Thread by @SimonCopland

This proposal (and the responses to it) are a perfect example of the serious challenges we face in the regulation/moderation of discourse on the web. Thread. 1/15 #Twitter #Birdwatch #SocialMedia

https://twitter.com/TwitterSupport/status/1353766523664531459

It is clear that Twitter has, rightfully, concluded that they want to remove themselves somewhat from the process of moderation. They, alongside other companies, have faced significant backlash over their approaches and are searching for ways to outsource the process. 2/15

This controversy is well deserved, and we should be very skeptical of these companies having complete control over these decisions. Twitter's main priority is profit and they make decisions primarily to appease advertisers. 3/15

The desire of advertisers is not the same as what is good for society. If advertisers can make money off violent material they will, and will do so happily. When they can't anymore suddenly the ban hammer comes down. Social good doesn't matter, only money does. 4/15

In our current political climate what this means is that social media companies are increasingly turning against any 'controversial' or 'extreme' content, both from the left and the right. What is politically acceptable is what stays. This is bad for our political discourse. 5/15

However, while Twitter is at least recognising that these decisions draw too much controversy for themselves (another profit-driven decision), the alternatives aren't great either. Let's have a look at the issues. 6/15

We absolutely do not want to hand this power over to Governments. Governments being in power of speech is not a good idea, and will undermine any criticism of those in power. It's a big no-go zone. 7/15

Handing over to fact-checkers/experts has also been a challenge. Expertise is contested, and, in general, we should promote that contestation. These processes are also very slow and rely on figures who have little authority in the community. 8/15

However, handing over to the 'community' is also a challenge. As the responses to this proposal have pointed out, processes like this could easily be taken over by bad actors who will use them to pursue abuse and harassment. This would also be bad. 9/15

So where does that leave us?

I think the uncomfortable position this leaves us in is that there is no clear 'solution' to this problem. Speech is contested and always has been. Acting like we can wave a magic wand and fix this issue is a furphy. 10/15

This proposal, like many others, therefore is in some ways a distraction. It focuses on the mechanism, hoping this can distract from the controversy Twitter routinely faces. What we need to be having however is an open and honest debate about the contested nature of speech. 11/15

This is a debate that we are not having, at least in a nuanced manner, and particularly online. Part of this is because of increasing political and social polarisation. Part is because many (often online) have lost the ability to have actual disagreements. 12/15

Another part of the reason is that we are giving control over this debate to large tech giants, who, as I have noted do not have any sense of social good as a priority at all. We are letting them make the decisions, instead of taking control of the debate ourselves. 13/15

But it is a debate we need to be willing to have. I don't know how to manage that, and in turn don't really have a good ending to this thread, but I think a good starting point is realising that it is complex. There are no simple solutions here. 14/15

One other thing I would say however is that we should, ideally, see censorship as a last resort. These spaces are becoming the 'public square', the places where we have our big political debates. Excluding people from those spaces should be something we try to avoid. 15/15