3 ms·
> which obviously didn't work But... how obvious is that? Perhaps it did significantly reduce those ideas when it was active. Like, if Musk hadn't reinstated T
by n4r9 10mo ago
> which obviously didn't work
But... how obvious is that? Perhaps it did significantly reduce those ideas when it was active. Like, if Musk hadn't reinstated Trump's account we could be looking at a different presidency.
- ch4s3 10mo agoAgain you didn’t read the article. Read it or fuck off and stop arguing about the headline.
- n4r9 10mo agoYeah, I read the article. It doesn't address the possibility that the causality could be the other way around. The stuff about Trump and Bhattacharya is just odd. Trump rose back to power after Musk bought Twitter and gave him a platform to spread lies again. Then Trump appointed RFK, who appointed Bhattacharya as a sort of token gesture. The Fuentes stuff is just as odd - his popularity waned while he was censored, but after being reinstated to X he grew his base to a million followers. Again, how does this support the claim that deplatforming was a negative move? I guess there's two competing narratives: deplatforming never worked, vs deplatforming was working until Musk stepped in and undid it. The article does not give any compelling arguments for the former.
- ch4s3 10mo agoDid you read it though ? The article is about negative polarization spirals. You keep missing that entirely.
- n4r9 10mo agoThere's a bit about that in the "Tyranny of the Intolerant" section. Imo the article isn't so much making a case for that as it is lifting quotations wholesale from Timur Kuran as a sort of appeal to authority to justify it's own narrative. It makes out like it's obvious that Kuran's work explains the rise of Trump and Fuentes, whilst Musk's hijacking of Twitter strikes me as a simpler more natural explanation.