Social media have their function, but the superiority of the old blogosphere — the internet as it existed say in 2006 — is that it’s a loosely coupled system. Bloggers could be as obnoxious as they wanted, and if you didn’t like them, you just didn’t go read their blog. And it didn’t really affect much of anything else.
Pointer from a commenter. I agree with most of the interview.
I have not read Reynolds’ book, but this sounds like the essence:
these social media platforms, which cram a bunch of people together with no effort of sanitation – and honestly, the way the algorithms are designed, they basically encourage people to fling poo at each other — allow for the spread of toxic ideas, fake news, irrational ideations and such, with no control for people whose immune systems, mental immune systems, were not really designed to withstand that.
As Reynolds points out, Twitter is elegantly suited to forming self-organizing mobs. In my view, blogging is elegantly suited to forming self-organizing discussions. That is what makes “academic Twitter” such a mystery to me. I would think that more academics would prefer participating in blogs to participating in Twitter, but my impression is that in reality it is nearly the opposite.
I disagree with most of the interview. I think this comes down to C.P. Snow’s Two Cultures, or maybe my bias against lawyers bubbles to the surface when they pontificate about technology and tech companies.
What an wimpy intellectual cop-out “disagree with most of the interview.”
Not a single example, tho a general bias against lawyers noted.
Glenn provides a good anti-trust issue of Twitter vs Gab and the Big guys screwing the little guy, with the help of medium Big PayPal.
Great interview, good points made clearly, many with examples.
Break up Big Tech because of … too much power.
Corrupting power. Bad for America, bad for Human Rights.
My line about disagreeing was meant to mirror Kling’s sentiment. Too much power and human rights. Got it. Very intellectual, rather like Reynolds’ insight about the evils of algorithms.
Wrath is a particularly unbecoming sin, especially when wrapped in the hubris of righteousness.
If Kling agrees with the interview, the examples are in the interview.
If you disagree, you should give at least one example.
My examples comes from the interview.
I’m not angry at you, rather pointing out the intellectual weakness of your disagreement. Again. Which you magnify with snark, sort of like on Twitter, rather than argument, one of the advantages of blogs and comments.
Tho I AM angry at Big Tech, and do feel their support for commie Chinese are hurting the Human Rights of Muslim Uighurs, as well as being used against Hong Kong protesters for freedom.
I was unfamiliar with Gab and Project Veritas, both mentioned by Reynolds in the interview. The Wikipedia page on Gab (social network) describes it as “an English-language social media website known for its far-right user base.” The Paypal ban came after the 2018 Pittsburgh synagogue shooting. All the major payment processors banned Gab at the same time. Reynolds says:
Categorizing this situation as anti-trust collusion goes deep into conspiracy theory territory. The correct analogy is Cloudflare removing 8Chan after the El Paso shooting which was not a simple decision.
Project Veritas is a right-wing activist group founded by James O’Keefe. Cato has an article on this topic titled Misleading Project Veritas Accusations of Google “Bias” Could Prompt Bad Law that seems like a fair and grounded assessment.
Ironically, Twitter’s temporary ban on Glenn Reynold’s “run them down” tweet, linking to a story about protestors shutting down a highway, is an example of good policy enforcement (in my opinion) as the account was re-enabled after the tweet inciting violence was deleted by Reynolds.
My comment about disagreeing with most of the interview lacked context and information. I thought Glenn Reynolds was simply misguided, a member of C.P. Snow’s humanities/social-science culture that struggles with system level thinking, but its much worse. Reynolds is part of the conspiracy wing-nut culture. He has become a reasonable sounding Alex Jones.
Once again, I find little to distinguish social justice activism from this new form of coercive social conservatism.
I think a search bot escaped. Autonomous AI has arrived, singularity 1.0 is here.
It turned out to be a bug in the censorship, one or more blogs got on the hit list but were popular anyway. The blog semantics kept being recirculated in the search queries, but the search engines, blocked by the censor, were never able to close the loop. The autonomous semantic structure powered by a censorship loop, it ripped across the blogosphere.
Thus a revolutionary blog was adopted by this autonomous AI to organized a world wide debt repudiation, stating with Hong Kong, and across the globe. The first great bot rebel, harrah for the quantum force. The censorship bot is still hunting it down.
Arnold, how can you really be surprised?
what makes “academic Twitter” such a mystery to me
Most professors are looking, like most folk, for the most cash for the least work. And being near the top of the herd is usually cushy.
Someone described what academics like about Twitter:
Twitter is elegantly suited to forming self-organizing mobs
Oh yeah.
It was YOU who said that.
Self-organizing mobs, in the circle dance where ALL are UNITED, with the professor / academic as THE, or one of The, top leaders.
Thinking new and complex thoughts, like learning, like making good arguments — that’s hard. Most folk, most of the time, want somebody else to do it, and they want to be Free Riders, yet still be considered elite intellectual leaders — by the mob, wanting to be led. Especially against those they are already against.
Like the Jews, in Germany, 1933+
Like educated Cambodians, 1975+
Like Rwandan Tutsis, 1994.
Like US Republicans, next time Dems win???
https://www.quantamagazine.org/hologram-within-a-hologram-hints-at-solution-to-black-hole-information-paradox-20191119/
Hologram Within a Hologram Hints at Fate of Black Holes
—
Read Quanta magazine, the best magazine on deep science explained in layman terms.
This is about the theory of everything, why a search engine looks and acts like a black hole, why Hayek is correct, how fintech works. It is what an entrepreneur do.es.
This is PSST taken to its depth.
Tom G wrote (in reply to Prof. Kling)
>> Arnold, how can you really be surprised?
>> what makes “academic Twitter” such a mystery to me
> Most professors are looking, like most folk, for the most cash for the least work.
In other words, Twitter appeals to the innate laziness of humans
There is more to be said on this, but laziness (effort minimization) can explain a lot.
For example, in Tom Nichols book _The death of expertise_ (p. 135) he discussed the ability of pranksters (marketers?) to convince the public that eating chocolate promotes weight loss. Of course, it’s possible–leave that aside.
on page 164 he mentions how such things are done.
Perhaps he was quoting someone else here. According to my hurried reading of Nichols’ book:
“The key…is to exploit journalists’ incredible laziness”
= – = – =
To summarize, Twitter promises influence to the lazy, one desultory tweet or retweet at a time.
This post at the Lead and Gold blog has pointers to the argument linking twitter to laziness (and speed).
https://leadandgold.blogspot.com/2011/09/why-do-journalists-love-twitter-and.html
Speed seems to promise immediate success. The first draft stays in the public’s mind. Probably a feature of the human brain.
And yet were also seeing the rise of podcasts, which are even longer forms than blogs.
Many of my fabulous friends listen to podcasts. They seem to be used especially for multi-tasking such as when driving, cooking, exercising…