And I thought I was the only person I knew who wasn't a raving fan of his. I remember he once decided to remove the SpaceX page on Facebook because he was pissed off with Facebook and said he "just doesn't like Facebook". And a lot of people, including kids, really enjoyed the content on the SpaceX page.
What if he says tomorrow that he just doesn't like X company or Y person and that's why chose to block them on Twitter?
He could, but the real problem is that he could be much more creative about how to wield influence. And in many of those cases, nobody would ever know. (And, even in some cases, he doesn't even have to do anything. Knowing that he *could* do something may well be enough for you to behave differently.)
Interesting random set of comparisons :-) I don't know Elon Musk so I can't say I like or dislike him, but I respect the right of any individual to do as they please with their wealth, even if it offends my sensitivities.
The argument that his Twitter acquisition somehow changes free speech dynamics is pointless: the current owners have chosen to apply their content filter, and Mr. Musk may apply a different filter so there's no such thing as "transparency" in the absolute - it's only in the eye of the reader. As a critical, thinking human we should all be cognizant of that and factor it into our interpretation of anything that's published.
I think most of the argument about free speech is a distraction though. The point to me isn't that Twitter will or won't censor people; the point is that a big piece of our social infrastructure is controlled by a single man. It's like handing the FAA and the entire airline industry over to one person. The problem isn't some academic constitutional issue - it's that they could do all sorts of things to the system to pick favorites, or make life better for some people and worse for others. Which, by this account, seems like it was at least part of the point: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-shadow-crew-who-encouraged-elon-musks-twitter-takeover-tesla-jack-dorsey-11651260119
There are real problems with lack of transparency of who is controlling the narrative. While I think this twitter deal is a shame, at least we know who to blame when the DM's become public. And while old tweets cant be unsent, people have the choice to jump ship now if they dont like the direction of the platform moving forward. It is also a bit ridiculous that WE gave twitter this much power. Why does a social media platform have the power to affect elections or cancel the US president? Anyway, I have get back to watching the Johnny Depp trial...
Yeah, the very first thing I wrote on this blog was about social media, and how it's starting to feel like something that's just inherently problematic, or at least inherently destabilizing: https://benn.substack.com/p/runaway-train
I don't know what exactly we'd do about that. But it feels a little bit like we're careening towards a bunch of potential disasters and nobody's at the wheel.
i'm with you...structurally this is not what I would want. it's just that it's a natural outcome of late-stage capitalism. i'm not a fan, but everything becomes a "what do you replace it with?" argument.
should we nationalize twitter as a "common carrier" or other form of utility? we've done that before, but...i don't actually know whether that's the right answer here? :shrug:
i think we're going to be fighting against the implications of aggregation theory for the entire 2000's. ben thompson named the entire goddamn century.
Fair, and I have no idea what you do about it. I think I'm increasingly of the (somewhat radical?) view that global social media platforms are too dangerous to exist. But how do you put that genie back in the bottle? I think the platforms themselves could do things like slow down how fast stuff goes viral in some way, maybe? All the incentives seem to cut the other direction though.
And I thought I was the only person I knew who wasn't a raving fan of his. I remember he once decided to remove the SpaceX page on Facebook because he was pissed off with Facebook and said he "just doesn't like Facebook". And a lot of people, including kids, really enjoyed the content on the SpaceX page.
What if he says tomorrow that he just doesn't like X company or Y person and that's why chose to block them on Twitter?
He could, but the real problem is that he could be much more creative about how to wield influence. And in many of those cases, nobody would ever know. (And, even in some cases, he doesn't even have to do anything. Knowing that he *could* do something may well be enough for you to behave differently.)
Indeed. "Knowing that he *could* do something may well be enough for you to behave differently" -- never thought of this.
Interesting random set of comparisons :-) I don't know Elon Musk so I can't say I like or dislike him, but I respect the right of any individual to do as they please with their wealth, even if it offends my sensitivities.
The argument that his Twitter acquisition somehow changes free speech dynamics is pointless: the current owners have chosen to apply their content filter, and Mr. Musk may apply a different filter so there's no such thing as "transparency" in the absolute - it's only in the eye of the reader. As a critical, thinking human we should all be cognizant of that and factor it into our interpretation of anything that's published.
I think most of the argument about free speech is a distraction though. The point to me isn't that Twitter will or won't censor people; the point is that a big piece of our social infrastructure is controlled by a single man. It's like handing the FAA and the entire airline industry over to one person. The problem isn't some academic constitutional issue - it's that they could do all sorts of things to the system to pick favorites, or make life better for some people and worse for others. Which, by this account, seems like it was at least part of the point: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-shadow-crew-who-encouraged-elon-musks-twitter-takeover-tesla-jack-dorsey-11651260119
Agree that no one person should be entrusted with that power.
However, I also dont think that 6 companies should own 90% of American media outlets either:
https://www.fool.com/investing/stock-market/market-sectors/communication/media-stocks/big-6/#:~:text=Some%20estimates%20claim%20as%20much,)%20(NASDAQ%3AFOX).
There are real problems with lack of transparency of who is controlling the narrative. While I think this twitter deal is a shame, at least we know who to blame when the DM's become public. And while old tweets cant be unsent, people have the choice to jump ship now if they dont like the direction of the platform moving forward. It is also a bit ridiculous that WE gave twitter this much power. Why does a social media platform have the power to affect elections or cancel the US president? Anyway, I have get back to watching the Johnny Depp trial...
Yeah, the very first thing I wrote on this blog was about social media, and how it's starting to feel like something that's just inherently problematic, or at least inherently destabilizing: https://benn.substack.com/p/runaway-train
I don't know what exactly we'd do about that. But it feels a little bit like we're careening towards a bunch of potential disasters and nobody's at the wheel.
nobody's ever been at the wheel :P
i'm with you...structurally this is not what I would want. it's just that it's a natural outcome of late-stage capitalism. i'm not a fan, but everything becomes a "what do you replace it with?" argument.
should we nationalize twitter as a "common carrier" or other form of utility? we've done that before, but...i don't actually know whether that's the right answer here? :shrug:
i think we're going to be fighting against the implications of aggregation theory for the entire 2000's. ben thompson named the entire goddamn century.
Fair, and I have no idea what you do about it. I think I'm increasingly of the (somewhat radical?) view that global social media platforms are too dangerous to exist. But how do you put that genie back in the bottle? I think the platforms themselves could do things like slow down how fast stuff goes viral in some way, maybe? All the incentives seem to cut the other direction though.
You idealist! :P
I feel attacked