Matt Taibbi

I would have preferred Warren but imagining her as the way out of the big donor trap Taibbi describes is wishful thinking imo.

I was ILE's #1 Warren stan but I knew the score.

i rapped on doors for liz but she doesn't have universal charisma or perfect judgment, regardless my opinions.

also the big donor trap is built in by citizens united et al., needs burning down. as shit is structured, the way out of dark money and big money is-- i dunno. not clear to me in what i've read or heard.

I think the social media companies are still grappling with how to stop their platforms from radicalizing people, but this latest move from YouTube seems foolish.

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-youtube-ban-is-un-american-wrong

Most of blue-state America is looking aghast at news stories about 17 states joining in a lawsuit to challenge the election results. Conventional wisdom says that half the country has been taken over by a dangerous conspiracist movement that must be tamed by any means necessary. Acts like the YouTube ban not only don’t accomplish this, they’ll almost certainly further radicalize this population. This is especially true in light of the ongoing implication that Trump’s followers are either actual or unwitting confederates of foreign enemies.

That insult is bad enough when it’s leveled in words only, but when it’s backed up by concrete actions to change a group’s status, like reducing an ability to air grievances, now you’re removing some of the last incentives to behave like citizens. Do you want 70 million Trump voters in the streets with guns and go-bags? Tell them you consider them the same as foreign enemies, and start treating them accordingly. This is a stupid, dangerous, wrong policy, guaranteed to make things worse.

Do you want 70 million Trump voters in the streets with guns and go-bags? Tell them you consider them the same as foreign enemies, and start treating them accordingly.

Instead we should throw a welcoming arm around their shoulders and say, "We understand and respect your point of view, brothers! Let us all...agree to disagree!"

Fuuuuuck this rich, hypocritical, insulated-from-the-consequences-of-his-words legacy-media piece of shit forever.

my reaction to that taibbi piece is: man, what

Most of the Trump voters regard us as no better than foreign enemies so how much should I fucking care about their feelings

There aren't many journalists I trust, but he's one of them. Sometimes I think he holds back, but everyone is afraid of being accused of being a _____ supporter if you criticize the other. Glenn Greenwald, Whitney Webb are also good. John Pilger is still alive, Fisk just died. Seymour Hersh broke some great stories, but there's something about him I don't trust (and I don't care that he's a jerk).. Funny thing happened this year - I heard him call into C-Span's "Washington Journal", using a fake name, but I knew it was his voice after a few words, and he said everything he normally says about the CIA, etc.

I see you dropped in without reading any of the posts above yours.

Matt Taibbi explores the real negative effects of social media censorship:
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/meet-the-censored-status-coup

I don't know how to address the problem of smaller YouTube channels getting subjected to tighter rules than large networks. A speech of a Trump rally from one YouTuber might incite their viewers toward violence, but viewers of a different channel may watch the same video and have a completely different reaction. Are they supposed to have algorithms to determine the intent of the poster?

speech video

i wish cancel culture was real so this guy would go away forever

I wish you'd never post in this thread again.

Fuuuuuck this rich, hypocritical, insulated-from-the-consequences-of-his-words legacy-media piece of shit forever.

― but also fuck you (unperson)

3rded

handwringing about fucking Youtube, GTFO

that site is a cesspool of Nazi garbage

xps looks like we'll both be disappointed

afaict the last good reporting Taibbi did was on Iraq war corruption in.... 2008?

Wow what great takes you all have. Yes who cares if only large corporations can broadcast live news on YouTube? They can make their own website then? Well no, because Amazon won’t host them. I guess anyone can still buy a printing press.

Not all tech bro like taibbi but everyone who likes taibbi is a tech bro (or Bari Weiss I guess. Presumably she likes him too.)

I don’t follow the right people on Twitter to see his substack get shared there, but they sure do like voting him onto the front page on hacker news.

Bring back the Tarfu Report

What a moronic series of content-free, bullying posts you guys have created. Bravo.

Taibbi is persona non grata now so only posts reminding us of that are allowed here anymore

I dont like taibbi for most of his recent pieces, but maybe i need to read this one more closely— to me it’s mainly just boring and not generally important.

That said, lately he has been _stupidly_ wrong, and i guess signals point to him being quite an asshole. Drink up.

I think the questions of how we regulate social media are complex and deserve discussion. A laissez-faire approach clearly hasn't worked, but all the other attempts seem clumsy/overbroad and asymmetrically applied, at best. I guess you could try to monitor comment sections to see if the conversation was turning ugly, but I could see groups gaming those algorithms to try to get their opponents kicked off the service.

DJI, I do agree with your statement, really. I should have stated it more clearly.

xp ok but i don't think many people on ilx think this guy has anything positive or unique or even good faith to add to that discussion, for reasons discussed extensively over the eight years this thread has existed, in between the trump stuff.

for tech/speech regulation, check out zeynep and tim wu, if you haven't already.

A laissez-faire approach clearly hasn't worked, but all the other attempts seem clumsy/overbroad and asymmetrically applied, at best.

In the past society developed very clear rules for holding people responsible for speech that harmed individuals or society, but those rules required that speech could be directly traced to its speaker and that publishers were responsible for what they published. Social media lobbied successfully to be sheltered from both these social responsibilities. All that is required is to rescind that special protection.

The fact that various internet companies are capitalized at hundreds of billions of dollars is the obvious hindrance to applying this simple and obvious remedy. I say that promoting profits over the social good is the only mechanism at work here and choosing sides ought not to cause a moment's hesitation or puzzlement.

xp thanks for the recs.

xp Which protection are you talking about? Making them responsible for what they publish, or requiring them to trace the identity of anyone posting content on their service?

The first one would basically shut down social media, and eliminate all kinds of diverse and important voices. The second one would require invasive technology. Both would probably require massive governmental intervention, which I'm not opposed to, but I don't think it's as simple as just removing safe harbor protection.

Which protection are you talking about? Making them responsible for what they publish, or requiring them to trace the identity of anyone posting content on their service?

The first one would basically shut down social media, and eliminate all kinds of diverse and important voices. The second one would require invasive technology. Both would probably require massive governmental intervention, which I'm not opposed to, but I don't think it's as simple as just removing safe harbor protection.

Perhaps social media should be shut down. And "diverse and important voices" will find other ways to make themselves heard, as they have in the past. There was a world before social media, you know. And people communicated with one another back then, too. The idea that social media is somehow necessary, virtually a utility, is a form of capitalist realist thinking — now that we've had it, life without it is unimaginable. But that life happened! Not that long ago! I mean, I remember when I signed up for Twitter. I wasn't born with a Twitter account, you know?

it's not really a specifically capitalist way of thinking. its the way of technology. once a technique is established - and generally techniques are established on the basis of being the most efficient way of doing something, in social media's case it is the most efficient way to communicate with the biggest number of people in the quickest time - it is never disestablished, whether or not the technique is beneficial or has improved our lives

I don't think it's as simple as just removing safe harbor protection.

If social media cannot happen without the massive harm it has been inflicting on society, then shut it down. If it can maintain accountability for those who are responsible, then let them figure it out and implement it. By removing accountability we have created a monster that is impossible to tame.

Exactly how is this a real problem, other than saying it is hard to do or unprofitable?

And "diverse and important voices" will find other ways to make themselves heard, as they have in the past.

https://i.swncdn.com/media/800w/cms/CCOM/66102-luther95theses-wikimediacommons.1200w.tn.webp

tbf there were a lot of interesting voices available before social media: Rush Limbaugh, Alex Jones, Lyndon Larouche. It was cool back then.

Exactly how is this a real problem, other than saying it is hard to do

Real problems are hard to do.

This 'problem' is in some way analogous to the massive harm done by allowing wealthy individuals and criminals (but I repeat myself) to create networks of anonymous shell companies and legally funnel money into and among them via established financial institutions and international banking protocols. This shell game could be abolished very simply by requiring all banks to do business only with known individuals or corporations which fully disclose all officers, board members, and major shareholders. Nothing prevents this but the profitability for banks of letting it continue.

Just shutting it all down is not a serious idea. If you say you don't see any positive benefit to any of social media, I don't think you're being honest.

But as far as trying to remove safe harbor, should we have government-based social media with some kind of identity tracking? Should we have some kind of biometric ID?

Also, there are plenty of people who use anonymity to shield themselves from harm. Should we force those people to find a "respectable" media outlet before they can share their stories?

Would ILX now be responsible for the content of every post?

Real problems are hard to do.

No, real problems are hard to solve. If you define the solution as requiring that social media to remain much as it now is, but with some kind of technological mechanism that transparently identifies the authors of shared material, then combining those two traits might be very difficult.

If you define the solution as only requiring only that social media companies must meet their responsibility to allow accountability or they cannot exist, because lack of accountability is inimical to society itself, then the solution is not hard: they fix themselves or they die. Harboring powerful, vast, fast-growing, and wholly irresponsible entities is too dangerous to allow. You must either control them or kill them.

only requiring only

I don't think the government requiring something (verified IDs of users) that isn't possible without governmental help is a solution.

Or should the social media companies create their own biometric database of their users?

You're just way too attached to social media, is all.

LOL the only time I read Twitter is when Ned posts shit in the Poilitics threads.

I just like the idea of All Gas No Brakes Live TV

Or should the social media companies create their own biometric database of their users?

You know what? It isn't my problem to solve. But I don't understand why biometrics would enter into it, other than as a scary boogeyman to ward off calls for removing their safe harbor protections.

Matt Taibbi claims that "there's a core of emotional truth animating the Qanon conspiracy theory... but the Russia thing... doesn't really have a correlation to anything that makes any sense."
Maté agrees. pic.twitter.com/lzMMs7o3m4

— Matthew Dimitri 🐍🧪 (@themattdimitri) February 23, 2021

he's saying he feels a kinship with fascists and not with establishment liberals