The IMCT Media Criticism Thread

[Mimi]

https://newrepublic.com/article/168572/ ... est-things

11/12 (missed the last one)

Also, 11/12, but just missed the second to last one.

If the Simpsons were slightly less firmly embedded in my brain such that the Burns quotes usually immediately conjured up the scene they're from, I'm quite sure I wouldn't be able to make a distinction between Musk and Burns.

Not a follower of the Simpsons, I only guessed 50% of the questions right.

[revbob]

https://newrepublic.com/article/168572/ ... est-things

11/12 (missed the last one)

Also, 11/12, but just missed the second to last one.

If the Simpsons were slightly less firmly embedded in my brain such that the Burns quotes usually immediately conjured up the scene they're from, I'm quite sure I wouldn't be able to make a distinction between Musk and Burns.

Not a follower of the Simpsons, I only guessed 50% of the questions right.

I would have sworn the phrase tarred and feathered was a Burnsism.

[Dr. Medulla]

I know the general rule is that when the choice is between deliberate evil and incompetence, bet on incompetence, but the speed of what's happened to Twitter—like, who immediately fires half the staff and then issues an ultimatum to shut up and work harder to everyone else?—it's tempting to think this is a deliberate effort to sink the company. There can't be that many tax advantages or data list assets where that would make sense, are there? I'm 98% sure this is just the ultimate techbro being confronted with reality, yet that 2% nags.

[Silent Majority]

I know the general rule is that when the choice is between deliberate evil and incompetence, bet on incompetence, but the speed of what's happened to Twitter—like, who immediately fires half the staff and then issues an ultimatum to shut up and work harder to everyone else?—it's tempting to think this is a deliberate effort to sink the company. There can't be that many tax advantages or data list assets where that would make sense, are there? I'm 98% sure this is just the ultimate techbro being confronted with reality, yet that 2% nags.

I've never been entirely convinced of the efficacy of that general rule. Call it paranoia, if you like, but more and more I see lots of malignant actors doing small shitty things adding up to greater evil.

[Dr. Medulla]

I know the general rule is that when the choice is between deliberate evil and incompetence, bet on incompetence, but the speed of what's happened to Twitter—like, who immediately fires half the staff and then issues an ultimatum to shut up and work harder to everyone else?—it's tempting to think this is a deliberate effort to sink the company. There can't be that many tax advantages or data list assets where that would make sense, are there? I'm 98% sure this is just the ultimate techbro being confronted with reality, yet that 2% nags.

I've never been entirely convinced of the efficacy of that general rule. Call it paranoia, if you like, but more and more I see lots of malignant actors doing small shitty things adding up to greater evil.

Sure, small shitty things do add up to a greater evil, but that's not the same thing as a metanarrative or grand conspiracy at work. There's a perverse comfort in conspiracies, especially massive ones, because it confirms that there is order and sequence in the world, and not just a whole lot of random, irrational, and mostly incompetent actors at work. The jolts of history suggest that it is the latter.

[Flex]

I think Elon Musk is genuinely, 1) very dumb, and 2) had his brain stewed in right wing echo chamber. He and his steering committee of VC vampires like David sacks really do/did just believe that twitter was being ruined by a bunch of useless libs, that regular people had the same bizarre obsessions with blue checks and being able to say transphobic shit on "the public square" and even that twitter was a public square and not a pretty niche service!

And, of course, all those views are evil so it's both that AND incompetence.

Maybe now he's figured there's some scheme to recoup some money by driving twitter into the ground, I dunno.

[Mimi]

Interesting article: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/ ... sk/672158/

[Dr. Medulla]

Interesting article: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/ ... sk/672158/

A week ago, another Atlantic writer suggested that social media's dominance is over: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/ ... ne/672074/

On the face of it, it seems absurd, and maybe it is, but that gut reaction against the notion is to suggest how naturalized these things have become. I recall reading once that in the late 19th c, it was impossible to conceive of the world as not dominated by the British Empire. But it passed. Is it possible to conceive of a world where the US is dominant, culturally, militarily, economically. Sure, in the abstract, but that is fully naturalized thing whereby the US has the loudest voice in the room. We'll still have online communities and communication, but there is no reason to think that "social media" is a permanent thing, either (to be succeeded by what, I have no idea).

[msza2]

You don't get to be the richest person in the world by not caring about money, and I'm not sure Russia had an extra >44B on hand to make a humiliating public act of self-sabotage attractive.

Occam's razor says it's a case of a guy who doesn't know how to run Twitter not knowing how to run Twitter. Of course, the overinflated ego aint helping.

[Silent Majority]

I know the general rule is that when the choice is between deliberate evil and incompetence, bet on incompetence, but the speed of what's happened to Twitter—like, who immediately fires half the staff and then issues an ultimatum to shut up and work harder to everyone else?—it's tempting to think this is a deliberate effort to sink the company. There can't be that many tax advantages or data list assets where that would make sense, are there? I'm 98% sure this is just the ultimate techbro being confronted with reality, yet that 2% nags.

I've never been entirely convinced of the efficacy of that general rule. Call it paranoia, if you like, but more and more I see lots of malignant actors doing small shitty things adding up to greater evil.

Sure, small shitty things do add up to a greater evil, but that's not the same thing as a metanarrative or grand conspiracy at work. There's a perverse comfort in conspiracies, especially massive ones, because it confirms that there is order and sequence in the world, and not just a whole lot of random, irrational, and mostly incompetent actors at work. The jolts of history suggest that it is the latter.

A billionaire kind of upends the binary, in my opinion.

[Silent Majority]

Maybe now he's figured there's some scheme to recoup some money by driving twitter into the ground, I dunno.

He'll gain a tiny, tiny modicum of respect from me (bringing him up to -999 respect points) if he has found a way to Producers this.

[Dr. Medulla]

I know the general rule is that when the choice is between deliberate evil and incompetence, bet on incompetence, but the speed of what's happened to Twitter—like, who immediately fires half the staff and then issues an ultimatum to shut up and work harder to everyone else?—it's tempting to think this is a deliberate effort to sink the company. There can't be that many tax advantages or data list assets where that would make sense, are there? I'm 98% sure this is just the ultimate techbro being confronted with reality, yet that 2% nags.

I've never been entirely convinced of the efficacy of that general rule. Call it paranoia, if you like, but more and more I see lots of malignant actors doing small shitty things adding up to greater evil.

Sure, small shitty things do add up to a greater evil, but that's not the same thing as a metanarrative or grand conspiracy at work. There's a perverse comfort in conspiracies, especially massive ones, because it confirms that there is order and sequence in the world, and not just a whole lot of random, irrational, and mostly incompetent actors at work. The jolts of history suggest that it is the latter.

A billionaire kind of upends the binary, in my opinion.

But the greater point of the choice is whether it's deliberate evil. It's practically axiomatic that Elon Musk is evil, but are his actions with Twitter the result of being in over his head and drunk on hubris, or is he deliberately trying to destroy the company for unknown, presumably evil reasons? I still lean to incompetent because we've seen techbro after techbro flop because (a) they don't know the basics of the real world because (b) they think they've cracked some kind of code that limits the hoi polloi. And it's worth remembering that he made his bid for ego reasons, just to make everyone pay attention to him, and then he tried to weasel out, and only followed thru because he found out he wasn't smarter than the courts and the other side's lawyers. Maybe what he's doing to burn the thing down has some nefarious plan whereby he ultimately benefits, but it seems a whole like he's a moron child that doesn't know what do with the toy he wanted.

[revbob]

I know the general rule is that when the choice is between deliberate evil and incompetence, bet on incompetence, but the speed of what's happened to Twitter—like, who immediately fires half the staff and then issues an ultimatum to shut up and work harder to everyone else?—it's tempting to think this is a deliberate effort to sink the company. There can't be that many tax advantages or data list assets where that would make sense, are there? I'm 98% sure this is just the ultimate techbro being confronted with reality, yet that 2% nags.

I've never been entirely convinced of the efficacy of that general rule. Call it paranoia, if you like, but more and more I see lots of malignant actors doing small shitty things adding up to greater evil.

Sure, small shitty things do add up to a greater evil, but that's not the same thing as a metanarrative or grand conspiracy at work. There's a perverse comfort in conspiracies, especially massive ones, because it confirms that there is order and sequence in the world, and not just a whole lot of random, irrational, and mostly incompetent actors at work. The jolts of history suggest that it is the latter.

A billionaire kind of upends the binary, in my opinion.

But the greater point of the choice is whether it's deliberate evil. It's practically axiomatic that Elon Musk is evil, but are his actions with Twitter the result of being in over his head and drunk on hubris, or is he deliberately trying to destroy the company for unknown, presumably evil reasons? I still lean to incompetent because we've seen techbro after techbro flop because (a) they don't know the basics of the real world because (b) they think they've cracked some kind of code that limits the hoi polloi. And it's worth remembering that he made his bid for ego reasons, just to make everyone pay attention to him, and then he tried to weasel out, and only followed thru because he found out he wasn't smarter than the courts and the other side's lawyers. Maybe what he's doing to burn the thing down has some nefarious plan whereby he ultimately benefits, but it seems a whole like he's a moron child that doesn't know what do with the toy he wanted.

I lean towards this, if he even wanted it in the first place.

[Dr. Medulla]

[Mimi]

I know the general rule is that when the choice is between deliberate evil and incompetence, bet on incompetence, but the speed of what's happened to Twitter—like, who immediately fires half the staff and then issues an ultimatum to shut up and work harder to everyone else?—it's tempting to think this is a deliberate effort to sink the company. There can't be that many tax advantages or data list assets where that would make sense, are there? I'm 98% sure this is just the ultimate techbro being confronted with reality, yet that 2% nags.

I've never been entirely convinced of the efficacy of that general rule. Call it paranoia, if you like, but more and more I see lots of malignant actors doing small shitty things adding up to greater evil.

Sure, small shitty things do add up to a greater evil, but that's not the same thing as a metanarrative or grand conspiracy at work. There's a perverse comfort in conspiracies, especially massive ones, because it confirms that there is order and sequence in the world, and not just a whole lot of random, irrational, and mostly incompetent actors at work. The jolts of history suggest that it is the latter.

A billionaire kind of upends the binary, in my opinion.

But the greater point of the choice is whether it's deliberate evil. It's practically axiomatic that Elon Musk is evil, but are his actions with Twitter the result of being in over his head and drunk on hubris, or is he deliberately trying to destroy the company for unknown, presumably evil reasons? I still lean to incompetent because we've seen techbro after techbro flop because (a) they don't know the basics of the real world because (b) they think they've cracked some kind of code that limits the hoi polloi. And it's worth remembering that he made his bid for ego reasons, just to make everyone pay attention to him, and then he tried to weasel out, and only followed thru because he found out he wasn't smarter than the courts and the other side's lawyers. Maybe what he's doing to burn the thing down has some nefarious plan whereby he ultimately benefits, but it seems a whole like he's a moron child that doesn't know what do with the toy he wanted.

Remember that Mad Men episode(s) with the guy who pitched the game jai alai? Elmo reminds me of that guy.