9 ms·

Twitter’s Misguided Quest to Become a Forum for Everything

30 points by raleighm 8y ago

Tycho 8y ago
The establishment press is panicking because they can no longer effectively perform the role of narrative gatekeepers. Information will simply route around them via internet services. Hence their current hypocritical attacks on all alternative media outlets and failure to champion the cause of real journalism (eg. Assange). In 2003 they helped launch an illegal and murderous invasion of Iraq, but these days any narrative they try to push will be obliterated by the internet in days. “Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations.”
- duskwuff 8y ago
  There are many names for what Assange has done with Wikileaks, but "real journalism" is not one of them.
  - leereeves 8y ago
    Why not? Like any journalist, he confirms and publishes stories given to him by sources while protecting their anonymity.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - spiderfarmer 8y ago
      Journalist? The sort of information he publishes, his timing and the people he chooses to defend make him nothing more than a political activist. It's not difficult to see why: he has broken laws and is now stuck in a cage and the only way to get out of it is to cosy up to the politician who is most likely to pardon him.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - not_weev 8y ago
        How do such tactics differ from the Washington Post, New York Times, CNN, and MSNBC? Are those operations not journalists? Assange is in a cage because, after being cleared of any wrongdoing vis-a-vis the sexual assault complaints, a "special prosecutor" decided she had to speak to him in person, i.e. get him in a venue subject to U.S. extradition.
        meowface 8y ago
        Everything you just said is completely irrelevant to Assange's credibility as a journalist. Just because he's a martyr doesn't mean he's a good, ethical, or honest person.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
- spiderfarmer 8y ago
  So you're okay me posting all your personal information, every byte of it, in a public forum? Are you also okay with me telling 100k of my followers that "I wouldn't be surprised if someone shot Tycho"? Or that I ask them more directly to harm you? It's just "journalism" you know.
  - Tycho 8y ago
    Are these the things that Assange has done? Regardless, wikileaks is one of the most powerful forces in bringing to light information that the public should know. The fact that the founder is holed up in a foreign embassy because of a nakedly corrupt government prosecution while no “achktual serious journalist” defends him says it all.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - spiderfarmer 8y ago
      You're the one quoting “Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations."
      - Tycho 8y ago
        i think you’ve interpreted it a bit too literally
        spiderfarmer 8y ago
        It's a stupid quote and you know it.
        leereeves 8y ago
        It's obviously not meant to be interpreted as a definition of journalism. It's meant to say that if you're just printing what someone powerful wants you to say, that's not journalism.
- meowface 8y ago
  Perhaps Assange started out good and recently turned bad or perhaps he was playing a game all along, but he's lost nearly all of his credibility in the last 2 years. At one point I'd trust WikiLeaks over most media out there. Now I pretty much can put more faith in Fox News than Julian Assange. Strange times we live in.
  - Tycho 8y ago
    WikiLeaks just publishes documents. Where does faith come into it? Faith is for the NYT congregation.
    - meowface 8y ago
      As in, faith that someone/something is not bullshitting the public to achieve their own goals.
      - Tycho 8y ago
        I mean it’s pretty hard to bullshit the public if your only method is to release authentic documents.
        meowface 8y ago
        Yes, but in the past 2-3 years, Assange and WikiLeaks have been doing far, far more than that. For one, just look at their Twitter and leaked Twitter DMs: https://twitter.com/wikileaks https://twitter.com/wikileaks Also, releasing authentic documents, even if they were the sole thing they ever did, can be itself a form of bullshit, even if the documents are 100% real and not doctored, edited, or manipulated in any way. "Bullshit" is distinct from "lying" or "faked evidence". Selectively releasing documents that only push a certain narrative, while not releasing documents and/or intentionally not attempting to acquire documents associated with other narratives, is a form of manipulation, not a form of journalism. I don't know to what extent Assange practiced these kind of intelligence tradecraft games before the 2016 election, but during and after it, WikiLeaks effectively transformed itself into a private intelligence agency, presumably with Julian Assange at the helm. Maybe it was because of Assange's personal vendetta against Hillary Clinton (his vendetta being pretty justifiable, considering Clinton's frequent attempts to have him extradited, arrested, and imprisoned, and her alleged but unproven references to having him assassinated as cited by what has been claimed to be anonymous State Department sources; this still doesn't excuse Assange's loss of impartiality, though). Maybe it was because Assange saw this as a way of making the US geopolitically weaker and shuffling the superpower deck a bit, due to his issues with the US government. Maybe it was because he wanted to see the world burn. Maybe he was being blackmailed, threatened, or otherwise coerced by non-US countries' governments. Maybe he became a witting agent of a non-US government (though I kind of doubt that). Maybe a mixture. But either way, he lost all pretenses of neutrality and credibility after his actions during the 2016 election were revealed. I don't take issue with WikiLeaks releasing the DNC and Clinton campaign emails - they should've released them - but I do take issue with their underlying campaign, strategy, goals, and motives, as made very evident by their PR efforts, public statements, and leaked private conversations. Organizations like WikiLeaks are a good thing in concept, and WikiLeaks' original stated goals and disclosures do seem to have generally been good and moral, but either something changed, or Assange was playing a long con from the start.
- dvfjsdhgfv 8y ago
  > In 2003 they helped launch an illegal and murderous invasion of Iraq Yes, they participated in negative campaigns like this one (not all of them though[0]), but they also did a lot of good things. There is a huge difference between a well-researched article about Roundup in a major newspaper and a tweet on the same topic, even by someone with many followers. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/jul/13/iraq.guardianleaders https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/jul/13/iraq.guardianl...
  - not_weev 8y ago
    A British source? I distinctly recall American sources like the New York times & NPR acting as court stenographers during the period. I can still hear Bob Edwards' voice talking about the pending Iraq War as though it were the most sensible thing in the world and there being absolutely no criticism of its justifications.
olivermarks 8y ago
'New York Time's misguided quest to become a forum for everyone'
zaarn 8y ago
Twitter has lots of problems, shadow banning and their rather annoying attempts to drive out all third party developers will be their eventual downfall. I wonder how many people genuinely use Twitter to be social and how many use it to stir up hate mobs, to drive people into suicide, to breed hatred and tribalism or to spam the "latest breaking news".
- Rjevski 8y ago
  I used Twitter to be "social" around 2013. I noticed that the social aspect of it seems to have died out by 2014 or so, and so I left the platform (also due to their other changes).

30 points by raleighm 8y ago

The establishment press is panicking because they can no longer effectively perform the role of narrative gatekeepers. Information will simply route around them via internet services. Hence their current hypocritical attacks on all alternative media outlets and failure to champion the cause of real journalism (eg. Assange). In 2003 they helped launch an illegal and murderous invasion of Iraq, but these days any narrative they try to push will be obliterated by the internet in days. “Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations.”

duskwuff 8y ago
There are many names for what Assange has done with Wikileaks, but "real journalism" is not one of them.
- leereeves 8y ago
  Why not? Like any journalist, he confirms and publishes stories given to him by sources while protecting their anonymity.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - spiderfarmer 8y ago
    Journalist? The sort of information he publishes, his timing and the people he chooses to defend make him nothing more than a political activist. It's not difficult to see why: he has broken laws and is now stuck in a cage and the only way to get out of it is to cosy up to the politician who is most likely to pardon him.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - not_weev 8y ago
      How do such tactics differ from the Washington Post, New York Times, CNN, and MSNBC? Are those operations not journalists? Assange is in a cage because, after being cleared of any wrongdoing vis-a-vis the sexual assault complaints, a "special prosecutor" decided she had to speak to him in person, i.e. get him in a venue subject to U.S. extradition.
      - meowface 8y ago
        Everything you just said is completely irrelevant to Assange's credibility as a journalist. Just because he's a martyr doesn't mean he's a good, ethical, or honest person.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
spiderfarmer 8y ago
So you're okay me posting all your personal information, every byte of it, in a public forum? Are you also okay with me telling 100k of my followers that "I wouldn't be surprised if someone shot Tycho"? Or that I ask them more directly to harm you? It's just "journalism" you know.
- Tycho 8y ago
  Are these the things that Assange has done? Regardless, wikileaks is one of the most powerful forces in bringing to light information that the public should know. The fact that the founder is holed up in a foreign embassy because of a nakedly corrupt government prosecution while no “achktual serious journalist” defends him says it all.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - spiderfarmer 8y ago
    You're the one quoting “Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations."
    - Tycho 8y ago
      i think you’ve interpreted it a bit too literally
      - spiderfarmer 8y ago
        It's a stupid quote and you know it.
        leereeves 8y ago
        It's obviously not meant to be interpreted as a definition of journalism. It's meant to say that if you're just printing what someone powerful wants you to say, that's not journalism.
meowface 8y ago
Perhaps Assange started out good and recently turned bad or perhaps he was playing a game all along, but he's lost nearly all of his credibility in the last 2 years. At one point I'd trust WikiLeaks over most media out there. Now I pretty much can put more faith in Fox News than Julian Assange. Strange times we live in.
- Tycho 8y ago
  WikiLeaks just publishes documents. Where does faith come into it? Faith is for the NYT congregation.
  - meowface 8y ago
    As in, faith that someone/something is not bullshitting the public to achieve their own goals.
    - Tycho 8y ago
      I mean it’s pretty hard to bullshit the public if your only method is to release authentic documents.
      - meowface 8y ago
        Yes, but in the past 2-3 years, Assange and WikiLeaks have been doing far, far more than that. For one, just look at their Twitter and leaked Twitter DMs: https://twitter.com/wikileaks https://twitter.com/wikileaks Also, releasing authentic documents, even if they were the sole thing they ever did, can be itself a form of bullshit, even if the documents are 100% real and not doctored, edited, or manipulated in any way. "Bullshit" is distinct from "lying" or "faked evidence". Selectively releasing documents that only push a certain narrative, while not releasing documents and/or intentionally not attempting to acquire documents associated with other narratives, is a form of manipulation, not a form of journalism. I don't know to what extent Assange practiced these kind of intelligence tradecraft games before the 2016 election, but during and after it, WikiLeaks effectively transformed itself into a private intelligence agency, presumably with Julian Assange at the helm. Maybe it was because of Assange's personal vendetta against Hillary Clinton (his vendetta being pretty justifiable, considering Clinton's frequent attempts to have him extradited, arrested, and imprisoned, and her alleged but unproven references to having him assassinated as cited by what has been claimed to be anonymous State Department sources; this still doesn't excuse Assange's loss of impartiality, though). Maybe it was because Assange saw this as a way of making the US geopolitically weaker and shuffling the superpower deck a bit, due to his issues with the US government. Maybe it was because he wanted to see the world burn. Maybe he was being blackmailed, threatened, or otherwise coerced by non-US countries' governments. Maybe he became a witting agent of a non-US government (though I kind of doubt that). Maybe a mixture. But either way, he lost all pretenses of neutrality and credibility after his actions during the 2016 election were revealed. I don't take issue with WikiLeaks releasing the DNC and Clinton campaign emails - they should've released them - but I do take issue with their underlying campaign, strategy, goals, and motives, as made very evident by their PR efforts, public statements, and leaked private conversations. Organizations like WikiLeaks are a good thing in concept, and WikiLeaks' original stated goals and disclosures do seem to have generally been good and moral, but either something changed, or Assange was playing a long con from the start.
dvfjsdhgfv 8y ago
> In 2003 they helped launch an illegal and murderous invasion of Iraq Yes, they participated in negative campaigns like this one (not all of them though[0]), but they also did a lot of good things. There is a huge difference between a well-researched article about Roundup in a major newspaper and a tweet on the same topic, even by someone with many followers. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/jul/13/iraq.guardianleaders https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/jul/13/iraq.guardianl...
- not_weev 8y ago
  A British source? I distinctly recall American sources like the New York times & NPR acting as court stenographers during the period. I can still hear Bob Edwards' voice talking about the pending Iraq War as though it were the most sensible thing in the world and there being absolutely no criticism of its justifications.

olivermarks 8y ago

'New York Time's misguided quest to become a forum for everyone'

zaarn 8y ago

Twitter has lots of problems, shadow banning and their rather annoying attempts to drive out all third party developers will be their eventual downfall. I wonder how many people genuinely use Twitter to be social and how many use it to stir up hate mobs, to drive people into suicide, to breed hatred and tribalism or to spam the "latest breaking news".

Rjevski 8y ago
I used Twitter to be "social" around 2013. I noticed that the social aspect of it seems to have died out by 2014 or so, and so I left the platform (also due to their other changes).