Michelle Rempel Garner makes well-considered points about Twitter. However, in my view, a more accurate case can be made for visiting the objections on Right Wing/conservative media, more generally: print, radio, Internet, and television.
While anonymity isn't a shield in print, radio, and television, the same species of malevolent, fact-free, vitriol-promoting 'free speech' predominates, albeit without the violence-threatening personal attacks, thanks to commentators' lack of anonymity. (There's someone or something to sue.) On the Right, there is a lucrative market for goading and feeding humanity's worst predilections.
The problem Rempel Garner describes is not just on Twitter or social media. The problem is Right Wing media, more generally.
I'm entirely in agreement, though the goading, ill-informed retorts and quip culture are not entirely those with right wing ideology. Yes, many of Postmedia's publications are specifically guilty of what you're talking about (Sun newspaper cover pages for example), but half-baked ideas and opinions construed as fact are part of any flame war on social media.
Specifically, I have yet to see an attempt by those advocating for causes like free dental and drug clans and UBI (among others) that come with a sensibile understanding of what it would cost. Outside of 'take money from the billionaires', I think that left of centre idealists need to have a reckoning with themselves when it comes to the cost of things.
That's my attempt at evening out the scale a little bit, but again, right of centre news and commentary has a far bigger hill to climb when it comes to embracing reality right now.
I used to think the same till I started reading Glen Greenwald. We don't notice it because, A we want to believe the media (NY Times WP etc) are the real arbitrators of truth and secondly they are far more sophisticated in their lies and mis- information.
I do believe the GOP represents a larger short term threat (anti democratic reforms) but long term the real threat is the left (think CRT for example)
I took a stand against medical aid in dying--I oppose it on safety grounds--and was excoriated, threatened and mobbed, ROUTINELY, by the Twitterers who clearly identified as politically left-wing. It was a shock to be the object of so much hatred, especially by people with whom I usually agreed.
I've seen people making fun of Rempel for her tendency to block people, but I understand it. I started blocking too because my mental health was more important than giving other people the power to affect my day. I follow a number of women with Twitter accounts that have huge followings. Over time, I've seen them, too, come to the conclusion that blocking nasty, irritating and of course threatening people, is the only way to survive on the site. If the worst you can say about Rempel is that she blocks people, you haven't got much of an argument. I don't always like her videos either, but I admire that she does not hide behind anonymous accounts the way so many cowards do on social media. She's gutsier than a lot of other Canadian politicians.
This is satire, right? Michelle Rempel routinely blocks people who ask her questions that she doesn't like on Twitter including people in her own constituency. People who ask her, sincerely and without insults, how she feels she is able to represent Calgary effectively from Oklahoma. She posts her videos on Facebook, ones with innuendo and rhetoric and some filled with tears as she couldn't go to Oklahoma because of the big mean media might tell on her.
I heard someone recently who compared Twitter to slot machines. There is a similar action: mindless scrolling up, again and again, in the hope that one will hit “the jackpot” — news of some natural disaster, a plane crash, a political scandal — and the boost of endorphins that goes along with it. Instead of money, on Twitter one wastes time. I deleted my Twitter app a week ago and really haven’t missed it. I think the whole internet is going to require a rethink and reset. What we have now is manipulative, damaging, and dangerous.
Hold on. Are you claiming that Trudeau or his staff set up a Parler account? There was a Trudeau account on Parler, but it seems far more likely that it was an unauthorized account.
Can I ask how you heard about Parler, and how you decided to set up an account? My understanding is that the big migration to Parler happened after Twitter started cracking down on the far right.
Our understanding was that it was simply a placeholder account -- the sort of things leaders will set up on emerging platforms to ensure their identities are not hijacked. There's nothing wrong with this, of course.
What happened with Parlour can happen to any new platform and has. There is a platform put out similar to YouTube called Rumble. Google bought YouTube and has integrated its search engines with YouTube. So the monopoly on all platforms is being hijacked by the big players and there is no competition allowed by the use of its own search engines it makes it impossible for any others to compete. You can even put into your search on google, Rumble, cute dogs, and it will continually bring up YouTube hits and does not bring up Rumble. This means any platform that intends to compete with the big tech monopolies does not get off the ground. Parlour had quite a few members before the purge from twitter and they had no problems with Amazon or any of the monopoly servers that they used. When the purge came from twitter the increase went to parlour the monopoly's of silicone valley banded together and at the same time removed them from the servers with out warning. This left their platform unenterable even to those who owned it. Whether one likes or dislikes the platform or free speech, these oligarchs of the tech industry will buy, manipulate, and override any competition. It gives them supreme power and makes them extremely dangerous to all democracies and competition. They need to be dismantled so it allows competition and a free market. As it stands right now they decide who, what, and where, something can be said or done. That is dangerous for any free market. Due to bias and connection to many Left wing organizations and governments around the world and fact they are WEF business partners, that makes them much more dangerous to all democracies and many are fighting back by putting in their own laws in order to stop them from dictating policy and interfering in democratic elections. Consider this fact, the CCP has a twitter account as does many other dictators of regimes that are extremely dangerous and not one of them have ever had their accounts deleted. Something to think about.
Perfectly said! The Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei of Iran has tweeted some horrific stuff against Israel but has never been sanctioned by Twitter. The big tech players don't care about free speech or guarding against misinformation, they only care about protecting their monopoly.
I appreciate Ms. Rempel Garner writing this column and expressing here thoughts here, at length, instead of on Twitter, even though I dislike just about any political/policy stance she has taken to date. Why? Because her arguments are laid out coherently, not blasted out in some mindless tweet designed to grab attention. Could all politicians (and journalists, please!) abandon Twitter and give us thoughtful arguments instead? Ms. Rempel Garner, have you deleted your Twitter account?
"With this precedent set, Parler is small potatoes compared to the biggest culprit of weaponized misinformation, hate, and the death of rational argument: Twitter." I completely agree with Michelle. Twitter, along with Facebook, thrives off conflict and they HATE competition. Better to take down Parler while it's still in its infancy stage and without the needed resources to fight back.
And this is where I get really conflicted. Social Media (Twitter in this case) can also be used for wonderful things, like saving Rahaf Mohammed al-Qunun from her oppressive family and life in Saudi Arabia. It can be a wonderful tool for hearing from academics like Glenn Loury, Coleman Hughes, and John McWhorter or social commentators like Ayishat Akanbi. I try to limit myself to sane, critical thinking people and avoid the toxic drama of the Twitterites.
I also hold a lot of contempt for Twitter for banning people for the horrific crime of 'misgendering'. Meghan Murphy's lawsuit (a journalist in BC) is still ongoing. Parler does not enforce this, which puts it a step above Twitter in my eyes. It makes it quite difficult to talk on Twitter, using the proper Twitter enforced gender pronouns, about the alarming increase in male born inmates serving time in a women's prison when some of their crimes involve the sexual assault of women! Which is something women don't do!!!
So, yeah, I'm conflicted. Social media can be a tool for good but it's so easily corrupted by those wishing to bring harm on others for the crime of 'wrong speak'.
Michelle Rempel Garner makes well-considered points about Twitter. However, in my view, a more accurate case can be made for visiting the objections on Right Wing/conservative media, more generally: print, radio, Internet, and television.
While anonymity isn't a shield in print, radio, and television, the same species of malevolent, fact-free, vitriol-promoting 'free speech' predominates, albeit without the violence-threatening personal attacks, thanks to commentators' lack of anonymity. (There's someone or something to sue.) On the Right, there is a lucrative market for goading and feeding humanity's worst predilections.
The problem Rempel Garner describes is not just on Twitter or social media. The problem is Right Wing media, more generally.
I'm entirely in agreement, though the goading, ill-informed retorts and quip culture are not entirely those with right wing ideology. Yes, many of Postmedia's publications are specifically guilty of what you're talking about (Sun newspaper cover pages for example), but half-baked ideas and opinions construed as fact are part of any flame war on social media.
Specifically, I have yet to see an attempt by those advocating for causes like free dental and drug clans and UBI (among others) that come with a sensibile understanding of what it would cost. Outside of 'take money from the billionaires', I think that left of centre idealists need to have a reckoning with themselves when it comes to the cost of things.
That's my attempt at evening out the scale a little bit, but again, right of centre news and commentary has a far bigger hill to climb when it comes to embracing reality right now.
I used to think the same till I started reading Glen Greenwald. We don't notice it because, A we want to believe the media (NY Times WP etc) are the real arbitrators of truth and secondly they are far more sophisticated in their lies and mis- information.
I do believe the GOP represents a larger short term threat (anti democratic reforms) but long term the real threat is the left (think CRT for example)
@Melodie Stol
I took a stand against medical aid in dying--I oppose it on safety grounds--and was excoriated, threatened and mobbed, ROUTINELY, by the Twitterers who clearly identified as politically left-wing. It was a shock to be the object of so much hatred, especially by people with whom I usually agreed.
I've seen people making fun of Rempel for her tendency to block people, but I understand it. I started blocking too because my mental health was more important than giving other people the power to affect my day. I follow a number of women with Twitter accounts that have huge followings. Over time, I've seen them, too, come to the conclusion that blocking nasty, irritating and of course threatening people, is the only way to survive on the site. If the worst you can say about Rempel is that she blocks people, you haven't got much of an argument. I don't always like her videos either, but I admire that she does not hide behind anonymous accounts the way so many cowards do on social media. She's gutsier than a lot of other Canadian politicians.
This is satire, right? Michelle Rempel routinely blocks people who ask her questions that she doesn't like on Twitter including people in her own constituency. People who ask her, sincerely and without insults, how she feels she is able to represent Calgary effectively from Oklahoma. She posts her videos on Facebook, ones with innuendo and rhetoric and some filled with tears as she couldn't go to Oklahoma because of the big mean media might tell on her.
I heard someone recently who compared Twitter to slot machines. There is a similar action: mindless scrolling up, again and again, in the hope that one will hit “the jackpot” — news of some natural disaster, a plane crash, a political scandal — and the boost of endorphins that goes along with it. Instead of money, on Twitter one wastes time. I deleted my Twitter app a week ago and really haven’t missed it. I think the whole internet is going to require a rethink and reset. What we have now is manipulative, damaging, and dangerous.
Hold on. Are you claiming that Trudeau or his staff set up a Parler account? There was a Trudeau account on Parler, but it seems far more likely that it was an unauthorized account.
Can I ask how you heard about Parler, and how you decided to set up an account? My understanding is that the big migration to Parler happened after Twitter started cracking down on the far right.
Our understanding was that it was simply a placeholder account -- the sort of things leaders will set up on emerging platforms to ensure their identities are not hijacked. There's nothing wrong with this, of course.
On Parler, the equivalent of Twitter's blue checkmark is a "verified real user" badge. Only Michelle Rempel Garner and Bob Zimmer's Parler accounts have that badge. https://twitter.com/stephenlautens/status/1330198069569314816?s=19 https://twitter.com/Melanie_Paradis/status/1348078759266672643?s=19
both statements can be true: it was a placeholder AND not verified
What happened with Parlour can happen to any new platform and has. There is a platform put out similar to YouTube called Rumble. Google bought YouTube and has integrated its search engines with YouTube. So the monopoly on all platforms is being hijacked by the big players and there is no competition allowed by the use of its own search engines it makes it impossible for any others to compete. You can even put into your search on google, Rumble, cute dogs, and it will continually bring up YouTube hits and does not bring up Rumble. This means any platform that intends to compete with the big tech monopolies does not get off the ground. Parlour had quite a few members before the purge from twitter and they had no problems with Amazon or any of the monopoly servers that they used. When the purge came from twitter the increase went to parlour the monopoly's of silicone valley banded together and at the same time removed them from the servers with out warning. This left their platform unenterable even to those who owned it. Whether one likes or dislikes the platform or free speech, these oligarchs of the tech industry will buy, manipulate, and override any competition. It gives them supreme power and makes them extremely dangerous to all democracies and competition. They need to be dismantled so it allows competition and a free market. As it stands right now they decide who, what, and where, something can be said or done. That is dangerous for any free market. Due to bias and connection to many Left wing organizations and governments around the world and fact they are WEF business partners, that makes them much more dangerous to all democracies and many are fighting back by putting in their own laws in order to stop them from dictating policy and interfering in democratic elections. Consider this fact, the CCP has a twitter account as does many other dictators of regimes that are extremely dangerous and not one of them have ever had their accounts deleted. Something to think about.
Perfectly said! The Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei of Iran has tweeted some horrific stuff against Israel but has never been sanctioned by Twitter. The big tech players don't care about free speech or guarding against misinformation, they only care about protecting their monopoly.
What the left forgets is it goes both ways, Trump 2024 Google shit down the NY times for face the consequences!
I appreciate Ms. Rempel Garner writing this column and expressing here thoughts here, at length, instead of on Twitter, even though I dislike just about any political/policy stance she has taken to date. Why? Because her arguments are laid out coherently, not blasted out in some mindless tweet designed to grab attention. Could all politicians (and journalists, please!) abandon Twitter and give us thoughtful arguments instead? Ms. Rempel Garner, have you deleted your Twitter account?
"With this precedent set, Parler is small potatoes compared to the biggest culprit of weaponized misinformation, hate, and the death of rational argument: Twitter." I completely agree with Michelle. Twitter, along with Facebook, thrives off conflict and they HATE competition. Better to take down Parler while it's still in its infancy stage and without the needed resources to fight back.
Megyn Kelly did a very informative podcast with Glenn Greenwald on big-tech censorship, the rise of independent media and free speech. She also had the CEO of Parler on there which was quite interesting. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/tech-censorship-independent-media-glenn-greenwald-ceos/id1532976305?i=1000505187244
And this is where I get really conflicted. Social Media (Twitter in this case) can also be used for wonderful things, like saving Rahaf Mohammed al-Qunun from her oppressive family and life in Saudi Arabia. It can be a wonderful tool for hearing from academics like Glenn Loury, Coleman Hughes, and John McWhorter or social commentators like Ayishat Akanbi. I try to limit myself to sane, critical thinking people and avoid the toxic drama of the Twitterites.
I also hold a lot of contempt for Twitter for banning people for the horrific crime of 'misgendering'. Meghan Murphy's lawsuit (a journalist in BC) is still ongoing. Parler does not enforce this, which puts it a step above Twitter in my eyes. It makes it quite difficult to talk on Twitter, using the proper Twitter enforced gender pronouns, about the alarming increase in male born inmates serving time in a women's prison when some of their crimes involve the sexual assault of women! Which is something women don't do!!!
So, yeah, I'm conflicted. Social media can be a tool for good but it's so easily corrupted by those wishing to bring harm on others for the crime of 'wrong speak'.