11 ms·

> Status is his drug of choice Couldn't he have more noble causes in mind like trying to do the right thing for humanity (e.g. Tesla, SpaceX)? Social media is

> Status is his drug of choice Couldn't he have more noble causes in mind like trying to do the right thing for humanity (e.g. Tesla, SpaceX)? Social media is a cesspool right now, they seem to have a negative impact on democracy and humanity in general, and public social media companies have no incentive to clean themselves up because that will hurt shareholder value in the short term. Buying the company and taking it private will give him the ability to make those hard choices and try to make a social media company that is positive for humanity.

tablespoon 4y ago
> Social media is a cesspool right now, they seem to have a negative impact on democracy and humanity in general, and public social media companies have no incentive to clean themselves up because that will hurt shareholder value in the short term. Buying the company and taking it private will give him the ability to make those hard choices and try to make a social media company that is positive for humanity. AFAIK, his publicly-stated plan is to not "clean [Twitter] up," but rather turn it into more of an un-moderated cesspool.
- robonerd 4y ago
  Maybe he thinks an unmoderated cesspool is better than a moderated cesspool. Either way, you're swimming in shit. Twitter not being a cesspool is an appealing fantasy, but only that.
  - tablespoon 4y ago
    > Maybe he thinks an unmoderated cesspool is better than a moderated cesspool. Either way, you're swimming in shit. I'm sure he thinks that. Apparently he's a "free speech absolutist." > Twitter not being a cesspool is an appealing fantasy, but only that. It's not a binary condition. Twitter can be a cesspool with relatively more or relatively less shit. I'm sure his preference will result in relatively more shit. Personally, I've appreciated a having society that lacks the shit Donald Trump created on Twitter.
- JPKab 4y ago
  The perspective of "un-moderated" equaling "cesspool" is entirely based on whether or not you hold any opinions which are unpopular with the powerful. I had an account I created in 2009. I had a modestly decent number of followers due to some past blogging on data science and DIY electronics. My account was suspended because I talked about the lab leak hypothesis before it was decided that it was ok to do so by The Good People™. Maybe you hold some opinions that will also one day be unpopular with The Good People™. If you do, you'll soon find out that censorship is a very clumsy tool.
  - niknoble 4y ago
    I'm with you, but should a person who holds no forbidden opinions today really feel worried that one of their opinions will be forbidden in the future? You've got to think, if someone has the exact set of approved opinions today, that's almost certainly not a coincidence, but a sign that they form their opinions based on what is approved. And in that case they're at no risk of ever having a meaningfully unpopular opinion.
    - JPKab 4y ago
      Unfortunately, you make an excellent point. And yes, I do think that the majority of people, when given the choice between what they know to be right and what they know to be popular, will choose the latter. Additionally, they will aggressively attack those who hold the unpopular opinion to buy themselves protection from the witch-hunters going after those with unpopular opinions.
  - tablespoon 4y ago
    > The perspective of "un-moderated" equaling "cesspool" is entirely based on whether or not you hold any opinions which are unpopular with the powerful. Eh, no. It's more about signal to noise ratio. Because if recent history has taught us anything, it's that crowdsourced lies are often at least as compelling as the truth. > My account was suspended because I talked about the lab leak hypothesis before it was decided that it was ok to do so by The Good People™. Realistically, "un-moderated" will be 99% Qanon and Stop-the-Steal and 1% the kind of stuff you say you posted. The most obsessive have the loudest voices in those spaces, and people who believe wacky things seem to be more obsessive than those who don't.
outside1234 4y ago
He could but he doesn't, because he is a narcissist
sgjohnson 4y ago
It's really none of your business what someone does with their own money. He could also do much worse.
- nawgz 4y ago
  > It's really none of your business what someone does with their own money. Then don't you think people shouldn't have so much money that they can literally control society? What a facile stance.
  - robonerd 4y ago
    If controlling twitter means literally controlling society, then I hope he crashes and burns that whole affair. That much power should never be concentrated into a single corporation.
    - nawgz 4y ago
      I'm more talking about lobbying and the pernicious effects of a legal system modifiable by the elites. You can surely see that the rich and elite in society have written tax laws, property (IP, copyright) laws, employment laws, and complicated everything enough that the legal system is pretty directly pay to win. I think the online giant platforms are another problematic avenue of control, I don't object to that characterization, but I'm really saying that saying "other's money is none of your business" can't be a good-faith statement in a world where money can control livelihoods and laws with such ease.
      - sgjohnson 4y ago
        > but I'm really saying that saying "other's money is none of your business" can't be a good-faith statement in a world where money can control livelihoods and laws with such ease. It absolutely can. I have no problem with the fact that money can buy politicians. I have a problem with the fact that politicians can be bought in the first place. Which are 2 completely different issues. If you had loads of money, you’d play the game too.
phantomathkg 4y ago
> Couldn't he have more noble causes in mind like trying to do the right thing for humanity (e.g. Tesla, SpaceX)? Why should he?
rayiner 4y ago
Luckily this is also the right thing for humanity.
lkxijlewlf 4y ago
> Couldn't he have more noble causes in mind like trying to do the right thing for humanity (e.g. Tesla, SpaceX)? ... > ...Social media is a cesspool right now,... He would have greater impact if he used his account to not add to the cesspool, then. Much more than if he bought the company and kept tweeting like he does.
- bostonsre 4y ago
  So.. what, we just let the dumpster fire continue on unabated and do nothing? I would argue his tweets are a lot less harmful than those that push false news in an attempt to change the route that democracies are following.
wwweston 4y ago
> Buying the company and taking it private will give him the ability to make those hard choices and try to make a social media company that is positive for humanity. If that's the goal, why not simply found another social media company built around those values? Surely he has the means to attract tech talent to do it, the means/message to attract users to a new platform, and presumably if he knows what's bad about Twitter and how to subtract it and make it good, he could do this greenfield. This would result in increased platform diversity, too. And I'll bet you it's cheaper. Imagine if Musk had tried to buy a big three automaker in order to make electric cars happen.
- lavoiems 4y ago
  > If that's the goal, why not simply found another social media company built around those values? Twitter is one of the few social networks that actually has a network. A lot of social media failed because the cold start problem is a very hard problem to solve at this point in the game. Elon probably knows it and I would bet that this is why he is looking to buy an established social network rather than creating a new one.
  - wwweston 4y ago
    It's a hard problem if you don't have the clout to get attention and/or if there's no particular demand for whatever distinction your platform offers. Musk has market-moving clout and a cult of personality, so the remaining question would be if he has a compelling insight into distinguished features. If he doesn't, he won't make Twitter better. If he does, he could make a greenfield platform a success.
    - redisman 4y ago
      Google failed at it multiple times. Trumps network seems to have failed
- native_samples 4y ago
  Because this isn't really about building a neat social network, it's about power. People have tried to do what you said. Let's make a Twitter that's not controlled by the hard left! The result was Twitter's ideological allies at tech firms immediately banned them from every platform they controlled, and other allies ganged up to hack and destroy them. You cannot start a Twitter competitor today, it's impossible, because: 1. The sort of people who found companies tend to be pro-free speech because their economic survival depends on having risky but correct ideas, and that naturally leads to a sympathy for free speech. 2. The sort of people who hate free speech are obsessed with Twitter/tweeting platforms specifically. 3. They are exceptionally aggressive. They will do anything, including damaging their own companies and even breaking the law in order to stop any other platform from becoming popular. They've managed to take over tech firms to a sufficient extent that they will destroy any attempts to replace Twitter, which they see as a key pivot point in their power over society. The obvious solution: buy Twitter and fix it. It's too big to ban. This also has the major benefit of really, really upsetting Musk's ideological enemies. They'd hate him anyway and many are in powerful positions in politics and the media. Even the thought of losing Twitter to Musk has very conspicuously driven them into a frenzy in recent days, and such frenzies discredit them in the eyes of the general public, thus weakening their ability to move against Musk.
ufmace 4y ago
> Couldn't he have more noble causes in mind like trying to do the right thing for humanity (e.g. Tesla, SpaceX)? Like what?
- tayo42 4y ago
  Plastics in the ocean, mass die offs, hunger around the world, health care around the world
  - ufmace 4y ago
    Jeez, he's already launched Tesla and SpaceX, why's he gotta solve every problem under the sun before he does something not quite so clear cut. And haven't we already established that no amount of money thrown around is going to actually fix "hunger around the world" or "health care around the world". How many billions have already been dumped down that hole to little effect?
    - tayo42 4y ago
      He didn't launch tesla, he bought his title. Neither company is really making the world better. And idk why your so cynical about results. Just one example is Bill gates helping with polio vaccines. Anyway I thought you were asking for better ways to actually help the world then buying Twitter. Plenty of research needs funding.
      - native_samples 4y ago
        Polio vaccines? Bad example. Whatever good they did in the past, most outbreaks of polio in the world today are triggered by oral vaccine rollouts. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7049a1.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7049a1.htm https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/polio-outbreak-sudan-caused-oral-vaccine-72766683 https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/polio-outbreak-s... https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/polio-cases-now-caused-vaccine-wild-virus-67287290 https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/polio-cases-now-caus...
Gollapalli 4y ago
>status vs noble cause Why not both?

tablespoon 4y ago

> Social media is a cesspool right now, they seem to have a negative impact on democracy and humanity in general, and public social media companies have no incentive to clean themselves up because that will hurt shareholder value in the short term. Buying the company and taking it private will give him the ability to make those hard choices and try to make a social media company that is positive for humanity. AFAIK, his publicly-stated plan is to not "clean [Twitter] up," but rather turn it into more of an un-moderated cesspool.

robonerd 4y ago
Maybe he thinks an unmoderated cesspool is better than a moderated cesspool. Either way, you're swimming in shit. Twitter not being a cesspool is an appealing fantasy, but only that.
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > Maybe he thinks an unmoderated cesspool is better than a moderated cesspool. Either way, you're swimming in shit. I'm sure he thinks that. Apparently he's a "free speech absolutist." > Twitter not being a cesspool is an appealing fantasy, but only that. It's not a binary condition. Twitter can be a cesspool with relatively more or relatively less shit. I'm sure his preference will result in relatively more shit. Personally, I've appreciated a having society that lacks the shit Donald Trump created on Twitter.
JPKab 4y ago
The perspective of "un-moderated" equaling "cesspool" is entirely based on whether or not you hold any opinions which are unpopular with the powerful. I had an account I created in 2009. I had a modestly decent number of followers due to some past blogging on data science and DIY electronics. My account was suspended because I talked about the lab leak hypothesis before it was decided that it was ok to do so by The Good People™. Maybe you hold some opinions that will also one day be unpopular with The Good People™. If you do, you'll soon find out that censorship is a very clumsy tool.
- niknoble 4y ago
  I'm with you, but should a person who holds no forbidden opinions today really feel worried that one of their opinions will be forbidden in the future? You've got to think, if someone has the exact set of approved opinions today, that's almost certainly not a coincidence, but a sign that they form their opinions based on what is approved. And in that case they're at no risk of ever having a meaningfully unpopular opinion.
  - JPKab 4y ago
    Unfortunately, you make an excellent point. And yes, I do think that the majority of people, when given the choice between what they know to be right and what they know to be popular, will choose the latter. Additionally, they will aggressively attack those who hold the unpopular opinion to buy themselves protection from the witch-hunters going after those with unpopular opinions.
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > The perspective of "un-moderated" equaling "cesspool" is entirely based on whether or not you hold any opinions which are unpopular with the powerful. Eh, no. It's more about signal to noise ratio. Because if recent history has taught us anything, it's that crowdsourced lies are often at least as compelling as the truth. > My account was suspended because I talked about the lab leak hypothesis before it was decided that it was ok to do so by The Good People™. Realistically, "un-moderated" will be 99% Qanon and Stop-the-Steal and 1% the kind of stuff you say you posted. The most obsessive have the loudest voices in those spaces, and people who believe wacky things seem to be more obsessive than those who don't.

outside1234 4y ago

He could but he doesn't, because he is a narcissist

sgjohnson 4y ago

It's really none of your business what someone does with their own money. He could also do much worse.

nawgz 4y ago
> It's really none of your business what someone does with their own money. Then don't you think people shouldn't have so much money that they can literally control society? What a facile stance.
- robonerd 4y ago
  If controlling twitter means literally controlling society, then I hope he crashes and burns that whole affair. That much power should never be concentrated into a single corporation.
  - nawgz 4y ago
    I'm more talking about lobbying and the pernicious effects of a legal system modifiable by the elites. You can surely see that the rich and elite in society have written tax laws, property (IP, copyright) laws, employment laws, and complicated everything enough that the legal system is pretty directly pay to win. I think the online giant platforms are another problematic avenue of control, I don't object to that characterization, but I'm really saying that saying "other's money is none of your business" can't be a good-faith statement in a world where money can control livelihoods and laws with such ease.
    - sgjohnson 4y ago
      > but I'm really saying that saying "other's money is none of your business" can't be a good-faith statement in a world where money can control livelihoods and laws with such ease. It absolutely can. I have no problem with the fact that money can buy politicians. I have a problem with the fact that politicians can be bought in the first place. Which are 2 completely different issues. If you had loads of money, you’d play the game too.

phantomathkg 4y ago

> Couldn't he have more noble causes in mind like trying to do the right thing for humanity (e.g. Tesla, SpaceX)? Why should he?

rayiner 4y ago

Luckily this is also the right thing for humanity.

lkxijlewlf 4y ago

> Couldn't he have more noble causes in mind like trying to do the right thing for humanity (e.g. Tesla, SpaceX)? ... > ...Social media is a cesspool right now,... He would have greater impact if he used his account to not add to the cesspool, then. Much more than if he bought the company and kept tweeting like he does.

bostonsre 4y ago
So.. what, we just let the dumpster fire continue on unabated and do nothing? I would argue his tweets are a lot less harmful than those that push false news in an attempt to change the route that democracies are following.

wwweston 4y ago

> Buying the company and taking it private will give him the ability to make those hard choices and try to make a social media company that is positive for humanity. If that's the goal, why not simply found another social media company built around those values? Surely he has the means to attract tech talent to do it, the means/message to attract users to a new platform, and presumably if he knows what's bad about Twitter and how to subtract it and make it good, he could do this greenfield. This would result in increased platform diversity, too. And I'll bet you it's cheaper. Imagine if Musk had tried to buy a big three automaker in order to make electric cars happen.

lavoiems 4y ago
> If that's the goal, why not simply found another social media company built around those values? Twitter is one of the few social networks that actually has a network. A lot of social media failed because the cold start problem is a very hard problem to solve at this point in the game. Elon probably knows it and I would bet that this is why he is looking to buy an established social network rather than creating a new one.
- wwweston 4y ago
  It's a hard problem if you don't have the clout to get attention and/or if there's no particular demand for whatever distinction your platform offers. Musk has market-moving clout and a cult of personality, so the remaining question would be if he has a compelling insight into distinguished features. If he doesn't, he won't make Twitter better. If he does, he could make a greenfield platform a success.
  - redisman 4y ago
    Google failed at it multiple times. Trumps network seems to have failed
native_samples 4y ago
Because this isn't really about building a neat social network, it's about power. People have tried to do what you said. Let's make a Twitter that's not controlled by the hard left! The result was Twitter's ideological allies at tech firms immediately banned them from every platform they controlled, and other allies ganged up to hack and destroy them. You cannot start a Twitter competitor today, it's impossible, because: 1. The sort of people who found companies tend to be pro-free speech because their economic survival depends on having risky but correct ideas, and that naturally leads to a sympathy for free speech. 2. The sort of people who hate free speech are obsessed with Twitter/tweeting platforms specifically. 3. They are exceptionally aggressive. They will do anything, including damaging their own companies and even breaking the law in order to stop any other platform from becoming popular. They've managed to take over tech firms to a sufficient extent that they will destroy any attempts to replace Twitter, which they see as a key pivot point in their power over society. The obvious solution: buy Twitter and fix it. It's too big to ban. This also has the major benefit of really, really upsetting Musk's ideological enemies. They'd hate him anyway and many are in powerful positions in politics and the media. Even the thought of losing Twitter to Musk has very conspicuously driven them into a frenzy in recent days, and such frenzies discredit them in the eyes of the general public, thus weakening their ability to move against Musk.

ufmace 4y ago

> Couldn't he have more noble causes in mind like trying to do the right thing for humanity (e.g. Tesla, SpaceX)? Like what?

tayo42 4y ago
Plastics in the ocean, mass die offs, hunger around the world, health care around the world
- ufmace 4y ago
  Jeez, he's already launched Tesla and SpaceX, why's he gotta solve every problem under the sun before he does something not quite so clear cut. And haven't we already established that no amount of money thrown around is going to actually fix "hunger around the world" or "health care around the world". How many billions have already been dumped down that hole to little effect?
  - tayo42 4y ago
    He didn't launch tesla, he bought his title. Neither company is really making the world better. And idk why your so cynical about results. Just one example is Bill gates helping with polio vaccines. Anyway I thought you were asking for better ways to actually help the world then buying Twitter. Plenty of research needs funding.
    - native_samples 4y ago
      Polio vaccines? Bad example. Whatever good they did in the past, most outbreaks of polio in the world today are triggered by oral vaccine rollouts. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7049a1.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7049a1.htm https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/polio-outbreak-sudan-caused-oral-vaccine-72766683 https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/polio-outbreak-s... https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/polio-cases-now-caused-vaccine-wild-virus-67287290 https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/polio-cases-now-caus...

Gollapalli 4y ago

>status vs noble cause Why not both?