This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
It's about the mechanisms and people, plus a dash of incentives. I find it hard to believe that some higher-up at reddit saw "oh that was a bad debate for Biden, better censor" and then ordered an employee to deliberately break their code for an hour. That's a lot of steps, very blatant, and doesn't fit my model for typically how censorship works in practice. Reddit censorship typically takes other forms, and institutionally, is usually incentivized to have more discussion/reactions in their threads, not less. A political agenda that's too explicit runs contrary to their profit-seeking motives, especially in an election year. They normally take action more to appease investors and make the platform avoid political headaches, especially along the left. My normal expectation for how reddit would censor debate stuff would be long-standing suspicions about manipulation of the voting algorithm and upvote displays. Or, institutional/organizational behavior around moderator selections or actions. However, I am a bit more open in this case because it seemed so abnormally timed. At least I don't typically remember threads breaking all of the sudden.
I've been hearing these arguments about Twitter shadowbanning, until some leaked screenshots showed that their mods literally have an entire frontend for various forms of throttling. In fact I kept hearing that argument well after those screenshots came out, because some people didn't get the memo.
A lot of these SocMeds were running at a loss for years. Twitter never made profit IIRC, Google keeps dumping money into YouTube, Amazon into Twitch, etc. There's no evidence that the primary motivation for running these services is profit, it's a claim repeated purely as an article of faith, that helps dismiss concerns over corporate interference in public discourse.
Reddit very specifically just had an IPO which is usually an especially profit-driven time for a company, even one that doesn't normally care. That's like an universal law. One single bad reveal can tank the stock price, and they are usually on the lookout for things to juice their numbers.
Twitter of course has throttle power, that's the nature of twitter, and sometimes they want to suppress things for good, good-adjacent, or legal reasons. And yes, probably sometimes bad reasons. But my expectation is that normally any Twitter employee who is caught manipulating a political hashtag they don't like and for partisan reasons alone would be fired very quickly. I'm also not sure why people would think shadowbanning doesn't exist. We were pretty sure it did, and ditto for reddit, but Twitter and Reddit work a little differently when it comes to how users engage with the platform. Again, reddit normally does any censorship on a mod or structural level, even social media companies more generally aren't very blatant or wide-ranging in their bias. For example, TikTok is thought to suppress pro-Palestinian content, but even that kind of makes sense, because a lot of the news is depressing and makes people mad and, at least beyond a certain threshold, that's bad for user retention and engagement. They don't completely shut down the conversation, either. So yeah, I'm not saying social medias don't lean on the conversations. But they are normally a little more nuanced about it. Another example of how reddit might be biased: they would simply take greater aggregate inaction on bot-like accounts that happened to be pro-Biden. This is an example of where the interests align: leadership political views, and juiced user numbers. Contrast this with an outage at a high-volume time in a high-volume sub, and it seems unlikely. Still plausible though!
And yet they still haven't made a single dime of profit in the entirety of their existence. I repeat: the "profit driven" nature of our system generally, or these companies specifically, is an article of faith. Every decision they make is justified with "they're just trying to make profit", even when their actions cause profits to drop. The whole idea is just a "lens" to view the world through, that can explain away any set of facts you throw at it. It's completely unfalsifiable.
I see no reason to believe they do it primarily for good-ish reasons. If nothing else, power corrupts so we should be extremely weary of giving so much of it to so few.
Now that Elon owns it, maybe, though I wouldn't oversell it. Before that? You have to be joking. The entirety of Twitter had the same progressive left ideology. No one would get fired for partisan throttling, because everyone higher up the chain held the same preferences and would agree what was being throttled is racist harmful disinformation, or whatever. No one ever got fired for that, let alone "very quickly".
It was commonly referred to as a conspiracy theory, until the evidence became undisputable.
Sure. So the exact mechanism of throttling will be different. I don't have a strong opinion on how they do it, but I'd agree with the heuristic you mentioned earlier: suspicious timing is suspicious.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link