10 ms·

> "...That isn't a real entity..." > > "...These institutions are full of people..." I'm confused - are media outlets real entities or not? There is such a t

> "...That isn't a real entity..." > > "...These institutions are full of people..." I'm confused - are media outlets real entities or not? There is such a thing as company culture, and organisations in general can very much be said to have values, that are set and enforced by the people who work there. In any case what this whole subthread is apparently arguing for is that we should kick out a bunch of people, and replace them with another bunch of people, and this will somehow yield better results? It's nonsense. You only have to look at Twitter to see what that world would look like.

2devnull 3y ago
I use Twitter to follow the select few journalists, academics, government agencies, and writers that I trust and enjoy reading. There is no competition at present. I didn’t wish this situation into being. It’s where I find the world in 2023. With tv you couldn’t just choose to consume better content, but that’s the whole point of Twitter. No bozos. You can word filter “Trump” and get on with life.
- danparsonson 3y ago
  Twitter is absolutely chock full of bozos, and while you being able to filter them out is benefit to using the platform, the drawback is that many of them are greatly empowered by it. To follow your example, Trump's relationship with Twitter is well documented - maybe you wouldn't have had to filter him out in the first place if not for his ability to directly reach the public, or the public's avid interest in the kind of drama that he likes to involve himself in. I'm not talking about individual utility, I'm talking about societal effects.
  - 2devnull 3y ago
    My point is simpler: Twitter gives me the whole universe of content, with knobs to dial in my preferences. There is no alternative platform that allows that. And trump is just one of many word filters I use to prevent ever seeing the bozos. To me, they very literally do not exist.
    - another2another 3y ago
      OK, fair enough - but did you find these people on Twitter itself, or did you find out about them after reading some other mainstream media outlet and then followed your curiosity? I would guess lots of people get famous on popular outlets _first_ and are then followed on Twitter.

2devnull 3y ago

I use Twitter to follow the select few journalists, academics, government agencies, and writers that I trust and enjoy reading. There is no competition at present. I didn’t wish this situation into being. It’s where I find the world in 2023. With tv you couldn’t just choose to consume better content, but that’s the whole point of Twitter. No bozos. You can word filter “Trump” and get on with life.

danparsonson 3y ago
Twitter is absolutely chock full of bozos, and while you being able to filter them out is benefit to using the platform, the drawback is that many of them are greatly empowered by it. To follow your example, Trump's relationship with Twitter is well documented - maybe you wouldn't have had to filter him out in the first place if not for his ability to directly reach the public, or the public's avid interest in the kind of drama that he likes to involve himself in. I'm not talking about individual utility, I'm talking about societal effects.
- 2devnull 3y ago
  My point is simpler: Twitter gives me the whole universe of content, with knobs to dial in my preferences. There is no alternative platform that allows that. And trump is just one of many word filters I use to prevent ever seeing the bozos. To me, they very literally do not exist.
  - another2another 3y ago
    OK, fair enough - but did you find these people on Twitter itself, or did you find out about them after reading some other mainstream media outlet and then followed your curiosity? I would guess lots of people get famous on popular outlets _first_ and are then followed on Twitter.