Musk buys Twitter

[Not Insane]

Originally Posted by bobabode

Steve called it a silo 'farm' which of course implies a multitude of silos not a single echo chamber silo.

Yeah. I was focusing on the echo chamber part. I've probably produced less than 50 tweets in the ten or so years I've been there, but I get responses from all sides of the political/cultural spectrum.

I'm guessing that the "echo chamber silo" comment meant it is a site full of different echo chambers. But how does that explain people getting cancelled, unless they have the audacity to venture into someone else's silo. And what does he mean by "farm"? Are they growing, even when members are being cancelled? Are entire silos being cancelled? I'll hold judgement until I understand exactly what he was driving at.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by Not Insane

Yeah. I was focusing on the echo chamber part. I've probably produced less than 50 tweets in the ten or so years I've been there, but I get responses from all sides of the political/cultural spectrum.

I'm guessing that the "echo chamber silo" comment meant it is a site full of different echo chambers. But how does that explain people getting cancelled, unless they have the audacity to venture into someone else's silo. And what does he mean by "farm"? Are they growing, even when members are being cancelled? Are entire silos being cancelled? I'll hold judgement until I understand exactly what he was driving at.

I get it that for 'your' purposes you've employed 'parsing' another member's statement to make a point despite it's relevance. It's a common tactic that's utilized to deflect/obfuscate from the point being made.

As to folks getting themselves banned, ie "cancelled"? When you violate the terms of use that one agreed to in advance of joining any online forum, expect consequences. It's not that opaque or even nefarious as some are wont to complain such as the former, twice impeached guy. In fact, herr T'Rumpolini was given far more leeway than most.

[Not Insane]

Originally Posted by bobabode

I get it that for 'your' purposes you've employed 'parsing' another member's statement to make a point despite it's relevance. It's a common tactic that's utilized to deflect/obfuscate from the point being made.

Actually, I do it to address specific points and not get lost in rabbit trails. It is important to determine what someone actually means when they say something before you can respond. It's critical when I read contracts. Sometimes you have to read a sentence two or three times to understand what is actually being said. I was probably in error in my first response to the "echo chamber" comment because I had not CAREFULLY tried to analyze the meanings of all the words and divined what he meant with words like "silo" and "farm"

As to folks getting themselves banned, ie "cancelled"? When you violate the terms of use that one agreed to in advance of joining any online forum, expect consequences. It's not that opaque or even nefarious as some are wont to complain such as the former, twice impeached guy. In fact, herr T'Rumpolini was given far more leeway than most.

I've never been banned for a rules violation. That is why I was active in internet forums since 1997, but once the cancel culture kicked in after the virus mandates started, I was being banned from several sites for saying things they "didn't like". No ad-hom. No profanity. I wasn't even going "off topic. It was for just not toeing the line of group think.

I was banned from one site for merely posting a video of senate testimony, and the reason for banning? "Posting conspiracy theory crap."

That's why so many people are ecstatic about what's happening at twitter. We'll see if it sticks.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by Not Insane

Actually, I do it to address specific points and not get lost in rabbit trails. It is important to determine what someone actually means when they say something before you can respond. It's critical when I read contracts. Sometimes you have to read a sentence two or three times to understand what is actually being said. I was probably in error in my first response to the "echo chamber" comment because I had not CAREFULLY tried to analyze the meanings of all the words and divined what he meant with words like "silo" and "farm"

I've never been banned for a rules violation. That is why I was active in internet forums since 1997, but once the cancel culture kicked in after the virus mandates started, I was being banned from several sites for saying things they "didn't like". No ad-hom. No profanity. I wasn't even going "off topic. It was for just not toeing the line of group think.

I was banned from one site for merely posting a video of senate testimony, and the reason for banning? "Posting conspiracy theory crap."

That's why so many people are ecstatic about what's happening at twitter. We'll see if it sticks.

Must've been some hogwash from that possum headed senator Randi Paul. (rolls eyes)

[Dondilion]

Originally Posted by Not Insane

I was banned from one site for merely posting a video of senate testimony, and the reason for banning? "Posting conspiracy theory crap."

Conspiracy Theory...a well worn tactic to shut down an opposing view.

[Not Insane]

Originally Posted by Dondilion

Conspiracy Theory...a well worn tactic to shut down an opposing view.

Yep. That. And calling someone a troll.