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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Roar87 said:

x.com

twitter.com twitter.com

You guys like data right? We'll keep pretending the advertisers just don't like anti-semitism
Click to expand...
We love data yes.

What you have posted is a man on twitter claiming that Generation Lab carried out this survey, but I cannot find the survey in its own right.

He also conflaits 'Anti-Israel' with 'anti-semitic'

Are they definitely the same thing in this context?

I don't think being against Israel bombing civilians is antisemitic for example.
 
maschio said:
Is Tucker in the room with you now? Is he whispering frightening truths into your ears so much that you dare not take your hands from your head for fear of hearing them lol. What an absolute horror of a person you must be for any misfortunates that have to deal with you irl :D:D:D
Click to expand...
We laugh at tucker. You feel the need to laugh at colonel... Because he laughs at tucker.

And you then need ti personally insult him (because he laughed at tucker) and say colonel is an absolute horror of a person, again because he laughed at tucker.

Impressive.

I'd rather just laugh more at tucker and Elon but if you need to say colonel is an absolute horror of a person for this then you do you, on your own.
 
Last edited:
unwashed potato! said:
We laugh at tucker. You feel the need to laugh at colonel... Because he laughs at tucker.

And you then need ti personally insult him (because he laughed at tucker) and say colonel is an absolute horror of a person, again because he laughed at tucker.

Impressive.

I'd rather just laugh more at tucker and Elon but if you need to say colonel is an absolute horror of a person for this then you do you, on your own.
Click to expand...
The collective "we":cry:
 
unwashed potato! said:
We laugh at tucker. You feel the need to laugh at colonel... Because he laughs at tucker.

And you then need ti personally insult him (because he laughed at tucker) and say colonel is an absolute horror of a person, again because he laughed at tucker.

Impressive.

I'd rather just laugh more at tucker and Elon but if you need to say colonel is an absolute horror of a person for this then you do you, on your own.
Click to expand...

Is "the Colonel" in the room with you now? Give him a nudge with your you know what:D You know your Christmas cracker wake him up, tell him how much you admire him or simp whatever it is :D:D:D
I'm sure "the colonel" will be along in the morning to put it all right and tell you that you have been a good boy:D
 
Last edited:
Colonel_Klinck said:
I think it was that way and the reason they sacked Sam Altman was because they felt he was rushing and lacking ethics with his work. Now Microsoft seem to pretty much calling the shots. I hope that isn't the case as we need AI not to be in the hands of the capitalist world or they will only be looking at what is good for them and not humanity and I include Elon in that, I would not trust him with AI either.
Click to expand...

It is impossible for Microsoft to call the shots unless they want to change how the company is structured. Microsoft can influence the part they own but the important bit has no outside influence by anyone including and specifically Microsoft by design.
 
Roar87 said:
Yes because all other platforms are bought and paid for by advertisers. How don't you get that?
Click to expand...
So I'm guessing you agree that who bought and paid for something effects the levels of trust and honesty?

If so how don't you get that the more people/organisations who buy and pay for something typically results in higher levels of trust and honesty VS a single person. I mean essentially what you're saying is that a dictatorship, where one person is king, is more trustworthy and honest than a democracy where everyone gets a voice.
 
Murphy said:
So I'm guessing you agree that who bought and paid for something effects the levels of trust and honesty?

If so how don't you get that the more people/organisations who buy and pay for something typically results in higher levels of trust and honesty VS a single person. I mean essentially what you're saying is that a dictatorship, where one person is king, is more trustworthy and honest than a democracy where everyone gets a voice.
Click to expand...

It is absolutely crazy to say that Twitter is now going to be more impartial and less likely to be captured now it is solely owned by one guy. Okay if he'd bought it and then had it run independently like OpenAI he'd have a point but he's exerting far more influence and control over it than the previous leadership team ever did.

You can argue against how it was run before but as a public company it was impossible for it to be less centralised than it is now solely because of how public companies work.

Anyone who is in favour of free speech and impartiality should oppose Musk's running of Twitter with every fibre of their being. But they don't because as I keep saying, it is about freedom from consequences for posting nutty views and marginalising the actual views of the many. This is self-evident, go on Twitter today and see the Tweets that are amplified under every post, they are always right-wing, always. The bots I get in my feed every day are right-wing. Always. This is because Musk has seen fit to remove all moderation and to allow these people - who were always there - to be made louder than everyone else.

Twitter absolutely was an echo chamber - but the solution to an echo chamber is not to make every marginal voice louder.
 
Dialup said:
This is self-evident, go on Twitter today and see the Tweets that are amplified under every post, they are always right-wing, always. The bots I get in my feed every day are right-wing. Always.
Click to expand...
Do you have any examples of this? I've just had a look at a couple of BBC tweets, and I dont see where you are getting that the amplified tweets are "always right wing". The top tweet in this one is quite clearly someone who is a leftie, as an example.
 
Murphy said:
So I'm guessing you agree that who bought and paid for something effects the levels of trust and honesty?

If so how don't you get that the more people/organisations who buy and pay for something typically results in higher levels of trust and honesty VS a single person. I mean essentially what you're saying is that a dictatorship, where one person is king, is more trustworthy and honest than a democracy where everyone gets a voice.
Click to expand...

Well said
 
April

Talking about advertising, he [Elon] said: "If Disney feels comfortable advertising children's movies [on Twitter], and Apple feels comfortable advertising iPhones, those are good indicators that Twitter is a good place to advertise."
Click to expand...

November

Disney and Apple are no longer advertising on X - and Musk is telling companies that have left to "Go [expletive] yourself."
Click to expand...

6 months is a long time in politics advertising! :p
 
That clip of him telling them to go **** themselves is discussed in that vid I posted earlier. You can sense the frustration in him, he's trying to play cool but you can very clearly see he's cracking under the stress. I give it two years before he completely goes off the rails.
 
Diddums said:
That clip of him telling them to go **** themselves is discussed in that vid I posted earlier. You can sense the frustration in him, he's trying to play cool but you can very clearly see he's cracking under the stress. I give it two years before he completely goes off the rails.
Click to expand...

And then admitting that he'll just let it die rather than put any of his own money into it, because he doesn't give a crap about the platform and never wanted to buy it in the first place...
 
Seems like he is manufacturing the "advertisers killed Twitter" narrative to hide his own failures... as I've pointed out before they could be doing so much more with advertising opportunities which are missed, etc.
 
Roar87 said:

x.com

twitter.com twitter.com

You guys like data right? We'll keep pretending the advertisers just don't like anti-semitism
Click to expand...
"or anti israel views" so if your against Israel bombing a civilian population who have no control over hamas, then your apparently prejudiced against Israel.


Hamas and Israel seem as evil as each other.... Israel is not all Jewish people though is it, even Jewish people can be against Israel actions over the decades.

anytime time a rocket from Russia lands in Ukraine it's all bad, omg these poor civilians being targeted... hypocrisy
Palestine has had no elections since 2006, and the average age is 19.6
literally almost no one alive in Palestine ever voted for Hamas, basically a kidnapped population with no choice but to show support for hamas or likely be executed....
But apparently it;s that populations fault hamas are in power etc....
Get rid of hamas sure, bombing civilians isn't the way
Meanwhile
In addition to the funds Hamas receives from Iran, its global portfolio of investments generates vast sums of revenue through its assets, estimated to be worth hundreds of millions of dollars, with companies operating in Sudan, Algeria, Türkiye, the United Arab Emirates, and other countries.
Click to expand...
Why don't those assets get frozen? aren't some of those supposed to be friendly countries? why not isolate them for funding terrorism? give them sanctions like we did Russia....

All those global assets should belong to the Palestine people not Hamas.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom