"That’s a terrible idea... it would endanger marginalized people without improving trust. But Cuban’s reform does square with the Times’ take on virtue and wickedness at Twitter. Just shine light upon the shadows of the black market to put an end to the corruption. Then ordinary folk can be freed from the lust for fame that would rob them of their true selves. But this is a fairy-tale story about the internet. Fraud is not the ultimate problem with fake social-media activity. The hustle itself is the blight. It produces the racket that sucks so many into its orbit.... There is a pride in having built a platform for attention, and there is also a shame in feeling pride for it. To boast that one’s followers are all 'real,' or to call for a near future in which that state of affairs is insured, is just to affirm the virtue of the system. This is the back that must be broken for anyone to feel free on social media."
From "All Followers Are Fake Followers/A New York Times exposé of a 'black market' for online fame diagnoses the symptom of social-media despair, but misses its cause" by Ian Bogost (in The Atlantic).
January 30, 2018
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
49 comments:
On the internet, nobody knows you're a single human mind.
The most respected name in Fake News commenting on social media. The irony is so thick one needs a jack hammer to drill through it.
Cuban Advocates for More Central Planning
Stash that headline away for his presidential run...
Attention Marginalized People who can’t connect their Government Identity to their Social Media Identity: I'm not actually a frog being offered a bag of money. I'm barely a tadpole being offered a roll of dimes.
Yeah! These idiots calling themselves things like Publius have to be stopped.
I wonder if he would kick off undocumented immigrants who don't give real identifying info.
Wasn’t Cuban going to Cash because Trump won?
Stay the fuck off Twitter would do it, too.
If you think the creators of a social media platform are true visionaries and can adapt to a radically different business model invest in their company.
Otherwise sell short. They have 5 years before they fall.
Twitter will be worth zero. Plan accordingly.
Somehow I doubt this rule would be evenhandedly enforced. Kind of like how hate crimes are only ever charged against Republicans or people the Democrat party hates. A black man can video himself stabbing white people while shouting "Death to Crackers! Death to all white devils!" and he'd be lucky to be charged with assault.
Cuban only plans on using this to fight Repubicans, that's all.
--Vance
He is a billionaire. Why doesn’t he build his own competing service/product with rules he believes are necessary and see how it does.
gbarto said...
Yeah! These idiots calling themselves things like Publius have to be stopped.
Beat me to it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Federalist_Papers
But I do question whether there might be a distinction between a Twitter account (with Twitter being a private concern that is not covered by the First Amendment) and free speech in the spirit of Publius.
If Twitter and Facebook required only verified real-name accounts and enforced it strictly, does that foreclose all anonymous speech?
I suppose that I am not recognizing the all-powerfulness of Twitter and Facebook. Neither of which I like, and both of which I wish were less consuming of public discourse. I sure as hell don't want either one of them to be so powerful, that they are equated with First Amendment/state action coverage.
Mmmm. I bet we could analyze Althouse average daily clicks before and since the commenter "robother" began commenting on this site. The difference is (are) clearly followers of robother. What should I do with this newfound Superpower? My own blog? Nahh. Sounds too much like work. I know: set up a three way bidding war between Instapundit, Althouse and Steve Sailer for the privilege of hosting my comments and my numerous followers. If I've learned anything from the Internet, its Always Be Closing.
Is the investor Mark Cuban speaking as an investor (about what might make services like Twitter more profitable) and if so, why doesn't he invest in a startup that follows his advice?
It is not clear to me that the requirement to register a "real name" for an account is exactly the same as a requirement to EXPOSE that "real name" with every post, comment, link, or rating. The concept of the pen name associated with authorship goes way back, not least famously to George Sand.
Why should JD Robb and Nora Roberts -- writing generally for different markets -- be "outed" with real names, or prohibited from billing a work as a collaboration when it's intended to appeal to both audiences?
Why should WEB Griffen give up his marketability to write as William E Butterworth?
Do not the traditions of a free press in the book publishing business carry into the internet age?
It's interesting how liberal folks like Cuban want an end to anonymity in public writings (e.g. Twitter) & in political funding. In American history, legal rulings that defend the 1st Amendment right of anonymous expression have most often been used to defend the rights of the far Left, for obvious reasons. For most of American history, if you funded or wrote in defense of anarchism or communism, you risked life & limb by not doing so anonymously.
I know, if guys like Cuban knew any history they wouldn't be guys like Cuban.
Why should Twitter be held to a higher standard for names than the IRS is held to for social security numbers?
Most of Obama and Hillary's "followers" were fake, too. Purchased from companies that create false profiles and footprints for fictitious fans.
Influence has never had a simple metric.
If Twitter required my real name, I'd quit it immediately. I don't even post anything controversial, but who I follow and read are out on the edge.
I was really irked at Twitter grabbing my phone contacts and trying to follow all of them and I'm sure it alerts anyone that has me as a contact that my Twitter account exists. But the last thing I want my friends to know is what porn stars I follow.
Twitter is simultaneously one the worst and one the greatest human phenomenon of our modern age.
It's the worst because it quantifies a false sense of social worth by counting followers. It plays upon the most base affirmation seeking behavior of human nature. It encourages and rewards groupthink/hive mind/bandwagon/mob mentality and discourages and punishes critical thinking and reasoned debate.
But, it also gives a voice to many people who deserve a voice. It exposes the unfiltered stupidity of celebrities and politicians who otherwise would be protected from themselves behind publicists and spokes people. It's an amazing tool when there's a crisis, a natural disaster or a terrorist attack for getting news out. And in rare instances it even allows people to truly speak truth to power, circumventing the propaganda of authoritarian regimes.
So the paper that built it's fame on "unamed sources" insists we cannot chatter anonymously?
Because I trust the IRS knowing what private citizens say about things.
I don't even post anonymously; my rarely updated blog is not anonymous. But any service that demanded I *not* be anonymous would strike me as strange. The Internet has proven, time and again, what they'll do to regular people who disagree with them -- boy cotts, death threats, actual assaults, illegal audits -- that, frankly, let's not make it EASIER to bully people. The right to anonymous speech is an actual right.
I'm not a fan of Mark Cuban, regardless of his wealth.
Or you could do as I did: quit Twitter altogether.
-sw
What Dreams said at 12:29PM.
Mark Cuban is a 9/11 Truther.
Keep that in mind when considering his opinions.
Why is naivete on the part of Twitter users a Government Problem that needs a Government Fix? (Because you know that's what the Cubans of the World are angling for).
Here's an idea: Don't follow Twitter. Assume what you read there and elsewhere is false.
Problems solved.
(I still lament the loss of my anonymous account at anon.penet.fi. I think that was the domain)
The more likely your opinions are to get you soft fired or soft nexted on a job interview, the more likely you are to think that anonymity is a right.
Anonymity disenfranchises marginalized people. When people are too afraid to use their own names they cede the public sphere without a fight. That's how PC works. Make everyone too scared to say what they think and then lay out the party line. That's marginalization.
Anonymous posting strengthens intimidation. When people see that an opinion can only be voiced anonymously, they are afraid to repeat it. Fear is contagious. When you post anonymously you are telling the world that you are afraid.
Lastly, internet anonymity doesn't exist. If enough people really want to find out who you are, they will. If anonymity is so important it's best to say nothing at all.
There are many valid reasons to post anonymously, particularly given the amount of social bullying that has developed (mostly on the Left, it seems to me.) There is no need for your spouse to be berated by friends at the supermarket over something you have written. Etc. People campaigning to ban anonymous posting are knowingly or not seeking to make social bullying and shunning more effective and inescapable (and, not coincidentally, to better target everyone for advertising or other purposes). They will not like the world they seek to build.
I like the immediacy of Twitter.
If they want to get rid of bots, just charge every user an annual user fee of $10. Almost everyone would pay that even the Russians.
A single American behind every vote.
Jim at said...
Mark Cuban is a 9/11 Truther.
Keep that in mind when considering his opinions.
Well, now that Trump is President of the United States, perhaps we will find out who really knocked down the World Trade Center:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/02/17/trump_you_will_find_out_who_really_knocked_down_the_world_trade_center_secret_papers_may_blame_saudis.html
Don't tell anyone, but the 9/11 buildings were blown up with explosives, not Airliners, and the Pentagon was hit by a cruise missile, not an Airliner.
Those are well known facts. Ergo: something in the narrative does not compute.
No one should use their real name on the internet. You will be doxxed and destroyed by the social justice warriors.
You know Mark Cuban is not his real name.
His real name is Elmer Smith.
I confess that I did not know who Charles Johnson was. But this story showed up in my "JD Journal":
https://www.jdjournal.com/2018/01/09/suspended-alt-right-activist-charles-johnson-sues-twitter/?utm_source=MMNA&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=t_17740--dt_20180130-cid_34271-Did_5100190-ad_JDJ~MMNA-logid_[MCTS_CESLOGID]&trk_eml=nf/M/Ao+l9oTK88w9+6FFFtGXx0mfA+m1YRZuq84UaY=
Charles Johnson is suing Twitter for kicking him out, saying that Twitter violated its own terms of service. Everybody thinks it is a loser of a lawsuit. But at the end of the story, Johnson comments, "You can lose a lawsuit and still win the argument..."
Mr. Johnson, if your lawsuit is frivolous, you might want to think about Rule 11 of the FRCP.
Cuban's comments illustrate why billionaires shouldn't attempt to make social policy. Everyone who has gotten even a little way into the liberal arts knows that the narrator of any work, even a non-fiction piece or an autobiography, is a construct created by the real person who sits before the page and writes the words that make up the work. Trying to say the two are the same person is nonsense, as any thoughtful person can easily determine with a few thought experiments. The first person narrator of "Swann's Way" is not the person history knows as Marcel Proust.
"Accidental Lefist" Chuck: "Well, now that Trump is President of the United States, perhaps we will find out who really knocked down the World Trade Center:"
Hey Chuckles, it's Trump who's trying to stop your democrat allies, like that s***-heel Durbin, from allowing more of these types into the country.
Oh, sorry. I know how defensive you get when anyone attacks Durbin.
And LLR Chuck, if you, in a Durbin-defensive rage, decide to lash out at me for rightfully attacking him, then I will go after your next favorite Dem, Stolen Valor Liar Blumenthal.
So beware!
I have no problem with people posting under handles. I've never seen the need, I've been posting under my real name starting with bulletin boards in 89, moving to usenet and then the web and email lists.
My cell#, home address and other personal details have been public since the beginning and it has never been a problem.
What most people who think they post anonymously don't realize is that they don't. It would probably take two hours or less to track down any commenter here.
What I do find annoying is people who post under multiple names, pretending to be different people. It is hard to have a conversation or even follow their train of thought.
If Ann could do something about it, I think it would be a good idea. I doubt she can, though.
But never never never should the government do anything about it.
John Henry
Langford Peel,
I double dog dare you to doxx me
I am absolutely doxx proof.
How about you?
John Henry
There is more than one Charles Johnson.
The guy suing Twitter is Charles C. Johnson.
The guy who blogged at LGF, and was the first to expose the fraudulent nature of the Texas Air Guard memos, is Charles F. Johnson.
What difference, at this point, does it make?
Post a Comment