Discover more from The Drama of It All
Elon Musk the "Savior" of Twitter?
Shadow Banning comes from a Savior Mentality
I write a lot about how the democratic party fits into the drama triangle so well. They are the party proposing the largest government involvement in our lives - they want the government to be their savior. But that doesn’t mean people who lean more right, politically speaking, don’t fall into this trap of wanting a savior too.
If you want something done you have to do it yourself. That may mean hiring someone to do something for you. But you can’t sit back and wait for some other person to come in and save the day because then you are at the mercy of that person. And, people, are not worthy of idolization.
Elon Musk & Twitter Management
People wanted to know that users on Twitter were not bots, but actual people. They wanted real verified users. I’ve gone through the process of being verified on at least 3 different social media websites and they either require a phone number, a picture of your license, editing another website, or your social media handles to include some information to prove that you are in control of both - to prove you are the same person. That process does require a person to manually check and can take a few days depending on how busy that company is.
But Elon didn’t do that. From what I understand he made it so you automatically could get one just for paying 8 dollars. Because of that, fake accounts were granted verification checks and that has led to stocks plummeting. This seems like a pretty large mistake to make. Had Elon looked into the competition and how they verify he could have easily avoided this mistake.
Elon Musk then asked, “What should Twitter do next?” and OriginolleY responded with “Bring Back Alex Jones!!!!” and he replied with a simple, “No.” He didn’t even have to respond. He chose to respond to it. I don’t know why, but it seems something like a virtue signal to me.
Elon is now using the phrase “freedom of speech, but not freedom of reach.” This seems to imply that he wants what people call being shadow banned when a user can say whatever they want but no one else sees it on their screens.
What we call the “real world” makes it so that your voice can’t carry that far from your body. You don’t have a large reach with your speech. Even if you printed a poster or had a sign somewhere your reach is limited to the people who walk or drive by.
But, what if you want to “hear” someone who lives far away from you? When you follow someone on social media, you are indicating to the company that you want to see those things on your feed. You are literally signing up to make those “signs” show up as you “drive” through the street (or media feed). You want to see these notifications.
With shadow banning, the company is saying they think you are too stupid or too fragile to see what you asked to see. They are taking on a savior role. Someone might argue that people who aren’t following a controversial person might still see something controversial if shadow banning wasn’t done. But to them, I would say, “That someone has the ability to block, and even ban certain words from showing up in their feed. They are not a victim. Why do you want to make them into a victim and the social media company into their savior?”
So Alex Jones is the one person Elon has decided not to allow back. Not, Donald Trump. He asked about Trump.
Why is this a poll? Does he stand by free speech? If so, why not Alex? If not, why even ask the people? If he’s worried about Alex Jones being a liability because he’s worried about being sued for “giving Alex a platform” then why not Trump?
No, I think if you caveat free speech by saying, ”no freedom of reach” then you don’t really believe in free speech to begin with. If you say Trump should be reinstated only if people want him to be, then I don’t think you believe in free speech either. I don’t believe he’s got integrity. I think he’s a hypocrite.
Controversial people should have a voice and a platform. I don’t believe in silencing people because silencing people is more detrimental than allowing them to freely speak.
Dr. Mark Changizi has written about how social narratives come to be and compared it to how the blockchain works. I do recommend his newsletter and that comparison is worth a read. We are all interacting with each other even if we’re not directly interacting because of the gossip that gets spread. There is also plenty of fake news from media companies which is basically just gossip too.
With repressive tolerance, when you censor one side and only allow the other side to be heard, you enter into an echo chamber as a society. Echo chambers are bad because fake news gets amplified and you can’t hear some actual truths. There is less “controversy” which basically means no one is criticizing what’s being said, which means people will be led further and further into all-out lies.
The only way to get to the truth is to question things. This is what police investigators do. They question everything until they can come up with an explanation that fits. It may sound like a “conspiracy theory” until they find the facts, but that is just how normal investigations work. It’s theory until it’s proven. And if you don’t investigate things, then you can’t say you’ve debunked them yet.
Of course, that’s not how the Democrats are operating, and I would suggest it’s because of their echo chamber that they have lost track of what an investigation is or how to even debunk anything.
I responded “The definition of debunk is to EXPOSE the sham or exaggerated claims and you can't do that unless you look at the claims first. The definition of EXPOSE is to uncover and shine a light and look at it.”
I am still amazed that people don’t know that you have to look at something and examine it before you can claim that it is fake. Well, to have any reputation with me, you would have to look at it first. This is why I can’t take seriously people who say there were no problems with the 2020 election. They never even looked at it.
But to people in the echo chamber, just saying something is fake makes it so, because they believe the echoes with no proof. The echo chamber makes people sound more reliable (to everyone in the echo chamber) so they give them more reputation than they actually deserve and trust them more than they should. If someone said, “If you stand on that plank and walk out there off the boat and over the water, the plank will hold and you won’t fall,” would you do it? Would you trust someone who sounds sure but has never actually tested it out? Someone in an echo chamber sounds 100% sure that you can walk out there with no problems, but the plank has never been tested, examined or probed for weak spots. Do you trust it?
In echo chambers, people don’t examine things because no one is there to give constructive critiques. They just listen to whoever sounds the loudest and most sure of themselves. Adding onto that problem is also the Primacy Effect where people believe what they hear first even if corrections are made later on.
Edited to Add Luke of We Are Change talking about how we were censored from warning people about the dangers of masking young children.
If you shadowban people and refuse to let people like Alex Jones on your social media platform when people WANT to hear those views, you are creating another echo chamber that is extremely damaging to society. The only way to get to the truth is to hear all sides of a story and see which one passes the reality test.
On that note, here’s an NFT poem & art piece I created.
Truth is bold as a lion—steady and firm. Liars fear questions, get angry, and squirm. If someone you know is against all questioning, They may be a liar in fear of a reckoning. It's okay if they choose to cower, afraid. Everyone has to lie in the bed that they've made. Those who love truth, love questions as well, To be incorrect (and not know) might be living hell. But if you love truth, there's nothing to fear, Boldly question beliefs 'til your mind becomes clear.
Elon is not the Republican’s savior. Some people saw him that way, and apparently, he also sees himself that way. But he’s not. It’s not his responsibility to make sure controversial people aren’t seen. It’s the people’s own responsibility to make sure they are not fragile to be shaken or if they are to block for their own good and let the less fragile people free to hear from who they want to hear from.