5 ms·

According to these legacy media outlets, Twitter was supposed to be days from total collapse and permanently going offline over a year ago. And yet, here we ar

According to these legacy media outlets, Twitter was supposed to be days from total collapse and permanently going offline over a year ago. And yet, here we are, more than a year later. The legacy media is completely detached from reality. You have to genuinely be in a bubble in a bubble in a bubble (or an idiot) or to not see the propaganda being peddeled. The legacy media will continue giving Elon Musk all the free advertising he needs to finish disintermediating information away from the enemy class, and democratizing the citizenry.

bigfudge 3y ago
This is so ludicrously naive. Yes there are problems with legacy media - largely related to their plutocratic ownership. No, centralising control of our public discourse and spaces for debate in even fewer hands won’t help fix that problem. We lose nothing as Musk drives twitter into the ground. We have the potential to gain if federated protocols gain even a small amount of traction because critical mass for their viability may be smaller than we think given the overall increased size of the pie relative to when the first and second mover social media players were founded.
- synecdoche 3y ago
  Are we expected to take you word, or mainstream media's, for it? I say, no more. It's a fact that it was widely predicted, as near certainty, by mainstream media that Twitter's fall was imminent after Musk's takeover.
- infamouscow 3y ago
  The principle problem with legacy media is widespread adoption of smartphones changed the advertising business to be unfavorable to investigative journalism. Running investigative stories takes a lot of time and is prohibitively expensive when the advertising business shifts to favor quantity over quality. Right or wrong, the legacy media has not be able to adapt to social media. They've also largely given up doing the kind of investigative work that makes them competitive for the same brands advertising on Instagram, X, and TikTok. CNN+ didn't even last 30 days before they gave up. Fox News was actually holding Tucker Carlson's viewership back significantly. You haven't made any attempt to address the point being made, yet continue to propagate a crock of shit that reminds me of what George Orwell once wrote: "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
  - bigfudge 3y ago
    I’m not clear what you’re accusing me of propagating. Perhaps you think it’s a lie that x is on the slide? That may be true, although the ad numbers and recent revaluations by stock holders seem to suggest it’s not. In any case, you are describing problems -for- mainstream media, not the problems posed to society by narrow corporate ownership of mainstream media. Those problems predate the internet.
golemotron 3y ago
I wish more people saw this dynamic. The imminent death of anything because "bad people" never quite happens. It's like "this time we got Trump" narrative: wishful thinking as prediction. It's actually a great indicator that the opposite is a better bet.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
theyinwhy 3y ago
Your opinion of what is legacy and what is not brought forward as if it was a fact is defamatory language and highly uncritical in itself in terms of criticial thinking. You fail to explain what media should mean in this regard (it cannot be medium as they are all using the same medium) and you fail to give any evidence why the media you are writing about should be legacy. Tl;dr: Your comment is boring and highly underwhelming.
- mikecoles 3y ago
  likewise

bigfudge 3y ago

This is so ludicrously naive. Yes there are problems with legacy media - largely related to their plutocratic ownership. No, centralising control of our public discourse and spaces for debate in even fewer hands won’t help fix that problem. We lose nothing as Musk drives twitter into the ground. We have the potential to gain if federated protocols gain even a small amount of traction because critical mass for their viability may be smaller than we think given the overall increased size of the pie relative to when the first and second mover social media players were founded.

synecdoche 3y ago
Are we expected to take you word, or mainstream media's, for it? I say, no more. It's a fact that it was widely predicted, as near certainty, by mainstream media that Twitter's fall was imminent after Musk's takeover.
infamouscow 3y ago
The principle problem with legacy media is widespread adoption of smartphones changed the advertising business to be unfavorable to investigative journalism. Running investigative stories takes a lot of time and is prohibitively expensive when the advertising business shifts to favor quantity over quality. Right or wrong, the legacy media has not be able to adapt to social media. They've also largely given up doing the kind of investigative work that makes them competitive for the same brands advertising on Instagram, X, and TikTok. CNN+ didn't even last 30 days before they gave up. Fox News was actually holding Tucker Carlson's viewership back significantly. You haven't made any attempt to address the point being made, yet continue to propagate a crock of shit that reminds me of what George Orwell once wrote: "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
- bigfudge 3y ago
  I’m not clear what you’re accusing me of propagating. Perhaps you think it’s a lie that x is on the slide? That may be true, although the ad numbers and recent revaluations by stock holders seem to suggest it’s not. In any case, you are describing problems -for- mainstream media, not the problems posed to society by narrow corporate ownership of mainstream media. Those problems predate the internet.

golemotron 3y ago

I wish more people saw this dynamic. The imminent death of anything because "bad people" never quite happens. It's like "this time we got Trump" narrative: wishful thinking as prediction. It's actually a great indicator that the opposite is a better bet.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

theyinwhy 3y ago

Your opinion of what is legacy and what is not brought forward as if it was a fact is defamatory language and highly uncritical in itself in terms of criticial thinking. You fail to explain what media should mean in this regard (it cannot be medium as they are all using the same medium) and you fail to give any evidence why the media you are writing about should be legacy. Tl;dr: Your comment is boring and highly underwhelming.

mikecoles 3y ago
likewise