The ongoing Elon Twitter saga: "insert demographic" melts down

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sankari said:
Oh dear. Daniel Radcliffe changed his Twitter handle to 'Weird Al' to promote the film biography he's starring in, and...

rjr6tz.png


x01p8a.png


:p
Click to expand...

Daniel Radcliffe didn't use Twitter or have an active account.

Thats Weird Al being funny.
 
Jono8 said:
The whole "but muh free speech" argument surrounding private social media platforms that make money almost solely from advertising is so bizarre.
Click to expand...

Society does need to sit down and have a proper think about how free speech can be managed and maintained in the internet era. Most "public" spaces that exist now are, in fact, privately controlled and thus beyond the reach of traditional measures. Unfortunately, right now, nearly everyone talking about "free speech" are bad faith actors trying to put some strand of bigotry or another.
 
Mr Jack said:
Society does need to sit down and have a proper think about how free speech can be managed and maintained in the internet era. Most "public" spaces that exist now are, in fact, privately controlled and thus beyond the reach of traditional measures. Unfortunately, right now, nearly everyone talking about "free speech" are bad faith actors trying to put some strand of bigotry or another.
Click to expand...

Nobody wants to take responsibility of what can be said and what can't. I think it's why it's taken so long for companies to impliment this sort of thing. It's up to the platform what they manage. If they manage it wrong potentially they could lose a lot of customers.

There's a lot more people coming away from social media now that's for sure.
 
Last edited:
I'm Elon Musk ...
lot's of name changers waiting to be thrown off and take the moral high ground, he should call their bluff, they need their twitter drug, more than he needs them.
 
unwashed potato! said:
You fell right into that trap.
Click to expand...

What trap? You made an incoherent argument that made no sense, I pointed out why it made no sense:
dowie said:
You really are being a bit naive, I'm referring to the fact that he said it.

Elon: "Do X if Y"

Colonel Kink: "Elon said do X"

Dowie: "actually he said do X if Y, you missed some context there"

.........

sidekick potato guy "dowie believes stuff is true because Elon says so"

Can you not understand that I'm simply pointing out the context of what was said? Whether or not you believe Elon to be sincere or not is irrelevant to that.
Click to expand...

The flaw is you acted as though my argument was that what Elon said must be true when all I did was highlight the context. I don't understand how you managed to get that wrong but you did and your resulting argument made no sense, ergo I've pointed out the error.

For whatever reason, you've then done a forum search and decided to quote posts from a bunch of other threads where I've called out bad arguments, almost like you've got a bit of a chip on your shoulder.
 
Last edited:
This just keeps getting more amusing. I think Elon might wreck Twitter beyond repair and lose all his investor’s money, but it’s going to look lovely as it burns to the ground.
 
Terminal_Boy said:
This just keeps getting more amusing. I think Elon might wreck Twitter beyond repair and lose all his investor’s money, but it’s going to look lovely as it burns to the ground.
Click to expand...

and then he can buy the other social media platforms and wreck them for all I care.

I have given Elon a new name.... Wreck IT Elon. :cry:
 
Last edited:
Terminal_Boy said:
This just keeps getting more amusing. I think Elon might wreck Twitter beyond repair and lose all his investor’s money, but it’s going to look lovely as it burns to the ground.
Click to expand...

He's certainly taking on risk, though that was apparent before the deal was completed (especially given the price), the hit from lost advertising revenue is a risk too, especially given the involvement of activist groups. But I do think there is going to be plenty of hype at the moment, reading some of the coverage you'd think Donald Trump himself had taken over!

There are plenty of attempts at gotchas too (even though these seem unnecessary, just reporting the truth is interesting enough) - accounts getting suspended for breaking existing rules "so much for free speech", people rushing to believe the latest hyped-up instance of that etc. Elon commented that Twitter should be politically neutral (clearly in ref to policy/moderation) then making a comment suggesting that independents should vote republican because the president is a democrat is put forth as contradictory? He's not the King - he can voice his own views publicly, trying to make the platform politically neutral doesn't mean those who work for it can't voice opinions. Ironically he's an independent who says he's always voted democrat until now, but just advising other independents to vote republican this time was enough for some frothing from the perpetually angry.

The new updated twitter blue service will be interesting, he's taking a risk again with ad revenue by halving the ads but as another poster pointed out earlier, just the presence of lots of twitter blue users (IF widely adopted) would probably improve the ecosystem - for a start their tweets gain more visibility while the spammers, trolls etc.. have even less. (Obvious spammers are already downranked in replies etc.. or have their tweets hidden/limited).

It's certainly going to be interesting to see how it works out, the product changes such as increasing validation so it covers anyone who wants it + the features that go with that so far seem good though that in itself doesn't mean the business will do well.
 
dowie said:
Elon commented that Twitter should be politically neutral (clearly in ref to policy/moderation) then making a comment suggesting that independents should vote republican because the president is a democrat is put forth as contradictory? He's not the King - he can voice his own views publicly, trying to make the platform politically neutral doesn't mean those who work for it can't voice opinions.
Click to expand...
:cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry:
 
Mr Jack said:
Society does need to sit down and have a proper think about how free speech can be managed and maintained in the internet era. Most "public" spaces that exist now are, in fact, privately controlled and thus beyond the reach of traditional measures. Unfortunately, right now, nearly everyone talking about "free speech" are bad faith actors trying to put some strand of bigotry or another.
Click to expand...
There are bigots around no doubt and those need weeding out, but you have highlighted one of the bigger problems with the far left at the moment, the assertion that everyone talking about free speech are bad faith actors.

From a centrists perspective, the vast majority of bigots are the very progressives themselves.. They are ones who insist on putting everyone in to identity based groups and treating people differently according to those groups and with their inability to want to discuss it because they have this warped and twisted view that anyone that doesn't 100% subscribe to 'their' orthodoxy should be treated like a Nazi, then we are going to be in this pickle for a while longer.

[edit] This isn't aimed specifically at yourself btw, I do listen to a few more progressive podcasts, or specifically those a bit more centrist and it's a common obervation that has been made about the inability to listen and to manifest the violence and bigotry (in a different way) to a level that is equal or worse than the group they think they are fighting against.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom