Society, in its grand equality, gives rich and poor alike the ability to spend their money on billboards and full page ads.
This is ignoring all of the actual algorithm changes and Elon-induced censorship of specific topics on Twitter that make Paul's point just flat-out wrong, of course.
I'm sorry, but "wokeness" until recently was on the agenda of multi-billion dollars companies such as Google, Meta, Apple and the rest of Fortune 500. Implying that left-leaning people can't afford to pay for their Twitter/X profiles is laughable.
What was that agenda exactly? The only ones that come to mind are good, actually:
- Allowing more free speech internally and working towards providing a safe space for everyone to provide their ideas.
- Investing in under-served communities to try and build talent to hire from.
Pretty much any billionaire I can name has taken an "anti-woke" stance: Musk, Trump, Thiel, Graham, Zuckerberg, Andreesen, Ramaswamy... Money is definitely not on the side of the "woke", whoever they may be.
Perhaps the more accurate term is "suppressing" - you can do this directly or by crowding out or deprioritizing specific content based on many attributes. Content is both literal and second-order (like paid vs. unpaid)
It's much more than that. If the government says, "only land owners can publish", regardless of content, that's still obviously censorship. In what world would "only Christians may publish" not be censorship?
I wish twitter would use LLMs to automatically censor people who abuse apostrophes. As long as they're promoting and appealing to Nazis, throw the Grammar Nazis a bone!
Society, in its grand equality, gives rich and poor alike the ability to spend their money on billboards and full page ads.
This is ignoring all of the actual algorithm changes and Elon-induced censorship of specific topics on Twitter that make Paul's point just flat-out wrong, of course.
I'm sorry, but "wokeness" until recently was on the agenda of multi-billion dollars companies such as Google, Meta, Apple and the rest of Fortune 500. Implying that left-leaning people can't afford to pay for their Twitter/X profiles is laughable.
What was that agenda exactly? The only ones that come to mind are good, actually: - Allowing more free speech internally and working towards providing a safe space for everyone to provide their ideas. - Investing in under-served communities to try and build talent to hire from.
2 replies →
Pretty much any billionaire I can name has taken an "anti-woke" stance: Musk, Trump, Thiel, Graham, Zuckerberg, Andreesen, Ramaswamy... Money is definitely not on the side of the "woke", whoever they may be.
3 replies →
Perhaps the more accurate term is "suppressing" - you can do this directly or by crowding out or deprioritizing specific content based on many attributes. Content is both literal and second-order (like paid vs. unpaid)
It's much more than that. If the government says, "only land owners can publish", regardless of content, that's still obviously censorship. In what world would "only Christians may publish" not be censorship?
I wish twitter would use LLMs to automatically censor people who abuse apostrophes. As long as they're promoting and appealing to Nazis, throw the Grammar Nazis a bone!