3 ms·

I like listening to Scott Galloway but I think his perspectives on this issue are biased. He regularly advocates for progressive positions and is, for example,

I like listening to Scott Galloway but I think his perspectives on this issue are biased. He regularly advocates for progressive positions and is, for example, an outspoken fan of Elizabeth Warren. The bits about Twitter's financial performance are fair grounds for critique but the unfocused parts of this rant (for example asking Twitter to "protect journalists, especially women") seem nonsensical/alarmist in order to drum up support. What Galloway is ultimately looking for here is for some views to be allowed and others disallowed. I do not think that is okay on a platform that is as big and pervasive as Twitter (or Facebook). They are, for all intents and purposes, a public digital square. And figuring out what is a "conspiracy" or "junk science" should ultimately be left to the reader, with algorithms otherwise ranking content as neutrally/objectively as possible. After all, we trust Twitter users with the ability to vote.

malvosenior 7y ago
> And figuring out what is a "conspiracy" or "junk science" should ultimately be left to the reader, with algorithms otherwise ranking content as neutrally/objectively as possible. I think the vast majority of the users would prefer this as well. Just give me a chronological timeline and gtfo. There's a small extremely vocal minority of users that want to censor any and all thoughts they don't approve of. This group has tons of journalists in it and for one reason or another, Twitter has paid outsized attention to it and let it shape the product and company policy, to nearly everyone's loss, including Twitter. In fact one of the very best things about Twitter is it gives regular people a way to refute journalists, bad journalism and media agenda. It gave the audience a voice and they use it. "Protect journalists" seems like code for "protect the narrative".
- kristianc 7y ago
  > In fact one of the very best things about Twitter is it gives regular people a way to refute journalists, bad journalism and media agenda. It also gives those same journalists easy to use tools to dunk on people who criticize them, to a huge audience. So you know, swings and roundabouts.
- CamperBob2 7y ago
  This group has tons of journalists in it and for one reason or another, Twitter has paid outsized attention to it and let it shape the product and company policy, to nearly everyone's loss, including Twitter. It's a simple competitive issue. Every click that goes to Twitter is one that doesn't go to newyorktimes.com, washingtonpost.com, or (yes) foxnews.com... and it's one that isn't likely to lead to any of those sites, for that matter. Regardless of their political alignment, journalists have no reason to support disintermediation between news makers and news consumers. It threatens their livelihoods. Say what you will about Trump (just not here, please), but he does understand that much. Twitter is worth a lot to people like him, which I'd think would make it worth a lot to investors as well. Arguably it would have been a better investment for Jeff Bezos than WaPo was. Heck, just the ability to front-run Tweets by five seconds might be worth a lot on Wall Street.

malvosenior 7y ago

> And figuring out what is a "conspiracy" or "junk science" should ultimately be left to the reader, with algorithms otherwise ranking content as neutrally/objectively as possible. I think the vast majority of the users would prefer this as well. Just give me a chronological timeline and gtfo. There's a small extremely vocal minority of users that want to censor any and all thoughts they don't approve of. This group has tons of journalists in it and for one reason or another, Twitter has paid outsized attention to it and let it shape the product and company policy, to nearly everyone's loss, including Twitter. In fact one of the very best things about Twitter is it gives regular people a way to refute journalists, bad journalism and media agenda. It gave the audience a voice and they use it. "Protect journalists" seems like code for "protect the narrative".

kristianc 7y ago
> In fact one of the very best things about Twitter is it gives regular people a way to refute journalists, bad journalism and media agenda. It also gives those same journalists easy to use tools to dunk on people who criticize them, to a huge audience. So you know, swings and roundabouts.
CamperBob2 7y ago
This group has tons of journalists in it and for one reason or another, Twitter has paid outsized attention to it and let it shape the product and company policy, to nearly everyone's loss, including Twitter. It's a simple competitive issue. Every click that goes to Twitter is one that doesn't go to newyorktimes.com, washingtonpost.com, or (yes) foxnews.com... and it's one that isn't likely to lead to any of those sites, for that matter. Regardless of their political alignment, journalists have no reason to support disintermediation between news makers and news consumers. It threatens their livelihoods. Say what you will about Trump (just not here, please), but he does understand that much. Twitter is worth a lot to people like him, which I'd think would make it worth a lot to investors as well. Arguably it would have been a better investment for Jeff Bezos than WaPo was. Heck, just the ability to front-run Tweets by five seconds might be worth a lot on Wall Street.