![]() ![]() (In the end, they were probably the least correct about how things worked, and also got exactly what they wanted and more.) Critics on the right tended to articulate their theories of Twitter as either dark conspiracies or as a form of customer complaint - they wanted to speak to the manager, who was, by the way, a member of an evil cabal. In contrast, the left’s many issues with Twitter fed into a broad critique of the platform, which they knew was always destined to let them down. This aligned, more or less, with the common small- l liberal view, adopted by much of the press, that Twitter, like Facebook, or an ailing federal agency, was a flawed entity failing to live up to its promise and responsibilities. It was in public-company Twitter’s interest to give the impression that no one person was really in charge, and to insist that this commercially run, advertising-driven social network - variously referred to as a “town square” or a “digital commons” - was, in fact, a collection of carefully considered systems and policies, which, through slow deliberation, could be tweaked or repaired to produce different results. It’s a public- feeling venue run as a commercial firm as a company, it routinely borrowed civic and legal language to legitimize what were, when you really get down to it, a bunch of rules and structures that the company could change if it really wanted to, and that it often did. Twitter, like all social networks, has inspired all sorts of theories about how it really works and why. ![]() (Publicly, Musk is telling a slightly different story.) Twitter is still a company, sure, with employees and creditors and advertisers, millions of users, producing a breathtaking range of externalities. It was a moment of honesty after a month of confusing and contradictory messages - the rare statement from Musk that’s compatible with the full scope of his actions at Twitter so far. “But it’s an advisory council.” At the end of the day, he said, “it will be me deciding it.” To extinguish any doubt about who is in charge, he clarified, “Obviously I could choose who is on that content council, and I don’t need to listen to what they say.” In a meeting with staffers on Saturday, which was leaked to TMZ, he clarified what was really going on. “I have no mercy for anyone who would use the deaths of children for gain, politics, or fame,” he posted. Musk drew a line at Alex Jones, however, citing his own loss of his firstborn child. A batch of notorious banned accounts was simply reinstated: Along with Trump, there was Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, the Babylon Bee, Jordan Peterson, Kathy Griffin, Andrew Tate, and Project Veritas. Since then, however, Musk has made a point of acting unilaterally, conspicuously demonstrating his absolute authority not just on matters of content moderation but over every aspect of the company. “No major content decisions or account reinstatements will happen before that council convenes,” he said. But in October, he had seemed to soften his stance somewhat, declaring that he would form a “content-moderation council” composed of members with “diverse” views. Musk’s bid for Twitter included a lot of talk about restoring “free speech” to the platform (he had previously referred to Trump’s ban as “ foolish in the extreme”). By the next day, the yeses had it, 51.8 percent to 48.2 percent. He posted a Twitter poll asking users whether he should bring back the former president’s account. On the evening of Friday, November 18, fresh off another chaotic week at the helm of Twitter, Elon Musk decided to resolve a nagging issue: the matter of Donald Trump. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |