Elon Musk Buys Twitter

[Taifuu]

Judges view the actions in contrast to possible legal violations. I don't afford them particular insight into concerning but not illegal or touching on illegal action. I don't generally afford judges (as a class) particular insight into cultural or political issues involving ordinary citizens, tech companies, and the government. I'm rather taking this to be an appeal to authority.

You were not asked about judges as a position or to provide cultural input; the question was your thoughts on the judges' ruling since it THIS case that we are discussing. Your post does not make any sense. Please elaborate and maybe provide some sort of evidence or reasoning behind your thoughts. You know, like you're actually interested in legitimate discourse.

[Twdft]

Your post does not make any sense.

TBH 90% of the time I have no clue what they are talking about. It might be simply the constant weaseling around, not answering any direct questions, deflecting and bringing up stuff that's not even remotely connected to the current arguments.

At this point I wouldn't be surprised if they are an chatgpt experiment.

[tehdang]

You were not asked about judges as a position or to provide cultural input; the question was your thoughts on the judges' ruling since it THIS case that we are discussing. Your post does not make any sense. Please elaborate and maybe provide some sort of evidence or reasoning behind your thoughts.

The poster asked for a comment on a link with legal rulings and legal analysis relating to constitutionality. I never thought there was anything meritorious to claiming Twitter had done something unconstitutional or illegal in their actions. So my comment is simply that the article confirms what I already thought about the legal basis. Whatever standards judges can form and enforce in legal vs illegal government speech has no real bearing on when Americans judge if they want the FBI suggesting or pressuring tech companies to action their social media accounts.

You know, like you're actually interested in legitimate discourse.

Asked and answered, in my view. If you have some particular point from the article that you need further elaboration on, please feel free to articulate it.

[unfilteredJW]

TBH 90% of the time I have no clue what they are talking about. It might be simply the constant weaseling around, not answering any direct questions, deflecting and bringing up stuff that's not even remotely connected to the current arguments.

At this point I wouldn't be surprised if they are an chatgpt experiment.

Said poster weasels and makes up new definitions for words so it’s always problematic reading their posts, what with all the lies and misinformation they are allowed to post on the forums.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Judges view the actions in contrast to possible legal violations. I don't afford them particular insight into concerning but not illegal or touching on illegal action. I don't generally afford judges (as a class) particular insight into cultural or political issues involving ordinary citizens, tech companies, and the government. I'm rather taking this to be an appeal to authority.

So your claim is that that the Biden Administration reporting Hunter's dick pics is a CULTURAL OR POLITICAL ISSUE and thus concerning? And here you were posting for tens of pages as if their correspondence was illegal or unethical! Thanks for clarifying that it was simply all just political theater that you disagreed with.

[Breccia]

I never thought there was anything meritorious to claiming Twitter had done something unconstitutional or illegal in their actions.

Nor have you denounced such a claim. Since it is your side arguing that Twitter broke the First Amendment, and you have not spoken out differently despite being asked, it is completely valid to assume you, too, think Twitter broke the First Amendment.

You're free to specifically and directly refute that by simply saying "No, Twitter did not break the First Amendment". Until you do, I and everyone else will go with the evidence that you think they have, by virtue of siding with people who believe that, and not speaking out otherwise. I mean, surely you would have voiced such an opinion when directly asked by now?

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

There's probably an intern at a law firm whose job is to watch Musk's tweets 24/7.

It's probably a full department.

[CastletonSnob]

Most of the people who left Twitter for Mastodon or some other site will probably come back sooner or later. And not because I think these people are unable to quit Twitter, or because I think Elon Musk will magically learn how to run a social media platform.

It's because Twitter has a near-monopoly on the kind of social media platform it is, and what kind of services it provides. It's the same reason why people put up with YouTube's bullshit.

[Breccia]

It's because Twitter has a near-monopoly on the kind of social media platform it is, and what kind of services it provides. It's the same reason why people put up with YouTube's bullshit.

Your theory makes no sense! Now if you'll excuse me, I'm putting another Amazon order together, then drinking Starbucks.

Okay in all seriousness you're probably right. Some people have left for morals/ethics and will stay offline. I don't think they're the majority of who you're talking about.

However (and even South Park said something about this) part of the reason a company gets that big is their product is actually acceptable. Starbucks coffee doesn't suck. Amazon's products/prices/delivery don't suck. McDonald's burg*cough* their fries don't suck.

Twitter might realistically fall into "your product sucks" territory if they keep charging for what used to be free features, becomes more adds than Tweets, and they keep disconnecting. You can draw a line from pre-buyout to now that will extend to "Twitter is unusable" in a few years.

Don't get me wrong, I'm still siding with you like nine parts out of ten. But there is the possibility, based on current evidence, that Twitter will get so bad that other services actually pick up. Or, far extreme case, there might not be a Twitter to return to. This thread is 187 pages, the majority of which is "the owner of Twitter says it's bad and is making it worse on purpose".

[Endus]

Your theory makes no sense! Now if you'll excuse me, I'm putting another Amazon order together, then drinking Starbucks.

Okay in all seriousness you're probably right. Some people have left for morals/ethics and will stay offline. I don't think they're the majority of who you're talking about.

However (and even South Park said something about this) part of the reason a company gets that big is their product is actually acceptable. Starbucks coffee doesn't suck. Amazon's products/prices/delivery don't suck. McDonald's burg*cough* their fries don't suck.

Twitter might realistically fall into "your product sucks" territory if they keep charging for what used to be free features, becomes more adds than Tweets, and they keep disconnecting. You can draw a line from pre-buyout to now that will extend to "Twitter is unusable" in a few years.

Don't get me wrong, I'm still siding with you like nine parts out of ten. But there is the possibility, based on current evidence, that Twitter will get so bad that other services actually pick up. Or, far extreme case, there might not be a Twitter to return to. This thread is 187 pages, the majority of which is "the owner of Twitter says it's bad and is making it worse on purpose".

The problem is that with most of these, Youtube and Amazon and Twitter specifically, the "monopoly" is the draw. Twitter's not successful because it lets you broadcast short messages, it's successful because everyone uses Twitter. Same for Youtube. Same for Amazon; you can buy nearly everything there, way more successfully than any other single site.

The monopoly isn't a negative for customers, here; it's the entire basis of what customers actually want. Nobody wants to copy-paste the same communications to a half-dozen sites, they want to hit Twitter once and have everyone hear them. Same for Youtube; why struggle with listing to a half-dozen even shittier little sites when Youtube's both got a bigger audience and compensates you better because of that audience? It requires the individual to make more effort for less gain. So they choose the easier, better option.

I'm not gonna defend the choices being made, particularly with Musk and Twitter, but they're monopolies by virtue of customer preference, which is a vastly different thing from monopolies of resource restriction; if you own almost all the diamond mines, you can charge whatever you want for diamonds, and nobody gets a real choice. That's obviously all bad. Monopolies of choice, though? If they become bad, the choice changes, and there's no more monopoly. They have no restrictive control over their resources. The moment people go "eww, no", they're done. And I feel conflating that with classic resource-control monopolies just doesn't work, to the point that the term's actively misleading and we probably need a way to more-accurately describe them.

[Breccia]

The problem is that with most of these, Youtube and Amazon and Twitter specifically, the "monopoly" is the draw.

Largely true, yes. I'm just pointing out that, at some point, even Twitter could become so useless that it would bust its own monopoly.

We're not there yet, it's just a logical outcome from the current state of affairs. Musk is acting like he wants to burn $44 billion in public, but I don't think he actually wants to.

[ringpriest]

Largely true, yes. I'm just pointing out that, at some point, even Twitter could become so useless that it would bust its own monopoly.

We're not there yet, it's just a logical outcome from the current state of affairs. Musk is acting like he wants to burn $44 billion in public, but I don't think he actually wants to.

The relevant term is network effect.

Twitter is popular because everyone uses Twitter, because a combination of "right place, right time, right interface, right functionality" got enough people using it for the network effect to snowball. Twitter has no real monopoly in the classic sense. At present, it is running on degrading momentum. Once users stop using Twitter for almost everything, there will be a rapid slide to using Twitter for almost nothing.

Edit: I suspect this slide is already well underway, probably unstoppably. To quote B5, "The avalanche has already started, it is too late for the pebbles to vote."

[fwc577]

Your theory makes no sense! Now if you'll excuse me, I'm putting another Amazon order together, then drinking Starbucks.

Okay in all seriousness you're probably right. Some people have left for morals/ethics and will stay offline. I don't think they're the majority of who you're talking about.

However (and even South Park said something about this) part of the reason a company gets that big is their product is actually acceptable. Starbucks coffee doesn't suck. Amazon's products/prices/delivery don't suck. McDonald's burg*cough* their fries don't suck.

Twitter might realistically fall into "your product sucks" territory if they keep charging for what used to be free features, becomes more adds than Tweets, and they keep disconnecting. You can draw a line from pre-buyout to now that will extend to "Twitter is unusable" in a few years.

Don't get me wrong, I'm still siding with you like nine parts out of ten. But there is the possibility, based on current evidence, that Twitter will get so bad that other services actually pick up. Or, far extreme case, there might not be a Twitter to return to. This thread is 187 pages, the majority of which is "the owner of Twitter says it's bad and is making it worse on purpose".

First off, fuck you. /s

A McDouble is amazing. How dare you.

Second, as far as "Twitter" is concerned, they don't produce goods in the same way as other examples (like McDonalds, Starbucks, etc.)

Nobody "needs" Twitter and where they're going to suffer is a portion of the user base leaving Twitter and realizing they're better without Twitter. There are times where you're in need of a coffee or food and it's just the most convenient thing available to you at that time.

[Edge-]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...r-study-finds/

In the months after Elon Musk’s takeover, antisemitic posts on Twitter skyrocketed, according to a report shared first with The Technology 202, which offers a new detailed look into the growing prevalence of hate speech on the site.

The study, which used machine-learning tools to identify likely antisemitic tweets, found that the average weekly number of such posts “more than doubled after Musk’s acquisition” — a trend that has held in the months after Musk took over.

The analysis found an average of over 6,200 posts per week appearing to contain antisemitic language between June 1 and Oct. 27, the day Musk completed his $44 billion deal to buy Twitter. But that figure rose to over 12,700 through early February — a 105 percent increase.

The report — conducted by the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD), a nonpartisan think tank, and CASM Technology, a start-up that researches disinformation and hate speech online — also found a “surge” in the number of new accounts created immediately after Musk took over that posted at least some antisemitic content.

Researchers wrote that it represented a three-fold increase in the rate of “hateful account creation.” But critically, the researchers behind the study said the uptick in hateful content extended well beyond that initial wave of new accounts.

“We’re seeing a sustained volume of antisemitic hate speech on the platform following the takeover,” said Jacob Davey, who leads research and policy on the far-right and hate movements at ISD.

The study marks one of the most extensive efforts to date to quantify how Musk’s drastic makeover of the company has impacted the prevalence of hate speech on the platform.

According to the report, researchers trained a machine-learning tool to spot tweets that “plausibly” matched at least one interpretation of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism. The organization lists making “dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews” and “Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews” as examples of antisemitic remarks.

Researchers then manually reviewed a smaller subset of the posts to compare it with their algorithmic sorting tool, finding that it matched with 76 percent accuracy.

“There are inherent challenges in training language models on as nuanced a topic as antisemitism,” the researchers wrote.

Even with the caveats, researchers say the findings paint a clear picture: Antisemitic tweets have become far more prevalent under Musk.

“We’re pretty confident that this is the most sophisticated attempt to map antisemitism on Twitter in the pre- and post-Musk era,” said Tim Squirrell, ISD’s head of communications.

Elon Musk, making Twitter antisemetic again!

In other news, I guess he updated the press email account at Twitter so it autoreplies to all emails with a poop emoji. The irony is not lost on anyone paying attention to how things have been going for the social media platform since his purchase.

[Benggaul]

I was banned from Twitter a couple years ago for calling Ann Coulter a heartless cunt when she cheered the deaths of immigrant children. Meanwhile she was allowed to continue Tweeting up a bigoted storm unimpeded, so I'm not going to pretend Twitter didn't already have pretty terrible problems before Musk decided he wanted to buy a new toy to break.

I do note, however, that all of the worst of humanity are having their Twitter accounts reinstated while mine is still banned because I called rightie a mean word.

[Breccia]

A McDouble is amazing. How dare you.

It is not, I have proof.

[ringpriest]

In other news, I guess he updated the press email account at Twitter so it autoreplies to all emails with a poop emoji. The irony is not lost on anyone paying attention to how things have been going for the social media platform since his purchase.

It takes a real genius to be able to accurately condense months of running a (formerly) $44 billion dollar company into a single emoji. (Or is it a free copy of his autobiography?)

[fwc577]

It is not, I have proof.

I didn't eat the entire day and had to run some errands tonight. I ate a McDouble. It was the best thing I ate all day. That's proof. Stop with the fake news!

[Sorshen]

Absolutely fascinating how Elon keeps making these bad decisions.

[Edge-]

I mean, is it bad if his goal is basically promoting mistrust and misinformation on Twitter?

Objectively yes and all but he obviously thinks this is fuckin aces. Dude has serious brainworms.

I look forward to the Twitter Checkmark Fiasco 2.0!