3 ms·

To me it's pretty clear that certain members of the elite be are willing to lose money to wield the power a mass communication platform like Twitter gives them.

To me it's pretty clear that certain members of the elite be are willing to lose money to wield the power a mass communication platform like Twitter gives them. The current folks that have control of Twitter appear to have politics and an agenda that runs counter to somebody like Musk. Would they rather run Twitter into the ground than allow a rival to take control of it? I am guessing yes. Twitter/Reddit/Facebook/YouTube and other mass media platforms are the key way the worlds elite deliver their flavor of 'marketing'/spin to the world to influence and change public opinion. These are not areas of free exchanges of ideas and open thought. "Private platform," etc. It's yellow journalism 2.0 for the most part, but with clever addictive dark patterns tossed in. Anybody that disagrees gets the ban-hammer or is "de-boosted" into oblivion.

Rapzid 5y ago
How are Twitters current leaders subverting it to push their agenda exactly? In any case, I think it's more likely they are blocking a hostile takeover in order to dictate more favorable terms. Otherwise Musk could orchestrate snatching up all the shares at current market value right?
- tsimionescu 5y ago
  > Otherwise Musk could orchestrate snatching up all the shares at current market value right? Not anymore, given the decision in this article. If he (or anyone else) acquires more than 15% of current shares, all current shareholders will be given an automatic option to buy more shares.
- klipklop 5y ago
  Trying to avoid being overly political, but how about banning a former US president? Trump has not yet (maybe he will one day?) been found guilty of any crime regarding the whole Jan 6 debacle. Yet we saw the accounts of Taliban members (who without a doubt took over a democratically elected government) and other nefarious folks still have their accounts up and active. Musk's bid was significantly over market value ($54.20) and above Goldman Sach's price target of $30. From my external viewpoint Twitter has a heavy political bias. As said by the current CEO: >“Where our role is particularly emphasized is who can be heard,” he went on. “And so increasingly our role is moving towards how we recommend content … how we direct people’s attention.” Dorsey I felt at times always tried to do the right thing. Not so sure about the current leadership. One has to assume if Musk was able to take over the company Parag Agrawal would be out very quickly. Twitter is not a neutral platform. It's funny how you never hear a Twitter insider ever defend or explain why the site appears to be so heavily internally manipulated. If the "wrong" thing hits the trending section it quickly drops off. Was it always just luck that the same 2-3 accounts were always the same top replies to anything Trump posted. Is this organic? Would love to know. Accounts like "Brooklyn Dad Defiant" was shown to have taken money from one particular political party. I recall seeing that guy almost always as the first reply to Trump's ramblings. How was his account boosted to such an extent? Seems fishy. Twitter's annoying dark patterns when it comes to viewing the site without logging in is the main reason why I avoid it more so than some political issue.

Rapzid 5y ago

How are Twitters current leaders subverting it to push their agenda exactly? In any case, I think it's more likely they are blocking a hostile takeover in order to dictate more favorable terms. Otherwise Musk could orchestrate snatching up all the shares at current market value right?

tsimionescu 5y ago
> Otherwise Musk could orchestrate snatching up all the shares at current market value right? Not anymore, given the decision in this article. If he (or anyone else) acquires more than 15% of current shares, all current shareholders will be given an automatic option to buy more shares.
klipklop 5y ago
Trying to avoid being overly political, but how about banning a former US president? Trump has not yet (maybe he will one day?) been found guilty of any crime regarding the whole Jan 6 debacle. Yet we saw the accounts of Taliban members (who without a doubt took over a democratically elected government) and other nefarious folks still have their accounts up and active. Musk's bid was significantly over market value ($54.20) and above Goldman Sach's price target of $30. From my external viewpoint Twitter has a heavy political bias. As said by the current CEO: >“Where our role is particularly emphasized is who can be heard,” he went on. “And so increasingly our role is moving towards how we recommend content … how we direct people’s attention.” Dorsey I felt at times always tried to do the right thing. Not so sure about the current leadership. One has to assume if Musk was able to take over the company Parag Agrawal would be out very quickly. Twitter is not a neutral platform. It's funny how you never hear a Twitter insider ever defend or explain why the site appears to be so heavily internally manipulated. If the "wrong" thing hits the trending section it quickly drops off. Was it always just luck that the same 2-3 accounts were always the same top replies to anything Trump posted. Is this organic? Would love to know. Accounts like "Brooklyn Dad Defiant" was shown to have taken money from one particular political party. I recall seeing that guy almost always as the first reply to Trump's ramblings. How was his account boosted to such an extent? Seems fishy. Twitter's annoying dark patterns when it comes to viewing the site without logging in is the main reason why I avoid it more so than some political issue.