mtutiger

Is it? Given how Matthew Boyd went with the same surgery, I've had my expectations tempered on any return prior to at least September.

Probably the scariest major highway bridge I've ever driven across.

Andrew Chafin still available, purportedly values being close to his farm south of Cleveland. Gotta think there's still a chance, right?

It still amuses me how internalized the idea of Facebook fading in relevance has become and how it really downplays the fact that it's still, last I checked, in first place among usership.

It should be noted that Tom Cotton seemingly threatened GM over pulling advertising on Twitter a few months ago. Which raises questions about why a self-described conservative would be advocating using the power of the state to compel a business to do business with another business.

You really think government oversight would lead to a more absolutist free speech environment on these platforms? With this Congress??? 😆

It was mentioned in passing but somehow didn't warrant the Hunter Biden, 80-tweet Twitter file treatment. Hence how this whole discussion started in the first place.... Taibbi isn't an unbiased truth teller, he has a POV that he's advancing through his work. And he's a hypocrite.

Far higher, in fact. The Five, which is early evening, averaged 3.3 million a night in 2022. When you consider many viewers tune in at different times, significantlu more than 2 million viewers per night are watching that channel. I would suggest that just because something goes viral online doesn't mean that it ultimately filters down into the consciousness of most Americans. Hence the term "too online"... even among platforms, Facebook, often seen as a declining medium, likely has a greater impact than Facebook does given that it has *way* more users. Well, I was curious to know given how similarly your complaints apply to the cable news medium.

Yup, which all kinda confirms that it isnt some righteous stand in favor of free speech. I've seen some pretty interesting arguments in favor of a more absolutist free speech environment on these platforms, but it's generally not coming from anyone in government or from the current owner of Twitter or his employees.

Not to pivot back to cable news or anything, but don't your complaints perfectly describe the cable news media space to a T? Donald Trump literally had a direct line to hosts at Fox News when he was President, but for some reason that doesn't seem to be an issue in your view.

On the other hand, Fox News is far more influential and, as a product, is used by far more Americans than Twitter is.

Definitely, one of the rare times when he's actually being useful.

One big problem I have with the discourse on social media in general is how it is sort of dominated with this abstract discussion about political bias when there are much more tangible reasons for oversight.... the kinds of things that are transmitted toward youth and the impacts that it has, for instance. I just don't see a lot of concern for that coming from a lot of conservatives in Congress.... it all just seems to be an combined exercise in "working the refs" and messaging to the base that ultimately seems self serving as opposed to serving any sort of greater good.

I don't think you give Trump a pass. But I do think that Chas is correct in saying that there's an asymmetry in expectations between Trump and Democratic politicians in that people expect better from the latter and, as a result, tend to be a lot harsher over stuff that sort of pales in comparison to things that Trump would do. It's something that's been discussed here a lot... on one hand, I do expect better from someone like Pelosi or Biden than I would from Trump for obvious reasons. On the other hand, Trump needs to be held to the same expectations as Pelosi, Biden and his predecessors.... and the firehose effect that Chas speaks of makes it very difficult to do that and, as a result, makes it seem like Trump is held to lower expectations.

All it tells me is that conservative dedication to free market principles was largely always conditional on a society where the free market outcome tended in their favor. As society has evolved and as social norms have changed, so has the dedication to those principles for many who hang that label on themselves.

You could easily argue, given the frequency with which he violated Twitter's TOS, that he could have been banned much earlier than he actually was. They kinda waited until they hadn't much choice, right after he helped to incite a mob to storm the Capitol.

It's more than that, Hersch, along with other "antiwar" figures like Roger Waters (who has featured prominently in the news this week) and others, are emblematic of a reflexive anti-Americanism in terms of foreign policy. The reasons for how they came to be the way all vary and in in a lot of cases are more understandable than not... in Hersch's case, his career and breaking stories like My Lai and Abu Gharib would seem to lend itself to reflexive skepticism. But, in this particular conflict, Russia is to Ukraine what the US was to Iraq or Vietnam... Russia is the aggressor. The fact that people are fighting and dying in Ukraine right now falls onto the world leader who decided to invade a sovereign nation and attempt to decapitate this government. The US government didn't force him to give a televised speech to his people announcing the invasion, complete with illusions of reconstituting the old empire, he did. Logically, you would think this class of individuals would be repulsed by those actions... but instead, they do things like go out and demand Ukraine stand down and accede to Russian aggression. Or, in Hersch's case, push a thinly sourced and, in all likelihood, specious story advancing a convenient narrative while giving quotes to state media about it. Now to be clear, none of this means that the United States has been perfect over the years in foreign policy, it hasn't. But it all kinda calls into question the "antiwar" bonafides if you are running cover for the aggressor in this case.

Have you considered that the money to fix the pipeline is worth it if it creates good domestic propaganda for his subjects? In terms of CB Ratio, it's seems plausible that it would be... Having the pipeline bombed and blaming it on the west, as they are doing, is a gold mine... basically plays right into the message they are looking to convey to the population. Just as bombing the Chechen apartments (while blaming separatists) did over 20 years ago.

They just had one today where people had to schedule tweets in order to actually send them... probably testing some new change. For a while they were defaulting to a "For You" tab over the time-line which was sharing content I largely don't care about, despite likely being based on an algorithm. Either way, I've noticed a difference. Ymmv

Honestly, I don't care that much... the platform was largely a cess pool before he bought it, and it largely is one after, maybe just slightly more so. And it works for them... it doesn't matter how glitchy the platform gets, how much more overrun with bots it has become, or how much less user friendly he has made the interface (all of which lead people to use the platform less, advertisers to flee, etc.), his hoards will eat it up.

Also, there is a history of this sort of thing with this regime... the Chechen Apartment Bombings, for instance. Blamed on a convenient target (Chechen separatists), but widely believed that it was the government that ultimately blew them up and killed innocents in the process. If one thinks about it in terms of domestic messaging / propaganda, the CB Ratio on blowing up the pipeline absolutely can make sense for Russia just given the above example.

The new owner, along with just generally harming the functionality of the platform, seems to bring some biases of his own to the table. Along with some of his new employees like Taibbi and Bari Weiss. Being a contrarian crank, in and of itself, does not make one unbiased.

Carefully curated and selective, hence my comment about how Taibbi thinks one sentence (versus an entire thread) about how Trump did things covers Trump actually using the weight of an actual Presidential administration to threaten Twitter because someone on the platform hurt his fee fees, hence the idea that Taibbi and Elmo are no more impartial than the folks they levy accusations against. It's really that simple... they arent defenders of free speech, they are hypocrites.

I'm sure Elmo will "look into this" soon lol

Matt Taibbi's response was predictable... apparently, mentioning Trump did some stuff once apparently absolves him from not producing a 78-tweet thread documenting an actual sitting President using his office to pressure social media companies to conform to his will. Why the whole "Twitter file" thing has been bogus (and a bust) in a nutshell. None of the actors involved are "impartial" and "fair"... being a contrarian crank doesn't inherently make one unbiased. And they are all as much or more part of the same hypocrisy they purport to be against.