You're not wrong, at least from my limited perspective, which is me keeping a burner account to follow my favorite MLS team and occasionally toe dip in the political waters when something big happens.
But it's not just the racism. Elon scrambled the algorithm so badly that even events like the Trump verdict and the Harris announcement weren't well aggregated. If you were judging by trends after the verdict announcement, you might not have known what happened.
But of course, if you are pro-Trump, the racism goes hand-in-hand so naturally the shit will float to the surface.
My big fear when Elon started pumping his right wing bs was that he'd cling to Twitter through January 2025, sell it for scrap if Trump loses, take a huge financial L and blame the liberal media or deep state or whatever. Or worst, Trump wins, he holds on to it and it becomes the modern Der Sturmer.
This is more my bellyache but I do wish folks would get on BluSky and ditch Twitter and Threads. Twitter for obvious reasons but have we all collectively forgotten how terrible Mark Zuckerberg is? Please don't hand him a social media monopoly.
I used to read Scott Alexander’s blogs out of curiosity and learned some interesting things there. But I was always mind blown by how he clearly admired Elon Musk as a businessman and rocket scientist, and how he thought Musk’s Twitter takeover wasn’t the huge mistake everyone was making it out to be. SA insisted the experience of using Twitter was only like 10% different than pre-takeover, but I couldn’t believe how that could be. He wasn’t phased by the blue check swarms, the porn bot replies, the algorithmic mucking about? It just goes to show that some people really love sitting in their own personal echo chamber. If people logged onto Twitter just to troll and antagonize in the pre-Musk-takeover days, and now trolling and antagonizing have been made even easier, they’re not going to complain about the algorithmic mucking about and FYP-ification of the site.
I no longer idly scroll Twitter for those reasons - just absolute garbage filling the feed, the blatant and casual racism via modern phrenology, in between videos of people dying and other stuff that wouldn't be out of place on rotten.com back in the day.
It makes me wonder a couple of things - is this what Elon WANTS his $44B hugbox to be? Or is he so insulated with his scores of sycophants feeding him the worst misinfo and zooted on industrial grade pharmaceuticals that he doesn't realize that the platform has drastically devolved, even worse than the toxic landfill it's always been?
Also, how likely is it that Elon and his minions have accessed and read the DMs of famous/notable people? He clearly dgaf about privacy rules or anything resembling morality or suppressing their reach by casually allowing bans. I could see him giving it to some shithead with a Grecian statue PFP that's likely a FSB agent
I think what's happened is that the sensitivity/responsiveness of the FYP algorithm was turned WAY up sometime this year. Even a minimal interaction with a a post (clicking on it and scrolling the replies) and your feed will suddenly be dominated by it. This has happened to me benignly with the "barclaysmen" throwback Premier League highlights trend and the Drake/Kendrick beef, but considerably less benignly with the virulent racism. This clearly makes the algorithm heavily favor the sensational and intensifies Twitter's self-reinforcing tendencies, especially in an era in which Twitter pays for engagement directly. Elon, I imagine, doesn't see this as a problem because he likes all that stuff anyway.
Very bad! I think it's worse for me since I have a burner account and basically never like/retweet/tweet anything, so the algorithm relies on these really ambiguous forms of engagement instead.
"please consider subscribing at the low price of $5/week or $50/month" --- hmmm 🤔 I think I'll pay weekly then :P
I deleted my twitter 4 years ago (after Trump survived Covid there was no longer any hope for joy on that site) and your substack is my sanity-preserving lens into what is going on over there. Zuck's strategy has been to maintain plausible deniability with policies and rules that are so complicated that it can be hard to see how he's tipping the scales, but subtlety hasn't really been Elon's thing, has it.
I totally believe that Musk is doing all he can to help Trump win, including fidgeting with the algorithm. Trumps victory would be an immense boost to his power. Thank God he’s constitutionally banned from running for office himself, because he is in many ways Trump’s true heir (businessman gone wild).
But also, how bleak is it that the richest man in the world is using his $44B bullhorn to stomp down on the most poor and unfortunate people in the western hemisphere?
I don't read every letter you post, but I read this one. Only because of the title. Which, to be honest, feels like click bait. Regardless of whether or not you're right--I don't know since I'm not on Twitter (and even if I was on Twitter, I'd still have no way of knowing, since my experience wouldn't necessarily reflect reality . . . As in, whether Elon actual intentionally vibe-tampered)--I think it's pretty outrageous to post something with the title you used without a shred of evidence. And even though, in footnote 4, you attempt to excuse your lack of evidence, I think someone needs to call you out (by the way, I'd have no problem if you felt Twitter became more racist, and then used anecdote to articulate why you felt that way . . . But, regardless of which side you sit on, assertion without evidence, or worse, with some loosly tied-together theory about how someone else's inclinations--a person who you have never even met--explain your baseless assertion, is wrong). Writers have a duty, seemingly unlike the rest of social media, to uphold a particular ethical standard. That's why I love Substack. It is our job to dig deep, to seek the truth, to illuminate the shadows, to uplift readers via insight, and not mislead them via emotional provocation. Now, you have every right to post whatever you want, just as I have every right to post this comment. I hope this starts a civil discussion, rather than getting me shadow-banned, but I still believe writers, especially with sizeable and paying audiences, should hold themselves to a particular standard. ESPECIALLY (in this short attention span economy) with headlines. I don't know what your claim is, and you seem to use racism as a blanket term (for such a bold accusation, I think it's only right to include details, rather than just pointing in a direction and shouting "Racism!"). I mean, you even say that you "feel embarassed to propose such a straightforwardly basic-bitch conspiracy theory about platform manipulation." And then you say "anecdotally" you notice an uptick in "racism." Can you provide an example? I know you say that racist stuff happened, but what's racist about it? What actually happened? I'd love to fight against racism, just as the vast majority of Americans probably would too (btw, could we please stop demonizing hundreds of millions of people? Just because they don't agree with you doesn't mean they're racist), but we have to know what exactly you're talking about. Because, from what it sounds like--and I know this isn't true but there's no way for me to know since you're not specific--you think any time someone speaks about a particular racial demographic, they're racist. You say, for example, "Then the story of 'Venezuelan gangs' taking over an apartment complex in Aurora, Colo. became inescapable." Is the entire story itself racist? Is it completely fabricated? Are there, in fact, no Venezuelan gangs in Auruora, Colorado? Let's agree on reality first, and then we can separate what's racist from what's not. I'm sure you're a good guy, but this is a very lazy piece. Please don't delete this comment. I know I'm not necessarily polite, but I don't intend to disrespect. Let's have a discussion.
Your entire "discussion" is repeated demands that others meet your burden of proof. Clearly you have more time; how about YOU research the Venezuelan gang population in Aurora? Very "not all men" energy.
Haha, when you say my “burden of proof,” do you mean evidence? Sounds like you didn’t read everything. Never said racist stuff wasn’t going on. All I’m asking for is specificity. How else will we solve the problem? Is it not the job of someone making an assertion to back their claim with evidence? You see, this is why we struggle to move forward: any time someone questions the extreme other side, they’re demonized. Extremists don’t want to talk; they’re too lazy to actually do the work and cultivate a solid understanding and bring forth EVIDENCE. You literally asserted that I was backing racism! Not once did I defend racism. And I have absolutely no idea what you mean by “not all men energy.” Sounds like another blanket term to substitute for your inability to specify.
"I know you say that racist stuff happened, but what's racist about it? What actually happened? I'd love to fight against racism, just as the vast majority of Americans probably would too (btw, could we please stop demonizing hundreds of millions of people? Just because they don't agree with you doesn't mean they're racist), but we have to know what exactly you're talking about."
There are plenty of resources in the year of our lord 2024 to help you figure this out. If you would really "love" to fight against racism, certainly you would have done at least a cursory investigation into any of these at some point, unless you're a child. You could have used the time you spent writing your lengthy, winding comment (editorial suggestion for the future . . . line breaks) to look into them, in fact! Because of this, I agree that your comment comes across as being "not all men," where you derail discussion of an issue by demanding everyone educate you on it because you are (purposefully or not) ignorant of the broader conversation/media/references/etc referenced in a piece.
refusing to accept the reality of racist shit happening, insisting that someone meet personally with people they say are doing bad things, demanding evidence for every point before allowing it to be accepted into the hallowed halls of what you deem worthy of discussion...
...is defending racism.
I've read your blog, I get it, you're an insufferable undergrad with lofty pretensions about how intellectual you are. Go ahead with your rambling response about how you're superior because you're willing to give racists equal time to explain their actions and it's everyone else's job to listen, just know I'm not any longer.
Very well put, both of you (@Jillian), and while I'm not entirely versed on the specifics of every single racist occurance, my original comment--in which asserted the necessity of evidence for such a claim--referred to the lack of evidence (for how Elon allegedly "vibe-tampered) in the newsletter itself. It sounds to me, Jillian, like you're saying I must accept the fact that whatever the author says is racist in fact is, with or without evidence. You both seem to be forgetting that there is an entire chunk of the population who doesn't blindly accept that certain people are racist just because their favorite pundits say they are. In general, I think it's pretty outlandish for people to have such bold opinions--especially critical--when they've not once interacted with the person of whom they're so critical. While Elon isn't perfect--as are none of us--it seems his central motivation for buying Twitter was to prevent censorship. That doesn't make him racist. He very well may be, I don't know. But someone's gotta be able to tie something he's actually done to their claim if they are going to claim such things. The author of this post even admits there are a variety of other (more likely) explanations for why his feed seems more racist. And yet, the title passively asserts that "Elon turned up the racism dial last month." Rev. Andrew Holt, your dig at me only proves the sort of person you are. Almost everything you say seems to be an emotional outlash . . . You may be older than me, but you're certainly not more mature. And not once, yet again, did I refuse to accept the reality of "racist shit happening." Jillian, your passive assertion that I'm a child was, in short, mean, and I think I'm going to be upset for a while. All jokes aside, I don't know why people get so mad when others inquire, "Why do you have that opinion?" Outrage in response to a question as simple as "why?" is typically not a good sign for society. Call me racist as much as you want. Doesn't mean I'm racist.
You're not wrong, at least from my limited perspective, which is me keeping a burner account to follow my favorite MLS team and occasionally toe dip in the political waters when something big happens.
But it's not just the racism. Elon scrambled the algorithm so badly that even events like the Trump verdict and the Harris announcement weren't well aggregated. If you were judging by trends after the verdict announcement, you might not have known what happened.
But of course, if you are pro-Trump, the racism goes hand-in-hand so naturally the shit will float to the surface.
My big fear when Elon started pumping his right wing bs was that he'd cling to Twitter through January 2025, sell it for scrap if Trump loses, take a huge financial L and blame the liberal media or deep state or whatever. Or worst, Trump wins, he holds on to it and it becomes the modern Der Sturmer.
This is more my bellyache but I do wish folks would get on BluSky and ditch Twitter and Threads. Twitter for obvious reasons but have we all collectively forgotten how terrible Mark Zuckerberg is? Please don't hand him a social media monopoly.
I used to read Scott Alexander’s blogs out of curiosity and learned some interesting things there. But I was always mind blown by how he clearly admired Elon Musk as a businessman and rocket scientist, and how he thought Musk’s Twitter takeover wasn’t the huge mistake everyone was making it out to be. SA insisted the experience of using Twitter was only like 10% different than pre-takeover, but I couldn’t believe how that could be. He wasn’t phased by the blue check swarms, the porn bot replies, the algorithmic mucking about? It just goes to show that some people really love sitting in their own personal echo chamber. If people logged onto Twitter just to troll and antagonize in the pre-Musk-takeover days, and now trolling and antagonizing have been made even easier, they’re not going to complain about the algorithmic mucking about and FYP-ification of the site.
I no longer idly scroll Twitter for those reasons - just absolute garbage filling the feed, the blatant and casual racism via modern phrenology, in between videos of people dying and other stuff that wouldn't be out of place on rotten.com back in the day.
It makes me wonder a couple of things - is this what Elon WANTS his $44B hugbox to be? Or is he so insulated with his scores of sycophants feeding him the worst misinfo and zooted on industrial grade pharmaceuticals that he doesn't realize that the platform has drastically devolved, even worse than the toxic landfill it's always been?
Also, how likely is it that Elon and his minions have accessed and read the DMs of famous/notable people? He clearly dgaf about privacy rules or anything resembling morality or suppressing their reach by casually allowing bans. I could see him giving it to some shithead with a Grecian statue PFP that's likely a FSB agent
Musk believes that if Trump wins, he’ll get to run the Federal government.
lol. Donald is so incompetent that he’d probably let him.
I think what's happened is that the sensitivity/responsiveness of the FYP algorithm was turned WAY up sometime this year. Even a minimal interaction with a a post (clicking on it and scrolling the replies) and your feed will suddenly be dominated by it. This has happened to me benignly with the "barclaysmen" throwback Premier League highlights trend and the Drake/Kendrick beef, but considerably less benignly with the virulent racism. This clearly makes the algorithm heavily favor the sensational and intensifies Twitter's self-reinforcing tendencies, especially in an era in which Twitter pays for engagement directly. Elon, I imagine, doesn't see this as a problem because he likes all that stuff anyway.
Very bad! I think it's worse for me since I have a burner account and basically never like/retweet/tweet anything, so the algorithm relies on these really ambiguous forms of engagement instead.
I love your footnotes :)
For a real smart guy, he’s such a fucking moron.
I think you might have meant 5 bucks a month, 50 a year, but wrote 5 a week, 50 a month.
"please consider subscribing at the low price of $5/week or $50/month" --- hmmm 🤔 I think I'll pay weekly then :P
I deleted my twitter 4 years ago (after Trump survived Covid there was no longer any hope for joy on that site) and your substack is my sanity-preserving lens into what is going on over there. Zuck's strategy has been to maintain plausible deniability with policies and rules that are so complicated that it can be hard to see how he's tipping the scales, but subtlety hasn't really been Elon's thing, has it.
Not sure that this gets at the dynamics you're talking about, but apparently Elon is letting accounts with over 30k followers post otherwise banned slurs? Relevant in any case https://philosophybear.substack.com/p/it-appears-twitter-x-provides-a-slur?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
I totally believe that Musk is doing all he can to help Trump win, including fidgeting with the algorithm. Trumps victory would be an immense boost to his power. Thank God he’s constitutionally banned from running for office himself, because he is in many ways Trump’s true heir (businessman gone wild).
But also, how bleak is it that the richest man in the world is using his $44B bullhorn to stomp down on the most poor and unfortunate people in the western hemisphere?
I don't read every letter you post, but I read this one. Only because of the title. Which, to be honest, feels like click bait. Regardless of whether or not you're right--I don't know since I'm not on Twitter (and even if I was on Twitter, I'd still have no way of knowing, since my experience wouldn't necessarily reflect reality . . . As in, whether Elon actual intentionally vibe-tampered)--I think it's pretty outrageous to post something with the title you used without a shred of evidence. And even though, in footnote 4, you attempt to excuse your lack of evidence, I think someone needs to call you out (by the way, I'd have no problem if you felt Twitter became more racist, and then used anecdote to articulate why you felt that way . . . But, regardless of which side you sit on, assertion without evidence, or worse, with some loosly tied-together theory about how someone else's inclinations--a person who you have never even met--explain your baseless assertion, is wrong). Writers have a duty, seemingly unlike the rest of social media, to uphold a particular ethical standard. That's why I love Substack. It is our job to dig deep, to seek the truth, to illuminate the shadows, to uplift readers via insight, and not mislead them via emotional provocation. Now, you have every right to post whatever you want, just as I have every right to post this comment. I hope this starts a civil discussion, rather than getting me shadow-banned, but I still believe writers, especially with sizeable and paying audiences, should hold themselves to a particular standard. ESPECIALLY (in this short attention span economy) with headlines. I don't know what your claim is, and you seem to use racism as a blanket term (for such a bold accusation, I think it's only right to include details, rather than just pointing in a direction and shouting "Racism!"). I mean, you even say that you "feel embarassed to propose such a straightforwardly basic-bitch conspiracy theory about platform manipulation." And then you say "anecdotally" you notice an uptick in "racism." Can you provide an example? I know you say that racist stuff happened, but what's racist about it? What actually happened? I'd love to fight against racism, just as the vast majority of Americans probably would too (btw, could we please stop demonizing hundreds of millions of people? Just because they don't agree with you doesn't mean they're racist), but we have to know what exactly you're talking about. Because, from what it sounds like--and I know this isn't true but there's no way for me to know since you're not specific--you think any time someone speaks about a particular racial demographic, they're racist. You say, for example, "Then the story of 'Venezuelan gangs' taking over an apartment complex in Aurora, Colo. became inescapable." Is the entire story itself racist? Is it completely fabricated? Are there, in fact, no Venezuelan gangs in Auruora, Colorado? Let's agree on reality first, and then we can separate what's racist from what's not. I'm sure you're a good guy, but this is a very lazy piece. Please don't delete this comment. I know I'm not necessarily polite, but I don't intend to disrespect. Let's have a discussion.
https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/2457956-apu-takes-a-bullet
that's a lot of words to defend racism, my dude
Sounds like you’re strapped for time. Funny comment, but when you’re ready to actually engage in meaningful deliberation, reach back out.
Your entire "discussion" is repeated demands that others meet your burden of proof. Clearly you have more time; how about YOU research the Venezuelan gang population in Aurora? Very "not all men" energy.
Haha, when you say my “burden of proof,” do you mean evidence? Sounds like you didn’t read everything. Never said racist stuff wasn’t going on. All I’m asking for is specificity. How else will we solve the problem? Is it not the job of someone making an assertion to back their claim with evidence? You see, this is why we struggle to move forward: any time someone questions the extreme other side, they’re demonized. Extremists don’t want to talk; they’re too lazy to actually do the work and cultivate a solid understanding and bring forth EVIDENCE. You literally asserted that I was backing racism! Not once did I defend racism. And I have absolutely no idea what you mean by “not all men energy.” Sounds like another blanket term to substitute for your inability to specify.
"I know you say that racist stuff happened, but what's racist about it? What actually happened? I'd love to fight against racism, just as the vast majority of Americans probably would too (btw, could we please stop demonizing hundreds of millions of people? Just because they don't agree with you doesn't mean they're racist), but we have to know what exactly you're talking about."
There are plenty of resources in the year of our lord 2024 to help you figure this out. If you would really "love" to fight against racism, certainly you would have done at least a cursory investigation into any of these at some point, unless you're a child. You could have used the time you spent writing your lengthy, winding comment (editorial suggestion for the future . . . line breaks) to look into them, in fact! Because of this, I agree that your comment comes across as being "not all men," where you derail discussion of an issue by demanding everyone educate you on it because you are (purposefully or not) ignorant of the broader conversation/media/references/etc referenced in a piece.
refusing to accept the reality of racist shit happening, insisting that someone meet personally with people they say are doing bad things, demanding evidence for every point before allowing it to be accepted into the hallowed halls of what you deem worthy of discussion...
...is defending racism.
I've read your blog, I get it, you're an insufferable undergrad with lofty pretensions about how intellectual you are. Go ahead with your rambling response about how you're superior because you're willing to give racists equal time to explain their actions and it's everyone else's job to listen, just know I'm not any longer.
Very well put, both of you (@Jillian), and while I'm not entirely versed on the specifics of every single racist occurance, my original comment--in which asserted the necessity of evidence for such a claim--referred to the lack of evidence (for how Elon allegedly "vibe-tampered) in the newsletter itself. It sounds to me, Jillian, like you're saying I must accept the fact that whatever the author says is racist in fact is, with or without evidence. You both seem to be forgetting that there is an entire chunk of the population who doesn't blindly accept that certain people are racist just because their favorite pundits say they are. In general, I think it's pretty outlandish for people to have such bold opinions--especially critical--when they've not once interacted with the person of whom they're so critical. While Elon isn't perfect--as are none of us--it seems his central motivation for buying Twitter was to prevent censorship. That doesn't make him racist. He very well may be, I don't know. But someone's gotta be able to tie something he's actually done to their claim if they are going to claim such things. The author of this post even admits there are a variety of other (more likely) explanations for why his feed seems more racist. And yet, the title passively asserts that "Elon turned up the racism dial last month." Rev. Andrew Holt, your dig at me only proves the sort of person you are. Almost everything you say seems to be an emotional outlash . . . You may be older than me, but you're certainly not more mature. And not once, yet again, did I refuse to accept the reality of "racist shit happening." Jillian, your passive assertion that I'm a child was, in short, mean, and I think I'm going to be upset for a while. All jokes aside, I don't know why people get so mad when others inquire, "Why do you have that opinion?" Outrage in response to a question as simple as "why?" is typically not a good sign for society. Call me racist as much as you want. Doesn't mean I'm racist.