3 ms·

Even without any of the more modern forms of deplatforming, defunding or ostracization, people have been concerned for at least several decades about an inabili

Even without any of the more modern forms of deplatforming, defunding or ostracization, people have been concerned for at least several decades about an inability for new ideas to make inroads and change overall scientific consensus or understanding. I am speaking of the idea often described as "science progresses one funeral at a time" - which Wikipedia informs me is sometimes known as "Planck's principle" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle

enkid 5y ago
How does allowing people to advertise on Twitter make that process better? I don't see it.
- azornathogron 5y ago
  It doesn't, and I was not claiming anything like that. In fact I wasn't making any claim about anything at all. I was just pointing out some broader context that the way ideas spread and consensus forms or changes is a messy and human process and always has been, and that it's something people have been thinking about for a long time already, so there are plenty of ideas to read about the topic for anyone who is interested in it. If you do want a claim, my personal opinion is that Twitter's choices to ban or allow certain advertising will make no noticeable difference to the progress of scientific understanding, because I don't think adverts on Twitter are a communication channel that matters for the spread of ideas within academic communities. I can imagine that over time it might make a difference to lay-people's beliefs about some things, although I'm not sure whether Twitter has a broad enough audience to really change much here. Since I personally am fully onboard the "climate change is real, and it's real bad" train, I don't have any problem with Twitter banning adverts that spread the opposite idea. If it was a ban on what general Twitter users can post then I would have a problem with it, but I'm ok with a ban on adverts. Maybe that's inconsistent of me, I don't know.

enkid 5y ago

How does allowing people to advertise on Twitter make that process better? I don't see it.

azornathogron 5y ago
It doesn't, and I was not claiming anything like that. In fact I wasn't making any claim about anything at all. I was just pointing out some broader context that the way ideas spread and consensus forms or changes is a messy and human process and always has been, and that it's something people have been thinking about for a long time already, so there are plenty of ideas to read about the topic for anyone who is interested in it. If you do want a claim, my personal opinion is that Twitter's choices to ban or allow certain advertising will make no noticeable difference to the progress of scientific understanding, because I don't think adverts on Twitter are a communication channel that matters for the spread of ideas within academic communities. I can imagine that over time it might make a difference to lay-people's beliefs about some things, although I'm not sure whether Twitter has a broad enough audience to really change much here. Since I personally am fully onboard the "climate change is real, and it's real bad" train, I don't have any problem with Twitter banning adverts that spread the opposite idea. If it was a ban on what general Twitter users can post then I would have a problem with it, but I'm ok with a ban on adverts. Maybe that's inconsistent of me, I don't know.