6 ms·

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

mandmandam 3y ago
You think the richest man in the world, along with his ultra-wealthy Saudi and mega-Zionist backers, are genuinely championing free speech as Musk so often claims? Puh-lease. The simplest explanation here is malice. Otherwise you have to believe that the wealthiest people in the world, experienced business people with the world's best paid advisors, are destroying Twitter through sheer business incompetence. I don't buy it for a second and I'm shocked that people really believe this is just simple stupidity. Attributing the destructive actions of well-known gaslighting lying billionaires to stupidity is honestly one of the weirdest things I can imagine. Sure, they make mistakes - but repeatedly, over and over, for years, and only with this one company? ... Nah.
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago
  Wouldn't it have been more effective for him to have just closed it on day one? Why leave it around for years, and have 75% of the users still there? That's being pretty incompetent at destroying it.
  - anigbrowl 3y ago
    The same reason that when a military force used to seize radio stations and telephone exchanges, it took them over rather than demolishing them.
  - mandmandam 3y ago
    There's a word for this: "Plausible deniability". Overly blatant actions like that have a tendency to rile people up to tipping points. Then there's the money - closing it day 1 leaves money on the table. There's the ego. Even Musk fan boys would have a hard time swallowing the wilful destruction of a beloved (and expensive) site. For those and other reasons (anigbrowl hit the nail on the head!), it's far easier to just gut all the parts that made the platform a threat to the mega-yacht class.
    - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
      > There's a word for this: "Plausible deniability". There's a word for _this_: "self-sealing" [0]. A believer in a conspiracy theory, when presented with evidence contrary to the conspiracy theory, will often "reinterpret it as originating from the conspiracy" [1], or otherwise treat it "as further evidence for the conspiracy" [1]. The simplest explanation for elmu acting like an uninformed, out-of-touch narcissist is that is who he is. Many narcissists genuinely believe they are pro-free-speech even while they attack speech they dislike. Toss him on the pile. 0: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084585 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084585 1: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/scholcom/246/ https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/scholcom/246/
      - krapp 3y ago
        At this point it's pretty clear that when Elon Musk talks about "free speech" he means the freedom to spread right-wing speech without consequence. I honestly believe a lot of what he's doing is, in his mind, liberating the site from the "woke mind virus" he believes turned his daughter trans. Most of the rest is boredom, because I also don't believe he really cares about the platform. He didn't even really want it, but he's stuck with it, so he's mostly just screwing around. If you interrogate Musk's action from the point of view of the bored, redpilled sociopath behind the mask of a brilliant entrepreneur playboy genius engineer, a lot of his decisions make sense.
- Moomoomoo309 3y ago
  "Only with this one company" is quite the statement on its own. Elon's blunders are numerous and across most of his companies, they are not limited to Twitter.
- rsynnott 3y ago
  ... I mean, the Saudis, and the likes of Ellison, invest in dumb shit all the time! Like, Ellison invested in Theranos. He has a track record in investing in nonsense. (I don't understand how Theranos wasn't more damaging to the "rich people are magical super genius investors" meme common on here, but here we are.) > experienced business people with the world's best paid advisors All the advisors in the world are no use if you don't listen to them because you think you know better.
anigbrowl 3y ago
That's a good maxim, but when all the behavior points in the same direction it becomes facile to cling to it. A stupid person's decisions wouldn't be so consistent.
- red-iron-pine 3y ago
  debatable. many morons are entirely predictable; sometimes you only have one or two cards to play.

You think the richest man in the world, along with his ultra-wealthy Saudi and mega-Zionist backers, are genuinely championing free speech as Musk so often claims? Puh-lease. The simplest explanation here is malice. Otherwise you have to believe that the wealthiest people in the world, experienced business people with the world's best paid advisors, are destroying Twitter through sheer business incompetence. I don't buy it for a second and I'm shocked that people really believe this is just simple stupidity. Attributing the destructive actions of well-known gaslighting lying billionaires to stupidity is honestly one of the weirdest things I can imagine. Sure, they make mistakes - but repeatedly, over and over, for years, and only with this one company? ... Nah.

AnimalMuppet 3y ago
Wouldn't it have been more effective for him to have just closed it on day one? Why leave it around for years, and have 75% of the users still there? That's being pretty incompetent at destroying it.
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  The same reason that when a military force used to seize radio stations and telephone exchanges, it took them over rather than demolishing them.
- mandmandam 3y ago
  There's a word for this: "Plausible deniability". Overly blatant actions like that have a tendency to rile people up to tipping points. Then there's the money - closing it day 1 leaves money on the table. There's the ego. Even Musk fan boys would have a hard time swallowing the wilful destruction of a beloved (and expensive) site. For those and other reasons (anigbrowl hit the nail on the head!), it's far easier to just gut all the parts that made the platform a threat to the mega-yacht class.
  - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
    > There's a word for this: "Plausible deniability". There's a word for _this_: "self-sealing" [0]. A believer in a conspiracy theory, when presented with evidence contrary to the conspiracy theory, will often "reinterpret it as originating from the conspiracy" [1], or otherwise treat it "as further evidence for the conspiracy" [1]. The simplest explanation for elmu acting like an uninformed, out-of-touch narcissist is that is who he is. Many narcissists genuinely believe they are pro-free-speech even while they attack speech they dislike. Toss him on the pile. 0: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084585 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084585 1: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/scholcom/246/ https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/scholcom/246/
    - krapp 3y ago
      At this point it's pretty clear that when Elon Musk talks about "free speech" he means the freedom to spread right-wing speech without consequence. I honestly believe a lot of what he's doing is, in his mind, liberating the site from the "woke mind virus" he believes turned his daughter trans. Most of the rest is boredom, because I also don't believe he really cares about the platform. He didn't even really want it, but he's stuck with it, so he's mostly just screwing around. If you interrogate Musk's action from the point of view of the bored, redpilled sociopath behind the mask of a brilliant entrepreneur playboy genius engineer, a lot of his decisions make sense.
Moomoomoo309 3y ago
"Only with this one company" is quite the statement on its own. Elon's blunders are numerous and across most of his companies, they are not limited to Twitter.
rsynnott 3y ago
... I mean, the Saudis, and the likes of Ellison, invest in dumb shit all the time! Like, Ellison invested in Theranos. He has a track record in investing in nonsense. (I don't understand how Theranos wasn't more damaging to the "rich people are magical super genius investors" meme common on here, but here we are.) > experienced business people with the world's best paid advisors All the advisors in the world are no use if you don't listen to them because you think you know better.

anigbrowl 3y ago

That's a good maxim, but when all the behavior points in the same direction it becomes facile to cling to it. A stupid person's decisions wouldn't be so consistent.

red-iron-pine 3y ago
debatable. many morons are entirely predictable; sometimes you only have one or two cards to play.