Mastodawn

Jelani Cobb Nov 27, 2022

“To the extent that people remain active on Twitter, they preserve the viability of Musk’s gambit. The illusory sense of community that still lingers on the platform is one of Musk’s most significant assets. No matter which side prevails, the true victor in any war is the person selling weapons to both sides.”

https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/why-i-quit-elon-musks-twitter

Why I Quit Elon Musk’s Twitter

Jelani Cobb writes about his recent decision to quit Elon Musk’s Twitter, a social-media platform that once represented the new frontier of digital democracy.

The New Yorker

Gordon1956 Nov 27, 2022

@Jelaniya I'm surprised that many of my former Twitter friends couldn't see that remaining on Twitter as their "stand" to defy Musk, can't see that they continue to enrich him.

Robb Aley Allan Nov 28, 2022

@Gordon1956 @Jelaniya Perhaps it wasn’t clear that you were enriching Jack Dorsey until last month?

Phil Robertson Dec 8, 2022

@robballan @Gordon1956 @Jelaniya

But previously Twitter was a public company, so the comparison is erroneous. Dorsey was head of a public company - users of Twitter ultimately enriched shareholders.

Robb Aley Allan Dec 8, 2022

@Probs @Jelaniya @Gordon1956 …of which Jack Dorsey owned 5%.

Phil Robertson Dec 8, 2022

@robballan @Jelaniya @Gordon1956 Surely you will agree that an executive owning 5% of the shares of a publicly owned company is far different than a single person owning 100% of a private company and unilaterally making the rules of such a company.

Robb Aley Allan Dec 9, 2022

@Probs @Jelaniya @Gordon1956 1. Not100%, he shares ownership with a syndicate, tho he is majority owner. 2. Dorsey was enriched just as Musk is: the difference is simply one of scale. And staying on Twitter for no cost enriches no one.

Phil Robertson Dec 12, 2022

@robballan @Jelaniya @Gordon1956

Fair point re: 100%. Majority owner but not 100% owner - fair enough.

However, staying on Twitter is what makes the platform valuable. It enriches those who own the platform. When (not if) people leave Twitter, the company loses its value; conversely, staying ensures the platform has value. Also, this:

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2022/12/elon-musk-twitter-far-right-activist/672436/

Elon Musk Is a Far-Right Activist

One tweet says it all.

The Atlantic

Robb Aley Allan Dec 12, 2022

@Probs @Gordon1956 @Jelaniya It may be satisfying to quit #Twitter even with the expectation that this will destroy it and injure Musk. But it will also injure thousands of remaining employees and investors with billions at risk who don’t buy into Musk’s antics. And it will change nothing in the national dialogue. /3

Phil Robertson Dec 12, 2022

@robballan @Gordon1956 @Jelaniya

1) Spoken like a true investor. The fact that you have a financial stake in the outcome puts your investment on the opposite side of the best outcome for society (by a long shot). You are correct that an overly radicalized user base will damage ad revenue. That is what happens when one invites Nazis and conspiracy theorists to overrun the platform! 'Mainstream companies can't risk being randomly demonized in front of customers' - that is why you ban Nazis!!!

Phil Robertson Dec 12, 2022

@robballan @Gordon1956 @Jelaniya

2) You note Dorsey tried to moderate but Musk isn't. That is the entire point. You note 'without a base of 'normal' users there will be nothing to stay for. Right. That is my argument! The premise that leaving Twitter will 'injure' employees + investors 'with billions at risk' is a specious argument. Twitter is stood up by 'normal' users. They (we) have no obligation to use the site to protect employees or investors. Better to dedicate screen time elsewhere.

Robb Aley Allan Dec 12, 2022

@Gordon1956 @Probs @Jelaniya Obviously, we disagree. You presume that moderates who stay on board aren’t able to change the temperament of Twitter, and only reinforce and enrich Musk. I clearly don’t. I’m hoping that moderates don’t abandon a huge platform for a fractious collection of smaller ones. That is obviously what extremists want.

Phil Robertson Dec 13, 2022

@robballan @Gordon1956 @Jelaniya

It would be interesting to hear what temperament on Twitter (and from Musk) would lead you to re-evaluate your viewpoint. Now Musk is personally advocating for the prosecution of Fauci, for example. Hate speech on Twitter has grown astronomically, specifically racism, anti-semitism, & anti-LGBT speech. What is the point at which you would decide that defending/promoting Twitter is no longer viable? And what statement / action from Musk might lead you to leave?

Robb Aley Allan Dec 13, 2022

@Jelaniya @Probs @Gordon1956 So I think you missed my point entirely. I’m not “defending Twitter”: Twitter is just a tool, a vehicle for discourse. Musk and his ideological fellow travelers have as much of a right to be stupid on Twitter as Bernie Sanders or the head of the US Communist party. In this country, we don’t prevent free-speech: we hold people accountable for its consequences. The whole point of free speech is to promote debate. Abandoning Twitter is abandoning debate.

Phil Robertson Dec 13, 2022

@robballan @Jelaniya @Gordon1956

I think you missed my point entirely. We are all supporters of free speech. Agreed that everyone can say what they want. The question is WHERE. You claim that 'abandoning Twitter is abandoning debate.' What makes Twitter so special? Why can't debate be held on a properly moderated platform? And if the whole point of free speech is debate, do you also debate on Truth Social and Parler?

Robb Aley Allan Dec 13, 2022

@Gordon1956 @Probs @Jelaniya What makes Twitter important is its millions upon millions of participants. Refusing to debate opposing ideas on the biggest platform available is effectively surrendering the debate to those ideas. And yes, such debates should take place everywhere –– but especially why they should take place on Twitter. Free speech is wonderful, but it’s only meaningful if there are others to hear it.

@robballan @Gordon1956 @Probs @Jelaniya
No one debates on the birdsite, they argue and then it usually turns really nasty.

It's really ok if you don't debate on social media since it's generally a waste of time. Rarely (if ever) is a mind changed because of a social media debate (or anything for that matter).