WhiningKhan
Regular
Musk bought Twitter, what hasn't gone wrong?
- Thread starter digitalwanderer
- Start date
-
- Tags
- space karen
A highly influential billionaire who got to the top through quite a share of unscrupulous business practices and a bit of help from his rich family (which his PR team tries to pretend not to exist so he seems like a self-made-man) and later decides to become saviour of humanity, and use his fortune to contruct the world of the future for us plebs the way HE believes to be the better one, in whatever endeavor, deserves at least an eybrow raise. Him buying tons of farmland, is not in itself nefarious, but does deserve at least some watchfulness over. The same applies to buying up large social networks.
Note that the person I described above could perfectbly be Musk or Gates the Third. All I said aplies to both of them (musk has also been reported to buying a bunch of land in america). The two fuckers are more alike than different. And any sane person has at least some healthy dose of suspicion about either is doing with their fortune and political sway.
Note that the person I described above could perfectbly be Musk or Gates the Third. All I said aplies to both of them (musk has also been reported to buying a bunch of land in america). The two fuckers are more alike than different. And any sane person has at least some healthy dose of suspicion about either is doing with their fortune and political sway.
I mean it outlived CNN+
I mean Gates's mother worked for IBM and convinced them to give business to her son. Bezos got hundreds of thousands from his family and friends to start amazon.
Last edited:
Truth social has been live for a while, it's just a buggy graveyard. How do you think it's doing well? Did you not see Devin Nunnes on FOX yesterday telling the hosts they were accepted at Truth and needed to post only to have Steve Doocey inform him that he hasn't been accepted yet and was like in 600,000th some place on the waiting list?
Truth's launch has been a joke as is the site, it's frankly embarrassing.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
In reality, what happens is such you end up legitimising hate in the name of politics. And given some of the narratives also peddled in the name of politics, 'medical advice' that has literally resulted in people dying. I never quite understood why some 'political platforms' peddle advice to their base that results in their death, it seems to counter to their goal, which perhaps at least demonstrates they genuinely believe the insanity they peddle.
This is why moderation is required.
Yea, I agree with this. It’s an aside from the main point that segregation of the groups would cause some sort of crazy divide due to echo chambering. But if you force them together some form of moderation is necessary.
Moderetion would be be great if true unbiased and perfectly well informed moderation were possible. There is no way in hell or heaven to actually implement that though.
So, in the real world, we are left with chosing between an imperfect top-down arbitrarily defined moderation body, versos the imperfect bottom-up anarchic self-moderation of each individual user.
Between these two choices, its not that obvious which one is preferable.
It launched in Feb. It seems to be growing pretty well as they ramp up server capabilities. Not sure how many users you wanted it to have in less than 3 months and only being avalible on ios
That isn't what was happening on Twitter. People orginized crimes on twitter , people were misandrist on the platform , people would actually accuse others of crimes on the platform and not only was it allowed to stay up but those people gained followers. Lets also not forget the inane stance they had on having to blindly trust science when the science wasn't even saying what they wanted too
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
I agree. But sometimes it's enough to remove the really toxic and dangerous information, or augment it with additional information.
Regardless of what beliefs an individual may hold, there may be overwhelming contrary information available, based on repeatable and provable experiments (what is generally considered accepted scientific evidence), to flag some beliefs (like people who oppose vaccinations) as perilous to those who may hold them. Depending on an individual's social environment, these counter-arguments may not be readily accessible.
If people want to oppose vaccinations for themselves, that is their right. But I do think that given the consequences of adopting such beliefs that they should also be privy to the counter-arguments and information. Some people just need some help. Like people with nut allergies needing "this product may contain nuts" on a bag of nuts, because... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You can't force people to accept scientific evidence, but you can put it out there.
Last edited by a moderator:
People also organized crimes, or lied through telephone or mail. That never warranted a moderation body from the phone company or the postal service. Actual crimes can be reported and tried through legal means on the traditional legal system independently of twitter, and provided with a judicial warrant, those legal institutions can request the removal of content on that basis.
I don't use twitter, but for the platforms that I do use, I am rather they not try play police out of their own self-righteous benevolence.
I do like moderated spaces, such as beyond3d, but here the moderation is coming from its own small comunity rather than a distant and opaque moderation office. I'd rather have big platforms just be a vehicle for content rather than curators.
As I see it, we will inevitably split many social networks into safe and sanitized family-friendly for aunty and granny to see cat-videos and click on the cute forever 21 blouse ad. And there will be social networks for people that wanna debate the legality of abortions, nuclear wars, alternative medicine and the like.
Its simply impossible for these two demographics to coexist in the same space. Specially when Ad revenue is the main pillar of your business model.
Its ok for some spaces to be toxic. As long as those who venture inside know what they are getting into.
Granny may not want to discuss if either god or the tooth fairy exist or not. But aome people do, and those conversations are also of social importance. Its good to have a place where the loony radicals can say "we'll eat the rich" and "the "bourgeois get the guillotine too". Could that be called hate speech? Sure. Is it violent. Yes. Dangerous? Well, that is speculative, isn't it?
Twitter already was more niche to begin with, mostly used by academics, journalists, politicians and radical activists. I don't see how leaving it be the wild west is much o f a problem. Whatever attempts at moderation were a total failure as it is a cesspool of harassment, threats, hate, doxing, graphic violence, pornography and all in-between. I'm not complaining. I think its users can handle it. If they couldn't, they would already have left. The moderation Musk is claiming to remove, wasn't making it any less toxic anyway.
How do you define "growing well"?
That quote is from an article about how Truth's chief technology officer and chief product officer quit at the beginning of this month.
Truth is currently nothing with no prospect of becoming anything any time soon. If it gets users it's only going to be a right wing echo chamber and even right wingers get bored with that.
Did we really need twitter to do that? Isn't the community itself already vomiting avalanches of counter arguments and scientific paper links on every single tweet? Any cursory stroll through the platform seems to cohoborate that. And honestly, I think its great. I don't get this thirst for some "official stamp" on things. We always run into the "but who checks the fact checkers" dilema. So why pretend the "twitter official council of cientific truth and dangerous information" has access to some infalible oracle that rhe community itself doesn't. This goes completely against the spirit of the internet.
Science is the single most successful method ever invented for discovering the truth if you have an alternative method i'd like to hear it
Science, like democracy, is the worst of all systems, second only to every other one. There is no better way of seeking truth than the scientific method, but that does not mean every scientific truth held today is forever settled. If the measuring stick for information quality is if it conforms to past orthodoxies, then any new disruptive new discoveries would be impossible.
If twitter existed in Darwins times, should it have allowd him to tweet about his new theory, or should its have put a "dangerous scientific misinformation" tag on him? If you were in charge of twitter, would you want it to be a platform in which these new progressive ideas can flourish, or would you want it to be safe, but stale?
Cranks with bizarre wrong theories is the price we pay for allowing Cranks with bizarre but CORRECT theories. We can't have one without the other.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Debatable. Twitter felt the need to do that, part of that.
Again, it's back to the bag of nuts situation. You can't make people read pertinent facts but you can highlight pertinent information. In many counties Twitter probably wouldn't need to do this but a bunch of counties in which Twitter operates are both litigious and make the platform holder somewhat responsible for the information it serves. Given it's tricky to accommodate different requirements based on which territories users serving opinions are based in, relative to which territories users live, in relative to where information is actually consumed, I don't know what else a platform the scale of Twitter can do.
Discussions, debates, and insights precede science.
Nobody starts a scientific experiment without a previous clue of what is going on. And the scientific truth is always questionable.
Also, who will decide the moderation?
Be careful because a 1984 scenario may happen in the name of "science" or "the greater good."
When will we start to burn books?
Nobody starts a scientific experiment without a previous clue of what is going on. And the scientific truth is always questionable.
Also, who will decide the moderation?
Be careful because a 1984 scenario may happen in the name of "science" or "the greater good."
When will we start to burn books?
So apparently now Musk is NOT buying Twitter after all.
I wonder if he's just playing with everyone and stock prices sometimes.