[I_Am_Nous]

>I thought the article was going to talk more about how Twitter isn’t really used for breaking news as ubiquitously anymore.

Same, I was kind of expecting some kind of stats comparing tweet numbers for this disaster with previous disasters to show something like "people aren't talking about the real world on twitter as much." Instead the article is lamenting how twitter has changed into a psyop/influence network that you can't trust anymore. Perhaps we never should have trusted twitter or assigned it as much value as we did if "racist mobs" can move in and overwhelm a narrative so easily.

The editor they interviewed pointed out that there were unsourced videos and conspiracy theories about the disaster so it really sounds like they were unhappy that twitter isn't primarily used by journalists who provide sources and receipts. Sure, that's a way people can use twitter but it's definitely not how most use twitter.

[dangus]

To that point, I don’t feel like Jack Dorsey’s Twitter was totally absent of this kind of content.

Maybe the skeleton crew Twitter is worse at moderation (and Elon Musk doesn’t care/actively wants disinformation that benefits his investors) but because this influence network existed back then the article didn’t feel terribly eye-opening.