Legal Twitter is enjoying the nuances of the Oversight Board decision while information, political, and tech Twitter are viewing it through other sides of the prism, looking more at the impact, I think.
Many are enjoying the bind the Oversight Board put Facebook in. Meanwhile, that bind will be exploited by Trump et al over the next six months, doing more damage to the net as self-appointed net watchdogs from both right and left imagine new torture for #230, etc.
So *neither* Facebook nor the Oversight Board made a strong statement about the unacceptability of not only inciting insurrection but also promulgating the Big Lie against democratic elections. Both failed to keep their eyes on the highest priorities.
And while Facebook and the Oversight Board play their dangerous game of nuanced hot (Mister) Potato, @jack made a decisive decision exercising the responsibility of his power--and the world has been better off for it. The issue is less who has too much power but who uses it well.
The best thing Facebook could do is say today: "Based on Mr. Trump's statements off Facebook in recent days, continuing to spread the Big Lie, we made the right decision to deplatform him and we now make that decision permanent." The rest becomes mop-up.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The decision in a nutshell, throwing the ball back over the net to Facebook. I disagree with the board that Facebook's decision was not proportionate. In fact, Facebook's decision was long overdue and appropriate. oversightboard.com/decision/FB-69…
The Oversight Board "insisting" that Facebook review its own decision is kinda cute: the Board telling Facebook to do what the Board itself didn't have the guts to do.
The board says: " It is not permissible for Facebook to keep a user off the platform for an undefined period, with no criteria for when or whether the account will be restored." No. There are cardinal sins that merit hell, forever.
I've been delinquent in recommending some wonderful new books I've read (and listened to) lately.... 1/
I'm a big fan of @RussellShorto's history. "Smalltime" is a history of his own family's secrets: connections to a small-town mob. It's wonderful to follow his research process and the impact on his relationships. 2/amazon.com/Smalltime-Stor…
I greatly admired @philippesands' "East West Street". "The Ratline" is a sequel of sorts about children of Nazis trying to understand their stories. Both books are meticulously researched and so engagingly told. 3/ amazon.com/Ratline-Exalte…
This would teach that rather than throwing content at these people, we should offer community. See how often it talks about joining extremist groups for "belonging." Obviously, it's not that simple; racism is deep. Still, there's a lesson here for media. washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/04…
But a problem with this communitarian view is that it assumes racists are made rather than gathered: convenient to blame the net. But all this talk about belonging could instead be racists saying they found a group that encourages the beliefs they already have. Blame nurture then
Still, there is a discussion to be had about whether creating spaces where people can find productive commonality -- not as a singular mass but in a diversity of communities -- would be fruitful. This is why I want to bring anthro and soc to journalism school.
Moral panic in clickbait:
"The more we understand about clickbait-driven content, the addictive allure of social media & the hidden hand of the algorithm, the more obvious is the connection to growing ideological division & sociopolitical groupthink." theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
More moral panic: 'Online search engines have reinforced certainty, prejudice and chauvinism. Predictive capitalism based around the motto “if you like this, you’ll like that” has allowed big tech to narrow the boundaries of creative thinking...' Oh, my.
Plus: "Against a worrying drumbeat of nationalism and populism, museums and galleries celebrate multiculturalism, exchange and cosmopolitanism."
Also colonialism.
This is a terribly important call for research on actual impact of misinformation online *and* in media from @duncanjwatts, @DavMicRot & @markusmobius. Too much fear & too many regulatory interventions are being dreamed up on presumptions without data. pnas.org/content/118/15…
The panic over "fake news" is likely overblown: 5k academic papers & countless panels on the topic since 2017. Yet as they show, consumption of news--let alone fake--is small and more on TV than online. pnas.org/content/118/15…
The social scientists propose a structure for sharing & collaborating on data an&d infrastructure & communicating effectively w/the public. We desperately need this work to be funded & need pressure on many parties, starting with platforms, to share data. pnas.org/content/118/15…
I've just read former Australian PM @MrKRudd's barn-burning book, "The Case for Courage," a grand polemic against Rupert Murdoch, "the cancer on our democracy that is the Murdoch media monopoly." A few key quotes in a 🔥🧵:
"Murdoch manipulates our democracy in multiple, sometimes crude and occasionally subtle ways.... In Australian politics, Murdoch's power is near-complete.... We are beginning to see the radical Americanization of Australian politics." - @MrKRudd
"Murdoch works overtime in cultivating a climate of national anxiety, fear & anger.... They overwhelm our natural sense of optimism, enterprise & generosity of spirit, transforming us instead into a frightened & fractured people--a nation of us versus them & fuck everybody else."