Again I am blown away by the research that you do to write such a compelling and comprehensive article. I’m from a rural area of south western Ontario and I honestly have only met a handful of people of Jewish descent but I’ve been aware of the Neo Nazi movement and how dangerous it could become. With that being said, you have opened my eyes and mind to how potentially dangerous it is and how we must take action against it. I posted your article on my “X” account and will likely be deactivating it soon. I don’t have many followers but we have to start somewhere...
I too have ambiguous thoughts about “free speech”. It was once a no-brainer for me based on liberal ideology, ethics, philosophy and other intellectual spheres. I also believed that most educated humans were serious critical thinkers and not influenced by political stunts. But seeing the consequences in the real world has made me question everything. To my sincere chagrin, because I don’t want to be a fascist, an authoritarian, or controller. And I’m really struggling with this.
We’re no longer dealing with (metaphorical) town-criers handing out badly printed political pamphlets. We’re dealing with well-organized, well-funded disrupters who are 100% focused on moving from fringe to mainstream, with serious political agendas. I’ve seen nasty superstitious and conspiracy theory social media broadcasting that is absolutely dazzling, very persuasive. Less well-financed players like researchers, self-effacing scientists and thoughtful analysts are not getting their message out there because they can’t afford publicists, videographers or whatever else the well-funded can do. Plus sadly many of them don’t have the exciting, charismatic personalities necessary to capture public attention. Yes, yes I understand the big question: who’s to decide what is acceptable to be included in the free speech forum? Naturally I don’t have an answer any more than anyone else. Are there some people we can all agree aren’t worth giving a public platform?
I have so little energy for trying to push around giant companies. They squirm away from regulations faster than you can write them. Why not just write X off?
It would tickle me if governments, schools, libraries just invented their own Mastodon instances, and told all their employees to kill official X accounts (you can still use your own private account just don't talk work...)
It would tickle me more, if conservative pols and activists then stayed to resolutely "defend" X from the boycott. It would not be a boycott, just a permanent walking-away.
The weird thing is that my antipathy to X started when Jack Dorsey, whose name I did not then know, was said to have kicked Trump off X on January 7, 2021. It struck me as quite mad that this businessman happened to be in a position to decide whether the President of the United States had access to 80 million readers of a publication. And that he had decided to keep him on for a long time after Trump first broke many automatic-eviction rules, because he was making Jack money. That whole dynamic is beyond fucked.
It's not the same as Bernie Sanders not being platformed by the Wall St. Journal, because Bernie can go to many other platforms. But there is only one X, one Facebook, one Instagram: every commercial market in communications is subject to "network effects" that promote oligopoly at best, and monopoly, frequently.
Political discourse, therefore, should not depend on commercial social media; you will always be handing control of your "reach" to some Jack-Dorsey type. I just don't see anything for governments, that do not want to have their "reach" controlled by a billionaire, have any choice but to promote non-commercial social media platforms.
This is basically my problem with government-enacted regulation. Maybe if all social media companies were, reliably, board-driven and publicly owned I'd feel different. But these companies have terminal cases of Founder Syndrome and are subject to crazy whims and pivots. As Twitter keeps tanking, there's good reason to think that it'll be the Saudi Crown Prince calling the shots there soon. The government should be cheerleading their demise, not vying for regulatory capture.
I am really amazed that the twitter walking-away has been this slow. I talk to people about it, and it's wild the steps they've taken to make it manageable — never read the replies, ignore all the trending topics, only follow non-insane accounts, set their account to private, etc. etc. Why not just leave? It'll happen eventually. But it'll take more crazy sagas like this.
Thanks. The journalists frustrate me... but: One young lady journo on Canadaland last year said that she left Twitter for a year or more, came back, and instantly got work offers. That lady also said emphatically that employment and salary at a newspaper is very much judged by your follower-count.
So, I'm most critical of those who are already hugely successful and comfortable, have the luxury of criticizing, the cushion to take a hit, and have yet to even join the X critics!
Here's my response on Mastodon to somebody triumphantly declaring that X was "over" because they now had the same follower count, and more engagement. I wrote:
Please call me when the top ten (aside from Musk) acknowledge how over it is:
Barack Obama
Beyonce
Justin Beiber
Rhianna
Cristiano Ronaldo
Katy Perry
Lady Gaga
Kim Kardashian
Taylor Swift
NASA
...I don't believe even one has emitted a negative comment, or threat to leave, much less done so.
Governments are still using it heavily for posting notices, none appear to be even looking for alternatives.
Agreed. If everyone with a conscience and a decent set of ethics walked away from Twitter, it would just be another parler/gab/rumble whatever. Perhaps not weak enough to ignore but definitely diminished in influence with the mainstream. I left it months ago. I really don't understand why so many people are sticking around on it.
I just read Yair Rosenberg's article in the Atlantic, "Elon Musk’s Latest Target Hits Back:
A conversation with the Anti-Defamation League’s Jonathan Greenblatt, on a feud that is as bizarre as it is predictable". You were already on it. Good work, if I may say so. Outstanding.
I believe this is also the place to break out the joke that I'm getting good traction with on Mastodon:
Justin, I can't believe you deadnamed X. X is a corporate person, but also a trans person. Decent people should support a trans person, and it's really hurtful to break out those classic trans-bigot lines like: "I don't even know them anymore, it's like their brain has been taken over by some alien" . Don't be a trans-bigot. Be accepting and supportive of the new person, X.
Again I am blown away by the research that you do to write such a compelling and comprehensive article. I’m from a rural area of south western Ontario and I honestly have only met a handful of people of Jewish descent but I’ve been aware of the Neo Nazi movement and how dangerous it could become. With that being said, you have opened my eyes and mind to how potentially dangerous it is and how we must take action against it. I posted your article on my “X” account and will likely be deactivating it soon. I don’t have many followers but we have to start somewhere...
Thanks for the work you are doing here!
Thank you Justin. Elon, what a waste of a human being, as with those who spend their lives hating. Here's to bad karma for all of them.
Top 50!! Dude!!!!
As I read this, the phrase “Jesus Fckng Christ” repeated endlessly in my head
Same.
I too have ambiguous thoughts about “free speech”. It was once a no-brainer for me based on liberal ideology, ethics, philosophy and other intellectual spheres. I also believed that most educated humans were serious critical thinkers and not influenced by political stunts. But seeing the consequences in the real world has made me question everything. To my sincere chagrin, because I don’t want to be a fascist, an authoritarian, or controller. And I’m really struggling with this.
We’re no longer dealing with (metaphorical) town-criers handing out badly printed political pamphlets. We’re dealing with well-organized, well-funded disrupters who are 100% focused on moving from fringe to mainstream, with serious political agendas. I’ve seen nasty superstitious and conspiracy theory social media broadcasting that is absolutely dazzling, very persuasive. Less well-financed players like researchers, self-effacing scientists and thoughtful analysts are not getting their message out there because they can’t afford publicists, videographers or whatever else the well-funded can do. Plus sadly many of them don’t have the exciting, charismatic personalities necessary to capture public attention. Yes, yes I understand the big question: who’s to decide what is acceptable to be included in the free speech forum? Naturally I don’t have an answer any more than anyone else. Are there some people we can all agree aren’t worth giving a public platform?
I have so little energy for trying to push around giant companies. They squirm away from regulations faster than you can write them. Why not just write X off?
It would tickle me if governments, schools, libraries just invented their own Mastodon instances, and told all their employees to kill official X accounts (you can still use your own private account just don't talk work...)
It would tickle me more, if conservative pols and activists then stayed to resolutely "defend" X from the boycott. It would not be a boycott, just a permanent walking-away.
The weird thing is that my antipathy to X started when Jack Dorsey, whose name I did not then know, was said to have kicked Trump off X on January 7, 2021. It struck me as quite mad that this businessman happened to be in a position to decide whether the President of the United States had access to 80 million readers of a publication. And that he had decided to keep him on for a long time after Trump first broke many automatic-eviction rules, because he was making Jack money. That whole dynamic is beyond fucked.
It's not the same as Bernie Sanders not being platformed by the Wall St. Journal, because Bernie can go to many other platforms. But there is only one X, one Facebook, one Instagram: every commercial market in communications is subject to "network effects" that promote oligopoly at best, and monopoly, frequently.
Political discourse, therefore, should not depend on commercial social media; you will always be handing control of your "reach" to some Jack-Dorsey type. I just don't see anything for governments, that do not want to have their "reach" controlled by a billionaire, have any choice but to promote non-commercial social media platforms.
Maybe in the long run...
This is basically my problem with government-enacted regulation. Maybe if all social media companies were, reliably, board-driven and publicly owned I'd feel different. But these companies have terminal cases of Founder Syndrome and are subject to crazy whims and pivots. As Twitter keeps tanking, there's good reason to think that it'll be the Saudi Crown Prince calling the shots there soon. The government should be cheerleading their demise, not vying for regulatory capture.
I am really amazed that the twitter walking-away has been this slow. I talk to people about it, and it's wild the steps they've taken to make it manageable — never read the replies, ignore all the trending topics, only follow non-insane accounts, set their account to private, etc. etc. Why not just leave? It'll happen eventually. But it'll take more crazy sagas like this.
Thanks. The journalists frustrate me... but: One young lady journo on Canadaland last year said that she left Twitter for a year or more, came back, and instantly got work offers. That lady also said emphatically that employment and salary at a newspaper is very much judged by your follower-count.
So, I'm most critical of those who are already hugely successful and comfortable, have the luxury of criticizing, the cushion to take a hit, and have yet to even join the X critics!
Here's my response on Mastodon to somebody triumphantly declaring that X was "over" because they now had the same follower count, and more engagement. I wrote:
Please call me when the top ten (aside from Musk) acknowledge how over it is:
Barack Obama
Beyonce
Justin Beiber
Rhianna
Cristiano Ronaldo
Katy Perry
Lady Gaga
Kim Kardashian
Taylor Swift
NASA
...I don't believe even one has emitted a negative comment, or threat to leave, much less done so.
Governments are still using it heavily for posting notices, none appear to be even looking for alternatives.
I'm not taunting you, I share the frustration.
Agreed. If everyone with a conscience and a decent set of ethics walked away from Twitter, it would just be another parler/gab/rumble whatever. Perhaps not weak enough to ignore but definitely diminished in influence with the mainstream. I left it months ago. I really don't understand why so many people are sticking around on it.
I just read Yair Rosenberg's article in the Atlantic, "Elon Musk’s Latest Target Hits Back:
A conversation with the Anti-Defamation League’s Jonathan Greenblatt, on a feud that is as bizarre as it is predictable". You were already on it. Good work, if I may say so. Outstanding.
I believe this is also the place to break out the joke that I'm getting good traction with on Mastodon:
Justin, I can't believe you deadnamed X. X is a corporate person, but also a trans person. Decent people should support a trans person, and it's really hurtful to break out those classic trans-bigot lines like: "I don't even know them anymore, it's like their brain has been taken over by some alien" . Don't be a trans-bigot. Be accepting and supportive of the new person, X.