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

[dudalb]

I notice a couple of the big Musk Is A Real Life Tony Stark fanboys we have here have pretty much gone the "Elon Who?" route.

 

[angrysoba]

My word! I thought 8 dollars was a joke.

And now… wait…what… people pay to end a division between lords and peasants? Huh? His scheme does the opposite? What?

Seriously, what a trainwreck.

 

[lobosrul5]

My word! I thought 8 dollars was a joke.

And now… wait…what… people pay to end a division between lords and peasants? Huh? His scheme does the opposite? What?

Seriously, what a trainwreck.

He paid 44 billion(?) for a company that hasn't shown a profit in 3 years. But, his scheme I guess is to just layoff most of their staff since he believes they just sit around deciding what content to censor.

But now he's gonna be facing "cancel culture"*

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...musk-lowers-standards?leadSource=uverify wall

I think Elon will not be among the richest people in the world quite soon.

*not really, its what people used to call... boycotts

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

I really believe Musk bought Twitter with the plan of turning it into a totally open forum, in which they themselves would not police any content. Just let the courts decide if something has to be taken down. And he's going to run into several roadblocks due to you know... reality. Like advertisers leaving in droves, and countries not named The United States banning Twitter for allowing things like hate speech.

TBH, I expect it was just another of his troll stunts and he never really had any intention to actually buy it. He may have just overestimated how far can he play with that and still be able to back out. Then they took him to court and his lawyers probably told him that yep, they can and will make him buy it.

That and his general trolling is why I'm not taking his previous statements as gospel or anything. In fact, it's very possible that nothing will change substantially. He may very well just ride the attention high, get bored, then find some other stunt to keep people talking about him.

As I was saying, I find some people's hysterical allergic reaction to the very idea of free speech a lot more interesting and entertaining than what Elon Musk is actually going to do.

 

[dudalb]

He paid 44 billion(?) for a company that hasn't shown a profit in 3 years. But, his scheme I guess is to just layoff most of their staff since he believes they just sit around deciding what content to censor.

But now he's gonna be facing "cancel culture"*

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...musk-lowers-standards?leadSource=uverify wall

I think Elon will not be among the richest people in the world quite soon.

*not really, its what people used to call... boycotts

Musk should have stuck what he is good at,,managing hi tech transportation projects (Tesla, Space X) and mess with Mass Meida, about which he is clueless.
ANd I maintain his abandoning a sort of neutral political stance to move to the far right will not work out well for him. It has already cost him a lot of his publid following.
I honestly think that Time Man Of The Year award went right to his head and made him think he could say and do anything.

 

[dudalb]

TBH, I expect it was just another of his troll stunts and he never really had any intention to actually buy it. He may have just overestimated how far can he play with that and still be able to back out. Then they took him to court and his lawyers probably told him that yep, they can and will make him buy it.

That and his general trolling is why I'm not taking his previous statements as gospel or anything. In fact, it's very possible that nothing will change substantially. He may very well just ride the attention high, get bored, then find some other stunt to keep people talking about him.

As I was saying, I find some people's hysterical allergic reaction to the very idea of free speech a lot more interesting and entertaining than what Elon Musk is actually going to do.

Fact is, in social media total free speech leads to a total mess.
Look at reddit and 4chan.

 

[lobosrul5]

TBH, I expect it was just another of his troll stunts and he never really had any intention to actually buy it. He may have just overestimated how far can he play with that and still be able to back out. Then they took him to court and his lawyers probably told him that yep, they can and will make him buy it.

That and his general trolling is why I'm not taking his previous statements as gospel or anything. In fact, it's very possible that nothing will change substantially. He may very well just ride the attention high, get bored, then find some other stunt to keep people talking about him.

As I was saying, I find some people's hysterical allergic reaction to the very idea of free speech a lot more interesting and entertaining than what Elon Musk is actually going to do.

I sure wish we were in a perfect world where people had the brains to look at posts on the internet and question its authenticity and veracity. Unfortunately we very clearly don't live in such a world.

 

[lobosrul5]

Fact is, in social media total free speech leads to a total mess.
Look at reddit and 4chan.

Reddit can be anywhere between a well moderated exchange of ideas to a personal fiefdom. Depends on the admin of the specific subreddit.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Fact is, in social media total free speech leads to a total mess.
Look at reddit and 4chan.

I'll even grant that those can be a mess, but

1. neither was established to have caused some great damage to society by being a mess, and

2. nobody's forcing you to read either, and

3. it's just your subjective opinion. Other people would say JREF is a mess, for letting those amoral atheists run amok and poison the minds of good kids with their atheistic propaganda. Or whatever.

But generally, short story, just something being a mess is still not an argument for censorship.

 

[theprestige]

Reddit can be anywhere between a well moderated exchange of ideas to a personal fiefdom. Depends on the admin of the specific subreddit.

Same with 4chan, actually. Some of the subs are more chaotic and despicable than others, but that's typically by design.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Yeah, but if basically anyone can get one if they pay (and $8 a month is affordable to most people in the US even if it's not worth it for a lot of them), then that's no longer a badge of nobility. It's no longer an exclusive by-invitation-only club.

Only idiots perceive blue checkmarks that way. Maybe that's who Elon is catering to.

 

[Puppycow]

The blue check merely verifies a user's identity, it doesn't confer any features or actual usage benefits; yet according to Musk a source being verified makes them "lords" and unverified Twitter users "peasants".

His answer to this is to paywall verification, because separating users by ability to pay is definitely antithetical to a lord/peasant heirarchy.

I am not on Twitter but I have heard that it actually does confer extra benefits to have a blue checkmark. Like people with blue check marks can choose to only see tweets from other people with blue check marks. It’s sort of like an ignore or block feature. If you want to be heard or taken seriously on Twitter by important people then you need a blue check.

Now if anyone can get one it becomes a matter of who is willing to pay for it. People who think that their own opinions are important and should be heard more.

I wonder if this means that they will start charging people who already have blue checks or if they get grandfathered in.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Hey HansMustermann, you can't read your own posts? Literacy that hard? In case you forgot, your argument was the highlighted.

Unsurprisingly, all you prove is that YOU are still reaching for whatever distortion.

The first highlight is explicitly that groups and people who were banned for activity that is 'awful but lawful' should be allowed back and not be banned in the future.

1. Ah, so you need to switch to another message of mine, talking about a different thing. Why am I not surprised.

2. Yes, dear. In that one it's about "awful but lawful" under the laws people voted for in a democratic western country, not generally, and definitely not covering the likes of Myanmar's censorship laws. I definitely would trust THAT more than a bunch of self-appointed idiots trying to censor everyone they disagree with.

3. You know why? Because I've seen too many such people trying to censor everyone else when they WEREN'T in the right. People have been alleging all sorts of harm if you let others listen to or read the words of those they don't like. The scare about music making people violent, anyone? The one where games apparently do that? Comics doing the same even before those? Jack Chick thinking that D&D teaches kids actual spells and Satan worship? Etc?

Yeah, I don't trust YOU to be unilaterally in charge of what others should be allowed to say any more than I do Jack Chick.

4. For that reason, establish causality first if you want to actually qualify something as "awful". Not just someone alleged it somewhere. Otherwise all that you have is that it's lawful and you don't like it, which, again, is no more reason for action when it's coming from you than from Jack Chick.

The second is showing that you think any standard besides not banning anything no matter how awful as long as it is lawful (and specifically lawful in the US) is 'operating in a circle-jerk echo-chamber'.

Again, show some causality first. Just that you don't like hearing some opinions doesn't make them "awful" enough to justify censorship or really anything else.

Here you're arguing that if bad things are already going down, companies like Twitter can't have an interest in not being used to continue or expand those bad things.

That's not what I was going for, but hey...

The point is this: If the same thing Y happened just the same with or without X, then it weakens any claim that X is to blame for Y. What people have there is a classic "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy. Y happened after X, therefore it must be because of X. E.g., some guy shot up the school after playing Doom, ergo it must be because he played Doom. E.g., the high priest sacrificed a human to the Sun god, and the sun rose the next morning, so obviously it's because of the sacrifice.

When the same Y was happening long before X, and in fact without any X at all, and in fact there were sufficient other factors there for a simpler explanation, then you don't even have that fallacy in your favour. It falls flat on its face.

Short story: show some causation or at the very least correlation first.

Continuing your 'can't be at all interested if bad things already happened' invalid reasoning. Things can contribute without being the entire cause and of course companies can, and should, have an interest in avoiding that.

Forget "entire cause". Nobody established yet that it's even a significant factor there at all. Not any more than Jack Chick established that D&D is a significant factor in making kids worship Satan.

By your definition of 'fault' that requires complete causation and ignores exacerbation completely, no, but by any reasonable definition of it, not really.

Don't flatter yourself about "complete", you haven't shown ANY causation at all.

Is it your contention that there was no evidence of the allegations provided? That the reasoning was not supported at all? You handwaving evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

You know that if you want to push the positive claim, you have the burden of proof, right? If you think I missed any evidence of that causation (I've only seen basically evidence that X was happening and then Y happened), it's on you to present it. Whining about me isn't a valid substitute for that.

BTW, since you seem to need the reminder: "evidence" in logic means something that is connected validly to a conclusion. As in, actually supports or disproves it. In law, it just means it was admitted to be shown in court, regardless of whether it's even relevant. In logic, you actually have to have that proof in between or it's not evidence at all.

So show that first.

That isn't skepticism; that's denailism.

No. Actually you're doing is confusing your flailing and browbeating for actual evidence. It's not denialism until you have actually met your burden of proof. You can whine about denialism AFTER you do so, not INSTEAD of.

If you think 'awful but lawful' doesn't fly as a standard, then current you needs to amend the argument of past you.

No, because they were plenty clear to everyone else. If one guy on the internet can't parse it without distorting it, I can live with that.

You don't know what you're talking about here. What you say means that you believe that court cases that fail on legal merits don't or can't contain other merit, other evidence and facts.

Uh, no, that's entirely your own invention. I explicitly didn't qualify which merits count and which don't. The point was that NO merit was shown at all. Not legal, not logical, none. There is nothing, not even a court ruling (though again, legal and logic definitions only partially overlap) to support a causality there.

But anyway, here we go again: positive claim, burden of proof, and all that. If you think it does have ANY merits -- legal or otherwise -- then you get to show them. It's that simple.

 

[I Am The Scum]

1. neither was established to have caused some great damage to society by being a mess, and

QAnon started on 4chan

 

[Orphia Nay]

Clarify something for me.

Is Musk going to ask everyone to pay $8 a month, or is that only for a blue tick / verified account?

Just wondering if he's planning to delete accounts that don't pay, thus "fixing" the bot problem.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Clarify something for me.

Is Musk going to ask everyone to pay $8 a month, or is that only for a blue tick / verified account?

Just wondering if he's planning to delete accounts that don't pay, thus "fixing" the bot problem.

Calling this a "blue check/verified" thingy is misleading. Originally, the blue check was to confirm that the account was legit and not a spoof/imitation.

It would be more accurate to call this a premium service. Musk has said it will be open to all.

Apparently, the "This is totally the real account and not a spoof" checkmark is going to be meaningless after this, which would actually make a scammer's job easier.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

QAnon started on 4chan

Well, I didn't say it was a font of knowledge and rationality. But one CT is hardly some great harm to society. Especially when

1. it's not even something new or original. It is actually a recycling of Pizzagate, with just a sprinkle of ye olde blood libel. And even that one wasn't exactly new or original. There was for example the hysteria about preschool and day-care women sexually abusing children in the 1980's (the McMartin preschool trial accusations started in 1983) and using them in satanic rituals, long before 4chan existed or the Internet played any significant role. "Stranger danger" threats to kids were a hysteria in some places as early as the early 70's.

And, yeah, a lot of those were propagated and used politically by the right wing even back then.

QAnon just slightly repackaged that and put it on the internet, but basically it's the same old "they're coming for your kids" scare.

2. nor was 4chan even the first place on the Internet where that kind of thing happened. There were conspiracy theory posts on Usenet and Fidonet in the 80's, back when the former was mostly just academia and the latter involved an acoustic modem

3. that kind of people would have just latched on another CT instead, like they've been doing for centuries. Again, just on the topic of children, see the above examples.


Don't get me wrong, it would have been nice if people were more rational than that. But then I'm not idealistic enough to believe they would have been without 4chan.

 

[theprestige]

Calling this a "blue check/verified" thingy is misleading. Originally, the blue check was to confirm that the account was legit and not a spoof/imitation.

It would be more accurate to call this a premium service. Musk has said it will be open to all.

Apparently, the "This is totally the real account and not a spoof" checkmark is going to be meaningless after this, which would actually make a scammer's job easier.

Unless he's proposing to charge $8/month for the service of vetting an account and keeping its accreditation current. I suspect the current vetting policy will remain, but legitimate twits will now have to pay for it instead of getting it for free by request.

 

[angrysoba]

Well, I didn't say it was a font of knowledge and rationality. But one CT is hardly some great harm to society. Especially when

1. it's not even something new or original. It is actually a recycling of Pizzagate, with just a sprinkle of ye olde blood libel. And even that one wasn't exactly new or original. There was for example the hysteria about preschool and day-care women sexually abusing children in the 1980's (the McMartin preschool trial accusations started in 1983) and using them in satanic rituals, long before 4chan existed or the Internet played any significant role. "Stranger danger" threats to kids were a hysteria in some places as early as the early 70's.

And, yeah, a lot of those were propagated and used politically by the right wing even back then.

QAnon just slightly repackaged that and put it on the internet, but basically it's the same old "they're coming for your kids" scare.

2. nor was 4chan even the first place on the Internet where that kind of thing happened. There were conspiracy theory posts on Usenet and Fidonet in the 80's, back when the former was mostly just academia and the latter involved an acoustic modem

3. that kind of people would have just latched on another CT instead, like they've been doing for centuries. Again, just on the topic of children, see the above examples.


Don't get me wrong, it would have been nice if people were more rational than that. But then I'm not idealistic enough to believe they would have been without 4chan.

Looked up Pizzagate on Wiki:

Members of the alt-right, conservative journalists, and others who had urged Clinton's prosecution over her use of an unrelated private email server spread the conspiracy theory on social media outlets such as 4chan, 8chan, Reddit and Twitter.[7] In response, a man from North Carolina traveled to Comet Ping Pong to investigate the conspiracy and fired a rifle inside the restaurant to break the lock on a door to a storage room during his search.[8] The restaurant owner and staff also received death threats from conspiracy theorists.

Huh! Well, how about that. Bang goes the theory that if you don’t like it, don’t read it soy cucks!

 

[angrysoba]

Unless he's proposing to charge $8/month for the service of vetting an account and keeping its accreditation current. I suspect the current vetting policy will remain, but legitimate twits will now have to pay for it instead of getting it for free by request.

No, it is apparently for extra perks like the ability to post long videos etc…. It would make no sense to have a subscription for a time fee for the hassle of authentication. Such behaviour would be rent-seeking would it not?