Talk:Minds (social network)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Should the article be moved to "Minds"?

So currently "Minds" redirects to Mind. However Minds.com is probably a bad choice for the name of the article for the same reasons why the Facebook-article isn't called Facebook.com. So for example it's also an app and Minds.com isn't really the name of the social network – Minds is. What do?

--Fixuture (talk) 22:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I would support the move, I think. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 08:25, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Anonymous does not support Minds

The claim that Minds is backed by Anonymous is obscure and misleading[1]. For me it seems like an ugly marketing trick. Such claims should be removed from the article. --Jussi24 (talk) 12:35, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Well the sources say something different. Also it would rather be ridiculous to claim Anonymous wouldn't be supporting this as Anonymous can be anybody and with the site appararently adopting various defining characteristics of Anonymous (namely anonymity, privacy and open source) it would be obscure to suggest that Anonymous isn't supporting it.

Anonymous is a loose collective identity inhabitant of the Internet and is defined by very few characteristics so if these characteristics are applied pragmatically it's rather likely that it'll get support by Anons which don't speak united but adhocratically attach and form around a cause - so different (groups of) Anons can have differing opinions (one of which is highlighted in your link). So the question is really just about how large the support of Anonymous actually is. The references are pretty clear that it's enough to justify calling it "backed by Anonymous". One specific instance of support can be seen here: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Anonymous-ART-of-Revolution/362231420471759 (I can't access it though as I don't have Facebook).
--Fixuture (talk) 18:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree with you, Fixuture. I totally agreed with Jussi24 : I believe Anonymous hacktivists team isn't behind this thing. The presence of trackers denounced by some people is clearly showing that this social network isn't respecting anything of your privacy. Perhaps it could be a specific section on this article. R3sJAP155M (talk) 23:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Added : This wouldn't be the first time there is usurpation of "Anonymous group"'s identity. R3sJAP155M (talk) 23:43, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

>Perhaps it could be a specific section on this article

Yes please create a "Criticism"-section in the article. --Fixuture (talk) 23:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Criticisms and controversies

Added a section "Criticisms and controversies", after talk with Fixuture. R3sJAP155M (talk) 00:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't really know why there is such support on the Minds social network, because some of anonymous are clearly not supporting this social network. See here or here. Anyway, it's a bad privacy protecting social network, in opposition to Aether or Diaspora*. — Preceding unsigned comment added by R3sJAP155M (talk • contribs) 21:51, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

User characterizations

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm going to move the characterizations to the user section. It's becoming clownish to add these tags to the beginning of any controversial piece, and it detracts from WP's mission.

My characterization of the Guardian piece is correct. Nowhere is Minds conclusively tied or said to be conclusively tied to the migration in the source, nor is any sound claim made with regard to the number. I welcome any evidence to the contrary.Naynay1980 (talk) 21:27, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

The lead section is supposed to summarize the article. The political leanings of the users and content of Minds are an important part of the article, because this is frequently noted by reliable sources. It should be summarized in the lead. MrOllie (talk) 21:29, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I'll leave it for now, but deleting the recently added Guardian paragraph. Not substantiated by the source.Naynay1980 (talk) 21:30, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please see the discussion directly above this one. MOS:LEAD specifies that leads of Wikipedia articles must summarize the article body, and present the notable aspects of a subject; the far-right userbase on Minds is certainly one of those things.

On the subject of The Guardian, I do think there is a tweak to the wording that should be made to better represent the source (which was not recently added, by the way; I think you're misreading the page history). Perhaps According to The Guardian, Minds is one of a group of alt-tech websites "whose light touch in content moderation is presented as a commitment to free speech", which has led conservatives to create accounts on the platform to use in the event of bans from more restrictive sites. or similar. Thoughts?

Your observation of status quo is incorrect. There was a recent spate of edit warring, but [2] was the stable version. Observe that it is substantially the same as MrOllie's (and my) revision, ignoring my addition of the NYT source this morning. Please stop with the edit warring. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:35, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Either way, the time it was up is irrelevant. It's a misrepresentation of the source, which is irresponsible and abusive editing; undoing that isn't warring.Naynay1980 (talk) 21:37, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

And no, that isn't accurate either. There are really no hooks in the article. They discuss specifics at Parler, then just note that Minds and MeWe have a similar policy. That isn't evidence of anything, regarding conservatives 'far right' or anything else. If you want to characterize what the article actually says (that policies are comparable), you can try it, but it will probably be a waste of space and removable on those grounds.Naynay1980 (talk) 21:39, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

How is that not an accurate summary of the Guardian?

The site is one player among a cluster of sites like MeWe and Minds.com whose light touch in content moderation is presented as a commitment to free speech. The laissez-faire attitude of those sites has led many conservatives to at least set up accounts ahead of any bans they might receive on other platforms.

GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:47, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

You need to read the whole article. There is no direct link to Trump supporters, no hard claim on the number of them. The only thing that puts them in the same 'cluster' is comparable moderation policies, which is not a tenuous link to Trump supporters, it's no link. You not only turned the 'quite possibly tens of thousands' into 'tens of thousands,' you falsely claimed Minds was a key receptor of them, for which no evidence whatsoever (or even an opinion that it is so) is provided. Claiming that Minds received them based on the source would be your opinion and poor OR.Naynay1980 (talk) 22:03, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

What? Where in my suggested change am I mentioning Trump supporters, or the number of them? For that matter, where in the previous version (which I agree is not well representing that source) were Trump supporters mentioned? Are you perhaps referring to the sentence supported by the NYT source? Because that source is quite clear: When YouTube and Facebook barred tens of thousands of Mr. Trump’s supporters and white supremacists this month, many flocked to alternative apps such as LBRY, Minds and Sessions... Minds, a blockchain-based replacement for Facebook founded in 2015, also became an online home to some of the right-wing personalities and neo-Nazis who were booted from mainstream social networks, along with fringe groups, in other countries, that have been targeted by their governments. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:05, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Your paragraph: In January 2021, after Parler, another alt-tech social network, was pulled offline by its host Amazon Web Services, former users of that site started migrating to other alt-tech social networks including Minds. That same month, YouTube and Facebook removed tens of thousands of Trump supporters and white supremacists from their platforms, and Minds was among the alternative apps those users adopted.

False representation of the Guardian source you cited, which merely posits a 'cluster' of sites by virtue of similar moderation policies, providing no evidence or making no claim of a user migration. And why assume 'conservatives' just on the basis of looser moderation? Don't liberal people think or say anything subversive or controversial?Naynay1980 (talk) 22:12, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

You're falsely quoting from that article, this is the only mention of Minds: The site is one player among a cluster of sites like MeWe and Minds.com whose light touch in content moderation is presented as a commitment to free speech.

You have misread the citations in the source. The second sentence "That same month..." was not sourced to the Guardian article, it was supported by this New York Times article. Feel free to check for yourself: [3]. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:16, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

If you want to restore a version of the paragraph based on the NYT source, you can't tie a number to it or conflate it with any purported movement of Trump supporters.Naynay1980 (talk) 22:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

And why is that? The NYT source is quite clear... GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:19, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

It's OR/opinion to posit that because the NYT claims without evidence that 'some' (2, 10, 1,000?) neo-Nazis and 'fringe groups' went to Minds, that the 'quite possibly tens of thousands' of Trump supporters opined by the Guardian (who makes no claim they went to Minds) went to Minds, let alone in any substantial numbers. So all you could say based on the sources is that the NYT reported (without evidence) that 'some' neo-Nazis signed up with Minds.Naynay1980 (talk) 22:24, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

We rely on our reliable sources to do their research; we do not demand some arbitrary bar of "evidence" be met. I quoted what the NYT wrote, which the sentence I added reflects accurately. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:26, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm just pointing out that there was no evidence provided. If you want to rewrite it to say that the NYT reports that 'some' neo-Nazis signed up with Minds, I won't stop you. You can't link it to the Guardian source because there's no hard connection. Naynay1980 (talk) 22:30, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps you were not understanding me, I was not suggesting making a link between the two sources. See [4]. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:44, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Recent exodus from Twitter?

I was wondering if we could add a section that describes the mass migration of users from Twitter to Minds because of the bannings? The migrating users were mainly right-wing, but don't make the section all about the "alt-right", as none of the users I know who have moved are alt-right.

DoubleDeckerDave (talk) 09:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Why is 8Chan listed?

This seems like a dubious inclusion in the "See also" list, given that the first paragraphs in 8chan reference child porn. 8chan was an imageboard and not a social media network, and there's nothing in the rest of the article that would even imply any sort of relation. It seems like a bad faith inclusion rather than a relevant, legitimate one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.87.210.176 (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Engadget and Vice Criticisms

The word "preponderance" does not occur in either source cited, so I didn't change a direct quote to a paraphrasing. "Per Source" and "Sources say so" as revert reasons are either intentionally, or unintentionally misleading.

The Engadget article is an opinion piece which should either be removed, or attributed to the author, not Engadget.

The Vice piece specifically cites and links to a piece on Vietnamese activists flocking to the platform to evade censorship from their government, which makes the context broader than contemporary US politics.

[EDIT] The whole issue is covered under Content anyway, so it doesn't necessarily warrant including a sentence that could come across as a quick jab for readers only interested in the summary.

114.23.233.44 (talk) 11:46, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for beginning a discussion on this. My concern was not that you changed a direct quote (it wasn't one) but that you have whitewashed out removed the focus of the criticisms by Vice and Engadget, replacing it with a much vaguer claim. Both sources are writing very specifically about the far-right groups that have flourished on Minds, while also criticizing content policies that allow them to do so. Regarding the point that the issue is covered under Content, the whole point of the lead is to summarize the article. If you removed everything from an article lead that was included in the article body, you'd have no lead left (MOS:LEAD: "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.")

As a note, it is standard to retain the status quo version of an article while challenged edits are being discussed. The statements you are removing have been the subject of whitewashing attempts for quite some time, but have been repeatedly restored as appropriate by various editors (see the page history), so you should achieve consensus here first. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

No worries. I did read through the history, and saw the removals of the sentence, and reverts of those edits, and by whom, etc.

I can see why some thought it should be dropped, due to seemingly cherry-picked citations elevating a singular critique, levelled by two outlets with less than stellar reputations as sources, both with parent or shareholder companies that have vested economic interests in technology and media, and one being an opinion piece.

I can also see that summarising the controversial moderation policies expanded on in Content is useful, and there is indeed resulting content allowed on the site that a significant number of people could find objectionable-to-abhorrent which gives its inclusion relevance.

The rationale behind my edits, aside from trying to give weight to both of the above, is that the resulting far-right/extremist content hosted on the site is a side-effect of, not the intent behind, the policy, nor seems to reflect any views held by the owners/operators (if we are taking everyone at their word, and I have not yet seen a reason not to?). It is also not the only outcome of the policy, the Vice piece itself references an instance of preserving political speech in Vietnam.

Whitewashing presumes intent, and we should maybe avoid making such accusations at this stage? My not giving prominence to a specific criticism by default, largely relevant to the US, that cites two US sources; while factoring in other outcomes relevant globally; and while leaving many other mentions of that specific criticism elsewhere on the page, is somewhat outside of what I understood to be a whitewashing?

My suggestion above that nothing might be better than bad, was in response to yourself and MrOllie both: ignoring my note in my first edit encouraging adding to, or improving upon, my attempt at improvement; ignoring WP:ROWN; as well as possibly not considering why that phrasing may be so contentious, before bulk reverting. [I might be too accusatory here myself]

Apologies, my understanding was that Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary#Don't_re-revert stated the pre-first-revert text should be retained.

114.23.233.44 (talk) 23:09, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

both with parent or shareholder companies that have vested economic interests in technology and media, and one being an opinion piece. Engadget is a technology publication, yes, but it makes sense to use technology publications in articles about technology.

the resulting far-right/extremist content hosted on the site is a side-effect of, not the intent behind, the policy That may be your opinion, but the Engadget source questions this: "It's not until you survey the most popular channels on the platform that you start wondering what sort of free speech and debate Minds is interested in protecting".

You are correct that the accusation of whitewashing was probably unfair; it has been a problem in this article, but I should not have been so quick to assume that was your intent. I have struck that wording.

I am not opposed to attempts to improve the statement in the lead, but removing all mention of the fact that right-wing users congregate on Minds is a poor summary of the Minds#Content section, which represents a significant focus of RS coverage of Minds. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:30, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Is this wording any better? I have also added an additional source. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:04, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think adding sources is the solution (I couldn't see the reference either). Have added to yours, but I think it could still use work. 114.23.233.44 (talk) 12:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I didn't mean Engadget itself, obviously they report on tech, but their parent company Verizon, who've previously lobbied against internet neutrality, own AOL and Yahoo, as well as a subsidiary (A&E) that holds significant shares in Vice Media. I'm not saying this necessarily indicates anything nefarious, just that I wouldn't rely on conglomerate owned media as a singular representation of accuracy.

It's not so much that it's my opinion, I mentioned right after what you quoted that I just had no immediate reason to think the founders were being deceptive in their statements, and despite the Engadget writer's pure supposition, there doesn't seem to be any evidence that they were. Their partnership with Daryl Davis instead suggests to me that they merely favour the tactic of engagement over one of silencing.

Right, and I’m not inherently apposed to the inclusion of the far-right/extremist content portion in the summary, but IMO there are some problems with the Content section in terms of bias as well, that skew focus heavily towards the current US political climate and its divisiveness, which need more time dedicated to them than I can provide unfortunately. The word "preponderance" also implies there is a breakdown which shows the content makeup of the entire site, which I have not seen in either reference. 114.23.233.44 (talk) 12:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I also just noticed the Alt-Right footer returned, is there any justification for that? Seems like including it is a fairly big implication, based solely on that they are allowed on the platform. 114.23.233.44 (talk) 12:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

All sources have bias, certainly, and ownership can contribute to it. But as I've said, Engadget is a generally reliable source (RSP entry) for this topic area; it's also one of several sources that comment on the far-right portion of Minds' users and content. If you wish to suggest alternative reliable sources that take a different view of content on Minds, please be my guest.

Why did you remove the mention of the NYT in your edit? I have adjusted your change a bit, because as far as I can see Minds doesn't have "policies regarding political speech". I think what you're trying to say is that they bill themselves as a "free speech" platform (and have light content moderation policies to match), which you believe is why there is so much far-right content there. I have added the first portion of that statement, which can be sourced. Readers can draw their own conclusions, but the sources are not nearly as unequivocal about causation. It is pretty common in these various articles about alt-tech platforms for some editors to try to say that the preponderance of extremist/right-wing content on the sites is a side effect of the content policies, which the sites themselves had no part in; sources are rarely so clear on that, and in fact there are researchers and journalists who have said this is generally a flimsy argument. The Engadget source also directly contradicts the statement you're hoping to make, with its "you start wondering..." quote (included in #Content).

Anyway, I hope this change is amenable to you. I don't have any real objections to your wording tweaks to "preponderance" etc.

Regarding the {{alt-right footer}}, typically any article included in a navbox also will have that navbox included in the article. Minds is included in the "alt-tech" row of that footer. You could begin a discussion at Template talk:Alt-right footer if you think the entry ought to be removed. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I removed the NYT source because you didn’t add the relevant citation that I could see (it’s showing up now), and also it doesn’t really add or detract to the messaging, so seemed maybe superfluous?

You’re correct, “political speech” was the wrong wording there, it was late. But rather than they “bill themselves as”, it is mentioned in the Vice piece that their policy is to allow speech outside of anything illegal, doxing, etc. So I think the “policy” mention is worthy of inclusion.

Again, it’s not what I do or do not believe, there is an onus of proof when stating/inferring that the resulting content has any intentionality behind it, of which I have seen none, so I am taking the non-presumptive position. And again, the Engadget writer in their opinion piece, offered a theory, without anything to back it up, that is not sufficient to even imply intent. Saying it’s a flimsy argument is also not proof. Do you get what I mean here? This seems to maybe be the most salient point, that keeps getting somewhat lost.

Understood about the alt-right footer, seems odd, but fine if it is outside of the scope of this discussion. 114.23.233.44 (talk) 21:06, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

No one was suggesting causation or lack of causation until you added the portion about the policy. Neither one is supported by sources, which is why it needs to be omitted. The current version, and the version prior to your edits, repeats the common observation in RS that there is far-right/extremist content on Minds, without adding unsourced inferences around why it's there or what the powers that be at Minds think about it. Can you clarify, are you satisfied with the wording we've reached? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Regarding intention, I agree, it looks like that we might have just been going down the rabbit hole, due my initial statement (paraphrased) of: if taking people at their word, it appeared it was a side effect, and not intention. We can move past that tangent and agree wording regarding intent should omitted?

I think we are almost there. There is a decent quote in the Vice piece that could be included either at the end of the previous sentence, or the one we have been going over. A draft:

Writers in The New York Times, Engadget, and Vice have noted the volume of far-right users and content on the platform; founder Bill Ottman stating he believes “Minds is a place where civil discourse with extremists can de-radicalize them.”

A little clunky and could use refinement, but shows neither intention or lack-thereof, is pulled directly from the Vice piece, keeps the issue regarding alt-right/extremist content lifted, and adds some surrounding context to that issue. Thoughts? 114.23.233.44 (talk) 03:51, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

We can't quote it in the way that you're suggesting because it's Vice's words, not Ottman's. That said, let me take a pass at collecting some of the statements about deradicalization and their approach towards extremist content, and see if there isn't a summary sentence that would be appropriate for the lead. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 14:38, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

What do you think about this? Apologies, I should have done the reorganization in a separate edit so as not to clutter the diff, but that shows the new sentence in the lead and the added sentence in a new "deradicalization" subsection. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 14:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

It was a direct quote from the founder, Vice referencing Motherboard when they initially contacted him for a statement, in the first paragraph under the creepy "The War Never Ended" graphic. Nevertheless, I think what you have there now is really good, and hopefully will curtail some of the edit-warring of that section. Nice work! The Deradicalization section also looks good, and hopefully has the same effect with the Content section. Thanks for working through this, it was a good first-time Talk experience. 114.23.233.44 (talk) 01:46, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for engaging here on this. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:01, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Is Minds distributed?

The lead claims that Minds is a distributed social network, but I could not find a source to to verify this. It is open source but it does not appear that private nodes are able to communicate with each other. 87.209.130.18 (talk) 14:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

The lead also says it is blockchain based. It uses a centralised database as far as I can tell. This is misinformation. I think Minds _may_ have democratic governance, which means people could make it decentralised and blockchain-based, with some involvement. Xloem

(talk) 21:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, blockchain-based is not a term that Minds itself pushes. Moreso, Minds is building an open source and decentralized social network harnessing a variety of distributed technologies including blockchain. Minds also has a jury system for content moderation (https://www.foxnews.com/tech/alternate-social-media-squash-extremist-content-without-violating-first-amendment). It is also partially community owned after completing an equity crowdfunding round on https://wefunder.com/minds Mindsdotcom (talk) 16:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, the database they use, https://cassandra.apache.org/ , describes itself as decentralised, with a focus on datacenters. Xloem (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Beyond just Cassandra, Minds has a multi-cloud Cassandra Kubernetes clustering system with Terraform so as to be unreliant on any cloud provider. (https://gitlab.com/minds/infrastructure/minds-terraform) Mindsdotcom (talk) 16:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Minds uses a variety of distributed technologies such as Matrix protocol for messaging which is decentralized and federated (https://venturebeat.com/2021/06/17/minds-raises-10m-for-decentralized-and-encrypted-social-network-and-messaging-app/), Arweave for decentralized content storage (https://decrypt.co/45709/crypto-social-network-minds-uncensorable-arweave-permaweb), Ethereum for the MINDS token and tipping of ETH(https://decrypt.co/60668/ethereum-based-social-network-minds-taps-into-defi-rewards), and Bitcoin tipping is supported. A fully decentralized and open source prototype can be found on Gitlab (https://gitlab.com/minds/nomad). Mindsdotcom (talk) 16:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Error in funding section

Minds is not funded by Andreessen Horowitz or Union Square Ventures. The New York Times article referenced has a confusing sentence which is actually referring to Arweave. Minds is funded by the community (https://wefunder.com/minds), Medici Ventures, who is now managed by Pelion (https://pelionvp.com/infrastructure-storage/medici-ventures-is-now-part-of-pelion-ventures-partners/), and FUTO (https://venturebeat.com/2021/06/17/minds-raises-10m-for-decentralized-and-encrypted-social-network-and-messaging-app/) Mindsdotcom (talk) 16:43, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Ah, that is very odd wording. I've tweaked it. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Deletion from the lead section

There has been some warring back and forth centered around deleting this sentence from the lead section: Writers in The New York Times, Engadget, and Vice have noted the volume of far-right users and content on the platform.

This is well supported by sources and needed to summarize the article body. Deleting it seems like POV pushing / whitewashing to me. Thoughts? MrOllie (talk) 23:16, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Pings for users who have added/removed this sentence besides myself: @Emerabenji:, @Firefangledfeathers:, @GorillaWarfare: - MrOllie (talk) 23:20, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I added back that information to the page and I added some other controversies. This should have the issue resolved, and the formatting @MrOllie is suggesting isn't similar how controversies are handed on pages like Twitter, YouTube, or Twitcc. Emerabenji (talk) 23:32, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Moving it to a new controversies section is not an option - it is a summary of content in the 'Content' section and should not appear twice in the article body. It also must appear in the lead section, because the lead is supposed to summarize the significant parts of the body, and this is very significant. In general, walling off criticisms in a separate section is discouraged (see WP:NOCRIT). MrOllie (talk) 23:35, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Where is this discouraged? Look to any major social media site. You don't see any controversies in the lead on Twitter's wikipedia article, since they're covered in an actual section. Emerabenji (talk) 23:39, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Did you read the link in my message? I looked at Twitter. It does not have a 'Controversies' or 'Criticism' section. MrOllie (talk) 23:41, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I read it, and I looked at Twitter too. There is not criticism in the lead of Twitter. I'm not sure what page you might be reading. Emerabenji (talk) 23:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Unlike this article, there is no single criticism that is covered by most independent reliable sources that comment on Twitter. MrOllie (talk) 23:49, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Among many examples, Twitter recently had a databreach covered by multiple independent and reliable sources, and this has a large impact on user privacy. No mention in the lead of Twitter's Wikipedia page. Your statement about there being no single criticism that's applied to Twitter is false if a few articles from reliable sources is your standard. Emerabenji (talk) 23:58, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Good thing that isn't my standard, then. MrOllie (talk) 00:43, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

+1 on retaining it. Emerabenji, I'd recommend reading WP:CRITS and bringing up any concerns about issues with the Twitter page at Talk:Twitter. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:13, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Content still looks good to me. Doubly important in the lead in order to summarize the body and because of the explicit guidance of MOS:LEADELEMENTS to mention "significant criticism or controversies". I see some WP:OTHERCONTENT-style counterarguments above, which fall flat for the usual reasons. Among them: I would be fine with some mention of notable Twitter controversies in that article's lead. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:13, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Removing the term 'extremist' is similarly misrepresenting the point of the source in question. Details about spam being disallowed are trivial - virtually every platform does not allow spamming. - MrOllie (talk) 00:59, 30 August 2022 (UTC)