Elon Musk buys and ruins Twitter

[Alan Harper's Tash]

The frustrating thing is, we all know it is but it’s still so addictive and hard to deactivate.

Would ideally need media, sports teams, celebs to come off it.

It’s not really about that. It’s peoples’ inability to source properly.

It’s not limited to Twitter either. Look at how nobody can stand any commentary on football matches anymore. Tolerance to hearing things not wanting to be heard is at an all time low.

Twitter is, and has always been, as good as you make it for yourself. You can tell the algorithm what you want to see less of and it does remove a lot of the shite.

Mush, of course, is doing a really poor job of regulating it, but it doesn’t make it unusable, just needs the user to manoeuvre through it more carefully.

The hate speech allowed on there does need curbing though as not everybody can read it without becoming hateful themselves.

 

[inbetween]

It’s not really about that. It’s peoples’ inability to source properly.

It’s not limited to Twitter either. Look at how nobody can stand any commentary on football matches anymore. Tolerance to hearing things not wanting to be heard is at an all time low.

Twitter is, and has always been, as good as you make it for yourself. You can tell the algorithm what you want to see less of and it does remove a lot of the shite.

Mush, of course, is doing a really poor job of regulating it, but it doesn’t make it unusable, just needs the user to manoeuvre through it more carefully.

The hate speech allowed on there does need curbing though as not everybody can read it without becoming hateful themselves.

Social media isn't designed to be a source of truth and we shouldn't put that burden on social media companies, we don't even put that burden on the proper news companies who lie all the time. Really social media is no different to having a chat down the pub where somebody says something and you either believe it or you don't. Arguably there's a precedent set by regulation because shouldn't we regulate hateful chats in the pub too?

There's a far deeper problem here and it sits right at the core of how people think, Twitter is just a mechanism for communicating that thought, it isn't directly responsible though for its existence. It isn't like riots in the UK are anything new let alone those that are fired up online because what about the BLM riots?

Would we see the same reaction on here calling BLM protesters scum or far left in the media? What about the reaction to the Edward Colston statue being toppled in Bristol? Keir Starmers response to that criminal damage was that it should of been pulled down a long time ago.... I highly doubt that we'd see a parallel reaction and that's where things become troubling because clearly some violent criminal views are deemed okay and others aren't.

I've seen it on this forum, there are people who want to see the far right smashed up and locked up for criminal behaviour. Those same people however think that the Just Stop oil protesters should go free. The law cannot operate in this way and it would be very dangerous if it did.

This is where we need to tread very carefully with regulation because there's a genuine risk of suppression of free speech and ultimately it is the government of the day who will decide what you can or can't say.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

Twitter is, and has always been, as good as you make it for yourself. You can tell the algorithm what you want to see less of and it does remove a lot of the shite.

That used to be the case. With all social media. You used to choose who to follow and then see their posts in the order they made them. Nowadays, you may see some of their posts in the middle of a sea of adverts and 'promoted content' that it thinks you might like. I've looked up friends on Facebook and found out they got married two years ago and it's been so long since Facebook showed me anything they posted that I didn't know (not good friends, obviously). The only one nowadays that reliably shows you what you actually want is Youtube if you go straight to the subscriptions page.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Social media isn't designed to be a source of truth and we shouldn't put that burden on social media companies, we don't even put that burden on the proper news companies who lie all the time. Really social media is no different to having a chat down the pub where somebody says something and you either believe it or you don't. Arguably there's a precedent set by regulation because shouldn't we regulate hateful chats in the pub too?

There's a far deeper problem here and it sits right at the core of how people think, Twitter is just a mechanism for communicating that thought, it isn't directly responsible though for its existence. It isn't like riots in the UK are anything new let alone those that are fired up online because what about the BLM riots?

Would we see the same reaction on here calling BLM protesters scum or far left in the media? What about the reaction to the Edward Colston statue being toppled in Bristol? I highly doubt that we'd see a parallel reaction and that's where things become troubling because clearly some violent criminal views are deemed okay and others aren't.

I've seen it on this forum, there are people who want to see the far right smashed up and locked up for criminal behaviour. Those same people however think that the Just Stop oil protesters should go free. The law cannot operate in this way.

This is where we need to tread very carefully with regulation because there's a genuine risk of suppression of free speech and ultimately it is the government of the day who will decide what you can or can't say.

Whilst it might be like having a conversation like down the pub, its outreach is more of a national newspaper or TV station, so it’s not quite the same.

Twitter is just the tool that allows debate and it’ll always boil down to where lines are drawn as to where hate speech begins.

As far as I can recall, there were loads of shouts of BLM being the far left.

It’s why I never use the terms far left and far right. It just adds fuel to the fire and moves the debating point to there rather than the real issues.

No one, ever, has had unregulated free speech. There has always been a consequence to anything that encourages hate. No one is trying to suggest Anjam Choudary should be free on here.

It’s always about striking the right balance and people have their fulcrums at different positions, so it’ll always be controversial to some.

What Musk shouldn’t be doing is trying to stir up civil unrest in different countries.

 

[BlueHammer85]

Whilst it might be like having a conversation like down the pub, its outreach is more of a national newspaper or TV station, so it’s not quite the same.

Twitter is just the tool that allows debate and it’ll always boil down to where lines are drawn as to where hate speech begins.

As far as I can recall, there were loads of shouts of BLM being the far left.

It’s why I never use the terms far left and far right. It just adds fuel to the fire and moves the debating point to there rather than the real issues.

No one, ever, has had unregulated free speech. There has always been a consequence to anything that encourages hate. No one is trying to suggest Anjam Choudary should be free on here.

It’s always about striking the right balance and people have their fulcrums at different positions, so it’ll always be controversial to some.

What Musk shouldn’t be doing is trying to stir up civil unrest in different countries.

Or allowing millions of bot accounts to further agendas.

It's got 100x worse in the last year or so, hate and racism is allowed to thrive.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

That used to be the case. With all social media. You used to choose who to follow and then see their posts in the order they made them. Nowadays, you may see some of their posts in the middle of a sea of adverts and 'promoted content' that it thinks you might like. I've looked up friends on Facebook and found out they got married two years ago and it's been so long since Facebook showed me anything they posted that I didn't know (not good friends, obviously). The only one nowadays that reliably shows you what you actually want is Youtube if you go straight to the subscriptions page.

It’s not perfect, but I have no major issues with the Following element of Twitter. I don’t follow loads of people, so guess I may miss some of what they post, but I don’t use it personally, so don’t feel I’ve lost out. The adverts are slightly annoying, but easily scrolled past. It’s not as good as it was, but I’m not seeing lots of hate on my feed unless I venture into For You territory. Even then, snoozing Owen Jones and the Alba and Atherton idiots and it gets better immediately.

Whenever I see anything baiting on FB, I request to see it less/snooze it and I hardly ever see anything like that. Maybe once a month, but that’s then easily snoozed and life goes on as normal.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Or allowing millions of bot accounts to further agendas.

It's got 100x worse in the last year or so, hate and racism is allowed to thrive.

Sure, but if you can see them as bots, you can ignore them quite quickly. They shouldn’t be allowed, but they don’t need to radicalise you either.

 

[inbetween]

Whilst it might be like having a conversation like down the pub, its outreach is more of a national newspaper or TV station, so it’s not quite the same.

Twitter is just the tool that allows debate and it’ll always boil down to where lines are drawn as to where hate speech begins.

As far as I can recall, there were loads of shouts of BLM being the far left.

It’s why I never use the terms far left and far right. It just adds fuel to the fire and moves the debating point to there rather than the real issues.

No one, ever, has had unregulated free speech. There has always been a consequence to anything that encourages hate. No one is trying to suggest Anjam Choudary should be free on here.

It’s always about striking the right balance and people have their fulcrums at different positions, so it’ll always be controversial to some.

What Musk shouldn’t be doing is trying to stir up civil unrest in different countries.

Indeed but the police have proven that they can already regulate by prosecuting people for saying illegal things online so what's missing? There are people who want to go further and it's hard to know what that means? They certainly may mean regulating the views of the right but surely that has to also include those on the left? It means Just Stop oil for a start would be outlawed on Twitter given their sole purpose is to organise illegal events.

You have to ask did Keir Starmer call the BLM riots a violent act of the far left? Of course he didn't, he said nothing and by some words he actually cheered it on and even took the knee in servitude. There is a duplicity there so how could he for example be trusted to police subjective views on social media fairly?

This is where it gets hazy and we have to question if anybody could be trusted to regulate social media, so far the government absolutely cannot be responsible for that regulation because it picks its battles, so who is? I also agree that Musk shouldn't be doing what he's doing but he is so should we do something about it? My feeling is still no.

 

[mexico1970]

Indeed but the police have proven that they can already regulate by prosecuting people for saying illegal things online so what's missing? There are people who want to go further and it's hard to know what that means? They certainly may mean regulating the views of the right but surely that has to also include those on the left? It means Just Stop oil for a start would be outlawed on Twitter given their sole purpose is to organise illegal events.

You have to ask did Keir Starmer call the BLM riots a violent act of the far left? Of course he didn't, he said nothing and by some words he actually cheered it on and even took the knee in servitude. There is a duplicity there so how could he for example be trusted to police subjective views on social media fairly?

This is where it gets hazy and we have to question if anybody could be trusted to regulate social media, so far the government absolutely cannot be responsible for that regulation because it picks its battles, so who is? I also agree that Musk shouldn't be doing what he's doing but he is so should we do something about it? My feeling is still no.

People aren't getting upset in the main because illegal things have been said, the sad sacks are getting upset because some people say things that upsets them.

They want social media to conform to them and be their very own safe space, it's embarrassing really.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

It’s not perfect, but I have no major issues with the Following element of Twitter. I don’t follow loads of people, so guess I may miss some of what they post, but I don’t use it personally, so don’t feel I’ve lost out. The adverts are slightly annoying, but easily scrolled past. It’s not as good as it was, but I’m not seeing lots of hate on my feed unless I venture into For You territory. Even then, snoozing Owen Jones and the Alba and Atherton idiots and it gets better immediately.

Whenever I see anything baiting on FB, I request to see it less/snooze it and I hardly ever see anything like that. Maybe once a month, but that’s then easily snoozed and life goes on as normal.

I think the problem that this week has highlighted though is that you don't have to actually be on Twitter to be affected by the irresponsible way it is run. Me curating my social media feed doesn't stop Dave Dickhead down the street from being radicalized and joining a mob of other dickheads to tear up the neighbourhood.

It's kind of the same as arguments we had a while ago about newspapers and the "don't read them" advice. Even at its height, hardly anyone read the Daily Mail and even less read the Daily Express, and yet somehow, they have this incredible control over our public debate. This is partly because of the arrogance of the media, thinking that what other journalists are saying/writing about things is oh so important. If I was king, my first law would be the electric chair for any journalist who writes a news article where the only source is something someone said on Twitter.