-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Elon & Twitter
- Thread starter Buckminster
- Start date
- Status
So you agree that dialog was happening only in non-traditional media and not in legacy media?
Legacy media never questioned legacy auto. They don't want to bite the hands that feed them.
For sure, cuckdestroyer69 on Twitter is definitely a more reliable and qualified source of information. God speed.
Who is forcing you to follow those scums? There are many sources that you can trust and you can follow them
Sure, why don’t you recommend some of your most trusted to us so we can all get the high quality info you’re getting.
No. You do your own research.
You may be left leaning or right leaning, but make sure you find a few people in the middle and on the opposites side of aisle.
Most importantly if you are just following only Bernie, AoC, Robert Reich, Ilhan Omar that is fine, but pay attention to some of the replies to their tweet from high follower count individuals. It might open your eyes, that maybe maybe these guys are not telling the full truth or not giving you the background and context.
Last edited:
So it has nothing to do with truth or accurate information…you just like the echo chamber. Got it.
Thats not what I said. You have reading comprehension problems.
No one can help you. Stick to legacy lying media.
It’s not directly what you said but I can read between the lines. You are so confident that Twitter is the home of truth yet you don’t even want to share where that truth comes from? Very sus…
Twitter is the least wrong source of truth compared to main stream legacy media. Twitter shines a spotlight on lies and the agenda media is pushing.
I do read MSM and then also see what my sources in Twitter say. That enlightens me and makes me a more informed individual.
This is demonstrably wrong with literally millions of examples in the form of tweets.
Ah, reduced to ad hominem attacks. Where we all retreat to when the argument is lost...
Some people think that the truth posted on Twitter somehow gets promoted over the false and the misinformation. All attempts at that are being removed from Twitter.
Did you notice he did not say which year's Q2 ?!?!
I have emphasized this over and over that you can and should follow people on both sides of the aisle on any issue - which is the opposite of an echo chamber. And yet, that poster says that I am prescribing echo chambers.
If that is not an evidence of reading comprehension problem, then what is ?
I do wonder why you won't share the sources you follow. Seems like you could put this discussion to bed rapidly by pointing out the experts you follow - it's strange to say that there are great sources but then be unwilling to say who they are, it just adds to suspicion instead of quashing the conversation and allowing this thread to move on.
Twitter (and social media) is a great source of information for being enlightened about just how stupid a large fraction of humanity really is. Educated people know where to find information from experts in the field, which is often in peer-reviewed journals. MSM has reporters who often don't understand complex topics they're reporting on and will make mistakes in their reporting, but they'll generally at least get the big ideas right. But then, there's platforms like Twitter, on which engagement (which translates to ad dollars), not correctness, is the metric they use to judge success. And uneducated idiots congregate and bounce ideas off of each other on social media because they can't find the "facts" they're looking for elsewhere. They certainly won't find them in peer-reviewed journals and the MSM won't even touch the conspiracy theories they're looking for because they're so obviously false, so they hang out on social media longer than other people and they're the ones the social media companies can very easily get to engage more and more. It's a really bad feedback loop and unless social media companies are held accountable for actual consequences of pushing conspiracy theories (like, for example, if the conspiracy theory translates to an actual attack on someone or a riot), things aren't going to change.
We're seeing at least one outlet, whose CEO admitted that it was "it's not about red or blue, it's green" (in other words, it was actually about engagement, which translates to ad dollars) get held accountable through a defamation lawsuit. But they're potentially liable because they're a publisher. Social media companies can't even be sued for that, because they're legally protected and get to say "it's not us, it's our users; we don't make content." At least for now.
Last edited:
- Status
