Twitter Engineer
- Thread starter TarHeelEer
- Start date
There is a reason that the twitter alternative www.gab.ai is growing at an astonishing rate. Didn't it come out a few months ago that millions of twitter handles are bots anyways? Twitters future is :flush:.
I watched an interview last night of the guy that Google fired over his "memo" on women in technology, and it highlighted how vast the influence is that some of these sites maintain while how biased and dangerous that influence can be.
Some security peeps are saying big tech is more dangerous for our privacy than the feds now. I believe it.
I think there may be a market for a Twitter alternative since Twitter is heavyhanded to some but not all harsh speech. But that site sets itself up a a Right alternative to Twitter. That's not the way to do it. Just be a "we're a free speech Twitter" thing and leave it at that. Leave politics out of it.
Of course, Twitter is a private company and they can do what they want and ban who they want but the idea is that when they come off as banning only certain kinds of views they're vulnerable to a competitor that touts that they won't ban anyone (other than direct threats of violence of course).
Why does Twitter need a warrant? I'm not on Twitter, so I never read their TOS.
They set themselves up as a free speech alternative. There are plenty of alt-right personalities and lefty Nat Socialists. You can customize your experience as well, however it isn't for snowflakes or wussies in general. They'll get chewed up and spit out and when they try to cry foul the damn CEO/founder will laugh them out of the room. Synopsis - Gab is awesome.
Here is the homepage of Twitter. Compare it to the homepage of Gab. It's obvious that Gab is marketing itself towards the Right. Not that there's anything wrong with that per se but it's just that that doesn't fix the problem Twitter has. A non-partisan version of Twitter that provided freer speech could put Twitter out of business but Gab won't, although Gab may find a niche and do well in it.
https://twitter.com/
If a platform is truly for free speech then the CEO/founder laughing or not laughing people out of the room is irrelevant. You provide the platform for free speech then you let people speak. If instead you're taking sides then you're going beyond the mission of just providing the platform.