Anybody considering leaving Twitter?

[Todd]

Remember "stochastic terrorism"? When is the last time you've heard that?

Last week, as it happens.  It is a very thinky example of purely ideological speech.  It epitomizes what Eric Blair warned against in Politics and the English Language.

One of the reasons I continue to read The New Yorker is because it acts as a sort of beacon for soon to be fashionable jargon.  Its authors and editors weed through academic and activist detritus and pluck out words, phrases, and ideas that are then used and misused, sometimes with ardent passion, by the not quite real intelligentsia.  The magazine's record is quite good in this regard.  Plus, its movie reviews and Alex Ross pieces entertain.

[SimonNZ]

One of the reasons I continue to read The New Yorker is because it acts as a sort of beacon for soon to be fashionable jargon.  Its authors and editors weed through academic and activist detritus and pluck out words, phrases, and ideas that are then used and misused, sometimes with ardent passion, by the not quite real intelligentsia.  The magazine's record is quite good in this regard.

Ffs...what utter rubbish.

[Todd]

Musk's Twitter disbands its Trust and Safety advisory group

That would the same group that met with and took orders from the FBI, DHS, and DNI.  Anyone involved with that should be terminated if they have not been already.  I'd love to know if there is any way to sue any individuals for damages.  Probably not, but one can wish.  Termination is not enough. 


Elon Musk is no longer the world's richest person—and the amount he's lost this year is enough to land 4th place on the list

As Yoel Roth so professionally slacked, wah wah.  (PhDs, amiright?)

[milk]

Today. Wrt Elon's shit-tweeting, including that Fauci one.

You say that people can "take it however they want", but it should be clear by now that how many want to take it is violently. Perpetuating fever-cpnspiracies like this can only end with someone getting hurt. It's more than just lolz, though, unlike you, I fail to see any lolz  here at all, just a sad and desperate need for attention, consequences be damned.

I'm missing the context because I'm not on twitter and don't follow what Elon Musk says. But this description seems like everything from all sides and just keeps reminding me of Marshall McLuhan. Doesn't it seem like the content is all rather secondary these days? It's all white noise at a certain level whether it's Elon Musk or the Prince of England. People talk and people are talking about people talking. People get angry too. I guess I happened to pick a couple of super wealthy people that don't seem to be doing very much at the moment. But here we are talking as well. How does that Harry Nilsson song go? 

[SimonNZ]

Doesn't it seem like the content is all rather secondary these days?

No.

And again: I completely disagree with, and frankly can't respect, anyone who suggests that "both sides" are doing this dangerous and deliberate conspiracy crap.

[milk]

No.

And again: I completely disagree with, and frankly can't respect, anyone who suggests that "both sides" are doing this dangerous and deliberate conspiracy crap.

I didn't say "both sides." I'm talking about social media. I am not focused on party politics but on how the medium seems to drive behavior and determine what's important. You'll have to explain what Elon Musk says in particular for me to form an opinion about it but I'm shocked that I've lost your respect so suddenly. Let me get a cup of coffee and try to recover.

[greg]

You say that people can "take it however they want", but it should be clear by now that how many want to take it is violently. Perpetuating fever-cpnspiracies like this can only end with someone getting hurt.

So who decides what is a conspiracy or not, and who decides what is said could end up with people hurt? (Unless it is a direct call for violence, then it is obvious).

With this way of thinking, how could I even express any political opinion at all, let alone anything non-mainstream? Because people could take anything I say and use that as an excuse for violence, should I just never speak?

just a sad and desperate need for attention, consequences be damned.

Referring to Elon? He is a bit of an attention hog.

[SimonNZ]

So who decides what is a conspiracy or not, and who decides what is said could end up with people hurt? (Unless it is a direct call for violence, then it is obvious).

With this way of thinking, how could I even express any political opinion at all, let alone anything non-mainstream? Because people could take anything I say and use that as an excuse for violence, should I just never speak?

Depends on your level of influence, I guess. *You* can post like some unread gullible conspiracy believing dupe if you want because the harm you can do is near nil. Personally I think you can aim higher, but that's a different conversation.

Elon, like Trump, has an enormous influence and knows it. And with that level of influence should come the moral obligation not to spread knowingly dangerous untruths just for the clicks. And perhaps unlike you they both know full well that they really are just useful untruths.

[SimonNZ]

anything non-mainstream?

For a while this "non-mainstream" definition of amateur punditry has been reminding me of a now more accepted comment on "alternative medicine": that anything in alternative medicine that is found to be effective under rigorous clinical trials becomes..."medicine". If it's found to be hokum after rigorous trials it remains "alternative"... and hokum.

[milk]

For a while this "non-mainstream" definition of amateur punditry has been reminding me of a now more accepted comment on "alternative medicine": that anything in alternative medicine that is found to be effective under rigorous clinical trials becomes..."medicine". If it's found to be hokum after rigorous trials it remains "alternative"... and hokum.

I'm sure there are really good definitions out there but I'm too lazy at the moment to look it up. I would think that conspiracy theories fall prey to logical fallacies like the Texas sharp shooter fallacy. My ex-friend who become quite successful building himself up as a kind of expert in a certain area as a conspiracy theorist was highly intelligent and had a great memory for details, names and facts. He placed a lot of value on such minutia.
BTW, there's a big release of Kennedy assassination documents this week supposedly. Another thread perhaps? It's supposed to be a biggie. Apparently, it's taken a lawsuit to get it going and Biden used coronavirus to block it last time around. I think Trump punted on it too. 

[Todd]

BTW, there's a big release of Kennedy assassination documents this week supposedly. Another thread perhaps?

The release will change the world.  Or be an irrelevant distraction.

[milk]

The release will change the world.  Or be an irrelevant distraction.

If no one reports it and/or it's inconsequential, it could be irrelevant and cause no distraction whatsoever?

[Todd]

If no one reports it and/or it's inconsequential, it could be irrelevant and cause no distraction whatsoever?

True, that is a third option.  It actually seems the most likely option.

[Brian]

Twitter is losing ad revenue so fast, it is reportedly considering a plan to require all users to accept personalized advertising (i.e., to require users to share their location, phone number, and other info with advertisers). That is the first thing that has gotten me considering the question in the title.

Several attorneys I follow quit over Elon's use of the platform to harass and insult his former head of safety, Yoel Roth. I guess lawyers look out for their own and so that was the last straw for them.

[Todd]

Several attorneys I follow quit over Elon's use of the platform to harass and insult his former head of safety, Yoel Roth. I guess lawyers look out for their own and so that was the last straw for them.

Yoel Roth is not a lawyer.

[SimonNZ]

Elon Musk's Twitter isn't paying its bills
Twitter has stopped paying the rent on some of its office leases and hasn't paid numerous other vendors since Elon Musk acquired the company in late October, Axios has learned from multiple sources.

[Karl Henning]

Twitter is losing ad revenue so fast, it is reportedly considering a plan to require all users to accept personalized advertising (i.e., to require users to share their location, phone number, and other info with advertisers). That is the first thing that has gotten me considering the question in the title.

Several attorneys I follow quit over Elon's use of the platform to harass and insult his former head of safety, Yoel Roth. I guess lawyers look out for their own and so that was the last straw for them.

The writing appears to be on the Blue Bird's wall.

[JBS]

Twitter is losing ad revenue so fast, it is reportedly considering a plan to require all users to accept personalized advertising (i.e., to require users to share their location, phone number, and other info with advertisers). That is the first thing that has gotten me considering the question in the title.

Several attorneys I follow quit over Elon's use of the platform to harass and insult his former head of safety, Yoel Roth. I guess lawyers look out for their own and so that was the last straw for them.

It wasn't simply what happened with Roth.
This by Ken White, whom you might know as Popehat, who writes a good deal on First Amendment issues, among other things (and who is usually worth reading on anything).

The other reason is that I think it's fundamentally changed, at least for now. I'm not just talking about the increasing tech glitches. Just as Twitter's former leaders exercised their free speech and free association rights to brand Twitter one way, Twitter's new boss is exercising his rights to brand it another way. That new branding is ugly and despicable and I don't want to contribute content to it. The last straw was Elon Musk sending lunatics and bigots against former employees and leaning into conspiracy theories. So I'm exercising my free speech and free association and leaving, and shuttering the account. I'll probably delete the past tweets because I can't stomach them being available to promote this enterprise.
This is exactly how it's supposed to work, as I've been arguing for years. Twitter — or whoever runs it — has rights. I have rights. If one of us disagrees with the other's exercise of rights, we can part company. That, not government regulation, is the way to do it. I'm repulsed by the flood of triumphant bigotry and trolling, and by Musk's sad-lonely-boy leaning into the arms of freaks who embrace him in his fruitless quest for love. But I'd never ask the government to stop it. I'm voting with my feet, exactly the way I've been telling people to do for years.

From his substack
https://popehat.substack.com/p/goodbye-twitter

[greg]

Depends on your level of influence, I guess. *You* can post like some unread gullible conspiracy believing dupe if you want because the harm you can do is near nil. Personally I think you can aim higher, but that's a different conversation.

Elon, like Trump, has an enormous influence and knows it. And with that level of influence should come the moral obligation not to spread knowingly dangerous untruths just for the clicks. And perhaps unlike you they both know full well that they really are just useful untruths.

I agree that people with a large reach should be more careful of what they say, but still, where do you draw the line between something potentially dangerous and not potentially dangerous, and who gets to decide that?

For a while this "non-mainstream" definition of amateur punditry has been reminding me of a now more accepted comment on "alternative medicine": that anything in alternative medicine that is found to be effective under rigorous clinical trials becomes..."medicine". If it's found to be hokum after rigorous trials it remains "alternative"... and hokum.

Okay. It's fine if it reminds you of that in a vague sense, but the comparison doesn't really make sense since news isn't much like the development of medicine. Medicine is more of a hard science while politics is not. The "trials" for news sources, regardless of if they are good or bad or right or wrong, is more akin to indoctrination and doesn't necessarily reflect physical reality as it tries to change people's beliefs and allegiances to whatever is the power source that it's trying to direct people towards.

Also, I don't consider subscribing to whatever doctrine that any news or news commentary source, whether it be mainstream or non-mainstream, to be any sort of medicine for the soul. Maybe for some people it is, though?

Anyways, there's plenty of fails in mainstream media that turn out to be "hokum." Non-mainstream as well. It's moreso that the most important part is that the recipient is able to discern what is and isn't and use common sense from there.




Obviously we need more info, but really... idk how anyone could read this and not think it's at least highly questionable.

It could be that he's just not thinking it through- the obvious solution if he wants a place to "safely connect young (<18) queer adults" would be to support the development of an entirely different app. They shouldn't be using the same app- same reason why we separate spaces in the real world for >18 and < 18 for certain things. But if he did think it through... then, ummm, red flags for sure. Using the same app, there would always be some sort of workaround for minors and adults to meet up and do things they shouldn't.

[milk]

I still think there's more to be concerned about regarding Facebook and Twitter (Et al.) than one idiot. Does anyone care that a handful of companies have so much power to drive discourse and behavior? That rubs both ways. It's about politics but more than that. I take back my renunciation of both-side-erism too. I'm more from the left so the far right has always seemed more aggressive and unhinged but the left does it too on Twitter and elsewhere. I mean the left can lean into incitement (think about reactions to recent Supreme Court decisions). And it's clear some of the platforms are/were run by San Francisco liberals are/who were dishonest about what they are/were doing behind the scenes.
Another separate thing to look at is how much communication goes on between government entities and Facebook and other platforms that ask for and disseminate information. Again, that can eventually affect people of all political persuasions - if history is any guide. That's why we used to rely on organizations like the ACLU to be apolitical.