Cont: Musk buys Twitter II

He posted
The split second court opens on Monday, X Corp will be filing a thermonuclear lawsuit against Media Matters and ALL those who colluded in this fraudulent attack on our company.
Their board, their donors, their network of dark money, all of them …
Click to expand...
 
hahah these guys all have the same playbook

maybe i should start suing people who don't give me money i want
 
dirtywick said:
hahah these guys all have the same playbook

maybe i should start suing people who don't give me money i want
Click to expand...

This is certainly not something you could do, but you could presumably sue someone if they said something against you that was not true but resulted in you losing a **** ton of money, and in the US if it could be shown that losing that money was the aim.

But I don’t really understand his defence. He is claiming that his platform is a free speech platform, and that means people will say things that people dislike. That’s fine, but surely anyone is free to show advertisers the existence of posts next to their adverts if there is no dispute that they exist together.
 
i wasn't really going to do that

i don't think elon will either. this is as frivilous as a lawsuit can get
 
Idly scrolling a little X today, I saw tweets about Musks' lawsuit followed by others:
1. him promoting a new service where you pay and don't see any ads
2. someone defending him by saying "nobody but Media Matters saw those ads"

Seems the companies pulling their ads are using good business sense as much as being (cynically or not) socially minded.
 
Puppycow said:
There seems to be something teflon about him in the same way as Trump simply due to frequency and amount of his BS. People get numb to it.

If the CEO of Disney (or pick your company) said something like this publicly, I think it would be seen as a huge problem and he or she would likely be ousted. Twitter and SpaceX are not publicly traded companies, but Tesla is. When Musk does it people have come to expect it, so they discount it.
Click to expand...
That is a fine thing. Dawkins describes this when requiring a rogue gene to be statistically represented in a community in order that the community is alert to the presence of a rogue.
 
angrysoba said:
Huh?
Click to expand...

Ok, the potential presence.
Game theory requires actual liars in a community to train the community into awareness. Trump and to a lesser extent Musk qualify. I do not believe that Jews are trying to kill white men.
 
Last edited:
Samson said:
Ok, the potential presence.
Game theory requires actual liars in a community to train the community into awareness. Trump and to a lesser extent Musk qualify. I do not believe that Jews are trying to kill white men.
Click to expand...

Game Theory REQUIRES nothing of the sort. I also think you are completely misunderstanding Dawkins who has a gene's eye-view of natural selection, not some group selection idea. Probably you misunderstand how evolutionary stable strategies emerge rather than the idea that the components themselves are necessary.

But either way, it is a weird defence of Trump and Elon Musk to assume that being conmen is good for society. This is bending over backwards to excuse the inexcusable. You may as well say that we need rapists, murderers and pedophiles in order to keep us all on our toes to guard against rapists, murderers and pedophiles. It's an argument that literally makes no sense.
 
what a coincidence, trump is also a rapist. doing gods work of keeping us on our toes in more ways than one.
 
angrysoba said:
Game Theory REQUIRES nothing of the sort. I also think you are completely misunderstanding Dawkins who has a gene's eye-view of natural selection, not some group selection idea. Probably you misunderstand how evolutionary stable strategies emerge rather than the idea that the components themselves are necessary.

But either way, it is a weird defence of Trump and Elon Musk to assume that being conmen is good for society. This is bending over backwards to excuse the inexcusable. You may as well say that we need rapists, murderers and pedophiles in order to keep us all on our toes to guard against rapists, murderers and pedophiles. It's an argument that literally makes no sense.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Samson has completely missed the point of the analysis of some equilibria in game theory.

In iterated games where you have the potential for one player to take advantage of others (a Hawk) and others to either punish such behavior by entailing some small personal cost, or not punish (a Dove), the selection for such punishing behavior doesn't arise until Hawks reach a large enough percentage of the population. So, in some sense more Hawks entails the stability of the punishing strategy, which limits the number of Hawks (because it becomes a bad strategy to take advantage rather than cooperate if being punished for that behavior is common enough). But if Hawks didn't exist at all, everyone would be better off, we could all be Doves, no one would have to entail the extra cost of punishing, and no one (Hawks or Doves) would be taken advantage of. There is thus no sense in which Hawks are doing some common good by their actions of taking advantage of others. The common good is being done by those who punish Hawks.

The idea that liars are helping society by training us to punish liars is so ridiculous on its face its hard to believe anyone could put forward the idea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom