So now that Twitter is dead, where are we going?
- Thread starter Gold*
- Start date
It’s one of the stranger developments in media ever. He may have some alternate agenda, but I don’t see it. He seems like a nasty person who isn’t all that smart. He’s really pissed some people off this time.
I saw a tweet from a certain political media person I follow that explained the 600 tweet rule would eat up her access in about six minutes. You could pay for more access but I know I don’t want to be compared to the Nazi accounts that have sprung up that pay to show their ass to people. It had a good run.
Someone is going to make a lot of money with the alternative.
The world will be fine. More people use TikTok than Twitter already. And four times as many use YouTube and Facebook. If you talk to anybody who does politics for money, they will tell you it gains no traction or votes. It only hurts you so you spend ridiculous time money and energy containing it/rapid response.
My sense is he knows what’s next and has already leveraged a profitable position. And it would appear he feels some discipline in the marketplace is needed, particularly with hiring people who essentially add no profit to companies.
If you’ve ever talked to anybody who worked at Twitter it will blow your mind. Project managers who would go months without seeing or hearing from some of their direct reports or upchain. Projects that would get green lighted, have no apparent purpose and never acted upon once completed. Millions thrown away. Employees who openly stated they would not be working until they felt like a project merited their time with no recourse against them. Lots of toxic incidents. He got let go in 2019, but my guy talked interrupted for almost a half hour and the stories, oh Lord.
My sense is he knows what’s next and has already leveraged a profitable position. And it would appear he feels some discipline in the marketplace is needed, particularly with hiring people who essentially add no profit to companies.
If you’ve ever talked to anybody who worked at Twitter it will blow your mind. Project managers who would go months without seeing or hearing from some of their direct reports or upchain. Projects that would get green lighted, have no apparent purpose and never acted upon once completed. Millions thrown away. Employees who openly stated they would not be working until they felt like a project merited their time with no recourse against them. Lots of toxic incidents. He got let go in 2019, but my guy talked interrupted for almost a half hour and the stories, oh Lord.
Last edited:
I just assumed Twitter identified a significant security threat (or already had a significant incident) and took some quick temporary measures to address it
The security threat is still there.
On the other hand, Zuckerberg is about to launch a competitor to Twitter. Whether it is more successful than Mastodon or others remains to be seen.
Zucky’s new app
Also this -
The true cost of a Twitter implosion
Last edited:
Twitter has suffered by being led for most of its life by guys who just didn't care about making money and didn't need to make money. That was even the case during Costolo's time, he's an operations guy and took strategy from Dorsey.
But Twitter did give us one of the most cringeworthy, hilarious reads in a long time, the Musk texts from the litigation. The shameless suckupery from his buddies was painful and funny.
But Twitter did give us one of the most cringeworthy, hilarious reads in a long time, the Musk texts from the litigation. The shameless suckupery from his buddies was painful and funny.
They're private companies, they can do what they want, and what they want is usually to make $$$, and allowing nutty people to say all kinds of nutty stuff makes it hard to make $$$ from major advertisers. It's a bit communist to expect them to hurt their revenues for some "greater good", don't you think? Shouldn't we support companies doing the good capitalist thing of optimizing revenue? That's the same reason why 4 videos into YouTube lands you on extremist content. It's all good as long as the check clears!
I don't do social media (except for this site) because their money making approach results in sites that are very unhealthy (at least for me personally), but I don't begrudge them their right to do it.
They indeed can do what they want. However, the government cannot. When the government colludes with these entities to suppress and silence speech we have a dangerous constitutional problem. Unfortunately, most of these entities were more than willing to be used by the Fed’s to violate the first amendment rights of its users. Again….no issue with reasonable restrictions by private sites. Huge issue with the Feds silencing legitimate speech through private entities. Not sure how any reasonable person who values our constitutional freedoms can disagree with that statement. This was a very dangerous precedent
Remember free speech and not being censored applies only to the government, and even then, past SCOTUS rulings have agreed that right is not guaranteed nor free from being limited based on the type of speech being used and peddled. Private companies like Twitter, Facebook, etc. do have the right to monitor and limit what is being said. Last week's SCOTUS ruling that people/businesses have the right to discriminate against others who don't think/believe like them or live a lifestyle they find abhorrent as part of their 1st Amendment rights reaffirms that places like Twitter/Facebook, etc. are allowed to limit participants on their platforms they find unpalatable. Those individuals have the right to take their business and Nazi peddling elsewhere where more misinformed miscreants will agree with their bigotry, hated, and misinformation campaigns.
Again, the only things we've heard about government collusion in this have come from the extreme right. That group hasn't been exactly truthful with all the information, putting things into clear context, etc. And they're jaded because they lost and were basically put in their place by 15 and 16 year olds on TikTok. So they ban TikTok as a security threat but haven't really shown any proof that it's an actual security threat other than it being a Chinese company. If that's the case they should be pushing the ban of all imported Chinese goods, especially technology. We'd then be left paying $2000 for a PC instead of the $400 you can pay for a decent laptop. Or 90% of all smart phones and tablets. Or TVs. And if the Feds felt the speech was coordinating a threat to national or public security, then of course they can ask any of the platforms to limit it.
Correct. Why I repeatedly stated above my issue was with our Government using these private entities as their actor to restrict the speech of its citizens. That said, it appears these private entities were more the willing and even assisted the Fed’s in its censorship campaign. Were they strong armed by the current Admin….maybe. However, I haven’t read anything to indicate they voiced much opposition. At least not as much as one would hope considering what’s at stake.
The WSJ published a good column on the extent of the collusion a few days ago. Hardly an extreme right wing source.
This is a giant nothing burger. The government has a responsibility to engage in public health and other messaging. You might not like what the government message is but it's silly to say they can't push a message. Ask the tobacco companies or the not so fat bears in Yellowstone or every company that has a privacy policy or pays influencers. The government can't force a social media site to remove content unless it's illegal, the site decides what it wants to remove. If it chooses to protect its business by taking down content recommended by the nation's top health experts, who are we to object? Communists, that's who. This was a routine government action and sites chose what they wanted to keep up.
Then there's this example of public health messaging.
Garbage. The government must apply the strictest of scrutiny in deciding to violate its citizens first amendment rights. The fact there are people on the left who once protested for our right to free speech who now support the suppression of the same is shocking. There is no public health reason to support the government censoring of professionals or even ordinary citizens suggesting Covid originated in a Chinese lab….NONE. How people cannot grasp the potential future consequences of what our did is beyond me. Today it’s the origins of Covid or a political story. Tomorrow it’s the persecution of those who speak out against the administration in charge at that time. Remember, this could just as easily be a Pub Admin next time. Free speech is vital. A government who is allowed to silence speech with which they disagree (Covid origin) poses a danger to its citizens. Seems that the very people who used to fight to this freedom not support its elimination.This is a giant nothing burger. The government has a responsibility to engage in public health and other messaging. You might not like what the government message is but it's silly to say they can't push a message. Ask the tobacco companies or the not so fat bears in Yellowstone or every company that has a privacy policy or pays influencers. The government can't force a social media site to remove content unless it's illegal, the site decides what it wants to remove. If it chooses to protect its business by taking down content recommended by the nation's top health experts, who are we to object? Communists, that's who. This was a routine government action and sites chose what they wanted to keep up.
Then there's this example of public health messaging.
Again…the SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled the government must use strict scrutiny in restricting content-based speech. Censoring speech such as the origins of the Covid virus don’t come close to meeting this standard. The fact the left is supporting going away from the strict scrutiny standard which has been applied by the Courts for years is disturbing. This is about our freedoms and safety from a fascist government. Hard to believe those who championed civil rights the most would now support such a watered down standard for our right to free speech. Remember…..next time it might be the other side silencing speech with which they disagree. All about the precedent.
But the government didn't violate anyone's first amendment rights, you said so yourself. They asked a private company to do something and some of the private companies chose to do it while others didn't. It's not like the gvt is passing laws to punish someone for what they said, like with poor Disney (who ever thought I could feel sorry for Disney??), or banning books from libraries, or dictating school curricula. You're getting upset about a splinter and ignoring the multiple gunshot wounds to the poor 1st amendment.
In any event, I just don't think this is unusual. This kind of stuff has gone on forever, well before social media. People are like "OMG, look what the government did" and it's like "bruh, you're just now finally paying attention?" It's sort of mind boggling honestly that this of all things is what gets their attention. This kind of thing goes back forever.
LOL, back in the 00's, I thought Google was the most unethical company in technology, then Facebook came along and Google seemed like child's play, I thought nobody could be more amoral than Mark Zuckerberg and now it's like "thank goodness for Facebook". I shudder to think what it will be someday that makes me appreciate Elon Musk.
That’s not how it works. The government can’t employ or even ask a private entity to restrict or eliminate speech it doesn’t like and escapee culpability. Just like you can’t hire a hitman to kill someone and not be responsible when the murder occurs.
Governments have actively silenced speech throughout history. Usually doesn’t end well for its citizens.
If you have examples of our government restricting content based speech please provide. Again….the constitutional standard is strict scrutiny. A very high standard to meet (as it should be). I remain amazed by those who support government censorship based on content. Guess it is what it is. How times have changed regarding those who once championed human rights.
Trump's support of bleach & all the various medicines he advocated like horse dewormers was just as dangerous.
But he was exercising his right to free speech.
1). Trump is an idiot
2). That said it’s not even close to the same. One is a moron saying stupid stuff which a few other morons might follow. The other is a government silencing those who are speaking about things with which it disagrees or critical of said government. History is full of oppressive governments who have used censorship to suppress opposition and minority voices. Our constitution is designed to protect against such oppression. However, those protections only work when we support them. Would those of you who now support government censorship of speech still have the same view if it had been Trump strong arming these sites to ban those who posted support for the BLM movement during the period of the riots and killing of peace officers and remove all content regarding the same ? Again…this is about precedent and the application of strict scrutiny to content based restrictions.
There are a lot of 'idiots' who buy what he's selling. Like somewhere between 20-30% of the US. That is just as scary to me as the silenced voice. I appreciated the time when we wouldn't even put someone in the general election like that. It will be worse if there is a second time around.
You don’t think Biden telling people if you’re vaccinated you can’t get Covid was just as dangerous. Wonder how many people believed him and then went out and got Covid? How many of those were at risk?
All of that said, leaders saying dumb things aren’t a risk to our civil liberties or basic freedoms. A fascist government silencing its critics is a different story. As history tells us.
You really think the government doesn't reach out to journalists to try to control the coverage of politicians, their policies and world events? The government doesn't reach out to editors to try to get stories killed or changed? Or facts not reported on, or reported on differently? This happens all the time. More than all the time. All the fed and state agencies have actual departments who do this for a living.
Just because you say it's government censorship doesn't make it so. What happened here just isn't that. There's actual bad stuff happening in the world and a lot of censorship, more now than since the '50s. But with all that, you've managed to hit on one thing that's actually just not a big deal. I have to admit, your passion for this is just baffling to me.
Politicians asking to journalist not to write certain stories or report certain facts happens all the time. Agree completely. The difference is the ultimate decision still rests with the journalist on whether to exercise his or her right to free speech. When the government uses private entities to silence voices of dissent those voices have zero say in that decision. They are simply silenced by the government. That my friend is a very important distinction.
I’m passionate because I consider myself of student of history. I’ve witness time and time again the first act of oppressive governments is to silence opposition voices. Free speech is vital in a democracy. It’s our most important safeguard against those who might seek to oppress. It’s a fundamental right. One which we should never accept being taken from us. That is why I’m so passionate. That is why I believe we all should share that passion. Precedents are important.
The person can search out another private company to get their voice heard on their medium. The mediums that would let them be heard just became more extreme. The problem is not that the voice was eradicated, but that it was placed on a more extreme media.
I find the bigger problem now is that there are too many voices out there being heard to differentiate who should be listened to. With social media the voice of the lone individual found it's place, without a differentiator to say whether it is approved of by anyone except the general public.
There is a reason we have a representative democracy. There is a reason we have independent media. The general principles that those two entities share are not held by social media, unless the company exhibits control over individuals who post. The person who writes an article and gets it published can't just write it on anything, and get it published by a media outlet. They have to deal with editors and publishers. The companies are just playing their role as editors and publishers. You may not agree with these 'editors and publishers', but that is nothing new. We all have disagreed with 'editors and publishers'.
The problem is only a problem if the government can dictate that their 'advice' is adhered to by ALL media. It was not.
My problem is that it was a general subject matter that was stopped rather than subject matter that was individually reviewed by an editor. But that is due to the form of media and the massiveness of the amount of info that would 'need' to be reviewed.
Disagree. The problem occurs when a government attempts to silence or restrict speech. This is a direct violation of our constitutional rights by our government unless the restrictions on content speech pass the strictest of scrutiny. This is basic constitutional law as it relates to constraints on speech by the government. There is no test or requirement that there were other outlets for the speech as fascist leaders could always make such an argument. We’re attempting to make up options or scenarios which simply don’t exists under constitutional law. Exceptions which don’t exists for obvious reasons.
You just got through saying that individual journalists & media outlets could make that decision for themselves. That dictates that there were other outlets that didn't make that decision to not publish. That is an unspoken dictate that there were other outlets that could publish and that makes it okay. You can't have it one way with social media and the other way with media.
Social media didn't write those articles. They just were influenced not to CONTINUE OR FURTHER the article's redistribution. They were playing the role of re-editor for re-distribution, which they have the right to do. They(social media companies) felt like the government had a valid point, and went with their advice. The government did not threaten, they tried to influence, and were successful with some outlets. But the first decision was already made by the original source and published by the original source.
Social Media is something new. They are somewhat taking the role of distributor of much of our media. But the articles did not come from social media, they just weren't put on social media. I think you should be more concerned about whether there should be some extra protections put on social media as a 're-distributor' of media.
I'm equally scared that the editor gets obscured on social media. People post
teee articles from awful sources, and people believe it. Both poles of that argument are to be feared.(Government influence/restriction of free speech & false articles with the guise of truth from the institution of 'respected' media.
Last edited:
There are so many things that are completely wrong about LawPoke's argument and you did a great job of hitting them. Esp. that nobody has a first amendment right to be amplified, it's not like the feds destroyed some guy's printing press. And that he himself acknowledges there's no proof the government forced anybody to do anything. That's the premise of his whole argument. He's said "if you shot Bob in the head, you'd be guilty of murder. You didn't shoot Bob but I'm going to convict you of murder anyway." Uh, ok. Apparently "freedom" is being convicted of things you didn't do because your judge doesn't like you.You just got through saying that individual journalists & media outlets could make that decision for themselves. That dictates that there were other outlets that didn't make that decision to not publish. That is an unspoken dictate that there were other outlets that could publish and that makes it okay. You can't have it one way with social media and the other way with media.
Social media didn't write those articles. They just were influenced not to CONTINUE OR FURTHER the article's redistribution. They were playing the role of re-editor for re-distribution, which they have the right to do. They(social media companies) felt like the government had a valid point, and went with their advice. The government did not threaten, they tried to influence, and were successful with some outlets. But the first decision was already made by the original source and published by the original source.
Social Media is something new. They are somewhat taking the role of distributor of much of our media. But the articles did not come from social media, they just weren't put on social media. I think you should be more concerned about whether there should be some extra protections put on social media as a 're-distributor' of media.
I'm equally scared that the editor gets obscured on social media. People post
Last edited:
I didn’t realize people cared so much about social media and took it so seriously. I personally despise it and think the level of media attention these companies and their CEOs/owners receive is (bleeeeeep) stupid.
I do post on FB occasionally when I’ve had some cocktails. I do the same here, but y’all knew that already.
I do post on FB occasionally when I’ve had some cocktails. I do the same here, but y’all knew that already.
Dude, if it weren't for social media, we wouldn't know half as much about the Britney Spears vs Victor Wembanyama slap down, backhand, brushback. Her glasses went flying! How could you NOT care about something as important as that?
Good discussion. Nice to see some life brought back to the board. I always enjoy our conversations.
A federal judge has now ruled the Biden Admin likely violated the First Amendment rights of those social media users by their actions during the pandemic. The Biden Admin has appealed. Assume this case goes to the Supremes unless their appeal fails and they realize they have a losing hand. Looks like we will know whose argument is correct in this matter. Looks pretty good for me thus far but it’s early in the game.
A federal judge has now ruled the Biden Admin likely violated the First Amendment rights of those social media users by their actions during the pandemic. The Biden Admin has appealed. Assume this case goes to the Supremes unless their appeal fails and they realize they have a losing hand. Looks like we will know whose argument is correct in this matter. Looks pretty good for me thus far but it’s early in the game.
The problem with social media is it has morphed from a way for people to stay connected with one another, to more of a mass media outlet and the GOP gutting the FCC's "truth in reporting" and allowing anything to be classified as news. Trump has said, many times, he would always run for office as a Republican because a good % of them are uneducated and they'll believe anything you will tell them (I'm paraphrasing, but look it up, it's well known his feelings). I believe he also said in the 2016 campaign that he loved the uneducated because they are easily convinced (meaning they are easily manipulated). The GOP then decided to use Facebook, Twitter, etc. as their primary means of distributing their disinformation campaigns and the mainstream media also bought the bullSocial Media is something new. They are somewhat taking the role of distributor of much of our media. But the articles did not come from social media, they just weren't put on social media. I think you should be more concerned about whether there should be some extra protections put on social media as a 're-distributor' of media.
I'm equally scared that the editor gets obscured on social media. People post
because of the ad dollars involved. Without the truth in reporting clauses in the FCCs rules, Twitter, FB, and every "news" outlet out there were free to peddle whatever monkey being thrown against the wall hoping one would stick. FoxNews would not exist in the same space we see today with the "truth in reporting" rules in place. FB and Twitter would be held responsible for leaving BS "reports" and conspiracy BS on their sites.They all easily could monitor this the same way they monitor threats against other users and violation of the terms and conditions. YouTube does it with copyright info...and it happens very quickly and they're able to notify you if you've violated the copyright clause on their platform. We need truth monitors for purported "news". Plus some of the BS that has been peddled on these platforms borders on libel and slander. I'm all for freedom of speech, but you can't lie about people, parties, or anything like that without facing consequences.
