Elon Musk buys and ruins Twitter

[FogBlueInSanFran]

Sorta with you on that, but how many times have you seen Tweets on here accepted as truth?

Too often — but that’s why I only follow people I know who have Twitter accounts and post here, the club, and a few other City accounts from those who don’t appear to be misled often. And then a few others like Swiss Ramble. But that doesn’t prevent Talk Sport shite and What’s App group types from invading the timeline via suggestion by Twitter. But yes — if I dislike the algo enough I’ll leave and sacrifice the good stuff. It’s more likely under Musk I think, which is why I’m complaining.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

The problem is I suppose you either have something that is sanitised / censored beyond usefulness or a sort of cyber wild west. I'm sure there's a sweet spot in-between but it's difficult to find or define

That last sentence I agree with completely!

 

[meltonblue]

But it really isn't is it? I take the platform as a sewer, it's not my sewer it's just a sewer and whoever owns it decides the decision it goes.

I stand by my echo chamber description, if people don't like the new owners direction then they can leave the platform, but ostentatiously swishing their frocks and announcing it, really?

When it comes to the dissemination of incorrect facts though, no it isn’t a decision purely for the owner of it. It’s bound by laws which also differ in the different markets it operates in.

Regarding an echo chamber, it can be but that’s down to how the individual chooses to consumes content. It at least gives the opportunity to consume a wide range of opinion. You’ll get extremities with that, but if it’s echo chambers that are your concern, then that could be levelled at anyone that’s solely read the same newspaper for thirty years too. It’s a sewer as much as you want to be and how much you want to play in it yourself.

Personally I consume it more for music and it’s a brilliant platform for that. If you’re selective with it and who you follow, then it’s a brilliant way of getting information for any topics you like or persons of interest.

 

[mexico1970]

When it comes to the dissemination of incorrect facts though, no it isn’t a decision purely for the owner of it. It’s bound by laws which also differ in the different markets it operates in.

Regarding an echo chamber, it can be but that’s down to how the individual chooses to consumes content. It at least gives the opportunity to consume a wide range of opinion. You’ll get extremities with that, but if it’s echo chambers that are your concern, then that could be levelled at anyone that’s solely read the same newspaper for thirty years too. It’s a sewer as much as you want to be and how much you want to play in it yourself.

Personally I consume it more for music and it’s a brilliant platform for that. If you’re selective with it and who you follow, then it’s a brilliant way of getting information for any topics you like or persons of interest.

Not everyone is as discerning or articulate as you are mate, the wide eyed folk are everywhere and the danger is with and for them.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

I see the damage it causes with people crammed into their own corners by pre-set narratives. If it's going to have opinions on the platform it needs opening up completely and the faint of heart can maybe open a whatsapp group for like minded drones.

Then the rule of law should be applied, that's a bit tricky though because laws differ from country to country, it's a mess.

And when it comes to forming opinions when you don’t know much about something in that regard I can see how it’s a mess.

But I know a lot about my work — more than nearly any competitor I have — and so I am looking for facts that might actually change my views because it’s important my views incorporate all available evidence and evolve if I want to continue to be near the top in my field. So this is why cleaning up shit and piss is aggravating. I think the solution is just to winnow down inputs to the consistently-best ones.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

That last sentence I agree with completely!

It's the 21st century problem for humanity. Social media simultaneously creates the greatest ever platform for freedom of speech/democratisation, as well as radicalisation and extremism. The opportunity to see every view and viewpoint in the world , but also only to be exposed to your own and people that agree with you. I don't pretend to know the answer.

 

[mexico1970]

And when it comes to forming opinions when you don’t know much about something in that regard I can see how it’s a mess.

But I know a lot about my work — more than nearly any competitor I have — and so I am looking for facts that might actually change my views because it’s important my views incorporate all available evidence and evolve if I want to continue to be near the top in my field. So this is why cleaning up shit and piss is aggravating. I think the solution is just to winnow down inputs to the consistently-best ones.

Jackie from Grimsby and Eugene from Oregon don't use it professionally though, they just use it to peddle shit online. You may have the perception that others don't have but assuming that Jackie and Eugene can absorb facts logically is a mistake.

It's not a mistake that social media platforms make though, because they very much rely on it.

 

[meltonblue]

Follow people like you,Iike opinions like yours and hey presto you are right about everything. Radicalisation (in the terrorist sense) doesn't depend on you being exposed to extreme views, it depends on you being exposed to only one view and Twitter is built for this. Does humanity as much good as opium and gin in times past.

Twitter is built for the opposite of that, it’s got vaste swathes of different opinion on it. Your issue is more with how you perceive people choose to consume it. You’re right in what you say for a lot of people but they at least have access to other opinions through it, which doesn’t happen much nowadays if at all in the traditional media. The telegraph and guardian for example both used to contain a lot more counter editorial opinion than they do now.

 

[meltonblue]

Not everyone is as discerning or articulate as you are mate, the wide eyed folk are everywhere and the danger is with and for them.

Right, but they’re at least in the open now ;) I’d still argue if you have an argument with the echo chambers, then most of the printed media are a lot more guilty of it than a platform like twitter is though.

I’m a Luddite at heart, I’d go back to a world where the internet doesn’t exist. I’d still argue for everyone to consume as much content as they possibly could though and particularly from the alternative viewpoint to what they personally have. It’s the only way we have a chance of seeing empathy and compromise as enviable traits.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

Twitter is built for the opposite of that, it’s got vaste swathes of different opinion on it. Your issue is more with how you perceive people choose to consume it. You’re right in what you say for a lot of people but they at least have access to other opinions through it, which doesn’t happen much nowadays if at all in the traditional media. The telegraph and guardian for example both used to contain a lot more counter editorial opinion than they do now.

You're absolutely correct, but I think Twitter lends itself to the consumption I describe through its system of follows and likes. Inevitably most people end up in an ideological prism of their own construction. I suppose the same was true in the past when you chose what paper you read, but the interactive nature of Twitter makes it possible to construct your own (very narrow) world.