Twitter is still vital for the space community. A former NASA astronaut explains why

[Admin]

Twitter provides an important platform for science communicators, but many in the scientific community have expressed misgivings about remaining on the platform.

Twitter is still vital for the space community. A former NASA astronaut explains why : Read more

 

[cecilia]

how sad

 

[Marcd2k]

I think everyone needs to take a hard look at using another platform besides Twitter. Just today (May 18, 2023) there is another story of Musk and his antisemitic posts adding to all of the other vile posts he constantly makes. And no one will do anything about it. This is hate speech, I thought there were laws against this? This isn't some private citizen that you can just ignore, this is the CEO of two very large and very influential companies for the US and the World stage. Anyone still associating themselves with this platform are allowing this behavior and giving their consent it is okay by not speaking out. I don't know where we went so wrong in this country, but it is really a sad time in History with everything that is happening, and being allowed to happen with no checks and balances.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

This is becoming very political very fast, so I expect this thread will soon be locked.

The problem with trying to silence "hate speech" by "canceling" any organization that does not block it to the satisfaction of political activists of all persuasions is that it leads to "information silos" where proponents of competing philosophies get separated into like-minded groups that do not communicate with each other. This provides a fertile ground for inciting both sides, and seems to lead to actual dangers of physical confrontation, terrorism, etc.

Even the definition of "hate speech" gets weaponized in different ways by different groups. And, if the government gets to define it, that slippery slope leads to abuses like what we are currently seeing in Russia, where calling the military conflict in Ukraine a "war" or "invasion" gets you multiple years in prison. Similarly, saying anything critical of some religions can get you executed in several countries.

So, in the U.S., we have a philosophy that people should not be constrained by the government from speaking their minds - that is enshrined in the First Amendment to our Constitution. With the government out of the censorship picture, here, political activists have realized that control of the "news" media and religious organizations provided them the way to indoctrinate the masses into their various philosophies. So, we see this effort to cancel just about anything that somebody disagrees with.

Frankly, I have never seen any racial, ethnic or religious group of human beings that is beyond reproach and worthy of protection from any criticism. And I have seen a lot of criticisms of bad behaviors get labeled as "hate speech". That is intended to, and does, prevent rational discussions over issues where 2 groups have legitimate conflicting interests. Without discussions to reach consensual compromises, polarization increases and physical conflicts ensue.

So, my recommendation is that we need to openly argue against what we believe is wrong, rather than try to block every statement that we think is wrong, or maybe even true, but not helpful for our own agendas. Forums like Twitter can provide for that, and are really no worse for society than forums that allow only one point of view.

And Twitter can still be used for non-political science communication purposes without engaging in the politics. So, this effort to stop science communication on Twitter is really nothing more than a political effort to "cancel" just a few of the groups now allowed on Twitter at the expense of cancelling all of Twitter. What is the alternative? It is to have groups that allow scientific discussions be limited to only those that censor information. I don't agree that is a healthy condition for "science" either.

 

[cecilia]

And Twitter can still be used for non-political science communication purposes without engaging in the politics.

I agree, and as much as possible I avoid the hateful comments and focus on the science (and other interesting topics that can happen on Twitter).

 

[Marcd2k]

This is becoming very political very fast, so I expect this thread will soon be locked.

The problem with trying to silence "hate speech" by "canceling" any organization that does not block it to the satisfaction of political activists of all persuasions is that it leads to "information silos" where proponents of competing philosophies get separated into like-minded groups that do not communicate with each other. This provides a fertile ground for inciting both sides, and seems to lead to actual dangers of physical confrontation, terrorism, etc.

Even the definition of "hate speech" gets weaponized in different ways by different groups. And, if the government gets to define it, that slippery slope leads to abuses like what we are currently seeing in Russia, where calling the military conflict in Ukraine a "war" or "invasion" gets you multiple years in prison. Similarly, saying anything critical of some religions can get you executed in several countries.

So, in the U.S., we have a philosophy that people should not be constrained by the government from speaking their minds - that is enshrined in the First Amendment to our Constitution. With the government out of the censorship picture, here, political activists have realized that control of the "news" media and religious organizations provided them the way to indoctrinate the masses into their various philosophies. So, we see this effort to cancel just about anything that somebody disagrees with.

Frankly, I have never seen any racial, ethnic or religious group of human beings that is beyond reproach and worthy of protection from any criticism. And I have seen a lot of criticisms of bad behaviors get labeled as "hate speech". That is intended to, and does, prevent rational discussions over issues where 2 groups have legitimate conflicting interests. Without discussions to reach consensual compromises, polarization increases and physical conflicts ensue.

So, my recommendation is that we need to openly argue against what we believe is wrong, rather than try to block every statement that we think is wrong, or maybe even true, but not helpful for our own agendas. Forums like Twitter can provide for that, and are really no worse for society than forums that allow only one point of view.

And Twitter can still be used for non-political science communication purposes without engaging in the politics. So, this effort to stop science communication on Twitter is really nothing more than a political effort to "cancel" just a few of the groups now allowed on Twitter at the expense of cancelling all of Twitter. What is the alternative? It is to have groups that allow scientific discussions be limited to only those that censor information. I don't agree that is a healthy condition for "science" either.

Good morning, and thank you for your counterpoint.

The only part of what you wrote I totally agree with is cancelling or blocking because of something we don't agree with is not the answer. However, there is also a statement in your reply I was very surprised to hear, and here it is as quoted by you:

"Frankly, I have never seen any racial, ethnic or religious group of human beings that is beyond reproach and worthy of protection from any criticism. And I have seen a lot of criticisms of bad behaviors get labeled as "hate speech".

Do you really believe this statement? If you do, you have not been paying attention over the past couple of months here in the US alone. Just the demonstration in Ohio by itself should have people very worried about where our ideology is headed in this country. And if you believe those people are not engaging in conduct detrimental to our society, then we have a more serious problem than I even imagined.

Also, continuing to use a platform that has been taken over by these types of extremist groups is legitimizing their views in their minds. Very similar to what happened that led to January 6th. But I never said anything about canceling their platform, the only thing I said was legitimate corporations should not be feeding into their ideology. This is not simple name calling by someone who is upset they didn't get their way. These people do not believe we should live our lives the way we want to, only the way they want us to.

I also never said anything about censorship, not sure where you came up with that. Maybe these are your views, I don't know, but having the same serious discussions and scientific programs on a platform that actually believes in science is much different than the free-for-all that is there now. So let them have Twitter and their own views and leave the real world to those that care about it. Even them reading your reply has legitimized what they do and say in their minds, because they are saying, "see, how can we be so bad if someone is agreeing we should be taken seriously?"

 

[Unclear Engineer]

Marcd2k, If you don't realize that people on both sides of contentious issues have real grievances, then you are missing the point of negotiation and compromise. Vilifying one side to support the other side is a destructive tactic used far too much by both sides, these days. Trying to financially damage Twitter because it does not exclude what you want excluded is simply being replicated by the folks who want to exclude your own points of view from what they can control. As I said, that just creates "silos" of people who can be incited to do things like storm the Capitol, burn businesses, shoot innocent people, run cars through crowds, etc.

My opinion is that we need to honestly talk things out. If you can't agree with that, then I think you are guilty of what you accuse me of. Which seems to be the typical mode of "activists" these days - the hypocrisy is coming from all sides.

I am not going to debate this further on this forum - which has another purpose for its existence. If you disagree with some things posted on Twitter, then post your counter arguments there.

As for getting me to stop using Twitter, I never even started using Twitter. So, you are wasting your time with me, and probably most of the other people who post here.