I quit twitter a few weeks ago. After many years I do see it as a harm to society, especially to the young and/or vulnerable people. Personally, I could no longer morally justify it in exchange for a few dopamine hits a day. I'm not interested to be in any way connected to a callous mob machine. Looks like, unsurprisingly, I jumped ship at the right time, though it could be argued I should have done it earlier. It will be interesting to see how it develops given this big rule change. It does seem to signal a demise but as curious as I might be I am grateful I won't have to witness it.
Jack censored. He’s a villain. A direct result of his censorship was very harmful school closures and masking little kids - at least for the people unfortunate enough to live in cities snd send their poor kids to public school where they can learn to be angry and jerky but nothing else (masking little kids and extended school closures remain a unique product of the USA compliments of moron techies censoring and woke illiberal anti science leftist media). It was already really bad. He didn’t “try” for free speech. He tried to leave just enough dissenting opinion to inflame passions while not allowing honest dialogue. He promoted idiotic ideology from whiny activist funded by the likes of grumpy old white men like Soros.
Twitter has been heading the way of MySpace for a while, but the new CEO hit the accelerate button over the cliff.
Good - Twitter isn’t free speech, it’s controlled speech pretending to be free. I won’t miss Twitter or whatever Zucky is calling his company these days…….. no one with a brain spends time on Twitter
Jack tried to keep things civil … but then he turned into a censor. TWITTER has leftists on, and GETTR has Conservatives. Leftists are generally unable to handle comment and disagreement. Now they have an echo chamber on Twitter. No one is there.
I don't see how Twitter can get any worse. I got off of it months ago. It's nothing but a bulletin board where "journalists" shoot off. They show just how nuts they are.
A good childhood friend of mine was poisoned by Twitter. Turned him into an angry, raging, lunatic - showing his envy towards people who have achieved more than him while on this planet. Because my friend punched down on me too, I ditched him. I’ll stay off Twitter and hope it’s ability to cancel people is eliminated. There is no good reason why idiots who have achieved nothing in the real world should be given the power by Twitter to dismantle successful, hard working citizens.
There's a difference between supporting free speech, and supporting yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. If Dorsey is in trouble, it's not that he didn't value the former. It's that he was either too blind to see when he was defending the latter or too weak of a person to do something about it.
Good riddance! And I think he should dedicate his fortune to reimbursing the costs of repairing and cleaning the Capitol after January 6th, apologizing personally to every Capitol and DC Police officer, and funding a generous retirement for them.
Specifically, Does this mean that someone such as Andy Ngo and the Antifa pics and videos that he posts are no longer acceptable?
Or for that matter, all those Kyle Rittenhouse that were exculpatory and incriminating? How about all those pics and videos of Asian ladies being attacked? Or for that matter, the videos of the looting and smashing in San Francisco?
There is a ton of wiggle room in the new policy, like "unless it's a public figure or there's some public interest in leaving pics up".
The biggest issue is that because the policies are so vague, there's a very high risk the grey areas will be abused by all the wokescolds on Twitter's payroll, who are always looking to advance a partisan agenda.
To the left, these events never happened. The mainstream media ignores these topics because they fly on the face of their narrative. So as Twitter sheds Jack Dorsey, the author argues, this problem will get worse. I tend to agree. Dorsey, though responsible for all that happened as CEO, is walking away - just like Bari Weiss did.
I have progressive friends, as opposed to liberal, who had a fit when I told them some of the details that were known about Rittenhouse last year, like the fact that he had a job and family in Kenosha.
But I think the way I found out was from some of the twitter accounts I follow.
Frankly, I do wonder if much of the reason for the new policy aren't all the videos showing the identity of the people involved in crimes. If indeed, the new policy applies to those videos. And I think if you are in public it is an automatic legal consent to be filmed....but of course that standard does not apply to what a private company shows.
I think we need to keep in mind that their viewing is more akin to a religious experience than something empirical. People wanted Kenosha to burn as religious purification.
Understand that Twitter, Facebook, TikTok, and other social media are not about journalism, public enlightenment, speaking truth to power, fair play, enabling the next Arab Spring, or any other public good. Social media exist to make money for their founders and investors. Period.
The "censorship" they impose now protects those profits. How? Because for social media, self-censorship is better than the alternative. A truly free Twitter and FB would allow robust discussions to take place, absolutely. It would also allow the crazy left to launch jihads against MAGAs and the crazy right to publish every Democratic politician's home address and names of their children.
The first time people (i.e., voters) were murdered from that freedom--and murders would happen, there's no question--government would enact heavy regulations on content. Those regs would slow the data harvest, which would slow the profits, and social media cannot allow that. So, social media uses its current model--"censorship lite"--in order to stave off the "censorship heavy" regulations of government.
If Twitter and the rest were guaranteed zero regulations on who can post what, they'd eliminate their oversight tomorrow. Why? Because it's expensive: policing their platforms costs them hundreds of millions of dollars that could otherwise go into investors' pockets. They only spend that money now to avoid heavier sanctions by government.
So, our choice is not "no regulations and censorship," but how much and by whom. Be careful what you wish for, you may get it.
Me personally, I'm of the "let everybody post their shit, who cares?" school. But I don't have to face enraged voters every two years.
Good post and I get your point about "censorship lite" and how some control is necessary to prevent bad things from happening to innocent people. The problem I have is the censorship lite protocol is biased towards one political viewpoint. The resulting hypocrisy cannot be defended in my mind.
Yes. I recall a story, I can't remember where, about how jihadists were being allowed to make tweets accusing people of being blasphemers, which was essentially a way of sending out a kill order to their fellow jihadists. This is a type of Twitter content that can literally, directly lead to murder of individuals but Twitter did nothing at the time (maybe that's changed; who knows) because it wasn't on their radar, politically speaking. Either they genuinely didn't know how dangerous these posts were to those accused or they didn't care because "it's happening to those people over there" etc. Meanwhile they hem and haw about the "danger" of unwoke opinions and how said opinions are "creating violence".
Is this the "blockchain" technology I've been reading about? Or something else entirely? It would be fascinating to see an Internet with zero censorship--government or corporate--but the lack of moderating could lead to all kinds of Nasty. I tend toward less control over postings than more, but zero could be as dangerous as too much. What do you think?
What a ridiculous piece. Seems more interested in the people involved than the welfare of the US. Even in the public sphere, free speech is limited in that it cannot incite violence. Given all his dangerous lies and utter incompetence, Trump was fortunate to have a platform on a non-government platform for unedited content. He abused it to no end and dangerously so.
Thank you for this different take on Jack Dorsey. I didn't like him but had heard others say he is a believer in free speech but was constrained by Twitter so it appears they were correct based on your article. I hope that Jack left Twitter so he can make Blue Sky into reality.
Behold the Legacy of Your Beloved Sowell: Part I
https://onevoicebecametwo.life/2021/12/07/behold-the-legacy-of-your-beloved-sowell-part-i/
what I want to know is, what is Twitter?
The fact that Trump was kicked off but the Taliban is allowed speaks volumes about Twitter.
I quit twitter a few weeks ago. After many years I do see it as a harm to society, especially to the young and/or vulnerable people. Personally, I could no longer morally justify it in exchange for a few dopamine hits a day. I'm not interested to be in any way connected to a callous mob machine. Looks like, unsurprisingly, I jumped ship at the right time, though it could be argued I should have done it earlier. It will be interesting to see how it develops given this big rule change. It does seem to signal a demise but as curious as I might be I am grateful I won't have to witness it.
Jack censored. He’s a villain. A direct result of his censorship was very harmful school closures and masking little kids - at least for the people unfortunate enough to live in cities snd send their poor kids to public school where they can learn to be angry and jerky but nothing else (masking little kids and extended school closures remain a unique product of the USA compliments of moron techies censoring and woke illiberal anti science leftist media). It was already really bad. He didn’t “try” for free speech. He tried to leave just enough dissenting opinion to inflame passions while not allowing honest dialogue. He promoted idiotic ideology from whiny activist funded by the likes of grumpy old white men like Soros.
Twitter has been heading the way of MySpace for a while, but the new CEO hit the accelerate button over the cliff.
Good - Twitter isn’t free speech, it’s controlled speech pretending to be free. I won’t miss Twitter or whatever Zucky is calling his company these days…….. no one with a brain spends time on Twitter
Jack tried to keep things civil … but then he turned into a censor. TWITTER has leftists on, and GETTR has Conservatives. Leftists are generally unable to handle comment and disagreement. Now they have an echo chamber on Twitter. No one is there.
I don't see how Twitter can get any worse. I got off of it months ago. It's nothing but a bulletin board where "journalists" shoot off. They show just how nuts they are.
Twitter is a Lynch mob.
Immediately upon his departure, there is now this devastating change to Twitter policy: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/30/technology/twitter-new-photo-privacy-policy.html
A good childhood friend of mine was poisoned by Twitter. Turned him into an angry, raging, lunatic - showing his envy towards people who have achieved more than him while on this planet. Because my friend punched down on me too, I ditched him. I’ll stay off Twitter and hope it’s ability to cancel people is eliminated. There is no good reason why idiots who have achieved nothing in the real world should be given the power by Twitter to dismantle successful, hard working citizens.
I lost an old friend over politics. I'm still willing to be friends, but they aren't. This is what sets conservatives apart from liberals.
There's a difference between supporting free speech, and supporting yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. If Dorsey is in trouble, it's not that he didn't value the former. It's that he was either too blind to see when he was defending the latter or too weak of a person to do something about it.
Good riddance! And I think he should dedicate his fortune to reimbursing the costs of repairing and cleaning the Capitol after January 6th, apologizing personally to every Capitol and DC Police officer, and funding a generous retirement for them.
Specifically, Does this mean that someone such as Andy Ngo and the Antifa pics and videos that he posts are no longer acceptable?
Or for that matter, all those Kyle Rittenhouse that were exculpatory and incriminating? How about all those pics and videos of Asian ladies being attacked? Or for that matter, the videos of the looting and smashing in San Francisco?
Any thoughts?
There is a ton of wiggle room in the new policy, like "unless it's a public figure or there's some public interest in leaving pics up".
The biggest issue is that because the policies are so vague, there's a very high risk the grey areas will be abused by all the wokescolds on Twitter's payroll, who are always looking to advance a partisan agenda.
To the left, these events never happened. The mainstream media ignores these topics because they fly on the face of their narrative. So as Twitter sheds Jack Dorsey, the author argues, this problem will get worse. I tend to agree. Dorsey, though responsible for all that happened as CEO, is walking away - just like Bari Weiss did.
I have progressive friends, as opposed to liberal, who had a fit when I told them some of the details that were known about Rittenhouse last year, like the fact that he had a job and family in Kenosha.
But I think the way I found out was from some of the twitter accounts I follow.
Frankly, I do wonder if much of the reason for the new policy aren't all the videos showing the identity of the people involved in crimes. If indeed, the new policy applies to those videos. And I think if you are in public it is an automatic legal consent to be filmed....but of course that standard does not apply to what a private company shows.
I hope your progressive friends begin to see that the news media they follow is distorting their reality.
I think we need to keep in mind that their viewing is more akin to a religious experience than something empirical. People wanted Kenosha to burn as religious purification.
Yes, their obsession with their political point of view can be equated to a religious pursuit.
Understand that Twitter, Facebook, TikTok, and other social media are not about journalism, public enlightenment, speaking truth to power, fair play, enabling the next Arab Spring, or any other public good. Social media exist to make money for their founders and investors. Period.
The "censorship" they impose now protects those profits. How? Because for social media, self-censorship is better than the alternative. A truly free Twitter and FB would allow robust discussions to take place, absolutely. It would also allow the crazy left to launch jihads against MAGAs and the crazy right to publish every Democratic politician's home address and names of their children.
The first time people (i.e., voters) were murdered from that freedom--and murders would happen, there's no question--government would enact heavy regulations on content. Those regs would slow the data harvest, which would slow the profits, and social media cannot allow that. So, social media uses its current model--"censorship lite"--in order to stave off the "censorship heavy" regulations of government.
If Twitter and the rest were guaranteed zero regulations on who can post what, they'd eliminate their oversight tomorrow. Why? Because it's expensive: policing their platforms costs them hundreds of millions of dollars that could otherwise go into investors' pockets. They only spend that money now to avoid heavier sanctions by government.
So, our choice is not "no regulations and censorship," but how much and by whom. Be careful what you wish for, you may get it.
Me personally, I'm of the "let everybody post their shit, who cares?" school. But I don't have to face enraged voters every two years.
Very interesting observation. Thank you.
Thanks, Brian, much appreciated. As my late wife once noted about the industry in which she worked, "The answer to every question is, 'money.' "
Yes, money is what drives behavior. It always is.
Not always. Sometimes fanaticism, addiction, pride... https://youtu.be/4tAQM5uU8uk?t=470
You're right when speaking about individuals. I was only referring to corporate decisions, where everything boils down to $$$.
Good post and I get your point about "censorship lite" and how some control is necessary to prevent bad things from happening to innocent people. The problem I have is the censorship lite protocol is biased towards one political viewpoint. The resulting hypocrisy cannot be defended in my mind.
Yes. I recall a story, I can't remember where, about how jihadists were being allowed to make tweets accusing people of being blasphemers, which was essentially a way of sending out a kill order to their fellow jihadists. This is a type of Twitter content that can literally, directly lead to murder of individuals but Twitter did nothing at the time (maybe that's changed; who knows) because it wasn't on their radar, politically speaking. Either they genuinely didn't know how dangerous these posts were to those accused or they didn't care because "it's happening to those people over there" etc. Meanwhile they hem and haw about the "danger" of unwoke opinions and how said opinions are "creating violence".
Thanks, RAH. I agree that any censorship should be even-handed, and aimed only at suppressing criminal behavior, not strong language.
Is this the "blockchain" technology I've been reading about? Or something else entirely? It would be fascinating to see an Internet with zero censorship--government or corporate--but the lack of moderating could lead to all kinds of Nasty. I tend toward less control over postings than more, but zero could be as dangerous as too much. What do you think?
Thanks so much for this information. Much obliged!
What a ridiculous piece. Seems more interested in the people involved than the welfare of the US. Even in the public sphere, free speech is limited in that it cannot incite violence. Given all his dangerous lies and utter incompetence, Trump was fortunate to have a platform on a non-government platform for unedited content. He abused it to no end and dangerously so.
To me...good point about Jack in that "he was negative towards the media and his company, when they didn't cover Hunter, I thought the opposite.
Thank you for this different take on Jack Dorsey. I didn't like him but had heard others say he is a believer in free speech but was constrained by Twitter so it appears they were correct based on your article. I hope that Jack left Twitter so he can make Blue Sky into reality.