Musk bought Twitter, what hasn't gone wrong?
- Thread starter digitalwanderer
- Start date
-
- Tags
- space karen
It sounds so dictatorial. “Careful what you wish for, the next guy might not be so nice….”
Yes it does.
Though I have the ever slightest of hope he was being pensive and reflective on his own purchase of Twitter, as he once had wished for.
Musk’s alleged stalker identified; no evidence of ElonJet tracking, report says
The alleged stalking incident occurred at a gas station near Grimes' house.
arstechnica.com
Musk pensive and reflective? What, next Trump will be humble?
What happened with the poll about Musk stepping down as CEO? What was the final score and how'd the players react?
Nevermind, found it:
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/OWDRAJTXA5KNZLM2UXRWIT2VVY.jpg)
www.reuters.com
Nevermind, found it:
Musk's poll results: Elon should step down as Twitter CEO
About 57.5% votes were for "Yes", while 42.5% were against the idea.
www.reuters.com
So naturally he's moving on to shut it down, right???
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Hopefully he'll buy TikTok next. 
Regards,
SB
Regards,
SB
Well, we instantly went from "Shadowbanning is a conspiracy theory only fringe independent nuts cry about" to "Yeah, shadowbanning happened and it was extremelly biased, but Musk is also doing it now:
Dont let the hypocrites get away with it. In fact they love musk because he is such a goof ball that makes him a great target for them to point their fingers to as diversion.
As much of a legitimate mess musk's handling of twitter is, a lot of the hysteria is deliberatly aplified and exagerated by legacy corporate journalists and their simpathisers to misdirect from their own wrongdoings and stupidity.
Last edited:
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Yup. Anytime one person or a group of people are given the power to censor information there's always the potential for abuse.
Just look at the Hunter Biden story during the previous presidential election. One presidential candidate and one political party who could have been hurt by it spread false information that it was all a Russian attempt to influence the election. So at least some parties in a position of power used Twitter and the media to censor information that would have been harmful to those parties.
And, of course, once the Justice department was allowed to look into it, the laptop and Hunter Biden's ties to various foreign entities turns out to be true with the only question being how much did his father know about it and whether his father helped facilitate those ties and whether he benefitted from those ties and whether those ties might have influenced him in any way.
While not on the same scale, but you only have to look over at Russia to see them doing the same thing. The media censoring legitimate information at the behest of certain people with power that they would like to see either in power to continue to stay in power. Now, it's on a far larger scale in Russia than something like the Hunter Biden story, but it's the same thing. Protecting people in power by censoring information that might be harmful to those people in power AND doing so selectively to only protect the people in power that you want to stay in power. And then on top of that claiming it was false and some other world agency was doing it (Russia was doing it!). Sounds awfully similar to claims by Russian government officials and their media that "The US is doing it!" when information is censored and lies formed in order to make it sound legitimate.
Any form of censorship is bad even if at times it might be necessary or seem to be necessary. While most of it is done with "good" intentions, once any entity or group of entities is allowed to censor information it's difficult and I'd argue impossible for it not to be abused by people in power (IE - people who get to determine what is or isn't censorable). With Twitter and lets say the Hunter Biden story in particular what could have been done was to have it flagged with some icon indicating that there might be questions about the authenticity and/or veracity of the information but still allow that information to exist.
Obviously, more egregious posts that are known to be false (Hey, I just saw a rock floating in midair and it was dancing with a bunch of tiny fairies who talked to me) might have a more serious icon denoting this is likely obviously false information and or a fictional post. Who knows.
As with many things transparency is key and part of the whole transparency thing is not hiding what is being flagged as censorable. Bleh.
Of course, now we have Elon Musk who was crusading against that type of behavior proving another proverb true. Absolute power corrupts absolutely as now Elon Musk is doing all the things he claimed he was going to stop. And showing even more blatantly why any person or group of persons having the power of censorship is dangerous.
Regards,
SB
Last edited:
Yup and they asked Twitter to take them down, they didn't "demand' or "order" them.
Ouch. An editorial by an actual Tesla investor:
I’m a Tesla Investor. Elon Musk Is a Danger to the Company.
Musk’s chaotic management and ridiculous Twitter antics make it harder to trust him running a business.
www.thedailybeast.com
That is one of the many, many things revealed recently, but you bet whoever feels embarassed by this story will focus on this one part to make it seem like its nothing worth talking about. Its among the oldest tricks in the book.
Lets not make it so easy to be decieved guys. Specially when just days ago we were all giggly jumping on the bandwagon of calling Musk fans gullible...
So whats the part that is worth talking about ?
They are gullible should we type a list of ridiculous claims he's made ?
You completely misunderstood my point if you think I don't know that, or that such list is needed. Exactly because I know Muskian belivers are gullible fools, I feel confident in expecting others not to be just as gullible within a different context. There are many competing framings of the stories with selective emphasising and downplaing of facts. If you can so readily recognize one flavor of gullibility, you should be equaly vigilant of others.
I really don't want to have to sit down and make a summary of all the Red-flags raised by the Twitter Files, but you won't find them yourself if you take the reporting of large corporate publigations at face value.
A common theme I've learned from many now independent american journalists that left big legacy publications disgruntled with their stifling internal politics in the last decade is that these organizations rely heavily in souces from US governmental agencies and state aparatus, and they end up being way too cozy with them inorder to mantain the access. Not unlike how big gaming publications are often accused of being overly favorable to big publisher's titles in order to mantain the good relations.
Under that context, its no surprise that the twitter files would be downplayed so comonly. Most corporate journalists are about as guilty as twitter of being way too often in bed with the very organizations they should be investigating and scrutinizing. If they recognize the gravity of twitter's malpractices, they'd be admitting to many of their own.
Personally, I am not confortable with huge platforms having frequent meetings with US intelligence agencies reggarding "missinformation" (conveniently loosely defined and easy to abuse term, with historical precedent for such in every single dishonest totalitarian government ever, including many today). Meetings with the FBI or US military don't need to include explicit "orders" to be considered a form of soft coercion. Pretending thats not the case puts one at similar levels of gullibility as that of Musk Fan-boys.
Last edited:
Seems like Twitters cash flow problems are all of Musks own makings. They had a net loss of 221 million last year. Musk then added $1.5 Billion a year losses to fund his purchase. I guess the other $1.3 Billion (to hit $3 Billion negative) was due to lost ad revenue caused by his own failures on Twitter policy?
"Overall costs at Twitter in 2021, the last annual period that the company reported before being taken private, were $5.6 billion, during which time it made a net loss of $221 million."
...
Musk predicted that Twitter’s net cash outflow, “if you didn’t make any changes,” would be about $6 billion to $6.5 billion next year. This is partly because the company has been loaded with $12.5 billion of debt to help to fund his acquisition, which required about $1.5 billion a year in annual debt servicing payments amid rising interest rates, he said.
arstechnica.com
"Overall costs at Twitter in 2021, the last annual period that the company reported before being taken private, were $5.6 billion, during which time it made a net loss of $221 million."
...
Musk predicted that Twitter’s net cash outflow, “if you didn’t make any changes,” would be about $6 billion to $6.5 billion next year. This is partly because the company has been loaded with $12.5 billion of debt to help to fund his acquisition, which required about $1.5 billion a year in annual debt servicing payments amid rising interest rates, he said.
Elon Musk blames Twitter cost cuts on “$3 billion negative cash flow”
Musk says he'll resign once he finds someone "foolish enough to take the job."
arstechnica.com
interesting
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
How dare this Ian bloke ask questions that Musk can't answer. Like asking him to explain what he just said.
Outrageous.
Outrageous.