|
On November 11 2024 21:50 Magic Powers wrote:
lmao so now people are pivoting from "Elon Musk contributes to his companies" to "Elon Musk succeeded because he helped get a fascist into power". Funny.
No, I didn't start the thread because I'm petty. I started it because I had enough of Elon Musk interfering with politics after he interfered with our Austrian politics in particular when fascists were voted into power. He lied about how our politics works because he doesn't understand a single thing about anything that he posts on Twitter 500 times a day and in the process he causes chaos and mayhem. He's a far-right maniac who needs to be stopped.
Also, you people have terrible priorities. You're defending the richest person on the planet who is supporting fascism in America and other countries and lied about his transgender daughter to make himself look better. You're defending a horrible person.
Bolded - it is my first post in this thread, how is that a pivot?? And you dont making yourself any favours, by misinterpreting others posts. I didnt say that he is successful because he help Fascist (may really wanna stop with all the fascist Nazi and so on, those words have no meaning anymore) get into power, but that he got enough power to do it and used it to get even more power. Whether you like him or not, describing this as failure is ridiculous.
Italic - in context of my post it reads: No, I didn't start the thread because I'm petty. I started it because I am petty.
Bolded italic - isnt it somewhat offensive? 
Bolded 2 - I didnt defend Musk. I just said that calling him a failure because of Twitter valuation is rather misguided.
|
On November 11 2024 22:30 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2024 21:50 Magic Powers wrote:
lmao so now people are pivoting from "Elon Musk contributes to his companies" to "Elon Musk succeeded because he helped get a fascist into power". Funny.
No, I didn't start the thread because I'm petty. I started it because I had enough of Elon Musk interfering with politics after he interfered with our Austrian politics in particular when fascists were voted into power. He lied about how our politics works because he doesn't understand a single thing about anything that he posts on Twitter 500 times a day and in the process he causes chaos and mayhem. He's a far-right maniac who needs to be stopped.
Also, you people have terrible priorities. You're defending the richest person on the planet who is supporting fascism in America and other countries and lied about his transgender daughter to make himself look better. You're defending a horrible person. Bolded - it is my first post in this thread, how is that a pivot?? And you dont making yourself any favours, by misinterpreting others posts. I didnt say that he is successful because he help Fascist (may really wanna stop with all the fascist Nazi and so on, those words have no meaning anymore) get into power, but that he got enough power to do it and used it to get even more power. Whether you like him or not, describing this as failure is ridiculous. Italic - in context of my post it reads: No, I didn't start the thread because I'm petty. I started it because I am petty. Bolded italic - isnt it somewhat offensive? Bolded 2 - I didnt defend Musk. I just said that calling him a failure because of Twitter valuation is rather misguided.
I didn't call Elon Musk a failure. I called him a fraud who never contributed much if anything to the companies he owns/owned, other than perhaps the initial success of PayPal (which would've failed under him).
He succeeds in ways that are unrelated to his companies. They succeed not because of him but in spite of him. He succeeds because they succeed and he's invested in them. It's a very easy equation. Money attracts money.
And if you want me to stop calling him a facism supporter, the only thing you're accomplishing is that I feel even more encouraged to keep calling him worse and worse things. He supports fascism and he is quickly becoming a fascist himself. He's against free speech, he bends to authoritarians all around the globe, he pushes for fascism, he spreads far-right propaganda. He's 80% there to being a fascist himself. Enjoy the show.
|
Northern Ireland24946 Posts
On November 11 2024 17:12 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Yeah makes you wonder what those 80% actually did.
Plus the whole charging a monthly subscription fee for the blue check marks was a pretty smart idea, most of the blue checkmark folks have such big egos they'll cough up the money.
It’s broadly the opposite.
It was something that served a simple function, is x public figure or institution claiming to be that institution, actually that institution?
Egos were put out of joint under the old system but mostly a cohort of people who were resentful over a basic verification being elitist, somehow.
Initial implementation was a disaster as well. I think subsequently it has been as well. One’s feed got clogged up with recommendations from random cunts who’d paid to get boosted visibility.
The previous system worked in quite a symbiotic, mutually beneficially way. Twitter was the facilitator, folks got to hear from public figures that they liked, public figures got an ego boost, or alternatively could build a brand.
Under this changed system, Twitter is asking the folks who drive quite a lot of interest and engagement to their platform, to pay for the privilege, or risk others impersonating them. That’s not really a fundamentally attractive proposition when there’s tons of alternatives that don’t ask that.
People need to actually look at things logically, with a modicum of evidence. Ideally a combo
Look, Twitter could trim fat. But what fat and where? What’s the process? For me, the ‘who’ and ‘how?’ aspects of that process were extremely haphazard.
Twitter still functions, albeit it had more technical hiccups than before. It’s like SC2, it still works but doesn’t have the capacity to add new functionality with any ambition, and bugs take a little longer to fix.
So while it’s daft to claim cuts have completely broken the thing, equally given Musk’s stated ambition of building an ‘everything app’ like Weibo (is that the big Chinese app that seemingly does everything? Well, if not the right name, that thing), he’s cut way too deep to do that anytime soon.
You can slash content moderation teams if you want to do way less content moderation. I don’t agree, but it logically follows given Musk’s stated goals.
However, people want to make claims like the Musk regime has solved issues like child pornography on the platform, or cut down on the bots with no evidence to show that, and the likely Occam’s Razor explanation being if you cut content moderation teams hugely, you’re going to be worse at content moderation.
There’s also boring stuff like legal and regulatory compliance. Things that aren’t an issue, until they’re an issue. You can get away with slashing things in here, provided some big problem doesn’t emerge.
A friend does this job on behalf of the UK government, he says that while Twitter has solid individuals in this domain, their teams are much smaller. Amazon for example will have multiple lawyers in the room that will sometimes direct answers, or hold back the team from making certain commitments. But whatever the likes of Amazon agree in these meetings will generally be the accepted policy in this domain.
Not so Twitter, their teams will frequently be overruled, so the whole rigmarole begins anew. I won’t award anyone points for guessing who is doing that overruling.
As I said, this isn’t necessarily a problem, until it is.
|
On November 11 2024 22:41 Magic Powers wrote:
he spreads far-right propaganda
so many things get called far-right propaganda these days that this accusation has lost its meaning. me saying the Finance Minister of Canada is doing a bad job is "far right misogynist propaganda".
|
On November 12 2024 00:41 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2024 22:41 Magic Powers wrote:
he spreads far-right propaganda so many things get called far-right propaganda these days that this accusation has lost its meaning. me saying the Finance Minister of Canada is doing a bad job is "far right misogynist propaganda".
You spread so much right-wing misinformation across various threads literally all the time, I'm actually being nice calling you a right-wing propagandist. You seem to be spending your whole day looking up and posting as much misinformation as possible, it's more than just a trend with you.
|
On November 12 2024 00:45 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2024 00:41 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On November 11 2024 22:41 Magic Powers wrote:
he spreads far-right propaganda so many things get called far-right propaganda these days that this accusation has lost its meaning. me saying the Finance Minister of Canada is doing a bad job is "far right misogynist propaganda". You spread so much right-wing misinformation across various threads literally all the time, I'm actually being nice calling you a right-wing propagandist. You seem to be spending your whole day looking up and posting as much misinformation as possible, it's more than just a trend with you.
Perhaps JimmyJRaynor is Elon Musk himself.
|
Northern Ireland24946 Posts
On November 11 2024 13:09 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2024 06:19 Magic Powers wrote:
Alright whatever, if you don't acknowledge a simple fact then I think this discussion between the two of us about Twitter is over. Do you think other people's job is just repeat what you already said ad nauseam and repeat it yourself when they don't? Show nested quote +On November 11 2024 06:20 WombaT wrote:
Isn’t it also tied in to the whole ‘X blue’ thing as well?
The other side of sharing ad revenue is that unless you get gifted it, you also gotta pay to be eligible right? But also you get boosted in visibility at the same time?
Is my vague understanding of it anyway, feel free to correct.
Could be they just have far less operating costs from firing so many people? Like 80% right?
Twitter’s operating costs become somewhat irrelevant here, to this specific feature.
You can pay to get boosted, on a platform that for all its faults has generally operated on a what is trending organically is what gets pushed to the front page.
If you offer a direct financial incentive to do so, you further compound this.
Twitter has historically struggled to monetise itself no matter who’s in charge. But in terms of user experience and its USP, it’s always been quite strong on things like breaking emerging news stories. Not always in discussing and analysing them, but it’s very strong there.
If you create a two-tier system that is almost tailor made to incentivise outrage grifters, you potentially lose that.
‘Hey the Arab Spring is happening but wouldn’t you rather hear about some guy who paid so you could see his 98th rant about how Star Wars is woke?’
|
On November 12 2024 00:49 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2024 00:45 Magic Powers wrote:On November 12 2024 00:41 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On November 11 2024 22:41 Magic Powers wrote:
he spreads far-right propaganda so many things get called far-right propaganda these days that this accusation has lost its meaning. me saying the Finance Minister of Canada is doing a bad job is "far right misogynist propaganda". You spread so much right-wing misinformation across various threads literally all the time, I'm actually being nice calling you a right-wing propagandist. You seem to be spending your whole day looking up and posting as much misinformation as possible, it's more than just a trend with you. Perhaps JimmyJRaynor is Elon Musk himself.
Elon should adopt him, he'd be the first of his kids who actually loves his dad in a very very long time.
|
On November 12 2024 00:41 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2024 22:41 Magic Powers wrote:
he spreads far-right propaganda so many things get called far-right propaganda these days that this accusation has lost its meaning.
It hasn't, no, that's just what people like to say when their politics are far right but they don't want to own it. It's also a description and not an accusation.
|
On November 12 2024 00:50 WombaT wrote:
Twitter’s operating costs become somewhat irrelevant here, to this specific feature.
You can pay to get boosted, on a platform that for all its faults has generally operated on a what is trending organically is what gets pushed to the front page.
If you offer a direct financial incentive to do so, you further compound this.
Twitter has historically struggled to monetise itself no matter who’s in charge. But in terms of user experience and its USP, it’s always been quite strong on things like breaking emerging news stories. Not always in discussing and analysing them, but it’s very strong there.
If you create a two-tier system that is almost tailor made to incentivise outrage grifters, you potentially lose that.
‘Hey the Arab Spring is happening but wouldn’t you rather hear about some guy who paid so you could see his 98th rant about how Star Wars is woke?’
The operating costs would be pretty relevant to whether they have excess ad revenue that they can afford to share with users or not.
On November 12 2024 00:50 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2024 00:49 oBlade wrote:On November 12 2024 00:45 Magic Powers wrote:On November 12 2024 00:41 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On November 11 2024 22:41 Magic Powers wrote:
he spreads far-right propaganda so many things get called far-right propaganda these days that this accusation has lost its meaning. me saying the Finance Minister of Canada is doing a bad job is "far right misogynist propaganda". You spread so much right-wing misinformation across various threads literally all the time, I'm actually being nice calling you a right-wing propagandist. You seem to be spending your whole day looking up and posting as much misinformation as possible, it's more than just a trend with you. Perhaps JimmyJRaynor is Elon Musk himself. Elon should adopt him, he'd be the first of his kids who actually loves his dad in a very very long time.
You sure about that buddy? It's a hell of a long list.
|
If NASA and/or the USA funds Musk's "Occupy Mars" dreams IMO they'll rob the US taxpayers of billions of dollars and the US taxpayer will have nothing to show for it at the end of it all. SpaceX ain't taking humans to Mars... SpaceX can't even get a human 500 km off the earth's surface.
On November 12 2024 00:45 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2024 00:41 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On November 11 2024 22:41 Magic Powers wrote:
he spreads far-right propaganda so many things get called far-right propaganda these days that this accusation has lost its meaning. me saying the Finance Minister of Canada is doing a bad job is "far right misogynist propaganda". You spread so much right-wing misinformation across various threads literally all the time, I'm actually being nice calling you a right-wing propagandist. You seem to be spending your whole day looking up and posting as much misinformation as possible, it's more than just a trend with you.
i'm just your typical tech worker billing clients while i screw around on the internet all day. Also, you never refuted the #s i produced about the TRump and Harris campaigns though.
Also, my posts are detailed because i have an extensive knowledge of 20th Century USA. I do not have to look stuff up.
|
Northern Ireland24946 Posts
On November 12 2024 00:55 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2024 00:50 WombaT wrote:
Twitter’s operating costs become somewhat irrelevant here, to this specific feature.
You can pay to get boosted, on a platform that for all its faults has generally operated on a what is trending organically is what gets pushed to the front page.
If you offer a direct financial incentive to do so, you further compound this.
Twitter has historically struggled to monetise itself no matter who’s in charge. But in terms of user experience and its USP, it’s always been quite strong on things like breaking emerging news stories. Not always in discussing and analysing them, but it’s very strong there.
If you create a two-tier system that is almost tailor made to incentivise outrage grifters, you potentially lose that.
‘Hey the Arab Spring is happening but wouldn’t you rather hear about some guy who paid so you could see his 98th rant about how Star Wars is woke?’
The operating costs would be pretty relevant to whether they have excess ad revenue that they can afford to share with users or not. Show nested quote +On November 12 2024 00:50 Magic Powers wrote:On November 12 2024 00:49 oBlade wrote:On November 12 2024 00:45 Magic Powers wrote:On November 12 2024 00:41 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On November 11 2024 22:41 Magic Powers wrote:
he spreads far-right propaganda so many things get called far-right propaganda these days that this accusation has lost its meaning. me saying the Finance Minister of Canada is doing a bad job is "far right misogynist propaganda". You spread so much right-wing misinformation across various threads literally all the time, I'm actually being nice calling you a right-wing propagandist. You seem to be spending your whole day looking up and posting as much misinformation as possible, it's more than just a trend with you. Perhaps JimmyJRaynor is Elon Musk himself. Elon should adopt him, he'd be the first of his kids who actually loves his dad in a very very long time. You sure about that buddy? It's a hell of a long list.
I don’t care about their revenue, costs, or whatever.
As we don’t actually have any concrete info on Twitter’s financials, it’s pure speculation. People on both sides of the divided do this. It’s profitable now! Oh Elon has seen them haemorrhaging money! We don’t really have the numbers IMO to make informed judgements either way.
I’m merely talking about the actual policies itself, and how they impact the functionality of the platform as I see it.
My company could afford to provide janitorial staff with gold plated mops. They could afford to provide all employees with a gorilla suit, and turn every Friday into ‘Gorilla Friday’
I don’t think either policy is particularly sensible, although Gorilla Friday would be fun.
|
On November 12 2024 01:01 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
If NASA and/or the USA funds Musk's "Occupy Mars" dreams IMO they'll rob the US taxpayers of billions of dollars and the US taxpayer will have nothing to show for it at the end of it all. SpaceX ain't taking humans to Mars... SpaceX can't even get a human 500 km off the earth's surface.
They actually just did something called the Polaris Dawn mission, it went to an altitude of 1400km and they did the first private spacewalk in history.
|
Northern Ireland24946 Posts
On November 12 2024 01:01 JimmyJRaynor wrote:If NASA and/or the USA funds Musk's "Occupy Mars" dreams IMO they'll rob the US taxpayers of billions of dollars and the US taxpayer will have nothing to show for it at the end of it all. SpaceX ain't taking humans to Mars... SpaceX can't even get a human 500 km off the earth's surface. Show nested quote +On November 12 2024 00:45 Magic Powers wrote:On November 12 2024 00:41 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On November 11 2024 22:41 Magic Powers wrote:
he spreads far-right propaganda so many things get called far-right propaganda these days that this accusation has lost its meaning. me saying the Finance Minister of Canada is doing a bad job is "far right misogynist propaganda". You spread so much right-wing misinformation across various threads literally all the time, I'm actually being nice calling you a right-wing propagandist. You seem to be spending your whole day looking up and posting as much misinformation as possible, it's more than just a trend with you. i'm just your typical tech worker billing clients while i screw around on the internet all day. Also, you never refuted the #s i produced about the TRump and Harris campaigns though. Also, my posts are detailed because i have an extensive knowledge of 20th Century USA. I do not have to look stuff up.
The numbers aren’t all that relevant.
In Trump’s positive column, don’t like his politics. He has this time, and previously got a real fire going and had a lot of grass roots, organic political activism going. I like it when a Bernie Sanders does it, I can’t really dislike it in Trump’s case.
On the flip side, you’ve got Elon Musk. He won’t be stuck in the books as a campaign expense, but he’s spent billions on a platform and a lot of personal energy campaigning for Trump.
That costs.
Historic Russian fuckery certainly cost them cash as well
|
On November 12 2024 01:33 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2024 01:01 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
If NASA and/or the USA funds Musk's "Occupy Mars" dreams IMO they'll rob the US taxpayers of billions of dollars and the US taxpayer will have nothing to show for it at the end of it all. SpaceX ain't taking humans to Mars... SpaceX can't even get a human 500 km off the earth's surface. They actually just did something called the Polaris Dawn mission, it went to an altitude of 1400km and they did the first private spacewalk in history.
a human was 1400km off the surface of the earth? wow! First time since 1972 then. got a link?
Even still gravity is 90% the same as on earth. the killer will be zero gravity when a human is no where near earth or moon or sun.
|
On November 12 2024 00:50 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2024 13:09 oBlade wrote:On November 11 2024 06:19 Magic Powers wrote:
Alright whatever, if you don't acknowledge a simple fact then I think this discussion between the two of us about Twitter is over. Do you think other people's job is just repeat what you already said ad nauseam and repeat it yourself when they don't? On November 11 2024 06:20 WombaT wrote:
Isn’t it also tied in to the whole ‘X blue’ thing as well?
The other side of sharing ad revenue is that unless you get gifted it, you also gotta pay to be eligible right? But also you get boosted in visibility at the same time?
Is my vague understanding of it anyway, feel free to correct.
Could be they just have far less operating costs from firing so many people? Like 80% right? Twitter’s operating costs become somewhat irrelevant here, to this specific feature. You can pay to get boosted, on a platform that for all its faults has generally operated on a what is trending organically is what gets pushed to the front page. If you offer a direct financial incentive to do so, you further compound this. Twitter has historically struggled to monetise itself no matter who’s in charge. But in terms of user experience and its USP, it’s always been quite strong on things like breaking emerging news stories. Not always in discussing and analysing them, but it’s very strong there. If you create a two-tier system that is almost tailor made to incentivise outrage grifters, you potentially lose that. ‘Hey the Arab Spring is happening but wouldn’t you rather hear about some guy who paid so you could see his 98th rant about how Star Wars is woke?’
I don't think so. Most of the news outlets and businesses have their blue check (I think Lilly situation put cost of this subscription in perspective) and regarding news I wouldn't say twitter is doing what you described in last paragraph.
Also isnt it somewhat similar situation to Google? It should be search engine which should be offering most accurate search results, meanwhile you have companies boosting your website placement. While it is not the same I think it is similar enough to use for comparison.
Now my issue with Twitter is much different than issues mentioned here so far, and it is how much power can be given to one individual (as of now Musk). I dont think anyone should have power to singlehandedly direct public discourse. To be fair for now I think Musk is the least bad of plenty of bad options and I am somewhat grateful to him actually for restoring some semblance of balance on social media. However (while I think he has every right to promote himself, or Tesla, or SpaceX) the possibility remains that he may for example start silencing any content critical of Trump administration, which would be massive issue which nobody would be able to do anything about. To be clear I am not saying that it will happen, merely that possibility exists and it is rather terryfing.
|
Northern Ireland24946 Posts
On November 12 2024 01:52 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2024 00:50 WombaT wrote:On November 11 2024 13:09 oBlade wrote:On November 11 2024 06:19 Magic Powers wrote:
Alright whatever, if you don't acknowledge a simple fact then I think this discussion between the two of us about Twitter is over. Do you think other people's job is just repeat what you already said ad nauseam and repeat it yourself when they don't? On November 11 2024 06:20 WombaT wrote:
Isn’t it also tied in to the whole ‘X blue’ thing as well?
The other side of sharing ad revenue is that unless you get gifted it, you also gotta pay to be eligible right? But also you get boosted in visibility at the same time?
Is my vague understanding of it anyway, feel free to correct.
Could be they just have far less operating costs from firing so many people? Like 80% right? Twitter’s operating costs become somewhat irrelevant here, to this specific feature. You can pay to get boosted, on a platform that for all its faults has generally operated on a what is trending organically is what gets pushed to the front page. If you offer a direct financial incentive to do so, you further compound this. Twitter has historically struggled to monetise itself no matter who’s in charge. But in terms of user experience and its USP, it’s always been quite strong on things like breaking emerging news stories. Not always in discussing and analysing them, but it’s very strong there. If you create a two-tier system that is almost tailor made to incentivise outrage grifters, you potentially lose that. ‘Hey the Arab Spring is happening but wouldn’t you rather hear about some guy who paid so you could see his 98th rant about how Star Wars is woke?’ I don't think so. Most of the news outlets and businesses have their blue check (I think Lilly situation put cost of this subscription in perspective) and regarding news I wouldn't say twitter is doing what you described in last paragraph. Also isnt it somewhat similar situation to Google? It should be search engine which should be offering most accurate search results, meanwhile you have companies boosting your website placement. While it is not the same I think it is similar enough to use for comparison. Now my issue with Twitter is much different than issues mentioned here so far, and it is how much power can be given to one individual (as of now Musk). I dont think anyone should have power to singlehandedly direct public discourse. To be fair for now I think Musk is the least bad of plenty of bad options and I am somewhat grateful to him actually for restoring some semblance of balance on social media. However (while I think he has every right to promote himself, or Tesla, or SpaceX) the possibility remains that he may for example start silencing any content critical of Trump administration, which would be massive issue which nobody would be able to do anything about. To be clear I am not saying that it will happen, merely that possibility exists and it is rather terryfing.
I’m not talking about Google, although I feel it’s a reasonable critique, indeed one I’d share
He’s already unilaterally banned people for making fun of him. He’s already shown a somewhat wavering commitment to free speech absolutionism
I’ve yet to see much evidence he’ll wield this in the direction of censoring political opponents. But he’s already shown he will bend on untrammelled free speech
|
On November 12 2024 01:52 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2024 00:50 WombaT wrote:On November 11 2024 13:09 oBlade wrote:On November 11 2024 06:19 Magic Powers wrote:
Alright whatever, if you don't acknowledge a simple fact then I think this discussion between the two of us about Twitter is over. Do you think other people's job is just repeat what you already said ad nauseam and repeat it yourself when they don't? On November 11 2024 06:20 WombaT wrote:
Isn’t it also tied in to the whole ‘X blue’ thing as well?
The other side of sharing ad revenue is that unless you get gifted it, you also gotta pay to be eligible right? But also you get boosted in visibility at the same time?
Is my vague understanding of it anyway, feel free to correct.
Could be they just have far less operating costs from firing so many people? Like 80% right? Twitter’s operating costs become somewhat irrelevant here, to this specific feature. You can pay to get boosted, on a platform that for all its faults has generally operated on a what is trending organically is what gets pushed to the front page. If you offer a direct financial incentive to do so, you further compound this. Twitter has historically struggled to monetise itself no matter who’s in charge. But in terms of user experience and its USP, it’s always been quite strong on things like breaking emerging news stories. Not always in discussing and analysing them, but it’s very strong there. If you create a two-tier system that is almost tailor made to incentivise outrage grifters, you potentially lose that. ‘Hey the Arab Spring is happening but wouldn’t you rather hear about some guy who paid so you could see his 98th rant about how Star Wars is woke?’ I don't think so. Most of the news outlets and businesses have their blue check (I think Lilly situation put cost of this subscription in perspective) and regarding news I wouldn't say twitter is doing what you described in last paragraph. Also isnt it somewhat similar situation to Google? It should be search engine which should be offering most accurate search results, meanwhile you have companies boosting your website placement. While it is not the same I think it is similar enough to use for comparison. Now my issue with Twitter is much different than issues mentioned here so far, and it is how much power can be given to one individual (as of now Musk). I dont think anyone should have power to singlehandedly direct public discourse. To be fair for now I think Musk is the least bad of plenty of bad options and I am somewhat grateful to him actually for restoring some semblance of balance on social media. However (while I think he has every right to promote himself, or Tesla, or SpaceX) the possibility remains that he may for example start silencing any content critical of Trump administration, which would be massive issue which nobody would be able to do anything about. To be clear I am not saying that it will happen, merely that possibility exists and it is rather terryfing.
You don't have to answer if you don't want to but I'm curious how you square not giving too much power to one individual and being conservative
|
On November 12 2024 04:32 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2024 01:52 Razyda wrote:On November 12 2024 00:50 WombaT wrote:On November 11 2024 13:09 oBlade wrote:On November 11 2024 06:19 Magic Powers wrote:
Alright whatever, if you don't acknowledge a simple fact then I think this discussion between the two of us about Twitter is over. Do you think other people's job is just repeat what you already said ad nauseam and repeat it yourself when they don't? On November 11 2024 06:20 WombaT wrote:
Isn’t it also tied in to the whole ‘X blue’ thing as well?
The other side of sharing ad revenue is that unless you get gifted it, you also gotta pay to be eligible right? But also you get boosted in visibility at the same time?
Is my vague understanding of it anyway, feel free to correct.
Could be they just have far less operating costs from firing so many people? Like 80% right? Twitter’s operating costs become somewhat irrelevant here, to this specific feature. You can pay to get boosted, on a platform that for all its faults has generally operated on a what is trending organically is what gets pushed to the front page. If you offer a direct financial incentive to do so, you further compound this. Twitter has historically struggled to monetise itself no matter who’s in charge. But in terms of user experience and its USP, it’s always been quite strong on things like breaking emerging news stories. Not always in discussing and analysing them, but it’s very strong there. If you create a two-tier system that is almost tailor made to incentivise outrage grifters, you potentially lose that. ‘Hey the Arab Spring is happening but wouldn’t you rather hear about some guy who paid so you could see his 98th rant about how Star Wars is woke?’ I don't think so. Most of the news outlets and businesses have their blue check (I think Lilly situation put cost of this subscription in perspective) and regarding news I wouldn't say twitter is doing what you described in last paragraph. Also isnt it somewhat similar situation to Google? It should be search engine which should be offering most accurate search results, meanwhile you have companies boosting your website placement. While it is not the same I think it is similar enough to use for comparison. Now my issue with Twitter is much different than issues mentioned here so far, and it is how much power can be given to one individual (as of now Musk). I dont think anyone should have power to singlehandedly direct public discourse. To be fair for now I think Musk is the least bad of plenty of bad options and I am somewhat grateful to him actually for restoring some semblance of balance on social media. However (while I think he has every right to promote himself, or Tesla, or SpaceX) the possibility remains that he may for example start silencing any content critical of Trump administration, which would be massive issue which nobody would be able to do anything about. To be clear I am not saying that it will happen, merely that possibility exists and it is rather terryfing. You don't have to answer if you don't want to but I'm curious how you square not giving too much power to one individual and being conservative
I don't mind answering. I think part of the problems we have, not only on this forum but overall, lays in the fact that people trying to label everyone/everything. In my case people read my posts against Democrats/liberals and it seems decided that I must be republican/conservative. It is sort of "you are either with us or against us" sort of thinking, which I am not a fan of to be honest. Am I conservative? Hell no. Do I have some conservative values? Yes of course, and I think everyone has some (I happened to think that there cant be a society without some sort of conservative values - thinking of conservatism a bit as of tradition - it would be just bunch of people leaving in the same area) Of course I have also some liberal values (probably even more), I also happened to believe that pure conservatism is natural enemy of progress, by the very definition. My conclusion is that every human being should be some mix of the 2.
Edit:
On November 12 2024 03:59 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2024 01:52 Razyda wrote:On November 12 2024 00:50 WombaT wrote:On November 11 2024 13:09 oBlade wrote:On November 11 2024 06:19 Magic Powers wrote:
Alright whatever, if you don't acknowledge a simple fact then I think this discussion between the two of us about Twitter is over. Do you think other people's job is just repeat what you already said ad nauseam and repeat it yourself when they don't? On November 11 2024 06:20 WombaT wrote:
Isn’t it also tied in to the whole ‘X blue’ thing as well?
The other side of sharing ad revenue is that unless you get gifted it, you also gotta pay to be eligible right? But also you get boosted in visibility at the same time?
Is my vague understanding of it anyway, feel free to correct.
Could be they just have far less operating costs from firing so many people? Like 80% right? Twitter’s operating costs become somewhat irrelevant here, to this specific feature. You can pay to get boosted, on a platform that for all its faults has generally operated on a what is trending organically is what gets pushed to the front page. If you offer a direct financial incentive to do so, you further compound this. Twitter has historically struggled to monetise itself no matter who’s in charge. But in terms of user experience and its USP, it’s always been quite strong on things like breaking emerging news stories. Not always in discussing and analysing them, but it’s very strong there. If you create a two-tier system that is almost tailor made to incentivise outrage grifters, you potentially lose that. ‘Hey the Arab Spring is happening but wouldn’t you rather hear about some guy who paid so you could see his 98th rant about how Star Wars is woke?’ I don't think so. Most of the news outlets and businesses have their blue check (I think Lilly situation put cost of this subscription in perspective) and regarding news I wouldn't say twitter is doing what you described in last paragraph. Also isnt it somewhat similar situation to Google? It should be search engine which should be offering most accurate search results, meanwhile you have companies boosting your website placement. While it is not the same I think it is similar enough to use for comparison. Now my issue with Twitter is much different than issues mentioned here so far, and it is how much power can be given to one individual (as of now Musk). I dont think anyone should have power to singlehandedly direct public discourse. To be fair for now I think Musk is the least bad of plenty of bad options and I am somewhat grateful to him actually for restoring some semblance of balance on social media. However (while I think he has every right to promote himself, or Tesla, or SpaceX) the possibility remains that he may for example start silencing any content critical of Trump administration, which would be massive issue which nobody would be able to do anything about. To be clear I am not saying that it will happen, merely that possibility exists and it is rather terryfing. I’m not talking about Google, although I feel it’s a reasonable critique, indeed one I’d share He’s already unilaterally banned people for making fun of him. He’s already shown a somewhat wavering commitment to free speech absolutionismI’ve yet to see much evidence he’ll wield this in the direction of censoring political opponents. But he’s already shown he will bend on untrammelled free speech
Italic - that is fair critique.
Bolded - I specificaly said: " To be clear I am not saying that it will happen, merely that possibility exists and it is rather terryfing."
|
On November 12 2024 07:30 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2024 04:32 Nebuchad wrote:On November 12 2024 01:52 Razyda wrote:On November 12 2024 00:50 WombaT wrote:On November 11 2024 13:09 oBlade wrote:On November 11 2024 06:19 Magic Powers wrote:
Alright whatever, if you don't acknowledge a simple fact then I think this discussion between the two of us about Twitter is over. Do you think other people's job is just repeat what you already said ad nauseam and repeat it yourself when they don't? On November 11 2024 06:20 WombaT wrote:
Isn’t it also tied in to the whole ‘X blue’ thing as well?
The other side of sharing ad revenue is that unless you get gifted it, you also gotta pay to be eligible right? But also you get boosted in visibility at the same time?
Is my vague understanding of it anyway, feel free to correct.
Could be they just have far less operating costs from firing so many people? Like 80% right? Twitter’s operating costs become somewhat irrelevant here, to this specific feature. You can pay to get boosted, on a platform that for all its faults has generally operated on a what is trending organically is what gets pushed to the front page. If you offer a direct financial incentive to do so, you further compound this. Twitter has historically struggled to monetise itself no matter who’s in charge. But in terms of user experience and its USP, it’s always been quite strong on things like breaking emerging news stories. Not always in discussing and analysing them, but it’s very strong there. If you create a two-tier system that is almost tailor made to incentivise outrage grifters, you potentially lose that. ‘Hey the Arab Spring is happening but wouldn’t you rather hear about some guy who paid so you could see his 98th rant about how Star Wars is woke?’ I don't think so. Most of the news outlets and businesses have their blue check (I think Lilly situation put cost of this subscription in perspective) and regarding news I wouldn't say twitter is doing what you described in last paragraph. Also isnt it somewhat similar situation to Google? It should be search engine which should be offering most accurate search results, meanwhile you have companies boosting your website placement. While it is not the same I think it is similar enough to use for comparison. Now my issue with Twitter is much different than issues mentioned here so far, and it is how much power can be given to one individual (as of now Musk). I dont think anyone should have power to singlehandedly direct public discourse. To be fair for now I think Musk is the least bad of plenty of bad options and I am somewhat grateful to him actually for restoring some semblance of balance on social media. However (while I think he has every right to promote himself, or Tesla, or SpaceX) the possibility remains that he may for example start silencing any content critical of Trump administration, which would be massive issue which nobody would be able to do anything about. To be clear I am not saying that it will happen, merely that possibility exists and it is rather terryfing. You don't have to answer if you don't want to but I'm curious how you square not giving too much power to one individual and being conservative I don't mind answering. I think part of the problems we have, not only on this forum but overall, lays in the fact that people trying to label everyone/everything. In my case people read my posts against Democrats/liberals and it seems decided that I must be republican/conservative. It is sort of "you are either with us or against us" sort of thinking, which I am not a fan of to be honest. Am I conservative? Hell no. Do I have some conservative values? Yes of course, and I think everyone has some (I happened to think that there cant be a society without some sort of conservative values - thinking of conservatism a bit as of tradition - it would be just bunch of people leaving in the same area) Of course I have also some liberal values (probably even more), I also happened to believe that pure conservatism is natural enemy of progress, by the very definition. My conclusion is that every human being should be some mix of the 2.
I would agree that humans naturally have mixed politics, not really that the mix is between liberalism and conservatism as those two ideologies are extremely similar to each other
If we agree that every human is a mix, then surely when someone is called a conservative we are asserting that they side more with conservatives than they do with the other groups, which in your case appears to be true, rather than that they agree with everything conservatives have ever said. It doesn't seem very damaging to be doing that. And in my case it wouldn't be a with us or against us, as (you may not know this actually) I very much hate liberals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
