3 ms·

I don't know what "intra-elite coordination system" means, but it probably doesn't concern me. I know stuff from Twitter gets on the news and maybe affects what

I don't know what "intra-elite coordination system" means, but it probably doesn't concern me. I know stuff from Twitter gets on the news and maybe affects what some people do, but mostly the controversies that erupt on social media have to do with the social media platforms. The biggest thing that ever happened on Twitter (which somehow contributed to Musk buying it) was Trump getting banned. That led to all kinds of earnest and serious-seeming "conversations" and "debates" about free speech and public squares and all that, but in the end what Trump tweeted all day long amounted to nonsense. Just like following what Kanye or the Kardashians do, it seems to mean something, it seems important, but think about it and all you have is spectacle and celebrity worship and gossip. Social media gives us a firehose of pseudo-events, spectacles that seem to mean something but don't. They occur only to get reported on and liked or repeated in the same social media sphere. Daniel Boorstin describes that phenomenon -- which predates social media -- in his book The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America. Read that instead of Twitter or Facebook to learn how pointless and manipulative social media has become in our culture. That some people may find nuggets of value here or there in the dumpster fire doesn't make it a good thing.

cbeach 4y ago
I think you’re downplaying the significance of a private company in the West banning the democratically elected leader of the free world from reaching his supporters … while simultaneously allowing the Taliban to use the platform. Something was deeply wrong with the way Twitter was run. Senior Democrats used the platform for years to create hoaxes about Russians helping Trump steal an election. No bans. Then when Republicans do similar in response to an election with very dubious postal voting, those Republicans are banned. And for those claiming Trump incited violence - that’s a distortion of the truth. His last tweet on the platform was a smack down against rightwingers who’d been involved in political violence.
- gregjor 4y ago
  I don’t know if Twitter suffered from bad management or made what some perceive as poor decisions. I don’t use it and have no stake in it. Trump never had a problem reaching his supporters. If anything the Twitter ban gave him even more free press and another phony grievance to rage about on Fox News and every other outlet. Believe what you want. I didn’t comment to engage in political debates, or to defend Twitter. Don’t use it. It only has significance and power if we believe it does.

cbeach 4y ago

I think you’re downplaying the significance of a private company in the West banning the democratically elected leader of the free world from reaching his supporters … while simultaneously allowing the Taliban to use the platform. Something was deeply wrong with the way Twitter was run. Senior Democrats used the platform for years to create hoaxes about Russians helping Trump steal an election. No bans. Then when Republicans do similar in response to an election with very dubious postal voting, those Republicans are banned. And for those claiming Trump incited violence - that’s a distortion of the truth. His last tweet on the platform was a smack down against rightwingers who’d been involved in political violence.

gregjor 4y ago
I don’t know if Twitter suffered from bad management or made what some perceive as poor decisions. I don’t use it and have no stake in it. Trump never had a problem reaching his supporters. If anything the Twitter ban gave him even more free press and another phony grievance to rage about on Fox News and every other outlet. Believe what you want. I didn’t comment to engage in political debates, or to defend Twitter. Don’t use it. It only has significance and power if we believe it does.