3 ms·

> Alex Jones is the new CEO of Twitter. How would we think differently about the real problem here? That is a useful question to showcase an important aspect t

> Alex Jones is the new CEO of Twitter. How would we think differently about the real problem here? That is a useful question to showcase an important aspect that I don’t see discussed. There is a single government, while there must be multiple competing private corporations. Twitter vs. Gab, Youtube vs. Liveleak: each corporation is defined by what it refuses, NOT by what it accepts. So, if Alex Jones becomes CEO of Twitter and puts “Did you know? The Earth is flat.” on all tweets mentioning SpaceX, users will simply move to a greener pasture. Twitter will die when its business model loses viability. Twitter’s moves are not political, they are economical first and foremost! The same goes with Nike’s Kaepernick ad: greenlit because the corporation estimated that being on the right side of history would bring more value long-term. > [T]he company claimed $163 million in earned media, a $6 billion brand value increase, and a 31% boost in sales. – https://www.fastcompany.com/90399316/one-year-later-what-did-we-learn-from-nikes-blockbuster-colin-kaepernick-ad https://www.fastcompany.com/90399316/one-year-later-what-did...

mrits 6y ago
If what you are saying is true then there is no need to censor. In your scenario people already know what is propaganda. Twitter allowed Oprah getting arrested for sex trafficking to trend to #1. There was no financial hit for that.
- espadrine 6y ago
  I think your misconception is that content has positive value. Content can definitely have negative value. More is sometimes worse. The extremes are obvious (users gain less value from a website with more bullying), but the principle is true even in the middle ground. While good advice brings value, bad advice (eg. medical, financial, etc.) causes users to seek value elsewhere, or causes their ruin and subsequent decrease in value to advertisers. Even when the content does not have negative value, if it floods content with positive value, people no longer get the value they used to.
  - mrits 6y ago
    "While good advice brings value" -- absolutely it doesn't "bad advice (eg. medical, financial, etc.) causes users to seek value elsewhere" -- absolutely it doesn't
remarkEon 6y ago
>The same goes with Nike’s Kaepernick ad: greenlit because the corporation estimated that being on the right side of history would bring more value long-term. This is extremely charitable to Nike, assuming that they internally had some meeting about correcting racial injustices or something and not that they decided to capitalize on a moment in the political zeitgeist. Even if the ad was hated it would have generated enormous free marketing for the company. I tend to agree that these companies will make economic decisions first, most of the time, but over the last couple years we've seen many companies explicitly intertwine the two - where making political statements as marketing is now common. I'd be very very skeptical that they have anything but dollar signs in their eyes.
- Avicebron 6y ago
  I would second this, and mark it as maybe one of the strongest indicators of where the zeitgeist is at the moment. It makes the "there are evil fascists at every turn" argument pretty weak, when all the money is being bet on woke advertising.

mrits 6y ago

If what you are saying is true then there is no need to censor. In your scenario people already know what is propaganda. Twitter allowed Oprah getting arrested for sex trafficking to trend to #1. There was no financial hit for that.

espadrine 6y ago
I think your misconception is that content has positive value. Content can definitely have negative value. More is sometimes worse. The extremes are obvious (users gain less value from a website with more bullying), but the principle is true even in the middle ground. While good advice brings value, bad advice (eg. medical, financial, etc.) causes users to seek value elsewhere, or causes their ruin and subsequent decrease in value to advertisers. Even when the content does not have negative value, if it floods content with positive value, people no longer get the value they used to.
- mrits 6y ago
  "While good advice brings value" -- absolutely it doesn't "bad advice (eg. medical, financial, etc.) causes users to seek value elsewhere" -- absolutely it doesn't

remarkEon 6y ago

>The same goes with Nike’s Kaepernick ad: greenlit because the corporation estimated that being on the right side of history would bring more value long-term. This is extremely charitable to Nike, assuming that they internally had some meeting about correcting racial injustices or something and not that they decided to capitalize on a moment in the political zeitgeist. Even if the ad was hated it would have generated enormous free marketing for the company. I tend to agree that these companies will make economic decisions first, most of the time, but over the last couple years we've seen many companies explicitly intertwine the two - where making political statements as marketing is now common. I'd be very very skeptical that they have anything but dollar signs in their eyes.

Avicebron 6y ago
I would second this, and mark it as maybe one of the strongest indicators of where the zeitgeist is at the moment. It makes the "there are evil fascists at every turn" argument pretty weak, when all the money is being bet on woke advertising.