And with me exactly 180 degrees away from them, I feel scared.
So regarding to my "bombshell"...it's perhaps a bit less dramatic than many presumed, yet it still troubles me a lot, to the point that I wondered whether I should stop posting on certain things
I'm going to make a bomb shell statement here around the turn of the year, something so risky that I face prospects of the Twitter account being attacked or even banned.
— Cosmic Penguin (@Cosmic_Penguin) December 31, 2020
It's about my very uneasy Twitter experience over the past 2-6 months, the worst I could ever remember.
And with me exactly 180 degrees away from them, I feel scared.
And it's absolutely awful and disgusting in seeing some of the words they use, in many cases in English & replying to others.
But I overlooked 1 thing about the PRC.
For China though, their aggressive active spreading of their views of the world means such effects would occur.
More from Twitter
The twitter ban on 45 is a victory in some sense for the immediate but a warning in the long term, not on the curtail of free speech but as gesture towards the expansive power commercial tech has on every aspect of our governance and our lives, I don’t quite have the words but-
What I’m trying to get at, is not just that Twitter’s decision allows us to see—in ways that have been obscured—how much control they have over content moderation—
but as @Elinor_Carmi points out “platforms don’t just moderate or filter “content”; they alter what registers to us and our social groups as “social” or as “experience.” https://t.co/GSByAOoDWg changed
I’m worried that the celebration of Twitter’s intervention on fascist rhetoric-however too little and too late- directs us to desire tech companies enforcement of liberal and democratic procedures rather than towards an investigation of
how they’ve developed computational infrastructures which exceed the power of the nation state, are hollowing out our institutions for frictionless (see removing human contact) optimization and are insufficiently described by neoliberalism
What I’m trying to get at, is not just that Twitter’s decision allows us to see—in ways that have been obscured—how much control they have over content moderation—
but as @Elinor_Carmi points out “platforms don’t just moderate or filter “content”; they alter what registers to us and our social groups as “social” or as “experience.” https://t.co/GSByAOoDWg changed
I’m worried that the celebration of Twitter’s intervention on fascist rhetoric-however too little and too late- directs us to desire tech companies enforcement of liberal and democratic procedures rather than towards an investigation of
how they’ve developed computational infrastructures which exceed the power of the nation state, are hollowing out our institutions for frictionless (see removing human contact) optimization and are insufficiently described by neoliberalism
This is why I'm not a critic of "cancel culture." It's crucial to impose social costs for the breech of key social norms. The lesson of overreaction is that we need to recalibrate judgment to get it right next time, not that we need a lot more bad judgment in the other direction.
Obviously, people will disagree about which norms are important, about how bad it is to violate them, and thus about how severe the social cost ought to be. That's just pluralism, man, and it's good.
It's important to openly talk through these substantive differences, which is why derailing these conversations with hand-waving moral panic about "cancel culture" is obnoxious and illiberal.
Screaming "cancel culture!" when somebody pays a social costs other people have been fighting hard to get others to see as necessary is often just a way to declare, with no argument, that the sanction in question was not only unnecessary but in breach of a more important norm.
It's impossible to uphold social norms without social sanctions, so obviously anti-cancelers are going to want to impose a social cost on people they see as imposing unjustly steep social costs on others.
Every single critic of "cancel culture" just thinks the wrong people are getting canceled. pic.twitter.com/DDIVccj8zV
— Michael Hobbes (@RottenInDenmark) February 2, 2021
Obviously, people will disagree about which norms are important, about how bad it is to violate them, and thus about how severe the social cost ought to be. That's just pluralism, man, and it's good.
It's important to openly talk through these substantive differences, which is why derailing these conversations with hand-waving moral panic about "cancel culture" is obnoxious and illiberal.
Screaming "cancel culture!" when somebody pays a social costs other people have been fighting hard to get others to see as necessary is often just a way to declare, with no argument, that the sanction in question was not only unnecessary but in breach of a more important norm.
It's impossible to uphold social norms without social sanctions, so obviously anti-cancelers are going to want to impose a social cost on people they see as imposing unjustly steep social costs on others.
Today's Twitter threads (a Twitter thread).
Inside: ADT insider threat; Billionaires think VR stops guillotines; Privacy Without Monopoly; and more!
Archived at: https://t.co/nu1HbReiEX
#Pluralistic
1/
This Wednesday, I'm giving a talk called "Technology, Self-Determination, and the Future of the Future" for the Purdue University CERIAS Program:
https://t.co/po5IivZyr4
2/
ADT insider threat: If you build it they will spy.
https://t.co/kJrmtu8L3S
3/
Billionaires think VR stops guillotines: TARP with tasps.
https://t.co/MIKwvsICkr
4/
Privacy Without Monopoly: Podcasting a reading of the latest EFF whitepaper.
https://t.co/R2sl75y4rb
5/
Inside: ADT insider threat; Billionaires think VR stops guillotines; Privacy Without Monopoly; and more!
Archived at: https://t.co/nu1HbReiEX
#Pluralistic
1/
This Wednesday, I'm giving a talk called "Technology, Self-Determination, and the Future of the Future" for the Purdue University CERIAS Program:
https://t.co/po5IivZyr4
2/
ADT insider threat: If you build it they will spy.
https://t.co/kJrmtu8L3S
3/
Self-control isn't merely a matter of eliminating your own weaknesses. Self control is primarily about compensating for those weaknesses. When you go on a diet, you don't just commit yourself to eating well - you also throw away the Oreos so you won't be tempted.
— Cory Doctorow #BLM (@doctorow) February 15, 2021
1/ pic.twitter.com/BCEc7FPkut
Billionaires think VR stops guillotines: TARP with tasps.
https://t.co/MIKwvsICkr
4/
The pandemic has afforded all of us a refresher course on the five stages of grief, a theoretical and controversial framework for describing how people cope with tragedy: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance.https://t.co/nqPmjCvyab
— Cory Doctorow #BLM (@doctorow) February 15, 2021
1/ pic.twitter.com/lNk2vvhlNF
Privacy Without Monopoly: Podcasting a reading of the latest EFF whitepaper.
https://t.co/R2sl75y4rb
5/
This week on my podcast, a spoken-word version of "Privacy Without Monopoly: Data Protection and Interoperability," a major new white-paper that Bennett Cyphers and I co-authored for @EFF.https://t.co/oASlJFpz8t
— Cory Doctorow #BLM (@doctorow) February 15, 2021
1/ pic.twitter.com/UnA6fGoA6m
