4 ms·

Twitter's power comes fro being nearly integrated into main stream news. the danger therein has been seen with the platform used to shame those who put forth th

Twitter's power comes fro being nearly integrated into main stream news. the danger therein has been seen with the platform used to shame those who put forth the wrong opinion, spin a story in a manner not acceptable, or associate with someone who has done the same. how this came about is hard to place but I would not doubt the executives at Twitter cultivated their position along with very adept targeting of celebrities. How do you split up something which is embedded into the media, specifically the news?

basch 6y ago
Correct, it is more a thought monopoly than one of numbers. Its a lifeline between everyone who has a megaphone. I'm not sure one platform that all journalists choose to prioritize falls under traditional antitrust concerns, based only on that fact, nor does that fact alone really strengthen other antitrust concerns. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/06/twitters-influence-beyond-user-numbers.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/06/twitters-influence-beyond-us... https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/journalists-on-twitter-study.php https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/journalists-on-twitter-s...
thephyber 6y ago
You seem to be making a few separate claims as if they are the same. > Twitter's power comes fro being nearly integrated into main stream news. You are using "integrated" (a word which has a specific meaning and is related to monopolies) in a way that doesn't apply here. News makers tend to use Twitter because it's a rapid-fire way for them to see what others in their cohort are talking about. They did the same thing before Twitter, but it was on slower news cycles (daily newspapers, evening TV news, etc). > the danger therein has been seen with the platform used to shame those who put forth the wrong opinion I'm completely fine with shaming. We need more of it. It's always been a part of how societies regulate the outliers (including species other than humans). Since 2016 we've seen what happens when a person exhibits no shame whatsoever in a society that had been established with lots of norms rather than laws to steer behavior. I suspect you are talking about the actions that go beyond shaming (boycotts, calling for people to be fired, book publishers dropping books, forums dropping speeches, etc). I agree we shouldn't burn heretics or witches. But that shouldn't prevent us from applying some modicum of social penalty if the speech or actions warrant it. > how this came about is hard to place News makers already had incentives to watch each other's work. They "keep their finger on the pulse" of news. Twitter made this possible. News makers have always tried to get a story to market first -- that's the incentive that capitalism provides. I was contracting at a major regional newspaper when Michael Jackson died. For 4 hours, all news sources in the world were quoting a TMZ tweet because that was the only source. The other news outlets were now reporting a derivative of news -- that "TMZ has tweeted that X happened". For me, that's when Twitter became a significant cog in the news ecosystem. We've also seen independent reporters in countries like Syria and Yemen get carried by international news outlets because there was no alternative. News is changing because the old way was inefficient and insufficient in some ways. Twitter exists. It's not the best app, but it's an app that is large enough at the right time. > How do you split up... And should we? And what are the consequences if we do?
dogfoods 6y ago
Maybe it shouldn't be split up but burned, razed, and the ground salted so nothing will ever grow there again.

basch 6y ago

Correct, it is more a thought monopoly than one of numbers. Its a lifeline between everyone who has a megaphone. I'm not sure one platform that all journalists choose to prioritize falls under traditional antitrust concerns, based only on that fact, nor does that fact alone really strengthen other antitrust concerns. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/06/twitters-influence-beyond-user-numbers.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/06/twitters-influence-beyond-us... https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/journalists-on-twitter-study.php https://www.cjr.org/the_media_today/journalists-on-twitter-s...

thephyber 6y ago

You seem to be making a few separate claims as if they are the same. > Twitter's power comes fro being nearly integrated into main stream news. You are using "integrated" (a word which has a specific meaning and is related to monopolies) in a way that doesn't apply here. News makers tend to use Twitter because it's a rapid-fire way for them to see what others in their cohort are talking about. They did the same thing before Twitter, but it was on slower news cycles (daily newspapers, evening TV news, etc). > the danger therein has been seen with the platform used to shame those who put forth the wrong opinion I'm completely fine with shaming. We need more of it. It's always been a part of how societies regulate the outliers (including species other than humans). Since 2016 we've seen what happens when a person exhibits no shame whatsoever in a society that had been established with lots of norms rather than laws to steer behavior. I suspect you are talking about the actions that go beyond shaming (boycotts, calling for people to be fired, book publishers dropping books, forums dropping speeches, etc). I agree we shouldn't burn heretics or witches. But that shouldn't prevent us from applying some modicum of social penalty if the speech or actions warrant it. > how this came about is hard to place News makers already had incentives to watch each other's work. They "keep their finger on the pulse" of news. Twitter made this possible. News makers have always tried to get a story to market first -- that's the incentive that capitalism provides. I was contracting at a major regional newspaper when Michael Jackson died. For 4 hours, all news sources in the world were quoting a TMZ tweet because that was the only source. The other news outlets were now reporting a derivative of news -- that "TMZ has tweeted that X happened". For me, that's when Twitter became a significant cog in the news ecosystem. We've also seen independent reporters in countries like Syria and Yemen get carried by international news outlets because there was no alternative. News is changing because the old way was inefficient and insufficient in some ways. Twitter exists. It's not the best app, but it's an app that is large enough at the right time. > How do you split up... And should we? And what are the consequences if we do?

dogfoods 6y ago

Maybe it shouldn't be split up but burned, razed, and the ground salted so nothing will ever grow there again.