7 ms·

The thought of him presiding over a major media platform throughout the 2024 election cycle makes me want to cry.

syeare 4y ago
Controlled 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 ago
  What 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 ago
    Aluminum only blocks well in the high GHz, you need very thick blocks of metal to block the kHz brain reading devices.
    - pstuart 4y ago
      That's perfect for the 5G mind control towers!
  - pengaru 4y ago
    Commercial-grade Reynolds rolls are both more economical and ~double the thickness.
  - worried4future 4y ago
    If 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 ago
      I 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 ago
        I'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 ago
        How 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 ago
    Previous 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 ago
  Censorship is when the government tells you what you can and can't publish on your platform.
  - commandlinefan 4y ago
    No, 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 ago
      Should misinformation be amplified?
      - _-david-_ 4y ago
        The 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 ago
        I 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 ago
Given 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 ago
  Something 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 ago
      If the people I "disagree with" are dehumanizing others, yes. Words have meanings. They're not spoken into a vacuum
      - claytongulick 4y ago
        I 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 ago
The 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 ago
Makes me want to cheer.
- Balero 4y ago
  Could you elaborate why?
  - commandlinefan 4y ago
    Because 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 ago
Actually 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 ago
  The 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 ago
    I 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 ago
  I 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 ago
  I 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 ago
People 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 ago
  There 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 ago
  You'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 ago
    Then can you please explain to me what is so scary of him owning twitter during 2024 elections?

Controlled 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 ago
What 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 ago
  Aluminum only blocks well in the high GHz, you need very thick blocks of metal to block the kHz brain reading devices.
  - pstuart 4y ago
    That's perfect for the 5G mind control towers!
- pengaru 4y ago
  Commercial-grade Reynolds rolls are both more economical and ~double the thickness.
- worried4future 4y ago
  If 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 ago
    I 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 ago
      I'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 ago
        How 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 ago
  Previous 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 ago
Censorship is when the government tells you what you can and can't publish on your platform.
- commandlinefan 4y ago
  No, 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 ago
    Should misinformation be amplified?
    - _-david-_ 4y ago
      The 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 ago
        I 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 ago

Given 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 ago
Something 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 ago
    If the people I "disagree with" are dehumanizing others, yes. Words have meanings. They're not spoken into a vacuum
    - claytongulick 4y ago
      I 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 ago

The 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 ago

Makes me want to cheer.

Balero 4y ago
Could you elaborate why?
- commandlinefan 4y ago
  Because 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 ago

Actually 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 ago
The 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 ago
  I 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 ago
I 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 ago
I 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 ago

People 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 ago
There 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 ago
You'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 ago
  Then can you please explain to me what is so scary of him owning twitter during 2024 elections?