Latest / Radio Baloney - The Richie Baloney Show! / Censorship Makes A Return To X (Twitter)

Transcript

Censorship Makes A Return To X (Twitter) · Radio Baloney - The Richie Baloney Show!

• 0:00
  All right, So I've said a lot of good things about Elon Musk taking
• 0:04
  over Twitter now X, but I've also taken pains to note that it's not
• 0:09
  perfect. So let's get into the not perfect part. And by not perfect,
• 0:14
  I mean terrible. Here's the headline X CEO Linda Jacarino on hate speech
• 0:21
  policy at X. She says, we de amplify, de amplify posts that
• 0:27
  are lawful but awful. Well, how cute, And I guess who gets
• 0:32
  to decide what's awful at her. Yakarino, the former advertising head at NBCUniversal,
• 0:39
  made the remarks during a CNBC interview with Sarah Eissen on Squawk on the
• 0:46
  Street. Eisen pressed Yakarino about brands that have abandoned advertising campaigns on the platform
• 0:53
  since Elon Musk purchased the company. Quote, I want to take the last
• 0:57
  ten years and put it in perspective, because by all objective metrics, X
• 1:02
  is a much healthier and safer platform than it was a year ago. And
• 1:07
  I hate this language safer platform. What does that mean exactly? Since acquisition,
• 1:11
  we have built brand safety and content moderation tools that have never existed before
• 1:17
  at this company. She said, that X has introduced a new policy to
• 1:21
  your specific point about hate speech called freedom of speech, not reach. So
• 1:26
  if you're going to post something that's illegal or against the law, you're gone.
• 1:30
  So I think that if you're talking about dosing or death threats or calls
• 1:36
  for violence, I think that's fair enough. But anyway, zero tolerance.
• 1:41
  More importantly, if you're going to post something that is lawful but it's awful,
• 1:46
  you get labeled. You get labeled, you get deamplified, which means
• 1:49
  it cannot be shared, and it is certainly demonetized. So it appears here
• 1:56
  we are right back at shadow banning and censorship all over again, and the
• 2:00
  same thing. And the eternal question remains, who gets the decide what's awful?
• 2:05
  So is it Yacarino because I don't trust her? Is it some cadre
• 2:08
  of woke lunatics who will inevitably infiltrate X, just like they've done with every
• 2:15
  institution. At least they're not planning to outright ben wrong think, at least
• 2:21
  not yet. But simply hiding a user from the rest of the users is
• 2:25
  more or less the same thing, isn't it? And this is all about
• 2:29
  trying to bring advertisers back apparently is dropped by like fifty nine percent since Elon
• 2:34
  Musk took over. But at the same time as we're hearing all this,
• 2:37
  they've released this statement as well, a new level of control for X advertisers.
• 2:42
  You can choose your sensitivity settings. You can pick relaxed at show ads
• 2:46
  alongside some sensitive content to maximize reach. You got standard shows ads alongside a
• 2:53
  reduced range of content for brands with moderate sensitivity threshold and it says avoidance example
• 3:01
  targeted hate speech, explicit sexual content, gratuitous score, and excessive profanity.
• 3:07
  And then you have conservative shows ads alongside limited content for brands with strict sensitivity
• 3:14
  thresholds and it says avoidance example targeted hate speech, sexual content, gratuitous score,
• 3:19
  all the rest of it. So why does there need to be anything
• 3:22
  more than this? Why do you need to de amplify posts that are lawful
• 3:27
  but awful. You've already got a mechanism in place for advertisers to decide what
• 3:32
  they want their content to be next to. And as for users that are
• 3:37
  going to be offended by legal speech, like I don't know, legacy media
• 3:43
  journalists say they're just gonna keep on being offended anyway. As long as there's
• 3:47
  somebody out there who disagrees with them on anything, they're going to find their
• 3:52
  way to the fainting couch. They cannot be satisfied ever, and this de
• 3:58
  amplifying posting won't work to bring in more advertisers anyway, because it's the media
• 4:03
  who will ultimately decide whether big corporations will get the green light to advertise,
• 4:09
  and the media has an insane hatred of Elon Musk. As long as Elon
• 4:14
  Musk owns X, the media is going to put out fake studies and rant
• 4:19
  and rave about what a hate filled far right cesspool Twitter is. It won't
• 4:25
  change. But in any case, so trying to woo back advertisers by pandering
• 4:30
  to like The New York Times won't work because the media already has Musk arrangement
• 4:35
  syndrome and there's no cure. So instead, how about just continuing to make
• 4:42
  X a place where the public wants to be, And usage stats show that
• 4:46
  that's increasingly true. It's getting more popular, not less popular, and so
• 4:51
  expanding services will make the platform a place where corporations have to be, otherwise
• 4:58
  they'll be leaving money on the table, and shareholders will demand that they use
• 5:03
  the platform if there's money to be made. So I think this is stupid.
• 5:09
  I don't think they should be doing this. I mean this deamplifying post.
• 5:13
  We've had enough of this. We don't want any more of this.
• 5:16
  We don't want, you know, some star chamber deciding what's lawful but awful.
• 5:21
  This is just a pointless move that will not placate the media or far
• 5:26
  leftists, or the Biden administration, or just any emotionally unstable narcissist anywhere in
• 5:32
  the world. And I don't believe this will bring in more advertising. I
• 5:36
  think it will just drive users away. But all of that said, we
• 5:41
  have to see how this plays out. Hopefully it's not as bad as it
• 5:44
  sounds anyway. That's all I got to say about that. Please subscribe,
• 5:47
  like and share. Sharing really helps me out. I thank you for that.
• 5:50
  I will see you next time.