I read that Naomi Wolf has been banned from Twitter for spreading misinformation.
On the one hand you don't have the right to yell fire in a crowded theater, if there is no fire. But is there no fire? We don't know hardly anything about the vaccine, and not knowing is used as a door to assert possibilities. Wolf wants to know what happens to the urine of people who are vaccinated in our drinking water. I'm not sure what she's thinking.
I've been joking that I'm going to grow a third arm because of my vaccine. But the joke shows the fear of the unknown. The diluted urine that eventually makes its way into our drinking water is probably the least of our problems. I'm more afraid of forever chemicals. And what about the Covid in men's semen? Sure that's washing into our drinking water too, somehow. I mean if you think about our drinking water, that's pretty much an open do to all kinds of anxieties. I worry more about the hormones in cow milk making females menstruate earlier. But you don't have to drink milk, but it's hard to escape water. How about pollution? Aren't forever chemicals the real worry?
Is it wrong to opportunistically use your articulateness to manipulate people with poor epistemic character? I'm sure Wolf thinks she's expressing legitimate concerns. And she might object to her followers being characterized at not having good epistemic character. Isn't it the American way to let people make up their own minds. That's what democracy is all about.
The leaders of the public have a greater responsibility to have considered opinions, advice and guidance. Whipping up discontent about a vaccine that could end this plague, is that the equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded theater?
If Wolf was a entrepreneur she could create a water that is created from groundwater where people are not vaccinated, like some Republican counties in the USA. Call it Republican Kool Aid. For those who believe in the mythos of the Republicans. Make money off it, that's the American way. You win by becoming rich. But as we're seeing, extreme political messages can destroy business. Just ask the pillow guy.
I see the larger question of banning people from social media. What right does Twitter have to ban people? Well, it's a privately held company, they can do what they want. You don't like it, just don't use it. That's just basic business 101. Trump moved over to his own personal blog, but nobody is reading it. Does Wolf has a blog? Is she just trying to get more hits to raise her advertising revenue? She does have a blog, and it seems to be part of a thriving career of selling books and giving talks.
Banning someone from Twitter doesn't ban someone's speech, it just dispossess them of a platform. I don't have the right to appear on TV because I have a message. Usually people pay for political ads, and establish themselves as a candidate to get air time in a debate. People have been allowed to self publish pamphlets since the beginning of time (since publishing became a thing). Experts are often given a platform. What is Naomi Wolf an expert on? Who is Naomi Wolf? And there, she has won. The lurid attention getting of people with fading relevance. The author of Vagina might have dipping book sales. Could you say she's a professional attention getter? And am I jealous?
This is what Wikipedia says of her (without the footnotes): "Since around 2014 Wolf has regularly been described as being a conspiracy theorist.[a] She has received criticism for promoting misinformation on several topics, such as beheadings carried out by ISIL, Edward Snowden and the Western African Ebola virus epidemic. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Wolf has objected to the lockdowns, and has also frequently spread misinformation relating to COVID-19 vaccines. In June 2021, Wolf had her account suspended from Twitter, a platform that she had used to promote such material."
Making people seem like martyrs by banning them isn't as important as stopping misinformation. Driving the population towards radical ideas is the new horrible thing to do. I can't help but think about two things. First is the book by Madonna that I liked. If you let the feathers out of a pillow, can you get them all back as they blow in the wind? What you do can't be taken back. And making amends isn't easy. It's pretty hard to get redemption. The second thing I think about is Lee Atwater on his deathbed regretting his misinformation life. Wolf can just say she's playing the game, just trying to make a living and asking legitimate questions.
If Twitter decides her line of questions is dangerous, they have a right as a platform to ban her. I'm pretty sure they don't make that decision lightly, with all the squaks about censorship. The fact is the platform mostly doesn't provide an audience for most people. Who's your favorite tweeter? I don't have one. I follow subjects like Buddhism, sports, literature, politics. I'm considering unfollowing a friend who I just don't care what she tweets.
My favorite tweeter is Emily Nussbaum, but she's not always witty either, and is a TV critic. I'm pretty sure being great at Twitter isn't a thing. There are some people who tweet politically seems white hot. I really like Hannah Cox Richardson (on FB, and via
I tweet upsetting articles in my doom scroll, because I don't want to be alone watching the end of the world with it's global warming and the recent attacks on democracy. It turns out the new technologies has shined a light on humans--there were more wackos than we thought out there. And people will do anything to get attention to sell advertising. Sarah Silverman showing her butt in the hopes of getting more subscribers to her podcast.
Here is a tweet about Twitter: "Twitter is fun because you get to be like, “Ducks are good” and someone in your mentions will go, “Um, I’m sorry but my brother is married to a duck scientist and this is a harmful view” and then someone else pops up going, “Your silence about horses is extremely telling”" (Mike Drucker)
We're still exploring the potential of this kind of human communication. It's still quite new technology, twitter was founded in 2006. Fifteen years isn't that long.
Should the government create a government website that it controls to make sure the business world isn't running the world, unregulated? Hahahaha. Should there be governmental oversight to social media? I think so. Just like we have food safety inspectors, we need social media inspectors. Not a whole lot of them and just to avoid the really egregious errors.
The same laws that govern all communication apply to social media. I'm sure you can be libeled if you slander someone. I found this interesting article. You can't use someone's likeness to sell something. Katherine Heigl got $6 million from Duane Reade because they posted a photo of her with bags from there, without her permission. Duane Reade violated the false advertising provision of the Lanham Act as well as New York civil rights statutes protecting use of likenesses for purpose of trade.
I just learned about the Lanham Act.
Applying the laws and the vision of the laws to this new technology will be interesting to follow.
Now let's get to the real genius of Twitter: Twitter Salutes The Real Stars of ‘Friends’ Reunion: Jennifer Aniston’s Nipples
Comments
Post a Comment