U.S. Politics - Oh no! Here we Don McGahn. Recuse or pack.

[Week]

 

11 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

. Editing your post does not remove the frame of your commentary. You are directly framing his take over as an action which will automatically increase racism and ‘transphobia’, which you simply do not know ( looking at events hours after he took over tells you literally nothing) as actually we don’t know what he is planning on doing. Your entire frame is very much based on the frame of those ‘hysterical’ loud voices on the left. Don’t pretend you are having a sober objective conversation on the matter.

I thought you took exception to being called a Musk fanboi -- apparently you took exception to any kind of a response or disagreement with you. I can't help you there other than maybe you need to use the ignore feature more.

There already has been a significant increase in abuse -- perhaps your circle has not been impacted or supports it -- I can't explain your ignorance.

Musk himself (as discussed here) posted homophobic disinformation ... which he quietly deleted days later.

Apparently, looking at the business and financial strategy is part of the 'lib histrionics'. 

[Luzifer's right hand]

But billionaires are essential to our lifestyle of pretending individual choices do not matter at all while benefiting from the destruction of the environment and the exploitation of people.

[Heartofice]

4 minutes ago, maarsen said:

You do know that Musk is not American. He was born in South Africa and raised in Canada, getting his engineering degree at the University of Toronto. Why would he want to give his wealth to Americans? I am sure U of T is at his door constantly, asking for donations to their endowment fund so that scholarships can be awarded to Canadian students. Whether he gives, who knows.

He does donate to charities. Of course it is tax advantageous to do so but there is a reason for that.  
https://amp.theguardian.com/technology/2022/feb/15/elon-musk-tesla-shares-donation-sec

Also I do agree that wealth shouldn’t be funnelled into the hands of a small number of individuals or companies, but it is more complex than simply taking that money away from people who succeed. There are larger questions around why so much wealth is floating around being used in such speculative ways, why there is so little competition in some areas that larger companies can treat all over small ones etc. Without looking at those problems you all just look like envious green eyed monsters 

[Heartofice]

2 minutes ago, Week said:

It already has

There already has been a significant increase in abuse -- perhaps your circle has not been impacted or supports it -- I can't explain your ignorance.

Musk himself (as discussed here) posted homophobic disinformation ... which he quietly deleted days later.

Apparently, looking at the business and financial strategy is part of the 'lib histrionics'. 

And yet there has been no change to moderation policy. 
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-63428848.amp

[Week]

1 minute ago, Heartofice said:

And yet there has been no change to moderation policy. 
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-63428848.amp

Firing the leadership and riffing the trust/verification group sends a different message. What exactly as Musk done to engender such trust as to take him at face value?

[Week]

Short thread that goes through what I'm talking about - his thesis agrees with mormont's Occam's razor theory.

 

 

[Heartofice]

9 minutes ago, Week said:

Firing the leadership and riffing the trust/verification group sends a different message. What exactly as Musk done to engender such trust as to take him at face value?

No it doesn't. Firing the leadership is a pretty logical step if you don't believe the previous leadership were doing a good job. This would only be bothersome to you if your assumption is that the leadership of Twitter previously held certain views on certain topics and moderated the platform in a such a way that aligns closely with their own viewpoint. We've been told that hasn't been happening.

[DMC]

I don't give a shit about Musk nor Twitter.  Him destroying the platform and losing tens of billions of dollars in the process is a win-win in my book.

[Kalbear]

So I think I understand the logic behind the paying for verification. It's not good logic, but it does make sense. 

Problem: Twitter cannot reasonably police the platform at scale, especially if you are wanting more "bad" speech options out there. Detecting bad bots is also very hard 

Observation: most people do not tweet. A small % of people are responsible for the massive amount of content, along with bots and trolls.

Solution: make there be a barrier to entry so that if you are going to spam and troll you have to pay.

The goal isn't to make money per se, though that is a side benefit. The goal is to make it slightly more annoying to troll people or to create a lot of bot accounts.

There are a crazy amount of wrong things about this, mind you, but that is where I think he is coming from.

 

[Week]

That barrier to entry is only for blue checks -- the change wouldn't impact spam and bots. No?

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, Week said:

That barrier to entry is only for blue checks -- the change wouldn't impact spam and bots. No?

Imagine that you change filtering rules such that you only see content from those who you directly follow and blue checks as the default. Spam no longer goes to you. Bots that aren't verified don't go to you. 

You can of course turn on those replies but that wouldn't be the default. Most people would never change it. 

[Leofric]

After watching the Falcon Heavy lift off and the double booster landing, I'm reminded that I don't care what Musk does to Twitter just as long as it doesn't negatively impact what he is doing at SpaceX and to a lesser extent what he is doing with Tesla and with storage battery development. 

[Kalbear]

This, however, is pretty stupid. Twitter needs the content authors a lot more than they need Twitter, and any alienation of them makes this very shortsighted. 

 

[Zorral]

No. Of course not.  He just couldn't get out of buying it, while already having lost a ton of his on paper money/credit.

Now he's desperately attempting to find anything in twitter to monetize to stop the ongoing twit  $$$ $$$ $$$ $$$ hemorrhage.

Why in the world do people keep coming up with deep brilliant long game plans that these doofusses are utterly incapable of coming up, as their track record has proven time after time.  Musk is another guy who buys what others have done and takes the credit.

[Maithanet]

I'm skeptical that Twitter will really go through with charging people for verification.  But if they do, it will be a huge mistake.

You really think that people like Stephen King or Michelle Obama are going to be paying to put their thoughts on twitter?  I don't.  People like that know they generate revenue for Twitter with their very presence, the idea that they should pay for the privilege is not going to go over well. 

Likewise the smaller, but nonetheless important users like election twitter people or Ukraine milbloggers with 500k followers.  A lot of those people don't have a lot of money to be dropping $100 a year just to tweet.  Some of them will pay it, some will go elsewhere. 

And if Twitter loses even 10-20% of the above groups (celebs and useful experts on something), that will hurt the bottom line of Twitter in a big way.  No matter how much you like twitter (or any social media platform), if other people aren't there, it sucks. 

[Zorral]

I have never been a twit.  OTOH, others send me twits all the time that I share.  But if they aren't there to be shared, it won't impact me at all in any way.

OTOther Real Hand: Twitter and a buncha other social media going poof would be a very good thing for the world, is my opinion and outlook.

 

[Heartofice]

9 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I'm skeptical that Twitter will really go through with charging people for verification.  But if they do, it will be a huge mistake.

You really think that people like Stephen King or Michelle Obama are going to be paying to put their thoughts on twitter?  I don't.  People like that know they generate revenue for Twitter with their very presence, the idea that they should pay for the privilege is not going to go over well. 

Likewise the smaller, but nonetheless important users like election twitter people or Ukraine milbloggers with 500k followers.  A lot of those people don't have a lot of money to be dropping $100 a year just to tweet.  Some of them will pay it, some will go elsewhere. 

And if Twitter loses even 10-20% of the above groups (celebs and useful experts on something), that will hurt the bottom line of Twitter in a big way.  No matter how much you like twitter (or any social media platform), if other people aren't there, it sucks. 

You are misunderstanding.

Hes not preventing anyone from tweeting.

It’s a pretty simple business model, charge your power users if they want to use an enhanced version of the platform, with added benefits like less ads and the ability to create richer content. 
 

It’s doesn’t stop anyone tweeting, just to re-emphasise

[LongRider]

There is more than money involved for a blue check;

 

[Kalbear]

Scotus says Graham has to testify. @DMCcalled it.

 

[LongRider]

From Twitter terms of service for purchasers:

c. BINDING ARBITRATION. If we cannot reach an agreed upon resolution with you regarding a Dispute within a period of thirty (30) days from the time informal dispute resolution commences under the Initial Dispute Resolution provision above, then either you or we may initiate binding arbitration, which will be the sole means to resolve any Dispute, subject to the terms set forth below and except for claims brought in small claims court or unless you opt out. Specifically, all Disputes shall be finally resolved exclusively through binding arbitration administered by the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”) in San Francisco, CA, and through a single mutually agreed upon arbitrator, in accordance with the provisions of the AAA’s Consumer Arbitration Rules, available at www.adr.org or by calling the AAA at 1.800.778.7879. YOU AND TWITTER HEREBY EXPRESSLY WAIVE THE RIGHT TO A TRIAL BY JURY OR JUDGE.