Twitter to Increase Tweet Character Limit to 4,000, Elon Musk Says

[bradl]

When you're the largest shareholder then you can position your own people on the board of directors. That can also be just the largest shareholder. Value of a company is what shareholders make of it buying and selling the stock. Steve didn't own Apple anymore and was merely a small shareholder. Musk is totally different and has the controlling stakes in his companies. It sounds like you don't like the system because of Musk which is fine. I have no love for him either but he controls these companies so can do what he likes mostly.

Again, this isn't about Musk's positions in his companies, but what Musk is saying publicly and then not having the character and integrity to follow through on those statements he made publicly. If he is saying that he wants "free speech" on Twitter, he should not be going around deleting posts and suspending people from the platform he is saying should have "free speech". He's being a hypocrite when it comes to that, and that is the crux of the matter.

BL.

 

[reflekshunmusic]

Why is no one talking about how the $4 upcharge ($7 to $11) is more than 30% of $11?

 

[Lioness~]

Emlon Plusk, the sh%#it talk guy 😂

 

[bradl]

Why is no one talking about how the $4 upcharge ($7 to $11) is more than 30% of $11?

Because it's a bigger deal that by using Twitter, Musk wants all users to be forced to opt in to Twitter's ads tracking you, whether you want them to or not.

Twitter ads may track you whether you want them to or not; more

A proposed move by Elon Musk could see Twitter ads tracking you whether or not you want them to, a...

9to5mac.com

On top of that, not paying out severance pay to those who took severance when they left Twitter. In short, Musk is desperate.

BL.

 

[williedigital]

He's the world's second richest person by pure luck then?

Most rich people are lucky more than anything else. The single strongest predictor of being rich is having rich parents.

 

[Surf Monkey]

I think "censor" is fine to use in this context as it means to suppress or delete something considered objectionable, unacceptable, undesirable, etc. It can refer to actions taken by a government or private company. Yes, Twitter in the past and now can essentially do what they want in this regard but doing so can still be labeled as censoring.

Violations of the terms of service result in supression?

It’s interesting that you keep choosing highly charged words to describe their actions.

Again, everyone there agrees to the TOS. Same as on this board. If you break the rules here and have your post or your account deleted have you been censored or suppressed? No. Of course not. You violated the terms. It’s on YOU, not the site. Same deal at Twitter.

 

[Surf Monkey]

Yep, looks like Musk wants to sell user data and that will fall into the hands of dictators and organised crime

Twitter is considering forcing users to let the company sell their data and phone numbers to advertisers, in potential breach of Apple rules

Users might be able to opt out if they susbcribe to $8 Twitter Blue – but that would breach Apple rules on data sharing, Platformer reports.

www.businessinsider.com

“Sell user data.”

Now you’re getting to the brass tacks. All the hot air about freedom of speech, censorship and suppression is specifically intended to distract people from the truth. Musk needs your data or Twitter dies. Charging for blue service won’t generate enough money to keep the company afloat. Their business model is entirely based on selling the content YOU create and the data YOU generate.

I mean, we all know by now that the customers of social media are not the users of social media, right? In the social media context people using the service are WORKERS for the company. Unpaid workers. The actual customers of social media sites are advertisers.

And this circles back around to why Twitter reserves the right to do whatever they like with your content, including deleting it and disabling your entire account. They do that to protect their customers. “Free speech” is not part of their business model, no matter how many times they tell people it is.

 

[Surf Monkey]

Most rich people are lucky more than anything else. The single strongest predictor of being rich is having rich parents.

There are exceptions, many of them very high profile. But Musk isn’t one of them.

 

[Surf Monkey]

Again, this isn't about Musk's positions in his companies, but what Musk is saying publicly and then not having the character and integrity to follow through on those statements he made publicly. If he is saying that he wants "free speech" on Twitter, he should not be going around deleting posts and suspending people from the platform he is saying should have "free speech". He's being a hypocrite when it comes to that, and that is the crux of the matter.

BL.

Buyer beware. If you’re taking the things that Musk says at face value you’ve already made the fatal mistake.

 

[bradl]

Buyer beware. If you’re taking the things that Musk says at face value you’ve already made the fatal mistake.

I believe Musk about as much as I can body slam Andre the Giant. However, I'd direct your advice to the Musk stans; they worship the cult of personality.

BL.

 

[Surf Monkey]

I believe Musk about as much as I can body slam Andre the Giant. However, I'd direct your advice to the Musk stans; they worship the cult of personality.

BL.

Totally. I suppose I should have made it clear that I was commenting in a general way, not speaking about you personally.

 

[webkit]

Violations of the terms of service result in supression?

It’s interesting that you keep choosing highly charged words to describe their actions.

Again, everyone there agrees to the TOS. Same as on this board. If you break the rules here and have your post or your account deleted have you been censored or suppressed? No. Of course not. You violated the terms. It’s on YOU, not the site. Same deal at Twitter.

Just because there is TOS doesn't mean censoring (fair or unfair) isn't going on.

 

[Surf Monkey]

Just because there is TOS doesn't mean censoring (fair or unfair) isn't going on.

Except that it does. Because you’re free to use another platform if you like. Twitter can’t censor you. It can only deny you access to Twitter. And again, access to Twitter is granted at THEIR discretion and tied to the terms of service. Twitter is not a public utility. It’s a private site, just like MacRumors and just like here your content and or account can be removed at the discretion of the site owners. That isn’t censorship.

Read these:

X Terms of Service

Read X's Terms of Service to understand the rules governing your access of all Twitter services.

twitter.com

The X rules: safety, privacy, authenticity, and more

Understand the limitations on the type of content and behavior that we allow, to ensure free and safe conversation.

help.twitter.com

Updates to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy

We’re updating our Privacy Policy to reflect improvements we’ve made to X. We encourage you to read the updated policy in full.

help.twitter.com

If you intend to play the game you have to know the rules and if you don’t know the rules you really can’t complain when you break them and get ejected.

 

[bradl]

Except that it does. Because you’re free to use another platform if you like. Twitter can’t censor you. It can only deny you access to Twitter. And again, access to Twitter is granted at THEIR discretion and tied to the terms of service. Twitter is not a public utility. It’s a private site, just like MacRumors and just like here your content and or account can be removed at the discretion of the site owners. That isn’t censorship.

The point is still being missed, however. The owner of the company can not stand there and bemoan "free speech" then go on for and suspend - for whatever reason he may/may not find - accounts while wanting to make the platform be about more "free speech". He can't have it both ways.

BL.

 

[Surf Monkey]

The point is still being missed, however. The owner of the company can not stand there and bemoan "free speech" then go on for and suspend - for whatever reason he may/may not find - accounts while wanting to make the platform be about more "free speech". He can't have it both ways.

BL.

Agree. And the thing is? Musk KNOWS he’s full of it when he talks about Twitter and free speech. He’s making those claims intentionally and in the exact same context we see on this board: his intended audience takes his comments at face value. The fact that the rest of the rational world can easily see that he’s a lying hypocrite doesn’t matter to the Musk faithful.

 

[webkit]

Except that it does. Because you’re free to use another platform if you like. Twitter can’t censor you. It can only deny you access to Twitter. And again, access to Twitter is granted at THEIR discretion and tied to the terms of service. Twitter is not a public utility. It’s a private site, just like MacRumors and just like here your content and or account can be removed at the discretion of the site owners. That isn’t censorship.

Read these:

X Terms of Service

Read X's Terms of Service to understand the rules governing your access of all Twitter services.

twitter.com

The X rules: safety, privacy, authenticity, and more

Understand the limitations on the type of content and behavior that we allow, to ensure free and safe conversation.

help.twitter.com

Updates to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy

We’re updating our Privacy Policy to reflect improvements we’ve made to X. We encourage you to read the updated policy in full.

help.twitter.com

If you intend to play the game you have to know the rules and if you don’t know the rules you really can’t complain when you break them and get ejected.

Again, censoring can occur by a government or private company and just because a company may have TOS doesn't mean censoring still can't occur on that company's platform or whatever.

 

[BaldiMac]

Again, censoring can occur by a government or private company and just because a company may have TOS doesn't mean censoring still can't occur on that company's platform or whatever.

Sure, but again, people are choosing a loaded word (censor) that deliberately implies something nefarious for something that is completely normal. A more accurate and more neutral word is moderation.

Choosing not to repeat or promote what someone says is a completely normal thing that people and corporations do every day. Is Burger King engaging in censorship because they choose not to promote the Big Mac in their ads?

 

[Surf Monkey]

Again, censoring can occur by a government or private company and just because a company may have TOS doesn't mean censoring still can't occur on that company's platform or whatever.

Moderating Twitter isn’t censorship. If you dislike it use a different service. Making yourself into a martyr isn’t going to fly.

 

[vikingjunior]

The point is still being missed, however. The owner of the company can not stand there and bemoan "free speech" then go on for and suspend - for whatever reason he may/may not find - accounts while wanting to make the platform be about more "free speech". He can't have it both ways.

BL.

I will say for certain people it's become more free speech than it was. I think Elon made a mistake using the term "free speech" because it's impossible to have 100% free speech. He should've used something like 'fair speech" he kind of painted himself into a corner with "free speech"

 

[BaldiMac]

I will say for certain people it's become more free speech than it was.

Based on what?

 

[Scoob Redux]

I don't care how you interpret it. It doesn't change the fact that a company self-censoring their own plattform does not add value to their users and content providers but generates a lot of unnecessary cost. And that's what a company has to think about, not argueing with their clients if they are legally in the right to do so.

It's funny how many people here are upset just because Elon Musk changed Twitters rules. So much emotional investment. We will see if he is successful or not. Some of his ventures are great (e.g. SpaceX), others are utter crap (e.g. Hyperloop). I have my popcorn on standby, as I have no stakes and nothing to loose .

Do you think you can say anything you want on MR? I guarantee that the owners "self-censor" their own platform, just like most web or mobile platforms. I actually have no interest in what Musk does to Twitter. I do hope he doesn't bring SpaceX down, since I DO have a stake and something to lose.

 

[Scoob Redux]

I think some people may be talking about two different things here. Yes, the First Amendment is specifically about government actions but some also use "free speech" (or lack of) to describe private company actions or policies regarding employee, user, etc. speech.

On platforms like Twitter, when someone talks about "free speech" they are (or should be) talking about the ability to freely post/tweet comments without being unfairly censored.

That's the point...you don't have a right to "free speech" on any private platform. By definition, the owners can choose what to allow you to say, and what they want to delete. There is no such thing as being "unfairly censored" on Twitter - everything is fair, because Twitter is a private corporation, and they have complete autonomy to review, promote, or delete tweets. They do not owe anyone "free speech".

 

[vikingjunior]

Based on what?

Let's not play coy.

 

[bradl]

Let's not play coy.

his question is valid. on what basis has it become more "free speech"?

BL.

 

[Surf Monkey]

That's the point...you don't have a right to "free speech" on any private platform. By definition, the owners can choose what to allow you to say, and what they want to delete. There is no such thing as being "unfairly censored" on Twitter - everything is fair, because Twitter is a private corporation, and they have complete autonomy to review, promote, or delete tweets. They do not owe anyone "free speech".

^^^ Winner.

I don’t get why this is such a difficult concept for so many people to grasp. There is no free speech on Twitter any more than there’s free speech here on MacRumors. I strongly recommend that the individuals who think Twitter has anything to do with free speech to go ahead and say whatever they want here on this board and see what happens…