Just when I thought I'd nearly caught up with all of my outstanding screen-reading for 2022....! No, seriously, thanks for these links, Mark!
I'm not one for resolutions - either for the new year or for any time - but I remain resolutely allergic to all (not Substack!) social media, and I don't foresee my position changing!
I'm curious about that thing that beeps every time data is sent to Google, except that I think it would drive me nuts pretty quickly.
On the subject of Twitter, I realise that this view is unfashionable but (a) I'm happy to give Musk a chance; (b) I'm pleased he has reinstated the accounts of people whose accounts had been suspended because they had said things that had been disagreed with by people in Twitter had taken upon themselves to act as censors on behalf of the rest of us. Sorry that sentence is rather clumsy, but hopefully it makes sense.
The Twitter episode works on many levels, I think. Most glaringly and gallingly for me is the imperious Musk, who claims to be a "free speech absolutist" and therefore opens the gates to various white supremacist and anti-semitic hellhounds but then ... kicks journalists out who reported on the existence of a Twitter account (also banned) that tracks his private jet whereabouts. He did reinstate some of those accounts, I should add. From the outside, it looks like the rules of Twitter exchanges have much to do with Musk's mood and whims. The other level that intrigues and concerns me is how to encourage productive free speech. I do think that some norms of exchange have to operate. We have internalized many in our daily Real Lives, but online exchanges have different conditions, and the norms of exchange have shifted. To me it seems that it's often just spiffy to be a dick, when if the same behavior happened face-to-face the behavior would be taken to task, at least. Where to establish or how to nurture the development of norms for productive free speech ... that's a question and if Must were as smart as he thinks he is, a worthy challenge.
I think of a paradox. How does one tolerate intolerance?
Some of the service that pre-Musk Twitter offered has or will evaporate. It was a place for journalists, academics, people with wide-ranging thought. "Black Twitter" certainly enlivened discussion and prodded change. Those are having to find new homes. I hope they do, and I hope somehow Musk's failures might teach. I have my doubts, though.
Just to make my position a bit clearer, I have a major antipathy to the idea that people with enough money can decide who is allowed to speak in the 'public square' and what they're allowed to say. However, I think he may act as a counterbalance to those people whose hubris is so unbounded that they not only how people of today SHOULD think, they know how our descendants WILL think ("on the right side of history").
I'm actually pleased that Musk has allowed antisemites etc to spout off, because the rest of us can see how nasty and ridiculous such views are. If there was a rule that people had to use their real names it would be any better. For example, in a different context, I would be opposed to the banning of Mein Kampf because its contents tell you all you need to know about how such people think.
Re: private jet. Frankly, I don't blame him. I wouldn't want my private comings and goings made public. But as you say he reinstated those accounts.
What you say about face-to-face vs online: it was ever thus, so totally agree.
Re: paradox. Absolutely. Didn't the Civil Liberties Union in the USA, when it used to support free speech, advocate for an an antisemite?
I suppose we'll all just have to wait and see. Personally, I can't be bothered to move over to yet another platform that I won't use very much!
Just when I thought I'd nearly caught up with all of my outstanding screen-reading for 2022....! No, seriously, thanks for these links, Mark!
I'm not one for resolutions - either for the new year or for any time - but I remain resolutely allergic to all (not Substack!) social media, and I don't foresee my position changing!
I'm curious about that thing that beeps every time data is sent to Google, except that I think it would drive me nuts pretty quickly.
On the subject of Twitter, I realise that this view is unfashionable but (a) I'm happy to give Musk a chance; (b) I'm pleased he has reinstated the accounts of people whose accounts had been suspended because they had said things that had been disagreed with by people in Twitter had taken upon themselves to act as censors on behalf of the rest of us. Sorry that sentence is rather clumsy, but hopefully it makes sense.
Thanks for all these links.
The Twitter episode works on many levels, I think. Most glaringly and gallingly for me is the imperious Musk, who claims to be a "free speech absolutist" and therefore opens the gates to various white supremacist and anti-semitic hellhounds but then ... kicks journalists out who reported on the existence of a Twitter account (also banned) that tracks his private jet whereabouts. He did reinstate some of those accounts, I should add. From the outside, it looks like the rules of Twitter exchanges have much to do with Musk's mood and whims. The other level that intrigues and concerns me is how to encourage productive free speech. I do think that some norms of exchange have to operate. We have internalized many in our daily Real Lives, but online exchanges have different conditions, and the norms of exchange have shifted. To me it seems that it's often just spiffy to be a dick, when if the same behavior happened face-to-face the behavior would be taken to task, at least. Where to establish or how to nurture the development of norms for productive free speech ... that's a question and if Must were as smart as he thinks he is, a worthy challenge.
I think of a paradox. How does one tolerate intolerance?
Some of the service that pre-Musk Twitter offered has or will evaporate. It was a place for journalists, academics, people with wide-ranging thought. "Black Twitter" certainly enlivened discussion and prodded change. Those are having to find new homes. I hope they do, and I hope somehow Musk's failures might teach. I have my doubts, though.
Just to make my position a bit clearer, I have a major antipathy to the idea that people with enough money can decide who is allowed to speak in the 'public square' and what they're allowed to say. However, I think he may act as a counterbalance to those people whose hubris is so unbounded that they not only how people of today SHOULD think, they know how our descendants WILL think ("on the right side of history").
I'm actually pleased that Musk has allowed antisemites etc to spout off, because the rest of us can see how nasty and ridiculous such views are. If there was a rule that people had to use their real names it would be any better. For example, in a different context, I would be opposed to the banning of Mein Kampf because its contents tell you all you need to know about how such people think.
Re: private jet. Frankly, I don't blame him. I wouldn't want my private comings and goings made public. But as you say he reinstated those accounts.
What you say about face-to-face vs online: it was ever thus, so totally agree.
Re: paradox. Absolutely. Didn't the Civil Liberties Union in the USA, when it used to support free speech, advocate for an an antisemite?
I suppose we'll all just have to wait and see. Personally, I can't be bothered to move over to yet another platform that I won't use very much!
Yup, let's decenter the birdsite's main character. Move on!