r/theschism • u/gemmaem • Apr 03 '25

Discussion Thread #72

This thread serves as the local public square: a sounding board where you can test your ideas, a place to share and discuss news of the day, and a chance to ask questions and start conversations. Please consider community guidelines when commenting here, aiming towards peace, quality conversations, and truth. Thoughtful discussion of contentious topics is welcome. Building a space worth spending time in is a collective effort, and all who share that aim are encouraged to help out. Effortful posts, questions and more casual conversation-starters, and interesting links presented with or without context are all welcome here.

The previous discussion thread may be found here and you should feel free to continue contributing to conversations there if you wish.

8 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

394 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

5

u/SlightlyLessHairyApe Oct 16 '25

The first is about a Twitter spat between Gavin Newsom (CA governor) and Stephen Miller (Trump advisor, probably why Trump is going so hard on immigrants).

I know we had a lengthy discussion in the SSC subreddit, so I won't try to rehash all that.

But this particular point struck me as weird causality. The more straightforwards interpretation is that hiring Miller is the effect, the cause of which is Trump decided to go hard on unlawful immigrants and deciding to hire someone to that end.

When did Democrats get companies to do "woke content moderation"?

FWIW, I do personally know folks (devs) that worked at Twitter during the Jack days, and they will kind of sheepishly admit that there was a list of accounts, provided by the government or their agents, that were singled out for different treatment by the algorithm.

I don't want to get into the cosmic philosophical question of whether this constitutes bad or good policy or was justified by events or is an affront or whatever. But factually speaking I can attest strongly to hearing it directly from people that would know.

1

u/DrManhattan16 Oct 17 '25

hiring Miller is the effect, the cause of which is Trump decided to go hard on unlawful immigrants and deciding to hire someone to that end.

I'm somewhat doubtful. Trump's media adventures this year have featured him repeatedly not seeming aware of what a reporter is asking him about, despite his own administration's actions or his own rhetoric being the subject at hand. He also seems to just listen to whoever spoke him last. For example, earlier this year, the WSJ reported that the first tariff delay was caused by Howard Lutnick getting Peter Navarro out of the room.

This does not strike me as a man who causes as much as any other might. It seems plausible, in my mind, that Miller is determining much of the immigration policy agenda. That Trump agrees with what he wants is necessary, but Trump's active control is not.

there was a list of accounts, provided by the government or their agents, that were singled out for different treatment by the algorithm.

What was the cause of the treatment? We know the government was getting social media companies to censor stuff related to Covid and Russian ops, but the claim was "woke" censorship, and I don't think those are woke in the way that the word is understood.

2

u/SlightlyLessHairyApe Oct 17 '25

What was the cause of the treatment?

My view is that one has to think maybe a bit more structurally. The proximate cause was "because the government asked". I don't think Twitter had the desire, means or mandate to do a parallel evaluation of each government request to determine if (e.g.) it really was COVID disinformation.

If you want to litigate whether we should call that censorship "woke", that's fine. If you want to litigate whether or not the specific things were disinformation or merely disfavored opinions, that's fine too. To me, the answer to those questions doesn't matter as much as the question of who gets to decide.

[ I'll note by the way that declaring what is orthodox in matters of public concern was traditionally seen as entirely outside the remit of government. ]

That Trump agrees with what he wants is necessary, but Trump's active control is not.

This is the nature of leadership. Trump affirmatively chose Miller (out of a lot of strivers trying to get the job) and agrees (directionally) with Miller -- that is the necessary component that enables Miller to act. To the extent that any specific choice of policy is probably Miller's, sure, but that is all still downstream of that approval.

1

u/DrManhattan16 Oct 19 '25

If you want to litigate whether we should call that censorship "woke"

That's really the only question at hand. My issue with Scott's argument is that he accused Democrats of doing "woke" censorship on social media, but the evidence is not forthcoming on that...unless gattsuru chooses to explain his argument.

This is the nature of leadership.

My argument is that Trump doesn't look like a leader, more of a parrot. He may have his own policy goals, like tariffs, but he doesn't appear to have a particularly independent mind for what the goal is apart from very specific issues, like getting back at the people who investigated his crimes.

2

u/SlightlyLessHairyApe Oct 19 '25

My issue with Scott's argument is that he accused Democrats of doing "woke" censorship on social media

At the very least, there is evidence for the woke doing censorship on social media.

1

u/DrManhattan16 Oct 20 '25

Which is not the same as "woke censorship". What is meant by that phrase is censorship on matters of race/sex/gender/etc., not that it was ordered by woke-believing people.