5 ms·

I'm just afraid he's gonna let Trump back on and start the gear up for 2024 and continue that craziness in the US of what I though was settled in 2020. Some th

by s_dev 4y ago

I'm just afraid he's gonna let Trump back on and start the gear up for 2024 and continue that craziness in the US of what I though was settled in 2020. Some things are actually more important than money -- Twitter can offer enormous power in setting a national narrative even if little economic benefit for Musk.

ralusek 4y ago
In what possible universe would you think that any craziness in the US settled in 2020?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
hunterb123 4y ago
- Angostura 4y ago
  Because Jan 6 was completely normal.
  - dontcare007 4y ago
    Well, when you take a look at the other riots happening around that time, Jan 6th was 'mostly peaceful'
    - weakfish 4y ago
      Whataboutism is a logical fallacy and doesn’t address the argument at hand
      - evandale 4y ago
        Isn't this whole thread whataboutism? The claim is the world will go back being as crazy as it was in 2020 (but OP gave a 2021 example) if Trump was let back on Twitter. The counterargument was that the example given was actually in 2021, and the given example of crazy (Jan 6 2021) was less crazy than 2020 (BLM protests).
      - MockObject 4y ago
        Adding context is not a logical fallacy. The context is that the 2020 Mostly Peaceful Protests, a worldwide pandemic, and extreme political polarization weren't normal, either.
      - mardifoufs 4y ago
        Just as an aside, whataboutism is not a logical fallacy.
ch4s3 4y ago
> Twitter can offer enormous power in setting a national narrative I'm always skeptical about this. Twitter is dominated by journalists, celebrities, and tech people. Only about 23% of American adults have twitter accounts. Only 46% of those even open it daily. Of the active users 10% account for ~95% of tweets. Among those, ~70% identify as Democrats, and certainly aren't going to be swayed by Trump getting back on twitter. It just isn't clear to me that twitter even matters in the realm of US politics. Voters just aren't really there, and when they are they predominantly aren't engaging. When they do, they're mostly democrats tweeting at one-another.
- dgfitz 4y ago
  I tend to agree with you, I guess I’m in the minority. I think a lot more political manipulation happens on Facebook.
  - ch4s3 4y ago
    I'm not sure I buy the manipulation line either. People seek out information that fits their overall world view. It's hard to grapple with anything that challenges your beliefs. Insofar as people engage with bullshit on Facebook its probably because they already believe a particular thing, or it fits their existing beliefs. I highly doubt that facebook posts are changing a lot of minds. I'm also skeptical that it spurs very many people to actions they wouldn't otherwise take. A lot of the news articles talking about the effects of facebook focus on how many people "saw" a particular post. Given how those impressions are gathered, I'm no convinced that a significant percentage of those impressions resulted in people actually reading the post or even the headline, let alone that resulting in any real world outcomes. I think the people that build social media applications want everyone to think that they have the power to shape discourse and outcomes, and newspapers who's ad revenue is undermined by social media also want us to believe social media is dangerous. Those two things do not make it true.
- mcguire 4y ago
  There are ~260 million adults in the US. That gives 60,000,000 Twitter users and 28,000,000 daily users. (I don't think "active users" is useful---it's about readers, not writers. Further, many of the important writers are not from the US.) In 2020, Biden received 81,000,000 versus Trump's 74,000,000; the difference is 7,000,000. Facebook may well be more powerful, but Twitter is still matters.

by s_dev 4y ago

ralusek 4y ago

In what possible universe would you think that any craziness in the US settled in 2020?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

hunterb123 4y ago

Angostura 4y ago
Because Jan 6 was completely normal.
- dontcare007 4y ago
  Well, when you take a look at the other riots happening around that time, Jan 6th was 'mostly peaceful'
  - weakfish 4y ago
    Whataboutism is a logical fallacy and doesn’t address the argument at hand
    - evandale 4y ago
      Isn't this whole thread whataboutism? The claim is the world will go back being as crazy as it was in 2020 (but OP gave a 2021 example) if Trump was let back on Twitter. The counterargument was that the example given was actually in 2021, and the given example of crazy (Jan 6 2021) was less crazy than 2020 (BLM protests).
    - MockObject 4y ago
      Adding context is not a logical fallacy. The context is that the 2020 Mostly Peaceful Protests, a worldwide pandemic, and extreme political polarization weren't normal, either.
    - mardifoufs 4y ago
      Just as an aside, whataboutism is not a logical fallacy.

ch4s3 4y ago

> Twitter can offer enormous power in setting a national narrative I'm always skeptical about this. Twitter is dominated by journalists, celebrities, and tech people. Only about 23% of American adults have twitter accounts. Only 46% of those even open it daily. Of the active users 10% account for ~95% of tweets. Among those, ~70% identify as Democrats, and certainly aren't going to be swayed by Trump getting back on twitter. It just isn't clear to me that twitter even matters in the realm of US politics. Voters just aren't really there, and when they are they predominantly aren't engaging. When they do, they're mostly democrats tweeting at one-another.

dgfitz 4y ago
I tend to agree with you, I guess I’m in the minority. I think a lot more political manipulation happens on Facebook.
- ch4s3 4y ago
  I'm not sure I buy the manipulation line either. People seek out information that fits their overall world view. It's hard to grapple with anything that challenges your beliefs. Insofar as people engage with bullshit on Facebook its probably because they already believe a particular thing, or it fits their existing beliefs. I highly doubt that facebook posts are changing a lot of minds. I'm also skeptical that it spurs very many people to actions they wouldn't otherwise take. A lot of the news articles talking about the effects of facebook focus on how many people "saw" a particular post. Given how those impressions are gathered, I'm no convinced that a significant percentage of those impressions resulted in people actually reading the post or even the headline, let alone that resulting in any real world outcomes. I think the people that build social media applications want everyone to think that they have the power to shape discourse and outcomes, and newspapers who's ad revenue is undermined by social media also want us to believe social media is dangerous. Those two things do not make it true.
mcguire 4y ago
There are ~260 million adults in the US. That gives 60,000,000 Twitter users and 28,000,000 daily users. (I don't think "active users" is useful---it's about readers, not writers. Further, many of the important writers are not from the US.) In 2020, Biden received 81,000,000 versus Trump's 74,000,000; the difference is 7,000,000. Facebook may well be more powerful, but Twitter is still matters.