It's a small part of this posting, but yes on "free speech". I think it's possible to have a taste for "free speech" that includes speech you disdain, but that's what that is--a taste, a cultivated aesthetic preference. Or a compulsion. All the mainstream centrist thinkers who crowd into the respectable platforms of public culture who flatter themselves by saying that they defend "free speech" or are defenders of "heterodoxy", the kind of people who sign scolding letters in Harper's or join Heterodox Academy, seem to have no awareness of how narrow their discursive universe actually is. They don't have to cancel a whole range of people out of their platforms or discussions because they never allowed them in at the outset and don't even acknowledge the existence of a whole range of sentiments, positions and ideas that are out there somewhere in the world.
“The layoffs gutted entire teams, including the ethical AI team … the communications team… and the entire human rights organization. Other teams that were hit hard: the disability experience team …The company’s employee resource groups were all shut down as well, employees said.” (from fellow substacker Casey Newton)
Don’t let the other stuff distract you — it’s definitely a war on “woke”/PMC/whatever you want to call it.
I am wondering if there is method in his madness and/or stupidity. Is he shorting his own company, fueled by sub-rosa deals with hedge fund managers? It certainly looks like he is actively trying to tank the platform: pressuring advertisers to stay on by depicting them as anti-free-speech while toxic content-blooms proliferate, blocking people who criticize his anti-content-moderation stance, insulting the likes of Stephen King and Dan Rather -- who make HIM gobs of money! -- by insisting that they pay for the blue check, and alienating most of Twitter's non-boorish users. Looks suspicious. Kind of like the John Belushi SNL sketch where he sets fire to his own diner, and tells the insurance underwriters that "it was sparks!"
Maybe. Or maybe he's just a vainglorious buffoon who has too much money. That is known to happen.
It's a small part of this posting, but yes on "free speech". I think it's possible to have a taste for "free speech" that includes speech you disdain, but that's what that is--a taste, a cultivated aesthetic preference. Or a compulsion. All the mainstream centrist thinkers who crowd into the respectable platforms of public culture who flatter themselves by saying that they defend "free speech" or are defenders of "heterodoxy", the kind of people who sign scolding letters in Harper's or join Heterodox Academy, seem to have no awareness of how narrow their discursive universe actually is. They don't have to cancel a whole range of people out of their platforms or discussions because they never allowed them in at the outset and don't even acknowledge the existence of a whole range of sentiments, positions and ideas that are out there somewhere in the world.
The Intercept piece has gotten some major pushback from the tech world.
https://www.techdirt.com/2022/11/02/bullshit-reporting-the-intercepts-story-about-government-policing-disinfo-is-absolute-garbage/
“The layoffs gutted entire teams, including the ethical AI team … the communications team… and the entire human rights organization. Other teams that were hit hard: the disability experience team …The company’s employee resource groups were all shut down as well, employees said.” (from fellow substacker Casey Newton)
Don’t let the other stuff distract you — it’s definitely a war on “woke”/PMC/whatever you want to call it.
I am wondering if there is method in his madness and/or stupidity. Is he shorting his own company, fueled by sub-rosa deals with hedge fund managers? It certainly looks like he is actively trying to tank the platform: pressuring advertisers to stay on by depicting them as anti-free-speech while toxic content-blooms proliferate, blocking people who criticize his anti-content-moderation stance, insulting the likes of Stephen King and Dan Rather -- who make HIM gobs of money! -- by insisting that they pay for the blue check, and alienating most of Twitter's non-boorish users. Looks suspicious. Kind of like the John Belushi SNL sketch where he sets fire to his own diner, and tells the insurance underwriters that "it was sparks!"
Maybe. Or maybe he's just a vainglorious buffoon who has too much money. That is known to happen.
Good piece!
When I saw that antisemitic content was exploding on Twitter, I felt sorry for Musk.
He's now in hock to the Saudis for several billion, and they're going to be so mad at him for letting that happen.