211–220 of 281 posts
Time to get off of twitter
This comment was on a dupe thread and I'm adding it here in case this gets un-flagged. There is a good reason to discuss this: I sympathize with the argument that social platforms are private and can do business (or not) with whomever they please, the counter argument is that these platforms are "Radical Monopolies" ( https://wikitia.com/wiki/Radical_Monopoly ) apropos of a recent HN thread on Ivan Illich, where the…
I'm not sure what you mean by "enabled and sustained by political protection" in this context. Facebook and Twitter didn't have to build the web infrastructure, but there were other social networks in existence before those two became dominant. I'm not sure how we perceive their network effects as non-self-built. Facebook beat out competitors with two advantages: access to primary sources (they primed the network wit…
Facebook was a way for people who went to Harvard to tell people they went to Harvard without having to actually say it, and for everyone else to be seen know them - Facebook didn't build Harvard, but it is an effect of it.
Twitter is an artifact of speech protections and nerds, and now that it has arrived it's trying to cast off the taint of trade to become a walled suburb safe for middle class banalities. Did a few thousand lines of code create billions in value, or did a society with a network effect produce it?
The average person isn’t capable enough to judge information for themselves; we need people in power to curate what is seen.
> The average person isn’t capable enough to judge information for themselves; we need people in power to curate what is seen. I hope this is just missing the sarcasm tag?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This falls under the Rule of Goats https://twitter.com/popehat/status/858722120620265473
I don’t think the old guy ironically fucked a goat here. I think he claimed that he was a goat fucker to demonstrate the absurdity of the accusation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure what you mean by "enabled and sustained by political protection" in this context. Facebook and Twitter didn't have to build the web infrastructure, but there were other social networks in existence before those two became dominant. I'm not sure how we perceive their network effects as non-self-built. Facebook beat out competitors with two advantages: access to primary sources (they primed the network wit…
Social media could not have originated anywhere else in the world because the platforms were built on freedoms and opportunities guaranteed by the US. Facebook was a way for people who went to Harvard to tell people they went to Harvard without having to actually say it, and for everyone else to be seen know them - Facebook didn't build Harvard, but it is an effect of it. Twitter is an artifact of speech protections…
The Wild West gave way to towns and suburbs too. Turns out, most people don't want to get shot in the street at high noon, and once the pioneering time is done, that kind of behavior becomes no longer acceptable. Pioneers who have also decided they're done risking having to duel in the hot sun will stick around; pioneers with more risk tolerance (or a thirst for that kind of experience) then often set out for new territory to tame.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Poor taste is much more likely. Was that not the very point of some people’s frustration? Why does the intentions of the person on the video need justification, rationalization or explanation?
I agree but brought it up as OP stated that POTUS endorses racism and white power through the tweet. I think I may be automatically biased against his tweets. But if a regular person posted that video I wouldn’t consider it endorsement of white power. Perhaps if there’s more context on the person in the video that would help. It seems like a frustrated response pointing out absurdity. But if the person flies a nazi f…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Social media could not have originated anywhere else in the world because the platforms were built on freedoms and opportunities guaranteed by the US. Facebook was a way for people who went to Harvard to tell people they went to Harvard without having to actually say it, and for everyone else to be seen know them - Facebook didn't build Harvard, but it is an effect of it. Twitter is an artifact of speech protections…
I don't think I disagree with your assessment of Twitter, but I don't see the problem. It happens all the time. The Wild West gave way to towns and suburbs too. Turns out, most people don't want to get shot in the street at high noon, and once the pioneering time is done, that kind of behavior becomes no longer acceptable. Pioneers who have also decided they're done risking having to duel in the hot sun will stick ar…
The radical monopoly concept captures this dynamic, where products bulldoze culture. Sure, it's progress, but just don't look behind the curtain, and certainly don't be as sanctimonious as the social media platform execs have been.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think I disagree with your assessment of Twitter, but I don't see the problem. It happens all the time. The Wild West gave way to towns and suburbs too. Turns out, most people don't want to get shot in the street at high noon, and once the pioneering time is done, that kind of behavior becomes no longer acceptable. Pioneers who have also decided they're done risking having to duel in the hot sun will stick ar…
It's funny how extending that analogy begs the question in the small matter of what to do about the natives, which is loosely analogous to the problem of social media, where you colonize and coopt, and then have the issue of what to do with the subjugated people. Not a lot of "right thing," and "good guy," stuff there. The radical monopoly concept captures this dynamic, where products bulldoze culture. Sure, it's pro…
There may be people who helped Twitter gain widespread adoption by their fame who are now feeling taken advantage of by Twitter changing its rules to kick them off their service. Maybe we can bend the analogy far enough to call them 'displaced natives?'
Do such people exist though? I'm pretty sure the Venn diagram of QAnon supporters and long-lived Twitter luminaries is two circles. Even if we accept the notion of "Twitter natives," we seem to raise the question of who the "displaced natives" are when regular Twitter users have to put up with this novel conspiracy nonsense.
I’d like to see Antifa added to this growing list as well. The article states this group has “ties to dangerous real-world activities”. Does anyone know of any? Or is this just conjecture? The article’s statement was fairly vague.
You could start with the guy who charged into the pizza shop back when this all began. Fortunately he didn't kill anyone but he's now in jail after sincerely believed children were being abused and that it was being covered up. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/police-man-with-assault-rifle-d...
I don't think you believe in some time travel conspiracy, that would be more of QAnon thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's funny how extending that analogy begs the question in the small matter of what to do about the natives, which is loosely analogous to the problem of social media, where you colonize and coopt, and then have the issue of what to do with the subjugated people. Not a lot of "right thing," and "good guy," stuff there. The radical monopoly concept captures this dynamic, where products bulldoze culture. Sure, it's pro…
The Internet is no more than 50 years old, and Twitter less than 15. There are no 'natives' here; the "land" Twitter occupied (to absolutely torture an analogy) didn't exist until the twitter.com domain was registered and the service was set up. There may be people who helped Twitter gain widespread adoption by their fame who are now feeling taken advantage of by Twitter changing its rules to kick them off their serv…
QAnon is bonkers, but as an example of a culture being displaced by a technology platform, which I argue is the unavoidable effect of the dominance of said platform, this is good example of the effect of these platforms. They aren't neutral. They're welcome to be against whatever QAnon is for, but I don't buy the story that Twitter is virtuous and worthy for doing it, and they're not the little guy or the people, they are the dominant paradigm.