Anders Puck Nielson - Twitter and responsible social media th-cam.com/video/y8zfgIgZ4c0/w-d-xo.html Vlad's reaction to Guardian leaving Twitter th-cam.com/video/E2-VjwRP5ns/w-d-xo.html Vlad's main channel th-cam.com/users/VladVexlervideos Support Vlad's work on Patreon! www.patreon.com/vladvexler Support Vlad via PayPal www.paypal.com/paypalme/vladvexler?country.x=GB&locale.x=en_GB
Ok... I agree with you staying to combat bad actors on x and encouraging similar accounts (to your) to stay... BUT why don't you encourage everyone to AT SAME TIME while staying on x to also activate on competing platforms?! Besides, you staying on x, why aren't you also announcing you BluSky account alongside and promoting engagement there as well?
@VladVexlerChat Hi, 12:09 Question: Wouldn’t it be more fair to think that if “an institution” de facto left TWITTER it would be a problem. But bc of who’s the owner it’s has become a problem in particular after the Us election was over! As you say that twitter/X now almost could be considered government controlled and that Mr Musk perhaps will become an elected official person working in the government Wouldn’t leaving Twitter/X be a good thing? Before the election I didn’t hear a lot about people actually signing up on another platform but after the election is another story, and I wonder if those who leave m, leave bc they don’t want to see any opposition? I think the issue lays with Mr Musk being the sole owner of Twitter/X, or? Respectfully, Grace
For Vlad to suggest The Guardian or anyone or thing owes it to the nation, or a community or a population to stay on X is nonsense. No one has a moral obligation to try to deliver their message to a population that is being kept from receiving that message. This is plainly addressed by Anders in his vid.
Depends how you use it. Follow wisely, and create and use lists wisely, and share wisely, and you can get something more balanced and intelligent than the main feed free for all.
Vlad, love you both. But you seem to be making an individual centric argument but Anders argues systemically. TwiX is now so closed and dysfunctional that no independent researcher can provide checks and balances. Hence it becomes an actual malign force in the information sphere - be it through neglect or intent does not matter. As a community we owe it to the world to bring it down and replace it with a safer better alternative. So I have gone.
Not sure about individual centric. it’s Ok for me and Anders to leave, but in my view, not OK for Guardian to leave and not OK for most experts to leave (but OK for some). The idea that you can buy yourself out of what’s wrong with Twitter by leaving is what I deem naive.
@@VladVexlerChatThis seems like an odd take. Companies and institutions should be forced to stay on a platform run for profit and help construct the idea that everyone with public platform should be on the same platform, further enlarging its legitimacy - and profit. That makes me deeply uneasy.
@@VladVexlerChatI understand, but the platform is rigged against certain voices. It's like asking if you want to pay to broadcast your TV station when people only get Fox.
@@Hartley_HareIt’s also worth noting that it’s probably unrealistic to expect a liberal exodus to actually take down twitter or to prompt significant changes in its policy, if the things driving the exodus feel political to the average person. I think in general, people on the left and at the left of center tend to overestimate how much they can bully institutions into agreeing with them.
A true public square allows all voices to be heard, but Musk's Twitter now gives some people a megaphone and some people a muzzle. That is no longer a public square.
@@patavinity1262 the algorithm is 'open' but the variables driving it are not. For example it's known that Musk's own tweets are amplified 1000x higher than they would be if everyone was treated fairly. Anders Puck Nielsen describes this problem well and accurately, even if you eventually agree with Vlad
It's a paradox. A public square where all voices can be heard is a cacophony in which no voices can be heard. There are simply too many of us without the aid of representative speakers
I have left Twitter but I'm happy to discuss politics with conservatives on blue sky. The problem with Twitter is, in reality, too much noise from toxic trolls and bots. But I'm happy to coexist with normal, sensible conservatives on a platform that isn't controlled by musk.
But most conservatives just aren’t going to follow you. Pretending that most Trump voters are going to go anywhere other than Twitter is obviously wrong.
I think you're needlessly validating X's advertisement line "X is the digital town square". In fact it's a private enterprise with rules imposed by a despot.
@@VladVexlerChat Even if that were true why pretend they are all the same? And why suggest that by taking part you are not contributing to the continuation, expanse and profit of that particular "potato chip company" and its goals and agenda? You seem to have a Goldilocks view of Twitter. Yet it isn't even a major social media on numbers. Why aren't you on all the more popular networks, given your argument on reach? And what influence it does have is what you contribute to yourself by using it - which Twitter uses to better promote its malignancy - that's what -Trump- Musk bought and subsidises - you, your influence and your support. However positive that influence might be it could be made elsewhere, somewhere with different content and goals. ETA - I confused Trump and Musk!
*THIS IS A SIMPLE FACT* being on Twitter over the next 12 months will make your life WORSE than if you deleted your account today. That is true REGARDLESS of your political persuasion.
This is the glaringly obvious fact - the 'public square' relies on the public attending and using it. Otherwise its just a space without any significant value. I don't feel that Vlad addressed this. I assume there's plenty of alt-tech platforms he isn't on because in his eyes they don't have any value.
The response is easy. Most people aren’t going to leave twitter for the same reason that most people voted for Trump. Liberals and leftists do not hold a hegemony on arguments like these. As Vlad puts it, you cannot act like you’ve won an argument you haven’t won. At *best* you’d wind up with a competition between conservative twitter and some liberal/left social media company, which would then be two echo chambers even worse for their ideological insulation than the current situation.
People left of center need to come to terms with the increasingly glaring reality that half the population disagrees with them on fundamental issues, and you cannot bully them into not existing.
The issue isn't being on a platform with issues or people I disagree with. I actually welcome the ability to see views other than my own. The issue is HOW I sees those other views. In a thoughtful and polite environment, or in a nasty free for all.
Twitter is a public square but it's not the only public square. Suppose you have a choice between going to two different pubs. In one pub there's music playing and people having loud, lively conversation. In another pub people are fighting each other and there's blood and vomit all over the floor. I know which pub I'd go to.
If the only thing differentiating pubs appeals to people’s political beliefs, then the result of that competition will be to create politicized bubbles insulated from reality.
This is exactly how I described why I cancelled my Facebook account. (I've never been on Twitter/X). I felt like I had arrived at a fun party where there were interesting people. I knew some of the people and didn't know other people, like being at a party. Some of the people I liked, some I didn't, some I agreed with, others I didn't, but like a party, I still enjoyed being there as long as people were civil and knew how to behave. At a party you can choose how much to engage with other people. Over time, Facebook became like a party where more immature people arrived and some of the people who were already there were getting drunk and behaving differently. The atmosphere became poisonous and as a place to spend valuable free time, it became a "party" where I no longer wanted to spend my time. Not every pub has blood and vomit on the floor. Just because X became like that doesn't mean every other place is like that. Some clubs and party hosts will throw out the drunks (or the people who make threats and promote violence). Others conflate that behavior with "free speech". You are not free to threaten people at any party in my home. You will be put out.
Is it necessary, however, for the "good of society" to have a representative actually in *every* pub just to see what is going on there? They might have to be paid to sit thru it all, tho you might find someone that enjoys the atmosphere a bit more than another person... It reminded me of the stories about "content moderation" on social media posts (images/video/text) and the toll on people's psyches it takes.
@@lawrence18uk We went from bouncers to moderators! Bouncers were traditionally big, strong, robust-type folks. It makes sense that a moderator would need to be made of strong stuff (psychologically).
I just don't want to be on a platform that is run by a billionaire who has a victimhood complex, because that platform is not a neutral platform. Rather it's a forum for billionaire grievances.
@@VladVexlerChat Can we not still look at them each on their own specific merits and make a distinction therein? Are not some potato chip companies better than others?
From seeing what twitter has become over recent months I'd say leaving is the healthiest option. Never before online have I had pro-nazi and Holocaust denial, race hatred of all kinds and calls for extermination regularly recommended to me. It's a vile place that has no value anymore.
Oops! I set up on Bluesky today with a view to leaving X. He ruined the platform and it is negatively affecting my mental health. I need to look after me. I need to be less angry.
Ah, yes! Because Twitter before Musk was SO much better. It merely required of one to be hardcore left-wing in order to post an opinion. But I guess you were fine with that, until the owner changed who so happens to have different heretical beliefs from your own heretical ones. Such a joke.
But twitter is not the only public square out there, and I don't see why is it bad to go to another public square. Or to another corner of public square, if there is only one. Bluesky is a social platform the same way the twitter is. It is not as if you are escaping from all political interactions. You are just looking for better communication environment.
I haven't had FB since 2013, haven't posted to IG since 2018, haven't used Twitter since 201X (can't remember), never made a TT account, BUT, I made a BlueSky account because I hate Elon Musk.
Strongly agreed, Twitter as an institution has changed & isn't the "Town Hall" anymore, "Town Halls" literally evolve over time. I find it strange a man who's immigrated to many countries can judge anyone. I would go further & say USA isn't a legitimate international institution anymore. Why can't people wake up & realise it's always been systemically corrupt & now lives over 70 years in the past?? Nothing is forever...
So what is the argument for not joining EVERY social media platform in that case? Is there, then, a moral obligation to join Truth Social as well else risk "failing to engage in the world around you"?
@@anabelleharvey9342 I’m very relaxed about what individuals inc individual experts do. My recommendation NOT to leave Twitter applies only to big journo institutions and as a generalisation about what the majority of experts should or shouldn’t do. Nothing wrong with you or I leaving Twitter.
Because Twitter is a natural monopoly that has commanded this space for a long time, and the only way to compete with it is to differentiate the product, and the only currently viable way to do that is through politicized differentiation, which would create ideologically filtered echo chambers.
@@fieuline2536 Twitter isn’t a “natural monopoly”. A natural monopoly is when consumers don’t have a choice in who they buy their water, electricity, gas, mail service etc from because there’s only one mandated option. MySpace was once the dominant social media and it is now irrelevant. Twitter competitors aren’t differentiating on “politics”, but on the signal to noise ratio (bots, spam, porn, disinfo etc)
By Vlad's logic, The Guardian should be on 4chan. That is obviously wrong. IMO all reasonable organisations, institutions, experts and politicians should leave Twitter. Illegitimate platforms (due to obvious bias) should not be legitimised by reasonable people.
As much as I disliked Musk, I was able to do what I wanted and post political content without being abused, but after the election I was deluged with pro-Trump messaging. That showed the algorithm had changed and I felt targeted so I saw Musk full blown and I left for Bluesky. X and Trump were causing me real depression after the election and I'm not even American.
The case for considering X/Twitter to be a "global village" is considerably weaker now than before Musk took it over and will only. weaken further when it becomes an arm of the ruling party in the USA. In addition to the arguments for leaving named here, the exodus is surely also driven by a wish to create a new public space elsewhere. Social media platforms have a lifecycle, being big doesn't mean it will last forever.
Exactly. Facebook also used to be a third space, and after it was changed by Zuckerberg into something else and more unhealthy, people have gradually been leaving. Musk changed Twitter into something else: what used to be the public square is now taken over by bad actors. There is nothing lost by migrating to the other public square just down the road, where the sky is still blue and which hasn’t been taken over by extremists.
Twitter literally makes me sick, but I didn't realize how bad it was until I logged back in after 3 months of abstinence. Today, I deeply, deeply, deeply regret the time I wasted there and have even given the platform a boost of legitimacy, albeit a tiny one. I get the same information on BSKY and it's much more peaceful.
I’d be interested to understand what you think are the important characteristics of a public square. I think that a physical public space has a level of accountability that social media platforms don’t.
I am somewhere in between you and Anders and this set of videos from both of you is fascinating. Paul Warburg's thoughts on the topic are good too. Positioning myself as the citizen who needs a better soundtrack, I don't want to be pummeled with Elon's manipulation. Monitoring twitter for disinformation campaigns during the election was like participating in a hot dog eating contest.
I am fully on Anders side. In Germany we have learned that unlimited freedom of speach can lead to fascism thats why hate speach and misinformation is an criminal act and will be punished. Even political parties can be forbiten if they attack the basics of democracy.
Is it important for The Guardian to have a MySpace page? Social media platforms aren't public squares they are money making enterprises. They are products that are created, rise, and die at the whim of the market. It is vital to damage Twitter as much as possible as quickly as possible to serve as a warning other platforms.
Boycotting Musk is plenty of reason to leave. Anders was just less direct about this, and framed it as a lack of transparency of algorithmic results. Not all public squares are created equal. If it's raining shit at the public square, then I'm leaving, and the Guardian was brave to leave and set an example!
My main issue on Twitter is simply the signal:noise ratio makes it an utterly unproductive space for any amount of discourse. Politically, or emotionally, being a participant there as an individual feels equal parts infuriating and futile. Any post with any kind of traction becomes a magnet for bots, trolls, scammers, spammers, and bad faith actors who seem intent on nothing but making the entire space as headache-inducing as possible. I've seen conservatives on Bluesky but at least most of what I see is people behaving like serious adults. Blissfully, I could l be there for more than 5 minutes without my blood pressure rising.
Maybe I misunderstood Anders... But I felt like the overarching reason for him leaving was that of mismanagement in an ethical sense, but even more so from a technical perspective (which ofcourse has ethical implications). He talked quite a bit about the API, data transparency, converting agency back to users, etc. From a consumer perspective btw Bluesky just works way better for me: I actually get my notifications directly, TH-cam works in-app, I have a lot more options to tweak my feed. It seems far less broken than twitter
@ I just think it isn’t really true. There are plenty of people and institutions who have been and are being political off of Twitter. Things ebb and flow, times change. I don’t think you can lock culture down to the platforms we used in 2020, or treat lack of participation in a corrupted space, but doing the same thing in an uncorrupted one, as becoming apolitical.
I just can't do twitter anymore. It feels like I'm surrendering to the trolls but the constant barrage of misinformation and outright hate makes it feel futile and honestly makes me an angrier person. I fear bluesky becoming an echo chamber but at least it doesn't have 4chan vibes.
If I was a content creator I would want to be on as many platforms as possible. As a content consumer however I only have limited capacity and so have to be selective over which platforms I engage with. The social media platform formally known as Twitter does not attract me. If trouble comes looking for me I will deal with it but why would I actively go looking for trouble by hanging out in toxic environments? That way madness lies. But I appreciate that the calculus is different for people like the Guardian, Vlad and Anders who reach out to others in a professional capacity.
I respectfully disagree about the Guardian leaving twitter. I think there is an opportunity to build Blue Sky as an alternative to the existing imbalance. We on the left have learned that the right no longer wishes to discuss facts. So why talk to them at all? We will build our own communities and support our own communities even if it comes down to a network of blue states that share common goals and strategy. States rights, everybody. The left are like the empaths and the right are the narcissists. So let’s take our supply of empathy away and let them do as they will. They are the establishment now. So we are the counterculture.
Does the same apply for the Truth Social? Being engaged on the platform amplifying dehumanizing views about the others hasn't potential to overcome these views and to reach the possibility of liberal discourse. That's the paradox of tolerance i questioned once in your Q&A. I politely engage people with different political views even at their safe spaces for example at Discord servers but I won't do it at the place faking an ordinary public square from an arena for dehonesting and dehumanizing differences.
No, Twitter is no longer a dialogue place, it's an echo chamber, and a toxic one at that. There's nothing constructive that can be achieved on Twitter - and I hope I won't have to hear this name for much longer.
I sympathise with the sentiment of staying to keep up the fight for sanity in the public square of Twitter. But with the 'login wall' against reading posts in any meaningful way, and the toxic, unhealthy environment once inside, I think Twitter's value and function as a public square is very much degraded and can increasingly be argued, while there are fresh unspoiled squares right next to it.
I know there are no doubt a multitude of 'toxicity' that could be drawn to my attention. So, I'm not dissing that it exists. But, I have not been affected by any of it. What am i doing right or wrong?
There was a study by an Australian researcher that studied the changes in Twitter from July 13 onwards and how the Republican posts and tweets were maximized and the Democratic ones reduced. Likewise, Musk's own posts were maximized as well. July 13th was when Musk declared his support for Trump, also maybe the date of the assassination attempt.
I’m not convinced Twitter is a public space or equivalent to a public space. For something to be in the realm of the public, it needs to be more than just popular. Everyone is a stakeholder in the public space and has a role in shaping the management of the space that is grounded in code or custom. Twitter, by contrast, is an unaccountable leviathan where we are users meant to be manipulated for the financial gain of the owner. It’s a very American ideal to vote with your wallet, which is what I think a lot of us are disagreeing with you on. A different perspective on democratic culture is always appreciated, which is what keeps me coming back to the channel. Lots of love, Vlad.
Adding to this, Twitter isn't even popular. It's not even in the top 10 most popular social media platforms, and it's widely hated by the people who aren't on it!
In agreement with many voices here: what makes Xhitter the “public square?” It is a for-profit business which relies on engagement for its survival. Why should turkeys celebrate Thanksgiving?
Moral dignity makes leaving Twitter a necessity for individuals and institutions. It's very simple, no need of deep reflection. Let's just leave Twitter and talk somewhere better.
@@cheztaylor8 I find it indeed worrying that the divide deepens by not even using the same platform anymore. However, if Musk abuses his power for political gains, there is not much choice. bsky is an open network, and while the main instance still has relatively a lot of power, anyone can run their own instance.. and connect and be connected with others without the main one controlling it.
@@cheztaylor8 Vlad calls X ("Twitter") a "town square" - but like you say it's a bubble and illogical to stay there unless it's the kind of bubble you're looking for. Truth Social was never the #1 app on the app store, so it doesn't look like the same phenomenon as BlueSky. But even if it is, will Vlad say institutions are wrong to abandon Truth Social?
@@ultraviolet37 in this context where Vlad says institutions shouldn't abandon it, it sounds more like a way to harken back to a time that twitter had made itself relevcant, and try to conflate the current state of the platform with that 'idealized" time. The fact that the name is awkward and meaningless is a perfect illustration of the change.
The Twix is still commercial enterprise and its owner is an investor, so sometimes to punish with a dollar is more painful, than any words and arguments
I agree with Vlad. 🌻& with the idea of staying on X (for now). I have stayed on Twitter and also joined BlueSky (a lot of work however) and Facebook (mostly). There are still valuable voices on Twitter that I want to engage with and that is much of my reason for staying plus pushing back against the flow of disinformation, sharing good information and support for allies still on there. My feeling of BlueSky as I got on there was a bit too 'Mary Poppins' since I love my political soup but I don't want it to be watered down. I want to see the political universe and I don't want to encapsulate myself in bubbles and blind spots. I don't feel the same about "Truth Social" which I feel is a different situation. If X turns thoroughly into "Truth Social" I'll most probably leave.
Thanks Vlad. Glad the Guardian left x. Why wallow in a sewer just because others organisations do. There are other and better town squares where discourse is possible. I think it has too much influence aiding division in society. Personally, wouldn't go near it.
Thank you for this video and your encouragement to stay within the political conversation your efforts will eventually help make this world a better place
I still think you are missing the value of the protest sentiment of leaving Twitter as an institution. It is much stronger than an individual. I enjoy the talk on this subject, thanks.
Yes I enjoy that we can discuss this on Vlad's platform, it's helped clarify the situation for me in a way that discussing it on a platform like X, couldn't. I don't fully agree with you Vlad but in a respectful way you've helped me think about what's best for me.
I've had a Bluesky account for some time, but a couple of days ago I decided to move over there from Xitter. I got fed up with that place. The biased algorithm, all the changes that have happened there with regards to blocking and privacy and the fact that as a political actor Musk has no leg to stand on when it comes to X ever being neutral or unbiased. At this point how is it any different than Trump's 'Truth' Social other than X being bigger?
Yes, that's the bottom line for me, I, like most of us probably, wouldnt join truth social for the same reason I won't join X, I don't participate in social media to win over people but to be enlightened and empowered. I think participating in trurh social or X would erode my willingness to participate in society in general and I think I see a lot of people reacting that way and it could be part of the reason why quite a few million Dems stayed home and didn't vote, contrary to the reason many magas went out and voted because they were empowered by misinformation partly driven by misinformation on social media platforms and debating with one on them I don't think would have changed anything. Were they influenced by anything the Guardian might have said by staying on X, I strongly doubt it as the magas act like they're in a cult. I was listening to a 'stoic' guy on Utube a couple of days ago who decided to give a childhood friend 'space' because their continuous political arguments became repetitively toxic, he even unfriended him on FB. Many years later the friend called him up, out of the blue and apologized for his part in the toxicity and they were able to rebuild their strong friendship. I take from that that the debate in a toxic town square doesn't change us, life, time and being given space does. I think social media is being given far to much relevance for it's place in changing people for the better, in general, if they're involved in platforms like X, it probably changes people on both sides of the argument for the worse. So, I'd say, if you have any doubt about the benefit of staying on X and find it toxic, leave, give it space to die or heal.
Vlad, why is it so stinking HARD to be a responsible member of the national conversation. It hurts to stay engaged when you're already hurting, especially when it feels like the hill to climb isnt just the hill but also the rock you're pushing up and fearing it will just roll down the hill again. Fighting dumbasses is very akin to fighting gravity.
I understand the need to love others as they are. I am a determinist and I know that people are not to blame for their incorrect perspectives, ie they are influenced by their upbringing, they need to be educated more on the topic, have been lied to for years, etc. Climbing the hill to try to influence people who are not open minded or inclined to cogitate in a meaningful way, who are happy in their cognitive dissonance takes a lot of optimism and resolute strength. I gave up trying to shift the family who raised me many years ago. It's the pain of the hill that sucks. I appreciate the conversation about the need to be critical of Twitter and still be able to engage with people who think differently. The conversations must be had. How do we fight the disinformation,the algorithm, the lies that get halfway around the world before we get our shoes on. The post-truth world is run by the psychopaths, money-grubbers, power-hungry, and sycophants. When they own the airwaves, the hill is a mountain.
"freedom of speech" should not be mixed up with ... "Obligation to listen to that speech!" "Obligation to participate in such a talk!" "Obligation to come forth and response with a valid counter argument!"
Far too much nonsense on Twitter for me to handle even 2 years ago, Vlad. As an individual in possession of a moral compass, you naturally feel compelled to stand by those morals. For me personally, I had to open my eyes to the fact that attempting any of the sort on that platform was utterly futile, self-harming and counterproductive. Lots of love.
You both have good arguments, I agree with you that 'truth claiming' institutions such as the Guardian should stay on X an individuals can make up their own mind.
I understand the theory of standing in the midst of adversity, and knowing the enemy. In doing so requires the willingness to bear the assault upon one’s mind, body, and soul.
I think the most contructive way forward is re-assembling the public forum somewhere else in a way that permits nuanced discourse. People talk about other social media platforms, but I have never been fond of any. I am thinking in terms of creating the urban spaces that foster community where people can discuss the important questions that really matter: What's going on in my community and how can I contribute?
Hey Vlad I think we must have met at some point because you described me perfectly " falling into the trap of watching cat and boating accident videos for 49 minutes" Even down down to the minute! No, I don't feel good about it either. On the plus side, I do enjoy listening to what you have to say. I have never engaged with political philosophy before, it's refreshing.
@@VladVexlerChat Fair to say that if advertisers want to sell me an automobile, insurance policy, electronic products or beads, I won't be able to hear them on XTwitter.
It hit true to me as well, created another account to only see cat view and daily doses.. because, well demobilizing has its dangers, but I need mental health as well. I'm here again, but IMO without taking time off and work on own mental health, I cannot be here from a position of strength.
I’m afraid we’ve arrived at our first substantive disagreement. User loss/ adoption rates tend to slowly rise/ decline until a critical point, past which they go exponential. While, it’s too early to say one way or another, if you look at twitter vs blue sky user numbers, they are beginning to look a lot like the early stages of such a pattern. On top of that, anecdotally, myself and others have started to notice a lot more right wing accounts on blue sky. These are ppl who live for conflict/ trolling/ arguments. They preferred twitter over something like Truth Social because on Truth Social there was no one to argue with. On top of that, the number of blue sky users who I see expressing views outside the typical establishment Dem repertoire has also risen significantly over the last few weeks. I’m not sure if these are trends that will continue. They might amount to nothing, but for the next few weeks/ months I think it’s important to act as if they’ll continue. While we have the momentum, it’s imperative we do everything we can to contribute to it. By resigning ourselves to the idea that twitter/ X is the only best worst option for a viable digital town square, just as momentum is building against it, I’m afraid what we may be doing is contributing to a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Ok... I agree with you staying to combat bad actors on x and encouraging similar accounts (to your) to stay... BUT why don't you encourage everyone to AT SAME TIME while staying on x to also activate on competing platforms?! Besides, you staying on x, why aren't you also announcing you BluSky account alongside and promoting engagement there as well?
Instead of creating a Twitter account, today I listened to Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina (Motettorum cuinque vocibus liber quartus) and wrote, but not comments, for a change :) Be well, dear Vlad. 💛
Thank you, thank you, thank you so, so much Vlad - I don’t think for one moment this was directly answering my previous comment, but as it happens you hit the nail on the head and gave me the very answer I needed. For reference, I also watched Anders’ video before watching the rest of this and started out thinking how I could really see his point - Only to come back and watch the rest of this to come away understanding WHY it is ESSENTIAL we ALL stay ‘in the game’ or at least refuse to separate or depoliticise from those circles we find too toxic and avoid only surrounding ourselves with a bubble of like minded thinkers. As mentioned in my previous video comment, I’m just a nobody - but all of us nobodies together are part of a larger voice and community, who despite algorithmic oppression or unfairness, still need to stay at the table of the discussion with 100% of the population and it’s mixture of views, including those we don’t like. Whether or not we feel helpless to influence the others around us, or just to give a little confidence to those that can see they are not alone in sharing a moderate, reasonable opinion - and thereby keep faith with humanity. So you’ve helped me to decide that, for what infinitesimally small effect my individual influence may have, I for one have therefore decided to stick around on X/Twitter and would encourage EVERYONE else (individuals, experts and institutions) to do the same - so that humanity can all still sit at the ‘same table’ and share our different views; hopefully whilst realising that we can have different views without having to be ‘enemies’ or obliged to have a toxic relationship with anyone who doesn’t agree with us. Thank you Vlad 🙌
The strongest argument I've found to stay on Twitter/X as long as possible is that there's a future, a very near future, where our social media landscapes are even more divided than they already are, where half the people and institutions are on BlueSky and the other half are on Twitter. There's countless reasons why this is a very bad thing.
You seem to assume all venues pretending to be a part of the “public square” of politics are of equal value and must be engaged equally. This is specious. Each venue is unique in reach and constitution, and thus relative in its value to a would-be participant. Within a reality of limited resources, each would-be participant in a given venue has a duty to assess the ultimate effectiveness of participating in that venue and allocate limited resources to the most effective ones. It is naiive to think we all have the capacity to engage all venues all the time out of a “duty” to do so. I heard no recognition of this constraint in your reproach. I get your concern about ceding any ground in an apparent existential battle with post-truth populism, and I deeply share your concern. But would it not be more productive to engage in a clear-eyed discussion about most effective counter-strategies. Pep-talks and reproaches about "holding the line" may engage the faithful, but they also may betray a certain failure to fully comprehend all of our options.
I simply want nothing to do with any commercial enterprise Elon Musk is ‘running’. He’s excersizing a level of personal influence that is unchecked, and I think its simply too much and nobody voted for him - so his association with Trump does not feel right to me. But, to be fair i’ve felt this for years and haven’t been on twitter in years. I always felt we needed a non commercial public square. Governance is key, and from being in tech for 30 years I don’t like how he operates - personally, privately or professionally. I think he’s the Howard Hughes of our time.
Thanks so much for this view, I was about to say "fuck this. fuck twitter" but i think you might be on to something here. I appreciate the time you took to explain your thoughts. All the best to you.
@@rachelatwood9555hang in there! I passed along my twitter handle to Vlad a while ago to DM you there, but I'm not sure he did. I can't DM you without you following but I don't post.
Wouldn't your argument at 12:08 mean you're obligated to be on ALL the platforms? ..as an expert or institution that is. Overall, I believe your opinion is too strict. They didn't use all the platforms before and now they're simply moving away from one and may be going to one or a several, that might replace X.
Me? No. Anders? No. We can choose either way. But a majority of experts and all major journalistic institutions in my view shouldn’t jump to leave Twitter.
@VladVexlerChat Oh, sorry, I actually meant "one"/everybody as an expert or institution. I'm German, we often use Du/you in a statement meaning that one as everybody. But isn't it your opinion that they should be (are sort of obligated to) be present in all of the parts of the world's town square? In that case, should've they have been on all the platforms to begin with?
Thank you, Vlad. I think I got what you meant. I never have been a part of twitter. But I think I got a taste of it in real life. I have lost good friends of mine over the Russian war on Ukraine. I tried really hard to not lose them before, with the Covid issue, and I somehow managed it. And I did so not only because they were my friends, but also because I thought they needed someone outside of their bubbles, someone who was able to show them the truth. But with the full-scale invasion of russia everything changed. I tried to convince my friends, of course, in every way I could think of. And I failed. It's so easy to disregard truth, and it's so hard to fight against lies. And I know that you want to teach us to somehow sit on a table together and talk, and I appreciate it, but I don't know how! How do you do that when people no longer believe in truth?
I agree with Vlad in principle, but like all nuanced situations, it's going to come down to some subjective measures that will probably differ from person to person. To me, I can understand why for a lot of people (even big voices) have come to the conclusion that providing value to the platform by being on it is no longer an acceptable tradeoff, especially if their voice is being diminished. Of course this does exacerbate isolation, but it also reduces the profitability and popularity of those sites as well. The most profitable and popular social media sites are always the most highly moderated ones (TikTok, for example) and Twitter's moderation is somewhere between non-existent, and extremely partisan. If it continues on this trend, it could become closer to what Truth social is, and eventually just what 4Chan is. The point being that neither Truth nor 4Chan have serious cultural or political influence, so Twitter's influence waning as it gets more extreme isn't an unreasonable conclusion.
I would like these social media sites 1.allow only one account per person (minimize bots). 2.require some form of proving they are a person when the account is created (ban the bots). 3. Close, Ban the account and person after N offenses (lies, disinformation, vulgarity, etc x including retweeting same) after warnings given.
I tend to agree. So would you think a responsible way would be to stay in the public square that twitter is, as well as joining upcoming an growing squares like the ones, Anders mentioned? Because the public square that twitter is, seems to be shrinking and other growing. Although twitter is not going to vanish anytime soon i guess, maybe the right way is to voice yourself on a couple large ones, to reach as many people as possible.
I’m very open at an individual level. I think a bit of both can be reasonable. The only thing I am sceptical of is large numbers of experts or big journalistic institutions leaving Twitter.
I have mever used that platform because it doesn't have enough value in information to justify its cost in time of my life wasted. I make no moral judgement about its content, After all, I used to read Pravda even in its worst years.
So I agree with Anders on this. But I don’t think either way it is much to worry about. If Musk continues the way he is, we are going to see more and more people leave the Twitter world. These environments aren’t eternal. Something new comes along and shakes things up. If an environment is too biased, people will move away from it.
Vlad, I came across your channel months ago and it was a glad surprise. I have already watched most of your videos on the main channel. I love your passion to engage and energy to overcome obstacles. Thank you for your work! Now, about your Twitter argument… I believe you are fundamentally wrong, not because your arguments are flawed, but because I think you are misunderstanding the object you are analyzing. See, you bring Twitter as if it is your city townhall, your church, the political party you are affiliated to. I profoundly disagree - Twitter is your Pub! Don’t get me wrong, I love to have a heat argument in a pub with old or new friends. There are some pubs that are great to foster the connection between customers, making them a community. In so many cases it becomes your main venue for activism, to share and connect. A healthy city must have great pubs! They are part of our social bond. But sometimes, the pub we love is bought by a nut. The new owner adds more salt to the fries, sells shit beer and lets disagreements become fights. I would argue Twitter was never the best pub in town, even at its prime. Plenty will disagree and that’s fine. But Twitter was never the ONLY pub in town. Should I stop going to pubs because my favorite has gone to the dogs? Of course not, but I should find a new one! The actual global public square is vast and has plenty of places. We are not able to be everywhere! Or should we try to engage people on Truth Social and 4Chan? Every place you are is a choice you make; it is energy you spend trying to accomplish your goals - argue, proselytize, connect. I would say, though, this discussion has a large share of emotional baggage. I can only empathize with people who have lived in this community for decades and see what it is becoming. But, as a newly managed pub, to keep spending your money there will only prolong its suffering. It is time to let Twitter rest and acknowledge that it became X.
A different point that bothers me a LOT (and it is partially adjacent in this debate) is the tendency of multiple institutions and governments to use twitter as a press release (despite other platforms). Take EU Council, for instance. In the last 24 h, it has published 8 times in X, but only 1 in Facebook (that have faaar more users). This type of behavior fuels Twitter/X usage and constrains the real debate. If institutions are not ready to leave X and/or disagree this is the most sensible decision, they must, AT MINIMUN, make effort to communicate using other platforms and enable people who want to leave X to do so.
Anders Puck Nielson - Twitter and responsible social media
th-cam.com/video/y8zfgIgZ4c0/w-d-xo.html
Vlad's reaction to Guardian leaving Twitter
th-cam.com/video/E2-VjwRP5ns/w-d-xo.html
Vlad's main channel
th-cam.com/users/VladVexlervideos
Support Vlad's work on Patreon!
www.patreon.com/vladvexler
Support Vlad via PayPal
www.paypal.com/paypalme/vladvexler?country.x=GB&locale.x=en_GB
Ok... I agree with you staying to combat bad actors on x and encouraging similar accounts (to your) to stay... BUT why don't you encourage everyone to AT SAME TIME while staying on x to also activate on competing platforms?! Besides, you staying on x, why aren't you also announcing you BluSky account alongside and promoting engagement there as well?
@@phaedrussocrates7636at this point I don't know why anyone would give their patronage and implicit support to Twitter.
@VladVexlerChat Hi, 12:09 Question:
Wouldn’t it be more fair to think that if “an institution” de facto left TWITTER it would be a problem.
But bc of who’s the owner it’s has become a problem in particular after the Us election was over!
As you say that twitter/X now almost could be considered government controlled and that Mr Musk perhaps will become an elected official person working in the government
Wouldn’t leaving Twitter/X be a good thing?
Before the election I didn’t hear a lot about people actually signing up on another platform but after the election is another story, and I wonder if those who leave m, leave bc they don’t want to see any opposition? I think the issue lays with Mr Musk being the sole owner of Twitter/X, or?
Respectfully, Grace
BRAVO VLAD!!!! Beautifully Said!
For Vlad to suggest The Guardian or anyone or thing owes it to the nation, or a community or a population to stay on X is nonsense. No one has a moral obligation to try to deliver their message to a population that is being kept from receiving that message. This is plainly addressed by Anders in his vid.
Never got on with Twitter. It always felt like being in a room full of people shouting and nobody listening.
Exactly!
Same here. I never became a member.
Depends how you use it. Follow wisely, and create and use lists wisely, and share wisely, and you can get something more balanced and intelligent than the main feed free for all.
I became a member only to updated on the war in Ukraine via pro Ukrainian members. Most everyone else gets blocked.
Sadly that seems to be way to common on all forums
Vlad, love you both. But you seem to be making an individual centric argument but Anders argues systemically. TwiX is now so closed and dysfunctional that no independent researcher can provide checks and balances. Hence it becomes an actual malign force in the information sphere - be it through neglect or intent does not matter. As a community we owe it to the world to bring it down and replace it with a safer better alternative. So I have gone.
Not sure about individual centric. it’s Ok for me and Anders to leave, but in my view, not OK for Guardian to leave and not OK for most experts to leave (but OK for some). The idea that you can buy yourself out of what’s wrong with Twitter by leaving is what I deem naive.
@@VladVexlerChatThis seems like an odd take. Companies and institutions should be forced to stay on a platform run for profit and help construct the idea that everyone with public platform should be on the same platform, further enlarging its legitimacy - and profit. That makes me deeply uneasy.
@@Hartley_Hareforced to stay is a no no - I am suggesting that should reflect on the benefits of staying even if the platform is irresponsible
@@VladVexlerChatI understand, but the platform is rigged against certain voices. It's like asking if you want to pay to broadcast your TV station when people only get Fox.
@@Hartley_HareIt’s also worth noting that it’s probably unrealistic to expect a liberal exodus to actually take down twitter or to prompt significant changes in its policy, if the things driving the exodus feel political to the average person.
I think in general, people on the left and at the left of center tend to overestimate how much they can bully institutions into agreeing with them.
A true public square allows all voices to be heard, but Musk's Twitter now gives some people a megaphone and some people a muzzle. That is no longer a public square.
Does it? In what way?
@@patavinity1262 the algorithm is 'open' but the variables driving it are not. For example it's known that Musk's own tweets are amplified 1000x higher than they would be if everyone was treated fairly. Anders Puck Nielsen describes this problem well and accurately, even if you eventually agree with Vlad
By that reckoning none of our public squares are public squares.
@@VladVexlerChat That is where you and Anders disagree. Being imperfect and being irresponsible are different things.
It's a paradox. A public square where all voices can be heard is a cacophony in which no voices can be heard. There are simply too many of us without the aid of representative speakers
I have left Twitter but I'm happy to discuss politics with conservatives on blue sky. The problem with Twitter is, in reality, too much noise from toxic trolls and bots. But I'm happy to coexist with normal, sensible conservatives on a platform that isn't controlled by musk.
Indeed
But most conservatives just aren’t going to follow you. Pretending that most Trump voters are going to go anywhere other than Twitter is obviously wrong.
@@fieuline2536 Trump voters are mostly trolls and will go where they can Troll
BlueSky with the “your timeline, your choice” slogan… Yeah, no. I’m not going to that woke echo chamber with an abortion slogan.
Hear, hear!!!
I think you're needlessly validating X's advertisement line "X is the digital town square". In fact it's a private enterprise with rules imposed by a despot.
All of our public squares are in hands of potato chip companies.
Most people do not use twitter... only the lonely. It's not a pubic hair
😅😂😅😂
@@VladVexlerChat isn't bluesky supposed to be better
@@cristiandarie if it becomes a bubble then no
@@VladVexlerChat Even if that were true why pretend they are all the same? And why suggest that by taking part you are not contributing to the continuation, expanse and profit of that particular "potato chip company" and its goals and agenda?
You seem to have a Goldilocks view of Twitter. Yet it isn't even a major social media on numbers. Why aren't you on all the more popular networks, given your argument on reach?
And what influence it does have is what you contribute to yourself by using it - which Twitter uses to better promote its malignancy - that's what -Trump- Musk bought and subsidises - you, your influence and your support. However positive that influence might be it could be made elsewhere, somewhere with different content and goals.
ETA - I confused Trump and Musk!
*THIS IS A SIMPLE FACT* being on Twitter over the next 12 months will make your life WORSE than if you deleted your account today.
That is true REGARDLESS of your political persuasion.
I predict that all social media is going to get poisoned with right wing extremist talking points like never before in the coming years.
No, I get all my breaking news from Twitter, so yeah there's that :)
Ok, everyone except @JohnSmith-rr8hp delete your twitter account today for a smashing year ahead. Better?
@@JohnSmith-rr8hp That's a good point, what would happen if you just didn't get any breaking news? Unthinkable, am I right?
I was on it for about 2 days a few years ago even before musk bought it and it was all negatively and hate. And it’s much worse now.
It's only a public square if the public and public institutions are still there. Otherwise it's just Myspace, or Truth Social.
This is the glaringly obvious fact - the 'public square' relies on the public attending and using it. Otherwise its just a space without any significant value.
I don't feel that Vlad addressed this. I assume there's plenty of alt-tech platforms he isn't on because in his eyes they don't have any value.
The response is easy. Most people aren’t going to leave twitter for the same reason that most people voted for Trump. Liberals and leftists do not hold a hegemony on arguments like these. As Vlad puts it, you cannot act like you’ve won an argument you haven’t won.
At *best* you’d wind up with a competition between conservative twitter and some liberal/left social media company, which would then be two echo chambers even worse for their ideological insulation than the current situation.
People left of center need to come to terms with the increasingly glaring reality that half the population disagrees with them on fundamental issues, and you cannot bully them into not existing.
The issue isn't being on a platform with issues or people I disagree with. I actually welcome the ability to see views other than my own. The issue is HOW I sees those other views. In a thoughtful and polite environment, or in a nasty free for all.
Twitter is a public square but it's not the only public square. Suppose you have a choice between going to two different pubs. In one pub there's music playing and people having loud, lively conversation. In another pub people are fighting each other and there's blood and vomit all over the floor. I know which pub I'd go to.
If the only thing differentiating pubs appeals to people’s political beliefs, then the result of that competition will be to create politicized bubbles insulated from reality.
This is exactly how I described why I cancelled my Facebook account. (I've never been on Twitter/X). I felt like I had arrived at a fun party where there were interesting people. I knew some of the people and didn't know other people, like being at a party. Some of the people I liked, some I didn't, some I agreed with, others I didn't, but like a party, I still enjoyed being there as long as people were civil and knew how to behave. At a party you can choose how much to engage with other people. Over time, Facebook became like a party where more immature people arrived and some of the people who were already there were getting drunk and behaving differently. The atmosphere became poisonous and as a place to spend valuable free time, it became a "party" where I no longer wanted to spend my time. Not every pub has blood and vomit on the floor. Just because X became like that doesn't mean every other place is like that. Some clubs and party hosts will throw out the drunks (or the people who make threats and promote violence). Others conflate that behavior with "free speech". You are not free to threaten people at any party in my home. You will be put out.
@@rhino5100 Hear hear 👏🏿👏🏿👏🏿👏🏿
Seconded
Is it necessary, however, for the "good of society" to have a representative actually in *every* pub just to see what is going on there? They might have to be paid to sit thru it all, tho you might find someone that enjoys the atmosphere a bit more than another person... It reminded me of the stories about "content moderation" on social media posts (images/video/text) and the toll on people's psyches it takes.
@@lawrence18uk We went from bouncers to moderators! Bouncers were traditionally big, strong, robust-type folks. It makes sense that a moderator would need to be made of strong stuff (psychologically).
I just don't want to be on a platform that is run by a billionaire who has a victimhood complex, because that platform is not a neutral platform. Rather it's a forum for billionaire grievances.
All our social media public squares are owned by potato chip companies with no democratic accountability.
@@VladVexlerChat Potato chips are guilty pleasure while social media are like a combined root canal/colonoscopy.
100 agree with you! Very well thought off and formulated argument
@@VladVexlerChat Can we not still look at them each on their own specific merits and make a distinction therein? Are not some potato chip companies better than others?
@@VladVexlerChatno not bsky. It's an open source protocol. It cannot be owned.
Twitter looks set to go the way of Facebook. Old social media for people with no ability to evaluate the quality of information.
From seeing what twitter has become over recent months I'd say leaving is the healthiest option. Never before online have I had pro-nazi and Holocaust denial, race hatred of all kinds and calls for extermination regularly recommended to me. It's a vile place that has no value anymore.
Oops! I set up on Bluesky today with a view to leaving X. He ruined the platform and it is negatively affecting my mental health. I need to look after me. I need to be less angry.
Ah, yes! Because Twitter before Musk was SO much better. It merely required of one to be hardcore left-wing in order to post an opinion. But I guess you were fine with that, until the owner changed who so happens to have different heretical beliefs from your own heretical ones.
Such a joke.
I moved to Bluesky yesterday.
Same!
I am there now!
I moved when Twitter died under a dropped sink. It’s pretty dead, I’m not looking for weeks on end.
Same
Just followed you ! @@VladVexlerChat
But twitter is not the only public square out there, and I don't see why is it bad to go to another public square. Or to another corner of public square, if there is only one. Bluesky is a social platform the same way the twitter is. It is not as if you are escaping from all political interactions. You are just looking for better communication environment.
The wish for Twitter to fail comes from a raw desire to see the bad guy lose for once. I do understand it.
I haven't had FB since 2013, haven't posted to IG since 2018, haven't used Twitter since 201X (can't remember), never made a TT account, BUT, I made a BlueSky account because I hate Elon Musk.
What bad guy
@@oliverbird6914 You don’t have to agree to understand many think Musk is a terrible person.
@@aegisfate117Hate is a dreadful emotion. Visit a therapist to help you.
Strongly agreed, Twitter as an institution has changed & isn't the "Town Hall" anymore, "Town Halls" literally evolve over time.
I find it strange a man who's immigrated to many countries can judge anyone.
I would go further & say USA isn't a legitimate international institution anymore. Why can't people wake up & realise it's always been systemically corrupt & now lives over 70 years in the past??
Nothing is forever...
Much love from the Beautiful Community😊!😊
@@thezieg much love
So what is the argument for not joining EVERY social media platform in that case? Is there, then, a moral obligation to join Truth Social as well else risk "failing to engage in the world around you"?
@@anabelleharvey9342 I’m very relaxed about what individuals inc individual experts do. My recommendation NOT to leave Twitter applies only to big journo institutions and as a generalisation about what the majority of experts should or shouldn’t do. Nothing wrong with you or I leaving Twitter.
@@VladVexlerChat Part of the wider issue is that those big journo institutions have suffered a significant loss of trust from their 'constituents'.
Because Twitter is a natural monopoly that has commanded this space for a long time, and the only way to compete with it is to differentiate the product, and the only currently viable way to do that is through politicized differentiation, which would create ideologically filtered echo chambers.
@@fieuline2536 Twitter isn’t a “natural monopoly”.
A natural monopoly is when consumers don’t have a choice in who they buy their water, electricity, gas, mail service etc from because there’s only one mandated option.
MySpace was once the dominant social media and it is now irrelevant.
Twitter competitors aren’t differentiating on “politics”, but on the signal to noise ratio (bots, spam, porn, disinfo etc)
By Vlad's logic, The Guardian should be on 4chan. That is obviously wrong. IMO all reasonable organisations, institutions, experts and politicians should leave Twitter. Illegitimate platforms (due to obvious bias) should not be legitimised by reasonable people.
As much as I disliked Musk, I was able to do what I wanted and post political content without being abused, but after the election I was deluged with pro-Trump messaging. That showed the algorithm had changed and I felt targeted so I saw Musk full blown and I left for Bluesky. X and Trump were causing me real depression after the election and I'm not even American.
The case for considering X/Twitter to be a "global village" is considerably weaker now than before Musk took it over and will only. weaken further when it becomes an arm of the ruling party in the USA. In addition to the arguments for leaving named here, the exodus is surely also driven by a wish to create a new public space elsewhere. Social media platforms have a lifecycle, being big doesn't mean it will last forever.
Exactly. Facebook also used to be a third space, and after it was changed by Zuckerberg into something else and more unhealthy, people have gradually been leaving. Musk changed Twitter into something else: what used to be the public square is now taken over by bad actors. There is nothing lost by migrating to the other public square just down the road, where the sky is still blue and which hasn’t been taken over by extremists.
Twitter literally makes me sick, but I didn't realize how bad it was until I logged back in after 3 months of abstinence. Today, I deeply, deeply, deeply regret the time I wasted there and have even given the platform a boost of legitimacy, albeit a tiny one. I get the same information on BSKY and it's much more peaceful.
I’d be interested to understand what you think are the important characteristics of a public square. I think that a physical public space has a level of accountability that social media platforms don’t.
Yeah that's something I think is often overlooked. People say things online that they would never say to another person's face.
I am somewhere in between you and Anders and this set of videos from both of you is fascinating. Paul Warburg's thoughts on the topic are good too. Positioning myself as the citizen who needs a better soundtrack, I don't want to be pummeled with Elon's manipulation. Monitoring twitter for disinformation campaigns during the election was like participating in a hot dog eating contest.
I am fully on Anders side. In Germany we have learned that unlimited freedom of speach can lead to fascism thats why hate speach and misinformation is an criminal act and will be punished. Even political parties can be forbiten if they attack the basics of democracy.
Is it important for The Guardian to have a MySpace page? Social media platforms aren't public squares they are money making enterprises. They are products that are created, rise, and die at the whim of the market. It is vital to damage Twitter as much as possible as quickly as possible to serve as a warning other platforms.
Boycotting Musk is plenty of reason to leave. Anders was just less direct about this, and framed it as a lack of transparency of algorithmic results. Not all public squares are created equal. If it's raining shit at the public square, then I'm leaving, and the Guardian was brave to leave and set an example!
My main issue on Twitter is simply the signal:noise ratio makes it an utterly unproductive space for any amount of discourse. Politically, or emotionally, being a participant there as an individual feels equal parts infuriating and futile.
Any post with any kind of traction becomes a magnet for bots, trolls, scammers, spammers, and bad faith actors who seem intent on nothing but making the entire space as headache-inducing as possible.
I've seen conservatives on Bluesky but at least most of what I see is people behaving like serious adults. Blissfully, I could l be there for more than 5 minutes without my blood pressure rising.
I've never been a member of Twitter....which is a shame because I can't leave now..
Maybe I misunderstood Anders... But I felt like the overarching reason for him leaving was that of mismanagement in an ethical sense, but even more so from a technical perspective (which ofcourse has ethical implications).
He talked quite a bit about the API, data transparency, converting agency back to users, etc.
From a consumer perspective btw Bluesky just works way better for me: I actually get my notifications directly, TH-cam works in-app, I have a lot more options to tweak my feed. It seems far less broken than twitter
Yes I share that part of Anders’ argument - I start by accepting that the rules of the game on Twitter are irresponsibly managed.
Yes! You did. My head's all over the place today.
Love your work Vlad! Thanks for sharing ❤
I don’t think you can expect people to wallow in garbage, even institutions and experts.
At the same time, if you don’t eat crap you are apolitical
Eating crap is only worth it if it produces a useful benefit in return. A blatantly rigged system like Twitter produces no such benefit.
@ I just think it isn’t really true. There are plenty of people and institutions who have been and are being political off of Twitter. Things ebb and flow, times change. I don’t think you can lock culture down to the platforms we used in 2020, or treat lack of participation in a corrupted space, but doing the same thing in an uncorrupted one, as becoming apolitical.
@@rjScubaSkiall platforms and all politics is about degrees of wallowing in garbage
@VladVexlerChat Are you on Truth Social, Gab, Gettr etc?
I just can't do twitter anymore. It feels like I'm surrendering to the trolls but the constant barrage of misinformation and outright hate makes it feel futile and honestly makes me an angrier person. I fear bluesky becoming an echo chamber but at least it doesn't have 4chan vibes.
If I was a content creator I would want to be on as many platforms as possible. As a content consumer however I only have limited capacity and so have to be selective over which platforms I engage with. The social media platform formally known as Twitter does not attract me. If trouble comes looking for me I will deal with it but why would I actively go looking for trouble by hanging out in toxic environments? That way madness lies. But I appreciate that the calculus is different for people like the Guardian, Vlad and Anders who reach out to others in a professional capacity.
Xodus
I thought it inappropriate for government institutions and politicians to get on Twitter to begin with, it lessens their credibility in my eyes.
I respectfully disagree about the Guardian leaving twitter. I think there is an opportunity to build Blue Sky as an alternative to the existing imbalance. We on the left have learned that the right no longer wishes to discuss facts. So why talk to them at all? We will build our own communities and support our own communities even if it comes down to a network of blue states that share common goals and strategy. States rights, everybody. The left are like the empaths and the right are the narcissists. So let’s take our supply of empathy away and let them do as they will. They are the establishment now. So we are the counterculture.
Does the same apply for the Truth Social? Being engaged on the platform amplifying dehumanizing views about the others hasn't potential to overcome these views and to reach the possibility of liberal discourse. That's the paradox of tolerance i questioned once in your Q&A. I politely engage people with different political views even at their safe spaces for example at Discord servers but I won't do it at the place faking an ordinary public square from an arena for dehonesting and dehumanizing differences.
No, Twitter is no longer a dialogue place, it's an echo chamber, and a toxic one at that. There's nothing constructive that can be achieved on Twitter - and I hope I won't have to hear this name for much longer.
I sympathise with the sentiment of staying to keep up the fight for sanity in the public square of Twitter. But with the 'login wall' against reading posts in any meaningful way, and the toxic, unhealthy environment once inside, I think Twitter's value and function as a public square is very much degraded and can increasingly be argued, while there are fresh unspoiled squares right next to it.
I know there are no doubt a multitude of 'toxicity' that could be drawn to my attention. So, I'm not dissing that it exists. But, I have not been affected by any of it. What am i doing right or wrong?
There was a study by an Australian researcher that studied the changes in Twitter from July 13 onwards and how the Republican posts and tweets were maximized and the Democratic ones reduced. Likewise, Musk's own posts were maximized as well. July 13th was when Musk declared his support for Trump, also maybe the date of the assassination attempt.
I’m not convinced Twitter is a public space or equivalent to a public space. For something to be in the realm of the public, it needs to be more than just popular. Everyone is a stakeholder in the public space and has a role in shaping the management of the space that is grounded in code or custom. Twitter, by contrast, is an unaccountable leviathan where we are users meant to be manipulated for the financial gain of the owner.
It’s a very American ideal to vote with your wallet, which is what I think a lot of us are disagreeing with you on. A different perspective on democratic culture is always appreciated, which is what keeps me coming back to the channel. Lots of love, Vlad.
Adding to this, Twitter isn't even popular. It's not even in the top 10 most popular social media platforms, and it's widely hated by the people who aren't on it!
In agreement with many voices here: what makes Xhitter the “public square?” It is a for-profit business which relies on engagement for its survival.
Why should turkeys celebrate Thanksgiving?
Hah I was just catching up on Anders' channel.
Moral dignity makes leaving Twitter a necessity for individuals and institutions. It's very simple, no need of deep reflection. Let's just leave Twitter and talk somewhere better.
I don't want to feed the beast, I don't want to give him a penny.
The ostrich-style comment doesn't apply, as twitter is not a democratic institution, it's a product and I'm no longer consuming it.
It seems like the public has not only the right but also the responsibility to choose for itself what they make the public square.
To quit has a value.
...
Many institutions have disappeared in history just because people left
...
Your clarity and voice are invaluable, Vlad!
Wonderfully articulate as usual Vlad, I wish us all the best of health.
Thank you!
I really enjoy both of you guys information you put out.
I would happily watch an hour long podcast with both of you talking back-and-forth
How is it different being on X than Truth Social? And don’t be disingenuous and keep calling it Twitter - that’s only denial of reality
I'm not on Truth Social but my impression is that it's likely a RW bubble just as BlueSky will become a LW bubble.
@@cheztaylor8 I find it indeed worrying that the divide deepens by not even using the same platform anymore. However, if Musk abuses his power for political gains, there is not much choice. bsky is an open network, and while the main instance still has relatively a lot of power, anyone can run their own instance.. and connect and be connected with others without the main one controlling it.
X is such an awkward name. Journalists still call it "X, formerly Twitter" not out of pettiness but because X is often used as a placeholder.
@@cheztaylor8 Vlad calls X ("Twitter") a "town square" - but like you say it's a bubble and illogical to stay there unless it's the kind of bubble you're looking for.
Truth Social was never the #1 app on the app store, so it doesn't look like the same phenomenon as BlueSky. But even if it is, will Vlad say institutions are wrong to abandon Truth Social?
@@ultraviolet37 in this context where Vlad says institutions shouldn't abandon it, it sounds more like a way to harken back to a time that twitter had made itself relevcant, and try to conflate the current state of the platform with that 'idealized" time. The fact that the name is awkward and meaningless is a perfect illustration of the change.
"You're gonna be running up the hill to some extent but it doesn't follow that you shouldn't be doing that"
MY MAN 🔥🔥🔥
The Twix is still commercial enterprise and its owner is an investor, so sometimes to punish with a dollar is more painful, than any words and arguments
I agree with Vlad. 🌻& with the idea of staying on X (for now). I have stayed on Twitter and also joined BlueSky (a lot of work however) and Facebook (mostly). There are still valuable voices on Twitter that I want to engage with and that is much of my reason for staying plus pushing back against the flow of disinformation, sharing good information and support for allies still on there. My feeling of BlueSky as I got on there was a bit too 'Mary Poppins' since I love my political soup but I don't want it to be watered down. I want to see the political universe and I don't want to encapsulate myself in bubbles and blind spots. I don't feel the same about "Truth Social" which I feel is a different situation. If X turns thoroughly into "Truth Social" I'll most probably leave.
Thanks Vlad. Glad the Guardian left x. Why wallow in a sewer just because others organisations do. There are other and better town squares where discourse is possible. I think it has too much influence aiding division in society. Personally, wouldn't go near it.
Happy Sunday Vlad :)
Thank you for this video and your encouragement to stay within the political conversation your efforts will eventually help make this world a better place
I still think you are missing the value of the protest sentiment of leaving Twitter as an institution.
It is much stronger than an individual.
I enjoy the talk on this subject, thanks.
Yes I enjoy that we can discuss this on Vlad's platform, it's helped clarify the situation for me in a way that discussing it on a platform like X, couldn't.
I don't fully agree with you Vlad but in a respectful way you've helped me think about what's best for me.
If i were on X, i would leave because i really dislike Elon Musk (Mum always taught me not to say "hate"). I don't buy Tesla cars for the same reason.
I've had a Bluesky account for some time, but a couple of days ago I decided to move over there from Xitter. I got fed up with that place. The biased algorithm, all the changes that have happened there with regards to blocking and privacy and the fact that as a political actor Musk has no leg to stand on when it comes to X ever being neutral or unbiased. At this point how is it any different than Trump's 'Truth' Social other than X being bigger?
Yes, that's the bottom line for me, I, like most of us probably, wouldnt join truth social for the same reason I won't join X, I don't participate in social media to win over people but to be enlightened and empowered. I think participating in trurh social or X would erode my willingness to participate in society in general and I think I see a lot of people reacting that way and it could be part of the reason why quite a few million Dems stayed home and didn't vote, contrary to the reason many magas went out and voted because they were empowered by misinformation partly driven by misinformation on social media platforms and debating with one on them I don't think would have changed anything. Were they influenced by anything the Guardian might have said by staying on X, I strongly doubt it as the magas act like they're in a cult.
I was listening to a 'stoic' guy on Utube a couple of days ago who decided to give a childhood friend 'space' because their continuous political arguments became repetitively toxic, he even unfriended him on FB. Many years later the friend called him up, out of the blue and apologized for his part in the toxicity and they were able to rebuild their strong friendship.
I take from that that the debate in a toxic town square doesn't change us, life, time and being given space does.
I think social media is being given far to much relevance for it's place in changing people for the better, in general, if they're involved in platforms like X, it probably changes people on both sides of the argument for the worse.
So, I'd say, if you have any doubt about the benefit of staying on X and find it toxic, leave, give it space to die or heal.
Vlad, why is it so stinking HARD to be a responsible member of the national conversation. It hurts to stay engaged when you're already hurting, especially when it feels like the hill to climb isnt just the hill but also the rock you're pushing up and fearing it will just roll down the hill again. Fighting dumbasses is very akin to fighting gravity.
It’s important to also love humans as they are. Balancing that against being critical of Twitter as Anders and I are being.
I understand the need to love others as they are. I am a determinist and I know that people are not to blame for their incorrect perspectives, ie they are influenced by their upbringing, they need to be educated more on the topic, have been lied to for years, etc. Climbing the hill to try to influence people who are not open minded or inclined to cogitate in a meaningful way, who are happy in their cognitive dissonance takes a lot of optimism and resolute strength. I gave up trying to shift the family who raised me many years ago. It's the pain of the hill that sucks. I appreciate the conversation about the need to be critical of Twitter and still be able to engage with people who think differently. The conversations must be had. How do we fight the disinformation,the algorithm, the lies that get halfway around the world before we get our shoes on. The post-truth world is run by the psychopaths, money-grubbers, power-hungry, and sycophants. When they own the airwaves, the hill is a mountain.
Happy Sunday ❤
Khappy Sunday
I do respect your points made and love you anyway :)
"freedom of speech" should not be mixed up with ...
"Obligation to listen to that speech!"
"Obligation to participate in such a talk!"
"Obligation to come forth and response with a valid counter argument!"
Far too much nonsense on Twitter for me to handle even 2 years ago, Vlad. As an individual in possession of a moral compass, you naturally feel compelled to stand by those morals. For me personally, I had to open my eyes to the fact that attempting any of the sort on that platform was utterly futile, self-harming and counterproductive.
Lots of love.
You both have good arguments, I agree with you that 'truth claiming' institutions such as the Guardian should stay on X an individuals can make up their own mind.
'truth claiming' institutions should be on both.
I understand the theory of standing in the midst of adversity, and knowing the enemy. In doing so requires the willingness to bear the assault upon one’s mind, body, and soul.
I think the most contructive way forward is re-assembling the public forum somewhere else in a way that permits nuanced discourse. People talk about other social media platforms, but I have never been fond of any. I am thinking in terms of creating the urban spaces that foster community where people can discuss the important questions that really matter: What's going on in my community and how can I contribute?
Hey Vlad I think we must have met at some point because you described me perfectly " falling into the trap of watching cat and boating accident videos for 49 minutes" Even down down to the minute! No, I don't feel good about it either. On the plus side, I do enjoy listening to what you have to say. I have never engaged with political philosophy before, it's refreshing.
I signed up with Bluesky yesterday.
I started sharing their a couple of days ago
@@VladVexlerChat Fair to say that if advertisers want to sell me an automobile, insurance policy, electronic products or beads, I won't be able to hear them on XTwitter.
@@VladVexlerChat Right On
Thank you so much for your explaining this!
Your comment about the cat videos and boating accidents sure hit close to home!
It hit true to me as well, created another account to only see cat view and daily doses.. because, well demobilizing has its dangers, but I need mental health as well. I'm here again, but IMO without taking time off and work on own mental health, I cannot be here from a position of strength.
Well said!
Thank you 🙏
I’m afraid we’ve arrived at our first substantive disagreement. User loss/ adoption rates tend to slowly rise/ decline until a critical point, past which they go exponential. While, it’s too early to say one way or another, if you look at twitter vs blue sky user numbers, they are beginning to look a lot like the early stages of such a pattern. On top of that, anecdotally, myself and others have started to notice a lot more right wing accounts on blue sky. These are ppl who live for conflict/ trolling/ arguments. They preferred twitter over something like Truth Social because on Truth Social there was no one to argue with. On top of that, the number of blue sky users who I see expressing views outside the typical establishment Dem repertoire has also risen significantly over the last few weeks.
I’m not sure if these are trends that will continue. They might amount to nothing, but for the next few weeks/ months I think it’s important to act as if they’ll continue. While we have the momentum, it’s imperative we do everything we can to contribute to it. By resigning ourselves to the idea that twitter/ X is the only best worst option for a viable digital town square, just as momentum is building against it, I’m afraid what we may be doing is contributing to a self-fulfilling prophecy.
On this point I would disagree. The goal there is not debate but drama. By withdrawing the drama gets redirected.
Ok... I agree with you staying to combat bad actors on x and encouraging similar accounts (to your) to stay... BUT why don't you encourage everyone to AT SAME TIME while staying on x to also activate on competing platforms?! Besides, you staying on x, why aren't you also announcing you BluSky account alongside and promoting engagement there as well?
Instead of creating a Twitter account, today I listened to
Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina (Motettorum cuinque vocibus liber quartus) and wrote,
but not comments, for a change :)
Be well, dear Vlad. 💛
Thank you, thank you, thank you so, so much Vlad - I don’t think for one moment this was directly answering my previous comment, but as it happens you hit the nail on the head and gave me the very answer I needed. For reference, I also watched Anders’ video before watching the rest of this and started out thinking how I could really see his point - Only to come back and watch the rest of this to come away understanding WHY it is ESSENTIAL we ALL stay ‘in the game’ or at least refuse to separate or depoliticise from those circles we find too toxic and avoid only surrounding ourselves with a bubble of like minded thinkers.
As mentioned in my previous video comment, I’m just a nobody - but all of us nobodies together are part of a larger voice and community, who despite algorithmic oppression or unfairness, still need to stay at the table of the discussion with 100% of the population and it’s mixture of views, including those we don’t like. Whether or not we feel helpless to influence the others around us, or just to give a little confidence to those that can see they are not alone in sharing a moderate, reasonable opinion - and thereby keep faith with humanity.
So you’ve helped me to decide that, for what infinitesimally small effect my individual influence may have, I for one have therefore decided to stick around on X/Twitter and would encourage EVERYONE else (individuals, experts and institutions) to do the same - so that humanity can all still sit at the ‘same table’ and share our different views; hopefully whilst realising that we can have different views without having to be ‘enemies’ or obliged to have a toxic relationship with anyone who doesn’t agree with us. Thank you Vlad 🙌
The strongest argument I've found to stay on Twitter/X as long as possible is that there's a future, a very near future, where our social media landscapes are even more divided than they already are, where half the people and institutions are on BlueSky and the other half are on Twitter.
There's countless reasons why this is a very bad thing.
You'd have to have Vlad's Mental Capacity to combat X.
You seem to assume all venues pretending to be a part of the “public square” of politics are of equal value and must be engaged equally. This is specious. Each venue is unique in reach and constitution, and thus relative in its value to a would-be participant. Within a reality of limited resources, each would-be participant in a given venue has a duty to assess the ultimate effectiveness of participating in that venue and allocate limited resources to the most effective ones. It is naiive to think we all have the capacity to engage all venues all the time out of a “duty” to do so. I heard no recognition of this constraint in your reproach. I get your concern about ceding any ground in an apparent existential battle with post-truth populism, and I deeply share your concern. But would it not be more productive to engage in a clear-eyed discussion about most effective counter-strategies. Pep-talks and reproaches about "holding the line" may engage the faithful, but they also may betray a certain failure to fully comprehend all of our options.
I simply want nothing to do with any commercial enterprise Elon Musk is ‘running’. He’s excersizing a level of personal influence that is unchecked, and I think its simply too much and nobody voted for him - so his association with Trump does not feel right to me. But, to be fair i’ve felt this for years and haven’t been on twitter in years. I always felt we needed a non commercial public square. Governance is key, and from being in tech for 30 years I don’t like how he operates - personally, privately or professionally. I think he’s the Howard Hughes of our time.
Morning Vlad 😊
Sensible, informed public debate! What is this world coming to? 😂
We live in interesting times…
Thanks so much for this view, I was about to say "fuck this. fuck twitter" but i think you might be on to something here. I appreciate the time you took to explain your thoughts. All the best to you.
Why would I want to be on Josef Goebbels' social media platform? To engage constructively with arsonists?
Are you expecting to stop the people helping others on to trains by not going to the railway station?
@@cheztaylor8 - if the railway station is a construct of your mind, then yes, absolutely!
@@cheztaylor8 Which trains are these?
You absolutely HAVE to make an ASMR channel. You have the most relaxing voice.
if I go there will be trouble, but if I stay it will be double...
edit: that song will be stuck in my head all day now. Thanks?
Are you leaving?
@@_amalfitano I'm going
insane, mostly.
@@rachelatwood9555hang in there! I passed along my twitter handle to Vlad a while ago to DM you there, but I'm not sure he did. I can't DM you without you following but I don't post.
Wouldn't your argument at 12:08 mean you're obligated to be on ALL the platforms?
..as an expert or institution that is.
Overall, I believe your opinion is too strict.
They didn't use all the platforms before and now they're simply moving away from one and may be going to one or a several, that might replace X.
Me? No. Anders? No. We can choose either way. But a majority of experts and all major journalistic institutions in my view shouldn’t jump to leave Twitter.
@VladVexlerChat
Oh, sorry, I actually meant "one"/everybody as an expert or institution.
I'm German, we often use Du/you in a statement meaning that one as everybody.
But isn't it your opinion that they should be (are sort of obligated to) be present in all of the parts of the world's town square?
In that case, should've they have been on all the platforms to begin with?
Thank you, Vlad. I think I got what you meant. I never have been a part of twitter.
But I think I got a taste of it in real life. I have lost good friends of mine over the Russian war on Ukraine.
I tried really hard to not lose them before, with the Covid issue, and I somehow managed it. And I did so not only because they were my friends, but also because I thought they needed someone outside of their bubbles, someone who was able to show them the truth.
But with the full-scale invasion of russia everything changed. I tried to convince my friends, of course, in every way I could think of.
And I failed. It's so easy to disregard truth, and it's so hard to fight against lies.
And I know that you want to teach us to somehow sit on a table together and talk, and I appreciate it, but I don't know how!
How do you do that when people no longer believe in truth?
I agree with Vlad in principle, but like all nuanced situations, it's going to come down to some subjective measures that will probably differ from person to person.
To me, I can understand why for a lot of people (even big voices) have come to the conclusion that providing value to the platform by being on it is no longer an acceptable tradeoff, especially if their voice is being diminished. Of course this does exacerbate isolation, but it also reduces the profitability and popularity of those sites as well. The most profitable and popular social media sites are always the most highly moderated ones (TikTok, for example) and Twitter's moderation is somewhere between non-existent, and extremely partisan. If it continues on this trend, it could become closer to what Truth social is, and eventually just what 4Chan is.
The point being that neither Truth nor 4Chan have serious cultural or political influence, so Twitter's influence waning as it gets more extreme isn't an unreasonable conclusion.
I knew that was going to happen. Mum and Dad are fighting. 😆 ❤💛💙
I would like these social media sites 1.allow only one account per person (minimize bots). 2.require some form of proving they are a person when the account is created (ban the bots). 3. Close, Ban the account and person after N offenses (lies, disinformation, vulgarity, etc x including retweeting same) after warnings given.
I tend to agree. So would you think a responsible way would be to stay in the public square that twitter is, as well as joining upcoming an growing squares like the ones, Anders mentioned? Because the public square that twitter is, seems to be shrinking and other growing. Although twitter is not going to vanish anytime soon i guess, maybe the right way is to voice yourself on a couple large ones, to reach as many people as possible.
I’m very open at an individual level. I think a bit of both can be reasonable. The only thing I am sceptical of is large numbers of experts or big journalistic institutions leaving Twitter.
Hi Beautiful Vlad
I have mever used that platform because it doesn't have enough value in information to justify its cost in time of my life wasted. I make no moral judgement about its content, After all, I used to read Pravda even in its worst years.
So I agree with Anders on this. But I don’t think either way it is much to worry about. If Musk continues the way he is, we are going to see more and more people leave the Twitter world. These environments aren’t eternal. Something new comes along and shakes things up. If an environment is too biased, people will move away from it.
Very interesting !
Vlad,
I came across your channel months ago and it was a glad surprise. I have already watched most of your videos on the main channel. I love your passion to engage and energy to overcome obstacles. Thank you for your work!
Now, about your Twitter argument…
I believe you are fundamentally wrong, not because your arguments are flawed, but because I think you are misunderstanding the object you are analyzing. See, you bring Twitter as if it is your city townhall, your church, the political party you are affiliated to. I profoundly disagree - Twitter is your Pub!
Don’t get me wrong, I love to have a heat argument in a pub with old or new friends. There are some pubs that are great to foster the connection between customers, making them a community. In so many cases it becomes your main venue for activism, to share and connect. A healthy city must have great pubs! They are part of our social bond.
But sometimes, the pub we love is bought by a nut. The new owner adds more salt to the fries, sells shit beer and lets disagreements become fights.
I would argue Twitter was never the best pub in town, even at its prime. Plenty will disagree and that’s fine. But Twitter was never the ONLY pub in town. Should I stop going to pubs because my favorite has gone to the dogs? Of course not, but I should find a new one!
The actual global public square is vast and has plenty of places. We are not able to be everywhere! Or should we try to engage people on Truth Social and 4Chan? Every place you are is a choice you make; it is energy you spend trying to accomplish your goals - argue, proselytize, connect.
I would say, though, this discussion has a large share of emotional baggage. I can only empathize with people who have lived in this community for decades and see what it is becoming. But, as a newly managed pub, to keep spending your money there will only prolong its suffering.
It is time to let Twitter rest and acknowledge that it became X.
A different point that bothers me a LOT (and it is partially adjacent in this debate) is the tendency of multiple institutions and governments to use twitter as a press release (despite other platforms). Take EU Council, for instance. In the last 24 h, it has published 8 times in X, but only 1 in Facebook (that have faaar more users).
This type of behavior fuels Twitter/X usage and constrains the real debate. If institutions are not ready to leave X and/or disagree this is the most sensible decision, they must, AT MINIMUN, make effort to communicate using other platforms and enable people who want to leave X to do so.
I love this. Some inter channel debate. This is really healthy. Really good as a demonstration of how to disagree and still be human.