Elon Musk Is Officially Purchasing Twitter for $44 Billion

[dk001]

Messy situation

My main takeaway is that Musk should be nowhere near running a service of "wide open communication"
If anyone thinks he's going to let thing anything fly, as long as it's "legal"

No chance.
Zip, zero - nada

Not with his personality, temperament and history

View attachment 1997551

Interesting this situation is.
I suspect, could be way off, that Elon will give Twitter very specific guidelines for operations and for development then turn it over to staff to execute those instructions. With all his other irons in the fire, Elon won't be running Twitter directly.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Interesting this situation is.
I suspect, could be way off, that Elon will give Twitter very specific guidelines for operations and for development then turn it over to staff to execute those instructions. With all his other irons in the fire, Elon won't be running Twitter directly.

I'd feel at least hopeful if we was doing anything to acknowledge the current staff and all the work they've done for years to continually make it a better space for more and more diverse sets of users.

Literally the last thing it needs is to be taken down the studs and start all over.

Nearly anyone you can find with vast experience in the space of social and moderation and all the complexities involved will tell you how much of an intractable problem some of this stuff is, especially at speed and scale (twitters whole point)

At best, he'll "change it" -- there's just about no way to make it a free for all that will keep it enjoyable and safe and pleasurable for the widely divergent groups out there. A ton of moderation and subjective calls start having to be made, and you eventually end up where it already is, just having made different decisions along the way.

tldr -- it's actually a harder problem than anything he's worked on before. Humans and social interaction between them is as old as time -- and bringing that to speed and scale of "nearly instant and worldwide" is... tough..

People choose to spend time in spaces, physical and digital, because they enjoy it and get something out of it. The chances of one single digital space doing that for "everyone" are nearly zero.

Also -- claims of "I was unfairly moderated" really are irrelevant.

That just happens. It is flat out unavoidable.

Life is full of injustices (although unfair moderation on twitter or a forum is pretty much a nothing burger in the grand scheme of life)

It's happened to me on Twitter and I barely engage honestly.. it's happened to me here too. What seemed unfair to me, didn't seem that way to moderation teams. It's always subjective and contextual and changing depending who's deciding, when, why and how.

 

[Darth Tulhu]

Supreme Court precedent holds the the 1st Amendment does not protect some of the examples you proffer depending on the context. It draws the line at imminent harm and also does not protect physical threats. It would protect your "dirty foreigners" example though ... but free speech does not protect the speaker from the ramifications of what he or she says. A person who says something like that should be rebutted on the merits and perhaps ostracized by others who know better. This is where an educated population is fundamental to functioning democracy.

OK, so we agree?

I'm already exhausted by this discussion.

My point is, and always has been: "freedom of speech" should not exempt you from "the consequences of running your mouth", but getting this enforced is another matter entirely.

 

[dk001]

I'd feel at least hopeful if we was doing anything to acknowledge the current staff and all the work they've done for years to continually make it a better space for more and more diverse sets of users.

Literally the last thing it needs is to be taken down the studs and start all over.

Nearly anyone you can find with vast experience in the space of social and moderation and all the complexities involved will tell you how much of an intractable problem some of this stuff is, especially at speed and scale (twitters whole point)

At best, he'll "change it" -- there's just about no way to make it a free for all that will keep it enjoyable and safe and pleasurable for the widely divergent groups out there. A ton of moderation and subjective calls start having to be made, and you eventually end up where it already is, just having made different decisions along the way.

tldr -- it's actually a harder problem than anything he's worked on before. Humans and social interaction between them is as old as time -- and bringing that to speed and scale of "nearly instant and worldwide" is... tough..

People choose to spend time in spaces, physical and digital, because they enjoy it and get something out of it. The chances of one single digital space doing that for "everyone" are nearly zero.

Also -- claims of "I was unfairly moderated" really are irrelevant.

That just happens. It is flat out unavoidable.

Life is full of injustices (although unfair moderation on twitter or a forum is pretty much a nothing burger in the grand scheme of life)

It's happened to me on Twitter and I barely engage honestly.. it's happened to me here too. What seemed unfair to me, didn't seem that way to moderation teams. It's always subjective and contextual and changing depending who's deciding, when, why and how.

On that we will have to disagree. I feel Twitters staff, especially those involved with censoring, deleting, suspending, and banning need to qualify their actions or depart. Mistakes happen until they become a trend. Then they are no longer "mistakes" rather "instructions".

 

[transpo1]

Would you say the same thing about a newspaper that publishes everything that’s said regardless of truth? I certainly wouldn’t call that noble.

But a newspaper does not embody the public town square in the same way that companies like Twitter or Facebook now do.

 

[transpo1]

On that we will have to disagree. I feel Twitters staff, especially those involved with censoring, deleting, suspending, and banning need to qualify their actions or depart. Mistakes happen until they become a trend. Then they are no longer "mistakes" rather "instructions".

Totally agree. The chief legal officer, Vijaya Gadde, should be the first to depart (or be let go) for her role in the permanent ban.

 

[Madhatter32]

But a newspaper does not embody the public town square in the same way that companies like Twitter or Facebook now do.

Newspapers are explicitly subject to the First Amendment. It doesn't matter that they are not a public town square.

 

[transpo1]

"Mirroring the US constitution", as a guiding principle and main goal of any digital communication space, is honestly one of the worst ideas I've ever heard.

In the similar way, and for similar reasons, I'd never go to a bar that had "no rules beyond what the constitution says you can do".

Why?
Because the experience would be awful for many, if not most, people

This is a very interesting example. How many bars post all their rules? Some do, for sure, but many times, the rules are just based on decorum. Of course, there is the law, too. You can't leave without paying (or rather, you can, but you may be arrested) based on the law.

And yet most of the time, most bars I've been to, everything turns out fine.

Twitter and Facebook are more difficult examples, because one is not face to face with other people, they may be inclined to say things they wouldn't ordinarily say.

The laws of free speech should still apply, though.

 

[transpo1]

Newspapers are explicitly subject to the First Amendment. It doesn't matter that they are not a public town square.

Yeah, I understand that. But was responding to the previous quoted poster who compared the two.

What's really ironic is that now that Musk will own Twitter, I bet Democrats will call for legislation stripping social media companies of Section 230.

 

[transpo1]

and that legal right comes from the 1st amendment.

That is true. But morally, ethically, should that be the case? I say no, based on the argument they've now become the "de facto digital town square."

The 1st amendment protections for speech only restrict the government, so you are arguing for removing 1st amendment protections from a company.
The whole point of 230 is to allow companies and individuals to moderate speech without being responsible for the content of messages that aren’t manually approved. Twitter could not function if it had to manually review each message before it was posted.

Correct: so the Musk solution (if he can fix Twitter) is a much better solution.

Even my technologically inept mom has found alternative platforms that all the people kicked off Twitter and YouTube are on now.
And again, I’ve asked several times in this thread for someone to provide an example of a forum or social media service that allows all legal speech, is open to the public, has at least a thousand users, and isn’t a total cesspool.

Twitter is still a total cesspool. But it controls so much of the conversation amongst politicians and journalists that it's become more than just a social media company. It has to hold itself to a higher standard of free speech.

And I'm not sure there is a forum or company that is not a cesspool, nor could there be, since some elements of society are also quite tawdry and social media will always be a reflection of those who use it.

“I hate the idea of gov’t regulation,” they said, as the repeatedly called for government regulation.

I'm not against all regulation, I just hate the idea of it. Some of it is quite necessary, unfortunately.

 

[Madhatter32]

Yeah, I understand that. But was responding to the previous quoted poster who compared the two.

What's really ironic is that now that Musk will own Twitter, I bet Democrats will call for legislation stripping social media companies of Section 230.

LOL -- great point. Although you call it ironic, I would call it hypocritical. Par for the course I suppose.

 

[turbineseaplane]

On that we will have to disagree. I feel Twitters staff, especially those involved with censoring, deleting, suspending, and banning need to qualify their actions or depart.

You are, absolutely, entitled to your opinion.
Cheers

 

[Jensend]

Yeah, I understand that. But was responding to the previous quoted poster who compared the two.

What's really ironic is that now that Musk will own Twitter, I bet Democrats will call for legislation stripping social media companies of Section 230.

Some Democrats were already calling for modifying Section 230 before this. I disagree with them. And many people on both sides are partisan hypocrites, so I don't doubt that some will change their tone. I'm sure I am as well, in ways that I may not realize.
I don't think any or operator or user of an interactive computer service should be responsible for libelous statements made by other users of that service. That applies to Twitter, MacRumors forums, "team red" and "team blue" partisan political web forums, and the comments section on my own personal blog.

 

[turbineseaplane]

I don't think any or operator or user of an interactive computer service should be responsible for libelous statements made by other users of that service.

Me either -- especially because you can't really have these services if that becomes the expectation and there is law to back it up.

 

[Jensend]

LOL -- great point. Although you call it ironic, I would call it hypocritical. Par for the course I suppose.

You're laughing at hypothetical hypocritical actions. Maybe wait for an example before you start patting yourself on the back for your clever observation.
I don't find it unlikely that some Democrats will change their views, but even then, be careful about dismissing all Democrats based on the actions of a few that may only represent a small minority of Democrats.

Twitter is still a total cesspool. But it controls so much of the conversation amongst politicians and journalists that it's become more than just a social media company. It has to hold itself to a higher standard of free speech.

And I'm not sure there is a forum or company that is not a cesspool, nor could there be, since some elements of society are also quite tawdry and social media will always be a reflection of those who use it.

Twitter is clearly not as much of a cesspool as Gab, and MacRumors is clearly not the cesspool that is 4chan.

And a lot of Twitter has nothing to do with politics. I follow game developers, astronauts, authors, jugglers, musicians, artists, scientists, directors, VR and Apple topics, educational/engineering/tech youtubers, friends, etc. (and a very small handful of political pundits, though I stop following if they start overwhelming my feed)
I can't find all of those on competing platforms. I'd like a platform that continues to have that diversity of topics on it.

 

[turbineseaplane]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1519063920283062272

 

[turbineseaplane]

A good video interview with Jason Goldman (part of Twitter founding team)
About 9 minutes long

Twitter Founding Member on Musk's Deal

Former White House Chief Digital Officer Jason Goldman, who was part of Twitter's founding team and board member from 2007-2010, joins Emily Chang to give his take on Elon Musk's purchase of Twitter, Musk's version of free speech and what it means for the company's future. (Source: Bloomberg)

www.bloomberg.com

 

[VictorTango777]

I'm curious, what are the latest marching orders for conservatives regarding Elon Musk? Are we supposed to vilify him because he supports an all EV future and we don't want no stinkin' electric cars because China is beating the US in EV manufacturing? Or are we supposed to praise him as a champion of unrestricted free speech in the hopes that he will allow Trump back on Twitter?

 

[A MacBook lover]

Jack Dorsey: Elon Musk is the 'singular solution' for Twitterhttps://www.cnbc.com › 2022/04/26 › jack-dorsey-elon...

 

[A MacBook lover]

I'm curious, what are the latest marching orders for conservatives regarding Elon Musk? Are we supposed to vilify him because he supports an all EV future and we don't want no stinkin' electric cars because China is beating the US in EV manufacturing? Or are we supposed to praise him as a champion of unrestricted free speech in the hopes that he will allow Trump back on Twitter?

View attachment 1997609

I always loved Elon, even when I voted Obama, voted Trump. Great thing about independent thought, you aren't bound to party lines

The reason I bought a Tesla isn't because I care about the environment (even though electric cars pollute more) it's because I wanted instant torque, autopilot.

 

[Madhatter32]

You're laughing at hypothetical hypocritical actions. Maybe wait for an example before you start patting yourself on the back for your clever observation.

I laugh at the hypocrisy that is the modern day Democratic Party for actions past, present and (now) future. I am not very clever though. Just clear-eyed.

 

[dk001]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1519063920283062272

Under the assumption that because “A” failed all other attempts on other platforms will also fail?
I say give him his shot. Worst case, it fails. Best case, it works.

 

[VictorTango777]

Under the assumption that because “A” failed all other attempts on other platforms will also fail?
I say give him his shot. Worst case, it fails. Best case, it works.

Apple cheerleaders who oppose Macs with touchscreens because... Windows

 

[turbineseaplane]

Worst case, it fails.

You misunderstand
We fundamentally disagree on Twitter as it stands at this moment.

It's not perfect, but I find it very valuable, very engaging and very much improved and continuing to improve.

It doesn't need tinkering from mr shiny object, whose main use of Twitter vacillates between acting like a child and bordering on committing securities fraud.

 

[transpo1]

You misunderstand
We fundamentally disagree on Twitter as it stands at this moment.

It's not perfect, but I find it very valuable, very engaging and very much improved and continuing to improve.

It doesn't need tinkering from mr shiny object, whose main use of Twitter vacillates between acting like a child and bordering on committing securities fraud.

Well, we're going to get some tinkering and my guess is he's smart enough to find a way to drastically improve it. Making tweets longer should help promote healthier and more intelligent discussions, which was one idea he put forward.

Not so coincidentally to this, has anyone heard about this news?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...pert-called-Hunters-laptop-Trump-product.html

A "recently constituted" Misinformation Governance Board. I'd say this was worrisome to say the least and could be connected to Musk's moves for Twitter.

Even if you agree with the current admin, imagine what could happen when an admin that you don't agree with gets in and uses this against you.

Appears it's targeting "misinformation in minority communities," specifically Hispanic communities with ad dollars (i.e. propaganda). Let's see if it is actually just targeting misinformation about border smuggling like they say or if it's going to try to sway voters.

Interesting times. At least there's some hope for Twitter.