5 ms·

That's exactly it. There is no smoking gun. What we've learned is that, somewhat paradoxically if not surprisingly, is that previous Twitter management had bo

by ajross 4y ago

That's exactly it. There is no smoking gun. What we've learned is that, somewhat paradoxically if not surprisingly, is that previous Twitter management had both a leftward bent to it's moderation perspectives (i.e. what to moderate and when) and a general deference to requests from agents of its host nation's government. Which we basically knew already. This is like if someone else buys Twitter and published Twitter Files 2.0 and we discover that Musk was sharing conspiracy memes with right wingers. Not much of a shock.

ploppyploppy 4y ago
> "we basically knew already" More gaslighting. The fact is this behaviour and bias was rejected and ignored as "paranoia" for years until these files were released to confirm it all and worse - US intelligence and law enforcement involvement. Shame on them & you.
afpx 4y ago
I think Musk’s move is just to get the most profitable people back on the platform. Fire them up. Get them clicking ads for gold, crypto, pillows, and survival gear.
- ajross 4y ago
  Right wingers never left twitter though. Go look at the comments to basically any partisan comment from any perspective. With only a tiny handful of the most controversial accounts as exceptions, right wing thought leaders are all still there, still tweeting daily. The idea that Twitter somehow drove conservatives away is just a convenient meme. It was never true.
- md_ 4y ago
  It's a neat theory, but Apple was 4% of Twitter's Q1 ad revenue. I don't think the My Pillow guy has $100M to spend on anything, let alone Twitter ads. Crypto scams and fake nutrition pills aren't the top advertisements on Infowars because Alex Jones knows more about the media business than Fox or CNN. They're the top advertisements on Infowars because mainstream advertisers won't touch Jones with a ten foot pole. Same goes for the Twitter that Musk built.
ashwagary 4y ago
>Which we basically knew already. I disagree. I don't think the vast majority of people realized to what extent the US government set the boundaries of acceptable opinions/topics and were given free passage and in some cases assistance in conducting psyops. This will be especially eye-opening for non-US users who may now seriously consider whether to continue using US based platforms at all.
- md_ 4y ago
  Can you point me to the “Twitter Files” showing the government set the bounds of acceptable topics? Like I said above, I had trouble picking through these long tweet threads.
  - ashwagary 4y ago
    This thread touches on some of the censorship of legitimate debate. https://twitter.com/davidzweig/status/1607378386338340867 https://twitter.com/davidzweig/status/1607378386338340867
    - md_ 4y ago
      That thread seems to show two things: 1. Trust and safety is a hard job, and Twitter was...kinda not great at it, I think? Honestly, not a big surprise. 2. In high-level discussions with government policymakers, policymakers expressed general desires for what kind of misinformation might be of particular concern (like health misinfo, or misinfo leading to hoarding and panic buying). #2 seems...sorta fine to me? #1 seems like a product problem, to be perfectly clear, but it's hard to connect that to government censorship. I'm not trying to make light of all the failures in #1. But I find it a bit hard, assuming good faith, to understand if the view of most critics is: a. There should be zero content filtering or content-related ranking. (I mean, that's fine; Mastodon doesn't have algorithmic ranking, and if you don't want filtering, enjoy the Viagra spam I guess?) b. There should be content filtering and ranking, but it should rank things the way critics want. (For example, a lot of critics seem concerned not with ranking in general, but with downranking of heterodox views on Covid.) c. There should be content filtering and ranking, but Twitter just wasn't great at it; we'd like to see them improve their processes (which I am not optimistic about given the headcount story at Twitter). Or something else?

by ajross 4y ago

ploppyploppy 4y ago

> "we basically knew already" More gaslighting. The fact is this behaviour and bias was rejected and ignored as "paranoia" for years until these files were released to confirm it all and worse - US intelligence and law enforcement involvement. Shame on them & you.

afpx 4y ago

I think Musk’s move is just to get the most profitable people back on the platform. Fire them up. Get them clicking ads for gold, crypto, pillows, and survival gear.

ajross 4y ago
Right wingers never left twitter though. Go look at the comments to basically any partisan comment from any perspective. With only a tiny handful of the most controversial accounts as exceptions, right wing thought leaders are all still there, still tweeting daily. The idea that Twitter somehow drove conservatives away is just a convenient meme. It was never true.
md_ 4y ago
It's a neat theory, but Apple was 4% of Twitter's Q1 ad revenue. I don't think the My Pillow guy has $100M to spend on anything, let alone Twitter ads. Crypto scams and fake nutrition pills aren't the top advertisements on Infowars because Alex Jones knows more about the media business than Fox or CNN. They're the top advertisements on Infowars because mainstream advertisers won't touch Jones with a ten foot pole. Same goes for the Twitter that Musk built.

ashwagary 4y ago

>Which we basically knew already. I disagree. I don't think the vast majority of people realized to what extent the US government set the boundaries of acceptable opinions/topics and were given free passage and in some cases assistance in conducting psyops. This will be especially eye-opening for non-US users who may now seriously consider whether to continue using US based platforms at all.

md_ 4y ago
Can you point me to the “Twitter Files” showing the government set the bounds of acceptable topics? Like I said above, I had trouble picking through these long tweet threads.
- ashwagary 4y ago
  This thread touches on some of the censorship of legitimate debate. https://twitter.com/davidzweig/status/1607378386338340867 https://twitter.com/davidzweig/status/1607378386338340867
  - md_ 4y ago
    That thread seems to show two things: 1. Trust and safety is a hard job, and Twitter was...kinda not great at it, I think? Honestly, not a big surprise. 2. In high-level discussions with government policymakers, policymakers expressed general desires for what kind of misinformation might be of particular concern (like health misinfo, or misinfo leading to hoarding and panic buying). #2 seems...sorta fine to me? #1 seems like a product problem, to be perfectly clear, but it's hard to connect that to government censorship. I'm not trying to make light of all the failures in #1. But I find it a bit hard, assuming good faith, to understand if the view of most critics is: a. There should be zero content filtering or content-related ranking. (I mean, that's fine; Mastodon doesn't have algorithmic ranking, and if you don't want filtering, enjoy the Viagra spam I guess?) b. There should be content filtering and ranking, but it should rank things the way critics want. (For example, a lot of critics seem concerned not with ranking in general, but with downranking of heterodox views on Covid.) c. There should be content filtering and ranking, but Twitter just wasn't great at it; we'd like to see them improve their processes (which I am not optimistic about given the headcount story at Twitter). Or something else?