Ah, Sweet Twitter, what hath thou become under MusXk... Yesterday, in response to a tweet left by new White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt that was a song-and-dance attempt to explain away something that wasn't true, I wrote the following -- "You have started your tenure VERY poorly for someone who said she 'was about the truth.' This below at best is a gobbledy-gook to explain a jumble. You lied about the military going into California. And lied about $50 million meant for Gaza that supposedly went instead for bombs." To my surprise, I received an email from the folks at TwiXter that said -- Needless-to-say, after ungnashing my teeth and unclenching my typing fingers, I saw that at the bottom of their email, I was allowed to appeal their algorithm's "decision." I did not, explaining that I merely criticized the press secretary for lying and there was nothing in my tweet that promoted violence or threatened, and nothing was based on age, gender, religious or whatever. (I'd have said much more, but I was limited to only 280 characters.) I explained this online, and then rephrased my original tweet, trying to figure out some way to tone down what was only bluntly critical but not threatening in any imaginable way. I trimmed out a few words and also cut out the reference that Ms. Leavitt herself made to bombs, since I thought that that word might be been what the algorithm saw and thought was a "threat." And so, my post now read this kinder, gentler way -- Moments later, also to my surprise, but this time a happy surprise, I received a quick follow-up from TwiXter to my appeal that said --
Oh! How nice. Honestly, I didn't expect that. And so quickly. Sanity ruled the day. So, okay, good! But then came the funnier part. Much to my, once again, surprise -- after I had toned down my tweet (written before getting their ruling that it was perfectly OK), the algorithm limited my toned down tweet that -- which moments before they had just ruled that the original tweet was fine! I decided not to challenge the "limited visibility" of the rewritten tweet, since the original was more pointed and better. And I just deleted the rewrite. Mind you, I still have absolutely no idea what the algorithm saw that it considered even remotely violent or threatening about my original tweet, since (in my rewrite) I deleted what I thought was the only conceivably algorithmically-threatening word, "bomb" -- and it still got tagged. Some days, it seems you just can't trust a MusXk-based algorithm. Go figure.
0 Comments
If you didn't see LAST WEEK TONIGHT with Jon Oliver on Sunday, the Main Story was about TikTok. As you might imagine, given the subject matter, it's a wide open field for a lot of humor. The larger point, though, is that while the security and privacy issues with TikTok are very real, they exist, as well, for many, if not most -- or all -- of the social media platforms. One quibble with the story. While their point about privacy issues with most social media platforms is correct and important, the story never really mentions in any substantive way the huge difference: that none of the other social media platforms are under run under the authority of a government -- let alone a foreign government, let alone a foreign government that is of the of the major enemies of the United States, who could use the platform for political disinformation. Something that I think should at least of been addressed far more meaningfully in the story, rather than an offhanded mention once, since that's the whole point of concern with TikTok. As I wrote on Facebook, I had a totally bizarre experience. I posted a description of my article today about the MAGOP War on Education...and got a note from Facebook that it had been removed because "We don't allow people to use misleading links or content to trick people to visit, or stay on, a website." I requested a review, but figured it was moot because I would just simply describe it again but in a benign way that would meet their lofty, noble standards. Then, people could read the full article that supports what I wrote in my "removed" description with facts and history to back it up. But that got blocked, too!! I tried a third time, and made it as benign as possible, and that finally seems to have made it through. But for those curious, this below is the first description that -- in this divisive political world of hate and racism and anti-Semitism and fascism -- got removed from Facebook. I wrote -- As always, the MAGOP are again calling out to end the Department of Education (which is not newly "Woke," but was created in 1867). But the party has had a War on Education for the past 70 years to keep its base ignorant. Here's more about it & its history. Horrors. Yes, I know. And as I said, everything in this description was supported by facts and history. The second version that also got removed was genteel, though I wanted to keep the direct point. So, rewrote it to be less pointed -- The MAGOP are again calling to end the Department of Education (which was created in 1867). The party has had a War on Education for the past 70 years. Here's more about it & its history. But yes, even that got removed as misleading, trickery spam. I wondered if perhaps a problem was the graphic that was attached to it -- the newspaper headline about the Oklahoma Superintendent of Public Instruction ordering all teachers to show their classes the video of him praying for Trump. I didn't think that was an issue -- since, after all, it was an actual newspaper headline, and 100% true. But just to be safe, I got rid of the graphic and posted the following. Which -- huzzah! -- made it through. Third try -- being as benign as possible: If you didn't see Jon Stewart's Monday hosting of The Daily Show last night, it was -- just exuberant. It's basically an 18-minute scathing and hilarious takedown of the Really Bad last couple of weeks for Trump and his campaign. That's pretty much all you need to know.. As a bonus, for those interested, this is the very good, thoughtful, detailed (sometimes very detailed) interview that Jon Stewart did afterwards with Mark Cuban. It covers a wide range of subjects, including basketball, his dealings with Trump, a lot on AI industrialization, and medical drug transparency. The other day, I decided to correct the latest MAGOP talking point, that Democrats are the real fascists, not Republicans. Putting aside that it seems obvious from this that they have no more idea what fascism is than they know what communism or socialism are (despite trying to pain Democrats with that for the past 70 years), what they most are completely unaware of is that fascism is specifically a conservative political philosophy. So, calling a liberal a fascist is a contradiction in terms.
It turned out that MAGOPs don’t like hearing this. The vitriol came pouring down. Unrelentingly. I responded to many, continuing to explain politely that, no, they were incorrect, though for the most invective-laced it was clear why the “Block” button was invented. Occasionally, though, I did even reply to a few of those that cried out for an answer. For instance, I would reply, “Just so you know, starting a note to a total stranger with “Dumbass” is generally not going to start a meaningful exchange.” Or to those who would send a graphic meme that said something like, “You are a stupid idiot idiot idiot idot. You make me sick,” they would get the response, “That is not a compelling argument.” I particularly liked the person who explained back that fascism was actually just an offshoot of communism. It was near-impossible to let that fly past, so I’d just point out that that would be a neat trick that could not be found anywhere in reality. I didn’t engage anyone of these in conversation and debate – clearly, there was no point in that. Minds were certain, locked in. But to be clear, the reason I did reply at all was for other people reading the wildly off-base comments who didn’t know the truth, and I felt it was important to correct the disinformation so they didn’t go away believing it all. And yes, I understood full well that it was like playing whack-a-mole in a cornfield of whack-a-mole that spread as far as the weary eye could see. That’s all well and good. I was okay with the responses, since I eventually realized it was easy to ignore them. Replies on Twitter go to your Notifications folder, so all one has to do is not read your Notification folder for a couple days, when the vitriol usually dies down. It does mean you want see the “Likes” and “Reposts” and any comments from people you know who you might want to reply to. But it’s a minor downside to the beatific comfort of silence. What I didn’t count on was the magical world of algorithms, especially those set up by Elon Musk. Those are the computer codes that identify content and match it up with like-minded content it thinks you might enjoy. That’s one of the nefarious results that allows hate-filled posters to find one another and reinforce their anger and echo chamber. And it turns out that by answering many of these corrosive slams and lies and disinformation, my algorithm buddy seemed to think, “Hey, this guy is responding to these people, he must want to continue doing so! Okay, here, let me dump all this garbage on your timeline…” There is good news/ bad news to all this – The bad news is…well, obvious. It’s pretty hideous what solid MAGOP writes. Not to me, but just in general, and mostly to themselves. And they write a whole lot of it, too. It’s hateful, ignorant, often filled with lies and actual “fake news” (whimsical for people who claim they supposedly detest it so much) that they believe, and believe all the more so because it gets reinforced. And I have to wade through this tripe to get to the actual news and exchanges I’m there for. (To be clear, I’ve always gotten a mix of political tweets on my timeline. Mostly liberal, yes, but enough that’s conservative and MAGOP -- some of which I’ll reply to, most of which I’ll at least be aware of. And that’s fine, and as it should be. But this kind of empty, angst-ridden venality is just a detestable bubble.) The good news is that it’s important to see how desolate that unsubstantiated fury is. It’s disturbing, to say the least, but it’s important to know what the sane world is dealing with. And yes, the bad news part in this dynamic overwhelms the good news. But I’m glad for that perspective. What I don’t know is if I’m stuck with this algorithm from now on when rummaging through Twitter – especially since occasionally there will be something SO profoundly inaccurate or a hurtful lie about something that demands being corrected, or if it will fade back to normal, as long as I keep my replies to such things to a minimum. Time will tell. If it doesn’t, it might render Twitter useless, or at least as only a platform to post on and not bother reading. Or perhaps greatly limit what accounts can get sent to my timeline. I’m hoping for a return to normal. I’ll accept semi-normal. But I do mean it – I’m glad to see how insane and angry and utterly misinformed the core MAGOP world is. And no, that's not bias. It’s an accurate description of the equivalence of people saying “2 plus 3 equals ‘French toast,’ and I hate you, and all libs are scum, minorities should be deported, and Trump is God.” And just to cleanse the palate and end on a refreshing note -- the correct answer is 5. I spend more time on Twitter than I should, since it’s become so abusive, hate-filled, racist and fascist-enabling. But I do participate for several reasons, some for my own benefit (like promoting my articles), but also because I think it’s important to respond to disinformation.
I should note that the reason I respond is not to convince my correspondent of anything. I know full well that’s a fantasy lost cause. The sort of thing where, if the person does get convinced, it’s a surprise bonus, not a trend. No, the reason I reply is to inform others reading the disinformation so they can see reality presented and explained. But there are limits. And we’re reaching those limits. To be clear, by “reaching those limits” doesn’t mean I’ll stop responding, but rather how I respond. I began this new effort several months back. It’s a process, and has taken several paths to "reach the limit." The first path was putting aside my reticence to block people until they crossed the line of decency. Now, the line of demarcation is more like, “Who needs this??!” Anything abusive, any infantile name-calling that isn’t just directed at me (the previous standard) but at pretty much anyone, anything that shows they’re reveling in their ignorance of reality and more, things like that. I might say “Goodbye,” click, block, done – but sometimes “Who needs this??!” kicks in, and the block is immediate. I should add that among those I’ve blocked is Elon Musk. Because he has such a huge reader base, I’d often felt compelled to respond to his disinformation or egregious ignorance or racism. But because I was getting so many of his tweets in my timeline, I finally had enough and blocked him. It made my life oh-so much more comforting. And because others on my time line respond to him and so his comments occasionally show up for me to see, I can respond to those, if the spirit moves me, knowing he’s blocked. Though usually I let them pass since – because they’re appearing on my time line that way – it means others have responded to him, and responded very well. The next path was creating several default responses that I just copy and paste. They’re different, because they have to fit different situations, but there are two core saved-response that I use as a starting point. The first, that’s more explanatory, which I use if I feel that others reading it might be deserving of the explanation is – “I'm always happy to debate opinions. But I won't debate facts & reality, and your choice to ignore them is established. While it appears you get ‘talking points’ from sources that chose to misinform, it's on you for accepting that just because it fits what you wish was true. Bye.” But sometimes I just go for blunt, and respond – “I'm sorry but you've confused me with someone willing to debate those who enable a party whose base gets its "information" from an anonymous "Q", ignores science & inconvenient reality, bans books, accepts white supremacists & neo-Nazis and foments insurrection. Best wishes. Bye.” These, and the adaptations, have served me well. But that brings us to now. And MAGOP World has begun to take on many of the attributes of Trump. Meaning that members of the MAGOP base now have gotten to where the lie is not just the starting point, but the point. And then feed on one another passing along the lie. And when confronted with reality and the lie and with links to established news stories confirming the lie just scream and send GIFs and memes that shout some version of “You lie!!!!!” It's become pernicious and egregious and -- perhaps worse than even that, which is saying a lot -- almost standard. Mind you, I don’t know if they even know they’re lying – and it doesn’t matter because they not only believe it to be true (or more to the point, gospel) and nothing will convince them otherwise, and pass the lie along. Some -- many, perhaps -- may also know they're lying, but don’t care since it supports what they wish to be true. Further, though, this has morphed with a long-standing MAGOP tactic: when presented with evidence of the lie, they shift into “But what about…??!” mode. Tangentially staying on the general topic, but moving to an issue not being discussed. I had such an exchange yesterday. The attack on President Biden brought up that concerned the Strategic Petroleum Reserved. Putting aside that the attack was based on a lie made by Trump in 2023, and all the subsequent “points” were built on that lie and untrue, the attempted aim was to show that this one untrue issue about something worth discussion but utterly meaningless to most Americans supposedly (even if it was true, which it wasn’t) offset everything fascist and criminal about Trump, starting with trying to overthrow the government of the United States. I explained the lie, and linked to a detailed article on the subject. This brought out several attempts by others to repeat the lie, to which I simply referred them to the same article, and the contorted into the obligatory “But what about…??!” new topic. I had enough. And my new response, which I expect now to use a similar version of in similar situations was – “The premise and points in the original tweet were from a Trump lie in 2023. I'm not going to go down a rabbit hole chasing "what about" whack-a-mole issues from those defending an Insurrectionist who says he wants to be a dictator, undo the Constitution and who was found liable for rape.” And then blocked the person. Enough. Not “enough” that I won’t respond any further. I will. As I said, I’m responding for the “others” reading the exchange who can be convinced by hopefully well-explained reality. But enough so that once the explanation is made, that is the limit. No more heading down rabbit holes, no more playing whack-a-mole. Now, instead, pointing out the large, far more reality – that the person trying to make this meaningless point with a lie or disinformation is missing, not the forest for the trees, but the mountain range for the pebble. And explain to the others reading it that this person is making his or her case (whether an egregious lie or a valid, insignificant thought) in order to help enable an out-of-control fascist who tried to overthrow the government, said he wants to be a dictator, said he wants to throw out parts of the Constitution, and has been found liable twice by a jury of the equivalence of rape. As a starting point. Now, knowing me, I’m sure I’ll forget and occasionally respond as before. But I also know that, since we’ve passed the limit and reached “enough,” that muscle memory will kick in, and I’ll calmingly reach into my treasure chest and reply – “I'm sorry but you've confused me with someone willing to debate those who enable a party whose base gets its "information" from an anonymous "Q", ignores science & inconvenient reality, bans books, accepts white supremacists & neo-Nazis and foments insurrection. Best wishes. Bye.” Well, either that or more pithy: "I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it." -- George Bernard Shaw |
AuthorRobert J. Elisberg is a political commentator, screenwriter, novelist, tech writer and also some other things that I just tend to keep forgetting. Feedspot Badge of Honor
Archives
February 2025
Categories
All
|
© Copyright Robert J. Elisberg 2025
|