"First, he could make structural reforms—re-engineer Twitter’s algorithm with the tribalism problem in mind, and make other wholesome changes in the way Twitter works. Second, he could use his prominence to encourage a more civil ethos."
I agree that this is what he could, in fact should, do. But I think you'd have better luck convincing a crocodile to see the errors of its carnivorous ways and start a diet of tofu and fresh vegetables.
Musk has no interest in the common good (unless it means lots of goodies for him) and uses Twitter in the same way as other rich and powerful people have used misinformation, rumours, and dissembling for ages--to divide and conquer. His populist verbiage of "the people have spoken" is a big tell.
I'm genuinely hoping that I'll be proven utterly wrong or at the very least that he won't succeed. Too much is at stake.
One thing I've been thinking about a lot, and I wish could be introduced into the broader cultural dialogue (such as it is), is that HATE IS EASY. It is not glorious or clever or interesting; it's just the easiest, least effortful, and most infantile way to approach anything that isn't perfectly aligned with who you are and what you want. If we could pull back the curtain on the loud, noxious, trolling haters and reveal them to be the shrieking monkeys they are, then maybe people would work harder to be something less easily ridiculed and dismissed. The more we each respond to outrageous behavior with outrage, the more we obscure this basic truth.
How many more times can we yell, "He's horrible! She's hateful!" without realizing that we are inflating their status? Instead, what if we just collectively decided to use the "shrug" emoji, keep walking, and sign up to volunteer at our local homeless shelter? Unless we are addicted to the jolt of animating indignation? Each non-bot on Twitter (and elsewhere) needs to really understand what they're doing there. It doesn't appear to me that many people analyze their own motives, much less have a shot at understanding someone else's. Which must, I'd imagine, precede effective cognitive empathy.
Twitter's problems, if all true as expressed by you, may be understood as a tip of huge iceberg called social media that can be described as a tip of iceberg called internet. Or, I may be the one who is all wrong spectacularly. In my view, Elon Musk is not very political, but he is very seriously interested in politics inwardly as well as outwardly, namely domestic politics and foreign affaires as to be direct to world economics. It is obvious additionally, he has somewhat a dreamy and beautiful view toward the future. Although his view could be described as vague or non-specific, that man has a trait of a modern aristocrat with traditional monarchial power replaced by funds and assets. In short, he can be despotically quick in actions, which is impossible for governmental powers to do in the same way in any democratic country. In this regard, Musk is a very interesting figure. However, we also have to remember that the ideal actions of the Prince and the ideal outcomes from them are merely by chance in a combination of other factors, as Machiavelli and Hobbes pointed out.
Musk is a polarizing figure as many rightly point out, and his pronouns tweet was indeed reckless. That said, Fauci has been far from forthcoming regarding research funded by his agency. Fauci's agency funded research that did indeed include the small subset of virology known as gain-of-function research of concern, or research on enhanced potential pandemic pathogens (GoFRoC/ePPP), which can include dual-use research of concern (DURC). The egregiously high risks and questionable benefits of such research have been pointed out by many scientists for decades. EcoHealth Alliance, whose president is Peter Daszak, was indeed funded by Fauci's agency. Daszak worked closely with Shi Zhengli of the Wuhan Institute of Virology (the "Bat Lady"), who was indeed engaging in GoFRoC on bat coronaviruses. No one knows precisely which or even how many viruses were being worked on at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Even Daszak has said he doesn't know. US virologists engaging in GoFRoC fought tooth-and-nail from the outset to brand any covid origin other than zoonosis as a conspiracy theory; indeed, it has been documented that Fauci coordinated that politics-driven narrative in early February 2020. There has been no investigation of the origin to date. That biosafety and biosecurity have become such partisan issues is arguably an own goal by Democrats. This is truly a shame: Obama understood the inherent and egregious risks of GoFRoC and imposed a moratorium on such research in 2014. Trump lifted it in 2017, presumably at Fauci's behest. GoFRoC is far too risky to be under the regulation and oversight of the same bodies that fund it.
Harrison/Sachs article in PNAS on important information that can be gleaned from US-based research institutions in the US for independent, transparent, and scientific scrutiny:
Do you honestly think that Chinese labs that can't even keep the dangerous viruses they work with safe (worst safety records on the planet) are studiously marking funds to such a degree that we should be confident no NIH resources went to creating the global abomination that killed millions of people?
And secondly, don't you think Trump and Elons's recent turn at contrarian in chief are in response to institutional capture and resulting willful institutional dishonesty on behalf of the left? Fauci was 'Man of the Year's even when much was already know of his funding GoF and covering for the CCP / WIH probably to protect his profession after the biggest institutional accident in history. It's not that the left doesn't think he was a big player in causing the pandemic, they think he's a hero for giving press conferences and obfuscating any investigation. It's propaganda so removed from reality as to almost shove our faces in their institutional capture and ability to craft any narrative they want irrespective of facts. That in my opinion is what gives rise to the attraction of Trump's and Musk's hyperbole
Hi Bob; I am a big fan or your newsletter, podcast and the Parrot Room (also Princeton ‘84, BA English). Maybe you have seen this talk by Michael McFaul delivered at Stanford earlier this year, but I just watched and listened to it carefully. He makes a good case, and is a good communicator. The one question he cannot answer is what the long term solution is for the war in Ukraine (not Elon Musk) and how to get to peace - which I know are your driving concerns. Perhaps you might consider having him as a guest on your podcast for a urgent but civil conversation. All the best,
I think your points are sound and important, but ironically I also think your attack on Musk involves a bit of hyperbole. I don't use Twitter, but I gather that its algorithm-based bias toward tribalization is long-standing. Yes, it would be nice if the problem gets fixed under Musk's leadership, but while his foolish tweets are unhelpful, the big issue is to fix the structural problem, not for Mr. Musk to suddenly reinvent himself and play nice.
Minor point, but: "Mr. Knight is a nut!" Is he though? What species has done more damage to the vitality of the planet than human beings, from the ozone layer to the nuclear reactors dumped overboard into the deepest oceans? Voluntary human extinction may strike you as an extreme response to the problem, but I doubt you'd try to argue that the problem doesn't exist and that it doesn't merit discussion. Do you also think Peter Singer is "a nut!" for proposing that medical testing be done on brain-dead humans rather than sentient monkeys? Seemingly outlandish philosophical proposals are teaching tools, hardly worthy of such dismissal.
Good analysis. I’ll be shocked if anyone can transform Twitter into what you think you’d like to see. Yours is a kind of sad digital utopianism. Twitter sucked before, Twitter sucks now, and it has to suck to survive. And hopefully it will survive, despite sucking.
This needs be read by a larger audience. Could also include Musk's lies about the FBI paying for censorship, and his recent tweet about 275 million illegal immigrants entering the US last year (when in fact, it was 275 million caught) .
But take out that the joy of twitter is watching "elites". Or at least take out that word. The joy of twitter is us normies thinking we are on the same field as the "elites"
I agree with your point about Musk's comment. But I'm not sure you're correct that he will fail to fix the problem. I think the guy is a jerk (though I don't know him), but he's supposed to be smart and technically competent. We'll see.
Spot on analysis.
"First, he could make structural reforms—re-engineer Twitter’s algorithm with the tribalism problem in mind, and make other wholesome changes in the way Twitter works. Second, he could use his prominence to encourage a more civil ethos."
I agree that this is what he could, in fact should, do. But I think you'd have better luck convincing a crocodile to see the errors of its carnivorous ways and start a diet of tofu and fresh vegetables.
Musk has no interest in the common good (unless it means lots of goodies for him) and uses Twitter in the same way as other rich and powerful people have used misinformation, rumours, and dissembling for ages--to divide and conquer. His populist verbiage of "the people have spoken" is a big tell.
I'm genuinely hoping that I'll be proven utterly wrong or at the very least that he won't succeed. Too much is at stake.
One thing I've been thinking about a lot, and I wish could be introduced into the broader cultural dialogue (such as it is), is that HATE IS EASY. It is not glorious or clever or interesting; it's just the easiest, least effortful, and most infantile way to approach anything that isn't perfectly aligned with who you are and what you want. If we could pull back the curtain on the loud, noxious, trolling haters and reveal them to be the shrieking monkeys they are, then maybe people would work harder to be something less easily ridiculed and dismissed. The more we each respond to outrageous behavior with outrage, the more we obscure this basic truth.
How many more times can we yell, "He's horrible! She's hateful!" without realizing that we are inflating their status? Instead, what if we just collectively decided to use the "shrug" emoji, keep walking, and sign up to volunteer at our local homeless shelter? Unless we are addicted to the jolt of animating indignation? Each non-bot on Twitter (and elsewhere) needs to really understand what they're doing there. It doesn't appear to me that many people analyze their own motives, much less have a shot at understanding someone else's. Which must, I'd imagine, precede effective cognitive empathy.
Excellent piece Bob. Happy Holidays to you and yours.🤗
Freedom of “ an open real-time introduction and information service” is guaranteed only to those who own one. Apologies to A. J. Liebling
Twitter's problems, if all true as expressed by you, may be understood as a tip of huge iceberg called social media that can be described as a tip of iceberg called internet. Or, I may be the one who is all wrong spectacularly. In my view, Elon Musk is not very political, but he is very seriously interested in politics inwardly as well as outwardly, namely domestic politics and foreign affaires as to be direct to world economics. It is obvious additionally, he has somewhat a dreamy and beautiful view toward the future. Although his view could be described as vague or non-specific, that man has a trait of a modern aristocrat with traditional monarchial power replaced by funds and assets. In short, he can be despotically quick in actions, which is impossible for governmental powers to do in the same way in any democratic country. In this regard, Musk is a very interesting figure. However, we also have to remember that the ideal actions of the Prince and the ideal outcomes from them are merely by chance in a combination of other factors, as Machiavelli and Hobbes pointed out.
Musk is a polarizing figure as many rightly point out, and his pronouns tweet was indeed reckless. That said, Fauci has been far from forthcoming regarding research funded by his agency. Fauci's agency funded research that did indeed include the small subset of virology known as gain-of-function research of concern, or research on enhanced potential pandemic pathogens (GoFRoC/ePPP), which can include dual-use research of concern (DURC). The egregiously high risks and questionable benefits of such research have been pointed out by many scientists for decades. EcoHealth Alliance, whose president is Peter Daszak, was indeed funded by Fauci's agency. Daszak worked closely with Shi Zhengli of the Wuhan Institute of Virology (the "Bat Lady"), who was indeed engaging in GoFRoC on bat coronaviruses. No one knows precisely which or even how many viruses were being worked on at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Even Daszak has said he doesn't know. US virologists engaging in GoFRoC fought tooth-and-nail from the outset to brand any covid origin other than zoonosis as a conspiracy theory; indeed, it has been documented that Fauci coordinated that politics-driven narrative in early February 2020. There has been no investigation of the origin to date. That biosafety and biosecurity have become such partisan issues is arguably an own goal by Democrats. This is truly a shame: Obama understood the inherent and egregious risks of GoFRoC and imposed a moratorium on such research in 2014. Trump lifted it in 2017, presumably at Fauci's behest. GoFRoC is far too risky to be under the regulation and oversight of the same bodies that fund it.
The Washington Post Editorial Board wrote this in October 2021: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/10/25/one-person-who-might-know-what-really-happened-wuhan/
Harrison/Sachs article in PNAS on important information that can be gleaned from US-based research institutions in the US for independent, transparent, and scientific scrutiny:
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2202769119
Steven Hsu and Jeffrey Sachs, Lessons from the COVID Commission: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtfIIG8iYIk
Do you honestly think that Chinese labs that can't even keep the dangerous viruses they work with safe (worst safety records on the planet) are studiously marking funds to such a degree that we should be confident no NIH resources went to creating the global abomination that killed millions of people?
And secondly, don't you think Trump and Elons's recent turn at contrarian in chief are in response to institutional capture and resulting willful institutional dishonesty on behalf of the left? Fauci was 'Man of the Year's even when much was already know of his funding GoF and covering for the CCP / WIH probably to protect his profession after the biggest institutional accident in history. It's not that the left doesn't think he was a big player in causing the pandemic, they think he's a hero for giving press conferences and obfuscating any investigation. It's propaganda so removed from reality as to almost shove our faces in their institutional capture and ability to craft any narrative they want irrespective of facts. That in my opinion is what gives rise to the attraction of Trump's and Musk's hyperbole
Hi Bob; I am a big fan or your newsletter, podcast and the Parrot Room (also Princeton ‘84, BA English). Maybe you have seen this talk by Michael McFaul delivered at Stanford earlier this year, but I just watched and listened to it carefully. He makes a good case, and is a good communicator. The one question he cannot answer is what the long term solution is for the war in Ukraine (not Elon Musk) and how to get to peace - which I know are your driving concerns. Perhaps you might consider having him as a guest on your podcast for a urgent but civil conversation. All the best,
https://youtu.be/Wbzf0ix2G5I
I think your points are sound and important, but ironically I also think your attack on Musk involves a bit of hyperbole. I don't use Twitter, but I gather that its algorithm-based bias toward tribalization is long-standing. Yes, it would be nice if the problem gets fixed under Musk's leadership, but while his foolish tweets are unhelpful, the big issue is to fix the structural problem, not for Mr. Musk to suddenly reinvent himself and play nice.
Minor point, but: "Mr. Knight is a nut!" Is he though? What species has done more damage to the vitality of the planet than human beings, from the ozone layer to the nuclear reactors dumped overboard into the deepest oceans? Voluntary human extinction may strike you as an extreme response to the problem, but I doubt you'd try to argue that the problem doesn't exist and that it doesn't merit discussion. Do you also think Peter Singer is "a nut!" for proposing that medical testing be done on brain-dead humans rather than sentient monkeys? Seemingly outlandish philosophical proposals are teaching tools, hardly worthy of such dismissal.
Good analysis. I’ll be shocked if anyone can transform Twitter into what you think you’d like to see. Yours is a kind of sad digital utopianism. Twitter sucked before, Twitter sucks now, and it has to suck to survive. And hopefully it will survive, despite sucking.
This needs be read by a larger audience. Could also include Musk's lies about the FBI paying for censorship, and his recent tweet about 275 million illegal immigrants entering the US last year (when in fact, it was 275 million caught) .
But take out that the joy of twitter is watching "elites". Or at least take out that word. The joy of twitter is us normies thinking we are on the same field as the "elites"
I agree with your point about Musk's comment. But I'm not sure you're correct that he will fail to fix the problem. I think the guy is a jerk (though I don't know him), but he's supposed to be smart and technically competent. We'll see.
Image of Elon Musk: By Clark McGillis using Stable Diffusion. You can attribute the image using the caption feature.