4 ms·

Consider utilities - in the sense of infrastructure - such as public roads, water supply, energy, waste disposable. Now consider a highly intelligent, super-ri

Consider utilities - in the sense of infrastructure - such as public roads, water supply, energy, waste disposable. Now consider a highly intelligent, super-rich, narcissistic man-child is in charge of one of them. That could go well, but it could also end badly. So if (1) you agree with those that are considering online platforms to be utility-like, and (2) you agree that important infrastructure in democratic societies should be subject to checks and balances, accountability etc, and (3) you fear that Musk will undermine the degree to which Twitter has so far followed these directions, then you would be critical of the sale. If, on the other hand, you are ok with things in society breaking (assuming that they also get better in some other places, which is totally possible), and/or you think online platforms are not very influential/relevant, and/or you think Musk is a better leader than others, then you probably don't care too much.

navjack27 4y ago
It's not a utility. This isn't government run so no, checks and balances don't apply. It's a traded business. I don't fear that musk will ruin an investment for giggles or for self centered reasons, no. Your third paragraph is one of them logical fallacy things isn't it.
- DarkWiiPlayer 4y ago
  > This isn't government run so no, checks and balances don't apply. It's a traded business. That's a legal perspective. Nobody cares about legality here. Whether or not twitter is a private business or run by the government has fuck all to do with what utility it provides to society and, by extension, with the outcome of any possible changes made to it. > I don't fear that musk will ruin an investment for giggles or for self centered reasons, no. This makes no sense whatsoever unless you think your interests are aligned here. Ultimately, Musk will want twitter to make him money. How he thinks he has to handle the platform for it to earn him as much as possible, and whether that's better or worse than how twitters current management interprets things, that is the important part here. > Your third paragraph is one of them logical fallacy things isn't it. Their third paragraph is really just spelling out the negative of what they already said. If you believe all of these things, you should have this conclusion. If you do not believe all of them, then you don't need to have this conclusion. I don't see why you're calling this a fallacy.

navjack27 4y ago

It's not a utility. This isn't government run so no, checks and balances don't apply. It's a traded business. I don't fear that musk will ruin an investment for giggles or for self centered reasons, no. Your third paragraph is one of them logical fallacy things isn't it.

DarkWiiPlayer 4y ago
> This isn't government run so no, checks and balances don't apply. It's a traded business. That's a legal perspective. Nobody cares about legality here. Whether or not twitter is a private business or run by the government has fuck all to do with what utility it provides to society and, by extension, with the outcome of any possible changes made to it. > I don't fear that musk will ruin an investment for giggles or for self centered reasons, no. This makes no sense whatsoever unless you think your interests are aligned here. Ultimately, Musk will want twitter to make him money. How he thinks he has to handle the platform for it to earn him as much as possible, and whether that's better or worse than how twitters current management interprets things, that is the important part here. > Your third paragraph is one of them logical fallacy things isn't it. Their third paragraph is really just spelling out the negative of what they already said. If you believe all of these things, you should have this conclusion. If you do not believe all of them, then you don't need to have this conclusion. I don't see why you're calling this a fallacy.