[HN Gopher] Elon Musk to join Twitter's board of directors
___________________________________________________________________
Elon Musk to join Twitter's board of directors
Author : alexrustic
Score : 625 points
Date : 2022-04-05 13:13 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.sec.gov)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.sec.gov)
| throwaway5752 wrote:
| _" For so long as Mr. Musk is serving on the Board and for 90
| days thereafter, Mr. Musk will not, either alone or as a member
| of a group, become the beneficial owner of more than 14.9% of the
| Company's common stock outstanding at such time, including for
| these purposes economic exposure through derivative securities,
| swaps, or hedging transactions."_
|
| This is the second line in the linked filing, and something a
| number of people have not read.
| topspin wrote:
| Someone fill me in here: TWTR is a NYSE traded stock. What,
| hypothetically, would prevent someone from just paying the
| market price for whatever percent of Twitter's stock they care
| to buy, such that they would have to agree to these terms?
| saulpw wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takeover#Hostile
| eganist wrote:
| > This is the second line in the linked filing, and something a
| number of people have not read.
|
| Not sure it's that it was left unread or if it just doesn't
| matter.
|
| As best as I can tell, it just means he won't overtly threaten
| the company with a takeover or equivalent because he's been
| given soft power to influence.
|
| My lay reading suggests that Twitter is now basically operating
| at his whims to keep him from leaving the board and executing a
| takeover plan 90 days thereafter.
| mywittyname wrote:
| > My lay reading suggests that Twitter is now basically
| operating at his whims to keep him from leaving the board and
| executing a takeover plan 90 days thereafter.
|
| Honestly, it might be amusing if he does do that. Twitter
| stock looks to still flat from the IPO price, even after the
| spike after this announcement.
|
| I say, let him tie up a significant portion of his net worth
| in a vanity project with no real growth potential.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| >> he won't overtly threaten the company with a takeover or
| equivalent
|
| Well, he can overtly threaten all he wants. He can begin the
| process. He can make all the money arrangements and make
| agreements with other shareholders. He just cannot _complete_
| the takeover by actually acquiring more stock (or other
| instruments) until after 90 days. Imho that isn 't a
| practical limit on threats.
| k__ wrote:
| lol, what's the meaning of that?
|
| So he doesn't down the stock with his decisions and buys it
| cheap later?
| singlow wrote:
| OK, Elon, lets settle. Let's give you a board seat but you
| have to promise not to try and buy up controlling shares in
| the company and privatize it in a hostile takeover.
| k__ wrote:
| So, they really think he could improve the value of their
| shares?
| paxys wrote:
| I'm not sure I understand. What is the relevance of this line?
| divbzero wrote:
| The board seat was granted in tandem with a guarantee from
| Musk that he will limit the number of voting shares he
| amasses. I don't think it's an uncommon arrangement when an
| outside investor joins the board.
| paxys wrote:
| It's a standard clause for anyone getting into any
| relationship with a company. Your own employee agreement
| probably has a similar one.
|
| Ultimately if he does want to buy more he can resign from
| the board with one Tweet.
| prvc wrote:
| What is the maximum number of seats he could control under
| those conditions?
| ecf wrote:
| Maybe a benefit of web3 with a centralized identity would be the
| ability to completely block all mentions of a person. My days are
| much better when I can avoid the egotistical pet projects of out-
| of-touch billionaires.
| malwarebytess wrote:
| Fascinating to me the level of vitriol that spews from people on
| this guy. He's just a guy, you know?
| phillipcarter wrote:
| He's not just "a guy"
| puffoflogic wrote:
| And that cultural reference is not just some words.
| lurker619 wrote:
| Basically he's got a lot of money. People will attack him no
| matter what he does, in an effort to redistribute his wealth.
| It's game theory, there are no billionaires who are liked.
| wwilim wrote:
| What about Warren Buffett?
| lurker619 wrote:
| I may be wrong, here are my impressions from 5 minutes
| spent googling - he already made his fortune in past
| decades. He is not really in the limelight, not building
| revolutionary stuff or going up against govt/corporate
| interests. He is pretty old and has already planned to
| donate major portions of his wealth already. Elon has
| signed the giving pledge too btw.
| carlycue wrote:
| Elon Musk is this generations Steve Jobs. He has an enormous
| amount of influence with people 30 and under. His opinion of
| Apple will most likely sour when the Apple car comes out. If he
| really wanted, he probably could single-handedly bring Android
| closer to iOS in the US by changing his phone to Android and
| tweeting about it. I am not kidding. People worship Elon.
| ramesh31 wrote:
| >If he really wanted, he probably could single-handedly bring
| Android closer to iOS in the US by changing his phone to
| Android and tweeting about it.
|
| Not even Elon could save that dumpster fire. Android is so bad
| that even Google doesn't want to use it anymore (see: Fuchsia).
| i67vw3 wrote:
| NSA backdoored proprietary iOS vs Open source GrahpeneOS....
| ramesh31 wrote:
| Yes, because the NSA definitely does not have an entire
| library of top secret zero days for 90% of the software
| packages included in your Open Source OS. And your hardware
| _definitely_ doesn 't have any backdoors.
|
| Maintaining privacy against a state level actor is
| essentially a nerd fan fiction daydream. If the US
| government is after you, you're fucked no matter what.
| AustinDev wrote:
| As I always say... if your threat model contains the NSA,
| GRU, CCP or any other sophisticated state actor you're
| better off not using any technology because the moment
| you do you've lost.
| Marazan wrote:
| Wow, never seen some many 'savvy' takes die in less than 24 hours
|
| "He's not going to join the board" said the smart set.
| sydthrowaway wrote:
| Just like how Putin would never invade.
| bentlegen wrote:
| Can you link to some of these examples?
| MrPatan wrote:
| How's that for a short march through the institution?
| jdrc wrote:
| Elon's twitter account is his most valuable asset, and
| responsible for much of the rest
| hickimsedenolan wrote:
| Yeah, not the hundreds of billions of dollars he has, or the
| companies he owns.
| Copenjin wrote:
| No it's not, it's a very popular account with a lot of
| followers, but I don't know how many would follow somewhere
| else if Elon had to leave for example.
| croes wrote:
| Does that mean he's now announcing the next five years, that
| Twitter's next feature will be ready next year?
| riazrizvi wrote:
| I predict a new entry in the Terms of Service: "Tracking
| private jets is forbidden".
| rrix2 wrote:
| Self-posting tweets by 2025, you wont even have to open the app
| to anger people
| exikyut wrote:
| Thanks for breaking my brain. Possible complement :P
|
| I got as far as "bot" <-> "the cloud is just someone else's
| computer" <-> "tree that owns itself" before my train of
| thought SEGVed loudly in complaint.
| [deleted]
| twofornone wrote:
| I think generally the political right in the US is effectively
| underserved by social media, because all of the giants seem to
| lean pretty openly left. If Musk can make the platform more
| neutral this could be a massive business opportunity, if not to
| grow then to at least ensure Twitter's market dominance by
| venting some of the pressure for a competitor.
|
| Never would have bothered before but I'm long TWTR now, worth a
| gamble since everything Elon touches turns to gold, even if only
| because of cult of personality...
| hackyhacky wrote:
| Has it occurred to you that social media tilts left because
| lefty people are more likely to use the internet?
|
| Internet and social media use use track closely with education
| level, which correlate to position on the political spectrum.
|
| If that's true, then an attempt to make social media more
| "neutral" would in fact be giving rightists an unfair
| advantage.
| zaptrem wrote:
| While this might have been true a decade or two ago, nearly
| everybody uses the internet now.
| https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/04/02/7-of-
| americ... (this is a year out of date -- 93%)
| stale2002 wrote:
| There are lots and lots of lefty places on the internet.
|
| I am sure that people on the left will do just fine, if there
| happens to be 1 major neutral platform that doesn't do as
| strict moderation.
| thissiteb1lows wrote:
| dmamills wrote:
| This is the biggest thing to happen to twitter since the trump
| presidency. Both big for twitter, and awful for society.
| cloutchaser wrote:
| freedomben wrote:
| Is Elon a Republican or Conservative? I've seen variations of
| this regarding balancing ownership and improving free speech,
| but aside from a few cryptic tweets about cancel culture, has
| Elon ever said anything? In interviews (especially the famous
| Rogan interview) he seems pretty disinterested in politics.
| orblivion wrote:
| I think he's even claimed to be some variant of anarchist.
| Not that I take that specifically to heart. I just think
| he's politically eccentric.
|
| Though to the "conservative" or maybe libertarian angle
| don't forget the "coronavirus panic is dumb" tweet.
| dahfizz wrote:
| Anyone who isn't an outspoken liberal is a conservative.
| Welcome to American politics.
| md2020 wrote:
| In America, progressives/leftists actually lump in
| "liberals" as "conservative" now since traditionally
| "liberal" means support of typical Enlightenment values,
| democracy, and free market capitalism. But I've noticed
| that people who vote Republican refer to
| progressives/leftists as "liberals", so it's all very
| confusing.
| mynameisvlad wrote:
| Be civil. That is the most uncharitable reading of a comment
| I've seen today.
| matt_s wrote:
| And both might be related. Motivation for any billionaire to
| back Republican top candidates is to repeal all Billionaire Tax
| legislature that might pass soon.
| seibelj wrote:
| Considering we only have 2 political parties in the US, if
| you oppose the policies of the party in power you only have
| one other option. I'm a libertarian and don't have a team I
| root for, but it's a fact that plenty of hyper-wealthy people
| support the Democrats.
| SantalBlush wrote:
| I see this move as an opportunity to gatekeep politicians on
| his platform in exchange for favorable treatment.
| bequanna wrote:
| > ...Billionaire Tax legislature
|
| No such thing will ever happen. This is just political
| theater for the sake of appeasing the "sour grapes" faction
| on the left. There is no political will to tax unrealized
| gains, tax wealth, etc.
| memish wrote:
| How so? A more transparent twitter would be better for society.
| That's what he and Jack are pushing for.
| lp0_on_fire wrote:
| > Jack are pushing for.
|
| Twitter went further down the ideological rabbit hole with
| Jack at the helm.
| memish wrote:
| Which he's not happy about.
|
| https://twitter.com/jack/status/1510314535671922689
| gnicholas wrote:
| This development makes Trump being reinstated on Twitter more
| likely. His reinstatement would make a Trump presidency less
| likely, IMO.
|
| Most people (or at least HNers) would agree that decreasing the
| likelihood of another Trump presidency would be a good thing.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > This development makes Trump being reinstated on Twitter
| more likely.
|
| Maybe.
|
| > His reinstatement would make a Trump presidency less
| likely, IMO.
|
| That's...an interesting opinion, but I don't see any strong
| reason to believe it is true, or even more likely to be true
| than the opposite effect.
|
| > Most people (or at least HNers) would agree that decreasing
| the likelihood of another Trump presidency would be a good
| thing.
|
| For people (at least, US voters) generally that appears to be
| _less_ true of Trump than literally every other potential
| candidate, as Trump currently is both the strongest _by far_
| polling candidate for the Republican nomination in 2024
| against other potential Republicans _and_ the strongest
| against potential Democratic opponents, winning my most
| general election head to head polls.
| gnicholas wrote:
| I understand he polls we'll head to head, but most
| Americans would prefer he not be the next president
| (whether they prefer a democrat, republican, or something
| else). And I cannot imagine that most HNers want another
| Trump presidency.
|
| I would speculate that part of the reason he's polling so
| well (relatively speaking) right now is that he's been off
| twitter for the last year.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > I understand he polls we'll head to head, but most
| Americans would prefer he not be the next president
|
| That's true of literally every possible candidate; no
| candidate is preferred by the majority of people, and
| Trump is preferred by the largest minority.
|
| > I would speculate that part of the reason he's polling
| so well (relatively speaking) right now is that he's been
| off twitter for the last year.
|
| I would speculate that almost the entire reason is that
| he successfully took over the Republican brand and people
| are dissatisfied with the present conditions, largely due
| to economic conditions, particularly inflation.
| pzh wrote:
| What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
|
| That's why free speech policies shouldn't be dictated by
| partisan concerns. You never know who will be in control of
| your social media platform in the future.
| [deleted]
| philosopher1234 wrote:
| Suppose the president got up every day and issued a
| presidential address in which he said "we should kill all
| mintorities". Would you be opposed to this?
|
| Thats an extreme example, but the point im illustrating is
| that in reality, as a society, we do not approve or endorse
| all speech, and it is obviously true that censorship is
| useful. You can see quite clearly that were the president to
| do this, it would have consequences.
|
| Does that mean we should make certain speech illegal? Not
| necessarily. Does it mean we should curtail the reach of
| certain speech? I think it is good for Twitter to do this.
|
| The distinction is that speech being possible is different
| than speech being emphasized or broadcasted.
| turdnagel wrote:
| Twitter doesn't have "free speech policies". It has
| moderation policies. They're not enforced evenly, but no
| platform has solved this.
| convery wrote:
| I mean, there's a difference between platforms trying solve
| the issue and Twitter that gives a badge repeat offenders
| as long as the target of their bigotry is deemed
| acceptable..
| m463 wrote:
| So society is that dependent on twitter?
| dmamills wrote:
| I don't know where the implication that society is dependent
| on twitter is hidden in my comment. But no, society isn't
| dependent on twitter, is it relevant to society? Certainly.
| loceng wrote:
| Luckily your stating something with no actual argument
| points to support your statement doesn't hold any weight
| whatsoever to whether it has any truth to it or not.
| dmamills wrote:
| You want argument points to support the idea that Twitter
| is relevant to society?
|
| It is the fourth most visited site on the internet. It
| has well over three hundred million active users. It was
| one of the main methods of communication for the last
| sitting president of the united states. It is worth more
| than three billion dollars. It is currently what this
| subset of society in this thread is discussing because we
| find it relevant.
| loceng wrote:
| My bad, I was thinking of your "and [Elon buying 10% of
| Twitter is] awful for society" comment - unless I
| misunderstood what you that was awful for society.
| dmamills wrote:
| Well, the definition "awful for society" is fairly
| anecdotal, so my reply won't be able to be built upon
| hard facts.
|
| But in my opinion, Elon Musk is a very smart man who not
| only sees, but has reaped massive value from Twitter. He
| is notable for tweeting misleading information to affect
| the stock price of his companies. These actions resulted
| in a lawsuit from the SEC in 2018.
|
| The ripple effects of stock manipulation are hard to
| directly tie to the concept of "awful for society". But
| it certainly feels like when money is given one place, it
| is taken from another. When that transfer of money is
| based on misinformation, it creates pain. I personally am
| doubtful that the billionaire feels any of it, but
| someone else will.
|
| I also don't believe that Musk has learned any lesson
| from the lawsuit either. He is currently trying to fight
| the tweet pre-approval stipulation in the courts. Putting
| a financial investment into the company to me personally,
| looks like someone who has found, or is looking for a
| loophole.
| loceng wrote:
| So I'm curious then what you think about short sellers
| who can bet against Elon Musk, and therefore they're
| financially incentivized to generate negative press
| (whether factual or not), and that Elon is very vocal
| against that practice?
|
| I presume you're primarily referencing his "Funding
| secured" tweet - which arguably with Elon's pretty solid
| judgement, he may have well had funding secured - say
| through verbal agreement - just perhaps not through
| official legal channels?
|
| It's also arguable as to whether what he's said is
| misleading or not, and which what he says, what the SEC
| wants him to do vs. what the Constitution gives him the
| foundational right to do seem to be at odds.
|
| Because you didn't give any specific examples of his
| supposed misleading, it's hard to actually argue you
| further.
|
| You also haven't tied anything you said back to how him
| buying ~10% of Twitter is awful for society though?
|
| You must also dislike Bitcoin then because the vast
| majority of what people see, that hypes them up to buy
| into Bitcoin, is shallow propaganda/is highly misleading
| - and those people ultimately will lose their money once
| the blockchain designed to mimic MLM-Ponzi schemes
| collapses?
| dmamills wrote:
| Yes, the idea of short sellers using nefarious
| methodologies to provide value for themselves is also
| "awful". This is essentially the crux of my argument
| about Elon's usage of twitter. I'm of the mind that more
| than one awful thing can exist in society at the same
| time.
|
| I'm sorry that I didn't base my argument on what "he may
| have well had". But when I think about it that way, sure,
| he may have well had never done anything wrong. The
| courts disagree, but they also might not being taking
| into account what he may have well had.
|
| I tried my best to elaborate on why I felt that him
| purchasing a stake in twitter was awful for society in my
| last comment. I am sorry that you didn't find it meaty
| enough for you to argue on, but perhaps that is for the
| best.
|
| and yes, I also believe bitcoin and MLM ponzi schemes are
| also awful.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| Twitter is largely responsible for shaping media perspective
| and narrative, so yea, I'd say society is pretty dependent on
| twitter.
| yosito wrote:
| In what ways do you think having Elon Musk on Twitter's board
| will be bad for society?
| rossdavidh wrote:
| Hypothesis: this is not about Elon running Twitter, controlling
| society, insuring free speech, or any other such thing. It's
| simply that he wants insurance against being de-platformed, and
| now he has it.
| zthrowaway wrote:
| His gripe is that Twitter is not a neutral platform and has a
| lot of ideological issues that have massive impact on society.
| What you're saying just goes full circle into that point.
| protomyth wrote:
| 9% is a hell of an insurance policy. I don't disagree, the man
| does not do small things, but I do wonder if he just bought
| insurance for more people than himself.
| stale2002 wrote:
| >? 9% is a hell of an insurance policy
|
| I mean, you say that. But the literal former president of the
| USA got de-platformed from twitter, and we don't hear about
| him nearly as much as when he had a twitter.
|
| Maybe it is actually worth that amount of money, if entire
| elections can be influenced like that.
| philosopher1234 wrote:
| >entire elections can be influenced like that.
|
| What was the influence Trump's banning had over the
| election?
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > What was the influence Trump's banning had over the
| election?
|
| Especially since it occurred after the election, that's a
| good question.
| stale2002 wrote:
| Well if you added the slightest, most tiniest drop of
| good faith for half a second, you'd realize that I said
| "we don't hear about him nearly as much as when he had a
| twitter", and the implication being that I think this
| might effect future elections, and that is the reason
| why.
|
| You can agree or disagree that Trump being banned from
| the platform that he was most known for, will effect his
| future election chances, and you can disagree with if you
| want that to happen or not, but that is completely
| unrelated to the point.
|
| But I think it is unfortunate that people on HN sometimes
| are so jumpy to find a disagreement, that they mis-
| understand the point so easily.
|
| Instead of thinking "This person didn't know that Trump
| was banned after the 2020 election, what an idiot!",
| instead you could have thought "Maybe he is talking about
| future elections, instead of the one that happened
| previously to his ban, which would obviously be really
| stupid!"
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > I said "we don't hear about him nearly as much as when
| he had a twitter
|
| He didn't stop getting wall-to-wall coverage in all media
| when he was banned for Twitter.
|
| It did start fading shortly after he left office.
|
| I mean, it _could_ be coincidence, but it does seem to
| suggest an obvious alternative explanation for why
| attention to him dropped.
| [deleted]
| philosopher1234 wrote:
| Its for the better that trump was banned. If trump wants
| to broadcast his rallying cries, racism, and lies, he can
| find other ways to do it.
| [deleted]
| stathibus wrote:
| You're assuming there was some cost/benefit analysis here.
| Elon has enough money that only the benefit is a factor.
| hacknat wrote:
| Not if you're able to influence the market in a meaningful
| way from your Twitter handle. How is anyone underestimating
| Twitter's power at this point?
| tomatowurst wrote:
| but 9% seems very expensive way to do that, I think most likely
| he just likes it and has benefited greatly by the platform.
|
| the question, is it worth investment?
| rossdavidh wrote:
| Well if his 9% actually appreciates over time (by no means
| guaranteed), then the only real cost is any opportunity cost
| of using the money for this right now. Which, given the
| investment environment, may not be that large. So assuming
| that his stake grows in value over the long run, it's a very
| small cost, really.
| [deleted]
| gregoriol wrote:
| This is like putting a gambler at a casino's board
| rc_mob wrote:
| Not a well worded analogy. Garauntee 100% of the board members
| at all casinos are gamblers.
| [deleted]
| samarama wrote:
| A Twitter with unlimited speech will become a racist and
| propaganda hellscape.
|
| Imagine Trump will be brought back on Twitter, he'll radicalize
| 40% of Americans into QAnon disciples and try to topple the
| United States government again. He'll have thousands like him
| joining in in spreading mass amounts of fake news exactly like
| the Russian propaganda machine.
|
| You'll see extreme science denial, a boatload of new Covid myths,
| drinking bleach, Ivermectin, Covid is just the flu propaganda all
| over again, just 5 times worse.
| MBCook wrote:
| Oh good. Now he can ruin something I like.
| hayd wrote:
| If you don't like it, just build your own platform.
|
| https://twitter.com/titaniamcgrath/status/134859926562768076...
| ralusek wrote:
| Liking Twitter and thinking Elon Musk ruins things certainly
| are tightly coupled.
| jwond wrote:
| What kind of person actually likes Twitter?
| MBCook wrote:
| I find it incredibly useful. I follow accounts accounts I
| consider useful or interesting. They post all sorts of
| informative things, fun anecdotes, bits of history, etc.
|
| Yeah if you just follow celebrities or influencers you'll
| have a bad time. But there are lots of great smaller accounts
| (<250k followers) out there. You can often get tech news
| first that way from reliable sources.
| haunter wrote:
| >smaller accounts (<250k followers)
|
| I'd not consider someone with 200k followers small.
|
| Maybe you meant 2500 followers?
| MBCook wrote:
| No, I meant 250k. But "smaller" was relative to
| celebrities and politicians and such with millions.
|
| Not all accounts I follow are that big. Many are closer
| to 10k. Some around 5k. There are a handful less than
| that but they are often people I know in person or tiny
| podcasts I listen to.
| angryGhost wrote:
| the 'influencer' type
| Nathanael_M wrote:
| I'm curious how you think this is going to ruin anything for
| you. Do you mean on a tangible level, or on an emotional level?
| Do you actually think there will be large scale policy changes
| that will damage your ability to communicate with people via
| the platform?
|
| The valuable parts of Twitter seem to be when niche experts
| tweet about their niche and specific niche comedy. Everything
| else seems really unhealthy.
|
| I could see a lot of monetization efforts ruin Twitter. I could
| also see people saying "I don't want to support Elon, I'm
| leaving Twitter" if that's what you mean.
| MBCook wrote:
| I'm worried about tangible changes. As their largest
| shareholder with a seat on the board (not to mention lots of
| fans/popular with some) I don't want him to be able to drive
| product decisions.
|
| I know what I would like to change (better 3rd part app
| support, better anti-harassment tools). I don't see why he
| would push for either one.
|
| I don't know what he WOULD push for, but I worry I won't like
| it. He called for the edit button. I know that's long
| requested but carries some serious downsides. And I don't
| want them glossed over because they push to get it out to
| make him and his army happy.
|
| I'm not a fan but I don't think my liking Twitter and Elon
| being a big shareholder implies I am a fan of his. Twitter
| has enough of its own identity.
| Nathanael_M wrote:
| Well Twitter never really hooked me, so I'm mostly just a
| curious onlooker, but to me it seems that Twitter is pretty
| stagnant. Do you think there's a possibility that this
| change has a positive outcome?
| MBCook wrote:
| No. I'll admit I'm pessimistic on such things. Sure
| Twitter could improve, but I don't see how/why that would
| be led by Musk. I don't see what he brings to the table
| other than himself as a person. It's not like he was an
| expert in a similar field/company like FB, IG, TikTok,
| etc.
|
| Edit: so it seems Elon is already promising changes, but
| Twitter says he has no say in content policy. So the
| nonsense may already be starting. Source:
| https://twitter.com/reckless/status/1511387364563767298
| dncornholio wrote:
| No wonder he joins the board. Twitter has huge impact on his
| business(es). He doesn't care about free speech, all he cares
| about his own speech IMO.
| [deleted]
| ideamotor wrote:
| A troll I have blocked on Twitter has joined the board of
| directors. Great. Will Kayne West be next? What about Glen
| Greenwald? I have those blocked as well. How about a troll-only
| board selected from accounts I blocked?
| MadSudaca wrote:
| Maybe you're just too sensitive.
| ideamotor wrote:
| Or maybe I believe playing by known and accepted rules is the
| only thing holding our country, democracy, and the global
| economic system together. And this guy seeks and promotes
| activity (SEC, crypto, ripping off cofounders, his positions
| on taxes, never ceasing misinformation, and so on) that
| dilutes this. You can't have a democracy without common rules
| and a common currency. If he'd just stick to building stuff,
| he'd be awesome, but no, he's gotta break all the rules for
| his ego for vanity projects.
| nathanvanfleet wrote:
| bmitc wrote:
| I am beyond tired of billionaires, who get to treat companies,
| public sentiment, and politics, and thus a fair portion of
| government and policy, as their personal sandbox. Greed and
| oligarchy are ruining America.
| drstewart wrote:
| What specifically has Elon buying shares in Twitter done to use
| it as his personal sandbox that has ruined America? Give
| examples.
|
| I'm beyond tired of the hyperbole and hysteria any time
| <personal internet doesn't like> <does thing>. And I can back
| my assertion up with an example: you.
| beeboop wrote:
| He tweeted a mean thing once to a guy /s
| snarf21 wrote:
| Agreed but I'm not sure how we can change it at this point. Our
| lives in the US are way too good for revolution. This move by
| him is strictly about not letting Twitter ever block his
| accounts. He can pump & dump and mislead investors for billions
| that will make him a lot more money than his Twitter stake
| cost.
| rhacker wrote:
| I don't know. They haven't finished the homeless count for
| 2022. I suspect they are scared to announce it. People are
| probably dropping off from housed to unhoused at
| unprecidented levels. I wouldn't say our lives are way to
| good right now.
| ralusek wrote:
| Very, very few homeless people are homeless because they
| simply can't afford housing.
| skulk wrote:
| To see why you're wrong, all you have to do is look up a
| survey:
|
| From Maricopa county (Phoenix):
| https://www.abc15.com/news/local-news/investigations/why-
| is-...
|
| That's 2,239 people (16 percent of all surveyed shelter-
| visitors) that cited "economic reasons" as the cause of
| their homelessness, and there's a separate entry for
| unemployment.
| sorry_outta_gas wrote:
| > . Our lives in the US are way too good for revolution.
|
| lol, maybe for "us" they are most people have serious trouble
| just living and near zero retirement funds
| ambrozk wrote:
| Who do you think owned the Twitter shares before Elon bought
| them? The dispossessed working classes?
| bmitc wrote:
| Can you explain what your point is?
| ambrozk wrote:
| When Elon buys an ownership stake in Twitter, he's taking
| an ownership stake from other billionaires, so it doesn't
| make sense to think of it as an example of billionaires
| increasing their power in society.
| nebula8804 wrote:
| They were and are still to an extent institutional investors
| no? Aren't those public funds?
| ryanSrich wrote:
| It would be cool to see Twitter unban the thousands of accounts I
| used to follow. I highly doubt Musk will have or is interested in
| having any real influence.
| mattwest wrote:
| Which accounts? And how can you possibly think he isn't
| interested in having influence? I'll bet you a pretty penny
| that there will be a slew of "leadership changes" in the coming
| months.
| mdoms wrote:
| If you really followed thousands of banned accounts perhaps you
| need to take a close look at the company you keep. That should
| send alarm bells ringing regardless of your perception of
| Twitter's biases.
| gotaquestion wrote:
| What thousands of accounts did you follow that were banned?
| Give us a sampling.
| randyrand wrote:
| ya, let us condescendingly judge you!
| SalmoShalazar wrote:
| It is genuinely interesting to me. All of the uproar about
| "free speech" has been confusing to me. Who are these
| people being censored? What are they saying?
| ryanSrich wrote:
| Lol exactly. Not taking that bait. Also, follow was the
| wrong word. They're all lists. I have 50+ twitter lists.
| gotaquestion wrote:
| When someone claims "free speech infringement" and then
| has no data to back it up they are either trolling or
| don't really care enough to make a substantial argument.
| and0 wrote:
| I'd be curious to see examples of these. I only know of Trump
| as having been banned. Plus I guess people who commit shootings
| tend to get memory holed by all the major social media brands,
| which might be a good idea? Thousands that you followed is
| quite an allegation.
| sohrob wrote:
| kassah wrote:
| I think something really important here, is that it has been
| agreed that Elon Musk is not to be more than 14.9% beneficial
| owner of the companies common stock. I'm not a lawyer, but this
| also looks like a tactic saying "Let's give Elon a voice on the
| board so he doesn't buy controlling interest in the company."
|
| Elon is being forced (or heavily incentivized at least) to
| liquify Tesla stocks, so he's going to be looking for alternate
| places to put that money to avoid the consequences of holding on
| to liquid capital, this limits him from putting too much of it
| into Twitter, and being more than just a board member.
|
| Gives stockholders & existing board members what they want
| (retaining control of the business, and makes it harder for Elon
| to build a competitor), while giving Elon what he wants
| (influence in the business). This sounds like a win-win.
| jmkni wrote:
| I think Twitter's CEO summed it up well, and I agree:
|
| > He's both a passionate believer and intense critic of the
| service which is exactly what we need on @Twitter, and in the
| boardroom, to make us stronger in the long-term. Welcome Elon!
|
| https://twitter.com/paraga/status/1511320964813910017
| mc32 wrote:
| I just want to know if this means Musk or anyone on the board
| can veto "bans" either on himself, themselves or for others...
|
| Will that account that tacks his plane continue tracking his
| plane?
| adolph wrote:
| Maybe a super blue check for shareholders, like a green
| dollar sign
| justapassenger wrote:
| That sounds like a typical corporate butt kissing.
| 99_00 wrote:
| Butt kissing is most effective when it's true.
| ajhurliman wrote:
| The CEO's level of sincerity doesn't rob the statement of any
| meaning.
| zeruch wrote:
| ...only of it's gravitas or validity.
| fullshark wrote:
| Maybe but it's 100% accurate TBD if he actually is happy to
| butt heads with Elon.
| blenderdt wrote:
| Those are just polite words.
|
| Why does a critic make Twitter stronger? And why is that
| needed?
| BurningFrog wrote:
| A good critic points out flaws to fix. With fewer flaws the
| company is healthier.
| dlp211 wrote:
| The implicit assumption being that Musk is a good critic of
| what is wrong with Twitter. I'm not sold on that
| assumption.
| vernie wrote:
| You can't be this naive.
| JamesAdir wrote:
| Elon is his one of his new bosses, I would take anything the
| CEO says with a grain of salt.
| hackernewds wrote:
| Not to mention he doesn't have the political capacity /
| capital or the history as Jack at Twitter
| andrew_ wrote:
| I give his tenure as CEO 6 months at most before he's forced
| out by the board, or resigns for ideological differences. The
| changing wind that Elon is going to usher in is going to be
| fundamental and sweeping, and I wouldn't be surprised to see
| an exodus of employees follow.
| woah wrote:
| I heard he's going to bring in the ability to edit other
| user's tweets, as we've been asking for for years
| KingOfCoders wrote:
| This reminds me of a startup I've worked for, CEO highly
| praised new board member ("[..] worked hard for months to
| get him on board [..]") in all hands meeting, 2 weeks later
| CEO essentially was out.
| ikiris wrote:
| It's how a lot of companies die to raiders.
| sytelus wrote:
| Why do you think he can do that as just one member of the
| whole board?
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| > The changing wind that Elon is going to usher in is going
| to be fundamental and sweeping...
|
| Could you be a bit more specific? _What direction_ do you
| think the change will be in?
| LudwigNagasena wrote:
| He has 9%, not 90%.
| peanuty1 wrote:
| Parag was extremely lucky to have been appointed CEO
| despite his lack of qualifications. He's only ever worked
| at Twitter and was appointed CTO before ever holding a
| management position. He's not going anywhere because he
| won't get as lucrative of a gig anywhere else.
| tag2103 wrote:
| 'He's not going anywhere because he won't get as
| lucrative of a gig anywhere else.'
|
| He probably won't have much of a choice in the matter
| bruhbruhbruh wrote:
| This type of career progression interests me. What type
| of internal politics did Parag have to maneuver to be
| appointed to these high profile roles? As someone with
| C-level career aspirations, it makes me wonder if I'm not
| cut out for the politics. I'm not Machiavellian. Can
| people make it to C-suite via merit alone?
| jackblemming wrote:
| No merit alone doesn't work. You absolutely need to be
| both charismatic and that guy who's constantly asking
| their boss what they can do for promotions or more money.
| Bonus points if you're tall. That's pretty much it.
| pempem wrote:
| Being male doesn't hurt.
| rajin444 wrote:
| Yes, being tall and assertive is more common among males.
| What point are you trying to make?
| lhnz wrote:
| His point is that a tall and assertive woman would be
| less likely to be made CEO than her male contemporary.
| woah wrote:
| Multiple times, I've seen inoffensive personalities be
| internally promoted to C level positions ahead of more
| politically savvy (and often more effective) candidates.
| This often takes place after the departing executive has
| a strong personality or leaves for contentious reasons.
| Everyone wants someone nice and trustworthy and
| unambitious to take over so that the organization can
| heal. I'm guessing this is what happened at Twitter.
|
| How to maneuver into this position? Maybe you could get
| hired to an important role at an organization with an
| unstable CEO, and make sure that you are friends with
| everyone and don't piss anyone off. Then wait for the CEO
| to lose their shit completely.
| AustinDev wrote:
| An employee exodus from Twitter would only be a good thing
| in my eyes. They're all too ideological from my experience.
| beaconstudios wrote:
| The company will still be ideological, but will simply
| follow Musk's ideology. Whether that's good or not
| depends on if you agree with him - I don't.
| cjbgkagh wrote:
| What goes around comes around. If Twitter wasn't so
| ideological to begin with then Musk may not have decided
| to meddle.
|
| I personally would like companies to be less ideological
| in general.
|
| EDIT: By less ideological I mean less interference on
| behalf of an ideology. Allowing all legally covered free
| speech would be the minimum interference possible by a
| company but not necessarily the maximally profitable
| position. Some interference may actually be a good thing
| - I think many companies have gone too far. My problem
| with companies being ideological is that they are
| signaling a willingness to interfere that invites
| substantial pressure from third parties to do so which
| can cut both ways.
| somebehemoth wrote:
| Is the argument that Musk will make Twitter less
| ideological? My assumption is that he'll push for his own
| ideology. If so, nothing gets better unless you happen to
| agree with Musk's ideology. If nothing gets better we've
| traded one echo chamber for another.
| psyc wrote:
| No. The idea is that moderation wouldn't tend to select
| for/against specific ideologies. Twitter discourse will
| remain extremely ideological in character.
| shon wrote:
| How would you describe Twitter's ideology as compared to
| Musk's?
| efitz wrote:
| Musk is very pro-free-speech-even-speech-that-offends.
|
| Twitter is very ban-anything-that-doesn't-comport-with-
| our-woke-worldview-and-call-it-hate-speech-or-
| disinformation. Also they selectively apply TOS against
| people they don't like while regularly ignoring blatant
| TOS violations from people they like.
| [deleted]
| IntelMiner wrote:
| Twitter is a psychological hell-hole that like all social
| media preys upon the absolute worst of humanity in a
| perpetual negative feedback loop to generate advertising
| dollars to sustain itself
|
| Elon is a deluded billionaire who cares only about
| himself
| FFRefresh wrote:
| How do you determine whether someone _only_ cares about
| themselves? How do you determine whether someone doesn 't
| _only_ care about themselves?
| IntelMiner wrote:
| The same way anyone else does. By subjective observation
| and opinion of the subject
|
| This isn't "The Good Place" where an objective arbiter of
| the net good or bad we put out into the universe through
| our entire existence can be measured
| Clubber wrote:
| >Is the argument that Musk will make Twitter less
| ideological? My assumption is that he'll push for his own
| ideology. If so, nothing gets better unless you happen to
| agree with Musk's ideology. If nothing gets better we've
| traded one echo chamber for another.
|
| That may be true, but if ideology in moderation is what's
| killing twitter, that already exists, so it will be just
| as bad as it is now, just a different flavor I would
| think. People might not like the new flavor though, but
| for many people, it's already ruined by having any flavor
| at all.
|
| I guess what I'm trying to say is if Musk just changes
| the flavor, it will just continue to suck. If he removes
| the flavor, it will be better for public discourse.
| stale2002 wrote:
| > the argument that Musk will make Twitter less
| ideological
|
| Well musk seems to want Twitter to follow the principles
| of open and free discourses with less moderation.
|
| So it seems like there will be less forced top down
| moderation.
| beaconstudios wrote:
| that is an ideological position.
| stale2002 wrote:
| I don't think you understand what people mean when they
| say less ideological.
|
| For example, would you call it ideological that the
| government does not arrest people for criticizing it?
|
| Imagine if we compare 2 governments, 1 which arrests
| people for criticizing it, and another that doesn't. In
| the context of this comparison, the one that censors less
| people, most would call less ideological.
|
| By ideological, people usually are talking about enforced
| ideology. So if you censor more people, then that is
| enforcing your ideology more, and if you have less
| censorship then that is less enforcement of ideology.
| educaysean wrote:
| > principles of open and free discourses with less
| moderation
|
| That is an ideology
|
| > For example, would you call it ideological that the
| government does not arrest people for criticizing it?
|
| Um, yes
| beaconstudios wrote:
| people call things less ideological when they agree with
| them more, that's all - if your views are unexamined then
| they look like a natural or intuitive position.
|
| The idea that freedom primarily exists as a lack of
| compulsion is libertarian or neoliberal ideology. Your
| total freedom from censorship is somebody else's freedom
| to harass and send death threats - obviously the line has
| to be drawn somewhere or twitter devolves into 8chan, and
| oftentimes people call for a nebulous "free speech" or
| "anti-censorship" instead of specifying what particular
| speech is being censored that they think is legitimate.
| Moderation is essential on the internet.
|
| If people think something is being censored and it
| shouldn't be, they should point to specific examples.
| [deleted]
| AlchemistCamp wrote:
| That's a really pedantic point to keep injecting
| throughout is thread.
|
| Yes, _technically_ it's an ideological choice to NOT
| gather up various books at the public library and burn
| them. But in practice, it's not ideological at all
| compared to doing the opposite.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Yes, technically it's an ideological choice to NOT
| gather up and burn various books at the public library.
| But in practice, it's not ideological at all.
|
| No, in practice it's very ideological, but it falls into
| a the blind spot most people have for broad consensus
| ideology. People tend to recognize something as
| "ideological" only when a large group strongly opposes
| the ideology in question.
|
| (The Musk case is different from the analogy you present,
| though, because of the ideologically loaded way
| rhetorical appeal to "the principles of open and free
| discourses with less moderation" is used in regard to
| internet fora by a political faction that actually
| supports intensified censorship of lots of things, but
| also happens to want to promote lots of things that
| various large platforms have decided they don't want to
| be a megaphone for.)
| AlchemistCamp wrote:
| > No, in practice it's very ideological
|
| How so? How is it "very ideological" to NOT be burning
| the third book from the left on the first shelf in the
| library? Or the ninth one on the right. I don't even know
| what's in either and I spend roughly zero time thinking
| about my local library. I'm not even sure where the first
| shelf from the door is situated.
|
| How is my (ongoing) choice NOT to walk over there and
| start burning a non-empty set of books "very
| ideological"?
|
| I suspect if you were to enter the same library and light
| various books on fire, nobody hearing about your arrest
| would agree that you were no more ideological with
| respect to that library than I (or the billions of others
| who also did not chose to engage in that behavior).
| beaconstudios wrote:
| OK, so the free speech versus censorship argument, let's
| go:
|
| Speech rules exist on a spectrum from total free speech
| where you can threaten to murder someone or continually
| harass them, to total control where everything you say
| must pass inspection (say, letters out from a classified
| military base). Any position on that spectrum has
| tradeoffs. If you ban Nazis you are being censorious but
| at the same time, providing space for the people that
| Nazis hate where they won't have their existence
| constantly challenged. If you ban fake news and one side
| of the political spectrum puts out more fake news than
| the other, that side will accuse you of political bias.
| Where you draw the line is not an objective decision,
| it's one based on what you value. That's an ideological
| decision. Brian Armstrong banning "politics at work" is
| because he is probably a libertarian rather than a
| progressive and would rather shut up the political people
| at work so he can focus on making money without having
| his actions criticised. Twitter allows politics at work
| because it was founded by liberals and they allow staff
| to criticise the direction of the company. 8chan refused
| to censor their platform for ideological reasons, twitter
| does censor their platform for ideological reasons. Does
| that clear it up for you?
| AlchemistCamp wrote:
| > Does that clear it up for you?
|
| I find this bit deeply unhelpful for the discussion.
|
| It's clear from your numerous comments on this story,
| that you have an axe to grind. My comment above was to
| highlight how it was repetitive and annoying as a reader
| of the thread.
|
| It was _not_ a request for a longer expanded version of
| the same talking points with a condescending swipe at the
| end.
| jimmyjazz14 wrote:
| In some sense but if a platform takes a neutral stance on
| the content within it becomes as "ideological" as a
| pinboard in a super market. So yes the platforms content
| may reflect the ideology of those who uses it most the
| platform itself as long as it does not interfere with
| what is posted to it would in my opinion less
| ideological.
| zeruch wrote:
| "I personally would like companies to be less ideological
| in general. "
|
| The irony here is laughable.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| Free speech and vibrant debate are ideologies. Respecting
| free speech while limiting the amplification of hate
| speech and Russian disinformation is an ideology.
|
| I think those are good ideologies for a social media
| platform to have.
| mrfusion wrote:
| Open discussion isn't an ideology. It's all ideologies.
| bequanna wrote:
| What ideology is that? Musk has hinted that he views
| Twitter as a public forum and should be moderated as
| such.
|
| Until now, I think Twitter's not-so-slight political lean
| has been viewed as detrimental to the company (and public
| discourse).
|
| I hope the people who work at Twitter and think it is OK
| to bring your politics to work go elsewhere. We would all
| benefit from platform where telling jokes that offend
| only the wokest doesn't get you banned and silenced.
| wwweston wrote:
| > What ideology is that? Musk has hinted that he views
| Twitter as a public forum and should be moderated as
| such.
|
| "the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then
| eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes
| 'What the hell is water?'"
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| I take your (rather tired) point that for some
| sufficiently broad definition of "ideology", even
| moderate viewpoints are "ideologies". Even still,
| moderation _should_ feel like water to a fish--it should
| be _moderate_ , it should roughly represent the
| viewpoints of the people rather than trying to tug the
| Overton Window in any particular direction (that's
| _activism_ , not moderation). And yes, this too is
| subjective--you could argue that moderation should be
| indistinguishable from far right or far left activism if
| you really want.
|
| EDIT: Seems like a lot of disagreement with this, but
| would love to hear some compelling arguments to justify
| activist moderation.
| wwweston wrote:
| To be much more specific: the idea that Twitter has a
| free speech problem _is_ itself immoderate and
| ideological. There is an unquestionably huge range of
| ideas that can be not only freely but rather aggressively
| expressed on twitter. There is a very narrow range of
| speech that is disallowed and even a considerable amount
| of that actually gets through. To be concerned about the
| narrow range that is disallowed and see that as
| ideologically motivated is to swim in the waters of ones
| own unexamined ideological biases. And that's being
| charitable, as many of those who complain about the bias
| of twitter know full well they're actually remarkably
| privileged when it comes to not only freedom of speech
| but being heard and regarded, they just know that among a
| certain audience that shares the sense that their views
| /expressions _should_ be privileged, the posture of loss
| of privilege as victimhood can be used as a tool of
| manipulation.
|
| Combine that with the culture that understands free
| speech issues in this way more generally: less from a
| regard for the value of liberal discourse and more for
| the privilege of indulgent speech, related to the idea
| "my ignorance is as good as your knowledge" but extended
| into the realm of stewardship or even ownership of an
| entire platform. This indulgent and degraded view of free
| speech is _required_ in order to understand twitter as a
| repressive forum as a consequence of limits on things
| like some trans jokes and deadnaming or even advocacy of
| identity-focused violence, which can only feel like
| repression to someone who fundamentally has nothing else
| of value to say.
|
| If that seems tired to you, I'd be happy to inject more
| vigor.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| The "tired" bit that I was referring to is the popular
| compulsion to miss the point in order to score a
| "gotcha!" by invoking the strict philosophical definition
| when someone says something like, "Twitter Inc is too
| ideological". Of course, when people say things like
| this, they're not usually meaning "Twitter Inc" is too
| ideological, it's that they are too aggressive about
| pushing their ideology. They could remain devout leftists
| without spamming everyone's feeds with leftist
| propaganda, for example.
|
| > To be much more specific: the idea that Twitter has a
| free speech problem is itself immoderate and ideological.
|
| It's ideological in the sense that "free speech is
| desirable" is ideological. Arguing that it's "immoderate"
| implies that arguing for stronger free speech protections
| is radical, which is untrue.
|
| > There is an unquestionably huge range of ideas that can
| be not only freely but rather aggressively expressed on
| twitter. There is a very narrow range of speech that is
| disallowed and even a considerable amount of that
| actually gets through.
|
| I'm not going to die on the hill of "Twitter needs to be
| less censorious", but free speech proponents can still
| legitimately find Twitter problematic even if the censors
| allow a lot of wrongthink through. For example, Twitter
| can sort replies by ideology such that wrongthink is much
| less likely to be seen. It could hide wrongthink from
| various users altogether. Whether or not it actually does
| any of these is difficult to assess because there's no
| transparency.
|
| > Combine that with the culture that understands free
| speech issues in this way more generally: less from a
| regard for the value of liberal discourse and more for
| the privilege of indulgent speech, related to the idea
| "my ignorance is as good as your knowledge" but extended
| into the realm of stewardship or even ownership of an
| entire platform.
|
| Yes, we have a broken epistemology, but this is the
| _result of_ the politicization of institutions
| (especially by the left wing). Specifically, the left
| wing argues that because perfect neutrality and
| objectivity are impossible thus we should wholesale
| abandon the pursuit thereof and instead be doggedly (
| _and ideologically homogeneously_ ) activist. This
| predictably damages trust in the institutions which in
| turn drives people toward other institutions, many of
| which are less savory.
| malermeister wrote:
| Here's Zizek commenting better than I could:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIwMIrj5Ulo
|
| >I already am eating from the trashcan all the time. The
| name of this trashcan is ideology. The material force of
| ideology - makes me not see what I'm effectively eating.
| It's not only our reality which enslaves us. _The tragedy
| of our predicament - when we are within ideology, is that
| - when we think that we escape it into our dreams - at
| that point we are within ideology._
|
| In other words, what you think of as moderate and not
| ideological is _a result of your ideology itself_.
|
| For a more thorough, very academic examination of
| ideology, I can recommend the book _The Sublime Object of
| Ideology_.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| "Moderate" doesn't mean "agreeable", it means "opposed to
| radical/extreme change". These beliefs are moderate _by
| definition_ , it's not tautological or subjective.
| malermeister wrote:
| The definition of moderate itself is ideological.
|
| In Saudi Arabia, death penalty for homosexuals would be
| considered moderate. They would consider your attitude
| toward free speech around the prophet radical.
|
| What you consider moderate is _always_ a result of your
| ideology. There is no objective _moderate_ , there is
| only _moderate within your ideology_.
|
| That's exactly what ideology is: It determines what you
| perceive as "normal" or "moderate".
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| You're observing that the definition of "moderate" is
| _relative_ , not ideological. It's just like the
| definition of "median", my height might be close to the
| median in a US context, but I would be tall in a Nigerian
| context. This doesn't imply that the definition of
| "median" is ideological.
| malermeister wrote:
| Of course "moderate" is relative. But relative to what?
|
| Relative to _your ideology_.
|
| You'd be tall in Nigeria _relative to the median height._
|
| You'd be a moderate in the US and a radical in Saudi
| Arabia _relative to the prevailing ideology_.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| > Of course "moderate" is relative. But relative to what?
| Relative to your ideology.
|
| Incorrect, not relative to _one's ideology_ , but
| relative to the implicit political context (such as "US
| politics" or "Saudi politics". If it were relative to
| each person's own ideology, then everyone would identify
| as a moderate: "My ideology is moderate relative to my
| ideology".
|
| > You'd be a moderate in the US and a radical in Saudi
| Arabia relative to the prevailing ideology.
|
| This is correct, but it contradicts your earlier claim
| that the definition of "moderate" is itself ideological.
| It's _contextual_ but not _ideological_.
| malermeister wrote:
| "Implicit political context" is just a very roundabout
| way of saying "prevalent ideology".
|
| The ideology _is_ the context.
| gbanfalvi wrote:
| It's absolutely relative. But what's the dimension we're
| measuring this relativity on? I'd say it's ideology.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| Yes, "moderate" describes ideology (no one in this thread
| questions that), but the OP's claim is that the
| definition of "moderate" is itself an ideological
| question. It's a bit meta.
| metoodv wrote:
| Zizek, as usual, is saying something facile but with
| flowery language to make it seem insightful, but the idea
| that in order to understand his culture a man must leave
| it and view it from the outside, the same idea Zizek is
| sharing here (amid sniffs) is an idea that goes back at
| least as far as Buddhism, as it is present in the story
| of the youth of the Buddha.
|
| Zizek is very ironically an ideologue himself (a
| "Hegelian" in his words) and as such his version of the
| story only contains half the lesson -- that culture,
| which he calls ideology because he seemingly refuses to
| truly understand what ideology is, lest admit he is an
| ideologue, can blind members of that culture to certain
| things, but without addressing that culture and ideology
| have positive aspects as well.
|
| The man is a neverending font of faux insight and
| obscurantism posturing as wisdom and this quote is no
| different from any other.
| malermeister wrote:
| I think you thoroughly misunderstood his point. His point
| is that _everything_ is ideology and that it 's
| inescapable, that obviously includes him. Everyone is an
| ideologue if you will, some just think their ideology
| isn't ideology.
|
| (and it seems that includes you based on how you
| contrasted "status quo" and "ideology" in the other
| comment, as if the status quo were somehow unideological)
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| But you're missing the point of everyone who is saying
| "Twitter Inc is too ideological". The point isn't
| "Twitter should abstain from ideology" as though that's
| possible in a strict philosophical sense, the point is
| that they don't need to suffocate users with their
| ideology. Twitter Inc can remain devoutly woke without
| spamming user feeds with woke propo.
|
| Invariably, topics involving "ideology" are a trap for
| pedants. They think they're going to get a good "gotcha!"
| in, but they find themselves hoisted on their own
| petards.
| malermeister wrote:
| But that in itself would also be an ideological act. As
| we've just established, there's no "non-ideological".
|
| People who want Twitter to be non-ideological in reality
| just want it to represent some other ideology instead,
| they don't get to hide behind some veil of neutrality.
| metoodv wrote:
| There is no justification, you're staking a position
| against radical politics, that is, politics that seeks to
| dismantle the current society and replace it with an
| ideological vision, and the agents of the dominant
| ideology which has no name (called Woke by its
| detractors) are mad that you are challenging one of their
| many parables from their scripture. Hence downvotes.
| malermeister wrote:
| What is the current society if not an ideological vision?
| Who says the status quo is not radical?
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| Whether or not the status quo is an "ideology" is a
| semantic distraction. For some strict technical
| definition of "ideology", it may well be, but the
| interesting question is whether or not it's radical.
| Since the status quo refers to mainstream, moderate
| attitudes, it can't be radical by definition (radical and
| moderate are antonyms).
| malermeister wrote:
| Who says mainstream attitudes are moderate?
|
| To a devout Muslim, the amount of freedom of speech we
| have around the prophet is radical.
|
| To a leftist, the exploitation of laborers by the
| capitalist class is radical.
|
| To the religious right, LGBT rights are radical.
|
| To racists, race mixing is radical.
|
| The only thing that makes it seem moderate to you is
| _your ideology_.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| Mainstream attitudes are moderate by definition ("A
| moderate is considered someone occupying any mainstream
| position avoiding extreme views and major social change."
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_moderate). Both
| "mainstream" and "moderate" are relative terms with
| respect to some population.
|
| > To a devout Muslim, the amount of freedom of speech we
| have around the prophet is radical. To a leftist, the
| exploitation of laborers by the capitalist class is
| radical. To the religious right, LGBT rights are radical.
| To racists, race mixing is radical.
|
| Yep, you're observing that "moderate" is a relative term.
| Different groups have different Overton windows.
|
| > The only thing that makes it seem moderate to you is
| your ideology.
|
| No, it doesn't matter what my ideology is, it matters
| what context we're talking about. That context is often
| implicit, but that doesn't mean the notion of "moderate"
| is ideological. If someone says "Joe is of median
| height", do you leap out from behind the bushes and yell
| "gotcha! 'median' is an ideological term! In Nigeria Joe
| is tall!"? That doesn't mean "median" is an ideological
| term, it means that it's dependent on the context, in
| which case the context is probably something like
| "whatever country Joe lives in".
| malermeister wrote:
| > Both "mainstream" and "moderate" are relative terms
| with respect to some population.
|
| Correct. Which attribute of the population though? Their
| height? Their skin color? Their weight? No, _their
| ideology_.
|
| > Different groups have different Overton windows.
|
| What is an Overton window if not a measure of ideology?
|
| > No, it doesn't matter what my ideology is, it matters
| what context we're talking about. That context is often
| implicit, but that doesn't mean the notion of "moderate"
| is ideological.
|
| That's exactly what ideology is, "implicit context".
| vkou wrote:
| > What ideology is that?
|
| The ideology in question is "Anything that is good for
| Elon Musk is good."
|
| That's pretty much all there is to it. There's no rigour
| to it, there's no intellectually sound foundation, there
| are just things that serve his bottom line, and those
| that hurt it.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| This all sounds very ideological.
|
| > We would all benefit from platform where telling jokes
| that offend only the wokest doesn't get you banned and
| silenced.
|
| Bring action items. Who was banned for "telling a joke".
| Bring something substantial to the conversation to
| discuss.
| bequanna wrote:
| It is trivial to do a google search to find examples. A
| couple recent and high profile would be accounts locked
| because they tweeted "learn to code" which was, of course
| a joke at the expense of the (very sensitive and
| unemployed) journalists. Another example of bans would be
| sharing any satire that goes against the extreme left
| view that it is perfectly OK to allow biological men in
| women's sports.
| syngrog66 wrote:
| democracy is in dire danger from lies and adversarial
| propaganda crafted by traitors and hostile nation states
|
| jokes which offend the Woke liberals is not a problem on
| the same scale, though it is certainly annoying. there is
| a censor-leaning thoughtcrime segment among some liberals
| but again, that is NOT an imminent danger to democracy,
| humanity, climate etc
| tobr wrote:
| > What ideology is that?
|
| There's a quite good podcast about this exact question,
| Elon Musk: The Evening Rocket.
|
| https://www.pushkin.fm/show/elon-musk-the-evening-rocket/
| beaconstudios wrote:
| you're right, hopefully all those political woke people
| will go elsewhere. Then they can be replaced by people
| who believe in minimal oversight and free speech, and
| then twitter will be truly apolitical.
| kreeben wrote:
| "Un-woke" people are greater than or at least equally
| political compared to those you call "woke", is my
| experience from real life as well as internet encounters
| with them, so your longing for an apolitical
| Twitter/online public town square seems a pipe dream, I'm
| afraid.
| beaconstudios wrote:
| yeah I know, I was being sarcastic. There's no such thing
| as apolitical in any sphere that engages with real-world
| issues of contention.
| dijonman2 wrote:
| I was hoping you were serious.
| beaconstudios wrote:
| what issue do you have with woke people?
| EricE wrote:
| They aren't happy until everyone is as miserable as they
| are. For starters...
| dijonman2 wrote:
| It's incredibly toxic
| beaconstudios wrote:
| so the thing that's bad about progressives is... it's
| bad? not the best argument I've heard/
| dijonman2 wrote:
| Personal anecdote. I'm anti-woke, and I don't discuss
| politics in any significant quantity.
|
| Instead I believe in being a decent person.
|
| We can talk until we're green in the face but I welcome
| the day Twitter stops being a leftist authoritarian echo
| chamber.
| LordDragonfang wrote:
| You've made an awful lot of comments in threads about
| politics for someone who "doesn't discuss politics in any
| significant quantity".
|
| Perhaps take some time to reflect as to whether that
| label is really true for you, and focus more on that
| latter belief. Being a decent person is admirable.
| dijonman2 wrote:
| I fail to see how your comment is substantiative. I don't
| need to reflect, but thx for your concern.
| rayiner wrote:
| Everyone is political. But "woke" people are like the old
| Christian right. They're willing to use their control of
| institutions to prosthelytize their ideology in a way
| that ordinary liberals or conservatives aren't.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| Conservative states are literally passing laws banning
| the teaching of radical ideas like "gay people exist". If
| that's not "prosthelytizing their ideology", I don't know
| what is.
| kolanos wrote:
| > The law prohibits classroom instruction on sexual
| orientation or gender identity from kindergarten to grade
| 3 in Florida public school districts, or instruction on
| sexual orientation or gender identity in a manner that is
| not "age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for
| students". It also allows parents and teachers to sue any
| school district if they believe this policy is violated.
| The bill additionally prevents school districts from
| withholding information about a child's "mental,
| emotional, or physical well-being" from their parents.
|
| > Due to the "Don't Say Gay" nickname some commentators
| and social media users thought the bill banned mentioning
| the word "gay" in school classrooms, though the bill does
| not actually mention the word "gay" or explicitly
| prohibit its use.
|
| [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Florida
| #HB_1557...
| edrxty wrote:
| Please define: "age appropriate or developmentally
| appropriate for students"
|
| The point of the bill is that nobody will talk about
| anything because: "It also allows parents and teachers to
| sue any school district if they believe this policy is
| violated"
|
| Teachers and school districts don't have the money to
| fuck around in court to learn what this means. This is
| basically the same strategy as the Texas abortion bill as
| it allows random evangelical busybody assholes to be
| morality police with the threat of crippling court costs.
| seadan83 wrote:
| temp8964 wrote:
| But why do the teachers and schools have to talk about
| sex orientation, gay or not? I grew up from a culture
| where sex was never talked about by teachers and I don't
| think I missed anything. Of course students did talk
| about it among themselves. This whole idea of teachers
| must talk about sex in school sounds extremely stupid to
| me.
|
| UPDATE: I just read a news case which is somewhat related
| to the law: https://www.kentucky.com/news/local/education
| /article2601061...
|
| The title makes it was about the message on the board,
| while it was not. The music teacher talked about sex
| orientation and trans issue in the classroom.
|
| QUOTE:
|
| "The issue at hand is the conversations that took place
| during class. I firmly believe that students and their
| parents expect teachers to teach content about their
| assigned curriculum in a subject area," Saylor said. "Of
| course, there are times that conversations may vary from
| that day's lesson plan, but these conversations went far
| beyond the music curriculum. It is my job to make sure
| that parents are not surprised by these types of
| situations."
|
| Saylor said he believes that all teachers have a
| responsibility to be supportive of their students, "but
| when students share difficult situations and
| circumstances with them, the student should be referred
| to a certified school counselor."
| Jcowell wrote:
| I don't have time to cite a study but there's a clear
| correlation between the lack of health education and teen
| pregnancy (which pipes into abortion). I would argue porn
| addiction is at least contributed to adolescence learn
| sex from porn cites instead of actual education.
|
| I wonder how many of the male population understand
| periods, the cost contributed to them, and other female
| health issues that affect 50% of the population.
| edrxty wrote:
| I'm guessing maybe you were probably cis-hetero? No
| judgment if that's the case, the vast majority of people
| will be fine in that regime. However, when I was growing
| up we did have non typical kids in class and they were
| very much picked on. Non typical gender alignment wasn't
| talked about so the only words kids had at the time were
| "weird" and "funny" along with whatever stuff they picked
| up from the early internet porn sites and magazines. It
| wasn't great.
|
| The thing we have to realize is the would is a bit
| different now. Before we just assumed these people didn't
| exist and _that became a bit of a self fulfilling
| prophecy_. Now we better understand this reality and the
| consequences of ignoring them as well as the options
| available for helping them.
| temp8964 wrote:
| We did have kids looking weird, but nobody picked on them
| because of this. I think the school's responsibility is
| forbid bulling, for whatever reasons.
| edrxty wrote:
| I'd say given most schools track records it's better to
| prevent the onset bullying than it is to just forbid
| bullying...
| kolanos wrote:
| The bill [0] does not define it, instead it leaves it up
| to the Florida Department of Education to come up with a
| framework of what is and is not appropriate for 5-8 year
| olds consistent with the bill by a certain deadline.
|
| The change here is that the bill is enforcing that some
| kind of framework is followed in public schools when it
| comes to teaching 5 to 8 year olds about sexual
| orientation and gender identities. What the Florida
| Department of Education comes up with here remains to be
| seen, but the vagueness of the bill actually seems
| reasonable here as the appropriateness of such topics
| likely varies depending on the age of the child.
|
| The meat of the bill is reenforcing parental rights in
| public schools, such as being able to access their
| child's mental health records, to be notified of any
| medical procedures with the option to opt out, access to
| their child's curriculum, etc.
|
| [0]: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/Bill
| Text/Fil...
| slibhb wrote:
| In the US, most public schools have health class that
| covers these topics in 8th or 9th grade. The bill isn't
| touching that. Third grade is far too young.
| kolanos wrote:
| I consider myself pretty firmly in favor of LGBT+ rights.
| But at the same time, I can see why parents wouldn't want
| sexual education as a part of a curriculum for 5 to 8
| year olds. Sex ed certainly wasn't being taught in
| elementary school when I was a kid. But this legislation
| goes both ways. A teacher can't teach 5-8 year olds that
| there are only two genders, either.
| edrxty wrote:
| It's a political cudgel.
|
| People arguing for the bill believe those against it want
| to give 5yo kids a lecture on sex positions but in
| reality there's a lot of material to cover in the window
| they're banning that isn't the heavy sexual content they
| have in mind.
| temp8964 wrote:
| Reddit is not a good place to get informed.
| _-david-_ wrote:
| Literally no state has passed a law teaching gay people
| do not exist. You should read the actual bills and take
| some time off Twitter while you are at it.
| edrxty wrote:
| Have...you? Specifically looking at Florida, the issue
| is, while they don't say you can't "say gay" the wording
| is deliberately vague on what can be taught and when.
| This is very much intended to create a chilling effect on
| classroom speech because teachers and school districts
| don't have the cash to find out in court and all it takes
| is one dumb parent to start a massive court battle.
| _-david-_ wrote:
| The bill is not unclear about what and when things can be
| taught. Please stop buying into the hype on this bill.
|
| First the bill applies to kindergarten to 3rd grade. Very
| clear who it applies to. If you teach fourth grade or
| above this does not apply.
|
| Second, the bill basically prevents three things.
|
| 1. The withholding of information "affecting a student's
| mental, emotional, or physical well-being" from a parent.
| It also requires no prohibitions on parents "accessing
| any of their student's education and health records
| created, maintained, or used by the school district".
|
| 2. Banning teachers of kindergartens through 3rd grade
| from "discussion about sexual orientation or gender
| identity or in a manner that is not age appropriate or
| developmentally appropriate for students"
|
| 3. Prevents a school from "administering a student well-
| being questionnaire or health screening form to a student
| in kindergarten through grade 3" without providing "the
| questionnaire or health screening form to the parent and
| obtain[ing] the permission of the parent"
|
| The law also requires the school districts to "notify
| parents of each healthcare service offered at their
| student's school and the option to withhold consent or
| decline any specific service."
|
| It is quite clear and less than 10 pages long. It is not
| chilling speech to not talk to a 5 year old about sex.
| Also, this bill also literally would apply to all sexual
| orientations including straight. If this is a don't say
| gay bill then it is also don't say straight.
| edrxty wrote:
| Please define "not age appropriate or developmentally
| appropriate for students"
|
| Additionally puberty generally starts in 2nd-3rd grade so
| these children aren't allowed to learn about themselves
| until after onset, including potentially asking their
| teachers questions privately.
| kolanos wrote:
| The bill [0] leaves the definition of "not age or
| developmentally appropriate" up to the Florida Department
| of Education, which apparently defines such things
| anyway.
|
| [0]: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/Bill
| Text/Fil...
| slibhb wrote:
| > Additionally puberty generally starts in 2nd-3rd grade
|
| No it doesn't. Third graders are 8-9.
|
| The idea of third graders learning about sex and puberty
| is very strange. We (public school) had health class in
| 8th and 9th grade where we learned about puberty, sex,
| and similar topics.
|
| Additionally, it's odd to me that you include mention of
| "asking teachers questions privately". Why don't 8-9 year
| olds ask their parents privately? The assumption is that
| the parents are the enemy. That's exactly what led to
| this bill.
| samarama wrote:
| Puberty starts at 8 for many children already and for
| most at 11.
| edrxty wrote:
| >According to the National Institutes of Health, puberty
| usually begins in girls between 8 and 13 years of age,
| and in boys between 9 and 14
|
| Idk, I'd definitely be forced to talk to a teacher if you
| were my parent
| slibhb wrote:
| Those are extreme lower bounds. I had a friend who
| started puberty at 9 but it's very, very rare.
|
| You wrote:
|
| > puberty generally starts in 2nd-3rd grade
|
| That's wrong. Replace "generally" with "very, very
| rarely" and it's right.
|
| > Idk, I'd definitely be forced to talk to a teacher if
| you were my parent
|
| Why? Why wouldn't you be able to talk to a parent about
| going through puberty at 8 years old? Any parent is going
| to notice. Why is it better to talk to a virtual
| stranger?
| _-david-_ wrote:
| >Please define "not age appropriate or developmentally
| appropriate for students"
|
| This is of course the least clear part of the bill. I
| believe I saw one if the Florida representatives
| supporting this bill basically say the existing sex ed /
| health classes are fine and students should be in at
| least middle school.
|
| Very few people are complaining about general sex ed.
|
| >Additionally puberty generally starts in 2nd-3rd grade
| so these children aren't allowed to learn about
| themselves until after onset
|
| I've seen conflicting numbers on the age of puberty. I
| think the youngest is 8 for girls and 9 for boys. If that
| is the case that would be 3rd grade. Would you be OK with
| a ban on K-2 on this then?
|
| Just because a kid starts puberty does not mean they
| suddenly have sexual preferences. It takes time to grow
| so even if they start puberty at 8 they will take a while
| to understand.
|
| Also, there have been some hypotheses regarding the
| declining age for puberty such as the increase in sexual
| content at a younger and younger age. I think the average
| age kids first see porn is now 10 or so. That means quite
| a few kids are seeing it earlier than that (and probably
| earlier than puberty). If that is the case then maybe we
| should try to lower the sexual content instead of
| increasing it.
|
| Kids also aren't banned from learning about themselves.
| Not sure where you got that idea from? How would such a
| thing even be enforced?
|
| >including potentially asking their teachers questions
| privately.
|
| I am dubious this is banned. The law is explicitly says
| classroom instruction. Asking a teacher a question
| privately doesn't seem to fall under it.
|
| Regardless, I don't think English or math teachers or
| whatever subject should be teaching sex related things.
| If it is going to be be taught in schools it should be
| taught by a health teacher. Maybe we should be advocating
| for health classes in elementary school instead of middle
| school.
| edrxty wrote:
| >at least middle school
|
| This is far too late in my experience. If you wait this
| long the trans and gay kids are already being picked on
| and everyone else has learned how sex works from internet
| porn.
|
| > I've seen conflicting numbers on the age of puberty. I
| think the youngest is 8 for girls and 9 for boys. If that
| is the case that would be 3rd grade. Would you be OK with
| a ban on K-2 on this then?
|
| I think this is an interesting point, and I'd agree that
| if the problem was just puberty then moving things back a
| year would solve the issue.
|
| However...
|
| >Also, there have been some hypotheses regarding the
| declining age for puberty
|
| Obviously real data would be needed for this beyond just
| a hypothesis, but even if we accept this, there's another
| facet to this problem. Gender identity isn't a sexual
| issue at this age (obviously it's inherently sexual but
| not in the way this point is addressing it). There seems
| to be some consensus that gender dysphoria is first
| experienced at age 3 to 7 and personally I witnessed kids
| I went to school with displaying signs of this prior to
| 3rd grade. There isn't any harm in explaining to children
| that gender dysphoria exists and that while some of them
| may question their gender, it doesn't mean there's
| anything wrong with them and that they shouldn't pick on
| people who don't fit cleanly into gender categories.
|
| A lot of the lefts outrage over this bill is based on the
| premise that there wasn't harm happening as a result of
| education before this was proposed, but now there
| definitely will be, as a result of a lack thereof.
| srveale wrote:
| It is absolutely unclear.
|
| A teacher shouldn't have to risk legal action by saying
| "Timmy's parents are both men who love each other, and
| that's okay." This bill introduces that risk because the
| teacher doesn't know who is going to decide what is age
| appropriate. A parent could decide it was inappropriate
| and initiate a suit. Will that happen often? No, but what
| teacher is going to risk it?
|
| It's very difficult to find a reason that the wording
| "age appropriate or developmentally appropriate" is so
| vague, expect that the bill's intent is to silence the
| subject as much as possible.
| _-david-_ wrote:
| A teacher shouldn't be gossiping about another student's
| home life regardless of their age. I hope this bill bans
| that!
| lovich wrote:
| If the bill prevents any discussion that would teach
| someone who was unaware that gay people existed, with no
| explicit reference towards banning teaching that gay
| people existed, does that make a material difference in
| your eyes?
| _-david-_ wrote:
| First, the bill does not say you cannot teach that gay
| people exist. It says you can instruct students on sexual
| orientation. This only applies through 3rd grade (about 8
| or 9 years old). As far as I know there are no health
| classes or sex ed prior to 10 years old. Any talk about
| sexual orientation or gender identity would not be
| relevant to the subject material.
|
| There is no reason why a young kids needs to be
| instructed about such things. Any author or historical
| figure who is gay could still be taught.
|
| Second, this only applies to classroom instruction. If a
| student stays after class they could ask their teacher
| about sexual orientation if they are wondering why a
| student has two dads or something. Some may try to extend
| the law to cover that, but as far as I can tell it
| wouldn't apply to that.
| lovich wrote:
| I can make the question simpler since I didn't seem to
| convey what I meant.
|
| If the law functionally prevents X without explicitly
| stating that they are intending to prevent X, does that
| make a difference to you?
| _-david-_ wrote:
| I understood what you were asking. I reject the premise.
| Teachers can literally still teach gay people exist so
| long as it is part of the curriculum and they do it in an
| age appropriate manner.
|
| If they were intending to ban X (and presumably promote
| Y) they shouldn't write a bill that also bans Y. (Y being
| straight).
| lovich wrote:
| You've yet to answer to my question on whether it matters
| when bills functionally block something without
| explicitly stating so.
|
| If you want to infer some assumptions without answering
| some basic axioms so we can make sure we're on the same
| page and not arguing past each other, I'll just dive in.
|
| Since I'm seeing many supporters of the bill get incensed
| at the fact that Y is also functionally banned, and been
| told that I should know what the bill is "really about",
| and that the bill does not define "age appropriate", I
| reject your rejection of the premise. There's a chilling
| effect of the government saying you could be in legal
| trouble for this, but they won't let you know what the
| line is until you've crossed it. That causes people to
| pull their behavior far back from wherever they think the
| nebulous line might be.
| _-david-_ wrote:
| I hope I am not coming off as incensed as you mentioned
| some people are.
|
| To answer your question, despite its irrelevance, I don't
| mind if a bill functionally blocks something so long as
| it would be constitutional / legal if they were to
| explicitly block that thing. I tend to prefer explicit to
| prevent any confusion. If you think this bill
| functionally blocks talking about gay people existing
| then it also functionally blocks talking about straight
| people existing.
|
| I agree there is no age appropriate definition, but I
| don't really mind.
|
| I don't think any teacher who is teaching 3rd grade and
| younger should instruct about any sexual orientation or
| gender identity regardless if they do it in an age
| appropriate manner so I don't particularly care if
| teachers are afraid of talking about sexual orientation
| to 5 year olds. I wish the bill went further and just
| outright banned any instruction on the topic to kids in
| 3rd grade and younger without the age appropriate
| portion.
|
| Unfortunately due to the age appropriate wording a
| teacher may be able to instruct about sexual orientation
| to kids who are too young to be hearing it.
| lovich wrote:
| I agree that the letter of the law also prevents
| mentioning straight people, but I have no expectation
| that the law will be enforced on anything but gay/trans
| issues. There's no way to completely excise this sort of
| topic from conversation even with young children.
|
| You don't have to get into sexually explicit conversation
| but even the concept of having a mom and a dad is a
| functional consequence of sexual orientation and children
| are aware of the fact that they have parents from much
| younger than third grade. Given the impossibility of
| removing all discussion on the topic I have no reason to
| believe that the Florida state government is going to
| enforce this law equally, and instead expect selective
| enforcement against their political enemies. Their base
| expects this too based on my conversations with
| supporters of the law who don't think that any discussion
| of heterosexually linked topics will be banned and only
| homosexual ones will.
|
| That gets back to my point about the functional blocking
| in the law, which youve stated you're fine with if it's
| constitutional. As the SCOTUS already ruled that
| sexuality can't be used as a determinate in
| discriminatory laws during the gay marriage case due to
| the fact that it relies on gender information which is a
| protected class, I can't see how anyone who's pro
| constitution is cool with this bill
| _-david-_ wrote:
| >I agree that the letter of the law also prevents
| mentioning straight people, but I have no expectation
| that the law will be enforced on anything but gay/trans
| issues.
|
| That is an issue with the enforcement of the law not the
| law itself.
|
| >There's no way to completely excise this sort of topic
| from conversation even with young children.
|
| Sure there is. Literally don't talk about it. I don't
| think a single teacher told us they were married until we
| were in middle school. None of the teachers mentioned any
| of the other student's parents. It is pretty easy to do
| by not talking about it.
|
| >You don't have to get into sexually explicit
| conversation but even the concept of having a mom and a
| dad is a functional consequence of sexual orientation and
| children are aware of the fact that they have parents
| from much younger than third grade
|
| And? Just because children understand they have parents
| and one is male and the other is female doesn't mean
| teachers need to talk about it.
|
| >Given the impossibility of removing all discussion on
| the topic I have no reason to believe that the Florida
| state government is going to enforce this law equally,
| and instead expect selective enforcement against their
| political enemies
|
| Not a given.
|
| >Their base expects this too based on my conversations
| with supporters of the law who don't think that any
| discussion of heterosexually linked topics will be banned
| and only homosexual ones will.
|
| I don't think you talk to a lot of conservatives. Every
| conservative I know (and the media ones I have heard) do
| not want teachers talking about heterosexual
| relationships either. I think they all would be glad if
| everything related to sexual orientation and gender
| identity was banned (at least at this age).
|
| >As the SCOTUS already ruled that sexuality can't be used
| as a determinate in discriminatory laws during the gay
| marriage case due to the fact that it relies on gender
| information which is a protected class, I can't see how
| anyone who's pro constitution is cool with this bill
|
| Fortunately for proponents of this bill, there is nothing
| about sexual orientation discrimination. The bill bans
| all instruction of sexual orientation regardless if it is
| straight, gay or anything else.
|
| A gay teacher quite probably could even say he was gay
| and married to a guy so long as it is not classroom
| instruction.
| [deleted]
| beaconstudios wrote:
| it's not that woke people control the institutions - it's
| that companies see that they can run successful PR and
| marketing campaigns by espousing progressive values.
| Their boards don't give two shits about progressive
| values, but flying a rainbow flag during pride month
| doesn't require that they do anything, while gaining
| praise from liberals and criticism from conservatives,
| both of which are coverage/press.
| edrxty wrote:
| In addition to this, white collar workers are going to
| align a little more left and it makes them feel better if
| the company isn't cheering for gays to be lynched or
| whatever. It's generally easier to hire for highly
| educated positions if you appear _mildly_ woke, even if
| you do absolutely nothing to that end.
| baq wrote:
| you mean an open field for CIA, FSB and MOSAD to perform
| psyops?
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| I take your point--that the choice to stop smothering
| people in woke content is itself a political decision
| (for sufficiently abstract notion of "political"), but it
| seems infinitely better than smothering people in any
| particular ideological content at all. The woke people
| can still opt into their own filter bubbles without their
| ideology being foisted on everyone.
| axlee wrote:
| Historically, the right wing believes in free speech
| until they have the keys to the public discourse, then it
| radically changes.
| MereInterest wrote:
| > Musk has hinted that he views Twitter as a public forum
| and should be moderated as such.
|
| That's an ideology. Whether or not it's a good one can be
| a topic of debate, but phrasing it as not being an
| ideology puts a finger on the scale of the debate right
| from the start.
| fivea wrote:
| > Until now, I think Twitter's not-so-slight political
| lean has been viewed as detrimental to the company (and
| public discourse).
|
| Can you point out what is, in your personal opinion, the
| best example you have of Twitter's "not-so-slight
| political lean" and how you interpret it as "detrimental
| to the company (and public discourse)"?
| smachiz wrote:
| This post tells me more about your political/ideological
| views than it does illustrating Twitter's alleged
| ideology, or what problems that has caused.
| 1337shadow wrote:
| Come on, you almost can't view any conservative
| candidate's picture in france without having to "view
| sensitive contents", it's ridiculous.
| kergonath wrote:
| They are not "conservative". Zemmour is an impression of
| a conservative from the 1930s by someone who's never read
| a history book, and le Pen is anything but a
| conservative. A xenophobe, sure, but her manifesto does
| not look like anything conservative beyond the appeal to
| the Fatherland.
|
| The only conservative candidate is Pecresse, and she is
| not "sensitive", because she's never been convicted for
| hate speech or inciting violence.
| colpabar wrote:
| The last time I tried creating a twitter account, I was
| immediately presented with a set of recommended people to
| follow, which included Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and
| Joe Biden. I'm sure there were more, but those were the
| first three it showed me, and I did not bother to look at
| any more.
|
| I don't want to follow any politicians, but that seems
| pretty obviously one sided. I wish people would just
| recognize that, and recognize that it isn't "right-wing"
| to do so.
|
| It twitter recommended new users to follow Ted Cruz or
| Marco Rubio, and those were the only recommendations they
| saw without clicking "view more", would anyone question
| whether that was biased or not?
| nonethewiser wrote:
| It's not propoganda if it affirms your worldview.
| beaconstudios wrote:
| presumably this recommendation is based on who most other
| people follow. That's a systemic effect.
| 1337shadow wrote:
| Not with the French liberals, they are really not
| popular, but still they are suggested for no reason.
| beaconstudios wrote:
| they are really not popular in France, or on twitter?
| Presumably, twitter promotes content that's popular on
| twitter, and twitter skews liberal.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| I'd question the intelligence of anyone or anything who
| recommended following the musings of Ted Cruz. And that's
| coming from someone who grew up in a family deeply
| engaged in county-level republican politics.
|
| If it were 2009, and Twitter was pushing Al Gore and
| ignoring George Bush, I'd see it differently. But it's
| 2022, and the toxic & polarizing aspects of many
| individuals make a perceived endorsement problematic for
| mainstream consumers.
| lobocinza wrote:
| I get tons of recommendations for right wing politicians
| on my country. Trying to make sense of the
| recommendations is trying to extract meaning from a novel
| written by a monkey. It's a waste of time. Just block
| that section with your favorite ad blocker and live
| happily thereafter.
| smachiz wrote:
| OK, so the recommendation engine is liberal?
|
| I don't know how the recommendation engine works, but
| Barack Obama is the most followed account on twitter I
| think, so can see how they'd suggest that...
|
| But if the recommendation engine is anything like their
| recommended tweets, I think they intentionally show you
| the other side always. I see tons of garbage view points
| that I don't agree with almost exclusively when I view a
| tweet. Without knowing anything about your tracking
| cookies and however else they 'enrich' what they know
| about you, it's tough to say why you got the
| recommendations you did. If you signed up based on a
| tweet from a democrat so you could engage by telling them
| they're wrong, maybe they assumed you like other
| democrats.
|
| If your complaint is that Twitter is an outrage inducing
| platform by design, I would absolutely agree. But that
| isn't an ideological bent. It just wants you to engage,
| and the fastest and easiest method is to make you mad.
| OrvalWintermute wrote:
| >If your complaint is that Twitter is an outrage inducing
| platform by design, I would absolutely agree. But that
| isn't an ideological bent. It just wants you to engage,
| and the fastest and easiest method is to make you mad.
|
| I don't think we can say with any honesty that Twitter is
| a clone of Fox's Three talking heads, comprised of a good
| looking moderator with a leftwinger, and a rightwinger
| duking it out.
|
| Twitter has been censoring, moderating, editorializing,
| and shadow-banning a large amount of conservatives,
| Libertarians, and also, moderates/centrists, and
| leftwingers that are posting contrary to the
| establishment narratives.
|
| By turning into more of an ideological echo-chamber it
| initiated the birth of conservative and other
| competitors, of which gettr appears to be leading the
| race with competitors like parler, truthsocial, gab, and
| others falling behind. Am surprised there are not
| shareholder lawsuits yet against Twitter's Officers for
| violating fiduciary responsibilities.
|
| Maybe they are prioritizing influence over eyeballs &
| economics?
| nonethewiser wrote:
| "I see tons of garbage view points that I don't agree
| with almost exclusively when I view a tweet."
|
| Perhaps because you're on the fringe.
| sillysaurusx wrote:
| Is it so hard to believe that the recommendation engine
| is liberal? It's true of HN too.
|
| It's not a bad thing, the same way that Fox News being
| conservative isn't a bad thing. It just is what it is.
|
| These are major news sites. News always has a bias. It's
| important to identify, for one's own sake.
|
| It's not even particularly hard to bias an AI algorithm.
| It's arguably the default.
| smachiz wrote:
| Not hard to believe - younger people make up the bulk of
| their audience, and probably the bulk of HN that trend
| more liberal. That's a reflection of the userbase though,
| not necessarily of Twitter or HN's views. I would bet
| most LPs are more conservative - if only in private.
| smachiz wrote:
| I don't live in France and don't follow their
| politics.....
|
| Do you believe that Twitter's Terms of Service have an
| ideological bent?
|
| Do you believe that Twitter's Terms of Service are being
| applied when they shouldn't against conservative
| politicians in France?
|
| Do you believe that Twitter's Terms of Service are only
| used against Conservative politicians - and do you have
| examples of Tweets that were actioned for conservatives
| and counterexamples that were not actioned for liberal
| politicians?
| 1337shadow wrote:
| Yes, because every time I open twitter, the first posts I
| see are from people whom I have no connection with, who
| are celebrating about the current president, and it's not
| the trendy ones #MacronGate #McKinseyGate #AlstomGate
| #AlphaGate and so on.
| smileybarry wrote:
| You can go into your account settings and disable
| sensitive content warnings, content filtering and reply
| filters (the ones that put some messages in "more
| replies").
| 1337shadow wrote:
| I'm sorry, a picture of a non naked dude shouldn't be
| marked as sensitive without a clear ideology.
| lovich wrote:
| Non naked dudes should probably stop making their images
| be associated with a clear ideology. You seem to be under
| the impression that Twitter needs to treat everyone as
| neutral when the people in question are ideological
| themselves
| nonethewiser wrote:
| You're talking about Biden right?
| lovich wrote:
| I'm talking about everyone. Unless Twitter or other
| companies are bound to treat everyone neutrally by force
| of law then both their actions and inaction when it comes
| to ideological figures will have an ideological effect.
| Twitter cannot stand by and remain neutral while it has
| free will
| Barrin92 wrote:
| Given that we're talking about people like Eric Zemmour
| who are mainstream candidates in French Conservative
| politics now despite being literally convicted for
| inciting racial hatred several times that says more about
| the state of French politics than it says about Twitter's
| moderation policies.
|
| That's a general theme with these 'I got banned, how
| overly sensitive!' stories. 95% of the time you don't
| need to scroll long until you find some genuinely vile
| stuff. I honestly cannot figure out how anyone who
| behaves even half-civilized ends up being banned by any
| of these platforms, it's kind of wild how _much_ garbage
| you can post.
| 1337shadow wrote:
| > convicted for inciting racial hatred several times
|
| That's not even true.
|
| Source, liberal media:
|
| > Son avocat se plait d'ailleurs a rappeler qu'il
| denombre au total <<seize dossiers de poursuites, dont
| une seule condamnation definitive>> contre son client.
|
| Deepl: His lawyer likes to point out that he has a total
| of "sixteen prosecutions, of which only one is a final
| conviction" against his client.
|
| https://www.liberation.fr/checknews/combien-de-fois-eric-
| zem...
|
| And for the first prosecution, he didn't appeal, see the
| other comment for the reason.
| 1337shadow wrote:
| You can't believe? Then why does even twitter admit it??
|
| https://www.lefigaro.fr/medias/twitter-plusieurs-comptes-
| lie...
|
| "By mistake", that's twitter's version of the story, so,
| there goes some new information for you, sorry if it's
| crushing your beliefs.
|
| As for the long story: EZ was convicted for saying that
| most insecurity comes from immigrants, which is actually
| true when you look at the Calonge file - you just have to
| be part of the police or work in defense to see it, and
| France forbids ethnical statistics so people can't be
| made aware publicly about that, except by syndicalist
| cops such as Bruno Attal. The conviction is purely
| political and EZ should have appealed but he was just a
| journalist at the time and preferred to consider this
| conviction a medal of honnor.
|
| Nonetheless, he didn't have twitter at the time, he has
| twitter since he's a candidate, and his account is
| completely clean, so is the GZ party's, but those were
| closed "by mistake" by twitter according to twitter
| itself, and since then, their content is systematically
| marked sensitive, for absolutely no reason.
| kergonath wrote:
| [deleted]
| forty wrote:
| It is important not to confuse correlation and causation
| though (I mean even if your speculation that most
| insecurity* comes from immigrants was true).
|
| Also EZ have made it very clear that he doesn't have that
| much problems when immigrants are white and christian
| (even recently when discussing immigrants from Ukraine)
| so it's not like he is really hiding that everything he
| says about immigrants is really about non white and
| Muslim people.
|
| * Not exactly sure what insecurity means exactly. I feel
| it's often used to mean "the feeling ignorant people have
| when they see foreigners" in which case you might be
| right :)
| laurent92 wrote:
| EZ also made it clear that a French Muslim is French and
| he won't touch them, so it's not like he's hiding that
| he's targetting delinquants.
|
| Targetting delinquants is often seen as straight up
| racist, which kind of proves the point.
|
| EZ is the Muslims' best opportunity to separate the good
| from the evils, because many Muslims in France would like
| the bad ones to be convicted, which the current system
| prevents. Macron has instaurated a system that can be
| summarized as "Let's free all Muslim criminals", which
| does a lot of torts to all of them.
| laurent92 wrote:
| Zemmour has been convicted for saying the truth.
| lovich wrote:
| Since when has musk believed in free speech(as a
| universal constant, not as in the right protected in the
| US from government action) other than when it's to his
| benefit? He's on record for retaliating against people
| who criticize him. He only wants free speech when it's to
| his benefit
| IgorPartola wrote:
| Not defending Musk, but I am just curious: what does free
| speech mean to you here? How would it work?
| lovich wrote:
| Does what I think of free speech matter in this
| conversation or does what musk thinks matters? He talks
| about censoring as a violation of free speech and then
| engages in the same sort of behavior when he does things
| like canceling the Tesla order of a reporter who said
| things he doesn't like.
|
| He's an inconsistent hypocrite and there's zero evidence
| that's been presented to make me believe this move is
| coming from a sincerely held belief that isn't "what's
| best for Elon is the right thing"
|
| Edit: fixed autocorrect of "and" back to "an"
| emteycz wrote:
| Free speech does not mean "free of consequences", it
| means nobody deletes it or jails you for it. Forcing you
| [within legal/moral limits] to delete it yourself is not
| against free speech.
| lovich wrote:
| Then what is musk asking about in terms of free speech
| since no one is going to jail when Twitter or other
| social media sites ban people or censor their tweets?
|
| While I am not claiming that you personally are guilty of
| this, musk stans always seem like they are talking out of
| both sides of their mouth whenever they defend musk's
| comments on free speech and jump back and forth on
| whether they are using the "protection from government
| action" definition or the "protection from condemnation
| of other private individuals and companies" definition
| emteycz wrote:
| He is asking Twitter to not hand out bans based on
| content and/or delete content.
|
| Not that I entirely agree with him on this topic. IMHO
| Twitter has the right to delete whatever they want and
| ban whoever they want.
|
| But he's not trying to force the change through
| law/government. He _bought a stake and got on the board_
| and wants to change the rules of the platform itself from
| there - that 's a way I respect.
| lovich wrote:
| Ok now I will say you are one of the people arguing out
| of both sides of your mouth. Elon musk is perfectly happy
| banning people from his platforms or businesses whenever
| he sees fit based on their speech. There is no reason to
| believe that he wants control of Twitter "to not hand out
| bans based on content and/or delete content" as you said,
| as he _already_ does that himself
| mostertoaster wrote:
| Yeah I think he probably wants twitter so he can censor
| bad things about himself. He thinks if they can censor
| the Biden laptop story I can get away with censoring bad
| PR about himself or TSLA.
| snovv_crash wrote:
| He refused to censor Russian news sources via Starlink?
| johannes1234321 wrote:
| The hypocritical interpretation: He saw the opportunity
| for positive marketing for his company with only little
| investment.
| bitsnbytes wrote:
| So he is pro free speech and non censorship and allowing
| for idiots to make idiots of themselves. I see no problem
| here.
|
| Having come from a quasi socialist dictatorship and being
| a foreign born Hispanic ,I would fight for the right of
| the racist idiots to post there idiotic comments. You
| fight ignorance with education and rational debate, not
| with censorship.
|
| It appears that Elon wants to treat Adults as Adults and
| let them make up their own minds. Unless you are bad at
| adulting this shouldn't be a negative, but a positive.
| Let me make up my own mind and don't have a Corporate
| Oligarch and a Gov't riddled with conflict of interest
| spoon feed me or use group think bullying to shape
| society based on Tech Oligarch morality and political
| believes.
| samarama wrote:
| Only that these idiots become one radicalized group of
| 40% of Americans and try to topple the United States
| again.
| bitsnbytes wrote:
| Your comment is exactly why we shouldn't censor people
| and the consequence of getting filtered uncontested MSM
| and Oligarch scrubbed news , if you are insinuating there
| was an insurrection.
|
| If anyone has become radicalized its the tech oligarch,
| hollywood, MSM and BOTH the democrat and republican
| party.
|
| They do nothing but promote hatred , intolerance, and
| violence among the people in order to keep them fighting
| with each other.
| qsdf38100 wrote:
| He won't and can't yet admit it publicly, but his
| ideology is closer to Russian ideology than what used to
| be the west moral values (human rights, democracy, free
| speech, ...). He's a natural born liar, bullshiter,
| cheater... he lied his way to become the richest person
| in the US. He's similar to trump. No real expertise, just
| bold bullshit statements. He stands for nothing, except
| his personal glory, money and domination. How can anyone
| not see this is beyond me...
| tomcam wrote:
| > He stands for nothing, except his personal glory, money
| and domination.
|
| Mind reading.
| prox wrote:
| Some sources on which you base your argument would help.
| qsdf38100 wrote:
| I could link some drama and bad press on him, but it's
| beyond that. Just like you only need to listen to Trump
| for a few monologues to know it's all rotten inside. With
| Musk, the "benefit of the doubt" period is probably
| longer, as he targets a more educated audience.
|
| But for me it's now clear he's not a good person by any
| mean. He's filthy rich and not anywhere close to
| satiation, now he's throwing his money at twitter "to
| defend freedom of speech". That's gross, he's obviously
| after more control over twitter to better push his
| personal agenda. I don't pretend to know what it is, but
| it's certainly not about human rights, freedom of speech
| or democracy...
| tomcam wrote:
| > Just like you only need to listen to Trump for a few
| monologues to know it's all rotten inside.
|
| Again with the mind reading. You might be right by the
| way. It's not like I'm an Elon Musk fan boy or Trump fan
| boy. But you have no idea what's going on in other
| people's heads. They might be better people than your
| hallucinations, or they might be substantially worse
| people. Those of us outside of their brains simply don't
| know.
| lovich wrote:
| And?
| qiskit wrote:
| > Musk has hinted that he views Twitter as a public forum
| and should be moderated as such.
|
| Nobody spends $4 billion to create a public forum or to
| defend free speech. You spend that kind of money for
| influence or to push an agenda. What his agenda is, who
| knows. I'm a fan of elon and maybe he is an outlier, but
| I'm not holding my breath. There was a time when everyone
| from google to facebook to reddit and even twitter all
| supported free speech. People forget that twitter was
| once a very pro-free speech platform. Everything from war
| footage to politics of all sides was available on twitter
| at one point.
|
| > I hope the people who work at Twitter and think it is
| OK to bring your politics to work go elsewhere.
|
| It's generally not the employees. Most tech employees are
| apolitical at work or against the woke culture. It's just
| that C-suite/HR gives protection to the tiny vocal
| minority espousing politics at work.
|
| > We would all benefit from platform where telling jokes
| that offend only the wokest doesn't get you banned and
| silenced.
|
| We would all benefit if every platform allowed people to
| have their say. Regardless of how "offensive" you find
| them to be.
| datavirtue wrote:
| "It's generally not the employees. Most tech employees
| are apolitical at work or against the woke culture. It's
| just that C-suite/HR gives protection to the tiny vocal
| minority espousing politics at work."
|
| This is going in my childrens' book: "Why high paid
| employees need a union!"
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| > Most tech employees are apolitical at work or against
| the woke culture. sed -e 's/tech//' -e
| 's/or against/and could not begin to define what is meant
| by/' -e 's/woke culture/"woke culture"/g'
| whymauri wrote:
| Freedom for me, not for thee.
|
| https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-elon-musk-
| ruthlessly-f...
|
| https://www.businessinsider.com/free-speech-absolutist-
| elon-...
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/25/business/musk-labor-
| board...
|
| Edit: not all of these are about employees. He has
| attempted to get an anonymous stock analyst fired from
| their job due to a negative evaluation of Tesla stock.
| causi wrote:
| Don't forget about when he demanded a law firm fire a
| junior lawyer he didn't like even when that lawyer had
| nothing to do with SpaceX.
| Phlarp wrote:
| You mean the lawyer that had previously deposed him for
| the SEC? My pet theory is it had nothing to do with this
| particular individual and all about setting a precedent
| to other government line attorneys (play nicely now, or
| I'll ice you out of BigLaw later)
| thirdwhrldPzz wrote:
| He also loves free speech except when employees discuss
| unions.
|
| He wants Twitters algorithms to be open, but his cars
| must stay closed.
|
| Requesting anything of him is anti-freedom then he
| projects at others how they could do better in the same
| contexts.
|
| He's like a crazy TV Lenny salesman who has never
| actually invented anything net new. He's playing the
| acquisitions of other people work game to prop up his
| preference to not work.
|
| Normal humans should not be given extreme leverage over
| other normal humans. Lie to me about "free markets" but
| as one of the 13% with and advanced degree, mine being in
| math, the average person has no ability to smell through
| his BS in detail, but they have a gut sense he's just
| another used car salesman.
| ActorNightly wrote:
| This is the exact type of bias that Musk is trying to
| address with his stake in Twitter.
|
| Nothing you stated can be backed up by anything real -
| all of it is taken directly from leftists twitter
| headlines that are more concerned with moral
| grandstanding then facts.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| The hypocracy is literally backed up by the post he is
| replying to.
|
| It is not chear to me that this person is left wing, they
| sinply dislike Musk.
|
| I do not recommend you go around accusing everyone of
| being left wing - otherwise peiple might start asking:
|
| Is asking that you practice what you preach leftwing
| these days?
|
| Is being a two-faced lyer a concervative value?
| thirdwhrldPzz wrote:
| Everyone is a hypocrite from some context.
|
| Really I just don't think anyone should be above the real
| hands on work of supporting their existence.
|
| Term limits for these roles should be explicit, not a
| game of they who can possess the most minds the longest
| wins.
|
| The promise of human colonization of all of space time is
| still a high minded fantasy which makes this "hype/gossip
| my way to wealth" seemed designed to intentionally
| manipulate the same basal biology religion accidentally
| latched onto.
|
| Who knows, maybe rockets to Mars are all wrong and we
| should be doing something completely different;
| information doesn't need to just travel in a ship, but
| Star Trek seems to live long and prosper in his head.
| BuyMyBitcoins wrote:
| In the GP's defense, the most vociferous anti-Elon folks
| online tend to also identify as leftists. It makes sense
| that they are because Elon is a capitalist billionaire
| known for being anti-Union, for overworking employees,
| and for being a general critic of leftists on his social
| media. He is the antithesis of most people on the left's
| ideology.
|
| > _"Is asking that you practice what you preach leftwing
| these days? Is being a two-faced lyer a concervative
| value?_ "
|
| Now this is just playing dirty. This is a rhetorical
| cheap shot combined with moral grandstanding while also
| being nakedly partisan at the same time.
| beaconstudios wrote:
| yes
| thirdwhrldPzz wrote:
| thirdwhrldPzz wrote:
| All of it is taken from him not releasing source code.
|
| From him not unionizing his companies.
|
| From the officially documented history of his business
| acquisitions where he bought up business that already
| existed.
|
| This approaching 1984 level double speak. It's the lack
| of effort that speaks to his motives. Where is the code
| for his machines that can choose to plow into us? But
| somehow Twitters algorithm is super important.
|
| Edit: tacking on his desire to burn up fossil fuels on
| rockets while the UN is announcing we're firmly on track
| to an unlivable ecosystem. We are not optimizing human
| economics but Elon's.
| jfjfkfmfjr wrote:
| There is a clear difference between open sourcing
| Twitter's algorithm that promotes certain tweets over
| others and Tesla's IP.
|
| Musk has a very high IQ. Unionizing his company would be
| a very dumb decision.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| > There is a clear difference between open sourcing
| Twitter's algorithm that promotes certain tweets over
| others and Tesla's IP.
|
| Given that the IP in question includes whatever solution
| Tesla adopts for the trolley problem, there certainly is
| a clear difference. Twitter's algorithm is for arguing
| about, Tesla's algorithm is going to be directly the
| cause of death for someone (arguably, it already has).
| thirdwhrldPzz wrote:
| Yeah there is a clear difference. I never said there was
| not.
|
| Strawman.
|
| I have a very high iq; in a past life I designed power
| switching machines and high performance boards for
| Nortel. Also that's an appeal to higher authority.
|
| Also these companies are pretty data driven through
| automation; big banks are run from 2GB excel sheets. It's
| just people doing math and the ones doing best also
| happen to have political tradition on their side.
|
| Musk is still just one man.
| postmeta wrote:
| UAW is corrupt, encouraging them is a bad idea. Unions
| are symptom of corporations where employees don't have
| enough equity. Also a symptom of incompetent governments.
| If you fix the government or give employees equity you
| don't need unions. Tesla aspires to give employees
| equity. There are many who became millionaires after
| joining tesla early and working the line.
| emteycz wrote:
| > He's like a crazy TV Lenny salesman who has never
| actually invented anything net new.
|
| Lol, literally nobody invented anything new by this
| metric.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| When people say inventor, they think Nicola Tesla or the
| Wright Brothers.
|
| Elon musk is more analogous to Stebe Jobs, primarily a
| businessman with some engineering backgrund.
|
| Then there is the whole controversy of tesla being funded
| by two guys, him being an investor and forcing them out
| of the company.
| olliej wrote:
| I would say closer to Thomas Edison - at least Jobs
| didn't go out stealing other peoples work.
| chmod600 wrote:
| "Freedom for me, not for thee."
|
| Maybe this will remind liberals to be, well, liberal.
| I've seen too many "liberals" who had credibility before
| lose it all by using illiberal tactics.
|
| Now, see what happens when not-so-woke people start
| taking over the boardroom and using the same tactics. And
| then there's no more "but free expression is the heart of
| America" defense. It'll be "they are private companies
| and can do what they want on their platform... just like
| you said".
|
| And it's all so predictable.
| bequanna wrote:
| Ah, all super balanced sources, but I'll bite.
|
| So your logic here is that because he fired subversive or
| insubordinate employees he will do the same on Twitter?
| beaconstudios wrote:
| framing criticism as subversion or insubordination is
| pretty telling.
|
| this is the behaviour of a free speech absolutist?
| https://www.fastcompany.com/90208132/elon-musk-allegedly-
| sil...
|
| I don't doubt that if he thinks he can get away with it,
| he'll censor information on twitter that is harmful to
| the finely-crafted PR narratives he likes to make about
| himself and his companies. Like those battery fires and
| autopilot unforced/spontaneous crashes.
| awb wrote:
| > this is the behaviour of a free speech absolutist?
|
| Because it's just a catchy phrase that sounds good on
| paper.
|
| What's a "free speech absolutist" position on spam, NDAs,
| calls to violence, libel, national security, fraud, false
| advertising, copyright infringement, personal privacy,
| etc.?
|
| I don't know of any country, platform or person that
| follows an "absolutist" philosophy on free speech within
| any reasonable definition of the word "absolute".
|
| Everyone is a "free speech exceptionist", it's just
| varying degrees of exceptions.
| UncleMeat wrote:
| Yep. Every discussion I've ever had with a "free speech
| absolutist" has gone like this.
|
| "What are your thoughts on false advertising laws?"
|
| "That's fine, because fraud is a crime and therefore not
| speech"
|
| People have bucketed "things I think should be legal" as
| "speech" and "things I think should be illegal" as "not
| speech" and then this makes it trivial to say that all
| speech should be legal because the definition is
| circular.
| OrvalWintermute wrote:
| > Everyone is a "free speech exceptionist", it's just
| varying degrees of exceptions
|
| ++
|
| Exceptions for me, but not for thee!
| nielsbot wrote:
| What is a balanced source you'd cite?
| IntelMiner wrote:
| Given the undercurrent of their responses and initial
| remark. Breitbart or the like. Possibly with a remark of
| providing an 'equally biased on the other side' source
| Larrikin wrote:
| Often times the people who irrationally defend Musk and
| his companies, especially on this site, own stock in one
| or more of the various companies.
|
| Conservative or liberal criticism, real or imagined,
| doesn't matter since they just want to keep pushing the
| stock price up.
| specialist wrote:
| aka Freedom Speeches [tm]
| ncouture wrote:
| What matters the most is the results. In my opinion a
| decision like the following is totally reasonable
| providing you are looking for people that owns your
| results to be in charge: during a factory
| visit over issues with the Model X's window. When
| a worker on the assembly line proposed a solution,
| Musk lit into the worker's manager. "This is
| totally unacceptable that you had a person working
| in your factory that knows the solution and you don't
| even know that," Musk reportedly said before
| firing the head of the factory.
|
| I'm of the opinion that a manager's responsible to know
| issues raised by his subordinates.
| res0nat0r wrote:
| This sounds completely insane, but totally on brand for
| Elon who needs to keep up his internet persona.
|
| If I'm in a meeting with some higher-ups above my boss
| and I have some suggestion to a process I think may help
| the company out and relay my thoughts, my boss should be
| fired because I can think for myself? Completely idiotic.
|
| (Note this is assuming it doesn't involve anything
| controversial, office politics etc, just a suggestion
| based on my observations that I think could help the
| company overall).
| toss1 wrote:
| >>If I'm in a meeting with some higher-ups above my boss
| and I have some suggestion to a process I think may help
| the company out and relay my thoughts, my boss should be
| fired because I can think for myself? Completely idiotic.
|
| Tho I've got very mixed assessment of Elon Musk, he's
| right in this case.
|
| At the moment that you first think of the solution and
| mention it, your boss should not be fired.
|
| However, this was not that situation.
|
| But, from the above description alone, we know that there
| was a known problem, and that the employee had enough
| time to think about it and present it to Musk. One of two
| things happened. The manager had failed to put out a
| request like "we have problem X, please bring all ideas
| for solutions", and/or the employee had previously
| described the idea and been ignored up the chain of
| command.
|
| Either of those are cause for a decision of "I now fail
| to see why we should allow you in our plant, nevermind
| paying you to be here.".
|
| One of the most basic jobs as a manager is to identify
| problems, seek solutions and implement them. If the
| answer had been something like: "yes, he brought the
| solution to us yesterday, implementation will require P,
| D, and Q, and we expect to have it into production by
| next week", I'm sure Musk would have been fine with it.
| res0nat0r wrote:
| IMO I don't expect someone with this type of "philosophy"
| to be that deep of a thinker: "1. Email
| me back to explain why what I said was incorrect.
| Sometimes, I'm just plain wrong! 2. Request further
| clarification if what I said was ambiguous. 3.
| Execute the directions." Failure to perform one of
| the three actions would result in termination, Musk
| noted.
|
| He's proven this over the years by getting sanctioned by
| the SEC for posting on Twitter over the weekend while
| high with his girlfriend and then being forced to step
| down as chairman, and also consistently shitposting on
| Twitter the last few years that would get any line level
| employee fired.
| cbozeman wrote:
| I actually do agree with this. The idea that only a
| certain set of individuals at a company could ever fathom
| a problem X with product Y and anyone else who shares a
| potential solution should be ignored is pretty short-
| sighted and ignorant.
|
| I _don 't_ know if someone should be fired over that, but
| then again, a firing is a pretty potent warning to others
| not to commit the same offense.
| dtech wrote:
| This kind of thing sounds smart, but in practice it's
| terrible to work with higher ups who randomly do this
| kind of micromanaging and attach immense consequences to
| it.
|
| Story I heard from a friend was of a CEO who asked a
| janitor if he used their store and if not why. He replied
| that he needed size Y of a product to efficiently store
| in his cupboard, size X was too small and Z too large.
| For months he hounded the department and forced negative
| performance reviews on them because there was no good way
| to provide Y with their current supplier. They ultimately
| switched to a different inferior supplier because of it
| (the brand the janitor normally brought) and lost several
| good employees in the process. They got a lot of negative
| feedback from customers from the switch and their revenue
| on the product went down.
| cheeko1234 wrote:
| This goes along with Nassim Taleb's idea of Skin in the
| Game:
|
| To learn you need 'contact with the ground': Actually,
| you cannot separate anything from contact with the
| ground. And the contact with the real world is done via
| skin in the game-having an exposure to the real world,
| and paying a price for its consequences, good or bad.
| jjulius wrote:
| In my opinion, there's entirely too much context missing
| from this for us to say whether or not what is quoted
| there was totally reasonable.
|
| Had the employee even brought that up to the manager
| before? Had they had the idea for a long time and didn't
| bring it up? If so, why not - does the manager foster a
| culture where collaboration isn't encouraged? If that's
| the case, does the manager not do that simply out of
| ineptitude, or because that's the same culture coming
| down from above him/her? Maybe the individual just had
| the idea that morning? That week? The very moment it came
| out of their mouth, even? Has the manager had a stellar
| tenure up to that point, or a rocky one? How severe was
| the issue pre-fix that it warranted this termination? I
| could go on and on.
|
| Point being, two sentences saying, "An employee had an
| idea and Musk fired his boss because he didn't know about
| that idea," is typically not going to be enough for us to
| say, "Oh yeah, that was a good/bad call".
| datavirtue wrote:
| Batshit. Sounds like a withdrawal moment. Anyone who
| studies institutions, management, and factories knows
| that the overarching culture that flows from the top-down
| is what sets the expectations and communication norms.
| This is typical old school American hierarchically
| organized culture that made it certain that the employees
| on the floor knew the solution and that the managers had
| no idea. The problem starts and ends with Musk and his
| shitty company culture/communication. It is his job to
| create a culture where ops communicates with management
| and vise versa. Toyota has answer to this problem.
| aaronbrethorst wrote:
| Results like these, you mean?
| https://electrek.co/2022/03/16/tesla-employee-fired-
| sharing-...
| [deleted]
| belorn wrote:
| Freedom for me, not for thee, is the recurring theme in
| every discussion on censorship. Generally shared by both
| sides, and generally used as a description of the other
| side by both sides.
|
| The goal of liberty is freedom under common rules. Rules
| may exist but it need to apply and enforced equally. The
| trouble is that no one seems to want to have such rules
| when they themselves get effected, and so people want to
| carve out exceptions to common rules in order to return
| to _Freedom for me, not for thee._
| chmod600 wrote:
| True, but we know some systems are more free and some
| less free. Let's understand how the parts of a system
| work to create freedom and try to replicate those
| aspects.
|
| Let's not just throw up our hands and say that freedom is
| never sincere and there's nothing we can do.
|
| For instance, the Constitution has been successful at
| maintaining many important rights, some of which are
| quite rare in the world.
| belorn wrote:
| Yes, common rules that get enforced equally for everyone
| works pretty well. It is the true and tested system that
| produce more free.
|
| Every time people suggest that social websites should
| operate on such rules, ie laws, people throw up our hands
| and say that laws don't work, or that there must be
| exceptions because the world is unfair and wrongs need to
| be addressed.
|
| Its a very difficult problem to solve since in general
| people really do not want to be in a system where rules
| are common and get enforced equally. That it happens to
| be the only thing that actually work is just part of the
| problem.
| prox wrote:
| This is the best response sofar. Have seen some comments
| that only shows entrenchment while simultaneously trying
| to degrade "the other"
|
| Reconciliation should be the goal of any debate (at least
| in the political sphere)
| mdoms wrote:
| Musk is famous for aggressively silencing his opponents
| when he has the power to do so (or thinks he does).
| faeriechangling wrote:
| Public forums tend to be subject to rules and regulation,
| enforced by authorities, which Elon Musk does not seem to
| be very fond of. His ideology in the context of social
| media is a bit more anarchic and sceptical of the
| imperiality and morality of said authorities.
|
| No comment on how much of a free speech warrior he is
| when he's dealing with employees or reporters or cavers
| that he dislikes.
| drewrv wrote:
| Who has been banned from Twitter for a joke that offended
| "only the wokest"? Dave Chapelle still has a twitter
| account. As does Louis CK.
| [deleted]
| PathOfEclipse wrote:
| Not everyone has an ideology. Having an ideology is a bad
| thing. It generally means you reduce the complexity of
| the world into a simple narrative, and this results in
| you having incorrect beliefs, making bad decisions, and
| supporting bad causes. The goal should be to abandon all
| ideology, not change to a different, better one, although
| better is always an improvement over worse.
| beaconstudios wrote:
| an ideology is a model of the world. You can have a more
| nuanced ideology (which is a good thing), but you can't
| have no ideology at all. Otherwise, you can't engage with
| questions like "why are there poor people and rich
| people" or "is it ethical to steal bread to feed your
| family". There are no non-ideological answers to these
| questions, so your best hope for non-ideology is to cling
| to and never question the status quo.
| PathOfEclipse wrote:
| I disagree, and so do other thinkers more well-known than
| I. With regards to "why are there poor and rich people",
| the answer is so complex as to occupy entire libraries.
| I've personally read Thomas Sowell's "Wealth, Poverty,
| and Politics", where he delves into a number of important
| factors for economic disparity that in vogue ideologues
| tend to ignore. And, that's the point. Their ideology
| blinds them to the complexity of the world.
|
| There is similarly a non-ideological answer to "should I
| steal bread to feed my family?" It involves tradeoffs
| like:
|
| * what will happen if I steal this bread? Could I get
| caught and therefore no longer be able to provide for my
| family? What effect will it have on myself and on
| society?
|
| * what will happen if I don't steal the bread? Is there
| any other way to provide food for my family? Can I accept
| their death as a consequence for obeying a moral law?
|
| You weigh the tradeoffs, risks, and expected outcomes,
| then make a decision for yourself, which may or may not
| be the right answer for your specific situation and may
| or may not generalize to other situations or other
| people.
|
| As Jordan Peterson says: " Ideologues are the
| intellectual equivalent of fundamentalists, unyielding
| and rigid."
|
| And also: "Beware, in more technical terms, of blanket
| univariate (single variable) causes for diverse, complex
| problems."
|
| Your definition of ideology may differ from that, but in
| practice, I find that when we call someone an ideologue
| today, or refer to an ideology, it is always a false
| narrative-based over-simplification of the world.
| beaconstudios wrote:
| I'm sorry but you can't argue that you are free of
| ideology by quoting Thomas Sowell and Jordan Peterson.
| That's very funny.
|
| Thomas Sowell is a fiscal conservative whose ideology
| boils down to "individual decisions are primarily
| responsible for divergent outcomes". Jordan Peterson is a
| Christian conservative, all his advice might as well be
| Bible citations. He also knows nothing except ideological
| positions when it comes to criticising the left wing; he
| loves the term "postmodern neomarxist" despite those
| terms being completely contradictory.
| PathOfEclipse wrote:
| Nice straw man, buddy.
|
| 1) I didn't claim to be free of ideology. How's your
| reading comprehension?
|
| 2) There's nothing funny about quoting two people that
| are probably both smarter and wiser than you in order to
| make a good and valid point.
| beaconstudios wrote:
| 1: yes you did:
|
| > There is similarly a non-ideological answer to "should
| I steal bread to feed my family?"
|
| > proceeds to describe their own thought process
|
| you didn't even engage with the ideological elements of
| the question. Is it right to redistribute property if the
| need is greater elsewhere? Does the right to survive
| override the right to property? What if violence is
| necessary to take the bread? You just treated it like a
| personal cost-benefit analysis of a single instance.
|
| 2: yes there is. The fact that you consider them to be
| authorities on non-ideological positions is the funny
| part.
| PathOfEclipse wrote:
| 1. No I didn't.
|
| I engaged with the question and responded, essentially,
| "there may not be a universally right answer to your
| question." I just didn't respond the way wished I would.
|
| And, in general, I would say it's not ok to forcefully
| take property because you made the judgement that the
| property would be better used in your hands, but I won't
| say there are no exceptions to that. Again, life is
| complex. Abandon ideology.
|
| 2. I think you are overdue for some humble self-
| reflection.
| beaconstudios wrote:
| 1. saying 'it's complex' isn't a non-ideological
| position, it just calls for nuance. I already agreed that
| nuanced ideology is better than rigid and inflexible
| ideology - I think that's true of people I broadly align
| with and people I disagree with. You might want to
| reflect on the conditions under which it's acceptable to
| redistribute property, because if there's a dividing line
| for you it'll be telling what that line is. It sounds to
| me like you primarily navigate on intuition alone but I
| could be wrong. I could easily go on a cost-benefit
| analysis like you did about stealing bread, but instead
| it was for mugging businessmen and using the money to pay
| for drugs and prostitutes. I'm sure you would agree that
| the latter is wrong, but I doubt you could elaborate a
| coherent framework for discerning between right and wrong
| action beyond gut-feel.
|
| 2. humble self-reflection isn't going to lead me to think
| that Sowell and Peterson are authorities on non-ideology.
| But the tiniest bit of research into the criticism of
| them might lead you to understand the flaws in their
| positions. I would know: I used to think Jordan Peterson
| was great and his tirades against the postmodern
| neomarxists was him defending western liberalism against
| university indoctrination and crybullies or whatever.
| Then I grew up, read some books, actually thought about
| my internal unchallenged opinions.
| boredtofears wrote:
| Your responses are mostly regurgitating things you've
| watched from youtube philosophers. You clearly have an
| ideology whether you believe you do or not.
| PathOfEclipse wrote:
| You implying that a quite prolific 90-year-old scholar is
| a "Youtube philosopher" comes off as pretty ignorant or
| foolish. Sowell did most of his work before Youtube
| existed, and AFAIK has never directly engaged with the
| platform in any way.
|
| And again, I never claimed to be free of ideology. At the
| same time, you haven't done anything to pin down my
| ideological constraints.
| boredtofears wrote:
| Sowell mostly pops up in the same conservative circles as
| the IDW crowd these days. It's all under the same online
| junk philosophy umbrella. It's not like his material has
| aged particularly well.
|
| Most of what you're parroting seems to be from JP
| anyways.
| long_time_gone wrote:
| I'm not the person you were discussing with, but couldn't
| help but notice that this comment you call the person an
| ideologue:
|
| > Again, life is complex. Abandon ideology.
|
| Seems to be in direct conflict with this comment you made
| earlier:
|
| > I find that when we call someone an ideologue today, or
| refer to an ideology, it is always a false narrative-
| based over-simplification of the world.
|
| The idea of abandoning ideology is it's own ideology, no?
| PathOfEclipse wrote:
| I don't think so, no. The call to abandon ideology is to
| recognize that narratives can contain truths in a limited
| form, but it is an error but to treat them as more than
| they are. I don't see that as an ideology, but as a
| simple fact about narratives and ideologies themselves.
| They are, by design, simplifications of reality, or very
| narrow windows into reality.
| long_time_gone wrote:
| I'm suggesting that in the implementation of what you
| describe, there is ideology at play. To me, it seems like
| ignoring that is it's own, different type of ideology.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| "Smarter" is arguable, but unless the parent got hooked
| on benzos, pursued a scientifically-unsound, meat-only
| diet, and then ended up in a Russian hospital I think
| it's safe to say they're wiser than Jordan Peterson.
| cjbgkagh wrote:
| Jordan Peterson really should have known better with
| regards to benzos. He said on a Joe Rogan podcast that
| science only recently found out how bad they were which I
| personally can't believe to be true, but if it is it is
| an indictment on 'science'.
| PathOfEclipse wrote:
| Nutrition is a fantastic example of a field where the
| adage "life is complex" applies so well. I love how a
| person:
|
| 1) has major health problems
|
| 2) changes his diet and immediately sees those health
| problems go away.
|
| 3) gets mocked online by complete strangers.
|
| Human bodies are so complex and variable. What works for
| one person's health may not work for another. If you are
| blessed to find something that works for you, be grateful
| and humble, and don't automatically assume what you know
| applies equally to everyone else. Also, "science" is not
| even close to settled on the subject of nutrition as it
| applies to individuals.
| danbolt wrote:
| > With regards to "why are there poor and rich people",
| the answer is so complex as to occupy entire libraries.
|
| I think that would quality under beacon's idea of a more
| "nuanced" ideology, rather than something hard/fast (eg:
| a Marxist narrative dividing people into capital owners
| and non-owners).
| guelo wrote:
| What experience is that? Reading idelogical opinions?
| AustinDev wrote:
| Having worked with a few dozen former and current Twitter
| employees.
| LarrySellers wrote:
| robbyking wrote:
| That's a sweeping generalization for a company with over
| 5,000 employees.
| throwmeariver1 wrote:
| But now they are contained to one entity wouldn't it make
| more sense with your reasoning to keep them together?
| [deleted]
| deanCommie wrote:
| Can you name one public Twitter ideology except a
| commitment to not spread vaccine misinformation?
|
| At this point if anyone thinks that vaccine debate is
| ideological, I don't think we will change each others
| mind in either way, but I'm just curious if there are any
| examples.
|
| As far as I can tell that is the one and only piece of
| controversy. They banned Trump.
| indy wrote:
| They prevented spreading the story of Hunter Biden's
| laptop just before the last American election [Edit: it's
| strange to be downvoted for a factually correct
| statement.]
| nullc wrote:
| The thread I created on validating the legitimacy of one
| of those emails using DKIM back when the story broke was
| quickly flagged. Be glad all you got was a downvote.
| temp8964 wrote:
| Really? Only one? How about they banned New York Post
| because of the Hunter Biden story?
| beaconstudios wrote:
| they had a pre-existing rule against posting hacked
| information.
| the_doctah wrote:
| Speaking of misinformation...
| Clubber wrote:
| But it wasn't hacked, he brought the laptop in for data
| recovery and never returned. After a period of time, that
| property becomes the property of the shop. The laptop was
| also seized by the FBI.
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/22/us/politics/hunter-
| biden-...
| nullc wrote:
| Which is why they shut down the NY Times for posting
| trumps tax information. ... and why, after hunter biden,
| they shut down ProPublica after they obtained the
| detailed tax records of all Americans and started
| publishing documents from a multitude of wealthy people,
| none of which (thus far) have exposed any crimes, and
| little of which could be argued to be a matter of public
| interest... oh wait they didn't.
|
| In these examples not only was the material hacked, its
| further disclosure is a crime. By comparison, the
| disclosure of the hunter biden material was completely
| lawful, as far as we're able to tell right now. The
| material was also easily verified to be legitimate, at
| least in part-- since the google DKIM on the messages
| passed. You won't find pretty much any other hacked
| material reporting that twitter allowed to spread that
| could be cryptographic authenticated.
|
| It's why twitter shut down accounts sharing the dump of
| Epik (right wing wingnut friendly domain registrar), or
| personal information extracted from it... oh wait, they
| didn't (well they didn't shut down a few accounts calling
| for _violence_ against people in it, just not one merely
| propagating the hacked information).
|
| It's why they shut down Suddeutsche Zeitung when they
| published their reporting on the Panama Papers... oh
| right, yet again. They didn't.
|
| I could keep going, -- there is a lot of journalism that
| comes from hacked documents.
|
| Can you give a single prior example of high profile
| reporting on hacked materials where twitter suppressed
| the media outlet and discussion of the subject? -- I'm
| earnestly interested.
| EricE wrote:
| Hunters laptop was NOT hacked; it was abandoned at a
| repair shop which after 30 days became the property of
| the owner of the shop. BTW this is NOT uncommon. Not just
| for comptuer repair shops but storage units, auto
| mechanics, etc.
|
| You can't hack something you own. The whole "hack" thing
| is such a stupid narrative yet people cling to it -
| probably because there is no other defense for what was
| on the laptop.
| nullc wrote:
| Indeed.
|
| My point was that even if you accept that clearly false
| premise, the claim is still bogus: the media and members
| of the general public routinely share actual hacked
| information (as well as other material which is unlawful
| to distribute, such as people's tax returns) via
| twitter's platform without much fear of account
| suspension over it and did both before and after the
| hunter biden laptop incident.
| mardifoufs wrote:
| That did not seem to apply for the ottawa trucker rally
| donor data.
| vmception wrote:
| Its just the San Francisco "silence is violence" crowd.
| The "use your platform" crowd. They are not objective
| even if you coincidentally like the cause of the day.
|
| If you try to express a dissenting opinion at that
| organization, even as an attempt to refine that opinion,
| you get kicked out. You made someone uncomfortable.
|
| Taking a spiked metal baseball bat to that beehive is the
| way to deal with it. Whether it will be _better_?
| Unlikely, just different
| zackees wrote:
| beeboop wrote:
| TameAntelope wrote:
| Ah, the evergreen prediction of Twitter's impending
| demise.
|
| The best part is that one say it will be true, and all of
| the folks who've been saying this for decades will get
| proven right.
|
| It's the safest prediction in the world, to say something
| will end.
| jimmyjazz14 wrote:
| I mean in some ways twitter did die ages ago in that its
| user base has stagnated over the years and its relevance
| has dropped outside of a certain powerful minority of
| users.
| phatfish wrote:
| The "powerful" users (like Musk) are it's relevance.
| Tweets are quoted more than ever as the primary source of
| information when they are know to be "official" accounts,
| or owned by a specific person of interest.
|
| Embedded Tweets on a news website might not be a great
| way to get ad-views, but those accounts give it relevance
| beyond the users who actually interact by commenting.
| TameAntelope wrote:
| I expect Matt Levine's take will amount to some version
| of this; Elon Musk uses Twitter to make a lot of money
| via his various market manipulations, one risk to that is
| Twitter doing something to make those market
| manipulations harder, so a way of mitigating those risks
| is to buy as much of Twitter as possible to get as much
| of a say as possible, in an effort to prevent that from
| happening.
|
| Surely Elon has made $3bn off of Tweets by now, it makes
| perfect sense for him to spend some of that as a way of
| protecting future additional earnings, both for him and
| the various companies he runs that also make money off of
| Elon's tweets.
| beeboop wrote:
| sdfgdf wrote:
| richardfey wrote:
| What changing wind could Elon Musk usher?
| DoingIsLearning wrote:
| I also don't follow. I get that there is a halo effect
| around Musk's 'Iron-Man' persona.
|
| Nevertheless, he is still a minority shareholder. How
| much power can he really have at board level?
| hintymad wrote:
| Elon is just one of the board directors. I was wondering
| why people believe that he will have such sweeping power to
| change Twitter.
| keithwhor wrote:
| Depends on how much the rest of the board really feels
| like arguing with Elon. Keep in mind these people have
| jobs outside of Twitter.
|
| https://investor.twitterinc.com/corporate-
| governance/board-o...
| sho_hn wrote:
| One would assume, so does Musk.
| JamisonM wrote:
| I guess there is a high probability that he will drag
| boardroom disagreements out into the open, so in that
| sense they will have to "argue" with him. In general
| boards vote to settle things and then it is settled, they
| are not supposed to be arguing indefinitely - the chair
| calls the question and the matter gets settled.
|
| Can Musk keep his board seat? That is my question, being
| an unruly character when you don't have full control
| usually gets you turfed from a board for violating
| confidences pretty quickly, but IDK.
| tempnow987 wrote:
| Twitter was up 20%+ based on his arrival. That is
| valuable to everyone.
|
| He is the largest shareholder.
| phatfish wrote:
| Everything "goes up" when Elon first gets near it. That's
| the benefit of an army of Twitter worshippers. Whether
| there is any lasting value to his involvement beyond the
| pump is the question.
|
| If he kills the stupid pop-over login box that's supposed
| to force me to make an account I'll call that lasting
| value.
| JamisonM wrote:
| Sorry, I don't understand how this reply relates to my
| comment.
|
| Are you saying that the price bump will keep him on the
| board? The fear of a drop will keep him on the board? I
| can see that, but in the long run the valuation shouldn't
| be affected unless he is actually a good member of the
| board.
| kilroy123 wrote:
| That's what I'm thinking. Though he could likely,
| publicly get support you voting out other members.
| [deleted]
| slim wrote:
| I think elon musk summed it up best
|
| > eh wow lol
|
| or something to that effect
| FFRefresh wrote:
| I do think Elon will provide a valuable counter-balance to the
| current monoculture that drives Twitter.
|
| But I do not believe Elon in of himself can really resolve
| Twitter's ills (by my subjective assessment). Twitter and other
| social networks are ultimately reflections of parts of
| humanity. Us humans have our biases and our drives that don't
| just go away. You can obviously (and _should_ ) tweak the
| product to incentivize more productive dialog, but you can't
| overwrite our biases/drives/distribution of competencies by
| updating Twitter.
|
| Personally, I view these social networks as mirrors, revealing
| parts of our humanity as it currently is. A lot of us don't
| like what we see, and we fixate strictly on the mirror,
| suggesting it's _strictly_ the mirror 's fault for displaying
| the unflattering image.
| philosopher1234 wrote:
| I recommend this paper:
| https://philpapers.org/archive/NGUHTG.pdf or this podcast on
| the same topic:
| https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/25/podcasts/transcript-
| ezra-...
|
| Social media is a mirror in the same way that baseball is a
| mirror. Individual personalities are tested and the fact
| we're playing it is because we're human, but the rules of
| baseball are not the rules of life. When we're playing
| baseball we're doing something very different from when we're
| relating to each other or spending time together.
|
| Twitter is a social game, and distorts the behavior of its
| participants. Its a fun house mirror, not a reflecting pool.
| gowld wrote:
| Baseball is a game, and a little bit of "relating to each
| other or spending time together" (which is why there are
| sometimes brawls).
|
| Twitter is "relating to each other or spending time
| together" to a much larger extent, even though some people
| are using it as a game or (more commonly) a business.
| philosopher1234 wrote:
| Yes, twitter has more interpersonal than baseball does,
| but the points system looms large over every word.
| vincentmarle wrote:
| This meme explains it best:
| https://twitter.com/lawmaster/status/1511326650788683777
| lodovic wrote:
| I wonder if this changes anything about the SEC ruling limiting
| what Musk can do on social media.
| kreeben wrote:
| "What's your problem SEC? I can't buy a social media co and
| then say whatever I want on it, whenever I want? I thought this
| was 'merica", might plausibly be one of his defenses against
| any charges of market manipulation and what are they going to
| do, the SEC, since they have proved time and again how
| toothless they are?
|
| Extremely powerful people do extremely stupid things. Examples:
|
| - Trump ("Charge the White house!")
|
| - Putin ("Invade Ukraine")
|
| - Musk ("Make Twitter an absolute free speech platform!")
|
| It's going to be fun to watch this over the next couple of
| months. And when I say "fun" I actually mean the exact
| opposite.
| hayd wrote:
| Calls to violence are explicitly not included in free speech.
|
| The problem is actually the unevenness of policies.
|
| An example that annoyed me recently: the video ad for
| /JeremysRazors is hidden behind a "potentially sensitive
| content" warning (it's not), but Twitter search "razors" and
| be prepared to see (without any warning) disgusting images of
| people cutting themselves.
|
| The Kremlin (and CCP) are verified and tweeting, whilst the
| BabylonBee (and Trump) are banned. Lunacy.
| ChicagoDave wrote:
| He's also agreed to never own more than 14%, so effectively
| agreeing only to be a voice, not a wrecking ball.
| skybrian wrote:
| I'm not sure what you mean by "wrecking ball," but an activist
| shareholder can win a proxy fight if other shareholders choose
| to go along with them. And Musk is pretty good at making
| investments go up by tweeting things, so they are probably
| pretty happy about this.
| tawaypol wrote:
| Interesting, 14% is the combined ownership of Blackrock and
| Vanguard.
| incomingpain wrote:
| So typically 30% of a publicly traded corp is enough to be
| defacto owner.
|
| That's just a going rule but I just checked. 80% of twitter is
| held by institutions. Only 2.5% is owned by insiders.
|
| No dorsey to be seen here? No elliot management?
| https://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambrown/2020/02/29/twitters-...
|
| Unless I'm missing something... Elon owns Twitter. This was a
| super easy hostile takeover... he doesn't need 14%
|
| Elon probably doesnt want any sort of key position because
| afterall he's in constant fight over tesla and sec.
| hetspookjee wrote:
| Dorsey holds 2.25% of the stock as per one authoritive dutch
| newspaper NRC. So 0.25% of the stock is held by other
| insiders, interestingly enough.
|
| De voormalige eigenaar en mede-oprichter Jack Dorsey bezit
| 2,25 procent van de aandelen. [1]
|
| [1] https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2022/04/04/elon-musk-koopt-
| aandele...
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| It's Elon Musk, he can't help but being a wrecking ball. We're
| talking about the 'pedo guy' guy, after all.
|
| Twitter will get more attention for sure, but possibly not the
| kind of attention they want. But apparently there's no such
| thing as bad publicity.
|
| I think of of the interesting things to watch for is if he
| starts pressuring for the guy who tracks the movements of his
| private jet to have his account terminated.
| cloutchaser wrote:
| Quite a wrecking ball creating Tesla and SpaceX. Lots of
| destruction there. /s
| candiddevmike wrote:
| Just a few cars driving themselves into concrete
| barricades. Probably some kind of metaphor there.
| beeboop wrote:
| Good thing cars that aren't from Tesla never malfunction
| in lethal ways.
|
| If you ignore the 89 deaths from Toyota vehicle
| acceleration issues, 271 deaths from Ford's faulty tires
| in the 90s, 303 dead from GM's faulty ignition switches,
| 478 deaths from Fiat's engines exploding, and 823 deaths
| from Ford's Bronco tipping over at speeds as slow as
| 20MPH.
| camel_Snake wrote:
| he didn't create Tesla. Maybe you were thinking of the
| Boring Company?
| panick21_ wrote:
| Elon is by far the most import person to Tesla and its
| not even remotly close. What Tesla is now is basicallt
| because of Musk.
|
| Ok, a few guys had a buissness plan and then used Musk
| money to totally run the buissness into the ground.
|
| Tesla without Musk is just another footnote in the histoy
| of EV.
| [deleted]
| doikor wrote:
| Not never but while he is a member of the board + 90 days.
| Though if he would get more than that not being on the board
| would be weird so kind of yes never getting more than that.
| GoodJokes wrote:
| noetic_techy wrote:
| It's either this or one of its competitors rises to take them on
| at some point and we get a bifurcated society where specific
| companies cater to specific politics. That may be unavoidable
| anyways.
|
| I think people outside the SV bubble (I grew up there, don't live
| there anymore) don't realize how hated and despised their
| censorship policies really are. Musk has his pulse on that, so
| I'm happy to see him step in and shake up the group think.
| jasonlotito wrote:
| > don't realize how hated and despised their censorship
| policies really are.
|
| Majority of Americans (and most people I'd imagine) do not
| really care about their policies. They don't give two figs
| about it, and just go about their life just fine without being
| affected by it one bit. I'm sure you can find some people on
| both sides of the spectrum regarding their policies, but the
| vast majority don't. As someone who isn't from SV or has ever
| worked for in or for an SV company, my bubble is surrounded by
| farmers.
| nonethewiser wrote:
| Doesnt seem that way from my perspective. Do you grant this
| is simply your impression? I tend to distrust you because you
| just assert this general truth that is rather controversial
| and you dont cite any data.
| cbozeman wrote:
| > Majority of Americans (and most people I'd imagine) do not
| really care about their policies. They don't give two figs
| about it, and just go about their life just fine without
| being affected by it one bit.
|
| That's the problem with not giving a shit. When things
| finally do become bad enough that it affects _you_
| personally, it 's too late. When it comes to standing up for
| what's right - and I define what's "right" as _mostly_ what
| the Constitution of the United States lays forth as our
| inalienable rights, you better give a shit from the word
| "go" and you better oppose it stridently because once
| freedoms get stripped away from you, they're nearly
| impossible to recover.
|
| I can't even imagine how the Founders would react to things
| like the PATRIOT Act.
|
| And we can blather on all goddamn day about "muh private
| corporations!" but when these corporations are actively
| suppressing competitors and are working hand-in-hand with
| news outlets to label _any_ new alterative as a Mos Eisley-
| esque shithole that no respectable person would frequent, the
| point is moot.
|
| Facebook and Twitter are the modern day public square. Some
| people will want to claim it's "The Internet" itself; you can
| just go make your own public square and publish your own
| website, etc., but that's not actually how a public square
| works. Just because you hop on your tractor and box blade
| your front yard flat and pave it over with concrete and add
| some park benches to it, doesn't turn it into the public
| square. You actually have to have _the public_ actively
| occupying it. The public square is where the people are. And
| the people are on Facebook and Twitter... at least in
| America.
| Broken_Hippo wrote:
| _I can 't even imagine how the Founders would react to
| things like the PATRIOT Act._
|
| I can't even take this seriously. These are the same folks
| that kept people as property. Didn't make sure everyone
| could vote (male land owners only). They founded the
| country on land stolen from folks already living here. It
| isn't like the founders were really beacons of freedom, at
| least not if you use today's standards and honestly, they'd
| not even have a grasp of the events leading up to it.
| Perhaps they'd back it up considering how glaringly the
| world has changed since then.
|
| I'm sure it is supposed to make folks think the country is
| straying from its foundations, but look around: People that
| aren't straight, white land owners are walking around with
| all these rights and freedom and stuff. That's already
| happened long ago. Maybe straying is a really good thing.
| bliteben wrote:
| Imagine being born into several flawed systems, risking
| everything, and many had a lot to risk to fix one aspect
| of a system and being judged because you didn't fix
| everything. You act like the founding fathers created
| slavery on their own. The freedom given to the world by
| the US and by extension Napoleon was not some inevitable
| thing and its not something that will necessarily persist
| either as we can easily judge from mankind's very limited
| written history.
| xanaxagoras wrote:
| > and we get a bifurcated society where specific companies
| cater to specific politics.
|
| That's exactly where we are now? When twitter censors right of
| center ideas and de-platforms those who think them, we
| invariably seek refuge in alternatives that engender far more
| radical thinking than if we had stayed in a larger public
| discussion.
| zht wrote:
| how much of that is Twitter and how much of that is Fox News?
| nonethewiser wrote:
| Twitter having a liberal bias is 100% Twitter, 0% Fox news
| xanaxagoras wrote:
| I don't follow.
| tonguez wrote:
| "It's either this or one of its competitors rises to take them
| on at some point and we get a bifurcated society where specific
| companies cater to specific politics. That may be unavoidable
| anyways."
|
| one can dream. as of now all corporations follow the same
| ideology of neoconservative imperialism because they are all
| owned by the same people (blackrock, etc)
| [deleted]
| systemvoltage wrote:
| > one of its competitors rises
|
| The ideological complex has not allowed anyone to rise. _That
| 's_ the issue. Even neutrality is considered distasteful.
| cbsmith wrote:
| Huh, wha?
| hedora wrote:
| adventured wrote:
| If you're wondering about the neutrality premise.
|
| The furthest ~25% on the left and right have an
| increasingly extreme, partisan, borderline psychotic view
| of the world that you're either with us or against us. That
| polarization has become radically more aggressive over the
| past decade.
|
| Just to use a simple example: someone might might say it's
| not enough to not oppose men becoming women and dominating
| female swimming/sports (neutrality), you must support it.
| Anything else and you're an "enemy" and not an "ally." The
| left in particular has created an increasingly large
| vocabulary designed to polarize and split the population
| and draw lines between people (either or lines).
| cbsmith wrote:
| It does not seem like the solution to the problem would
| be change the mission of the mainstream platform. It
| would undoubtedly fall victim to whatever these
| mysterious forces are.
| cbozeman wrote:
| So we moderates kill off each half of our crazier cousins
| and live in moderate harmony!
|
| (this is _extreme_ sarcasm, for those that can 't tell)
| Spivak wrote:
| This doesn't really make sense what you described isn't
| actually a neutral stance -- hell just the framing alone
| betrays your feelings. You're already using _extremely_
| polarizing vocabulary in your attempt to be neutral.
|
| Someone in support of trans men and women being able to
| compete would take issue with:
|
| * "men becoming women" -- transitioning doesn't change
| your gender, it only aligns your outward appearance to
| the gender you have always been.
|
| * "dominating female sports" -- the whole point of the
| opposing view is specifically that trans women don't
| dominate sports.
|
| You've twisted it in such a way that even accepting the
| premise of your "neutral" statement is already super
| political.
|
| Here's a real neutral stance that would be accepted by
| people on both sides of this particular issue.
|
| "I'm not qualified to have an opinion on this matter, the
| decision is best left to the athletic clubs and people
| more knowledgeable about the effects of HRT."
| valenaut wrote:
| I haven't encountered a single person in my young, left-
| wing, NYC bubble that demands I actively support trans
| women in female sport leagues, as opposed to not opposing
| them. I don't even know what the difference is between
| these things (does active support mean lobbying or
| volunteering?).
|
| I do, however, have some family members that demand I
| actively oppose this, and get very mad when I profess
| neutrality.
| systemvoltage wrote:
| Well, the problem I see is the following:
|
| - Claim that Twitter is a private corporation and its their
| rules (Btw, you can check my history in 2020 where I did
| support purge of Trump from social media, but I am now
| comtemplating).
|
| - But, anyone who starts a new platform (let's assume
| similar to r/conservative which is absolutely not neo-nazi
| or fascist), gets intense pushback from the existing
| incumbents not with market forces, but rather with
| censorship, algorithms, political and misinformation driven
| opposition.
|
| So now we have public square that enjoys monopolistic
| powers (yes, government officials _exclusively_ publishing
| on Twitter. Your tax money cannot buy a platform where you
| can listen to the constitutuents that you voted for), but
| also prevents incumbents from rising through political
| proxies that I mentioned earlier.
|
| This is scary.
| nemothekid wrote:
| When someone says that _Twitter_ does heavy handed
| exercising of censorship or algorithmic manipulation just
| shows me that most people don't actually use Twitter and
| instead consume it view headlines. That wouldn't be
| surprising considering is the 15th largest social network
| by MAU globally. The Twitter product today is still
| largely the same as it was 10 years ago; Meta & friends
| do far more to stifle "free speech" but are never given
| the same sort of criticism because they do the "right"
| kind of amplification and moderating. Twitter is probably
| the least moderated of all the big social networks but it
| gets the most criticism for having too much moderation.
| What people actually want from Twitter is freedom from
| criticism from the mob, i.e "free speech for me, but not
| for thee".
|
| > _But, anyone who starts a new platform (let 's assume
| similar to r/conservative which is absolutely not neo-
| nazi or fascist), gets intense pushback from the existing
| incumbents not with market forces,_
|
| Not with market forces? You mean to say that censorship
| is what is actually holding Gab back from mainstream
| adoption? This sentiment has always been incredibly
| myopic. I don't know why American conservatives are
| always surprised when their flavor of politics aren't
| popular. For some reason Europe and the rest of the West,
| who are farther left than Americans, cease to exist and
| the reasons why sites like Gab aren't huge is because of
| censorship.
| cbsmith wrote:
| There seems like there's a presumption that already
| successful companies are not subject to the same forces
| as other companies, despite all the evidence (including
| Twitter's experience) to the contrary.
| cbsmith wrote:
| nonethewiser wrote:
| "It's either this or one of its competitors rises to take them
| on at some point and we get a bifurcated society where specific
| companies cater to specific politics."
|
| Not ideal, but better than the status quo where there is 1
| company catering to 1 group.
| raincom wrote:
| Wasn't how Fox News born?
| taf2 wrote:
| You mean like the news? As an experiment try this for two
| months. On month 1 - watch only CNN. On month 2 - watch only
| Fox. Maybe take a 1 week break between both and write down your
| thoughts on the world... very interesting how it evolves based
| on what you watch/listen too... From what I hear if you just
| watched Russian state media it'd be an even more extreme
| version. The great thing about our free society is you have the
| choice to do this experiment, as I understand it you can't do
| this in Russia today...
| xanaxagoras wrote:
| Perhaps this is what is actually meant by "television
| programming"
| choward wrote:
| > as I understand it you can't do this in Russia today...
|
| Or Ukraine or many other countries. Not sure why you singled
| out Russia specifically.
|
| However, if you are just watching corporate media you're not
| getting the full picture either. CNN and Fox News have very
| similar opinions on non-culture war issues.
| memish wrote:
| Backing this up with some data, the most common reaction on
| twitter is:
|
| "Elon will improve Twitter by expanding freedom of speech on
| the platform"
|
| https://twitter.com/NarrativesProj/status/151139309757754574...
| and0 wrote:
| That's what makes all of this so ironic to me. Social media
| platforms and their users (especially Facebook) are not left-
| leaning. That a vast majority of Twitter users feel he will
| improve it means that the bias is fictional.
| cbozeman wrote:
| I don't know how you got that sentiment from _that_
| graphic, which doesn 't have jack shit to do with political
| affiliation.
|
| I will put $100 down right now that if you did a
| statistically significant, unbiased, controlled,
| representative sample of _verified_ Twitter users - as in
| people you can provably show are actual human beings - you
| 'll find the majority are left-leaning.
|
| Oh wait, I don't have to, Pew Research Group already did
| it...
|
| https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/04/24/sizing-up-
| tw...
|
| Facebook is a different animal because more than half the
| planet uses it, and what we consider "left" or "right" as
| Americans is dramatically different than what other nations
| would consider "left" or "right" or "liberal" or
| "conservative".
| colinmhayes wrote:
| Most of the verified users are journalists, who do lean
| left. I don't think that says anything about the overall
| user base of twitter.
| enragedcacti wrote:
| > verified Twitter users - as in people you can provably
| show are actual human beings
|
| Verified means the account is authentic and of public
| interest. It doesn't guarantee that you are a person and
| further, the vast, _vast_ majority of real people on
| twitter aren 't verified.
|
| as for the pew survey, it isn't controlling for many of
| the things that we know correlate with political
| affiliation, it is just reporting them as isolated facts.
| Just education and age would likely explain the delta in
| political affiliations within that survey. [1]
|
| Sure this doesn't change the fact that the _slight_
| majority is Dem-Leaning, but it should raise serious
| doubt that its because of bias on the part of twitter
| instead of just plain old demographics of the internet.
|
| https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2015/04/07/a-deep-
| dive-...
| nonethewiser wrote:
| "Just education and age would likely explain the delta in
| political affiliations within that survey. [1]"
|
| These concedes the point that Twitter users are liberal
| on average.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| el_ravager wrote:
| Precisely, liberals aren't leftists in the least--at
| least not according to leftists. That is, world-wide,
| liberals and fascists have constantly worked hand-in-hand
| to form coalitions to keep the left out of power since
| WW1.
|
| The true dialogue in America is happening amongst center-
| left vs. far-right ideologies.
| nickstinemates wrote:
| Honest question: have any far left
| politicians/celebrities/blue checkmark people been banned
| from twitter?
| colinmhayes wrote:
| Which far leftists do you think have done things on
| twitter similar to what caused far rightists to be
| banned?
| klyrs wrote:
| What do you consider "far left"?
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_suspensions
| nickstinemates wrote:
| This link answers my question - thanks.
|
| Far left is the opposite of far right, for which we can
| all point to many of them that have been banned from
| twitter.
| klyrs wrote:
| I'd define the far right in terms of distance from
| center, personally.
|
| So, I'll refine my question with an example from the
| list: who is the Anders Breivik of the left?
| nonethewiser wrote:
| You're implying liberals dont want free speech on Twitter.
| tedivm wrote:
| Outside of the SV bubble people have actual lives that don't
| resolve around tech companies. Until someone shows actual
| evidence with real numbers behind it it's hard to take the
| whole "people don't realize how much people do or think X"
| seriously.
| oriki wrote:
| This, honestly. It _feels_ more like the only people that
| care about SV censorship policies are the people affected by
| them: SV types that live almost entirely on the platforms
| they're scared of being censored from. Well, that and people
| who make their entire careers pushing other peoples'
| boundaries and, as a result, generate a big negative
| following.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| Most people get their information and communicate through
| internet tech companies.
|
| If they think the information is censored by tech companies,
| they'll care a lot about that!
| packetlost wrote:
| As someone who lives in the midwest, very disconnected from
| the SV bubble, this is spot on. I know several conservative-
| minded people that _absolutely_ care about the censorship and
| policies SV companies push and despise them for it.
| tedivm wrote:
| I also live in the midwest, and literally no one I know
| (family or friends) outside of the tech industry cares at
| all about this. I'm sure that means my bubble is a bubble-
| but again, until I see real numbers either way this just
| looks like people pushing a narrative and using imaginary
| people to do it.
| packetlost wrote:
| It's more on Facebook than Twitter, but it absolutely
| happens. Maybe you live in a liberal bubble lol
| nonethewiser wrote:
| Well, are you liberal?
| bpodgursky wrote:
| Facebook, for better or for worse, is a really central
| piece of infrastructure for civic society all across the
| country nowdays -- it's used to organize churches, meetup
| groups, neighborhood parties, restaurants, festivals, etc.
|
| People care because censorship does affect how they build
| their real lives.
| tedivm wrote:
| > Facebook, for better or for worse, is a really central
| piece of infrastructure for civic society all across the
| country nowdays -- it's used to organize churches, meetup
| groups, neighborhood parties, restaurants, festivals,
| etc.
|
| This may be true, but how many people in those church
| groups, meetup groups, etc are actually concerned about
| censorship? In my experience far more of them are worried
| about harassment- I know far more women who can't use
| social media because of their stalkers than I do people
| who were kicked out of social media for having bad
| opinions.
| ARandomerDude wrote:
| > This may be true, but how many people in those church
| groups, meetup groups, etc are actually concerned about
| censorship?
|
| Many, in my experience. To the point that I get sick of
| hearing about it, and I'm not an alt-right Q-anon type or
| anywhere near it.
| Gene_Parmesan wrote:
| I'll take that as a given.
|
| I think what you're missing is that most people don't
| want to run into vitriolic hate speech while they're
| going about trying to organize their neighborhood parties
| (and so on). We can talk about the idealism of free
| speech all we want; the problem is any platform that
| stakes a claim as caring about Free Speech almost
| immediately gets overrun by that sort of vitriolic hate
| that most people don't want to be around in their daily
| lives.
|
| I went on one of the "free speech" video platforms about
| a year ago because I was curious, and on my first visit,
| right on the front page, were videos about how the Jews
| rule the world and Holocaust denial. I'm not remotely
| Jewish and I was immediately put off from ever
| revisiting.
|
| This is a core problem that people who legitimately care
| about censorship and free speech need to address. It's
| extremely unfortunate, but "anti-censorship" has well and
| truly become a dog whistle in the modern era.
|
| Remember that free speech is about the 'market of ideas.'
| In even totally free markets, not every product sells. An
| anti-censorship social network startup cratering because
| its platform immediately got overrun with hate is _not_
| censorship, it 's the market at work. The vast majority
| of 'regular' people I know do _not_ consider Facebook 's
| rules prohibiting hate speech to be censorship. They're
| just grateful they aren't running into it every time they
| open their phones to scroll their feed.
| mywittyname wrote:
| And yet, they all have Facebook, Google, and Apple
| accounts. You can hate them all you want, but you're not
| going to change them by shoveling money into their pockets.
| They care enough to bitch, but not enough to do anything
| about it.
|
| These people who hate Twitter probably don't even use
| Twitter. If you're not interesting or important, then
| nobody on Twitter cares what you have to say. It's not like
| Facebook, where you can argue politics with someone from
| high school. A nobody on Twitter is just screaming at the
| clouds.
| systemvoltage wrote:
| Twitter is a monopoly. When the only way for government
| officials to relay messages to their constituents is
| through a private platform such as Twitter, it ceases to
| have the same privilege as a private corporation. It is a
| _de facto_ public square. This is not up for debate.
| spsful wrote:
| This is very much up for debate. Elected officials
| actually have free postage and can send letters if they
| need to. Not only that, they likely enjoy direct access
| to their local news networks and can broadcast messages
| through that avenue. Most have email lists, and can send
| interested constituents updates through that platform.
| Most also have websites on official .gov accounts where
| they could host press releases as well.
|
| Not everyone has a Twitter account, and I think you need
| to seriously reframe your perspective if you think it is
| the cure-all for delivering news to constituents.
| systemvoltage wrote:
| > Not everyone has a Twitter account, and I think you
| need to seriously reframe your perspective if you think
| it is the cure-all for delivering news to constituents.
|
| NO! I am not saying that at all. I am saying that this is
| why Twitter is a de facto public square. I am _not_
| advocating that Twitter should be a public square.
| Frustrating to see a strawman of this sorts. You have
| completely and utterly misunderstood my points.
| Basically, 180 degrees opposite of what I was trying to
| say, may be a failure of mine to be less precise but
| jeez.
|
| The observation that Twitter _has_ become a public square
| is undenieable (this is different from advocating Twitter
| _to be_ a public square. I actually wish it wasn 't).
| steelframe wrote:
| Is there a law akin to Godwin's or Sturgeon's about all social
| media trending toward some failure state? Several years ago I
| deleted all my FB content and then disabled my account. Looks
| like it's time to do that with my Twitter account now.
| fsflover wrote:
| It's not about all social media but about for-profit walled
| gardens. Consider switching to Mastodon to avoid it.
| kirubakaran wrote:
| The second law of thermodynamics
| BurningFrog wrote:
| Maybe it's just a special case of "Nothing is forever"?
| f0e4c2f7 wrote:
| I didn't come up with it and I don't know if there is a name
| for it but here's a comment I wrote a while ago about how I
| model the decline of social media and other systems.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29977822
| imgabe wrote:
| All communication media are eventually subsumed by chain
| letters and spam.
| TechBro8615 wrote:
| Yes, it's called Eternal September. [0]
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September
| LudwigNagasena wrote:
| That's about culture in small tight communities, it's not
| about monstrous billion people wide networks without any
| coherent identity of community.
| smolder wrote:
| I think while the effect was first noted in a relatively
| small community, the idea applies broadly to all sizes of
| open public forum, especially where things are organized
| chronologically. There's difficulty in developing and
| establishing cultural norms when there are constant new
| arrivals who can't have learned from past developments.
| That's what the term represents to me.
| TechBro8615 wrote:
| Yeah, I also don't see why such patterns should apply
| differently to any community past a sufficiently large
| Dunbar number, modulo some tribal factor. Humans simply
| haven't evolved to differentiate between a tribe of three
| thousand, or three million.
|
| Want proof? Tell me how many people might read this
| comment and agree with it.
|
| Humans are bad at large scale pattern recognition and
| suffer from extreme proximity bias. It's why filter
| bubbles exist.
|
| For the same reason, it seems dangerous to promote the
| idea that it's even _possible_ to "have a conversation as
| a society." If any such conversation is taking place,
| surely its level of inherent selection bias would render
| any of its conclusions irrelevant. Only a participant or
| biased observer could claim otherwise.
|
| Society has a filter-bubble deficiency. For a global
| population nearing ten billion humans, the number of
| distinct information channels is alarmingly low in
| comparison. It's not possible to have an honest
| "conversation as a society" in such an asymmetrical
| information environment.
| LudwigNagasena wrote:
| But there is no single public forum on Facebook and no
| single culture.
| fataliss wrote:
| Musk is the entrepreneur version of "Move fast; break things" -
| something like "Make it happen; no matter the cost" kind of guy.
| Leaving a trail of burnt out/injured employees and other negative
| externalities is just his way of "getting shit done". Not sure
| how much or how little impact he'll have in the future direction
| of Twitter, but if I worked there I'd be a bit concerned!
| asd88 wrote:
| Good for TWTR but not great for its employees given how Elon runs
| his companies.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| As a Twitter user, I'm very OK with this.
| bequanna wrote:
| Not sure what you mean by this.
|
| Musk is a pragmatist who expects results and compensates well.
|
| Not great for employees who have only survived because they are
| good at office politics or carved out a do-nothing role for
| themselves like: "Chief Diversity blah blah blah" or "VP of
| Pronouns".
| thebradbain wrote:
| His companies compensate engineers below market, does he not?
|
| Also- weird take that both of your examples seem to focus on
| one specific genre of role. I've dealt with many more useless
| software engineering and product managers on a day-to-day
| basis than HR-types, who are there if you want/need to
| contact them or in the background if you don't.
|
| Maybe Musk would benefit from them, actually ...especially
| considering Tesla has been ordered to pay $137 million to a
| single worker for demonstrated cases of racism and now the
| state of California is suing the company for widespread abuse
| and harassment
|
| https://www.theverge.com/2021/10/5/22710279/tesla-racism-
| fre...
| esprehn wrote:
| > His companies compensate engineers below market, does he
| not?
|
| This varies by division. Auto Pilot for example is way over
| paying currently compared to peer companies. On average pay
| at Elon's companies is below what you'd get from FANG
| though.
| redytedy wrote:
| > Auto Pilot for example is way over paying currently
| compared to peer companies
|
| I don't think this is true unless you're talking about
| very senior positions. But they can give large bonuses.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| > _His companies compensate engineers below market, does he
| not?_
|
| If that's true, those engineers would leave for better
| jobs.
|
| If you think like an economist, the fact that his
| engineering departments remain fully staffed shows they're
| paid enough.
|
| I'll take that as fact over angry internet rumors about a
| controversial billionaire.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| > If you think like an economist, the fact that his
| engineering departments remain fully staffed shows
| they're paid enough.
|
| Well enough does not equal market rate though. There are
| many reasons people don't switch jobs, economists are
| well aware of this. Being at a company lead by such a big
| personality adds even more reasons.
| thebradbain wrote:
| https://www.levels.fyi/company/Tesla/salaries/
|
| I mean, based on the objective aggregate information we
| have available, they pay much less than FAANGs.
|
| I said nothing about Tesla not being able to keep a staff
| due to low pay - just that I do not see any indication
| they are paid "well" compared to what other companies
| pay.
|
| If I worked at Twitter, I would be worried my salary
| would be frozen and pay/promotion scales re-adjusted.
| gjs278 wrote:
| bequanna wrote:
| Regarding the CA issues, as I noted on a similar comment:
|
| > I'm sure this is all 100% true and in no way backlash for
| Musk's decision to shift operations away from California
| and very loud criticism of CA's politicians/bureaucrats.
| thebradbain wrote:
| Tesla was found guilty by the court, and other employees
| have come out with evidence/witnesses of the same
| experiences and recordings/videos. Of course the state
| must pursue. The state _should_ have a legal grudge
| against Tesla -- if it's unsubstantiated, the courts (and
| Tesla's top-tier legal representation) will absolutely
| find that.
|
| Also, as a lifelong Texan and a recent Californian, if
| you don't think Texas will find a way to sink its
| political might into extracting as much wealth and
| political favors out of Tesla you are sorely mistaken. If
| you don't abide by the Texas governments whims, they will
| shut you down or run you out -- Tesla still isn't allowed
| to sell Teslas directly in the state, for example,
| because all car sales must go through a dealership; if
| you want to buy one, you must go to a different state
| (even if it was made in the state). Tesla's lobbying this
| latest legislative session didn't even get close to
| changing that, the amendment died in committee.
|
| https://cbsaustin.com/news/local/texas-law-keeps-teslas-
| made...
| bsimpson wrote:
| Our VP of Pronouns is going to be pissed when she reads this.
| [deleted]
| jfoster wrote:
| Depends on the person, doesn't it? If I were at Twitter, I
| would be excited about this. I would be expecting the work to
| become more challenging, but also more important.
| ashtonkem wrote:
| Praise for Elon tends to diminish the closer you get to him.
| He's kind of notorious for being a bad boss; impulsive, poor
| temperament, and petty. Even if you like his achievements,
| chances are you would very much not enjoy having him as a
| boss.
| jfoster wrote:
| From what I'd heard, he's the perfect boss; adverse to
| workplace politics, interested in truth & results above all
| else.
| Flankk wrote:
| I honestly could not care less. Steve Jobs was the same. I
| think you are criticizing the very things that made them
| great.
| [deleted]
| Latty wrote:
| The idea workers have to suffer under "great men" to
| produce things of value is provably untrue and just an
| excuse by those "great men" to act in unacceptable ways,
| while taking credit for the work done by those people.
|
| A good CEO can of course provide value, but pretending
| they are alone responsible for success, and abusing staff
| is a good way to achieve that success is just wrong.
| Burning out passionate people is a good way to create
| short-term profit, it isn't "greatness".
| EricE wrote:
| Suffer? What are these workers - slaves? Duped cult
| members?
|
| You people are crazy. Since when is hard work and
| ambition something to be scorned?
|
| It's pretty easy for you now, from your obvious position
| of wealth and privilege, to now ridicule those values
| which built the very civilization you are now inheriting
| and trashing. Talk about not having skin in the game.
| thwayunion wrote:
| I'm genuinely confused by your post. Do you personally
| know the person you're responding to? Nothing about his
| public information seems to warrant this level of
| vitriol, but maybe I'm missing something.
| Flankk wrote:
| If it were provably untrue then you would have proved
| your point. My opinion is not invalidated by your
| opinion.
| Latty wrote:
| My post wasn't saying that my entire point was provable,
| just that it was specifically trivial to show you _can_
| create great work without that suffering.
|
| If you can't think of a single example of a valuable
| thing being made by a company without an abusive auteur
| CEO, then I guess we see "value" very differently.
|
| The rest of my post argues that there is no way to
| justify that harm given we know the work can be achieved
| without it.
| sethammons wrote:
| "In the absence of data, I'll take my opinion over
| yours." - Former Boss
| ashtonkem wrote:
| It's kind of like how some actors really only get into
| "method acting" when it allows for them to behave like
| assholes on set. The idea that one must be a jerk to do
| "great things" is a self serving lie by rich and powerful
| people who want to excuse their misbehavior.
| memish wrote:
| Working for someone who transforms industries?
|
| Many do enjoy that very much, clearly. Amazing engineers,
| who can work anywhere they want, choose to work at SpaceX
| and Tesla. And we all benefit from the electrification of
| the grid and advances in space.
| [deleted]
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| Bad human beings can still contribute good things. That
| doesn't excuse bad behavior.
| EricE wrote:
| Hard work and ambition is now bad behavior? I weep for
| the future of humanity if this is the best we now have to
| offer each other :p
| ribosometronome wrote:
| Where did the person you are replying to indicate that
| "hard work" and "ambition" are the issues he is faulting?
| It seems like you're being rather disingenuous.
|
| Musk's bad behavior includes things like forcing Tesla
| employees back into office, against local health
| restriction, mocking trans-folk because an ex started
| dating a trans-woman, pumping and dumping cryptocurrency,
| posting multiple tweets that violate laws (stock and
| union related), repeatedly lying about his products, etc.
| jawarner wrote:
| Don't worship the man. Hard work and ambition are aspects
| of his character deserving respect, no doubt. But he's
| not perfect. Not all aspects of his character are worth
| emulating, and he has his blindspots like everyone else.
| panick21_ wrote:
| This is flat out not true. JB, Shotwell, Mueller, Riseman
| and I could name many more are mostly positive on him.
| beeboop wrote:
| How does Elon run his companies any differently than the vast
| majority of tech companies out there?
| yupper32 wrote:
| He compensates below market and his employees are expected to
| work harder than big tech companies.
|
| He can get away with it at SpaceX because, well,
| spaaacccceeee!
|
| I'm not sure how he gets away with it at Tesla.
| potatochup wrote:
| Racing cars and environmentalism is cooler than
| optimizating ad revenue.
| ranman wrote:
| because the stock grew like crazy and everyone got rich?
| Zelizz wrote:
| Anyone can buy the stock though, while working at a
| company that pays better and has better work/life
| balance. Is the stock grant particularly generous or is
| there a better-than-average employee discount on stock
| purchases?
| systemvoltage wrote:
| They're not slaves. They have choice. In fact, an unending
| list of jobs available in the tech industry.
|
| Why is it Tesla's / SpaceX fault for being a cool company
| for many people to work at and they're _willing_ to take a
| pay cut? It is 100% their choice.
|
| There is absolutely no counter argument here that I can
| see. I am trying.
| yupper32 wrote:
| I was responding to someone asking how they're different
| than any other tech company. They're known for
| underpaying and overworking people. That's how they're
| different than most others.
|
| The implication being that if Twitter switched to that
| culture, then it'd generally be a really bad thing for
| most of those who currently work there, since they did
| not sign up for that.
| grumple wrote:
| He's known for running his employees into the ground,
| generally treating people poorly. Pay is sub-par compared
| both to big tech for tech workers (although not really when
| the stock does well) and to skilled labor for laborers. You
| can compare ratings of the company on sites like Indeed to
| other big tech, and I'm sure you can find some articles about
| the working conditions (I recall some being published over
| the years).
|
| My former boss went there, his whole team quit shortly after,
| he got promoted twice and made a boatload of money from stock
| grants, and now he's one of the higher ranked engineers and a
| few of his family members went to work there as well. But
| these guys are workaholics, brilliant but not humans of
| normal working capacity. I think it a lot depends on your
| expectations.
| antattack wrote:
| 3.4 out of five stars is not bad. Low score due to lack of
| advancement. 3.0 for work life balance is pretty good:
|
| https://www.indeed.com/cmp/Tesla/reviews
| paxys wrote:
| They have a culture of overwork and moving fast. I was
| looking at job postings for SpaceX & Tesla a couple years
| ago, and every single one of them explicitly mentioned that
| you will be expected to work more than standard work hours
| and put in time on weekends, which is very different from all
| the other companies that stress work life balance. I'm sure
| it works for a lot of people, but you should be sure of what
| you are getting into. And I don't expect employees will stay
| happy if/when the Musk stock rally stops.
| ranman wrote:
| I worked at SpaceX. I was well compensated. It was a good
| time.
| jayzalowitz wrote:
| I didnt even have to find your username to know who this
| was...
| golergka wrote:
| As long as it's honestly communicated beforehand, and
| employees are not deceived about compensation and workload
| as they voluntary sign the contract, is it bad or immoral
| in any meaningful way?
| convery wrote:
| I'd say no. But given the trend of people calling 20
| hours a week "slavery", demanding debt forgiveness; and
| such. It seems like it's becoming a minority opinion to
| let consenting adults make their own informed decisions
| (and deal with the consequences of them)..
| fortyseven wrote:
| Oh, bullishit. Corporations will take every inch you give
| them, right up to the red line. Then that becomes
| "normal". And then you'll cheer them on for it, probably.
| Lamad123 wrote:
| He calls himself of founder of some things he never founded!
| panick21_ wrote:
| People are so obsessed with that detail. Elon and JB wanted
| to start their own company and they had the money.
|
| Tesla had no money and was going nowhere without Musk.
|
| Instead of creating his own company he agree to join forces
| and basically fund Tesla.
|
| Seems like not just starting a competitor was the nice
| thing to do. As doing so would have 100% doomed Tesla.
| mosselman wrote:
| I don't care either way. Nor about Tesla, nor about Musk.
| Calling yourself a founder when you aren't, regardless of
| the merits of him funding Tesla, is still very odd.
| joering2 wrote:
| I don't think the OP was referring to Tesla since
| technically they are a car company, not a "tech" company,
| but still you can find interviews with real founders of
| Tesla who stated on record they don't understand why Elon
| calls himself a "Tesla founder", but since they took his
| money, he is their boss (or was).
|
| I think he was referring to PayPal, a tech company. Even
| now all over the net you can see articles claiming Musk
| founded Paypal. Nothing further from the truth. Musk
| started X.com and designed a very simple page where you
| put two peoples email addresses and you "could" send them
| money. It was happening at the same time as PayPal had
| the same idea and similar website. Problem for PP was
| that back then no sane bank or financial institution
| would touch any company that is hooked up to the
| internet. Musk had a tremendous leverage because of the
| only bank who would go ahead and plug their gateway into
| the net (I believe it was Stanford Federal Credit Union,
| but I don't remember) was okay for doing it because
| personal leverage of Musk father, who owns multiple
| diamond mines in ZA, and put a huge collateral "just in
| case" something goes wrong. Musk didn't have to have a
| working website to have a $300,000,000 leverage over
| PayPal and PP knew it will be years before they get any
| bank to agree to work with them. It was smart for Thiel
| to offer large stake of PP for Musk just for ability to
| change which site will be using the bank's gateway. This
| story was somewhat easy to find and popular back in the
| old days of the internet, but - putting my conspiracy hat
| on - these days you find nothing about it at least not by
| Googling. So I don't really know - to me it doesn't sound
| he founded PayPal, they would eventually got their
| permission from some bank but at that point we would be
| X'ing each other money, not "Paypalling" it.
| panick21_ wrote:
| > record they don't understand why Elon calls himself a
| "Tesla founder"
|
| And I explained why it is really not that insane. It was
| basically him throwing them a bone, they should be
| grateful. And of course they were horrible and ran Tesla
| into the ground and hid facts from Elon.
|
| > I think he was referring to PayPal
|
| I don't think so.
|
| > X.com and designed a very simple page where you put two
| peoples email addresses and you "could" send them money.
| It was happening at the same time as PayPal had the same
| idea and similar website
|
| This is not true. X.com from the beginning was payment
| company. Confinity was originally a security company for
| Palm platform. From there they switched to payments.
|
| From Wikipedia:
|
| > In March 2000, Confinity merged with x.com, an online
| financial services company founded in March 1999 by Elon
| Musk.
|
| The two companies merged so all the people of both
| companies are rightly called founders. And non of the
| others disagree with that.
|
| > because personal leverage of Musk father, who owns
| multiple diamond mines in ZA
|
| Please provide evdience. This 'dimond mine' nonsense has
| mostly been discredited. The best researched story about
| that basically showed that it was like a 30k investment
| sometime in the 80s. Certainty not enough to convince a
| bank to do anything.
|
| Musk father was wealthy because he was an engineer.
|
| > This story was somewhat easy to find and popular back
| in the old days of the internet
|
| And well researched probably ...
| kyle_martin1 wrote:
| Lamad123 wrote:
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| Elon is the wealthiest person ever. He will bend Twitter to help
| all his existing businesses increase his wealth, all while making
| more money doing so. How could you possibly think otherwise?
| babl-yc wrote:
| If you think that Elon's pure objective is to get rich and live
| a lavish lifestyle, you haven't followed him very closely.
|
| My impression is that he uses his wealth mostly to invest in
| other ventures that he feels are important causes to him.
| choppaface wrote:
| For Musk, getting rich and living a lavish lifestyle is
| exactly the same as investing in causes he feels are
| important to him.
|
| The problem here isn't that Musk is necessarily greedier than
| any other majority shareholder, it's that Musk is greedy in a
| peculiar way that is at odds with so many other people in the
| world. It's important to embrace and understand differences,
| but put too much leverage behind one voice or vision and
| there will be consequences. And there's a lot of criticism
| and evidence that Musk does not use his leverage over others
| responsibly.
| alimov wrote:
| While I have a somewhat similar impression of his use of
| wealth I think it's important to remember that his public
| persona is well crafted. Following him "very closely" to me
| just means that the one doing the following is drinking all
| of the kool-aid
| babl-yc wrote:
| If you're interested in spaceflight and electric vehicles,
| it's impossible not to follow what he's working on. Being
| served the kool-aid is not the same as drinking it. He's
| imperfect -- his companies can be brutal to work for and he
| too often takes credit for his team's work -- but I find
| the passion for the companies he's part of as genuine.
| alimov wrote:
| Yeah the the companies are certainly involved in
| interesting work.
| daenz wrote:
| But he makes money from those ventures and is therefore
| immoral! /s
|
| I don't understand why so many people seem to hold the
| attitude that the only acceptable response to someone having
| money is to pressure them to squander it by giving it all
| away to atrociously inefficient systems (government,
| charities, etc). Making money is not immoral. And neither is
| using money to make investments to make more money.
| alimov wrote:
| It could be argued that the reason governments are
| "inefficient systems" (particularly in the US) is in large
| part due to the same people making ridiculous amounts of
| money. So while you're being sarcastic, and probably
| believe that you too "can make it" don't be surprised when
| you don't, and when the government becomes even less
| efficient because private interests keep using their wealth
| to strip it of anything useful to regular people.
| daenz wrote:
| The government is elected to represent the interests of
| the people. They bear the overwhelming responsibility for
| any corrupt deals made with "people making ridiculous
| amounts of money." It sounds like you're to assign blame
| to a business person for buying influence, instead of
| blaming the politician for selling it in the first place!
| If politicians stop selling influence, there is nothing
| to buy.
| alimov wrote:
| If only it was as simple as that.
| darkhorse222 wrote:
| Anyone can be critqued...
|
| 1) He exploits his workers with typical tech bro
| enthusiasm, working them to the bone. I hear terrible
| things about the work culture at his companies. 2) He
| claims the throne of innovator but many of his successes
| came from acquisitions which came from his rich parents who
| ran an exploitative emerald mine. 3) He manipulates the
| stock market openly. 4) He rarely keeps his promises.
|
| That being said I think he's alright. But it's not just the
| fact that he uses his money that people complain about him.
| bko wrote:
| What do you base this on? Seems there are a lot easier and less
| visible ways to increase your wealth. Real estate, sell your
| name out, crypto scams, etc.
| vasco wrote:
| He doesn't need to bend anything. If Elon wants to make some
| quick billions all he has to do is to buy any one of a million
| shitcoins, tweet some lame meme about it, sell and repeat.
| Admitedly he's done pretty much this with Tesla's venture into
| BTC, but the point stands.
| leesec wrote:
| Oh no, one of the world's most useful and brilliant people
| might make more money. :(
| [deleted]
| pinot wrote:
| Ever? Hardly
| astrea wrote:
| suyash wrote:
| You don't know who Elon is do you!
| [deleted]
| shon wrote:
| What would be the point?
| teawrecks wrote:
| What's the point of him being on the board of Twitter?
| Doesn't have enough going on otherwise?
| gordon_freeman wrote:
| Not "ever" for sure...[1]
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mansa_Musa
| sillysaurusx wrote:
| People always like to point to this guy, but he was a
| warlord. There's something to be said for a not-warlord
| achieving anything close.
| dchichkov wrote:
| Yes, but also he seem to be doing the right thing, so far.
| Unlike many others, who tend to waste resources on building
| yachts and bunkers.
| ipsin wrote:
| What are the practical effects likely to be, anyway?
|
| I'm wary of Musk because he comes from the same "memelord
| shitposter" tradition that has served the right wing so well in
| the past few years, but I don't think he's angling for the return
| of Trump?
| Uhhrrr wrote:
| It's easy to look at Musk's tweets and think he's just doing
| buying in so he can shitpost more effectively, but he is savvy
| enough to realize that Twitter is not nearly as valuable as it
| could be. Its reach is as huge as any network and anyone with a
| public presence "has to" be on it.
|
| The big knock against it is that users and brands are afraid of
| spontaneous howling mobs. Fewer users means less reach and fewer
| brands means less $$$. My guess would be that he has some ideas
| about how to change this. Maybe (spitballing here) more tools for
| users who are QT'd?
| jimbob45 wrote:
| I agree and people forget Twitter owned TikTok four years
| before TikTok was a thing (in the form of Vine). I'm still
| amazed that people take Twitter seriously as a business while
| they have still have board members around from when Vine was
| closed down. That kind of ignorance seems inexcusable to me.
| telotortium wrote:
| > Maybe (spitballing here) more tools for users who are QT'd
|
| Yes - slowing down the rate of Twitter pile ons would help a
| lot. Rate limiting QTs from non-followers would help a lot I
| think. You could even extend this to manual text quotations and
| screenshots, using either printer dots or OCR. Subtweeting is
| fine - the point should be to avoid making randos the "it"
| person on Twitter.
| system16 wrote:
| I hope that's the reason. I've always said Twitter has
| unbelievably untapped potential that for whatever reason, its
| current management is unable or unwilling to realize. Over the
| years they've kept the platform stagnant at best or filled with
| user dark patterns at worst. Not to mention their hostility to
| the developer community.
| lbriner wrote:
| I have obviously missed something but what is the main objection
| to Musk being part of Twitter's board?
| fallingknife wrote:
| Two reasons.
|
| - Haters who can't stand people more successful than them, and
| who is more successful than Elon Musk? So anything he does is
| terrible.
|
| - Since Trump, HN mostly supports social media censorship of
| opposing political ideas, and Elon Musk has expressed that he
| doesn't like this censorship.
| peeters wrote:
| I'm pretty neutral on Musk but he has an established track
| record of saying stupid shit on Twitter and ruining others'
| days/lives. Market manipulation, libel, trolling, etc. I guess
| I don't trust that a man with that kind of track record would
| be a positive influence on the social media hellscape we
| already have.
|
| This is acknowledging that he also shares awesome stuff, like
| technical SpaceX details, and that he often engages with people
| in a real cool way.
| NelsonMinar wrote:
| One problem is the culture he's created at his other companies.
|
| "Black Tesla employees describe a culture of racism: 'I was at
| my breaking point' "
| https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2022-03-25/black-tesl...
|
| "California sues Tesla, alleging rampant racism at factory"
| https://www.npr.org/2022/02/15/1080884899/california-sues-te...
|
| "Black workers accused Tesla of racism for years. Now
| California is stepping in"
| https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/feb/18/tesla-cal...
| bequanna wrote:
| I'm sure this is all 100% true and in no way backlash for
| Musk's decision to shift operations away from California and
| very loud criticism of CA's politicians/bureaucrats.
| jack_squat wrote:
| Do you think that's how it works? I have no idea, what's
| your evidence?
|
| California's actions seems pretty consistent with this to
| me: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca
| nd.31...
| bequanna wrote:
| > Do you think that's how it works? I have no idea,
| what's your evidence?
|
| Do I think that people leverage their positions of power
| in the govt to strike blows when they are offended or
| threatened? Absolutely.
| mywittyname wrote:
| He lost in court, multiple times. And he'll probably
| continue to lose.
|
| It's not that people in the government have a vendetta
| against him. He's just petulant and thinks himself above
| the law. So, while I'm sure it's enjoyable to to knock
| him down a peg, he's doing it to himself allowing
| blatantly illegal shit to happen in his companies.
| NelsonMinar wrote:
| It's remarkable how all the replies to my message here
| completely ignore the comments in the articles made by actual
| Tesla employees who've been victims of racism.
| SalmoShalazar wrote:
| People can't escape their ideologies. This website is as
| tribal as anywhere else (actually, honestly worse than the
| median). Accepting that Tesla fosters and promotes a racist
| work environment is unthinkable for ideologues of a certain
| stripe.
| [deleted]
| tim333 wrote:
| Tesla answered that quite well on their blog
| https://www.tesla.com/blog/dfehs-misguided-lawsuit
|
| I've not heard Musk being accused of being personally racist
| - that was more one contractor used racist language in the
| presence of some other contractor stuff.
| blueflow wrote:
| Is he doing like, bad things, or this is the regular everyday
| "racism" name-calling again?
|
| I'm having a "The boy who cried wolf" moment right now.
| boc wrote:
| Normally I'd agree, but his father made his fortune from
| emerald mining in apartheid South Africa. Elon went to an
| all-white prep school that explicitly didn't allow black
| students. There's a pretty high chance that Elon was raised
| in a household that may not have been amazing on the whole
| racism front.
| drooby wrote:
| This is probably not accurate.
|
| https://www.insidehook.com/article/history/errol-musk-
| elon-f...
|
| Looks like his fathers background is actually hard to pin
| down. A biographer of Musk believes his father made most
| of his wealth from his engineering business.
|
| > Elon was born on June 28, 1971, to Errol and his wife
| Maye Musk when they were both in their 20s. This is
| important because the parents divorced in 1979, nine
| years after getting married, and it wasn't until the
| mid-1980s that the emerald mine in question came into the
| picture.
|
| > The family owned one of the biggest houses in Pretoria
| thanks to the success of Errol's engineering business," a
| business that included "large projects such as office
| buildings, retail complexes, residential subdivisions,
| and an air force base." Elon even admitted his father is
| "brilliant at engineering" despite being an overall
| "terrible human being."
| sixQuarks wrote:
| HN has a bias against Elon Musk. That's pretty much what you
| need to know.
| rc_mob wrote:
| We have fair and objective criticism of Elon Musk. Your
| failures to accept or understand the criticism does not
| constitute "bias".
| panick21_ wrote:
| There is certainly fair criticsm but quite often people
| have totally aburd claims.
|
| Like he bought twitter because of flight bot.
|
| Or idiotic ideas about how everything he does is some 7D
| galaxy brain chess to achive some dubiously defined goals.
|
| Some people really go close to conspiricy theory mode and
| still get upvoted.
| mhh__ wrote:
| Or for Elon Musk, depends who you ask. HN is't a person's
| initials.
| sixQuarks wrote:
| Puh-lease. Bias means tendency to lean a certain way, you
| can't have bias in 2 opposite directions.
|
| The pro Elon crowd here is a minority. Something I'll never
| understand, being that this is an entrepreneurial forum and
| Elon is the worlds best entrepreneur. Jealousy perhaps?
| mhh__ wrote:
| What I'm saying is that you can't reduce the whole site
| down to one made up measure of bias.
|
| Maybe it is jealousy, maybe it's that he's a neurotic
| moron who's more than happy to try and ruin the careers
| of little people.
|
| How many of the great entrepreneurs of history got
| embarrassed after their scheme doesn't work and call
| their competitor a paedophile? You can recognize his
| skills while also recognizing that he's not a very nice
| man.
| 0F wrote:
| No, the bias is everywhere and HN is just reflecting that
| universal bias. It's very popular to dislike Elon musk
| and it's very unpopular to be a supporter. Count the
| number of supporters vs detractors in any mainstream
| thread -- musk haters will be the majority every single
| time despite the fact that his detractors refer
| constantly to a phantom army of supporters. Every Reddit
| thread is basically 100 people responding to non-existent
| "fan boy" straw men. And they also like to spread the
| falsehood that Elon musk used gem mine money to become
| successful. It's literally just made up nonsense.
|
| People like to act like his pedo tweet was some kind of
| crime against humanity. Let's have a look at your twitter
| if you're so indignant. People are such shameless
| hypocrites.
| mhh__ wrote:
| I have never called anyone a paedophile on the internet,
| no. Have you?
| 0F wrote:
| The average person has simultaneously been outraged at
| his pedo tweet and also tweeted the same or worse. Have
| you actually been on twitter? It's mostly irrational hate
| and insults
|
| Also I assume you're British so it's not the same. You
| people have a problem with pedophiles. You actually bleep
| out when people say the word and censor the word when
| people write it. It's like some kind of big deal over
| there. That's just you bro, nobody else is like that.
| mhh__ wrote:
| None of that last paragraph is true other than me being
| British.
|
| You're completely in the realms of fantasy. Seriously?
| 0F wrote:
| I've seen it so maybe uncommon but not untrue. But it's
| 100% true that British people have a weird problem with
| pedophilia, even compared to other western countries.
| Problem both in the sense that you all seem to be
| pedophiles and also in that the topic is enveloped in
| moral dogma.
| mhh__ wrote:
| I'm glad that I only seem to be a paedophile, that means
| I won't get found by the police for a little while yet.
| You should join in, it's fun.
| panick21_ wrote:
| He is involved in global conspiricy to manipulate
| Dogecoin so he can buy more Slave mines to mine cobalt.
| That a fact.
| honeybadger1 wrote:
| Jealousy indeed, I am a fan of Elon because I can
| appreciate that he is an engineer first in almost every
| way he communicates professionally. It is very obvious he
| keeps abreast to physics, engineering, and he even has
| core IT knowledge. I watched a 30 minute video where he
| spent 2 minutes explaining a trace route to a interviewer
| in detail and it made me like him even more.
| SalmoShalazar wrote:
| You could claim jealousy, but that's reductive. Elon Musk
| annoys a lot of people, for a plethora of reasons. It's
| pretty easy to find wide ranging genuine criticism of him
| from numerous perspectives, if you want to actually
| understand. Or you could hand wave it all away and claim
| jealousy I guess, just know it's a lazy explanation.
| jillesvangurp wrote:
| None; sounds like a good change for Twitter and probably the
| best thing that happened to their board in quite some time. I
| did laugh out loud when I heard about this yesterday. There is
| a more than a bit of history between Elon Musk and his many
| detractors and a lot of that involves Twitter. So, Elon Musk
| buying himself a seat on the board is more than a bit ironic.
|
| The man definitely seems to float from one controversy to
| another and quite a few of those controversies seem to involve
| Twitter. Buying a big share in Twitter is kind of a ballsy
| thing to do. But why not? Might I suggest shorting the stock if
| you disagree ;-).
| EricE wrote:
| The gatekeepers are loosing control - or so they feel. Always
| fun to watch totalitarians get the boot.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| tmp_anon_22 wrote:
| Its a modern incarnation of a billionaire buying a newspaper.
| Has that ever worked out well? Has it ever been altruistic?
| neilc wrote:
| I don't think Bezos' ownership of the Washington Post has
| gone badly so far.
| manquer wrote:
| Not much for WaPo perhaps, but for bezos that put him in
| the target sights of lot of people
|
| Many of them state sponsored like Saudi government which
| targeted him after kashtogi.
|
| He also got hacked and his dick pics were maybe
| compromised.
|
| Those hacks could have accelerated his divorce too.
| topspin wrote:
| And yet, in a remarkable display of self unawareness, WaPo
| has declared[1] that Musk's move "Could Be Bad News for
| Free Speech."
|
| [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/elon-musks-
| twitter-i...
| jdrc wrote:
| Bezos is not happy
| https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/elon-musks-twitter-i...
| AustinDev wrote:
| The linked article is from Bloomberg so you can add him to
| the list people who are big mad.
| ausbah wrote:
| likely something about the platform not promoting free speech
| enough via overreaching censorship, interpret that how you like
| mynameisvlad wrote:
| A decent chunk of people in the previous thread were saying
| he's doing it to kill the bot that tracks his plane's
| movements. In general, he seems to be an active enough user
| that there's concerns he will use his new power as a way to
| shield himself from the consequences of his activity.
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| >A decent chunk of people in the previous thread were saying
| he's doing it to kill the bot that tracks his plane's
| movements
|
| Those people are idiots though. The kid said he would turn
| off the bot for $50k. You think Elon bought 9% of Twitter to
| avoid paying $50k?
| root_axis wrote:
| I don't think it's about that, but I am absolutely sure
| that Musk would sooner pay 100x the cost in order to send a
| "fuck you" to someone that rankled him rather than take the
| ego hit and pay the 50k even if it's a pittance to him.
| daemoens wrote:
| No it's because it's extremly simple to setup another
| account to do the exact same thing. You'd have 10 new
| ones the next day asking for the same amount.
| panick21_ wrote:
| That a totally insane take. Maybe if it was Bezos or
| somebody. Not for some kid.
| root_axis wrote:
| Not insane at all, Elon has a long history of petty
| behavior.
| therouwboat wrote:
| Its not like he lost that money, twitter stock is up 20%.
| scop wrote:
| By "shield himself from the consequences of his activity" I
| think Elon literally meant "I don't want to get shot by some
| crazy person following my movements". No perfect solution,
| but I can get his motivation.
| manquer wrote:
| Buying Twitter is hardly solving the problem.
|
| The content creator can just move to Facebook/Instagram or
| /tiktok or wherever.
| mynameisvlad wrote:
| ADS data is public. Just because a Twitter bot puts it in a
| nice easy to digest format doesn't mean the data isn't out
| there, and there's nothing Elon or really anyone can do
| about it.
|
| It is trivial to track a plane if you have its tail number
| and Elon only flies on a small number of jets.
|
| And, no, by "shield himself from the consequences of his
| activities", I mean things like calling someone a pedophile
| on Twitter. He is one of the biggest Twitter drama quee s
| and it would be a lot easier to clean up his messes if he
| practically owns the company.
| E4YomzYIN5YEBKe wrote:
| Voter registrations make people's home addresses public
| information (in many states) but posting that on Twitter
| violates their doxxing rules.
| mynameisvlad wrote:
| Doxxing is very specific-- you are revealing the link
| between the pseudonymous account and the holder. Elon
| Musk is a public figure, and posts under his own account.
|
| Additionally, a jet plane, whether private or public,
| does not have any rights. You cannot "doxx" an airplane.
| Aside from the practical benefits that ADS-B provides,
| the public nature of it holds everyone accountable.
| peeters wrote:
| Plenty of things are public but are unethical to
| broadcast, and can range from benign to extremely creepy
| or harassment.
| scop wrote:
| I find this to be incredible news. I used to think Elon-hype was
| stupid, but both (a) his achievements and (b) his mind have
| gotten me to be an admirer.
|
| Re (a) achievements, the man has basically bootstrapped space
| travel and electric vehicles. Seems like a big deal. Yes, I know
| it's more _nuanced_ than that, but you get the point. Can you
| name someone else who broke through two fundamentally stalled
| /deadlocked industries on such scale? Now here he is putting his
| plow to the field of one of the most difficult problems of our
| age: information and social media.
|
| Re (b) his mind, I have been very impressed by his interviews on
| podcasts as well as his willingness to go on various long-form
| podcasts. He seems to be somebody who is very eager to learn
| about a great variety of fields (history, software, hardware,
| physics). He also seems to take great care in extrapolating side-
| effects down a chain of events in order to think in a complex way
| of "what would happen if we do X". The world is not black & white
| and Elon seems to operate very comfortably in known & unknowns.
|
| I don't agree with everything Elon says or does. But it's so
| bloody stupid that I have to even say that. What sort of bubble
| do you live in where you actually have various people who you
| fully agree with across all spectrums? Get out in the real world
| for goodness sake.
|
| We need more Elon Musks.
|
| Addendum:
|
| (he also posts dank memes while on the pot, which is another
| plus)
| nebula8804 wrote:
| He is never really challenged with uncomfortable\difficult
| questions on his interviews. The one time I recall he was asked
| an uncomfortable question he threatened to end the interview.
|
| [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYOI8h9-uXs
|
| I cannot find the complete interview on YouTube unfortunately.
|
| In this other interview, I am disappointed at how she didn't
| even push on some of his answers, for example when talking
| about his "rabid fan base". You just need to look at this
| thread for proof.
|
| [2]:https://youtu.be/sM9RyZT0Rrg?t=219
|
| Also, she is not as technically informed about the mistakes his
| companies made. Would love someone to challenge him on the
| obvious mistakes he has made with Tesla that everyone else in
| the industry were adamant would be failures. Things such as the
| "Alien Dreadnaught" were repeats of documented mistakes that GM
| and Ford made back in the 80s. Even technical interviewers
| always gush over him about how amazing he is and never
| challenge him. They all just don't want to lose access.
| marban wrote:
| The expensive way to get yourself an edit button for tweets.
| loceng wrote:
| The profitable way to get yourself an edit button for tweets;
| Elon's ~$3 billion stake now worth ~$4 billion.
|
| Making $1 billion by simply spending $3 billion is pretty
| sweet.
| jdrc wrote:
| Expensive is relative
| mosselman wrote:
| He has $260 billion and spent $2 billion to buy himself into
| one of the biggest communication platforms ever.
|
| Some people have about $260.00 in their name and spend $6 at
| Starbucks on some caramel coffee.
| cityzen wrote:
| in other words, trump will be back on twitter soon
| werber wrote:
| I kinda thought twitter was just a porn company now.
| JoshTko wrote:
| One single feature can solve the spambot problem, monetization
| problem, and comment quality. Pay to comment - the cost scaling
| up based on the follower count of the tweeter. You comment is
| free if enough whitelisted folks like your comment. Note, this is
| just pay to comment. Tweeting should remain free. The whitelist
| would be ~10% of users. List initially aglo determined and long
| term curated manually.
| suyash wrote:
| Much needed change, I would hope he will fire the CEO and the
| existing leadership at Twitter and replace them with those who
| really want to make Twitter a neutral, respected platform for
| discussion.
| boppo1 wrote:
| is the current ceo less neutral than Jack was?
| rednerrus wrote:
| I know it's not popular but I like the fact that he's annoyed and
| did something about it.
| breadbreadbread wrote:
| "doing something about it" is a privilege awarded by wealth,
| not competency. He could have installed someone with experience
| in free speech advocacy and policy but he took it for himself.
| People need to seriously understand that being good at one
| thing doesnt make you good at all things. There are people who
| dedicate their entire careers to understanding the challenges
| of enacting "free speech" (which is often more complicated than
| just "no moderation"). Elon Musk not that, he is the guy with 5
| companies who is mad that people dont like him.
| [deleted]
| kache_ wrote:
| He's not popular on hacker news. He's definitely popular
| tim333 wrote:
| I'd say there's a mixed reaction on HN. I think he's kinda
| cool with the 0-60 in 2 secs cars and trying to make mankind
| multiplanetary but the haters seem much more inclined to
| post.
|
| It seems a little contrary to the - Have curious
| conversation; .... Please don't sneer... guidelines. A lot of
| sneering going on when Musk gets a mention.
| sterlind wrote:
| I'm in a similar boat. I like what he's achieved with
| SpaceX, Tesla and Starlink. I don't like his views on trans
| people (which are ironic, considering he named his
| droneships after Culture Minds), as well as his
| inflammatory character. Art vs. Artist and all that.
| sixQuarks wrote:
| What are his views on trans people?
| sterlind wrote:
| I don't think he has any well-articulated principles
| about us, just mocking. Like changing his Twitter name to
| "Elona" and posting shitty memes in response to his ex
| dating Chelsea Manning, along with posting that gender
| pronouns are "dumb." 4chan Twitter troll cringe,
| basically.
|
| I don't believe much in canceling and like what SpaceX is
| doing, I just don't like Musk making fun of people like
| me and so I'd sooner work for his competitors than for
| him.
| dnissley wrote:
| The word we're searching for here is "divisive"
| rc_mob wrote:
| I was hoping "unpopular" would be the word we used
| deltarholamda wrote:
| The people I agree with are visionaries.
|
| The people I disagree with are divisive.
| [deleted]
| dnissley wrote:
| Definitely a visionary, no argument here
| zen_of_prog wrote:
| Guess that makes you a visionary too
| ollien wrote:
| I know the point you're trying to make, but I can't
| imagine that even the largest Elon Musk fanboys would
| disagree that he's divisive. At best, I can imagine them
| saying it's not his fault and people overreact, but
| that's still recognition of the divisiveness.
| deltarholamda wrote:
| Why is Elon described as divisive? Because it sounds bad.
|
| Ruth Bader Ginsburg was never described as divisive,
| though she was objectively more divisive than a rich guy
| who makes cars and rocket ships and flamethrowers.
| Antonin Scalia _was_ described as divisive, so the
| argument can 't be made that SC justices are somehow
| different.
|
| It's a rhetorical trick that's been used for many
| decades. It's obvious, and it's tiresome.
| [deleted]
| m463 wrote:
| maybe controversial? Personally I'm behind 95% of what he
| does, but the square steering wheel/take away driver
| control thing is annoying.
| paxys wrote:
| Doesn't hurt that him buying 10% of Twitter is equivalent to
| the average person buying a new computer.
| manquer wrote:
| 4 billion is still a lot of money even for him.
|
| Also liquid assets for investment are harder for people that
| rich so still likely a major decision.
|
| Either he used proceeds from last year stock sales or he
| leveraged some Tesla stock for this .
| dlp211 wrote:
| Can we stop with this fiction. Billionaires can easily
| liquidate their equity assets and do so regularly.
| manquer wrote:
| I am not saying it is a lot of risk for him. I am saying
| moving that kind of money is a major operation.
|
| Twitter trading volumes are not so high that anyone can
| just come in make a 4 billion buy order .
|
| Acquiring 10% stock of any public company without
| upsetting the price to much takes time and effort [1]
|
| It is not some whimsical impluse buy, no matter how much
| money he has , this was calculated buy he must have
| considered for a while.
|
| Jack Dorsey stepping down probably helped him to decide
| to make a move, a hostile founder CEO can make it ugly.
| Especially somebody like Jack who has another very high
| value startup and doesn't derive his wealth from just
| Twitter can make it expensive and ugly if he choose to.
|
| [1]- unless someone is selling you a block trade outside
| of the market. No institutional investors have left or
| reduced their stake that much in the last quarter so Elon
| couldn't have used this route
| [deleted]
| colinmhayes wrote:
| $4 billion is a lot of money. Having a lot of money doesn't
| change the amount of stuff $4billion can buy.
| seabird wrote:
| This incorrect idea that there's any trivial way to make a $4
| billion purchase is popular because most people don't
| understand money in those amounts. It's fine if you have a
| problem with extreme wealth, but if this is how you think of
| it, you might not be seeing the actual problems.
| johnla wrote:
| Can't argue that he puts his money where his mouth is. He's
| just not just a passive critic.
| jdrc wrote:
| I sympathize but very rich people owning the media never ends
| well
| memish wrote:
| Who owns the media and big tech now??? It's not poor people!
|
| At least Elon Musk is a very rich person who believes in free
| speech. Which is good for us poors. Twitter and the national
| discourse will be objectively better for working class voices
| as a result. Less so for the gatekeepers and media elite
| commentariat.
| rc_mob wrote:
| Elon Musk definitely does not believe in free speech that
| criticizes Elon Musk.
| jesushax wrote:
| chollida1 wrote:
| > At least Elon Musk is a very rich person who believes in
| free speech
|
| Tell that to the people who released valid short research
| on Tesla.
| [deleted]
| rplnt wrote:
| > At least Elon Musk is a very rich person who believes in
| free speech.
|
| He believes in his free speech. Maybe. Definitely not when
| it comes to people who work for him or people that
| criticize him.
| sillysaurusx wrote:
| What evidence is there of this?
|
| Honestly this thread has been pushing me more towards the
| Musk camp, which I didn't think was possible. But not one
| person seems to be able to point to specific, concrete
| criticisms with references.
| rplnt wrote:
| I mean, it's covered enough in media.
|
| e.g.: https://www.businessinsider.com/free-speech-
| absolutist-elon-...
|
| His reactions towards criticism (like harassing or
| banning journalist criticizing Tesla, or that whole
| fiasco with his submarine) are always well covered too.
| And while it's not exactly suppressing free speech, that
| level of pettiness doesn't look too good.
|
| Also, how is this pushing you towards the Musk camp? (The
| fact that there's such thing, and there is, is troubling
| on its own)
| psyc wrote:
| If you believe every free speech proponent _secretly_
| means speech they like, you may be projecting. To be
| fair, I may also be projecting.
| shmde wrote:
| > At least Elon Musk is a very rich person who believes in
| free speech.
|
| Yes thats exactly why he was willing to shell out 50,000$
| to a kid to remove his flight tracking bot.
|
| Stop licking his boot.
| sixQuarks wrote:
| Oh wow, what a great example. You have totally changed my
| mind. /s
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| The kid asked for $50k, Elon said no, which is why the
| bot is still up. In any case, paying someone to shut up
| is no violating their free speech.
| sdfgdf wrote:
| srveale wrote:
| Neither is a private company deciding what they will
| allow on their platform
| memish wrote:
| Nice projection. Who is licking the boots here?
|
| 1. Those who back authoritarian style censorship
| conducted in opaque fashion
|
| 2. Those who back free speech and transparency
| dlp211 wrote:
| Yes, I too can't wait for the entire internet to be
| 4chan.
|
| There is no such thing as absolute free speech and I have
| no idea where you all are coming up with this idea. By
| definition, absolute free speech cannot exist because
| your speech ends where mine begins. Free speech does not
| mean free from moderation or consequences and criticisms,
| both are forms of speech themselves. There is no
| authoritarian censorship going on here.
| krapp wrote:
| >There is no such thing as absolute free speech and I
| have no idea where you all are coming up with this idea.
|
| As with so many plagues on American society and current
| political discourse, this came from Trump supporters,
| specifically angry at being banned from social media
| platforms for hate speech and disinformation, and
| suddenly deciding that rules and social consequences for
| their behavior were a violation of their civil rights.
| The attempt to redefine free speech is part of a movement
| to impugn social media platforms as engaging in
| widespread politically motivated suppression of free
| speech, with the implication they need to be forced by
| law to host the kind of content they would otherwise
| refuse to.
| MockObject wrote:
| > absolute free speech
|
| This is a strawman argument, that nobody seriously
| proposed.
| arjun_krishna1 wrote:
| Ummm... This is still up? https://twitter.com/ElonJet
| syshum wrote:
| Offering someone $50K to stop doing something == Free
| Association and Free Market
|
| Advocating Totalitarian controls via Terms of Service,
| and/or Government !== Free Association
|
| Come back when it attempts to have Twitter ban this
| persons account, then you may have a case, offering an
| monetary incentive for someone to change their behavior
| is not censorship in any form.
|
| Stop being a tool
| jpadkins wrote:
| isn't by definition that very rich people own the media? Or
| was there a time period where the media wasn't very
| profitable and the people who owned them weren't very rich?
| ariedro wrote:
| Because that wasn't happening in the first place?
| jdrc wrote:
| The comparable cases are Bezos & Zuck, the parallel is
| Berlusconi. Yes it's all scary
| Loughla wrote:
| What does that matter? The original question was:
|
| >I sympathize but very rich people owning the media never
| ends well
|
| How does the history of the ultra-wealthy controlling the
| narrative in media for their own gain change that
| statement?
| [deleted]
| dalbasal wrote:
| I don't think this counts as "done something about it." At
| least not yet.
| rrix2 wrote:
| guelo wrote:
| Can't wait for the "Twitter is a public utility" argument to
| switch partisan sides.
| [deleted]
| gotaquestion wrote:
| So does his new free speech wagon mean disinfo is back on the
| menu at twitter, and a return of the former president*?
| bjt2n3904 wrote:
| The comments in this thread are a gold mine.
|
| 1) Twitter doesn't ban people for wrong think! That's a myth!
|
| 2) Musk was accused of racism!
|
| 3) Musk isn't doing this for freedom of speech, he's only doing
| it for his own interests!
|
| I want to see the Venn Diagram of people who said one of these
| things, and were glibly sharing XKCD #1357 whenever someone got
| banned from Twitter that they disagree with.
|
| The tides have started to slowly turn, and all they can do is
| play the same three cards over and over: "that's not true, this
| is racism, capitalism bad!"
|
| Surprise! Nobody believes this anymore. They're sick and tired of
| being told what to believe by "experts". They're tired of you
| crying wolf. And they're tired of being gaslit that none of this
| is happening.
| philosopher1234 wrote:
| I doubt you actually understand the people who make these
| criticisms.
| ComradePhil wrote:
| > Twitter is a private company, it can do what it wants
|
| > Elon Musk: _buys ~10% and lays out intension to make
| changes_
|
| > No, not like that
| jdrc wrote:
| cloutchaser wrote:
| This seems like a silly post on first reading, but actually
| thinking about it, that would mean the first amendment actually
| applies to Twitter right? In which case it would actually mean
| government can't interfere with it?
|
| It's an interesting mind exercise. What happens with blatant
| spamming, or bots, is the government allowed to interfere with
| those? Or does the 1st amendment block that too?
| nonameiguess wrote:
| The government already owns a support foundation for
| publicly-owned broadcasters (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co
| rporation_for_Public_Broadca...). Nothing about the 1st
| Amendment seems to prevent these broadcasters from
| restricting access to their airwaves. Anyone with a camera or
| mic can't just walk into a PBS studio and start transmitting
| whatever message they want. The Public Broadcasting Act of
| 1972 that created the CPB does stipulate that it has to be
| objective and balanced when dealing with controversial
| subjects, but it doesn't say every single person with a
| voice, no matter what they want to say, needs to be allowed
| to speak.
|
| I aint no lawyer, of course, but this doesn't seem
| inconsistent with other arenas of free speech. Even literal
| public squares don't have infinite space. If some group tried
| to go occupy a government-owned park with a few thousand
| people more or less permanently, preventing anyone else from
| ever getting access, that would be illegal. Rationing and
| rate-limiting are not censorship, though presumably at least
| some people subject to it will probably try to say they are.
| jdrc wrote:
| But twitter isn't inherently limited by airtime or
| bandwidth, it's in principle infinite.
| shkkmo wrote:
| PBS is a publisher, not a platform, and is legally liable
| for the content they publish in a way that Twitter is not.
|
| > Rationing and rate-limiting are not censorship, though
| presumably at least some people subject to it will probably
| try to say they are.
|
| When rationing and rate-limiting are applied on the basis
| of the content of the speech, then yes is is absolutely
| censorship and there are supreme court cases to back that
| up.
| spsful wrote:
| So many people compare twitter to the national government
| (even Elon) and make the case that their censorship is akin
| to a violation of free speech. I would say they need a civics
| class more than anything.
|
| But in terms of a nationalized social media network, I can't
| imagine it going well. The lack of innovation in the
| government would probably mean the site gets overwhelmed and
| taken down shortly after it was made.
| robbedpeter wrote:
| Nuisance on public infrastructure - like loitering and
| littering, some trolling and all spam could become
| misdemeanors subject to enforcement. Twitter officers lol.
| Imagine joining the fbi and ending up manning the Twitter
| troll patrol.
|
| Absurd idea, but amusing consequences if you ignore the
| obvious roadblocks.
| incomingpain wrote:
| >This seems like a silly post on first reading, but actually
| thinking about it, that would mean the first amendment
| actually applies to Twitter right?
|
| Without Section 230 Twitter would be liable for every evil
| thing that is said on their platform.
|
| What Section 230 does is create a category in which you are
| not liable for the content on the platform but they
| specifically setup limited rules for what can be censored.
| All censorship must be done in good faith. Lewd, obscene,
| harassment etc is censorable. But again good faith, you cant
| just say everything is harassment or obscene so you can
| censor speech.
|
| So absolutely, twitter is legally obligated to allow free
| speech. The big controversy is that they are clearly in
| violation of this but nobody is punishing them. They just get
| away with it.
|
| >It's an interesting mind exercise. What happens with blatant
| spamming, or bots, is the government allowed to interfere
| with those? Or does the 1st amendment block that too?
|
| No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall
| be held liable on account of-
|
| (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict
| access to or availability of material that the provider or
| user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy,
| excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable,
| whether or not such material is constitutionally protected;
| or
|
| So twitter could ban porn under lewd category but they choose
| not to do. Same with gore and obscenity in general.
|
| You dont have to censor these things, but you can if you
| please.
|
| Censoring political speech under any of those categories is
| going to be virtually impossible to justify that they are
| doing this in good faith.
| shkkmo wrote:
| You seem slightly confused about what 230 does. What it
| does is allow companies to do some moderation without
| legally liable as publishers for all content they host.
| Without section 230 companies have a choice to either do no
| moderation or to assume full liability as publishers.
|
| Section 230 was created to encorage online moderation by
| removing the liability that moderation would bring in an
| offline context.
| incomingpain wrote:
| >You seem slightly confused about what 230 does. What it
| does is allow companies to do some moderation without
| legally liable as publishers for all content they host.
|
| I did copy and paste the law. It's clear to me what is
| says and the free speech that is required. Censorship
| must be done in good faith.
|
| >Without section 230 companies have a choice to either do
| no moderation or to assume full liability as publishers.
|
| Without section 230 they would assume full liability as
| publisher.
|
| >Section 230 was created to encorage online moderation by
| removing the liability that moderation would bring in an
| offline context.
|
| Section 230 was created to allow entities like twitter to
| exist. Without section 230 twitter stops existing.
|
| Let's be realistic, Elon just put $9 billion down because
| his poll showed significant problem with censorship.
| Fixing this will take twitter from $40 billion to much
| higher.
| pmyteh wrote:
| There was case law before s.230 was passed, which said
| what parent claimed: if you moderated your content you
| carried liability as a publisher, if you were careful not
| to look at what went up on your service then you didn't.
| s.230 was added to the Communications Decency Act
| specifically to remove that perverse incentive in order
| to encourage 'family friendly' moderation. That's it. It
| doesn't anywhere require good faith. The entire
| legislative history is on record. And it long predates
| Twitter.
| incomingpain wrote:
| >There was case law before s.230 was passed,
|
| The CDA was from 1996. What social media predated 1996?
| Even ICQ does not predate the CDA.
|
| > It doesn't anywhere require good faith.
|
| I literally copy and pasted the law. It literally has the
| words good faith in it.
|
| >The entire legislative history is on record. And it long
| predates Twitter.
|
| Section 230 long predated all of the things. It is how
| they function today.
| pmyteh wrote:
| 'Social media' in the web 2.0 sense is post 1996, but
| there were plenty of websites with comments sections and
| online forums before that. Cases over intermediary
| liability for online content have some antiquity; in
| Cubby v. CompuServe (776 F. Supp. 135; S.D.N.Y. 1991),
| for example, CompuServe were found non-liable because
| they had no first-hand knowledge of the defamatory
| posting. Whereas in Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy (No.
| 31063/94, 1995 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 229; N.Y. Sup. Ct. May
| 24, 1995) Prodigy were found liable as the publisher
| because they'd set content rules and run a filter over
| users' contributions. Congress thought that latter result
| was unhelpful (because it incentivised people to run
| cesspools rather than to actively moderate them) and
| legislated.
|
| And sorry, I should have been clearer on good faith. The
| section preventing providers being liable as a publisher
| (which is the core of s.230's value to social media
| platforms) has no good faith requirement. "No provider or
| user of an interactive computer service shall be treated
| as the publisher or speaker of any information provided
| by another information content provider." (s.230(c)1) is
| the whole clause. Platforms don't acquire intermediary
| liability even if they delete every post praising the
| Yankees while laughing maniacally and falsely claiming
| it's a result of profanity use. They simply aren't
| "treated as the publisher or speaker" full stop.
|
| The good faith language comes from (c)2, which further
| limits liability (to the speaker) for good faith removals
| on the grounds that the speech might be offensive. That's
| not an intermediary liability issue, as such, though.
| incomingpain wrote:
| >The good faith language comes from (c)2, which further
| limits liability (to the speaker) for good faith removals
| on the grounds that the speech might be offensive. That's
| not an intermediary liability issue, as such, though.
|
| We are arguing over a moot point. If section 230 or
| whatever does not provide for free speech. Then that is
| what needs to be improved upon. Perhaps make it more
| clear that free speech is guaranteed.
| shkkmo wrote:
| > If section 230 or whatever does not provide for free
| speech. Then that is what needs to be improved upon.
|
| The problem is that people have wildly different takes on
| how to "fix" section 230.
|
| One group wants to eliminate the liability protections,
| regardless of how much moderating you do. The concern is
| that this basically makes hosting user generated content
| at any sort of scale impractical from a business
| perspective since scaling competent human review to
| reduce the legal liability below the value per user is
| impractical for any sort of modern social media.
|
| One group want so eliminate section 230 so only companies
| that do no moderation have liability protection, forcing
| social media companies to stop doing any moderation. The
| concern here is that some level of moderation of abuse /
| spam seems necessary to keep platforms from degrading
| into wastelands that no-one wants to use.
|
| The moderate middle ground is reforming section 230 to
| limit the types of moderation activity that can be
| performed without losing liability protection.
|
| This last seems politically unlikely as it doesn't
| provide a political win, despite being good for society.
|
| One group wants to eliminate
| papercrane wrote:
| > The CDA was from 1996. What social media predated 1996?
| Even ICQ does not predate the CDA.
|
| Forums existed well before 1996. Both CompuServe and
| Prodigy were found liable for things people posted on
| forums on their platforms.
| incomingpain wrote:
| >Forums existed well before 1996. Both CompuServe and
| Prodigy were found liable for things people posted on
| forums on their platforms.
|
| Dont take me as opposing the CDA. I think Section 230 is
| superb and necessary.
|
| What I believe is that we simply enforce the rules. Free
| speech is guaranteed on twitter.
| papercrane wrote:
| Your reading of the "good faith" requirement is not in
| line with how it's been interpreted by the courts.
|
| https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-
| referre...
| barelysapient wrote:
| I think that's a solid read.
|
| The social media platforms need some sort of speech
| regulation enforced on them. Imagine if AT&T cut off your
| phone call because you started talking about Donald Trump or
| Hunter Biden's laptop.
|
| Social media companies enjoy immunity under Section 230 of
| the Communications Decency Act[1] but then editorialize their
| platform to allow only conversations socially acceptable.
|
| Enforcing free speech on the platforms, as its accepted today
| by the courts[2], with criminal penalties for noncompliance,
| is the only solution.
|
| [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 [2]
| https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-
| re...
| divs1210 wrote:
| please tell me you're joking?
| agilob wrote:
| Yes, Russia should nationalize it :)
| sbarre wrote:
| So while this one-liner comment seems to be drawing ire, I do
| think it brings up a difficult point.
|
| As more and more of our civic discourse moves online, there are
| no "public spaces" online where the rule of law and public
| interest comes first.
|
| There is no town square, no soapbox in the park, no public
| access TV, or the ability for masses to organize and march or
| protest (or whatever the online equivalent is), with only the
| government's laws as written to contend with.
|
| Everything (that has meaningful reach and impact) is private,
| and all these meeting and communication spaces have a company
| with shareholders and therefore goals and motivations that
| override public interest.
|
| I certainly don't have the answer to this problem but this
| erosion is a problem that will need to be reckoned with at some
| point.
| zdragnar wrote:
| We have never had a public town square larger than a literal
| town square, excepting maybe ham radio. Every other space has
| in some way been moderated or fashioned to purpose. Even
| public TV, news and radio are groomed to certain standards.
| sbarre wrote:
| And yet we've had demonstrations and protests that have
| drawn hundreds of thousands of people, perhaps millions,
| into the streets around the world to demand change or rally
| around causes.
|
| Where does that happen online, with the guarantees afforded
| by only the rule of law?
| zdragnar wrote:
| Various governments have ways to petition online.
| Change.org or whatever is reasonably open to things
| covered by the first amendment, though of course it is
| privately controlled without real guarantees.
| coldpie wrote:
| I think we do, it's called the DNS. Buy a domain and put
| whatever you like on it. It does get hard/expensive if you
| get a truly massive audience, but that has always been true.
| You are not and have never been owed the benefits of someone
| else's platform, but it's still easier now to have a truly
| public discussion than ever before.
| jdrc wrote:
| Yup, we actually need public twitters. Nothing fancy, no
| recommendations, not even sophisticated antispam, just simple
| follow list like rss with feedback. People can learn the
| self-curate
| [deleted]
| sbarre wrote:
| Sure but who owns and runs that? Who is responsible for the
| infrastructure costs, the operations of it, the uptime,
| etc..
|
| The government? Which government? The Internet is global,
| so would you have a public Twitter for every country? How
| do you geo-restrict this then? Whose laws apply? How is it
| reported or enforced? Do we need "Twitter cops"?
|
| You can throw out easy answers all you want but it's
| actually a really complex issue.
| jdrc wrote:
| The govt, municipalities etc. Public spaces are public
| and the whole thing can be decentralized so it s not
| compute and bw heavy. It should be very cheap compared to
| e.g. roads
| sbarre wrote:
| You are grossly oversimplifying the technical and
| governance effort required to do something like this.
| krapp wrote:
| Yes, because when the American government controls Twitter, you
| can be certain all views will be respected and treated
| impartially...
| jdrc wrote:
| Does American government censor the press? Or mail?
| krapp wrote:
| America just had a President who explicitly declared the
| press to be the enemy of the people.
|
| Ignoring the degree to which the American press voluntarily
| acts as a propaganda platform[0], the US government
| absolutely does censor the press, by revoking or
| controlling press credentials, arresting reporters covering
| protests, harassment, etc[1].
|
| And the US has historically censored the mail, yes, usually
| during wartime. But the bigger problem is surveillance -
| the USPS tracks, photographs and logs all paper mail for
| government surveillance and law enforcement[2]. The USPS
| also has a 'covert operations' division that monitors
| social media posts[3].
|
| You could (correctly) claim that this isn't nearly as bad
| as the surveillance and censorship regimes elsewhere, but
| it's difficult to see how making that easier by giving the
| government direct control over a primary means of global
| communication makes it less likely.
|
| [0]https://www.thoughtco.com/how-media-censorship-affects-
| the-n...
|
| [1]https://fair.org/home/us-censorship-is-increasingly-
| official...
|
| [2]https://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/04/us/monitoring-of-
| snail-ma...
|
| [3]https://www.salon.com/2021/04/21/is-the-post-office-
| spying-o...
| sbarre wrote:
| During the Trump administration, their vindictive treatment
| of the press and the selective removal of access to the
| White House by outlets not toeing the line more or less
| amounted to quasi-censorship in practice.
| jdrc wrote:
| Small potatoes compared to the ugliness around the world
| lkbm wrote:
| Other governments' behavior isn't a relevant comparison.
| The discussion isn't "Should the US nationalize Twitter
| or should China?"
| jdrc wrote:
| Ok then, if comparing censorship by the us govt vs
| private companies it's clear who wins
| onpensionsterm wrote:
| In living memory, through McCarthyism.
| zionic wrote:
| >McCarthyism
|
| Isn't that "ism" largely discredited? He was right, the
| government/institutions _were_ full of communists. Today
| they've rebranded as socialists, but to my knowledge
| everything he fought against came to pass.
|
| Attaching the -ism label is just a thought-terminating
| cliche.
| Miner49er wrote:
| Communists should have freedom of speech too?
| mardifoufs wrote:
| It maybe wasn't "full of communists" but you are right
| that project VENONA has shown that McCarthy wasn't
| totally wrong either. Institutions were deeply
| inflitrated at all levels.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venona_project
| the_only_law wrote:
| I wonder what the overlap between those accused by
| McCarthy and those who were actually spies.
| ALittleLight wrote:
| I guess that depends if you consider WikiLeaks part of the
| press.
| sebow wrote:
| Nationalizing in the traditional sense is not the solution,
| indeed, but rather hold the platform up to the letter of the
| constitution. This right now is not exactly possible given
| that "twitter is a private company", therefore arguably if
| one puts it in the hands of the government, you have the
| double-edged sword of potentially being abused by the
| government, and on the other hand the solution i
| forementioned on holding it accountable given that it would
| become public under the law. However, just like with any
| other gov. institution, being held accountable is more often
| than not up to the people through their civic initiative and
| probably not something that the government will do out of
| interest. So in this regard in US it could work given the
| nature of the constitution, whereas in other countries
| Twitter would just become a propaganda machine (isn't it one
| already?).
| nradov wrote:
| Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas suggested extending
| common carrier legislation to cover social media platforms.
| That would essentially prevent them from censoring any
| content legal in the US.
|
| https://www.brookings.edu/blog/techtank/2021/04/09/justice-
| t...
| sebow wrote:
| Thanks for the link, I remember hearing about Clarence
| Thomas' take on this subject but I never took the time to
| study it. My personal opinion (before reading the
| material above) is that the "core issue" stands on the
| S230 "loop-hole" (I don't want to use the term 'abuse'
| given the negative connotation ... so far it[S230] has
| been a net good since it made the internet grow so much
| since 2007, but things have started to change with the
| rise of monopolistic corporations) giving companies both
| privileges with less responsibility than should
| necessary. At least in principle a Bill of Rights should
| exist, especially considering that places like Twitter
| are considered fairly often under the law (think court
| cases) 'public spaces'. Therefore in my mind if the
| public street is a place where i can speak freely, so
| should one be able to on Twitter/any other such deemed
| public space.
| missedthecue wrote:
| Without irony, you probably would have less censorship than
| should a private company own it. Is that a good thing? Not
| sure. Seems like spam would overtake it quickly.
| krapp wrote:
| Sure, until an American president decides to ban another
| country's account for disrespecting him, or use it for
| leverage in negotiations, or have the NSA bulk scan their
| citizens private messages for 'terrorist' communications,
| or have the algorithm bias other country's newsfeeds in
| favor of American propaganda.
|
| Twitter is a global platform and much of the world wouldn't
| trust the US as far as they could throw an American nuke
| (not withstanding how much they would also trust their own
| government.) The only reason Twitter works as well as it
| does _now_ is that its primary concern, as a company, is
| profit, and not the national interests of one specific
| country.
| oceanplexian wrote:
| That ship long since sailed. Look at Russia, for example.
| They have basically been cut off from all forms of social
| media and the president didn't even need to order them to
| do it (Even though the president has more or less total
| power over anything involving international trade). The
| social media companies did it voluntarily.
| krapp wrote:
| I would still prefer it to be the choice of individuals
| and private platforms, which can be competed with and
| avoided, than a government. Even if I think blacklisting
| Russians at every opportunity is a terrible, unproductive
| and ultimately self-sabotaging move for Americans to
| make.
| stale2002 wrote:
| > Sure, until an American president decides to ban
|
| Well, that is what the court system, and the supreme
| court is for.
|
| The court system puts very strong restrictions on what
| the government is able to do, regarding speech.
|
| Sure, maybe a president would want to do something. And
| the courts, which have a very established history of
| protecting speech rights would stop them.
|
| A better solution, though, would be to make a new law
| that requires twitter to follow similar standards as the
| government has to follow, in the same way how we put
| strong restrictions on what telephone companies are
| allowed to do
|
| (So don't give me any objections about how such laws
| would be illegal, when we already have them! Use our
| phone laws as the model, to do something similar, if not
| exact the same).
| krapp wrote:
| Social media companies aren't common carriers. People
| want them to be so they have to follow the same laws, but
| they never claimed to be neutral. They have rules, they
| have distinct cultures and business models. They also
| exist within an ecosystem of competitors - Twitter being
| popular doesn't mean they control communications
| infrastructure. Facebook serving a billion people no more
| makes it a public good than MacDonald's.
| stale2002 wrote:
| Did you read this part, or are you just going to
| completely ignore it? "The [modern day] court system puts
| very strong restrictions on what the government is able
| to do, regarding speech."
|
| I am not sure how anyone who has read any supreme court
| opinion in the last 40 years, could come to the
| conclusion that the government is not strongly prevented
| from engaging in large speech restrictions.
| miked85 wrote:
| That might actually be the worst way.
| jdrc wrote:
| In most of the world yes, but america's laws are unique
| elicash wrote:
| He filed forms that he was going to be a passive investor, and
| the same day joined the board after discussion that had been in
| the works for weeks. This is strike two on misleading investors.
|
| I haven't seen analysis on whether it was illegal, but I wouldn't
| want somebody like him on my board even if it succeeded in
| keeping him from buying up more stock. With him on the outside,
| maybe he causes more trouble than on the inside but I would be
| wary of the association.
| throwaway879080 wrote:
| golemotron wrote:
| > I wouldn't want somebody like him on my board
|
| It's his board.
| akyu wrote:
| >He filed forms that he was going to be a passive investor
|
| No he didn't.
| SalmoShalazar wrote:
| If you're going to write a terse, incorrect response, at
| least include a misleading source.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/0001418091/000110465.
| ..
| gpm wrote:
| Nowhere on that page does it say anything about being a
| passive investor?
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| it is the bold "13G" at the top of the page.
| gpm wrote:
| I see, thanks
| E4YomzYIN5YEBKe wrote:
| Rule 13d-1(c): Passive Investors that have not acquired
| the security with the intent nor effect of influencing
| control over the issuer, are not an "institutional
| investor," and are not directly or indirectly the
| beneficial owner of 20% or more of the security.
| [deleted]
| manquer wrote:
| He filed 13g instead of 13d. Any activist investors who want
| to influence the course of the company get involved in proxy
| fights , change the board should not file 13g that is only
| for passive investment.
|
| There was discussion yesterday whether him polling his
| followers last week about twitter and social media was
| activism. Joining the board certainly is.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| My question is why?? 13d doesn't seem to make a difference
| so why file the other.
| cloutchaser wrote:
| thepasswordis wrote:
| >I wouldn't want somebody like him on my board
|
| You wouldn't want the CEO of two of the most innovative, most
| successful companies of all time on your board? Why?
| johnla wrote:
| because of personal biases and feelings
| psyc wrote:
| Because I checked the temperature on social media, and
| noticed people with similar politics to mine mock him a
| lot.
| nvggyjc wrote:
| Ferrotin wrote:
| Shareholders like him on the board, and they would be even
| happier if he were running the company, because an Elon-run
| Twitter would be a lot more profitable.
| [deleted]
| bobkazamakis wrote:
| he hasn't had any experience running a company that doesn't
| rely on subsidies in over a decade but I appreciate your
| optimism.
| jermaustin1 wrote:
| > an Elon-run Twitter would be a lot more profitable.
|
| I'm not so sure about that. He doesn't have a lot of
| experience with running ad sales. His big breaks have been
| PayPal (kind of), Tesla and SpaceX. None of which were
| social, none of which were "free".
| Ferrotin wrote:
| I'm not sure either (there is of course uncertainty). But
| in Tesla and SpaceX, he shows good management, while my
| (outsider) impression of Twitter's is that it's dropping
| the ball.
|
| Also, I think Twitter was undervalued compared to its
| potential, and Elon wouldn't be buying part of it if he
| didn't think he could turn a good profit.
| blendergeek wrote:
| > and Elon wouldn't be buying part of it if he didn't
| think he could turn a good profit.
|
| Unless he was buying a seat on the board so that he could
| help effect change that he desired.
| fallingknife wrote:
| He didn't have a lot of experience in cars or rockets
| either.
| rhacker wrote:
| My paypal account is free. It is way more useful than my
| twitter account which I don't even know my handle.
| jonwachob91 wrote:
| Your paypal account charges you every time you make a
| transaction. It is not free.
| openknot wrote:
| This is false. There is no fee when making a purchase in
| at least the US or Canada [0]. The exception is when
| there is a currency conversion involved (about a 4% fee).
|
| There are fees when receiving money as a result of
| selling a product or service, which is where PayPal makes
| (likely most) of its money.
|
| [0] https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/paypal-fees
| jimnotgym wrote:
| It is not false, when you pay for a product with paypal
| it takes a fee off the person receiving the money. The
| person receiving the money knows of this cost in advance
| so adds it onto the price in advance. Therefore the
| purchaser pays.
| openknot wrote:
| It's not always true that a vendor receiving money will
| increase prices to pass the PayPal fees to the consumer.
| You can see that many checkouts offer multiple options
| (e.g. both PayPal, Stripe, and/or other methods), with
| the item price usually the same even if each method has a
| different fee. The idea is that you want to make
| purchasing as convenient as possible, as it costs more to
| lose a sale, versus paying an incremental fee difference
| with PayPal.
|
| If a vendor makes PayPal purchases slightly more
| expensive, it can cause bad will with the customer (who
| is less likely to return and make more purchases).
| Exceptions are sometimes with one-off purchases (e.g. a
| conference ticket or course fee).
|
| Separately, the original comment asserted that the PayPal
| account charges you each transaction (which is false).
| The new argument is different, which asserts that a
| vendor may charge you more due to PayPal fees.
| jimnotgym wrote:
| >The new argument is different, which asserts that a
| vendor may charge you more due to PayPal fees.
|
| You misunderstand me. I didn't say you got charged extra
| for paypal over Stripe, for instance.
|
| Stripe which you mention is also expensive, and also
| factored in to the price. I don't know of any serious
| eccomerce company that is not acutely aware of card fees.
| Every payment gateway charges high fees and it is
| factored in to the price the consumer pays.
| Consultant32452 wrote:
| Twitter is simultaneously useless and also the life-blood
| of western politics. The people in power care more about
| what Twitter thinks than what voters think.
| seized wrote:
| It's free to someone who only buys product. It's not free
| to someone receiving money.
| dangwu wrote:
| So you think he got 3 lucky breaks when with electronic
| payments, electric cars, and space rockets, and Twitter is
| too hard?
| jimnotgym wrote:
| He got a lucky break with payments that allowed him to
| try his luck on the other two
| elicash wrote:
| It's certainly true that the stock is currently way up on the
| news of his investment.
|
| I personally would not invest in a company where I cannot
| trust claims being made by the board.
| SuoDuanDao wrote:
| I am so curious as to what's in your portfolio...
| Overtonwindow wrote:
| More profitable, more open, and more fair to all voices.
| Twitter has become a liberal vacuum that, as a liberal, has
| gone way too far to the left in silencing voices. It's not a
| private company, it's a public company, and I hope Elon turns
| it around into a true, free speech town square, instead of
| just an echo chamber for blue checks.
| frob wrote:
| No, it is literally a private company. Which is why we are
| having this discussion based off of SEC filings.
|
| Edit: sorry, I mixed up public company and public good.
| Twitter is a public company, but not a public good.
| himinlomax wrote:
| If it wasn't a public company, it wouldn't be under the
| SEC's jurisdiction.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _If it wasn 't a public company, it wouldn't be under
| the SEC's jurisdiction_
|
| All securities are under the SEC's jurisdiction,
| including those issued by unlisted companies, _e.g._
| start-ups.
| xeromal wrote:
| I believe they mean public in the publically-traded
| sense, but I agree with you. It's not in the public
| (citizen controlled) sense
| Ajay-p wrote:
| I don't think that means what you think it means, perhaps
| you are international? A Public company is one that is
| owned by shareholders of a public exchange. This is why
| Elon can buy into it and become a member of the board. If
| it were a private company he could not do that.
| dahfizz wrote:
| No, it is literally a public company. TWTR is traded on
| NASDAQ. Which is why we are having this discussion based
| off of SEC filings. Private companies are not required to
| file with the SEC.
| nemothekid wrote:
| > _More profitable, more open, and more fair to all
| voices._
|
| I wonder if people who say things like this actually use
| Twitter. Twitter has far _less_ moderation than the other
| social media giants. It's a high school popularity contest,
| and the cool kids didn't need blue check marks from the
| teachers to be cool.
| Jiejeing wrote:
| "As a liberal, twitter has gone way too far to the left in
| silencing voices?" Twitter moderation is blind on
| harassment, nazis who brag about it are using the platform
| to dox people without any repercussions, send death
| threats, etc. what the hell are you even talking about?
| detcader wrote:
| > blind
|
| Wow that's very troubling. Can you show some examples of
| studies, or representative serious anecdotes?
| Mountain_Skies wrote:
| Sounds like a job for the legal system, not yet another
| secret kangaroo court run by people with a very narrow
| ideological bent.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| The legal system is too slow. If twitter couldn't
| moderate itself it wouldn't be moderated. That may sound
| good, but honestly, think about it for a second. That
| would pretty much be the end of twitter.
| freshpots wrote:
| Blue checks do not equal blue voices, but you already know
| that. Twitter is the worst mainstream platform when it
| comes to right wing propaganda and scientific
| misinformation. Free speech in this case is code for saying
| anything without consequence and weaponizing it at morons.
| Twitter excels at it already, let's not make it worse.
| detcader wrote:
| Do you think the government should censor incorrect or
| hateful speech and if not, why not?
| tayo42 wrote:
| The conversation is about Twitter, why are you bringing
| up the government.
| detcader wrote:
| It's a really simple question (yes or no, and just a
| single sentence about the reasoning if "no") and I hope
| the principle of charity can be extended when I say the
| discussion will come back to Twitter very quickly.
|
| The OP hasn't provided their answer but I'd be interested
| in your answer too!
| [deleted]
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _haven 't seen analysis on whether it was illegal_
|
| He and Twitter will pay the SEC a fine and be done with it. The
| SEC is a civil agency. And this doesn't seem to rise to the
| level of criminal negligence.
|
| (Practically speaking, he's probably losing his Tesla tweet-
| review case as a result of this. If he can't figure out if he's
| an activist when considering a Board seat, he probably needs
| someone with domain experience looking over his public
| statements.)
| hayd wrote:
| SEC: S Elon's C.
| justapassenger wrote:
| Misleading investors is one of Elon's main jobs. And he'll
| continue doing so, as we doesn't face any consequences for it
| (expect for becoming ultra rich).
| 01100011 wrote:
| The SEC has been asleep for years now. Every week we see
| market whales pulling gamma squeezes and pumping tech stocks
| higher and higher. The market is a joke at this point.
| zionic wrote:
| Asleep? SEC has been screwing small investors for as long
| as it's been around.
|
| Screw the SEC, just another in a long list of government
| agencies that shouldn't exist.
| Loughla wrote:
| >just another in a long list of government agencies that
| shouldn't exist.
|
| I would add 'in its current form' onto the end of that.
|
| The problem is, we have these agencies, so we can say,
| "look, we're fixing the problem," but then we provide
| them neither the power nor funding to really do anything
| but be annoying. I am firmly convinced this is by design.
| One side gets to say, "look we fixed it" and the other
| gets to say, "look it doesn't work and never will," and
| nothing changes.
| cguess wrote:
| You're big into crypto, aren't you?
| zionic wrote:
| I'll bite. Yes I am, but on the other hand none of the
| SEC's decisions have impacted me negatively. I have never
| held XRP for example, so while I dislike them it's
| entirely because I don't believe they should exist in the
| first place, they haven't cost me money.
| emteycz wrote:
| Are you a shareholder of TSLA? I am, and I am happy with
| Elon.
| justapassenger wrote:
| You can generate great returns for investors and mislead
| them at the same time.
| emteycz wrote:
| I don't feel being misleaden. Yes, Elon is sometimes over
| hyping things. I don't mind. He makes extremely cool
| stuff which sells by its merit. I like the visionary
| talks because a company that never talks about the
| possibilities of future is super-boring and IMHO can't be
| as successful as Tesla is - even if it doesn't
| materialize in the specified time span or in its entirety
| - because there'd be nothing truly new, just linear
| change otherwise.
| eganist wrote:
| > I don't feel being misleaden.
|
| That doesn't mean you weren't.
|
| The rest of your comment almost reads like stockholm
| syndrome - or mostly just rationalizing being misled.
| emteycz wrote:
| Let me decide that, thanks.
|
| There's nothing to rationalize. Elon had some nice
| visionary talks which I like, but mostly don't care about
| - and I'm not going to be mad just because he said
| something will be in 3 years and it's in 6 or 9 - even 12
| is good in my eyes, so what. I like his optimism much
| more than the """realism""" (read: pessimism) of mostly
| any other public company's management. His optimism is
| one of the primary things pushing Tesla forward - kill
| that and you kill the company.
|
| I mostly care about hard facts on the ground, and these
| go more than well enough. Along with my investment.
| pavlov wrote:
| I've been both a shareholder (since 2013) and customer of
| Tesla, and probably won't buy one of their products again.
| I feel deceived about spending over $5k on that "full self-
| driving" package that three years later still does nothing
| of the sort.
|
| The fact that I made a little money on Elon's coattails
| doesn't make it OK for him to constantly lie to customers.
| Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
| I bought a Tesla in 2019 and chose not to buy FSD because
| I knew it wasn't implemented yet and won't be for several
| years. If you thought you were going to get FSD any time
| soon, you weren't paying attention.
| mypalmike wrote:
| Maybe Musk himself wasn't paying attention?
|
| "I would be shocked if we do not achieve full-self-
| driving safer than a human this year. I would be
| shocked." - Musk in a 2021 earnings call.
| pavlov wrote:
| Paying attention to what? The lackluster sensor hardware
| on the Model 3? I guess I wasn't paying enough attention
| to that at the time.
|
| That's not some kind of consumer protection escape hatch,
| though:
|
| "Yeah, we sold them software that will never exist, but
| because it's actually impossible to implement on our
| hardware, it's their fault for buying it."
| Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
| I disagree with the idea that the hardware isn't
| adequate. I think it is, but that the software is much
| harder than Elon thinks, and even after nearly 10 years,
| he still hasn't learned how hard it is.
|
| I think the software WILL eventually exist. Just not on
| the timeline Elon thinks it will.
| cactus2093 wrote:
| 150x on your investment in 9 years is more than "a little
| money".
| dwighttk wrote:
| ~10x? Or were there _a lot_ of splits my numbers aren't
| showing?
| cecilpl2 wrote:
| Depends on when you bought in 2013. I bought in early
| 2013 at $32 (pre-split), for about 200x.
|
| If you bought late in 2013 you probably paid ~$180, for
| only 30x.
| pavlov wrote:
| It was a very good return on a small investment. I mostly
| missed the post-pandemic boom selling too early, so I
| guess I made around 20-30x overall.
|
| Doesn't change my opinion of Musk's practices. If he's
| selling very expensive features that are actually
| donations into the hopes & dreams tip jar, it should be
| clearly marked as such.
| falcolas wrote:
| Do you realize how short sighted this sounds?
|
| "I don't care what Elon does as long as it makes me money."
| sillysaurusx wrote:
| Why is that short sighted? That seems the opposite.
|
| If you had a money printer, wouldn't you give it a lot of
| freedom? Personally I'd draw the line at killing a dog or
| cat. Other than that, well... If it wanted to knock out a
| few walls, I'd just sigh and put up with the noise for a
| few months.
|
| (For context, I'm undecided about Elon. But none of the
| counterarguments to his behavior seem persuasive yet.)
| falcolas wrote:
| Because short term gains at the cost of long term
| sustainability is simply putting off problems for the
| future.
|
| Your money printer may print you money today, at the cost
| of putting you in jail for counterfitting tomorrow. It
| could result in the Mafia to come and break your legs to
| take it (and the money it printed) from you. Or greatly
| increase inflation (since mechanically, inflation is a
| result of more money being added than removed from
| circulation) in the future so your future earnings are
| worthless.
| emteycz wrote:
| You interpreted me wrong.
|
| What I'm saying is
|
| 1) that I care about the merit of the company (the
| products) much more than I care about what their talking
| heads say
|
| 2) that I don't think Elon's _that_ bad as some say /
| IMHO he's a semi-autistic person (don't know what his
| exact diagnosis is) who fucking loves technology and
| sometimes gets over-excited. I cut him some slack because
| _he delivers_ - even if late and something 's missing,
| well so what - it's still revolutionary and that's more
| than enough for me, everything on top of that is a bonus
| claaams wrote:
| This. He lies constantly about his products, intentions and
| behaviors and faces no repercussions. But stocks go brr so
| who cares
| andrewtbham wrote:
| andrewtbham wrote:
| Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
| Other than lying about timelines (Which I'm not sure I'd
| really call lies, he just hasn't learned how to set
| realistic timing on goals), what has he lied about?
|
| Like, I know he hasn't delivered on FSD (And I know he
| won't for a long time, which is why I didn't buy FSD when I
| bought my Model 3 in 2019), and the Cybertruck and Roadster
| have been very delayed, what has he lied about?
| philistine wrote:
| You yourself have admitted he lied about timelines. This
| is not a different category of lying. It's straight up
| lying about your products. And the world is not simply
| black and white. It's morally gray. You can lie about
| something once in a while and get away with it. But if
| you consistently lie about FSD capabilities, it's a
| pattern of willful deception.
|
| https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/fsd-timeline-
| promise...
| unmole wrote:
| > what has he lied about?
|
| "Funding secured"
| hanselot wrote:
| tim333 wrote:
| Some good products too.
| slibhb wrote:
| Elon Musk is kind of obnoxious. He lies (or "exaggerates").
| But what Tesla has done is insane. It's happened so quickly,
| and that's leaving aside the rockets. The hard evidence that
| we can build new things, that we can progress and build a
| future that's better than the present is so important. If it
| takes a flawed man to show us that, I'll take it.
|
| If you hate Elon Musk, consider probing your mind deeply to
| figure out why. It may just be that you're an Ayn Rand
| villain.
| jasonwatkinspdx wrote:
| If Ayn Rand called me a villain I'd beam with pride.
|
| I don't think we in any way need to lionize the mythology
| of John Galt like figures to make progress and build a
| future better than the present.
| prionassembly wrote:
| Ayn Rand's heroes are overwrought and improbable, but her
| villains are nothing to emulate either.
| the_only_law wrote:
| > It may just be that you're an Ayn Rand villain.
|
| Something, something terrorists and freedom fighters.
| Karellen wrote:
| > Elon Musk is kind of obnoxious. He lies (or
| "exaggerates").
|
| > If you hate Elon Musk, consider probing your mind deeply
| to figure out why.
|
| I'm not a hater, but I can understand why others are. Like
| you said, he's obnoxious. And he lies. Which should be
| enough justification by itself. But he's also really
| fucking rich, which is a teeth-grindingly annoying
| combination.
|
| I really admire what he's done for the Electric Vehicle
| industry, and the rocket industry, (and the satellite
| broadband industry) and I absolutely cannot wait for
| Starship to fly to orbit. That's gonna be amazing. He can
| execute on a vision like almost no-one else.
|
| But he's a dick - I can't deny that. And for people who
| don't really care about EVs, or rockets, or satellite
| broadband (i.e. non-nerds), the "being a dick" part is
| what's going to stand out the most.
| slibhb wrote:
| Lots of celebrities are gigantic douchebags and no one
| cares. Why do people care with Elon? Why does he have a
| parade of haters not just criticizing his attitude but
| also claiming that his work isn't valuable?
|
| It's not because "they don't care about EVs or rockets,"
| it's something deeper and uglier.
| sd8f9iu wrote:
| Celebrities who are douche bags are criticized all the
| time -- I'm not sure what your point is exactly. Musk is
| not just a "celebrity," he is one of the most powerful
| men on the planet. Most celebrities don't control 10% of
| one the most powerful media apparatuses in the country.
|
| Musk is seen by many as a sociopathic narcissist who will
| do whatever it takes to get what he wants. Doing things
| like sending private investigators to try and dig up dirt
| on that rescue diver who criticized him hardly distances
| him from that image (and doesn't help his claims of being
| a "free speech absolutist" either). Those traits combined
| with tremendous power are generally not a good
| combination.
|
| We don't owe him anything for his business ventures. He
| isn't running a charity. He isn't doing it for you and
| me. Electric cars and rockets are very cool, but are not
| moving humanity into some new dawn. The idea that he is
| some necessary component of "hard evidence that we can
| build new things" that deserves special treatment is
| borne straight out of a personality cult. Pointing this
| out is a far cry from "claiming his work isn't valuable."
| tayo42 wrote:
| Celebrities with bad personalities have consequences for
| it all the time. Elon isn't getting special treatment.
| citizenkeen wrote:
| Musk isn't just a celebrity. He has the money and power
| to alter both the political and technological landscape
| of the United States (and the world at large). It's not
| uglier.
| [deleted]
| wbsss4412 wrote:
| > Lots of celebrities are gigantic douchebags and no one
| cares.
|
| Tons of people care, an entire industry of celebrity
| gossip lives off of it.
|
| Elon has just as much of a cult following as he has
| haters, the fact that you can't see how perfectly this
| mirrors wider celebrity culture suggests that you are
| either very out of touch with pop culture, or are a part
| of the Elon cult.
| slibhb wrote:
| > Tons of people care, an entire industry of celebrity
| gossip lives off of it.
|
| You have a point. But what does it say about someone that
| they spend time hating celebrities? Do they think "this
| celebrity is a bad person, if I were rich and famous I
| would be a good good person!" Is that true? Or is it just
| childish resentment?
|
| Do we defend the people who have a deranged hatred
| towards Anne Hathaway? No we find them bizarre and
| disturbed.
| wbsss4412 wrote:
| Do we defend people for being annoyed by a drunk guy at a
| bar?
|
| You seem to be under the impression that there is nothing
| legitimately off putting about Elon's public persona.
| slibhb wrote:
| Here's what I originally wrote:
|
| > Elon Musk is kind of obnoxious. He lies (or
| "exaggerates"). But what Tesla has done is insane. It's
| happened so quickly, and that's leaving aside the
| rockets. The hard evidence that we can build new things,
| that we can progress and build a future that's better
| than the present is so important. If it takes a flawed
| man to show us that, I'll take it.
|
| > If you hate Elon Musk, consider probing your mind
| deeply to figure out why. It may just be that you're an
| Ayn Rand villain.
|
| Please show me where I said "there is nothing
| legitimately off putting about Elon's public persona".
| wbsss4412 wrote:
| Apologies, I seem to have lost track of that part of the
| thread.
|
| You just come off as so aghast at criticism of the man.
| the_only_law wrote:
| > But what does it say about someone that they spend time
| hating celebrities?
|
| Probably about the same thing as people that spend their
| time defending and dickriding celebrities on the
| internet.
| wbsss4412 wrote:
| One other point.
|
| Elon didn't like how Twitter was being run, so he spent a
| relatively minor fraction of his overall wealth to buy a
| large stake in the company and get himself onto the
| board. This is beyond comprehension to the average person
| who is typically just a the will of these large
| corporations.
|
| Elon is _extremely_ powerful, and as such he deserves to
| be held to a higher level of scrutiny, beyond even the
| level of some random celebrity.
| [deleted]
| the_only_law wrote:
| > It's not because "they don't care about EVs or
| rockets," it's something deeper and uglier.
|
| Then stop hand waving with poor analogies and just say
| what it is then.
| syshum wrote:
| memish wrote:
| That's part of it, but I think it's more envy driven. He
| took his winnings at Paypal and bet it all to transform 2
| industries. While most of us would have retired, blew it
| on a mansion and binge watch Game of Thrones in our
| private theater. Where would we be with electric cars and
| space right now if he had spent the past 20 years sailing
| on a yacht collecting supermodels? He could have done
| that instead.
|
| He shows what's possible and it exposes our inadequacies
| and sloth. If you're insecure, he is constantly touching
| a nerve with success after success, his massive fanbase
| and ever presence in the news.
| cguess wrote:
| Remember when he called that diver in Thailand a
| pedophile because the diver (one of the most experienced
| cave divers in the world) called his idea dumb as shit?
| That's why I don't like him (well, one of the many many
| reasons, but a big one).
| memish wrote:
| I didn't like that either, but put it in context. It's 1
| of 17,000 tweets. There aren't many users with that many
| tweets who haven't lost their cool and called someone
| else a name. It's one of the most common things you see
| on twitter. Not excusing it, just saying it's worth
| looking at in context and importantly it's not something
| he's repeated.
| syshum wrote:
| The modern era, no one can make a mistake, no one can be
| allowed to ever forget their mistakes, and we must always
| use any minor mistake to cancel the person if they do not
| agree with us politically
| profunctor wrote:
| Probably also the abuse of his workers. Some people
| really can't stand that.
| syshum wrote:
| Some people also have wildly different views on what
| "abuse" is...
| ashtonkem wrote:
| All I see with Tesla is how government policy can
| successfully change markets. Tesla exists not because of
| Musk's genius[0], but because of tax credits and carbon
| offset credits that allowed Tesla to be profitable early.
| Without Musk, someone else would've pulled it off, without
| the policy Musk would have done something else.
|
| 0 - Again, Musk didn't found tesla, he did a hostile
| takeover and has tried to rewrite history with him as the
| founder.
| slibhb wrote:
| > Without Musk, someone else would've pulled it off,
| without the policy Musk would have done something else.
|
| You can use this argument to say that no one deserves
| credit for doing anything. Seems like a dead-end way of
| thinking about the world to me.
| HWR_14 wrote:
| I give credit to lots of people for what they do without
| thinking only they are the only ones who could do it.
| ashtonkem wrote:
| What a wildly uncharitable interpretation of my post.
| "Dead-end"? Come now.
|
| All I see in this "we wouldn't have EVs without Musk!"
| discussion is a rehash of the old "great man of history"
| theory, something that's generally been discredited in
| the historical fields. The whims and decisions of
| individual actors matters, yes, but they also act in a
| context that molds and constrains them. The specific
| circumstance that made Musk and Tesla took both his
| initiative, and a specific cultural and policy
| environment to support his actions. We overweight the
| former.
|
| First, one must acknowledge that Tesla would've died on
| the vine without the policies I mentioned above. They
| finally turned a profit excluding emissions credits in Q1
| 2021. A feat, yes, but also one that was wholly dependent
| on public policy to survive and grow. You can give credit
| to Musk for recognizing the opportunity here, but he
| didn't make it.
|
| Second, there's really nothing to suggest that nobody
| else would have taken this path if Musk had not, albeit a
| bit later perhaps. History is full of "great men" who
| discover and create, but dig under the surface and one
| will find dozens of uncredited inventors who were either
| a close second, or less lucky in marketing. Heck, there
| is no real reason to believe that Musk was even critical
| for Tesla; remember that he took it over, and we have no
| idea where it might have gone absent his involvement.
| slibhb wrote:
| Who in this thread said "we wouldn't have EVs without
| Musk"?
|
| To say that the idea of one person changing the world has
| been discredited is so wildly wrong I don't even know
| where to start. We can't neglect the background but we
| can't neglect individuals and the choices they make
| either.
|
| What we can say is that Musk presided over the growth of
| a company that has sold 2 million EVs. We can't say
| "someone else would have done that if he had never been
| born," which is what you said. Unreal.
| ashtonkem wrote:
| > Who in this thread said "we wouldn't have EVs without
| Musk"?
|
| I was attempting to paraphrase a common sentiment, and
| should have been more clear about that. It's pretty easy
| to find people stating a varient of this idea in sibling
| threads.
|
| > To say that the idea of one person changing the world
| has been discredited is so wildly wrong I don't even know
| where to start.
|
| You could start by actually reading what I said, rather
| than making up for yourself and then arguing against
| that. Everything you said here is unrelated to my point,
| and directly countermanded by my actual words.
| jfk13 wrote:
| > Elon Musk is kind of obnoxious. He lies (or
| "exaggerates"). But what Tesla has done is insane. It's
| happened so quickly, and that's leaving aside the rockets.
| The hard evidence that we can build new things, that we can
| progress and build a future that's better than the present
| is so important. If it takes a flawed man to show us that,
| I'll take it.
|
| Or in other words, the end justifies the means?
|
| Not all of us share that philosphy.
| slibhb wrote:
| Nowhere in my post did I make that argument. If Elon used
| slave labor to run his factories, I wouldn't defend it.
| However, "being a troll, exaggerating, and sometimes
| lying" are not mortal sins.
| Loughla wrote:
| Again, not sins to you. Your values dictate that being a
| troll, exaggerating, and lying are okay.
|
| To others, those things _are in fact_ enough to say that
| Elon Musk is a shithead.
|
| It's as if there are gradients of human behavior, and not
| everyone is always a cartoony villain or Dudley Do-right
| all the time.
| slibhb wrote:
| They _are_ sins to me, they aren 't mortal sins. Read
| slowly and take your time please.
| Jcowell wrote:
| Reading it slower or faster wouldn't fix this since
| colloquial English would allow it to be read either way.
| slibhb wrote:
| Bullshit. I wrote:
|
| > However, "being a troll, exaggerating, and sometimes
| lying" are not mortal sins.
|
| Mortal sins are serious sins, venial sins are less
| serious sins. "Colloquial" doesn't mean you get to delete
| words you find inconvenient or don't understand.
| rowanG077 wrote:
| Some ends justify some means. He lies to some investors.
| Not good. Because of the this the chance we get into
| serious trouble due to climate change is significantly
| reduced. We also gain the technology to go to Mars
| economically. So Yeah I would say this end justifies
| lying to some investors.
| unmole wrote:
| > Because of the this the chance we get into serious
| trouble due to climate change is significantly reduced.
|
| In which alternate reality?
| rowanG077 wrote:
| You can say what you want about Tesla, but they single
| handedly moved electric vehicles to the mainstream.
| jjulius wrote:
| Can you please provide data that shows Tesla's movement
| of "electric vehicles to the mainstream" has
| "significantly reduced" climate change?
| rowanG077 wrote:
| What kind of data do you want? For example more then half
| of all cars sold in Norway right now is electric. A fact
| that wouldn't be the case if Tesla wouldn't exist. Every
| yeah the market share of electric vehicles is increasing
| with projections that almost no gasoline vehicle will be
| driven in 2050 in west EU.
|
| You just have to look at the pandemic to see what
| difference no combustion engine cars would make for the
| world. Cities that were covered in smog suddenly had
| clean air because of the stay at home directive.
| jjulius wrote:
| None of that is direct evidence that Tesla's movement of
| "electric vehicles to the mainstream" has "significantly
| reduced" climate change. Yes, 50% of all cars sold in
| Norway are electric. Yes, EV market share is increasing.
| Yes, emissions decreased in major metropolitan areas at
| the onset of the pandemic.
|
| Despite all of that, climate change itself has not been
| "significantly reduced" in any way, nor has there been
| any evidence that increased adoption of EVs has slowed
| down or altered climate change's progression.
| rowanG077 wrote:
| internal combustion engine cars create 7% of the worlds
| CO2 emissions. That's highly significant. Electric cars
| will reduce that to near 0%. A fact we have to give Tesla
| massive credit for. 7% is country level huge.
| jjulius wrote:
| I don't disagree with those numbers, but I still don't
| understand how they bolster the assertion that, "the
| chance we get into serious trouble due to climate change
| is significantly reduced". Just because something _could_
| happen doesn 't mean that it _will_ happen, or if it
| does, that it will happen when we need it to or that it
| will even be enough.
|
| Two years ago we needed to start reducing emissions by 4%
| every year. We didn't. We must now reach a whopping 50%
| emissions reduction by 2030 to limit temperature
| increases to 1.5C, because the current path we are on
| could increase temperatures by 4.4C by 2100.
|
| Getting every nation to ditch their ICE vehicles has to
| happen, yes, but it's not that simple. You can't just ban
| the sale of new ICE vehicles and expect that 7% to drop
| to 0%, because everyone who already owns an ICE vehicle
| is going to keep driving it until they've decided they're
| done with it for whatever reason. So, the only way to get
| to 0% ICE vehicles by 2030 would be to make it illegal to
| operate one - _today_.
|
| Politics is involved. Getting large swaths of America (or
| anyone in any nation with an affinity for an ICE vehicle,
| but this subset of folk is a great example) to give up
| their gasoline and their trucks and their mustangs is
| like asking someone to stop breathing. Asking developing
| nations with little money or ability to modify their
| infrastructure to support only ICE vehicles over the next
| eight years is an outstandingly daunting task. I could go
| on and on, and while I admire your hopefulness, what
| you're saying requires the entire world to accomplish the
| same goal in a far shorter amount of time than we
| actually have.
|
| I want to view the future through rose-colored glasses. I
| want to have high hopes that EVs will save us.
|
| They won't.
| unmole wrote:
| 1. Electric vehicles are not mainstream.
|
| 2. Tesla accounts for ~14% of EVs sold.
|
| 3. Passenger vehicles account for less than 7% of total
| CO2 emissions globally.
| rowanG077 wrote:
| 7% is HUGE. Like country level huge. Besides Teslas
| impact is not only the EV they have sold. They made EVs
| popular and desirable. Electric vehicles are definitely
| mainstream. In my country(Netherlands) 20% of all
| vehicles sold are electric. In Norway it's more then 50%.
| You really can't get more mainstream then that.
| ashtonkem wrote:
| 4. Tesla was able to make EVs profitably thanks to
| government policy designed to incentivize exactly that
| outcome. If Tesla didn't exist, some other company
| would've filled that role.
| jimnotgym wrote:
| I may be seen as a villain to Ayn Rand disciples, mainly
| because I may point out I have seen people do amazing
| things without becoming billionaires at consumers expense.
| nvggyjc wrote:
| At consumer's expense? Nobody is forced to buy a Tesla,
| people do it because they like having a car more than
| money.
|
| You can argue that Tesla in particular is successful off
| the back of the taxpayer; are you advocating against
| government incentives for electric vehicles?
| nullc wrote:
| We're forced to share the road with them. Because Teslas
| are glass cannons with easily damaged body panels and a
| closed repair network that has extraordinary prices,
| their presence on the roads has a real impact on all of
| us.
|
| Who knows what costs we'll be exposed to as their
| somewhat suicidal 'self driving' functionality becomes
| exposed to more of the buysers they sold it to on the
| back of improbable promises (such as "your car will
| eventually pay for itself by acting as an antonymous
| taxi").
| slibhb wrote:
| I'm not an Ayn Rand disciple. But she had a point about
| certain people and how they view the world.
|
| Musk is rich on paper but the stocks are massively
| overvalued for various reasons. The idea that
| "billionaires are evil people who exploit innocent
| laborers" is false and it comes from a place of
| resentment.
| cguess wrote:
| She did talk about how certain people view the world. She
| also advocated for that world view, and then died on
| welfare (the irony).
|
| And yes, billionaires absolutely build their wealth on
| the backs of others. There's simply no way to become a
| billionaire without exploiting a system and taking
| advantage of others in some way. It may be legal, but
| legality took a sharp turn away from morality a long long
| time ago.
| slibhb wrote:
| I don't agree with Ayn Rand that welfare is bad. I also
| don't agree that charity is bad.
|
| I agree with her that some very smart people are
| completely consumed by resentment.
|
| > And yes, billionaires absolutely build their wealth on
| the backs of others. There's simply no way to become a
| billionaire without exploiting a system and taking
| advantage of others in some way. It may be legal, but
| legality took a sharp turn away from morality a long long
| time ago.
|
| You're just resentful of people who have accomplished
| more than you. What's stopping Bob, who makes less money
| than you toiling in a factory, from saying the exactly
| same thing about you? You're an exploiter, it's how you
| earn a living without getting your hands dirty.
| beepbooptheory wrote:
| The everyday work of the normal laborer is more worthy of
| admiration and support than anything that happens in a
| board room, on the golf course, or in whatever internal
| email chain that decides these things. It's not amazing
| to be an investor and make big decisions that shape lives
| and the flow of money, that is simply what you can do
| when you are in that position. The worker who can live
| within the turmoil the former creates, and still find
| love and happiness, not to mention keep the lights on and
| take out the trash, are the true heroes of humanity.
| sillysaurusx wrote:
| Unless they refuse to get vaccinated.
|
| It may seem like an off-topic point, but I recently had a
| big wake-up call with the kinds of people you mention.
| The flip side of your flowery description is that they're
| often short-sighted, vicious people who can get worked up
| into a frenzy with little warning, or reason. Sometimes
| they want to for no reason.
|
| You're trying to describe the nobility of people with no
| skills (valued by society). But imagine if the entire
| world were populated by them. Would you really want to
| live in it?
|
| And if not, can they be called heroes of humanity?
| beepbooptheory wrote:
| Beyond a few pretty questionable assumptions at work here
| (that the labor market is an effective decider of what
| skills are valuable to society full stop; that someone's
| labor dictates what skills they have; that what someone
| has to offer the labor market could correlate at all to
| something like character), I would simply reflect on
| whatever thought process has brought you to the situation
| where someone simply says, in so many words, that "the
| meek shall inherit the earth", and your first impulse is
| to say "no, in fact, they are shortsighted and viscious
| people who get whipped into frenzies for often no
| reason".
|
| I dont even think Rand would follow you there; I can't
| really think of any corollary to that sentiment other
| than fascist rhetoric. To know nothing of a group of
| people but how much they make at work, and to _go that
| far_ in painting a picture of them... Its shocking! Haha
|
| I'm sure you mean well, and are genuinely reflecting, but
| this is not a good look at all to anybody but the most
| rightwing people. What amounts _Idiocracy_ lore is not a
| suitable or humane thing to ground political beliefs on.
| jjulius wrote:
| >If you hate Elon Musk, consider probing your mind deeply
| to figure out why.
|
| So, I'm going to reply to your comment but really, this is
| relevant to most of this thread (and nearly every thread
| about him), because I'm just _tired_ of these
| conversations.
|
| Yes, by many measures, he has been incredibly successful at
| both running businesses and amassing wealth. There are a
| lot of metrics that you could cite that support that
| assertion.
|
| At the same time, by many measures, you could successfully
| - and easily - argue that he's a pretty shitty person.
|
| And guess what? Both are true. I don't know what my
| ultimate point here is besides saying that yeah - some
| people think he's awesome, some people think he's shitty,
| and _neither view is technically incorrect_. Move on.
| slibhb wrote:
| "On one hand you have the rockets, and cars, and all
| that. On the other hand you have his flippant, obnoxious
| attitude. Yeah, it's about even."
|
| So absurd that anyone takes that argument seriously.
| jjulius wrote:
| The funny thing about life is that everyone places
| different levels of importance on things. You might think
| that innovation in EVs and space exploration far outweigh
| how someone treats other individuals, whereas others
| might place far greater importance in treating others
| with respect and equality over innovation in EVs and
| space exploration.
|
| And you know what? That's OK. :)
| slibhb wrote:
| The question I'm asking, that you keep dodging, is: _what
| is the reason for putting more importance on someone 's
| attitude rather than the 2 million cars they've sold and
| the rocket ships they've invented?_
|
| You hint that Elon Musk treats other people badly. Has he
| raped anyone? Murdered anyone? Waged any wars? Are there
| abuse allegations? No, he's a troll on twitter.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > You hint that Elon Musk treats other people badly
|
| Leaving aside the stunt where he called a rescue diver a
| pedophile, there has been enough and substantially bad
| racism at Tesla under his leadership that the company was
| ordered to pay 137 million dollars [1].
|
| [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/05/tesla-must-
| pay-137-million-t...
| jjulius wrote:
| >The question I'm asking, that you keep dodging, is: what
| is the reason for putting more importance on someone's
| attitude rather than the 2 million cars they've sold and
| the rocket ships they've invented?
|
| I truly don't know how else to make my previous post any
| clearer to you. The simple fact of the matter is that
| everyone has their own personal reasons for putting more
| importance on one thing over another. Nobody ever owes
| you an explanation for _why_ they might put more
| importance on how someone treats someone over how many
| units of a product they sell. I could speculate as to any
| number of reasons why that may be, but for the sake of
| this conversation, that 's not my place. I will, however,
| say that I'm incredibly surprised and perplexed by your
| inability to understand that there are people out there
| who "place people over profits".
|
| >You hint that Elon Musk treats other people badly. Has
| he raped anyone? Murdered anyone? Waged any wars? Are
| there abuse allegations? No, he's a troll on twitter.
|
| As I've made clear in this thread, I am not taking a
| position on Musk. All I can say is that what I've alluded
| to, in regards to how he treats people and his employees,
| are all things that have been very publicly discussed in
| the past and should be surprising to nobody who has paid
| even a modicum of attention.
| slibhb wrote:
| Your post is perfectly clear. It's just not answering the
| question. Ditto this post.
|
| No one owes me anything. I'm asking a question and you're
| not answering it, you're just restating "some people
| value different things and we can't say why".
|
| My point is that people _should_ value Elon 's
| accomplishments more than his attitude. The fact that
| they don't is bizarre and demands an explanation.
| Loughla wrote:
| You're just missing the point entirely. Some people
| believe his shitty attitude far outweighs any economic
| value he has created, or wealth he has amassed.
|
| To them, your attitude is bizarre and demands an
| explanation. To them, you _should_ value someone who is a
| decent person over any money they make.
|
| OP wasn't saying Elon Musk is a shithead. S/he was
| pointing out that both things can be true - he can be a
| shithead, and he can create wealth and innovation. Both
| can be true, and some people will place value on one over
| the other, much as you have done.
| slibhb wrote:
| How did I miss the point? I summarized exactly what you
| wrote in the post you responded to.
|
| We can't talk to each other because you're coming from a
| value-relative perspective ("people value different
| things, no one is wrong, and we can't say why"). To me
| this is insane. If someone values 5 dollars more than
| their life, we can question that. When people say Elon
| Must being a mean person on twitter outweighs everything
| he's built, we can question that.
|
| And I never said anything about money.
| jjulius wrote:
| I'm going to respond to this post, and your most recent
| post in the chain, together in this comment because it's
| easier that way.
|
| >Your post is perfectly clear. It's just not answering
| the question. Ditto this post.
|
| It _does_ answer the question, you just don 't like the
| answer. Notice how I'm not questioning the _why_ behind
| why you choose to value how many units of his product he
| has sold over how he treats others? The simple fact of
| the matter is that many people put "people over profits"
| for _many_ reasons - I am but one person and cannot
| answer for them. This is no different from why _you_ can
| 't speak to _why_ every single Musk fan supports him,
| because everyone 's reasons are different.
|
| >No one owes me anything.
|
| And yet you have repeatedly said...
|
| >The fact that they don't is bizarre and demands an
| explanation.
|
| I'm not sure how you can say people don't owe you
| anything when you've demanded it repeatedly.
|
| >... Elon Must being a mean person on twitter...
|
| Actually, I've been speaking broadly this entire time.
| When I reference how Musk treats people, I am referencing
| everything he does, not just his actions on Twitter.
|
| I think what this ultimately boils down to is akin to the
| question you first posed in this thread - "If you hate
| Elon Musk, consider probing your mind deeply to figure
| out why." I would like to ask you, why is it so important
| to you what other people think about Elon Musk, and why
| do you seem to let it bother you so much if they don't
| like him? He doesn't seem to let the court of public
| opinion bother him or hold him back from doing nearly
| whatever he wants, so he's going to keep doing what he's
| been doing regardless of what other people think. With
| that in mind, what does it matter to you - you, who isn't
| Elon Musk - if an internet stranger isn't a fan of him?
| slibhb wrote:
| > So, I don't think that you suggesting that business
| success outweighing how you treat people is "insane"
|
| I never said business success outweighs how you treat
| people. I said, in the specific case of Elon Musk, what
| he has built outweighs his obnoxious attitude. That's a
| specific, not a generality.
|
| Anyway, we've arrived at a conclusion. To you, values are
| relative. That's an answer but it's not acceptable to me.
| thepasswordis wrote:
| >As I've made clear in this thread, I am not taking a
| position on Musk.
|
| You literally called him a "shitty preson", and you're
| saying you're not taking a position on him. Are you
| joking?
| jjulius wrote:
| I did not call him a shitty person. Here's are the full
| two sentences:
|
| >Yes, by many measures, he has been incredibly successful
| at both running businesses and amassing wealth. There are
| a lot of metrics that you could cite that support that
| assertion.
|
| >At the same time, by many measures, you could
| successfully - and easily - argue that he's a pretty
| shitty person.
|
| I simply said that there are reasons people could
| successfully argue that he's shitty. What I did _not_ do,
| however, was take a position on those arguments. The
| phrase, "You could successfully argue" does not mean,
| "This is what I believe".
| thepasswordis wrote:
| Oh yeah okay """""people""""" could _argue_ that he 's a
| shitty person, but of course you aren't.
|
| Have a nice day man. I'm not replying to you anymore.
| jjulius wrote:
| One thing that I might suggest you do is to ask yourself
| why it seems so important to you that other people like
| Elon Musk, and why you let it bother you so much if they
| don't. After all, he's going to keep doing what he's
| doing (and has been, for years) regardless of public
| opinion - so what does it matter to you if an internet
| stranger isn't a fan?
|
| I truly hope you have a pleasant day as well. :)
| thepasswordis wrote:
| >I'm just tired of these conversations.
|
| And yet here you are, engaging in one of them. I echo the
| parents request of a deep meditation on why you are
| feeling this way.
| jjulius wrote:
| >And yet here you are, engaging in one of them.
|
| Pointing out the futility of a conversation is different
| than engaging in it.
|
| >I echo the parents request of a deep meditation on why
| you are feeling this way.
|
| Please highlight where, in this thread, I've stated my
| own feelings about Elon Musk.
| thepasswordis wrote:
| >Pointing out the futility of a conversation is different
| than engaging in it.
|
| [...]
|
| >At the same time, by many measures, you could
| successfully - and easily - argue that he's a pretty
| shitty person.
|
| Right here.
| jjulius wrote:
| There's a difference between recognizing that something
| is a strong argument, and agreeing/disagreeing with it.
| I'm simply pointing out that strong arguments can be made
| in both directions, and commonly are in these threads.
| Over, and over, and over.
|
| Kind of like how this very comment chain is going, no?
| mostertoaster wrote:
| I dont know about electric cars, but what Elon did with space
| x is simply incredible.
|
| Commercial space flights were becoming rarer and rarer out of
| the US, and now it is the most common.
|
| The price of space flight while still high, was reduced by a
| huge percentage.
|
| I'm sure he told many lies to get there. But economics and
| physics don't really lie.
|
| I like him for the reasons I like Kanye, Bernie Sanders, and
| Trump (though I only voted for the first). Just says crazy
| things, but some of them are just truths that we've all
| chosen to ignore it don't like to accept.
| OscarCunningham wrote:
| If only there was a way to filter the signal from the
| noise. Maybe if we locked them in a room together?
| mostertoaster wrote:
| I would love to be a fly on that wall.
|
| Elon, Bernie, Kanye, Trump - most things they say are
| just noise.
| dehrmann wrote:
| > I dont know about electric cars
|
| There was that time Tesla bought Musk's cousin's failing
| rooftop solar company.
| mostertoaster wrote:
| Yeah seems suspect huh?
| izzydata wrote:
| What did Elon do exactly beyond take credit for the work of
| talented engineers?
| microtherion wrote:
| Even if Musk were nothing but hype (and I think he
| deserves a bit more credit than that), that very hype
| appears to have been a decisive factor in solving the
| chicken-and-egg problem of electric car proliferation
| needing charger networks, and charger networks needing
| electric car proliferation.
|
| So I would credit him with at least that accomplishment.
| Kranar wrote:
| Provide an environment where those talented engineers
| could accomplish something no other environment allowed
| them to. It's not like there aren't talented people at
| Boeing or Lockheed and it's not like those talented
| people just came out of thin air, it takes amazing
| leadership and a strong vision to bring talented people
| together to accomplish something that to this day no
| other rocket company is still capable of doing.
| izzydata wrote:
| There are probably a lot of great leaders and managers at
| SpaceX.
| nathanvanfleet wrote:
| You must own NFTs it sounds like you really buy into hype.
| People just say they are Jesus Christ come to earth and you
| just go "Well yeah okay that's amazing"
| mostertoaster wrote:
| What are NFTs? One of those blockchain proof of ownership
| things right, but like for gifs? What's weird is I can
| imagine a dystopian future where NFTs are valuable. I
| hope not though. But post COVID the world seems
| ridiculous to me so who knows.
|
| "Hands on" on the Jesus is King album is one of my
| favorites, and I do think he might have a messiah
| complex, but he isn't saying follow me, but follow God.
|
| Kanye is not a role model to imitate. But he does seem to
| play a large role in the cosmos (or think the story that
| will be told centuries from now). Like Elon I'd say.
|
| I can appreciate Trump, and I can appreciate Bernie. I
| appreciate Kanye's art and often his blunt words. My vote
| for him was purely symbolic. He wasn't even on the ballot
| in my state.
| electrondood wrote:
| > I can appreciate Trump
|
| The guy incited a deadly insurrection to subvert
| democracy to keep himself in power. He also extorted
| Ukraine by withholding weapons for his personal political
| gain. He was impeached for both.
| codr7 wrote:
| May I suggest quitting news for a while and going
| outside?
|
| You're not making any sense right now...
| mostertoaster wrote:
| Well I did appreciate him until he paid Putin his buddy,
| to start a war with Ukraine just so Biden would look bad.
|
| The crap economy is definitely all his fault. And gas
| prices, his fault. And he doesn't even care about climate
| change.
| thirdwhrldPzz wrote:
| lolwowthere wrote:
| You wrote in Kanye West for president, thought enough other
| voters would join you to make doing so worth anything to
| you and your vote, and share that extremely poor adult
| judgment confidently and publicly? You like him because he
| says shit? I mean I say shit, too, would you vote for me
| even if my entire policy platform was incoherent and I
| stalk and abuse my exes and their new partners in public?
| You realize his entire presidential bid was for attention
| and his staff couldn't even make the deadline to get him on
| the ballot, right?
|
| With respect, this comment makes you sound like a
| contemptible, gullible fool that makes society actively
| worse. I really hope you're being a bit facetious.
| nullc wrote:
| How is writing in Kanye West for president in any way
| inferior to just not voting? It's obviously a protest
| vote.
|
| "a contemptible, gullible fool that makes society
| actively worse", seems a little overwrought to me.
| goddamnisuck wrote:
| mostertoaster wrote:
| Kanye 2024. :)
|
| Seriously though this is my point. Kanye is absurd. A
| fool you might say. Like Trump and Bernie. Yet if you
| live in an upside down world, you might say some obvious
| truth, and it will further make you like a fool.
|
| I like that back in 04 he was talking about the way
| blacks are treated in America, before all the woke fools
| decided it was popular.
|
| And Beyonces video was better than Taylor's.
|
| The funny part to me is you actually think your vote for
| Joe means something.
| freemint wrote:
| Why is Bernie absurd? His policy positions are pretty
| standard in the conext of European Democracies.
| mardifoufs wrote:
| It's really not.
|
| >Sanders, in particular, suggested that the US could
| adopt a socialist system by emulating Scandinavia. "I
| think we should look to countries like Denmark, like
| Sweden and Norway, and learn from what they have
| accomplished for their working people," said the US
| presidential candidate, who identifies himself as a
| "democratic socialist."
|
| But Danish prime minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen, speaking
| at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government this week, says
| Sanders got more than a few things wrong.
|
| "I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic
| model with some sort of socialism. Therefore I would like
| to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist
| planned economy. Denmark is a market economy."
|
| https://qz.com/538499/denmark-says-it-isnt-the-socialist-
| uto...
|
| https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/bernie-sanders-
| wrong-d...
| mostertoaster wrote:
| "George Bush doesn't care about black people" - at the
| time made Mike Myers jaw drop. People forget that being
| publicly critical like that was unpopular back then. That
| it would cost you money and contracts.
|
| Now if you say "I think Trump likes black people" you are
| lambasted like Kanye was for saying George bush didn't.
| gkoberger wrote:
| Here's a thread on it:
| https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1511323908129054725?s...
| next_xibalba wrote:
| > He filed forms that he was going to be a passive investor
|
| This was almost certainly done by a lawyer working on his
| behalf. This strikes me as a technicality of paperwork that is
| being seized upon by the media as a way to portray Musk in the
| worst possible light.
|
| > I wouldn't want somebody like him on my board
|
| In this hypothetical, what is your role (i.e. fellow
| shareholder, CEO, employee)? I ask because shareholders (aka
| the owners of the company) choose the board. Musk owns nearly
| 1/10th of the company, and is now the largest shareholder,
| institutional or individual, by a good margin. In other words,
| whatever your hypothetical role, you wouldn't have much of a
| choice.
|
| Setting the mechanics of boards aside, there is strong case for
| him being the most successful business person alive. He is
| right up there with Bezos, Gates, and Zuckerberg. Shareholders
| should be cheering this on. And there is some evidence, in the
| form of the stock price, that they are.
| maxfurman wrote:
| If the difference is not material, then why are there two
| different forms? Genuine question as this is not my area of
| expertise
| ashtonkem wrote:
| > This was almost certainly done by a lawyer working on his
| behalf.
|
| This is like saying that you can't be responsible for tax
| dodging because your accountant filed on your behalf.
|
| > This strikes me as a technicality of paperwork that is
| being seized upon by the media as a way to portray Musk in
| the worst possible light.
|
| Almost all of securities law is "technicalities", it still
| has the force of law.
| elicash wrote:
| > This was almost certainly done by a lawyer working on his
| behalf.
|
| Are you arguing that when he signs his name and certifies
| that the (short) form is "true, complete and correct" that he
| is not responsible because the form was prepared by an
| attorney of his?
|
| > being seized upon by the media
|
| How did "the media" seize on this? When I last checked, there
| were zero articles. And even if they had, why wouldn't
| discussion be merited?
| next_xibalba wrote:
| > How did "the media" seize on this?
|
| Let me ask you this: how is it that you are aware of the
| form and how Musk (or, more likely, a lawyer) filled it
| out?
|
| It is being reported [1]. Every word in an article for a
| major news outlet is meaningful in some way. Journalists
| are not provided limitless word count, so decisions have to
| be made about what is and is not included.
|
| Now, one could definitely argue that journalists merely
| reported on it as they were trying to divine Musk's
| intentions. But to then interpret this, as the GP has done,
| as a sign of Musk's dishonesty and lack of integrity is too
| great a leap (in my opinion).
|
| [1]
| https://news.google.com/search?q=elon+musk+twitter+passive
|
| Edit: Also, I love your handle. "Wildcat. Wiiiiiild cat."
| elicash wrote:
| Those articles are mostly about announcing as a passive
| investor -- not whether he misled the public in his
| filings. This collection of articles only further makes
| the case that the media has mostly reported uncritically
| his misleading claim.
|
| RE: handle, thanks!
|
| Also, I have since-posting found one article kinda about
| this: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/04/elon-musk-thumbs-
| his-nose-at...
|
| However, even that article is just about the lateness of
| the filing. It doesn't mention the debate over whether
| the filing itself was misleading. And this is the best
| example I could find!
| colechristensen wrote:
| Does it matter? Was there any consequence of filling out a
| form then doing something different?
|
| I have heard it several times already today, but so what a
| form was filled out wrong, is there any consequence to that
| that anybody would care about? (I doubt anybody complaining
| about it actually knows anything about how important it is,
| it's just being latched on to because it's a way to match
| events with preexisting opinions)
| xadhominemx wrote:
| 13Ds and Gs have different filing thresholds and
| requirements
| [deleted]
| elicash wrote:
| Yes. He is currently in court claiming SEC is picking on
| him on another matter and this (and the fact that the
| filing was late) is likely going to hurt his case with
| the judge. And while I don't like speculating, since
| you're asking me to do so I'll add that it's entirely
| possible that any misrepresentations here get pursued on
| its own merits, as well.
| colechristensen wrote:
| "He broke the rules!" ok, sure.
|
| But why is that form there and what is the consequence of
| filing one way or the other? I mean besides being
| punished for doing it wrong, why does that rule exist and
| what are the effects of filling it out one way or the
| other?
|
| Why is this anything more than an administrative mistake?
| Did he get some benefit from filing the form that way?
|
| ... or, what it seems, is this just a "gotcha!" for
| people to complain about on the Internet.
| elicash wrote:
| "Schedule 13D is intended to provide transparency to the
| public regarding who these shareholders are and why they
| have taken a significant stake in the company. The form
| signifies to the public that a change of control, such as
| a hostile takeover or proxy fight, might be about to take
| place so that current shareholders in the company can
| make informed investing and voting decisions."
|
| https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/schedule13d.asp
| wewtyflakes wrote:
| I think there is a perception that he regularly engages
| in bad faith, and this is not a simple one-off
| administrative mistake.
| spicybright wrote:
| It's really isn't a lot to ask to fill a form out
| correctly for transparencies sake. Especially with
| something as important as this.
|
| I'd almost say it was on purpose for whatever reason. You
| don't get rich like Elon by hiring incompetent lawyers.
| ashtonkem wrote:
| It's worth pointing out that the SEC is extremely image
| conscious. They count on their reputation as the hammer
| of god himself to keep traders in line. Elon repeatedly
| snubbing them is going to tempt them to pull out all the
| stops.
| nullc wrote:
| SEC's actual power is extremely limited. -- This is why
| e.g. with ICO scams you see them taking no action at all
| or imposing a fine that is just a cost-of-doing-business
| percentage of what they took in from the general public,
| at least against ICOs that are wealthy enough to keep the
| SEC tied up in litigation.
| lstamour wrote:
| > When I last checked, there were zero articles.
|
| Can I introduce you to Matt Levine? A very popular opinion
| columnist - you can get his column by email even without a
| subscription to Bloomberg, but he's one of the reasons I
| subscribe.
|
| His take on this was emailed out midday yesterday and I
| enjoyed every minute: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/art
| icles/2022-04-04/elon-m...
|
| You can find an archive of columns here: https://www.bloomb
| erg.com/opinion/authors/ARbTQlRLRjE/matthe... and the email
| sign up is at http://www.bloomberg.com/newsletters (it used
| to be a bit easier to find... but pick "Money Stuff" from
| the list)
| iratewizard wrote:
| I personally find this style of writing pretentious,
| obnoxious and egotistical.
| unmole wrote:
| He keep making jokes about how boring and unimportant he
| is compared to the people he writes about. How do you get
| pretentious or egotistical?
| iratewizard wrote:
| colinmhayes wrote:
| He's a harvard/yale educated lawyer who worked at goldman
| and Wachtell, Lipton. Of course he's pretentious and
| egotistical. He's also funny and informative.
| [deleted]
| lstamour wrote:
| Yes, it can be. It can also be funny and informative,
| though. Check out the archives, a lot of topics build on
| past articles and not everything is a joke, sometimes
| there are clear and simple explanations of financial
| terms: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/authors/ARbTQlRL
| RjE/matthe...
| pmalynin wrote:
| burnished wrote:
| Well, the recommend may have bounced off the intended
| target but I appreciated it.
| justapassenger wrote:
| > This was almost certainly done by a lawyer working on his
| behalf. This strikes me as a technicality of paperwork that
| is being seized upon by the media as a way to portray Musk in
| the worst possible light.
|
| Elon openly attacks and disregards SEC. He doesn't have any
| benefit of the doubt left, when it comes to activities that
| SEC is suppose to be regulating.
| fallingknife wrote:
| This is the USA. You are allowed to insult the government.
| abduhl wrote:
| You're allowed to insult the government. You're not
| allowed to lie to the government when filing substantive
| documents.
| next_xibalba wrote:
| What is the substantive effect on the public (aka
| "investors") if this value in this field on this form was
| incorrect?
|
| This is a tempest in a teapot. People who don't like Musk
| are pointing to it and saying, "See? SEE!? He is a liar.
| He is bad."
|
| But the reality is, this doesn't actually hurt anyone and
| its not really a big deal at all.
|
| But let's take the least charitable interpretation and
| play it out: Musk filled out the form himself. He
| intentionally with malice aforethought lied. The day
| after the SEC form becomes public, he takes a board seat.
| What is the material damage done to the public?
|
| Twitter shareholders got a huge 2-day pop. That would
| have happened regardless of Elon's intent.
| [deleted]
| SantalBlush wrote:
| >You are allowed to insult the government.
|
| That's entirely irrelevant. The point is that his past
| behavior shows a pattern of disregarding financial laws.
| weird-eye-issue wrote:
| It's ironic you call it out as a technicality because whether
| a lawyer or Musk filled out the form is itself a technicality
| sanderjd wrote:
| Yeah this isn't how contracts work. You don't get to say
| "what do I know, it was prepared by an attorney".
| onedognight wrote:
| > Yeah this isn't how contracts work. You don't get to say
| "what do I know, it was prepared by an attorney".
|
| Yes, you do. Many crimes, like tax evasion, require
| "willful" violation, so blaming your tax attorney is a
| valid defense.
| sanderjd wrote:
| This is not tax evasion.
| rowanG077 wrote:
| What? Of course it does. There are many cases that if you
| can prove you didn't know you get away scot-free.
| kgwgk wrote:
| > This was almost certainly done by a lawyer working on his
| behalf.
|
| That makes it worse, not less bad. It makes the good-faith-
| mistake defense untenable.
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| Musk seems to be looking for more ways to pick a fight with the
| SEC, probably so he can press his perceived grievances.
| someelephant wrote:
| He is the "investors".
| zanethomas wrote:
| Pass the popcorn.
| Xenixo wrote:
| Weird that Elon musk would do something like this
|
| I assumed he would optimize how he spends his time.
|
| He mentioned once that he sometimes sleeps/slept at the factory.
|
| I had a similar thought on Putin: as long as the war is ongoing
| he has less time to do other things.
|
| When Biden took over trump I also thought that bidens team might
| be able to do more change than the trump team because he fired so
| many and golfed often.
| its_ethan wrote:
| Might be time to revisit some of those assumptions then?
| Xenixo wrote:
| Of course.
|
| I posted it though to share my thoughts. This made me realize
| that Elon musk takes twitter much more serious than I
| thought.
| Reebz wrote:
| This is just a 2022 version of a billionaire buying a
| newspaper. Not shocking.
| Xenixo wrote:
| To do what?
|
| A newspaper I get. Forming opinions is easy with a newspaper.
|
| But with twitter? Manipulating Twitter trends? Who cares?
| dandanua wrote:
| This cult of personality won't end well.
|
| He already has a very questionable reputation as an "example to
| all humans".
| shmde wrote:
| Does HN crowd REALLY believe he is going to remove censorship and
| preserve the voice of the underclass ? Thats the most naive thing
| to believe.
| Tehchops wrote:
| No, it's the pseudo-libertarian HN crowd that's super excited
| because they think it means they can be assholes and engage in
| derogatory/discriminatory speech online again, all in the name
| of combating the nebulous "woke" bogeyman.
| dav_Oz wrote:
| My take on this is that he wants to bring back more of a wild
| west. I kinda sympathize with the sentiment to create a more
| relaxed version of Twitter where only the obvious in terms of
| free speech is excluded (like MMA/Vale Tudo - in terms of a
| "free fight"- not allowing eye gouging etc.) but this certainly
| isn't something for everyone. Not a lot of people can stomach
| 4chan taking this to an extreme.
|
| So how you go about this? As a mere mortal you are damned to
| create a new thing, create a PR-campaign from the outside to
| pressure Twitter ... the usual things. But as the richest
| person on the planet you don't only possess the resources to do
| all the above way better, additionally you can simply just buy
| up "Twitter". Which is kind of crazy like buying up a
| restaurant after not being satisfied with the service.
|
| Well, the stock price did go up significantly and yeah, in
| order to make things "more fun" for Twitter users again (the
| most active being obviously not underclass) one can relax some
| "out of control" censorship practices.
| nemothekid wrote:
| > _I kinda sympathize with the sentiment to create a more
| relaxed version of Twitter where only the obvious in terms of
| free speech is excluded_
|
| How does this happen though? When someone is "cancelled on
| Twitter" what does that mean? Is it Jack Dorsey going in a
| banning your account? Twitter suspensions, by the actual
| company, are relatively well reasoned. What most people don't
| like is the Twitter mob, who does not work for Twitter.
| Despite people saying they want "more free speech" what they
| actually want is to suppress the free speech of others so
| they can say what they want.
| lvs wrote:
| tootie wrote:
| This story was two weeks ago:
|
| https://www.reuters.com/business/us-sec-says-teslas-musk-sho...
| zydex wrote:
| That story has nothing to do with this one. Did you even read
| the above story?
| tootie wrote:
| Not directly, but my implication here is that Elon Musk is in
| the bad graces of the SEC of is being made an insider of
| another huge company who facilitated him falling out of favor
| with that SEC. It is Twitter saying they don't care about the
| SEC and don't see any potential conflict with empowering
| someone who flaunts SEC penalties. And also, that I would be
| 0% surprised if Musk did this out of spite.
| zozbot234 wrote:
| I certainly agree that Elon Musk has a habit of flaunting
| SEC penalties, but I don't think this alone will lead to
| any real conflict. Things would be rather different if he
| started _flouting_ them, of course.
| manquer wrote:
| He has been flouting them, SEC hasn't had a lot of teeth
| to do anything about it .
| draw_down wrote:
| gnicholas wrote:
| So does this mean Elon can't be blocked/booted on Twitter? I
| guess a seat on the board is the ultimate blue-check.
| Whatarethese wrote:
| Trump furiously trying to find a way onto the board.
| hindsightbias wrote:
| People hate Musk for the same reason they hated Jobs. They love
| living in their world but hate themselves for it.
|
| Think Different might have more than one meaning.
| ladyattis wrote:
| I don't think that's the case. I don't like Musk because he's
| all sizzle and very little in terms of steak with his products.
| Like the most useful any of his companies has done is the work
| with battery tech at Tesla. The rest has been copy and paste
| from research done in the past. Plus, he often bungles into the
| product development process on the technical parts often
| without any context for him to make anything close to a
| reasonable analysis. It's why so many engineers move on as soon
| as possible from his companies. He literally burns out folks
| not because he's magically brilliant but rather because he's
| unbearable and not a team player.
| colinmhayes wrote:
| Or because he calls people who disagree with him pedophiles?
| randyrand wrote:
| did you like him before that happened?
| pb7 wrote:
| Since it happens so often, please provide two instances of
| this.
| streb-lo wrote:
| So accusing someone of being a pedophile once is OK
| behaviour? Interesting.
| psyc wrote:
| Consider the phrasing: "So calling someone 'pedo guy' on
| Twitter once is Ok behavior?" You chose to unpack the
| facts in a direction chosen by you. A court of law
| unpacked it in a different direction.
|
| I call this Rhetorical Mischief.
| pb7 wrote:
| It's both not okay and not a big deal. The fact that it's
| brought up so often is because there's so little you can
| pin on Musk to warrant your hatred for him. I bet you've
| done similarly shitty things.
| thissiteb1lows wrote:
| Lamad123 wrote:
| Many many people use and have used something related to Jobs,
| but how many people use Aloni's? The average person doesn't
| drive a lithium car!
| ecf wrote:
| > They love living in their world but hate themselves for it.
|
| I can't help but think this is sarcasm.
| caffeine wrote:
| This is great news! Twitter and the rest of the rotten and
| censorious platforms could use a proper shake-up. Hope the
| authoritarians and political repressives and anyone who works on
| the content moderation team all resign in protest! Good riddance!
| pixelatedindex wrote:
| Very unclear if this should have ended in a /s or not - which
| is more of a reflection of the world in which we live in rather
| than the comment itself.
| caffeine wrote:
| I meant every word (and more.)
| fortyseven wrote:
| [deleted]
| systemvoltage wrote:
| It is crazy that sane things are controversial and insane
| things are mainstream.
| TameAntelope wrote:
| It's easy to call for change without actually having to build
| any of it.
|
| Odds are zero things change about Twitter's content policy, as
| it's about as permissive as you can get while operating in the
| US.
|
| There's a lot less sinister intent than one might think at
| first blush; Twitter _wants_ users to stick around, banning
| them is a really bad way to do that.
| parkingrift wrote:
| What's to build? Twitter already built all the tools to ban,
| censor, and editorialize content. OP is simply suggesting
| that Twitter use those tools less.
| Jtype wrote:
| Sure, banning users from posting a published news story is
| "permissive".
| TameAntelope wrote:
| Since when is "published" a meaningful quality barrier to
| content?
|
| Any idiot with a WP site can "publish" a "news story".
|
| Besides, if I reply to your tweet, "My child just died in a
| fire." with an article about how fire deaths are among the
| most painful ways to die, it doesn't really matter much how
| "published" that "news story" is, it's hateful and has no
| place on the Internet.
| gjs278 wrote:
| nullc wrote:
| Above you said that twitter was pretty much as permissive
| as they could as you can get while operating in the US.
| Don't you think you're moving the goalpost in your
| response here?
|
| I don't see how anyone could seriously sustain an
| argument that twitter is as permissive as they could be
| lawfully. (Nor would I argue that they should be /that/
| permissive in any case, the law in the US is a very very
| low bar, in part because we recognize that there are
| other ways to deal with bad speech than prohibiting it by
| law)
| TameAntelope wrote:
| I didn't mean legally, I meant what the US population
| (western population generally), as an aggregate market
| segment, will tolerate. Twitter, as a company, should be
| allowed to pursue whatever market they believe will best
| provide value to their shareholders, and if that market
| includes "Americans with typical sensibilities" then I
| doubt they'd be able to pursue that market while allowing
| hate speech and harassment on their platform.
|
| I think it's only fair we defend Twitter's right to
| freely associate as a form of free speech just as
| vigorously as we defend the right of people to be able to
| say whatever they like (with some exceptions around
| protected groups).
| caffeine wrote:
| > it's hateful and has no place on the Internet.
|
| Well that's where we (you and I, but also us collectively
| as a country, it seems) disagree.
|
| I don't care that it's hateful, and I think it should
| have a place on the internet, and so long as we allow
| monopolies on the internet, then it needs to have a place
| on whatever monopoly platform there is.
|
| Anyone who thinks they should be deciding what is
| "hateful and has no place on the internet" is EXACTLY who
| should NOT be deciding such things.
| TameAntelope wrote:
| You're totally right, I was trying to do a two part thing
| and I ruined it by saying, "no place on the Internet".
|
| I _should_ have said, "No place on Twitter." On the
| Internet? Yeah, totally in agreement.
|
| On Twitter? Couldn't disagree more, and my one-two punch
| of a point was going to be that 1) it's up to Twitter to
| decide that, and 2) they've landed at about as free as
| American society will tolerate.
|
| 1) because Twitter has rights too. If we actually respect
| freedom of speech, we also have to respect Twitter's
| right to decide who to associate with and,
|
| 2) Twitter is completely tolerant to many things we'd
| probably consider offensive. My example probably isn't
| even enough to get banned on Twitter for, even though I
| think Twitter would be wise to avoid associating with
| people who get that mean in their trolling.
|
| I think the only way to support free speech is to support
| Twitter's right to decide who it allows on its platform.
| I don't think they should let Trump on their platform,
| for example, but that's up to them, and they can change
| their minds. And now, apparently, (at least partially) up
| to Elon!
| ribosometronome wrote:
| And yet, you're a long time, heavy-ish poster on the more
| heavily moderated Hacker News.
| rideontime wrote:
| jfyi, if this is in reference to a certain viral tweet going
| around, you got trolled.
| caffeine wrote:
| Can you post a keyword or something that I can use to find
| the tweet?
| verisimi wrote:
| His family are in the club, he's only playing a role. And its
| not going to be about increasing freedom, sorry.
|
| https://web.archive.org/web/20140809023548/http://www.forbes...
|
| In South Africa, my father had a _private plane_ we'd fly in
| incredibly dangerous weather and barely make it back. This is
| going to sound slightly crazy, but my father also had a share
| in an _Emerald mine in Zambia_. I was 15 and really wanted to
| go with him but didn't realize how dangerous it was. I couldn't
| find my passport so I ended up grabbing my brother's - which
| turned out to be six months overdue! So we had this planeload
| of contraband and an overdue passport from another person.
| There were AK-47s all over the place and I'm thinking, "Man,
| this could really go bad."
|
| His grandfather (Dr Joshua Haldeman) was head of Technocracy
| Inc:
|
| https://www.technocracy.news/shock-elon-musks-grandfather-wa...
| verisimi wrote:
| Lots of downvotes - but this is verifiable!
| fleddr wrote:
| I think people are really over-analyzing this move. I think it's
| motivated by prestige, not money, nor is free speech the heart of
| the matter.
|
| Twitter is a stagnant company. They have thousands of engineers
| that in the span of a decade don't seem to produce much at all,
| nothing visible or memorable anyway. Long-lasting Twitter
| problems (culture, spam, algorithm issues) never seem addressed.
| User growth is stagnating as Twitter fails to appeal to "normies"
| in a way Facebook and other networks can.
|
| A perfect target for Musk to come in, do a few sweeping changes,
| and get out. Thereby proving once again that he gets shit done
| where others can't. Case closed.
|
| It doesn't take much. People have been begging for an edit button
| for a decade. If he'd get only that feature implemented, it will
| be remembered forever.
| PostOnce wrote:
| "stagnant company"
|
| Why must every company sustain boundless growth and 24-hour
| engagement? Change and growth for their own sake can be
| cancers.
|
| Twitter does what it does and people like it (as seen by the
| fact that they all use it), yet armchair generals cry out that
| twitter's refusal to turn into "not twitter" is somehow a
| failure of engineering and management, or some form of
| incompetence.
|
| So, I disagree, I guess.
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| Why do they need so many engineers though. It's not like
| twitter is facebook or gmail or apple tv where things are
| constantly shifting? I think the point was why does it take
| so many people? They should be raking in the cash after a 25%
| cull. Just saying this from the point of view if I was
| interested in buying their stock.
| sllewe wrote:
| Because that growth is used as a substitute for profit (or
| net income or EBITDA - take your pick). For a public company
| having one or the other (or rarely, both) keeps the ticker
| price moving in the right direction.
| 0xffff2 wrote:
| While I agree with you, at the same time if Twitter as a
| company isn't really doing much, why do they have thousands
| of developers on staff? I don't think there's anything wrong
| with being a stable, profitable company, but logically it
| should also come with a whole lot of layoffs.
| kyawzazaw wrote:
| Maybe maintenance of current user base itself requires lots
| of innovation although not ground breaking(thus jobs)?
|
| Why the need for layoffs?
|
| They did make Twitter Spaces and so far, that move alone
| has shadowed Clubhouse even though itself is not doing
| well. Also built discontinued Fleets.
| MisterSandman wrote:
| > at the same time if Twitter as a company isn't really
| doing much, why do they have thousands of developers on
| staff?
|
| ...to keep the app running? New devices, new standards, a
| lot of things change that you need devs to keep up with.
|
| Also, what's up with people saying twitter is stagnant?
| They've added Spaces, Twitter Blue and Crypto Profile
| Pictures - all 3 massive features added to their product.
| They're all trash, but that's besides the point.
| honkdaddy wrote:
| FWIW, I have a close friend who worked on Twitter's
| "Health" team whose job at one point was building mini
| games for the support/moderation staff to play during
| company mandated breaks in between looking at racist
| tweets and CP. He coasted for a while then moved onto a
| job with more work.
|
| This is entirely anecdotal, but from the little I know
| from his couple months there, Twitter has no idea what to
| do with the huge amount of engineers they employ. This is
| by no means an endorsement of Musk, but the company could
| use some new direction I think.
| ceeplusplus wrote:
| Those things you mention hardly justify thousands of
| expensive developers to maintain and create. I bet a team
| of 10 top notch engineers could create Spaces+Blue+Crypto
| pfp's in a couple months and run it at Twitter scale.
| Don't forget Instagram was acquired when it had 13
| employees serving tens of millions of users.
|
| Speaking out of experience, most engineers in big tech
| are bike shedding on internal tools that don't do
| anything useful. A small minority deliver the majority of
| the impact. On top of that at companies like Twitter and
| Google some of those useless employees spend their time
| complaining about social justice initiatives rather than
| doing work.
| dkislyuk wrote:
| I think this is a pretty naive take. Developing anything
| at Twitter-scale will run into security considerations,
| infrastructure development or optimization, constructing
| data workflows, multiple design iterations, UX design
| (how do people find and use this feature?), i18n,
| accessibility, product marketing, user testing, copy
| testing, and other functions and that's not even
| considering the actual product development, which is of
| course across multiple platforms. See also:
| https://danluu.com/sounds-easy/
| throwanem wrote:
| Speaking out of _what_ experience? You 've just appealed
| to your own authority; it seems not out of line to ask
| whence that comes.
| ceeplusplus wrote:
| Working at several big tech companies in industry. I
| can't say my experience is fully representative but I do
| start to see a pattern when my experiences line up with
| that of all my friends. There are a _lot_ of internal
| tools and anecdotally many of them seem like they're
| designed to abstract away things which wouldn't need
| abstracting for a company that exclusively hired high
| performing engineers.
| xiphias2 wrote:
| Spaces is amazing. It was great listening Nayib Bukele,
| the president of El Salvador talk while they were making
| history by voting Bitcoin to be adopted as legal tender
| in the country. He was just looking at his Twitter feed
| at that time, and was interested in what people are
| talking about the bill in spaces.
|
| I know he's controversial, but I wish more politicians
| would make themselves more accessible through Twitter
| (and I'm not a Trump fan, I just think he used it more
| effectively than other politicians).
| kerkeslager wrote:
| > They're all trash, but that's besides the point.
|
| No, that's _exactly_ the point. Just because you make
| something doesn 't mean it was progress.
| cyberlurker wrote:
| R&D is not useless.
| imtringued wrote:
| Because investors have options like sitting on their money
| until a recession comes along and buying things during the
| fire sale.
| onelovetwo wrote:
| Well even their team disagrees with you, they have for the
| last years chosen to focus on things like stories (dead),
| clubhouse (soon dead)instead of working on removing
| spam/scams
| pengaru wrote:
| > Twitter does what it does and people like it (as seen by
| the fact that they all use it)
|
| Last I checked not even half the US population is on twitter,
| not even close to half. Who is this "all" in "they all use
| it?"
| olliej wrote:
| The 217 million active daily users? It is "only" $~80
| million in the US, I'd love to know how a quarter of the US
| population using it daily represents an insignificant user
| base.
| HWR_14 wrote:
| What percentage of those 80 million users are individuals
| vs companies?
| pengaru wrote:
| > I'd love to know how a quarter of the US population
| using it daily represents an insignificant user base
|
| I'd love to know which variant of the English language
| treats "all" as analogous to not "insignificant".
| saurik wrote:
| Near as I have ever seen, most English speakers actually
| do mean something more like that when they say "all":
| maybe it would be good to mentally model it as "it feels
| as if it would be hard to choose at random and not find
| this statement to be true".
| fleddr wrote:
| I get what you're saying from a moral point of view, but we
| live in the real world.
|
| In the real world, Twitter is a public company. It has
| existed for a long time and has barely every made a penny. It
| fails in comparison to other high growth networks (Facebook,
| Tiktok, Youtube).
|
| And it's not an armchair comment. Twitter's own PMs have
| openly admitted to some of its flaws, it's failure to appeal
| to the masses. They're self-aware about their own
| incompetence.
| memish wrote:
| He could do that with any number of stagnant companies. Think
| bigger picture.
|
| Tesla: Sustainable transport
|
| SpaceX: Becoming a multiplanetary species
|
| Twitter: Free speech in the public square
|
| IMO it's actually the most important mission of the 3 since
| it's the basis for societal progress.
| systemvoltage wrote:
| I think this is a charitable interpretation of what's going
| on, unfortunate to see so many IMO reasonable comments
| getting downvoted here.
| lemoncookiechip wrote:
| > It doesn't take much. People have been begging for an edit
| button for a decade. If he'd get only that feature implemented,
| it will be remembered forever.
|
| Funny you mention that: https://www.ign.com/articles/elon-musk-
| largest-twitter-share...
| colinmhayes wrote:
| > People have been begging for an edit button for a decade.
|
| And they haven't implemented it because it's a truly horrible
| idea. If you messed up your tweet delete it. If it's already
| got traction, then it shouldn't be changed, especially because
| the edit feature would mostly be used maliciously to cancel
| retweeters.
| tomcam wrote:
| What if it's accompanied with a history feature that shows
| all the tweet edits?
| grenoire wrote:
| thank you Papa Musk for the edit button <3
| marstall wrote:
| >Long-lasting Twitter problems (culture, spam, algorithm
| issues) ...
|
| don't see how an edit button will change any of that!
| deanCommie wrote:
| Counterpoint: Twitter is the only social network I use where I
| get an unfiltered balance of ideas big and small - CEOs and
| random Joes. It's where memes are born and proliferate
| everywhere else (other than TikTok).
|
| Twitter WORKS. If it's profitable, it doesn't need more growth.
| Facebook got ruined because it thought everyone's parents and
| grandparents should be on it, and now that's the only people on
| it.
|
| My parents and grandparents are scared of Twitter, and that's
| how I like it.
|
| It also doesn't try to charge me for access to my own followers
| like Facebook does.
|
| Twitter may have problems but I like the balance they've
| struck.
|
| An edit button by the way would RUIN it because people who have
| gone viral with a bad take would simply edit it away.
| fleddr wrote:
| lol "unfiltered". It's an extremist network that filters in
| particular sanity.
|
| "Twitter WORKS. If it's profitable, it doesn't need more
| growth."
|
| You don't get to decide that. It's a publicly traded company.
| Which means you do need more growth.
|
| "My parents and grandparents are scared of Twitter, and
| that's how I like it."
|
| Strange thing to be proud of. I guess your own family isn't
| "cool" enough.
|
| Finally, an edit button can have a timer, as every edit
| button ever has had for decades.
| martin_a wrote:
| > If it's profitable, it doesn't need more growth.
|
| Stakeholders will think otherwise.
|
| > An edit button by the way would RUIN it because people who
| have gone viral with a bad take would simply edit it away.
|
| Just add a change history like (I think) FB has. No big deal.
| ejb999 wrote:
| >>Twitter is the only social network I use where I get an
| unfiltered balance of ideas
|
| If you think you are getting 'unfiltered balance' from
| twitter, then you don't know twitter very well.
| [deleted]
| nirav72 wrote:
| People have deleted bad tweets and they still have gone
| viral.
| orblivion wrote:
| Why would Elon Musk spend his capacity to get things done on
| something like Twitter? He's got planets to colonize.
| Interesting point to question his motives, but for now I take
| him at his word regarding the free speech thing. I guess it
| could be something more nefarious as well.
| trashtester wrote:
| Hopefully, Musk want to make sure we don't all kill each
| other with nukes before the Mars colony is ready. To prevent
| that, someone may help cool down the polarization.
|
| Maybe free speach with help, or at least some appearance of
| balance? Maybe he can somehow help find a way where the
| algorithm is less dependant on outrage to sell adds?
|
| I'm not an American, but I see both MAGA and WOKE as
| political antipatterns that need to be countered or
| displaced.
| chc wrote:
| You see both white nationalism and civil rights as
| political antipatterns? What do you consider a healthy
| political environment? Complete stagnation where people who
| got theirs are OK but no one else can ever rise to that
| level? Or do you mean something different by "woke" than
| its usual meaning of "aware of inequities and desiring to
| fix them"?
| da39a3ee wrote:
| Woke is a disparaging term used to refer to people
| espousing broadly left wing "progressive" ideologies, who
| are obsessed with issues affecting minorities and
| "inclusion", yet fail to recognize that their intolerance
| and refusal to respect differing views are utterly
| exclusionary.
| chc wrote:
| So what you're saying here is that helping minorities and
| including them is a political antipattern if bigots don't
| like when you do it?
| fleddr wrote:
| Like I said, prestige.
|
| When you're the richest man in the world, and your main
| companies are on track, what is it that motivates
| billionaires?
|
| Prestige. Visibility. Legacy.
| KerrAvon wrote:
| > A perfect target for Musk to come in, do a few sweeping
| changes, and get out. Thereby proving once again that he gets
| shit done where others can't. Case closed.
|
| Whatever merit or lack thereof Musk on the Twitter board has, I
| would bet money this particular scenario does not happen. Musk
| is not a turnaround expert or corporate savior (and for the
| record he's not claiming to be).
| bennysomething wrote:
| Well he did turn tesla round in a way, as in he wasn't a
| founder.
| HeavyStorm wrote:
| Yeah, I was thinking exactly that. Assuming that this is the
| case - that Musk is joining as a savior - is silly. He
| doesn't fit the profile nor has the track record for that.
|
| He may be a visionary (whatever that means), but a excellent,
| renowned executive that revitalizes companies, heck, that
| really has never been the case.
| fleddr wrote:
| Strange that both of you would say that. He's a ruthless
| result-driven executive that doesn't accept excuses. If
| it's at all impossible for something to get done, he'll get
| it done.
|
| I'm not at all a fan of him, but his power is in execution.
| A vision is worthless.
| hooande wrote:
| yeah, The Boring Company is absolutely killing it. I use
| that thing every day
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| Why are you gambling so much in Vegas?
| trashtester wrote:
| The vision may be worthless on its own, but in people
| like Musk or Jobs, the combination if the vision and the
| ability to execute is absolutely explosive.
|
| Both sell/sold products that hardly need any marketing.
| Closi wrote:
| Musk has proven to be a 'get shit done' kind of guy though,
| so if he did want to push through changes he certainly has
| the capability to do it.
| jarrettcoggin wrote:
| He often doesn't do things "by the book" and will not wait
| for what he thinks is unnecessary red-tape. He will skirt
| around regulations and taunt the process the entire way.
| We've seen it many times before, and it's always purely in
| the benefit of whatever company he's helping at the time.
|
| He has no problem throwing people/money/etc. at the problem
| to get the result he wants and if someone so much as says
| the opposite, they are removed from the equation (fired,
| publicly ridiculed, etc.).
|
| I personally don't see what benefit he can bring to Twitter
| other than shaking up the culture. Who knows, he may even
| come in, take over, and claim to be a founder of Twitter,
| just like he did with Tesla.
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| Considering where Tesla was when he joined and what they
| have become, I'd say it's fair to call himself a late-
| joining founder. This would obviously not be true of
| Twitter.
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| It's only useful if the shit that is "gotten done" is
| actually an asset to the company and its bottom line or
| service to the public. Change for change-sake is almost
| always a bad thing.
| nicce wrote:
| Well he has the money. Money talks, always.
| spsful wrote:
| - Completely redesigning their UI two times over, - Launching a
| subscription-based service (which seems to make it the first
| social media network without ads) - Lengthening tweets to 280
| characters - Letting users make money off their following
| (super followers)
|
| I'm confused as to how any of this makes it stagnant.
| namecheapTA wrote:
| As a one man show SAaS with enough customers to basically
| live my life.. I lol at these achievements.
| chc wrote:
| Four achievements in 10 years isn't actually a lot, and two
| of those are just "they added more monetization."
| paxys wrote:
| He is a board member, not the CEO/COO. He can demand changes,
| but how will they magically get done?
| dieortin wrote:
| In my experience Twitter is way more appealing to younger
| people than Facebook.
| ejb999 wrote:
| and tiktok is 100X more appealing to them than either of
| those.
|
| Facebook is for grandparents, twitter is for bots.
| mavhc wrote:
| Twitter is for journalists who now don't have to walk
| downstairs to get the pointless opinion of the man on the
| street
| kklisura wrote:
| > They have thousands of engineers that in the span of a decade
| don't seem to produce much at all, nothing visible or memorable
| anyway. Long-lasting Twitter problems (culture, spam, algorithm
| issues) never seem addressed.
|
| Why do you assume it's engineering problem? I think engineers
| at twitter are well capable to solve any problems, but it's
| just not a business need. The real problem are product
| owners/stakeholders/business people, incapable to transform,
| envision and lead at Twitter.
| kappi wrote:
| Why does linkedin require 15000 employees? a website to post a
| glorified fake resume!
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-04-05 23:00 UTC)