Musk bought Twitter, what hasn't gone wrong?

Definitely, but big business has more incentive to keep people happy than big government. Generally speaking big government can keep citizens in line through threat of force. Generally speaking big business is about keeping consumers happy and buying their product through selling them goods and services that make them happy, they generally can't rely on force. I say generally because there have been times throughout history when large businesses were big enough that they used force to ensure they had no significant competition in their area.

Of course, it's not all wine and roses with big business, unfettered it's easy for them to abuse their workers. But throughout history (at least in the US) that tends to be the outlier rather than the norm. Yes you can save money by abusing your workers, but you can also save money by treating your workers well and having them be more productive. Which way any given business went depended on the mentality of the head of the business.

Of course, as with everything there's a bit of recency bias. And all I have to do is compare living conditions in the 70's (huge government oversight and massive regulation of industry and absolutely dismal quality of life) to the 80's and 90's (fewer regulations and less government oversight and significantly improved quality of life) to now (a move back towards 70's era oversight and regulation of industry and quality of living is also rapidly deteriorating).

Nothing is perfect. In all cases, you have to pick your poison. Small government + small business, for example, certainly has its attractions but even that isn't without drawbacks. Cost of goods and services for consumers is significantly higher without big business and the efficiencies enabled at that level of operation. OTOH - smaller businesses are more nimble at reacting to a changing landscape.

Regards,
SB

The same way businesses are under market pressures of consumer choice, governments are under political pressures of voters choice.

In practice, us plebs are chosing between two or three nearly equally shitty viable political parties, or between two or three quasi monopolies of corporate conglomerates. They both manifest the same corrosive phenomena: consolidation and concentraton of power, accelerated by their ensuing reinforsemenr feedback-loops.

One point in which I concede the free market scores a point over democratic system is that we vote with our money in way more frequent and granular maner than we get to do through elections and plebicites.

The truth is both big business and big government eventually form an unwrittent mutually-beneficial aliance. Big companies fund big parties, and big parties apease big business.

I can't point to a perfect solution, but at least the general direction that seems to at least retard the speed of that movement is fragmentation. Buy from small, local businesses, avoid monopolies and give left-field political parties and candidates a chance / rely less on centralized governmental agencies and more in bottom up grass roots organizations (unions, cooperatives, guilds, non-profits, etc...) Those are often less convenient, though, so as good the bitches that we are, we rarely opt to them. I include myself as guilty for conceding to convenience way more often than I should.
 
Last edited:
The same way businesses are under market pressures of consumer choice, governments are under political pressures of voters choice.

Only true in as much as the citizens of a country can hold the government accountable and prevent the government from attaining too much control. Votes only go so far if there is no way to hold the government accountable. Looking over at Haiti, Nigeria, Myanmar, Belarus, etc. It's also concerning that a lot of citizen power is and has been eroded over the past 50+ years such that governments are growing more powerful and more centralized and citizens less able to keep their governments in check. It hasn't yet resulted in catastrophe, but it's a worrying trend, IMO. But that starts to get into politically charged territory ... if it hasn't already. :p

I'll just leave off with this. Anytime I hear the phrase "The debate is over..." by anyone in power, that's a huge red flag and a huge sign of oppression, IMO, as that is meant to shut down discourse and silence anyone who might disagree.

Regards,
SB
 
Only true in as much as the citizens of a country can hold the government accountable and prevent the government from attaining too much control. Votes only go so far if there is no way to hold the government accountable.

Yeah, I get that and agree, but the same applies to consumer choice. To use a game-related example, for many titles, you can pick your poison of buyig a title on steam, epic, MS or Sony stores. If that many. You are still funding quasi-monopolies either way...

We are often quite powerless as citizens, and as consumers. Some people focus on one issue more than the other, but both miss that the problem is the same both ways once we see the bigger picture.
 
TLDR: Big companies eventually abuse us. Big religions evetually abuse us. Big governments eventually abuse us. The problem is not the kind of organization that happens to be big at the time. The problem is there being a big organization in the first place.

Any kind of power imbalance is detrimental for the weaker side.

If we don't like being a bitch, we should develop more independece of our own. Switching from one abusive pimp for another that promises "will treat you right" is a delusion.
I think you are incorrect. If people actually switched then it would push big business and government to be the group treating them the least bad and eventually that would results in all those organizations gradually drifting towards being better.

The issue is polarization IMO. People will not switch parties, they won't switch GPU brands, they won't switch potato chips. This is what led to a lot of the inflation recently. Brands realized they could just keep raising prices or decreasing the size of their products and consumers would not respond. Consumers eventually do but it is quite slow and in the interim they get record profits and blame unrelated things for the problems. If the blame falls in line with the perception of a person, then they don't blame the company, they blame covid, the democrats, the republicans, the immigrants, they whoever or whatever. There is a reason Apple and Google and all the others try to make it more of a hassle to leave their special walled gardens. If leaving is easy, then the problems will fix themselves.
 
I'm very divided on the EU. They do grant us mere mortals a lot unquestionable wins, with sensible regulations. But with every benevolet dictatorship, the problem is in the long term. Eventually, every central decision making organization grows arrogant, megalomaniac, and gets infiltrated by selfish and greedy psycopaths.
Good thing the EU is no dictatorship. I am for representative democracy because I do not want to decide where some trashbin will be placed on a daily basis. I am glad there are psychos deciding that for me.

Definitely, but big business has more incentive to keep people happy than big government.
Quite the opposite. Unhappy people are more receptive to commercials promising happiness through the purchase of commodities. Unhappy people also aren't likely to reelect the government.
 
Looking over at Haiti, Nigeria, Myanmar, Belarus, etc. It's also concerning that a lot of citizen power is and has been eroded over the past 50+ years such that governments are growing more powerful and more centralized and citizens less able to keep their governments in check.
Still plenty of such countries without free elections exist, yes. But would you say the world is less democratic than 50 years ago?
 

Since late July, engagement on X posts linking to the New York Times has dropped dramatically. The drop in shares and other engagement on tweets with Times links is abrupt, and is not reflected in links to similar news organizations including CNN, the Washington Post, and the BBC, according to NewsWhip’s data on 300,000 influential users of X.

The drop in engagement in Times posts seems isolated to X: NewsWhip data showed that engagement with Times links shared on Facebook remained consistent relative to other outlets.
 
Elon Musk has indicated that X, formerly known as Twitter, is preparing to charge all users for accessing the platform.
“We’re moving to having a small monthly payment for use of the system,” Musk said.
Saying that bots cost “a fraction of a penny” to set up, Musk added that raising the cost of an account to “a few dollars or something” could put off operators of the software. He added: “Plus, every time a bot creator wanted to make another bot, they would need another new payment method.”
 
I hope that he goes through with it so finally he'll destroy that thing.
Anyway running a bot is expensive, even if you are able to build/configure by yourself. Don't think that some dollar per month will make any difference for those who have to pay hundreds/thousands to rent the servers.
 
I hope that he goes through with it so finally he'll destroy that thing.
Anyway running a bot is expensive, even if you are able to build/configure by yourself. Don't think that some dollar per month will make any difference for those who have to pay hundreds/thousands to rent the servers.
dont they often use stolen credit cards for stuff anyway?
 
dont they often use stolen credit cards for stuff anyway?
Not necessarily, a bot can simply be a scraper that archives hate speech or one to train an ai ml.
Anyway if it's a scammer he has plenty of money to invest in a paid account.
The fee can't be too high to not scare away normal users, let's say a fraction of netfix's subscription.
It's just a random idea that can or can't materialize and can or can't be removed within the same week.
I haveee uhm... ahhhh... ideahh... we have a billion of uhm... user... users... what if they pay uhm... a dollar per uhm... month? We will be trillio... billion... billionaires...
 
I hope that the Boys' writers had time to add Yaccarino to the role of Ashley Barrett.
She's basically the same.
Join us on our V social network!
And then has to damage control on V some of Homelander's declarations and lies.
 
Back
Top