How often is the answer "no"? The ratio would be a pretty good discovered measure of her tolerance for false positives, which I'd assume would be very low in today's social climate.
-
-
Replying to @mattknox
Maybe 3% of the time, although if the time window went say 10 years into the future, it might be 10%.
3 replies 0 retweets 12 likes -
I liked it better when intent mattered.
4 replies 1 retweet 42 likes -
Come on, you guys are way more powerful and influential than you were 20 years ago (which is exciting!) What’s that Spiderman line? With great power, comes great responsibility? Words matter. They travel farther & faster than they did a decade ago. We should exercise care.
5 replies 2 retweets 82 likes -
Maybe we've become more influential, but most of the problem here is another change that has happened simultaneously: the acceleration in the rate of new taboos.
11 replies 5 retweets 65 likes -
How do we prove that that is true?
3 replies 0 retweets 31 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @paulg and
Today I have a megaphone to 40K people, which I didn’t have 5 years ago. That’s like going from a dinner party to speaking on-stage in front of thousands of people at Central Park. That means I need to speak with more care and precision, since anyone in the audience can now tell
2 replies 0 retweets 61 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @paulg and
When the audience size goes from ~dinner party to 40k ppl in a stadium, the burden of responsibility shifts from speaker to listener. If you don’t like what eg The Grateful Dead might have to say, don’t go to their concert
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @kimmaicutler @TrevMcKendrick and
and teams are ultimately funded by Silicon Valley, in turn influencing the kinds of tech and culture underpinning that tech that the world adopts later, some people might want to stay and talk about blind spots that he or the institution he built might have.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Or if you want to get into a more specific conversation about listener’s rights, listeners’ legal free speech rights have gradually been subordinated to corporate free speech rights over the last generation within American case lawhttps://law.stanford.edu/publications/expanding-the-periphery-and-threatening-the-core-the-ascendant-libertarian-speech-tradition/ …
-
-
Replying to @kimmaicutler @TrevMcKendrick and
which is contributing to this conflict between aggrieved media figures who say they are being censored by politically biased platforms, which are exercising their corporate free speech rights, which were (ironically) enshrined and expanded for them by largely conservative judges
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @TrevMcKendrick and
That’s super interesting but unsure how that relates to outraged mobs going after people like PG. Nitpicking is pervasive and mostly fine but it does feel like the Overton Window online keeps closing. For eg, talking about research on gender differences.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - 3 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.