Elon Musk Twitter Trainwreck Mega-Thread

[thisintegrated]

5 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

   Also, fuck Joe Rogan and Lex Fridman for platforming Elon Musk, they are sellouts of the alternative media space of the highest order. So disappointing.

I think that's your Fi talking.  It's very clear they're all genuine/authentic people, who believe what they say.

 

38 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Changing a media platform is very dangerous. He could lose half his investment in a month.

He can keep the tweet tab identical, and test any changes on a small number of random users.  This is what every company does.

[thisintegrated]

7 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

@thisintegrated

   He's way more suited for SpaceX and Tesla products and services. Maybe it's the weed that's making him more unhinged I don't know, this thread is getting derailed to the ninth degree, sorry Leo. ?

He's never even smoked weed.  He could use some.  He just tasted a bit on JRE once.

Even though he's best suited for STEM business, a STEM person, like him, is still the best choice for Twitter as STEM people are, in general, the most impartial, rational, unemotional, and scientific in their approach to everything.  Science/engineering/etc. necessitate impartiality.

Edited November 7, 2022 by thisintegrated

[Hatfort]

So people complained there was no freedom of speech, Elon said he would change things, but he has actually said that the moderation policies remain the same, as he was fearing advertisers would leave. So if nothing has changed, what about freedom of speech? Why do freedom of speech defenders still defend him? You can't have it both ways. Slurs and misinformation were not allowed and they aren't allowed now either, am I wrong? So if nothing has changed, he is still censoring users and content.

Comedy is now allowed, he said. Impersonating for comedy purposes is allowed, but you gotta write the word 'parody' clearly. But he already kicked a guy who did that. Others had their previous username in the @ so it wasn't a real impersonation. Okay, if you go strictly by the rules there's a point, but for a radical freedom of speech defender, it doesn't stick. They were mocking him, he didn't like it, and he kicked them out. By the way, permanently, something he said previously was not acceptable.

He says the blue mark will provide two things, not necessarily verification, but let's go to the two things.

1. Half of the ads. First of all, if you pay you shouldn't have ads at all, but half can be a little or a lot depending on how many ads people that don't pay have. This leads us to the people that don't pay, who are going to continue being a lot. Twitter needs them too, and they are not going to like to be flooded with publicity. They are going to compare how were things before and after him, simple as that.

2. Your tweets will have more visibility. Cool, that's cool, if you pay, there's your reward. But making some tweets more visible can only happen with others being less visible in expense, there's no one without the other. So as others have said, people that don't pay are going to be shadowbanned in essence. They are not going to like it and that's also not aligned with freedom of speech for everyone.

To be honest, it seems he needs to make money desperately. To the daily losses it had before, now it has another 44 billion hole he needs to fill. I won't pay a cent. I'll probably leave soon, but I gotta admit right now I'm interested in seeing how this develops plus the elections.

He is not being neutral, he is clearly confronting left-leaning people and politicians and has endorsed the Republican option for this election. Of course, as an individual, he can do whatever he wants, I understand that as a millionaire right-wing policies are more beneficial for him. But he is the visible head of this massive communication platform now, he is using it to spread his own political ideas, I think that's problematic. Maybe not for him, but for users and advertisers. Sooner than later, progressive people will leave, both small users and famous users, and advertisers are not going to be happy about that. Another platform may come up, I know that Trump did this, and didn't work, but I think progressive people don't care if conservatives are with them as much as the opposite.

What if the executives he has fired build another platform that works almost as Twitter worked before Elon bought it for 44 billion? He must fear this possibility a lot. Trible right now sucks, by the way, so that won't make it.

[Danioover9000]

@thisintegrated

27 minutes ago, thisintegrated said:

He's never even smoked weed.  He could use some.  He just tasted a bit on JRE once.

Even though he's best suited for STEM business, a STEM person, like him, is still the best choice for Twitter as STEM people are, in general, the most impartial, rational, unemotional, and scientific in their approach to everything.  Science/engineering/etc. necessitate impartiality.

   Yes, but even STEM leaning people are likely to still be biased and easier to coopt and manipulate. They are not truly impartial, and are the smart versions of the dunning Kruger effect.

[Leo Gura]

6 hours ago, thisintegrated said:

Well he did say he's forming an impartial group of judges.

I agree he's unreliable, but I'd struggle coming up with a powerful person who's better than him.  He's literally your personality type.  He values not power or money, but progress.  You can't even bribe the man!  Even Putin with his 200B couldn't buy out Elon.  Elon just spent 44B he may or may not ever get back.  That's how incorruptible he is.

No.

He doesn't care about racism. He doesn't care about sexual assault. He doesn't care about conspiracy theories that serve him. He doesn't understand the fundamentals of what freedom is. He doesn't understand unions. And he is very immature for a 50 year old.

He is extremely biased. More biased than anyone who ran Twitter before.

He would work to get Trump reelected. And if he lived in Nazi Germany he would endorde Hitler because it would be great for his businesses. The problem isn't that he is right-wing, the problem is that he is a techno-capitalist narcicist who's in way over his head on social issues.

The best thing that hopefully comes of this disaster is that left and right both realize that a billionaire's ownership over a mass media platform should simply be made illegal. It is like allowing a "benevolent" monarch to rule at his whim.

You think it's good for your side, until you realize this manchild doesn't give a fuck about you or your agenda, left or right. He cares about himself.

Edited November 8, 2022 by Leo Gura

[thisintegrated]

59 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

He is extremely biased. More biased than anyone who ran Twitter before.

Career "business managers" aren't exactly enlightened, in any sense.  Pure Orange greed is what drives them.

Elon at least has a decent amount of Yellow.

 

59 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

He doesn't care about racism

Is that really a problem in America?  I've never actually seen racism irl, it's just an internet thing.  Most "anti-racism movements" are memes.

 

59 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

He doesn't care about conspiracy theories that serve him

Well that's potentially true.

 

59 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

He doesn't understand the fundamentals of what freedom is. He doesn't understand unions.

Who do we compare him to?  Bezos?  Zuckerberg?  He's a bit of a dumbass, but he's not evil like most other influential people.

 

59 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

he is very immature for a 50 year old

He's 50?????

 

58 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

He would work to get Trump reelected. And if he lived in Nazi Germany he would endorde Hitler because it would be great for his businesses. The problem isn't that he is right-wing, the problem is that he is a techno-capitalist narcicist who's in way over his head on social issues.

Yeah that's true.

 

58 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

The best thing that hopefully comes of this disaster is that left and right both realize that a billionaire's ownership over a mass media platform should simply be made illegal. It is like allowing a "benevolent" monarch to rule at his whim.

That would be seen as "unamerican" and won't happen.  The national identity itself would have to die/evolve before people learn.

 

58 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

You think it's good for your side, until you realize this manchild doesn't give a fuck about you or your agenda, left or right. He cares about himself.

I'm not so sure about that.  He genuinely wants what's best for humanity.  He could've retired a long time ago, yet he still sometimes sleeps at his factories cause he believes his work is valuable.

 

Edited November 8, 2022 by thisintegrated

[Phil777]

@mr_engineer I just read through your three initial posts and I have to say: bravo! beautifully layed out. I agree with nearly everything you said. Although I disapprove of Musk having too much power, I strongly approve of a more free speech environment especially when it comes to more controversial topics and "conspiracy theories" - such a convenient thought terminating little phrase that is.

In Germany we have the "öffentlich rechtliche Medien" which is essentially tax funded media. And due to fairly wide freedom of press and high quality journalism in these outlets, I have seen mainstream documentaries showing the dangers of the jab. One girl went completely retarded to a serious degree where she now spasm all day and is wheelchair bound after the jab. She got ostracised by her peers and most doctors just brushed it off as an impossibility - cause of the narrative that is artificially pushed through moderation based on dogma and social cohesion efforts. Only because the mother kept on pressing did they find out that it was indeed because of the jab. 

In progressive news circles in the US this would be considered a public health threat and would probably be removed from social media platforms. Yes, things are gonna get a lot more wild from here on out but my hope is that stories like these will be a lot more widespread. They should leave the context function to controversial posts though. I think that is genius as it allows for a more multiperspectival understanding leading to less radical fear mongering perspectives while still allowing for the kernel of truth to cut through that would have been lost in a simple ban or cancellation.

[Phil777]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

He doesn't care about racism. He doesn't care about sexual assault. He doesn't care about conspiracy theories that serve him. He doesn't understand the fundamentals of what freedom is. He doesn't understand unions. And he is very immature for a 50 year old.

@Leo Gura

I have to agree with this but I see that as his shadow side. I don't think that's his core. I predict he will leave most dissenting political opinions online as long as they don't directly attack his fragile little ego. 

The benefit will be more leeway when it comes to less mainstream and fringe perspectives that are often prematurely suppressed. Refer to the post above for an example of what I mean.

I think we need to be able to openly talk about the risks of conspiracies, real conspiracies and major corruption deep within the heart of western civilisation. And him ngaf about the status quo of political correctness will enable these facts to come into the light (I hope naively lmao).

Also Leo, I know you are very critical of conspiracy theories, so let me ask you this: what the fuck happened with Operation Northwoods? Google it, it's public knowledge due to the freedom of information act. I am not endorsing any particular conspiracy or non-mainstream narrative. I am just curious what makes conspiracies so obviously false from your perspective. You seem to always be ready to silence them with a ban hammer before any serious exploration or discussion took place. Some are luny and probably deserve it but some are more nuanced.

Many think the idea that 9/11 was potentially an inside job is complete bonkers... Again look up Operation Northwoods.

We need more free speech, even if it costs us a bit of societal stability. Our systems are doomed to fail if they run like they do right now and either we have a soft revolution that's still uncomfortable or we will run into a collapse. That's my honest prediction. Just my opinion, lay away the ban hammer, not needed my guy, just. my. opinion lmao.

The collective unconscious keeps us connected anyways. No amount of banning is gonna make the filth, distortion and corruption of humanity go away. It will fester and come back more grotesque. We need open dialogue.

Edited November 8, 2022 by Phil777

[ZenSwift]

*pops a piece of popcorn into my invisible mouth*

[DreamScape]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

He doesn't care about racism.

Racism is an attack to a culture based on how your culture is. this is completely ok because some cultures can be deemed offensive and immoral to one's own. It's NOT okay in today's world, because there is a specific minority group who doesn't like being treated that way, who even are racist themselves! If you stand for something, you embody it completely, not hide behind a lie. 

to attack someone based on race alone, thus attack someone based soley on racism is the most disingenuous and dirty thing you can do to someone when you care about the arguments at stake. if you only care about annihilating a position, then sure. 

 

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

He doesn't care about sexual assault

The bigger question: what is sexuality?

If you think it's something and you reject certain parts of it, you may have a preference, but this undermines everybody elses preferences, and this can be easily seen with various people doing crazy things, and people watching it online who actively enjoy it. a good question to ask: how many people would do something, or try it out if it was made okay?

sexuality is a movement of energy between two polar opposites, who unite within the movement. rape is not ok to be clear, but seeking for dominance, authority (which is built out of lots of development and knowledge, thus is why they have that position) is what masculine people do. in which in sexuality men are looking for the polar opposite: surrender to that authority, respect. also, women naturally operate within this standpoint because they have to ask themselves, and is a serious thought for them of who is good enough to be able to have that authority! They have to ask this because women hold the power to carry the babies, if shit hits the fan, or if we follow natural biology, the man would not end up with the responsibility of the baby because it takes too long to develop, there is no waiting around for life without a safety net. Do men *function best* in homes? or within combat, the Aquisition of more (can be territory, knowledge, there's a bias here)? Safety nets are why women have requirements for men. they like play fights because they test this authority, a man who avoids fight is a man not capable of raising a child, or giving prosperity to a country and families. a woman is NOT naturally combative, her true nature lies within surrender of power, this happens via a man, via kids. this is why we protect women. her mind is vulnerable, because her heart is seeking to be opened by guiding principles and positions of power, simply understanding this you can understand why this mindset is inherently dangerous. 

sexuality is just taking these energies, and dancing within them in a sexy manner. as a relationship progresses and natures natural challenge is completed, the relationship grows to become more rooted in family and raising the youth, inspiring more growth and wisdom to sprout for the mother and father. for men, this is wisdom of time, history, change, and letting go of the physical as death soon arises. for women, when she has kids, she steps into her true feminine nature as a mother and love giver, as she ages, it's love for her whole family and community. 

And what makes a person well developed and put together? This is simply rooted in your sexuality, which is only limited to masculine/feminine.

 

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

He doesn't care about conspiracy theories that serve him.

Why would we close off from certain ideologies and thought tunnels when we're in the quest for truth? If we close off from a question, it should be well thought of, developed, then explained why it shouldn't be followed (guiding principles) so the need to ask that questions simply fades away. there is no fight here. anything reasonable to be thrown out and not thought of this way will be discarded naturally by it's own investigation from humans natural desire to inquire and figure things out. censoring is a tactic of the devil because the devil hides in the shadows and ignorance to purport it's own delusion about what it deems to be true, even when to find truth all questions must be asked and answered. 

 

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

No.

He doesn't care about racism. He doesn't care about sexual assault. He doesn't care about conspiracy theories that serve him.

Such an easy way to shut down an argument. freedom of speech is the wanting for Aquisition of truth and the highest forms of human possibility, this is why we put it in government and why humans should have the say to do so within government, within social media that fuels culture and governance, and within their own lives. 

 

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

The best thing that hopefully comes of this disaster is that left and right both realize that a billionaire's ownership over a mass media platform should simply be made illegal.

People in positions of power are there simply because they have something most people don't. If the latter isn't true, it'll naturally break down by the people who give them that power, and that person won't be valued. You're putting him in a box of a billionaire, which immediately means it's not true to who he is as an individual, and this is evident because he isn't following what most billionaires are doing: putting his reputation and success on the line.

Saying something is not important, in fact, everything about importance isn't important, isn't an argument, because you're giving importance to the ideology that importance isn't important.  There's simply too many information and ideas out there, and people naturally cling, you're going to have to fight for what is right for what is right for all humans, which is always gonna be the best ideas. You have to fight for importance to be heard, or it'll die off. This is a fight for it's survival, since rememberence is a function of survival. A light shines the brightest when there are other lights shining with the light, so for something to live and exist, we have to live for it to exist beside us, or keep it's light alive through remembering it's existence. 

@Leo Gura

Edited November 8, 2022 by DreamScape

[mr_engineer]

@Leo Gura Why do you think that people are cheering him on, in that case? Are they all morons? 

Just to be clear, I'm not one of them. I don't buy his BS either. 

[mr_engineer]

The way I see this, low-consciousness advertisers were very happy that echo-chambers existed on the internet, prior to free-speech being a talking-point. But now, with free-speech, they're not happy that they can't target audiences in certain rabbit-holes cuz they don't exist anymore. 

This does open the door to higher-consciousness advertisers who can think holistically, who can actually talk to the people and not just milk them. Especially when people start valuing free-speech. And, so much moderation won't be needed either, cuz you need more moderation to moderate separate echo-chambers than to moderate one united town-square. 

And, one final point - there is a lot more good than evil in this world. If you set the standard for 'hate-speech' where it actually belongs, objectively speaking, not really caring about the low-consciousness advertisers and Karens, people will like it better overall!! And there definitely will be better advertisers itching to come to a free-speech platform. Advertisers who had previously been blocked out by Karen-media Twitter. 

Edited November 8, 2022 by mr_engineer

[StarStruck]

Elon is autistic so he doesn’t understand people’s emotions so well but he makes that shit up with his intelligence. I’m sure he will figure this out. 

Amazing how people demonize him. He has done more for mankind and the environment than anybody on this planet. He deserves some slack. 

Edited November 8, 2022 by StarStruck

[DreamScape]

@StarStruck @mr_engineer  if free speech existed, people wouldn't shit post because it would be deemed not important and often ignored, as it's not 'edgy' anymore

read my post above.

14 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

But now, with free-speech, they're not happy that they can't target audiences in certain rabbit-holes cuz they don't exist anymore. 

it's a power game

14 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

If you set the standard for 'hate-speech' where it actually belongs, objectively speaking, not really caring about the low-consciousness advertisers and Karens, people will like it better overall!!

definitions need clear cut divisions defining what it is, laws and governance needs principles to run by with strict boundaries to what those boundaries are and mean, with the governance and principles having the ability to be changed as deemed necessary by the people. Imagine if hate speech became a crime. almost everything would be a crime.

16 minutes ago, StarStruck said:

Amazing how people demonize him

free speech hurts. but we need the power to think, feel and make changes with our voice.

[Leo Gura]

32 minutes ago, mr_engineer said:

@Leo Gura Why do you think that people are cheering him on, in that case? Are they all morons? 

Just to be clear, I'm not one of them. I don't buy his BS either. 

Mostly I see free speech warriors, libertarians, and right-wingers cheering him on because they believe he's gonna "own the libs" on their behalf.

Right-wingers are pretty simple-minded people. Just manipulate them under the guise of "own the libs", and you can get away with some really stupid and wrong things. Trump has mastered this tactic and Musk seems to be catching on to it too.

Right-wingers honesty believe that Tech companies are biased against them, when really Tech companies are just biased towards human decency and factuality. But right-wingers perceive this is as some kind of globalist agenda to silence them. Because when you're a bigot, being silenced feels like reverse-bigotry. That's how the mind works. It's not enough for the mind to be ignorant, it has to be aggressively ignorant in order too fool itself.

Our culture has an extremely poor understanding of what freedom is. As I have explained in my videos about libertarianism. And I believe Musk suffers from this libertarian mind-herpes, which many rich people suffer from, because when you're rich liberterianism is the perfect philosophy. It's perfectly self-serving to those in power.

Musk did not free Twitter. Musk locked Twitter in his own private cage.

Edited November 8, 2022 by Leo Gura

[mr_engineer]

6 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Mostly I see free speech warriors, libertarians, and right-wingers cheering him on because they believe he's gonna "own the libs" on their behalf.

Right-wingers are pretty simple-minded people. Just manipulate them under the guise of "own the libs", and you can get away with some really stupid and wrong things. Trump has mastered this tactic and Musk seems to be catching on to it too.

Right-wingers honesty believe that Tech companies are biased against them, when really Tech companies are just biased towards human decency and factuality. But right-wingers perceive this is as some kind of globalist agenda to silence them. Because when you're a bigot, being silenced feels like reverse-bigotry. That's how the mind works. It's not enough for the mind to be ignorant, it has to be aggressively ignorant in order too fool itself.

Consider the possibility that right-wingers are human beings living in a democracy and they may have genuine concerns with the agendas that are being repressed. And I didn't see enough nuance being used in doing so up until this point. 

I'm not saying Elon will do something about it or do anything good. But, at least, he's acknowledging the issue. Social-media censorship isn't this closely guarded secret anymore. 

8 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Our culture has an extremely poor understanding of what freedom is. As I have explained in my videos about libertarianism. And I believe Musk suffers from this libertarian mind-herpes, which many rich people suffer from, because when you're rich liberterianism is the perfect philosophy. It's perfectly self-serving to those in power.

Musk did not free Twitter. Musk locked Twitter in his own private cage.

So, are you saying that if you're not rich, you shouldn't have the right to be heard? Most people aren't rich, but they do have some financial self-respect. Everyone isn't a commie who wants big daddy government to do everything for them. 

[mr_engineer]

Silencing the Canadian truckers, the Dutch farmers and protests in Europe is absolutely criminal by the mainstream-media and social-media. If you don't see social-media censorship as an issue at this point, you're kidding yourself. 

The way I see this, Twitter just had to save face by selling out to Elon at this point, after hurting people this badly. By propagating the mainstream commie narrative and hurting common people's livelihoods. You don't get away doing shit like this. 

Edited November 8, 2022 by mr_engineer

[mr_engineer]

And, one final point about the 'left vs right' thing - people on the Left think that they're so much better, so much more virtuous than the right, that they deserve the right to censor the Right. All of it is 'far-right extremism'. 

If you're going to censor everyone who disagrees with you, what is the difference between you and the 'fascist right-wingers' you claim to be against? In terms of action, not just ideology. Sure, your ideologies may differ, yours may be higher-consciousness than theirs. But, if you resort to censorship like this, not only do they see you as the fascists - you make resolution with them very hard. Most people don't 'learn' your ideology when you beat them over the head with a stick. 

[mr_engineer]

10 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

If moderation wasn't necessary then I wouldn't be on this forum every day policing people. As if I don't have better things to do with my time. And we don't even have advertisers here, I just do it to have a healthy forum. And our Mods too.

You have a small forum. So, you have the right to make it a left-wing forum. 

But, if you become so big that you start lobbying the governments for changes you want and stuff, your audience will want you to have the responsibilities of a politician too! And to democratize your forum more. 

This point about 'Free speech doesn't apply to private companies' will become less and less tenable, as you get bigger and bigger. Cuz your power will be more than governments at that point. 

[Leo Gura]

8 hours ago, mr_engineer said:

You have a small forum. So, you have the right to make it a left-wing forum. 

But, if you become so big that you start lobbying the governments for changes you want and stuff, your audience will want you to have the responsibilities of a politician too! And to democratize your forum more. 

This point about 'Free speech doesn't apply to private companies' will become less and less tenable, as you get bigger and bigger. Cuz your power will be more than governments at that point. 

The difference is, I don't allow hate speech here. Just like any other decently moderated and responsible social media platform.

You cannot go on YT and start calling people N*ggers. This is not free speech or "left-wing". This is basic human decency.

I am happy to allow right-wing opinions here, as long as they are well argued. Unfortunately most of right-wing ideology is just dogma. But someone like Jordan Peterson is a good example of the kind of right-winger I can respect and allow.

Edited November 8, 2022 by Leo Gura