6 ms·
Elon’s back, though he still has a few days to change his mind again
- synu 4y agohttps://archive.ph/bZleP https://archive.ph/bZleP
- lake_vincent 4y agoThe thought of him presiding over a major media platform throughout the 2024 election cycle makes me want to cry.
- syeare 4y agoControlled by Elon, controlled by (federal) actors who regulate a mainstream narrative, is there any difference? I really doubt that Elon will actually go through with unsuspending all those banned accounts or that anything at Twitter will actually change. If anything, I suppose there would be slightly less censorship but I'm sure that's just idealisation. He's undoubtedly going to be approached by the feds to continue enforcing the same shit that's been happening for nearly the past decade now.
- Sohcahtoa82 4y agoWhat brand of aluminum foil do you use for your hat? I like Kirkland because it's cheap and sold in large boxes, but I'm not sure it's as effective as traditional Reynolds.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- mensetmanusman 4y agoAluminum only blocks well in the high GHz, you need very thick blocks of metal to block the kHz brain reading devices.
- pstuart 4y agoThat's perfect for the 5G mind control towers!
- pengaru 4y agoCommercial-grade Reynolds rolls are both more economical and ~double the thickness.
- worried4future 4y agoIf you seriously think that people in the federal government don't try to control the media narrative, you're ignoring a huge body of history where they have done exactly that. Most recently, look at the white house trying to pressure twitter to ban journalists: https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/the-white-house-privately-demanded https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/the-white-house-privatel...
- pstuart 4y agoI wasn't familiar with the name, but this article is interesting: https://web.archive.org/web/20220901142826/https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/04/pandemics-wrongest-man/618475/ https://web.archive.org/web/20220901142826/https://www.theat... I can understand why the WH was concerned.
- Sohcahtoa82 4y ago> He has blamed the vaccines for causing spikes in severe illness, by pointing to data that actually demonstrate their safety and effectiveness. It always blows my mind when someone makes a claim and then cites a source and their source actually proves the exact opposite. They never acknowledge the self-own.
- worried4future 4y agoI'm not trying to debate the rightness or wrongness of Alex Berenson, I'm simply pointing to this as an example of the federal government strong-arming corporations into censoring people. Alex Berenson might be someone you disagree with, but remember, tomorrow there might be someone in power you dislike and they may choose to use the power to silence people you do agree with. When you give someone a gun, especially someone powerful, especially the federal government, you can not predict who will be holding it in the future and where they will aim it.
- pstuart 4y agoHow much strong-arming is going on vs. active reverse lobbying. We see real censorship (backed with guns) in Russia today -- I don't think this is comparable to the current administration asking CEOs to not enable the spreading of verifiable misinformation. I find it interesting that other bans don't get the same concern from the usual suspects, e.g., abortion gag laws, library book bans, don't say gay laws, etc. Should the former president retake office I expect bans of political enemies and more -- the type of abuse that you rightfully fear. This is a nuanced subject and requires corresponding consideration. We all agree that some speech isn't good for society but remain at odds over what that speech is.
- biomcgary 4y agoPrevious studies have only shown that tin foil works. After WWII and the rise of the current global system, they substituted aluminum for the tin to reduce efficacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin_foil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin_foil).
- strathmeyer 4y agoCensorship is when the government tells you what you can and can't publish on your platform.
- commandlinefan 4y agoNo, government censorship is when the government tells you what you can and can't publish. "Private" censorship isn't prohibited by the first amendment (in the United States), but it's still censorship. Still, there's more and more evidence that the U.S. government has been behind the latest private organization censorship push.
- pstuart 4y agoShould misinformation be amplified?
- _-david-_ 4y agoThe problem is who is going to determine what is misinformation and what percentage of accurate information will be classified as misinformation.
- commandlinefan 4y ago> who is going to determine what is misinformation Furthermore... if your main concern about Musk taking over Twitter is that certain information (of any kind) is going to be shared, then you're concerned about the existence of the unregulated internet in general. Not only does the "they're a private company, they can censor whatever they want" not apply here, it's turned on its head.
- _-david-_ 4y agoI think you are reading into my comment more than you should. I don't really have concerns over Musk taking over. I think Musk is less likely to ban what some people call misinformation than the current Twitter leadership and I think, at least in the current climate, that it is better to allow misinformation then it is to ban it.
- justapassenger 4y agoGiven some of his ideas shown during discovery (like having to pay with doge for tweets) and his tendency to shoot from the hip, there’s a non trivial chance that Twitter won’t be a major platform in 2 years from now.
- ep103 4y agoSomething with that much momentum won't die overnight, and even if it trends downward, he's going to do a ton of societal damage along the way.
- claytongulick 4y ago"Let people I don't agree with speak" !== "Societal damage"
- drekk 4y agoIf the people I "disagree with" are dehumanizing others, yes. Words have meanings. They're not spoken into a vacuum
- claytongulick 4y agoI feel like this post dehumanized me because you disagree with me. Therefore, it's ok to censor your speech that I disagree with right? What about the long list of politicians who actively and loudly proclaim that Republicans are racist. That's pretty dehumanizing. Censor them too, right? See how the word "dehumanizing" can be stretched to fit any speech I disagree with? This is how authoritarian censorship works. By manipulating language.
- md2020 4y agoThe thought of the current Twitter leadership presiding over a major media platform throughout the 2024 election cycle probably makes others want to cry.
- commandlinefan 4y agoMakes me want to cheer.
- Balero 4y agoCould you elaborate why?
- commandlinefan 4y agoBecause I believe that Elon will be much more even handed than Jack Dorsey or Parag Agarwal ever were about what can and can't be shared. And yes, I think he'll be fair to the liberals, too.
- germandiago 4y agoActually it makes me relieved to think that a reasonable person holds the platform to not censor others, at least in principle and according to his words. But only time will tell. For me it was good news, honestly.
- hermanradtke 4y agoThe word “reasonable” is doing a lot of work here based on Musk’s own history of censorship. I also find his behavior fairly unpredictable.
- zackees 4y ago
- germandiago 4y agoI do not think it cold get much worse than the state of things in Twitter, honestly. This is just my opinion, you do not have why to agree, of course.
- pstuart 4y agoI was engaged in dialog with the Google engineer who is suing Google for "censoring" content. This person still maintains that Sandyhook was a false flag operation and is bent about that being "censored". If you've followed the trial of Alex Jones regarding this you'll learn that in court he admits it's not true. But his fans still think it's the case, and meanwhile have terrorized parents of the victims. Some speech should not be amplified, it's a shame that you can't recognize that.
- drekk 4y agoI don't know if I'd call the person selling blood emeralds as a teenager "reasonable", but I'm sure handing over the public discourse to this random billionaire is a better alternative to creating a proper digital commons that exists for purposes beyond rentable virtual ad space
- 4y ago
- plgonzalezrx8 4y agoPeople keep saying this yet don't see the irony in it. You're openly admitting that censorship is necessary to keep your desired candidate and less censorship will hinder the political efforts of a "specific" party.
- 6stringmerc 4y agoThere is no guarantee of less beyond the word of funding secured $420 a share level. If anything it could be less, but worse depending who holds the power. It’s a fiasco no matter what hence the discussion around the inevitable “next” platform.
- drekk 4y agoYou're responding to someone who didn't mention censorship or any political party. It comes across as extremely defensive. Having unaccountable billionaires control the public discourse by digitizing the 21st century commons is shitty. It's just more centralization like the kind already seen for news networks, print media, and radio. "The United States is also a one-party state but, with typical American extravagance, they have two of them." - Julius Nyerere
- plgonzalezrx8 4y agoThen can you please explain to me what is so scary of him owning twitter during 2024 elections?
- yesiamyourdad 4y agoIt's my sincere hope that when all this is over, Matt Levine writes a book about the Twitter acquisition and names it "Clowns at the Gate".
- boeingUH60 4y agoI’ll buy that :)
- gbourne 4y agoMatt's analytics has been great - and how fed-up he is with the whole show.
- danielmarkbruce 4y ago"Clowns at the Circus Gate"?
- philistine 4y agoAre you ready for the return of Donald Trump to Twitter?
- claytongulick 4y agoYes. The idea of censoring anyone strikes me as extraordinarily distasteful, but I understand that there's a grey area there, i.e. we don't allow kiddie porn, violent threats, etc... Censoring a former president of the United States because you disagree with his politics? I can't think of any reasonable justification for this in a liberal society. The only societies that are interested in doing this sort of thing are the kinds of "one-party" autocratic authoritarian regimes who fear dissent as a threat to their power.
- dbbk 4y ago> Censoring a former president of the United States because you disagree with his politics? > I can't think of any reasonable justification for this in a liberal society. No platform has censored him for disagreeing with his politics. They banned him for inciting violence, which he did.
- _-david-_ 4y agoDid you read Twitter's post explaining which of his tweets were inciting violence? There were 2 tweets >The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!” And >“To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.” There is no way any reasonable and objective person could come to the conclusion that either of those are inciting violence.
- AbrahamParangi 4y agoOne man’s mostly peaceful political protest is another man’s violent insurrection. The idea that Trump was censored for apolitical reasons seems… not credible.
- MonkeyClub 4y ago> but for a serious Morgan Stanley banker to show up and do the bot routine, with a straight face, would be incredible Perhaps they could send one that isn’t so serious then, and get the job done. Shouldn’t be too hard, just select among the top bonus earners of 2009.
- higgins 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- SilverBirch 4y agoI thin it's a fair point that Morgan Stanley are now on the hook for some obviously quite bad debt. I wonder how solid that commitment was, or whether they can refuse now and trigger the £1Bn break clause. I would guess Twitter would still pursue Musk to close arguing that he deliberately jeopardised the funding.
- hotpotamus 4y agoThis whole thing reminds me of waking up after a serious night of drinking and trying to figure out the consequences of your actions, and to see if you can get out of them.
- plasticchris 4y agoThis has got to be the play, given his letter and obvious desire to bail. And I expect it will happen, banks don’t like losing money.
- danielmarkbruce 4y agoThere isn't a finance out.
- nocoiner 4y agoThe commitment is pretty solid (though, of course, so is Musk’s, and he’s spent the last six months trying to wriggle out of it). Plus, Morgan Stanley has franchise and reputational risk to consider - if they try to walk on the debt, the next time one of their clients goes to a seller with MS committed financing, that’s going to severely disadvantage that bid (at least for the next couple of years - memories are short and people tend to forget these things). And yes, Twitter would absolutely still pursue Musk in that scenario. A buyer doesn’t get to intentionally blow up his committed financing and win the day by using the Shaggy defense.