> Right. Don’t you think it’s a bit of a stretch to make strong evaluations of a platform if you use it very rarely, in a non-usual manner?

No, I don't think so. (But you're also asking in a rhetorically clumsy way that makes it almost impossible to give the answer you'd prefer to hear.)

I'm evaluating Twitter based on my experience and based on the studies mentioned in the article we're discussing, according to which hateful content has drastically increased on Twitter recently.

Do you honestly believe I should instead just take your word for it and ignore both personal evidence and studies? That would make no sense.

> I agree there’s abominable things on Twitter - that’s what you get with a platform (now) focused on free speech. But you have to sort of go out looking for it.

I just laid out that you do not have to go out looking for it. I gave a fairly decent number of examples that really popped up when I entered one hashtag. Moreover, take into account the context of our discussion. My assessment appears to be backed up by recent studies.

> I think Twitter has done a good job championing freedom of speech while making it not so “hateful” for the average user.

I don't think so, based on my experience and what I've read about Twitter's problems. That's why I think the EU should take action against the company to at least limit the plain illegal content more than they do right now.

> I think you are conflating your unusual access pattern with the experience of people who don’t follow anyone (which is also rare).

My personal access patterns are not the problem, though. The problem is the content Twitter allows, some of which violates applicable laws in EU countries that I fully appreciate and endorse. Other content is just appalling and toxic and should be moderated.

About your information bubbles I sort of agree. I just wanted to make you aware that one's "customization experience" can be another one's information bubble, and that bubble can be positive or negative. If more toxic content and disinformation is available, more negative consequences will occur.

> Why is this crazy? In general, would you like Twitter to ban sources that advocate for US adversaries in war?

To some extent Yes. At least disinformation campaigns directed by state actors need to be stopped. Despite a lot of US affinity with the Nazis during WW2 before Pearl Harbor, I don't think it would have been acceptable for a US company to widely provide free propaganda outlets for German Nazis in all US media and all across the US. But perhaps I'm wrong. Be that as it may, providing adversaries with a direct opportunity to conduct influencing campaigns in your country is in my opinion fairly crazy. AFAIK, both NATO and the US intelligence community mostly agree with me on that one.

That's common sense. However, from a more moral perspective, I want first and foremost any advocates of genocide and illegal wars of aggression to be banned. That could also include people from the US in certain instances (e.g. think about the Iraq War).

> But above all, what I have issue with mostly is one’s (strong) evaluation of something without a serious attempt to understand it. Perhaps a bit intellectually dishonest, no?

No, because your premise is false. You're intellectually dishonest for presuming I made no serious attempt to understand it. As I've said, I know plenty of people who actually do research hate speech on social media, and have heard a few talks about it here or there. I have reasons to believe to have a solid understanding of the subject matter and what's wrong with Twitter. That being said, it's not in any way a primary interest for me personally.

> Do you use other social media platforms? Do you see value in social media at all?

Yes, of course. We're on one of them. HN is my favorite because of the strong moderation. Reddit is my second favorite, as long as you avoid certain topics. Twitter and Facebook are in my opinion garbage, but Facebook has somewhat improved recently and Twitter seems to have declined in quality.