How did it arise, this new premise that whenever people converse with one another there needs to be a "path to accountability"? And why wouldn't fact checkers have to decide what facts to check? The implicit expectations here are just so bizarre.
Finally, notice how the call to record conversations and keep old audio would function: if "problematic" content with the potential to do "harm" was spoken, an archive of recordings would allow it to spread to many more people, right?
This is a little-noticed aspect of speech policing: there are people who insist merely hearing a given speech act causes harm to listeners upset by it... who intentionally try to make that very act go viral, exposing lots more people to it, and thus ostensibly spreading harm
Now I am going to have lunch with my parents and talk about the latest Covid info. We won't be recording and no fact-checkers will be present. What edgy, dangerous lives we lead.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This is a good case study in the distorting effects of racial essentialism and the way it can exaggerate differences in perception among racial groups. (1/x)
So here is a survey finding from Harvard showing that a majority of both white and black faculty agree with a proposition, and that the white majority that agrees is bigger than the black majority that agrees. (2/x)
Here is how an analysis of that survey finding characterizes it, emphasizing racial disparities despite the fact that majorities of both races agree with the proposition. But that's not all. (3/x)
1) We should concern ourselves about the precedent this sets for other users, especially depending on the platform's explanation.
2) But I think there are approaches that would avoid slippery slopes. I offered one in 2018 (1/x)
3) World leaders, regardless of ideology, are unlike all other users. They combine maximum institutional power and reach. & the consequences if they are impulsively reckless have unique potential to do damage.
4) Twitter's architecture and culture reward impulsive hostility, including on the highest stakes issues. Easily the best example is the Donald Trump Tweet that prompted my 2018 article. Let's revisit it.
This is a good example of someone who doesn't even understand the critique enough to mount an intelligible response. If you don't see the problem with his response, a thread.
The Trump Administration utterly failed to do enough planning for vaccine rollout. It should have done more. So what do I mean when I talk about the limits of central planning? *Not* that there should be no planning by the federal or state governments.
Rather, I mean that the FDA should not have forbid private actors from developing and using Covid tests early on, instead mandating the use of a flawed CDC test. See Lawrence Wright in the New Yorker for more on that example. Here's another:
Apropos a conversation with a friend I want to flag one of my favorite stories from The Atlantic archives by one of the journalists I esteem most--the singular @JamesFallows--and I want to rope in @WesleyLowery and the @wethefifth folks who conversed with him about journalism
This story touches on questions of journalistic ethics, objectivity versus moral clarity, and the relationship of journalists to the United States and to the American public and public opinion. But it has nothing to do with the particulars of current hot button debates
For that reason, maybe it will prove useful to people who are thinking through these complicated matters. Without any more buildup, here is the article theatlantic.com/magazine/archi…
I've gotten some emails with requests to explain what informs the judgment that I've reached in the 2020 election. The long answer: lots of articles I've written and read over the last five years. This thread is an incomplete list of them.
The Trump character trait that bothers me most, by far, is his penchant for cruelty.
The issue that looms largest for me is COVID-19. I reject the absurd argument that Trump is responsible for all U.S. deaths. But his failures have been significant and catastrophic enough to justify doubting his competence in future emergencies theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…