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 -
Anyone else suspect that Apple and Google are going to collude to kill Twitter by removing it from their app stores? Apple is already deleting their accounts on twitter. Seems like they are setting the stage. The Cathedral cannot tolerate a competitor to their stranglehold on social media it seems
I am confused about these events.
Obviously this is coordinated, yet again, by the ADL, who have come out of the closet and started issuing mafia-like threats publicly. In fact they are doing this under their old StopHateForProfit «coalition of social justice» framework, which they first used when bringing Zuckerberg to heel two years ago. (From a quick search, it seems I'm the only guy who keeps bringing this up). (Related Forbes article). Zuckerberg, however, did not fight back remotely as openly.
That's... a bit too much, too soon, surely? They aren't yet feared enough, and their commitment to reposting 4chan/pol/ anti-Jewish memes when not intimidating the richest guy on the planet makes them look profoundly unserious. Or do their backchannel threats have more bite, as indicated by those hints from corporations? Because as it stands, I wouldn't be surprised if this ends with Greenblatt's ignominious removal and the organization being discredited.
Maybe I shouldn't be surprised, and this is The Thing shedding the skin of wokeness and used-up assets; maybe they'll be spent to inflate credibility of Twitter that nevertheless will, as Musk promised originally, to install a censorship council. There are many theoretical ways to run circles around the public here.
Then again, mamma mia, how crude.
...Or, looking at replies to Musk's posts, eg here – maybe Greenblatt et al are rationally assessing their dominance. Huh.
My good sir, not only are you not the only one, but someone predicted it when Musk took over
More options
Context Copy link
The ADL does not have much money, but they have a lot of leverage with the media. The ADL & SPLC in the past has used its leverage to force Twitter to ban accounts . How many big advertisers will permanently defect if Musk does not cave to the pressure groups: I am optimistic most will not. Also Elon will find other ways to monetize the site, and layoffs will help control costs.
All of them. The big advertisers all use a few advertising agencies, who are all run by the same activists who run the ADL and the SPLC.
why would a huge company like IBM or Apple need or care about an agency?
Apple uses TBWA, a division of Omnicom Group. IBM uses Oglivy and Mather.
why couldn't they just contact musk and buy ads? I'm sure they don't need a middleman. Maybe in the past they did need an intermediary but I don't see why this would be an impediment now.
there is a form to contact Twitter to buy ads
https://business.twitter.com/en/form/contact-us-mobile.html
Its a legitmate question, but its never borne out in the market. If you ignore the controversy long enough, you gain profit. Advertising on Tucker is super profitable, but many major companies do no because they caved early and pulled ads.
If ads work at all (dubious IMO) you should want Tucker ads if you are a company. There is no market reason that posits current trends other than the oppositional theory.
More options
Context Copy link
People said the same sort of thing when we were talking about cloudflare and kiwifarms, and I'm not really sure what to say to describe the pressure these groups impose other than gesture wildly at every Manipulating Procedural Outcomes essay.
Yes, it's possible for the CEO-king of Apple to say "fuck those guys, we're going solo", but this doesn't happen in practice even when men like the Cloudflare CEO commit to it in advance. That's because none of them have that much control over their own companies, and the procedures used to make internal decisions are all dominated by a party cadre that doesn't have the interests of the company in mind.
I can't imagine any set of orders Tim Cook could give his VPs that won't be met with replies of "yes sir, advertising and public relations will get right on studying the feasibility of that sir. They'll have an answer for you within four to six weeks."
This kind of thing happens again and again, and every time people are somehow surprised by it. Can you suggest any way I could talk about it that would make it click for people?
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
What part of the tweet you linked is a "mafia-like threat"? That tweet is the last of a series in which they claim they've documented a rise in anti-semitic posting. They're arguing that this is caused by the lack of moderation and that any platform that doesn't want this to happen has to engage in strict(er) moderation. They also explicitly called upon advertisers to pull from Twitter, that's about as blatant as you can get.
Its entirety: «Whatever happens to @Twitter, new social platforms need to center trust and safety from the outset, or risk being subject to the same fate. In the meantime, **@elonmusk has put Twitter on deathwatch. It didn’t have to be this way.**»
I suppose there is some plausible deniability here, but when Twitter is «dying» because they coerce advertisers to leave it... It is a threat. Or rather, an admission of hostility.
Have they ever reported a decline in anti-semitic posting? Antisemitism works like Shepard tone. And there have been so many false reports from ADL and their affiliates about increases in... right-wing extremism, attacks on trans people, anti-semitism, whatever, I have little interest to check again.
In any case, the very premise is illegitimate. Even if expectations of reduced censorship under Musk lead to more unhinged posting, this does not justify their actions.
No, I dispute this interpretation entirely. When the ADL says that new platforms risk being subject to the same fate, it's pretty obvious they're referring to what they perceive as a rise in anti-semitic posts. The only way you can dispute this is if you ignore the chain of tweets that one is situated in.
Whatever problems you may have with the ADL and their actions, the example tweet you chose does a very poor job of making your point.
what does deathwatch mean idgi
It means to be in a state where people are observing you dying
More options
Context Copy link
Maybe it's a death con 3 reference?
I was thinking of the (sub-)sub-faction from 40K.
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
Is that supposed to be read as "Stop 'Hate For Profit'", or "Stop Hate, For Profit"?
No, it’s “stop, [and] hate for profit”.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link