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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Werewolf said:
Lol it's hard to believe that after all the posts in here explaining the issue with "verification" that you still don't grasp the really simple reason it was needed.

it was never for "the clout" it was to show that the User was who they said they were.

It was never done for the sake of the celeb, it was to protect Twitter as a company from claims that they'd allowed unchecked fraud and impersonation (the main criteria for getting one was basically were you worth impersonating).

And the kicker is that Twitter did it as the minimum they could do after they were taken to court by a sportsman who had been impersonated, so they had a defence in future cases.

That's the reason celebs etc are getting upset and angry, they know that they are going to be impersonated and it's going to cause confusion and result in issuers for them and the people that thought they were seeing their messages.


The utterly stupid idea that if they simply "pay for the check" it will be solved is a nonsense, as the blue check is now utterly worthless as any sort of trust indicator, it literally only means you've managed to submit a payment to Musk.
Click to expand...

I'll wait for Elon being sued then as you've prophetically pointed out, even though everyone was supposed to leave twitter 6 months ago when he bought it, and it was supposed to stop working when he fired all those engineers. And it's full of hate speech anyway, even though it isn't.
 
StriderX said:
Do people pay to speak in a public square?

Perhaps local governments should start charging people for using paths as well after all it's clearly justified by them having the freedom to walk on them.
Click to expand...

StriderX posting lunacy at it's finest.

Of course people pay for the use of both public squares and public footpaths, that's what taxes are for. To pay for maintaining the infrastructure and paying the wages of those who build and maintain them.

You have come across taxation I suppose....?
 
Last edited:
Chris Wilson said:
StriderX posting lunacy at it's finest.

Of course people pay for the use of both public squares and public footpaths, that's what taxes are for. To pay for maintaining the infrastructure and paying the wages of those who build and maintain them.

You have come across taxation I suppose....?
Click to expand...

Homeless people have freedom of speech in town squares - they can stand there saying whatever they want whilst not paying any taxes.
 
It’s mad that someone can defend a celebrity so relentlessly that they have to resort to calling their detractors small armed losers who live with their parents.

How emotionally invested do you have to be in defending someone to say something like that, all whilst claiming the other people are the ones seething.
 
Last edited:
Freedom was never free though, there are plenty of intelligent insidious people in the world who wouldn't think twice about keeping everyone else as slaves to their will. Then you have a lot of naive simpletons who don't realise how valuable a platform like twitter is in today's world. They'll clap for the NHS masked up while Matt Hancock is banging his secretary at work.
 
Chris Wilson said:
They can, but it's still being paid for by mugs like me for them to enjoy gratis. So are you suggesting that the wealthy subsidise the poors use of Twitter?
Click to expand...

It's a crap analogy that you are trying to flog like a dead horse.

The advertisers (private companys) paid Twitter (another private company) so that Twitters users could partake of the service for free. No taxation from Govts involved.
 
Freakbro said:
It's a **** analogy that you are trying to flog like a dead horse.

The advertisers (private companys) paid Twitter (another private company) so that Twitters users could partake of the service for free. No taxation from Govts involved.
Click to expand...

Well it looks like he has changed the terms and conditions of service, just like my bank, internet service provider, utility companies, blah blah, do all the time. I / you / they can then choose whether to accept the new terms and conditions or no longer use their services.
 
Hotwired said:
Lets now quote your quality observations.
Click to expand...

Ahh this is where the confusion is then. When you originally brought up the leak, i didn't know the finer details of it. I assumed you knew what the details where, considering you're the one that has been mentioning it so much, you should know the details of it.

Trusty said:
Lol...

It's literally the opposite, the leak was obviously a load of horse ****

Edit. Reading again what the 10k thing actually was, it was 10k most followed companies. So i'm not how your point is relevant, i was talking about individual accounts originally.
Click to expand...

And that's why you left out the other bit of my post. You cut it after 'horse****'

The reason you cut it is because you know very well you misunderstood the original leak. You didn't know there was two different policies for different accounts happening. You thought it was the largest accounts including celebrities. But since the ticks are disappearing from the celebrity accounts, you're trying to mix the whole thing together.
 
Roar87 said:
Liberal celebrities seething that just anyone can get a blue tick now, being no longer elevated as Royalty on twitter for free is deeply offensive. Hilarious. I mostly just log in to twitter to read but I might pay for it because I support the idea of a free speech platform.
Click to expand...
Musk calls himself a free speech absolutist, but didn't he remove a bunch of Tweets that were critical of him/Twitter, and doesn't he also automatically change some words/phrases, for the "lulz"?

I guess it has to be the right kind of free speech, the kind that doesn't upset him, personally.
 
FoxEye said:
Musk calls himself a free speech absolutist, but didn't he remove a bunch of Tweets that were critical of him/Twitter, and doesn't he also automatically change some words/phrases, for the "lulz"?

I guess it has to be the right kind of free speech, the kind that doesn't upset him, personally.
Click to expand...

And this is the crux of it. Musk is a free speech absolutist he says, but does that work when you're operating an important global platform?
I think you can be both. A free speech absolutist from a philosophical standpoint and in general, with face to face convo, and that the government doesn't have the right to arrest you for example racist language. But you can also be a non-absolutist from a practical sense when running Twitter.
 
Last edited:
Trusty said:
And this is the crux of it. Musk is a free speech absolutist he says, but does that work when you're operating an important global platform?
I think you can be both. A free speech absolutist from a philosophical standpoint and in general, with face to face convo, and that the government doesn't have the right to arrest you for example racist language. But you can also be a non-absolutist from a practical sense when running Twitter.
Click to expand...

Or you could make Twitter a free speech absolutist platform, like Gab.
 
Last edited:
Roar87 said:
I'll wait for Elon being sued then as you've prophetically pointed out, even though everyone was supposed to leave twitter 6 months ago when he bought it, and it was supposed to stop working when he fired all those engineers. And it's full of hate speech anyway, even though it isn't.
Click to expand...
I'm not being a prophet, I'm pointing out exactly why they had the blue ticks in the first place.

It's not exactly rocket science to consider that if a company had to do something in the past to prevent legal action from going ahead, then when they're probably going to end up doing it again after stopping, and that if it reaches court again there are going to be awkward questions about why when the company took action previously (proving they knew of the issue) they've stopped doing that preventative action now.

The only difference between 2009 when Twitter was effectively forced to bring in the blue check to reduce it's legal liabilities and now is that Twitter has changed ownership and the legal liabilities have increased with the increased number of high profile users (many of whom only joined when the verification was put in place).


[edit]
Thinking about it for a minute it occurred to me that legally one thing has changed since 2009, social media is no longer "new" with the excuse in front of the court that the owners are learning how to do things and facing new challenges. Which means that if anything the basic protections a large, established social media platform is expected to provide is now much higher, back in 09 most of them were finding their feet, so that's if anything worse for Musk as any lawyer bringing a case can point to the fact that twitter is not new.


[edit 2 rather than post an entirely new message]
Apparently it turns out if you apply for a verified organisation status with Twitter for $1000, Twitter gets to keep the money even if they refuse your application under their T&C.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom