Anyway, my tuppence worth on Musk and Twitter. He’s in for a rocky ride, and the question for me is whether his ego is going to make him destroy Twitter. Right now, what’s pretty clear is that he doesn’t understand what makes Twitter work. 1/10
There are three things he doesn’t seem to grasp. Firstly, he seems to think he’s bought a tech company (‘not enough coders, too many managers’) when what he’s really bought is a community of users. 2/10
What makes Twitter work, what makes it potentially valuable, isn’t the tech (which isn’t that special) but the community that uses it - that, in particular, it’s become the medium of choice of journalists and politicians. 3/10
That’s the value, right there. Every journalist worth their salt uses Twitter - and most use it a lot. Ditto pretty much every politician. They’re the user base he should care about, not the right-wing-nut-job community. But he doesn’t even understand *them* 4/10
Right-wing-nut-jobs don’t just want a place where they can rant, abuse and say whatever words they want. If they did, they’d be quite content with Gab, Parler, Truth Social, some bits of 4Chan, Reddit etc. See, they’ve got plenty of spaces. 5/10
No, what they want is a place where they can rant *at the libs*, at the MSM, at the people they hate. If those people aren’t there (and they aren’t on Gab, Parler, Truth Social etc), the ranting isn’t nearly as fun. So if Musk manages to drive the libs away, that’s ruined. 6/10
If the libs are driven off, the right-wing will be jubilant for a while, but then bored. And then Twitter dies. So Musk has to keep the libs on board. Oh, and the advertisers too, because they’ll run like hell if Twitter’s just a hate-speech hell-site. 7/10
And that means moderation. It means keeping the Nazis off the site. It means keeping control of abuse and hate speech. It means cutting down the misinformation. All things Musk doesn’t want to do. If he turns Twitter into a hell-site, he kills it. 8/10
So what can he do? It’s not easy. There’s no simple solution, no magic wand. Free speech is bloody difficult. I’d suggest he read Habermas, but of course he won’t. So it’ll be messy, and I suspect he’ll just get bored eventually, but who knows? 9/10
That’s the thing. Handing over Twitter to a massive-ego, massive-wealth, unpredictable billionaire is kind of a metaphor for the whole way we’ve dealt with the internet. It’s a mess. We just have to do what we can. 10/10
P.S. I realise I didn’t say what the three things are.
1) That it’s the community that matters, not the tech
2) Where the value is in that community
3) What the right-wing-nut-jobs want.

😃

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Prof Paul Bernal

Prof Paul Bernal Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @PaulbernalUK

Aug 19
A short thread on ‘conspiracies’. Some good stuff (e.g. by @davidallengreen) has been written on ‘cock-up’ vs conspiracy. In general, it’s a very good rule of thumb that cock-up is more likely than conspiracy for all kinds of ‘bad’ things. There’s another dimension… 1/n
That is, it’s also true - for a different kind of thing - that ‘consensus’ can be more likely than conspiracy. That is, if you see *scientists* or other experts agreeing, it’s much more likely that there’s a good reason for that, a consensus, rather than a conspiracy. 2/n
When experts agree, there a number of possibilities. E.g.
1) that they’ve come to similar conclusions based on evidence and analysis
2) that there’s some kind of ‘group think’ (sheep-stuff rather than conspiracy)
3) that there’s a secret conspiracy by some ‘puppet-masters’

3/n
Read 10 tweets
Aug 18
If you think a university place is a ‘birthright’, why build a system where you pay through the nose for it?
Oh, you meant a ‘birthright’ for Freddie and Olivia whose parents can afford it.
Basically, Allison Pearson’s piece is a lament that ‘her people’ can’t buy privilege as much as they could, because having built a system based on buying privilege, the forrin rich have out bid them.
Read 5 tweets
Aug 17
A question for those who think, like Liz Truss, that British workers need more ‘graft’: what do you think needs to be done to make them work harder? The whip? Lower wages? Higher prices, to motivate them?
It’s always been an underlying belief amongst certain people that the British are lazy. Boris Johnson wrote that “blue collar” men are likely to be drunk, criminal, aimless, feckless and hopeless” (fact checked here): fullfact.org/online/Boris-J…
It’s part of the superiority complex generated by our class system - and fed by the public schools etc. ‘I succeed because I work hard’ rather than because of privilege, mirroring ‘they fail because they’re lazy’ rather than because of circumstances, bad luck etc.
Read 4 tweets
Aug 6
When they invoke the ‘left blob’ all they mean is they had a shitty, impractical idea, and someone dared point out that it was shitty and impractical. Which is their job.
‘I want wave machines in the channel to blow the dinghies back!’ ‘But that won’t work and will be illegal’ ‘Damn you, left blob!’
‘I want a smart border in Ireland’ ‘I’m afraid the technology is decades away’ ‘Damn you, left blob!’
Read 4 tweets
Jul 14
So the #OnlineSafetyBill has been delayed until the Autumn. That’s a good thing. What is also good is that at least some of the ‘free speech’ people on the right of politics have realised what a disaster the bill is to free speech. Everyone should. A thread. 1/n
A lot of focus has been on the ‘legal but harmful’ content and the ‘hurt feelings’ aspect that is covered by the #OnlineSafetyBill, but the real problems are much deeper. I’m just dealing with freedom of speech here, but there are other problems! 2/n
Firstly, don’t be under any illusions: the #OnlineSafetyBill is designed to restrict free speech. That’s its whole raison d’etre. The speech that it’s restricting is the speech deemed ‘harmful’ or speech making places ‘unsafe’ in some way. We should not hide from that. 3/n
Read 13 tweets
Jul 1
A short thread on the #OnlineSafetyBill. I hope I’m wrong, but I get the impression that the bill is still getting effective support across most of the political spectrum: it really shouldn’t be. Opposition politicians all over have recognised many of the government’s bills… 1/n
…as being authoritarian, incoherent, insular, badly written, inappropriate and capable of massive misuse. We see it over policing - Steve Bray and ‘noisy protest’ - over the NI Protocol bill, over things like voter ID - but we don’t see it enough over the #OnlineSafetyBill. 2/n
…when in practice it has all those flaws, and all those *dangers* built in. It is incoherent. It is full of wishful thinking and full of misunderstandings of how the internet works. It will be counterproductive *making the internet less safe* - and it will be abused. 3/n
Read 7 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(