A surgeon general’s views on gun violence have never been a litmus test before, but Murthy got the attention of the National Rifle Association with this 2012 tweet: “Tired of politicians playing politics w/ guns, putting lives at risk b/c they’re scared of NRA. Guns are a health care issue.”
…which tells me that MyCancellation.com the site is having an impact.
Background here and here: the short version is that it looks like the site – which reproduces Obamacare cancellation letters – may be subject to an organized fake Twitter spam report cabal*. The good news is, Twitter will eventually resolve this by auto-circular filing the fake spam reports, not that they’ll admit to that; such a policy is the only way that they’re able to keep any political content on Twitter at all, frankly.
*If I want to call it a cabal, I shall call it a cabal. Neener.
Interesting post here on social media presences. More specifically, how easy it is to mock one up:
Who is Santiago Swallow? Well, if you have to ask, you’re obviously not keeping in touch with what is going on in the world.
The 42-year-old Swallow was born in Mexico, but then moved to the US to become one of the most revered gurus of the internet age. He has been described as ‘one of the greatest thinkers of the Millennial generation’.
Despite being in his 40s, Swallow retains his youthful appearance – his piercing eyes and blond mullet lend him the look of member of Duran Duran. But don’t be fooled by his image – Swallow is a serious player in new media. His upcoming book is predicted to define a generation. He has wowed delegates with his speeches at the TED and SXSW conferences.
He has more than 85,000 followers on Twitter. Or rather, he did have until Twitter suspended his account this week. But why would Twitter close the account of one of the most brilliant social media minds in the world?
The fact that Santiago Swallow doesn’t exist probably had something to do with it.
In no particular order. You may not agree with all of these.
- Don’t be an ass. Unless you are good at it. Some of us are.
- Don’t assume that you’ll always want to be an ass.
- If you ignore #1 & #2, put on your big-person pants when you get smacked around as a result.
- Use proper grammar.
- Use proper spelling.
- If you have difficulty doing either #4 & #5 while staying below 140 characters, get better at efficient and coherent communication.
- Twitter is unique in that it is remarkably hard to jam. Take advantage of that.
- All successful trolling on Twitter is done with the permission of the person being trolled.
- I no more need to see the hate tweets being sent to you than I need to see your food as you are chewing it.
- Yes, someone is wrong on the Internet. Or vile. Or both. Report, block, and tell me something that I don’t know, but would like to.
Yeah, this is pretty much how it goes.
— El SOOPer!! (@SooperMexican) February 7, 2013
God knows that I can’t claim to be above it all, either – as witnessed by the fact that this post is essentially a retweet with comments enabled. Don’t think about that too hard.
…it makes it way easier to just put up a story that you just want people to see, without having to feel obligated to natter on and on and on about it. Frex, this story; I could come up with five hundred words that could be summed up as ‘Interesting’… or I could just Tweet it instead.
I know that this is a kind of a meta post. Sorry; everybody’s home because everything’s closed.
Particularly when it comes to dealing with whatever the Left’s freaking out this week. 140 characters gives you a surprising amount of space with [which] to express yourself, but the platform is not really designed to permit long, complicated, drawn-out debates. What it is good for is providing information (particularly links) for people that – and this is important – the Other Side cannot jam. Unless you let them*.
Which is not to say that you shouldn’t do things on Twitter (or any other communications platform) that amuses you. Merely that there’s a difference between ‘entertaining’ and ‘effective,’ and ‘indulging idiots’ rarely falls under the latter category.
*This, by the way, is why I generally don’t RT hate speech and deliberately break replies when I backhand/block somebody getting stroppy. Most of those people are desperately trying to waste my time, or waste the time of people on my side who have demonstrated that they can succeed at Twitter. I find it useful to make it clear that there’s no point to it.
…except that instead of being a seemingly-nonsensical and paradoxical statement designed to produce deeper philosophical, neurolinguistic, and or ethical insights, it’s an actual nonsensical and paradoxical statement designed to kill brain cells when you look at it too closely. Our example tonight comes from the Ask Democrats Twitter feed:
“Not on Twitter, but interested in asking a Q for House Dems today? Email AskDems@mail.house.gov”
@freddoso called that tweet the dumbest of the day: I think that he’s understating the extent to which it wins that particular contest.
PS: Think about it. Just not for long enough to suffer permanent neural damage.
Real quick background. Apparently a Saudi prince that you’ve likely never heard of owns a portion of Fox News – as if anybody reading this actually freaking cares – and this had Media Matters for America… all in a tizzy? Yeah, I didn’t notice, either. Anyway, the Usual Suspects on the Left are all freaking out about this – largely in arenas where their particular shrieking can’t be heard over the din – with the general theme of ‘people shouldn’t support anything* owned by Saudi princes.’ So since that same prince has now bought a piece of Twitter, you can expect all those people to quit that service themselves, right?
Rhetorical question, of course.
PS: Of course this is the first that you’ve heard of the whole situation. Media Matters for America, remember? The only reason that they’re not mocked more is because we know that if they collapse as a group MMFA will likely be replaced by a group that’s more competent.
*No, this doesn’t mean that the Left now supports the Keystone ethical oil pipeline. Don’t be silly.
…after seeing something like this, but let’s be honest: Drinking and Tweeting is absolutely awesome. When it’s not your side doing the drinking/tweeting, at least.
Not that I can prove that “alcohol may have been involved.” It’s just a reasonably safe way to bet*.
*(singing) “Pub-lic fi-gure doc-trine!” I figure that if Alec Baldwin can say that Cheney/Rumsfeld should be put on trial for murder, I can suggest that Baldwin might have been drunk when he wrote that.
As I understand this stalking case, the guy’s facing criminal charges for cyberstalking, which in this case seems to be somewhere between ‘being a relentless jerk’ and ‘there may be actual worms in his head.’ I understand free-speech concerns, but Twitter isn’t actually public space: it’s a private forum where people are permitted to register and participate without paying a fee. And I’m not being pedantic, here: it’s that distinction that allows site moderators to moderate sites*.
Which is not to say that, say, Eugene Volokh is wrong to question the law itself. The defendant seems to have avoided sufficiently explicit and credible threats of violence, at least from a legal point of view (warning: I am not a lawyer); and I favor a high bar for that sort of thing. But I think that it makes more sense for Twitter to seek legal redress against somebody who is deliberately abusing their communications network to harass other people. For that matter, isn’t this sort of thing more properly a case for the civil court system anyway?
*This is, as I can attest personally, a distinction that is lost on a lot of ‘libertarians.’