The downfall of Twitter/the rise of X

[jingle.boy]

"I hope that even my worst critics remain on Twitter, because that is what free speech means."

"My commitment to free speech extends even to not banning the account following my plane, even though that is a direct personal safety risk"

"By “free speech”, I simply mean that which matches the law. I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law. If people want less free speech, they will ask government to pass laws to that effect. Therefore, going beyond the law is contrary to the will of the people."

Given he unbanned literal fascists and doxxers when he took over (which would imply a pretty low bar for what is classed as acceptable speech under his/twitters rules), and is now banning people who are operating within the law (flight records are public and distributing them is not a crime, nor is reporting on it) one might be justified in being a little critical of the hypocrisy.

Well, except as noted above where it's hypocrites being a little critical of the hypocrisy.  It's a sort of slippery slope.

Always to the defense of the direct issue, by pointing out fallacies of tangential and/or indirect aspects of the issue at hand.

Why is it so hard for you to just deal with the issue at hand, rather than the noise around the issue.  Unless you're suggesting XJ is the hypocrite?

[Stadler]

I dunno. If a smoker tells people not to smoke, he's a hypocrite with a good and accurate message. It'd be pretty dumb to ignore that advice because the dude smokes.

A person doesn't have to be perfect to make a criticism.

AND

They aren't hypocrites if they are (correctly) pointing out he said one thing (all speech that is legal should be permitted) and then performs actions that are directly contradictory to that ethos.

If Elon had marketed himself/twitter in the last weeks as being in favour of a curated space with additional limits of speech in order to foster a specific environment, then you might have a point if people were were characterising him as a free speech absolutist. But they didn't. Elon marketed himself as a free speech absolutist. So when he goes back on that, he should expect kickback.

Eh... You guys are being more sympathetic to the message than I am.  I don't exactly assume that snarky, divisive comments on Twitter  are "a good and accurate message" or "(correctly) pointing out" anything.   Twitter is by and large a cesspool, and by and large populated by people that have little to no apparent interest in improving ANYTHING except their on-line profile.  Musk's "hypocrisy" is not a cautionary tale to be absorbed by others, it's a stick by which keyboard warriors can exact their revenge against a flawed billionaire.   We KNOW how much Americans love billionaires (we even had a guy campaign TWICE, and rather successfully, on a platform that was largely about abolishing, either directly or indirectly, the notion of billionaires).

[Stadler]

"I hope that even my worst critics remain on Twitter, because that is what free speech means."

"My commitment to free speech extends even to not banning the account following my plane, even though that is a direct personal safety risk"

"By “free speech”, I simply mean that which matches the law. I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law. If people want less free speech, they will ask government to pass laws to that effect. Therefore, going beyond the law is contrary to the will of the people."

Given he unbanned literal fascists and doxxers when he took over (which would imply a pretty low bar for what is classed as acceptable speech under his/twitters rules), and is now banning people who are operating within the law (flight records are public and distributing them is not a crime, nor is reporting on it) one might be justified in being a little critical of the hypocrisy.

Well, except as noted above where it's hypocrites being a little critical of the hypocrisy.  It's a sort of slippery slope.

Always to the defense of the direct issue, by pointing out fallacies of tangential and/or indirect aspects of the issue at hand.

Why is it so hard for you to just deal with the issue at hand, rather than the noise around the issue.  Unless you're suggesting XJ is the hypocrite?

Always with the ad hominem criticism of my posting.  Why is it so hard for you to just deal with the fundamental point I'm making (and have been making, in one form or another, for years now)?

I'm not suggesting anything about any ONE poster and don't try to poke the bear by making me single someone out.  To me, most of us ARE hypocrites, at least on the matters that REALLY matter in American politics, and if you don't understand that, then you haven't understood the vast majority of my posts over the past five years. 

[XJDenton]

Eh... You guys are being more sympathetic to the message than I am.  I don't exactly assume that snarky, divisive comments on Twitter  are "a good and accurate message" or "(correctly) pointing out" anything.   Twitter is by and large a cesspool, and by and large populated by people that have little to no apparent interest in improving ANYTHING except their on-line profile.

The twitter experience is by and large determined by who you are following, and whose posts you are reading. Maybe you could consider the possibility that the cesspool is self-inflicted.

[King Postwhore]

Eh... You guys are being more sympathetic to the message than I am.  I don't exactly assume that snarky, divisive comments on Twitter  are "a good and accurate message" or "(correctly) pointing out" anything.   Twitter is by and large a cesspool, and by and large populated by people that have little to no apparent interest in improving ANYTHING except their on-line profile.

The twitter experience is by and large determined by who you are following, and whose posts you are reading. Maybe you could consider the possibility that the cesspool is self-inflicted.

Absolutely.  This is dead on.  We control our own narrative.

[Stadler]

Eh... You guys are being more sympathetic to the message than I am.  I don't exactly assume that snarky, divisive comments on Twitter  are "a good and accurate message" or "(correctly) pointing out" anything.   Twitter is by and large a cesspool, and by and large populated by people that have little to no apparent interest in improving ANYTHING except their on-line profile.

The twitter experience is by and large determined by who you are following, and whose posts you are reading. Maybe you could consider the possibility that the cesspool is self-inflicted.

I follow:
- Bill Burr
- Guy Fieri
- Alex Guarnaschelli
- Scott Conant
- The members of Dream Theater (Portnoy, Petrucci, Rudess, Sherinian)
- The members of Kiss (Simmons, Stanley, Frehley)
- Gas Monkey Garage
- Fish
- Dr. Phil
- Presidents Biden and Trump
- A couple people here (King, Dave, Cram, Coz)
- Howard Stern
- The Patriots
- The Yankees


Other than the last two Presidents, there's no politics whatsoever.  Yet every morning I, through no fault of my own, are assaulted by terrorists like Jeff Teidrich, Occupy Democrats, some dude named "BrooklynDad_Defiant", some chick named "JoJoFromJerz"... the number is probably 20 or 30 to 1 in favor of these radical liberals (as compared to what we'd call "MAGA Republicans") spewing their version of hate and divisiveness, oblivious to their own hypocrisy while they blather on about Elon Musk's latest "fascist felony" (my words, but encapsulating a good portion of the flavor of the responses).

I'll consider anything; if it's self-inflicted, and it very well might be, it's certainly involuntary.

[XJDenton]

Terrorists? Steady on.

[jingle.boy]

"I hope that even my worst critics remain on Twitter, because that is what free speech means."

"My commitment to free speech extends even to not banning the account following my plane, even though that is a direct personal safety risk"

"By “free speech”, I simply mean that which matches the law. I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law. If people want less free speech, they will ask government to pass laws to that effect. Therefore, going beyond the law is contrary to the will of the people."

Given he unbanned literal fascists and doxxers when he took over (which would imply a pretty low bar for what is classed as acceptable speech under his/twitters rules), and is now banning people who are operating within the law (flight records are public and distributing them is not a crime, nor is reporting on it) one might be justified in being a little critical of the hypocrisy.

Well, except as noted above where it's hypocrites being a little critical of the hypocrisy.  It's a sort of slippery slope.

Always to the defense of the direct issue, by pointing out fallacies of tangential and/or indirect aspects of the issue at hand.

Why is it so hard for you to just deal with the issue at hand, rather than the noise around the issue.  Unless you're suggesting XJ is the hypocrite?

Always with the ad hominem criticism of my posting.  Why is it so hard for you to just deal with the fundamental point I'm making (and have been making, in one form or another, for years now)?

You use that term so frequently I have no idea what you're even talking about most of the time now.  "attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than addressing the substance of the argument itself"

The above wasn't an attack towards you or your argument, but rather an observation that *you* often don't address the direct issue at hand, seemingly deflecting to secondary/tangential issues.  Second, I wasn't trying to poke any bear.  I didn't think for a millisecond that you were suggesting XJ is a hypocrite - just trying to understand if you were addressing the point directly (which might suggest you were calling him a hypocrite), or not (in which case, my observation stands).

[King Postwhore]

If I see any of those from others, I just scroll on by.  I'm ok with that.  I don't need to push my views on others.  I just do what I think is right.  I'm good with that. 

[jingle.boy]

"I hope that even my worst critics remain on Twitter, because that is what free speech means."

"My commitment to free speech extends even to not banning the account following my plane, even though that is a direct personal safety risk"

"By “free speech”, I simply mean that which matches the law. I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law. If people want less free speech, they will ask government to pass laws to that effect. Therefore, going beyond the law is contrary to the will of the people."

Given he unbanned literal fascists and doxxers when he took over (which would imply a pretty low bar for what is classed as acceptable speech under his/twitters rules), and is now banning people who are operating within the law (flight records are public and distributing them is not a crime, nor is reporting on it) one might be justified in being a little critical of the hypocrisy.

Well, except as noted above where it's hypocrites being a little critical of the hypocrisy.  It's a sort of slippery slope.

Always to the defense of the direct issue, by pointing out fallacies of tangential and/or indirect aspects of the issue at hand.

Why is it so hard for you to just deal with the issue at hand, rather than the noise around the issue.  Unless you're suggesting XJ is the hypocrite?

To me, most of us ARE hypocrites, at least on the matters that REALLY matter in American politics, and if you don't understand that, then you haven't understood the vast majority of my posts over the past five years.

To this last point, why not just respond to XJ with "yup, Musk sure sounds hypocritical in that sense", rather than deflecting away to address those that are reacting/responding to Musk's behaviours?

[Stadler]

Terrorists? Steady on.

Why not?  You used it, in a very very similar situation.  Why not? They are undermining the country with their hate and divisiveness. They are creating in-groups and out-groups every bit as much as the "DUMB STUPID PUMPKIN HEAD" (sic, from a tweet from Jeff Tiedrich last night) or his "fucked up members of some fucked up cult" (sic, from a tweet from Jeff Tiedrich this morning, referring to Trump followers).   Why not?  Free speech. 

Why not?

[Stadler]

"I hope that even my worst critics remain on Twitter, because that is what free speech means."

"My commitment to free speech extends even to not banning the account following my plane, even though that is a direct personal safety risk"

"By “free speech”, I simply mean that which matches the law. I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law. If people want less free speech, they will ask government to pass laws to that effect. Therefore, going beyond the law is contrary to the will of the people."

Given he unbanned literal fascists and doxxers when he took over (which would imply a pretty low bar for what is classed as acceptable speech under his/twitters rules), and is now banning people who are operating within the law (flight records are public and distributing them is not a crime, nor is reporting on it) one might be justified in being a little critical of the hypocrisy.

Well, except as noted above where it's hypocrites being a little critical of the hypocrisy.  It's a sort of slippery slope.

Always to the defense of the direct issue, by pointing out fallacies of tangential and/or indirect aspects of the issue at hand.

Why is it so hard for you to just deal with the issue at hand, rather than the noise around the issue.  Unless you're suggesting XJ is the hypocrite?

Always with the ad hominem criticism of my posting.  Why is it so hard for you to just deal with the fundamental point I'm making (and have been making, in one form or another, for years now)?

You use that term so frequently I have no idea what you're even talking about most of the time now.  "attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than addressing the substance of the argument itself"

The above wasn't an attack towards you or your argument, but rather an observation that *you* often don't address the direct issue at hand, seemingly deflecting to secondary/tangential issues.  Second, I wasn't trying to poke any bear.  I didn't think for a millisecond that you were suggesting XJ is a hypocrite - just trying to understand if you were addressing the point directly (which might suggest you were calling him a hypocrite), or not (in which case, my observation stands).

You rarely ever respond to the though or idea in any of my posts, but rather focus on the manner of the post or style, or some other characteristic of ME.  Ad hominem.  I respond, in my own way, DIRECTLY to the issue at hand. That you don't agree what the main point is isn't really on me, and not a function of my style or posting method.

Me suggesting - or not - whether any one poster here is - or is not - a hypocrite has NOTHING to do with addressing the point directly.

[lonestar]

"I hope that even my worst critics remain on Twitter, because that is what free speech means."

"My commitment to free speech extends even to not banning the account following my plane, even though that is a direct personal safety risk"

"By “free speech”, I simply mean that which matches the law. I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law. If people want less free speech, they will ask government to pass laws to that effect. Therefore, going beyond the law is contrary to the will of the people."

Given he unbanned literal fascists and doxxers when he took over (which would imply a pretty low bar for what is classed as acceptable speech under his/twitters rules), and is now banning people who are operating within the law (flight records are public and distributing them is not a crime, nor is reporting on it) one might be justified in being a little critical of the hypocrisy.

Well, except as noted above where it's hypocrites being a little critical of the hypocrisy.  It's a sort of slippery slope.

Always to the defense of the direct issue, by pointing out fallacies of tangential and/or indirect aspects of the issue at hand.

Why is it so hard for you to just deal with the issue at hand, rather than the noise around the issue.  Unless you're suggesting XJ is the hypocrite?

To me, most of us ARE hypocrites, at least on the matters that REALLY matter in American politics, and if you don't understand that, then you haven't understood the vast majority of my posts over the past five years.

To this last point, why not just respond to XJ with "yup, Musk sure sounds hypocritical in that sense", rather than deflecting away to address those that are reacting/responding to Musk's behaviours?

I did get to cross it off my bingo card though...

[Ben_Jamin]

I dunno. If a smoker tells people not to smoke, he's a hypocrite with a good and accurate message. It'd be pretty dumb to ignore that advice because the dude smokes.

A person doesn't have to be perfect to make a criticism.

That's the phrase..."Do as I say, not as I do."

[Harmony]

Other than the last two Presidents, there's no politics whatsoever.  Yet every morning I, through no fault of my own, are assaulted by terrorists like Jeff Teidrich, Occupy Democrats, some dude named "BrooklynDad_Defiant", some chick named "JoJoFromJerz"... the number is probably 20 or 30 to 1 in favor of these radical liberals (as compared to what we'd call "MAGA Republicans") spewing their version of hate and divisiveness, oblivious to their own hypocrisy while they blather on about Elon Musk's latest "fascist felony" (my words, but encapsulating a good portion of the flavor of the responses).

I'll consider anything; if it's self-inflicted, and it very well might be, it's certainly involuntary.

This is by design.  It also takes into consideration if you post on a thread and if you read certain threads.

I have been muting accounts of users I don't care about and Twitter just shows me more of the same but different people.  It didn't used to be this way.  I suspect the algorithm is purposefully set up to show a user accounts they would likely disagree with or vehemently disagree with over accounts they follow.

This is why I spend less and less time there each day.  You were right about the fact that it is a cesspool. 

[Stadler]

"I hope that even my worst critics remain on Twitter, because that is what free speech means."

"My commitment to free speech extends even to not banning the account following my plane, even though that is a direct personal safety risk"

"By “free speech”, I simply mean that which matches the law. I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law. If people want less free speech, they will ask government to pass laws to that effect. Therefore, going beyond the law is contrary to the will of the people."

Given he unbanned literal fascists and doxxers when he took over (which would imply a pretty low bar for what is classed as acceptable speech under his/twitters rules), and is now banning people who are operating within the law (flight records are public and distributing them is not a crime, nor is reporting on it) one might be justified in being a little critical of the hypocrisy.

Well, except as noted above where it's hypocrites being a little critical of the hypocrisy.  It's a sort of slippery slope.

Always to the defense of the direct issue, by pointing out fallacies of tangential and/or indirect aspects of the issue at hand.

Why is it so hard for you to just deal with the issue at hand, rather than the noise around the issue.  Unless you're suggesting XJ is the hypocrite?

To me, most of us ARE hypocrites, at least on the matters that REALLY matter in American politics, and if you don't understand that, then you haven't understood the vast majority of my posts over the past five years.

To this last point, why not just respond to XJ with "yup, Musk sure sounds hypocritical in that sense", rather than deflecting away to address those that are reacting/responding to Musk's behaviours?

What's the point of that?  He doesn't need my affirmation, does he?  And it's not deflecting; all these people are pointing at Musk as if he's part of the problem; I can't change Musk, and neither can any of those people pointing the fingers.  I can't change the people pointing the fingers either, but if any of them ever see this, and have a shred of integrity, and WANT to be part of the solution instead of the problem - which I believe they are - maybe I can plant a seed to give them something to think about.  I believe in what I write; I don't know if I AM right or not, no one does affirmatively, but I also have data that backs up that what we're (collectively) doing now isn't working. At the very least, being less divisive and minimizing out-groups can't hurt, so just like we talk about in terms of guns, abortion, we don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.  It might not be a complete solution but we take the little steps we can.  So if even one person takes what I write here and says "wow, maybe my snarky, quippy little reply, and the 12 people that will like me as a result isn't worth the further divisiveness and turmoil that it will possibly cause".  It's like throwing trash out the window; does my throwing one McDonald's wrapper out the window REALLY move the needle in terms of the environment?  No, not really, but if I do it, and you do it and XJ does it, it starts to add up.

[Stadler]

Other than the last two Presidents, there's no politics whatsoever.  Yet every morning I, through no fault of my own, are assaulted by terrorists like Jeff Teidrich, Occupy Democrats, some dude named "BrooklynDad_Defiant", some chick named "JoJoFromJerz"... the number is probably 20 or 30 to 1 in favor of these radical liberals (as compared to what we'd call "MAGA Republicans") spewing their version of hate and divisiveness, oblivious to their own hypocrisy while they blather on about Elon Musk's latest "fascist felony" (my words, but encapsulating a good portion of the flavor of the responses).

I'll consider anything; if it's self-inflicted, and it very well might be, it's certainly involuntary.

This is by design.  It also takes into consideration if you post on a thread and if you read certain threads.

I have been muting accounts of users I don't care about and Twitter just shows me more of the same but different people.  It didn't used to be this way.  I suspect the algorithm is purposefully set up to show a user accounts they would likely disagree with or vehemently disagree with over accounts they follow.

This is why I spend less and less time there each day.  You were right about the fact that it is a cesspool.

Thanks for chiming in (sincerely).  According to the 60 Minutes story a couple weeks ago, I think you are correct about the algorithm factoring in negative or conflicting disagreement in the filtered posts. 

[Skeever]

Eh... You guys are being more sympathetic to the message than I am.  I don't exactly assume that snarky, divisive comments on Twitter  are "a good and accurate message" or "(correctly) pointing out" anything.   Twitter is by and large a cesspool, and by and large populated by people that have little to no apparent interest in improving ANYTHING except their on-line profile.

The twitter experience is by and large determined by who you are following, and whose posts you are reading. Maybe you could consider the possibility that the cesspool is self-inflicted.

I follow:
- Bill Burr
- Guy Fieri
- Alex Guarnaschelli
- Scott Conant
- The members of Dream Theater (Portnoy, Petrucci, Rudess, Sherinian)
- The members of Kiss (Simmons, Stanley, Frehley)
- Gas Monkey Garage
- Fish
- Dr. Phil
- Presidents Biden and Trump
- A couple people here (King, Dave, Cram, Coz)
- Howard Stern
- The Patriots
- The Yankees


Other than the last two Presidents, there's no politics whatsoever.  Yet every morning I, through no fault of my own, are assaulted by terrorists like Jeff Teidrich, Occupy Democrats, some dude named "BrooklynDad_Defiant", some chick named "JoJoFromJerz"... the number is probably 20 or 30 to 1 in favor of these radical liberals (as compared to what we'd call "MAGA Republicans") spewing their version of hate and divisiveness, oblivious to their own hypocrisy while they blather on about Elon Musk's latest "fascist felony" (my words, but encapsulating a good portion of the flavor of the responses).

I'll consider anything; if it's self-inflicted, and it very well might be, it's certainly involuntary.

These types of grifter activist accounts get dragged by the real "left" all the time.
You should try a few episodes of the podcast "Chapo Trap House" to learn more about what the real left is like. I would love to know what you thought about it.

[jingle.boy]

You rarely ever respond to the though or idea in any of my posts, but rather focus on the manner of the post or style, or some other characteristic of ME.  Ad hominem.  I respond, in my own way, DIRECTLY to the issue at hand. That you don't agree what the main point is isn't really on me, and not a function of my style or posting method.

Me suggesting - or not - whether any one poster here is - or is not - a hypocrite has NOTHING to do with addressing the point directly.

I respond to the CONTENT of your posts.... not to the content of your CHARACTER.  The two are separate things, so there's no need perform the mental gymnastics to interpret my criticism of *what* you post as me criticizing you.

[cramx3]

Twitter leans to the left, it always has. From the previous employees to the users.  It's no surprise, even if you don't follow leftist, that you are going to see these things on your timeline.  That JoJofromJerz girl comes up on my page and I have no idea why.  I'll probably mute the account next time I see it.  It may be replaced by something similar, but at the end of the day, these things don't bother me too much. I don't have to use twitter, but the positives outweigh these small annoyances. I try not to give the things I dont like attention.

[King Postwhore]

Me scrolling Twitter right now.

Judas Priest - Metal Gods or Turbo Lover

Rocktails guy.  Gas prices in California lowering finally.

Buddy, Playing Modest Mouse Album

Sports radio guy saying listen to me.

Painkiller or Aces High vote.

Elf on a Christmas tree topper

Cram's 2022 top album threads.

My buddy tweeted, The new Leftfield album is worth the wait.

Sports radio guy, I'd buy that shirt.

Guy playing a buckethead song.

Matthew Judon from the N.E. Patriots asking fans out what's good or bad outside of work

Nick Carter posting a pic with Tony Danza.


So as you can see, I'm not seeing anything negative.  If you don't have friends that dwell on the negative, you wont see it.

[Stadler]

Me scrolling Twitter right now.

Judas Priest - Metal Gods or Turbo Lover

Rocktails guy.  Gas prices in California lowering finally.

Buddy, Playing Modest Mouse Album

Sports radio guy saying listen to me.

Painkiller or Aces High vote.

Elf on a Christmas tree topper

Cram's 2022 top album threads.

My buddy tweeted, The new Leftfield album is worth the wait.

Sports radio guy, I'd buy that shirt.

Guy playing a buckethead song.

Matthew Judon from the N.E. Patriots asking fans out what's good or bad outside of work

Nick Carter posting a pic with Tony Danza.


So as you can see, I'm not seeing anything negative.  If you don't have friends that dwell on the negative, you wont see it.

Well, I don't have any friends.  So that's a start. 

(I'm kidding; though the friends I do have are largely not on Twitter, though).

[King Postwhore]

I see so many people saying they see the other side to their beliefs but I guess it's who you follow so it's on those who follow to argue.

[Stadler]

Eh... You guys are being more sympathetic to the message than I am.  I don't exactly assume that snarky, divisive comments on Twitter  are "a good and accurate message" or "(correctly) pointing out" anything.   Twitter is by and large a cesspool, and by and large populated by people that have little to no apparent interest in improving ANYTHING except their on-line profile.

The twitter experience is by and large determined by who you are following, and whose posts you are reading. Maybe you could consider the possibility that the cesspool is self-inflicted.

I follow:
- Bill Burr
- Guy Fieri
- Alex Guarnaschelli
- Scott Conant
- The members of Dream Theater (Portnoy, Petrucci, Rudess, Sherinian)
- The members of Kiss (Simmons, Stanley, Frehley)
- Gas Monkey Garage
- Fish
- Dr. Phil
- Presidents Biden and Trump
- A couple people here (King, Dave, Cram, Coz)
- Howard Stern
- The Patriots
- The Yankees


Other than the last two Presidents, there's no politics whatsoever.  Yet every morning I, through no fault of my own, are assaulted by terrorists like Jeff Teidrich, Occupy Democrats, some dude named "BrooklynDad_Defiant", some chick named "JoJoFromJerz"... the number is probably 20 or 30 to 1 in favor of these radical liberals (as compared to what we'd call "MAGA Republicans") spewing their version of hate and divisiveness, oblivious to their own hypocrisy while they blather on about Elon Musk's latest "fascist felony" (my words, but encapsulating a good portion of the flavor of the responses).

I'll consider anything; if it's self-inflicted, and it very well might be, it's certainly involuntary.

These types of grifter activist accounts get dragged by the real "left" all the time.
You should try a few episodes of the podcast "Chapo Trap House" to learn more about what the real left is like. I would love to know what you thought about it.

I will check that out; I'm always interested to hear more on the things I write about.   But as a general proposition, as someone whose friends are probably 4 or 5 to 1 lean left, I feel like I do have an understanding of the "real" left.  The underlying point of all this is that it's not unilateral; if "JoJoFromJerz" or "Jeff Tiedrich" isn't the real left, then neither is goat boy with the face paint on January 6th the real right.  My dad was a conservative until the day he died, and he was NONE OF THAT.  He was APPALLED at that kind of behavior.  But he, like me, didn't see it as unique to his party or to Trump.  The divisiveness isn't just on the right, and isn't just at the extremes.   

[lonestar]

Me scrolling Twitter right now.

Judas Priest - Metal Gods or Turbo Lover

Rocktails guy.  Gas prices in California lowering finally.

Buddy, Playing Modest Mouse Album

Sports radio guy saying listen to me.

Painkiller or Aces High vote.

Elf on a Christmas tree topper

Cram's 2022 top album threads.

My buddy tweeted, The new Leftfield album is worth the wait.

Sports radio guy, I'd buy that shirt.

Guy playing a buckethead song.

Matthew Judon from the N.E. Patriots asking fans out what's good or bad outside of work

Nick Carter posting a pic with Tony Danza.


So as you can see, I'm not seeing anything negative.  If you don't have friends that dwell on the negative, you wont see it.

My Twitter...


Nemophila - Seize the Fate x100

Daughter making statement against AI apps

Nemophila - Seize the Fate x100


Now that's how you create an echo chamber my friend.

[XJDenton]

Why not?  You used it, in a very very similar situation.

Feel free to provide the post.

[Stadler]

Why not?  You used it, in a very very similar situation.

Feel free to provide the post.

The whole line of reasoning that went into the stochastic terrorism discussion. That was a term YOU introduced.

[XJDenton]

1. Stochastic terrorism is a term that has been used since 2018, and is essentially a reframing of the general concepts of the "lone wolf" and "incitement" which are the subject of a large quantity of research and analysis. So I didn't introduce anything.
2. I described stochastic terrorism as a process, and how media and propaganda can be used to predictably radicalise a certain proportion of individuals. To my knowledge, I did not call a single person, other than those who commit the acts of terror that are incited, terrorists. But again, feel free to provide the post where I did.

[XJDenton]

In any case back on topic:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-12-16/musk-disables-twitter-spaces-after-clash-with-journalists

Twitter disabled the "spaces" feature a few hours after Musk participated in a "Spaces" meeting with journalists he banned, got the bare minimum of pushback, and immediately dropped out of it.

https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/audio-of-elon-musks-twitter-spaces-session-with-journalists-before-he-abruptly-quit-3612756

Kinda feels like that kind of decision making is driven by ego rather than any sound business making decisions.

[emtee]

Stochastic;

Randomly determined; having a random probability distribution or pattern that may be analyzed statistically but not predicted precisely.

Randomly determined, check. Analyzed statistically,  maybe. Predicted precisely, nope.

It's like a theoretical physicist specializing in quantum theory took some LSD in hopes that he solve the random chaos principle 😀.

[KevShmev]

Thanks for chiming in (sincerely).  According to the 60 Minutes story a couple weeks ago, I think you are correct about the algorithm factoring in negative or conflicting disagreement in the filtered posts.

It feels like all it takes is one person you follow liking or retweeting something political or social justice-related for example, and all of a sudden, you get a barrage of tweets of that ilk despite not following any of it directly.   

It is very easy to argue that going to Twitter at all is a self-inflected wound, so I will plead guilty in that regard, but the idea that if you just stick to what you follow means you will never see anything you don't want is not reality.  It hasn't been that way on Twitter for as long as I can remember.

[King Postwhore]

Funny.  I'm not seeing much of that at all. I think you want to blame algorithms,  instead of blaming yourself for following those you disagree with.

[King Postwhore]

This isn't a response to Kev. It's to those complaining about seeing what they don't like on their Twitter feed.

I have no issues likecyou do so maybe you like the drama.

[KevShmev]

I think it's more the "safe space" people.  Jordan Peterson has spoken about this, how the safe space people want to live in a world where no one ever says or does anything that makes them uncomfortable.   And I think for many, Twitter was a safe space, and now that Musk is turning it into Hell in a Cell where anything goes, some are uncomfortable because...*gasp"...they actually have to read opinions with which they do not agree. The horror. 

[Ben_Jamin]

I think it's more the "safe space" people.  Jordan Peterson has spoken about this, how the safe space people want to live in a world where no one ever says or does anything that makes them uncomfortable.   And I think for many, Twitter was a safe space, and now that Musk is turning it into Hell in a Cell where anything goes, some are uncomfortable because...*gasp"...they actually have to read opinions with which they do not agree. The horror.

It's more like their safety bubble has popped and they are now vulnerable to all the things that safety bubble protected them from.

This is why I say that Life, Reality, and The World is not exactly kind. To survive in this world, your body and mind need to be kept in what is termed a "healthy" state. The mind, especially, needs to be in that healthy state or else you'll end up "losing your mind". To me, having a healthy state of mind means to be able to control your thoughts and emotions, for your brain to immediately tell your body not to react on those thoughts or emotions. It's your mind telling itself to breathe, calm down, and evaluate the situation before acting.

And honestly, I feel a lot of people do not have a healthy state of mind. People are quick to react without thinking. In the case of twitter, the reaction is to write a degrading post, to the point of it verging to a threat, rather than considering to ignore the post and scroll past it.