Twitter: Breaking The Bird Review – Like all hatred speeches have been flooded | Television

It turns out that Mike Judge’s alleged sitcom Silicon Valley After all it was a documentary. My evil, like young people and in contact enough with the world to always know.

Twitter: Breaking The Bird is a 75-minute CNN film that tells the rise, the fall and possibly the end of the social media site that was launched by a group of young things enthusiastic in 2006 in a widespread conviction in the valley-green power of the internet to redo the world in radically better ways. This, a co-founder or two has come since then, could have been an hallucinogenically optimistic “vision”. Well, we were all young once. Even if this is heard – and largely due to Twitter – like a long time ago.

The original band included Jack Dorsey, Evan Williams, Biz Stone and Noah Glass. Dorsey, who became the first Twitter CEO, had the idea of ​​letting the site allows users to update each other on their thoughts, actions and feelings in real time. “Microblogging” is the word that I remember having been banned at that moment, although it is not used here. Maybe nobody knows what the blog was. (He was long -term Twitter. Help?)

Twitter exploded in popularity, in part because the celebrities were attracted by his immediacy and by the apparent clarity of the interaction he offered. Politicians also crowded there, once his soft but extraordinary power began to become evident, then the activists, together with an ever increasing number of ordinary users.

The only problem was that the site was: please, allow me to summarize some of the technical terms here – a piece of garbage. These were the years of “whale failure”: every time the site crashed, an excuse message came to the screen accompanied by the image of a blue whale that was raised by many, many small Twitter birds. “It was the strongest platform and the small small business,” he says The technological journalist Kara Swisher. Dorsey has been ousted as CEO, the rest of the co-founders was pushed or walked and a new boss, Dick Costolo, ordered a reconstruction from scratch.

Five years later, he restored Dorsey – and his unshakable belief in freedom of speech – on the throne. Initially, when Twitter became decisive in disseminating the Black Lives Matter MovementDorsey’s belief in his creation of democratizing and liberalizing force seemed justified. You will never guess what, though. It didn’t last.

Del Harvey was the woman that the boys had nominated with reluctance in the first days to face abuses online. He saw the pitfalls of a disconcerting commitment for freedom of speech. As the former Twitter engineering Leslie Miley says: “It is not just a naive philosophy; it is a privileged philosophy”. Harvey had discussed from the beginning for various tools and protections, but – I hope you are sitting – he was not taken seriously.

Hate of hatred of all kinds, in particular misogynist, flooded. Then, in 2016, Trump arrived. He can be able to pay attention and guided the involvement, but his windows legitimized the others. The debate rages. Should it be banned? Should other users be prohibited? Should they be removed more post? Does freedom of speech mean freedom from the consequences? Dorsey preferred, as Swisher says, “go to fix a finger in Sri Lanka” rather than evolving a more sophisticated policy.

Assembly problems meant that “Twitter stopped being fun” for Dorsey, according to one of his teams. He resigned from CEO and sold the company to Elon Musk – “The singular solution I trust”, apparently due to the commitment of the billionaire for freedom of free speech. X, like Musk the site renames, is now a Hellscape.

Twitter: Breaking The Bird is a compelling story – even if told without talent – of how idealism and ignorance, voluntarily and not filled, combined to bring down a potential empire. It is an illustration of the profound difficulties that we will face if we continue to let young men, confident, unworthy and uninformed men model and govern the Internet – that is, our society – without making them look at what they are doing and examine the consequences.

Even if it is not asked explicitly, a question is the basis of each scene: has the internet made us monstrous or given free from what was always there? In other ways, when we look at the landscape, are we looking at the worst of humanity-a group of self-selected horrors, not completely representative-o essence?

Nobody arrive there. I could simply look at a plea in Sri Lanka for a while.