Elon Musk Buys Twitter

[vizual]

2 minutes ago, abundance said:

I guess you forgot about how Trump used Twitter to incite the Jan 6th insurrection. 

And what happened to Trump on Twitter?

[Gesundheit2]

Reminds me of Monopoly when the game is about to end, only that it won't in this case.

[caesar13]

@Roy I'm rarely active (almost never uses it) on Twitter. But why is that? Why is twitter not good?

[Hello from Russia]

The idea of Twitter is great, I think, however the limit of 250 symbols per message (or how many is it?) is really a bum

[ZzzleepingBear]

My impression of twitter, is that it's best use is to make short public announcements. So a great tool for commercial business for example.

Not a very good interaction platfrom though. Since likes and retweeting is the main incentive for any interaction exchange. It can be a very lazy way of self expression in that regard.

[thibault]

7 hours ago, Extreme Z7 said:

FUCKING IRONY.

 

Even funnier is the fact that no one seems to understand the original meaning of the artist which wasn't "Musk setting twitter free" but "Musk opening the door of the cage and twitter staying inside, shaking with fear".

[integral]

45 billion, he could of just taken the school system he built, spread it across the world and raise all of humanity up past the point of needing twitter censorship. 

Hes to orange to see this or he thought this plan was not viable. 

All we need is 1 billionaire to do something about the education system, wtf are they waiting for. 

Edited April 26, 2022 by integral

[Leo Gura]

Twitter isn't used by normal little folks, Twitter is mostly a platform for influencers, celeberities, and breaking news.

So while it's not a big userbase it's a userbase of all the most influential people. So it has great import in society even though most normies never use it.

[Thought Art]

Saw the news this morning

reminds me of the book “A Canticle for Leibowitz”

will share the metaphors I got from it later…

Basically the importance of being stewards for epistemology 

Edited April 26, 2022 by Thought Art

[Ulax]

18 hours ago, vizual said:

In the long run, nothing more segregates a society than censorship. In a climate of censorship the segregation is just kept under wraps - under the false guise of social harmony - and festers until it explodes into bloody violence.

Fairs dude. I think there is some truth to that.

I think we have different perspectives though. I think that there are a lot of parties that manipulate discourse to achieve public consensus that they like. Its like how Chomsky talks about the idea of manufactured consent. We believe we choose, but the very process of choosing is manipulated.

Also, this manipulation doesn't even require the relevant parties to be knowingly manipulative. Although, I think there are many that do.

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, integral said:

All we need is 1 billionaire to do something about the education system, wtf are they waiting for. 

This is so problematic because we cannot have one private overlord of the entire education system.

[Leo Gura]

What isn't understood by free speech absolutists is that to have truly robust free speech the public square must feel safe enough to most people such that they feel safe to express their ideas. When trolls and such are given free reign this actually reduces effective speech because the normal sane moderate people don't feel safe or good enough to express themselves. The public square cannot allow shitslingers or all the best people will leave.

This is the paradox of freedom. What people really want is not pure freedom but freedom that is useful, productive, and healthy. Effective freedom. And of course what you consider "useful" and "healthy" is relative. A neo-Nazi will feel his speech is useful and healthy. But what must happen is the neo-Nazi gets overpowered. It isn't fair from the neo-Nazi's POV. But it creates a better society.

[Thought Art]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

What isn't understood by free speech absolutists is that to have truly robust free speech the public square must feel safe enough to most people such that they feel safe to express their ideas. When trolls and such are given free reign this actually reduces free speech because the normal sane moderate people don't feel safe or good enough to express themselves. The public square cannot allow shitslingers or all the best people will leave.

This is the paradox of freedom. What people really want it not pure freedom but freedom that is useful, productive, and healthy. And of course what you consider "useful" and "healthy" is relative.

Can’t grow a nice garden if you don’t tend to it and prune the weeds

[Leo Gura]

1 minute ago, Thought Art said:

Can’t grow a nice garden if you don’t tend to it and prune the weeds

That sums it up beauitfully.

[bambi]

13 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

That sums it up beauitfully.

Hey just want to say not sure if its something you consciously worked on, but your communication recently has been so much more approachable and friendly, its good to see, definitely helps with the discourse quality on here

[TheAlchemist]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Twitter isn't used by normal little folks, Twitter is mostly a platform for influencers, celeberities, and breaking news.

So while it's not a big userbase it's a userbase of all the most influential people. So it has great import in society even though most normies never use it.

Very important point. Perhaps Elon is using this Twitter purchase as a way to get leverage and negotiating power among the most influential and powerful in society. This is just a small part of his larger strategy of achieving his ultimate goals, whatever they actually are.

 

[Leo Gura]

40 minutes ago, Roy said:

The issue with this is unchecked and ever-growing expansion of what is considered a "Nazi".

There is some problem with this, yes, but it's mostly coming from the extreme left. Those 10% of the far left. Obviously the extreme 10% of the far left should not be setting Twitter's moderation policy.

Quote

Nazi has just become a synonym for, "somebody I don't like or disagree with".

Then again, there plenty of actual Nazis, neo-Nazis, fascists, racists, and anti-semites on Twitter.

I don't consider Margery Tailor Green as Nazi, but she has spread anti-semitic conspiracy theories, like the "Jewish space lasers". So Twitter needs to moderate more than just pure Nazis but various lesser forms of anti-semitism.

Quote

Ben Shapiro gets called a Nazi and he's a fucking Jew !

1) Notice that Ben Shapiro isn't banned from Twitter.

2) Ben Shapiro is one of the top recievers of anti-semitism on Twitter. There have been actual studies done on this. He gets thousands of antisemitic trolls. Which is not good. Even though I hate Ben Shapiro's worldview, I would not ban him from Twitter and in fact I would protect him against antisemitic trolls. This is proper moderation.

Quote

Like the boy who cried wolf - You end up labelling countless people neo-Nazis and Fascists for so long, by the time the real ones show up nobody will care or notice.

But also if you don't label them they keep growing and eventually start to organize actual rallies to overthrow the government.

19 minutes ago, TheAlchemist said:

Very important point. Perhaps Elon is using this Twitter purchase as a way to get leverage and negotiating power among the most influential and powerful in society. This is just a small part of his larger strategy of achieving his ultimate goals, whatever they actually are.

I don't think Musk has some secret power-grab or money-making agenda. He's a pretty earnest guy. I take his motives at his word.

Musk doesn't need more money or more power. That's not what drives him. What drives him is whatever he thinks is the best good for mankind. Of course he could be wrong about what's actually good for mankind. And the bigger issue is that one man shouldn't get to have his ideas about what's best for mankind run the public square. The irony here is that even though Musk says that Twitter is an important public square, he's actually bought the public square for himself and taken it totally private. It's like Musk buying up all the national parks and setting the rules because he thinks he knows what's best. This is fundamentally not proper for a public square. A public square must be subject to democratic control.

[Display_Name]

21 hours ago, hoodrow trillson said:

Quoting Elon tweets ITT is super cringe.  Yikes 

Lol why? 

[Michael Jackson]

18 hours ago, Preety_India said:

Anyone who doesn't like Twitter is a shady person. No nuance. 

 

i hAte twitter.

[thibault]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

The irony here is that even though Musk says that Twitter is an important public square, he's actually bought the public square for himself and taken it totally private. It's like Musk buying up all the national parks and setting the rules because he thinks he knows what's best. This is fundamentally not proper for a public square. A public square must be subject to democratic control.

@Leo Gura

I think this sums up the issue perfectly. This is what everyone criticizing the move is worried about.

My dilemma is this. What if there are three levels to the issue :

- The park owners (Board of directors or Elon)

- The park rangers/wildlife experts/etc... (Influencers)

- The park visitors (Regular users who mostly consume tweets rather than create them)

Now let's say the park rangers decide that for the preservation of the wildlife and greater ecosystem, all national parks should be closed to the public. The park visitors however want to keep being able to visit the parks so the owners have to make a choice. Isn't the democratic choice to side with the visitors ? Curious to hear your thoughts !