Merged: Musk buys Twitter!/ Elon Musk puts Twitter deal on hold....

[theprestige]

The issue seems to be that anyone stupid enough to use Twitter really needs a caretaker to make sure they don't get too much wrongthink in their pea-brains.

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B

Musk is a strange bird. He can certainly be erratic, and even mean.

But before we assume he’ll ruin Twitter, at least consider his track record with other endeavors:

Making Tesla a major, successful player in the EV world, pushing other manufacturers to play catch up, all of which overall reduce carbon emissions.

Making reusable boosters a reality, drastically reducing the cost of getting a payload into orbit, allowing…

Launching a gazillion small satellites into orbit to provide reliable access to relatively high speed internet to millions who could not otherwise get it.

I could relate to the doomsaying about Twitter’s future if Musk’s past was littered with ill conceived business plans that resulted in failure. As it is, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt on Twitter.

Apart from Musk's other failures, none of these are remotely like Twitter or any other social media/publishing venture. Musk's successes are almost completely, if not completely, from buying companies with actually good engineering bones, getting massive investment of capital which is used to attract talent, and then promoting the hell out of them. The actual work to produce a viable product comes from giving talent a lot of resources and finding the talent in the first place. This isn't a slam. The slams would be his tendency to fire people if they speak up, the hostile work environments he creates and fosters (I hope his turn-over issue doesn't sink SpaceX, but hey, maybe his attention elsewhere will let some people clean up his messes without him noticing), the blatant stock manipulation for which he deserves much greater fines for, and of course, the picking up and moving entire manufacturing facilities to avoid dealing with the extreme racism including racially segregated production lines.

But managing a social media company is unlike making or promoting a physical product or service. Musk kind of understands engineering challenges and knows promotion but has absolutely no idea of the challenges of managing content and the interactions of others. Getting engagement isn't anywhere near the same as fostering an engaging environment. As others have pointed out, the 'free speech absolutism' inevitably creates an environment that drives out the reasonable people.

The best thing Twitter does is be a place for announcements. It's not a good place for conversations but to get information in a post from a group or person. However, that doesn't drive a ton of engagement. My Twitter keeps pushing me posts by right-wing politicians, mostly because of me clicking links to what they say people post up here. Those already make me mostly avoid Twitter at all. The constant stream of Nazi **** and people harassing trans folk and then pretending to be the victim? That's time to close the account and delete the app.

And then it's no longer even good as a place to get announcements.

[Ziggurat]

My favorite quote about this whole thing:

"Musk’s appointment to Twitter’s board shows that we need regulation of social-media platforms to prevent rich people from controlling our channels of communication."

Why is this my favorite quote? Because of where it appeared: in the Washington Post.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

As others have pointed out, the 'free speech absolutism' inevitably creates an environment that drives out the reasonable people.
...
My Twitter keeps pushing me posts by right-wing politicians, mostly because of me clicking links to what they say people post up here.

Your actual complaint about your own experience with Twitter doesn't have anything to do with free speech absolutism, it has to do with how tweets are promoted. You are seeing stuff you don't want to see even though it doesn't violate twitter's TOS. It seems to me that it doesn't really matter to you what exists on the platform if it's not being pushed at you. And I think that's entirely reasonable.

But that also means that a far more free speech standard in terms of what's allowed is still compatible with not pushing stuff at you that you don't want to see.

[Fast Eddie B]

I had just over $150 cash sitting in a brokerage account and just bought 3 shares @ $50.02. Crap shoot but its fun having even a little skin in the game.

[crescent]

Ron Filipkowski on Twitter

Quote:

In the past 24 hours across all of Twitter, right-wing accounts have reported significant increases in followers, while accounts on the left have lost followers. Many theories floating around. Only twitter knows the real answer, if they will ever tell us.

Christopher Bouzy:

Quote:

🤖Exclusive: Over the past 24 hours, Democrats have experienced a significant decrease in followers, while Republicans have experienced a significant increase in followers...

Quote:

Ron DeSantis gained over 96,500 in a single day! Someone at Twitter really needs to explain this.

Quote:

I can understand Left-leaning accounts deciding to close their accounts after the Elon Musk news, but why the sudden significant increase in Republican followers? This is not normal.

Quote:

I really would like a Twitter spokesperson to explain this.

Quote:

We also looked at
@MSNBC
hosts vs
@FoxNews
hosts, and it is the same. MSNBC hosts lost followers while Fox News hosts gained a significant number of followers.

Not just news, left leaning celebrities also losing followers:
Mark Hamill

Quote:

Weird. I just lost more than 8,000 followers in the last couple of hours. Was it something I said?

So the debate:
Is twitter doing this - deleting followers to leftists and adding bot-followers to rightists?
Is Musk doing this via bots? (He does not yet control the company, the legalities will take time)
Or is this just twitter users, left leaning users abandoning twitter and right-leaning users joining (or rejoining, or making use of it again after not quitting but not much making use of it)?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by crescent

So the debate:
Is twitter doing this - deleting followers to leftists and adding bot-followers to rightists?
Is Musk doing this via bots? (He does not yet control the company, the legalities will take time)
Or is this just twitter users, left leaning users abandoning twitter and right-leaning users joining (or rejoining, or making use of it again after not quitting but not much making use of it)?

It's the last one. It's the only explanation that really makes sense.

Twitter employees are overwhelmingly leftists, they aren't going to intentionally promote right wingers and demote leftwingers. And if they were told to do so by upper management (which is also overwhelmingly leftist) they're going to leak that. And Musk has no reason to bother with bot accounts. He's playing for bigger stakes than other people's follows.

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Your actual complaint about your own experience with Twitter doesn't have anything to do with free speech absolutism, it has to do with how tweets are promoted. You are seeing stuff you don't want to see even though it doesn't violate twitter's TOS. It seems to me that it doesn't really matter to you what exists on the platform if it's not being pushed at you. And I think that's entirely reasonable.

But that also means that a far more free speech standard in terms of what's allowed is still compatible with not pushing stuff at you that you don't want to see.

That's not what's going to happen though. This kind of low moderation is already unacceptable to the kind of speech Musk wants, meaning the stuff will spread and will drive more people away. Twitter already isn't in the top 10 of active social media users, having about the same active user base as Reddit. Becoming less amenable to journalists and advertisers/corporations (the two groups who give Twitter its outsize social influence) will probably not go well for it.

My cited issue for how Twitter is now isn't going to get better and the proliferation of vile content will increase, which is my actual complaint.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by crescent

So the debate:
Is twitter doing this - deleting followers to leftists and adding bot-followers to rightists?
Is Musk doing this via bots? (He does not yet control the company, the legalities will take time)
Or is this just twitter users, left leaning users abandoning twitter and right-leaning users joining (or rejoining, or making use of it again after not quitting but not much making use of it)?

: confused :

It's pretty sad that this is what qualifies as a mystery to progressives on Twitter.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

That's not what's going to happen though. This kind of low moderation is already unacceptable to the kind of speech Musk wants

What exactly is "this kind of low moderation"? Do you mean what does and doesn't get kicked off the platform completely? Perhaps.

But again, your actual complaint with the platform based on your own experience is about what gets promoted to you. And that's actually a distinct problem from what gets moderated. I see no reason to think Musk is opposed to users having less stuff they don't like pushed at them. I think the opposite is more likely: I think Musk will probably make it easier for users to tailor their twitter experience to what they want, including what gets pushed at them.

As for the actual moderation, the main change Musk has actually proposed so far is simply transparency about how it's done. And I can't see that as being a bad thing, whether you want more or less of it.

[ZiprHead]

Originally Posted by jeremyp

Thuderf00t made some flawed assumptions. It's true that most of Musk's wealth exists on paper only, in the form of Tesla stock which is grossly overpriced, but that doesn't mean he can't raise the money to buy Twitter. He can just take out loans secured against the Tesla stock.

We can't tax wealth but Musk can use it to buy Twitter.

Makes perfect sense.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by jeremyp

Thuderf00t made some flawed assumptions. It's true that most of Musk's wealth exists on paper only, in the form of Tesla stock which is grossly overpriced, but that doesn't mean he can't raise the money to buy Twitter. He can just take out loans secured against the Tesla stock.

Originally Posted by ZiprHead

We can't tax wealth but Musk can use it to buy Twitter.

Makes perfect sense.

It does make perfect sense when you realize that we can and do tax wealth, including exactly the wealth Musk used to buy Twitter.

The money paid by Musk to Twitter was taxed as revenue when it was received. The payouts to the shareholders will be taxed either as capital gains or income, depending on the exact details of the relevant tax laws and regulations. When Musk repays the loan, the interest payments will be taxed as revenue to the lender. If Musk defaults on the loan, and the lender takes possession of his Tesla stock and sells it to recoup their losses, the revenue from the sale will be taxed. Same if Musk himself sells some stock to repay the loan. Etc.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by ZiprHead

We can't tax wealth

We can. And we sometimes do (real estate taxes, for example).

But it's usually a bad idea.

Quote:

but Musk can use it to buy Twitter.

That's how buying things usually works. Did you have an alternative to being able to use your wealth to buy things?

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by theprestige

It does make perfect sense when you realize that we can and do tax wealth, including exactly the wealth Musk used to buy Twitter.

The money paid by Musk to Twitter was taxed as revenue when it was received. The payouts to the shareholders will be taxed either as capital gains or income, depending on the exact details of the relevant tax laws and regulations. When Musk repays the loan, the interest payments will be taxed as revenue to the lender. If Musk defaults on the loan, and the lender takes possession of his Tesla stock and sells it to recoup their losses, the revenue from the sale will be taxed. Same if Musk himself sells some stock to repay the loan. Etc.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

We can. And we sometimes do (real estate taxes, for example).

But it's usually a bad idea.



That's how buying things usually works. Did you have an alternative to being able to use your wealth to buy things?

I just want to point out that Zig and I are using slightly different definitions of "wealth". He's using the same idea of "potential" wealth that is such a bugbear on the left. Me, I'm satisfied that "kinetic" wealth can be and is extensively taxed. Including the kinetic wealth in question here.

There seems to be a vast reservoir of ire among progressives, about the lack of taxation of potential wealth. And a complete (willful?) ignorance about the fact that the wealth they want taxed does in fact get taxed, whenever it is put to use (and to the extent that it isn't, the solution is to reform taxation of money as it is being spent - really, as it is being received. Not to try to tax money that doesn't actually exist except in theory.)

[ahhell]

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

Twitter is not real life. And political Twitter is not twitter

Yep, unfortunately, it seems the media and political classes are a bit up their own asses in twitter though.

Originally Posted by dudalb

I don't hate him, but I don'tlike the personality cult that he has going where he is God and can do no wrong.
A couple of people onthis forum are big fans of space travel...(and so am I) that they will forgive Musk anything because of Space X. I like what he has done with Space X, but that does not mean I cannot see his severe charecer flaws and all the mistakes he has made.
I won't name names about the forum members who will not speak ill of Musk because of Space X, but they should be smart enough to know better.

I'm totally on the same page. He's done some great things and some ****** things. The weird personality cult he's go is something else though. To be honest, I see more irrational hate now-a-days than the irrational love but probably just sides of the same coin.

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

I'm waiting to see exactly how Twitter changes before passing judgement on whether this is a Good Thing or a Bad Thing.

What the **** is wrong with you!? You need be certain right now, is this the end of western civilization or the a new enlightened age? Right now, decide! There's no dithering allowed!

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by ahhell

The weird personality cult he's go is something else though. To be honest, I see more irrational hate now-a-days than the irrational love but probably just sides of the same coin.

It really depends on where you are. I play an MMO that has a weird and very vocal subset of players who seem to regard Musk with the veneration some Romans had for Julius Caesar, and they never shut up about him. I've met Southern Baptists less enthused about Jesus than these guys are about Elon Musk.

To me he's just another rich jerk with a penchant for saying idiotic things, neither a savior nor a destroyer of civilization. Also he has a weird face, it's like...puffy? I can't really put my finger on it exactly, there's something off about his face. I wonder if it's the original one for that skull, or if he had a new one stapled in. It just seems like it doesn't quite go with his beady weasel eyes. So I guess I'm not a fan. Not until he explains his face.

[The Great Zaganza]

Musk could buy my admiration for a very reasonable amount - but he won't get it for free - unlike my tax dollars.

[mgidm86]

I don't see much mystery, though he could change his mind. I've thought all along that he wants misinformation to be allowed on Twitter, or at least misinformation that he likes.


This is a guy who ignored Covid mandates at his own factory, kept the plant open when he was supposed to close it, and basically does whatever he wants.



In my opinion, he is against Twitter's policing practices and him buying it is a billionaire version of a temper tantrum. I could be wrong.



From one of the links already mentioned:

Quote:

Musk has said he wants to promote free and open speech on the service, which he has said he sees as an essential place for sharing viewpoints.



During a TED interview shortly after announcing his bid, he expanded on some of his plans.



“Well, I think it’s very important for there to be an inclusive arena for free speech,” Musk said. “Twitter has become kind of the de facto town square, so it’s just really important that people have both the reality and the perception that they are able to speak freely within the bounds of the law.”

Ya.

[JoeMorgue]

*Shrugs* I mean the current majority owner is the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia. This is an upgrade.

[mumblethrax]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

*Shrugs* I mean the current majority owner is the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia. This is an upgrade.

That's not even close to true.

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B

I had just over $150 cash sitting in a brokerage account and just bought 3 shares @ $50.02. Crap shoot but its fun having even a little skin in the game.

So, if he buys it you just made an easy $12. Not bad.

I guess the price reflects the chance that he may not buy it.

[angrysoba]

One suggestion he has made, I think, is to make Twitter subscription-based. That will probably make him money, I expect, and may have the benefit of reducing spambots and drive away some of the worst users.

That said, it puts Twitter on the path to elitism and many people will obviously not want to pay or won’t be able to afford paying, so membership will drop off massively, unless there is some way of making a costs different depending on where in the world someone is. I guess troll farms will move to low rent countries or at least that’s what their VPNs will say.

Anyway, I doubt I will continue to use Twitter if I have to pay. I also think there is something a bit grotesque at the idea of people paying for the privilege of providing content for someone else.

[I Am The Scum]

Elon Musk has absolutely no clue what he is stepping into.

Originally Posted by Elon Musk

The extreme antibody reaction from those who fear free speech says it all

By “free speech”, I simply mean that which matches the law.

I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law.

If people want less free speech, they will ask government to pass laws to that effect.

Therefore, going beyond the law is contrary to the will of the people.

If Musk actually attempts to implement an If-it's-legal-then-it's-allowed policy, then it will not last more than a week. Spam, targeted harassment, doxxing, and even some forms of threat and defamation will be on the table.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Fast Eddie B

Musk is a strange bird. He can certainly be erratic, and even mean.

But before we assume he’ll ruin Twitter, at least consider his track record with other endeavors:

Making Tesla a major, successful player in the EV world, pushing other manufacturers to play catch up, all of which overall reduce carbon emissions.

Making reusable boosters a reality, drastically reducing the cost of getting a payload into orbit, allowing…

Launching a gazillion small satellites into orbit to provide reliable access to relatively high speed internet to millions who could not otherwise get it.

I could relate to the doomsaying about Twitter’s future if Musk’s past was littered with ill conceived business plans that resulted in failure. As it is, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt on Twitter.

Question is can he make money outside of high tech transportation.
Like you, I love what he has done with Space X, but I think he also says and does and lot of really stupid things. he is just like his hero Tesla..an unstable genius. He can have a brilliant idea one day, and a just plain stupic, bat crap crazy idea the next.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by mgidm86

I don't see much mystery, though he could change his mind. I've thought all along that he wants misinformation to be allowed on Twitter, or at least misinformation that he likes.

This is a guy who ignored Covid mandates at his own factory, kept the plant open when he was supposed to close it, and basically does whatever he wants.

In my opinion, he is against Twitter's policing practices and him buying it is a billionaire version of a temper tantrum. I could be wrong.

I was thinking that him buying it was a way of ensuring that conspiracy theories and misinformation promoting the idea that the Democrats stole the election could be spread unimpeded in the run up to November.

I could be wrong but given his political allegiances and the timing that was my feeling when I first heard it.

[mumblethrax]

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum

Elon Musk has absolutely no clue what he is stepping into.

Yeah, that's a stunningly bad and incoherent definition of free speech.

I suspect, if he genuinely intends to go through with this purchase, he's about to learn a $10 lesson for the low, low cost of $45 billion.

[trustbutverify]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

I have no idea what's going to happen with Musk in charge... but I do expect to be entertained by it.

All Putinganda, all the time?

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

I have no idea what's going to happen with Musk in charge... but I do expect to be entertained by it.

I got $20 that says it tanks when he first takes over, because he Freeze Peaches it into oblivion, and a competitor rises to be the respectable social media platform. Then he wises up and rebrands as the World's Most Neutral Platform. Remains tanked because no one trusts him.

[Fast Eddie B]

Originally Posted by Dr. Keith

So, if he buys it you just made an easy $12. Not bad.

I guess the price reflects the chance that he may not buy it.

Silly me.

My thought was that the stock might really go up with Musk in charge.

Kinda missed the implications of the whole “going private” part.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum

Elon Musk has absolutely no clue what he is stepping into.



If Musk actually attempts to implement an If-it's-legal-then-it's-allowed policy, then it will not last more than a week. Spam, targeted harassment, doxxing, and even some forms of threat and defamation will be on the table.

Yeah, exactly. It sounds as though he is ready to give up on Terms of Services.

This is literally the argument I once heard Tim Pool make on Joe Rogan's podcast before I understood who Tim Pool was. It sounded ridiculous even then. Don't get me wrong, you can have a platform that basically allows anything except illegal speech, but it will become a cesspool quickly and won't be the kind of place that people will want to hang around. I mean, these kinds of platforms do exist, don't they? Gab and Parler, etc... but there is a reason why these are fringe sites.

If Twitter goes that way, someone else will start up a new platform that will eventually become popular. The reason why previous attempts have not worked is because people basically like Twitter, and it is well understood that the alternatives are fringe loonies.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

My favorite quote about this whole thing:

"Musk’s appointment to Twitter’s board shows that we need regulation of social-media platforms to prevent rich people from controlling our channels of communication."

Why is this my favorite quote? Because of where it appeared: in the Washington Post.

The opinions of Op-Ed contributors are their own, and not necessarily the opinion of the newspaper in which they appear. Sometimes they are even opposite. If it were an editorial, that would be different.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

The opinions of Op-Ed contributors are their own, and not necessarily the opinion of the newspaper in which they appear. Sometimes they are even opposite. If it were an editorial, that would be different.

You make it sound like the editors of the Washington Post have no control over which authors and which ideas get to make an appearance on their Op-Ed pages.

[rdwight]

I think people will be shocked to find out that changes will not be as extreme as they imagine or would like. Myself, I wonder how aggressive he will be with bots. If those people complaining about follower loss are mad today, wait until an actual ban wave goes out. They will screenshot 3 people that said their legit accounts were banned to act as if they match the tens of thousands of bot follows they lose.

There is also the treasure trove of user data that I am sure he can think of ways to use. I wonder how he will incorporate that into his other ventures.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Puppycow

The opinions of Op-Ed contributors are their own, and not necessarily the opinion of the newspaper in which they appear. Sometimes they are even opposite. If it were an editorial, that would be different.

It doesn’t really matter if the author agrees with the paper. That complaint applies to the WP. Yet it’s not directed at the WP. Why? Because it is, in fact, hypocritical.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by rdwight

I think people will be shocked to find out that changes will not be as extreme as they imagine or would like.

That is likely true.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum

If Musk actually attempts to implement an If-it's-legal-then-it's-allowed policy, then it will not last more than a week. Spam, targeted harassment, doxxing, and even some forms of threat and defamation will be on the table.

This is a peculiar complaint, given that threats and defamation are already not legal and so would be prohibited under such a scenario.

[I Am The Scum]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

This is a peculiar complaint, given that threats and defamation are already not legal and so would be prohibited under such a scenario.

Like I said, some forms. For exampe: "I really hope someone shoots John Smith at his next book signing. He doesn't have security so it would be easy to get a gun close him." That's not illegal.

[I Am The Scum]

Probably a coincidence

Quote:

One day after Twitter announced it had accepted Musk's $44 billion takeover bid, Tesla shares sank 12.2%, wiping out more than $125 billion off the electric vehicle maker's market value.

[rdwight]

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum

Like I said, some forms. For exampe: "I really hope someone shoots John Smith at his next book signing. He doesn't have security so it would be easy to get a gun close him." That's not illegal.

You would first have to show that twitter currently enforces what you are talking about. Funnily enough I saw someone complaining about this exact thing being allowed.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by rdwight

You would first have to show that twitter currently enforces what you are talking about. Funnily enough I saw someone complaining about this exact thing being allowed.

Oh, I’m sure it’s enforced… sometimes. Just not with anything approaching consistency.

But what matters far more than this (which in practice may change very little) is stuff like blocking the Hunter Biden laptop story. That was completely unjustified, it was never a violation of Twitter’s TOS, and it was completely the result of political bias within Twitter. That was the actual realization of what so many are freaking out about the possibility Musk might do in the future.