The world that Twitter never made(scholars-stage.org)
scholars-stage.org
The world that Twitter never made
https://scholars-stage.org/the-world-that-twitter-never-made/
66 comments
[deleted]
Twitter isn't some closed ecosystem comprising only its own users talking to each other. Journalists are all on it looking for 'public opinion' that then makes it into television and print, despite Twitter not being representative of public opinion at all.
Journalists, being people, are lazy. And if they can get away with never leaving their couch and still do something that can be called "journalism," then they will do it.
Every few months, some journalist will drive out into the hinterlands of America and discover that other 97% of America that isn't on Twitter 10 hours a day. They then write some chin-stroking piece about "bubbles," go to sleep, wake up, and then go back to the couch and the Twitter app, having learned nothing.
I get it. Nobody wants to become a journalist and cover spaghetti suppers for the baseball team's Booster Club. But in reality, that's something like 90+% of ordinary people's lives.
Every few months, some journalist will drive out into the hinterlands of America and discover that other 97% of America that isn't on Twitter 10 hours a day. They then write some chin-stroking piece about "bubbles," go to sleep, wake up, and then go back to the couch and the Twitter app, having learned nothing.
I get it. Nobody wants to become a journalist and cover spaghetti suppers for the baseball team's Booster Club. But in reality, that's something like 90+% of ordinary people's lives.
Then they should all quit their jobs and learn to code.
Being a journalist is supposed to be a hard job with a strict code of ethics, and journalists are supposed to police their own, coming hard exceptionally hard on lazy journalists.
Being a journalist is supposed to be a hard job with a strict code of ethics, and journalists are supposed to police their own, coming hard exceptionally hard on lazy journalists.
>they should all quit their jobs and learn to code
Please no. Can you imagine what they would write if they apply the same standards of quality to code that they do to journalism.
Please no. Can you imagine what they would write if they apply the same standards of quality to code that they do to journalism.
They do a better job of policing their own than the software people, at least.
It turns out biting the hand that feeds (or may feed in the future) is not easy.
It turns out biting the hand that feeds (or may feed in the future) is not easy.
Less the journalists and more the newsrooms. Politico news is cheap and gets eyeballs. Far easier than paying for investigative journalism, let alone having an embedded reporter hundreds of miles away, the newsrooms have been demanding profits and so "man bites dog" leads the news coverage.
I once heard a journalist saying almost these exact words, on air, and still blaming Twitter for spreading inaccuracies and misinformation (edit: and most importantly "a inaccurate assessment of the general opinion"). I am still baffled (Léa Salamé, for those who know).
Twitter was instrumental in the Arab Spring[0]. Many organize and plan protests on there, trying to recreate that initial success. Twitter is a mirror of the real world, albeit a very bad one. People who say 'Twitter is just text' have obviously never watched whole 30-minutes news article videos on Twitter, so it's not 'just text', it's full of rich media.
The Russia-Ukraine war is all over the platform, for better or worse. It annoys me that people are resorting to disaster tourism, popcorn in their hands, whilst watching the world burn. Stop being an armchair activist, and get out there and make a dent whilst you still can. A small retweet of something you think is important means nothing in the grand scheme of things.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media_and_the_Arab_Spri...
The Russia-Ukraine war is all over the platform, for better or worse. It annoys me that people are resorting to disaster tourism, popcorn in their hands, whilst watching the world burn. Stop being an armchair activist, and get out there and make a dent whilst you still can. A small retweet of something you think is important means nothing in the grand scheme of things.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media_and_the_Arab_Spri...
Zeynep Tufekci's book Twitter and Tear Gas talks about this.
In Tunisia circa 2010, Twitter was part of the new tactics used by social movements and enabled their early success. Establishment groups weren't ready for it and in some ways ignorant of the new technology.
She argues that those in power have since evolved their tactics to counteract these innovations so they're no longer as effective.
For example, in countries where mass censorship is not possible, establishments have adopted techniques of information overload and discrediting/questioning everything to reduce the effectiveness of social movements.
In Tunisia circa 2010, Twitter was part of the new tactics used by social movements and enabled their early success. Establishment groups weren't ready for it and in some ways ignorant of the new technology.
She argues that those in power have since evolved their tactics to counteract these innovations so they're no longer as effective.
For example, in countries where mass censorship is not possible, establishments have adopted techniques of information overload and discrediting/questioning everything to reduce the effectiveness of social movements.
This, "we don't have to be right, just loud". Personally I feel like this is the environment that spawned the tea party. I recall McCain saying if Obama was elected then we would certainly see another 9/11 attack. I think this is where the discourse is poisoned. Nobody has to ever say they were wrong anymore #lookSquirrel & retweet
> She argues that those in power have since evolved their tactics to counteract these innovations so they're no longer as effective.
Not only governments have caught up but they successfully cracked down on these protesters using their Twitter user history against them, especially in Turkey during the great political purge after the failed (fake) coup attempt.
Not only governments have caught up but they successfully cracked down on these protesters using their Twitter user history against them, especially in Turkey during the great political purge after the failed (fake) coup attempt.
> ... never watched whole 30-minutes news article videos on Twitter,
I don't think anyone has watched any 30 minute video on Twitter because I've yet to see a Twitter video go more than about 10 seconds without buffering.
I'm honestly shocked at just how bad Twitter is at serving video. For a company that size and for as important as video is, it's absolutely inexcusable.
I don't think anyone has watched any 30 minute video on Twitter because I've yet to see a Twitter video go more than about 10 seconds without buffering.
I'm honestly shocked at just how bad Twitter is at serving video. For a company that size and for as important as video is, it's absolutely inexcusable.
+1, Full screen video works about 10% of the time on my phone.
Is Twitter today the same Twitter than enabled the Arab Spring though?
Arguably yes. Twitter was one of the main tools used by the organizers of the BLM Summer of Love in 2020, and the MAGA coup on Jan 6.
BLM Summer of Love in 2020
MAGA coup on Jan 6
Do you really need to use such insanely partisan terminology? It's so blatant I can't tell if it was made tongue-in-cheek or not.
MAGA coup on Jan 6
Do you really need to use such insanely partisan terminology? It's so blatant I can't tell if it was made tongue-in-cheek or not.
Yes. Both groups deserve mockery for their insane behavior. If you didn't know, the "Summer of Love" is a mocking name for the BLM riots because of the incredible amount of violence at those protests. The MAGA coup is a tongue-in-cheek way to refer to the idiots running through the capital thinking they could stop an election.
BLM did not riot in seattle. First hand can attest to that. There were hooligans who did on the first night, after the BLM protest. They were put down violently by the police, who continued to be violent against peaceful protestors n the following days until the east precinct was vacated. The police leaving restored peace. A few days later the chop finally became dangerous at night. Still, the SPD were actively antagonists, protestors lost eyes, many other injuries from spd were reported and over 100 incidents of reported and confirmed police brutality in just a few days. The fact it was peaceful as soon as the police left the east precinct says it all
Oh it was peaceful when no one was stopping “protestors” from breaking whatever laws whenever they wanted? I’m shocked.
The CHOP experienced four shootings in 10 days. A 16-year-old and a 19-year-old died in the shootings, and four other people were shot, including a 14-year-old boy.
Thank goodness the police weren’t around - it was important and necessary for those people to die.
Seattle right now just reminds me of a tragedy of the commons example or like a nice car gifted to a teenager. Beautiful but not being taken care of by functional responsible adults.
The CHOP experienced four shootings in 10 days. A 16-year-old and a 19-year-old died in the shootings, and four other people were shot, including a 14-year-old boy.
Thank goodness the police weren’t around - it was important and necessary for those people to die.
Seattle right now just reminds me of a tragedy of the commons example or like a nice car gifted to a teenager. Beautiful but not being taken care of by functional responsible adults.
Straw arguments aside, my point is you can't say "BLM rioted" (at least in Seattle where I have 1st person experience). BLM held protests during the day and the marches were peaceful. BLM did not run the CHOP, they had speakers there, but did not run it. Saying "BLM rioted" is propaganda and seeks to draw a false equivalence. It's commonly lost that the experience in Seattle is very different from what happened in Portland. In Seattle the police moved in and cracked skulls for a week, so I agree "not being taken care of by functional responsible adults."
Sorry to call a response straw arguments, but nothing of what I have said is refuted by acknowledging violence occurred in the CHOP. Though, that is not without its own nuance.
The conservative media narrative is that the CHOP was lawless, was like Portland with buildings being burned every night, and before it was non-stop riots on the streets. (https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/06/15/dont-liste...)
As a first person account, and not as talking point, this was just not the case. The police responded with an aggregate violence that was greater than the night-time-post-protest issues that were happening - the CHOP brought immediate relief and was pretty close to a festival atmosphere for its entire first week (again, not as a talking point, as observed - the CHOP was in our commute path to work and we traversed it daily).
I don't want to toss talking points back and forth. An important difference of perspective is the role of the police presence. In Seattle, the police were largely inflaming the situation (1) and their departure defused it (for some time until, other problems cropped up). This is an important difference compared to the narrative that the police were doing too little (they were doing quite a lot).
(1) https://www.king5.com/article/news/community/facing-race/sea...
"Without working with protesters to understand their goals and work toward mutually agreeable solutions, the department continued to make tactical decisions that did not de-escalate the situation,” the report says."
Coming from 'k5', a very conservative viewpoint, saying "did not de-escalate" is another way of saying they were doing nothing to help things, but make them worse. The after-action report of the police response that the article is reporting on largely found low incidents of police brutality (a controversial finding), but the police in a number of ways could have avoided antagonizing the crowd.
*Which is all to say, in Seattle, had the police protected the protests & protestors, it would have all been different.
Sorry to call a response straw arguments, but nothing of what I have said is refuted by acknowledging violence occurred in the CHOP. Though, that is not without its own nuance.
The conservative media narrative is that the CHOP was lawless, was like Portland with buildings being burned every night, and before it was non-stop riots on the streets. (https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/06/15/dont-liste...)
As a first person account, and not as talking point, this was just not the case. The police responded with an aggregate violence that was greater than the night-time-post-protest issues that were happening - the CHOP brought immediate relief and was pretty close to a festival atmosphere for its entire first week (again, not as a talking point, as observed - the CHOP was in our commute path to work and we traversed it daily).
I don't want to toss talking points back and forth. An important difference of perspective is the role of the police presence. In Seattle, the police were largely inflaming the situation (1) and their departure defused it (for some time until, other problems cropped up). This is an important difference compared to the narrative that the police were doing too little (they were doing quite a lot).
(1) https://www.king5.com/article/news/community/facing-race/sea...
"Without working with protesters to understand their goals and work toward mutually agreeable solutions, the department continued to make tactical decisions that did not de-escalate the situation,” the report says."
Coming from 'k5', a very conservative viewpoint, saying "did not de-escalate" is another way of saying they were doing nothing to help things, but make them worse. The after-action report of the police response that the article is reporting on largely found low incidents of police brutality (a controversial finding), but the police in a number of ways could have avoided antagonizing the crowd.
*Which is all to say, in Seattle, had the police protected the protests & protestors, it would have all been different.
Come on man, “straw man” and “false equivalence” in the same response to me?
People were ultimately shot and killed in CHOP - and not that long in to its existence.
You walked in CHOP on your work commute - presumably in day time light hours and it was festival like? I find that believable.
But crowds change at night. I can say the same thing when I walk on James and 3rd during the day. It’s a shitshow but it’s mostly drunk and high homeless people. At night and in the dark I’m definitely not walking there.
Anyways I’m new to seattle. A liberal group in a liberal city in a liberal state befouling it’s own nest isn’t inspiring to me. I guess it is to you but to reach their own.
People were ultimately shot and killed in CHOP - and not that long in to its existence.
You walked in CHOP on your work commute - presumably in day time light hours and it was festival like? I find that believable.
But crowds change at night. I can say the same thing when I walk on James and 3rd during the day. It’s a shitshow but it’s mostly drunk and high homeless people. At night and in the dark I’m definitely not walking there.
Anyways I’m new to seattle. A liberal group in a liberal city in a liberal state befouling it’s own nest isn’t inspiring to me. I guess it is to you but to reach their own.
> Oh it was peaceful when no one was stopping “protestors” from breaking whatever laws whenever they wanted?
Yes, the streets were no longer filled with tear gas and a small army of mostly men in armor and 4 foot batons hitting protestors. "Don't kill them, but hit them hard" https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/washington-state-p...
"From June 1 to June 8, protesters and police in riot gear face off near SPD’s East Precinct headquarters. Seattle’s mayor would announce a temporary ban on tear gas, but the situation had already developed into a tinderbox."
"Tammy Morales: If police had just let people, who were protesting police brutality by the way, take up space and use their deescalation training instead of using tear gas and flash-bangs, things wouldn’t have escalated."
"Elizabeth Turnbull: I was one of those people who felt the feeling of acid in my lungs and the pain in my eyes, running with all these people in the dark, because we’re closing our eyes."
https://www.seattlemet.com/news-and-city-life/2021/06/histor...
So yes, Seattle went from a warzone on Capitol hill that went on for a solid week to calm. That calm lasted for a full week - day & night. Eventually the CHOP did become unsafe at night, after that first week -due to an influx of homeless & campers.
There is an open controversy as well whether the police made the CHOP more dangerous by funneling gangs and dangerous people into it: "Activists claim that police allowed the violence to seep in by being absent from streets surrounding the CHOP." https://theintercept.com/2020/07/02/seattle-chop-zone-police...
There is about 1 person fatally shot every 4 days in Seattle. https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/law-justice/not-se...
Ergo, week 2, the CHOP became essentially a homeless encampment, infiltrated by gangs and was less a protest zone at that point. Even with that going on, the level of violence observed there is still not strongly different than the average level of violence otherwise seen through-out Seattle in normal times. This is in contrast to dozens of daily injuries as police rioted against protestors.
Yes, the streets were no longer filled with tear gas and a small army of mostly men in armor and 4 foot batons hitting protestors. "Don't kill them, but hit them hard" https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/washington-state-p...
"From June 1 to June 8, protesters and police in riot gear face off near SPD’s East Precinct headquarters. Seattle’s mayor would announce a temporary ban on tear gas, but the situation had already developed into a tinderbox."
"Tammy Morales: If police had just let people, who were protesting police brutality by the way, take up space and use their deescalation training instead of using tear gas and flash-bangs, things wouldn’t have escalated."
"Elizabeth Turnbull: I was one of those people who felt the feeling of acid in my lungs and the pain in my eyes, running with all these people in the dark, because we’re closing our eyes."
https://www.seattlemet.com/news-and-city-life/2021/06/histor...
So yes, Seattle went from a warzone on Capitol hill that went on for a solid week to calm. That calm lasted for a full week - day & night. Eventually the CHOP did become unsafe at night, after that first week -due to an influx of homeless & campers.
There is an open controversy as well whether the police made the CHOP more dangerous by funneling gangs and dangerous people into it: "Activists claim that police allowed the violence to seep in by being absent from streets surrounding the CHOP." https://theintercept.com/2020/07/02/seattle-chop-zone-police...
There is about 1 person fatally shot every 4 days in Seattle. https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/law-justice/not-se...
Ergo, week 2, the CHOP became essentially a homeless encampment, infiltrated by gangs and was less a protest zone at that point. Even with that going on, the level of violence observed there is still not strongly different than the average level of violence otherwise seen through-out Seattle in normal times. This is in contrast to dozens of daily injuries as police rioted against protestors.
Week 2! That’s nothing! The site degenerated so quickly because it attracted people who did not want to obey laws - criminals, gangs, and homeless as you say. That’s just entropy.
That’s such rapid decomposition. I hope the original message of CHOP was worth those more than average amount of deaths.
That’s such rapid decomposition. I hope the original message of CHOP was worth those more than average amount of deaths.
> the idiots running through the capital [sic]
The incredible amount of violence on Jan 6 wasn't "insane?"
The incredible amount of violence on Jan 6 wasn't "insane?"
As far as I know, only MAGA morons were killed in the protests, and largely got what they deserved. There was some fake news about a police officer getting killed with a fire extinguisher, but it turned out that it was a death from natural causes and there was no fire extinguisher attack at all. Most of the people arrested for entering the capital had been waved in by police holding the doors open, and the ones who didn't plead guilty are largely getting acquitted of trespassing charges. As far as I know, almost nobody arrested for Jan 6 had an assault or battery charge, despite how zealous the prosecution of those people has been.
You deserve to get killed for protesting. Edgy stuff.
It strikes me more as cynical than partisan, FWIW.
Correct, a violent uprising against the government is an "insurrection."
It's not a "coup" if it fails.
It's not a "coup" if it fails.
They had no organisation, clear goal, or strategy. Real attempted coups - or "uprisings" if you're sympathetic - are much different.
They involve much larger and more organised masses of people, police being neutralised (either they support the coup, or asked to stand down, or pro-coup paramilitaries have rendered them a non-issue) and close coordination with the leader they are attempting to install. Aid by a more powerful outside force is also very, very common.
So I think attempted coup is a very grandiose term for a bunch of amateurs who were allowed to wander in, posed for photos, stole a podium, and put their feet on a desk. They didn't have the support of police, military, civil service, media, the government, or any foreign government.
They involve much larger and more organised masses of people, police being neutralised (either they support the coup, or asked to stand down, or pro-coup paramilitaries have rendered them a non-issue) and close coordination with the leader they are attempting to install. Aid by a more powerful outside force is also very, very common.
So I think attempted coup is a very grandiose term for a bunch of amateurs who were allowed to wander in, posed for photos, stole a podium, and put their feet on a desk. They didn't have the support of police, military, civil service, media, the government, or any foreign government.
I didn't call it an attempted coup.
I agree, once they beat enough law enforcement officers with their weapons and smashed their way into the rotunda, there's even a video where one of them says "what now?" and they start smoking weed. Planning wasn't their strong point.
But none of the things you listed are required to be a coup. I don't think you understand:
> coups - or "uprisings" if you're sympathetic
These are not synonymous. Jan 6 was a violent "uprising" whether you're sympathetic or not. The simple fact that they accomplished nothing means it wasn't a coup.
I agree, once they beat enough law enforcement officers with their weapons and smashed their way into the rotunda, there's even a video where one of them says "what now?" and they start smoking weed. Planning wasn't their strong point.
But none of the things you listed are required to be a coup. I don't think you understand:
> coups - or "uprisings" if you're sympathetic
These are not synonymous. Jan 6 was a violent "uprising" whether you're sympathetic or not. The simple fact that they accomplished nothing means it wasn't a coup.
I'm just pointing out differing terms for the same thing.
If a media outlet supports a coup or an attempted coup, they will tend to call it an "uprising", "revolution" or similar. "Coups" are used when the coverage is negative.
Likewise, uprisings and revolutions get rid of "regimes", while coups overthrow "democratically elected governments". Exactly how democratic either the aforementioned "regime" or "elected government" actually is doesn't seem to factor into things.
If a media outlet supports a coup or an attempted coup, they will tend to call it an "uprising", "revolution" or similar. "Coups" are used when the coverage is negative.
Likewise, uprisings and revolutions get rid of "regimes", while coups overthrow "democratically elected governments". Exactly how democratic either the aforementioned "regime" or "elected government" actually is doesn't seem to factor into things.
> I'm just pointing out differing terms for the same thing
You don't understand that they aren't the same thing. Jan 6 was a violent uprising, an insurrection, no matter who you support.
It was not a coup (mostly because it achieved nothing).
You don't understand that they aren't the same thing. Jan 6 was a violent uprising, an insurrection, no matter who you support.
It was not a coup (mostly because it achieved nothing).
[deleted]
cbozeman(2)
The article you quote says 61,000 people died in the Arab Spring. Libyas second civil war just recently concluded and the Syrian civil war is ongoing.
I'm having a lot of difficulty regarding this as a positive.
I'm having a lot of difficulty regarding this as a positive.
> The Russia-Ukraine war is all over the platform,
Original content is mostly on Telegram.
Original content is mostly on Telegram.
Russisn Ukraine war online propaganda front is on Telegram. On Twitter you have westerners charging their flags and what not.
> Twitter was instrumental in the Arab Spring
It absolutely was not, and only twitter-humping westerners would have you thinking that it was. No, a wikipedia article is not evidence.
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2021/1/27/the-social-medi...
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21428596-400-was-the-...
https://phys.org/news/2013-01-social-media-aided-didnt-arab....
It absolutely was not, and only twitter-humping westerners would have you thinking that it was. No, a wikipedia article is not evidence.
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2021/1/27/the-social-medi...
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21428596-400-was-the-...
https://phys.org/news/2013-01-social-media-aided-didnt-arab....
It's true that most of us are just watching the war in Ukraine, and I think it's important to keep that in perspective; our role is that of the audience. Talking among ourselves doesn't do much but it's not harmful either.
But it seems like the geolocation folks are actually participating in the war? Not to mention the donations and helping the refugees. (More of that in Europe.)
But it seems like the geolocation folks are actually participating in the war? Not to mention the donations and helping the refugees. (More of that in Europe.)
It's not necessary for everyone to use Twitter, or social media in general, for it to affect the culture. And if he can admit that, then most of his objections to Haidt's article sound more like misunderstandings of it.
Hard disagree, the objections are still quite legitimate, especially the point about dodging accusations of racism and sexism. Haidt in particular seems to subscribe to the idea that if it was appropriate in 1950 it’s appropriate now. Centrists won’t win if they can’t address 2022 values.
> Haidt in particular seems to subscribe to the idea that if it was appropriate in 1950 it’s appropriate now.
Can you please quote the relevant sections that made you reach this argument? I did read a lot of Haidt’s work and I’d disagree on this conclusion.
Can you please quote the relevant sections that made you reach this argument? I did read a lot of Haidt’s work and I’d disagree on this conclusion.
It’s a general impression I got from his moral approach to centrism. He seems to think that there is equal blame to be apportioned in debates where one side is arguing for the fundamental rights of humans that are different from them and the other side is arguing for something resembling heteronormativity. It seems a strange take for someone who has studied moral philosophy. He continues to use language about common ground and compromise even as a sizeable contingent of republicans look to roll back gay marriage. I think it’s fair to hold him to account for not taking unequivocal positions on basic human rights.
I'm always amused by how Americans view Twitter.
In my part of Europe, if journalists and politicians didn't use it like their English speaking counterparts do, it would be as relevant as Google+.
In my part of Europe, if journalists and politicians didn't use it like their English speaking counterparts do, it would be as relevant as Google+.
Yeah, I don't understand why Twitter didn't take off around the world.
It's excellent for what it designed to be: a "quick take" sharing site / link sharing site.
It's awful (like most social media) for in-depth thoughtful discussion, because the platform is, by design, geared towards the above-mentioned use cases.
It's excellent for what it designed to be: a "quick take" sharing site / link sharing site.
It's awful (like most social media) for in-depth thoughtful discussion, because the platform is, by design, geared towards the above-mentioned use cases.
Source article thesis that this article is a response to (the Atlantic piece):
> "Social scientists have identified at least three major forces that collectively bind together successful democracies: social capital (extensive social networks with high levels of trust), strong institutions, and shared stories. Social media has weakened all three. To see how, we must understand how social media changed over time—and especially in the several years following 2009."
Social scientists have reproducibility problems in their work, so that's more like an ideological opinion than anything else, but if we take it as given, here's the gist of the response:
> "First, social media (and Twitter in particular) cannot account for a societal wide decline in trust or a societal wide rise in radicalism and partisanship. The number of active twitter users is just too small... Second: the better explanation for declining institutional trust is declining institutional performance... Third, what we call “cancel culture” is not a new feature of American life. It has always been with us."
Another possibility is that the chattering classes believe they're more important than they are, and more fundamental economic and ecological factors are behind the deepening cracks in the facade of social stability. A society divided into wealthy pockets and impoverished wastelands is simply not a stable society, and the ecological impacts of resource exhaustion and climate extremes certainly aren't helping with the resilience factor.
The combination of economic and climatic stress has destroyed entire civilizations in the past. Modern technology (for example, the ability to dig deep wells for water, the ability to generate power via different means if one source is exhausted, etc.) can buffer this to some extent, if there's enough social cohesion to ensure that technological benefits are available to all. Otherwise, the historical record points to civil war being the most likely outcome.
> "Social scientists have identified at least three major forces that collectively bind together successful democracies: social capital (extensive social networks with high levels of trust), strong institutions, and shared stories. Social media has weakened all three. To see how, we must understand how social media changed over time—and especially in the several years following 2009."
Social scientists have reproducibility problems in their work, so that's more like an ideological opinion than anything else, but if we take it as given, here's the gist of the response:
> "First, social media (and Twitter in particular) cannot account for a societal wide decline in trust or a societal wide rise in radicalism and partisanship. The number of active twitter users is just too small... Second: the better explanation for declining institutional trust is declining institutional performance... Third, what we call “cancel culture” is not a new feature of American life. It has always been with us."
Another possibility is that the chattering classes believe they're more important than they are, and more fundamental economic and ecological factors are behind the deepening cracks in the facade of social stability. A society divided into wealthy pockets and impoverished wastelands is simply not a stable society, and the ecological impacts of resource exhaustion and climate extremes certainly aren't helping with the resilience factor.
The combination of economic and climatic stress has destroyed entire civilizations in the past. Modern technology (for example, the ability to dig deep wells for water, the ability to generate power via different means if one source is exhausted, etc.) can buffer this to some extent, if there's enough social cohesion to ensure that technological benefits are available to all. Otherwise, the historical record points to civil war being the most likely outcome.
A little meta, but I also heartily recommend the comments on that blog-post, reminded me of the golden days of the blogosphere.
Lots of baseless bs
First claim that social media can't be responsible because less than 50% of the us population use twitter, but that ignores the other social media platforms 70% of americans use facebook [1], the author has cherry picked a specific social media platform so they can hand wave it.
The second and third argument is simply acknowledging that political correctness is a tribal thing and that younger generations who are more likely to use social media are now deciding whats politically correct.
This is all fine but the author then assumes that the millennial's are making decisions based on boomer iraq war policies not the social media platform they use daily, the author provides no evidence or reason for this speculation / conclusion.
The only thing that supports the author is that they have correctly identified tribalism but we already know we are more tribal and radical the question is why . The authors answer is the iraq war and policies from the 90s but most zoomers have never heard of this and most millennial see it as history. Millennials don't spend their time reminiscing about boomer wars, this is a very boomer perspective on current events.
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/04/10/share-of-u-...
First claim that social media can't be responsible because less than 50% of the us population use twitter, but that ignores the other social media platforms 70% of americans use facebook [1], the author has cherry picked a specific social media platform so they can hand wave it.
The second and third argument is simply acknowledging that political correctness is a tribal thing and that younger generations who are more likely to use social media are now deciding whats politically correct.
This is all fine but the author then assumes that the millennial's are making decisions based on boomer iraq war policies not the social media platform they use daily, the author provides no evidence or reason for this speculation / conclusion.
The only thing that supports the author is that they have correctly identified tribalism but we already know we are more tribal and radical the question is why . The authors answer is the iraq war and policies from the 90s but most zoomers have never heard of this and most millennial see it as history. Millennials don't spend their time reminiscing about boomer wars, this is a very boomer perspective on current events.
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/04/10/share-of-u-...
The original[1] article is also intriguing and not the analysis of someone I expect to see from someone who describes themselves as center-right. I think this line is a great allegory for my overall frustration with political discourse online:
>The story of baby boomer extremism could be told by analyzing networks of professors and students on elite campuses—but if that story did not also mention Vietnam, Watergate, the end of the civil rights movement, or the 1970s energy crisis, the average reader would conclude that the essayist had lost that decade’s thread.
My personal take has been that our problems have less to do "free speech" and "media decisiveness" and more to do with how America's economic system today has left most people on the edge of destitution and are left people too tired to engage meaningfully with politics. There is a huge chasm between the policies we actually need and what gets debated about daily. I would consider this a leftist position, so I'm excited to read what this author proposes.
[1] https://www.city-journal.org/our-problems-arent-procedural
>The story of baby boomer extremism could be told by analyzing networks of professors and students on elite campuses—but if that story did not also mention Vietnam, Watergate, the end of the civil rights movement, or the 1970s energy crisis, the average reader would conclude that the essayist had lost that decade’s thread.
My personal take has been that our problems have less to do "free speech" and "media decisiveness" and more to do with how America's economic system today has left most people on the edge of destitution and are left people too tired to engage meaningfully with politics. There is a huge chasm between the policies we actually need and what gets debated about daily. I would consider this a leftist position, so I'm excited to read what this author proposes.
[1] https://www.city-journal.org/our-problems-arent-procedural
[deleted]
The other day I finished reading Amusing Ourselves to Death and I wondered what a similar book about the age of social media would’ve said.
I think the book's theme translates pretty well from TV to social media. It's just faster response times, more energetic, higher dopamine release etc. But all the core issues that were raised are more or less the same.
Apparently Haidt had no recollection of the 60s, cities on fire during the civil rights era, civil rights leaders shot, presidents shot, one because a guy wanted to impress Jodie Foster, students on campus shot in Kent State, Jonestown or any of the other gazillion insanities of American cultural life. The last ten years have been, by comparison, mild.
Twitter is at the end of the day an entropy generating noise machine of the chattering classes and an epiphenomenon. Internet iscourse is a product not a cause of conflict at the material level and as far as it historically goes relatively boring these days.