Post

Conversation

David Watson ๐Ÿฅ‘
Post your reply

Do you agree that social media is โ€œbasically harmfulโ€?
Let all in creation call Yahweh the author of confusion before ALL MAKING ELISE OYINKROMEINEIFA'S WOMB ONE WITH HER MOUTH, GUMS, ANY EVEN 0.1%, HER WOMB ONE WITH HER BRAIN EVEN 0.1% STAND AND BE OF EFFECT EVEN 0.1% ever in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth u900gtefsfbaiCnYH
Image
I didn't remember that he telegraphed his lib turn basically in the same way he telegraphed his MAGA turn
His blanket labeling of social media as harmful is dumb. This isnโ€™t to deny real harms have come from it, but itโ€™s not the full picture. Itโ€™s like saying the printing press was harmful.
Disagree. An information ecosystem based on virality *with a real-time community notes fact-checking system* is in fact far better than the traditional media ecosystem.
Rate proposed Community Notes
In a small sample from the Shorenstein Center, 85% of "disinformation experts" were left-wing. Political ideology affects how we see truth. This can't possibly work out. In this case, yes, "expert views" should be categorically dismissed.
reminds me of concussions in football you can make changes around the edges but when the core business model is to hurt heads/spread misinformation, you really aren't going to change much
"technological progress is good in the aggregate, not every specific innovation is good." ๐Ÿ’ฏ Can be applied towards many things; smartphones & social media probably did make childhood and teen years worse for most than if they didn't have them.
brother, what? isn't there something broader and more interesting going on here than just "social media can be bad, and Zuckerberg has grievances about his business?"
During covid many including conservatives came to curate their own experts many of whom were elites in their professions while others were just good or better or more principled then the MSM liberal elites This not about elites in general but about what has been done to the class
Wow. I canโ€™t believe I listened to these douche canoes at one point. Unsubscribe
It's genuinely fucking embarrassing that you think this guy is worth listening to for even a fraction of a second. Democrats will keep losing because they think this dumbass has insights that we should listen to.
Before: willfully terse and cautious in front of Congress (read: fake/ alien/ robot) Now: (after some stylist made him into a bro) haha fuck Liz Warren amirite, Rogan? haha -- We neither deserve nor need either of these fucktards.
The "academic expert community" would argue that is not their "baseline moral values" that are hostile to conservatism. Their baseline values are similar (freedom, opportunity, happiness), but empirically, conservative policies reduce all that, while liberal policies increase it.
is wrong more than a broken clock, even if somehow he manages to be right about something his analysis is so shallow and lacking in curiosity that it will always be wrong a few months later and he will probably disagree with with it in a future column
Heโ€™s ignoring that the record of Democrats censoring things that turn out to be true is 100%. Thatโ€™s the problem Zuck wants to remedy. It turned an election last time, after all (remember the laptop).
Fascinating to read what the Obama bros are chattering about at the very moment that "demographics are destiny" was set to result in permanent Democratic Party control
would probably disagree that Zuck is a "genuinely well-meaning person." And from people I've known at Facebook, he's not necessarily a bad guy, but he is Win At All Costs. That's what motivates him: winning.
The media and misinformation part is easy to fix and would be profitable for X and if he wants to do it, If he won't maybe Zuck will
Yglesias is a reasonable sounding arse licker. Why is Zuch 'a genuinely well meaning person'? There is just as much evidence that he is an amoral autist, a naive cynic, a fascist sympathizer, someone with no principles, etc. Why choose the most sympathetic reading?