fwiw, I don't buy the theories that rich investors will gladly let go of billions to activism that's been built here.
a) Have you met a rich person?
b) Human networks are too resilient for it to work
c) What part of Elmo's behavior the past month suggests grand chessmaster?
a) Have you met a rich person?
b) Human networks are too resilient for it to work
c) What part of Elmo's behavior the past month suggests grand chessmaster?
I'll expand on b a bit.
Destruction could potentially be a back-of-mind plan, though I think mis/disinfo folks have found it's far better ROI to game the network.
But people rebuild, and in ways destroyers don't expect. Those trying to suppress info are often a step behind.
Destruction could potentially be a back-of-mind plan, though I think mis/disinfo folks have found it's far better ROI to game the network.
But people rebuild, and in ways destroyers don't expect. Those trying to suppress info are often a step behind.
About 10 years ago I was sitting in on a journalism conference session about underground journalism in Cuba. We have long had underground journalists, of course, but what stuck with me was how they spread the information in a place with a controlled internet.
USB drives.
USB drives.
USB drives passed from person to person.
The first newspapers in the U.S. were distributed similarly. To cut costs, a printer didn't print a copy for everyone. They printed enough that people could pass it around.
Networks of information sharing in the late 1600s.
The first newspapers in the U.S. were distributed similarly. To cut costs, a printer didn't print a copy for everyone. They printed enough that people could pass it around.
Networks of information sharing in the late 1600s.
Distributing information slowly got owned by the publishers. This works well in a free market system. But when you see controls come back, people figure out how to route around the security guard, as they did in Cuba. Old tech people write off but can be passed by handshake.
Information travels by weak-tie relationships. The internet is good at mapping that. But the internet's architecture is self-correcting. It relies on billions of nodes that we can route information through if a node gets co-opted or shut down.
(the original project ARPA was about designing an information delivery mechanism that could be resilient in the event of a nuclear war ... they built a technology that could route information through alt sources if a particular information lane was wiped off the earth)
So the conspiracy gambit and why it won't work:
Certainly he could be Dr. Evil and try to destroy networks of info exchange and activism. There would be real consequences. But Twitter is just a map of relationships. It doesn't own those relationships. And networks are resilient.
Certainly he could be Dr. Evil and try to destroy networks of info exchange and activism. There would be real consequences. But Twitter is just a map of relationships. It doesn't own those relationships. And networks are resilient.
Already you're seeing this in other spaces. One of the things people are doing on Mastodon is creating follow suggestion lists similar to the old #FollowFriday thing we used to do 12ish years ago #onhere.
Rebuild by suggestion. Self-correction.
Rebuild by suggestion. Self-correction.
It will not be a completely put-back-together story. More likely we are seeing what I call the Great Fracture - the end of Twitter means those networks are split across 5-8 alt services.
But people find their way back to one another as services go under or audience consolidates.
But people find their way back to one another as services go under or audience consolidates.
So look, maybe that's the plan. If it is, it's a bad one and steeped in a kind of hubris we see historically. Controlling information sharing across networks takes a kind of God Mode level control twitter simply doesn't have.
Yes, this is an optimistic thread!
Yes, this is an optimistic thread!
People are social. We will keep building relationships here or elsewhere. Information will continue to flow in its own ways, on networks we aren't allowed to link to (for like 12 hours, what a wild day yesterday was!). Elmo has no say in any of that, try as he might.
Study has taught me the great value in the stories I've read about information resilience in the face of oppression. Cuba is not the only places it has happened. It's happening in China now. And it should teach us that we always have options.
To that end, I'll re-up the advice I gave in this thread. Always prepare for information nuclear war by being curious about tools. Build things like webspace and publishing prowess; things a single tech billionaire can't control.
https://twitter.com/JeremyLittau/status/1604546270307254272?s=20&t=DrayaIfRTDigSJDbEHKpRg
Last: Obviously there are heavier costs to sharing in an oppressive system. Sharing in China, Cuba, Russia right comes with GREAT risk. But people do it anyway. The networks live on.
And the U.S., the context of Twitter's implosion, is not that. Which is why he can't destroy us.
And the U.S., the context of Twitter's implosion, is not that. Which is why he can't destroy us.
@threadreaderapp unroll s'il vous plaît
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
