site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 12, 2022

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.

15
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I sort of vaguely was aware of this story but my initial read was skepticism because it seemed just way too blatant. In case anyone is curious about my thought process, I wondered whether Sweeney either took down his own account, or intentionally got his account suspended some other way (the publicity motive seemed plausible to me). But it does appear to be true that Twitter indeed updated their terms of service specifically to prohibit sharing live location information. I find all this confusing because Musk's tweet about his commitment to not banning Sweeney's account still hasn't been deleted. I can understand Musk being annoyed at Sweeney's account, but this seems like a needlessly pointless way to burn credibility, and just weird and erratic behavior from Musk. He's the face of a $44 billion company, what exactly is the end game here? One last thing that remains curious to me is why would facebook and instagram also prevent people from sharing the elonjet account? It doesn't make sense that they would want to carry water for Musk, so I wonder if something else is going on.

When Musk first took over Twitter, this was my prediction:

Musk presents himself as a free speech absolutist, which is encouraging to me, but I'd be concerned about the conflict of interest. I anticipate there will be some accusations of throttling unfavorable opinions about either him or his companies

I didn't expect a speedrun

My guess is that initially (in the heady days when he was going to buy Twitter and "save" it) Musk was willing to bite the bullet and say "Yeah, even the asshole who's electronically stalking me, I'll prove my commitment to my principles by not banning him."

What probably happened was not so much that Musk suddenly did a 180 and decided to ban the guy who was an irritant to him personally, but once he dug into how Twitter moderation did (and didn't work), and also talked to lawyers, he had to start revising his ideas of what should and shouldn't be allowed. And if you can track a billionaire's travel itinerary and current location, why can't you do that to anyone you don't happen to like?

Whether he came down on the right side of "free speech," I don't know, and it will depend a lot on how evenly this rule gets enforced.