Beep boop - this is a robot. A new show has been posted to TWiT…
What are your thoughts about today’s show? We’d love to hear from you!
2 Likes
I have to admit that I have rolled my eyes before at posts that mention a perceived lack of diversity in the discussion - usually of the “there’s no conservative voice!” variety.
However, this week’s TWiT (ok, ok, earth shaking, ground braking changes for a company down the road of Petaluma - fully understand) and TWiG made me perceive the same thing. Especially on the discussion of section 230 and sometimes even of the 1st amendment.
This is not to troll or complain but just to say: any discussion on a reasonably complex subject will have more than one way of thinking of it. Looking at it from one distinct perspective and then hammering the point home á la “the other side is too stupid to understand or downright malicious” does not make the content stronger. It makes the discussion feel eerily two-dimensional and, thus, lacking depth in diversity (while certainly making up with breadth in elaborating one side). For example challenging that 230 appears to be a godsent to tech companies should not really be the overruling point of a regulation - you may argue that the point of a regulation ought to be the benefit of the community or citizens and not an industry.
It really became palpable due to Stacey being off for the second week (hope she’s ok) who usually is a great counterweight to Jeff and which in turn puts Leo in the position of the referee. That’s excellent.
Not to complain, just to point out how my previous eye-rolling at some posts in the forum have come around to bite me in the backside. There’s a point here, imho. And: that’s not to complain, but to support any voices in the panel design process that argue for constructive, polite, fun, and educated diversity in opinion. (Certainly a Stacey fan club over here!) 
If that’s not possible or useful to do in this particular situation, try the technique that every host at least once has to adopt the role of the devil’s advocate and mean it. Not tongue in cheek, but truly trying to adopt another perspective than the one held and potentially challenge the own view. I understand that this does not help build a distinct personal brand on one particular subject or view - but it does build a personal brand on critical thinking.
Also: it would be super useful to have a read-out of the law subject to discussion during the show. At one point you (friendlily) lamented that no one reads section 230, even thought it’s only 26 words long. Oh boy, oh boy did I hope you’d read it at that point. Maybe you even did read the thing some time during the show - maybe even at the beginning - but it flew right past me. In that case: my bad, all well.
4 Likes
I thought the coverage was what I expected. I found Mike Masnick to be a great panelist… and I found the discussion covered the ground I would have expected. I don’t expect a TWiT show to be proposing fixes for the ills of society, even though they may report on them. It is, first and foremost, entertainment… with a side of education. The thunder and the reaction to it was pretty amusing.
5 Likes
I believe they did actually read it out last week, or was that on TWiT at the weekend?
1 Like
TWiG has become a very controversial show, but I mean it in a good way. Lots of quality discussion on polarizing subjects. However, the panel does need strong personalities on both sides, and @gigastacey has been a great counterpart to @JeffJarvis’s significant presence, so I do miss her.
4 Likes
fear not.
10 Likes
There is no reasonable “other side” on Section 230. You either support it or you destroy the Internet as we know it. Without 230 this forum would not exist, nor would TWiT chat, and it’s likely TWiT itself would be put out of business with nuisance law suits.
8 Likes
So I just ran into an odd occurrence on this episode.
I’m listening to it on the PocketCasts web app and at the 2:08:22 mark I get an ad for another podcast called “Every Little Thing” that seems to be inserted into the audio stream on the fly. This is a Gimlet Media podcast from my quick searching. It doesn’t exist on the audio stream on twit.tv/twig or in the Spotify stream (at least not at that point). I backed up the audio several times in PocketCasts and the ad was there each time in the same spot.
It’s like PocketCasts inserted it on the fly, which I’ve never heard happen before.
Runtime comparison:
PocketCasts (web & app): 2:21:11
twit.tv/twig: 2:20:41
Spotify: 2:20:41
As you can see, there’s 30 seconds extra in the PocketCasts version which is how long the ad was. Just wanted to give @Leo a heads-up about these shenanigans.
Per design, see:
3 Likes
Interesting…I just wonder why I’ve never come across it previously? I mean, I’ve only been using PocketCasts since March so not a HUGE sample size (although I do listen to about a dozen TWiT casts) but how does that address the lack of the ad on other platforms? I never came across this with any other shows and if it’s the show itself inserting why is not universal?
I do admit it almost seemed on purpose because it was at an almost natural break in the show right before the picks.
Because it’s a relatively new “solution” to the problem of lack of advertising due to covid.
3 Likes
Yes, I watched live and @Leo did agonize over how to do it so that it would seem intentional.
2 Likes
@Leo said it’s something he’s recently begun testing. Some other podcasts may be trying the same thing, but maybe not every other podcast.
2 Likes
Ahh, ok. I don’t typically get to listen live so that’s news to me. Mystery solved it seems. Thank you everyone.
2 Likes
Please have Mike Masnic on more often on the network.
2 Likes
I only had “internal” TWIT network ads, read from @Leo. Using PocketCasts on Android.
1 Like
Doesn’t that deny the opportunity to carefully and cleverly develop regulations like and around section 230 in the light of insights gathered over the past two dozen years? It might be helpful to change the discussion from keep or throw out to carefully develop. We might agree that most regulations can benefit from assessing impact and focusing on facets that remain unsatisfactory.
This will read more grandiose and Yoda as is intended - more of a wondering: Shouldn’t we try to retain a critical distance to even those laws that benefit us, individually?
Granted, most voices criticising 230 may not have the political restraint or motivation to go for a judicious approach which might be the challenge behind most political discussions turning into a bloody rooster fight to the death.
You know what? I’ll listen to the episode again. I am sure I have missed much. I am glad you guys are discussing these subjects and all my comments are praise for a podcast that makes me think. 
2 Likes
Well, I loved that show from start to finish. mike was a great guest, and the thunder had me laughing out loud as I walked down the street. Not to mention feeling old alongside @Leo as I also count seconds after thunder 
4 Likes
I don’t get the counting seconds after thunder thing. When you see lightning, you count seconds until you hear the thunder to know how far away the lightning struck. But why count seconds after thunder? 
1 Like
You don’t - you count the seconds after the lightning as you said
1 Like