5 ms·
For me it is how one person can suddenly own an entire social network and dictate the rules as he likes or dislikes. Mastodon it self is more open, the server y
by starefossen 4y ago
For me it is how one person can suddenly own an entire social network and dictate the rules as he likes or dislikes. Mastodon it self is more open, the server you choose to sign up to might have content policies in place.
- rjzzleep 4y agoWait, that's literally Zuckerberg? How was it OK when a Saudi Prince bought into Twitter to make sure Saudi Arabia wouldn't be hit by an Arab Spring[1]? I don't really like Musk, but is every conversation and topic these days just plain hysteria? [1] https://www.computerworld.com/article/2471759/arab-prince-buys-twitter-stake--recoils-from-arab-spring.html https://www.computerworld.com/article/2471759/arab-prince-bu...
- LudwigNagasena 4y agoYeah, it is not about a whole social network being controlled by a single person. It is about a whole social network being controlled by a single person you disagree with.
- kramerger 4y agoYou don't have to disagree with Elon as a person or politically to feel that an open speech platform controlled by one person who is known to micromanage everyone around him is bad. The tweets about Pelosi should that he is absolutely open to using his power as a prominent figure to control the narrative long outside his area of expertise
- raspberry1337 4y agoWe need to reduce harmful information. Only experts on A may speak about it. Experts are decided by trustable media outlets.
- BlargMcLarg 4y agoWho determines what is a "trustable media"? Who watches the watchdog? Etc.
- pennaMan 4y agoI present to you a trustable media outlet deciding on an expert: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6Y2uQn_wvc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6Y2uQn_wvc
- j3th9n 4y agoYou seem a good example of a victim of propaganda.
- throwaway744678 4y agoI may be mistaken, but I read the comments you're replying to as a sarcastic one.
- j3th9n 4y agoI hope you're right, people like this really exist.
- robertlagrant 4y agoTweeting isn't controlling any narrative. If you ban one side and not the other, and suppress stories you don't like, that's more along the lines you're talking.
- LudwigNagasena 4y agoYou have to only care about it now.
- goodpoint 4y agoThat's a pretty dishonest framing.
- rchaud 4y agoIt's not controlled by a single person, it's controlled by those who coughed up the $44b. Musk is the only one of them who actively desires the spotlight.
- MrDresden 4y agoSome of us have already left the Meta ecosystem years ago after finally waking up to that. Now it is time to do the same for Twitter.
- onethought 4y agoBut all the social networks are owned by a few individuals. Even twitter before musk bought it was owned by a select few (with real control), and they already dictated the rules based on their own likes/dislikes... that's what started this whole thing in the first place.
- shapefrog 4y ago> Even twitter before musk bought it was owned by a select few Except it wasnt
- hoseja 4y agoIt's a private company.
- SV_BubbleTime 4y agoI’m old enough to remember when that was an excuse people used for Twitter. Funny, seems like months ago. Now, it’s a private company but the arguments are all different.
- ekianjo 4y agoa publicly traded company. not exactly the same as its current status.
- SV_BubbleTime 4y agoYou’re right. It was worse to use that argument. But now all the people that did have changed their positions.
- nathias 4y agoIf I could choulse twitter would be a protocol, but to me the worst case is being owned by an anonymous bureaucracy working exclusively to optimize the platform for add revenue, that changes the 'rules' on the fashions of US local politics. Anything else is an improvement.
- gadders 4y agoWhere have you been for the last few years? That was exactly what was happening.