4 ms·

The garbage is the point. Musk and like ilk don't hate the "cathedral," so called, because they believe it steers the public discourse; they only hate when they

The garbage is the point. Musk and like ilk don't hate the "cathedral," so called, because they believe it steers the public discourse; they only hate when they can't feel like they're the ones doing the steering.

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
> they only hate when they can't feel like they're the ones doing the steering. This is much more true of the “other side” than “Musk and like ilk”. The hate against Musk and X is primarily because a lot of people on one political side hate that they’re no longer steering public discourse. Also the current X does far less steering (in any direction) than the censorship heavy regime of the past.
- mostlysimilar 2y ago
  [flagged]
- tombert 2y ago
  Actually Elon's politics aren't really the reason I hate him. The main reason I started hating him was calling a guy a pedophile because he didn't want to use Elon's stupid submarine in a cave rescue, but I also think that Elon is potentially complicit in some crypto pump and dump. I have no direct proof of the latter, other than I think it was a little weird that he suddenly was fully onboard with Dogecoin until he wasn't very shortly after.
  - CamelCaseName 2y ago
    Once you realize that all wealthy people are just talking their book, everything starts to make sense. Why did Elon suddenly go so hard against OpenAI and now Apple? Because he was planning to, and then did, launch his own AI business.
    - tombert 2y ago
      I mean, I don't dislike Elon so much that I'm going to blanket hate everything he does purely because he's involved; if Elon can do AI better than OpenAI then by all means he should do it. Do I actually think he's able to? No, not really, but I'd be happy for him to prove me wrong. Though I keep using the personal "he", which lets be honest is not really accurate. Elon hires some smart people who do the actual work, and like most people who are high enough in the corporate ladder, doesn't really do anything other than be the face of the brand.
    - randomdata 2y ago
      But mostly because his own AI business launch was OpenAI. He eventually left because he wanted to start a for-profit AI division under Tesla and felt it was a conflict of interest with OpenAI's mission. But then OpenAI violated its own mission anyway – which is when Musk became unhappy about it. There would have been no reason for him to step down if he'd have known OpenAI was going to go in that direction all along.
      - tombert 2y ago
        I mean, organization priorities change all the time. Unless Elon is a moron, he should have known that there was always a risk that they'd eventually add a for-profit entity; it's entirely possible that they had no plans for it when he was there and then they later changed priorities. That's really not weird, and I really don't think Elon should be "unhappy" about it. That said, I do think that the name "OpenAI" does kind of imply non-profit, so I guess you could argue that there's some dishonesty there.
        randomdata 2y ago
        > Unless Elon is a moron He very well may be, but he is also seemingly human (sometimes, at least). He provided the major funding with a certain goal in mind. It would be hard for any human to not be unhappy to see that go to waste. I mean, if you bought your friend a house to provide them with what you saw as needed shelter, and then said friend decided to tear down the house and use it as fuel for a fun weekend campfire, you'd probably be unhappy too – even though logically it isn't for you to decide; you chose to give it away. 'Tis the way of the irrational human.
  - rightbyte 2y ago
    Isn't Dogecoin a 'stonk'-meme joke going wild? Like, I am not giving Musk the benefit of a doubt, but it has to be easy to just say "it was a joke" in that case?
    - tombert 2y ago
      I think those arguments fall a little flat when he started Tweeting about Tesla accepting Dogecoin as a payment. Moreover, intentional or not it definitely led to huge inflation of Dogecoin. The thing is, this isn't some random 20 year old posting meme, this was (at the time) like the second richest guy in the world with a lot of social media presence and as such I do think he needs to be more careful about stuff that's "just a joke bro!" For better or worse, people do trust these billionaires as financial geniuses and I don't think "I was just messing" is a terribly good excuse.
      - me_me_me 2y ago
        >> The live Dogecoin price today is $0.138449 USD with a 24-hour trading volume of $1,121,946,302 USD. We update our DOGE to USD price in real-time. Dogecoin is down 5.38% in the last 24 hours. The current CoinMarketCap ranking is #8, with a live market cap of Those are joke numbers? It might have started as a joke but money is money.
- seattle_spring 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- imbnwa 2y ago
  >Also the current X does far less steering (in any direction) than the censorship heavy regime of the past. Fake news across the board in social media[0]. The pre-Musk regime did the opposite. [0]https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/feb/01/facebook-youtube-twitter-anti-conservative-claims-baseless-report-finds https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/feb/01/facebook-youtu...
  - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
    Fake news is highly subjective, and frankly a university study from “disinformation experts” isn’t something I would put much faith in, let alone their opinion being laundered through a Guardian headline. It’s obvious that many political opinions on controversial topics (BLM, trans issues, lab leak, illegal immigration, etc) were censored as a matter of policy in the past. Opinions from the left were allowed because these companies mostly employ people with a left bias. To deny any of this is just dishonest gaslighting, and all the “disinformation experts” won’t convince everyone who has been subject to that censorship. And then there’s all that the Twitter Files revealed, which goes further than just self selected censorship regimes.
- ipsin 2y ago
  Looking at the replies to, say, https://x.com/aoc https://x.com/aoc, it seems pretty steered to me. If you want to hear replies from her supporters, good luck getting through a few hundred blue check marks. Compare this to something like https://x.com/RonDeSantis https://x.com/RonDeSantis, which is an full of adulation for the guy. In my estimation, X is tilted pretty far right at this point, simply because paid blue check marks are a sign of pride or shame, based on your political affiliation.
- throwanem 2y ago
  And to think you could instead have spent this time critiquing mainstream media in a way that might actually land. It's not as if there were nothing to say in that line; there is, and has been for some decades. But Musk is flagrantly and self-evidently ignorant on the subject, and in consequence has never been worth listening to on it, because all he has to say is how it upsets him personally. No one cares, and his money is the only reason anyone bothers pretending - and he plainly can't tell the difference, even after turning in a 0/10 performance against a 3/10 lightweight like Don Lemon. I grant there may be things Musk is good at, but none of them has been evident of late, and none of them, very plainly, is this. If you insist on idolizing, one hopes out of mere self-respect at least you would choose a worthier idol than he.
- scrps 2y ago
  Musk uses free speech as the philosophical version of a human shield. People like him couldn't care less about free speech once they've burned it's utility out playing games. At the same time letting corporations thought-police (usually written on the wind of whatever crusade the mobile vulgus, of one variety or another, is on about this week) speech is so epically stupid it is almost funny. Musk latches on to this like he is some soothsayer of some impending 'takeover' when he is just exploiting a different facet. CEOs loving free speech? You mean the idea of a free press that can report on their misdeeds? Consumers with the ability to raise flags about products and companies? Whistleblowers? Protestors and boycotters? Union organizers? What CEO would ever want to discredit free speech by turning it into a clown show of racists and woo-woo nutjobs?
- kmeisthax 2y ago
  Musk used to be part of that exact same "other side" (American liberals) you're complaining about until California wouldn't let him keep Tesla factories open during COVID. So he completely flip-flopped and is now peddling Great Replacement bullshit. The thing is, Musk's political ideology is "whatever strokes my ego". Always has been, and the same applies for a lot of other billionaires, especially California types[0]. Most political ideologies are not going to bend themselves to your whims because they're too busy actually saying something. Narcissists will be eternally disappointed by them. On the other hand, fascism isn't a political ideology at all. You can love-bomb specific people who are desperate for power and control with it because fascism fundamentally doesn't say anything. Every other ideology will eventually tell you 'no', but fascists will say whatever is necessary to get critical power players on board with shutting down democracy and stifling dissent. > Also the current X does far less steering (in any direction) than the censorship heavy regime of the past. Musk's Twitter is far more blatant at pushing right-wing political narratives than it was under Jack. Furthermore, Musk is not a free speech extremist. He looooves firing people at Tesla and SpaceX who say anything critical of the company they work for. This is not how you run a successful business, this is how you stroke the Great Leader's ego. This even leaked over into Twitter's moderation policies, which were changed multiple times to justify the banning of ElonJet, an account that was created specifically to embarrass Musk for flying private jets. [0] In general, I find California's blue state credentials to be highly suspicious. This is the state that gave us Ronald Reagan, after all.
- burnte 2y ago
  > This is much more true of the “other side” than “Musk and like ilk”. No, it's not. It's Musk and his ilk that hate media, hate reporters, hate when their dirty tricks are brought to light. > The hate against Musk and X is primarily because a lot of people on one political side hate that they’re no longer steering public discourse. This is PARTIALLY true but misleading. We're upset that he has decided that fascists, racists, and Nazis need to have their hateful views shared. As a society we've ben working on equality for decades, so this is a major step backwards. > Also the current X does far less steering (in any direction) than the censorship heavy regime of the past. This is also not true. Only hate speech was removed from Twitter. Now it's people Musk doesn't like.
  - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
    > Only hate speech was removed from Twitter. Discussing the lab leak theory or writing news pieces about Hunter Biden were “hate speech”? I don’t like the idea of some label like “hate speech” because it is highly subjective. We have the notion of free speech in the US constitution because it is so fundamental to a functioning democracy. Giant social media platforms are no different from your electrical utility - if they censor, it has impact similar to us not having foundational rights like in the first amendment.
    - burnte 2y ago
      > Discussing the lab leak theory Harmful disinformation. > or writing news pieces about Hunter Biden were “hate speech”? Evidence for this? > I don’t like the idea of some label like “hate speech” because it is highly subjective. No, it's not. Saying one group of humans is somehow inferior, racism, sexism, calls for violence, these are clear and unacceptable. Your comfort is not more important than a safe public space for all citizens. Even the constitution doesn't allow unlimited speech, so that's not an argument against this. Further, the constitution doesn't apply to private companies limiting user activity on their own sites. I don't have to let you put signs on my lawn.
- lazyeye 2y ago
  Agreed. I think its fair to say Elons primary crime is "not being sufficiently left-wing". If he had the correct politics all his other transgressions would be ignored.
  - GJim 2y ago
    We laugh at him for throwing his toys out of the pram every five minutes, not because of his politics!
    - lazyeye 2y ago
      I think most people want to find things to laugh at him about because his extraordinary achievements fill them with a subconscious shame. "My life may be mediocre by comparison but at least I dont ....like Elon"
      - Clamchop 2y ago
        A convenient invention you've got there to dismiss criticism.
        lazyeye 2y ago
        Not all criticism (but alot) and not remotely an invention.

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago

> they only hate when they can't feel like they're the ones doing the steering. This is much more true of the “other side” than “Musk and like ilk”. The hate against Musk and X is primarily because a lot of people on one political side hate that they’re no longer steering public discourse. Also the current X does far less steering (in any direction) than the censorship heavy regime of the past.

mostlysimilar 2y ago
[flagged]
tombert 2y ago
Actually Elon's politics aren't really the reason I hate him. The main reason I started hating him was calling a guy a pedophile because he didn't want to use Elon's stupid submarine in a cave rescue, but I also think that Elon is potentially complicit in some crypto pump and dump. I have no direct proof of the latter, other than I think it was a little weird that he suddenly was fully onboard with Dogecoin until he wasn't very shortly after.
- CamelCaseName 2y ago
  Once you realize that all wealthy people are just talking their book, everything starts to make sense. Why did Elon suddenly go so hard against OpenAI and now Apple? Because he was planning to, and then did, launch his own AI business.
  - tombert 2y ago
    I mean, I don't dislike Elon so much that I'm going to blanket hate everything he does purely because he's involved; if Elon can do AI better than OpenAI then by all means he should do it. Do I actually think he's able to? No, not really, but I'd be happy for him to prove me wrong. Though I keep using the personal "he", which lets be honest is not really accurate. Elon hires some smart people who do the actual work, and like most people who are high enough in the corporate ladder, doesn't really do anything other than be the face of the brand.
  - randomdata 2y ago
    But mostly because his own AI business launch was OpenAI. He eventually left because he wanted to start a for-profit AI division under Tesla and felt it was a conflict of interest with OpenAI's mission. But then OpenAI violated its own mission anyway – which is when Musk became unhappy about it. There would have been no reason for him to step down if he'd have known OpenAI was going to go in that direction all along.
    - tombert 2y ago
      I mean, organization priorities change all the time. Unless Elon is a moron, he should have known that there was always a risk that they'd eventually add a for-profit entity; it's entirely possible that they had no plans for it when he was there and then they later changed priorities. That's really not weird, and I really don't think Elon should be "unhappy" about it. That said, I do think that the name "OpenAI" does kind of imply non-profit, so I guess you could argue that there's some dishonesty there.
      - randomdata 2y ago
        > Unless Elon is a moron He very well may be, but he is also seemingly human (sometimes, at least). He provided the major funding with a certain goal in mind. It would be hard for any human to not be unhappy to see that go to waste. I mean, if you bought your friend a house to provide them with what you saw as needed shelter, and then said friend decided to tear down the house and use it as fuel for a fun weekend campfire, you'd probably be unhappy too – even though logically it isn't for you to decide; you chose to give it away. 'Tis the way of the irrational human.
- rightbyte 2y ago
  Isn't Dogecoin a 'stonk'-meme joke going wild? Like, I am not giving Musk the benefit of a doubt, but it has to be easy to just say "it was a joke" in that case?
  - tombert 2y ago
    I think those arguments fall a little flat when he started Tweeting about Tesla accepting Dogecoin as a payment. Moreover, intentional or not it definitely led to huge inflation of Dogecoin. The thing is, this isn't some random 20 year old posting meme, this was (at the time) like the second richest guy in the world with a lot of social media presence and as such I do think he needs to be more careful about stuff that's "just a joke bro!" For better or worse, people do trust these billionaires as financial geniuses and I don't think "I was just messing" is a terribly good excuse.
    - me_me_me 2y ago
      >> The live Dogecoin price today is $0.138449 USD with a 24-hour trading volume of $1,121,946,302 USD. We update our DOGE to USD price in real-time. Dogecoin is down 5.38% in the last 24 hours. The current CoinMarketCap ranking is #8, with a live market cap of Those are joke numbers? It might have started as a joke but money is money.
seattle_spring 2y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
imbnwa 2y ago
>Also the current X does far less steering (in any direction) than the censorship heavy regime of the past. Fake news across the board in social media[0]. The pre-Musk regime did the opposite. [0]https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/feb/01/facebook-youtube-twitter-anti-conservative-claims-baseless-report-finds https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/feb/01/facebook-youtu...
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  Fake news is highly subjective, and frankly a university study from “disinformation experts” isn’t something I would put much faith in, let alone their opinion being laundered through a Guardian headline. It’s obvious that many political opinions on controversial topics (BLM, trans issues, lab leak, illegal immigration, etc) were censored as a matter of policy in the past. Opinions from the left were allowed because these companies mostly employ people with a left bias. To deny any of this is just dishonest gaslighting, and all the “disinformation experts” won’t convince everyone who has been subject to that censorship. And then there’s all that the Twitter Files revealed, which goes further than just self selected censorship regimes.
ipsin 2y ago
Looking at the replies to, say, https://x.com/aoc https://x.com/aoc, it seems pretty steered to me. If you want to hear replies from her supporters, good luck getting through a few hundred blue check marks. Compare this to something like https://x.com/RonDeSantis https://x.com/RonDeSantis, which is an full of adulation for the guy. In my estimation, X is tilted pretty far right at this point, simply because paid blue check marks are a sign of pride or shame, based on your political affiliation.
throwanem 2y ago
And to think you could instead have spent this time critiquing mainstream media in a way that might actually land. It's not as if there were nothing to say in that line; there is, and has been for some decades. But Musk is flagrantly and self-evidently ignorant on the subject, and in consequence has never been worth listening to on it, because all he has to say is how it upsets him personally. No one cares, and his money is the only reason anyone bothers pretending - and he plainly can't tell the difference, even after turning in a 0/10 performance against a 3/10 lightweight like Don Lemon. I grant there may be things Musk is good at, but none of them has been evident of late, and none of them, very plainly, is this. If you insist on idolizing, one hopes out of mere self-respect at least you would choose a worthier idol than he.
scrps 2y ago
Musk uses free speech as the philosophical version of a human shield. People like him couldn't care less about free speech once they've burned it's utility out playing games. At the same time letting corporations thought-police (usually written on the wind of whatever crusade the mobile vulgus, of one variety or another, is on about this week) speech is so epically stupid it is almost funny. Musk latches on to this like he is some soothsayer of some impending 'takeover' when he is just exploiting a different facet. CEOs loving free speech? You mean the idea of a free press that can report on their misdeeds? Consumers with the ability to raise flags about products and companies? Whistleblowers? Protestors and boycotters? Union organizers? What CEO would ever want to discredit free speech by turning it into a clown show of racists and woo-woo nutjobs?
kmeisthax 2y ago
Musk used to be part of that exact same "other side" (American liberals) you're complaining about until California wouldn't let him keep Tesla factories open during COVID. So he completely flip-flopped and is now peddling Great Replacement bullshit. The thing is, Musk's political ideology is "whatever strokes my ego". Always has been, and the same applies for a lot of other billionaires, especially California types[0]. Most political ideologies are not going to bend themselves to your whims because they're too busy actually saying something. Narcissists will be eternally disappointed by them. On the other hand, fascism isn't a political ideology at all. You can love-bomb specific people who are desperate for power and control with it because fascism fundamentally doesn't say anything. Every other ideology will eventually tell you 'no', but fascists will say whatever is necessary to get critical power players on board with shutting down democracy and stifling dissent. > Also the current X does far less steering (in any direction) than the censorship heavy regime of the past. Musk's Twitter is far more blatant at pushing right-wing political narratives than it was under Jack. Furthermore, Musk is not a free speech extremist. He looooves firing people at Tesla and SpaceX who say anything critical of the company they work for. This is not how you run a successful business, this is how you stroke the Great Leader's ego. This even leaked over into Twitter's moderation policies, which were changed multiple times to justify the banning of ElonJet, an account that was created specifically to embarrass Musk for flying private jets. [0] In general, I find California's blue state credentials to be highly suspicious. This is the state that gave us Ronald Reagan, after all.
burnte 2y ago
> This is much more true of the “other side” than “Musk and like ilk”. No, it's not. It's Musk and his ilk that hate media, hate reporters, hate when their dirty tricks are brought to light. > The hate against Musk and X is primarily because a lot of people on one political side hate that they’re no longer steering public discourse. This is PARTIALLY true but misleading. We're upset that he has decided that fascists, racists, and Nazis need to have their hateful views shared. As a society we've ben working on equality for decades, so this is a major step backwards. > Also the current X does far less steering (in any direction) than the censorship heavy regime of the past. This is also not true. Only hate speech was removed from Twitter. Now it's people Musk doesn't like.
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  > Only hate speech was removed from Twitter. Discussing the lab leak theory or writing news pieces about Hunter Biden were “hate speech”? I don’t like the idea of some label like “hate speech” because it is highly subjective. We have the notion of free speech in the US constitution because it is so fundamental to a functioning democracy. Giant social media platforms are no different from your electrical utility - if they censor, it has impact similar to us not having foundational rights like in the first amendment.
  - burnte 2y ago
    > Discussing the lab leak theory Harmful disinformation. > or writing news pieces about Hunter Biden were “hate speech”? Evidence for this? > I don’t like the idea of some label like “hate speech” because it is highly subjective. No, it's not. Saying one group of humans is somehow inferior, racism, sexism, calls for violence, these are clear and unacceptable. Your comfort is not more important than a safe public space for all citizens. Even the constitution doesn't allow unlimited speech, so that's not an argument against this. Further, the constitution doesn't apply to private companies limiting user activity on their own sites. I don't have to let you put signs on my lawn.
lazyeye 2y ago
Agreed. I think its fair to say Elons primary crime is "not being sufficiently left-wing". If he had the correct politics all his other transgressions would be ignored.
- GJim 2y ago
  We laugh at him for throwing his toys out of the pram every five minutes, not because of his politics!
  - lazyeye 2y ago
    I think most people want to find things to laugh at him about because his extraordinary achievements fill them with a subconscious shame. "My life may be mediocre by comparison but at least I dont ....like Elon"
    - Clamchop 2y ago
      A convenient invention you've got there to dismiss criticism.
      - lazyeye 2y ago
        Not all criticism (but alot) and not remotely an invention.