|
|
January 3 · Issue #55 · View online |
|
Last night in San Francisco, protesters turned the Twitter building against itself. A group calling itself Resistance SF projected three words against the wall of Twitter’s Market Street headquarters: “@jack is complicit.” The action came just a few hours after President Donald Trump, in his latest madman outburst on the platform, bragged about the size (and functionality) of his nuclear “button” relative to Kim Jong Un’s. The tweet made for a stressful evening. (Your humble newsletter author shut down Twitter, proceeded directly home, and drank two Negronis alone.) It also renewed calls for Twitter to ban Trump from the platform — and to shame the executives who have so far resisted the Resistance. The case for banning Trump goes something like this: Trump’s tweets constitute credible threats of violence, and violate Twitter’s terms of service. By banning him from the platform, Twitter would prevent the president from inciting violence — or escalating nuclear tensions with the lunatic running North Korea — and thereby promote the general safety and well being of the republic. This is not the only case for banning Trump; my colleague TC Sottek also favors the move, based on the … alternative rationale that it would humiliate him. But of the dozens of quote-tweets I saw yesterday of the president’s remarks, the main idea is that continuing to allow Trump on Twitter represents, on executives’ part, an abdication of their moral responsibility. Resistance SF took that idea and lit up headquarters with it. I’m sympathetic to the idea that the president should be held accountable for inciting violence. And yet I continue to balk at the idea that Twitter should ban Trump, largely for practical reasons. The idea that we will someday live in a world without Trump tweets is comforting. But if you think that world will arrive anytime soon, you’re kidding yourself. Consider how many options Trump would have if he were banned from Twitter. He could relay his tweets through proxies, either in writing or by dictating them. He could post his thoughts on Facebook or another social network, where an infinite number of bots would screenshot them and repost them. And even if he and all his proxies were banned by every social network, both current and future, he would still be able to call a network news conference more or less whenever he wanted. Depending on how crazy Trump gets this year — and recent events suggest there is plenty of crazy left to unspool — Twitter might be forced to take some sort of action against the president’s account. But the company is right to consider this a move of last resort. Kicking Trump off Twitter might bring a few moments’ peace to the platform. But as long as he’s president, Trump is likely to dominate the conversation on Twitter just as he does elsewhere. What Trump’s critics really want is to ban him from the White House. And I understand why ban-Trump brigade is impatient for 2020 to arrive. But to spend much effort on a proxy war against Twitter strikes me as misplaced energy. If you want to protest those complicit with Trump, start with the people who voted for him.
|
|
|
Trump’s First Big Twitter Day of 2018: Analyzing Nuclear Buttons and the ‘Corrupt Media’ - The New York Times
OK seriously though the president did go legit crazy on Twitter yesterday: Seventeen times on his first work day of the new year in Washington, the president thumbed his thumbs at convention. The objects of his attention had a vast and seemingly disconnected range, from taunting Kim Jong-un about his nuclear prowess to flaunting his own successes. But there was more. He made an only-in-the-Trump-era kind of news by announcing a reality-style creation unique in presidential history: awards for the “most dishonest & corrupt media.”
|
A Saucy App Knows China’s Taste in News. The Censors Are Worried.
Toutiao, which tried to buy Reddit, has reached a significant milestone: It is now popular enough that the Chinese government is censoring it and using it to distribute propaganda for the state. Congrats all! The makers of the popular news app Jinri Toutiao unveiled moves this week to allay rising concerns from the authorities. Last week, the Beijing bureau of China’s top internet regulator accused Toutiao of “spreading pornographic and vulgar information” and “causing a negative impact on public opinion online,” and it ordered that updates to several popular sections of the app be halted for 24 hours. In response, the app’s parent company, Beijing Bytedance Technology, took down or temporarily suspended the accounts of more than 1,100 bloggers that it said had been publishing “low-quality content” on the app. It also replaced Toutiao’s “Society” section with a new section called “New Era,” which is heavy on state media coverage of government decisions.
|
Iranian Authorities Block Access to Social Media Tools
Sheera Frankel writes about Telegram as Iran’s most important social network: “The Iranian government is active on Telegram, as is the president, and members of Parliament,” she said. “Iranians use it to sell clothes or find doctors, she added. “In the last week it has become a key source of information about the protests.” In a Dec. 31 blog post, Pavel Durov, chief executive of Telegram, which is based in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, wrote that the company had previously complied with requests by the Iranian government to shut down access to “channels” that called for violence during the protests. But, he added, the company “refused to shut down channels of peaceful Iranian protesters.”
|
|
YouTube can't contain Logan Paul's video because YouTubers know the rules
Logan Paul’s now notorious holiday weekend video, in which he filmed the body of a suicide victim, kept resurfacing on YouTube today. In two cases, the videos neared the top of YouTube’s trending page. And neither YouTube nor Paul are doing anything about it: Although YouTube may want to erase the Paul nightmare from its site, YouTubers know the company’s rules and can subvert the system. With the body censored, YouTube either has to find a new violation of its guidelines or treat re-uploads as a copyright issue — but Paul doesn’t seem to care if people repost his work.
|
Snapchat Considers Making Users Sit Through 3 Seconds of Ads
If Snap actually implements this move, which would be deeply unpopular with users, it would suggest rather severe internal anxiety over the business.
|
|
Banning Trump from Twitter would be counterproductive.
After I wrote the essay that leads today’s newsletter, Will Oremus posted a piece that comes down on the same side as me: Twitter didn’t give Trump the power to engage in dangerous nuclear brinksmanship, and Twitter can’t take that away from him, either. It was granted to him by the American electorate, and it’s backed by such institutions as the Constitution, Congress, the military, and the judiciary. If you don’t want an egomaniacal man-child to have that power, those are the levers to push on—not Twitter, Facebook, his cellphone company, his hairdresser, or whoever manufactures the microphones in the White House briefing room. No-platforming may have its uses, but it doesn’t work on the president of the United States.
|
Why 2018 Will Be the Year of the YouTube Moral Panic
Brian Feldman: Since its founding in 2004, YouTube has been the standard for sharing video on the web. So much so that YouTube isn’t just a video provider — it is web video, and has been so for more than a decade. And only now that YouTube has cemented its place in the web firmament, and turned itself into an unshakable pillar of the internet, are we beginning to reckon with how vast, influential — and potentially dangerous — the site is. If 2017 was the year of the great Facebook backlash, 2018 is shaping up to be YouTube’s turn.
|
The Logan Paul "Suicide Forest" Video Should Be a Reckoning For YouTube
Wired: “I think that any analysis that continues to focus on these incidents at the level of the content creator is only really covering part of the structural issues at play,” says Sarah T. Roberts, an assistant professor of information studies at UCLA and an expert in internet culture and content moderation. “Of course YouTube is absolutely complicit in these kinds of things, in the sense that their entire economic model, their entire model for revenue creation is created fundamentally on people like Logan Paul.”
|
|
Towards a Bra-free Instagram Experience
Lauren Hallden would like to be able to use Instagram without getting ads for bras. It is not going well! And here’s the thing: if you’re a woman who finds this triggering — who thinks that lots of time spent looking at these images is bad for our overall mental health and sense of self-worth, or that the sheer quantity of this stuff says something really depressing about our value as women in the world — there isn’t really a way to opt out of it. Honestly, that seems like a design flaw, to me! Me too, Lauren.
|
|
Questions? Comments? Reasons your Twitter account should be suspended? casey@theverge.com
|
Did you enjoy this issue?
|
|
|
|
In order to unsubscribe, click here.
If you were forwarded this newsletter and you like it, you can subscribe here.
|
|
|
|
|
|