4 ms·

Judging by the downvotes, I don't think I'm getting my point across. Absolutely every fiddler that currently has an audience of non-negligible size is paid by

by marvin 4y ago

Judging by the downvotes, I don't think I'm getting my point across. Absolutely every fiddler that currently has an audience of non-negligible size is paid by a consortium of advertisers that have aligning interests. The strings, so to speak, all pull in the same direction. This is largely invisible, since everyone must play by these rules. TV, newspapers, social media. Audience of 5 billion. We do complain about polarization, clickbait, negative emotion amplification and dark patterns a lot, but we accept it as the economic laws of gravity. Shareholder duty cements this. It molds our entire society. Elon Musk has removed Twitter from this regime, by burning 20 billion dollars and stating a willingness to burn the remaining 24. Assuming he can make the economics work out, Twitter will be the only global media platform that doesn't have to bow to the advertisers' every whim. A lot of the contention comes from the fact that if this succeeds, Twitter will no longer have to follow the moderation- and censorship rules that advertisers have quietly implemented everywhere else. This might apply to the extremes that the majority want to censor (whether sensibly or not), but it also applies to lots of discourse that vocal minorities wants to censor. Regardless of whether one likes this development, it's super interesting.

fragmede 4y ago
Remind me again, which major brands advertise on 4chan?
klyrs 4y ago
> I don't think I'm getting my point across. Alternate proposal: you got your point across and people disagree with you. Any ideas for how he's going to keep the lights on at twitter? Your suggestion that advertisers fleeing the platform is a "free speech issue" is highly questionable. What remedy would you propose? Forcing advertisers to spend, and how much should the government force them to spend, propping up political speech they disagree with? Boycotts are protected speech. Even if you find that speech deplorable.
- marvin 4y ago
  I still think you didn't get my point, since you seem to be arguing a point I didn't make :) I'll boil it down to just a couple of sentences: It's a democratic problem that 99% of all public discourse is subject to veto and policy from advertisers and payment processers, and the drive to maximize income from these. Even if you disagree on everything else, at least the consequent polarization should be bad enough to concede this point. Solution? Well, obviously the advertisers are free to do what they want, but that doesn't make their pervasive influence any smaller. A problem doesn't disappear just because solutions are elusive. My guess is that Musk wins the battle of the wills here; he no longer needs to maximize advertiser income, just get enough to make the wheels turn. I wouldn't bet the farm on him resolving the issues I've highlighted; he's far too mercurial to have any confidence on that. But he does have a shot, as opposed to everyone else.
  - pixl97 4y ago
    >It's a democratic problem that 99% of all public discourse is subject to veto and policy from advertisers and payment processers In the sense we don't want to fund actual public places for discourse online and instead have pushed this off to private servers ran by private companies, yes. When a large portion of the voter base says "reduce taxes beyond all else" don't expect funding to show up for this. More so the advertising industries are also apt to fund political campaigns so it's unlikely most politicians are going to go out of the way to change status quo. And in that sense the average user is going to be aligned with providing most online interactions as 'somewhat' safe spaces until safety is not aligned with their political sensibilities. I personally don't think that Elon is going to do much other than crash the value of Twitter and lose and epic amount of cash doing so. It's possible that the whole ordeal may push more people to federated social media, but it seems to unlikely to do so in numbers that matter.
    - marvin 4y ago
      A service equivalent to Twitter does not cost billions per year to run. In principle, you could boot one up with pocket change and operate it with a small budget. The reason you can't do this in practice is that the network effects are a fundamental requirement, almost impossible to recreate, and all the established operators are forced by shareholder duty to play the adtech game. If you were an effective altruist worried about adtech's pervasive influence on society and had unlimited funds, you could hardly do better than purchasing one of the few established, global social networks. Trim down its cost structure to the bare minimum, make the economics work without letting the global-reach advertisers dictate terms, preserve the network effects that comprise the real value of your media channel and then shape the discourse to serve whatever positive outcome the current system prevents. You'll have the only privately-owned, global-reach media channel in the whole world that's not fundamentally influenced by advertisers. Of course, Elon Musk might not be an effective altruist and the billion-dollar interest payment is an impediment to the above plan, I'll grant you that. But hell, I wouldn't be surprised if the guy just ends up subsidising this thing from his other businesses if he can't make it run organically. That's what I would do. It'd be a uniquely independent and influential media channel. I really don't see why this would make people quit Twitter en masse. The only people quitting Twitter are those who really hate Elon Musk, and there just aren't that many of them. The service works like before and it might well work better, allowing democratic discourse that is viable for a global audience nowhere else. As I mentioned earlier, the conclusion boils down to whether you think Musk means well or not.
watwut 4y ago
It is not even boycot for political reason (and conservatives do those all the time). It is literally just conservative cold business decision of "I don't trust that guy". This concept of freedom where others are mandated to do business or not do business or listen someone is super odd. Advertisers have free speech right to not do business with Twitter. They have right to not do business with me too. Just like Musk has right to fire people from his company. Free speech means also freedom to criticize twitter or disassociate from it when you think it affects your business.a

by marvin 4y ago

fragmede 4y ago

Remind me again, which major brands advertise on 4chan?

klyrs 4y ago

> I don't think I'm getting my point across. Alternate proposal: you got your point across and people disagree with you. Any ideas for how he's going to keep the lights on at twitter? Your suggestion that advertisers fleeing the platform is a "free speech issue" is highly questionable. What remedy would you propose? Forcing advertisers to spend, and how much should the government force them to spend, propping up political speech they disagree with? Boycotts are protected speech. Even if you find that speech deplorable.

marvin 4y ago
I still think you didn't get my point, since you seem to be arguing a point I didn't make :) I'll boil it down to just a couple of sentences: It's a democratic problem that 99% of all public discourse is subject to veto and policy from advertisers and payment processers, and the drive to maximize income from these. Even if you disagree on everything else, at least the consequent polarization should be bad enough to concede this point. Solution? Well, obviously the advertisers are free to do what they want, but that doesn't make their pervasive influence any smaller. A problem doesn't disappear just because solutions are elusive. My guess is that Musk wins the battle of the wills here; he no longer needs to maximize advertiser income, just get enough to make the wheels turn. I wouldn't bet the farm on him resolving the issues I've highlighted; he's far too mercurial to have any confidence on that. But he does have a shot, as opposed to everyone else.
- pixl97 4y ago
  >It's a democratic problem that 99% of all public discourse is subject to veto and policy from advertisers and payment processers In the sense we don't want to fund actual public places for discourse online and instead have pushed this off to private servers ran by private companies, yes. When a large portion of the voter base says "reduce taxes beyond all else" don't expect funding to show up for this. More so the advertising industries are also apt to fund political campaigns so it's unlikely most politicians are going to go out of the way to change status quo. And in that sense the average user is going to be aligned with providing most online interactions as 'somewhat' safe spaces until safety is not aligned with their political sensibilities. I personally don't think that Elon is going to do much other than crash the value of Twitter and lose and epic amount of cash doing so. It's possible that the whole ordeal may push more people to federated social media, but it seems to unlikely to do so in numbers that matter.
  - marvin 4y ago
    A service equivalent to Twitter does not cost billions per year to run. In principle, you could boot one up with pocket change and operate it with a small budget. The reason you can't do this in practice is that the network effects are a fundamental requirement, almost impossible to recreate, and all the established operators are forced by shareholder duty to play the adtech game. If you were an effective altruist worried about adtech's pervasive influence on society and had unlimited funds, you could hardly do better than purchasing one of the few established, global social networks. Trim down its cost structure to the bare minimum, make the economics work without letting the global-reach advertisers dictate terms, preserve the network effects that comprise the real value of your media channel and then shape the discourse to serve whatever positive outcome the current system prevents. You'll have the only privately-owned, global-reach media channel in the whole world that's not fundamentally influenced by advertisers. Of course, Elon Musk might not be an effective altruist and the billion-dollar interest payment is an impediment to the above plan, I'll grant you that. But hell, I wouldn't be surprised if the guy just ends up subsidising this thing from his other businesses if he can't make it run organically. That's what I would do. It'd be a uniquely independent and influential media channel. I really don't see why this would make people quit Twitter en masse. The only people quitting Twitter are those who really hate Elon Musk, and there just aren't that many of them. The service works like before and it might well work better, allowing democratic discourse that is viable for a global audience nowhere else. As I mentioned earlier, the conclusion boils down to whether you think Musk means well or not.

watwut 4y ago

It is not even boycot for political reason (and conservatives do those all the time). It is literally just conservative cold business decision of "I don't trust that guy". This concept of freedom where others are mandated to do business or not do business or listen someone is super odd. Advertisers have free speech right to not do business with Twitter. They have right to not do business with me too. Just like Musk has right to fire people from his company. Free speech means also freedom to criticize twitter or disassociate from it when you think it affects your business.a