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

[teh_hunterer]

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.

There is not always a consensus. With the sugar vs fat thing the debate is still ongoing - for example you have some doctors claiming that diabetes (type two) is a terminal illness that must be treated with insulin until it progresses to death, and some doctors claiming that fasting and low carb diets can reverse the disease, and giving insulin is completely wrong. Which side gets censored here, under your logic? Both claim to have very sound science backing their views, so you tell me which one is truth and which one is censored lies.

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

If you make the moral error to use science as a cudgel to silence those you disagree with, it can and will be corrupted by sinister forces. That's not what science is for - many scientists would tell you that. That would be you, or perhaps whoever comes after you, co-opting science to further your political views.

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.

Are you for censorship or not? You keep phrasing it as if you shouldn't do something, or they're just asking you not to share something. The argument changes significantly based on whether you're trying to get rid of free speech or not.

 

[Fugabutacus]

There is not always a consensus. With the sugar vs fat thing the debate is still ongoing - for example you have some doctors claiming that diabetes (type two) is a terminal illness that must be treated with insulin until it progresses to death, and some doctors claiming that fasting and low carb diets can reverse the disease, and giving insulin is completely wrong. Which side gets censored here, under your logic? Both claim to have very sound science backing their views, so you tell me which one is truth and which one is censored lies.



If you make the moral error to use science as a cudgel to silence those you disagree with, it can and will be corrupted by sinister forces. That's not what science is for - many scientists would tell you that. That would be you, or perhaps whoever comes after you, co-opting science to further your political views.



Are you for censorship or not? You keep phrasing it as if you shouldn't do something, or they're just asking you not to share something. The argument changes significantly based on whether you're trying to get rid of free speech or not.

You are literally arguing against a position no one holds.

No one is censoring anyone. They’re just being asked to use transparent and scientific methods when sharing their claims.

The result is that you can go right now and read all the literature there is to read on diabetes prognoses and treatment and decide for yourself what the truth is based on clear and transparent data, and if you decide the truth is against currently held beliefs, you are free to explore that in your own work and share the truth with others in the same way those before you did.

If you truly believe something that hasn’t been proven, go out and prove it. And if you can’t do that, don’t get upset when people don’t want to listen to you based on literally nothing.

 

[teh_hunterer]

You are literally arguing against a position no one holds.

That's just not true. Since these Twitter articles have been appearing on Macrumors, there have been plenty of examples of those saying lies are not free speech. You seem to be hiding the ball as to whether or not you're one of these people.

No one is censoring anyone. They’re just being asked to use transparent and scientific methods when sharing their claims.

The result is that you can go right now and read all the literature there is to read on diabetes prognoses and treatment and decide for yourself what the truth is based on clear and transparent data, and if you decide the truth is against currently held beliefs, you are free to explore that in your own work and share the truth with others in the same way those before you did.

If you truly believe something that hasn’t been proven, go out and prove it. And if you can’t do that, don’t get upset when people don’t want to listen to you based on literally nothing.

That is also not true. People have been censored on Twitter for all sorts of things, even for saying things that comply 100% with accepted science, or for sharing stories that are censored as misinformation only to later be accepted as real.

If your argument is to only share things that are backed by solid evidence - commendable, if naive. You will never ever ever stop people from being stupid or lying, but I do get it.

If you want to tell a flat earther to shut up, fine. I agree with you, and I'll tell them to shut up as well. But if you want to make them shut up, I'll fight for the right of the flat earther to say the nonsense they want to say. And I'll also fight for the right of those who want to tell them they're stupid and they should shut up.

 

[Fugabutacus]

That's just not true. Since these Twitter articles have been appearing on Macrumors, there have been plenty of examples of those saying lies are not free speech. You seem to be hiding the ball as to whether or not you're one of these people.



That is also not true. People have been censored on Twitter for all sorts of things, even for saying things that comply 100% with accepted science, or for sharing stories that are censored as misinformation only to later be accepted as real.

If your argument is to only share things that are backed by solid evidence - commendable, if naive. You will never ever ever stop people from being stupid or lying, but I do get it.

If you want to tell a flat earther to shut up, fine. I agree with you, and I'll tell them to shut up as well. But if you want to make them shut up, I'll fight for the right of the flat earther to say the nonsense they want to say. And I'll also fight for the right of those who want to tell them they're stupid and they should shut up.

We are having a conversation specifically about preventing misinformation and you keep trying to segue to a wider conversation about the definition of free speech, why are you so eager to do this?

You are also not clear on what it is you’re arguing exactly. I’m arguing against platforming misinformation, making no comment on what people do in private, and you seem to be responding as though I am asking to shut people down universally. But then your examples all being about twitter seem to suggest you are talking about platforms. But then you end with some sweeping statement about fighting for the right to speech which again implies you’re talking about a wider ideal.

To be clear, I have made absolutely no comment on what people should or shouldn’t do in their private lives.

My point is entirely and exclusively everything that follows this colon: truth and the freedom to seek it is important and a society benefits when it follows the truth. Misinformation and lies are a negative thing that weaken society and rob people of their right to learn about the world, and can have terrible consequences when they spread. A good society amplifies the truth and doesn’t amplify lies. The best way to determine what is and isn’t true is through the scientific method, which is not a guaranteed way to find truth, but is accessible and transparent. Platforms that allow misinformation to spread are a negative influence on society.

That’s literally it and I’d appreciate if you can start responding only to what I’m actually stating.

Or, if you need to veer off into another topic again, I’d appreciate more effort to explain the context of why it is relevant to my above opinion and your disagreement with it.

 

[teh_hunterer]

We are having a conversation specifically about preventing misinformation and you keep trying to segue to a wider conversation about the definition of free speech, why are you so eager to do this?

You are also not clear on what it is you’re arguing exactly. I’m arguing against platforming misinformation, making no comment on what people do in private, and you seem to be responding as though I am asking to shut people down universally. But then your examples all being about twitter seem to suggest you are talking about platforms. But then you end with some sweeping statement about fighting for the right to speech which again implies you’re talking about a wider ideal.

To be clear, I have made absolutely no comment on what people should or shouldn’t do in their private lives.

My point is entirely and exclusively everything that follows this colon: truth and the freedom to seek it is important and a society benefits when it follows the truth. Misinformation and lies are a negative thing that weaken society and rob people of their right to learn about the world, and can have terrible consequences when they spread. A good society amplifies the truth and doesn’t amplify lies. The best way to determine what is and isn’t true is through the scientific method, which is not a guaranteed way to find truth, but is accessible and transparent. Platforms that allow misinformation to spread are a negative influence on society.

That’s literally it and I’d appreciate if you can start responding only to what I’m actually stating.

Or, if you need to veer off into another topic again, I’d appreciate more effort to explain the context of why it is relevant to my above opinion and your disagreement with it.

Your resistance to nailing down your argument is quite telling. If you cut down the weasel words then I think what you're left with is a "free speech, except when I don't like it" viewpoint.

Free speech is free whether you like it or not. It's not up to you to decide which opinions are permissible and which aren't, even if you're going to appoint yourself as truthmaster and start decreeing what's misinformation and what's not. And I think it's quite an elitist viewpoint to think you're smart enough in comparison to the rest of the population to decide what opinions they get to be exposed to in the first place. To shape the conversation for them so they believe the things you have decided are fact, before the game has even started.

What you may need to grapple with is that you don't get to preselect the truth for the rest of us. But you're free to say what you want, argue things out, present evidence, and lay it out for discussion. If the truth is really on your side, then hopefully you prevail. That's the best any of us can rightly hope for, because when we as a society accept that leaning on the scales is OK, it then becomes a power game that isn't about the truth anymore - it's just about power.

I'm not sure how to make it clearer to you. Your opinion isn't automatically fact. Just because you say something is misinformation, doesn't make that iron-clad enough to either throw free speech out the window, or shape platforms like Twitter in your political image.

 

[Fugabutacus]

Your resistance to nailing down your argument is quite telling. If you cut down the weasel words then I think what you're left with is a "free speech, except when I don't like it" viewpoint.

Free speech is free whether you like it or not. It's not up to you to decide which opinions are permissible and which aren't, even if you're going to appoint yourself as truthmaster and start decreeing what's misinformation and what's not. And I think it's quite an elitist viewpoint to think you're smart enough in comparison to the rest of the population to decide what opinions they get to be exposed to in the first place. To shape the conversation for them so they believe the things you have decided are fact, before the game has even started.

What you may need to grapple with is that you don't get to preselect the truth for the rest of us. But you're free to say what you want, argue things out, present evidence, and lay it out for discussion. If the truth is really on your side, then hopefully you prevail. That's the best any of us can rightly hope for, because when we as a society accept that leaning on the scales is OK, it then becomes a power game that isn't about the truth anymore - it's just about power.

I'm not sure how to make it clearer to you. Your opinion isn't automatically fact. Just because you say something is misinformation, doesn't make that iron-clad enough to either throw free speech out the window, or shape platforms like Twitter in your political image.

The fact that I used my last post to restate my argument in the most specific way I could and you’ve responded with “your resistance to nail down your argument” is… Well, it’s certainly a good indicator of the kind of stuff I’m gonna read if I continue past the first paragraph of this post, so I’m going to kindly decline that opportunity and wish you a good day

 

[teh_hunterer]

The fact that I used my last post to restate my argument in the most specific way I could and you’ve responded with “your resistance to nail down your argument” is… Well, it’s certainly a good indicator of the kind of stuff I’m gonna read if I continue past the first paragraph of this post, so I’m going to kindly decline that opportunity and wish you a good day

I asked you over and over to clarify if you were for censorship or not but you kept skirting around the issue.

I think you still haven't grappled fully with the idea of free speech and that's why you don't want to go there. A lot of what you were saying made sense, but it stops making sense when you use it as a reason to remove free speech.

 

[Fugabutacus]

I asked you over and over to clarify if you were for censorship or not but you kept skirting around the issue.

I think you still haven't grappled fully with the idea of free speech and that's why you don't want to go there. A lot of what you were saying made sense, but it stops making sense when you use it as a reason to remove free speech.

As a full grown adult (I assume) you are well aware that no one with any critical thinking skills is "for censorship" or "against censorship" as that is a question so vague it's meaningless. You could be asking me if I'm in favor of the state seizing control of all press organizations, or you could be asking me if I'm in favor of editing sexual content out of TV shows kids might watch. Those are two very different questions with very different answers, and here you're treating it like one simple binary option, which you know it is not.

I would rather, therefore, be a lot more specific than that when making an argument, so that my views are not misinterpreted.

So again, I'll repeat—this, and only this, in these exact words, is what I have said I believe:

Truth and the freedom to seek it is important and a society benefits when it follows the truth. Misinformation and lies are a negative thing that weaken society and rob people of their right to learn about the world, and can have terrible consequences when they spread. A good society amplifies the truth and doesn’t amplify lies. The best way to determine what is and isn’t true is through the scientific method, which is not a guaranteed way to find truth, but is accessible and transparent. Platforms that allow misinformation to spread are a negative influence on society.

If you have a problem with anything in bold in this post, you can let me know your counter points and I will respond respectfully and as thoroughly as I can.

If your response is about anything else that isn't in that bolded paragraph, then you're not actually responding to me or what I believe and there is no point in me responding further and it just isn't a conversation I'm actually part of or relevant to.

 

[teh_hunterer]

As a full grown adult (I assume) you are well aware that no one with any critical thinking skills is "for censorship" or "against censorship" as that is a question so vague it's meaningless. You could be asking me if I'm in favor of the state seizing control of all press organizations, or you could be asking me if I'm in favor of editing sexual content out of TV shows kids might watch. Those are two very different questions with very different answers, and here you're treating it like one simple binary option, which you know it is not.

I would rather, therefore, be a lot more specific than that when making an argument, so that my views are not misinterpreted.

So again, I'll repeat—this, and only this, in these exact words, is what I have said I believe:

Truth and the freedom to seek it is important and a society benefits when it follows the truth. Misinformation and lies are a negative thing that weaken society and rob people of their right to learn about the world, and can have terrible consequences when they spread. A good society amplifies the truth and doesn’t amplify lies. The best way to determine what is and isn’t true is through the scientific method, which is not a guaranteed way to find truth, but is accessible and transparent. Platforms that allow misinformation to spread are a negative influence on society.

If you have a problem with anything in bold in this post, you can let me know your counter points and I will respond respectfully and as thoroughly as I can.

If your response is about anything else that isn't in that bolded paragraph, then you're not actually responding to me or what I believe and there is no point in me responding further and it just isn't a conversation I'm actually part of or relevant to.

Haha no, that's not how this works. You don't refuse to read my post but then direct me to specific parts of yours.

I did you the courtesy of reading yours, but I get the sense there's no point continuing. I don't believe in using science as a reason to coopt platforms to censor certain viewpoints. If what you're saying is true and what the other person is saying are lies, you have to engage in dialogue like the rest of us plebs and talk it out. You don't get to win before the game even starts.

Elitists shouldn't get to control what things people get to think and say, or get to lean on the scales by controlling platforms and preselecting what is goodspeak and wrongspeak before the masses even get to start talking.

And it's been hilarious to see the backlash from these elitists who got used to being able to do so and now can't since Twitter was sold. Absolutely hilarious.

 

[Fugabutacus]

Haha no, that's not how this works. You don't refuse to read my post but then direct me to specific parts of yours.

I did you the courtesy of reading yours, but I get the sense there's no point continuing. I don't believe in using science as a reason to coopt platforms to censor certain viewpoints. If what you're saying is true and what the other person is saying are lies, you have to engage in dialogue like the rest of us plebs and talk it out. You don't get to win before the game even starts.

Elitists shouldn't get to control what things people get to think and say, or get to lean on the scales by controlling platforms and preselecting what is goodspeak and wrongspeak before the masses even get to start talking.

And it's been hilarious to see the backlash from these elitists who got used to being able to do so and now can't since Twitter was sold. Absolutely hilarious.

I’m really not trying to be difficult, I just as a rule have a zero tolerance policies on some debating tactics, and I tend to bow out if someone repeatedly ignore my points and responds to points I haven’t made, as 80% of the time it indicates a dishonest debater.

I’ll respond though because this post was pretty reasonable, though of course you don’t have to read it.

I agree that viewpoints need to be debated, I am not against that at all. I am just saying that if that debate has already happened in an academic context, then the debate has been done. And if you’ve got something new to contribute academically, great. But once a topic has moved to the point of being studied, then debates on social media contribute essentially nothing, but still have the negative effects that come with disinformation.

Even then, if (big if) these debates were being more constructive, if schools did a better job at teaching scientific literacy and critical thinking, and if people were approaching these conversations with genuine desire for truth 99% of the time, then I wouldn’t even disagree with you, it would be fantastic.

But a lot of the time these conversations are being had with people who have already made up their mind and are not interested in changing it and are using the pretence of debate to spread ideas that are false, and in that process they are stripping others of their right to know the truth, which is just a loss of another type of freedom.

After all, if something isn’t true, but you believe it 100% and make your choices based on that info, and share it thinking you’re doing good, do you really even have freedom of speech at all? Technically perhaps, but I would say a person repeating lies without knowing they’re lies has been tricked and robbed of their freedom of speech because they’re not being given the opportunity to genuinely speak the truth, even if they want to.

It’s a net negative effect on society for these reasons and it seems that your argument is that freedom is paramount, even if its results make us worse off. Which I can respect, I’m not a strict utilitarian, I see the appeal of doing the right thing, even if it makes things worse.

But when it comes a concept like freedom, it’s just never that simple and no one really believes in absolute freedom because absolute freedom includes the ability to suppress, oppress, and censor.

In this case, we can protect the 99% that want honest, open conversation, at the expense of deplatforming (but not silencing) the 1% who lie, or we can protect the speech of the 1% who lie at the expense of the 99% losing their right to the truth and their freedom to speak it.

So I guess I understand why you think I might be against freedom of speech since I support deplatforming certain people, but hopefully you can see how your ideas of allowing them to speak seems to me like a much greater restriction on our freedom of speech.

At the end of the day, we both want that freedom, but we both have different ideas of what it represents, and we both view the other’s opinions as being anti-freedom-of-speech.

Hopefully I’ve explained it well enough here that you can at least understand my position, even if you still can’t agree.

 

[teh_hunterer]

I agree that viewpoints need to be debated, I am not against that at all. I am just saying that if that debate has already happened in an academic context, then the debate has been done. And if you’ve got something new to contribute academically, great. But once a topic has moved to the point of being studied, then debates on social media contribute essentially nothing, but still have the negative effects that come with disinformation.

This is where I think elitism comes into it and makes things dangerous. Just because a certain class in society has had their debate, doesn't mean the rest of us can't have our debate too. You may be able to look at it from on high and know that the debate playing out is pointless, but the ability to have that debate is of paramount importance.

As soon as you designate one class to have unique rights to full freedom of expression, the rest of us become an underclass that is subject to whatever tyranny comes down from that upper class. You might get 10 years of truthy utopia doing things your way, but eventually someone is going to corrupt that academic elite class, and because the idealism already put the powers in place to censor/deplatform the underclass years ago, it's lights out.

I don't think there exists a society either now or in history who has decided by force that certain debates are "done" and stayed free. You can get to the point that a debate is considered done by most people, and those who still want to debate the issue remain out on the fringes where nobody cares what they say, and I think that has to be enough.

But a lot of the time these conversations are being had with people who have already made up their mind and are not interested in changing it and are using the pretence of debate to spread ideas that are false, and in that process they are stripping others of their right to know the truth, which is just a loss of another type of freedom.

I get what you're saying, but watching one of these people clash with someone who actually is speaking the truth can be immensely valuable. That one person who is spreading lies and misinformation with their mind closed may never change, but giving their ideas their full due in public can change the minds of others towards the truth.

A bad idea suppressed is probably more powerful than a bad idea debated. And if the truth isn't winning out in open debate, the people speaking truth need to get better at it. The truth wins not just from being truth, but because of the courage and skill of those speaking it. Evil triumphs not because it exists, but because good people do nothing. The price of freedom is constant vigilance.

And if you value truth, which may even be the highest moral good, I think you have to value speaking the truth over tramping on lies.

 

[Fugabutacus]

This is where I think elitism comes into it and makes things dangerous. Just because a certain class in society has had their debate, doesn't mean the rest of us can't have our debate too. You may be able to look at it from on high and know that the debate playing out is pointless, but the ability to have that debate is of paramount importance.

As soon as you designate one class to have unique rights to full freedom of expression, the rest of us become an underclass that is subject to whatever tyranny comes down from that upper class. You might get 10 years of truthy utopia doing things your way, but eventually someone is going to corrupt that academic elite class, and because the idealism already put the powers in place to censor/deplatform the underclass years ago, it's lights out.

I don't think there exists a society either now or in history who has decided by force that certain debates are "done" and stayed free. You can get to the point that a debate is considered done by most people, and those who still want to debate the issue remain out on the fringes where nobody cares what they say, and I think that has to be enough.



I get what you're saying, but watching one of these people clash with someone who actually is speaking the truth can be immensely valuable. That one person who is spreading lies and misinformation with their mind closed may never change, but giving their ideas their full due in public can change the minds of others towards the truth.

A bad idea suppressed is probably more powerful than a bad idea debated. And if the truth isn't winning out in open debate, the people speaking truth need to get better at it. The truth wins not just from being truth, but because of the courage and skill of those speaking it. Evil triumphs not because it exists, but because good people do nothing. The price of freedom is constant vigilance.

And if you value truth, which may even be the highest moral good, I think you have to value speaking the truth over tramping on lies.

I don’t disagree with you in the scenario you’ve provided, I just don’t think it’s a clear reflection of reality or of the appropriate solutions.

I’m not gonna say there isn’t a divide between the scientific/academic community and regular folks, there totally is. But the solution is better education so that kids grow up with the skills to read and interpret scientific literature and with the curiosity to seek it out.

This bit is a generalisation (and isn’t aimed at you) and I try not to assume what other people’s beliefs or motives are, but in this case I do think it’s worthy of note that the people who tend to support absolute free speech, including the freedom to spread misinformation, and who talk about the scientific community in terms of “elitism” also tend to be the people who support parties that use their power to limit scientific education in schools and discourage university education.

It’s always been a bit odd to me because people talk about elites and being tired of hearing from experts, because they see them as totally separate from themselves. But that separation is manufactured, and they’re often supporting the people who caused it.

I also absolutely didn’t mention doing a thing by force.

On your last point, again, I don’t actually disagree with you if I take your views with no context. I’ll often challenge ideas online even when I know the other person has no intention of listening, because I want anyone stumbling across “vaccines are dangerous”/“climate change isn’t happening”/“the earth is flat” to at least see the truth in the replies. So I agree that can be valuable.

But again, I just don’t think your description matches reality. In practice, it’s rare to come across genuine debates like that, and the people spreading misinformation are rarely arguing in good faith and use many well-known tactics, such as topic changes, accusatory questioning, logical fallacies, etc, which basically give the illusion that they are making good arguments, when in fact they’re not. And most people aren’t familiar with these type of tactics, so they’re likely to fall for them.

In general, like I said, I kind of agree with you from a purely philosophical point of view. But when you put your ideas in the context of what’s actually happening in the world, it seems to me that they’re only likely to cause further misinformation, further deception, further division, and ultimately, the restriction of our freedoms.

And in practice, I don’t think restrictive policies on misinformation stand to do anything but help society thrive and remain free.

I also think we need to remind ourselves of the types of people historically who have restricted speech and how they did that. We can see from studying historical politics that those who seek to destroy free speech are often the most vocal about protecting it. They seek to shut down those who speak truth, and they do so in the name of free speech, by branding politically inconvenient truths as lies, and the people who share them as “elites” or “cultural Marxists” and spreading conspiracy theories that they’re seeking to silence normal people. Then, when they start to silence them, people believe that they’re doing so for the greater good. They’re usually not.

I don’t mean to fall into a “slippery slope” argument here, I don’t think they’re ever convincing arguments. I just mean that it’s relevant history that I think we should all remain aware of moving forward to avoid horrors of the past happening again.

 

[BaldiMac]

Then surely you agree Twitter's moderation shouldn't be skewed to favour one side of politics?

Of course I don't agree with that statement. Twitter is a private company that should be allowed to moderate speech however it wants to within the law. Forcing Twitter to publish political statements that it disagrees with is a direct violation of the first amendment. I would hope you, as a free speech supporter, wouldn't agree with that either.

As far as my personal stance on moderation of political statements, it depends on the specifics. If one side claims a table is a table and the other side claims that a table is a chair, then I wouldn't publish the lie without calling it a lie. If someone deliberately and repeatedly told lies, I would stop publishing them even if they also say things that are true. Obviously, the point at which they lose their credibility is subjective. Speech that calls for violence and hate are other obvious reasons for moderation.

That said, there are plenty of political opinions with real arguments on both sides. I see no need to to moderate those opinions whether I agree with them or not.

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?

Again, moderation by a private platform isn't censorship. Just like a newspaper choosing what information to publish isn't censorship.

That's said, I'm going to support a variety of platforms and publishers that most values ethics, truth, relevance, balance and my moral values.

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.

Whereby "still get the sense", you apparently mean that you want to believe something that isn't true in order to make my argument seem more extreme. I'm certainly not in a left wing bubble as a longtime conservative with a conservative family and conservative friends who simply got fed up with the rejection of reality by the Republican party in the last 20 years.

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.

Again, you aren't being silenced because a private company chooses not to publish your words.

 

[TallManNY]

Well it has been a month. At least half the employees are gone and probably at least half the contractors as well. The Wold Cup has started and with it, presumably, a surge of twitter use. As far as I can tell, Twitter is working about the same as before. If Twitter keeps working, at what point does everyone acknowledge that Twitter had way more employees than it needed to function?

(Note, this is an honest question. I don't want to discuss the fact that Musk has pissed off advertisers and thereby killed the company's revenue. Obviously Musk has done this and there is no debate to be had there. I'm just curious about the question about was Twitter overstaffed.)

 

[SnappleRumors]

I got a chuckle out of reading that Twitter employees returned to work yesterday to find some conference rooms converted into bedrooms. 😂

 

[SnappleRumors]

As predicted some Twitter employees are going to arbitration over their severance packages. Haven’t read any of the claims so we will see how this shakes out.

 

[4743913]

bbedit made a tweet today basically saying, "We are taking our ball and going to masterdon. you customers that get your product news from twitter, join masterdon or add a masterdon rss feed"

um. no thanks.

 

[SnappleRumors]

Looks like Musk is shopping …. should I buy Twitter? 😏

 

[1885507]

DARING FIREBALL: MUSK STEERS TWITTER RIGHT INTO THE ICEBERG, BANS ALL LINKS TO ALL OTHER SOCIAL MEDIA SITES

Gruber's take on the whole thing. This popcorn pops itself, doesn't it?

 

[bradl]

Apparently now he can't handle it. He's posted a poll on if he should step down as CEO of Twitter, and that he would abide by the poll.

Right now 57% are saying yes, he should step down, while 42% say no.

The only thing we know for sure is that we can't trust Elon either way. In short, I'll abide by the motto of the state of Missouri: Show me. IOW, I'll believe it when I see it.

BL.

 

[SnappleRumors]

Apparently now he can't handle it. He's posted a poll on if he should step down as CEO of Twitter, and that he would abide by the poll.

Right now 57% are saying yes, he should step down, while 42% say no.

The only thing we know for sure is that we can't trust Elon either way. In short, I'll abide by the motto of the state of Missouri: Show me. IOW, I'll believe it when I see it.

BL.

He’s going to turn over the day-to-day operations. It’s always been the plan.

 

[bradl]

He’s going to turn over the day-to-day operations. It’s always been the plan.

Source?

BL.

 

[Fat_Guy]

He is stretched too thin but has done all the dirty work that neeeded to be done so like yes, he has to hire a replacement for Twitter and balance his workload.



This could work out well in the end…

 

[Fat_Guy]

Source?

BL.

He said he will abide by the poll, so the source is Elon Musk!

 

[Fat_Guy]

BTW: He has tweeted the old: be careful what you wish for quote!



Man, what would Twitter be like if (insert name here) became President?