IBM, a major advertiser on X, has pulled its spending from the social media platform, whose employees are grappling with what to tell its other advertisers, according to internal messages.
To be clear: Musk endorsed a tweet which used a false antisemitic conspiracy theory to tell people why “Hitler was right”
I recommend that you delete it. Part of how hate like this spreads is by getting people to quote it to condemn it. That’s why I’m not posting the full quote.
I mean, it’s not a spell, it’s a sentence. If reading it will make it spread, as in more people will agree and support it, the problem is already there.
Nazi recruitment actually works that way. They used to even pay people to quote-tweet them with a condemnation in order to get more recruits.
I’m a Jew. I don’t know whether you are or not. But in my experience, the best thing to do with antisemites is to show the world who they are.
Also, If someone is accusing someone else of antisemitism I expect evidence. If they’re not prepared to provide it, it’s just gossip.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
No. Hydrogen peroxide is the best disinfectant. Beats sunlight by a long long margin.
Bleaching Nazis on the internet is basically what OP is calling for, and by your own analogy, they’re right.
You are correct… but I don’t believe that automatically means we should quote them. We can speak over them.
Sorry for the late answer. My point is that the problem is upstream to the issue of quoting/non quoting. A person who gets convinced by a nazi/antisemitic slogan is already a problem on itself. The quote is one of the N ways that person can be exposed to ideas that underneath they already support, and I don’t think this is a good reason to change the way that we talk about some issues. In other words, even if someone “gets recruited” by the quote, this is merely surfacing the problem, it’s not creating it.
That’s nonsense. If I were to say you’re spreading Nazi propaganda but I refuse to show anyone for fear of spreading hate, should people believe me?
If you actually were a Nazi would it be better for me to expose you with proof or would it be better to make unsubstantiated claims with plenty of room for doubt?
I’ve watched how this plays out repeatedly. Don’t repeat the lie is a pretty straightforward part of the response.
Respectfully disagree. Unchecked this gives whoever has the loudest microphone power to claim whatever they want out of context and most people will never find out the truth until it doesn’t matter anymore.
“This person said something really bad - we can’t tell you what it was but believe us, it was really bad”
The tweet posted is not a good message to spread. But my gauge is whether I’d be ok with the other side having the ability to determine what is and isn’t ok to spread, and I would very much not like Republicans (via legislative or social pressure) to have the ability to dictate what messages are too dangerous to share
The purpose of news is to lay out the facts, not tell me how to feel about something.
That’s a overly reductive. News organizations have a public duty that goes beyond just throwing out facts and letting society sort through the mess.
what duty is that?
Journalism is inherently a public service.
but what does that entail? What were you hinting at earlier?
There’s a responsibility to consider the impact of your reporting. See for example the SPJ code of ethics under “minimize harm”
https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp
Journalism ethics is a very broad topic, but it’s more than just about reporting facts. It’s about serving your purpose as the fourth estate.
this assumes a moral authority, which can be dangerous
This barely even means anything. What do you really mean?
I don’t think that’s right, context matters. It spreads when it is shared uncritically and people come across it in a context where they don’t have their guard up. I believe it is preventative, to some extent, the other way around, when it is shared in a context ripping it to shreds.
People will come across antisemitism in the wild, and it is important that they learn to recognise it. This quote is pretty extreme, but it is important that people know that antisemites use words like e.g. “dialectical” as a dog whistle. The next time they hear someone say something about it when one of their facebook friends share something they might notice that they talk about “Hollywood elites” or whatever in the same way.
Without a good understanding of how antisemitism works we are all susceptible.
So I had to look up ‘dialetical’ to get it’s meaning as “logically constructed through argument and counter argument”. Why is that a dog whistle?
Yeah, it is also just a philosophy word. But antisemites use it to refer to “dialectical materialism”, which is a real term for Marxist philosophy, but by which they mean “cultural Marxism”, a thing they made up by which they in turn mean “the Jews are going to impose communism on us through psyops that convince us it is good, so we have to exterminate them.”
Basically, like much of their coded language, it is a reference to a conspiracy theory.
sounds like empty slander unless people can see it and make up their own minds about it
The Nazis count on that to get it amplified. I won’t do their work for them.
i think reality is a lot more complicated than it often appears to be, alas
By hiding the evidence, you cast doubt on the reaction to the statement.
Youre already doing the work for them.
You are doing their work for them. Most people here wouldn’t pay any attention to Elon if it wasn’t for people like you keeping them on the front page. This thread is effectively a re-tweet.
… This is nazi defending rhetoric. Do you understand that? Do you understand why eliminating the evidence and trying to hide it is defending and supporting the nazi?
Yeah censorship is the answer…