Merged Musk buys Twitter!/ Elon Musk puts Twitter deal on hold....

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hopefully this idiocy will make any remaining left-of-fascism supporters of Musk to finally wake up to reality.
 
uke2se said:
Hopefully this idiocy will make any remaining left-of-fascism supporters of Musk to finally wake up to reality.
Click to expand...

I despise Musk, and the time to cut him slack because you like Space X (so do I) is long past.
The Real Life Tony Stark is becoing the Real Life VIctor Von Doon.
 
Musk just tweeted a BS COnspiracy Theory about the attack on Pelosi's husband.
Twutter has always been a cesspoo;. it will now become a Toxic Waste Dump.
 
I think Musk is going to find people are not ready to pay for twitter when there are alternatives around. It's like Netflex:too much competition for it to dominate like it tused to.
 
Ziggurat said:
Regardless? Yeah, no. You can't brush that under the rug. Their incompetence in fact checking and their decision to do it anyways is a pretty god damn ******* important thing.
Click to expand...
The only things I'm brushing under the rug are your knee-jerk assumptions about my (non) advocacy. I'm simply commenting on the state of affairs.
 
dudalb said:
I think Musk is going to find people are not ready to pay for twitter when there are alternatives around. It's like Netflex:too much competition for it to dominate like it tused to.
Click to expand...

I think Musk actually wants journalists and scientists to refuse to pay and be de-authenticated because the existence of "verified accounts" implies a hierarchy of information credibility, which undermines his vision of a source-agnostic forum in which a genuine expert's opinion on a topic isn't visually distinguishable from the local Q-nut's ravings.

I know that's not the only use/purpose for a "blue check" in reality, and I know that scientists and journalists aren't the only ones who get them; but it is the angle of the issue that is most important to Musk.
 
I think you have that backwards. If scientist lose their check marks because they don't pay, it will make it more obvious that the checkmark only means celebrity, nothing more.
 
Ziggurat said:
I think you have that backwards. If scientist lose their check marks because they don't pay, it will make it more obvious that the checkmark only means celebrity, nothing more.
Click to expand...

To the users, yes.

Musk doesn't actually care if people pay. I think the purpose of the proposed new feature isn't to make money, it's to make verified users willingly give up the verification system.
 
If Twitter breaks down over this don't worry: Musk will fix it using one of his amazing submarines. Such is his genius!
 
tyr_13 said:
What are you talking about. Of course it doesn't prove your point. You were the one insisting that legality being the only valid metric of what to limit is a good idea. The problem is that things that are 'awful but lawful' was shown to cause real problems. No, not all of it was illegal. Not even most of it. There isn't a good mechanism to combat the problem of leveraging large fast platforms like Twitter besides moderation.

The lawsuit doesn't have to have legal merit to illustrate this problem. That's a red herring.

'Awful but lawful' is a ****** standard to use in running a dive bar, let alone one of the most powerful communication platforms on the planet. The idea that 'well Myanmar was already doing these vile things so Twitter doesn't have reason to avoid helping them' isn't just wrong on most any morality one could hold (and thus people running Twitter might have call to act on), it's utterly moronic business sense. Do you really think a business doesn't have an interest in avoiding helping genocide if it doesn't get them in trouble with criminal or civil law?
Driving out the talent and environment that made Twitter powerful in the first place will just leave another 4chan or Parlor. It isn't chance that the places who don't at least try moderate moderation suck to be and fail to gain market. It isn't like Twitter didn't already favor conservative content. (BBC link) But that's never enough for those trying to 'play the ref' pretending to be persecuted by 'the woke'.



Of course you do. Probably going to tell the 'Japanese teens who think they're special' story again next.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Hans seems to have some bizarre idea about how you can't have a genocide if you have free expression. Of course, Saint Elon can only say what goes on his platform, but his policies on Twitter won't change those in Myanmar. The question is, if he finds out his platform gets used by the government of Myanmar for repressive or genocidal means rather than for sharing weak puns about sinks, does he accept there is any ethical (rather than mere legal) obligations?
 
So what do we have so far?

No apparent changes to the moderation yet, but clearly he doesn't want advertisers to pull out, so I very much doubt he is going to turn the site into a complete 4Chan free-for-all.

In fact, maybe the opposite is going to be true. If he is charging for blue tick marks, does this mean that effectively throttling and shadow banning become the norm for the ****-munchers, instead of merely a thing that right-wingers were always whinging about it only happening to them?
 
I mean, I know, I get it, he's a genius, he's a billionaire, I am neither, I have never put rockets into space or built electric cars or hyperloops or submarines, etc... but this is the kind of thing that I would have thought does not serve him well.

Don't investors get nervous seeing him spouting the kind of stuff that could be a joke or might be a half-joke or might be serious. I think that some people (for example, almost everyone in Ukraine), are pretty much sick of trying to figure out where he stands on things.
 

Attachments

  • Elon begs for money.jpg
    Elon begs for money.jpg
    29.6 KB · Views: 34
Stephen King is absolutely right: Twitter should court its top accounts, and charge those who still have to make a name for themselves.
 
Musk is making sure that he has complete personal control over the company:


Elon Musk has dissolved Twitter's board of directors - cementing his control over the social media platform.

The multi-billionaire will be its chief executive after buying the company last week, ending months of back and forth over the $44bn (£38.3bn) deal.
Click to expand...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-63458380

I think that this will end badly. At best he's an ideas man (though I'd challenge that view too) but he certainly hasn't demonstrated an ability to sweat the day-to-day details of running a large organisation.
 
Trebuchet said:
He says he is.
Click to expand...

He also said that SpaceX would be sending cargo Starships to Mars this year and people in 2024. He also said Hype Loop is not that hard. He also said Teslas would have full self driving by the end of 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022. He said Tesla would have an electric semi by 2019.

How much evidence do you need to understand that this man lies all the time and cannot be trusted?
 
tyr_13 said:
What are you talking about. Of course it doesn't prove your point. You were the one insisting that legality being the only valid metric of what to limit is a good idea.
Click to expand...

No, I wasn't, and I didn't even mention legality there. But then I guess chasing strawmen is always a favourite of pseudo-progressives these days.

I was saying that it remains to be seen if they're actually guilty. As in, if it's actually their fault.

Anyone can sue for anything, especially if the lawyers smell a fat settlement to avoid bad publicity. I can allege that my neighbour's cats caused my stocks to go down. Actually proving it with evidence and all -- including of actual causality -- is the harder part. And it's the only part that matters. Just because X says Y, doesn't make Y true.

You know, the whole "supporting with evidence" part of skepticism? The reason we even have a JREF in the first place?

tyr_13 said:
The problem is that things that are 'awful but lawful' was shown to cause real problems. No, not all of it was illegal. Not even most of it.
Click to expand...

Of course, if you had read what I actually wrote, you'd have noticed that that was actually my POINT for why US courts should not enforce Myanmar's press responsibility (read: censorship) laws. I mean, what, I only wrote 2 messages in this very thread dedicated solely to that.

Literacy is hard, eh? :p

tyr_13 said:
The lawsuit doesn't have to have legal merit to illustrate this problem. That's a red herring.
Click to expand...

Ah right, you just need to bring it up, and everyone has to nod and forget about establishing whether that argument has merit. That's how the circle-wank echo-chamber works, right? :p

tyr_13 said:
'Awful but lawful' is a ****** standard to use in running a dive bar, let alone one of the most powerful communication platforms on the planet.
Click to expand...

Then argue with the one who brought up a lawsuit, not with me. Given that, again, I was the one arguing AGAINST enforcing Myanmar's 'awful but lawful' standards.

tyr_13 said:
Of course you do. Probably going to tell the 'Japanese teens who think they're special' story again next.
Click to expand...

No, but that probably won't stop you from arguing with whatever you can invent I was going to say. Never seemed to have before.


But if you want a story, sure, I can oblige. I'm the helpful kind of bellend. So gather 'round, uncle Hans has a true story for ya: I was neighbours at one point with two women, mother and daughter, who ran a kiosk. So at one point a stray yellow dog appears and you can tell that the poor guy is trying really hard to get adopted. Even tried to follow me when I was walking our dog, and show that he's better at walking exactly near me. Friendliest dog you've ever seen, too. So, anyway, these two women adopt him.

And have the idea of taking him with them to work. I mean, he was the friendliest dog you've ever seen.

And there starts the problem: the poor furry little idiot gets the impression that he has to contribute something to his new owners. So he starts barking FURIOUSLY at anyone trying to buy anything from them, or even walk by. Like, you'd think he's got a sudden case of rabies or something. Went from friendly to really scary in half a second flat.

And that is my impression of the pseudo-progressive gang on twitter, and, really, of fanboys in general as the superclass. Poor lost souls trying to fit somewhere, and whose only contribution is barking at threats that exist only in their confused little brain. And often actually trying to save you by barking at your customers :p

And unlike that dog, you can't even leave them locked at home to solve the problem :p

And now they're pissed off that someone else is taking away the exclusive access to the soapbox that effectively caused a spiral-to-the-bottom popularity contest where the most popular one is the one who barks harder and at more imaginary threats.

Incidentally, it's even on topic. THAT's also literally what that lawsuit alleges to be the problem with Twitter: its algorithms rewarded the ones who barked the most rabidly. In that case against muslims, but same phenomenon.
 
Last edited:
angrysoba said:
I mean, I know, I get it, he's a genius, he's a billionaire, I am neither, I have never put rockets into space or built electric cars or hyperloops or submarines, etc... but this is the kind of thing that I would have thought does not serve him well.

Don't investors get nervous seeing him spouting the kind of stuff that could be a joke or might be a half-joke or might be serious. I think that some people (for example, almost everyone in Ukraine), are pretty much sick of trying to figure out where he stands on things.
Click to expand...

Musk showing himself to be a great negotiator! And showing a great understanding of the business. I've always wondered how Twitter got away with not paying the "big names" for attracting people to the advertiser, King has nearly 7 million followers - seems to Tweet regularly, should be a gold mine for selling advertising space.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom