7 ms·

> All of these stakeholders should have a say in what is done with twitter. I love the new propaganda term "stakeholder". Stakeholders do have a say. If you do

by qiskit 4y ago

> All of these stakeholders should have a say in what is done with twitter. I love the new propaganda term "stakeholder". Stakeholders do have a say. If you don't like twitter, don't use it. > I think these tech billionaires think they can make better decisions for everyone No. They think they can make better decisions for themselves. Bezos didn't buy washingpostpost for everyone's benefit. Musk isn't trying to buy twitter for everyone's benefit. You don't become a billionaire by thinking of other people. Their PR team pushes propaganda telling the naive masses that these billionaires are doing it for the benefit for society. > we can have firms that are capable of making decisions that make people happier and societies a better place. How would "stakeholder capitalism" do such a thing? If there is an atheist stakeholder, a muslim stakeholder, an lgbt stakeholder and an anti-lgbt staekholder? And by "people", do you mean most people or the privileged woke leftists? What we need is more competition. How we do that? Not really sure. Though I think nationalism is a good start. Why are japanese, brazilians, hungarians, etc all using twitter? They should be using their own national versions. And then maybe we'll get intranational versions of twitter competing with each other.

dariusj18 4y ago
> You don't become a billionaire by thinking of other people I'm not making a claim of the veracity of this statement, but wouldn't a system that made this false be the best system?
- nradov 4y ago
  What sort of system would produce that outcome?
guelo 4y ago
> privileged woke leftists Why don't we have a strong epithet like this for the right? (also, I can't imagine anyone more privileged than Musk)
- cloutchaser 4y ago
  Because at this point anyone right of privileged woke leftists is a Nazi apparently.
  - guelo 4y ago
    The right has successfully made calling out racism to be a bad thing these days. Feels like the right is currently enjoying a complete victory in talking points and memes. The left has been completely marginalized in the political vocabulary. Discussions like this Musk thing happen completely within right wing framing of the issues.
    - _-david-_ 4y ago
      The right is successful because the left frequently calls people racist when they aren't. When everybody is a racist nobody is. The left is almost always successful at political framing. Look at the don't say gay bill. It wasn't the right who came up with that name of the bill. Perhaps it is changing but it doesn't look like it to me.
    - cloutchaser 4y ago
      They are enjoying victory in talking points in grassroots places, like social media, that aren’t controlled. In almost every other place now the left dominates, anywhere where there is power or important people. Academia, tech, film, tv, music. You basically cannot get a right wing viewpoint in anywhere.
      - shakezula 4y ago
        > You basically cannot get a right wing viewpoint in anywhere. This is a great joke. Good delivery, great setup, 9/10. https://www.statista.com/statistics/373814/cable-news-network-viewership-usa/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/373814/cable-news-networ...
      - tayo42 4y ago
        What right wing view point do you feel can't be shared?
shakezula 4y ago
- rat9988 4y ago
  Yup, it's a fucking joke of an opinion that no one has stated.
  - shakezula 4y ago
    It is _exactly_ what the commenter said they thought would add competition, fixing the free market in their mind. Im not reaching or twisting words, it is what they explicitly stated.
jerojero 4y ago
I think you bring a very interesting point when you talk about how should so many different views be managed. Well, that's I think one of the most interesting problems in political philosophy. And people have been discussing it since, well, forever! From Plato's republic to Machiavelli's The Prince. In truth, I don't have an answer on exactly how is it that we can reach good decisions; but what I'm saying is that because there are so many different actors with different priorities it seems problematic for some of them to rule over everyone else. What are the decisions of the board prioritising? Probably share-price, and this comes with a whole set of baggage. Is share-price really the parameter we should be optimising? I think many would say no, and in fact, I think when Elon Musk says he wants to take twitter private he might want the platform to go elsewhere; but what I question is that, is taking the company private really the most optimal way to ensure the platform heads in the right way? If you've got a good king, sure, you might have a good kingdom; but is this a sustainable way of structuring power? It doesn't seem as though it is, given that most countries in the world have transitioned from monarchies to more decentralized decision making structures. Why is it that a platform like twitter is fine with a monarchic power structure but not our own states? I think in a way, I see twitter much closer to a state than I see it close to a small business that sells honey in the farm market. And so I think we ought to push for state-like, power structures. And in reality, I would like it for twitter to push it way further, to experiment and to improve on collective decision making! I don't think current states are as good as they could be.
passivate 4y ago
For a new company, product features tend to overlap current or future needs of the users. If they didn't think of other people, they would probably not be billionaires. I suppose once you're a large company you can influence users in a way, but not really in a mass mind-control sort of way. >What we need is more competition. How we do that? Not really sure. Though I think nationalism is a good start. The companies don't want the kind of competition you're proposing though. All these companies spend massive amounts of money in loss-leading markets just so they become the ubiquitous platform of choice in all markets. Also, given that we don't have a world-government - what exactly are you proposing?

by qiskit 4y ago

dariusj18 4y ago

> You don't become a billionaire by thinking of other people I'm not making a claim of the veracity of this statement, but wouldn't a system that made this false be the best system?

nradov 4y ago
What sort of system would produce that outcome?

guelo 4y ago

> privileged woke leftists Why don't we have a strong epithet like this for the right? (also, I can't imagine anyone more privileged than Musk)

cloutchaser 4y ago
Because at this point anyone right of privileged woke leftists is a Nazi apparently.
- guelo 4y ago
  The right has successfully made calling out racism to be a bad thing these days. Feels like the right is currently enjoying a complete victory in talking points and memes. The left has been completely marginalized in the political vocabulary. Discussions like this Musk thing happen completely within right wing framing of the issues.
  - _-david-_ 4y ago
    The right is successful because the left frequently calls people racist when they aren't. When everybody is a racist nobody is. The left is almost always successful at political framing. Look at the don't say gay bill. It wasn't the right who came up with that name of the bill. Perhaps it is changing but it doesn't look like it to me.
  - cloutchaser 4y ago
    They are enjoying victory in talking points in grassroots places, like social media, that aren’t controlled. In almost every other place now the left dominates, anywhere where there is power or important people. Academia, tech, film, tv, music. You basically cannot get a right wing viewpoint in anywhere.
    - shakezula 4y ago
      > You basically cannot get a right wing viewpoint in anywhere. This is a great joke. Good delivery, great setup, 9/10. https://www.statista.com/statistics/373814/cable-news-network-viewership-usa/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/373814/cable-news-networ...
    - tayo42 4y ago
      What right wing view point do you feel can't be shared?

shakezula 4y ago

rat9988 4y ago
Yup, it's a fucking joke of an opinion that no one has stated.
- shakezula 4y ago
  It is _exactly_ what the commenter said they thought would add competition, fixing the free market in their mind. Im not reaching or twisting words, it is what they explicitly stated.

jerojero 4y ago

I think you bring a very interesting point when you talk about how should so many different views be managed. Well, that's I think one of the most interesting problems in political philosophy. And people have been discussing it since, well, forever! From Plato's republic to Machiavelli's The Prince. In truth, I don't have an answer on exactly how is it that we can reach good decisions; but what I'm saying is that because there are so many different actors with different priorities it seems problematic for some of them to rule over everyone else. What are the decisions of the board prioritising? Probably share-price, and this comes with a whole set of baggage. Is share-price really the parameter we should be optimising? I think many would say no, and in fact, I think when Elon Musk says he wants to take twitter private he might want the platform to go elsewhere; but what I question is that, is taking the company private really the most optimal way to ensure the platform heads in the right way? If you've got a good king, sure, you might have a good kingdom; but is this a sustainable way of structuring power? It doesn't seem as though it is, given that most countries in the world have transitioned from monarchies to more decentralized decision making structures. Why is it that a platform like twitter is fine with a monarchic power structure but not our own states? I think in a way, I see twitter much closer to a state than I see it close to a small business that sells honey in the farm market. And so I think we ought to push for state-like, power structures. And in reality, I would like it for twitter to push it way further, to experiment and to improve on collective decision making! I don't think current states are as good as they could be.

passivate 4y ago

For a new company, product features tend to overlap current or future needs of the users. If they didn't think of other people, they would probably not be billionaires. I suppose once you're a large company you can influence users in a way, but not really in a mass mind-control sort of way. >What we need is more competition. How we do that? Not really sure. Though I think nationalism is a good start. The companies don't want the kind of competition you're proposing though. All these companies spend massive amounts of money in loss-leading markets just so they become the ubiquitous platform of choice in all markets. Also, given that we don't have a world-government - what exactly are you proposing?