X (née Twitter): Elmo has no good ideas

[Varysblackfyre321]

14 minutes ago, Relic said:

You're literally helping them make money, but OK. 

True!

I wager you yourself actively use a product either brought up by slave labor or produced by people pushing the world into fascism like musk.

This isn’t a dig it’s noting the reality of living in modern society.

Individual boycotts can work in very specific circumstances for very limited goals.

[Relic]

4 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

True!

I wager you yourself actively use a product either brought up by slave labor or produced by people pushing the world into fascism like musk.

This isn’t a dig it’s noting the reality of living in modern society.

Individual boycotts can work in very specific circumstances for very limited goals.

Well, I probably do, but I'm pretty careful about where and how I spend my money. But yes, I enable monsters. However, in a thread rightfully bashing Twitter and Musk, it just seems...avoidable? 

[Tywin et al.]

9 hours ago, mormont said:

I think there's still a chance for Twitter. If Musk were to sell up, a new owner could put it back together. None of the alternatives look like they have what it takes to replace Twitter: there's still value there. Appoint a competent board and invest, and you could make a lot of money.

Of course, that relies on Musk admitting defeat and selling up at a staggering loss, not a likely scenario. But possible.

Doubtful. The brand is permanently damaged and the site is overtaken by racists, bigots and trolls. It's dying. There just hasn't been a counter to it that's really taken off, but there will be eventually. Myspace was king of the internet once too. 

[Zorral]

9 hours ago, mormont said:

If Musk were to sell up, a new owner could put it back together.

But it wasn't making money before, it's not making money now. If it is put back together it will still not be making money, so who would buy it then, and why?  Philanthropy doesn't run to billions -- at least it hasn't in the past.

[Kalbear]

24 minutes ago, Zorral said:

But it wasn't making money before, it's not making money now. If it is put back together it will still not be making money, so who would buy it then, and why?  Philanthropy doesn't run to billions -- at least it hasn't in the past.

It actually was making a (small) profit before it was bought. It wasn't great, but it was getting better. 

The value of it was of course the social network, the brand and the technical knowledge of the team. All three of those have been damaged and two have been outright thrown away. 

[Spockydog]

Tesla's Shadowy 'Diversion Team' Buried Hundreds of Range Complaints Every Week, Report Says

Quote

Tesla reportedly created a secretive “Diversion Team” tasked with trying to quickly divert and cancel as many appointments for range-related issues as possible. The unit, according to a Reuters investigation, was reportedly responsible for closing hundreds of cases per week of upset Tesla owners complaining about range performance. Those cars were often working properly but simply failed to meet Tesla’s inflated and exaggerated driving range estimates for its fleet of vehicles.

 

[Gaston de Foix]

9 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Doubtful. The brand is permanently damaged and the site is overtaken by racists, bigots and trolls. It's dying. There just hasn't been a counter to it that's really taken off, but there will be eventually. Myspace was king of the internet once too. 

Yeah, this.  What I have noticed as a Twitter user is that  the level of engagement for tweets has fallen dramatically, and of course good faith engagement is almost non-existent.  Twitter's highest value was a place where two or more subject-matter experts could have a good faith conversation in public.  That's gone.  

It's still useful for aggregating news/opinion/diverse views etc. 

Also in terms of Musk selling, I don't think he can.  His financiers (particularly in the Gulf) will not agree to take on the staggering loss a current sale of Twitter will cost. 

What's so crazy is that if Musk wanted to start a new company, X, to do "everything" he could, and he could even leverage his ownership of Twitter to make that company a success.   He didn't have to turn Twitter into his Moby Dick.  

[The Anti-Targ]

10 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Doubtful. The brand is permanently damaged and the site is overtaken by racists, bigots and trolls. It's dying. There just hasn't been a counter to it that's really taken off, but there will be eventually. Myspace was king of the internet once too. 

"They" claim twitter is the modern day town square. Who used to own the olde worlde town square? No one, it was public property not subject to control by anyone, as long as you were behaving lawfully you could do just about anything in the town square, hence the analogy.

Ergo the internet town square should not be owned by anyone and should not be run for profit, and moderators should strictly be applying the law, which being an international space would mean the relevant UN declarations on human rights and freedoms including art 19 of the UN Universal declaration of human rights.

Quote

Article 19

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

 

[Tywin et al.]

1 hour ago, Gaston de Foix said:

Yeah, this.  What I have noticed as a Twitter user is that  the level of engagement for tweets has fallen dramatically, and of course good faith engagement is almost non-existent.  Twitter's highest value was a place where two or more subject-matter experts could have a good faith conversation in public.  That's gone.  

That was declining in general, but yeah, I'm sure you're right given I can't see any of it. Which again, it's dumb to block people without accounts from seeing tweets. It's amazing how Elon has done literally everything wrong since considering buying this company. Reverse galaxy brain to the max. 

Quote

Also in terms of Musk selling, I don't think he can.  His financiers (particularly in the Gulf) will not agree to take on the staggering loss a current sale of Twitter will cost. 

What's so crazy is that if Musk wanted to start a new company, X, to do "everything" he could, and he could even leverage his ownership of Twitter to make that company a success.   He didn't have to turn Twitter into his Moby Dick.  

I mean he can technically sell it, but probably at best, what, at a 90% loss? It's lost 2/3rds of its value and falling. No one will buy that until its bottomed out and they can get it for scraps. It's amazing how everyone said this was a bad idea except Musk and then he made in 10 times worse. That a special kind of of being a dipshit.

23 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

"They" claim twitter is the modern day town square. Who used to own the olde worlde town square? No one, it was public property not subject to control by anyone, as long as you were behaving lawfully you could do just about anything in the town square, hence the analogy.

Ergo the internet town square should not be owned by anyone and should not be run for profit, and moderators should strictly be applying the law, which being an international space would mean the relevant UN declarations on human rights and freedoms including art 19 of the UN Universal declaration of human rights.

 

Every town square is owned and controlled to some extent. The key is to regulated it to the best of our abilities. 

[The Anti-Targ]

9 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

 

Every town square is owned and controlled to some extent. The key is to regulated it to the best of our abilities. 

Insofar as some entity owns the land, yes. But it's typically public ownership, like a public park / playground, and use / access esp by large organised groups is managed.

[Tywin et al.]

15 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Insofar as some entity owns the land, yes. But it's typically public ownership, like a public park / playground, and use / access esp by large organised groups is managed.

It was that way in some places. Maybe still is in fewer. But the concept is dying. 

[Gaston de Foix]

7 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

"They" claim twitter is the modern day town square. Who used to own the olde worlde town square? No one, it was public property not subject to control by anyone, as long as you were behaving lawfully you could do just about anything in the town square, hence the analogy.

Ergo the internet town square should not be owned by anyone and should not be run for profit, and moderators should strictly be applying the law, which being an international space would mean the relevant UN declarations on human rights and freedoms including art 19 of the UN Universal declaration of human rights.

 

Right, that was the point of Dorsey's pretentious statement:

"In principle, I don’t believe anyone should own or run Twitter. It wants to be a public good at a protocol level, not a company. Solving for the problem of it being a company however, Elon is the singular solution I trust. I trust his mission to extend the light of consciousness."

Of course, if Twitter was not a company, Dorsey would not be a billionaire with his own private island.  The analogy of a town square is somewhat inexact because it means slightly different things to different people.  To me, Twitter was more like the ancient greek symposia.  Anyway, this forum is a public square.  The internet is full of public squares.  Don't mourn Twitter.  The important thing is that we are reminded, once again, not to put our faith in princes.  

 

 

[Jaxom 1974]

And the little blue bird app icon finally disappeared from my screen. Twitter should be deleted, if for no other reason, that the "X" symbol is kinda offensive to the eye...

[The Anti-Targ]

1 hour ago, Gaston de Foix said:

Right, that was the point of Dorsey's pretentious statement:

"In principle, I don’t believe anyone should own or run Twitter. It wants to be a public good at a protocol level, not a company. Solving for the problem of it being a company however, Elon is the singular solution I trust. I trust his mission to extend the light of consciousness."

Of course, if Twitter was not a company, Dorsey would not be a billionaire with his own private island.  The analogy of a town square is somewhat inexact because it means slightly different things to different people.  To me, Twitter was more like the ancient greek symposia.  Anyway, this forum is a public square.  The internet is full of public squares.  Don't mourn Twitter.  The important thing is that we are reminded, once again, not to put our faith in princes.  

 

 

Jack Dorsey was an idiot then if he truly thought Musk was the guy to bring about that vision. Or he was lying and just happy to say whatever to get his payday.

[Gaston de Foix]

51 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Jack Dorsey was an idiot then if he truly thought Musk was the guy to bring about that vision. Or he was lying and just happy to say whatever to get his payday.

Human motives are rarely either/or.  No question that Elon pushed for a public endorsement from Jack in the most glowing terms possible.   Jack had left Twitter, and had a massive payout coming and that was the primary motive.  I'm sure they've also known each other for a while, and the human instinct to oblige our peers and those we view as superiors is immense.  

But it was an epically stupid tweet, and maybe Jack Dorsey cares (a little) about our mockery as he sits on his giant bed made of money.  But you know if Twitter fails, and Bluesky takes off, he'll make a fortune twice over.  So is he really such an idiot?

[Tywin et al.]

38 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

Human motives are rarely either/or. 

Hard disagree. Most behaviors are binary. 

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Jack Dorsey was an idiot then if he truly thought Musk was the guy to bring about that vision. Or he was lying and just happy to say whatever to get his payday.

Ding ding ding. 

[karaddin]

I still can't believe Elon was such a tight ass when setting $44b on fire that he didn't make Jack do a non compete clause.

[Durckad]

1 hour ago, Gaston de Foix said:

Human motives are rarely either/or.  No question that Elon pushed for a public endorsement from Jack in the most glowing terms possible.   Jack had left Twitter, and had a massive payout coming and that was the primary motive.  I'm sure they've also known each other for a while, and the human instinct to oblige our peers and those we view as superiors is immense.  

But it was an epically stupid tweet, and maybe Jack Dorsey cares (a little) about our mockery as he sits on his giant bed made of money.  But you know if Twitter fails, and Bluesky takes off, he'll make a fortune twice over.  So is he really such an idiot?

Well, clearly, before Musk bought Twitter, Dorsey didn't really seem to care about the societal harm being caused by Twitter and other social media so it's entirely possible he may actually, truly believe that, as insane or idiotic as it is, because it perpetuates his overall beliefs about society, speech, and/or wealth. So less "idiot" and more "self-interested piece of shit."

[Gaston de Foix]

1 hour ago, karaddin said:

I still can't believe Elon was such a tight ass when setting $44b on fire that he didn't make Jack do a non compete clause.

I think Twitter employees (at a sufficiently senior level) do have a non-compete but Jack had already left by then.  It is hilarious though. 

[Jaxom 1974]