Share your thoughts on Elon Musk's takeover of twitter:
- Will Twitter, which is (as I understand it) terrible at generating revenue, but great at piling up debt, turn around under Musk's leadership?
- Will Musk turn it into a free-for-all of radicalism and/or free speech or will efforts in this direction be prevented by advertisers and others?
- Are you on Twitter and, if so, do you plan to change your tweeting behavior?
Here is a thoughtful discussion of Musk's options and the challenges facing him by a tech lawyer: https://www.city-journal.org/elon-musk-free-speech-crusade-twitter (https://www.city-journal.org/elon-musk-free-speech-crusade-twitter)
I would add to the article that Musk didn't spend $44 billion, about $3 billion more than Twitter's recent market capitalization, for his hobby or his health. He wants to make money. "Free speech" is one shtick in the commercial world with which to make money, but only one, or part of one.
Subscriptions have contributed to the narrowing of opinion in what used to be newspapers. We get to choose whose propaganda we pay attention to. Maybe the same will work for Twitter. I don't know.
I am not now nor have I ever been a tweeter, for the medium is the message.
The bird is freed! No, I don't use it, and I don't even really consider it healthy, but it's become another of many infiltrations by the fascist left, so Elon Musk owning it can only bring improvement. My hope, and also my prediction, is that between this development and the upcoming elections it is going to become obvious that most of the American people wish to put things like wokeism, quack theories about rising white supremacy, queering up your kids for fun and political power, and the diversity/equity/inclusion brute to sleep (euthanized).
It would be financially ridiculous for Musk to let Twitter be a free for all. He might allow it, but the advertisers won't.
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on October 29, 2022, 10:10:52 AM
Share your thoughts on Elon Musk's takeover of twitter:
1) Will Twitter, which is (as I understand it) terrible at generating revenue, but great at piling up debt, turn around under Musk's leadership?
2a) Musk turn it into a free-for-all of radicalism and/or free speech or: 2b) will efforts in this direction be prevented by advertisers and others?
3 Are you on Twitter and, if so, do you plan to change your tweeting behavior?
1)
No, because I think the one reason Twitter is terrible at generating revenue is that it has not been a great platform for generating engagement.
2a) Signs point to
yes already. 2b)
Not bloodly likely. With fewer users, coupled with unwillingness to have ads accidentally placed next to offensive content, advertisers will just drop off.
3)
No. Well, apparently I have an account. I did try to delete it but since I forgot the password, I'm not going to bother with it.
I'm not a big fan of social media but have tried using both FB and Twitter for classroom purposes with only middling success. I dropped the FB attempt years ago, but tried Twitter last year. Students don't seem that enthused, so I'm unlikely to now try Instagram or Tik Tok or whatever shiny new thing becomes the next shiny new thing. I really don't care if Twitter makes money or if it continues to be an algorithmically driven curse upon rational discussion in the public square.
As to Elon? Personally, I think he's crazy as a shit house rat.
Quote from: secundem_artem on October 29, 2022, 03:12:56 PM
...
As to Elon? Personally, I think he's crazy as a shit house rat.
He has to be. Otherwise he wouldn't be filthy rich!
Quote from: dismalist on October 29, 2022, 03:37:11 PM
Quote from: secundem_artem on October 29, 2022, 03:12:56 PM
...
As to Elon? Personally, I think he's crazy as a shit house rat.
He has to be. Otherwise he wouldn't be filthy rich!
Well, it seems to be that persons on the autism spectrum or with bipolar disorder are the ones who change history, often as not. Crazy, or crazy talented?
ETA: I just learned that he voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Joe Biden in 2020 but now considers the democratic party the party of division and hate, and likes Ron DeSantis. Which is just about how I have felt.
So does free speech on Twitter prohibit expressions of hate? Can you say "I hate so-and-so (or their group)" without including any threats? I guess we'll find out.
It's not a pleasant thing to talk about, but I suspect just about everyone hates some others.
And I believe it's a protected right.
"She never bothers with people she hates. That's why the lady is a tramp." And we thought, that is a song for sophisticated people.
WRT the wildly overpriced purchase of Twitter he was stupid enough to make, do we know exactly how much of this money was actually Musk's, vs borrowed funds or funds from investors he conned into ponying up help for him? And exactly how do we know that he is 'the richest man in the world'? What are the criteria on which this judgment is made, and who made such determination?
Quote from: kaysixteen on October 29, 2022, 06:18:31 PM
WRT the wildly overpriced purchase of Twitter he was stupid enough to make, do we know exactly how much of this money was actually Musk's, vs borrowed funds or funds from investors he conned into ponying up help for him? And exactly how do we know that he is 'the richest man in the world'? What are the criteria on which this judgment is made, and who made such determination?
Mustn't let one's emotions take over one's analysis.
QuoteWRT the wildly overpriced purchase of Twitter
To you and me, maybe, but what's $3billion between friends?
Quotehe was stupid enough to make
People make mistakes. They are stupid only if they do so systematically. I don't think Elon makes systematic mistakes. If he did, he wouldn't be rich.
Quotehow much of this money was actually Musk's, vs borrowed funds or funds from investors he conned into ponying up help for him?
That is known and it doesn't matter. He didn't con babe-in-the-wood lenders and investors. They're not helping him. They expect a profit. If he doesn't deliver, they may not invite him to dinner again.
Quote'the richest man in the world'
He's worth about $241billion. Forbes magazine enumerates rich people. Most of their wealth in is in publicly traded companies, so it's not too difficult to figure this out.
Quote from: dismalist on October 29, 2022, 06:44:12 PM
Quote'the richest man in the world'
He's worth about $241billion. Forbes magazine enumerates rich people. Most of their wealth in is in publicly traded companies, so it's not too difficult to figure this out.
Depending on what day of the week it is!
Quote from: hmaria1609 on October 29, 2022, 07:22:59 PM
Quote from: dismalist on October 29, 2022, 06:44:12 PM
Quote'the richest man in the world'
He's worth about $241billion. Forbes magazine enumerates rich people. Most of their wealth in is in publicly traded companies, so it's not too difficult to figure this out.
Depending on what day of the week it is!
I'll settle for Tuesday! :-)
If he really has $241b, then that is $200b more than he paid for Twitter, more or less, so he would not have had to borrow anything nor get any investors to help him. He could just write a check. It would clear.
The Forbes richest people list is apparently notoriously easy to game.
Quote from: kaysixteen on October 29, 2022, 08:17:11 PM
If he really has $241b, then that is $200b more than he paid for Twitter, more or less, so he would not have had to borrow anything nor get any investors to help him. He could just write a check. It would clear.
The Forbes richest people list is apparently notoriously easy to game.
Ah, K-16, you don't appreciate all the possibilities of high finance! [Nor do I.] That's all risk containment. Nobody is gaming a list that has no payoff.
Remember by the wisdom of Mark Twain that there are two ways of dealing with risk. One is: Don't put all your eggs in one basket. The other is: Put all your eggs in one basket and
watch that basket! Clearly, Elon doesn't have enough guts to follow the second strategy, so he follows the first. I sympathize with him; I'd be gutless too. Even if one divided all numbers by1 x many, many zeros.
Elon Musk has been photographed in the company of Donald Trump, and they were both smiling. So he's officially a guy we shouldn't like.
ETA: From
American GreatnessQuoteThe New York Times gave fastidious expression to this canard in a story headlined "Twitter, Once a Threat to Titans, Now Belongs to One." A "threat to titans," eh? What do you suppose that means? The Times explains in its subhead. "A decade ago, the social media platform was a tool for rebels and those challenging authority. But over time, the powerful learned how to use it for their own goals."
Like the NYT has not been a titan themselves that is worried about threats. They dost protest too much.
I'll throw in my two cents now that the thread has been open for a while.
First thing to say is that Twitter's business performance is not great. Its usage has never been nearly as large as Facebook or Instagram, despite having (imo) a more user friendly platform. As a result, it does not generate revenue on a level anywhere near those platforms. So to turn it around Musk has to bring in more users, find another way to generate revenue aside from advertisers (e.g. a subscription based service), and/or completely reinvent Twitter's purpose. Seems to me that reinventing is the only way to turn twitter into a major success, so I imagine he'll lean into that strategy, but it will be difficult in practice and it does not help that he doesn't have much experience in the social media business landscape. It also seems that the decision to purchase was hasty and not well thought out, but maybe that is not the case. To Musk's credit, he is a guy who thinks outside the box and innovates in interesting ways, so if anyone can revive the platform it might be him, but it is going to be an uphill climb.
With regards to turning Twitter into a free for all, it seems like this would be bad for bringing in new users or securing advertising. I imagine he will scale back moderation and make some big gestures like allowing some high-profile people who have been banned to come back, but (as ruralguy said) advertisers don't want their products appearing next to a racist or sexist tweet and that pressure will prevent him allowing a free for all.
I do have a Twitter account, but I don't use it much. My only reason for having or using it is to tweet my new articles or new articles from others. I'll keep doing that as long as my academic "friends" are still there to see these tweets. If they leave then I won't have much reason to remain an active user.
Final thought (and this is a big reason for my thinking that Musk cannot turn it around without a dramatic overhaul in Twitter's purpose and user experience) is that Twitter is yesterday's news as a social media platform. It is a crowded marketplace Twitter is no longer "the" town square, if it ever was.
Boomers, (circa 1995): "Wow! The internet is a place where people can say anything they want! Isn't that great!"
Boomers' children (aka Gen Z, 2022): "Wow! Twitter will become a place where people can say anything they want! Isn't that horrible!"
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 30, 2022, 10:02:08 AM
Boomers, (circa 1995): "Wow! The internet is a place where people can say anything they want! Isn't that great!"
Boomers' children (aka Gen Z, 2022): "Wow! Twitter will become a place where people can say anything they want! Isn't that horrible!"
I don't think Gen Z is on twitter, which is the problem for that platform and its business prospects.
I've had an account for awhile...not much-used, recently.
At first I crafted some nice visuals with commentary to make points about my tours.
Now, I think I'll email those to myself, to keep the files, etc., and then close the account.
M.
Two weeks ago I asked my students in an upper-level history course in a public comprehensive university in the Northeast about their social media use. (In part because I wanted to know if the history department should adopt one or another as a way of outreach to students.) If anything my students are probably a bit older than their counterparts at many schools.
Almost all of the students use Instagram.
Next, maybe 15-25 per cent use Twitter.
Next, maybe 10-15 per cent use TikTok.
Then, two students use Facebook. About the same number use LinkedIn.
They laughed when I asked about MySpace, which means they have heard about it, but none uses it.
(The students suggested that the history department use TikTok, especially to read out interesting history facts.)
My experience is that Facebook has the oldest average user age, followed by Twitter, followed by Instragram, followed by TikTok.
Quote from: jerseyjay on October 30, 2022, 04:28:43 PM
My experience is that Facebook has the oldest average user age, followed by Twitter, followed by Instragram, followed by TikTok.
So why do the media follow it so religiously?
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 30, 2022, 10:02:08 AM
Boomers, (circa 1995): "Wow! The internet is a place where people can say anything they want! Isn't that great!"
Boomers' children (aka Gen Z, 2022): "Wow! Twitter will become a place where people can say anything they want! Isn't that horrible!"
Aren't Boomers' children Gen X and Millennials?
From Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Z): 'Most members of Generation Z are children of Generation X.'
Wikipedia also says that the next generation will be called 'Generation Apha', which is new to me. I hadn't realized it had been named. Who comes up with these names?
Generational pedantry aside, that characterization seems about right. Gen Zers are like the genre-savvy horror-movie character saying, 'WTF?!--under NO CIRCUMSTANCES should we split up to cover more ground.'
Quote from: ergative on October 31, 2022, 06:42:49 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 30, 2022, 10:02:08 AM
Boomers, (circa 1995): "Wow! The internet is a place where people can say anything they want! Isn't that great!"
Boomers' children (aka Gen Z, 2022): "Wow! Twitter will become a place where people can say anything they want! Isn't that horrible!"
Aren't Boomers' children Gen X and Millennials?
From Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Z): 'Most members of Generation Z are children of Generation X.'
Sure, that makes sense.
But in that case, what made Gen X raise children who are so fearful? (But at the same time, so much more trusting of government oversight of all kinds of things?)
Quote
Wikipedia also says that the next generation will be called 'Generation Apha', which is new to me. I hadn't realized it had been named. Who comes up with these names?
Generational pedantry aside, that characterization seems about right. Gen Zers are like the genre-savvy horror-movie character saying, 'WTF?!--under NO CIRCUMSTANCES should we split up to cover more ground.'
It's not like people in the 90's didn't forsee the internet being a place where people could (and would) say awful things; it's that they saw the
removal of gatekeepers to public speech as a good thing since it would allow previously marginalized viewpoints to be expressed. Somewhere between the generations, the script flipped and young people think the
*government will ensure that previously marginalized viewpoints get expressed, and will only silence people trying to say awful things.
What made the younger generation so trustful of authority figures? What made them think being encased in bubble wrap was secure, rather than (or at least, also) restricting?
*and/or media, big tech, etc.
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 31, 2022, 05:42:10 AM
Quote from: jerseyjay on October 30, 2022, 04:28:43 PM
My experience is that Facebook has the oldest average user age, followed by Twitter, followed by Instragram, followed by TikTok.
So why do the media follow it so religiously?
Doing so makes it easier to post "stories" quickly, and of course, get the all important clicks.
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 31, 2022, 07:29:02 AM
Quote from: ergative on October 31, 2022, 06:42:49 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 30, 2022, 10:02:08 AM
Boomers, (circa 1995): "Wow! The internet is a place where people can say anything they want! Isn't that great!"
Boomers' children (aka Gen Z, 2022): "Wow! Twitter will become a place where people can say anything they want! Isn't that horrible!"
Aren't Boomers' children Gen X and Millennials?
From Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Z): 'Most members of Generation Z are children of Generation X.'
Sure, that makes sense.
But in that case, what made Gen X raise children who are so fearful? (But at the same time, so much more trusting of government oversight of all kinds of things?)
Quote
Wikipedia also says that the next generation will be called 'Generation Apha', which is new to me. I hadn't realized it had been named. Who comes up with these names?
Generational pedantry aside, that characterization seems about right. Gen Zers are like the genre-savvy horror-movie character saying, 'WTF?!--under NO CIRCUMSTANCES should we split up to cover more ground.'
It's not like people in the 90's didn't forsee the internet being a place where people could (and would) say awful things; it's that they saw the removal of gatekeepers to public speech as a good thing since it would allow previously marginalized viewpoints to be expressed. Somewhere between the generations, the script flipped and young people think the *government will ensure that previously marginalized viewpoints get expressed, and will only silence people trying to say awful things.
What made the younger generation so trustful of authority figures? What made them think being encased in bubble wrap was secure, rather than (or at least, also) restricting?
*and/or media, big tech, etc.
I think it's more that each generation grew up well-positioned to see the downsides of one extreme or the other. So Gen X in the 90s was ready to remove boundaries and gatekeepers and allow marginalized viewpoints to be expressed, and Gen Z (and younger millennials) grew up seeing that some of those marginalized viewpoints are extremist assholes who delight in being dicks online.
Someone who grew up with parents who paddled them for not cleaning their fingernails is going to be real keen on 'free-range' parenting. Someone who grew up looking after themselves dawn to dusk might think it would be nice to have parents making sure they brush their teeth. Someone who grew up being forced to write five-paragraph essays that they never had to use in the workplace might be eager to lighten up on the regimented curriculum and learn to read and write for the pleasure of it. Someone who grew up being encouraged to 'express themselves', free of the tyranny of standardized spelling and punctuation might find themselves in a remedial GED course begging the writing tutor, 'just tell me the rules.' [trufax: I was that tutor.]
It's not the case that one view is better than the other. It's the case that each view reflects a different background (dare I say 'lived experience'?) where the drawbacks and solutions lay in opposite directions.
Quote from: ergative on October 31, 2022, 09:51:27 AM
I think it's more that each generation grew up well-positioned to see the downsides of one extreme or the other. So Gen X in the 90s was ready to remove boundaries and gatekeepers and allow marginalized viewpoints to be expressed, and Gen Z (and younger millennials) grew up seeing that some of those marginalized viewpoints are extremist assholes who delight in being dicks online.
Honest question: Does that mean it's Gen X who are the champions of free speech? At least on here, I haven't gotten the impression that it's Gen X particularly pushing free speech; my sense it that it's more Boomers.
Any research on that?
Quote
Someone who grew up looking after themselves dawn to dusk might think it would be nice to have parents making sure they brush their teeth.
So again, were Gen Z raised by "free--range parents" so they crave authority? (Again it's an honest question because the conventional wisdom is that it was
helicopter parents who produced fearful offspring, which is the opposite situation.)
Quote
It's not the case that one view is better than the other. It's the case that each view reflects a different background (dare I say 'lived experience'?) where the drawbacks and solutions lay in opposite directions.
But historically, across cultures and through history, the younger generation has been
expected to rebel against authority, and doing so is almost considered a sign of maturity. Young adults
advocating stronger authority seems unprecedented.
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 31, 2022, 07:29:02 AM
Quote from: ergative on October 31, 2022, 06:42:49 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 30, 2022, 10:02:08 AM
Boomers, (circa 1995): "Wow! The internet is a place where people can say anything they want! Isn't that great!"
Boomers' children (aka Gen Z, 2022): "Wow! Twitter will become a place where people can say anything they want! Isn't that horrible!"
Aren't Boomers' children Gen X and Millennials?
From Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Z): 'Most members of Generation Z are children of Generation X.'
Sure, that makes sense.
But in that case, what made Gen X raise children who are so fearful? (But at the same time, so much more trusting of government oversight of all kinds of things?)
Quote
Wikipedia also says that the next generation will be called 'Generation Apha', which is new to me. I hadn't realized it had been named. Who comes up with these names?
Generational pedantry aside, that characterization seems about right. Gen Zers are like the genre-savvy horror-movie character saying, 'WTF?!--under NO CIRCUMSTANCES should we split up to cover more ground.'
It's not like people in the 90's didn't forsee the internet being a place where people could (and would) say awful things; it's that they saw the removal of gatekeepers to public speech as a good thing since it would allow previously marginalized viewpoints to be expressed. Somewhere between the generations, the script flipped and young people think the *government will ensure that previously marginalized viewpoints get expressed, and will only silence people trying to say awful things.
What made the younger generation so trustful of authority figures? What made them think being encased in bubble wrap was secure, rather than (or at least, also) restricting?
*and/or media, big tech, etc.
What caused this? Uncertainty. They have watched their parents lose jobs, have their salaries or hours cut, have their benefits trimmed, seen employer pension contributions decreased, saw defined benefit plans changed to defined contribution plans, and watched the bankers destroy the economy and suffer no consequences for it.
Government and bubble wrap may not be the answer to their problems, but hey - what has happened in the last 20 odd years has made things worse for a lot of people, not better. Same reason people voted for Trump. He was clearly NOT like the other guys and when you are watching your future slip away, you have nothing to lose by changing your political allegiances.
Quote from: secundem_artem on October 31, 2022, 10:56:26 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 31, 2022, 07:29:02 AM
Quote from: ergative on October 31, 2022, 06:42:49 AM
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 30, 2022, 10:02:08 AM
Boomers, (circa 1995): "Wow! The internet is a place where people can say anything they want! Isn't that great!"
Boomers' children (aka Gen Z, 2022): "Wow! Twitter will become a place where people can say anything they want! Isn't that horrible!"
Aren't Boomers' children Gen X and Millennials?
From Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Z): 'Most members of Generation Z are children of Generation X.'
Sure, that makes sense.
But in that case, what made Gen X raise children who are so fearful? (But at the same time, so much more trusting of government oversight of all kinds of things?)
Quote
Wikipedia also says that the next generation will be called 'Generation Apha', which is new to me. I hadn't realized it had been named. Who comes up with these names?
Generational pedantry aside, that characterization seems about right. Gen Zers are like the genre-savvy horror-movie character saying, 'WTF?!--under NO CIRCUMSTANCES should we split up to cover more ground.'
It's not like people in the 90's didn't forsee the internet being a place where people could (and would) say awful things; it's that they saw the removal of gatekeepers to public speech as a good thing since it would allow previously marginalized viewpoints to be expressed. Somewhere between the generations, the script flipped and young people think the *government will ensure that previously marginalized viewpoints get expressed, and will only silence people trying to say awful things.
What made the younger generation so trustful of authority figures? What made them think being encased in bubble wrap was secure, rather than (or at least, also) restricting?
*and/or media, big tech, etc.
What caused this? Uncertainty. They have watched their parents lose jobs, have their salaries or hours cut, have their benefits trimmed, seen employer pension contributions decreased, saw defined benefit plans changed to defined contribution plans, and watched the bankers destroy the economy and suffer no consequences for it.
But the
government bailed out the banks. Why would people who saw that put
more faith in government after that???
What convinces them that the powers-that-be can be counted on to do the right thing after they have clearly shown failures to do so?
Quote
Government and bubble wrap may not be the answer to their problems, but hey - what has happened in the last 20 odd years has made things worse for a lot of people, not better.
But that's been true after all kinds of historical events (such as the Great Depression, which was
much worse than the last 20 years); I'm not sure this cultural response is similar to what happened in other situations.
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 31, 2022, 10:06:34 AM
Quote from: ergative on October 31, 2022, 09:51:27 AM
I think it's more that each generation grew up well-positioned to see the downsides of one extreme or the other. So Gen X in the 90s was ready to remove boundaries and gatekeepers and allow marginalized viewpoints to be expressed, and Gen Z (and younger millennials) grew up seeing that some of those marginalized viewpoints are extremist assholes who delight in being dicks online.
Honest question: Does that mean it's Gen X who are the champions of free speech? At least on here, I haven't gotten the impression that it's Gen X particularly pushing free speech; my sense it that it's more Boomers.
Any research on that?
Not a clue. My social commentary is mostly based on vibe.
QuoteQuote
Someone who grew up looking after themselves dawn to dusk might think it would be nice to have parents making sure they brush their teeth.
So again, were Gen Z raised by "free--range parents" so they crave authority? (Again it's an honest question because the conventional wisdom is that it was helicopter parents who produced fearful offspring, which is the opposite situation.)
I wasn't making this claim about Gen Z, specifically. I was trying to draw a parallel about how different types of upbringings produce different value systems that crave an alternative to the previous system's faulty extremes.
Quote
Quote
It's not the case that one view is better than the other. It's the case that each view reflects a different background (dare I say 'lived experience'?) where the drawbacks and solutions lay in opposite directions.
But historically, across cultures and through history, the younger generation has been expected to rebel against authority, and doing so is almost considered a sign of maturity. Young adults advocating stronger authority seems unprecedented.
But, perhaps related to the above comment and what counts as 'fearful offspring', I would argue that young adults doing things like demanding disability accommodations and recognition of neurodiversity is, in a way, rebelling against authority. Maybe governments and administrations mandate that such things be recognized, but as we've seen on these boards, and among our colleagues, there's quite a bit of resistance to that sort of accommodation of 'snowflakes'. So from the perspective of the zoomers, there are two sets of authorities in play. Seeming to crave one does not mean that you're not rebelling against the other.
Quote from: ergative on October 31, 2022, 01:25:47 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 31, 2022, 10:06:34 AM
But historically, across cultures and through history, the younger generation has been expected to rebel against authority, and doing so is almost considered a sign of maturity. Young adults advocating stronger authority seems unprecedented.
But, perhaps related to the above comment and what counts as 'fearful offspring', I would argue that young adults doing things like demanding disability accommodations and recognition of neurodiversity is, in a way, rebelling against authority. Maybe governments and administrations mandate that such things be recognized, but as we've seen on these boards, and among our colleagues, there's quite a bit of resistance to that sort of accommodation of 'snowflakes'. So from the perspective of the zoomers, there are two sets of authorities in play. Seeming to crave one does not mean that you're not rebelling against the other.
Fair enough, but by supporting (or even encouraging) government policing of speech requires one to believe that the government has
and will continue to have the "correct" ideas of what speech to suppress. (Obviously, since any attempt in the future to tell the government they are not doing it correctly will
itself be subject to the government's suppression.) In other words, to trust the government to limit speech would seem to preclude having the kind of ambivalent attitude toward authority mentioned above; it requires a conviction that the level of government allowed to police speech
is and will continue to be benevolent.
You're not rebelling against any authority that you give permission to silence you.
I read an interesting conspiracy theory about this. At one time the country folk despised Japanese vehicles. Now they love Toyota trucks. Musk wants to win over middle America and get them to embrace EV's and solar power which right now is most popular with the coastal elite.
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 31, 2022, 01:38:41 PM
Quote from: ergative on October 31, 2022, 01:25:47 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 31, 2022, 10:06:34 AM
But historically, across cultures and through history, the younger generation has been expected to rebel against authority, and doing so is almost considered a sign of maturity. Young adults advocating stronger authority seems unprecedented.
But, perhaps related to the above comment and what counts as 'fearful offspring', I would argue that young adults doing things like demanding disability accommodations and recognition of neurodiversity is, in a way, rebelling against authority. Maybe governments and administrations mandate that such things be recognized, but as we've seen on these boards, and among our colleagues, there's quite a bit of resistance to that sort of accommodation of 'snowflakes'. So from the perspective of the zoomers, there are two sets of authorities in play. Seeming to crave one does not mean that you're not rebelling against the other.
Fair enough, but by supporting (or even encouraging) government policing of speech requires one to believe that the government has and will continue to have the "correct" ideas of what speech to suppress. (Obviously, since any attempt in the future to tell the government they are not doing it correctly will itself be subject to the government's suppression.) In other words, to trust the government to limit speech would seem to preclude having the kind of ambivalent attitude toward authority mentioned above; it requires a conviction that the level of government allowed to police speech is and will continue to be benevolent.
You're not rebelling against any authority that you give permission to silence you.
I mean, yes, sure. Any time we demand that the government exercise its powers to our (perceived?) benefit, we run the risk of it then turning around and using those same powers to our detriment. Over-powerful governments are dangerous. But if we go too far with that kind of caution, and deny governments all power, we end up with libertarian dystopias overrun with bears. (https://www.publicaffairsbooks.com/titles/matthew-hongoltz-hetling/a-libertarian-walks-into-a-bear/9781541788510/)*
We're always yoyoing between extremes. It would be real nice if we could converge on an asymptotic compromise, rather than the long-term sinusoidal culture war we've got going on right now.
*This is an outstanding book, by the way. Highly recommended. Superb narrative style.
I was on Twitter in the late-aughts for the comedy. One of my friends dropped out of grad school because she was hired onto the writing staff of a CBS sitcom -- recruited from her Twitter account. I miss those days.
There are a lot of "Trump ruined twitter" style claims, but I think he successfully capitalized on what many Tea Partiers were doing before him. It's what gave us the Birther movement. And I'd argue that back then Twitter was a lot more unmoderated, but it only became scrutinized due to the ways in which Trump and his cohort used it. So I do think that the standards have been changed since that time in 2010 when I was doxxed and cyberstalked. At that point I had very little recourse; I don't think that's the same now, and I don't think that Musk's ownership will return us to that either.
How long can he and his investors afford to lose money on this deal?
From the New York Times. (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/30/technology/elon-musk-twitter-debt.html) I think this will end in shareholder lawsuits.
Quote from: ciao_yall on October 31, 2022, 06:39:07 PM
How long can he and his investors afford to lose money on this deal?
From the New York Times. (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/30/technology/elon-musk-twitter-debt.html) I think this will end in shareholder lawsuits.
It is very rare that something as big and expensive as this news has had consequences almost entirely limited to rich assholes. I've been enjoying the ride immensely all summer. Guilt free entertainment!
Quote from: ergative on October 31, 2022, 02:17:08 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 31, 2022, 01:38:41 PM
Quote from: ergative on October 31, 2022, 01:25:47 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 31, 2022, 10:06:34 AM
But historically, across cultures and through history, the younger generation has been expected to rebel against authority, and doing so is almost considered a sign of maturity. Young adults advocating stronger authority seems unprecedented.
But, perhaps related to the above comment and what counts as 'fearful offspring', I would argue that young adults doing things like demanding disability accommodations and recognition of neurodiversity is, in a way, rebelling against authority. Maybe governments and administrations mandate that such things be recognized, but as we've seen on these boards, and among our colleagues, there's quite a bit of resistance to that sort of accommodation of 'snowflakes'. So from the perspective of the zoomers, there are two sets of authorities in play. Seeming to crave one does not mean that you're not rebelling against the other.
Fair enough, but by supporting (or even encouraging) government policing of speech requires one to believe that the government has and will continue to have the "correct" ideas of what speech to suppress. (Obviously, since any attempt in the future to tell the government they are not doing it correctly will itself be subject to the government's suppression.) In other words, to trust the government to limit speech would seem to preclude having the kind of ambivalent attitude toward authority mentioned above; it requires a conviction that the level of government allowed to police speech is and will continue to be benevolent.
You're not rebelling against any authority that you give permission to silence you.
I mean, yes, sure. Any time we demand that the government exercise its powers to our (perceived?) benefit, we run the risk of it then turning around and using those same powers to our detriment.
Yes! That's exactly what any adult is expected to see, the possibility of things being turned around. And that's what young people seem to be oblivious to. Some other examples:
- "Oppression" of group A by group B has always existed, and will always exist.
- Cancelling people for things they said or did decades ago, or even historical figures, for things done centuries ago, based on the conviction that what they did or said then is an accurate reflection of what they think now, (or would think now if they were alive). In other words, personal values are immutable and are totally unaffected by culture.
Quote
Over-powerful governments are dangerous. But if we go too far with that kind of caution, and deny governments all power, we end up with libertarian dystopias overrun with bears. (https://www.publicaffairsbooks.com/titles/matthew-hongoltz-hetling/a-libertarian-walks-into-a-bear/9781541788510/)*
We're always yoyoing between extremes. It would be real nice if we could converge on an asymptotic compromise, rather than the long-term sinusoidal culture war we've got going on right now.
Again, you've nailed it; this is
exactly what seems to be beyond the grasp of many young people; the idea that
oscillation is normal, and that extremes
always come with problems. (The very term "progressive" implies that "progress" is some clear and unambiguous goal, and thus being "progressive" means moving from bad to good, with the ideal endpoint entirely irrefutable.)
Quote
*This is an outstanding book, by the way. Highly recommended. Superb narrative style.
Sounds interesting.
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 01, 2022, 05:45:49 AM
Quote from: ergative on October 31, 2022, 02:17:08 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 31, 2022, 01:38:41 PM
Quote from: ergative on October 31, 2022, 01:25:47 PM
Quote from: marshwiggle on October 31, 2022, 10:06:34 AM
But historically, across cultures and through history, the younger generation has been expected to rebel against authority, and doing so is almost considered a sign of maturity. Young adults advocating stronger authority seems unprecedented.
But, perhaps related to the above comment and what counts as 'fearful offspring', I would argue that young adults doing things like demanding disability accommodations and recognition of neurodiversity is, in a way, rebelling against authority. Maybe governments and administrations mandate that such things be recognized, but as we've seen on these boards, and among our colleagues, there's quite a bit of resistance to that sort of accommodation of 'snowflakes'. So from the perspective of the zoomers, there are two sets of authorities in play. Seeming to crave one does not mean that you're not rebelling against the other.
Fair enough, but by supporting (or even encouraging) government policing of speech requires one to believe that the government has and will continue to have the "correct" ideas of what speech to suppress. (Obviously, since any attempt in the future to tell the government they are not doing it correctly will itself be subject to the government's suppression.) In other words, to trust the government to limit speech would seem to preclude having the kind of ambivalent attitude toward authority mentioned above; it requires a conviction that the level of government allowed to police speech is and will continue to be benevolent.
You're not rebelling against any authority that you give permission to silence you.
I mean, yes, sure. Any time we demand that the government exercise its powers to our (perceived?) benefit, we run the risk of it then turning around and using those same powers to our detriment.
Yes! That's exactly what any adult is expected to see, the possibility of things being turned around. And that's what young people seem to be oblivious to. Some other examples:
- "Oppression" of group A by group B has always existed, and will always exist.
- Cancelling people for things they said or did decades ago, or even historical figures, for things done centuries ago, based on the conviction that what they did or said then is an accurate reflection of what they think now, (or would think now if they were alive). In other words, personal values are immutable and are totally unaffected by culture.
Quote
Over-powerful governments are dangerous. But if we go too far with that kind of caution, and deny governments all power, we end up with libertarian dystopias overrun with bears. (https://www.publicaffairsbooks.com/titles/matthew-hongoltz-hetling/a-libertarian-walks-into-a-bear/9781541788510/)*
We're always yoyoing between extremes. It would be real nice if we could converge on an asymptotic compromise, rather than the long-term sinusoidal culture war we've got going on right now.
Again, you've nailed it; this is exactly what seems to be beyond the grasp of many young people; the idea that oscillation is normal, and that extremes always come with problems. (The very term "progressive" implies that "progress" is some clear and unambiguous goal, and thus being "progressive" means moving from bad to good, with the ideal endpoint entirely irrefutable.)
Quote
*This is an outstanding book, by the way. Highly recommended. Superb narrative style.
Sounds interesting.
I mean, and old people too. The maga-crowd trends older, and they're bending to the right just as hard as the zoomers are bending to the left. Like entropy. Also, don't forget that it's the oldsters who have been bemoaning the miserable downfall of civilization at the hands of youngsters since the ancient Greeks. There are fuzzy thinkers in every age group.
Also, just because oscillation is normal doesn't mean it's good. Ideally we'd be able to arrive at a middle that doesn't require us to oscillation between extremes to deliver the average. (I'm reminded of a very old SF story in which someone talks about a planet with a wildly cold night and wildly hot day--like, shifts between -100 and +240---and then conclude, 'but the average is 70 so it's suitable for human habitation.' Old SF wasn't not very good on the S, and not terribly well written in the F. It boggles the mind how some of that junk got revered as the 'golden age'.)
Just curious - how many here have Twitter accounts that they actively use? I have one that I used once probably 8 years ago for one specific thing. I really have never seen the point to Twitter.
Never used it, but I don't think I am the target demographic (probably not the target demo for anything but "old guy" stuff).
I barely even follow it indirectly in the press. It seems to be a megaphone for rich jerks.
I have a twitter account.
I post to it when I have an article that is being published, or a talk on my research.
I follow it to keep up with other scholarship, and also events and other such things.
It is useful, but if it were to disappear, I would not cry.
Quote from: jerseyjay on November 01, 2022, 07:58:24 AM
I have a twitter account.
I post to it when I have an article that is being published, or a talk on my research.
I follow it to keep up with other scholarship, and also events and other such things.
It is useful, but if it were to disappear, I would not cry.
Same here.
I have a Twitter account, but don't usually post to it. I used to look at it to follow a few individuals I was interested in for various reasons. I haven't looked at it in ages because 1) it became a big time suck and 2) I was avoiding news for a bit because it was getting me down. I think now it's time to delete my account...if I can remember my password.
I follow a lot of people. I learn about books, articles and videos from them. Sometimes I see interesting discussion. Then there are the cat videos.
I haven't formulated a definite point at which I will delete my Twitter account, but I'm ready to do it if it is part of a general surge. There are of course many alternative platforms, but none is very popular.
Just learned from another discussion board that Musk plans to charge for Twitter's Bluecheck. I had to google what that meant! :-)
So, it looks like he's gonna charge individuals for successfully broadcasting.
Of course, the rates he charges can vary by the degree of success! Everywhere one looks, price discrimination, price discrimination. Halloween candy and universities and tweets.
Doesn't seem like Musk came in with much of a plan.
I have a Twitter account. I follow a couple of great people, and I say nothing controversial whatsoever. I also follow some firebrands in my field, just to see what the furor is about. As far as I can observe, no one has ever changed anyone else's mind by lambasting them on Twitter.
Musk thinks he knows how to run a business, but I think there is practically no one else that thinks he will handle Twitter sensibly. He reminds me of those retired guys who write to History Departments saying, "Hey, I've read a lot of Time-Life military history books over the years, why don't I come and teach for you all?" Except this guy bought the department.
Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on November 01, 2022, 03:49:33 PM
Doesn't seem like Musk came in with much of a plan.
When she heard of the sale, a Fri said, "Well, that's good. There's almost nothing that can't be improved by having Elon Musk in charge of it..."
M.
Quote from: dismalist on November 01, 2022, 12:58:23 PM
Just learned from another discussion board that Musk plans to charge for Twitter's Bluecheck. I had to google what that meant! :-)
As I understand it, that's for "verified accounts". If that means it takes some actual human intervention to "verify", then that makes sense and is quite reasonable.
Quote from: Hegemony on November 01, 2022, 05:40:55 PM
Musk thinks he knows how to run a business, but I think there is practically no one else that thinks he will handle Twitter sensibly. He reminds me of those retired guys who write to History Departments saying, "Hey, I've read a lot of Time-Life military history books over the years, why don't I come and teach for you all?" Except this guy bought the department.
I seem to recall an interview where Musk said he knows many (most?) of his ideas will fail, but the few that succeed are worth it. Since Twitter is only one of his irons in the fire, I don't imagine even he is too concerned about whether it succeeds or not. Given the problems with it already, if it falls off the face of the Earth it won't be any big loss for society, and it's just money for Musk.
At the risk of outing myself, a colleague commented that now, all Musk needs to do to cement his reputation as an evil genius is shave his head, get a white Persian cat, and change his name to Blofeld.
Comment on Colbert....
https://youtu.be/LvlDDJBtmbQ
M.
Quote from: marshwiggle on November 02, 2022, 05:19:15 AM
Quote from: dismalist on November 01, 2022, 12:58:23 PM
Just learned from another discussion board that Musk plans to charge for Twitter's Bluecheck. I had to google what that meant! :-)
As I understand it, that's for "verified accounts". If that means it takes some actual human intervention to "verify", then that makes sense and is quite reasonable.
Quote from: Hegemony on November 01, 2022, 05:40:55 PM
Musk thinks he knows how to run a business, but I think there is practically no one else that thinks he will handle Twitter sensibly. He reminds me of those retired guys who write to History Departments saying, "Hey, I've read a lot of Time-Life military history books over the years, why don't I come and teach for you all?" Except this guy bought the department.
I seem to recall an interview where Musk said he knows many (most?) of his ideas will fail, but the few that succeed are worth it. Since Twitter is only one of his irons in the fire, I don't imagine even he is too concerned about whether it succeeds or not. Given the problems with it already, if it falls off the face of the Earth it won't be any big loss for society, and it's just money for Musk.
Bummer. I was looking forward to seeing him personally devastated.