3 ms·

I get the complication of the position. Occams razor puts me back to the plain option that twitter is simply controlled by us gov.

JKCalhoun 5y ago
Controlled how? I ask because I'm pretty sure real (non-US government) people post to Twitter and get real retweets. How is the US government controlling it? I imagine this would have blown wide open a long time ago if true. (Also Occam's Razor?)
- dgb23 5y ago
  Social control and power is never complete and absolute. Even very direct coercion can often be ignored, worked around or endured except for very extreme cases.
nemothekid 5y ago
I don’t understand how “Twitter is controlled by the government” is the simplest explanation. Do you actually use Twitter? I feel like Twitter had an outsized representation along social media giants. It’s one of the smallest by MAU; and has a history of management problems. Isn’t occans razor here that is just a poorly run company?
- incomingpain 5y ago
  >I don’t understand how “Twitter is controlled by the government” is the simplest explanation. Do you actually use Twitter? I don't use twitter. Because of Elon I wanted to test and do have an account right now. I connected to my canadian political folks and chess people. I liked lots of things, but I never commented or retweeted. I then commented on a chess person with a positive tweet and I was quietly censored. Absolutely no way should have my account been treated this way. >I feel like Twitter had an outsized representation along social media giants. It’s one of the smallest by MAU; and has a history of management problems. Isn’t occans razor here that is just a poorly run company? If you're listed on the S&P500, you can't say that's poorly run. Poorly run would never have gotten there.
  - nemothekid 5y ago
    >I then commented on a chess person with a positive tweet and I was quietly censored. This is no different than HN's shadowbans but I don't see people complain about free speech on HN to the same frequency on Twitter. Further still, the fact that you are only just now creating an account further reinforces to me that most people don't actually use Twitter and their entire perception of the platform comes from news headlines. Twitter has the least amount of moderation of all the social media giants. Try posting porn on Facebook and seeing how long that lasts. When you say your tweet was censored, you mean it's no longer on your timeline? If your tweet was deleted Twitter would have sent you an email about it. If you are complaining that that you can't see it in the user's replies, well any large twitter user is going to have many replies, and a message from a new account will likely not make the top of the fold. >If you're listed on the S&P500, you can't say that's poorly run. Poorly run would never have gotten there. Enron??? The many dot coms?? Lehman Brothers?? There hasn't been a major stock market correction in nearly 15 years; there are plenty of companies out there that are swimming naked. Twitter management is no stranger to public executive issues with it's board + CEO.
    - incomingpain 5y ago
      So I just typed this up: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31110938 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31110938 I retract my comment that US gov owns Twitter. It's not that, it's way way worse. I had an incorrect assumption.
notacoward 5y ago
Occam's Razor has nothing to do with this, and its improper invocation is fallacious. Literally it means "do not multiply entities beyond necessity"; in practice it's also called the principle of parsimony, meaning that one should not assume a more complicated explanation when a simpler one will do. Positing a connection between Twitter and the US government, without supporting evidence but just because it "makes sense" - is anything but parsimonious. That remains true even if such a connection does eventually turn out to exist. "Do not attribute to malice that which is explained by incompetence" is likely to be the more applicable principle here.
- incomingpain 5y ago
  >ccam's Razor has nothing to do with this, and its improper invocation is fallacious. My mistake. Maybe I can't think of the one I'm trying to think of. I don't need a name or rule really. Philosophically speaking, if you have a few competing ideas and no way to come to a conclusion. The simplest explanation is the best one to go with. > Positing a connection between Twitter and the US government, without supporting evidence but just because it "makes sense" - is anything but parsimonious. That remains true even if such a connection does eventually turn out to exist. "Do not attribute to malice that which is explained by incompetence" is likely to be the more applicable principle here. I did provide evidence in my original post. Perhaps you dont accept my evidences for some reason? I believe I should consider a rebuttal to my evidences. Are the other S&P500 companies so tremendously undefended from takeover? WBD recently joined S&P and they are pretty undefended, not as bad as twitter. CPT is worse than WBD. MOH is worse than CPT. NDSN is about WBD. CEG is worse than all of them. Woah. I kind of disproved myself? I haven't considered this. Tesla is like the only defended stock I can find? I haven't checked them all. https://www.multpl.com/s-p-500-pe-ratio https://www.multpl.com/s-p-500-pe-ratio Haven't checked on this in awhile. It's high but is trending down post covid recession. The S&P500 is full of zombies? Is this seriously happening? wow. I haven't seen anyone talking about this. What the hell happened? Just checked TSX60 for Canada. AEM, AQN, ATD, BCE, BMO, BNS, ABX, and they are all good. BHC is the first one that looks maybe questionable but nowhere near problematic. Just checked a random selection of FTSE 100. BP, BATS, BLND. All healthy. I feel like disproving myself wasn't a good thing though. I need to go spend some time on questrade.

JKCalhoun 5y ago

Controlled how? I ask because I'm pretty sure real (non-US government) people post to Twitter and get real retweets. How is the US government controlling it? I imagine this would have blown wide open a long time ago if true. (Also Occam's Razor?)

dgb23 5y ago
Social control and power is never complete and absolute. Even very direct coercion can often be ignored, worked around or endured except for very extreme cases.

nemothekid 5y ago

I don’t understand how “Twitter is controlled by the government” is the simplest explanation. Do you actually use Twitter? I feel like Twitter had an outsized representation along social media giants. It’s one of the smallest by MAU; and has a history of management problems. Isn’t occans razor here that is just a poorly run company?

incomingpain 5y ago
>I don’t understand how “Twitter is controlled by the government” is the simplest explanation. Do you actually use Twitter? I don't use twitter. Because of Elon I wanted to test and do have an account right now. I connected to my canadian political folks and chess people. I liked lots of things, but I never commented or retweeted. I then commented on a chess person with a positive tweet and I was quietly censored. Absolutely no way should have my account been treated this way. >I feel like Twitter had an outsized representation along social media giants. It’s one of the smallest by MAU; and has a history of management problems. Isn’t occans razor here that is just a poorly run company? If you're listed on the S&P500, you can't say that's poorly run. Poorly run would never have gotten there.
- nemothekid 5y ago
  >I then commented on a chess person with a positive tweet and I was quietly censored. This is no different than HN's shadowbans but I don't see people complain about free speech on HN to the same frequency on Twitter. Further still, the fact that you are only just now creating an account further reinforces to me that most people don't actually use Twitter and their entire perception of the platform comes from news headlines. Twitter has the least amount of moderation of all the social media giants. Try posting porn on Facebook and seeing how long that lasts. When you say your tweet was censored, you mean it's no longer on your timeline? If your tweet was deleted Twitter would have sent you an email about it. If you are complaining that that you can't see it in the user's replies, well any large twitter user is going to have many replies, and a message from a new account will likely not make the top of the fold. >If you're listed on the S&P500, you can't say that's poorly run. Poorly run would never have gotten there. Enron??? The many dot coms?? Lehman Brothers?? There hasn't been a major stock market correction in nearly 15 years; there are plenty of companies out there that are swimming naked. Twitter management is no stranger to public executive issues with it's board + CEO.
  - incomingpain 5y ago
    So I just typed this up: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31110938 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31110938 I retract my comment that US gov owns Twitter. It's not that, it's way way worse. I had an incorrect assumption.

notacoward 5y ago

Occam's Razor has nothing to do with this, and its improper invocation is fallacious. Literally it means "do not multiply entities beyond necessity"; in practice it's also called the principle of parsimony, meaning that one should not assume a more complicated explanation when a simpler one will do. Positing a connection between Twitter and the US government, without supporting evidence but just because it "makes sense" - is anything but parsimonious. That remains true even if such a connection does eventually turn out to exist. "Do not attribute to malice that which is explained by incompetence" is likely to be the more applicable principle here.

incomingpain 5y ago
>ccam's Razor has nothing to do with this, and its improper invocation is fallacious. My mistake. Maybe I can't think of the one I'm trying to think of. I don't need a name or rule really. Philosophically speaking, if you have a few competing ideas and no way to come to a conclusion. The simplest explanation is the best one to go with. > Positing a connection between Twitter and the US government, without supporting evidence but just because it "makes sense" - is anything but parsimonious. That remains true even if such a connection does eventually turn out to exist. "Do not attribute to malice that which is explained by incompetence" is likely to be the more applicable principle here. I did provide evidence in my original post. Perhaps you dont accept my evidences for some reason? I believe I should consider a rebuttal to my evidences. Are the other S&P500 companies so tremendously undefended from takeover? WBD recently joined S&P and they are pretty undefended, not as bad as twitter. CPT is worse than WBD. MOH is worse than CPT. NDSN is about WBD. CEG is worse than all of them. Woah. I kind of disproved myself? I haven't considered this. Tesla is like the only defended stock I can find? I haven't checked them all. https://www.multpl.com/s-p-500-pe-ratio https://www.multpl.com/s-p-500-pe-ratio Haven't checked on this in awhile. It's high but is trending down post covid recession. The S&P500 is full of zombies? Is this seriously happening? wow. I haven't seen anyone talking about this. What the hell happened? Just checked TSX60 for Canada. AEM, AQN, ATD, BCE, BMO, BNS, ABX, and they are all good. BHC is the first one that looks maybe questionable but nowhere near problematic. Just checked a random selection of FTSE 100. BP, BATS, BLND. All healthy. I feel like disproving myself wasn't a good thing though. I need to go spend some time on questrade.