3 ms·

I don't see the failure in Twitter. It's a platform capable of influencing elections, that's definitely worth more than people think. It lost revenue since adv

I don't see the failure in Twitter. It's a platform capable of influencing elections, that's definitely worth more than people think. It lost revenue since advertisers don't like the platform's freedom of speech, and Elon won't give them control of what's allowed on the platform. Advertisers want control, they don't want free speech. Why do you think You tube removed the downvote counter? Advertisers pay not just to how their stuff but to also be able to control the narrative. If crowds of people are allowed to freely light a brand on fire on Twitter, why would they pay to advertise there? Meta paid like 22 Billion for WhatsApp which is hardly bringing in revenue.

adamredwoods 2y ago
Yes advertisers want control, wouldn't you? But it has nothing to do with "free speech". Try "good speech". Elon reduced the amount of subjective "good speech" and increased "bad speech". Advertisers have the freedom to do what they want. Elon, on the other hand, has absolute control of the words on his platform.
- Cumpiler69 2y ago
  >Yes advertisers want control, wouldn't you? If they would have control, people would stop going to Twitter and it would die. Similar fate to the TV mainstream media where they only parrot the opinions of their money overlords, and people are tired of that. That's why they go on to Twitter instead, to look for comments conforming to their own world views rather than what some trillion dollar corporations and out of touch celebrities tell them. Same thing that makes Joe Rogan popular. >Elon reduced the amount of subjective "good speech" and increased "bad speech". What is "good speech" and what is "bad speech" for you? Let me guess, "good speech" is the opinions you agree with and "bad speech" is the opinions you disagree with? Elon didn't reduce or increase anything. He just disable the "nanny" moderations, so now on Twitter you're seeing exactly what the people really think (probably what you consider "bad speech"), instead of what advertisers and the mainstream media would like them to think (probably what you consider "good speech"). That's why people come to Twitter, because it's one the few places left with relatively unmoderated free speech. It's what makes it valuable.
  - adamredwoods 2y ago
    >> exactly what the people really think (probably what you consider "bad speech") That is a large, opinionated assumption you are making, but be aware we're not discussing "me" but rather advertisers. As for "me" I consider "bad speech" to be enabled by "unmoderated free speech", which Elon freely chose to allow on Twitter. So yes, he chose to increase it. "Free speech" is NOT synonymous with truth or facts. I will stay away from people and places that I consider to use "bad speech". Yes, it's subjective, and that's the point.
  - ben_w 2y ago
    > What is "good speech" and what is "bad speech" for you? Let me guess, "good speech" is the opinions you agree with and "bad speech" is the opinions you disagree with? What happens if this pseudocode is run, targeting your account? while True: requests.post(api_url, json={"username": "@Cumpiler69", "message": "hello"}) Answer: you can't see any other content because you're jammed with someone else's absolute freedom to speak to you. Signal, noise. Signal keeps you engaged, noise doesn't. What counts as which depends on the person, but you can't function in an environment that allows anything. Thing is, the exact thing that makes social networks useful, that it's the edges not the nodes, means it is very easy to be jammed by actual humans and not just stupid scripts like the one above. Ironically, very simple things like I've just shown you, are also how propaganda works: jam people's perception by overloading them with The Message. And any attempt to be "absolutist" about free speech, if he really was (which he isn't really despite what he says), is just a power vacuum into which those that seek power can project their propaganda. There's no fancy good way out with this, for anyone, much as I'd like there to be. There's no "your side or my side" distinction here, nor would there be if the world were really so parochial as US politics.
    - Cumpiler69 2y ago
      And who gets to decide what is is noise/propaganda and what is not? You? Morally and ethically bankrupt mainstream media and advertisers like MSNBC, Amazon, Nike, Apple, Chevron, Nestle, Disney and WB who are gladly using slave labor, destroying the environment and people's lives on the other side of the planet for the sake of profit? These are who you want to be your judges for free speech on online platforms? What if what you're seeing as noise/propaganda is just other people's opinions who outnumber you? You being outnumbered by different opinions is NOT noise/propaganda, but a natural function of democracy. You can either deal with it and accept you're the minority opinion, or you can keep being ignorant about it and call it propaganda while the emperor obviously has no clothes. Your choice. Here's another hint: Trump won the elections despite the majority of the mainstream media being against him and pro Kamala (propaganda or not). He won because that's what the majority of people wanted.
ben_w 2y ago
> I don't see the failure in Twitter. It's a platform capable of influencing elections, that's definitely worth more than people think. In a functioning democracy, every platform influences elections. Twitter isn't special in this regard. > Advertisers want control They want things that don't actively damage their brands. That's not the same thing. > Why do you think You tube removed the downvote counter? My guess is "seeing downvotes lead to less engagement". But as I've not seen the discussion, that's a guess. > If crowds of people are allowed to freely light a brand on fire on Twitter, why would they pay to advertise there? They could do that before he bought it. > Meta paid like 22 Billion for WhatsApp which is hardly bringing in revenue. The actual revenue is not published, but is claimed to be at least $1 billion/year based on the preceeding quarter: """Alice Newton-Rex, WhatsApp's vice president of product, told the Financial Times in late September 2024, that "paid messaging is a bit earlier in the journey, but it's also doing well, and we've passed a $1 billion run rate."""" - https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/040915/how-whatsapp-makes-money.asp https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/04091... That said, nobody's going around saying "gosh what a great investment decision by Zuckerberg, he nailed this one", if they're saying anything at all it's usually along the lines of "huh, is this a monopoly issue?"

adamredwoods 2y ago

Yes advertisers want control, wouldn't you? But it has nothing to do with "free speech". Try "good speech". Elon reduced the amount of subjective "good speech" and increased "bad speech". Advertisers have the freedom to do what they want. Elon, on the other hand, has absolute control of the words on his platform.

Cumpiler69 2y ago
>Yes advertisers want control, wouldn't you? If they would have control, people would stop going to Twitter and it would die. Similar fate to the TV mainstream media where they only parrot the opinions of their money overlords, and people are tired of that. That's why they go on to Twitter instead, to look for comments conforming to their own world views rather than what some trillion dollar corporations and out of touch celebrities tell them. Same thing that makes Joe Rogan popular. >Elon reduced the amount of subjective "good speech" and increased "bad speech". What is "good speech" and what is "bad speech" for you? Let me guess, "good speech" is the opinions you agree with and "bad speech" is the opinions you disagree with? Elon didn't reduce or increase anything. He just disable the "nanny" moderations, so now on Twitter you're seeing exactly what the people really think (probably what you consider "bad speech"), instead of what advertisers and the mainstream media would like them to think (probably what you consider "good speech"). That's why people come to Twitter, because it's one the few places left with relatively unmoderated free speech. It's what makes it valuable.
- adamredwoods 2y ago
  >> exactly what the people really think (probably what you consider "bad speech") That is a large, opinionated assumption you are making, but be aware we're not discussing "me" but rather advertisers. As for "me" I consider "bad speech" to be enabled by "unmoderated free speech", which Elon freely chose to allow on Twitter. So yes, he chose to increase it. "Free speech" is NOT synonymous with truth or facts. I will stay away from people and places that I consider to use "bad speech". Yes, it's subjective, and that's the point.
- ben_w 2y ago
  > What is "good speech" and what is "bad speech" for you? Let me guess, "good speech" is the opinions you agree with and "bad speech" is the opinions you disagree with? What happens if this pseudocode is run, targeting your account? while True: requests.post(api_url, json={"username": "@Cumpiler69", "message": "hello"}) Answer: you can't see any other content because you're jammed with someone else's absolute freedom to speak to you. Signal, noise. Signal keeps you engaged, noise doesn't. What counts as which depends on the person, but you can't function in an environment that allows anything. Thing is, the exact thing that makes social networks useful, that it's the edges not the nodes, means it is very easy to be jammed by actual humans and not just stupid scripts like the one above. Ironically, very simple things like I've just shown you, are also how propaganda works: jam people's perception by overloading them with The Message. And any attempt to be "absolutist" about free speech, if he really was (which he isn't really despite what he says), is just a power vacuum into which those that seek power can project their propaganda. There's no fancy good way out with this, for anyone, much as I'd like there to be. There's no "your side or my side" distinction here, nor would there be if the world were really so parochial as US politics.
  - Cumpiler69 2y ago
    And who gets to decide what is is noise/propaganda and what is not? You? Morally and ethically bankrupt mainstream media and advertisers like MSNBC, Amazon, Nike, Apple, Chevron, Nestle, Disney and WB who are gladly using slave labor, destroying the environment and people's lives on the other side of the planet for the sake of profit? These are who you want to be your judges for free speech on online platforms? What if what you're seeing as noise/propaganda is just other people's opinions who outnumber you? You being outnumbered by different opinions is NOT noise/propaganda, but a natural function of democracy. You can either deal with it and accept you're the minority opinion, or you can keep being ignorant about it and call it propaganda while the emperor obviously has no clothes. Your choice. Here's another hint: Trump won the elections despite the majority of the mainstream media being against him and pro Kamala (propaganda or not). He won because that's what the majority of people wanted.

ben_w 2y ago

> I don't see the failure in Twitter. It's a platform capable of influencing elections, that's definitely worth more than people think. In a functioning democracy, every platform influences elections. Twitter isn't special in this regard. > Advertisers want control They want things that don't actively damage their brands. That's not the same thing. > Why do you think You tube removed the downvote counter? My guess is "seeing downvotes lead to less engagement". But as I've not seen the discussion, that's a guess. > If crowds of people are allowed to freely light a brand on fire on Twitter, why would they pay to advertise there? They could do that before he bought it. > Meta paid like 22 Billion for WhatsApp which is hardly bringing in revenue. The actual revenue is not published, but is claimed to be at least $1 billion/year based on the preceeding quarter: """Alice Newton-Rex, WhatsApp's vice president of product, told the Financial Times in late September 2024, that "paid messaging is a bit earlier in the journey, but it's also doing well, and we've passed a $1 billion run rate."""" - https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/040915/how-whatsapp-makes-money.asp https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/04091... That said, nobody's going around saying "gosh what a great investment decision by Zuckerberg, he nailed this one", if they're saying anything at all it's usually along the lines of "huh, is this a monopoly issue?"