The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Mastodon or Mastodon't?
I have been Twitter sober now for nearly three years. I do not miss it at all. And I do not plan to join Mastodon, because if it survives (no guarantee), the site will suffer from the same flaws as Twitter.
Social media is premised on a simple idea: Person A posts something that Person B will find useful. Invariably, Person A, desirous of more fans, will try to post things that are of interest to a bigger audience. But in doing so, Person A will start pushing the envelope. Person A, on social media at least, becomes something of a persona. And that persona will differ from how Person A operates in reality. As the persona grows, Person A will garner critics, who I'll refer to as Person C. Person C will try to use Person A's platform to increase Person C's presence. Person C engage Person A--seemingly in good faith--but with a jab in the background. Person A may respond, at least initially, until response seems a waste of time. Person C will fault Person A for not debating. Eventually, Person A stops replying all together, and simply uses Twitter to promote his own work.
Every successful media platform starts off in this period of digital bliss, where only a small cadre of people in a small social network engage with each other. Facebook was launched when I was a junior in college, and it was initially limited to college students on certain campuses. It was great! There was some check on who could participate. But eventually Facebook opened up to people outside the campuses, and eventually everyone around the world. It became much less useful. I also remember when Twitter launched. I used to be able to read all of the tweets my friends wrote. Chronologically, I would just scroll through, and see all the tweets. That task is now impossible.
When any social media site reaches a critical mass, it no longer serves that initial purpose of socialization. So something new comes along. No one can fix that problem. Not even Elon Tusk.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Gregory (Scotland Yard detective): “Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?” Holmes: “To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.”
Gregory: “The dog did nothing in the night-time.” Holmes: “That was the curious incident.”
Can it be that Professor Blackman – who belabors every single bit of SCOUS trivia & gossip – hasn’t yet posted on the Alito Allegations?
Surely you must realize a Justice leaking a verdict to a pair of activists during an ethically dubious dinner is only inappropriate if the Justice is a Liberal.
Similarly, the oft-criticized Chief Justice Roberts who was greatly tarnished by his inability to find the Dobbs leaker was only being prudent in ignoring the Burwell leak.
A "leak" that no one knew about for eight years?
A leak that was communicated to several people at the time and has some additional contemporary evidence in the form of emails suggesting the verdict was known.
One of the funnier things about Blackman is that he will go full hack on the stupidest stuff imaginable when absolutely no one asked, but when all hands on deck are needed to defend the Chosen One, he’s silent.
Nobody is "needed" to defend this month's designated Hitler against stale yet unsubstantiated accusations of misconduct.
Then why is Zillow Ed going to the mat for him?
How tf is it “unsubstantiated”? One of the people he leaked to snitched on him! How much more substantiation could there ever be?
Well, generally, if I say somebody leaked something to me, it would be substantiation if I could demonstrate contemporary evidence outside my control that it had happened.
If it's just my word against theirs, that's what people generally mean by "unsubstantiated". Especially if the people I claim could substantiate it instead publicly deny it.
Notice that the Slate account, (And Slate is not a particularly friendly venue for Alito.) is rife with words like 'alleged', 'reportedly', 'if', 'narrative'. This isn't how you report a substantiated story.
And it would be fairly daring for Alito to be denying the story in terms he is, if there were any possibility it could be proven true.
No, a publication using the word allegedly doesn't mean what is alleged is unsubstantiated.
Brett suddenly hews to standards of factual proof beyond what is required for a criminal trial.
He'll also declare Hillary a felon. Because consistent standards are for those with less certainty than he.
Absent some very surprising revelation, Alito leaked, Brett. It's just pathetic to try and deny reality at this point.
"Brett suddenly hews to standards of factual proof beyond what is required for a criminal trial."
I admit that it is, regrettably, possible to convict somebody on the basis of a bare accusation, even if the alleged witnesses deny the crime happened. (As the Wrights do here.) It's certainly not at all common.
In Hillary's case, all the legal elements of the crime are public record.
This is not criminal law.
But even in criminal law, someone saying that someone leaked to them is indeed substantiated evidence of said person leaking.
Public record? That is not any evidentiary source I'm aware of. Seems more narrative than evidence, really.
"But even in criminal law, someone saying that someone leaked to them is indeed substantiated evidence of said person leaking."
Like I said, regrettably possible. The legal system uses a lot of words to mean different things than they mean to the general population, and I guess "substantiated" is one of them.
In the common parlance, an accusation doesn't substantiate itself. It's just an accusation. Substantiation is evidence beyond the accusation.
No, you don't get to brush off an accusation by an alleged eyewitness as not substantiated. Making the rebuttable presumption that the witnessed event has *not* happened is the reverse of how everyone operates in journalism, legally, and just in life generally.
"No, you don’t get to brush off an accusation by an alleged eyewitness as not substantiated."
I damned well do.
Oxford Languages:
"sub·stan·ti·ate
/səbˈstan(t)SHēˌāt/
Learn to pronounce
verb
past tense: substantiated; past participle: substantiated
provide evidence to support or prove the truth of.
"they had found nothing to substantiate the allegations""
Cambridge Dictionary:
"substantiate
verb [ T ]
formal
us
/səbˈstæn.ʃi.eɪt/ uk
/səbˈstæn.ʃi.eɪt/
to show something to be true, or to support a claim with facts:
We have evidence to substantiate the allegations against him."
Collins Dictionary:
"substantiate
(səbstænʃieɪt IPA Pronunciation Guide )
Word forms: substantiates, substantiating, substantiated
transitive verb
To substantiate a statement or a story means to supply evidence which proves that it is true.
[formal]
There is little scientific evidence to substantiate the claims."
Macmillian Dictionary:
"substantiate
verb transitive
US
/səbˈstænʃiˌeɪt/
Word Forms
DEFINITIONS1
1
to provide evidence that proves something
They were unable to substantiate their claims of government malpractice."
Cornell Law:
"Substantiated allegation means an allegation that was investigated and determined to have occurred."
US Legal:
"Substantiated means supported by proof or evidence. It is something that is supported or verified by corroborating information."
Notice that in every one of these dictionary definitions, "substantiation" consists of evidence beyond the allegation itself?
Allegations do not substantiate themselves.
Brett Bellmore: "...“substantiated”..."
The N.Y. Times says there is evidence proving Rev. Rob Schenck had advanced knowledge of the Hobby Lobby ruling. That is strong support for Schenck's allegations.
Well, at least you know what substantiation looks like. And that would be evidence that SOMEBODY leaked, and coupled with the allegation that it was Alito, at least starts to look serious.
I’m not sure this semantic quibbling is especially productive or probative, but Brett Bellmore’s is correct on the linguistic question. A witness describing what they witnessed is evidence that the thing happened: it’s not substantiated unless there’s additional evidence corroborating it.
“Absent some very surprising revelation, Alito leaked, Brett. It’s just pathetic to try and deny reality at this point.”
Don’t push him, man. He’ll get to the “yes, he leaked, but it doesn’t matter” stage on his own.
I rather doubt that. Maybe Sarcastro would be very surprised if Rob Schenck were just doing a hit on Alito for his new allies. It wouldn't shock me, though. He's a former pro-lifer, and who is as zealous as a convert?
I'm waiting on actual evidence. If Alito turns out to be genuinely guilty, I will be very disappointed in him. But it's going to take actual evidence to convince me of that, not mere allegations.
Allegations are cheap.
True we don't have a lot of evidence, but your explanation is inconsistent with the evidence we have, notably this passage from the article:
But several people remember his sharing the same details in 2014, and contemporaneous records suggest that Schenck had access to confidential information and expected his side to win the case.
Assuming the other people are credible I think the only plausible defense of Alito is that the Wrights made a mistake. ie, they thought they got a 'wink wink nudge nudge' confirmation of the verdict that Alito never made.
However, I'd be more inclined to believe this if the SCOTUS had followed up the letter with Schenck. The fact this fairly credible accusation was ignored either means disorganization of behalf of the SCOTUS (too many letters and this one wasn't noticed) or Robert's didn't follow up because he already knows that Alito is in the habit of leaking verdicts.
Ah yes, the ad hominem.
Ignore how well the timing lines up, all part of the conspiracy Brett has just now made up so he can call actual evidence NOT actual evidence.
You'll never be disappointed in Alito, because you'll never need to believe he is guilty. All evidence is suspect if you believe!
Yeah, you thought it was reasonable to think Kavanaugh a rapist, too, didn't you? After all, somebody had accused him.
I never called him a rapist, Brett, because I'm not sure.
But I thought and continue to think it was sufficient to be worthy of investigation.
Get your facts straight.
"if Rob Schenck were just doing a hit on Alito for his new allies."
If this were true, Alito can (and should) sue him for defamation. Get everybody under oath and subject to cross-examination, and see where the evidence leads.
It is convenient, Brett, I’m sure, for evidence to be “actual” only when it hurts your enemies. If it hurts your friends it’s “unsubstantiated.”
Both being, of course, meaningkess terms. All evidence is “actual” evidence. It’s also all “unsubstantiated.” Watch this:
The evidence against Hillary is unsubstantiated. Nothing was ever proven to my satisfaction, and there’s no additional evidence of any wrongdoing. It’s going to take actual evidence to convince me.
Meaningless.
Weirdly, by sending a private letter to the Court, rather than by just coming out with ti. Sure, Brett.
"Allegations are cheap."'
Says Birther Brett, whose evidentiary standards flutter with the same political winds that indicate Prof. Volokh's positions on freedom of expression.
At this point, can there be any real doubt that the Dobbs leak came from the right? With every day that passes, the “overzealous liberal clerk” theory becomes less plausible. Surely they would’ve been smoked out by now if that was the case. With the newest revelation, you’d have to think that Alito himself either did it or approved it. Though Ginni Thomas is still a plausible culprit.
I don't get it: How exactly is the leaker to be "smoked out"? If they took some care, there's simply no way to find them. Too many people would have had access.
I mean, the court could just be incredibly incompetent when it comes to it's "investigation".
But yes, after the initial investigation where there were regular updates, the sudden months-long radio silence does kind of suggest that they didn't like what they found.
If Alito or Thomas ever retire (rather then dying on the bench) they'll probably write a tell-all book and then we'll learn (I deliberately excluded Roberts, because he's too concerned about the courts reputation to write a tell-all).
Think this through: The draft was widely distributed, basically everyone working at the Supreme court, Justices AND interns, had access to it. So the suspect list was everybody.
Unless the recipient of the leak outed the leaker, how were they going to find the leaker short of their feeling guilty and confessing?
So the failure to find him or her hardly tells us anything.
Of course there were calls for THAT leaker's head and for what was left of them to get prison time, it was all obviously a Democrat-mainstream-media conspiracy that the leaker was being protected etc etc.
This might surprise you, but espionage is actually something the government has experience in investigating. That experience translates, pretty easily, to this case.
So sure, you may "think this through" and come up with nothing, but assuming that because you can't solve a problem that means the problem is unsolvable is a form of hubris.
All of which is to say: your lack of expertise is not sufficient basis to assume no such expertise exists.
No way!!!!!
First three sentences start with "I." Totally on brand.
(Yes, I know the third one is actually "And I." So sue me.)
David Nieporent : "So sue me"
Is that really the stance you wanna take in a forum full of lawyers?
(myself excepted)
No one who reads the comments at the Volokh Conspiracy -- the level of legal insight in particular -- buys that this is a 'forum full of lawyers.'
So nu. Serve a paper and sue me.
What can you do me?
Sounds like Obama when he wasn't using the royal "we".
I don't know how many friends you have, but there is no reason why this is *impossible*, at least on Twitter. I use Twitterific; I don't see any "trending" tweets unless the people I follow retweet them, and I try to stick to following folks who produce content I want to see, some of whom are friends in real life, others online, and others whose opinions I find interesting or have respect for. I also see virtually no ads, which I'm sure doesn't do great things for Twitter's bottom line. And I have issues finding friends' content on Facebook (even if it is posted!), but that's an algorithmic issue. There's no reason why social media *has* to be unfriendly to use to keep in touch with and view the ideas of friends and acquaintances- except, of course, for the fact that social media companies, particularly those that go public, want to make more money and more money by selling ads, which means ever increasing levels of engagement, which means providing ever increasing quantities of content that is not from your friends or those you follow. If Facebook had remained just that- Facebook, useful for connecting with those who you know- there would be a lot more people happy with it. But if also probably wouldn't be very profitable, if it was profitable at all.
That is, the problem isn't the size of a social media company. It's the fact that social media companies are for profit companies, and that the users are the product and ad sellers are the customers. I can't speak for whether Mastodon will succeed- I tend to think that it is so decentralized, and so much is riding on the decisions of server admins in terms of who can access what, that it will struggle to take off- but there's no reason that it has to fail.
And the beuty of free software is that even if mastodon DID fail, you and your friends could keep using it hosted on a server in your mom's basement, if that's what you wanna do.
Indeed, with computers cheaper than they've ever been, and high speed internet access almost ubiquitous, it's strange that everybody seems to be migrating back to server based systems.
Internet security is hard, as a number of people mentioned when EV asked about hosting a server for the VC. Also, not everybody wants to have a desktop that is always turned on and running from their home. That's why server-based protocols are popular.
That is a bit of an issue, admittedly.
Same reason most people will hire a lawyer or plumber rather then represent themselves/fix their own plumbing: sure, they could do it, and might even be successful for small enough tasks, but if success actually matters, you should probably get a professional.
Actually, a lot of people do the stuff themselves because they can’t afford to have professionals do everything for them.
But in the case of lawyers it's often because lawyers have arranged for it to be illegal for anyone else to do it.
Plenty of plumbers will tell you that their clients really couldn't afford to do it themselves.
I suppose there are clients who’d make enough of a hash of it that could be true. The plumbers wouldn't meet the ones it wasn't true of in the first place.
You clearly don't understand what the #Fediverse is. Your comment may be true about mastodon.social but the entire 'verse can't reach this critical mass. That's the nature of Federation and the beauty of Free Software
For example, the only reason, no pun intended, that I found this article is I friended @latest@reason.com on #Friendica via https://reason.com/latest/feed
Masdontcare. Skip it.
“There was some check on who could participate.”
elitists say: only my Tweets are useful!
This reminds me of what I am forced to remind every STEM PhD I hire: There is no point having deep knowledge about algorithms if you cant communicate it (esp to regulators). Knowledge without communication is simply intellectual masturbation.
The marketplace of ideas is sometimes chaotic, but to persuade people you just have to enter the melee. The alternative is to stay in an echo chamber.
And remember, brevity is the soul of wit.
I was talking about Mastodon and federated social networks on places including here ages ago and everybody either didn't care or laughed it off. Now its the most important thing in the world to these hypocrites. lol.
AmosArch, the VC's own Cassandra.
It's so strange to me how willing you are to think up nonsense and then publish it.
There's nothing about growth or Person C that prevents you from only reading your friends' posts. Your only obstacle is yourself... as you said,
Invariably, Person A, desirous of more fans, will try to post things that are of interest to a bigger audience. But in doing so, Person A will start pushing the envelope.
So... don't do that. Do you really have so little self control that you're unable to participate on social media without becoming a whore?
Is this a serious question.
Can questions be both rhetorical and serious? If not, then no.
I don’t understand all y’all’s moping about social networks. The New Twitter is easily twice as interesting as the Old Twitter, and ten times more fun. I never used to pay attention to it at all, now I run by the home page about twice a day.
All that’s happened to Twitter is that it has stopped being an exclusive club for the Right People. It’s no longer a by-invitation-only dinner party, it’s a block party.
It’s just SO much more enjoyable. You might actually get something genuinely trendy to trend in your timeline, instead of the latest bull hockey The Club wanted to shovel at you. Imagine that.
And, this just needs to be said: Twitter is still working. With reportedly 1/10th the staff. What WERE all those people doing?
While I'm entirely willing to believe that Twitter's staff was horribly bloated, and a great many of them doing things that were better off not being done in the first place, (Like hunting for Wrongthink.) the fact that it's still running a few days after the layoff doesn't really prove anything. Almost any computer system will keep running for a while even if you walk away from it.
If it's still running a month from now, with the same staff, THAT will be meaningful.
"With reportedly 1/10th the staff. What WERE all those people doing?"
Sounds like a template for use on government at all levels.
Three paragraphs informing us he’s not joining Mastodon. Quite possibly his best output yet.
Incorrect.
Follow your friends. Turn off retweets. Set your timeline to chronological mode.
Bam, done and done.
You don't have to let the algorithm choose what to show you.
If this works it is too hard to find for the average Twitter user, probably by design.
Too hard for Blackman, maybe. But not for most others.
So you're premise is, because social media is flawed, you simply won't participate in any social media ever, thereby rendering you completely irrelevant?
I don't get this thinking. I don't engage in the behaviors online that you noted as being counterproductive. Therefore, I make my circle on social media better. And I'm still able to connect with and engage people online, where an increasingly large portion of life takes place nowadays.