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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, obviously he's got to be good at something business-related. I just wish he were less of a Tinkerbellend, really. Like, maybe let a month go by without trying to troll the internet with yet another outrageous thing. I don't think he'll disappear if people stop talking about him for a few days, really.
 
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...


I thought it was only meant to mean that the account had been definitely verified as belonging to the person named. While anyone with any sort of public profile could get one (I could have got one myself on account of having published a few books) it was only really worth it for someone with a high enough profile to be at serious risk of damage by imposters. So, basically, celebrities. Including scientists with a high enough profile to be considered celebrities. Otherwise, why bother?
 
Darat said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and I honestly cannot work out what he is going for with those tweets. I assume the first is a joke, and the second is supposed to be serious?

Is he trying to do some banter with Stephen King and then ingratiate himself with him as well? Or does Musk think he's scored some points against King?
 
Rolfe said:
I thought it was only meant to mean that the account had been definitely verified as belonging to the person named. While anyone with any sort of public profile could get one (I could have got one myself on account of having published a few books) it was only really worth it for someone with a high enough profile to be at serious risk of damage by imposters. So, basically, celebrities. Including scientists with a high enough profile to be considered celebrities. Otherwise, why bother?
Click to expand...

Yeah, that is my understanding too. There are all kinds of people who have blue check marks and people definitely should not assume that having one somehow confers credibility. After all, James Corden has a blue check mark. Donald Trump Jr has a blue check mark.

Inconceivably, O.J Simpson has no blue check mark, but hopes that Elon Musk's purchase makes it possible for him.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Stephen King is absolutely right: Twitter should court its top accounts, and charge those who still have to make a name for themselves.
Click to expand...

Why? That seems like rather exploitative capitalism. It’s far more fair to charge people like King who have plenty of money to spare. I thought King was progressive, why does he want Twitter to be regressive?
 
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...

His statement that this will get rid of trolls and bots is just ridiculous. Those aren't the people that get verified in the first place.

Why... it's almost like he has no idea what he's doing...
 
Also, I have absolutely no idea why people keep bringing up laws regulating speech in discussions of social media moderation. The two seem entirely unrelated to me.
 
I Am The Scum said:
His statement that this will get rid of trolls and bots is just ridiculous. Those aren't the people that get verified in the first place.

Why... it's almost like he has no idea what he's doing...
Click to expand...

Well OJ Simpson begs to differ. He always gets people impersonating him because he has no blue check mark. When Elon starts selling them he’ll be first in line for one so that will reassure the advertisers….

https://twitter.com/therealoj32/status/1586022987844661249?s=46&t=rlskOxEmN-Zo7e2UTjZxdA
 
I Am The Scum said:
Also, I have absolutely no idea why people keep bringing up laws regulating speech in discussions of social media moderation. The two seem entirely unrelated to me.
Click to expand...

It’s a kind of libertarian fantasy that Twitter must be a public square where only that which falls afoul of the first amendment of the constitution of the Yoonited States of Merica should be infringed. Presumably they could ask the Supreme Court to become the moderators.

I am pretty sure that the idea was popularized by Tim Pool on the Joe Rogan show. Elon Musk himself tweeted out references to that episode where Dim Tool was asking why only right wingers got banned. Answer: it wasn’t only them, but ol’ Pooly Boy only cared about the right-wingers like Sargon and Milo and Alex Jones and wondered why it is that they only got banned for their right-wing racist views and harassment of families. It seems unfair to ban people for traditional right-wing values such as racism after all when traditional left-wing views of tolerance and understanding seem went unpunished.
 
Mind you, it has been noted that when right-wingers do start expressing racist views then that so-called left-wing tolerance seems to completely dry up! Oh, sure they might be tolerant of all kinds of demographics including degenerates but somehow they don’t extend that famous tolerance to viewpoint diversity do they?
 
Rolfe said:
I thought it was only meant to mean that the account had been definitely verified as belonging to the person named. While anyone with any sort of public profile could get one (I could have got one myself on account of having published a few books) it was only really worth it for someone with a high enough profile to be at serious risk of damage by imposters. So, basically, celebrities. Including scientists with a high enough profile to be considered celebrities. Otherwise, why bother?
Click to expand...

Well my brother in his capacity as an officer of the ONS has got one. I presume (possibly wrongly) that, in his case, the verification process confirmed that he does work for the ONS and is entitled to speak for them. I think it is important for British people to know that the people who claim to be speaking on behalf off the ONS actually are.
 
jeremyp said:
Well my brother in his capacity as an officer of the ONS has got one. I presume (possibly wrongly) that, in his case, the verification process confirmed that he does work for the ONS and is entitled to speak for them. I think it is important for British people to know that the people who claim to be speaking on behalf off the ONS actually are.
Click to expand...

Well, if he doesn't want to pay for it, someone else can buy his check mark and represent the ONS on Twitter. After all, if people aren't going to pay, and the advertisers don't cough up the cash, then free speech is dead. Elon Musk is trying to save Western Civilization after all. This is his gift to humanity. Now send your cheques, godammit!
 
Ziggurat said:
Why? That seems like rather exploitative capitalism. It’s far more fair to charge people like King who have plenty of money to spare. I thought King was progressive, why does he want Twitter to be regressive?
Click to expand...

Ah yes, the ol' "If a Dem has money, and doesn't give it away whenever pushed to, then he is a terrible person!" argument.

I'm giving you zero points for creativity, and a -1 for using a worn out, tired ass argument, but! I will give you 3 points for consistency. Don't spend them all at one place.

Almost any time a celebrity speaks on a platform like, hell, lets use the Republican Convention. Does the celebrity pay to come speak there? No, of course not, that's stupid. The convention pays the speaker because people are interested in what they say. Are you saying Twitter, for some random ass reason, should be different?
 
Checkmite said:
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.
Click to expand...

If Musk is really a freedom of speech absolutist then the verification system should be abandoned. If I have absolute freedom to say whatever I want, I can say that I am someone else... like Elon Musk. Of course he isn't, if I make a convincing account that I'm Elon Musk and start trashing his companies, it won't be long til my account is banned.
 
Last edited:
I imagine Stephen King is much like the rest of us. If he thinks something is worth the money to him then he'll pay for it. If he thinks it's over-priced and that he doesn't want it enough to pay what's asked, he won't. Paying more than the odds for goods or services is usually an act of charity, and I don't see Stephen King or any of us having such charitable feelings towards Elon Musk and his bank balance.
 
Ziggurat said:
Why? That seems like rather exploitative capitalism. It’s far more fair to charge people like King who have plenty of money to spare. I thought King was progressive, why does he want Twitter to be regressive?
Click to expand...

You are aware that twitter is a private company?
 
plague311 said:
Ah yes, the ol' "If a Dem has money, and doesn't give it away whenever pushed to, then he is a terrible person!" argument.
Click to expand...

That's not the argument at all. The point is that King wants people who have a harder time paying than he does to pay so that he doesn't have to.

Almost any time a celebrity speaks on a platform like, hell, lets use the Republican Convention. Does the celebrity pay to come speak there? No, of course not, that's stupid. The convention pays the speaker because people are interested in what they say. Are you saying Twitter, for some random ass reason, should be different?
Click to expand...

Paid speakers are paid to speak about specific things that the payer wants them to speaker about, and delivered to very specific audiences. Twitter isn't asking King to say anything, and it's to anyone and everyong. He's free to not say anything at all. This isn't a remotely similar relationship.
 
Ziggurat said:
That's not the argument at all. The point is that King wants people who have a harder time paying than he does to pay so that he doesn't have to.



Paid speakers are paid to speak about specific things that the payer wants them to speaker about, and delivered to very specific audiences. Twitter isn't asking King to say anything, and it's to anyone and everyong. He's free to not say anything at all. This isn't a remotely similar relationship.
Click to expand...

This is a nonsensical line of reasoning... you realize that if celebrities stop using Twitter, that Twitter will fall apart right? Not many people use it to hear the thoughts of some rando on the interwebs. I guess each celeb will have to decide what YT is worth for them. Twitter, doesn't, as far as I know, do any kind of profit sharing like YT does. Yes, YT actually pays people that bring them advertising dollars. While Twitter expects people to create content for them to sell eyeballs to for free. Good luck charging them a fee.

Also, you are acting as though King is refusing to fund some necessary service that the poor and middle class will have to prop up. Twitter is not power/heat/basic infrastructure. People survived without it, and will continue to do so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom