Richmond Ayisi’s Post

Brazil is threatening to regulate social media "X" after clash with Musk. X's global government affairs team posted that it was forced to block some popular accounts in Brazil. They don't know the reasoning behind this decision and they aren't allowed to reveal the court or judge who issued the order. The article suggests that this profiles are linked to far-right movements, which have found favorable conditions in the platform. Jorge Messias a Brazilian attorney appointed by the current President of Brazil said: "It is urgent to regulate social networks", but is it? While I don't agree with everything Musk suggests, I do believe that everyone has the right to express themselves, whether it's an unpopular or favored opinion, and whether it favors the government or not. The restriction of specific thoughts or opinions can impede dialogue, suppress activist voices, and undermine the principles of democracy and freedom of expression. All of us should have the right to speak up what we think. What do you think about the actions taken by Brazil?

The decision by Ouest-France and other major organizations to suspend activity on X (formerly Twitter) highlights a growing concern in today’s digital landscape: the consequences of inadequate content moderation. Social media platforms have become integral to how we communicate, share news, and connect. However, as this article demonstrates, the lack of robust moderation policies under X’s new ownership has raised alarm bells across industries. Disinformation, hate speech, and unchecked harmful content not only erode trust but also jeopardize the credibility of businesses and institutions that rely on these platforms. Content moderation is not about silencing free speech—it’s about fostering an online environment where dialogue can thrive without fear, and truth can prevail over deception. Ouest-France and others are making a powerful statement: when platforms fail to uphold these values, walking away becomes a responsible choice. As someone who has worked in content moderation, I’ve seen firsthand how critical it is to strike this balance. It’s not just a moral obligation but also a legal and reputational imperative. Platforms that prioritize user safety and accurate information don’t just protect their communities—they future-proof their business models. The move by media outlets, sports clubs, and other entities signals an urgent call to action. It’s time for platforms to rethink their approach to moderation, accountability, and transparency. A thriving digital ecosystem depends on it. Let’s champion the importance of moderation as a force for good—one that safeguards both individuals and the values we uphold as a society. 🌍 Twitter #ContentModeration #DigitalSafety #SocialMediaEthics #Disinformation #FreeSpeechBalance #DigitalResponsibility #OnlineSafety #ContentAccountability #PlatformAccountability #EthicalTech #SocialMediaTrends #ContentStrategy #TechLeadership #MediaResponsibility #DigitalTrust

Today, The Guardian announced it would no longer share articles on X, calling it a "toxic media platform". In their parting blog, Guarding editors write the "benefits of being on X are now outweighed by the negatives", and "X now plays a diminished role in promoting our work." As a publisher, I've always had a conflicted relationship with Twitter/X – it never drove any traffic, but it still felt important to share articles on. Mostly because other journalists were/are on it, I think. Now that it has devolved into a total right-wing conspiratorial shit show with obvious political motives (especially in the For You feed), the question looms bigger than ever before: should a publisher of reliable news stay on X or not? For a publisher with brand recognition like the Guardian the question might be easier to answer than for a tiny news operations operating in a niche (albeit a very relevant one) like EUobserver. Here are my arguments: Against leaving: - We do get a couple thousand views/month from X - Sometimes stories catch on with an unexpected audience - We have a ton of followers (which sounds impressive to advertisers) - Some people might be exposed to news we publish who otherwise would not be - Leaving helps create diverging news realities for readers - We have a legacy audience we might not reach anymore For leaving: - It's a hell site full of conspiracies, videos of atrocities and obvious bots promoting shitty world views - Anything we post serves to make X's owner Elon Musk more money - We don't get that much traffic from it - There are a bunch of alternatives - Would rather have people subscribing to our newsletter - We don't rely on publishing viral stories - Our world view doesn't align (so we don't get much traction anyway) What do you think? I'm not publisher thirst trapping here, honestly uncertain about what the right thing to do is.

Mainstream media has faced significant criticisms for its biased reporting, and this scrutiny is warranted when we consider how it has often failed to serve the public and accurately reflect society like we’ve always argued at gatherings like the International Journalism Festival and also at Unbias The News, a newsroom set out to address these structureal barriers and media imbalance along with a lot of other organizations pushing for media reforms. Nations especially in the global south have their own stories, and the toll of biased reporting is immeasurable. When a big tech billionaires AI owned platform admits to his role in contributing to misinformation during an election, it raises serious questions about the role of big tech, especially when the owner is not only bias but actively engaged in the process. For example, by the time a newsroom attempts to fact-check a falsehood, it may have already reached billions of users worldwide. These newsrooms are struggling to catch up with a billionaire whose algorithms are designed to favor his contents, meaning you don’t even need to follow him to see his tweets flooded all over your timeline, so how can the media effectively tackle misinformation against the algorithmic backed perpetrators? Elon star link now provides the major internet infrastructures for most African nations and governments - he has tested his theory and methods with one of the worlds most powerful nations and democracy and he won’t stop there, he knows it’s possible and can be done, he will be going after more elections across the globe. While we should and must continue to demand better from our media, the thoughts of billionaires like Elon singlehandedly influencing elections and democracy across the globe is what should keep us all awake. PS: I refuse to refer to that platform as any other name but Twitter.

Some thoughts on X and microblogs after a successful #EUinfluencer 2024.   🔵 There’s power in a non-show of hands! At the start of this year's #EUinfluencer event ZN's Philip Weiss asked the audience what social media they used. When it came to X there were very few arms in the air. Perhaps audience members were ashamed to admit using Elon Musk's platform in public. That's still a good result. Stigma over using X has started to set in. Even in never-rock-the-boat Brussels.   🔵 We don't really have a replacement for X yet. But many journalists are posting less there. In the US a good chunk of the media already has transitioned to other microblogs like Bluesky Social and Threads for news and hot takes. Likewise in the British media — being active on X has become even less acceptable since Musk amplified neofascist and white supremacist talk of civil war this summer.   🔵 That said, journalists still need to use X to retrieve comments from politicos and authorities who haven't moved. Hence the stickiness ("path dependency" as Theresa Fallon said at #EUinfluencer). And then there are those who say that X's reach provides a way for dissidents to reach large audiences, so don't mess. Sure. But like Trump and Orbán, Musk wants to irrevocably alter our democracies in ways that risk destroying them. Musk already re-platformed some of the most hateful people on earth when he bought Twitter expressly ruining an emergent global town square. Nobody is stopping anyone from still posting to X. What people like me are pleading for is to keep thinking creatively about how to diminish the draw of Musk's platform in favour of something better. Invoking free-speech arguments (yawn) to say "don't mess with X" is consciously or unconsciously giving aid and comfort to Musk's depraved views.   🔵 That's why what Jon Worth said at #EUinfluencer is so important. He called on incoming MEPs and members of the European Commission to make the transition to other microblogs. Because unless they do so then journalists (hands up, I'm one) will feel obligated to keep following on X along with the concomitant temptation to engage amid the swamp of Nazis and hate-mongers. Indeed a failure by an EU public figure to move their social media presence to an X-alternative makes them "a follower and a coward," Jon wrote on his blog shortly before #EUinfluencer. "Act like a leader, stand up for your ethics, gain some respect — and then people perhaps should be led by you," he implored. Check. 🔵 In any case the discretion Team Musk has is scary. During #EUinfluencer, the organiser, ZN, saw it's X account temporarily go down prompting talk of shadow-banning. My ideal microblog would be X re-rebranded, put in public trust, and offering follower-ship portability and full federation with other microblogs. Pie-in-the-sky perhaps. But there's value in discussing how we still can avoid dystopian public spheres.

"Oh, please, I don't want to talk about politics." I hear you, especially on LinkedIn. But this is directly relevant to your job prospects if you work in advertising/media! How can you avoid it when media owners like Elon Musk donate millions to Donald Trump and newsbrands make it their business to openly support politicians and political parties? The uncomfortable truth is: you can only have a "non-political" stance when political candidates abide by certain democratic norms that we take for granted. Our industry DEPENDS on democratic institutions which provide for (some) free speech, regulated markets, and the rule of law. Donald Trump is a threat to these institutions and a threat to this industry. He hasn't even conceded the last US election and his supporters stormed the buildings to overthrow the government. The evidence is in plain sight and, if he wins, he will be emboldened to go further and be even more corrupt. So you can't be pro-Trump and be pro-media. Under authoritarianism, there's only one truth and it's determined by whomever is in charge. Good luck with your social media influencer consultancy, or your Substack content marketing side hustle, when you can't even guarantee freedoms. As usual please read my The Media Leader UK column and I highly value your feedback, in the comments or privately to [email protected]. https://lnkd.in/eJ2wZq3U

The latest news on social media is that there is bi-partisan support for Congress passing a bill to demand that Tik Tok relinquish its ties to the Chinese government or face being banned. There is ample reason for anyone with a concern for what American children are exposed to on the Internet to be dubious about what Tik Tok disseminates. I had posted an earlier essay slamming Tik Tok for basically being a tool of the Chinese Communist Party to poison the minds of young people, just as they are poisoning their bodies with fentanyl. Tik Tok is a very low brow way to get information and much of it is tilted against American values and interests. I agree that this is intentional on the part of the Chinese government, and it deserves pushback. I note that Donald Trump, who it is reported had favored banning Tik Tok while president, now opposes such a move. I Googled the subject to make sure I understood his position. And frankly, I am impressed with his ability to look beyond the obvious threat. Tik Tok is a major player in social media, should it be banned, Trump is concerned that too much power over what American children are exposed to will be transferred to Facebook. Giving Facebook what amounts to a monopoly concerns Trump, since he believes it is only slightly less harmful in its messaging than Tik Tok. A reasonable concern, in my opinion since we have seen how much power Facebook had during Covid to shape public opinion, censor on behalf of the government, and push liberal agendas to the detriment of conservative voices. Trump's voice for example was silenced when the Facebook oversight board banned him for 2 years. While I am sure knowing Trump that still smarts, it also points to the problem with giving these giant companies the ability to decide who can have access to the public square and what they can say. Giving Facebook what amounts to a monopoly position on the Internet would not, in my opinion, be in the public's interest. Like a lot of issues that seem intractable today, I believe that a healthy dose of pragmatism is worth a pound of regulation. I would assume that as president Trump would have a lot to say to the Chinese on a range of issues that might do us more good in our competition with them than just cutting off our nose to spite our face. Which basically is what banning Tik Tok would do. For better or worse, a lot of people like Tik Tok, and apparently it is not without its virtues. Instead of taking a meat ax to the problem, which is often how government acts, why not give Trump a scalpel and let him carve out the indoctrination aspects of the site.

November 14, 2024: Why the Guardian is no longer posting on X "Dear supporter, We wanted to let readers know that we are no longer posting from any official Guardian editorial accounts on the social media site X (formerly Twitter). We think that the benefits of being on X are now outweighed by the negatives and that resources could be better used promoting our content elsewhere. This is something we have been considering for a while given the often disturbing content promoted or found on the platform, including far-right conspiracy theories and racism. The US presidential election campaign served only to underline what we have considered for a long time: that X is a toxic media platform and that its owner, Elon Musk, has been able to use its influence to shape political discourse. X users will still be able to share our articles, and the nature of live news reporting means we will still occasionally embed content from X within our article pages. Our reporters will also be able to carry on using the site for newsgathering purposes, just as they use other social networks in which we don’t officially engage. Social media can be an important tool for news organizations and help us to reach new audiences but, at this point, X now plays a diminished role in promoting our work. Our journalism is available and open to all on our website and we would prefer people to come to theguardian.com and support our work there. You can also enjoy our journalism on the Guardian app and discover new pieces via our brilliant set of regular newsletters. Thankfully, we can do this because our business model doesn’t rely on viral content tailored to the whims of the social media giants’ algorithms – instead we’re funded directly by readers like you..." #ImissTwitter #byebyebirdy

It seems that The Guardian has decided to halt its activity on Twitter, now called X. The cited reasons: A persistent presence of "disturbing content" on the platform, including "far-right conspiracy theories and racism." This, compounded by the behaviour observed, it seems, during the US presidential election campaign, has reinforced The Guardian’s long-held view that X is a "toxic media platform", with its owner, Elon Musk, wielding his influence to shape political discourse. 🤔 Does anyone else smell the irony here? Has The Guardian not also attempted to wield its influence to shape political discourse? Years ago, I stopped using The Guardian as my go-to news source, dismayed by its lack of objectivity and tendency to push certain narratives. Yet, their recent decision to leave the platform, citing issues of conspiracy theories and racism, strikes me as both hypocritical and almost comically petulant. Consider The Guardian’s selective outrage!! During the height of the pandemic, anyone questioning COVID interventions was quickly labelled a conspiracy theorist, with the rag pushing a narrative that paralleled COVID-19 with the Spanish flu, thus fuelling widespread fear while promoting hatred towards those 'anti-vaxxers'. Then came the Twitter Files revelations. These documents unveiled significant government efforts to control platform content, endorsing "centralized content moderation" that stifled free speech and favoured certain narratives while shadow banning dissenters. The Twitter Files also unveiled potential collusion between tech giants, liberal politicians, and the deep state to mute conservative voices. Why then, did The Guardian not express any outrage over these findings? This situation highlights how The Guardian and similar media outlets are increasingly out of touch, catering to a shrinking echo-chamber audience and drifting toward irrelevance. Their frequent use of extremist labels, especially the 'right-wing' trope to undermine legitimacy, is problematic and often serves to suppress diverse voices. Rather than seeking to understand different perspectives or using the U.S. election as a moment to reflect on how out-of-touch its reporting might be, it appears to be doubling down. X is undoubtedly chaotic and toxic at times. But in a world where free speech should be paramount, this chaos and toxicity underscores the importance of teaching critical thinking instead of shielding people through speech suppression. The best way to foster critical thinking is to keep asking questions and exploring our own judgments. Yet, this act by The Guardian suggests that their mission is more about indoctrination than education. The importance of independent news outlets have never been more critical as they rapidly become the last bastions of unfiltered and unbiased reporting. With the drop in trust in traditional media, where do you turn for reliable and unbiased news?

Great to see a major British newspaper waking up and taking a stand against #bigtech misinformation and bias: The Guardian is abandoning X / Twitter 🥳 https://lnkd.in/eQB9fd98 📖 BTW If you're interested in why these kinds of platforms don't moderate their content to get rid of fake news and misinformation, search for BLINDNESS BY DESIGN in this fantastic paper by Shoshana Zuboff: https://lnkd.in/erwtzxeZ ➡️Just open that link and do a Ctrl+F search, it's the second instance. You'll find the text "The engineering solution to “the engineering problem” was this blindness by design. Systems were optimized for fidelity to the signal while structurally indifferent to questions of the signal’s fidelity to its subject. Engineered blindness equated to formal disinterest in the content of messages. The machines convey signals according to a priori instructions; they do not decipher or evaluate meaning." ⬅️ [Zuboff got that notion from researching into algorithm design, which led her to this book about Claude Shannon https://lnkd.in/eHJk2u5D, but I wouldn't expect people to go THAT far down the rabbit hole 🤪] TLDR vsn 🥱 Blindness-by-design is a feature of algorithm design (and electronic data transfer generally) that precludes any kind of moderation (when its done at such massive scale and speed i.e. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Tiktok). Big tech social media systems are thus intentionally blind to the content of posts/articles, they just push them out to people based on engagement, via the profile they've made of you. And stuff that outrages us gets the most engagement, so... 🎈 Fun fact 🎈 Mastodon does not use an algorithm to decide what you see in your feed - you decide that yourself with the hashtags and people that you follow. https://joinmastodon.org #X #Twitter #SocialMedia #algorithm #moderation #fakenews #misinformation #onceyouseeityoucantunseeit