A very short thread on the suspension of Vance - well, not on him as such, but related. I follow lots of people on here, and take glances at a whole lot more - including people I disagree with massively. I never followed Vance, but I saw his stuff regularly. 1/n
I see stuff from people I disagree with politically. I see stuff from people I disagree with morally and ethically. I follow people who detest each other and quite regularly get asked ‘why are you following X, they’re a xxxx’, in some key subject areas. 2/n
Sometimes it’s really important to listen to voices you disagree with, and to hear political views and perspectives very different from your own. I do this actively and deliberately. Sometimes, though, it’s thoroughly poisonous. 3/n
...and some things aren’t just ‘opinions’ or ‘perspectives’, they’re something much more dangerous and harmful. The stuff Vance puts out was like that. Damaging not just in theory but in practice. 4/n
It’s not about being ‘snowflakes’ or being ‘offended’ in any real way, it’s about actual harm. Is this something ‘we’ should ‘tolerate’? This is not easy at all. Who gets to decide? Who says what is ‘acceptable’? The government? The social media companies? 5/n
I wouldn’t *in general* trust governments or social media companies as far as I could throw a battleship. The ‘Online Harms White Paper’ which effectively carves up the governance of free speech between the governments and the social media companies is abysmal 6/n
*But* that doesn’t mean nothing can or should be done. If we do nothing, we get the nastiest, loudest, angriest and most manipulative people ‘winning’. So what do we do? The most important thing is to say that there’s no easy answer. 7/n
This is bloody difficult. That means treading carefully, being ready to change the way you do it - but bold enough to do things. I think suspending (and then banning) people like Vance (and Milo, Hopkins etc) before them is likely to ‘work’ in terms of ‘cleaning up’ Twitter. 8/n
...but we need to be very, very wary of where this is taking us. It’s not an easy or perfect solution.... /ends
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
What will happen when the MAGAs find out that deporting undocumented migrants doesn’t help jobs, wages, or the economy, doesn’t reduce crime and doesn’t improve their situation? 1/5
What will happen when they find out that tariffs make their shopping more expensive, not cheaper? What will happen when they find out that tax cuts don’t apply to them, just to the rich? 2/5
What will happen when the Incels find out that even with Trump in the White House women don’t want to sleep with them? What will happen when they learn that the techbro billionaires aren’t actually on their side? 3/5
A short thread on bias at university. In my course on ‘The Protection and Management of Privacy and Reputation’ we use the Laurence Fox defamation case as a case study. It’s a technically interesting case: I teach it for that reason, not because of the political aspects. 1/6
I would give bad marks to anyone who said ‘Fox lost because the judge refused to define racism’ not because I’m politically biased, but because that would not be true. Fox lost because his legal team were unable to demonstrate that the relevant tweets caused serious harm… 2/6
…whilst his opponents legal team were able to demonstrate serious harm from his tweets. I would, however, give good marks for well-written arguments that the case shows that defamation law can have a chilling effect on social media, and that this may not be a good thing. 3/6
This past week has shown (once again) that the biggest harms of social media are not the ‘trolls and bots’ but the big accounts that magnify, corral and spread the harm. (Short thread) 1/4
These are not anonymous accounts, these are not ‘foreign’ accounts. These are our mainstream media people, our politicians, our ‘influencers’ and ‘commentators’. Amongst other things, this is yet another demonstration of how badly focussed the Online Safety Act is. 2/4
We spend our time looking at individual ‘harms’, at specifically harmful ‘content’ rather than at the structural issues (algorithms etc) and at the obvious ‘bad guys’ rather than at the overall effect. 3/4
A few points about Starmer’s majority on a small vote share - and a comparison with Johnson’s situation in 2019. First thing to remember is that *as of this moment* it doesn’t matter how many votes they got, but how many seats. 1/7
That’s the problem with FPTP - a seat is a seat is a seat. In terms of governance, that means Starmer’s position is incredibly strong. He can basically do what he wants - just as Johnson could do whatever *he* wanted. 2/7
That i puts the emphasis on what Starmer actually does. There’s the rub. How did Johnson turn a massive majority into a crushing defeat? By governing abysmally. By being corrupt, incompetent and dishonest. He couldn’t fulfil his promises - because his promises were lies. 3/7
I have a little theory about Sunak. There are many reasons he’s in the mess he is, but one of them is his decision to go ahead with the Rwanda Scheme. He had a chance to step back from it, to abandon it. Instead he chose to push it. 1/4
He knew it was batshit. He knew it was unworkable. He just thought it would resonate with the nutters and the racists, and give him credibility with the far right. With the GBeebies audience, with the Braverman fans. 2/4
The trouble is, its failure to function was then on his hands. The nutters and racists still don’t like him, and its failure gave Farage (and Braverman) room on the right. The Overton Window is shifted, and the last remnant of Tory ‘competence’ is extinguished. 3/4