astralcodexten.com
Scott Alexander’s review of a 2015 biography of Elon Musk. Elon Musk, to me, is one of the world’s most confusing people. He’s simultaneously both one of the smartest people in the world, creating billions of dollars of value in companies like Tesla and SpaceX, and one of the dumbest, in burning billions on Twitter. Scott’s review I think is a good explanation of what’s up with Musk.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
You really think there hasn't been a single person who tried to start a boycott, but then it didn't get very far? You're really demanding evidence for this?
At the very least, you must admit the following is true:
Left-leaning influencers were much more likely to get blue checks than their right-leaning counterparts
They therefore had more reach than their counterparts
Some right-leaning influencer with no blue check, but with more fame and status than the least famous left-leaning blue check, said something about a boycott
The potential boycott never got off the ground, but would therefore have had a much greater chance if not for Twitter's political bias
No, actually, I don't know if any or all of your statements are true.
Getting the checkmark is a heavily influenced by how "notable" you are in media, along with whether there's a person with a Twitter contact working with/for you. There are people with massive YouTube followings without it and journalists who have it despite no presence to speak of. Insofar as Twitter's verified population is left-wing, it's heavily correlated with having a Twitter contact and having news articles written about you. All of this was how the pre-Musk Twitter ran.
But even if I granted all your "must admit" statements, that doesn't get you "quashed by Twitter". You need to declare that Twitter was taking political ideology into account. "Quashed by Twitter" implies active action by Twitter, and I'll even be charitable enough to say that "verified with political consideration" counts as evidence.
Propose all the mechanisms you want. They're still only theoretical until you prove them.
"Quashed by twitter" was your wording in response to someone else stating that Twitter now magnifies right-wing memes more. If "quashed" does imply active action, then that's your mistake; the point we are discussing (and the point you responded to) is whether boycotts have started working better now that Twitter is more neutral.
The discussion is how important Twitter was in suppressing right-wing boycotts. Whether you want to point to human moderation or tweaks to the algorithm, you're still talking about ascribing agency to Twitter. My point stands.
An enormous change to the algorithm was changing who gets the blue checks. The group with blue checks (and therefore much more reach) is now much more conservative than it was before. This obviously leads to many right-wing memes such as boycotts having more spread than they did before.
Assuming this is true, it still wouldn't get you to Twitter suppressing right-wing boycotts. It would get you to Twitter suppressing non-verified boycotts. Those are not the same thing and they shouldn't be treated that way for the reasons I outlined above regarding verification.
What part of what I'm saying do you actually disagree with? If you agree that blue checks have more reach, and blue checks are now more conservative than they were, we are on the same page.
I disagree on the mechanism being proposed, that's what. It doesn't fit the narrative trying to be established.
The mechanism being how much Twitter specifically has contributed to right-wing boycotts? I'm not sure how much it has contributed either, but it evidently has contributed at least a bit more than it would have before Musk's takeover.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link