From Kevin Roose’s “The President Versus the Mods” in Saturday’s New York Times:
As a teen in the early 2000s, I spent a lot of time on online message boards. They were funny, chaotic places where my fellow nerds and I spent hours arguing about everything under the sun: sports, music, video games, the latest episode of “Buffy the Vampire Slayer.”
No matter the topic, there was one universal experience: On every board, some divisive issue would inevitably erupt into conflict, and an angry group of users — often led by a single, vocal one who felt they were being treated unfairly — would lead a rebellion against the “mods,” the moderators who had the privileges to delete posts, ban unruly users and set the rules of the board…
looking at Mr. Trump as an aggrieved user of a fractious internet forum, rather than a politician making high-minded claims about freedom of speech, clarifies the dynamics at play here. Mod drama is never really about who’s allowed to say what, or which specific posts broke which specific rules. Often, it’s part of a power struggle between chaos and order, fought by people who thrive in a lawless environment.
My take: Speaking as a mod—and as someone who also cut his internet teeth on the early message boards—Roose has nailed it. Who remembers Vic?
“Trump criticizing Twitter is like a whale criticizing the ocean. It’s where he lives and where he thrives.’
– MARK SHIELDS, PBS
“Trump arguing with Twitter is like watching a pervert argue with a bathroom wall”
BILL MAHER
But the awful truth is, Twitter and Facebook are the two largest social media platforms on the planet, controlled by a few individuals who get to make up the rules as they go, censor what they want to, and they’re only answerable to their board of directors. Despite what news reports may say, the government doesn’t really employ any oversight whatsoever.
It’s ironical, Twitter and Facebook run their organizations like authoritarians. To Trump, Twitter is like the gateway drug to be an authoritarian. It allows him to say and do whatever he wants to without any limits.
Twitter is the world’s first 24/7 presidential megaphone for propaganda. Where the truth lies.
And it’s being run for profit, hich is its only real priority. In other words it is amoral. Just saying.
Unlike Apple which has a philosophy to empower people and a moral center. Why is that?
What is glorification of violence? Not a single person in my gym had a problem with the president’s tweet, “looting leads to shooting.” When a group of us gathered at the gym to watch news feed of looters in Minneapolis crash down a Target store to steal merchandise and run with the stolen goods we new poignantly this behavior had nothing to do with empathy over the murder of George Floyd, but everything to do with leveraging the unfortunate event into an opportunity to “steal.” One gal said if this had happen on her property she would have used her guns to shoot the looters. This group understood emotionally the president’s admonition.
Was the president’s comment a glorification of violence? Some say yes. Some say no. All of us glorify violence when we watch movies containing violence. Acclaimed war movies such as “Hacksaw Ridge” and “Saving Private Ryan” are little less then glorification of violence, yet society says nothing about the inculcation of these films with respect for a culture of violence imprinted indelibly on the minds of young people who view them. We didn’t denigrate Mel Gibson nor did we denigrate Steven Spielberg for making these cinemas. So, why denigrate a president’s tweet warning thieves of possible consequences for their unlawful behavior?
Coming from a man who regularly and wantonly displays a cold, reactionary and divisive heart rather than a warm, comprehensive and reconciliatory one, the “shooting” comment is brazen. A zealously inappropriate comment from a limited-minded man who happens to be the president, just as looting is carried out with the same empty mentality.
We’re all better than this. Equal shame to both.
Civic unrest has its place in society and usually is a potent and hard-chiseled cry out of “enough is enough” and to solely encircle the “wrongness” of it completely misses its point.
Sorry. The correction of wrongs usually starts with a display of passion.
Thank you for your assessment brother Kirk.
Folk with whom I’ve discussed the president’s tweet never viewed his tweet as addressing individuals involved in appropriate expressions of “civic unrest.” They viewed the president’s tweet as an expression of contempt targeting opportunistic unlawful behavioral acts involving theft that had nothing to do with the appalling murder of George Floyd.
Civic unrest must have its place in society and it is potent as you say until others desecrate the process leveraging unlawful acts for personal gain that has nothing to do with the civic unrest.
When the news hit initially my circle of friends, acquaintances and relatives’ conversations were on the murderous act of those officers involved. Good civic unrest expressed appropriately would have retain maximum focus where it was steadfastly needed. Unfortunately, the subsequent rioting and stealing for personal gain distracted attention away from the civic unrest and this is why folk in my community had no problem with the president’s tweet targeted at “looters,” and the potential consequences that may arise when people loot.
Certainly, you are not suggesting that the words and actions of the president don’t carry any more weight or have any greater consequence than anything Mel Gibson could say in a movie!
As far as the financial difficulty many are facing, I agree it is an unfortunate consequence of the stay at home orders. Most people will recover from the downturn and some will flourish in the aftermath, as has always happened after periods of great difficulty.
Nobody recovers from dead.
Nearly ⅔ of films and video games contain violent content, even for children. What we call entertainment is propaganda for violence. Gun manufacturers have no need to advertise because the film industry already does the advertising for gun manufacturers.
The US Dept of Education & the US Secret Service examined 37 incidents of targeted school shootings and school attacks in this country. Their report-of-findings found over half attackers demonstrated interest in violence through movies, video games, books & other media. Research studies have found significant violent video game exposure effects youth aggression and dating violence. This happens every day in American homes, neighborhoods and in our society. Yet, the very individuals who go ballistic over a tweet will be the ones who turn to media this evening alongside their children and view hours of media content that glorifies violence. Something is wrong with this scenario.
I do not feel the need Frank to apologize for the president’s tweet. Individuals in my gym who discussed the president’s tweet knew clearly that he targeted his tweet to convey potential consequences of unlawful acts. As I wrote above to Kirk B, folk with whom I’ve discussed the president’s tweet never viewed his tweet as addressing individuals involved in appropriate expressions of “civic unrest.” They viewed the president’s tweet as an “expression of contempt,” targeting “opportunistic unlawful behavioral acts” involving theft that had nothing to do with the appalling murder of George Floyd.
There are potential consequences for people who loot. The president was sending poignantly that message to looters to stop. The president supported the right for peaceful demonstrations and expressions relative to “civic unrest,” until hoodlums hijacked that right to riot, destroy property and steal for “personal” gain. The president then sent an explicit message that this unlawful behavior will no more be tolerated than the unlawful behavior of what happened to George Floyd.
You asked: Who amongst us has the innate and requisite skills to be the “Arbiter of Truth?” It appears the members of your gym fulfill that role for you and you somehow expect everyone else to accept them as such.
Your gym is not my gym. But then, my gym is still closed.
There are some very mad folk. They’re not blaming the president. They know the party responsible and I suspect they will show in numbers to vote their outrage this fall.
I have voluntarily agreed to do my utmost to refrain from political comments for the rest of the year, and concentrate on comments relevant to Apple. If we want to avoid the fractiousness spoken of in this story, it’s crystal clear to me that everyone here needs to make a concerted effort to do the same.
Carry on.
“India makes it easier for brands like Apple to open stores”
imore dot com/india-drops-restrictive-manufacturing-clauses-opening-door-apple
I’m surprised that David’s two closing paragraphs, declaring (1) a business’s priority is profit regardless of morality
and (2) questioning why Apple’s isn’t has gone uncommitted. Why is that?
“I’m surprised that David’s two closing paragraphs, declaring (1) a business’s priority is profit regardless of morality
and (2) questioning why Apple’s isn’t has gone uncommitted [uncommented?]. Why is that?”
Honestly, I heard Dave essentially saying – why is it that Apple has a moral center and Facebook doesn’t? The implication is that you can make big profits AND be moral. That’s one reason I upvoted his comment.
Don’t take my word for it:
“Roughly half the Twitter accounts pushing to ‘reopen America’ are bots, researchers found”
https://www.businessinsider.com/nearly-half-of-reopen-america-twitter-accounts-are-bots-report-2020-5?fbclid=IwAR3guGnXWb0_LduoBTrQa9GIpp_YB0LSOEyBIQO7dnl47W4CbpDkg8A_VOU
The so-called social-networks, Facebook and Twitter use business models that are ripe for disruption and replacement.
Why? Because all lies matter.
To me, it was a clear statement that the priority of business is to make a profit and as such, morals don’t apply. Isn’t that what amoral means?
Then David goes on to ask why does Apple take a different stance?
David, if I misread your post, what were you implying?
“Isn’t that what amoral means?“
He specifically called out Twitter, and by extension Facebook, as “amoral” (that is, profit above morality). He specifically pointed out Apple as “moral”.
Morality is, of course, the most relative of terms. And indeed, one can successfully argue that “being moral” is actually good business, at least in the case of Apple.
But even there, one would have to acknowledge that the business Facebook and Twitter are in (and to some degree Google) is social media, and different from Apple’s business. Is it “good business to be “moral” in social media?
I personally think that’s the central question being raised. And interestingly, I’d say Twitter is doing a better job of attempting to be “moral” than Facebook is right now, even though that’s the company that Dave targeted as being “amoral”, and that’s the company he said “is the world’s first 24/7 presidential megaphone for propaganda”.
Not really. It’s just PR from a company that is grappling with what they really are.
Twitter (and facebook) are inherently flawed. Their business models are based on “advertising” – which means the more traffic they generate the more revenue and more profit. The fact that this traffic is being generated by aggressively promoting propaganda and rancor, and being used by political dark operatives to push agendas, I would argue is what makes them amoral.
FACT:
“Carnegie Mellon University researchers analyzed over 200 million tweets discussing COVID-19 and related issues since January and found that roughly half the accounts — including 62% of the 1,000 most influential retweeters — appeared to be bots, they said in a report published this week.”
Excuse me for commenting on my own comment – but the fact that the mainstream media hasn’t picked up on the fact that Twitter traffic is mostly fake – generated by bots – is astonishing.
I mean how does Wall Street value a company that says it’s revenue is from ‘advertising’ revenue based on traffic – but it’s traffic stats are a ginormous lie?
Twitter has a bigger problem than just being a political propaganda machine. It’s called fraud.