From your link-
He was in it for the money.
Platforms like Twitter & Facebook simply have exploitable features. We saw that in 2016. It's inherent to their usefulness & popularity. Groups using that to spread hate doesn't make providers complicit.
Facebook & Twitter have wised up considerably as witnessed by the purges so decried by the free speech for Nazis crowd. They can always do better, I'm sure, but the sheer scope of it makes that a daunting task indeed.
You're misunderstanding what I was saying, and you actually perfectly explained what I was meaning. Yes, its all about fucking money. That's the impetus behind it. I think you're confused because my, factual support of my point, does sound similar to base "draw you in" aspects of conservative conspiracy shit (the "corrupted for money" part). The difference is, mine is actually factually supported, conservatives often are fabricated, or if its not they use that to go to crazy levels (you do realize that their conspiracies all run together and that they almost always escalate it beyond the simple corruption stuff and a lot of it leads to full on alien invasion conspiracy shit, right?), which I'm not doing in any way. I was pointing that out some by highlighting the bit about Soros in that group, whereas conservatives try to put all of the "corrupt money" shit on him and the Clintons especially, acting like the conservative people doing that are fine or whatever their bullshit reasoning for ignoring how the conservative pushing side is far more the one doing that shit.
Yes, no shit. WTF? That's the fucking point, those platforms were open to being exploited. How you're getting that I was arguing something else, I have no fucking clue.
The conservatives with money realized that, and they used libertarian minded dude-bro language about free speech and other shit that they knew many silicon valley/startup dudebros already bought into. No, not all of them are bad (Musk, even though I think he's kinda a shithead far too often for my liking, I think genuinely is genuinely interested in pushing humanity forward), but many of them buy into pretty blind mentalities that makes them easy to manipulate by people who are corrupt. Its why it took such a blind outlook. Facebook and Twitter knew that groups were using their platforms for political shit that was not ok, they didn't care because Facebook was making money, and Twitter was desperately trying to get there.
The conservatives with money recognize they can get more money by exploiting the sum of people, hence why they use people like Turmp to push this culture war shit like the alleged clampdown on conservative speech, to try and make sure those groups stay on there and that there is unified platforms as its easier to monetize that. I think they feel that the "outrage culture" is good for business, so they are interested in fanning the flames, and simply don't give a shit about real world repercussions until they're forced to (as in when it starts affecting their money). They really don't give a shit other than having the most exploitable base. Its more difficult to see their methods when they can obfuscate it, versus when its blatantly targeted like it would be for niche markets (like conservative social media would be; when that is mixed in with normal social media it gets lost in the noise more).
We know that there were these groups investing in social media companies, and we also know they actively were exploiting social media for their own uses. That Twitter started finally being successful right about the same time that Facebook took a hit for similar issues, and that it also happened right around the time when conservatives were crying that their speech was being infringed, yet as this thread showed, the exceedingly toxic aspects of were still rampant on there, I think shows that Twitter has been viewing this for the money, and that there's probably a pretty decent chance that some of the groups that got hit for their Facebook shit, just might have moved to pouring their money into Twitter to do the same thing. I don't think is a terribly crazy conspiracy.
One last thing, Twitter largely clamps down on fake accounts and bots. They really are still not doing much about threats and really toxic shit until they're forced to when it hits the news, as we see here. Other social media platforms are much more active in dealing with that behavior. I think that's because they've managed to use it to start making money, and I have a strong hunch its because a lot of the ones that were doing that had been exploiting Facebook invested in Twitter because of the fallout over it (and likely by using more shell groups to hide their involvement). They almost certainly didn't go to Twitter and say "let the conservatives say whatever they want" they likely just said they want to uphold the bullshit libertarian free speech shit that Twitter was already on board with, and now Twitter had the money to be able to uphold that. But they do a big show about clamping down on the political shit that hit Facebook stock so bad (but largely that's just shutting down obvious fake account/bot groups) to make people think they aren't still being shitty like before. They're like Uber, they keep saying they're doing better but more and more comes out showing its all a sham and they're still fucking rotten.
So i have to ask this question; clearly a lot of people support Trump and more than a few are ok with blowing up the Clinton's and other Democrats. The question i have is are they stupid and just blindly following the leadership or do they really feel this way and if so why ?
Because their brains are fucked. Its cult mentality.
I personally doubt that in their hearts they truly want to see Clinton or Obama murdered. Well I'm sure a few on the lunatic fringe do but overall no. I think it's one of those things where people get swept up in tribal identity and are trying to signal to others just how fervently they believe.
That's for the regular people. For people like Ann Coulter and Milo they are just cynical hacks whose shtick is to say horrible things to get attention and make money. Ann Coulter is an easy one. Haven't heard much from her lately, right? Sometime in the next year or two you'll suddenly see some new horrific comment from her and wonder to yourself 'why am I hearing from this asshole again?' She will have a new book coming out, that's why.
Its cult mentality. Look at...shit forget the name the one that had the Netflix documentary series Wild Country about, where a group of the higher ups felt justified in poisoning and murdering people. Its the same shit, just on a different scale.
I don't agree that they are cynical. A lot of them I think genuinely believe the stuff they spout (not the day to day lies shit, the overall, they view the day to day lies as the means to a justified end; although yes they're most interested in the luxury of wealth which often has led them to be blind to what their end game actually would be; and the more they stay in that mentality the more it twists their minds, and the more the luxury is enabled the more blind they become to where things are leading). Well obviously they use that, and yes that's no different from other people (rock/pop stars, etc using shock value to keep their name out there and get publicity), but the difference is that most of those others are more open about being in it for the fame and fortune.
Facebook
Twitter