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.
- 102
- 8
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Look, I'm not trying to imply anything other than what I'm saying. You are trying to make this discussion something it is not, one where you have to preemptively guard against the broadest possible implications of my arguments.
So just to be clear, you don't think Twitter has contributed more AT ALL to those boycotts? This seems like a straightforwardly ridiculous position to me. At least one conservative on Twitter now has more reach due to the recent changes, and used that reach to promote the boycotts. If you don't believe me I'm sure I can find a boycotter who wasn't verified before verification became buyable, though I'll be annoyed you find it unlikely enough to make me go look for one.
This has nothing to do with what I'm saying. Whatever the underlying reasons and circumstances of the boycott, there is such a thing as reach, and both right- and left-wingers use Twitter to increase their reach. Obviously there are underlying reasons for all social movements, but the tools used to spread those movements are what we are talking about.
EDIT: to be very clear, I don't care what the #1 reason behind the boycotts is, my point is that Twitter's changes contributed to them. There can be more than one reason that something happened.
This is a different question than the one initially asked. I asked where the proof was that Twitter had quashed the boycotts before Musk. If there were no boycotts that even made an attempt, I'm not going to say that Twitter quashed the boycotts.
You keep saying it happened, show me one that didn't get off the ground and had at least a decent chance of getting off the ground.
When you say that Twitter provided reach, the assumption is that said reach matters in relation to other possible factors. If there are more important reasons for why the boycotts took off on Twitter, and Twitter was not the limiting factor, then it doesn't make sense to talk about Twitter instead of the other factors.
Like I said, I'm not sure how much twitter has contributed, but it seems evident it has contributed at least a bit. There is no possible proof that a successful boycott could have been quashed by twitter, or that an unsuccessful one would have been successful had it not been quashed.
Then it would be better to simply admit as such and say that we're relying on the possibility of Twitter acting against right-wing boycotts, not on confirmed evidence. I'm entirely willing to accept an argument that Twitter should be scrutinized over that.
Again, I'm not trying to say Twitter played an active role in shutting things down. You're the only one trying to bring that implication into the discussion.
As far as an inactive role, yes, I suppose my point does rely on the incredibly tenuous hypothesis that blue checks (now that they are available to everyone) skew more conservative than they used to. I don't think Twitter should be scrutinized over that, but you do you.
I told you, no matter how you phrase your argument, you are assigning agency to Twitter, and I reject that you've demonstrated this agency in action against right-wing boycotts as a major or primary reason why those boycotts failed.
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