Do, however, note the irony (i.e. talking about Twitter now that it's a private company & it bears even less relevance to public discourse); inertia is, in this case, as strong a force as incitement - and the sad fact is that inertia can keep people using inferior software for many years! (Bad behavior is reflexive - ask Microsoft!)
That is true inertia can and does result in people using bad software for a long time..
But Twitter is a form of entertainment more akin to Facebook or TikTok... And in the attention economy people can and will focus their attention in other directions.
We have few options relative to Exl and Word on our desktop. Not so much with social media....
We will see what happens. Just saying he is not as smart as many people think he is.
One groups monetization strategy is misinforming Americans about Covid. This provides income for the trolls that do it and it helps the donor class by focusing ordinary Americans on anything other than how the donor class is ripping us all off with their lobbyists.
It's not like people are shouting "├Йgo├пste" out of their windows: the Tweets are public, (some of them are) archived by The Library of Congress, & (all of them are) facilitated by centralized servers. Basically, if Napster can get its plug pulled for facilitating illegal activity so can Twitter; the nature of the speech itself really doesn't matter (as, if it did, architectural changes would have made it immune *long* in advance!)...
I am not sure i follow you... Napster stole IP from artists.
Twitter spreads misinformation...
The second Twitter took investor money they made the decision they were going to maximize profits...
Are you saying that software could have prevented Twitter from spreading misinformation? That would be interesting. Could it do it and maximize profits?
It's not strictly an economic problem: Napster claimed similar defenses, i.e. immunity from prosecution as a network provider (a "common carrier" defense consistent with Section 230); however, a judge sided with the folks claiming that the activity couldn't carry on without a central server coordinating the illegal behavior - so the fact of Napster itself never having stole a thing made no difference. At present there are multiple states considering bringing suit against social media companies; can they claim to be no more responsible than the telephone network if they help coordinate users to incite violence & subvert democracy?
PS: There's no technical limitation to the capacity of software; not only could the spread of misinformation have been anticipated & prevented - the architecture of the network could have been made to make prosecution along the lines of Napster all but impossible (as the possibility of a true 'peer-to-peer' network avoiding such oversight was contemporary topic at the time Napster was shut down)...
PPS: Is there really any question as to what the motives at Twitter were?
I think i am following you. You are saying the toxic atmosphere and ability to spread misinformation is not a bug but is instead a feature in an effort to create stickiness.
Do, however, note the irony (i.e. talking about Twitter now that it's a private company & it bears even less relevance to public discourse); inertia is, in this case, as strong a force as incitement - and the sad fact is that inertia can keep people using inferior software for many years! (Bad behavior is reflexive - ask Microsoft!)
Rishi
That is true inertia can and does result in people using bad software for a long time..
But Twitter is a form of entertainment more akin to Facebook or TikTok... And in the attention economy people can and will focus their attention in other directions.
We have few options relative to Exl and Word on our desktop. Not so much with social media....
We will see what happens. Just saying he is not as smart as many people think he is.
Let's hope many less folk decide to play in traffic (one person's entertainment is another's monetization of speech & freedom)...
One groups monetization strategy is misinforming Americans about Covid. This provides income for the trolls that do it and it helps the donor class by focusing ordinary Americans on anything other than how the donor class is ripping us all off with their lobbyists.
It's not like people are shouting "├Йgo├пste" out of their windows: the Tweets are public, (some of them are) archived by The Library of Congress, & (all of them are) facilitated by centralized servers. Basically, if Napster can get its plug pulled for facilitating illegal activity so can Twitter; the nature of the speech itself really doesn't matter (as, if it did, architectural changes would have made it immune *long* in advance!)...
I am not sure i follow you... Napster stole IP from artists.
Twitter spreads misinformation...
The second Twitter took investor money they made the decision they were going to maximize profits...
Are you saying that software could have prevented Twitter from spreading misinformation? That would be interesting. Could it do it and maximize profits?
It's not strictly an economic problem: Napster claimed similar defenses, i.e. immunity from prosecution as a network provider (a "common carrier" defense consistent with Section 230); however, a judge sided with the folks claiming that the activity couldn't carry on without a central server coordinating the illegal behavior - so the fact of Napster itself never having stole a thing made no difference. At present there are multiple states considering bringing suit against social media companies; can they claim to be no more responsible than the telephone network if they help coordinate users to incite violence & subvert democracy?
PS: There's no technical limitation to the capacity of software; not only could the spread of misinformation have been anticipated & prevented - the architecture of the network could have been made to make prosecution along the lines of Napster all but impossible (as the possibility of a true 'peer-to-peer' network avoiding such oversight was contemporary topic at the time Napster was shut down)...
PPS: Is there really any question as to what the motives at Twitter were?
I think i am following you. You are saying the toxic atmosphere and ability to spread misinformation is not a bug but is instead a feature in an effort to create stickiness.
Sadly, yes (like an inside joke with a life of its own, i.e. that goes too far)...