever cross your mind that maybe you're the one who doesn't have all the information? >You also probably missed when a ton of leftoids got kicked off of social media around the same time as the white supremacists a couple of years ago. You are moving the parameters of the discussion. Of course not everything you consider "Left" is approved by the establishment. To get back to the specifics though, Ashley Williams of the Rust Foundation famously posted "kill all white men" on Twitter with zero consequences. Now show me someone who posted "kill all black women" and still had an account 30 milliseconds later. The point being, a person arguing against free speech may already have all the free speech they want for themselves. In which case they are just arguing from a position of not wanting to lose their own privilege.

>>59951 >I simply don't hold freedom as a virtue or something to be valued, really. The reason free speech is important is because it is a non-violent way of correcting the system when things are going wrong. The truth does not need protecting. Without free speech the only way to affect political change is through violence. >Really, if anyone's a control freak, it's the libertarian. Libertarians can't stand giving any authority over to a state. They need full control. Today I learned that wanting control of your own life and leaving everyone else alone makes you a control freak.

>>59964 >The truth does not need protecting At this point I think it's pretty obvious that consent can be manufactured. It takes a much larger degree of intelligence and education to truly understand the forces at play in any political conversation and to make a correct decision on them than the vast majority of the population has. This makes it easy for media to oversimplify or even lie (deliberately or not) for political purposes, and for people to blindly trust them, because they don't know any better. And so your freedom of speech is null and void, since people will defer to the authority of the media if you disagree with them. Even without freedom of the press, truth has nothing to do with it. A persuasive speaker will win against a true speaker every time. You want more control. I want less control. If you are not a control freak, neither of us are.

I am from the uk. Our government have been arresting people for offensive social media posts for the last 10 years, so I don't believe change of twitter ownership will affect public discourse, at least in the short term. Even though I don't often agree with the things being said I do believe that they should have the right to say them. I am cautiously optimistic about the buy-out but only because twitter has been such a cesspool until now, that having a ceo who at least publicly professes to care about freedom of speech might allow the disruption some of the more poisonous group-thinks on the platform. I'm going to out myself here as a soft libertarian, in so far that I think personal freedoms are worth protecting, so long as they don't hurt other people. As much as I love to fantasize about the alternatives I also believe that for the foreseeable future Power structures are a necessity for allocating resources, defense/cultivation of public commons and enforcing some variation of the NAP. The Hobbesians/Authoritarians are correct in so far that Unlimited freedom eventually leads to tyranny. This, however, isn't what's at stake with freedom of speech. What is at stake is our collective ability to think critically about the narratives we're fed. When statements are clearly false they should rightfully be picked apart and satirized in public. Just because people made fun of your hot take, doesn't mean you're suffering from political repression. In fact, its probably beneficial as it exposes you to potential flaws in your ideas and information you may have overlooked. So long as the person in question isn't a fanatic who's built their social environment and self image around a false idea, most people will, in fact, change their beliefs once it becomes apparent that those beliefs are false. I think anonymous discussion should be promoted to give such people easy exits, as opposed to the current system, where you publicly commit to every half baked idea that passes through your head while attaching it to your real name and personal identity. However, there are plenty of narratives that have been either implicitly or explicitly protected from open criticism by governments, large platforms or by social cohesion. The only true remedy for this would again be anonymous discussion. I will concede that misinformation is a problem here, but it clearly isn't one that's going to be solved by allowing public opinion to get monopolized by newscorp. For all its flaws, public accountability is the best tool we have to slow corruption within powerful organizations. Open discussion is a key component of this process so it should come as no surprise that powerful organizations are trying (and largely succeeding) to vice down on it. We can't count on those in power deciding that free speech is worth taking a moral stand on, we can't rely on the market treating it as valuable, and we cant even depend on the general public remembering its in their interest. If we want to continue having open sensible discussions, like we do here, then we need to defend the ability to have them ourselves. I worry that places like lainchan are far too fragile.

>>59964 > The truth does not need protecting. Any study of human history shows otherwise.

>>59971 People need protecting from untruth, but the truth doesn't need your help. It's true whether anyone believes it or not. A lot of people who drone on about free speech online are basically the same kind of people that drive around at night with loud cars blasting music. They want to be annoying to strangers and face no consequences for it, because they think it's funny or that it makes them the big man. That is not the kind of free speech that needs protecting. The kind of free speech that needs protecting is: criticism of power. Ironically though the nigger-haters think they're the oppressed minority, they're just the scapegoat so that actual free speech can be restricted. In the past commies were the scapegoat but they have been so systematically destroyed and co-opted by neoliberals that they're not a good excuse any more. >>59969 >I'm going to out myself here as a soft libertarian, in so far that I think personal freedoms are worth protecting, so long as they don't hurt other people. As much as I love to fantasize about the alternatives I also believe that for the foreseeable future Power structures are a necessity for allocating resources, defense/cultivation of public commons and enforcing some variation of the NAP. I agree unfortunately. Real freedom is responsibility and most people in burgerland (including myself, if I'm being perfectly honest) aren't ready for that responsibility.

>>59063 You don't actually need to use a phone number to sign up on Twitter. If they ask you to, you can just clean your cookies and try registering again on another browser. It worked multiple times for me and I'm using a static IP.

>>59845 >>59928 Come on, people. >hey here are some ways to bypass filters, a specifically free-speech unlimiting act because I dislike the billionaire supported by Saudi Arabia and various fishy businesses buying the platform >WOW, YOU HATE FREE SPEECH? AUTHORITARIAN FASCIST? I can't believe people don't see the signalling when it's so blatantly obvious. I hope even those who'd otherwise dislike leftists can see this for what it is. Politics as sports, with teams to cheer for and against even in cases where it makes no sense and just involves spewing soykaf to try and reach the goal. Elon Musk is not your friend. He is a multi-billionaire who knows how to play you like a flute. This all is just another of the repetitive kind of brain numbing idea-cancer that's been infecting people. I'm tired of seeing it. Start making sense before you start arguing. >>59063 Open a ticket saying your phone doesn't support shortcodes. It takes a few tries, but eventually you get whitelisted.

>>59968 >Even without freedom of the press, truth has nothing to do with it. >A persuasive speaker will win against a true speaker every time. This only makes sense if you think the truth is worthless and there are no consequences for being wrong. >You want more control. Control over myself and the products of my labor? Yes. Control over other people and their property? No. >I want less control. Just because you've abdicated your own power to a 3rd party doesn't mean that power has disappeared from the world. >If you are not a control freak, neither of us are. That depends. If you are trying to force your will onto me or help a 3rd party force their will onto me then you are definitely on the wrong side of this equation. >>59969 >the uk. Our government have been arresting people for offensive social media posts for the last 10 years During the 2012 riots people were arrested for voicing support on facebook. In the last few years one or two people were arrested for "misgendering" on twitter. Any other examples? You make it sound like a regular occurrence. >>59979 >Elon Musk is not your friend. People who hate the establishment like it when someone with power does something that appears to hurt the establishment. There's nothing wrong with that. Same with Trump.

"Resistance" Elon bought twitter after the New York Post account was shut down for publishing a story on the Hunter Biden laptop. If you are for censorship go to 420chan and ask them, they like to get behind whatever current thing the CIA is pushing. If you didnt have an obvious political bias this thread might have had me interested.

>>59832 >It's just so that Musk has control over political speech machine now it seems. Based on what? He's stated clearly that as long as content doesnt break any laws under the 1st Amendment that anything goes. He respects actual democracy instead of what it has been, i.e getting derezzed for stating facts.

I don't even know what people talk about on twitter. All I see each time a screenshot from there is posted is some sub-5 word ebonics sentence. What's the point? I already filter all posts less than 8 words on chans.

good tip. zero-width spaces are another one to know about, although they get filtered more often these days because they usually "count" as whitespace.

>>59982 Interest groups have a grip so strong on which information and ideas are allowed to pass from one to another that freedom of speech, expression and thought is now considered as a control of speech by said groups who would loose the grip they have over the people. Cyberpunk without the cool parts.

>>59980 https://www.theregister.com/2016/06/02/social_media_arrests_up_37pc_london_section_127_communications_act/ Its more than just a regular occurrence here, its business as usual. Now, I expect more than a couple of the arrests in the article were completely justified - incitement, threats etc - However, that isn't exclusively whats covered by the law. Occasionally a legally grey case, like count dankula or that guy who had a knock on the door after liking a tweet, will get some public attention but I suspect the vast majority of incidents like these go unreported. The law is getting less forgiving all the time and most people think twice before they communicate anything that might cause annoyance, inconvenience or anxiety. >>59975 https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/04/11/sacred-principles-as-exhaustible-resources/ You reminded me of this post, it taps in to some of what you're saying. It also proposes some solutions, although frankly I think we might already be past the point no return. Double-think on the subject is normalized & fairly well saturated at this point *cough*>>59951*cough*

>>59980 >People who hate the establishment like it when someone with power does something that appears to hurt the establishment. There's nothing wrong with that. Yes, yes, let's all get distracted by the jingling keys in front of our face. There's nothing necessarily wrong with it, I believe the sheep are probably living a happier life than I am, but once again, Elon would not be getting cash money from Saudi Arabia and et al if he were actually taking down the ~establishment.~ There isn't only one establishment. The upper echelons of society are filled with people having petty fights with each other. Look at Jeff Bezos's tweets if you don't believe me. Aside from that, my argument is just "There is nothing wrong with bypassing filters." I don't think anyone reasonable and also on here can argue that, especially if you actually believe that Elon Musk is going to usher in true free speech. If you're mad that someone is sharing that information because it might hurt the establishment you like, you've obviously gone off the deep end.

>>59982 Government ordered drugged rape. Government ordered genital mutilation.

>>59982 Government ordered haarp agent. Government ordered bioweapon.

^ for child sex abuse scandals

they had gitmo with kids way before they had gitmo can we say this on twitter?

>>59994 >Yes, yes, let's all get distracted by the jingling keys in front of our face. How much effort does it take for you to simply not parrot lies from the corporate media and just watch what happens? >There isn't only one establishment. Fine but he's a threat to an establishment, otherwise the usual suspects wouldn't be having a meltdown about it. Most likely they are scared that Musk will allow Trump back on and another 4 years of Trump is another 4 years of missed presidential favors until they can get "their guy" back in. >Aside from that, my argument is just "There is nothing wrong with bypassing filters." Ok. >>59993 >Its more than just a regular occurrence here, its business as usual. Thanks for following up. I mean cheers have a cupper and a biscuit mate

>>59993 >The more often people hear about free speech being used to defend the KKK, the less anti-racists are going to like free speech. If you're too stupid to explain why racism is wrong then censorship is not going to make it go away. If anything it will just make them stronger because you've basically admitted you can't argue with them so they must be right.

>>60043 in a war, almost no individual action is taken with the expectation that it has even a small chance to win the war. Rather most actions are done to slightly shift balances in favour of friend side and against the foe, to secure a better position for future actions and deny that better position to the enemy. Censoring twitter obviously doesn't matter, but the fact that it isn't a complete victory condition doesn't mean it has no tactical relevance.

>>60044 Censoring twitter creates radicals on twitter that then soykaf up the entire internet. It does matter therefore. Whenever you cut off the extremists on one side the avg shift towards the other extreme and thereby strengthens the crazy on the opposite side since their antics are normalized as the opposition is silenced. So you need to either censor both sides or let both fight each other to maintain balance. Since nobody had that much self control you get pendulum swings throughout history.

>>60043 > If anything it will just make them stronger because you've basically admitted you can't argue with them so they must be right. if someone cannot be swayed by argument then it's not admitting defeat to not argue with them, it is refusing to waste your time.

>>60047 argument is frequently not for the benefit of the participants but for the benefit of the audience, whose familiarity with either side might be weak, and can yet be converted. Censorship done wrong makes the censor look impotent and desperate, while not significantly muffling the voice of his opponent.

>>60039 >How much effort does it take for you to simply not parrot lies from the corporate media and just watch what happens? The fact that the media also thinks he is like kicking dead whales down the beach when I think he is like kicking dead whales down the beach has about as big of a factor as Fox News does in you wanting Trump back on Twitter. The main source of the dispute here is that I'm one of those awful "leftists" he wants to take action against, and you're not. I don't think I'm stupid for arguing that perhaps we shouldn't let the world's richest man take over one of the largest social media platforms (much in the same way Jeff Bezos should've never been allowed to buy a news outlet) when he's actively marking my ingroup out. I see him as a vindictive jag-off with poor impulse control, you see him as being vindictive in ways that personally enrich you and your worldview, even if that involves him banning political speech he dislikes, which I think should be an obvious bad that opens up the gates for you to get pwnt for being a piracy advocate, or against such and such business, or whatever nominally "leftist" opinion you likely have. But yes, I'm not a shareholder or working at Twitter or whatever, so there isn't much I can do other than, indeed, wait and see. So let us watch together. ...assuming he actually does end up buying Twitter – lately it seems like he doesn't want to. But that might just be what the corporate media is telling me, aye?

the buy attempt revealed some funny stories twitter dev got interviewed and admitted they were working like 4h / week while getting paid 120k as emphasis was on "mental health" which also lead to people not even coming to work. Dream job right there. More relevant to your discussion if the acquisition doesn't happen it still might pwn them as latest news is "they lied about users, its mostly bots so they lied about the company value to deceive buyer" and the stock tanked hard already. Next up is question if advertiser income will tank too using this for justification. If he manages to burn them without paying a dime he would arguably have a more epic win than still buying them at bargain bin price.

>>60053 >world's richest man I sincerely doubt Elon Musk is the richest man in the world. Those lists tend to exclude royalty, dictators, and the like.

>>60057 they also generally don't (and can't) count hidden assets and "soft" wealth, like personal connections. Probably most of the richest people in the world don't really make that public.

>>60047 >if someone cannot be swayed by argument then it's not admitting defeat to not argue with them, it is refusing to waste your time. The problem is not that they can't be swayed. The problem is you can't even make any kind of argument in the first place. Using censorship as a substitute for making an argument destroys your side's credibility and just pushes people in the middle to the other side. >>60052 >argument is frequently not for the benefit of the participants but for the benefit of the audience Yes. >>60053 >The fact that the media also thinks he sυcks when I think he sυcks has about as big of a factor as Fox News does in you wanting Trump back on Twitter. You should stop trying to make baseless assumptions about anonymous posters part of your arguments. It's just dumb. >I'm one of those awful "leftists" he wants to take action against, What "action" is that? >>59937 Equality feels like oppression to the group losing their special privileges. Let me cry you a river.

>>60062 >Using censorship as a substitute for making an argument destroys your side's credibility and just pushes people in the middle to the other side. Because free speech is argument vs argument, pick the best one. The alternative is argument vs censorship, the implication being one side can't make an argument so the other side is probably on to something.

>>60057 You're probably correct, but I don't have that information, and he's still really stinking rich. >>60062 >You should stop trying to make baseless assumptions about anonymous posters part of your arguments. It's just dumb. My assumption was that you weren't being hypocritical, the implication was that Fox News didn't have a factor for you either. I'm assuming you misread me, which you've told me not to do, but I hope the fact that I am assuming in your favor makes it sting slightly less. >What freedom do you think you are losing when someone else is granted free speech? Oh, come on. People are salivating over getting their one-ups on the "leftists" when they're not even that big of a group. There are tons of people on the "right" who are verified and get plenty of responses. Trump only got suspended after he stopped being a public figure, when he had broken the rules multiple times according to Twitter. They bent over backwards for him. As well, "leftists" often get suspended too. I assume one typically would not hear about it if they did not care for the internal strife of "leftists," but it happens quite often, sometimes for reasons that seem banal. I assume the same happens to "right-wingers." I dispute the premise. I don't think there is as disparate of a free speech difference as people make it out to be, and it's just that Twitter moderation is a black box with multiple factors going into it. I've seen people saying that with Musk even talking about buying Twitter, that they've felt shadowbans lifting or whatever. I've also seen people saying that with Musk even talking about buying Twitter, it feels like enforcement against "leftists" has gotten worse. Nothing's happened. This entire thing is just about the feelies and some semi-broken tools meant to detect shadowbans. >What "action" is that? Probably something silly. I think the main goal is to let Twitter fill with soykafposting and let people get even more heated, seeing how much he loves those sick dunks. Twitter moderation has issues, but Elon is very clearly signalling that he's partisan at this point. As fun as it is to think him a free speech warrior fighting for the true center, I don't think the guy who's had a consistent track record from working with Peter Thiel all the way up to announcing he's republican when contacted for a story he thought'd make him look bad actually got shunted to the right all of the sudden.

>>60067 >we identified right wingers still alive on twatter weak bait, you just label what you find offensive right i.e. fit people by fatties and those still alive have to selfcensor to avoid deplatforming these people are not leftwing they are simply a manchild cult that perpetuates itself by excluding dissenters telling them to fix their nonsense same as any other cult.

>>60067 >Oh, come on. Not an argument. how does extending free speech to everyone damage you exactly? >The main source of the dispute here is that I'm one of those awful "leftists" he wants to take action against, <What "action" is that? >Probably something silly. How can we have a productive discussion is you are just running on unfounded fear and speculation.

>>60045 >So you need to either censor both sides or let both fight each other to maintain balance thing is, no one actually cares about balance. They want to win and they want their adversaries to lose. The handful of uberautists in the middle who want balance are an insignificant minority that most people don't even care that much about winning over. >>60067 > after he stopped being a public figure fact check: mostly true they suspended him while he was still the sitting president legally but probably after his practical power had been mostly removed. Also even now he's definitly a public figure who runs around and makes speaches and runs events left and right. Only way to make DJT not a public figure is to kill him. >As fun as it is to think him a free speech warrior fighting for the true center honestly haven't seen almost any people celebratiting because they think he's a centrist. Its mostly the right thinking that he's more or less on their side. Even well before this Musk has held some favour in i.e. nrx circles, and the recent memes are further endearing him to them. A lot of this faction doesn't even want what normal people would consider free speech at all. Again, nobody wants balance. They just want to win.

“When I am Weaker Than You, I ask you for Freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am Stronger than you, I take away your Freedom Because that is according to my principles.”

>>60071 >The handful of uberautists in the middle who want balance are an insignificant minority Today I learned that valuing truth over tribal instincts makes you a uberautist. >no one actually cares about balance Why can't we rationally pick the good points from both sides instead of being forced to choose which side has the least amount of soykaf on it and giving them full power over everything? >honestly haven't seen almost any people celebratiting because they think he's a centrist. Why does labeling a person change the way you think about an individual action? Imagine all someone has to do is say "that person is a $LABEL" and now you perceive everything they do is evil. Man you are so easy to manipulate it's insane.

>>60068 >those still alive have to selfcensor to avoid deplatforming Yes, "leftists" have to do that too. The site affects everyone with stupid stringency equally. >>60070 >Not an argument. how does extending free speech to everyone damage you exactly? If you continue reading my post from there, I argued that he's not extending free speech to everyone because everyone's already affected the same. I just don't think Twitter has the time to sort leftoid opinions out, whatever you're seeing is a side-effect of a busted system that has to handle you and the entire rest of the world, leaving it with intricacies that are hard to grok and sometimes ridiculous. Once again, a partisan person planning to fix hallucinated biases cannot go well. >How can we have a productive discussion is you are just running on unfounded fear and speculation. My argument leading up to that implies that I believe there is no possible action he can take that isn't ridiculously complex and slow-acting, and I see him as an impulsive person, therefore I don't think there is an option other than something silly. The actual answer, of course, is "wait and see." >>60071 >mostly true Yeah I probably could've phrased that better, but I'm glad what I meant got across. >Again, nobody wants balance. They just want to win. Exactly! Thank you.

>>60081 >Today I learned that valuing truth over tribal instincts makes you a uberautist. You're conflating centrism with Truth, they are unrelated. There are a lot of disagreements that just come from fairly basic value differences. If you have a stereotypical racist who values his race first and consideres most other races to be effectively animals, and a stereotypical liberal who wants a tolerant multiethnic world based on racial equality, any center you try to make up makes no sense in either system; they're just incompatible worldviews. The racist just values his races higher, the liberal tries to value them roughly equally. There isn't some rational argument that can reconcile these. (I'm meaning these as stereotypes, obviously people do jump between value systems, and sometimes value systems are adopted for reasons of misunderstanding, but I hope you get what I'm saying) >Why can't we rationally pick the good points from both sides What are both sides ? If I just make up a new side does that mean I can get equal treatment ? Do you expect Christians and Satanists to just sit down, have a laugh, and agree that both sides have some points and the middle path is probably best ? Listen to yourself man. Maybe you don't feel strongly about anything, and that's fine. But there's a lot of beliefs that just cannot be recconciled without absolutely debasing the other side to the point of meaninglessness. >Why does labeling a person change the way you think about an individual action? labels have meaning. If a person seems to deserve a label then you consider their actions differently. If someone who seems to deserve the label 'satanist' becomes Pope, we react very differently than if someone who seems to deserve the label 'Catholic' becomes Pope. Obviously if someone is labeled 'Catholic' but mainly undertakes actions befitting a Satanist and not a Catholic the we ought to revise the labeling. I see people celebrating Musk as a likely non centrist become he seems to be, to them, not befitting of the title centrist. He has as another poster mentioned, a long association with Gay Rich Man Peter Theil, who's commonly associated with vaugely non centrist causes. He's posted memes recently that are associated with vaugely right wing associations, even that are claimed by specific right wing communities. If you're a vaugely right wing person, or part of one of these communities, this leads you to tentatively (and reasonably) label him 'Right Wing' and therefore 'Our Guy'. And when your guy does something that seems to get him power you should be happy. >Imagine all someone has to do is say "that person is a $LABEL" and now you perceive everything they do is evil. Man you're so easy to manipulate. I was offering that remark as just a description of what is going on without intending to give any particular other commentary. Think of it as if I'd remarked that it raining. "The Right seems to be celebrating him as one of their own".

>>60089 >Yes, "leftists" have to do that too. The site affects everyone with stupid stringency equally. Flatout lie, rabid specimen post "kill all whites" without consequences. Trannies gloat about selling drugs to underage kids without a ban. I dont give enough soykaf to remember everything but other people did the work and displayed the blatantly obvious bias with bans. >>60090 The rational compromise would be diversity champions to live in commifornia where they can enjoy their diversity while the "racists" live in their segregated towns and neither fuarrrks with the other. What actually happens is diversity cultists try to enrich other countries. Basically cultural imperialism while simultaneously screeching about cultural appropriation displaying the full range of their insanity.

>>60095 >Flatout lie, rabid specimen post "kill all whites" without consequences. No? >Trannies gloat about selling drugs to underage kids without a ban. "Right-wingers" do not get derezzed for talking about selling medicine either, because they do not do that. This is a difference in rhetoric. (And I could spew bile about "genocidal freaks" and "rapists", but I'd rather stick to the facts of the matter and not spread unfounded fear and speculation.) >I dont give enough soykaf to remember everything but other people did the work and displayed the blatantly obvious bias with bans. I'm sure they're totally unbiased sources, yes? No partisanship here? =)

>>60102 >medicine lmao.

>>60103 It's used by postmenopausal women even outside of the other uses and is approved by plenty of doctors, as well as human rights organizations. Medicine, as defined by the people who make it. I encourage you to speak your mind freely if you believe otherwise. Just make sure to argue in good faith! :)

>>60105 If you play with the definitions of words anything can mean anything else. Language is fluid and gets its meaning through use, who are we to say what is correct and incorrect in this context. After all, we're free to express ourselves using the language that lets us feel most comfortable. >Woman - Adult human female NO! NOT THAT!

>>60102 poor cope, bias doesnt make them wrong. People who dig up these things are salty they cant use insults and get derezzed which may be cringe motivation but it doesn't invalidate when they do find people posting "kill all whites" without consequences. Selective enforcement remains true fact regardless of questionable motives to find evidence they get unfair treatment. Twitter also did autobans on topics like the reddit hire being a convicted fellon. And for the record FB&youtube ban even reposting gov data going against official narrative. If you use a big platform you cruise on a propaganda outlet.

>>60090 >You're conflating centrism with Truth, they are unrelated >any center you try to make up makes no sense in either system; they're just incompatible worldviews. Do you understand that letting people speak is not the same thing as agreeing with them or actioning anything they say. >If I just make up a new side does that mean I can get equal treatment ? Everyone should have equal rights. >Maybe you don't feel strongly about anything, and that's fine. I do actually. And I'm so confident in what I believe that I'm not threatened by people who disagree with me having a voice. >labels have meaning. If a person seems to deserve a label then you consider their actions differently. Labels are just words and changing words doesn't change reality. Stop ignoring the central issue of the thread: >how does extending free speech to everyone on twitter harm you exactly?