Mark Weinstein, founder of Twitter-competitor MeWe, wrote a Sunday Wall Street Journal op-ed on this subject; he suggested a number of “fixes” that Twitter owner Elon Musk should implement to save Twitter—and Weinstein’s conception of “democracy.” These are:
…immediately create an advertiser content-preference system. Allow advertisers to select the tenor and topical content that their ads are associated with….
Only if Twitter users can have access to the system and to which advertisers sign up for which censorship. That way, we can block the ads from Woke or otherwise too thin-skinned advertisers. They will have demonstrated that their products are too fragile for actual usefulness.
…[act to block] a rash of verified accounts impersonating public figures, companies, and organizations….
How does Weinstein propose that legitimate satire and ridicule be discriminated from the fraud about which he claims to worry?
…sites that allow absolute free speech are overrun with hateful posts, spam, pornography, bullying, doxing, and incitement of violence.
Yeah, and? Whose definition of any of this is to be applied? We’ve already seen how the Woke and the thin-skinned Left already cry loudly over petty hurt feelings. Weinstein is just proposing more of that. The concept of free speech is centered on being able spout the ugliest spew, with answering speech being the remedy, not naked censorship.
…oversee a Twitter with little propaganda. Marketers, politicians and governments use Twitter to target unsuspecting users and manipulate their emotions, opinions, purchasing decisions…. …the way to solve this is to stop letting users pay to boost and amplify content.
Weinstein can’t have it both ways. Either Twitter allows advertising—propaganda—and allows advertisers to use their propaganda/advertising to target unsuspecting users and manipulate their emotions, opinions, purchasing decisions and to boost their advertisements (see that content-preference bit above), or it does not.
Twitter must go an extra step: no algorithms manipulating user newsfeeds or boosting unwanted content, period.
Again, Weinstein must pick one of these. Either he allows some—e.g., his precious advertisers—to manipulate newsfeeds and boost content, or he does not.
Twitter and its leadership must remain politically neutral.
I look forward with great anticipation to Weinstein telling other communications entities—The Washington Post or The New York Times, for instance, that they must remain politically neutral.
It’s not surprising that Weinstein proposes his competition attempt such internally contradictory moves.