Good points. Although I'd say the free market works this way - people who cam pay for advertising and SEO will sell more even if the product is not as good. As you point out, the public is not rational and they often prefer comfortable garbage to quality, but challenging ideas. The thing I like best about X is, as you mention, the ability to create lists and curate your feed. I stick to the 'following' tab and avoid the 'for you' algorithm. My follows are usually those I've heard on podcasts and people who have written interesting papers. I am dismayed that some really interesting people and discussions have only a few likes. But then X isn't the real world, and these people are having more impact IRL. We mistake likes for both IRL popularity and reach.
Thanks, Helen, for your writing and for not paywalling it. I don’t begrudge people for wanting to make money off their labor. I also imagine limiting comments to subscribers only is a great way to stop trolls and nasty commentators. Didn’t know premium X accounts get promoted over others. Musk sure did pay a pretty penny for the privilege of blasting his opinions.
I agree with the whole column except the last sentence; it seems inconsistent with everything that came before it. If X is politically balanced and does not throttle speech, why shouldn't it be considered a bastion of free speech and the epitome of a thriving marketplace of ideas?
Being able to pay a few $$ a month for a subscription is not necessarily a function of means; in modern society, with a median income in the United States being $42K in 2023, I'd suggest it's a function of priorities. Should someone's choice to spend - or not spend - the equivalent of a few coffees on a subscription disqualify the entire platform from consideration?
I'm not sure what you mean. The paragraphs before are arguing for the ways in which X is good for this and the ways in which it is not. The options are not:
Consider X a bastion of free speech and the epitome of a thriving marketplace of ideas
or
Disqualify the entire platform from consideration.
But “Recognise the strengths and weaknesses of the platform when it comes to its functionality as a marketplace of ideas and work around the weaknesses.”
I think the analogy of a marketplace of ideas is itself suspect. Various people have pointed out that ideas don't follow the laws of private property exchange. The saying "He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me" is attributed to Thomas Jefferson.
In medieval European town planning, the marketplace is more akin to the American town square, a meeting place for civic events as well as commerce. That's because in the agricultural economy, your opportunity to discuss politics with the wider community coincided with your trip to town to sell your produce and buy whatever it was you couldn't grow or make. X is quite different because it has become an end in itself, with politicians more attuned to the opinions of their social media followers than to reality.
15 years ago I got paid to write tweets, mostly short stories for various publications. Like you I tend to wander of into the weeds as a writer, but I have discovered my natural talent is shorter. But these forms of writing have never been a disposition I'd really follow. At that time twitter was great because much of its ambiance was user generated, but about the time it bought a few dedicated twitter apps (not on phone) for people using twiter intensively, and officially brought in user-developed hashtags it started to loose that energy and I drifted away. Going back six later I was dumbfounded by what had been quite user or community generated was now limited in user responding to those that they follow. The discussion that hashtags created across echo chambers no longer existed. Users in the interim had defaulted to old habits and moved to a broadcast consumer model and this was the action that Elon wanted for his everything app, or, everyone does what I say app for which it has been remodelled. The payment for verification is a verification of the enshittification I experienced. The news hegemony is a good example of the way people follow and do not do any citizen work at all. Sure they might not be working for legacy, but legacy ain't the mainstream any more. Troll farm bots are.
Good points. Although I'd say the free market works this way - people who cam pay for advertising and SEO will sell more even if the product is not as good. As you point out, the public is not rational and they often prefer comfortable garbage to quality, but challenging ideas. The thing I like best about X is, as you mention, the ability to create lists and curate your feed. I stick to the 'following' tab and avoid the 'for you' algorithm. My follows are usually those I've heard on podcasts and people who have written interesting papers. I am dismayed that some really interesting people and discussions have only a few likes. But then X isn't the real world, and these people are having more impact IRL. We mistake likes for both IRL popularity and reach.
Thanks, Helen, for your writing and for not paywalling it. I don’t begrudge people for wanting to make money off their labor. I also imagine limiting comments to subscribers only is a great way to stop trolls and nasty commentators. Didn’t know premium X accounts get promoted over others. Musk sure did pay a pretty penny for the privilege of blasting his opinions.
I agree with the whole column except the last sentence; it seems inconsistent with everything that came before it. If X is politically balanced and does not throttle speech, why shouldn't it be considered a bastion of free speech and the epitome of a thriving marketplace of ideas?
Being able to pay a few $$ a month for a subscription is not necessarily a function of means; in modern society, with a median income in the United States being $42K in 2023, I'd suggest it's a function of priorities. Should someone's choice to spend - or not spend - the equivalent of a few coffees on a subscription disqualify the entire platform from consideration?
I'm not sure what you mean. The paragraphs before are arguing for the ways in which X is good for this and the ways in which it is not. The options are not:
Consider X a bastion of free speech and the epitome of a thriving marketplace of ideas
or
Disqualify the entire platform from consideration.
But “Recognise the strengths and weaknesses of the platform when it comes to its functionality as a marketplace of ideas and work around the weaknesses.”
Now that formulation I agree with 100%!
I think the analogy of a marketplace of ideas is itself suspect. Various people have pointed out that ideas don't follow the laws of private property exchange. The saying "He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me" is attributed to Thomas Jefferson.
In medieval European town planning, the marketplace is more akin to the American town square, a meeting place for civic events as well as commerce. That's because in the agricultural economy, your opportunity to discuss politics with the wider community coincided with your trip to town to sell your produce and buy whatever it was you couldn't grow or make. X is quite different because it has become an end in itself, with politicians more attuned to the opinions of their social media followers than to reality.
The important question is, did the trial membership stop the wonky unfollowing your followers, etc?
Thanks for the interesting perspective.
Personally, I have a "verified" account -- even though I don't use any of the extra features and don't write any X posts at all.
I chose to go Premium in order to support Free Speech.
Or more accurately, to support Elon Musk & X moving in the *direction* of Free Speech.
That in itself means a lot to me.
The imperfections and shortfalls of X don't bother me much.
Best Wishes.
15 years ago I got paid to write tweets, mostly short stories for various publications. Like you I tend to wander of into the weeds as a writer, but I have discovered my natural talent is shorter. But these forms of writing have never been a disposition I'd really follow. At that time twitter was great because much of its ambiance was user generated, but about the time it bought a few dedicated twitter apps (not on phone) for people using twiter intensively, and officially brought in user-developed hashtags it started to loose that energy and I drifted away. Going back six later I was dumbfounded by what had been quite user or community generated was now limited in user responding to those that they follow. The discussion that hashtags created across echo chambers no longer existed. Users in the interim had defaulted to old habits and moved to a broadcast consumer model and this was the action that Elon wanted for his everything app, or, everyone does what I say app for which it has been remodelled. The payment for verification is a verification of the enshittification I experienced. The news hegemony is a good example of the way people follow and do not do any citizen work at all. Sure they might not be working for legacy, but legacy ain't the mainstream any more. Troll farm bots are.