"... worse is usually just worse. I’m going to make an exception for Twitter, though. The best thing it could do for society would be to implode.... Twitter hooks people in much the same way slot machines do, with what experts call an 'intermittent reinforcement schedule.'... The company’s internal research has shown that Twitter’s algorithm amplifies right-wing accounts and news sources over left-wing ones. This dynamic will probably intensify quite a bit if Musk takes over. Musk has said that Twitter has 'a strong left bias,' and that he wants to undo permanent bans, except for spam accounts and those that explicitly call for violence. That suggests figures like Alex Jones, Steve Bannon and Marjorie Taylor Greene will be welcomed back. But as one of the people who texted Musk pointed out, returning banned right-wingers to Twitter will be a 'delicate game.'... An influx of Trumpists is not going to improve the vibe. Twitter can’t be saved. Maybe, if we’re lucky, it can be destroyed."
From Michelle Goldberg's "Here’s Hoping Elon Musk Destroys Twitter" (NYT).
I didn't quote the beginning of the column, which says that Twitter, as it currently works, is a "hellsite." If it's already awful, when there's a repressive effort to make the place safe and welcoming, then there's already a bad "vibe." Why not embrace freedom, stop trying to control people, and see what happens — freedom for the sake of freedom, without an effort to "improve the vibe"?
Freedom is valuable in and of itself. Censorship is not. If Twitter couldn't make things better with censorship, even those who accept censorship as a means to an end should embrace freedom of speech. You don't need the end — a better vibe — to justify the means. The means and the end are one: freedom.
ADDED IN ANTICIPATION OF COMMENTS MAKING THIS POINT: The end pursued by the means of censorship was not "a better vibe." It was control for the sake of control. If so, the censors also had the unification of means and end: control.
पोस्ट्स
६१ टिप्पण्या:
I think Michelle Goldberg is worried that -- if Musk takes over -- Twitter might allow posts that link to New York Post articles about Hunter Biden's laptop computer.
Also, Twitter might allow posts that link to Babylon Bee jokes.
Rule one (of many): Don't vote for the party that most vigorously supports censorship.
“ The company’s internal research has shown that Twitter’s algorithm amplifies right-wing accounts and news sources over left-wing ones.”
How many times do I have to say that we are awash in never ending bullshit?
"The company’s internal research has shown that Twitter’s algorithm amplifies right-wing accounts and news sources over left-wing ones."
Not going to believe that given the one-sided censorship, unless the lefties mocking the right counts as "amplification".
A comparison of Twitter usage to a gambling addiction is excellent. Why bring in all the gobbledygook about conservatives? She has a strong case and article if she could just stop hitting the Lefty crack pipe.
‘Amplifies right wing accounts’? Of course it does. It’s awash with left wing confirmation bias, so when something nutty from those right wing nut jobs (sic) shows up, the echo chamber pounces on it - thus, amplifying it (“see!? Look how bad right wing people are”)
They also now have a new ‘commenting’ system to add ‘context’ to peoples tweets. They explicitly state it’s not about majority rule (which is code for wanting majority rule). “Look, guys, we aren’t very successful in controlling people with what we’ve got. Let’s try something different.”
"That suggests figures like Alex Jones, Steve Bannon and Marjorie Taylor Greene will be welcomed back."
"Welcomed" back is not the same thing as "allowed" back. I don't know if she doesn't understand that or is incapable of playing it straight.
The left would rather destroy their megaphone than see someone else get hold of it. Even if the someone else was neutral.
I remember reading an interesting analysis of the media's obsession with having control of Twitter dialog. Twitter as a truly public forum was the only place that the media could be publicly confronted by average Joe and Jane with inaccuracies in their reporting, which of course can be awfully embarrassing. To avoid that, the sensitive souls in today's media need to control who posts and what is posted.
Public embarrassment and shame have always been extremely powerful societal tools for both good and bad. That is why both need to be weaponized and only pointed at those who are not in the right group.
What Musk plans to do with twitter goes way beyond just getting rid of the censorship.
Decentralizing the platform and using blockchain technology would effectively remove it from any government control anywhere.
At the lowest level that means that people will be able to create their own twitter nodes and people will be able to send messages through completely anonymous servers.
This combined with a consensus algorithm and making twitter a point of sale payment system will be very destabilizing to the current Regimes running the world.
Combined with starlink and zero knowledge proofs things get really interesting...
It is going to be extremely hard for people to keep up with this. It will be at least as disruptive technologically as cell phones.
What can you say about the NYT"s arguement presented by Goldberg? Lets see:
1) Quotes Lennin with approval. I'm mean aren't we all fans of genocidal Communist dictators?
2) Lies and says Twitter has a right-wing alogrithim when its the exact opposite. And guess what, Lenin would approve. Goldberg is using the old commie technique of accusing the other side of what you are doing.
3) Ends up by declaring that is there is freedom of expression and some of the conservative "enemy" (that is people the NYT/Goldberg disapprove of) get back on twitter, then twitter should be destroyed. Again, Lenin and any dictator would approve. Goldberg wants the media controlled by the "Right sort of people" and any media outlet that lets the conservative "enemy" speak should be destroyed.
I'm always amazed at what a sloppy emotional writer Goldberg is, but then the NYT's readers don't really care. They have the power now, and being for freedom of speech is "bourgeoisie nonsense" as lenin would've remarked. Of course, Lenin today wouldn't hate the Kulaks, he'd hate the White Working and middle class. Y'know, like Goldberg does.
Every effort to control things in order to bring about utopia has the unfortunate dystopian outcome. But as Drago would say, only every time.
Let me add, apropos "the worse, the better", that "that which doesn't kill you, makes you stronger" is also BS.
If you don't want to see right-wing or left-wings views, isn't that what the "block" button is for?
I know, it's madness to let individuals make their own choices. We need the State to do it. All hail the State!
Excellent formulation of the means/end aspect of censorship and its antithesis. Just to state the obvious, censorship superimposes --weakens, bends, silences-- the voice of another. That interferes with, corrupts, chokes off, that voice in its conversation with other voices in what is intended to be an exchange of facts, viewpoints, questions, ideas, plans for something new in the world.
Censorship replaces all that possibility with the dead tongue of some anonymous self-important monitor. It is social and intellectual death.
IMHO.
"Why not embrace freedom, stop trying to control people, and see what happens — freedom for the sake of freedom, without an effort to "improve the vibe"?"
When I was young and naive, I used to think it was the left that was for freedom and the right was the authoritarians. Now, maybe it was and times have changed, but in retrospect I suspect it was the left who was telling me this and I just swallowed it uncritically.
The blue check crowd made it into a sewer. It was open and freewheeling. I remember the first hashtag that was moved to time-out so it wouldn’t trend, #tcot. How does goldbug square her assertion that the right is amplified with the reality of widespread censorship? Khomeini can tweet but Trump can’t? Goldbug needs a mirror.
"The company’s internal research has shown that Twitter’s algorithm amplifies right-wing accounts and news sources over left-wing ones."
LOL x Infinity
So telling that she chose to quote Lenin....favorably....except for this one case. Everywhere we turn, between the open borders and the Soros district attorneys, the lefties are following Lenin's instructions to the Cyrillic.
- Krumhorn
Michelle Goldberg is an imbecelic lying sack of shit. If I put that in her Twatter feed, I would be banned- banned for telling the truth.
Figures like US Congressmen will be "welcomed back." Wow.
Talk about saying the quiet things out loud. Michelle Goldberg is a horrible spokesman for Jews. They should think about replacing her.
Figures like US Congressmen will be "welcomed back." Wow.
Talk about saying the quiet things out loud. Michelle Goldberg is a horrible spokesman for Jews. They should think about replacing her.
Achilles: "Combined with starlink and zero knowledge proofs things get really interesting..."
Shhh!
Dumb Lefty Mark and his co-leftist The Hopeless gadfly are convinced this is Elon's "Waterloo".
Yes, that is literally the term used by Dumb Lefty Mark just yesterday.
Jefferson's Revenge makes a good point:
"Twitter as a truly public forum was the only place that the media could be publicly confronted by average Joe and Jane with inaccuracies in their reporting, which of course can be awfully embarrassing. To avoid that, the sensitive souls in today's media need to control who posts and what is posted."
Very true- Twitter was the only place an ordinary citizen could confront the media writers and those media's readers of today with critiques of the work product. I think it no small matter that the censorship took off when the Russian Collusion Hoax started to fall apart- the press were regularly reporting stories that were proven untrue within hours. The COVID madness and the George Floy fiasco only accelerated this.
I wonder how she would feel if TWITTER was dominated by left voices, and right voices were calling for censorship and banning of the left comments?
The best response and only potential remedy for "bad speech" from any source (lies, distortions, or just unwelcome opposing opinions) is not censorship, not banning, but counter speech from opposing sources, pointing out the lies or inaccuracies and mistaken beliefs that may have been presented, providing documented refutations expressing contrary opinions and facts in a reasoned manner. This will not dissuade the "bad speakers" who cling to their views despite contrary information, but it will help balance the discussion and provide others with corrective facts or points of view.
If you don't want to see right-wing or left-wings views, isn't that what the "block" button is for?
It's not that they don't want to SEE these views, they don't want those views to BE SEEN by anyone, or the lefties might be hanging from lampposts to the cheering crowds, and they know it.
For example ... What if a post showing a lamppost hanging of a corrupt Democrat Party pedophile got a bunch of upvotes or retweets? It would come to pass then that the way to get upvotes and retweets and influence is to continue that behavior and pretty soon, we'd run out of Democrats.
It cannot be that it's OK to throw Molotov cocktails inside of Starbucks as a means of protesting lefty government policies such as open-air drug dens. That MUST ONLY be OK for them to do, and forbidden for anyone else to do.
If you don't want to see right-wing or left-wings views, isn't that what the "block" button is for?
It's not that they don't want to SEE these views, they don't want those views to BE SEEN by anyone, or the lefties might be hanging from lampposts to the cheering crowds, and they know it.
For example ... What if a post showing a lamppost hanging of a corrupt Democrat Party pedophile got a bunch of upvotes or retweets? It would come to pass then that the way to get upvotes and retweets and influence is to continue that behavior and pretty soon, we'd run out of Democrats.
It cannot be that it's OK to throw Molotov cocktails inside of Starbucks as a means of protesting lefty government policies such as open-air drug dens. That MUST ONLY be OK for them to do, and forbidden for anyone else to do.
"The company’s internal research has shown that Twitter’s algorithm amplifies right-wing accounts and news sources over left-wing ones."
Not sure I believe that. Every suggested tweet from Twitter which pops up on my feed is from a left-of-center politician, reporter, or some other type of lefty Tweeter.
It may be similar to talk radio. There may just be more "right-wingers" using the medium, or more "right-wingers" maybe retweeting content. Trump's tweets attracted more attention than Biden's. Is it bias if more people (even people on the left) wanted to read them and the algorithm reflected that?
Twitter itself declared that its algorithm was biased towards the right. It's similar to the Facebook "whistle blower" who went public complaining that her company wasn't excluding more "right wing" content and "disinformation." Moreover, Twitter relied on information from "third party sources" in judging what was right wing and what was left wing, and we can make some good guesses about who Silicon Valley's go-to third party sources are.
Twitter must have been considered by the legacy media to be a good thing at one point, or else why are so many journalists on it and wasting time. Now that it turns out it's not an automatic megaphone for the state media, they want to it to implode.
Well, at least you have started to recognize the relevance of Lenin to discussions of the NYT.
Ann:
Remember that time you got mad at Goldberg on a BloggingHeads and almost hung up on her?
You had the little ditz's number the first time.
Well, actually, maybe not. Maybe it is Michelle Goldberg who has recognized the relevance of Lenin to her own ideas, and how frequently they are in perfect agreement.
Just so you know, including those links to NYT just takes us to a paywall screen. I'm not going to pay for NYT, and I'm too lazy to figure out how to evade their paywall. So I can't usually read the garbage you're trying to feed us.
It’s out of the question to suggest that left wing accounts are simply less engaging, I know, but who wants to listen to scolds?
'Everyone in the world should be able to talk to each other any time of day but it should be polite and orderly and not overused' seems like an utterly irrational notion.
1. Let everyone say what they want, except explicit calls for violence.
2. There is no #2.
I would love the availability of polite debate 24/7 from my phone. But I realize the coercion and censorship necessary to make that happen is a bad trade-off.
@Orignal Mike
When I was young and naive, I used to think it was the left that was for freedom and the right was the authoritarians.
Right now it is the left. In the future it could be the right. Authoritarian tendencies come almost exclusively due to the the influence of power. Those in power will seek to consolidate that power and prevent opposition.
Always work to oppose the power structures to maintain balance. There is none righteous. No, not one.
Robert Cook said :
The best response and only potential remedy for "bad speech" from any source . . . is not censorship, not banning, but counter speech. . . . This will not dissuade the "bad speakers" . . . , but it will help balance the discussion and provide others with corrective facts or points of view.
The problem with this is that Twitter is not simple speech, but amplified speech. If Twitter's algorithms choose to amplify only selected voices, counter speech is not an effective remedy, it is a sop and an excuse. Discussions will remain unbalanced and effectively uncorrected.
The Soviet Union had samizdat. Samizdat was not freedom.
Weak Tea
"...we found that content from U.S. media outlets with a strong right-leaning bias are amplified marginally more than content from left-leaning sources. However, when making comparisons based on the amplification of individual politician’s accounts, rather than parties in aggregate, we found no association between amplification and party membership."
"The Rules are The Rules. We win because we follow The Rules."
*rules change*
"This game sucks, it should be shut down."
Allowing braindead nutbars to rant and rave is useful in slandering people with their own words.
Removing Trump from Twitter prolly garnerd him a couple million votes. Allow them to post whatever and be hoist on their own Irish Pennants.
It has certainly helped the right to have the ultrawoke Lefty libtards get their freak on in the public square.
If Twitter amplifies voices on the right, why are mainly conservatives getting kicked off? Libs of TikTok, Seth Dillon, MTG, DJT. I’m sure there are others. Are there any prominent liberals who have been kicked off?
"The company’s internal research has shown that Twitter’s algorithm amplifies right-wing accounts and news sources over left-wing ones."
Is there anyone, besides hard-core leftists, who believes this is true?
Freedom is valuable in and of itself.
Yeah, and the people who run Twitter are free to make whatever crazy decisions they think are the most profitable, just like Fox News, Truth Social and The Onion.
Freedom is valuable in and of itself. Censorship is not.
If a situation is framed in these terms it appears to be quite simple but when when it's the freedom of one party vs the freedom of another?
Now that there’s a possibility of fairness and a lack of partisan bias, Goldberg wants it gone.
1. Let everyone say what they want, except explicit calls for violence.
2. There is no #2.
And now you understand why the Left has declared words to be explicit violence.
"New PayPal Policy Lets Company Pull $2,500 From Users’ Accounts If They Promote ‘Misinformation’"
I don't get it. "Misinformation" where? Is PayPal some kind of message platform now? I thought they just did financial transactions.
Blogger Heywood Rice said..."If a situation is framed in these terms it appears to be quite simple but when when it's the freedom of one party vs the freedom of another?"
For example? As it directly relates to censorship on Twitter?
Heywood Rice: "Yeah, and the people who run Twitter are free to make whatever crazy decisions they think are the most profitable, just like Fox News, Truth Social and The Onion."
Except the leftists at Twitter (and the other lefty run social media apps) were not operating independently. Facebook had direct lines established for democraticals to "report" stuff they wanted censored and US govt agencies worked directly with and thru 3rd party "independent" orgs (wink wink) to have conservative/republican opinion shut down, minimized and demonetized.
The very definition of fascism.
The company’s internal research has shown that Twitter’s algorithm amplifies right-wing accounts and news sources over left-wing ones
Exactly how stupid does one have to be to believe that?
Heck, how stupid do you have to be to even say it? Seriously, no one is going to believe you, you're just going to get deservedly mocked
Heywood Rice said...
Freedom is valuable in and of itself. Censorship is not.
If a situation is framed in these terms it appears to be quite simple but when when it's the freedom of one party vs the freedom of another?
You don't have the freedom to censor me.
You have the freedom to ignore me, that doesn't require censoring me.
This is a straight up "freedom vs fascism" fight, with the Left the fascists.
There is freedom of speech. There is freedom of not listening. There is no freedom of censoring
And the Prunyeard case established decades ago that the is no US recognized right of companies to censor voices they don't like
Even with one hundred years of hindsight, there is no doubt that if ever Michelle Goldberg were given a choice between Harding and Lenin, she would choose Lenin.....I read the column. She claims that "Twitter can be good for drawing attention to injustice and galvanizing demonstrations as it did after the killing of George Floyd". Holy shit, she thinks all those riots and acts of arson were a good thing. The worse the better.
"'When I was young and naive, I used to think it was the left that was for freedom and the right was the authoritarians."
"Right now it is the left. In the future it could be the right. Authoritarian tendencies come almost exclusively due to the the influence of power. Those in power will seek to consolidate that power and prevent opposition.
"Always work to oppose the power structures to maintain balance. There is none righteous. No, not one."
Well said, but the right are authoritarian now, as well, as they always have been. No one in the echelons of power in either side really want unalloyed freedom of speech or thought. It is only those in the lower echelons, or who are dissidents--or who are outside the echelons of power altogether--who see how crucial free expression is and who advocate for it.
Excellent thinking , Professor Althouse. You are sounding like Kanye West on his interview on Tucker Carlson. .And you a Law Professor.
It's *Michelle Goldberg.*
If there is anyone, anywhere, anytime, most likely to have the worst take about *any* subject, it's her. She's almost the most reliable weathervane indicating what not to do.
And the Prunyeard case established decades ago that the is no US recognized right of companies to censor voices they don't like - Greg the class etc...
If you're referring to Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins it doesn't seem to be holding up.
I wonder how their research defines "left-wing accounts". I bet it is a very narrowly defined small group.
Heywood Rice said...
And the Prunyeard case established decades ago that the is no US recognized right of companies to censor voices they don't like - Greg the class etc...
If you're referring to Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins it doesn't seem to be holding up.
Why yes, I'm aware that the Left doesn't want to adhere to the decision, now that it affects them. Left wing hypocrisy, what a shock!
The 5th Circuit, OTOH, still remembers it: https://www.lawfareblog.com/fifth-circuit-upholds-texas-social-media-law
Robert Cook said...
Well said, but the right are authoritarian now, as well, as they always have been
No sane person can compare how Trump approached Covid and civil rights, to how the Biden* Admin has done so, and then claim that the Right is "authoritarian".
It was and is conservative Governors who've opposed using Covid to trample people's rights.
If you want to find an authoritarian in America today, you need to look to the Left.
(Note: opposing child abuse is not "authoritarian". Requiring gov't employees to advance the gov't agenda while working on gov't time and $$ is not authoritarian. Even when the employees are left wing "teachers" or librarians)
Heywood Rice: "Yeah, and the people who run Twitter are free to make whatever crazy decisions they think are the most profitable, just like Fox News, Truth Social and The Onion."
Apparently Heywood jablome has never heard of civil rights laws. For that matter, never heard of 303 Creative, Arlene's Flowers, or Masterpiece Cakeshop.
Never heard of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Because in an America where companies can be forced to do business with customers they dont' want, there is NO possible grounds for claiming that a "social media" company can't be forced to accept customers they dont' want, and to not censor those customers' legal speech.
And no, neither "misinformation" nor "disinformation" are illegal. See "United States v. Alvarez", and SCOTUS striking down the Stolen Valor law
Goldberg seems to think that there is a limit to how bad Twitter can get before it self-destructs. Is there? She also has a biased view of just what constitutes "bad" in this context.
How much of the Twitterverse does one person actually see? If you hate Marjorie Taylor Greene are you really going to be seeing her tweets if you go Twitter? Wouldn't a sophisticated algorithm take you elsewhere? I suppose journalists will dig up her tweets and spread them, but how is that different from what ordinarily happens with politicians utterances?
For much of the era of free speech, people were too busy trying to keep a roof over their heads and put food on the table to pay much attention to what was said or to participate in the discussion. Now that everyone, it seems, is participating and what's said can have real world consequences, isn't it inevitable that those in power want stricter controls on speech?
Lurker21 said...
Goldberg seems to think that there is a limit to how bad Twitter can get before it self-destructs. Is there? She also has a biased view of just what constitutes "bad" in this context.
How much of the Twitterverse does one person actually see? If you hate Marjorie Taylor Greene are you really going to be seeing her tweets if you go Twitter?
Yes, because your fellow fascists will be re-posting what they claim she said, and then you and your fellow fascists will be demanding that she be censored for having offended you.
And what really frosts them is that they will post stupid left wing bullshit, and then "evil" right wingers will come along and point out why it's total bullshit, and what they're lying about.
Which is why those right wing voices must be silenced
Because you can't have "democracy" if the other side is allowed to have a voice
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा