Elon Musk Completes $44 Billion Twitter Takeover, Fires Top Executives, and Makes Himself CEO

[A MacBook lover]

If we want to build healthy communities with little misinformation, which most of us do, then we don't want that kind of post.

He can go start his own community if he wants, no one wants to stop anyone doing that. But if we want to minimize the damage of misinformation in the world, we can do so by not platforming it in the first place.

And more long-term, we could do with working on the education system to make sure people grow up with clear critical thinking skills and understanding of the scientific method. But if course, as soon as you start teaching kids how to think, you get people complaining that they're being taught what to think, and then it turns into a political debate and no progress is made and another generation misses out.

I mean, I’m just speaking of experience. I’ve done this, and posted research, studies, even Pfizer’s own trial data to back it up. Here the moderation is more lenient, but Twitter used to blacklist studies and downrank them. And their fact check system was outsourced to some shady third party. Thankfully Elon abolished that for community notes.

You may not agree with it, but I did exactly what you asked, backed it with sources. But that’s beside the point, I should be able to say whatever I want. Convincing people however, will take more skill than blurting out random thoughts.

 

[redbeard331]

 

[ponzicoinbro]

China and Saudi politicians and bankers who lend money to Musk will be laughing at the chaos and division their muppet Elon incites in the West.

And the risk is he lowers security and privacy standards so much that activists in the Middle East and elsewhere become exposed.

It already happened at Twitter. Under Dorsey several countries had spies working there as employees who had access to data.

 

[SnappleRumors]

China and Saudi politicians and bankers who lend money to Musk will be laughing at the chaos and division their muppet Elon incites in the West.

Because lenders like to see their investment disappear?

 

[ponzicoinbro]

Because lenders like to see their investment disappear?

Do you have love for those lenders?

If not then don't worry about their investment going to zero.

 

[SnappleRumors]

Do you have love for those lenders?

If not then don't worry about their investment going to zero.

My fondness for them is irrelevant.
Lenders rarely invest with the goal of their investment going to zero.
So your logic was a challenge to understand. That’s all.

 

[BaldiMac]

My fondness for them is irrelevant.
Lenders rarely invest with the goal of their investment going to zero.
So your logic was a challenge to understand. That’s all.

Your assumption that sowing chaos and division will lead to their investment going to zero is also hard to understand.

 

[SnappleRumors]

Your assumption that sowing chaos and division will lead to their investment going to zero is also hard to understand.

I don’t recall. Can you point out the post you are referring to?

 

[BaldiMac]

I don’t recall. Can you point out the post you are referring to?

The one I quoted in the context of the two that preceded it.

 

[SnappleRumors]

The one I quoted in the context of the two that preceded it.

I understand what you are trying to say now. Context and what was actually said and by whom is important.

 

[ponzicoinbro]

My fondness for them is irrelevant.
Lenders rarely invest with the goal of their investment going to zero.
So your logic was a challenge to understand. That’s all.

Investments with political agendas should go to zero and they should be challenged.

Anyone who doesn't challenge investments from dictators and theocrats is a proper boot licker. Those are the type of person who would bend all the way down and lick every bit of mud and dust from a dictator's boot.

 

[SnappleRumors]

Investments with political agendas should go to zero and they should be challenged.

But that doesn’t square with logic though. Investors typically don’t invest with the goal of losing their investment.

 

[teh_hunterer]

There's a perfect example. You consider calling Jan 6 an insurrection a political view. It's not. Multiple people pleaded guilty to seditious conspiracy. They believed that delaying the certification of the election from Jan 6 would make the certification illegal. That was their admitted goal.

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

I will concede that whether the lies and misinformation that 45 promoted that led to those actions should have gotten 45 banned from Twitter is an opinion. I just believe that it is a reasonable opinion based on the facts.

You're still missing the point, which is that one person reserving the right to decide what's truth and what are lies and censoring based on that doesn't work. As soon as you claim that you can do that, I can claim that in the opposite direction and say that actually your views are the ones that are dangerous lies that should be censored.

It just doesn't work. And never has.

 

[teh_hunterer]

If we want to build healthy communities with little misinformation, which most of us do, then we don't want that kind of post.

He can go start his own community if he wants, no one wants to stop anyone doing that. But if we want to minimize the damage of misinformation in the world, we can do so by not platforming it in the first place.

And more long-term, we could do with working on the education system to make sure people grow up with clear critical thinking skills and understanding of the scientific method. But if course, as soon as you start teaching kids how to think, you get people complaining that they're being taught what to think, and then it turns into a political debate and no progress is made and another generation misses out.

The more valuable skill is being able to think for yourself, and not see opposing viewpoints as an attack on your very being. There are a lot of wrong people in the world with wrong ideas and really stupid opinions, but you're never going to eliminate them all, so you have to learn to live with it.

The first reaction to seeing something you don't like shouldn't be to use force to stop that person from saying it. It's ultimately not productive, because once people can't engage in heated discussion, there is no way for battles of ideas to take place. And once battles of ideas can't take place, you just have battles.

There are plenty of places in this world where governments violently oppress their people with terms like 'misinformation'.

 

[BaldiMac]

You're still missing the point, which is that one person reserving the right to decide what's truth and what are lies and censoring based on that doesn't work. As soon as you claim that you can do that, I can claim that in the opposite direction and say that actually your views are the ones that are dangerous lies that should be censored.

It just doesn't work. And never has.

I’m not missing the point. Your point is a strawman argument. I never at any point said or implied that one person should determine truth for everyone.

 

[teh_hunterer]

I’m not missing the point. Your point is a strawman argument. I never at any point said or implied that one person should determine truth for everyone.

Then your argument is jumping wildly all over the place - because for lies to be censored, you need someone to be deciding what's lies and what's truth.

 

[BaldiMac]

Then your argument is jumping wildly all over the place - because for lies to be censored, you need someone to be deciding what's lies and what's truth.

My argument is consistent. You just keep restating it to make it seem extreme.

Yes, a decision needs to be made, but no one said that had to be done by one person. And I’m not advocating censorship at all. As Musk just acknowledged, the primary problem with Twitter and other social media isn’t individual lies. It’s the systems and algorithms promoting the misinformation and propaganda to millions of people in the name of engagement.

I’m advocating moderation. Something society has accepted for hundreds of years. Journalism being the prime example.

 

[teh_hunterer]

My argument is consistent. You just keep restating it to make it seem extreme.

Yes, a decision needs to be made, but no one said that had to be done by one person. And I’m not advocating censorship at all. As Musk just acknowledged, the primary problem with Twitter and other social media isn’t individual lies. It’s the systems and algorithms promoting the misinformation and propaganda to millions of people in the name of engagement.

I’m advocating moderation. Something society has accepted for hundreds of years. Journalism being the prime example.

Then surely you agree Twitter's moderation shouldn't be skewed to favour one side of politics? If someone posts something that's at odds with the trans movement, should that be censored? If someone posts an opinion opposite to yours about "January 6" should that be censored as well? If someone posts something about covid that you think is a lie should that be censored?

I still get the sense you think your political opinions are iron clad truth. I don't think people in a left wing bubble should be able to decide what is accepted truth for the rest of the population.

 

[Fugabutacus]

The more valuable skill is being able to think for yourself, and not see opposing viewpoints as an attack on your very being. There are a lot of wrong people in the world with wrong ideas and really stupid opinions, but you're never going to eliminate them all, so you have to learn to live with it.

The first reaction to seeing something you don't like shouldn't be to use force to stop that person from saying it. It's ultimately not productive, because once people can't engage in heated discussion, there is no way for battles of ideas to take place. And once battles of ideas can't take place, you just have battles.

There are plenty of places in this world where governments violently oppress their people with terms like 'misinformation'.

I don't dislike the idea that the vaccine doesn't work, it's just incorrect and uninformed, and my feelings about the statement have absolutely no effect. There's no point allowing stuff like that to spread, it won't lead to a "battle of ideas" or anything like that because it's just incorrect. There's no battle to be had, and any attempts to argue the topic only lends legitimacy to the idea that it's worth a debate in the first place.

And telling someone that they're not welcome to post provably untrue information on a platform they've signed the terms of service of is not "using force" to stop someone from saying anything, and it's not oppression. Using those words is just making the whole thing out to be something it's not to scare people, which, interestingly, is exactly what you'd be doing posting untrue claims about the vaccine, too.

But I agree with you that we should teach kids to understand how vaccines work, for example, so they're able to spot misinformation like this when they see it.

 

[teh_hunterer]

I don't dislike the idea that the vaccine doesn't work, it's just incorrect and uninformed, and my feelings about the statement have absolutely no effect. There's no point allowing stuff like that to spread, it won't lead to a "battle of ideas" or anything like that because it's just incorrect. There's no battle to be had, and any attempts to argue the topic only lends legitimacy to the idea that it's worth a debate in the first place.

And telling someone that they're not welcome to post provably untrue information on a platform they've signed the terms of service of is not "using force" to stop someone from saying anything, and it's not oppression. Using those words is just making the whole thing out to be something it's not to scare people, which, interestingly, is exactly what you'd be doing posting untrue claims about the vaccine, too.

But I agree with you that we should teach kids to understand how vaccines work, for example, so they're able to spot misinformation like this when they see it.

If your standard is that we censor things that are lies, then you automatically need someone to be designated to decide what's truth. That disqualifies what you're saying instantly, because who is going to decide that? You are perfectly entitled to make your truth claims about the vaccines, but other people disagree with that 100%. What if they also have the same view you do about censorship?

If you say one thing is the truth and the opposite opinion should be censored, I could say I have the complete opposite opinion and actually you are the one who is saying provably untrue things and your lies shouldn't be spread.

See how quickly this breaks down? You can't just remove the possibility of discussion because you think you have a unique claim to the truth.

 

[Fugabutacus]

If your standard is that we censor things that are lies, then you automatically need someone to be designated to decide what's truth. That disqualifies what you're saying instantly, because who is going to decide that? You are perfectly entitled to make your truth claims about the vaccines, but other people disagree with that 100%. What if they also have the same view you do about censorship?

If you say one thing is the truth and the opposite opinion should be censored, I could say I have the complete opposite opinion and actually you are the one who is saying provably untrue things and your lies shouldn't be spread.

See how quickly this breaks down? You can't just remove the possibility of discussion because you think you have a unique claim to the truth.

This is only a problem if you ignore (or are not familiar with) the scientific method which is an objective and robust way of discovering what is true and what is not and has been for centuries.

If something can’t be proven wrong or right this way, then by all means, share whatever opinion you want.

But if someone has proven scientifically that their hypothesis is true, and others have reliably repeated the experiment and the hypothesis stands, then the hypothesis is likely the truth and you, as someone who disagrees, are free to conduct your own experiments to disprove it if you think you can.

That’s how you engage in a topic like that in a responsible manner. And if you’re not willing to engage responsibly, just don’t engage.

It’s really quite simple. And it’s not controversial. The controversy is manufactured by people who dislike the truth because when you don’t like A but you can’t prove that B is true, the next best thing is to muddy the waters and push a false narrative that seeking truth is suppressing free speech.

“I can’t prove that B is true, no, but you’d all see that it is if the A believers would stop shutting down conversation and let an actual debate happen! Why don’t they want to do that, huh?? Almost like they know A can’t stand up to the criticism!! What are they hiding? Here’s a link to more info on B.”

Radicalisation 101, tbh.

 

[PowerPCFan]

View attachment 2113848

The fact that they charge $8 for twitter blue now is crazy. Sort of overpriced for a blue check mark next to ur name.

 

[teh_hunterer]

This is only a problem if you ignore (or are not familiar with) the scientific method which is an objective and robust way of discovering what is true and what is not and has been for centuries.

If something can’t be proven wrong or right this way, then by all means, share whatever opinion you want.

But if someone has proven scientifically that their hypothesis is true, and others have reliably repeated the experiment and the hypothesis stands, then the hypothesis is likely the truth and you, as someone who disagrees, are free to conduct your own experiments to disprove it if you think you can.

That’s how you engage in a topic like that in a responsible manner. And if you’re not willing to engage responsibly, just don’t engage.

It’s really quite simple. And it’s not controversial. The controversy is manufactured by people who dislike the truth because when you don’t like A but you can’t prove that B is true, the next best thing is to muddy the waters and push a false narrative that seeking truth is suppressing free speech.

“I can’t prove that B is true, no, but you’d all see that it is if the A believers would stop shutting down conversation and let an actual debate happen! Why don’t they want to do that, huh?? Almost like they know A can’t stand up to the criticism!! What are they hiding? Here’s a link to more info on B.”

Radicalisation 101, tbh.

The scientific method is great, but absolutely does not function as a method of silencing others. I have no problem with "my science says you should shut up" but there is no sane justification for "my science says you have to shut up".

There is robust debate on all sorts of issues that have been considered by some to be scientifically settled decades ago. I wonder if you would have been for silencing anyone who came out against the science that sugar wasn't bad for you and actually it's fat that's the problem? Or that cigarettes weren't harmful.

It's always the same problem with these arguments that purport to have a genuine reason to get rid of free speech - once that reason is defined and accepted, it can be corrupted by those who seek ultimate control over what people can think and say (ie ultimate power). Ultimately, there is no genuine reason to get rid of free speech. Only naivety and/or facist power seeking.

 

[avz]

It’s really quite simple. And it’s not controversial. The controversy is manufactured by people who dislike the truth because when you don’t like A but you can’t prove that B is true, the next best thing is to muddy the waters and push a false narrative that seeking truth is suppressing free speech.

It becomes controversial quicker than you think when interests clash in a power games.

 

[Fugabutacus]

The scientific method is great, but absolutely does not function as a method of silencing others. I have no problem with "my science says you should shut up" but there is no sane justification for "my science says you have to shut up".

There is robust debate on all sorts of issues that have been considered by some to be scientifically settled decades ago. I wonder if you would have been for silencing anyone who came out against the science that sugar wasn't bad for you and actually it's fat that's the problem? Or that cigarettes weren't harmful.

It's always the same problem with these arguments that purport to have a genuine reason to get rid of free speech - once that reason is defined and accepted, it can be corrupted by those who seek ultimate control over what people can think and say (ie ultimate power). Ultimately, there is no genuine reason to get rid of free speech. Only naivety and/or facist power seeking.

The examples you cite of changes to consensus were changed through further scientific study, the debate happening in academic publications, not through wild conjecture. You are agreeing with me here.

The scientific method is objective because it is transparent. If you want to prove something, you can do so, and any study conducted correctly can be replicated.

To suggest it’s able to be corrupted by sinister forces is nothing but conspiracy theories based in your fantasies.

No one’s silencing your free speech, they’re just asking that if you share something as fact, you back it up with evidence, and if you can’t do that, you don’t share it.

It’s really, really simple, and if you have a problem with people asking you not to lie, you need to look inside yourself and ask yourself why you care so deeply about preserving your freedom to lie and mislead your community.