Anybody considering leaving Twitter?

[Todd]

I confess I paraphrased Kierkegaard's dictum: People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.

I responded to the words you wrote.  Thoughtful speech is not always "greater".  An example from Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman from 1998:

The growth of the Internet will slow drastically, as the flaw in 'Metcalfe's law'—which states that the number of potential connections in a network is proportional to the square of the number of participants—becomes apparent: most people have nothing to say to each other! By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet's impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine's.

Thoughtful speech may be as wrong and/or stupid as thoughtless speech.

[Florestan]

Thoughtful speech may be as wrong and/or stupid as thoughtless speech.

Absolutely. And winning a Nobel Prize is no warranty for reasonable speech. Einstein was a great fan of socialism.

[Todd]

And winning a Nobel Prize is no warranty for reasonable speech.

It's no guarantee or warranty of anything.  Robert Merton won a Nobel Prize in Economics and helped almost bring down the global financial system in the 90s.  Aung San Suu Kyi won a Nobel Peace Prize and did nothing to stop genocide in Myanmar (though she couldn't really do anything).  Henry Kissinger and Yasser Arafat both won, um, Peace Prizes.  Nobel Prizes are the ultimate in Western ironic self-regard, particularly given the sources of wealth of the namesake family.

[Florestan]

It's no guarantee or warranty of anything.  Robert Merton won a Nobel Prize in Economics and helped almost bring down the global financial system in the 90s.  Aung San Suu Kyi won a Nobel Peace Prize and did nothing to stop genocide in Myanmar (though she couldn't really do anything).  Henry Kissinger and Yasser Arafat both won, um, Peace Prizes.  Nobel Prizes are the ultimate in Western ironic self-regard, particularly given the sources of wealth of the namesake family.

Agreed, like totally.

[JBS]

I responded to the words you wrote.  Thoughtful speech is not always "greater".  An example from Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman from 1998:

Thoughtful speech may be as wrong and/or stupid as thoughtless speech.

Krugman was more correct than not.

A substantial amount of Internet conversation is not people talking to each other.
It's people talking at each other.

[Karl Henning]

Krugman was more correct than not.

A substantial amount of Internet conversation is not people talking to each other.
It's people talking at each other.

Why, one sees it on this very thread 

[JBS]

Why, one sees it on this very thread 

Perhaps. But I would suggest GMG has a fairly high percentage of "talking to" compared to much of the rest of the Internet.

[Karl Henning]

Perhaps. But I would suggest GMG has a fairly high percentage of "talking to" compared to much of the rest of the Internet.

Strongly agreed, sir!

[Spotted Horses]

It's no guarantee or warranty of anything.  Robert Merton won a Nobel Prize in Economics and helped almost bring down the global financial system in the 90s.  Aung San Suu Kyi won a Nobel Peace Prize and did nothing to stop genocide in Myanmar (though she couldn't really do anything).  Henry Kissinger and Yasser Arafat both won, um, Peace Prizes.  Nobel Prizes are the ultimate in Western ironic self-regard, particularly given the sources of wealth of the namesake family.

Makes it seem like a great choice to give Obama a Nobel Peace prize for doing nothing in particular.

[Spotted Horses]

I responded to the words you wrote.  Thoughtful speech is not always "greater".  An example from Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman from 1998:

The growth of the Internet will slow drastically, as the flaw in 'Metcalfe's law'—which states that the number of potential connections in a network is proportional to the square of the number of participants—becomes apparent: most people have nothing to say to each other! By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet's impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine's.

Thoughtful speech may be as wrong and/or stupid as thoughtless speech.

The fax machine had a great impact on the economy. And economists have been observing that the productivity bump and general economic transformation from the internet is nowhere near as transformative as previous technology advances were, such as electricity.

For instance:

https://hbr.org/2015/03/the-internet-has-been-a-colossal-economic-disappointment

[Todd]

The fax machine had a great impact on the economy.

It did, though it took about 50-60 years from its initial invention to realize its economic potential.  That written, the internet has had a greater, measurable impact on the economy as a whole in terms of jobs, supply chain reorganization to meet consumer demand, and so on.

And economists have been observing that the productivity bump and general economic transformation from the internet is nowhere near as transformative as previous technology advances were, such as electricity.

Indeed they have, and none so comprehensively as Robert Gordon, who points out the step-wise improvements in living standards and economic growth brought by technological innovations developed between roughly the end of the Civil War and WWII have not been matched by innovations since.  The medical arena is the conspicuous exception in this regard.  We live in an age of marginal refinement of and not fundamental improvement in standards of living, at least in the developed world. 

Paul Krugman does not even try to defend his 1998 assertion.

[Todd]

Krugman was more correct than not.

But the main point is that I don't claim any special expertise in technology -- I almost never make technological forecasts, and the only reason there was stuff like that in the 98 piece was because the assignment required that I do that sort of thing.

[Todd]

From the Gray Lady:

Hate Speech's Rise on Twitter Is Unprecedented, Researchers Find

Problematic content and formerly barred accounts have increased sharply in the short time since Elon Musk took over, researchers said.

"Elon Musk sent up the Bat Signal to every kind of racist, misogynist and homophobe that Twitter was open for business," said Imran Ahmed, the chief executive of the Center for Countering Digital Hate. "They have reacted accordingly."...

Changes in Twitter's content not only have societal implications but also affect the company's bottom line...

But this time was different...

I know no one is ever supposed to question the purity of the ADL, or to even imply that it has a political agenda, so I will not, and it looks like the Center for Countering Digital Hate - a new special interest non-profit in my experience - has joined it.  I'm sure the Center does objective yeoman's work countering digital hate.

The propagandistic nature of press coverage of Twitter is simultaneously humorous and disturbing to witness.  (Mostly humorous.)  The extent of potential "societal implications" boggles the mind.  Like, literally, man.

At least Ye was banned.

[USMC1960s]

Another question is WHY there is so much hate speech and why are so many people so angry.This is only one characteristic of a society in a downward spiral, and a civilization becoming more uncivilized by the minute. And I think a major factor is a shift---from the transmission of basic values from one generation to another--to a failure to do so.
I almost deleted this but I'll let it stand.

[Todd]

Another question is WHY there is so much hate speech and why are so many people so angry.This is only one characteristic of a society in a downward spiral, and a civilization becoming more uncivilized by the minute. And I think a major factor is a shift---from the transmission of basic values from one generation to another--to a failure to do so.

When were people not angry and when was US society (or any society) more civilized?  There is an observable tendency to romanticize the past, whitewashing its violence and anger and hate, and to denigrate the here and now as somehow being very much worse.  Contemporary communications technology amplifies and accelerates communication and dissemination of messages, but everything we see today has literally always been there.  Some of what we see today online used to be codified in law and enforced in practice, often brutally and more than occasionally lethally. 

[SimonNZ]

Not really on topic, but here's a twitter thread I just saw and am choosing to quote in full:


"Thread time. Here's the thing about @Tesla. It's not a car company. Tesla is a company that has to make cars in order to sell its real product: Emissions Credits.

Let me explain. Back in 2012, the EPA put out new, strident emissions standards for new vehicles fleetwide. 1/

Carmakers here in the US who wanted to either build or sell new cars in US soil needed their fleets of mostly ICE vehicles to meet these new standards. Most couldn't, because their engines weren't nearly efficient enough. Some like Toyota and Honda were in better shape... 2/

...because they didn't sell huge SUVs and trucks as their core product line, and were already pushing hard into Hybrid vehicles, if not pure electrics just yet.

Manufacturers who exceeded their fleetwide emissions targets were given "credits" which they could either bank... 3/

...or sell on the open market.

Manufacturers who didn't meet their emissions targets would need to buy these credits in order to remain compliant with the new EPA standards.

Enter Tesla.

Being the only largish all-electric auto manufacturer, Tesla's fleet is emissions free. 4/

So Tesla doesn't ever need to worry about banking their carbon credits to spend in future years if emissions standards become even more strident again. They can take all of the credits they generate and sell 100% of them on the open market to other builders. 5/

And they do. In Q1 of last year, Tesla's entire profit came from selling half a billion dollars of carbon credits to other carmakers.

Which hey, good for them, but in reality it means driving and owning a Tesla hasn't actually reduced global emissions at all. 6/

Because Tesla is basically selling indulgences to other manufacturers so they can continue building and selling fleets of ICE vehicles that don't meet standards, delaying the day the rest of the industry commits to investing in decarbonization. 7/

Stellantis alone, (the European parent company of Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, and Ram) has bought more than $2.5 billion in carbon credits from Tesla. All those gas guzzling SUVs, trucks, and 800hp musclecars? Thank a Tesla buyer. They literally couldn't exist otherwise. 8/

This is why I say Tesla isn't a car company.

When you buy a Tesla, you're not the only, or even the primary customer. Actual car companies are. Which would help explain why Teslas are notorious for poor build quality. Their fit and finish is abysmal, and there's so little... 9/

...attention or resources paid to service infrastructure when things do go wrong (which is often) that @GM has been quietly servicing and repairing more than 10,000 Teslas at their own service centers over the last year.

You, the buyer, simply aren't a priority for Tesla. 10/10

So hey, buy a car that hasn't actually helped the environment, might catch fire, can't open the rear doors if it does, and funds a cut-rate Bond villain trying to turn Twitter into a Nazi toilet if you want.

Just know what it is you're actually buying. 11/11

Extra innings...

It's entirely possible the plan in Elon's mind was to use the emissions credits to get the legacy manufacturers to pay him for their own extinction. I assume he guessed Tesla would ramp up EV production quickly enough to build an insurmountable lead. 12/

He wanted to corner the EV market and own the future of cars, blocking out the dinosaurs. The ultimate disruption.

But... he couldn't pull it off. His early lead never grew large enough due to production delays and constraints. Now, better EVs are coming from everywhere. 13/

He had one last advantage to play, which was the Tesla charging network. This advantage remains, but he lobbied hard to get the government to fund a nationwide charging network based on Tesla's proprietary plugs and chargers.

Biden refused in favor of universal designs. 14/

Now legacy manufacturers are drastically ramping up newer, better, cheaper EVs in more types and models than Tesla offers, on platforms that aren't already a decade old. Those manufacturers will rely less and less on buying Tesla's credits to remain compliant. Death spiral. 15/15 "

(Patrick S, Tomlinson)

[Karl Henning]

Which hey, good for them, but in reality it means driving and owning a Tesla hasn't actually reduced global emissions at all. 6/

Because Tesla is basically selling indulgences to other manufacturers so they can continue building and selling fleets of ICE vehicles that don't meet standards, delaying the day the rest of the industry commits to investing in decarbonization.

The whole thread is of keen interest, indeed.

[Spotted Horses]

Much as criticizing Elon Musk is fun, I don't think that it fair to say that Tesla is making no impact. At the very least Tesla has created the perception in the public that electric vehicles are fun and desirable, not just dull, impractical vehicles that tree huggers tolerate to assuage their consciences. It has prepared the market for other companies to follow (and they have). The fact that other car companies are buying carbon credits from Tesla means that other car companies are effectively subsidizing the development and adoption of electric vehicle technology. The environmental law has given them an incentive to do this.

There are other considerations. If you drive a Tesla in California you are largely running your car on hydroelectric and wind power. If you drive a Tesla in Texas you are effectively running your car on natural gas and coal, so the reduction in tailpipe emissions is partly offset by more emissions from electric power generation.

Another remarkable thing is that Musk now seems to be supporting Republicans. Does he think those carbon credits would continue to be available if Republicans had their way?

[milk]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/12/03/elon-musk-and-matt-taibbi-release-twitter-docs-hunter-biden-tapes/10826408002/
Elon Musk's 'Twitter files': Emails reveal internal struggle on handling of Hunter Biden laptop
"... According to Taibbi, Twitter blocked tweets from former Trump administration officials publicizing the article prompting them to contact and admonish the company for its actions. Meanwhile, members of Biden's campaign reported specific tweets to Twitter and requested they be blocked..."

[milk]

It was such a relief to see trump lose. However, did Twitter play dirty in the run up and was that fair? Twitter can do whatever it wants, of course. It can even lie about it, I suppose. I don't know that there's any law against that, although there might be.