1/ Banning InfoWars was the right thing to do.
They represented the realization of damage -- a successful exploit of the bad socio-informational architectures implemented by @Facebook, @Twitter, and @YouTube.
2/ But, the networks didn't take action to attenuate social harm. They did so because it finally became too economically costly not to do so. In the future -- and, surely, in the past -- these same networks will induce harm when banning to protect revenue or share value or both.
-
-
3/ But, that this is even perceived as a threat to free speech demonstrates just how disastrous these architectures are. You shouldn't know who Alex Jones is. You should never have encountered his vileness to begin with.
Show this thread -
4/ That you do know of him is a consequence of these architectures profiting from social collisions which artificially induce salience and enable the commodification of attention.
Show this thread -
5/ I don't think that's a patchable vulnerability. The concept of a for-profit, universal commons stands in obvious opposition to social reality.
Show this thread -
6/ Free association is critically important. But, free association does not work if groups cannot enforce boundaries and dissociation. The way these architectures work precludes that possibility.
Show this thread -
7/ Individual-level blocking or muting willfully ignores the effects of algorithmic curation. The consequences of the latter process incomparably swamps out the effects of the former defenses. And again that's the point. The networks profit from the inter-group rhetorical combat.
Show this thread -
8/ So, if you're concerned about the remarkable power of these networks and the threat they pose: GREAT! You're paying attention. But, banning InfoWars wasn't an abuse of power. It was a defense of it.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.