4 ms·

A few things: Elon has no idea what he bought. Elon cannot post, despite desperately wishing he could. Elon has done the worst thing you can do if you are be

A few things: Elon has no idea what he bought. Elon cannot post, despite desperately wishing he could. Elon has done the worst thing you can do if you are being trolled online ("mooom the Internet is being mean to me!"), which harkens back to #1. He's rapidly pissing off the reason why many people are on Twitter in the first place. All while laying people off and then sending them messages with, "wait, no, please come back". ... It's like watching an any% Speedrun of "destroying one's own company".

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
akomtu 4y ago
What would the original Twitter management do differently? Wouldn't fire 50% of the staff over the next several months despite the recession? Kept the comedian's account active even if she impersonated Parag?
- socialismisok 4y ago
  Probably both of those, yeah. Ad revenue was growing until Musk got involved.
  - theonething 4y ago
    Pre-Musk Twitter board planned layoffs. > Before Musk took over the site, Twitter had already planned broad layoffs, which would have affected up to a quarter of the staff, according to people familiar with the plans. The Post reported previously the company’s board was planning to cut thousands of jobs as part of an effort to save $700 million in labor costs. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/11/03/elon-musk-twitter-layoffs/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/11/03/elon-mu... And I don't understand why you think Parag would have allowed impersonations (himself or others). It's just bad for the platform overall.
    - Brian_K_White 4y ago
      Would they have had a reason to parody them? Would the act itself be a current relevant topical speech the way it is in this case? The answers are all no.
      - theonething 4y ago
        The original question was would Twitter have "Kept the comedian's account active even if she impersonated Parag" The question presents her impersonating Parag as a given hypothetical situation and asks what would Twitter have done in that situation. The essence of the question is would Parag have allowed for impersonation of accounts? Your comment is a non sequitur.
        socialismisok 4y ago
        The answer is still yes. This practice was extremely common in Twitter.
        theonething 4y ago
        hmm.. here's an archive page from Twitter from January of this year about parody account policy https://web.archive.org/web/20220108193314/https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/parody-account-policy https://web.archive.org/web/20220108193314/https://help.twit... > The account name (note: this is separate from the username, or @handle) should clearly indicate that the user is not affiliated with the subject of the account. Non-affiliation can be indicated by incorporating, for example, words such as (but not limited to) "parody," "fake," "fan," or "commentary.” Kathy Griffin's name change did not indicate it was parody as stipulated above, it was changed to just "Elon Musk", a clear violation of this rule that existed way before Elon got involved. So you're saying Parag would for some reason just ignore this rule. I find that hard to believe. P.S. You also said pre-Musk Twitter probably wouldn't have had a massive layoff. They were planning to.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

akomtu 4y ago

What would the original Twitter management do differently? Wouldn't fire 50% of the staff over the next several months despite the recession? Kept the comedian's account active even if she impersonated Parag?

socialismisok 4y ago
Probably both of those, yeah. Ad revenue was growing until Musk got involved.
- theonething 4y ago
  Pre-Musk Twitter board planned layoffs. > Before Musk took over the site, Twitter had already planned broad layoffs, which would have affected up to a quarter of the staff, according to people familiar with the plans. The Post reported previously the company’s board was planning to cut thousands of jobs as part of an effort to save $700 million in labor costs. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/11/03/elon-musk-twitter-layoffs/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/11/03/elon-mu... And I don't understand why you think Parag would have allowed impersonations (himself or others). It's just bad for the platform overall.
  - Brian_K_White 4y ago
    Would they have had a reason to parody them? Would the act itself be a current relevant topical speech the way it is in this case? The answers are all no.
    - theonething 4y ago
      The original question was would Twitter have "Kept the comedian's account active even if she impersonated Parag" The question presents her impersonating Parag as a given hypothetical situation and asks what would Twitter have done in that situation. The essence of the question is would Parag have allowed for impersonation of accounts? Your comment is a non sequitur.
      - socialismisok 4y ago
        The answer is still yes. This practice was extremely common in Twitter.
        theonething 4y ago
        hmm.. here's an archive page from Twitter from January of this year about parody account policy https://web.archive.org/web/20220108193314/https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/parody-account-policy https://web.archive.org/web/20220108193314/https://help.twit... > The account name (note: this is separate from the username, or @handle) should clearly indicate that the user is not affiliated with the subject of the account. Non-affiliation can be indicated by incorporating, for example, words such as (but not limited to) "parody," "fake," "fan," or "commentary.” Kathy Griffin's name change did not indicate it was parody as stipulated above, it was changed to just "Elon Musk", a clear violation of this rule that existed way before Elon got involved. So you're saying Parag would for some reason just ignore this rule. I find that hard to believe. P.S. You also said pre-Musk Twitter probably wouldn't have had a massive layoff. They were planning to.