4 ms·

I would be much more afraid of a world where the major public square is privately owned and governed by a single individual with a proven history of public mani

by mola 4y ago

I would be much more afraid of a world where the major public square is privately owned and governed by a single individual with a proven history of public manipulation. Identity politics is just a stupid sideshow, a distraction. A private Twitter?.that's terrible. 100 times Bezos WaPo. It's the ball park of Mordoch publuc manipulation.

pessimizer 4y ago
You're posting this on a site privately owned and run by an unaccountable billionaire. > a proven history of public manipulation. It's better when people say that they don't like Musk, than pretending there's some sort of higher political principle here. People don't have trouble believing that objectors don't like Musk, and disagree with him politically. The trouble is in the appeal to principles that never come up in their discussions of e.g. the WaPo, which most of the objectors will defend to their last breath, along with Bezos. Like here, when the one of the wealthiest people in the world, owner of the largest retailer, that controls a massive part of internet infrastructure, also owns the second most influential paper, becomes 100x less important than Twitter changing ownership.
- mola 4y ago
  Did I defend bezos? I gave him as an example for the same thing I'm calling out musk for. I'm just saying that Musk owning Twitter is that times 100(a made up number, obviously) because: 1. Twitter somehow became the place where most "journalists" get their news from. 2. Politicians spread their propaganda at 3. Musk has no scruples about public manipulation and abusing his power. He is set on whatever made up vision he has, and he'll do whatever it takes to get there. Why won't he use his control of where journos and politicos create the public discourse? How is that not just expected? His company, his rules, no? BTW you turning me calling out Musk as somehow diminishing Bezos damage is hardly in good faith. Same as your godlike mind reading , that I just hate musk and turning to principles is me hiding that fact. Try to assume I'm speaking in good faith, it leads to much better discussions.

by mola 4y ago

pessimizer 4y ago

You're posting this on a site privately owned and run by an unaccountable billionaire. > a proven history of public manipulation. It's better when people say that they don't like Musk, than pretending there's some sort of higher political principle here. People don't have trouble believing that objectors don't like Musk, and disagree with him politically. The trouble is in the appeal to principles that never come up in their discussions of e.g. the WaPo, which most of the objectors will defend to their last breath, along with Bezos. Like here, when the one of the wealthiest people in the world, owner of the largest retailer, that controls a massive part of internet infrastructure, also owns the second most influential paper, becomes 100x less important than Twitter changing ownership.

mola 4y ago
Did I defend bezos? I gave him as an example for the same thing I'm calling out musk for. I'm just saying that Musk owning Twitter is that times 100(a made up number, obviously) because: 1. Twitter somehow became the place where most "journalists" get their news from. 2. Politicians spread their propaganda at 3. Musk has no scruples about public manipulation and abusing his power. He is set on whatever made up vision he has, and he'll do whatever it takes to get there. Why won't he use his control of where journos and politicos create the public discourse? How is that not just expected? His company, his rules, no? BTW you turning me calling out Musk as somehow diminishing Bezos damage is hardly in good faith. Same as your godlike mind reading , that I just hate musk and turning to principles is me hiding that fact. Try to assume I'm speaking in good faith, it leads to much better discussions.