As a fairly neutral observer \u2014 or perhaps better put \u2014 as a half-hearted Twitter tweeter at best, I\u2019ve found it fascinating to watch the recent\/current\/whatever brouhaha surrounding the San Francisco-based microblogging\/social media site. Please, for purposes of this discussion, remember the meaning of the word \u201cfascinating\u201d: \u201cextremely interesting.\u201d There exists no positive nor negative connotation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
With the wealthiest person in the world purchasing the social networking service, people have had all sorts of opinions\u2026 <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cMusk is wrecking Twitter.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe aftermath of Elon Musk\u2019s acquisition of Twitter has turned out to be quite tumultuous.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIs it time to quit Twitter?\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Elon Musk \u2014 founder of Zip2, SpaceX, product architect of Tesla and more \u2014 officially acquired Twitter<\/em> on October 27th of this year. Immediately upon acquisition, he fired multiple top Twitter <\/em>executives, changed subscription fees, and also laid off a notable percentage of existing staff.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In addition, he has seemingly boldly declared he wants the site to allow for free speech \u2014 suggesting sometimes subtly and sometimes not-so-subtly that such is not a current practice. \u201cBy \u2018free speech,\u2019\u201d he says, \u201cI simply mean that which matches the law. I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law.\u201d He added that \u201cgoing beyond the law is contrary to the will of the people.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n With the manifestation of said declaration, Musk has also shared the release of various specific information, much which recently focused on questions surrounding the President’s second son, Hunter, and his ill-fated laptop. The nuances of that news can be found in greater detail elsewhere; the bottom line, as reported by Wikipedia,<\/em> is that “three weeks before the 2020 United States presidential election, the New York Post<\/em> published a story presenting emails from the laptop and stating that they showed corruption by Joe Biden.\u201d Twitter <\/em>and Facebook <\/em>admittedly suppressed said story, with Twitter<\/em> CEO Jack Dorsey saying later that blocking the story was \u201cwrong.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n I don\u2019t feel much need to pay more attention to the story \u2014 not that it\u2019s not relevant nor that Twitter <\/em>and Facebook\u2019s<\/em> suppression of said story isn’t significant; it simply isn\u2019t the point of today\u2019s post. There is zero desire to enflame any side or perspective.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Perhaps the site that said it best was actually the left-bias news source, MSNBC,<\/em> which I believe sincerely posed the following, excellent question\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cWould scrapping Twitter benefit American Democracy?\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Their response was based most on Musk\u2019s recent, allowed-to-be-published content and what perceived inappropriate speech \u2014 aka \u201ctweets\u201d \u2014 may now follow.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Allow me not to take a side one way or another on that. Again, at best, I\u2019m a fair-weather Twitterer, tweeter, whatever. Allow me simply to say this\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n Twitter <\/em>allows 280 characters per tweet. That means whatever you have to say, however you want to say it, however passionate you are, no matter the issue, no matter the point, no matter the complexity of the issue, nor matter the sensitivity necessary to say it wisely and well, you have only 280 individual characters to say what you want to say. It\u2019s the ultimate mic drop. The ultimate say what you want to say and walk away. In other words, it\u2019s the keenest conversation killer. Who are we to think that this is a productive venue prior to any Elon Musk takeover? <\/p>\n\n\n\n In fact better put, who are we to assume that this has ever been <\/em>a healthy communication channel?<\/p>\n\n\n\n I like the words of journalist Nate Hochman. They pierce the partisanship of left and right. I also think they ring totally true: the \u201cthreat Twitter poses to our shared way of life is much more nonpartisan: an incentive structure that rewards hysteria and partisan bottle-service over nuance and serious intellectual engagement, echo chambers over cross-ideological conversation, and one-sentence dunks over good-faith debate.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n That\u2019s the real problem with Twitter. <\/em>It isn\u2019t Elon Musk. It wasn\u2019t Jack Dorsey. It\u2019s mistaking serious intellectual debate for what is lesser\u2026 for what is so not good-faith. Good-faith conversation will always be better and right and true.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Respectfully\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n AR<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" As a fairly neutral observer \u2014 or perhaps better put \u2014 as a half-hearted Twitter tweeter at best, I\u2019ve found it fascinating to watch the recent\/current\/whatever brouhaha surrounding the San Francisco-based microblogging\/social media site. Please, for purposes of this discussion, remember the meaning of the word \u201cfascinating\u201d: \u201cextremely interesting.\u201d There exists no positive nor negative … <\/p>\n