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

Status
Not open for further replies.
jeffk said:
The EU commissioner is elected by MEPs, A bit like how Rishi Sunak was chosen as our Prime Minister.
Click to expand...

It's not though because Rishi was also elected by the public in his own constituency, Monsior Breton was handed the job because he's one of the top elite boys in France. This is a guy with a live-in Chauffeur by the way.
 
Last edited:
Roar87 said:
It's not though because Rishi was also elected by the public in his own constituency, Monsior Breton was handed the job because he's one of the top elite boys in France. This is a guy with a live-in Chauffeur by the way.
Click to expand...

He was only chosen as MP. Conservative MPs chose him as Prime Minister with zero input from voters. His father-in-law gave him £300mil to start a hedge fund.

And if you hate unelected officials, you’re going to be mad when you find out about the UK’s head of state and entire second chamber.
 
jeffk said:
He was only chosen as MP. Conservative MPs chose him as Prime Minister with zero input from voters. His father-in-law gave him £300mil to start a hedge fund.

And if you hate unelected officials, you’re going to be mad when you find out about the UK’s head of state and entire second chamber.
Click to expand...
It only matters when it’s the EU because they are evil and want to take over the world!!!!
 
Sankari said:
This was so utterly predictable.
Click to expand...
When ‘verified’ no longer means verified what did he expect? Elon is said to be an intelligent person and this outcome was obvious to anyone with a brain so you have to assume he wanted xitter to become a festering pool of lies, misinformation and conspiracy theories? If this was the aim he has certainly succeeded chapeau Monsieur Musk.
 
a1ex2001 said:
When ‘verified’ no longer means verified what did he expect? Elon is said to be an intelligent person and this outcome was obvious to anyone with a brain so you have to assume he wanted xitter to become a festering pool of lies, misinformation and conspiracy theories? If this was the aim he has certainly succeeded chapeau Monsieur Musk.
Click to expand...

The moment he started bleating about the merits of 'citizen journalists', I knew it was all over.
 
Colonel_Klinck said:
Yes and they set rules and regulations that anyone who wants to trade inside it have to abide by. That includes Twitter just as it included Meta.
Click to expand...
Thats the biggest sweeping under a carpet since Jimmy Saville..

No where ever did any definition of Trade Bloc with an Economic Union extend to 1000th of the reach the EU have evolved to..

There is no good scenario on this planet when any government body dictates what is hateful/misinformation
Colonel_Klinck said:
Verified accounts responsible for 74% of misinformation regarding Israel-Hamas conflict.

www.rollingstone.com

Verified Accounts on Musk's X Spread 74 Percent of Israel-Hamas War Misinformation

Verified accounts on Elon Musk's X, formerly Twitter, promoted 74% of the platforms most viral, false claims related to the ongoing Israel-Hamas war.
www.rollingstone.com www.rollingstone.com
no paywall https://archive.ph/xKnVw
Click to expand...
It literally has no point.. and ends with:
Meta, TikTok, and YouTube have also been affected by the influx unchecked misinformation, with all four companies, including X, receiving warnings from the European Commission that the spread of misinformation, as well as violent and hateful content, may place them in violation of the EU’s Digital Services Act
Click to expand...

It could be that the verification system is so good it's removed the majority of misinformation from unverified bots, and now inevitably it's actual verified people left making false claims?
Or It could be as feared, that the verification system has done nothing to stem bots and literally has made it worse..
Or It could just be some stats that basically say there is false/misinformation being posted on social media.

Happy to be corrected, I've just read it quickly and the subsequent responses, which seem to be jumping to conclusions.. lets say verification was amazeballs and we had zero bots.. we'd then find 100% of misinformation was from actual verified people.. shock horror..

VincentHanna said:
Get ready for the: "But who decides what is misinformation?" rebuttal.
Click to expand...
I would, it's probably the absolute crux of all of this, can you explain the detail of how a body deciding what is and isn't hateful or misinformation can be trusted?

I like the transparency part of the regulations, I actually support that, I think getting the data and having access to certain parts is fine with me.. but stepping over the line to something so obviously abused for political gain/agenda is terribad.
 
Demon said:
I would, it's probably the absolute crux of all of this, can you explain the detail of how a body deciding what is and isn't hateful or misinformation can be trusted?
Click to expand...

Specifically relating to that story I was referring to:

Among 10 false narratives promoted by the verified accounts were the fabricated claims that Ukraine was providing weapons to Hamas and that an Israeli senior official had been captured by Hamas.
 
Demon said:
I would, it's probably the absolute crux of all of this, can you explain the detail of how a body deciding what is and isn't hateful or misinformation can be trusted?

I like the transparency part of the regulations, I actually support that, I think getting the data and having access to certain parts is fine with me.. but stepping over the line to something so obviously abused for political gain/agenda is terribad.
Click to expand...

This is the problem, its just like the libertarian argument.
"I think we should be able to decide all stuff. I am going to argue that means I want to decide what colour I can paint my front door." Ignoring the fact it means someone else can buy firearms and do all sorts of antisocial stuff.

The EU from my understanding are NOT defining or controlling what you state, but are saying (rightly IMO) that the companies that by scale have the risk of spreading lies so must have processes in place to investigate.

I mean its no secret that Russia used this approach for the last US election. I have seen a reporter telling someone that they liked a Russian post that was pretending to be a loyal chest thumping american, and they refused to accept they had been duped. Even with proof.
You simply cannot have that in a functioning democracy. So you have to find a sensible middle ground. If you say all lies are fine how the hell do you have a functioning country.

Imagine if some state actor put so much money into the UK via twitter, facebook etc that the Communist party of the UK started to look likely to win an election. Would you still be going, nope we should have no protection, IE you would be happy to accept the result.
When you know that without the lies (I prefer to call them what they are, misinformation is a way to try to make them sound different to what they are), there is no way the UK would elect that group.
 
Last edited:
If so called intelligent people treated posts on social media the same way as hearing stories from strangers in pubs, with a lot of incredulity it would be a more sensible expectation of such platforms.

And perhaps by not expecting X to be the bastion of only the truthful and those of their own political leanings they'd be less stressed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom