> Twitter on Monday night abruptly dissolved its Trust and Safety Council, the latest sign that Elon Musk is unraveling years of work and institutions created to make the social network safer and more civil.
Isn't it these sorts of institutions and functions that differentiate Twitter from Parler or 4Chan or other websites, as far as advertisers are concerned?
The fact that he was the former head of Twitter's censorship operation, that he publicly attacks Elon Musk while wrapping himself in the prestige of his former position, and that he likes to go on stage and talk about his former job.
Anyway, not sure what him wanting to be a public figure or not, even though he does, has anything to do with it. My point is just that because he is a public figure at this point, death threats are unfortunately expected. As the former head of Twitter Trust and Safety, he knows that too. So his decision to make a media story out of it is in all likelihood nothing more than him trying to get a favorable news cycle out of it.
Hardly matters what both sides do when Everything is built on top of collecting Likes and Followers. Thats the fundamental bug. You can build a giant fractal based on simple rules and endless repetition.
But who has control over the shape?
People on both sides are forgetting that. Both sides act as if the only thing that matters is proving the other side wrong. While that drama unfolds
Was the board perfect? Was it better than no board? Was it's purpose for the users or the advertisers?
Look, sure, yeah, Elon could still save this. But the odds are bad and getting worse every day.
He's down by 21 with 6 minutes left. Sure, it could happen, it would be a hell of a game if he did. But it's getting late, the air is cold, beer's closed up, and leaving now means you can beat traffic a bit. Oops, looks like he just got sacked again and is yelling at his O-line.
“…the Twitter Files, a series of tweets by conservative journalists Matt Taibbi and Bari Weiss.”
Two interesting moves to observe here:
1. Matt Taibbi is not a conservative and anyone who is at all familiar with him or his work knows he is left-leaning. Calling him a conservative is a signal to their audience that he is one of the “bad guys.”
2. Calling this reporting “a series of tweets” is not false but is subtly demeaning to the work. It’s not an “article” (it is also being published in long-form) or “reporting”, just a little series of tweets … you know, like what you do when you’re mad about the rude barista that ruined your latte or something.
This is a pretty gaslighty comment. Clearly Democrats are left wing and Republicans are right wing, and ppl who are on those wings tend to vote for those respective parties.
Are Democrats super far left? Not by international standards, no, but they are clearly to the left of Republicans.
> Clearly Democrats are left wing and Republicans are right wing
Mostly.
> ppl who are on those wings tend to vote for those respective parties
Tend to but not always. Would a person who supports Universal healthcare, safe access to abortion and reducing their carbon foot print but also thinks immigration is an issue that needs addressing and supports the second amendment be left or right? Individuals are rarely going to fall in line and Taibi is no exception.
> This is a pretty gaslighty comment.
The narrative is that he's moved right somehow. I just want to know how. I'm sure if you asked him he'd say that the "left" has moved right and his opinion, that the left used to support, hasn't changed. If someone's going to say he's "moved right", I assume they have some reason to say that so I just want to know how, because I'm not sure if I see it (but I'm not intimately familiar with his positions).
I don't believe Taibi has changed much at all, I think the a segment of the people who consider themselves "left" in the US have taken positions on some topics that he disagrees with and since he's being critical of them, he must be the opposite of them. Since they view themselves as "left", he must be "right" (and even worse, "far-right"!).
He's not "moved right" because he's suddenly agreeing with Republicans, he's "moved right" because he's being critical of the "left".
> Would a person who supports Universal healthcare, safe access to abortion and reducing their carbon foot print but also thinks immigration is an issue that needs addressing and supports the second amendment be left or right?
This isn't really what you said, you said "right-leaning and Republican" aren't synonyms, not that people don't fall neatly into the left/right dichotomy. The Republican party is objectively the right-leaning party of the US. If you're a journalist that mostly publishes articles aligning with Republicans talking points today, then it is fine to characterize that journalist as right-wing.
> If you're a journalist that mostly publishes articles aligning with Republicans talking points today, then it is fine to characterize that journalist as right-wing.
I disagree. And I think you're missing the point of my plea to disambiguate "right" with "Republican". For example, without referring to a political party, explain to me how being pro second amendment is a right wing position. That may be a Republican position, but it's also a liberal argument (as in, part of the ideology of liberalism).
From my understanding, Taibi is really only vocal about "cancel culture", which he is critical of and sees as an illiberal position of the left. He's concerned about it because he considers himself left. He's basically Bill Maher. That doesn't make him right wing.
The terms "right-wing" and "left-wing" do not refer to objective philosophical positions. They literally referred to where French delegates sat in the National Assembly of 1789. Today they refer to a web of political alliances that are historically - as opposed to philosophically - determined. So to answer your question, being pro second amendment is a right wing position because most American politicians who consider themselves right-wing are pro second amendment.
As opposed to the fiercely independent journalists at the New York Times and Washington Post who would never regurgitate Democratic Party propaganda? Give me a break.
I'm sure Elon chose them because he thought they were sympathetic. So what?
The New York Times is an establishment mouthpiece, not Democratic. The message they regurgitate is the ongoing power of the US over the world. They happen to align with the democrats now because the democrats represent the establishment, while the republicans are trying to overturn that.
Ah so because I was critical of them, I somehow must be all about the nytimes and Washington post? My comment has nothing to do with those outlets nor do I honestly care about them one way or another.
The retorts are so obvious at this point it’s pathetic.
I don’t really care why Elon chose them, I care that they are basically just regurgitating a press release and acting like it’s serious work.
> "It’s not an “article” (it is also being published in long-form) or “reporting”, just a little series of tweets".
Given that Twitter does not engage in independent fact checking or peer review, I feel that this is a fair characterization. Pre-Musk or post-Musk, Twitter should not be viewed as a serious journalistic enterprise.
41 comments
[ 0.22 ms ] story [ 105 ms ] threadIsn't it these sorts of institutions and functions that differentiate Twitter from Parler or 4Chan or other websites, as far as advertisers are concerned?
And what makes you think he wants to be a public figure in the first place?
Anyway, not sure what him wanting to be a public figure or not, even though he does, has anything to do with it. My point is just that because he is a public figure at this point, death threats are unfortunately expected. As the former head of Twitter Trust and Safety, he knows that too. So his decision to make a media story out of it is in all likelihood nothing more than him trying to get a favorable news cycle out of it.
But who has control over the shape?
People on both sides are forgetting that. Both sides act as if the only thing that matters is proving the other side wrong. While that drama unfolds
Look, sure, yeah, Elon could still save this. But the odds are bad and getting worse every day.
He's down by 21 with 6 minutes left. Sure, it could happen, it would be a hell of a game if he did. But it's getting late, the air is cold, beer's closed up, and leaving now means you can beat traffic a bit. Oops, looks like he just got sacked again and is yelling at his O-line.
It's time to call it a game.
Two interesting moves to observe here:
1. Matt Taibbi is not a conservative and anyone who is at all familiar with him or his work knows he is left-leaning. Calling him a conservative is a signal to their audience that he is one of the “bad guys.” 2. Calling this reporting “a series of tweets” is not false but is subtly demeaning to the work. It’s not an “article” (it is also being published in long-form) or “reporting”, just a little series of tweets … you know, like what you do when you’re mad about the rude barista that ruined your latte or something.
Are Democrats super far left? Not by international standards, no, but they are clearly to the left of Republicans.
Mostly.
> ppl who are on those wings tend to vote for those respective parties
Tend to but not always. Would a person who supports Universal healthcare, safe access to abortion and reducing their carbon foot print but also thinks immigration is an issue that needs addressing and supports the second amendment be left or right? Individuals are rarely going to fall in line and Taibi is no exception.
> This is a pretty gaslighty comment.
The narrative is that he's moved right somehow. I just want to know how. I'm sure if you asked him he'd say that the "left" has moved right and his opinion, that the left used to support, hasn't changed. If someone's going to say he's "moved right", I assume they have some reason to say that so I just want to know how, because I'm not sure if I see it (but I'm not intimately familiar with his positions).
I don't believe Taibi has changed much at all, I think the a segment of the people who consider themselves "left" in the US have taken positions on some topics that he disagrees with and since he's being critical of them, he must be the opposite of them. Since they view themselves as "left", he must be "right" (and even worse, "far-right"!).
He's not "moved right" because he's suddenly agreeing with Republicans, he's "moved right" because he's being critical of the "left".
This isn't really what you said, you said "right-leaning and Republican" aren't synonyms, not that people don't fall neatly into the left/right dichotomy. The Republican party is objectively the right-leaning party of the US. If you're a journalist that mostly publishes articles aligning with Republicans talking points today, then it is fine to characterize that journalist as right-wing.
I disagree. And I think you're missing the point of my plea to disambiguate "right" with "Republican". For example, without referring to a political party, explain to me how being pro second amendment is a right wing position. That may be a Republican position, but it's also a liberal argument (as in, part of the ideology of liberalism).
From my understanding, Taibi is really only vocal about "cancel culture", which he is critical of and sees as an illiberal position of the left. He's concerned about it because he considers himself left. He's basically Bill Maher. That doesn't make him right wing.
How is repeating information fed to you by the tech billionaire who’s platform your publishing on worth dignifying as actual journalistic effort?
They’re glorified mouthpieces.
I used to have a lot more respect for taibbi, but he’s spending that down faster and faster these days.
I'm sure Elon chose them because he thought they were sympathetic. So what?
The retorts are so obvious at this point it’s pathetic.
I don’t really care why Elon chose them, I care that they are basically just regurgitating a press release and acting like it’s serious work.
in Italian we have a word for this kind of people: rossobruni[1]
[1]halfway through this article explains what they are: https://italicsmag.com/2022/07/28/the-italian-axiom-crisis-r...
Given that Twitter does not engage in independent fact checking or peer review, I feel that this is a fair characterization. Pre-Musk or post-Musk, Twitter should not be viewed as a serious journalistic enterprise.