Elon Musk Buys Twitter

[Specialka]

Acceptable conduct using their services. To which the punishment only amounts to denial of continued use of those services.

It's exactly like a McDonalds kicking out someone who keeps screaming ethnic slurs at a group of kids there celebrating a birthday party. Literally the same thing. Dude can go scream ethnic slurs on someone else's property.

Mc Donalds does not allow you to spread your speach around the globe with one click.

[Flarelaine]

Is it really happening!? The future of Twitter looks brighter than ever. We've now left an age of darkness and have entered into a new era of enlightenment, starting today.

/Salutes Chief Twit

Chief Twat.

[tikcol]

Everything will be ok. People that dislike the new management that much will surely leave. Perhaps even create their own platform.. Like Trump.

[jonnysensible]

when do we get the ISIS accounts back

[Gumble]

Well, I guess we’ll see how it goes. I don’t agree with giving certain people more of a voice… all I can do is leave the platform if I don’t like it.

That is an interesting argument. "Giving certain people more of a voice".

Does banning people off platforms reduce their reach and the number/quality of people listening to them? Maybe, maybe not. Is it right to ban people from public or quasi-public platforms because you do not like what they said? I feel like that is a no.

By banning them, you are saying that what they are saying is dangerous to you. That only makes what they are saying more interesting to the people who want to hear them, and likely to the people who "might" want to hear them. I certainly had never heard a word that came out of Andrew Tate's mouth until he was banned, but then I watched that Piers Morgan interview of him because I was curious to see what had caused that reaction. Piers Morgan did a "cathy newman" level of a bad job with that interview and Tate came out looking like the reasonable one. I think it likely Tate is not a reasonable person in alot of respects, but I would never have watched anything of him if he hadn't been banned.

I've always been a proponent of fighting speech I dislike with more speech I like. Banning people from speaking always feels to me like the banner admitting that the person they banned is right, they simply don't have the mental capacity to argue with them capably, so it's easier to just yell 'shup up! I'm turning off your mic' then to actually put forward a better idea.

- - - Updated - - -

when do we get the ISIS accounts back

https://twitter.com/official_kju


Twitter lets a person who has enslaved a whole country, murdered dozens (if not more) people, and shot missles at countries we are allied with be on there...... seems a strangely followed policy.

[Rennadrel]

Do you actually think the people taking action against tweets/accounts do so randomly and use their feelings?

I'm fairly sure they have a set of rules they go by just like everywhere else, like here.


As far as I know he didn't really innovate much, more like finance other peoples ideas.

- - - Updated - - -


What a load of bull, rich people get a better education and basically are connected from the start - so rich people don't have to be geniuses to get even richer.

I disagree. When I see people blatantly advocating for violence against others or telling them to kill themselves go unpunished, but others get the ban hammer, it leads me to believe that either moderation on Twitter is laughably inconsistent, or there's a human element that is protecting certain groups of people despite them clearly violating the rules.

That to me is one of the biggest failures of Twitter, is the inconsistent moderation. For all they talk about preventing the spread of misinformation, they certainly do a really shitty job at it when they are ideologically aligned with the people doing it. Not to mention MAPs still being allowed to spread their vile on that site. The site would be a lot better with better moderation and also making the minimum age to use it 18.

[diller]

Not to mention MAPs still being allowed to spread their vile on that site. The site would be a lot better with better moderation and also making the minimum age to use it 18.

MAPs??????????

[Endus]

Mc Donalds does not allow you to spread your speach around the globe with one click.

You're explaining why you "want" unrestricted use of Twitter. It's not an argument for why you "should" have such access.

[s_bushido]

MAPs??????????

Minor Attracted Persons. It's an attempt by conservatives to associate pedophiles with LGBT people.

[Endus]

I've always been a proponent of fighting speech I dislike with more speech I like. Banning people from speaking always feels to me like the banner admitting that the person they banned is right, they simply don't have the mental capacity to argue with them capably, so it's easier to just yell 'shup up! I'm turning off your mic' then to actually put forward a better idea.

The reality is, a lot of "arguments" are just such trash bullshit that it demeans anyone to take them seriously. Telling advocates for that bullshit to "fuck off" is all they end up deserving. You don't "debunk" bigots, you just tell them to fuck off. Debunking them gives them way too much credit.

[jonnysensible]

Minor Attracted Persons. It's an attempt by conservatives to associate pedophiles with LGBT people.

not being funny but ive never seen that shit on twitter and im terminally online. Not surprising to me that the twitter algorithm thinks Rennadrel is a nonce and would like to see it tho based on his posting history here.

[Specialka]

You're explaining why you "want" unrestricted use of Twitter. It's not an argument for why you "should" have such access.

The fact that I should explain why is an issue in itself.

Because banning them just "validate" their views and they just create alternate network where they only meet people agreeing with them, etc....

[Endus]

The fact that I should explain why is an issue in itself.

No, it's a basic expectation that you actually explain your reasoning. Because it sure doesn't follow on its face. You're literally just saying that because you want a thing, you feel you're entitled to that thing. That's the full extent of the argument you've made.

Because banning them just "validate" their views and they just create alternate network where they only meet people agreeing with them, etc....

And? Nobody gives a shit. Extremists and bigots can fuck off. If they make their own little hate-clubs and keep to themselves, everyone else wins.

[Hypasonic]

Glad he finally bought it, I'm sure he has plenty more memes to share.

[Draco-Onis]

The fact that I should explain why is an issue in itself.

Because banning them just "validate" their views and they just create alternate network where they only meet people agreeing with them, etc....

But we aren't banning them the free market is, if extremists views made advertisers tons of money they would find some excuse to keep them on. The aren't owed a platform especially if they are losing the company money. I am not sure what the issue of them going somewhere and masturbating on smaller platforms with people who share their views at least they aren't creating new monsters.

[Specialka]

But we aren't banning them the free market is, if extremists views made advertisers tons of money they would find some excuse to keep them on. The aren't owed a platform especially if they are losing the company money. I am not sure what the issue of them going somewhere and masturbating on smaller platforms with people who share their views at least they aren't creating new monsters.

I perfectly knew you could not understand the issue. It has nothing to do with free market.

[Rasulis]

Elon Musk has fired Vijaya Gadde, head of legal policy, trust & safety, who made the decision to permanently suspend Donald Trump.

Her payout for getting fired by Musk is $12.5 million. Agrawal (CEO) 38.7M, Segal (CFO) 24.5M, Personette (CCO) 11.2M. The list goes on for quite a bit.

[No Kings Voter]

Thanks to Mr.Mush for spending $44 billion on a company that losses $221 million a year.
I'm sure that Twitter will be self driving just a month from now.


Mark Zuckerberg owes him a beer. Takes the heat from his burning $16 billion on some crappy VR suite.

[Edge-]

Mark Zuckerberg owes him a beer. Takes the heat from his burning $16 billion on some crappy VR suite.

You're just not ready for the future, where we'll FINALLY HAVE LEGS IN 2023!

But real, I don't think even this dumbass waste of money can distract from Zuckerberg absolutely imploding one of the most valuable companies on the stock market over the past year+.

[Rasulis]

Thanks to Mr.Mush for spending $44 billion on a company that losses $221 million a year.
I'm sure that Twitter will be self driving just a month from now.


Mark Zuckerberg owes him a beer. Takes the heat from his burning $16 billion on some crappy VR suite.

There is no comparison. Even while burning 16B on Reality Lab, Meta 3rd quarter 2022 net profit margin was still a whopping 28.16% and sitting on top of $40B in cash reserves.

- - - Updated - - -

You're just not ready for the future, where we'll FINALLY HAVE LEGS IN 2023!

But real, I don't think even this dumbass waste of money can distract from Zuckerberg absolutely imploding one of the most valuable companies on the stock market over the past year+.

It is still one of the most valuable companies on the market. People were unhappy that it failed to meet earnings expectations. However, all the other metrics are strong.

Earnings per share (EPS): $1.64 vs $1.89 expected
Revenue: $27.71 billion vs. $27.38 billion expected
Daily Active Users (DAUs): 1.98 billion vs 1.98 billion expected
Monthly Active Users (MAUs): 2.96 billion vs 2.94 billion expected
Average Revenue per User (ARPU): $9.41 vs. $9.83 expected