Jump to content

X (née Twitter): Elmo has no good ideas


Week
 Share

Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

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. 

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.

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

But I could graze my cow and sheep on it, as they did on the Boston Common back when.  This was true until relatively recently in English history; in many places even in the 17th C, and very early into the 1800's prior to industrialization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Durckad said:

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."

Nah. Damn near every tech bro for a generation hasn't cared at all about the damage their creations can do. It's why it also shouldn't be shocking to learn about their office cultures and how they treat employees like shit. 

27 minutes ago, Zorral said:

But I could graze my cow and sheep on it, as they did on the Boston Common back when.  This was true until relatively recently in English history; in many places even in the 17th C, and very early into the 1800's prior to industrialization.

Citing hundreds of years ago to discuss current affairs is rather useless. The world evolves too rapidly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the whole point of a "common" was that it was free and open to responsible use.  Also, if you are thinking of traditional liberties like Hyde Park Square, that anyone could say anything on it: so a level playing field in terms of speech. 

Now, "speech" has always come with provisos and restrictions so certain things are not protected speech like pornography. 

But anyway, Twitter today does censure speech at the request of governments, and it does promote the tweets of those who pay.  Extorting those protecting their brand is the logical next step - if Twitter truly follows through on its threats to abandon/disfavor those brands who don't pay it might be faced with a class-action lawsuit. 

Twitter is also aggressively pushing me to become a verified user by setting up a reloading notification every time I open the app.  I'm obviously not going to pay.  At least for me, the blue bird and logo haven't disappeared.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Zorral said:

But I could graze my cow and sheep on it, as they did on the Boston Common back when.  This was true until relatively recently in English history; in many places even in the 17th C, and very early into the 1800's prior to industrialization.

The Enclosure Acts fucked everything up

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

The Enclosure Acts fucked everything up

They sure as fuck did ... over the centuries. The enclosures  came overlong periods, of greater and lesser shutting down of public/ wastelands/ traditional/ even far exector lands, starting with William the Bastard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/27/2023 at 6:00 AM, Relic said:

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? 

Possibly. I don’t know, perhaps no ethical consumption is a cop-out for individual action to try and mitigate the severity of a bad situation. Or perhaps this level of individualist activism it’s could be better used  group efforts to force legislation to deal with a problem.

 

Its a hard question that I don’t have too strong a stance though 

Edited by Varysblackfyre321
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, Adidas's business adventure with Ye has not been good for business. They are trying to claw back some of their losses and promised to donate some of the profits to organizations fighting against anti-semitism - they were not particularly specific about how much they will donate, and did not comment whether West would be paid % of the income from the sales of those shoes.

On some level I'd find it amusing, if Adidas were to pay West more from this fire sale of his sneakers, than what they'd end up donating to the fight against anti-semitism. But horses are really sarcastic, so I can see how not everybody can see the funny side in that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The most depressing thing about the Ye debacle was how up until he literally said “I like Hitler, the Holocaust didn’t happen, I am a Nazi,” so many people kept acting as if calling him a Nazi was presumptive(how could you read his mind or heart). And yeah some were just bad-faith crypto fascists(your Matt Walsh’s, your Carl Benjamins) hoping Kanye would move the dial further in their direction on the  Jewish question. Others I think were just paranoid about ever potentially getting ‘canceled’ for a take not being progressive enough they’d downplay an obvious nazi’s nazism. Also it’d be scary if the guy hanging out with the president and friends with the richest man in the world and who got shout outs from one of the dominant political parties in the most powerful country on earth was a Nazi and openly doing Nazi shit.

 

All together depressing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

On some level I'd find it amusing, if Adidas were to pay West more from this fire sale of his sneakers, than what they'd end up donating to the fight against anti-semitism. But horses are really sarcastic, so I can see how not everybody can see the funny side in that.

Oh they will because terminating a contract and rescinding it are two separate things.  Adidas still owe Ye a percentage on those shoes sold, and their promises to donate to fight anti-semitism is PR bullshit; a finger in a temporary leaky dyke.  Their PR people still need to shop around to fight organizations with decent reputations that will take modest sized checks for a PR photo-op and favorable releases. 

German companies associated with anti-semites, a little on the nose you know? 77 years is way too soon.   

When I read stuff like this (link), I wonder exactly how much humanitarian aid did Daimler-Benz provide to the Remembrance, Responsibility and Future forum?  Why won't they say?  And what would have been a fair-market value for the labour they extracted? And adequate compensation for the crimes they committed?  Or, even, just calculate the profits you made during that time and give the entire sum to victims.   Never any specifics, and that tells you all you need to know.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

German companies associated with anti-semites, a little on the nose you know? 77 years is way too soon.   

I don't think the German company angle is the big factor there, more like the icing on the cake. I don't think Nike would come out of this unscathed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

When I read stuff like this (link), I wonder exactly how much humanitarian aid did Daimler-Benz provide to the Remembrance, Responsibility and Future forum?  Why won't they say?  And what would have been a fair-market value for the labour they extracted? And adequate compensation for the crimes they committed?  Or, even, just calculate the profits you made during that time and give the entire sum to victims.   Never any specifics, and that tells you all you need to know.  

They are at least contributing. Kühne + Nagel on the other hand...

Also a lot of those family dynasties owning those businesses, they like to live in a world with a sanitized form of history (just ask the Bahlsens).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Damn it.

It’d be really good if he quickly burns out all his cash. For himself and more importantly the world at large. There’s no debate, civil discourse solution. Canceling is right here.

I agree, but it's not his money that gives him a platform but places like Twitter.  The biggest lesson of Jan.6 is de-platforming works, and should have been done a lot sooner, to a lot of people.  

2 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

They are at least contributing. Kühne + Nagel on the other hand...

Also a lot of those family dynasties owning those businesses, they like to live in a world with a sanitized form of history (just ask the Bahlsens).

Yep.  And for all my fine words, I can't give up Leibniz-Keks :).  Just too delicious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...