Comment by black_puppydog

5 months ago

I mean, it's great to get some stuff on the record (and as a German myself I see our courts as one of the stronger checks on power in general, they've been imperfect but overall pretty reliable).

But I'm not sure what the researchers are trying to find that's not already in plain sight. By now it's pretty clear that the network is actively driving discourse in one specific direction. And with Musk's involvement in the US admin, it's even more officially a non-friendly foreign actor than tiktok is.

> By now it's pretty clear that the network is actively driving discourse in one specific direction.

Research is exactly about not just taking a look and declaring something "pretty clear". Also what "a direction" is not clear, or the dynamics of what affects the direction etc.

  • It’s pretty clear.

    There were a few shifts that happened:

    1. Musk bought twitter

    2. Musk, despite being the wealthiest person on earth and running companies that are genuinely fascinating, has nonetheless—against overwhelming odds—been considered a loser.

    3. Because of (2) and his fragile ego (part of the reason he was widely considered a loser in the pre-Musk dominant circles) he went hard to the right. Petty grievances, anti-free speech, “burn it down”, etc.

    4. Twitter made changes under Musk that compensated large accounts based on the number of views or engagements.

    Effectively a rev share for ad spend

    5. Because Musk can massively amplify content and has a fragile ego, aligning yourself with Musk’s pet issues directly affects income for influencers. Accounts in the other direction can be demonetized and deprioritized on feeds.

    This has led to large accounts, in the run up to the election, being very vocally trump even when they’ve had publicly leftist leanings in the past. It wasn’t a shift in policy positions. It was a shift to ragebait and memes that were more likely to get Elon’s attention and retweets.

    So it is both pretty clear and a result of active decisions in one specific direction. We don’t need a multi-year quintuple blind study by esteemed Ivy League research fellows to do the basic observation and deduction of the situation.

    • > We don’t need a multi-year quintuple blind study by esteemed Ivy League research fellows to do the basic observation and deduction of the situation.

      Of course not, they're going to provide more precise data and facts. Perhaps many don't need the data to arrive at conclusions the data will point to but that does not obviate the utility of the research. Really, if you think their data will point to these conclusions, one would think you'd be that much more interested to see that the research is being conducted.

    • > Because of (2) and his fragile ego (part of the reason he was widely considered a loser in the pre-Musk dominant circles) he went hard to the right.

      This is such a weird take. While I don't disagree about Musk's ego, it should be quite obvious that there's something else at play here, considering an unhinged convicted criminal won the popular vote and became a president. I've personally seen multiple people go through the same shift to the right as Musk. Are they all losers? Or maybe, just maybe, some of the more insane policies of the current American left have pushed them there?

      9 replies →

    • I'm partial to believing Musk's control and personal beliefs have been a factor in changes in Xitter discourse. But what would be effective ways for convincing others? Also I like to think I verify my beliefs with systematic analysis.

      Furthermore, these points don't give any analysis of how this change has evolved, exactly how the messaging has changed, what's been the timeline etc.

      Not checking your assumptions with data, and furher rejecting attempts to do this, is what I think is a large part driving what's happening. But for sure I'd like a reality check for my thinking.

    • Imo, Musk bought twitter for political reasons and was hard right leaning long before. Just as quite a few people correctly guessed at the time. Musk was full of petty grievances long before buying twitter too, he had track record of being aggressive when meeting opposition long before and his companies had track record of treating certain groups more badly then others.

      The way Musk acted before buying twitter, insulting and mocking people makes him someone who has no business to complain when they respond in kind after he fails. So, Musk buys twitter for political reasons, mocking employees, owners and those he considers to be on the left. He claims to make it more performant, fails, get mocked back.

      It is getting tiresone. Musk had few minor left leaning opinions and tons of right wing ones. Notable, his got given right to control everything, be no subject to the law since he is rich and succesful in business. His few left opinions failed to made him admired on the left.

    • > 2. Musk, despite being the wealthiest person on earth and running companies that are genuinely fascinating, has nonetheless—against overwhelming odds—been considered a loser.

      I've never heard or seen that. Musk is a public figure and subject to much criticism, but so are all public figures and Musk actively provokes it (that is, Musk trolls for it).

      > 3. Because of (2) and his fragile ego (part of the reason he was widely considered a loser in the pre-Musk dominant circles) he went hard to the right. Petty grievances, anti-free speech, “burn it down”, etc.

      Lots of wealthy SV people have gone hard right; they don't all have relatively fragile egos. Musk is following the herd.

      It's pardoxical that people think Musk, Zuckerberg, etc. are geniuses when they both follow the herd and have chosen a herd that is running off a cliff. They did not invent this ideology (who did?).

Non-friendly meaning not single sided in favor of your preferred political orientation. As a US citizen I find the discourse on X to be nowhere near as directed compared to platforms such as reddit or bsky- I am sure you are deeply concerned about that issue as well, even though you left it unsaid

  • [flagged]

    • While that might be applicable in many cases it isn't in this particular one.

      Both the main subreddits and blue sky's default moderation prohibit things in the middle of the right's Overton Window (e.g. on Trump or trans rights) while X does not prohibit things in the middle of the left's Overton Window.

      (I dislike using the terms "left" and "right", but as vague as they are, this phenomena applies for almost all such categorizations)

      2 replies →

Elon's proclamation of far-right ideas is pretty obvious, but Twitter as a platform isn't Elon.

It shouldn't be too hard to find evidence of a more direct link from Twitter itself given the general vibe there, but until there's concrete proof there's nothing much people and countries can do.

Before foreign influence laws can be applied, you need proof. Without proof, Twitter could sue governments and make a hefty additional profit. Lack of quality research has previously gotten Intel off the hook for their illegal dealings, costing the EU half a billion in interest once the dust settled.

We need either cold, hard facts or more vague laws to pull off something like a TikTok ban in the EU.

"By now it's pretty clear that the network is actively driving discourse in one specific direction..."

I don't think this is clear at all.