Second, and what tends to get more attention, is the way Musk has been transforming Twitter the product. Let me try an analogy -- if, at Tesla, Musk not only built electric cars, but also built a line of carbon-intensive vehicles that belched flames and just generally went out of their way to be as polluting and greenhouse-gas emitting as they could legally get away with, I think we could agree this would be a problem? It wouldn't, for instance, be a great defense to change the subject away from these purposely trollish cars by noting that most Tesla vehicles are EVs -- the troll cars would still clearly be an issue. And people would have well founded concerns as to why Musk was going out of his way to build and sell cars whose only purpose was apparently to increase pollution and spew carbon. However fantastic the EV cars Tesla made, it'd be hard to say that Tesla was making a positive contribution to de-carbonizing so long as the CEO was also heavily invested in promoting the troll cars.
At Twitter, Musk has invited far right racists who previously were banned from the platform back on. He posts racist, sexist, anti-semitic, and homophobic tweets. He retweets, with supportive comments, racist, sexist, anti-semitic, and homophobic tweets by others.
Now, maybe you feel that online internet culture was unbalanced, that there was a dearth of highly visible racism and homophobia, and that Musk actively working to inject more of it is somehow supporting free-er speech. I disagree.
Further on the previous point, here's another example of Mus making the digital town square worse, not better:
One could, I suppose, try and make the case that it is not appropriate for Twitter or any other platform to be in the business of fact checking, and that the "market place of ideas" is ideally one where the loudest and most obnoxious voices can and should be as loud and obnoxious as possible.
I'm not sure I agree with that vision, but that's beside the fact, because that's not in fact what Musk is doing here. He's not simply taking a hands-off, low moderation approach.
No, this is more akin to someone purchasing a sports league, firing all the refs, announcing which team one favors, and then ensuring that one's favored team is advantaged in all games. We would find it laughable for someone acting in such a manner to defend themselves by claiming they were simply trying to fight back against overbearing referring or bad calls -- their ownership of the whole enterprise and clear thumbs on the scales would clearly make such a situation an exercise in advancing the owner's personal whims.
Similarly with Twitter, it takes some motivated blindness to take seriously Musk's claims to be a champion of "free speech." He bought the platform and has made changes and takes actions to advance his own personal views and agenda. That's not a digital "town square," it's a private park he runs for his own benefit.
Some might point out that, in fact, Twitter was always a private park, and that would be correct. The problem with our digital "commons" has never been one of which is the proper moderation policy to apply, but the fact that these aren't commons at all, but privately owned fiefdoms. Under Musk, though, we've seen one of those spaces go from ownership that fitfully gestured toward having some sense of larger social obligation toward one that less and less even pretends to do so.
"Exhibiting a distinctly 21st-century form of raw media power, X has also throttled and punished Mr. Musk’s perceived competitors and foes while reinstating accounts that were previously banned for content violations, some relating to the lie that the 2020 election was stolen. The platform’s algorithm — which dictates how posts are circulated on the site — also now gives added promotion to those who pay to be “verified,” including previously banned accounts.
"Among them is @KanekoaTheGreat, a once-banned QAnon influencer who this month circulated a 32-page dossier promoted by Mr. Trump that recounted a barrage of false charges about the 2020 election."
Has anyone else noticed that Elon is increasingly more difficult to understand when he speaks? More mumbly, speaking more one-sided from his mouth? It’s almost as if he’s has a stroke or palsy??
Has anyone else noticed that Elon is increasingly more difficult to understand when he speaks? More mumbly, speaking more one-sided from his mouth? It’s almost as if he’s has a stroke or palsy??
Second, and what tends to get more attention, is the way Musk has been transforming Twitter the product. Let me try an analogy -- if, at Tesla, Musk not only built electric cars, but also built a line of carbon-intensive vehicles that belched flames and just generally went out of their way to be as polluting and greenhouse-gas emitting as they could legally get away with, I think we could agree this would be a problem? It wouldn't, for instance, be a great defense to change the subject away from these purposely trollish cars by noting that most Tesla vehicles are EVs -- the troll cars would still clearly be an issue. And people would have well founded concerns as to why Musk was going out of his way to build and sell cars whose only purpose was apparently to increase pollution and spew carbon. However fantastic the EV cars Tesla made, it'd be hard to say that Tesla was making a positive contribution to de-carbonizing so long as the CEO was also heavily invested in promoting the troll cars.
At Twitter, Musk has invited far right racists who previously were banned from the platform back on. He posts racist, sexist, anti-semitic, and homophobic tweets. He retweets, with supportive comments, racist, sexist, anti-semitic, and homophobic tweets by others.
Now, maybe you feel that online internet culture was unbalanced, that there was a dearth of highly visible racism and homophobia, and that Musk actively working to inject more of it is somehow supporting free-er speech. I disagree.
Further on the previous point, here's another example of Mus making the digital town square worse, not better:
One could, I suppose, try and make the case that it is not appropriate for Twitter or any other platform to be in the business of fact checking, and that the "market place of ideas" is ideally one where the loudest and most obnoxious voices can and should be as loud and obnoxious as possible.
I'm not sure I agree with that vision, but that's beside the fact, because that's not in fact what Musk is doing here. He's not simply taking a hands-off, low moderation approach.
No, this is more akin to someone purchasing a sports league, firing all the refs, announcing which team one favors, and then ensuring that one's favored team is advantaged in all games. We would find it laughable for someone acting in such a manner to defend themselves by claiming they were simply trying to fight back against overbearing referring or bad calls -- their ownership of the whole enterprise and clear thumbs on the scales would clearly make such a situation an exercise in advancing the owner's personal whims.
Similarly with Twitter, it takes some motivated blindness to take seriously Musk's claims to be a champion of "free speech." He bought the platform and has made changes and takes actions to advance his own personal views and agenda. That's not a digital "town square," it's a private park he runs for his own benefit.
Some might point out that, in fact, Twitter was always a private park, and that would be correct. The problem with our digital "commons" has never been one of which is the proper moderation policy to apply, but the fact that these aren't commons at all, but privately owned fiefdoms. Under Musk, though, we've seen one of those spaces go from ownership that fitfully gestured toward having some sense of larger social obligation toward one that less and less even pretends to do so.
Second, and what tends to get more attention, is the way Musk has been transforming Twitter the product. Let me try an analogy -- if, at Tesla, Musk not only built electric cars, but also built a line of carbon-intensive vehicles that belched flames and just generally went out of their way to be as polluting and greenhouse-gas emitting as they could legally get away with, I think we could agree this would be a problem? It wouldn't, for instance, be a great defense to change the subject away from these purposely trollish cars by noting that most Tesla vehicles are EVs -- the troll cars would still clearly be an issue. And people would have well founded concerns as to why Musk was going out of his way to build and sell cars whose only purpose was apparently to increase pollution and spew carbon. However fantastic the EV cars Tesla made, it'd be hard to say that Tesla was making a positive contribution to de-carbonizing so long as the CEO was also heavily invested in promoting the troll cars.
At Twitter, Musk has invited far right racists who previously were banned from the platform back on. He posts racist, sexist, anti-semitic, and homophobic tweets. He retweets, with supportive comments, racist, sexist, anti-semitic, and homophobic tweets by others.
Now, maybe you feel that online internet culture was unbalanced, that there was a dearth of highly visible racism and homophobia, and that Musk actively working to inject more of it is somehow supporting free-er speech. I disagree.
Further on the previous point, here's another example of Mus making the digital town square worse, not better:
One could, I suppose, try and make the case that it is not appropriate for Twitter or any other platform to be in the business of fact checking, and that the "market place of ideas" is ideally one where the loudest and most obnoxious voices can and should be as loud and obnoxious as possible.
I'm not sure I agree with that vision, but that's beside the fact, because that's not in fact what Musk is doing here. He's not simply taking a hands-off, low moderation approach.
No, this is more akin to someone purchasing a sports league, firing all the refs, announcing which team one favors, and then ensuring that one's favored team is advantaged in all games. We would find it laughable for someone acting in such a manner to defend themselves by claiming they were simply trying to fight back against overbearing referring or bad calls -- their ownership of the whole enterprise and clear thumbs on the scales would clearly make such a situation an exercise in advancing the owner's personal whims.
Similarly with Twitter, it takes some motivated blindness to take seriously Musk's claims to be a champion of "free speech." He bought the platform and has made changes and takes actions to advance his own personal views and agenda. That's not a digital "town square," it's a private park he runs for his own benefit.
Some might point out that, in fact, Twitter was always a private park, and that would be correct. The problem with our digital "commons" has never been one of which is the proper moderation policy to apply, but the fact that these aren't commons at all, but privately owned fiefdoms. Under Musk, though, we've seen one of those spaces go from ownership that fitfully gestured toward having some sense of larger social obligation toward one that less and less even pretends to do so.
"As Elon Musk launches attacks against news outlets like The New York Times, NPR, and BBC, at least one media outlet is reaping the benefits of Musk’s ownership of Twitter. Russian state propaganda arm RT — which has been compared to the ministry of defense and described as an “information weapon” by its own editor-in-chief — has recently experienced sharp growth in its follower count as well as increased engagement with its tweets, coinciding with Musk’s decision to lift the restrictions that were placed on Kremlin-linked accounts in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine last year."
The primary reason the establishment fears, hates and demonizes Musk is his commitment to free speech, which threatens their control over the public discourse. The secondary reason is that Musk cannot be relied on to support the establishment's agendas, especially on war and peace:
True. Just a question of how many kids die before that is acknowledged.
Paul, you seem to place a lot of store by association -- tying people to one group or another, and seeing that as reason to oppose or support someone. See for instance your response to criticism of Bill Ackman by associating him with Democrats -- the argument, I presume, is meant to be that since most people on this board vote for Democrats then they ought to refrain from criticizing Ackman, or perhaps that since they criticize Ackman they should stop voting for Democrats.
That's one way of approaching things, but not one I subscribe to. I think actions should be judged on their own merits, not as part of some guilt/virtue by association strategy. And that means that often people or institutions one supports in one case one opposes in another.
The context for looking at Musk's actions, here on this thread, is as the owner of Twitter. It's largely irrelevant what he does at Tesla or Solar City or Space X, whether one approves or opposes his actions there, how one feels about climate change, etc.
And at Twitter, as the owner of the platform, he's acted in ways that I believe are overall harmful, in a few fronts:
First and most importantly, he drastically decreased the power of workers at Twitter and attempted to set that up as a model for other business leaders, especially those in tech, to follow. Thankfully, the business outcome of this model has been poor, but very definitely anti-worker.
Second, and what tends to get more attention, is the way Musk has been transforming Twitter the product. Let me try an analogy -- if, at Tesla, Musk not only built electric cars, but also built a line of carbon-intensive vehicles that belched flames and just generally went out of their way to be as polluting and greenhouse-gas emitting as they could legally get away with, I think we could agree this would be a problem? It wouldn't, for instance, be a great defense to change the subject away from these purposely trollish cars by noting that most Tesla vehicles are EVs -- the troll cars would still clearly be an issue. And people would have well founded concerns as to why Musk was going out of his way to build and sell cars whose only purpose was apparently to increase pollution and spew carbon. However fantastic the EV cars Tesla made, it'd be hard to say that Tesla was making a positive contribution to de-carbonizing so long as the CEO was also heavily invested in promoting the troll cars.
At Twitter, Musk has invited far right racists who previously were banned from the platform back on. He posts racist, sexist, anti-semitic, and homophobic tweets. He retweets, with supportive comments, racist, sexist, anti-semitic, and homophobic tweets by others.
Now, maybe you feel that online internet culture was unbalanced, that there was a dearth of highly visible racism and homophobia, and that Musk actively working to inject more of it is somehow supporting free-er speech. I disagree.
Do you think Democratic donor Bill Ackman should be banned from Twitter for using it to campaign against DEI?
Have any of those anti-Musk sources that you trust and rely on called for Ackman to be banned for this racist, homophobic campaign?
Do you think Democratic donor Bill Ackman should be banned from Twitter for using it to campaign against DEI?
Have any of those anti-Musk sources that you trust and rely on called for Ackman to be banned for this racist, homophobic campaign?
Do you?
Surely a more apposite question, in the context of replying to my post, would be to ask if I would oppose Ackman purchasing Twitter as a means to further his goals of campaigning against DEI? And the answer is of course yes -- I've been very consistent that I think billionaires purchasing and controlling our public spaces for their own agendas is a problem, and that Musk is a clear example of this problem, not some one-off that's unique to it being Musk.
But, to your question -- I'll give you the means to work it out yourself. I believe the only time I've ever explicitly endorsed an individual being banned was Trump, following Jan. 6:
The primary reason the establishment fears, hates and demonizes Musk is his commitment to free speech, which threatens their control over the public discourse. The secondary reason is that Musk cannot be relied on to support the establishment's agendas, especially on war and peace:
lord almighty but you pick the worst people to re-tweet.
Do you remember when you joined X? I do! #MyXAnniversary. Grateful to be on the world's Digital Town Square that's getting better all the time. pic.twitter.com/GgfPBK4DgM
Good for Paul and his harmless burst of enthusiasm.
Like a Swiftie, but for Elon.
I'm reminded ever so slightly of a scene in The Fly II where Daphne Zuniga looks at Eric Stoltz's transforming body and says, "You're getting worse!" and Stoltz, who is obviously completely effed up at this point tries to explain, "I'm getting better!"
Has anyone here besides you left X? I was pleasantly surprised to find out that @drummerboy is also a user.
I'm still seeing X as the go-to place for journalists, academics, corporations, non-profits and governments around the world.
On the one hand, Bluesky has currently won me over by not putting every post from Marjorie Taylor Greene in my Discover feed. On the other hand, I see a lot of (SFW) anime character drawings. I'm not sure why yet, but they're far less mentally harmful. Also, no advertisers (not even ones with Community Notes warning you not to buy the product.)
I personally doubt that most people will make the switch until it becomes more popular - I mean if you have tons of followers, then I can see the point in staying where the followers are, but if you don't then why put up with it? Anyway, I pointed out earlier, posting to a site and engaging on a site are different things.
Most professionals with social media accounts don't limit themselves to a single platform - X might be one of them, but it might not be the one where they have the biggest reach, especially if the targets aren't there. A Pew Research report from 2022 said that 69% of US journalists use Twitter the most for their job, but only 13% of US adults get their news from Twitter.
So far, I've only found about 180 of my X follows on Bluesky, but when they post there, I can see it, which is not always the case on X. Stephen Fry, who I mentioned was the reason why I joined Twitter in February 2009, left X last year for Threads (hasn't posted there since last summer), but he also joined Bluesky 9 months ago and hasn't posted there since, either, so maybe he has better things to do.
I finally signed up for bluesky but haven't used it much yet. kind of surprised about how similar to twitter the interface is, but that's good. less learning needed.
I finally signed up for bluesky but haven't used it much yet. kind of surprised about how similar to twitter the interface is, but that's good. less learning needed.
It's very similar, but from what I've read, hashtags don't work yet, and there's no algorithm (might never be, as you can use it to program your own specific one) though that's probably the best thing about it. People I follow post things and I can read them.
The NY Times "Hard Fork" podcast had a good interview with the Blue Sky CEO this past week. It was interesting, I guess Blue Sky was started at Twitter as sort of an "open source" version of the Twitter, and then was able to abandon ship before the crazy captain took over.
I listen to the audio version, but they also put it on YouTube now -
Further on the previous point, here's another example of Mus making the digital town square worse, not better:
Elon Musk Is Spreading Election Misinformation, but X’s Fact Checkers Are Long Gone (NYT)
One could, I suppose, try and make the case that it is not appropriate for Twitter or any other platform to be in the business of fact checking, and that the "market place of ideas" is ideally one where the loudest and most obnoxious voices can and should be as loud and obnoxious as possible.
I'm not sure I agree with that vision, but that's beside the fact, because that's not in fact what Musk is doing here. He's not simply taking a hands-off, low moderation approach.
No, this is more akin to someone purchasing a sports league, firing all the refs, announcing which team one favors, and then ensuring that one's favored team is advantaged in all games. We would find it laughable for someone acting in such a manner to defend themselves by claiming they were simply trying to fight back against overbearing referring or bad calls -- their ownership of the whole enterprise and clear thumbs on the scales would clearly make such a situation an exercise in advancing the owner's personal whims.
Similarly with Twitter, it takes some motivated blindness to take seriously Musk's claims to be a champion of "free speech." He bought the platform and has made changes and takes actions to advance his own personal views and agenda. That's not a digital "town square," it's a private park he runs for his own benefit.
Some might point out that, in fact, Twitter was always a private park, and that would be correct. The problem with our digital "commons" has never been one of which is the proper moderation policy to apply, but the fact that these aren't commons at all, but privately owned fiefdoms. Under Musk, though, we've seen one of those spaces go from ownership that fitfully gestured toward having some sense of larger social obligation toward one that less and less even pretends to do so.