Musk, Twitter and free speech

[bae]

So, how is this going to affect Truth Social? It seems like the minority of the country that supports trump are going to be spread awfully thin if they have to be active on two ‘free speech’ networks.

Well, as I understand it, it is basically impossible to be active on Truth Social at the moment, as the website/app launch blew up on the launchpad.

[LDAHL]

There seem to be a lot of significant media failures lately. Jon Stewart’s show on AppleTV is shaping up to be a ratings tragedy. I hear Spotify is dropping the Obamas’ podcast. Trump’s oxymoronic Truth does seem to be blowing up on the pad. CNN spent $300 million on a streaming service, only to discover that people won’t pay for something that relatively few of them want to watch for free.

[JaneV2.0]

I have a Twitter account, but rarely check in. A million active troll accounts plus rampant misogyny and racism won't improve it. We'll see. I'm not likely to peruse "Troth Sencial" regardless.

My observation is that unattractive, humorless, charmless men can overcompensate by becoming obscenely rich and/or powerful--which I guess is no news to Henry Kissinger.

[catherine]

There seem to be a lot of significant media failures lately. Jon Stewart’s show on AppleTV is shaping up to be a ratings tragedy. I hear Spotify is dropping the Obamas’ podcast. Trump’s oxymoronic Truth does seem to be blowing up on the pad. CNN spent $300 million on a streaming service, only to discover that people won’t pay for something that relatively few of them want to watch for free.

I think we've reached the saturation point with the numbers and types of these types of offerings--all on all different platforms. It's too confusing. And too time-consuming to actually settle down and watch 30 minutes of content. Much better to learn from memes and tweets. More entertaining, too.

[LDAHL]

I think we've reached the saturation point with the numbers and types of these types of offerings--all on all different platforms. It's too confusing. And too time-consuming to actually settle down and watch 30 minutes of content. Much better to learn from memes and tweets. More entertaining, too.

I think that’s very true. With such a crowd of voices clamoring to explain the world to us, many have retreated into speaking in simplistic, symbolic terms and little cognitive cantonments to shut out ideas that make us feel “unsafe”. We are probably a dumber people for it.

But is that better than the “good old days” where a relatively small elite curated the news for us through a few broadcast outlets? That seems to be what the wannabe regulators seem to be aiming for.

[jp1]

Over time I suspect people will adapt. Just as they did when marketing first became a thing a century ago and ads that seem absurd to us today are now laughed at (more doctors smoke camels). Eventually humanity will learn to discern the BS. Hopefully the BS purveyors (this election was rigged) will fail to succeed in their nefarious goals before that happens.

[bae]

I think that’s very true. With such a crowd of voices clamoring to explain the world to us, many have retreated into speaking in simplistic, symbolic terms and little cognitive cantonments to shut out ideas that make us feel “unsafe”. We are probably a dumber people for it.

But is that better than the “good old days” where a relatively small elite curated the news for us through a few broadcast outlets? That seems to be what the wannabe regulators seem to be aiming for.

Interesting thoughts along those lines:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/27/o...k-twitter.html

[ToomuchStuff]

But is that better than the “good old days” where a relatively small elite curated the news for us through a few broadcast outlets? That seems to be what the wannabe regulators seem to be aiming for.

I think there is a lot of reverence for the old days of Walter Cronkite when the thought was News reporters had a responsibility for public good and reporting, verses telling people what to think.

I am not sure it was actually any better though. Do we still have censors for TV like we did back then? I don't believe we do, I mean they still threaten fines for cursing, but not all language like "being with child verses pregnant, or having a married couple in two separate beds, etc".

[catherine]

Interesting thoughts along those lines:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/27/o...k-twitter.html

I love Ezra Klein.

This is a great article. I love that he points out that Twitter, by definition, can't be a platform for "meaningful discourse"

"Jack Dorsey, a Twitter co-founder and former chief executive, always wanted it to be something else. Something it wasn’t, and couldn’t be. “The purpose of Twitter is to serve the public conversation,” he said in 2018. Twitter began “measuring conversational health” and trying to tweak the platform to burnish it. Sincere as the effort was, it was like those liquor ads advising moderation. You don’t get people to drink less by selling them whiskey. Similarly, if your intention was to foster healthy conversation, you’d never limit thoughts to 280 characters or add like and retweet buttons or quote-tweet features. Twitter can’t be a place to hold healthy conversation because that’s not what it’s built to do."

And I love his thoughts about gamification. Gamification is the buzzword of the 2020s... I went to a market research webinar on how to gamify methodologies. I just read about it the other day explaining the success of a 20-something podcaster who calls herself "The Financial Feminist" who gamifies her social media. Twitter's ability to gamify thought snippets is part of its huge success.

Based on what this article said, he basically trumped Trump in terms of the power he has to influence cultural and social leanings. He might even run for President next, not letting the constitutional barriers get in the way.

[Tybee]

Gamification was the buzz word in higher ed in about 2012-3. We were urged to put it in our online curriculum, and to use it in the form of iclickers in the classroom.

You don't hear about it anymore.