5 ms·

When billionaires talk about freedom, watch your wallets

34 points by laurex 5y ago

bko 5y ago
> Consumers of social don’t have much freedom of choice. If consumers don’t like what Musk does with Twitter, they cannot simply switch to another Twitter-like platform. There aren’t any. The largest social media platforms have grown gigantic because anyone who wants to participate in them and influence debate has to join them. After they reach a certain size, they’re the only megaphone in town. Where else would consumers go to post short messages that can reach tens of millions of people other than Twitter? Of course they can switch to Facebook, Instagram and TikTok, which all have more or less the same policies. For instance when a news article gets banned on FB, it'll likely get banned on every other social media and maybe even private messaging apps. Except now Twitter may be an outlier in not banning something. They all had essentially the same policies and now that may change and one social media will be relatively more free. Why is this bad?
car_analogy 5y ago
> Musk said last week that he doesn’t care about the economics of the deal and is pursuing it because it is "extremely important to the future of civilization." Fine, but who anointed Musk to decide the future of civilization? Who anointed the previous board? Every criticism leveled at Musk by the author applies equally to the current owners of Twitter, Facebook, and many others. Except the bizarre observation that Musk won't be constrained by shareholders - this must be the first time shareholders are invoked as guardians of societal responsibility. All the stranger because the author follows it with: > They pushed America from stakeholder capitalism (where workers and communities had a say in what corporations did) to shareholder capitalism (where the sole corporate goal is to maximize shareholder value). Inequality skyrocketed, insecurity soared, vast swaths of America were abandoned, and millions of good jobs vanished. The author also states Musk's goal is to be unconstrained by "laws and regulations". He does not explain how owning Twitter makes one less beholden to laws and regulations - presumably the law still applies, even if Twitter is privately owned? Ultimately it's nakedly obvious what's happening - the same actions tolerated or applauded when done by my friends, are strongly condemned when done by my enemies - The specific political distinction to which political actions and motives can be reduced is that between friend and enemy. It's embarrassing how many words the article spends poorly trying to disguise this, and even more embarrassing that some will take the article at face value.
xaxaxb 5y ago
It is rather pretentious of one to think that they and only they will be able to deliver justice and freedom to the masses. To think that without their help, the world would not be able to provide for itself on its own and would need course correction or in this case, to be led. Even though intentions may be good, the way chosen to fulfill those intentions may not be. Historical examples of populist leaders and their relationship to the masses have been recorded. Most fearful thing is that the masses may start believing that only the leader can provide for them and may loose the sense of distinction of right and wrong and self-help. The notion of committee and consensus are forgone. When Marcus Aurelius was to be ascended to the throne, he asked his brother to reign alongside him. He took the throne because he had to and not because he wanted to. However, this is an example of savior syndrome at play, which is the fundamental pattern of Musk and his works. In my opinion, it is not gonna be as bad as people think. Nothing is going to change in my view (I may be wrong). However, it is amusing to watch.
molbioguy 5y ago
Reich says: >If consumers don’t like what Musk does with Twitter, they cannot simply switch to another Twitter-like platform. There aren’t any. Lol! When they were encouraging the banning of users they disliked from Twitter, people said "hey, switch to another or go make your own platform" to those that objected. You have to appreciate the karmic nature of the turn of events.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
karmakaze 5y ago
[0] https://robertreich.substack.com/ https://robertreich.substack.com/ > Robert Reich > Exposing where power lies in our system -- and how it's used and abused > Thousands of paid subscribers The author is literally paid to write this stuff.

34 points by laurex 5y ago

bko 5y ago

> Consumers of social don’t have much freedom of choice. If consumers don’t like what Musk does with Twitter, they cannot simply switch to another Twitter-like platform. There aren’t any. The largest social media platforms have grown gigantic because anyone who wants to participate in them and influence debate has to join them. After they reach a certain size, they’re the only megaphone in town. Where else would consumers go to post short messages that can reach tens of millions of people other than Twitter? Of course they can switch to Facebook, Instagram and TikTok, which all have more or less the same policies. For instance when a news article gets banned on FB, it'll likely get banned on every other social media and maybe even private messaging apps. Except now Twitter may be an outlier in not banning something. They all had essentially the same policies and now that may change and one social media will be relatively more free. Why is this bad?

car_analogy 5y ago

> Musk said last week that he doesn’t care about the economics of the deal and is pursuing it because it is "extremely important to the future of civilization." Fine, but who anointed Musk to decide the future of civilization? Who anointed the previous board? Every criticism leveled at Musk by the author applies equally to the current owners of Twitter, Facebook, and many others. Except the bizarre observation that Musk won't be constrained by shareholders - this must be the first time shareholders are invoked as guardians of societal responsibility. All the stranger because the author follows it with: > They pushed America from stakeholder capitalism (where workers and communities had a say in what corporations did) to shareholder capitalism (where the sole corporate goal is to maximize shareholder value). Inequality skyrocketed, insecurity soared, vast swaths of America were abandoned, and millions of good jobs vanished. The author also states Musk's goal is to be unconstrained by "laws and regulations". He does not explain how owning Twitter makes one less beholden to laws and regulations - presumably the law still applies, even if Twitter is privately owned? Ultimately it's nakedly obvious what's happening - the same actions tolerated or applauded when done by my friends, are strongly condemned when done by my enemies - The specific political distinction to which political actions and motives can be reduced is that between friend and enemy. It's embarrassing how many words the article spends poorly trying to disguise this, and even more embarrassing that some will take the article at face value.

xaxaxb 5y ago

It is rather pretentious of one to think that they and only they will be able to deliver justice and freedom to the masses. To think that without their help, the world would not be able to provide for itself on its own and would need course correction or in this case, to be led. Even though intentions may be good, the way chosen to fulfill those intentions may not be. Historical examples of populist leaders and their relationship to the masses have been recorded. Most fearful thing is that the masses may start believing that only the leader can provide for them and may loose the sense of distinction of right and wrong and self-help. The notion of committee and consensus are forgone. When Marcus Aurelius was to be ascended to the throne, he asked his brother to reign alongside him. He took the throne because he had to and not because he wanted to. However, this is an example of savior syndrome at play, which is the fundamental pattern of Musk and his works. In my opinion, it is not gonna be as bad as people think. Nothing is going to change in my view (I may be wrong). However, it is amusing to watch.

molbioguy 5y ago

Reich says: >If consumers don’t like what Musk does with Twitter, they cannot simply switch to another Twitter-like platform. There aren’t any. Lol! When they were encouraging the banning of users they disliked from Twitter, people said "hey, switch to another or go make your own platform" to those that objected. You have to appreciate the karmic nature of the turn of events.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

karmakaze 5y ago

[0] https://robertreich.substack.com/ https://robertreich.substack.com/ > Robert Reich > Exposing where power lies in our system -- and how it's used and abused > Thousands of paid subscribers The author is literally paid to write this stuff.