9 ms·
Their power comes from a combination of (1) the shares they own, (2) their balance sheet which allows them to outspend (litigation, buying more shares, buying b
by bedhead 7y ago
Their power comes from a combination of (1) the shares they own, (2) their balance sheet which allows them to outspend (litigation, buying more shares, buying bonds) anyone if they choose to do so, (3) their reputation as money-makers and being absolutely relentless in activist situations, and (4) the fact that generally they have a high batting average in these situations - in other words, they are often right about the need for change whether you think they're jerks or not. These guys pick their spots pretty carefully and they're good at what they do...the level of diligence they do would shock you.
I've been saying for a while that Twitter is one of the most no-brainer activist targets out there to the point where it's almost a layup. Executive compensation is outrageous, the CEO treats it as a hobby, lots of executive turnover, results have been mostly disappointing, R&D is inexplicable ($700 million to turn the star into a heart), a stock that's done essentially nothing since coming public years ago, and they really have no defenses (eg dual share class). And that's all before we even get to whether the company could benefit by dropping its brazenly liberal bias in how it polices content. I've been joking that Rupert Murdoch should buy it :)
- philjohn 7y agoWhat are some examples of their blazenly liberal bias? From what I've seen they only tend to kick people off the platform who have been saying exceedingly unsavoury things ... Katie Hopkins opining about needing a "Final Solution" is just one example.
- Veelox 7y ago> What are some examples of their blazenly liberal bias? I think looking up why #OkDude was trending in the last few days would give you one example.
- philjohn 7y agoI never call women "dude" period, because "dude" is literally a moniker applied to men, that's its etymology. Deliberately misgendering someone goes beyond just tacky and into offensive. That's not a liberal thing, that's just a human decency thing. He was unbanned anyway. The problem is, a lot of the people who seem to take issue with someone choosing to be transgender seem to extract perverse glee from tormenting them deliberately.
- ev0lv 7y ago>>Deliberately misgendering someone goes beyond just tacky and into offensive. Strong disagree. You need to consider what is actually offensive, and when labeling it so is simply hyperbole. Boy who cried wolf.
- philjohn 7y agoYou're free to disagree, but you're wrong. Gender identity and how someone refers to themselves is a core part of their identity. Deliberately (as in, going out of your way, not as a mistake, but as a conscious act) is indeed offensive. And moreover there's zero need for it, unless your purpose is to cause offense.
- tic_tac 7y ago"Exceedingly unsavory" as determined by whom? People have been kicked off for far vaguer reasons than openly talking about a "final solution". Many conservative e-personalities have been kicked off for ambiguous and yet unexplained violations, whether it is a specific thing they say or a general perception about their personalities or affiliations. Official policies are strongly influenced by prevailing Leftist dogma as well. Questioning whether gender dysphoria (transgenderism) can be considered mental illness would be considered ban worthy on Twitter, in spite of evidence that many cases of transgenderism are either an example of herd following or some sort of dysphoric personally disorder.
- heartbeats 7y agoWhat about Infowars? They're kooks, sure, but I can't recall them saying anything "exceedingly unsavoury".
- Bendingo 7y ago#LearnToCode comes to mind