4 ms·

Twitter removes govt funded labels after outlets flee

16 points by darth_avocado 4y ago

brucethemoose2 4y ago
Well I guess that is the simple solution. Will China and Russia pay for the checkmarks?
- cratermoon 4y ago
  Sounds like they don't have to.
ratsmack 4y ago
>Twitter has also removed guardrails intended to limit the visibility of propaganda from Russian, Chinese, and Iranian government accounts, NPR reports. This is as if to say that Western Media does not print propaganda.
- smoldesu 4y ago
  >> Twitter has also removed... I think it's intending to lump them all together.
- 32gbsd 4y ago
  Everything is propagada nowadays
captaintobs 4y ago
It's surprising how these rash decisions are made with seemingly little thought. You'd think someone so successful would be logical... I guess it's optional.
- BulgarianIdiot 4y ago
  He's not successful because he's thoughtful and logical. He's successful because he went to a bunch of venture capitalists & media and said "I'm thoughtful and logical" and that was sufficient to pass the depth of their scrutiny, competence & fact verification. There are many studies about why people who are incompetent, but extremely confident about themselves (or sufficiently psychopathic to fake they are) get ahead in life. Most "normal" people can't comprehend that someone can just open their mouth and speak about what their accomplishments and skills are, and completely make things up, with zero embarrassment or shame. But Elon is definitely good at that. He's always neck deep in his BS, and always finding someone else to blame and ensure everyone the future is bright and the mistakes are in the past.
  - revelio 4y ago
    SpaceX was funded mostly with his own money, I thought?
    - BulgarianIdiot 4y ago
      These companies are never just one person's money, even if they're a billionaire. He went to investors, institutional, and so on, and he did also put money himself, but its mixed funding. And when it was on the verge of bankruptcy, their 4th attempt at self-landing rockets (after 3 failures) showed some promise, so NASA saved them financially by awarding them with a $1.6 billion contract. SpaceX is about 85% funded by the federal government, 15% by Elon and other investors.
      - revelio 4y ago
        You would not normally describe a company as being "funded" by its customers. NASA was and still is a customer.
        BulgarianIdiot 4y ago
        NASA gave SpaceX billions, at a time they were near bankrupt, and with no final working products, with the idea at some point in the future SpaceX will do something in return. Investors that fund a startup also give money expecting something in return in the future. The difference between investor and customer is only one of scale. How much money and what timeframe for return. As that increases risk, accordingly. When you pay for a house or an apartment that's not built yet, you're investing in construction, you're not a "customer". Of course you expect a house and/or an apartment in a few years. But you invested your money, and that house/apartment may not materialize. So NASA was an investor. Today they're also a customer, but they're still an investor. Some of their money blew up two days ago.
babelthuap 4y ago
Scott Adams made a good point about running a business. You try things. If it doesn't work you scrap it. Elon tried something. It failed. He also launched a rocket that failed. So what. It happens. Running a real business (not a sham startup) will have many real ups and downs. Overall he's had way more ups. Get over it.
readonthegoapp 4y ago
Did anyone actually have a conversation about this topic? i'm guessing not, because clickbait guy is so anti-free speech. that said, i don't have any real objection to npr and other government-funded orgs being labeled 'government-funded' or 'state-affiliated media' or whatever -- because they are, right? or maybe not. npr says they get less than 1% of their funding from uncle sam. what's the cutoff for the 'government-funded' label? and as for them being state-affiliated -- does it matter if they are formally affiliated with the government -- i would guess getting funding from them means they are formally affiliated with them -- if they support the government's positions > 99% of the time anyways? maybe just label them based on their adherence to the government's narrative? "90%-Compliant with the Washington Consensus" ?
Simulacra 4y ago
If a media organization is funded by the government, I think it's something that people should know. Where to draw that line seems to be the question. I say put it at 40%. If a news organization receives 40% of its funding from government approves spending sources, then it has government backing.

16 points by darth_avocado 4y ago

brucethemoose2 4y ago

Well I guess that is the simple solution. Will China and Russia pay for the checkmarks?

cratermoon 4y ago
Sounds like they don't have to.

ratsmack 4y ago

>Twitter has also removed guardrails intended to limit the visibility of propaganda from Russian, Chinese, and Iranian government accounts, NPR reports. This is as if to say that Western Media does not print propaganda.

smoldesu 4y ago
>> Twitter has also removed... I think it's intending to lump them all together.
32gbsd 4y ago
Everything is propagada nowadays

captaintobs 4y ago

It's surprising how these rash decisions are made with seemingly little thought. You'd think someone so successful would be logical... I guess it's optional.

BulgarianIdiot 4y ago
He's not successful because he's thoughtful and logical. He's successful because he went to a bunch of venture capitalists & media and said "I'm thoughtful and logical" and that was sufficient to pass the depth of their scrutiny, competence & fact verification. There are many studies about why people who are incompetent, but extremely confident about themselves (or sufficiently psychopathic to fake they are) get ahead in life. Most "normal" people can't comprehend that someone can just open their mouth and speak about what their accomplishments and skills are, and completely make things up, with zero embarrassment or shame. But Elon is definitely good at that. He's always neck deep in his BS, and always finding someone else to blame and ensure everyone the future is bright and the mistakes are in the past.
- revelio 4y ago
  SpaceX was funded mostly with his own money, I thought?
  - BulgarianIdiot 4y ago
    These companies are never just one person's money, even if they're a billionaire. He went to investors, institutional, and so on, and he did also put money himself, but its mixed funding. And when it was on the verge of bankruptcy, their 4th attempt at self-landing rockets (after 3 failures) showed some promise, so NASA saved them financially by awarding them with a $1.6 billion contract. SpaceX is about 85% funded by the federal government, 15% by Elon and other investors.
    - revelio 4y ago
      You would not normally describe a company as being "funded" by its customers. NASA was and still is a customer.
      - BulgarianIdiot 4y ago
        NASA gave SpaceX billions, at a time they were near bankrupt, and with no final working products, with the idea at some point in the future SpaceX will do something in return. Investors that fund a startup also give money expecting something in return in the future. The difference between investor and customer is only one of scale. How much money and what timeframe for return. As that increases risk, accordingly. When you pay for a house or an apartment that's not built yet, you're investing in construction, you're not a "customer". Of course you expect a house and/or an apartment in a few years. But you invested your money, and that house/apartment may not materialize. So NASA was an investor. Today they're also a customer, but they're still an investor. Some of their money blew up two days ago.

babelthuap 4y ago

Scott Adams made a good point about running a business. You try things. If it doesn't work you scrap it. Elon tried something. It failed. He also launched a rocket that failed. So what. It happens. Running a real business (not a sham startup) will have many real ups and downs. Overall he's had way more ups. Get over it.

readonthegoapp 4y ago

Did anyone actually have a conversation about this topic? i'm guessing not, because clickbait guy is so anti-free speech. that said, i don't have any real objection to npr and other government-funded orgs being labeled 'government-funded' or 'state-affiliated media' or whatever -- because they are, right? or maybe not. npr says they get less than 1% of their funding from uncle sam. what's the cutoff for the 'government-funded' label? and as for them being state-affiliated -- does it matter if they are formally affiliated with the government -- i would guess getting funding from them means they are formally affiliated with them -- if they support the government's positions > 99% of the time anyways? maybe just label them based on their adherence to the government's narrative? "90%-Compliant with the Washington Consensus" ?

Simulacra 4y ago

If a media organization is funded by the government, I think it's something that people should know. Where to draw that line seems to be the question. I say put it at 40%. If a news organization receives 40% of its funding from government approves spending sources, then it has government backing.