[HN Gopher] Elon Musk to join Twitter's board of directors ___________________________________________________________________ Elon Musk to join Twitter's board of directors Author : alexrustic Score : 625 points Date : 2022-04-05 13:13 UTC (9 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.sec.gov) (TXT) w3m dump (www.sec.gov) | throwaway5752 wrote: | _" For so long as Mr. Musk is serving on the Board and for 90 | days thereafter, Mr. Musk will not, either alone or as a member | of a group, become the beneficial owner of more than 14.9% of the | Company's common stock outstanding at such time, including for | these purposes economic exposure through derivative securities, | swaps, or hedging transactions."_ | | This is the second line in the linked filing, and something a | number of people have not read. | topspin wrote: | Someone fill me in here: TWTR is a NYSE traded stock. What, | hypothetically, would prevent someone from just paying the | market price for whatever percent of Twitter's stock they care | to buy, such that they would have to agree to these terms? | saulpw wrote: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takeover#Hostile | eganist wrote: | > This is the second line in the linked filing, and something a | number of people have not read. | | Not sure it's that it was left unread or if it just doesn't | matter. | | As best as I can tell, it just means he won't overtly threaten | the company with a takeover or equivalent because he's been | given soft power to influence. | | My lay reading suggests that Twitter is now basically operating | at his whims to keep him from leaving the board and executing a | takeover plan 90 days thereafter. | mywittyname wrote: | > My lay reading suggests that Twitter is now basically | operating at his whims to keep him from leaving the board and | executing a takeover plan 90 days thereafter. | | Honestly, it might be amusing if he does do that. Twitter | stock looks to still flat from the IPO price, even after the | spike after this announcement. | | I say, let him tie up a significant portion of his net worth | in a vanity project with no real growth potential. | sandworm101 wrote: | >> he won't overtly threaten the company with a takeover or | equivalent | | Well, he can overtly threaten all he wants. He can begin the | process. He can make all the money arrangements and make | agreements with other shareholders. He just cannot _complete_ | the takeover by actually acquiring more stock (or other | instruments) until after 90 days. Imho that isn 't a | practical limit on threats. | k__ wrote: | lol, what's the meaning of that? | | So he doesn't down the stock with his decisions and buys it | cheap later? | singlow wrote: | OK, Elon, lets settle. Let's give you a board seat but you | have to promise not to try and buy up controlling shares in | the company and privatize it in a hostile takeover. | k__ wrote: | So, they really think he could improve the value of their | shares? | paxys wrote: | I'm not sure I understand. What is the relevance of this line? | divbzero wrote: | The board seat was granted in tandem with a guarantee from | Musk that he will limit the number of voting shares he | amasses. I don't think it's an uncommon arrangement when an | outside investor joins the board. | paxys wrote: | It's a standard clause for anyone getting into any | relationship with a company. Your own employee agreement | probably has a similar one. | | Ultimately if he does want to buy more he can resign from | the board with one Tweet. | prvc wrote: | What is the maximum number of seats he could control under | those conditions? | ecf wrote: | Maybe a benefit of web3 with a centralized identity would be the | ability to completely block all mentions of a person. My days are | much better when I can avoid the egotistical pet projects of out- | of-touch billionaires. | malwarebytess wrote: | Fascinating to me the level of vitriol that spews from people on | this guy. He's just a guy, you know? | phillipcarter wrote: | He's not just "a guy" | puffoflogic wrote: | And that cultural reference is not just some words. | lurker619 wrote: | Basically he's got a lot of money. People will attack him no | matter what he does, in an effort to redistribute his wealth. | It's game theory, there are no billionaires who are liked. | wwilim wrote: | What about Warren Buffett? | lurker619 wrote: | I may be wrong, here are my impressions from 5 minutes | spent googling - he already made his fortune in past | decades. He is not really in the limelight, not building | revolutionary stuff or going up against govt/corporate | interests. He is pretty old and has already planned to | donate major portions of his wealth already. Elon has | signed the giving pledge too btw. | carlycue wrote: | Elon Musk is this generations Steve Jobs. He has an enormous | amount of influence with people 30 and under. His opinion of | Apple will most likely sour when the Apple car comes out. If he | really wanted, he probably could single-handedly bring Android | closer to iOS in the US by changing his phone to Android and | tweeting about it. I am not kidding. People worship Elon. | ramesh31 wrote: | >If he really wanted, he probably could single-handedly bring | Android closer to iOS in the US by changing his phone to | Android and tweeting about it. | | Not even Elon could save that dumpster fire. Android is so bad | that even Google doesn't want to use it anymore (see: Fuchsia). | i67vw3 wrote: | NSA backdoored proprietary iOS vs Open source GrahpeneOS.... | ramesh31 wrote: | Yes, because the NSA definitely does not have an entire | library of top secret zero days for 90% of the software | packages included in your Open Source OS. And your hardware | _definitely_ doesn 't have any backdoors. | | Maintaining privacy against a state level actor is | essentially a nerd fan fiction daydream. If the US | government is after you, you're fucked no matter what. | AustinDev wrote: | As I always say... if your threat model contains the NSA, | GRU, CCP or any other sophisticated state actor you're | better off not using any technology because the moment | you do you've lost. | Marazan wrote: | Wow, never seen some many 'savvy' takes die in less than 24 hours | | "He's not going to join the board" said the smart set. | sydthrowaway wrote: | Just like how Putin would never invade. | bentlegen wrote: | Can you link to some of these examples? | MrPatan wrote: | How's that for a short march through the institution? | jdrc wrote: | Elon's twitter account is his most valuable asset, and | responsible for much of the rest | hickimsedenolan wrote: | Yeah, not the hundreds of billions of dollars he has, or the | companies he owns. | Copenjin wrote: | No it's not, it's a very popular account with a lot of | followers, but I don't know how many would follow somewhere | else if Elon had to leave for example. | croes wrote: | Does that mean he's now announcing the next five years, that | Twitter's next feature will be ready next year? | riazrizvi wrote: | I predict a new entry in the Terms of Service: "Tracking | private jets is forbidden". | rrix2 wrote: | Self-posting tweets by 2025, you wont even have to open the app | to anger people | exikyut wrote: | Thanks for breaking my brain. Possible complement :P | | I got as far as "bot" <-> "the cloud is just someone else's | computer" <-> "tree that owns itself" before my train of | thought SEGVed loudly in complaint. | [deleted] | twofornone wrote: | I think generally the political right in the US is effectively | underserved by social media, because all of the giants seem to | lean pretty openly left. If Musk can make the platform more | neutral this could be a massive business opportunity, if not to | grow then to at least ensure Twitter's market dominance by | venting some of the pressure for a competitor. | | Never would have bothered before but I'm long TWTR now, worth a | gamble since everything Elon touches turns to gold, even if only | because of cult of personality... | hackyhacky wrote: | Has it occurred to you that social media tilts left because | lefty people are more likely to use the internet? | | Internet and social media use use track closely with education | level, which correlate to position on the political spectrum. | | If that's true, then an attempt to make social media more | "neutral" would in fact be giving rightists an unfair | advantage. | zaptrem wrote: | While this might have been true a decade or two ago, nearly | everybody uses the internet now. | https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/04/02/7-of- | americ... (this is a year out of date -- 93%) | stale2002 wrote: | There are lots and lots of lefty places on the internet. | | I am sure that people on the left will do just fine, if there | happens to be 1 major neutral platform that doesn't do as | strict moderation. | thissiteb1lows wrote: | dmamills wrote: | This is the biggest thing to happen to twitter since the trump | presidency. Both big for twitter, and awful for society. | cloutchaser wrote: | freedomben wrote: | Is Elon a Republican or Conservative? I've seen variations of | this regarding balancing ownership and improving free speech, | but aside from a few cryptic tweets about cancel culture, has | Elon ever said anything? In interviews (especially the famous | Rogan interview) he seems pretty disinterested in politics. | orblivion wrote: | I think he's even claimed to be some variant of anarchist. | Not that I take that specifically to heart. I just think | he's politically eccentric. | | Though to the "conservative" or maybe libertarian angle | don't forget the "coronavirus panic is dumb" tweet. | dahfizz wrote: | Anyone who isn't an outspoken liberal is a conservative. | Welcome to American politics. | md2020 wrote: | In America, progressives/leftists actually lump in | "liberals" as "conservative" now since traditionally | "liberal" means support of typical Enlightenment values, | democracy, and free market capitalism. But I've noticed | that people who vote Republican refer to | progressives/leftists as "liberals", so it's all very | confusing. | mynameisvlad wrote: | Be civil. That is the most uncharitable reading of a comment | I've seen today. | matt_s wrote: | And both might be related. Motivation for any billionaire to | back Republican top candidates is to repeal all Billionaire Tax | legislature that might pass soon. | seibelj wrote: | Considering we only have 2 political parties in the US, if | you oppose the policies of the party in power you only have | one other option. I'm a libertarian and don't have a team I | root for, but it's a fact that plenty of hyper-wealthy people | support the Democrats. | SantalBlush wrote: | I see this move as an opportunity to gatekeep politicians on | his platform in exchange for favorable treatment. | bequanna wrote: | > ...Billionaire Tax legislature | | No such thing will ever happen. This is just political | theater for the sake of appeasing the "sour grapes" faction | on the left. There is no political will to tax unrealized | gains, tax wealth, etc. | memish wrote: | How so? A more transparent twitter would be better for society. | That's what he and Jack are pushing for. | lp0_on_fire wrote: | > Jack are pushing for. | | Twitter went further down the ideological rabbit hole with | Jack at the helm. | memish wrote: | Which he's not happy about. | | https://twitter.com/jack/status/1510314535671922689 | gnicholas wrote: | This development makes Trump being reinstated on Twitter more | likely. His reinstatement would make a Trump presidency less | likely, IMO. | | Most people (or at least HNers) would agree that decreasing the | likelihood of another Trump presidency would be a good thing. | dragonwriter wrote: | > This development makes Trump being reinstated on Twitter | more likely. | | Maybe. | | > His reinstatement would make a Trump presidency less | likely, IMO. | | That's...an interesting opinion, but I don't see any strong | reason to believe it is true, or even more likely to be true | than the opposite effect. | | > Most people (or at least HNers) would agree that decreasing | the likelihood of another Trump presidency would be a good | thing. | | For people (at least, US voters) generally that appears to be | _less_ true of Trump than literally every other potential | candidate, as Trump currently is both the strongest _by far_ | polling candidate for the Republican nomination in 2024 | against other potential Republicans _and_ the strongest | against potential Democratic opponents, winning my most | general election head to head polls. | gnicholas wrote: | I understand he polls we'll head to head, but most | Americans would prefer he not be the next president | (whether they prefer a democrat, republican, or something | else). And I cannot imagine that most HNers want another | Trump presidency. | | I would speculate that part of the reason he's polling so | well (relatively speaking) right now is that he's been off | twitter for the last year. | dragonwriter wrote: | > I understand he polls we'll head to head, but most | Americans would prefer he not be the next president | | That's true of literally every possible candidate; no | candidate is preferred by the majority of people, and | Trump is preferred by the largest minority. | | > I would speculate that part of the reason he's polling | so well (relatively speaking) right now is that he's been | off twitter for the last year. | | I would speculate that almost the entire reason is that | he successfully took over the Republican brand and people | are dissatisfied with the present conditions, largely due | to economic conditions, particularly inflation. | pzh wrote: | What's good for the goose is good for the gander. | | That's why free speech policies shouldn't be dictated by | partisan concerns. You never know who will be in control of | your social media platform in the future. | [deleted] | philosopher1234 wrote: | Suppose the president got up every day and issued a | presidential address in which he said "we should kill all | mintorities". Would you be opposed to this? | | Thats an extreme example, but the point im illustrating is | that in reality, as a society, we do not approve or endorse | all speech, and it is obviously true that censorship is | useful. You can see quite clearly that were the president to | do this, it would have consequences. | | Does that mean we should make certain speech illegal? Not | necessarily. Does it mean we should curtail the reach of | certain speech? I think it is good for Twitter to do this. | | The distinction is that speech being possible is different | than speech being emphasized or broadcasted. | turdnagel wrote: | Twitter doesn't have "free speech policies". It has | moderation policies. They're not enforced evenly, but no | platform has solved this. | convery wrote: | I mean, there's a difference between platforms trying solve | the issue and Twitter that gives a badge repeat offenders | as long as the target of their bigotry is deemed | acceptable.. | m463 wrote: | So society is that dependent on twitter? | dmamills wrote: | I don't know where the implication that society is dependent | on twitter is hidden in my comment. But no, society isn't | dependent on twitter, is it relevant to society? Certainly. | loceng wrote: | Luckily your stating something with no actual argument | points to support your statement doesn't hold any weight | whatsoever to whether it has any truth to it or not. | dmamills wrote: | You want argument points to support the idea that Twitter | is relevant to society? | | It is the fourth most visited site on the internet. It | has well over three hundred million active users. It was | one of the main methods of communication for the last | sitting president of the united states. It is worth more | than three billion dollars. It is currently what this | subset of society in this thread is discussing because we | find it relevant. | loceng wrote: | My bad, I was thinking of your "and [Elon buying 10% of | Twitter is] awful for society" comment - unless I | misunderstood what you that was awful for society. | dmamills wrote: | Well, the definition "awful for society" is fairly | anecdotal, so my reply won't be able to be built upon | hard facts. | | But in my opinion, Elon Musk is a very smart man who not | only sees, but has reaped massive value from Twitter. He | is notable for tweeting misleading information to affect | the stock price of his companies. These actions resulted | in a lawsuit from the SEC in 2018. | | The ripple effects of stock manipulation are hard to | directly tie to the concept of "awful for society". But | it certainly feels like when money is given one place, it | is taken from another. When that transfer of money is | based on misinformation, it creates pain. I personally am | doubtful that the billionaire feels any of it, but | someone else will. | | I also don't believe that Musk has learned any lesson | from the lawsuit either. He is currently trying to fight | the tweet pre-approval stipulation in the courts. Putting | a financial investment into the company to me personally, | looks like someone who has found, or is looking for a | loophole. | loceng wrote: | So I'm curious then what you think about short sellers | who can bet against Elon Musk, and therefore they're | financially incentivized to generate negative press | (whether factual or not), and that Elon is very vocal | against that practice? | | I presume you're primarily referencing his "Funding | secured" tweet - which arguably with Elon's pretty solid | judgement, he may have well had funding secured - say | through verbal agreement - just perhaps not through | official legal channels? | | It's also arguable as to whether what he's said is | misleading or not, and which what he says, what the SEC | wants him to do vs. what the Constitution gives him the | foundational right to do seem to be at odds. | | Because you didn't give any specific examples of his | supposed misleading, it's hard to actually argue you | further. | | You also haven't tied anything you said back to how him | buying ~10% of Twitter is awful for society though? | | You must also dislike Bitcoin then because the vast | majority of what people see, that hypes them up to buy | into Bitcoin, is shallow propaganda/is highly misleading | - and those people ultimately will lose their money once | the blockchain designed to mimic MLM-Ponzi schemes | collapses? | dmamills wrote: | Yes, the idea of short sellers using nefarious | methodologies to provide value for themselves is also | "awful". This is essentially the crux of my argument | about Elon's usage of twitter. I'm of the mind that more | than one awful thing can exist in society at the same | time. | | I'm sorry that I didn't base my argument on what "he may | have well had". But when I think about it that way, sure, | he may have well had never done anything wrong. The | courts disagree, but they also might not being taking | into account what he may have well had. | | I tried my best to elaborate on why I felt that him | purchasing a stake in twitter was awful for society in my | last comment. I am sorry that you didn't find it meaty | enough for you to argue on, but perhaps that is for the | best. | | and yes, I also believe bitcoin and MLM ponzi schemes are | also awful. | colinmhayes wrote: | Twitter is largely responsible for shaping media perspective | and narrative, so yea, I'd say society is pretty dependent on | twitter. | yosito wrote: | In what ways do you think having Elon Musk on Twitter's board | will be bad for society? | rossdavidh wrote: | Hypothesis: this is not about Elon running Twitter, controlling | society, insuring free speech, or any other such thing. It's | simply that he wants insurance against being de-platformed, and | now he has it. | zthrowaway wrote: | His gripe is that Twitter is not a neutral platform and has a | lot of ideological issues that have massive impact on society. | What you're saying just goes full circle into that point. | protomyth wrote: | 9% is a hell of an insurance policy. I don't disagree, the man | does not do small things, but I do wonder if he just bought | insurance for more people than himself. | stale2002 wrote: | >? 9% is a hell of an insurance policy | | I mean, you say that. But the literal former president of the | USA got de-platformed from twitter, and we don't hear about | him nearly as much as when he had a twitter. | | Maybe it is actually worth that amount of money, if entire | elections can be influenced like that. | philosopher1234 wrote: | >entire elections can be influenced like that. | | What was the influence Trump's banning had over the | election? | dragonwriter wrote: | > What was the influence Trump's banning had over the | election? | | Especially since it occurred after the election, that's a | good question. | stale2002 wrote: | Well if you added the slightest, most tiniest drop of | good faith for half a second, you'd realize that I said | "we don't hear about him nearly as much as when he had a | twitter", and the implication being that I think this | might effect future elections, and that is the reason | why. | | You can agree or disagree that Trump being banned from | the platform that he was most known for, will effect his | future election chances, and you can disagree with if you | want that to happen or not, but that is completely | unrelated to the point. | | But I think it is unfortunate that people on HN sometimes | are so jumpy to find a disagreement, that they mis- | understand the point so easily. | | Instead of thinking "This person didn't know that Trump | was banned after the 2020 election, what an idiot!", | instead you could have thought "Maybe he is talking about | future elections, instead of the one that happened | previously to his ban, which would obviously be really | stupid!" | dragonwriter wrote: | > I said "we don't hear about him nearly as much as when | he had a twitter | | He didn't stop getting wall-to-wall coverage in all media | when he was banned for Twitter. | | It did start fading shortly after he left office. | | I mean, it _could_ be coincidence, but it does seem to | suggest an obvious alternative explanation for why | attention to him dropped. | [deleted] | philosopher1234 wrote: | Its for the better that trump was banned. If trump wants | to broadcast his rallying cries, racism, and lies, he can | find other ways to do it. | [deleted] | stathibus wrote: | You're assuming there was some cost/benefit analysis here. | Elon has enough money that only the benefit is a factor. | hacknat wrote: | Not if you're able to influence the market in a meaningful | way from your Twitter handle. How is anyone underestimating | Twitter's power at this point? | tomatowurst wrote: | but 9% seems very expensive way to do that, I think most likely | he just likes it and has benefited greatly by the platform. | | the question, is it worth investment? | rossdavidh wrote: | Well if his 9% actually appreciates over time (by no means | guaranteed), then the only real cost is any opportunity cost | of using the money for this right now. Which, given the | investment environment, may not be that large. So assuming | that his stake grows in value over the long run, it's a very | small cost, really. | [deleted] | gregoriol wrote: | This is like putting a gambler at a casino's board | rc_mob wrote: | Not a well worded analogy. Garauntee 100% of the board members | at all casinos are gamblers. | [deleted] | samarama wrote: | A Twitter with unlimited speech will become a racist and | propaganda hellscape. | | Imagine Trump will be brought back on Twitter, he'll radicalize | 40% of Americans into QAnon disciples and try to topple the | United States government again. He'll have thousands like him | joining in in spreading mass amounts of fake news exactly like | the Russian propaganda machine. | | You'll see extreme science denial, a boatload of new Covid myths, | drinking bleach, Ivermectin, Covid is just the flu propaganda all | over again, just 5 times worse. | MBCook wrote: | Oh good. Now he can ruin something I like. | hayd wrote: | If you don't like it, just build your own platform. | | https://twitter.com/titaniamcgrath/status/134859926562768076... | ralusek wrote: | Liking Twitter and thinking Elon Musk ruins things certainly | are tightly coupled. | jwond wrote: | What kind of person actually likes Twitter? | MBCook wrote: | I find it incredibly useful. I follow accounts accounts I | consider useful or interesting. They post all sorts of | informative things, fun anecdotes, bits of history, etc. | | Yeah if you just follow celebrities or influencers you'll | have a bad time. But there are lots of great smaller accounts | (<250k followers) out there. You can often get tech news | first that way from reliable sources. | haunter wrote: | >smaller accounts (<250k followers) | | I'd not consider someone with 200k followers small. | | Maybe you meant 2500 followers? | MBCook wrote: | No, I meant 250k. But "smaller" was relative to | celebrities and politicians and such with millions. | | Not all accounts I follow are that big. Many are closer | to 10k. Some around 5k. There are a handful less than | that but they are often people I know in person or tiny | podcasts I listen to. | angryGhost wrote: | the 'influencer' type | Nathanael_M wrote: | I'm curious how you think this is going to ruin anything for | you. Do you mean on a tangible level, or on an emotional level? | Do you actually think there will be large scale policy changes | that will damage your ability to communicate with people via | the platform? | | The valuable parts of Twitter seem to be when niche experts | tweet about their niche and specific niche comedy. Everything | else seems really unhealthy. | | I could see a lot of monetization efforts ruin Twitter. I could | also see people saying "I don't want to support Elon, I'm | leaving Twitter" if that's what you mean. | MBCook wrote: | I'm worried about tangible changes. As their largest | shareholder with a seat on the board (not to mention lots of | fans/popular with some) I don't want him to be able to drive | product decisions. | | I know what I would like to change (better 3rd part app | support, better anti-harassment tools). I don't see why he | would push for either one. | | I don't know what he WOULD push for, but I worry I won't like | it. He called for the edit button. I know that's long | requested but carries some serious downsides. And I don't | want them glossed over because they push to get it out to | make him and his army happy. | | I'm not a fan but I don't think my liking Twitter and Elon | being a big shareholder implies I am a fan of his. Twitter | has enough of its own identity. | Nathanael_M wrote: | Well Twitter never really hooked me, so I'm mostly just a | curious onlooker, but to me it seems that Twitter is pretty | stagnant. Do you think there's a possibility that this | change has a positive outcome? | MBCook wrote: | No. I'll admit I'm pessimistic on such things. Sure | Twitter could improve, but I don't see how/why that would | be led by Musk. I don't see what he brings to the table | other than himself as a person. It's not like he was an | expert in a similar field/company like FB, IG, TikTok, | etc. | | Edit: so it seems Elon is already promising changes, but | Twitter says he has no say in content policy. So the | nonsense may already be starting. Source: | https://twitter.com/reckless/status/1511387364563767298 | dncornholio wrote: | No wonder he joins the board. Twitter has huge impact on his | business(es). He doesn't care about free speech, all he cares | about his own speech IMO. | [deleted] | ideamotor wrote: | A troll I have blocked on Twitter has joined the board of | directors. Great. Will Kayne West be next? What about Glen | Greenwald? I have those blocked as well. How about a troll-only | board selected from accounts I blocked? | MadSudaca wrote: | Maybe you're just too sensitive. | ideamotor wrote: | Or maybe I believe playing by known and accepted rules is the | only thing holding our country, democracy, and the global | economic system together. And this guy seeks and promotes | activity (SEC, crypto, ripping off cofounders, his positions | on taxes, never ceasing misinformation, and so on) that | dilutes this. You can't have a democracy without common rules | and a common currency. If he'd just stick to building stuff, | he'd be awesome, but no, he's gotta break all the rules for | his ego for vanity projects. | nathanvanfleet wrote: | bmitc wrote: | I am beyond tired of billionaires, who get to treat companies, | public sentiment, and politics, and thus a fair portion of | government and policy, as their personal sandbox. Greed and | oligarchy are ruining America. | drstewart wrote: | What specifically has Elon buying shares in Twitter done to use | it as his personal sandbox that has ruined America? Give | examples. | | I'm beyond tired of the hyperbole and hysteria any time | <personal internet doesn't like> <does thing>. And I can back | my assertion up with an example: you. | beeboop wrote: | He tweeted a mean thing once to a guy /s | snarf21 wrote: | Agreed but I'm not sure how we can change it at this point. Our | lives in the US are way too good for revolution. This move by | him is strictly about not letting Twitter ever block his | accounts. He can pump & dump and mislead investors for billions | that will make him a lot more money than his Twitter stake | cost. | rhacker wrote: | I don't know. They haven't finished the homeless count for | 2022. I suspect they are scared to announce it. People are | probably dropping off from housed to unhoused at | unprecidented levels. I wouldn't say our lives are way to | good right now. | ralusek wrote: | Very, very few homeless people are homeless because they | simply can't afford housing. | skulk wrote: | To see why you're wrong, all you have to do is look up a | survey: | | From Maricopa county (Phoenix): | https://www.abc15.com/news/local-news/investigations/why- | is-... | | That's 2,239 people (16 percent of all surveyed shelter- | visitors) that cited "economic reasons" as the cause of | their homelessness, and there's a separate entry for | unemployment. | sorry_outta_gas wrote: | > . Our lives in the US are way too good for revolution. | | lol, maybe for "us" they are most people have serious trouble | just living and near zero retirement funds | ambrozk wrote: | Who do you think owned the Twitter shares before Elon bought | them? The dispossessed working classes? | bmitc wrote: | Can you explain what your point is? | ambrozk wrote: | When Elon buys an ownership stake in Twitter, he's taking | an ownership stake from other billionaires, so it doesn't | make sense to think of it as an example of billionaires | increasing their power in society. | nebula8804 wrote: | They were and are still to an extent institutional investors | no? Aren't those public funds? | ryanSrich wrote: | It would be cool to see Twitter unban the thousands of accounts I | used to follow. I highly doubt Musk will have or is interested in | having any real influence. | mattwest wrote: | Which accounts? And how can you possibly think he isn't | interested in having influence? I'll bet you a pretty penny | that there will be a slew of "leadership changes" in the coming | months. | mdoms wrote: | If you really followed thousands of banned accounts perhaps you | need to take a close look at the company you keep. That should | send alarm bells ringing regardless of your perception of | Twitter's biases. | gotaquestion wrote: | What thousands of accounts did you follow that were banned? | Give us a sampling. | randyrand wrote: | ya, let us condescendingly judge you! | SalmoShalazar wrote: | It is genuinely interesting to me. All of the uproar about | "free speech" has been confusing to me. Who are these | people being censored? What are they saying? | ryanSrich wrote: | Lol exactly. Not taking that bait. Also, follow was the | wrong word. They're all lists. I have 50+ twitter lists. | gotaquestion wrote: | When someone claims "free speech infringement" and then | has no data to back it up they are either trolling or | don't really care enough to make a substantial argument. | and0 wrote: | I'd be curious to see examples of these. I only know of Trump | as having been banned. Plus I guess people who commit shootings | tend to get memory holed by all the major social media brands, | which might be a good idea? Thousands that you followed is | quite an allegation. | sohrob wrote: | kassah wrote: | I think something really important here, is that it has been | agreed that Elon Musk is not to be more than 14.9% beneficial | owner of the companies common stock. I'm not a lawyer, but this | also looks like a tactic saying "Let's give Elon a voice on the | board so he doesn't buy controlling interest in the company." | | Elon is being forced (or heavily incentivized at least) to | liquify Tesla stocks, so he's going to be looking for alternate | places to put that money to avoid the consequences of holding on | to liquid capital, this limits him from putting too much of it | into Twitter, and being more than just a board member. | | Gives stockholders & existing board members what they want | (retaining control of the business, and makes it harder for Elon | to build a competitor), while giving Elon what he wants | (influence in the business). This sounds like a win-win. | jmkni wrote: | I think Twitter's CEO summed it up well, and I agree: | | > He's both a passionate believer and intense critic of the | service which is exactly what we need on @Twitter, and in the | boardroom, to make us stronger in the long-term. Welcome Elon! | | https://twitter.com/paraga/status/1511320964813910017 | mc32 wrote: | I just want to know if this means Musk or anyone on the board | can veto "bans" either on himself, themselves or for others... | | Will that account that tacks his plane continue tracking his | plane? | adolph wrote: | Maybe a super blue check for shareholders, like a green | dollar sign | justapassenger wrote: | That sounds like a typical corporate butt kissing. | 99_00 wrote: | Butt kissing is most effective when it's true. | ajhurliman wrote: | The CEO's level of sincerity doesn't rob the statement of any | meaning. | zeruch wrote: | ...only of it's gravitas or validity. | fullshark wrote: | Maybe but it's 100% accurate TBD if he actually is happy to | butt heads with Elon. | blenderdt wrote: | Those are just polite words. | | Why does a critic make Twitter stronger? And why is that | needed? | BurningFrog wrote: | A good critic points out flaws to fix. With fewer flaws the | company is healthier. | dlp211 wrote: | The implicit assumption being that Musk is a good critic of | what is wrong with Twitter. I'm not sold on that | assumption. | vernie wrote: | You can't be this naive. | JamesAdir wrote: | Elon is his one of his new bosses, I would take anything the | CEO says with a grain of salt. | hackernewds wrote: | Not to mention he doesn't have the political capacity / | capital or the history as Jack at Twitter | andrew_ wrote: | I give his tenure as CEO 6 months at most before he's forced | out by the board, or resigns for ideological differences. The | changing wind that Elon is going to usher in is going to be | fundamental and sweeping, and I wouldn't be surprised to see | an exodus of employees follow. | woah wrote: | I heard he's going to bring in the ability to edit other | user's tweets, as we've been asking for for years | KingOfCoders wrote: | This reminds me of a startup I've worked for, CEO highly | praised new board member ("[..] worked hard for months to | get him on board [..]") in all hands meeting, 2 weeks later | CEO essentially was out. | ikiris wrote: | It's how a lot of companies die to raiders. | sytelus wrote: | Why do you think he can do that as just one member of the | whole board? | AnimalMuppet wrote: | > The changing wind that Elon is going to usher in is going | to be fundamental and sweeping... | | Could you be a bit more specific? _What direction_ do you | think the change will be in? | LudwigNagasena wrote: | He has 9%, not 90%. | peanuty1 wrote: | Parag was extremely lucky to have been appointed CEO | despite his lack of qualifications. He's only ever worked | at Twitter and was appointed CTO before ever holding a | management position. He's not going anywhere because he | won't get as lucrative of a gig anywhere else. | tag2103 wrote: | 'He's not going anywhere because he won't get as | lucrative of a gig anywhere else.' | | He probably won't have much of a choice in the matter | bruhbruhbruh wrote: | This type of career progression interests me. What type | of internal politics did Parag have to maneuver to be | appointed to these high profile roles? As someone with | C-level career aspirations, it makes me wonder if I'm not | cut out for the politics. I'm not Machiavellian. Can | people make it to C-suite via merit alone? | jackblemming wrote: | No merit alone doesn't work. You absolutely need to be | both charismatic and that guy who's constantly asking | their boss what they can do for promotions or more money. | Bonus points if you're tall. That's pretty much it. | pempem wrote: | Being male doesn't hurt. | rajin444 wrote: | Yes, being tall and assertive is more common among males. | What point are you trying to make? | lhnz wrote: | His point is that a tall and assertive woman would be | less likely to be made CEO than her male contemporary. | woah wrote: | Multiple times, I've seen inoffensive personalities be | internally promoted to C level positions ahead of more | politically savvy (and often more effective) candidates. | This often takes place after the departing executive has | a strong personality or leaves for contentious reasons. | Everyone wants someone nice and trustworthy and | unambitious to take over so that the organization can | heal. I'm guessing this is what happened at Twitter. | | How to maneuver into this position? Maybe you could get | hired to an important role at an organization with an | unstable CEO, and make sure that you are friends with | everyone and don't piss anyone off. Then wait for the CEO | to lose their shit completely. | AustinDev wrote: | An employee exodus from Twitter would only be a good thing | in my eyes. They're all too ideological from my experience. | beaconstudios wrote: | The company will still be ideological, but will simply | follow Musk's ideology. Whether that's good or not | depends on if you agree with him - I don't. | cjbgkagh wrote: | What goes around comes around. If Twitter wasn't so | ideological to begin with then Musk may not have decided | to meddle. | | I personally would like companies to be less ideological | in general. | | EDIT: By less ideological I mean less interference on | behalf of an ideology. Allowing all legally covered free | speech would be the minimum interference possible by a | company but not necessarily the maximally profitable | position. Some interference may actually be a good thing | - I think many companies have gone too far. My problem | with companies being ideological is that they are | signaling a willingness to interfere that invites | substantial pressure from third parties to do so which | can cut both ways. | somebehemoth wrote: | Is the argument that Musk will make Twitter less | ideological? My assumption is that he'll push for his own | ideology. If so, nothing gets better unless you happen to | agree with Musk's ideology. If nothing gets better we've | traded one echo chamber for another. | psyc wrote: | No. The idea is that moderation wouldn't tend to select | for/against specific ideologies. Twitter discourse will | remain extremely ideological in character. | shon wrote: | How would you describe Twitter's ideology as compared to | Musk's? | efitz wrote: | Musk is very pro-free-speech-even-speech-that-offends. | | Twitter is very ban-anything-that-doesn't-comport-with- | our-woke-worldview-and-call-it-hate-speech-or- | disinformation. Also they selectively apply TOS against | people they don't like while regularly ignoring blatant | TOS violations from people they like. | [deleted] | IntelMiner wrote: | Twitter is a psychological hell-hole that like all social | media preys upon the absolute worst of humanity in a | perpetual negative feedback loop to generate advertising | dollars to sustain itself | | Elon is a deluded billionaire who cares only about | himself | FFRefresh wrote: | How do you determine whether someone _only_ cares about | themselves? How do you determine whether someone doesn 't | _only_ care about themselves? | IntelMiner wrote: | The same way anyone else does. By subjective observation | and opinion of the subject | | This isn't "The Good Place" where an objective arbiter of | the net good or bad we put out into the universe through | our entire existence can be measured | Clubber wrote: | >Is the argument that Musk will make Twitter less | ideological? My assumption is that he'll push for his own | ideology. If so, nothing gets better unless you happen to | agree with Musk's ideology. If nothing gets better we've | traded one echo chamber for another. | | That may be true, but if ideology in moderation is what's | killing twitter, that already exists, so it will be just | as bad as it is now, just a different flavor I would | think. People might not like the new flavor though, but | for many people, it's already ruined by having any flavor | at all. | | I guess what I'm trying to say is if Musk just changes | the flavor, it will just continue to suck. If he removes | the flavor, it will be better for public discourse. | stale2002 wrote: | > the argument that Musk will make Twitter less | ideological | | Well musk seems to want Twitter to follow the principles | of open and free discourses with less moderation. | | So it seems like there will be less forced top down | moderation. | beaconstudios wrote: | that is an ideological position. | stale2002 wrote: | I don't think you understand what people mean when they | say less ideological. | | For example, would you call it ideological that the | government does not arrest people for criticizing it? | | Imagine if we compare 2 governments, 1 which arrests | people for criticizing it, and another that doesn't. In | the context of this comparison, the one that censors less | people, most would call less ideological. | | By ideological, people usually are talking about enforced | ideology. So if you censor more people, then that is | enforcing your ideology more, and if you have less | censorship then that is less enforcement of ideology. | educaysean wrote: | > principles of open and free discourses with less | moderation | | That is an ideology | | > For example, would you call it ideological that the | government does not arrest people for criticizing it? | | Um, yes | beaconstudios wrote: | people call things less ideological when they agree with | them more, that's all - if your views are unexamined then | they look like a natural or intuitive position. | | The idea that freedom primarily exists as a lack of | compulsion is libertarian or neoliberal ideology. Your | total freedom from censorship is somebody else's freedom | to harass and send death threats - obviously the line has | to be drawn somewhere or twitter devolves into 8chan, and | oftentimes people call for a nebulous "free speech" or | "anti-censorship" instead of specifying what particular | speech is being censored that they think is legitimate. | Moderation is essential on the internet. | | If people think something is being censored and it | shouldn't be, they should point to specific examples. | [deleted] | AlchemistCamp wrote: | That's a really pedantic point to keep injecting | throughout is thread. | | Yes, _technically_ it's an ideological choice to NOT | gather up various books at the public library and burn | them. But in practice, it's not ideological at all | compared to doing the opposite. | dragonwriter wrote: | > Yes, technically it's an ideological choice to NOT | gather up and burn various books at the public library. | But in practice, it's not ideological at all. | | No, in practice it's very ideological, but it falls into | a the blind spot most people have for broad consensus | ideology. People tend to recognize something as | "ideological" only when a large group strongly opposes | the ideology in question. | | (The Musk case is different from the analogy you present, | though, because of the ideologically loaded way | rhetorical appeal to "the principles of open and free | discourses with less moderation" is used in regard to | internet fora by a political faction that actually | supports intensified censorship of lots of things, but | also happens to want to promote lots of things that | various large platforms have decided they don't want to | be a megaphone for.) | AlchemistCamp wrote: | > No, in practice it's very ideological | | How so? How is it "very ideological" to NOT be burning | the third book from the left on the first shelf in the | library? Or the ninth one on the right. I don't even know | what's in either and I spend roughly zero time thinking | about my local library. I'm not even sure where the first | shelf from the door is situated. | | How is my (ongoing) choice NOT to walk over there and | start burning a non-empty set of books "very | ideological"? | | I suspect if you were to enter the same library and light | various books on fire, nobody hearing about your arrest | would agree that you were no more ideological with | respect to that library than I (or the billions of others | who also did not chose to engage in that behavior). | beaconstudios wrote: | OK, so the free speech versus censorship argument, let's | go: | | Speech rules exist on a spectrum from total free speech | where you can threaten to murder someone or continually | harass them, to total control where everything you say | must pass inspection (say, letters out from a classified | military base). Any position on that spectrum has | tradeoffs. If you ban Nazis you are being censorious but | at the same time, providing space for the people that | Nazis hate where they won't have their existence | constantly challenged. If you ban fake news and one side | of the political spectrum puts out more fake news than | the other, that side will accuse you of political bias. | Where you draw the line is not an objective decision, | it's one based on what you value. That's an ideological | decision. Brian Armstrong banning "politics at work" is | because he is probably a libertarian rather than a | progressive and would rather shut up the political people | at work so he can focus on making money without having | his actions criticised. Twitter allows politics at work | because it was founded by liberals and they allow staff | to criticise the direction of the company. 8chan refused | to censor their platform for ideological reasons, twitter | does censor their platform for ideological reasons. Does | that clear it up for you? | AlchemistCamp wrote: | > Does that clear it up for you? | | I find this bit deeply unhelpful for the discussion. | | It's clear from your numerous comments on this story, | that you have an axe to grind. My comment above was to | highlight how it was repetitive and annoying as a reader | of the thread. | | It was _not_ a request for a longer expanded version of | the same talking points with a condescending swipe at the | end. | jimmyjazz14 wrote: | In some sense but if a platform takes a neutral stance on | the content within it becomes as "ideological" as a | pinboard in a super market. So yes the platforms content | may reflect the ideology of those who uses it most the | platform itself as long as it does not interfere with | what is posted to it would in my opinion less | ideological. | zeruch wrote: | "I personally would like companies to be less ideological | in general. " | | The irony here is laughable. | unethical_ban wrote: | Free speech and vibrant debate are ideologies. Respecting | free speech while limiting the amplification of hate | speech and Russian disinformation is an ideology. | | I think those are good ideologies for a social media | platform to have. | mrfusion wrote: | Open discussion isn't an ideology. It's all ideologies. | bequanna wrote: | What ideology is that? Musk has hinted that he views | Twitter as a public forum and should be moderated as | such. | | Until now, I think Twitter's not-so-slight political lean | has been viewed as detrimental to the company (and public | discourse). | | I hope the people who work at Twitter and think it is OK | to bring your politics to work go elsewhere. We would all | benefit from platform where telling jokes that offend | only the wokest doesn't get you banned and silenced. | wwweston wrote: | > What ideology is that? Musk has hinted that he views | Twitter as a public forum and should be moderated as | such. | | "the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then | eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes | 'What the hell is water?'" | throwaway894345 wrote: | I take your (rather tired) point that for some | sufficiently broad definition of "ideology", even | moderate viewpoints are "ideologies". Even still, | moderation _should_ feel like water to a fish--it should | be _moderate_ , it should roughly represent the | viewpoints of the people rather than trying to tug the | Overton Window in any particular direction (that's | _activism_ , not moderation). And yes, this too is | subjective--you could argue that moderation should be | indistinguishable from far right or far left activism if | you really want. | | EDIT: Seems like a lot of disagreement with this, but | would love to hear some compelling arguments to justify | activist moderation. | wwweston wrote: | To be much more specific: the idea that Twitter has a | free speech problem _is_ itself immoderate and | ideological. There is an unquestionably huge range of | ideas that can be not only freely but rather aggressively | expressed on twitter. There is a very narrow range of | speech that is disallowed and even a considerable amount | of that actually gets through. To be concerned about the | narrow range that is disallowed and see that as | ideologically motivated is to swim in the waters of ones | own unexamined ideological biases. And that's being | charitable, as many of those who complain about the bias | of twitter know full well they're actually remarkably | privileged when it comes to not only freedom of speech | but being heard and regarded, they just know that among a | certain audience that shares the sense that their views | /expressions _should_ be privileged, the posture of loss | of privilege as victimhood can be used as a tool of | manipulation. | | Combine that with the culture that understands free | speech issues in this way more generally: less from a | regard for the value of liberal discourse and more for | the privilege of indulgent speech, related to the idea | "my ignorance is as good as your knowledge" but extended | into the realm of stewardship or even ownership of an | entire platform. This indulgent and degraded view of free | speech is _required_ in order to understand twitter as a | repressive forum as a consequence of limits on things | like some trans jokes and deadnaming or even advocacy of | identity-focused violence, which can only feel like | repression to someone who fundamentally has nothing else | of value to say. | | If that seems tired to you, I'd be happy to inject more | vigor. | throwaway894345 wrote: | The "tired" bit that I was referring to is the popular | compulsion to miss the point in order to score a | "gotcha!" by invoking the strict philosophical definition | when someone says something like, "Twitter Inc is too | ideological". Of course, when people say things like | this, they're not usually meaning "Twitter Inc" is too | ideological, it's that they are too aggressive about | pushing their ideology. They could remain devout leftists | without spamming everyone's feeds with leftist | propaganda, for example. | | > To be much more specific: the idea that Twitter has a | free speech problem is itself immoderate and ideological. | | It's ideological in the sense that "free speech is | desirable" is ideological. Arguing that it's "immoderate" | implies that arguing for stronger free speech protections | is radical, which is untrue. | | > There is an unquestionably huge range of ideas that can | be not only freely but rather aggressively expressed on | twitter. There is a very narrow range of speech that is | disallowed and even a considerable amount of that | actually gets through. | | I'm not going to die on the hill of "Twitter needs to be | less censorious", but free speech proponents can still | legitimately find Twitter problematic even if the censors | allow a lot of wrongthink through. For example, Twitter | can sort replies by ideology such that wrongthink is much | less likely to be seen. It could hide wrongthink from | various users altogether. Whether or not it actually does | any of these is difficult to assess because there's no | transparency. | | > Combine that with the culture that understands free | speech issues in this way more generally: less from a | regard for the value of liberal discourse and more for | the privilege of indulgent speech, related to the idea | "my ignorance is as good as your knowledge" but extended | into the realm of stewardship or even ownership of an | entire platform. | | Yes, we have a broken epistemology, but this is the | _result of_ the politicization of institutions | (especially by the left wing). Specifically, the left | wing argues that because perfect neutrality and | objectivity are impossible thus we should wholesale | abandon the pursuit thereof and instead be doggedly ( | _and ideologically homogeneously_ ) activist. This | predictably damages trust in the institutions which in | turn drives people toward other institutions, many of | which are less savory. | malermeister wrote: | Here's Zizek commenting better than I could: | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIwMIrj5Ulo | | >I already am eating from the trashcan all the time. The | name of this trashcan is ideology. The material force of | ideology - makes me not see what I'm effectively eating. | It's not only our reality which enslaves us. _The tragedy | of our predicament - when we are within ideology, is that | - when we think that we escape it into our dreams - at | that point we are within ideology._ | | In other words, what you think of as moderate and not | ideological is _a result of your ideology itself_. | | For a more thorough, very academic examination of | ideology, I can recommend the book _The Sublime Object of | Ideology_. | throwaway894345 wrote: | "Moderate" doesn't mean "agreeable", it means "opposed to | radical/extreme change". These beliefs are moderate _by | definition_ , it's not tautological or subjective. | malermeister wrote: | The definition of moderate itself is ideological. | | In Saudi Arabia, death penalty for homosexuals would be | considered moderate. They would consider your attitude | toward free speech around the prophet radical. | | What you consider moderate is _always_ a result of your | ideology. There is no objective _moderate_ , there is | only _moderate within your ideology_. | | That's exactly what ideology is: It determines what you | perceive as "normal" or "moderate". | throwaway894345 wrote: | You're observing that the definition of "moderate" is | _relative_ , not ideological. It's just like the | definition of "median", my height might be close to the | median in a US context, but I would be tall in a Nigerian | context. This doesn't imply that the definition of | "median" is ideological. | malermeister wrote: | Of course "moderate" is relative. But relative to what? | | Relative to _your ideology_. | | You'd be tall in Nigeria _relative to the median height._ | | You'd be a moderate in the US and a radical in Saudi | Arabia _relative to the prevailing ideology_. | throwaway894345 wrote: | > Of course "moderate" is relative. But relative to what? | Relative to your ideology. | | Incorrect, not relative to _one's ideology_ , but | relative to the implicit political context (such as "US | politics" or "Saudi politics". If it were relative to | each person's own ideology, then everyone would identify | as a moderate: "My ideology is moderate relative to my | ideology". | | > You'd be a moderate in the US and a radical in Saudi | Arabia relative to the prevailing ideology. | | This is correct, but it contradicts your earlier claim | that the definition of "moderate" is itself ideological. | It's _contextual_ but not _ideological_. | malermeister wrote: | "Implicit political context" is just a very roundabout | way of saying "prevalent ideology". | | The ideology _is_ the context. | gbanfalvi wrote: | It's absolutely relative. But what's the dimension we're | measuring this relativity on? I'd say it's ideology. | throwaway894345 wrote: | Yes, "moderate" describes ideology (no one in this thread | questions that), but the OP's claim is that the | definition of "moderate" is itself an ideological | question. It's a bit meta. | metoodv wrote: | Zizek, as usual, is saying something facile but with | flowery language to make it seem insightful, but the idea | that in order to understand his culture a man must leave | it and view it from the outside, the same idea Zizek is | sharing here (amid sniffs) is an idea that goes back at | least as far as Buddhism, as it is present in the story | of the youth of the Buddha. | | Zizek is very ironically an ideologue himself (a | "Hegelian" in his words) and as such his version of the | story only contains half the lesson -- that culture, | which he calls ideology because he seemingly refuses to | truly understand what ideology is, lest admit he is an | ideologue, can blind members of that culture to certain | things, but without addressing that culture and ideology | have positive aspects as well. | | The man is a neverending font of faux insight and | obscurantism posturing as wisdom and this quote is no | different from any other. | malermeister wrote: | I think you thoroughly misunderstood his point. His point | is that _everything_ is ideology and that it 's | inescapable, that obviously includes him. Everyone is an | ideologue if you will, some just think their ideology | isn't ideology. | | (and it seems that includes you based on how you | contrasted "status quo" and "ideology" in the other | comment, as if the status quo were somehow unideological) | throwaway894345 wrote: | But you're missing the point of everyone who is saying | "Twitter Inc is too ideological". The point isn't | "Twitter should abstain from ideology" as though that's | possible in a strict philosophical sense, the point is | that they don't need to suffocate users with their | ideology. Twitter Inc can remain devoutly woke without | spamming user feeds with woke propo. | | Invariably, topics involving "ideology" are a trap for | pedants. They think they're going to get a good "gotcha!" | in, but they find themselves hoisted on their own | petards. | malermeister wrote: | But that in itself would also be an ideological act. As | we've just established, there's no "non-ideological". | | People who want Twitter to be non-ideological in reality | just want it to represent some other ideology instead, | they don't get to hide behind some veil of neutrality. | metoodv wrote: | There is no justification, you're staking a position | against radical politics, that is, politics that seeks to | dismantle the current society and replace it with an | ideological vision, and the agents of the dominant | ideology which has no name (called Woke by its | detractors) are mad that you are challenging one of their | many parables from their scripture. Hence downvotes. | malermeister wrote: | What is the current society if not an ideological vision? | Who says the status quo is not radical? | throwaway894345 wrote: | Whether or not the status quo is an "ideology" is a | semantic distraction. For some strict technical | definition of "ideology", it may well be, but the | interesting question is whether or not it's radical. | Since the status quo refers to mainstream, moderate | attitudes, it can't be radical by definition (radical and | moderate are antonyms). | malermeister wrote: | Who says mainstream attitudes are moderate? | | To a devout Muslim, the amount of freedom of speech we | have around the prophet is radical. | | To a leftist, the exploitation of laborers by the | capitalist class is radical. | | To the religious right, LGBT rights are radical. | | To racists, race mixing is radical. | | The only thing that makes it seem moderate to you is | _your ideology_. | throwaway894345 wrote: | Mainstream attitudes are moderate by definition ("A | moderate is considered someone occupying any mainstream | position avoiding extreme views and major social change." | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_moderate). Both | "mainstream" and "moderate" are relative terms with | respect to some population. | | > To a devout Muslim, the amount of freedom of speech we | have around the prophet is radical. To a leftist, the | exploitation of laborers by the capitalist class is | radical. To the religious right, LGBT rights are radical. | To racists, race mixing is radical. | | Yep, you're observing that "moderate" is a relative term. | Different groups have different Overton windows. | | > The only thing that makes it seem moderate to you is | your ideology. | | No, it doesn't matter what my ideology is, it matters | what context we're talking about. That context is often | implicit, but that doesn't mean the notion of "moderate" | is ideological. If someone says "Joe is of median | height", do you leap out from behind the bushes and yell | "gotcha! 'median' is an ideological term! In Nigeria Joe | is tall!"? That doesn't mean "median" is an ideological | term, it means that it's dependent on the context, in | which case the context is probably something like | "whatever country Joe lives in". | malermeister wrote: | > Both "mainstream" and "moderate" are relative terms | with respect to some population. | | Correct. Which attribute of the population though? Their | height? Their skin color? Their weight? No, _their | ideology_. | | > Different groups have different Overton windows. | | What is an Overton window if not a measure of ideology? | | > No, it doesn't matter what my ideology is, it matters | what context we're talking about. That context is often | implicit, but that doesn't mean the notion of "moderate" | is ideological. | | That's exactly what ideology is, "implicit context". | vkou wrote: | > What ideology is that? | | The ideology in question is "Anything that is good for | Elon Musk is good." | | That's pretty much all there is to it. There's no rigour | to it, there's no intellectually sound foundation, there | are just things that serve his bottom line, and those | that hurt it. | madeofpalk wrote: | This all sounds very ideological. | | > We would all benefit from platform where telling jokes | that offend only the wokest doesn't get you banned and | silenced. | | Bring action items. Who was banned for "telling a joke". | Bring something substantial to the conversation to | discuss. | bequanna wrote: | It is trivial to do a google search to find examples. A | couple recent and high profile would be accounts locked | because they tweeted "learn to code" which was, of course | a joke at the expense of the (very sensitive and | unemployed) journalists. Another example of bans would be | sharing any satire that goes against the extreme left | view that it is perfectly OK to allow biological men in | women's sports. | syngrog66 wrote: | democracy is in dire danger from lies and adversarial | propaganda crafted by traitors and hostile nation states | | jokes which offend the Woke liberals is not a problem on | the same scale, though it is certainly annoying. there is | a censor-leaning thoughtcrime segment among some liberals | but again, that is NOT an imminent danger to democracy, | humanity, climate etc | tobr wrote: | > What ideology is that? | | There's a quite good podcast about this exact question, | Elon Musk: The Evening Rocket. | | https://www.pushkin.fm/show/elon-musk-the-evening-rocket/ | beaconstudios wrote: | you're right, hopefully all those political woke people | will go elsewhere. Then they can be replaced by people | who believe in minimal oversight and free speech, and | then twitter will be truly apolitical. | kreeben wrote: | "Un-woke" people are greater than or at least equally | political compared to those you call "woke", is my | experience from real life as well as internet encounters | with them, so your longing for an apolitical | Twitter/online public town square seems a pipe dream, I'm | afraid. | beaconstudios wrote: | yeah I know, I was being sarcastic. There's no such thing | as apolitical in any sphere that engages with real-world | issues of contention. | dijonman2 wrote: | I was hoping you were serious. | beaconstudios wrote: | what issue do you have with woke people? | EricE wrote: | They aren't happy until everyone is as miserable as they | are. For starters... | dijonman2 wrote: | It's incredibly toxic | beaconstudios wrote: | so the thing that's bad about progressives is... it's | bad? not the best argument I've heard/ | dijonman2 wrote: | Personal anecdote. I'm anti-woke, and I don't discuss | politics in any significant quantity. | | Instead I believe in being a decent person. | | We can talk until we're green in the face but I welcome | the day Twitter stops being a leftist authoritarian echo | chamber. | LordDragonfang wrote: | You've made an awful lot of comments in threads about | politics for someone who "doesn't discuss politics in any | significant quantity". | | Perhaps take some time to reflect as to whether that | label is really true for you, and focus more on that | latter belief. Being a decent person is admirable. | dijonman2 wrote: | I fail to see how your comment is substantiative. I don't | need to reflect, but thx for your concern. | rayiner wrote: | Everyone is political. But "woke" people are like the old | Christian right. They're willing to use their control of | institutions to prosthelytize their ideology in a way | that ordinary liberals or conservatives aren't. | AlexandrB wrote: | Conservative states are literally passing laws banning | the teaching of radical ideas like "gay people exist". If | that's not "prosthelytizing their ideology", I don't know | what is. | kolanos wrote: | > The law prohibits classroom instruction on sexual | orientation or gender identity from kindergarten to grade | 3 in Florida public school districts, or instruction on | sexual orientation or gender identity in a manner that is | not "age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for | students". It also allows parents and teachers to sue any | school district if they believe this policy is violated. | The bill additionally prevents school districts from | withholding information about a child's "mental, | emotional, or physical well-being" from their parents. | | > Due to the "Don't Say Gay" nickname some commentators | and social media users thought the bill banned mentioning | the word "gay" in school classrooms, though the bill does | not actually mention the word "gay" or explicitly | prohibit its use. | | [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Florida | #HB_1557... | edrxty wrote: | Please define: "age appropriate or developmentally | appropriate for students" | | The point of the bill is that nobody will talk about | anything because: "It also allows parents and teachers to | sue any school district if they believe this policy is | violated" | | Teachers and school districts don't have the money to | fuck around in court to learn what this means. This is | basically the same strategy as the Texas abortion bill as | it allows random evangelical busybody assholes to be | morality police with the threat of crippling court costs. | seadan83 wrote: | temp8964 wrote: | But why do the teachers and schools have to talk about | sex orientation, gay or not? I grew up from a culture | where sex was never talked about by teachers and I don't | think I missed anything. Of course students did talk | about it among themselves. This whole idea of teachers | must talk about sex in school sounds extremely stupid to | me. | | UPDATE: I just read a news case which is somewhat related | to the law: https://www.kentucky.com/news/local/education | /article2601061... | | The title makes it was about the message on the board, | while it was not. The music teacher talked about sex | orientation and trans issue in the classroom. | | QUOTE: | | "The issue at hand is the conversations that took place | during class. I firmly believe that students and their | parents expect teachers to teach content about their | assigned curriculum in a subject area," Saylor said. "Of | course, there are times that conversations may vary from | that day's lesson plan, but these conversations went far | beyond the music curriculum. It is my job to make sure | that parents are not surprised by these types of | situations." | | Saylor said he believes that all teachers have a | responsibility to be supportive of their students, "but | when students share difficult situations and | circumstances with them, the student should be referred | to a certified school counselor." | Jcowell wrote: | I don't have time to cite a study but there's a clear | correlation between the lack of health education and teen | pregnancy (which pipes into abortion). I would argue porn | addiction is at least contributed to adolescence learn | sex from porn cites instead of actual education. | | I wonder how many of the male population understand | periods, the cost contributed to them, and other female | health issues that affect 50% of the population. | edrxty wrote: | I'm guessing maybe you were probably cis-hetero? No | judgment if that's the case, the vast majority of people | will be fine in that regime. However, when I was growing | up we did have non typical kids in class and they were | very much picked on. Non typical gender alignment wasn't | talked about so the only words kids had at the time were | "weird" and "funny" along with whatever stuff they picked | up from the early internet porn sites and magazines. It | wasn't great. | | The thing we have to realize is the would is a bit | different now. Before we just assumed these people didn't | exist and _that became a bit of a self fulfilling | prophecy_. Now we better understand this reality and the | consequences of ignoring them as well as the options | available for helping them. | temp8964 wrote: | We did have kids looking weird, but nobody picked on them | because of this. I think the school's responsibility is | forbid bulling, for whatever reasons. | edrxty wrote: | I'd say given most schools track records it's better to | prevent the onset bullying than it is to just forbid | bullying... | kolanos wrote: | The bill [0] does not define it, instead it leaves it up | to the Florida Department of Education to come up with a | framework of what is and is not appropriate for 5-8 year | olds consistent with the bill by a certain deadline. | | The change here is that the bill is enforcing that some | kind of framework is followed in public schools when it | comes to teaching 5 to 8 year olds about sexual | orientation and gender identities. What the Florida | Department of Education comes up with here remains to be | seen, but the vagueness of the bill actually seems | reasonable here as the appropriateness of such topics | likely varies depending on the age of the child. | | The meat of the bill is reenforcing parental rights in | public schools, such as being able to access their | child's mental health records, to be notified of any | medical procedures with the option to opt out, access to | their child's curriculum, etc. | | [0]: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/Bill | Text/Fil... | slibhb wrote: | In the US, most public schools have health class that | covers these topics in 8th or 9th grade. The bill isn't | touching that. Third grade is far too young. | kolanos wrote: | I consider myself pretty firmly in favor of LGBT+ rights. | But at the same time, I can see why parents wouldn't want | sexual education as a part of a curriculum for 5 to 8 | year olds. Sex ed certainly wasn't being taught in | elementary school when I was a kid. But this legislation | goes both ways. A teacher can't teach 5-8 year olds that | there are only two genders, either. | edrxty wrote: | It's a political cudgel. | | People arguing for the bill believe those against it want | to give 5yo kids a lecture on sex positions but in | reality there's a lot of material to cover in the window | they're banning that isn't the heavy sexual content they | have in mind. | temp8964 wrote: | Reddit is not a good place to get informed. | _-david-_ wrote: | Literally no state has passed a law teaching gay people | do not exist. You should read the actual bills and take | some time off Twitter while you are at it. | edrxty wrote: | Have...you? Specifically looking at Florida, the issue | is, while they don't say you can't "say gay" the wording | is deliberately vague on what can be taught and when. | This is very much intended to create a chilling effect on | classroom speech because teachers and school districts | don't have the cash to find out in court and all it takes | is one dumb parent to start a massive court battle. | _-david-_ wrote: | The bill is not unclear about what and when things can be | taught. Please stop buying into the hype on this bill. | | First the bill applies to kindergarten to 3rd grade. Very | clear who it applies to. If you teach fourth grade or | above this does not apply. | | Second, the bill basically prevents three things. | | 1. The withholding of information "affecting a student's | mental, emotional, or physical well-being" from a parent. | It also requires no prohibitions on parents "accessing | any of their student's education and health records | created, maintained, or used by the school district". | | 2. Banning teachers of kindergartens through 3rd grade | from "discussion about sexual orientation or gender | identity or in a manner that is not age appropriate or | developmentally appropriate for students" | | 3. Prevents a school from "administering a student well- | being questionnaire or health screening form to a student | in kindergarten through grade 3" without providing "the | questionnaire or health screening form to the parent and | obtain[ing] the permission of the parent" | | The law also requires the school districts to "notify | parents of each healthcare service offered at their | student's school and the option to withhold consent or | decline any specific service." | | It is quite clear and less than 10 pages long. It is not | chilling speech to not talk to a 5 year old about sex. | Also, this bill also literally would apply to all sexual | orientations including straight. If this is a don't say | gay bill then it is also don't say straight. | edrxty wrote: | Please define "not age appropriate or developmentally | appropriate for students" | | Additionally puberty generally starts in 2nd-3rd grade so | these children aren't allowed to learn about themselves | until after onset, including potentially asking their | teachers questions privately. | kolanos wrote: | The bill [0] leaves the definition of "not age or | developmentally appropriate" up to the Florida Department | of Education, which apparently defines such things | anyway. | | [0]: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/Bill | Text/Fil... | slibhb wrote: | > Additionally puberty generally starts in 2nd-3rd grade | | No it doesn't. Third graders are 8-9. | | The idea of third graders learning about sex and puberty | is very strange. We (public school) had health class in | 8th and 9th grade where we learned about puberty, sex, | and similar topics. | | Additionally, it's odd to me that you include mention of | "asking teachers questions privately". Why don't 8-9 year | olds ask their parents privately? The assumption is that | the parents are the enemy. That's exactly what led to | this bill. | samarama wrote: | Puberty starts at 8 for many children already and for | most at 11. | edrxty wrote: | >According to the National Institutes of Health, puberty | usually begins in girls between 8 and 13 years of age, | and in boys between 9 and 14 | | Idk, I'd definitely be forced to talk to a teacher if you | were my parent | slibhb wrote: | Those are extreme lower bounds. I had a friend who | started puberty at 9 but it's very, very rare. | | You wrote: | | > puberty generally starts in 2nd-3rd grade | | That's wrong. Replace "generally" with "very, very | rarely" and it's right. | | > Idk, I'd definitely be forced to talk to a teacher if | you were my parent | | Why? Why wouldn't you be able to talk to a parent about | going through puberty at 8 years old? Any parent is going | to notice. Why is it better to talk to a virtual | stranger? | _-david-_ wrote: | >Please define "not age appropriate or developmentally | appropriate for students" | | This is of course the least clear part of the bill. I | believe I saw one if the Florida representatives | supporting this bill basically say the existing sex ed / | health classes are fine and students should be in at | least middle school. | | Very few people are complaining about general sex ed. | | >Additionally puberty generally starts in 2nd-3rd grade | so these children aren't allowed to learn about | themselves until after onset | | I've seen conflicting numbers on the age of puberty. I | think the youngest is 8 for girls and 9 for boys. If that | is the case that would be 3rd grade. Would you be OK with | a ban on K-2 on this then? | | Just because a kid starts puberty does not mean they | suddenly have sexual preferences. It takes time to grow | so even if they start puberty at 8 they will take a while | to understand. | | Also, there have been some hypotheses regarding the | declining age for puberty such as the increase in sexual | content at a younger and younger age. I think the average | age kids first see porn is now 10 or so. That means quite | a few kids are seeing it earlier than that (and probably | earlier than puberty). If that is the case then maybe we | should try to lower the sexual content instead of | increasing it. | | Kids also aren't banned from learning about themselves. | Not sure where you got that idea from? How would such a | thing even be enforced? | | >including potentially asking their teachers questions | privately. | | I am dubious this is banned. The law is explicitly says | classroom instruction. Asking a teacher a question | privately doesn't seem to fall under it. | | Regardless, I don't think English or math teachers or | whatever subject should be teaching sex related things. | If it is going to be be taught in schools it should be | taught by a health teacher. Maybe we should be advocating | for health classes in elementary school instead of middle | school. | edrxty wrote: | >at least middle school | | This is far too late in my experience. If you wait this | long the trans and gay kids are already being picked on | and everyone else has learned how sex works from internet | porn. | | > I've seen conflicting numbers on the age of puberty. I | think the youngest is 8 for girls and 9 for boys. If that | is the case that would be 3rd grade. Would you be OK with | a ban on K-2 on this then? | | I think this is an interesting point, and I'd agree that | if the problem was just puberty then moving things back a | year would solve the issue. | | However... | | >Also, there have been some hypotheses regarding the | declining age for puberty | | Obviously real data would be needed for this beyond just | a hypothesis, but even if we accept this, there's another | facet to this problem. Gender identity isn't a sexual | issue at this age (obviously it's inherently sexual but | not in the way this point is addressing it). There seems | to be some consensus that gender dysphoria is first | experienced at age 3 to 7 and personally I witnessed kids | I went to school with displaying signs of this prior to | 3rd grade. There isn't any harm in explaining to children | that gender dysphoria exists and that while some of them | may question their gender, it doesn't mean there's | anything wrong with them and that they shouldn't pick on | people who don't fit cleanly into gender categories. | | A lot of the lefts outrage over this bill is based on the | premise that there wasn't harm happening as a result of | education before this was proposed, but now there | definitely will be, as a result of a lack thereof. | srveale wrote: | It is absolutely unclear. | | A teacher shouldn't have to risk legal action by saying | "Timmy's parents are both men who love each other, and | that's okay." This bill introduces that risk because the | teacher doesn't know who is going to decide what is age | appropriate. A parent could decide it was inappropriate | and initiate a suit. Will that happen often? No, but what | teacher is going to risk it? | | It's very difficult to find a reason that the wording | "age appropriate or developmentally appropriate" is so | vague, expect that the bill's intent is to silence the | subject as much as possible. | _-david-_ wrote: | A teacher shouldn't be gossiping about another student's | home life regardless of their age. I hope this bill bans | that! | lovich wrote: | If the bill prevents any discussion that would teach | someone who was unaware that gay people existed, with no | explicit reference towards banning teaching that gay | people existed, does that make a material difference in | your eyes? | _-david-_ wrote: | First, the bill does not say you cannot teach that gay | people exist. It says you can instruct students on sexual | orientation. This only applies through 3rd grade (about 8 | or 9 years old). As far as I know there are no health | classes or sex ed prior to 10 years old. Any talk about | sexual orientation or gender identity would not be | relevant to the subject material. | | There is no reason why a young kids needs to be | instructed about such things. Any author or historical | figure who is gay could still be taught. | | Second, this only applies to classroom instruction. If a | student stays after class they could ask their teacher | about sexual orientation if they are wondering why a | student has two dads or something. Some may try to extend | the law to cover that, but as far as I can tell it | wouldn't apply to that. | lovich wrote: | I can make the question simpler since I didn't seem to | convey what I meant. | | If the law functionally prevents X without explicitly | stating that they are intending to prevent X, does that | make a difference to you? | _-david-_ wrote: | I understood what you were asking. I reject the premise. | Teachers can literally still teach gay people exist so | long as it is part of the curriculum and they do it in an | age appropriate manner. | | If they were intending to ban X (and presumably promote | Y) they shouldn't write a bill that also bans Y. (Y being | straight). | lovich wrote: | You've yet to answer to my question on whether it matters | when bills functionally block something without | explicitly stating so. | | If you want to infer some assumptions without answering | some basic axioms so we can make sure we're on the same | page and not arguing past each other, I'll just dive in. | | Since I'm seeing many supporters of the bill get incensed | at the fact that Y is also functionally banned, and been | told that I should know what the bill is "really about", | and that the bill does not define "age appropriate", I | reject your rejection of the premise. There's a chilling | effect of the government saying you could be in legal | trouble for this, but they won't let you know what the | line is until you've crossed it. That causes people to | pull their behavior far back from wherever they think the | nebulous line might be. | _-david-_ wrote: | I hope I am not coming off as incensed as you mentioned | some people are. | | To answer your question, despite its irrelevance, I don't | mind if a bill functionally blocks something so long as | it would be constitutional / legal if they were to | explicitly block that thing. I tend to prefer explicit to | prevent any confusion. If you think this bill | functionally blocks talking about gay people existing | then it also functionally blocks talking about straight | people existing. | | I agree there is no age appropriate definition, but I | don't really mind. | | I don't think any teacher who is teaching 3rd grade and | younger should instruct about any sexual orientation or | gender identity regardless if they do it in an age | appropriate manner so I don't particularly care if | teachers are afraid of talking about sexual orientation | to 5 year olds. I wish the bill went further and just | outright banned any instruction on the topic to kids in | 3rd grade and younger without the age appropriate | portion. | | Unfortunately due to the age appropriate wording a | teacher may be able to instruct about sexual orientation | to kids who are too young to be hearing it. | lovich wrote: | I agree that the letter of the law also prevents | mentioning straight people, but I have no expectation | that the law will be enforced on anything but gay/trans | issues. There's no way to completely excise this sort of | topic from conversation even with young children. | | You don't have to get into sexually explicit conversation | but even the concept of having a mom and a dad is a | functional consequence of sexual orientation and children | are aware of the fact that they have parents from much | younger than third grade. Given the impossibility of | removing all discussion on the topic I have no reason to | believe that the Florida state government is going to | enforce this law equally, and instead expect selective | enforcement against their political enemies. Their base | expects this too based on my conversations with | supporters of the law who don't think that any discussion | of heterosexually linked topics will be banned and only | homosexual ones will. | | That gets back to my point about the functional blocking | in the law, which youve stated you're fine with if it's | constitutional. As the SCOTUS already ruled that | sexuality can't be used as a determinate in | discriminatory laws during the gay marriage case due to | the fact that it relies on gender information which is a | protected class, I can't see how anyone who's pro | constitution is cool with this bill | _-david-_ wrote: | >I agree that the letter of the law also prevents | mentioning straight people, but I have no expectation | that the law will be enforced on anything but gay/trans | issues. | | That is an issue with the enforcement of the law not the | law itself. | | >There's no way to completely excise this sort of topic | from conversation even with young children. | | Sure there is. Literally don't talk about it. I don't | think a single teacher told us they were married until we | were in middle school. None of the teachers mentioned any | of the other student's parents. It is pretty easy to do | by not talking about it. | | >You don't have to get into sexually explicit | conversation but even the concept of having a mom and a | dad is a functional consequence of sexual orientation and | children are aware of the fact that they have parents | from much younger than third grade | | And? Just because children understand they have parents | and one is male and the other is female doesn't mean | teachers need to talk about it. | | >Given the impossibility of removing all discussion on | the topic I have no reason to believe that the Florida | state government is going to enforce this law equally, | and instead expect selective enforcement against their | political enemies | | Not a given. | | >Their base expects this too based on my conversations | with supporters of the law who don't think that any | discussion of heterosexually linked topics will be banned | and only homosexual ones will. | | I don't think you talk to a lot of conservatives. Every | conservative I know (and the media ones I have heard) do | not want teachers talking about heterosexual | relationships either. I think they all would be glad if | everything related to sexual orientation and gender | identity was banned (at least at this age). | | >As the SCOTUS already ruled that sexuality can't be used | as a determinate in discriminatory laws during the gay | marriage case due to the fact that it relies on gender | information which is a protected class, I can't see how | anyone who's pro constitution is cool with this bill | | Fortunately for proponents of this bill, there is nothing | about sexual orientation discrimination. The bill bans | all instruction of sexual orientation regardless if it is | straight, gay or anything else. | | A gay teacher quite probably could even say he was gay | and married to a guy so long as it is not classroom | instruction. | [deleted] | beaconstudios wrote: | it's not that woke people control the institutions - it's | that companies see that they can run successful PR and | marketing campaigns by espousing progressive values. | Their boards don't give two shits about progressive | values, but flying a rainbow flag during pride month | doesn't require that they do anything, while gaining | praise from liberals and criticism from conservatives, | both of which are coverage/press. | edrxty wrote: | In addition to this, white collar workers are going to | align a little more left and it makes them feel better if | the company isn't cheering for gays to be lynched or | whatever. It's generally easier to hire for highly | educated positions if you appear _mildly_ woke, even if | you do absolutely nothing to that end. | baq wrote: | you mean an open field for CIA, FSB and MOSAD to perform | psyops? | throwaway894345 wrote: | I take your point--that the choice to stop smothering | people in woke content is itself a political decision | (for sufficiently abstract notion of "political"), but it | seems infinitely better than smothering people in any | particular ideological content at all. The woke people | can still opt into their own filter bubbles without their | ideology being foisted on everyone. | axlee wrote: | Historically, the right wing believes in free speech | until they have the keys to the public discourse, then it | radically changes. | MereInterest wrote: | > Musk has hinted that he views Twitter as a public forum | and should be moderated as such. | | That's an ideology. Whether or not it's a good one can be | a topic of debate, but phrasing it as not being an | ideology puts a finger on the scale of the debate right | from the start. | fivea wrote: | > Until now, I think Twitter's not-so-slight political | lean has been viewed as detrimental to the company (and | public discourse). | | Can you point out what is, in your personal opinion, the | best example you have of Twitter's "not-so-slight | political lean" and how you interpret it as "detrimental | to the company (and public discourse)"? | smachiz wrote: | This post tells me more about your political/ideological | views than it does illustrating Twitter's alleged | ideology, or what problems that has caused. | 1337shadow wrote: | Come on, you almost can't view any conservative | candidate's picture in france without having to "view | sensitive contents", it's ridiculous. | kergonath wrote: | They are not "conservative". Zemmour is an impression of | a conservative from the 1930s by someone who's never read | a history book, and le Pen is anything but a | conservative. A xenophobe, sure, but her manifesto does | not look like anything conservative beyond the appeal to | the Fatherland. | | The only conservative candidate is Pecresse, and she is | not "sensitive", because she's never been convicted for | hate speech or inciting violence. | colpabar wrote: | The last time I tried creating a twitter account, I was | immediately presented with a set of recommended people to | follow, which included Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and | Joe Biden. I'm sure there were more, but those were the | first three it showed me, and I did not bother to look at | any more. | | I don't want to follow any politicians, but that seems | pretty obviously one sided. I wish people would just | recognize that, and recognize that it isn't "right-wing" | to do so. | | It twitter recommended new users to follow Ted Cruz or | Marco Rubio, and those were the only recommendations they | saw without clicking "view more", would anyone question | whether that was biased or not? | nonethewiser wrote: | It's not propoganda if it affirms your worldview. | beaconstudios wrote: | presumably this recommendation is based on who most other | people follow. That's a systemic effect. | 1337shadow wrote: | Not with the French liberals, they are really not | popular, but still they are suggested for no reason. | beaconstudios wrote: | they are really not popular in France, or on twitter? | Presumably, twitter promotes content that's popular on | twitter, and twitter skews liberal. | Spooky23 wrote: | I'd question the intelligence of anyone or anything who | recommended following the musings of Ted Cruz. And that's | coming from someone who grew up in a family deeply | engaged in county-level republican politics. | | If it were 2009, and Twitter was pushing Al Gore and | ignoring George Bush, I'd see it differently. But it's | 2022, and the toxic & polarizing aspects of many | individuals make a perceived endorsement problematic for | mainstream consumers. | lobocinza wrote: | I get tons of recommendations for right wing politicians | on my country. Trying to make sense of the | recommendations is trying to extract meaning from a novel | written by a monkey. It's a waste of time. Just block | that section with your favorite ad blocker and live | happily thereafter. | smachiz wrote: | OK, so the recommendation engine is liberal? | | I don't know how the recommendation engine works, but | Barack Obama is the most followed account on twitter I | think, so can see how they'd suggest that... | | But if the recommendation engine is anything like their | recommended tweets, I think they intentionally show you | the other side always. I see tons of garbage view points | that I don't agree with almost exclusively when I view a | tweet. Without knowing anything about your tracking | cookies and however else they 'enrich' what they know | about you, it's tough to say why you got the | recommendations you did. If you signed up based on a | tweet from a democrat so you could engage by telling them | they're wrong, maybe they assumed you like other | democrats. | | If your complaint is that Twitter is an outrage inducing | platform by design, I would absolutely agree. But that | isn't an ideological bent. It just wants you to engage, | and the fastest and easiest method is to make you mad. | OrvalWintermute wrote: | >If your complaint is that Twitter is an outrage inducing | platform by design, I would absolutely agree. But that | isn't an ideological bent. It just wants you to engage, | and the fastest and easiest method is to make you mad. | | I don't think we can say with any honesty that Twitter is | a clone of Fox's Three talking heads, comprised of a good | looking moderator with a leftwinger, and a rightwinger | duking it out. | | Twitter has been censoring, moderating, editorializing, | and shadow-banning a large amount of conservatives, | Libertarians, and also, moderates/centrists, and | leftwingers that are posting contrary to the | establishment narratives. | | By turning into more of an ideological echo-chamber it | initiated the birth of conservative and other | competitors, of which gettr appears to be leading the | race with competitors like parler, truthsocial, gab, and | others falling behind. Am surprised there are not | shareholder lawsuits yet against Twitter's Officers for | violating fiduciary responsibilities. | | Maybe they are prioritizing influence over eyeballs & | economics? | nonethewiser wrote: | "I see tons of garbage view points that I don't agree | with almost exclusively when I view a tweet." | | Perhaps because you're on the fringe. | sillysaurusx wrote: | Is it so hard to believe that the recommendation engine | is liberal? It's true of HN too. | | It's not a bad thing, the same way that Fox News being | conservative isn't a bad thing. It just is what it is. | | These are major news sites. News always has a bias. It's | important to identify, for one's own sake. | | It's not even particularly hard to bias an AI algorithm. | It's arguably the default. | smachiz wrote: | Not hard to believe - younger people make up the bulk of | their audience, and probably the bulk of HN that trend | more liberal. That's a reflection of the userbase though, | not necessarily of Twitter or HN's views. I would bet | most LPs are more conservative - if only in private. | smachiz wrote: | I don't live in France and don't follow their | politics..... | | Do you believe that Twitter's Terms of Service have an | ideological bent? | | Do you believe that Twitter's Terms of Service are being | applied when they shouldn't against conservative | politicians in France? | | Do you believe that Twitter's Terms of Service are only | used against Conservative politicians - and do you have | examples of Tweets that were actioned for conservatives | and counterexamples that were not actioned for liberal | politicians? | 1337shadow wrote: | Yes, because every time I open twitter, the first posts I | see are from people whom I have no connection with, who | are celebrating about the current president, and it's not | the trendy ones #MacronGate #McKinseyGate #AlstomGate | #AlphaGate and so on. | smileybarry wrote: | You can go into your account settings and disable | sensitive content warnings, content filtering and reply | filters (the ones that put some messages in "more | replies"). | 1337shadow wrote: | I'm sorry, a picture of a non naked dude shouldn't be | marked as sensitive without a clear ideology. | lovich wrote: | Non naked dudes should probably stop making their images | be associated with a clear ideology. You seem to be under | the impression that Twitter needs to treat everyone as | neutral when the people in question are ideological | themselves | nonethewiser wrote: | You're talking about Biden right? | lovich wrote: | I'm talking about everyone. Unless Twitter or other | companies are bound to treat everyone neutrally by force | of law then both their actions and inaction when it comes | to ideological figures will have an ideological effect. | Twitter cannot stand by and remain neutral while it has | free will | Barrin92 wrote: | Given that we're talking about people like Eric Zemmour | who are mainstream candidates in French Conservative | politics now despite being literally convicted for | inciting racial hatred several times that says more about | the state of French politics than it says about Twitter's | moderation policies. | | That's a general theme with these 'I got banned, how | overly sensitive!' stories. 95% of the time you don't | need to scroll long until you find some genuinely vile | stuff. I honestly cannot figure out how anyone who | behaves even half-civilized ends up being banned by any | of these platforms, it's kind of wild how _much_ garbage | you can post. | 1337shadow wrote: | > convicted for inciting racial hatred several times | | That's not even true. | | Source, liberal media: | | > Son avocat se plait d'ailleurs a rappeler qu'il | denombre au total <<seize dossiers de poursuites, dont | une seule condamnation definitive>> contre son client. | | Deepl: His lawyer likes to point out that he has a total | of "sixteen prosecutions, of which only one is a final | conviction" against his client. | | https://www.liberation.fr/checknews/combien-de-fois-eric- | zem... | | And for the first prosecution, he didn't appeal, see the | other comment for the reason. | 1337shadow wrote: | You can't believe? Then why does even twitter admit it?? | | https://www.lefigaro.fr/medias/twitter-plusieurs-comptes- | lie... | | "By mistake", that's twitter's version of the story, so, | there goes some new information for you, sorry if it's | crushing your beliefs. | | As for the long story: EZ was convicted for saying that | most insecurity comes from immigrants, which is actually | true when you look at the Calonge file - you just have to | be part of the police or work in defense to see it, and | France forbids ethnical statistics so people can't be | made aware publicly about that, except by syndicalist | cops such as Bruno Attal. The conviction is purely | political and EZ should have appealed but he was just a | journalist at the time and preferred to consider this | conviction a medal of honnor. | | Nonetheless, he didn't have twitter at the time, he has | twitter since he's a candidate, and his account is | completely clean, so is the GZ party's, but those were | closed "by mistake" by twitter according to twitter | itself, and since then, their content is systematically | marked sensitive, for absolutely no reason. | kergonath wrote: | [deleted] | forty wrote: | It is important not to confuse correlation and causation | though (I mean even if your speculation that most | insecurity* comes from immigrants was true). | | Also EZ have made it very clear that he doesn't have that | much problems when immigrants are white and christian | (even recently when discussing immigrants from Ukraine) | so it's not like he is really hiding that everything he | says about immigrants is really about non white and | Muslim people. | | * Not exactly sure what insecurity means exactly. I feel | it's often used to mean "the feeling ignorant people have | when they see foreigners" in which case you might be | right :) | laurent92 wrote: | EZ also made it clear that a French Muslim is French and | he won't touch them, so it's not like he's hiding that | he's targetting delinquants. | | Targetting delinquants is often seen as straight up | racist, which kind of proves the point. | | EZ is the Muslims' best opportunity to separate the good | from the evils, because many Muslims in France would like | the bad ones to be convicted, which the current system | prevents. Macron has instaurated a system that can be | summarized as "Let's free all Muslim criminals", which | does a lot of torts to all of them. | laurent92 wrote: | Zemmour has been convicted for saying the truth. | lovich wrote: | Since when has musk believed in free speech(as a | universal constant, not as in the right protected in the | US from government action) other than when it's to his | benefit? He's on record for retaliating against people | who criticize him. He only wants free speech when it's to | his benefit | IgorPartola wrote: | Not defending Musk, but I am just curious: what does free | speech mean to you here? How would it work? | lovich wrote: | Does what I think of free speech matter in this | conversation or does what musk thinks matters? He talks | about censoring as a violation of free speech and then | engages in the same sort of behavior when he does things | like canceling the Tesla order of a reporter who said | things he doesn't like. | | He's an inconsistent hypocrite and there's zero evidence | that's been presented to make me believe this move is | coming from a sincerely held belief that isn't "what's | best for Elon is the right thing" | | Edit: fixed autocorrect of "and" back to "an" | emteycz wrote: | Free speech does not mean "free of consequences", it | means nobody deletes it or jails you for it. Forcing you | [within legal/moral limits] to delete it yourself is not | against free speech. | lovich wrote: | Then what is musk asking about in terms of free speech | since no one is going to jail when Twitter or other | social media sites ban people or censor their tweets? | | While I am not claiming that you personally are guilty of | this, musk stans always seem like they are talking out of | both sides of their mouth whenever they defend musk's | comments on free speech and jump back and forth on | whether they are using the "protection from government | action" definition or the "protection from condemnation | of other private individuals and companies" definition | emteycz wrote: | He is asking Twitter to not hand out bans based on | content and/or delete content. | | Not that I entirely agree with him on this topic. IMHO | Twitter has the right to delete whatever they want and | ban whoever they want. | | But he's not trying to force the change through | law/government. He _bought a stake and got on the board_ | and wants to change the rules of the platform itself from | there - that 's a way I respect. | lovich wrote: | Ok now I will say you are one of the people arguing out | of both sides of your mouth. Elon musk is perfectly happy | banning people from his platforms or businesses whenever | he sees fit based on their speech. There is no reason to | believe that he wants control of Twitter "to not hand out | bans based on content and/or delete content" as you said, | as he _already_ does that himself | mostertoaster wrote: | Yeah I think he probably wants twitter so he can censor | bad things about himself. He thinks if they can censor | the Biden laptop story I can get away with censoring bad | PR about himself or TSLA. | snovv_crash wrote: | He refused to censor Russian news sources via Starlink? | johannes1234321 wrote: | The hypocritical interpretation: He saw the opportunity | for positive marketing for his company with only little | investment. | bitsnbytes wrote: | So he is pro free speech and non censorship and allowing | for idiots to make idiots of themselves. I see no problem | here. | | Having come from a quasi socialist dictatorship and being | a foreign born Hispanic ,I would fight for the right of | the racist idiots to post there idiotic comments. You | fight ignorance with education and rational debate, not | with censorship. | | It appears that Elon wants to treat Adults as Adults and | let them make up their own minds. Unless you are bad at | adulting this shouldn't be a negative, but a positive. | Let me make up my own mind and don't have a Corporate | Oligarch and a Gov't riddled with conflict of interest | spoon feed me or use group think bullying to shape | society based on Tech Oligarch morality and political | believes. | samarama wrote: | Only that these idiots become one radicalized group of | 40% of Americans and try to topple the United States | again. | bitsnbytes wrote: | Your comment is exactly why we shouldn't censor people | and the consequence of getting filtered uncontested MSM | and Oligarch scrubbed news , if you are insinuating there | was an insurrection. | | If anyone has become radicalized its the tech oligarch, | hollywood, MSM and BOTH the democrat and republican | party. | | They do nothing but promote hatred , intolerance, and | violence among the people in order to keep them fighting | with each other. | qsdf38100 wrote: | He won't and can't yet admit it publicly, but his | ideology is closer to Russian ideology than what used to | be the west moral values (human rights, democracy, free | speech, ...). He's a natural born liar, bullshiter, | cheater... he lied his way to become the richest person | in the US. He's similar to trump. No real expertise, just | bold bullshit statements. He stands for nothing, except | his personal glory, money and domination. How can anyone | not see this is beyond me... | tomcam wrote: | > He stands for nothing, except his personal glory, money | and domination. | | Mind reading. | prox wrote: | Some sources on which you base your argument would help. | qsdf38100 wrote: | I could link some drama and bad press on him, but it's | beyond that. Just like you only need to listen to Trump | for a few monologues to know it's all rotten inside. With | Musk, the "benefit of the doubt" period is probably | longer, as he targets a more educated audience. | | But for me it's now clear he's not a good person by any | mean. He's filthy rich and not anywhere close to | satiation, now he's throwing his money at twitter "to | defend freedom of speech". That's gross, he's obviously | after more control over twitter to better push his | personal agenda. I don't pretend to know what it is, but | it's certainly not about human rights, freedom of speech | or democracy... | tomcam wrote: | > Just like you only need to listen to Trump for a few | monologues to know it's all rotten inside. | | Again with the mind reading. You might be right by the | way. It's not like I'm an Elon Musk fan boy or Trump fan | boy. But you have no idea what's going on in other | people's heads. They might be better people than your | hallucinations, or they might be substantially worse | people. Those of us outside of their brains simply don't | know. | lovich wrote: | And? | qiskit wrote: | > Musk has hinted that he views Twitter as a public forum | and should be moderated as such. | | Nobody spends $4 billion to create a public forum or to | defend free speech. You spend that kind of money for | influence or to push an agenda. What his agenda is, who | knows. I'm a fan of elon and maybe he is an outlier, but | I'm not holding my breath. There was a time when everyone | from google to facebook to reddit and even twitter all | supported free speech. People forget that twitter was | once a very pro-free speech platform. Everything from war | footage to politics of all sides was available on twitter | at one point. | | > I hope the people who work at Twitter and think it is | OK to bring your politics to work go elsewhere. | | It's generally not the employees. Most tech employees are | apolitical at work or against the woke culture. It's just | that C-suite/HR gives protection to the tiny vocal | minority espousing politics at work. | | > We would all benefit from platform where telling jokes | that offend only the wokest doesn't get you banned and | silenced. | | We would all benefit if every platform allowed people to | have their say. Regardless of how "offensive" you find | them to be. | datavirtue wrote: | "It's generally not the employees. Most tech employees | are apolitical at work or against the woke culture. It's | just that C-suite/HR gives protection to the tiny vocal | minority espousing politics at work." | | This is going in my childrens' book: "Why high paid | employees need a union!" | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | > Most tech employees are apolitical at work or against | the woke culture. sed -e 's/tech//' -e | 's/or against/and could not begin to define what is meant | by/' -e 's/woke culture/"woke culture"/g' | whymauri wrote: | Freedom for me, not for thee. | | https://www.businessinsider.com/tesla-elon-musk- | ruthlessly-f... | | https://www.businessinsider.com/free-speech-absolutist- | elon-... | | https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/25/business/musk-labor- | board... | | Edit: not all of these are about employees. He has | attempted to get an anonymous stock analyst fired from | their job due to a negative evaluation of Tesla stock. | causi wrote: | Don't forget about when he demanded a law firm fire a | junior lawyer he didn't like even when that lawyer had | nothing to do with SpaceX. | Phlarp wrote: | You mean the lawyer that had previously deposed him for | the SEC? My pet theory is it had nothing to do with this | particular individual and all about setting a precedent | to other government line attorneys (play nicely now, or | I'll ice you out of BigLaw later) | thirdwhrldPzz wrote: | He also loves free speech except when employees discuss | unions. | | He wants Twitters algorithms to be open, but his cars | must stay closed. | | Requesting anything of him is anti-freedom then he | projects at others how they could do better in the same | contexts. | | He's like a crazy TV Lenny salesman who has never | actually invented anything net new. He's playing the | acquisitions of other people work game to prop up his | preference to not work. | | Normal humans should not be given extreme leverage over | other normal humans. Lie to me about "free markets" but | as one of the 13% with and advanced degree, mine being in | math, the average person has no ability to smell through | his BS in detail, but they have a gut sense he's just | another used car salesman. | ActorNightly wrote: | This is the exact type of bias that Musk is trying to | address with his stake in Twitter. | | Nothing you stated can be backed up by anything real - | all of it is taken directly from leftists twitter | headlines that are more concerned with moral | grandstanding then facts. | ClumsyPilot wrote: | The hypocracy is literally backed up by the post he is | replying to. | | It is not chear to me that this person is left wing, they | sinply dislike Musk. | | I do not recommend you go around accusing everyone of | being left wing - otherwise peiple might start asking: | | Is asking that you practice what you preach leftwing | these days? | | Is being a two-faced lyer a concervative value? | thirdwhrldPzz wrote: | Everyone is a hypocrite from some context. | | Really I just don't think anyone should be above the real | hands on work of supporting their existence. | | Term limits for these roles should be explicit, not a | game of they who can possess the most minds the longest | wins. | | The promise of human colonization of all of space time is | still a high minded fantasy which makes this "hype/gossip | my way to wealth" seemed designed to intentionally | manipulate the same basal biology religion accidentally | latched onto. | | Who knows, maybe rockets to Mars are all wrong and we | should be doing something completely different; | information doesn't need to just travel in a ship, but | Star Trek seems to live long and prosper in his head. | BuyMyBitcoins wrote: | In the GP's defense, the most vociferous anti-Elon folks | online tend to also identify as leftists. It makes sense | that they are because Elon is a capitalist billionaire | known for being anti-Union, for overworking employees, | and for being a general critic of leftists on his social | media. He is the antithesis of most people on the left's | ideology. | | > _"Is asking that you practice what you preach leftwing | these days? Is being a two-faced lyer a concervative | value?_ " | | Now this is just playing dirty. This is a rhetorical | cheap shot combined with moral grandstanding while also | being nakedly partisan at the same time. | beaconstudios wrote: | yes | thirdwhrldPzz wrote: | thirdwhrldPzz wrote: | All of it is taken from him not releasing source code. | | From him not unionizing his companies. | | From the officially documented history of his business | acquisitions where he bought up business that already | existed. | | This approaching 1984 level double speak. It's the lack | of effort that speaks to his motives. Where is the code | for his machines that can choose to plow into us? But | somehow Twitters algorithm is super important. | | Edit: tacking on his desire to burn up fossil fuels on | rockets while the UN is announcing we're firmly on track | to an unlivable ecosystem. We are not optimizing human | economics but Elon's. | jfjfkfmfjr wrote: | There is a clear difference between open sourcing | Twitter's algorithm that promotes certain tweets over | others and Tesla's IP. | | Musk has a very high IQ. Unionizing his company would be | a very dumb decision. | PaulDavisThe1st wrote: | > There is a clear difference between open sourcing | Twitter's algorithm that promotes certain tweets over | others and Tesla's IP. | | Given that the IP in question includes whatever solution | Tesla adopts for the trolley problem, there certainly is | a clear difference. Twitter's algorithm is for arguing | about, Tesla's algorithm is going to be directly the | cause of death for someone (arguably, it already has). | thirdwhrldPzz wrote: | Yeah there is a clear difference. I never said there was | not. | | Strawman. | | I have a very high iq; in a past life I designed power | switching machines and high performance boards for | Nortel. Also that's an appeal to higher authority. | | Also these companies are pretty data driven through | automation; big banks are run from 2GB excel sheets. It's | just people doing math and the ones doing best also | happen to have political tradition on their side. | | Musk is still just one man. | postmeta wrote: | UAW is corrupt, encouraging them is a bad idea. Unions | are symptom of corporations where employees don't have | enough equity. Also a symptom of incompetent governments. | If you fix the government or give employees equity you | don't need unions. Tesla aspires to give employees | equity. There are many who became millionaires after | joining tesla early and working the line. | emteycz wrote: | > He's like a crazy TV Lenny salesman who has never | actually invented anything net new. | | Lol, literally nobody invented anything new by this | metric. | ClumsyPilot wrote: | When people say inventor, they think Nicola Tesla or the | Wright Brothers. | | Elon musk is more analogous to Stebe Jobs, primarily a | businessman with some engineering backgrund. | | Then there is the whole controversy of tesla being funded | by two guys, him being an investor and forcing them out | of the company. | olliej wrote: | I would say closer to Thomas Edison - at least Jobs | didn't go out stealing other peoples work. | chmod600 wrote: | "Freedom for me, not for thee." | | Maybe this will remind liberals to be, well, liberal. | I've seen too many "liberals" who had credibility before | lose it all by using illiberal tactics. | | Now, see what happens when not-so-woke people start | taking over the boardroom and using the same tactics. And | then there's no more "but free expression is the heart of | America" defense. It'll be "they are private companies | and can do what they want on their platform... just like | you said". | | And it's all so predictable. | bequanna wrote: | Ah, all super balanced sources, but I'll bite. | | So your logic here is that because he fired subversive or | insubordinate employees he will do the same on Twitter? | beaconstudios wrote: | framing criticism as subversion or insubordination is | pretty telling. | | this is the behaviour of a free speech absolutist? | https://www.fastcompany.com/90208132/elon-musk-allegedly- | sil... | | I don't doubt that if he thinks he can get away with it, | he'll censor information on twitter that is harmful to | the finely-crafted PR narratives he likes to make about | himself and his companies. Like those battery fires and | autopilot unforced/spontaneous crashes. | awb wrote: | > this is the behaviour of a free speech absolutist? | | Because it's just a catchy phrase that sounds good on | paper. | | What's a "free speech absolutist" position on spam, NDAs, | calls to violence, libel, national security, fraud, false | advertising, copyright infringement, personal privacy, | etc.? | | I don't know of any country, platform or person that | follows an "absolutist" philosophy on free speech within | any reasonable definition of the word "absolute". | | Everyone is a "free speech exceptionist", it's just | varying degrees of exceptions. | UncleMeat wrote: | Yep. Every discussion I've ever had with a "free speech | absolutist" has gone like this. | | "What are your thoughts on false advertising laws?" | | "That's fine, because fraud is a crime and therefore not | speech" | | People have bucketed "things I think should be legal" as | "speech" and "things I think should be illegal" as "not | speech" and then this makes it trivial to say that all | speech should be legal because the definition is | circular. | OrvalWintermute wrote: | > Everyone is a "free speech exceptionist", it's just | varying degrees of exceptions | | ++ | | Exceptions for me, but not for thee! | nielsbot wrote: | What is a balanced source you'd cite? | IntelMiner wrote: | Given the undercurrent of their responses and initial | remark. Breitbart or the like. Possibly with a remark of | providing an 'equally biased on the other side' source | Larrikin wrote: | Often times the people who irrationally defend Musk and | his companies, especially on this site, own stock in one | or more of the various companies. | | Conservative or liberal criticism, real or imagined, | doesn't matter since they just want to keep pushing the | stock price up. | specialist wrote: | aka Freedom Speeches [tm] | ncouture wrote: | What matters the most is the results. In my opinion a | decision like the following is totally reasonable | providing you are looking for people that owns your | results to be in charge: during a factory | visit over issues with the Model X's window. When | a worker on the assembly line proposed a solution, | Musk lit into the worker's manager. "This is | totally unacceptable that you had a person working | in your factory that knows the solution and you don't | even know that," Musk reportedly said before | firing the head of the factory. | | I'm of the opinion that a manager's responsible to know | issues raised by his subordinates. | res0nat0r wrote: | This sounds completely insane, but totally on brand for | Elon who needs to keep up his internet persona. | | If I'm in a meeting with some higher-ups above my boss | and I have some suggestion to a process I think may help | the company out and relay my thoughts, my boss should be | fired because I can think for myself? Completely idiotic. | | (Note this is assuming it doesn't involve anything | controversial, office politics etc, just a suggestion | based on my observations that I think could help the | company overall). | toss1 wrote: | >>If I'm in a meeting with some higher-ups above my boss | and I have some suggestion to a process I think may help | the company out and relay my thoughts, my boss should be | fired because I can think for myself? Completely idiotic. | | Tho I've got very mixed assessment of Elon Musk, he's | right in this case. | | At the moment that you first think of the solution and | mention it, your boss should not be fired. | | However, this was not that situation. | | But, from the above description alone, we know that there | was a known problem, and that the employee had enough | time to think about it and present it to Musk. One of two | things happened. The manager had failed to put out a | request like "we have problem X, please bring all ideas | for solutions", and/or the employee had previously | described the idea and been ignored up the chain of | command. | | Either of those are cause for a decision of "I now fail | to see why we should allow you in our plant, nevermind | paying you to be here.". | | One of the most basic jobs as a manager is to identify | problems, seek solutions and implement them. If the | answer had been something like: "yes, he brought the | solution to us yesterday, implementation will require P, | D, and Q, and we expect to have it into production by | next week", I'm sure Musk would have been fine with it. | res0nat0r wrote: | IMO I don't expect someone with this type of "philosophy" | to be that deep of a thinker: "1. Email | me back to explain why what I said was incorrect. | Sometimes, I'm just plain wrong! 2. Request further | clarification if what I said was ambiguous. 3. | Execute the directions." Failure to perform one of | the three actions would result in termination, Musk | noted. | | He's proven this over the years by getting sanctioned by | the SEC for posting on Twitter over the weekend while | high with his girlfriend and then being forced to step | down as chairman, and also consistently shitposting on | Twitter the last few years that would get any line level | employee fired. | cbozeman wrote: | I actually do agree with this. The idea that only a | certain set of individuals at a company could ever fathom | a problem X with product Y and anyone else who shares a | potential solution should be ignored is pretty short- | sighted and ignorant. | | I _don 't_ know if someone should be fired over that, but | then again, a firing is a pretty potent warning to others | not to commit the same offense. | dtech wrote: | This kind of thing sounds smart, but in practice it's | terrible to work with higher ups who randomly do this | kind of micromanaging and attach immense consequences to | it. | | Story I heard from a friend was of a CEO who asked a | janitor if he used their store and if not why. He replied | that he needed size Y of a product to efficiently store | in his cupboard, size X was too small and Z too large. | For months he hounded the department and forced negative | performance reviews on them because there was no good way | to provide Y with their current supplier. They ultimately | switched to a different inferior supplier because of it | (the brand the janitor normally brought) and lost several | good employees in the process. They got a lot of negative | feedback from customers from the switch and their revenue | on the product went down. | cheeko1234 wrote: | This goes along with Nassim Taleb's idea of Skin in the | Game: | | To learn you need 'contact with the ground': Actually, | you cannot separate anything from contact with the | ground. And the contact with the real world is done via | skin in the game-having an exposure to the real world, | and paying a price for its consequences, good or bad. | jjulius wrote: | In my opinion, there's entirely too much context missing | from this for us to say whether or not what is quoted | there was totally reasonable. | | Had the employee even brought that up to the manager | before? Had they had the idea for a long time and didn't | bring it up? If so, why not - does the manager foster a | culture where collaboration isn't encouraged? If that's | the case, does the manager not do that simply out of | ineptitude, or because that's the same culture coming | down from above him/her? Maybe the individual just had | the idea that morning? That week? The very moment it came | out of their mouth, even? Has the manager had a stellar | tenure up to that point, or a rocky one? How severe was | the issue pre-fix that it warranted this termination? I | could go on and on. | | Point being, two sentences saying, "An employee had an | idea and Musk fired his boss because he didn't know about | that idea," is typically not going to be enough for us to | say, "Oh yeah, that was a good/bad call". | datavirtue wrote: | Batshit. Sounds like a withdrawal moment. Anyone who | studies institutions, management, and factories knows | that the overarching culture that flows from the top-down | is what sets the expectations and communication norms. | This is typical old school American hierarchically | organized culture that made it certain that the employees | on the floor knew the solution and that the managers had | no idea. The problem starts and ends with Musk and his | shitty company culture/communication. It is his job to | create a culture where ops communicates with management | and vise versa. Toyota has answer to this problem. | aaronbrethorst wrote: | Results like these, you mean? | https://electrek.co/2022/03/16/tesla-employee-fired- | sharing-... | [deleted] | belorn wrote: | Freedom for me, not for thee, is the recurring theme in | every discussion on censorship. Generally shared by both | sides, and generally used as a description of the other | side by both sides. | | The goal of liberty is freedom under common rules. Rules | may exist but it need to apply and enforced equally. The | trouble is that no one seems to want to have such rules | when they themselves get effected, and so people want to | carve out exceptions to common rules in order to return | to _Freedom for me, not for thee._ | chmod600 wrote: | True, but we know some systems are more free and some | less free. Let's understand how the parts of a system | work to create freedom and try to replicate those | aspects. | | Let's not just throw up our hands and say that freedom is | never sincere and there's nothing we can do. | | For instance, the Constitution has been successful at | maintaining many important rights, some of which are | quite rare in the world. | belorn wrote: | Yes, common rules that get enforced equally for everyone | works pretty well. It is the true and tested system that | produce more free. | | Every time people suggest that social websites should | operate on such rules, ie laws, people throw up our hands | and say that laws don't work, or that there must be | exceptions because the world is unfair and wrongs need to | be addressed. | | Its a very difficult problem to solve since in general | people really do not want to be in a system where rules | are common and get enforced equally. That it happens to | be the only thing that actually work is just part of the | problem. | prox wrote: | This is the best response sofar. Have seen some comments | that only shows entrenchment while simultaneously trying | to degrade "the other" | | Reconciliation should be the goal of any debate (at least | in the political sphere) | mdoms wrote: | Musk is famous for aggressively silencing his opponents | when he has the power to do so (or thinks he does). | faeriechangling wrote: | Public forums tend to be subject to rules and regulation, | enforced by authorities, which Elon Musk does not seem to | be very fond of. His ideology in the context of social | media is a bit more anarchic and sceptical of the | imperiality and morality of said authorities. | | No comment on how much of a free speech warrior he is | when he's dealing with employees or reporters or cavers | that he dislikes. | drewrv wrote: | Who has been banned from Twitter for a joke that offended | "only the wokest"? Dave Chapelle still has a twitter | account. As does Louis CK. | [deleted] | PathOfEclipse wrote: | Not everyone has an ideology. Having an ideology is a bad | thing. It generally means you reduce the complexity of | the world into a simple narrative, and this results in | you having incorrect beliefs, making bad decisions, and | supporting bad causes. The goal should be to abandon all | ideology, not change to a different, better one, although | better is always an improvement over worse. | beaconstudios wrote: | an ideology is a model of the world. You can have a more | nuanced ideology (which is a good thing), but you can't | have no ideology at all. Otherwise, you can't engage with | questions like "why are there poor people and rich | people" or "is it ethical to steal bread to feed your | family". There are no non-ideological answers to these | questions, so your best hope for non-ideology is to cling | to and never question the status quo. | PathOfEclipse wrote: | I disagree, and so do other thinkers more well-known than | I. With regards to "why are there poor and rich people", | the answer is so complex as to occupy entire libraries. | I've personally read Thomas Sowell's "Wealth, Poverty, | and Politics", where he delves into a number of important | factors for economic disparity that in vogue ideologues | tend to ignore. And, that's the point. Their ideology | blinds them to the complexity of the world. | | There is similarly a non-ideological answer to "should I | steal bread to feed my family?" It involves tradeoffs | like: | | * what will happen if I steal this bread? Could I get | caught and therefore no longer be able to provide for my | family? What effect will it have on myself and on | society? | | * what will happen if I don't steal the bread? Is there | any other way to provide food for my family? Can I accept | their death as a consequence for obeying a moral law? | | You weigh the tradeoffs, risks, and expected outcomes, | then make a decision for yourself, which may or may not | be the right answer for your specific situation and may | or may not generalize to other situations or other | people. | | As Jordan Peterson says: " Ideologues are the | intellectual equivalent of fundamentalists, unyielding | and rigid." | | And also: "Beware, in more technical terms, of blanket | univariate (single variable) causes for diverse, complex | problems." | | Your definition of ideology may differ from that, but in | practice, I find that when we call someone an ideologue | today, or refer to an ideology, it is always a false | narrative-based over-simplification of the world. | beaconstudios wrote: | I'm sorry but you can't argue that you are free of | ideology by quoting Thomas Sowell and Jordan Peterson. | That's very funny. | | Thomas Sowell is a fiscal conservative whose ideology | boils down to "individual decisions are primarily | responsible for divergent outcomes". Jordan Peterson is a | Christian conservative, all his advice might as well be | Bible citations. He also knows nothing except ideological | positions when it comes to criticising the left wing; he | loves the term "postmodern neomarxist" despite those | terms being completely contradictory. | PathOfEclipse wrote: | Nice straw man, buddy. | | 1) I didn't claim to be free of ideology. How's your | reading comprehension? | | 2) There's nothing funny about quoting two people that | are probably both smarter and wiser than you in order to | make a good and valid point. | beaconstudios wrote: | 1: yes you did: | | > There is similarly a non-ideological answer to "should | I steal bread to feed my family?" | | > proceeds to describe their own thought process | | you didn't even engage with the ideological elements of | the question. Is it right to redistribute property if the | need is greater elsewhere? Does the right to survive | override the right to property? What if violence is | necessary to take the bread? You just treated it like a | personal cost-benefit analysis of a single instance. | | 2: yes there is. The fact that you consider them to be | authorities on non-ideological positions is the funny | part. | PathOfEclipse wrote: | 1. No I didn't. | | I engaged with the question and responded, essentially, | "there may not be a universally right answer to your | question." I just didn't respond the way wished I would. | | And, in general, I would say it's not ok to forcefully | take property because you made the judgement that the | property would be better used in your hands, but I won't | say there are no exceptions to that. Again, life is | complex. Abandon ideology. | | 2. I think you are overdue for some humble self- | reflection. | beaconstudios wrote: | 1. saying 'it's complex' isn't a non-ideological | position, it just calls for nuance. I already agreed that | nuanced ideology is better than rigid and inflexible | ideology - I think that's true of people I broadly align | with and people I disagree with. You might want to | reflect on the conditions under which it's acceptable to | redistribute property, because if there's a dividing line | for you it'll be telling what that line is. It sounds to | me like you primarily navigate on intuition alone but I | could be wrong. I could easily go on a cost-benefit | analysis like you did about stealing bread, but instead | it was for mugging businessmen and using the money to pay | for drugs and prostitutes. I'm sure you would agree that | the latter is wrong, but I doubt you could elaborate a | coherent framework for discerning between right and wrong | action beyond gut-feel. | | 2. humble self-reflection isn't going to lead me to think | that Sowell and Peterson are authorities on non-ideology. | But the tiniest bit of research into the criticism of | them might lead you to understand the flaws in their | positions. I would know: I used to think Jordan Peterson | was great and his tirades against the postmodern | neomarxists was him defending western liberalism against | university indoctrination and crybullies or whatever. | Then I grew up, read some books, actually thought about | my internal unchallenged opinions. | boredtofears wrote: | Your responses are mostly regurgitating things you've | watched from youtube philosophers. You clearly have an | ideology whether you believe you do or not. | PathOfEclipse wrote: | You implying that a quite prolific 90-year-old scholar is | a "Youtube philosopher" comes off as pretty ignorant or | foolish. Sowell did most of his work before Youtube | existed, and AFAIK has never directly engaged with the | platform in any way. | | And again, I never claimed to be free of ideology. At the | same time, you haven't done anything to pin down my | ideological constraints. | boredtofears wrote: | Sowell mostly pops up in the same conservative circles as | the IDW crowd these days. It's all under the same online | junk philosophy umbrella. It's not like his material has | aged particularly well. | | Most of what you're parroting seems to be from JP | anyways. | long_time_gone wrote: | I'm not the person you were discussing with, but couldn't | help but notice that this comment you call the person an | ideologue: | | > Again, life is complex. Abandon ideology. | | Seems to be in direct conflict with this comment you made | earlier: | | > I find that when we call someone an ideologue today, or | refer to an ideology, it is always a false narrative- | based over-simplification of the world. | | The idea of abandoning ideology is it's own ideology, no? | PathOfEclipse wrote: | I don't think so, no. The call to abandon ideology is to | recognize that narratives can contain truths in a limited | form, but it is an error but to treat them as more than | they are. I don't see that as an ideology, but as a | simple fact about narratives and ideologies themselves. | They are, by design, simplifications of reality, or very | narrow windows into reality. | long_time_gone wrote: | I'm suggesting that in the implementation of what you | describe, there is ideology at play. To me, it seems like | ignoring that is it's own, different type of ideology. | AlexandrB wrote: | "Smarter" is arguable, but unless the parent got hooked | on benzos, pursued a scientifically-unsound, meat-only | diet, and then ended up in a Russian hospital I think | it's safe to say they're wiser than Jordan Peterson. | cjbgkagh wrote: | Jordan Peterson really should have known better with | regards to benzos. He said on a Joe Rogan podcast that | science only recently found out how bad they were which I | personally can't believe to be true, but if it is it is | an indictment on 'science'. | PathOfEclipse wrote: | Nutrition is a fantastic example of a field where the | adage "life is complex" applies so well. I love how a | person: | | 1) has major health problems | | 2) changes his diet and immediately sees those health | problems go away. | | 3) gets mocked online by complete strangers. | | Human bodies are so complex and variable. What works for | one person's health may not work for another. If you are | blessed to find something that works for you, be grateful | and humble, and don't automatically assume what you know | applies equally to everyone else. Also, "science" is not | even close to settled on the subject of nutrition as it | applies to individuals. | danbolt wrote: | > With regards to "why are there poor and rich people", | the answer is so complex as to occupy entire libraries. | | I think that would quality under beacon's idea of a more | "nuanced" ideology, rather than something hard/fast (eg: | a Marxist narrative dividing people into capital owners | and non-owners). | guelo wrote: | What experience is that? Reading idelogical opinions? | AustinDev wrote: | Having worked with a few dozen former and current Twitter | employees. | LarrySellers wrote: | robbyking wrote: | That's a sweeping generalization for a company with over | 5,000 employees. | throwmeariver1 wrote: | But now they are contained to one entity wouldn't it make | more sense with your reasoning to keep them together? | [deleted] | deanCommie wrote: | Can you name one public Twitter ideology except a | commitment to not spread vaccine misinformation? | | At this point if anyone thinks that vaccine debate is | ideological, I don't think we will change each others | mind in either way, but I'm just curious if there are any | examples. | | As far as I can tell that is the one and only piece of | controversy. They banned Trump. | indy wrote: | They prevented spreading the story of Hunter Biden's | laptop just before the last American election [Edit: it's | strange to be downvoted for a factually correct | statement.] | nullc wrote: | The thread I created on validating the legitimacy of one | of those emails using DKIM back when the story broke was | quickly flagged. Be glad all you got was a downvote. | temp8964 wrote: | Really? Only one? How about they banned New York Post | because of the Hunter Biden story? | beaconstudios wrote: | they had a pre-existing rule against posting hacked | information. | the_doctah wrote: | Speaking of misinformation... | Clubber wrote: | But it wasn't hacked, he brought the laptop in for data | recovery and never returned. After a period of time, that | property becomes the property of the shop. The laptop was | also seized by the FBI. | | https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/22/us/politics/hunter- | biden-... | nullc wrote: | Which is why they shut down the NY Times for posting | trumps tax information. ... and why, after hunter biden, | they shut down ProPublica after they obtained the | detailed tax records of all Americans and started | publishing documents from a multitude of wealthy people, | none of which (thus far) have exposed any crimes, and | little of which could be argued to be a matter of public | interest... oh wait they didn't. | | In these examples not only was the material hacked, its | further disclosure is a crime. By comparison, the | disclosure of the hunter biden material was completely | lawful, as far as we're able to tell right now. The | material was also easily verified to be legitimate, at | least in part-- since the google DKIM on the messages | passed. You won't find pretty much any other hacked | material reporting that twitter allowed to spread that | could be cryptographic authenticated. | | It's why twitter shut down accounts sharing the dump of | Epik (right wing wingnut friendly domain registrar), or | personal information extracted from it... oh wait, they | didn't (well they didn't shut down a few accounts calling | for _violence_ against people in it, just not one merely | propagating the hacked information). | | It's why they shut down Suddeutsche Zeitung when they | published their reporting on the Panama Papers... oh | right, yet again. They didn't. | | I could keep going, -- there is a lot of journalism that | comes from hacked documents. | | Can you give a single prior example of high profile | reporting on hacked materials where twitter suppressed | the media outlet and discussion of the subject? -- I'm | earnestly interested. | EricE wrote: | Hunters laptop was NOT hacked; it was abandoned at a | repair shop which after 30 days became the property of | the owner of the shop. BTW this is NOT uncommon. Not just | for comptuer repair shops but storage units, auto | mechanics, etc. | | You can't hack something you own. The whole "hack" thing | is such a stupid narrative yet people cling to it - | probably because there is no other defense for what was | on the laptop. | nullc wrote: | Indeed. | | My point was that even if you accept that clearly false | premise, the claim is still bogus: the media and members | of the general public routinely share actual hacked | information (as well as other material which is unlawful | to distribute, such as people's tax returns) via | twitter's platform without much fear of account | suspension over it and did both before and after the | hunter biden laptop incident. | mardifoufs wrote: | That did not seem to apply for the ottawa trucker rally | donor data. | vmception wrote: | Its just the San Francisco "silence is violence" crowd. | The "use your platform" crowd. They are not objective | even if you coincidentally like the cause of the day. | | If you try to express a dissenting opinion at that | organization, even as an attempt to refine that opinion, | you get kicked out. You made someone uncomfortable. | | Taking a spiked metal baseball bat to that beehive is the | way to deal with it. Whether it will be _better_? | Unlikely, just different | zackees wrote: | beeboop wrote: | TameAntelope wrote: | Ah, the evergreen prediction of Twitter's impending | demise. | | The best part is that one say it will be true, and all of | the folks who've been saying this for decades will get | proven right. | | It's the safest prediction in the world, to say something | will end. | jimmyjazz14 wrote: | I mean in some ways twitter did die ages ago in that its | user base has stagnated over the years and its relevance | has dropped outside of a certain powerful minority of | users. | phatfish wrote: | The "powerful" users (like Musk) are it's relevance. | Tweets are quoted more than ever as the primary source of | information when they are know to be "official" accounts, | or owned by a specific person of interest. | | Embedded Tweets on a news website might not be a great | way to get ad-views, but those accounts give it relevance | beyond the users who actually interact by commenting. | TameAntelope wrote: | I expect Matt Levine's take will amount to some version | of this; Elon Musk uses Twitter to make a lot of money | via his various market manipulations, one risk to that is | Twitter doing something to make those market | manipulations harder, so a way of mitigating those risks | is to buy as much of Twitter as possible to get as much | of a say as possible, in an effort to prevent that from | happening. | | Surely Elon has made $3bn off of Tweets by now, it makes | perfect sense for him to spend some of that as a way of | protecting future additional earnings, both for him and | the various companies he runs that also make money off of | Elon's tweets. | beeboop wrote: | sdfgdf wrote: | richardfey wrote: | What changing wind could Elon Musk usher? | DoingIsLearning wrote: | I also don't follow. I get that there is a halo effect | around Musk's 'Iron-Man' persona. | | Nevertheless, he is still a minority shareholder. How | much power can he really have at board level? | hintymad wrote: | Elon is just one of the board directors. I was wondering | why people believe that he will have such sweeping power to | change Twitter. | keithwhor wrote: | Depends on how much the rest of the board really feels | like arguing with Elon. Keep in mind these people have | jobs outside of Twitter. | | https://investor.twitterinc.com/corporate- | governance/board-o... | sho_hn wrote: | One would assume, so does Musk. | JamisonM wrote: | I guess there is a high probability that he will drag | boardroom disagreements out into the open, so in that | sense they will have to "argue" with him. In general | boards vote to settle things and then it is settled, they | are not supposed to be arguing indefinitely - the chair | calls the question and the matter gets settled. | | Can Musk keep his board seat? That is my question, being | an unruly character when you don't have full control | usually gets you turfed from a board for violating | confidences pretty quickly, but IDK. | tempnow987 wrote: | Twitter was up 20%+ based on his arrival. That is | valuable to everyone. | | He is the largest shareholder. | phatfish wrote: | Everything "goes up" when Elon first gets near it. That's | the benefit of an army of Twitter worshippers. Whether | there is any lasting value to his involvement beyond the | pump is the question. | | If he kills the stupid pop-over login box that's supposed | to force me to make an account I'll call that lasting | value. | JamisonM wrote: | Sorry, I don't understand how this reply relates to my | comment. | | Are you saying that the price bump will keep him on the | board? The fear of a drop will keep him on the board? I | can see that, but in the long run the valuation shouldn't | be affected unless he is actually a good member of the | board. | kilroy123 wrote: | That's what I'm thinking. Though he could likely, | publicly get support you voting out other members. | [deleted] | slim wrote: | I think elon musk summed it up best | | > eh wow lol | | or something to that effect | FFRefresh wrote: | I do think Elon will provide a valuable counter-balance to the | current monoculture that drives Twitter. | | But I do not believe Elon in of himself can really resolve | Twitter's ills (by my subjective assessment). Twitter and other | social networks are ultimately reflections of parts of | humanity. Us humans have our biases and our drives that don't | just go away. You can obviously (and _should_ ) tweak the | product to incentivize more productive dialog, but you can't | overwrite our biases/drives/distribution of competencies by | updating Twitter. | | Personally, I view these social networks as mirrors, revealing | parts of our humanity as it currently is. A lot of us don't | like what we see, and we fixate strictly on the mirror, | suggesting it's _strictly_ the mirror 's fault for displaying | the unflattering image. | philosopher1234 wrote: | I recommend this paper: | https://philpapers.org/archive/NGUHTG.pdf or this podcast on | the same topic: | https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/25/podcasts/transcript- | ezra-... | | Social media is a mirror in the same way that baseball is a | mirror. Individual personalities are tested and the fact | we're playing it is because we're human, but the rules of | baseball are not the rules of life. When we're playing | baseball we're doing something very different from when we're | relating to each other or spending time together. | | Twitter is a social game, and distorts the behavior of its | participants. Its a fun house mirror, not a reflecting pool. | gowld wrote: | Baseball is a game, and a little bit of "relating to each | other or spending time together" (which is why there are | sometimes brawls). | | Twitter is "relating to each other or spending time | together" to a much larger extent, even though some people | are using it as a game or (more commonly) a business. | philosopher1234 wrote: | Yes, twitter has more interpersonal than baseball does, | but the points system looms large over every word. | vincentmarle wrote: | This meme explains it best: | https://twitter.com/lawmaster/status/1511326650788683777 | lodovic wrote: | I wonder if this changes anything about the SEC ruling limiting | what Musk can do on social media. | kreeben wrote: | "What's your problem SEC? I can't buy a social media co and | then say whatever I want on it, whenever I want? I thought this | was 'merica", might plausibly be one of his defenses against | any charges of market manipulation and what are they going to | do, the SEC, since they have proved time and again how | toothless they are? | | Extremely powerful people do extremely stupid things. Examples: | | - Trump ("Charge the White house!") | | - Putin ("Invade Ukraine") | | - Musk ("Make Twitter an absolute free speech platform!") | | It's going to be fun to watch this over the next couple of | months. And when I say "fun" I actually mean the exact | opposite. | hayd wrote: | Calls to violence are explicitly not included in free speech. | | The problem is actually the unevenness of policies. | | An example that annoyed me recently: the video ad for | /JeremysRazors is hidden behind a "potentially sensitive | content" warning (it's not), but Twitter search "razors" and | be prepared to see (without any warning) disgusting images of | people cutting themselves. | | The Kremlin (and CCP) are verified and tweeting, whilst the | BabylonBee (and Trump) are banned. Lunacy. | ChicagoDave wrote: | He's also agreed to never own more than 14%, so effectively | agreeing only to be a voice, not a wrecking ball. | skybrian wrote: | I'm not sure what you mean by "wrecking ball," but an activist | shareholder can win a proxy fight if other shareholders choose | to go along with them. And Musk is pretty good at making | investments go up by tweeting things, so they are probably | pretty happy about this. | tawaypol wrote: | Interesting, 14% is the combined ownership of Blackrock and | Vanguard. | incomingpain wrote: | So typically 30% of a publicly traded corp is enough to be | defacto owner. | | That's just a going rule but I just checked. 80% of twitter is | held by institutions. Only 2.5% is owned by insiders. | | No dorsey to be seen here? No elliot management? | https://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambrown/2020/02/29/twitters-... | | Unless I'm missing something... Elon owns Twitter. This was a | super easy hostile takeover... he doesn't need 14% | | Elon probably doesnt want any sort of key position because | afterall he's in constant fight over tesla and sec. | hetspookjee wrote: | Dorsey holds 2.25% of the stock as per one authoritive dutch | newspaper NRC. So 0.25% of the stock is held by other | insiders, interestingly enough. | | De voormalige eigenaar en mede-oprichter Jack Dorsey bezit | 2,25 procent van de aandelen. [1] | | [1] https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2022/04/04/elon-musk-koopt- | aandele... | dkjaudyeqooe wrote: | It's Elon Musk, he can't help but being a wrecking ball. We're | talking about the 'pedo guy' guy, after all. | | Twitter will get more attention for sure, but possibly not the | kind of attention they want. But apparently there's no such | thing as bad publicity. | | I think of of the interesting things to watch for is if he | starts pressuring for the guy who tracks the movements of his | private jet to have his account terminated. | cloutchaser wrote: | Quite a wrecking ball creating Tesla and SpaceX. Lots of | destruction there. /s | candiddevmike wrote: | Just a few cars driving themselves into concrete | barricades. Probably some kind of metaphor there. | beeboop wrote: | Good thing cars that aren't from Tesla never malfunction | in lethal ways. | | If you ignore the 89 deaths from Toyota vehicle | acceleration issues, 271 deaths from Ford's faulty tires | in the 90s, 303 dead from GM's faulty ignition switches, | 478 deaths from Fiat's engines exploding, and 823 deaths | from Ford's Bronco tipping over at speeds as slow as | 20MPH. | camel_Snake wrote: | he didn't create Tesla. Maybe you were thinking of the | Boring Company? | panick21_ wrote: | Elon is by far the most import person to Tesla and its | not even remotly close. What Tesla is now is basicallt | because of Musk. | | Ok, a few guys had a buissness plan and then used Musk | money to totally run the buissness into the ground. | | Tesla without Musk is just another footnote in the histoy | of EV. | [deleted] | doikor wrote: | Not never but while he is a member of the board + 90 days. | Though if he would get more than that not being on the board | would be weird so kind of yes never getting more than that. | GoodJokes wrote: | noetic_techy wrote: | It's either this or one of its competitors rises to take them on | at some point and we get a bifurcated society where specific | companies cater to specific politics. That may be unavoidable | anyways. | | I think people outside the SV bubble (I grew up there, don't live | there anymore) don't realize how hated and despised their | censorship policies really are. Musk has his pulse on that, so | I'm happy to see him step in and shake up the group think. | jasonlotito wrote: | > don't realize how hated and despised their censorship | policies really are. | | Majority of Americans (and most people I'd imagine) do not | really care about their policies. They don't give two figs | about it, and just go about their life just fine without being | affected by it one bit. I'm sure you can find some people on | both sides of the spectrum regarding their policies, but the | vast majority don't. As someone who isn't from SV or has ever | worked for in or for an SV company, my bubble is surrounded by | farmers. | nonethewiser wrote: | Doesnt seem that way from my perspective. Do you grant this | is simply your impression? I tend to distrust you because you | just assert this general truth that is rather controversial | and you dont cite any data. | cbozeman wrote: | > Majority of Americans (and most people I'd imagine) do not | really care about their policies. They don't give two figs | about it, and just go about their life just fine without | being affected by it one bit. | | That's the problem with not giving a shit. When things | finally do become bad enough that it affects _you_ | personally, it 's too late. When it comes to standing up for | what's right - and I define what's "right" as _mostly_ what | the Constitution of the United States lays forth as our | inalienable rights, you better give a shit from the word | "go" and you better oppose it stridently because once | freedoms get stripped away from you, they're nearly | impossible to recover. | | I can't even imagine how the Founders would react to things | like the PATRIOT Act. | | And we can blather on all goddamn day about "muh private | corporations!" but when these corporations are actively | suppressing competitors and are working hand-in-hand with | news outlets to label _any_ new alterative as a Mos Eisley- | esque shithole that no respectable person would frequent, the | point is moot. | | Facebook and Twitter are the modern day public square. Some | people will want to claim it's "The Internet" itself; you can | just go make your own public square and publish your own | website, etc., but that's not actually how a public square | works. Just because you hop on your tractor and box blade | your front yard flat and pave it over with concrete and add | some park benches to it, doesn't turn it into the public | square. You actually have to have _the public_ actively | occupying it. The public square is where the people are. And | the people are on Facebook and Twitter... at least in | America. | Broken_Hippo wrote: | _I can 't even imagine how the Founders would react to | things like the PATRIOT Act._ | | I can't even take this seriously. These are the same folks | that kept people as property. Didn't make sure everyone | could vote (male land owners only). They founded the | country on land stolen from folks already living here. It | isn't like the founders were really beacons of freedom, at | least not if you use today's standards and honestly, they'd | not even have a grasp of the events leading up to it. | Perhaps they'd back it up considering how glaringly the | world has changed since then. | | I'm sure it is supposed to make folks think the country is | straying from its foundations, but look around: People that | aren't straight, white land owners are walking around with | all these rights and freedom and stuff. That's already | happened long ago. Maybe straying is a really good thing. | bliteben wrote: | Imagine being born into several flawed systems, risking | everything, and many had a lot to risk to fix one aspect | of a system and being judged because you didn't fix | everything. You act like the founding fathers created | slavery on their own. The freedom given to the world by | the US and by extension Napoleon was not some inevitable | thing and its not something that will necessarily persist | either as we can easily judge from mankind's very limited | written history. | xanaxagoras wrote: | > and we get a bifurcated society where specific companies | cater to specific politics. | | That's exactly where we are now? When twitter censors right of | center ideas and de-platforms those who think them, we | invariably seek refuge in alternatives that engender far more | radical thinking than if we had stayed in a larger public | discussion. | zht wrote: | how much of that is Twitter and how much of that is Fox News? | nonethewiser wrote: | Twitter having a liberal bias is 100% Twitter, 0% Fox news | xanaxagoras wrote: | I don't follow. | tonguez wrote: | "It's either this or one of its competitors rises to take them | on at some point and we get a bifurcated society where specific | companies cater to specific politics. That may be unavoidable | anyways." | | one can dream. as of now all corporations follow the same | ideology of neoconservative imperialism because they are all | owned by the same people (blackrock, etc) | [deleted] | systemvoltage wrote: | > one of its competitors rises | | The ideological complex has not allowed anyone to rise. _That | 's_ the issue. Even neutrality is considered distasteful. | cbsmith wrote: | Huh, wha? | hedora wrote: | adventured wrote: | If you're wondering about the neutrality premise. | | The furthest ~25% on the left and right have an | increasingly extreme, partisan, borderline psychotic view | of the world that you're either with us or against us. That | polarization has become radically more aggressive over the | past decade. | | Just to use a simple example: someone might might say it's | not enough to not oppose men becoming women and dominating | female swimming/sports (neutrality), you must support it. | Anything else and you're an "enemy" and not an "ally." The | left in particular has created an increasingly large | vocabulary designed to polarize and split the population | and draw lines between people (either or lines). | cbsmith wrote: | It does not seem like the solution to the problem would | be change the mission of the mainstream platform. It | would undoubtedly fall victim to whatever these | mysterious forces are. | cbozeman wrote: | So we moderates kill off each half of our crazier cousins | and live in moderate harmony! | | (this is _extreme_ sarcasm, for those that can 't tell) | Spivak wrote: | This doesn't really make sense what you described isn't | actually a neutral stance -- hell just the framing alone | betrays your feelings. You're already using _extremely_ | polarizing vocabulary in your attempt to be neutral. | | Someone in support of trans men and women being able to | compete would take issue with: | | * "men becoming women" -- transitioning doesn't change | your gender, it only aligns your outward appearance to | the gender you have always been. | | * "dominating female sports" -- the whole point of the | opposing view is specifically that trans women don't | dominate sports. | | You've twisted it in such a way that even accepting the | premise of your "neutral" statement is already super | political. | | Here's a real neutral stance that would be accepted by | people on both sides of this particular issue. | | "I'm not qualified to have an opinion on this matter, the | decision is best left to the athletic clubs and people | more knowledgeable about the effects of HRT." | valenaut wrote: | I haven't encountered a single person in my young, left- | wing, NYC bubble that demands I actively support trans | women in female sport leagues, as opposed to not opposing | them. I don't even know what the difference is between | these things (does active support mean lobbying or | volunteering?). | | I do, however, have some family members that demand I | actively oppose this, and get very mad when I profess | neutrality. | systemvoltage wrote: | Well, the problem I see is the following: | | - Claim that Twitter is a private corporation and its their | rules (Btw, you can check my history in 2020 where I did | support purge of Trump from social media, but I am now | comtemplating). | | - But, anyone who starts a new platform (let's assume | similar to r/conservative which is absolutely not neo-nazi | or fascist), gets intense pushback from the existing | incumbents not with market forces, but rather with | censorship, algorithms, political and misinformation driven | opposition. | | So now we have public square that enjoys monopolistic | powers (yes, government officials _exclusively_ publishing | on Twitter. Your tax money cannot buy a platform where you | can listen to the constitutuents that you voted for), but | also prevents incumbents from rising through political | proxies that I mentioned earlier. | | This is scary. | nemothekid wrote: | When someone says that _Twitter_ does heavy handed | exercising of censorship or algorithmic manipulation just | shows me that most people don't actually use Twitter and | instead consume it view headlines. That wouldn't be | surprising considering is the 15th largest social network | by MAU globally. The Twitter product today is still | largely the same as it was 10 years ago; Meta & friends | do far more to stifle "free speech" but are never given | the same sort of criticism because they do the "right" | kind of amplification and moderating. Twitter is probably | the least moderated of all the big social networks but it | gets the most criticism for having too much moderation. | What people actually want from Twitter is freedom from | criticism from the mob, i.e "free speech for me, but not | for thee". | | > _But, anyone who starts a new platform (let 's assume | similar to r/conservative which is absolutely not neo- | nazi or fascist), gets intense pushback from the existing | incumbents not with market forces,_ | | Not with market forces? You mean to say that censorship | is what is actually holding Gab back from mainstream | adoption? This sentiment has always been incredibly | myopic. I don't know why American conservatives are | always surprised when their flavor of politics aren't | popular. For some reason Europe and the rest of the West, | who are farther left than Americans, cease to exist and | the reasons why sites like Gab aren't huge is because of | censorship. | cbsmith wrote: | There seems like there's a presumption that already | successful companies are not subject to the same forces | as other companies, despite all the evidence (including | Twitter's experience) to the contrary. | cbsmith wrote: | nonethewiser wrote: | "It's either this or one of its competitors rises to take them | on at some point and we get a bifurcated society where specific | companies cater to specific politics." | | Not ideal, but better than the status quo where there is 1 | company catering to 1 group. | raincom wrote: | Wasn't how Fox News born? | taf2 wrote: | You mean like the news? As an experiment try this for two | months. On month 1 - watch only CNN. On month 2 - watch only | Fox. Maybe take a 1 week break between both and write down your | thoughts on the world... very interesting how it evolves based | on what you watch/listen too... From what I hear if you just | watched Russian state media it'd be an even more extreme | version. The great thing about our free society is you have the | choice to do this experiment, as I understand it you can't do | this in Russia today... | xanaxagoras wrote: | Perhaps this is what is actually meant by "television | programming" | choward wrote: | > as I understand it you can't do this in Russia today... | | Or Ukraine or many other countries. Not sure why you singled | out Russia specifically. | | However, if you are just watching corporate media you're not | getting the full picture either. CNN and Fox News have very | similar opinions on non-culture war issues. | memish wrote: | Backing this up with some data, the most common reaction on | twitter is: | | "Elon will improve Twitter by expanding freedom of speech on | the platform" | | https://twitter.com/NarrativesProj/status/151139309757754574... | and0 wrote: | That's what makes all of this so ironic to me. Social media | platforms and their users (especially Facebook) are not left- | leaning. That a vast majority of Twitter users feel he will | improve it means that the bias is fictional. | cbozeman wrote: | I don't know how you got that sentiment from _that_ | graphic, which doesn 't have jack shit to do with political | affiliation. | | I will put $100 down right now that if you did a | statistically significant, unbiased, controlled, | representative sample of _verified_ Twitter users - as in | people you can provably show are actual human beings - you | 'll find the majority are left-leaning. | | Oh wait, I don't have to, Pew Research Group already did | it... | | https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2019/04/24/sizing-up- | tw... | | Facebook is a different animal because more than half the | planet uses it, and what we consider "left" or "right" as | Americans is dramatically different than what other nations | would consider "left" or "right" or "liberal" or | "conservative". | colinmhayes wrote: | Most of the verified users are journalists, who do lean | left. I don't think that says anything about the overall | user base of twitter. | enragedcacti wrote: | > verified Twitter users - as in people you can provably | show are actual human beings | | Verified means the account is authentic and of public | interest. It doesn't guarantee that you are a person and | further, the vast, _vast_ majority of real people on | twitter aren 't verified. | | as for the pew survey, it isn't controlling for many of | the things that we know correlate with political | affiliation, it is just reporting them as isolated facts. | Just education and age would likely explain the delta in | political affiliations within that survey. [1] | | Sure this doesn't change the fact that the _slight_ | majority is Dem-Leaning, but it should raise serious | doubt that its because of bias on the part of twitter | instead of just plain old demographics of the internet. | | https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2015/04/07/a-deep- | dive-... | nonethewiser wrote: | "Just education and age would likely explain the delta in | political affiliations within that survey. [1]" | | These concedes the point that Twitter users are liberal | on average. | [deleted] | [deleted] | el_ravager wrote: | Precisely, liberals aren't leftists in the least--at | least not according to leftists. That is, world-wide, | liberals and fascists have constantly worked hand-in-hand | to form coalitions to keep the left out of power since | WW1. | | The true dialogue in America is happening amongst center- | left vs. far-right ideologies. | nickstinemates wrote: | Honest question: have any far left | politicians/celebrities/blue checkmark people been banned | from twitter? | colinmhayes wrote: | Which far leftists do you think have done things on | twitter similar to what caused far rightists to be | banned? | klyrs wrote: | What do you consider "far left"? | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_suspensions | nickstinemates wrote: | This link answers my question - thanks. | | Far left is the opposite of far right, for which we can | all point to many of them that have been banned from | twitter. | klyrs wrote: | I'd define the far right in terms of distance from | center, personally. | | So, I'll refine my question with an example from the | list: who is the Anders Breivik of the left? | nonethewiser wrote: | You're implying liberals dont want free speech on Twitter. | tedivm wrote: | Outside of the SV bubble people have actual lives that don't | resolve around tech companies. Until someone shows actual | evidence with real numbers behind it it's hard to take the | whole "people don't realize how much people do or think X" | seriously. | oriki wrote: | This, honestly. It _feels_ more like the only people that | care about SV censorship policies are the people affected by | them: SV types that live almost entirely on the platforms | they're scared of being censored from. Well, that and people | who make their entire careers pushing other peoples' | boundaries and, as a result, generate a big negative | following. | BurningFrog wrote: | Most people get their information and communicate through | internet tech companies. | | If they think the information is censored by tech companies, | they'll care a lot about that! | packetlost wrote: | As someone who lives in the midwest, very disconnected from | the SV bubble, this is spot on. I know several conservative- | minded people that _absolutely_ care about the censorship and | policies SV companies push and despise them for it. | tedivm wrote: | I also live in the midwest, and literally no one I know | (family or friends) outside of the tech industry cares at | all about this. I'm sure that means my bubble is a bubble- | but again, until I see real numbers either way this just | looks like people pushing a narrative and using imaginary | people to do it. | packetlost wrote: | It's more on Facebook than Twitter, but it absolutely | happens. Maybe you live in a liberal bubble lol | nonethewiser wrote: | Well, are you liberal? | bpodgursky wrote: | Facebook, for better or for worse, is a really central | piece of infrastructure for civic society all across the | country nowdays -- it's used to organize churches, meetup | groups, neighborhood parties, restaurants, festivals, etc. | | People care because censorship does affect how they build | their real lives. | tedivm wrote: | > Facebook, for better or for worse, is a really central | piece of infrastructure for civic society all across the | country nowdays -- it's used to organize churches, meetup | groups, neighborhood parties, restaurants, festivals, | etc. | | This may be true, but how many people in those church | groups, meetup groups, etc are actually concerned about | censorship? In my experience far more of them are worried | about harassment- I know far more women who can't use | social media because of their stalkers than I do people | who were kicked out of social media for having bad | opinions. | ARandomerDude wrote: | > This may be true, but how many people in those church | groups, meetup groups, etc are actually concerned about | censorship? | | Many, in my experience. To the point that I get sick of | hearing about it, and I'm not an alt-right Q-anon type or | anywhere near it. | Gene_Parmesan wrote: | I'll take that as a given. | | I think what you're missing is that most people don't | want to run into vitriolic hate speech while they're | going about trying to organize their neighborhood parties | (and so on). We can talk about the idealism of free | speech all we want; the problem is any platform that | stakes a claim as caring about Free Speech almost | immediately gets overrun by that sort of vitriolic hate | that most people don't want to be around in their daily | lives. | | I went on one of the "free speech" video platforms about | a year ago because I was curious, and on my first visit, | right on the front page, were videos about how the Jews | rule the world and Holocaust denial. I'm not remotely | Jewish and I was immediately put off from ever | revisiting. | | This is a core problem that people who legitimately care | about censorship and free speech need to address. It's | extremely unfortunate, but "anti-censorship" has well and | truly become a dog whistle in the modern era. | | Remember that free speech is about the 'market of ideas.' | In even totally free markets, not every product sells. An | anti-censorship social network startup cratering because | its platform immediately got overrun with hate is _not_ | censorship, it 's the market at work. The vast majority | of 'regular' people I know do _not_ consider Facebook 's | rules prohibiting hate speech to be censorship. They're | just grateful they aren't running into it every time they | open their phones to scroll their feed. | mywittyname wrote: | And yet, they all have Facebook, Google, and Apple | accounts. You can hate them all you want, but you're not | going to change them by shoveling money into their pockets. | They care enough to bitch, but not enough to do anything | about it. | | These people who hate Twitter probably don't even use | Twitter. If you're not interesting or important, then | nobody on Twitter cares what you have to say. It's not like | Facebook, where you can argue politics with someone from | high school. A nobody on Twitter is just screaming at the | clouds. | systemvoltage wrote: | Twitter is a monopoly. When the only way for government | officials to relay messages to their constituents is | through a private platform such as Twitter, it ceases to | have the same privilege as a private corporation. It is a | _de facto_ public square. This is not up for debate. | spsful wrote: | This is very much up for debate. Elected officials | actually have free postage and can send letters if they | need to. Not only that, they likely enjoy direct access | to their local news networks and can broadcast messages | through that avenue. Most have email lists, and can send | interested constituents updates through that platform. | Most also have websites on official .gov accounts where | they could host press releases as well. | | Not everyone has a Twitter account, and I think you need | to seriously reframe your perspective if you think it is | the cure-all for delivering news to constituents. | systemvoltage wrote: | > Not everyone has a Twitter account, and I think you | need to seriously reframe your perspective if you think | it is the cure-all for delivering news to constituents. | | NO! I am not saying that at all. I am saying that this is | why Twitter is a de facto public square. I am _not_ | advocating that Twitter should be a public square. | Frustrating to see a strawman of this sorts. You have | completely and utterly misunderstood my points. | Basically, 180 degrees opposite of what I was trying to | say, may be a failure of mine to be less precise but | jeez. | | The observation that Twitter _has_ become a public square | is undenieable (this is different from advocating Twitter | _to be_ a public square. I actually wish it wasn 't). | steelframe wrote: | Is there a law akin to Godwin's or Sturgeon's about all social | media trending toward some failure state? Several years ago I | deleted all my FB content and then disabled my account. Looks | like it's time to do that with my Twitter account now. | fsflover wrote: | It's not about all social media but about for-profit walled | gardens. Consider switching to Mastodon to avoid it. | kirubakaran wrote: | The second law of thermodynamics | BurningFrog wrote: | Maybe it's just a special case of "Nothing is forever"? | f0e4c2f7 wrote: | I didn't come up with it and I don't know if there is a name | for it but here's a comment I wrote a while ago about how I | model the decline of social media and other systems. | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29977822 | imgabe wrote: | All communication media are eventually subsumed by chain | letters and spam. | TechBro8615 wrote: | Yes, it's called Eternal September. [0] | | [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September | LudwigNagasena wrote: | That's about culture in small tight communities, it's not | about monstrous billion people wide networks without any | coherent identity of community. | smolder wrote: | I think while the effect was first noted in a relatively | small community, the idea applies broadly to all sizes of | open public forum, especially where things are organized | chronologically. There's difficulty in developing and | establishing cultural norms when there are constant new | arrivals who can't have learned from past developments. | That's what the term represents to me. | TechBro8615 wrote: | Yeah, I also don't see why such patterns should apply | differently to any community past a sufficiently large | Dunbar number, modulo some tribal factor. Humans simply | haven't evolved to differentiate between a tribe of three | thousand, or three million. | | Want proof? Tell me how many people might read this | comment and agree with it. | | Humans are bad at large scale pattern recognition and | suffer from extreme proximity bias. It's why filter | bubbles exist. | | For the same reason, it seems dangerous to promote the | idea that it's even _possible_ to "have a conversation as | a society." If any such conversation is taking place, | surely its level of inherent selection bias would render | any of its conclusions irrelevant. Only a participant or | biased observer could claim otherwise. | | Society has a filter-bubble deficiency. For a global | population nearing ten billion humans, the number of | distinct information channels is alarmingly low in | comparison. It's not possible to have an honest | "conversation as a society" in such an asymmetrical | information environment. | LudwigNagasena wrote: | But there is no single public forum on Facebook and no | single culture. | fataliss wrote: | Musk is the entrepreneur version of "Move fast; break things" - | something like "Make it happen; no matter the cost" kind of guy. | Leaving a trail of burnt out/injured employees and other negative | externalities is just his way of "getting shit done". Not sure | how much or how little impact he'll have in the future direction | of Twitter, but if I worked there I'd be a bit concerned! | asd88 wrote: | Good for TWTR but not great for its employees given how Elon runs | his companies. | BurningFrog wrote: | As a Twitter user, I'm very OK with this. | bequanna wrote: | Not sure what you mean by this. | | Musk is a pragmatist who expects results and compensates well. | | Not great for employees who have only survived because they are | good at office politics or carved out a do-nothing role for | themselves like: "Chief Diversity blah blah blah" or "VP of | Pronouns". | thebradbain wrote: | His companies compensate engineers below market, does he not? | | Also- weird take that both of your examples seem to focus on | one specific genre of role. I've dealt with many more useless | software engineering and product managers on a day-to-day | basis than HR-types, who are there if you want/need to | contact them or in the background if you don't. | | Maybe Musk would benefit from them, actually ...especially | considering Tesla has been ordered to pay $137 million to a | single worker for demonstrated cases of racism and now the | state of California is suing the company for widespread abuse | and harassment | | https://www.theverge.com/2021/10/5/22710279/tesla-racism- | fre... | esprehn wrote: | > His companies compensate engineers below market, does he | not? | | This varies by division. Auto Pilot for example is way over | paying currently compared to peer companies. On average pay | at Elon's companies is below what you'd get from FANG | though. | redytedy wrote: | > Auto Pilot for example is way over paying currently | compared to peer companies | | I don't think this is true unless you're talking about | very senior positions. But they can give large bonuses. | BurningFrog wrote: | > _His companies compensate engineers below market, does he | not?_ | | If that's true, those engineers would leave for better | jobs. | | If you think like an economist, the fact that his | engineering departments remain fully staffed shows they're | paid enough. | | I'll take that as fact over angry internet rumors about a | controversial billionaire. | colinmhayes wrote: | > If you think like an economist, the fact that his | engineering departments remain fully staffed shows | they're paid enough. | | Well enough does not equal market rate though. There are | many reasons people don't switch jobs, economists are | well aware of this. Being at a company lead by such a big | personality adds even more reasons. | thebradbain wrote: | https://www.levels.fyi/company/Tesla/salaries/ | | I mean, based on the objective aggregate information we | have available, they pay much less than FAANGs. | | I said nothing about Tesla not being able to keep a staff | due to low pay - just that I do not see any indication | they are paid "well" compared to what other companies | pay. | | If I worked at Twitter, I would be worried my salary | would be frozen and pay/promotion scales re-adjusted. | gjs278 wrote: | bequanna wrote: | Regarding the CA issues, as I noted on a similar comment: | | > I'm sure this is all 100% true and in no way backlash for | Musk's decision to shift operations away from California | and very loud criticism of CA's politicians/bureaucrats. | thebradbain wrote: | Tesla was found guilty by the court, and other employees | have come out with evidence/witnesses of the same | experiences and recordings/videos. Of course the state | must pursue. The state _should_ have a legal grudge | against Tesla -- if it's unsubstantiated, the courts (and | Tesla's top-tier legal representation) will absolutely | find that. | | Also, as a lifelong Texan and a recent Californian, if | you don't think Texas will find a way to sink its | political might into extracting as much wealth and | political favors out of Tesla you are sorely mistaken. If | you don't abide by the Texas governments whims, they will | shut you down or run you out -- Tesla still isn't allowed | to sell Teslas directly in the state, for example, | because all car sales must go through a dealership; if | you want to buy one, you must go to a different state | (even if it was made in the state). Tesla's lobbying this | latest legislative session didn't even get close to | changing that, the amendment died in committee. | | https://cbsaustin.com/news/local/texas-law-keeps-teslas- | made... | bsimpson wrote: | Our VP of Pronouns is going to be pissed when she reads this. | [deleted] | jfoster wrote: | Depends on the person, doesn't it? If I were at Twitter, I | would be excited about this. I would be expecting the work to | become more challenging, but also more important. | ashtonkem wrote: | Praise for Elon tends to diminish the closer you get to him. | He's kind of notorious for being a bad boss; impulsive, poor | temperament, and petty. Even if you like his achievements, | chances are you would very much not enjoy having him as a | boss. | jfoster wrote: | From what I'd heard, he's the perfect boss; adverse to | workplace politics, interested in truth & results above all | else. | Flankk wrote: | I honestly could not care less. Steve Jobs was the same. I | think you are criticizing the very things that made them | great. | [deleted] | Latty wrote: | The idea workers have to suffer under "great men" to | produce things of value is provably untrue and just an | excuse by those "great men" to act in unacceptable ways, | while taking credit for the work done by those people. | | A good CEO can of course provide value, but pretending | they are alone responsible for success, and abusing staff | is a good way to achieve that success is just wrong. | Burning out passionate people is a good way to create | short-term profit, it isn't "greatness". | EricE wrote: | Suffer? What are these workers - slaves? Duped cult | members? | | You people are crazy. Since when is hard work and | ambition something to be scorned? | | It's pretty easy for you now, from your obvious position | of wealth and privilege, to now ridicule those values | which built the very civilization you are now inheriting | and trashing. Talk about not having skin in the game. | thwayunion wrote: | I'm genuinely confused by your post. Do you personally | know the person you're responding to? Nothing about his | public information seems to warrant this level of | vitriol, but maybe I'm missing something. | Flankk wrote: | If it were provably untrue then you would have proved | your point. My opinion is not invalidated by your | opinion. | Latty wrote: | My post wasn't saying that my entire point was provable, | just that it was specifically trivial to show you _can_ | create great work without that suffering. | | If you can't think of a single example of a valuable | thing being made by a company without an abusive auteur | CEO, then I guess we see "value" very differently. | | The rest of my post argues that there is no way to | justify that harm given we know the work can be achieved | without it. | sethammons wrote: | "In the absence of data, I'll take my opinion over | yours." - Former Boss | ashtonkem wrote: | It's kind of like how some actors really only get into | "method acting" when it allows for them to behave like | assholes on set. The idea that one must be a jerk to do | "great things" is a self serving lie by rich and powerful | people who want to excuse their misbehavior. | memish wrote: | Working for someone who transforms industries? | | Many do enjoy that very much, clearly. Amazing engineers, | who can work anywhere they want, choose to work at SpaceX | and Tesla. And we all benefit from the electrification of | the grid and advances in space. | [deleted] | paulryanrogers wrote: | Bad human beings can still contribute good things. That | doesn't excuse bad behavior. | EricE wrote: | Hard work and ambition is now bad behavior? I weep for | the future of humanity if this is the best we now have to | offer each other :p | ribosometronome wrote: | Where did the person you are replying to indicate that | "hard work" and "ambition" are the issues he is faulting? | It seems like you're being rather disingenuous. | | Musk's bad behavior includes things like forcing Tesla | employees back into office, against local health | restriction, mocking trans-folk because an ex started | dating a trans-woman, pumping and dumping cryptocurrency, | posting multiple tweets that violate laws (stock and | union related), repeatedly lying about his products, etc. | jawarner wrote: | Don't worship the man. Hard work and ambition are aspects | of his character deserving respect, no doubt. But he's | not perfect. Not all aspects of his character are worth | emulating, and he has his blindspots like everyone else. | panick21_ wrote: | This is flat out not true. JB, Shotwell, Mueller, Riseman | and I could name many more are mostly positive on him. | beeboop wrote: | How does Elon run his companies any differently than the vast | majority of tech companies out there? | yupper32 wrote: | He compensates below market and his employees are expected to | work harder than big tech companies. | | He can get away with it at SpaceX because, well, | spaaacccceeee! | | I'm not sure how he gets away with it at Tesla. | potatochup wrote: | Racing cars and environmentalism is cooler than | optimizating ad revenue. | ranman wrote: | because the stock grew like crazy and everyone got rich? | Zelizz wrote: | Anyone can buy the stock though, while working at a | company that pays better and has better work/life | balance. Is the stock grant particularly generous or is | there a better-than-average employee discount on stock | purchases? | systemvoltage wrote: | They're not slaves. They have choice. In fact, an unending | list of jobs available in the tech industry. | | Why is it Tesla's / SpaceX fault for being a cool company | for many people to work at and they're _willing_ to take a | pay cut? It is 100% their choice. | | There is absolutely no counter argument here that I can | see. I am trying. | yupper32 wrote: | I was responding to someone asking how they're different | than any other tech company. They're known for | underpaying and overworking people. That's how they're | different than most others. | | The implication being that if Twitter switched to that | culture, then it'd generally be a really bad thing for | most of those who currently work there, since they did | not sign up for that. | grumple wrote: | He's known for running his employees into the ground, | generally treating people poorly. Pay is sub-par compared | both to big tech for tech workers (although not really when | the stock does well) and to skilled labor for laborers. You | can compare ratings of the company on sites like Indeed to | other big tech, and I'm sure you can find some articles about | the working conditions (I recall some being published over | the years). | | My former boss went there, his whole team quit shortly after, | he got promoted twice and made a boatload of money from stock | grants, and now he's one of the higher ranked engineers and a | few of his family members went to work there as well. But | these guys are workaholics, brilliant but not humans of | normal working capacity. I think it a lot depends on your | expectations. | antattack wrote: | 3.4 out of five stars is not bad. Low score due to lack of | advancement. 3.0 for work life balance is pretty good: | | https://www.indeed.com/cmp/Tesla/reviews | paxys wrote: | They have a culture of overwork and moving fast. I was | looking at job postings for SpaceX & Tesla a couple years | ago, and every single one of them explicitly mentioned that | you will be expected to work more than standard work hours | and put in time on weekends, which is very different from all | the other companies that stress work life balance. I'm sure | it works for a lot of people, but you should be sure of what | you are getting into. And I don't expect employees will stay | happy if/when the Musk stock rally stops. | ranman wrote: | I worked at SpaceX. I was well compensated. It was a good | time. | jayzalowitz wrote: | I didnt even have to find your username to know who this | was... | golergka wrote: | As long as it's honestly communicated beforehand, and | employees are not deceived about compensation and workload | as they voluntary sign the contract, is it bad or immoral | in any meaningful way? | convery wrote: | I'd say no. But given the trend of people calling 20 | hours a week "slavery", demanding debt forgiveness; and | such. It seems like it's becoming a minority opinion to | let consenting adults make their own informed decisions | (and deal with the consequences of them).. | fortyseven wrote: | Oh, bullishit. Corporations will take every inch you give | them, right up to the red line. Then that becomes | "normal". And then you'll cheer them on for it, probably. | Lamad123 wrote: | He calls himself of founder of some things he never founded! | panick21_ wrote: | People are so obsessed with that detail. Elon and JB wanted | to start their own company and they had the money. | | Tesla had no money and was going nowhere without Musk. | | Instead of creating his own company he agree to join forces | and basically fund Tesla. | | Seems like not just starting a competitor was the nice | thing to do. As doing so would have 100% doomed Tesla. | mosselman wrote: | I don't care either way. Nor about Tesla, nor about Musk. | Calling yourself a founder when you aren't, regardless of | the merits of him funding Tesla, is still very odd. | joering2 wrote: | I don't think the OP was referring to Tesla since | technically they are a car company, not a "tech" company, | but still you can find interviews with real founders of | Tesla who stated on record they don't understand why Elon | calls himself a "Tesla founder", but since they took his | money, he is their boss (or was). | | I think he was referring to PayPal, a tech company. Even | now all over the net you can see articles claiming Musk | founded Paypal. Nothing further from the truth. Musk | started X.com and designed a very simple page where you | put two peoples email addresses and you "could" send them | money. It was happening at the same time as PayPal had | the same idea and similar website. Problem for PP was | that back then no sane bank or financial institution | would touch any company that is hooked up to the | internet. Musk had a tremendous leverage because of the | only bank who would go ahead and plug their gateway into | the net (I believe it was Stanford Federal Credit Union, | but I don't remember) was okay for doing it because | personal leverage of Musk father, who owns multiple | diamond mines in ZA, and put a huge collateral "just in | case" something goes wrong. Musk didn't have to have a | working website to have a $300,000,000 leverage over | PayPal and PP knew it will be years before they get any | bank to agree to work with them. It was smart for Thiel | to offer large stake of PP for Musk just for ability to | change which site will be using the bank's gateway. This | story was somewhat easy to find and popular back in the | old days of the internet, but - putting my conspiracy hat | on - these days you find nothing about it at least not by | Googling. So I don't really know - to me it doesn't sound | he founded PayPal, they would eventually got their | permission from some bank but at that point we would be | X'ing each other money, not "Paypalling" it. | panick21_ wrote: | > record they don't understand why Elon calls himself a | "Tesla founder" | | And I explained why it is really not that insane. It was | basically him throwing them a bone, they should be | grateful. And of course they were horrible and ran Tesla | into the ground and hid facts from Elon. | | > I think he was referring to PayPal | | I don't think so. | | > X.com and designed a very simple page where you put two | peoples email addresses and you "could" send them money. | It was happening at the same time as PayPal had the same | idea and similar website | | This is not true. X.com from the beginning was payment | company. Confinity was originally a security company for | Palm platform. From there they switched to payments. | | From Wikipedia: | | > In March 2000, Confinity merged with x.com, an online | financial services company founded in March 1999 by Elon | Musk. | | The two companies merged so all the people of both | companies are rightly called founders. And non of the | others disagree with that. | | > because personal leverage of Musk father, who owns | multiple diamond mines in ZA | | Please provide evdience. This 'dimond mine' nonsense has | mostly been discredited. The best researched story about | that basically showed that it was like a 30k investment | sometime in the 80s. Certainty not enough to convince a | bank to do anything. | | Musk father was wealthy because he was an engineer. | | > This story was somewhat easy to find and popular back | in the old days of the internet | | And well researched probably ... | kyle_martin1 wrote: | Lamad123 wrote: | 1970-01-01 wrote: | Elon is the wealthiest person ever. He will bend Twitter to help | all his existing businesses increase his wealth, all while making | more money doing so. How could you possibly think otherwise? | babl-yc wrote: | If you think that Elon's pure objective is to get rich and live | a lavish lifestyle, you haven't followed him very closely. | | My impression is that he uses his wealth mostly to invest in | other ventures that he feels are important causes to him. | choppaface wrote: | For Musk, getting rich and living a lavish lifestyle is | exactly the same as investing in causes he feels are | important to him. | | The problem here isn't that Musk is necessarily greedier than | any other majority shareholder, it's that Musk is greedy in a | peculiar way that is at odds with so many other people in the | world. It's important to embrace and understand differences, | but put too much leverage behind one voice or vision and | there will be consequences. And there's a lot of criticism | and evidence that Musk does not use his leverage over others | responsibly. | alimov wrote: | While I have a somewhat similar impression of his use of | wealth I think it's important to remember that his public | persona is well crafted. Following him "very closely" to me | just means that the one doing the following is drinking all | of the kool-aid | babl-yc wrote: | If you're interested in spaceflight and electric vehicles, | it's impossible not to follow what he's working on. Being | served the kool-aid is not the same as drinking it. He's | imperfect -- his companies can be brutal to work for and he | too often takes credit for his team's work -- but I find | the passion for the companies he's part of as genuine. | alimov wrote: | Yeah the the companies are certainly involved in | interesting work. | daenz wrote: | But he makes money from those ventures and is therefore | immoral! /s | | I don't understand why so many people seem to hold the | attitude that the only acceptable response to someone having | money is to pressure them to squander it by giving it all | away to atrociously inefficient systems (government, | charities, etc). Making money is not immoral. And neither is | using money to make investments to make more money. | alimov wrote: | It could be argued that the reason governments are | "inefficient systems" (particularly in the US) is in large | part due to the same people making ridiculous amounts of | money. So while you're being sarcastic, and probably | believe that you too "can make it" don't be surprised when | you don't, and when the government becomes even less | efficient because private interests keep using their wealth | to strip it of anything useful to regular people. | daenz wrote: | The government is elected to represent the interests of | the people. They bear the overwhelming responsibility for | any corrupt deals made with "people making ridiculous | amounts of money." It sounds like you're to assign blame | to a business person for buying influence, instead of | blaming the politician for selling it in the first place! | If politicians stop selling influence, there is nothing | to buy. | alimov wrote: | If only it was as simple as that. | darkhorse222 wrote: | Anyone can be critqued... | | 1) He exploits his workers with typical tech bro | enthusiasm, working them to the bone. I hear terrible | things about the work culture at his companies. 2) He | claims the throne of innovator but many of his successes | came from acquisitions which came from his rich parents who | ran an exploitative emerald mine. 3) He manipulates the | stock market openly. 4) He rarely keeps his promises. | | That being said I think he's alright. But it's not just the | fact that he uses his money that people complain about him. | bko wrote: | What do you base this on? Seems there are a lot easier and less | visible ways to increase your wealth. Real estate, sell your | name out, crypto scams, etc. | vasco wrote: | He doesn't need to bend anything. If Elon wants to make some | quick billions all he has to do is to buy any one of a million | shitcoins, tweet some lame meme about it, sell and repeat. | Admitedly he's done pretty much this with Tesla's venture into | BTC, but the point stands. | leesec wrote: | Oh no, one of the world's most useful and brilliant people | might make more money. :( | [deleted] | pinot wrote: | Ever? Hardly | astrea wrote: | suyash wrote: | You don't know who Elon is do you! | [deleted] | shon wrote: | What would be the point? | teawrecks wrote: | What's the point of him being on the board of Twitter? | Doesn't have enough going on otherwise? | gordon_freeman wrote: | Not "ever" for sure...[1] | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mansa_Musa | sillysaurusx wrote: | People always like to point to this guy, but he was a | warlord. There's something to be said for a not-warlord | achieving anything close. | dchichkov wrote: | Yes, but also he seem to be doing the right thing, so far. | Unlike many others, who tend to waste resources on building | yachts and bunkers. | ipsin wrote: | What are the practical effects likely to be, anyway? | | I'm wary of Musk because he comes from the same "memelord | shitposter" tradition that has served the right wing so well in | the past few years, but I don't think he's angling for the return | of Trump? | Uhhrrr wrote: | It's easy to look at Musk's tweets and think he's just doing | buying in so he can shitpost more effectively, but he is savvy | enough to realize that Twitter is not nearly as valuable as it | could be. Its reach is as huge as any network and anyone with a | public presence "has to" be on it. | | The big knock against it is that users and brands are afraid of | spontaneous howling mobs. Fewer users means less reach and fewer | brands means less $$$. My guess would be that he has some ideas | about how to change this. Maybe (spitballing here) more tools for | users who are QT'd? | jimbob45 wrote: | I agree and people forget Twitter owned TikTok four years | before TikTok was a thing (in the form of Vine). I'm still | amazed that people take Twitter seriously as a business while | they have still have board members around from when Vine was | closed down. That kind of ignorance seems inexcusable to me. | telotortium wrote: | > Maybe (spitballing here) more tools for users who are QT'd | | Yes - slowing down the rate of Twitter pile ons would help a | lot. Rate limiting QTs from non-followers would help a lot I | think. You could even extend this to manual text quotations and | screenshots, using either printer dots or OCR. Subtweeting is | fine - the point should be to avoid making randos the "it" | person on Twitter. | system16 wrote: | I hope that's the reason. I've always said Twitter has | unbelievably untapped potential that for whatever reason, its | current management is unable or unwilling to realize. Over the | years they've kept the platform stagnant at best or filled with | user dark patterns at worst. Not to mention their hostility to | the developer community. | lbriner wrote: | I have obviously missed something but what is the main objection | to Musk being part of Twitter's board? | fallingknife wrote: | Two reasons. | | - Haters who can't stand people more successful than them, and | who is more successful than Elon Musk? So anything he does is | terrible. | | - Since Trump, HN mostly supports social media censorship of | opposing political ideas, and Elon Musk has expressed that he | doesn't like this censorship. | peeters wrote: | I'm pretty neutral on Musk but he has an established track | record of saying stupid shit on Twitter and ruining others' | days/lives. Market manipulation, libel, trolling, etc. I guess | I don't trust that a man with that kind of track record would | be a positive influence on the social media hellscape we | already have. | | This is acknowledging that he also shares awesome stuff, like | technical SpaceX details, and that he often engages with people | in a real cool way. | NelsonMinar wrote: | One problem is the culture he's created at his other companies. | | "Black Tesla employees describe a culture of racism: 'I was at | my breaking point' " | https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2022-03-25/black-tesl... | | "California sues Tesla, alleging rampant racism at factory" | https://www.npr.org/2022/02/15/1080884899/california-sues-te... | | "Black workers accused Tesla of racism for years. Now | California is stepping in" | https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/feb/18/tesla-cal... | bequanna wrote: | I'm sure this is all 100% true and in no way backlash for | Musk's decision to shift operations away from California and | very loud criticism of CA's politicians/bureaucrats. | jack_squat wrote: | Do you think that's how it works? I have no idea, what's | your evidence? | | California's actions seems pretty consistent with this to | me: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca | nd.31... | bequanna wrote: | > Do you think that's how it works? I have no idea, | what's your evidence? | | Do I think that people leverage their positions of power | in the govt to strike blows when they are offended or | threatened? Absolutely. | mywittyname wrote: | He lost in court, multiple times. And he'll probably | continue to lose. | | It's not that people in the government have a vendetta | against him. He's just petulant and thinks himself above | the law. So, while I'm sure it's enjoyable to to knock | him down a peg, he's doing it to himself allowing | blatantly illegal shit to happen in his companies. | NelsonMinar wrote: | It's remarkable how all the replies to my message here | completely ignore the comments in the articles made by actual | Tesla employees who've been victims of racism. | SalmoShalazar wrote: | People can't escape their ideologies. This website is as | tribal as anywhere else (actually, honestly worse than the | median). Accepting that Tesla fosters and promotes a racist | work environment is unthinkable for ideologues of a certain | stripe. | [deleted] | tim333 wrote: | Tesla answered that quite well on their blog | https://www.tesla.com/blog/dfehs-misguided-lawsuit | | I've not heard Musk being accused of being personally racist | - that was more one contractor used racist language in the | presence of some other contractor stuff. | blueflow wrote: | Is he doing like, bad things, or this is the regular everyday | "racism" name-calling again? | | I'm having a "The boy who cried wolf" moment right now. | boc wrote: | Normally I'd agree, but his father made his fortune from | emerald mining in apartheid South Africa. Elon went to an | all-white prep school that explicitly didn't allow black | students. There's a pretty high chance that Elon was raised | in a household that may not have been amazing on the whole | racism front. | drooby wrote: | This is probably not accurate. | | https://www.insidehook.com/article/history/errol-musk- | elon-f... | | Looks like his fathers background is actually hard to pin | down. A biographer of Musk believes his father made most | of his wealth from his engineering business. | | > Elon was born on June 28, 1971, to Errol and his wife | Maye Musk when they were both in their 20s. This is | important because the parents divorced in 1979, nine | years after getting married, and it wasn't until the | mid-1980s that the emerald mine in question came into the | picture. | | > The family owned one of the biggest houses in Pretoria | thanks to the success of Errol's engineering business," a | business that included "large projects such as office | buildings, retail complexes, residential subdivisions, | and an air force base." Elon even admitted his father is | "brilliant at engineering" despite being an overall | "terrible human being." | sixQuarks wrote: | HN has a bias against Elon Musk. That's pretty much what you | need to know. | rc_mob wrote: | We have fair and objective criticism of Elon Musk. Your | failures to accept or understand the criticism does not | constitute "bias". | panick21_ wrote: | There is certainly fair criticsm but quite often people | have totally aburd claims. | | Like he bought twitter because of flight bot. | | Or idiotic ideas about how everything he does is some 7D | galaxy brain chess to achive some dubiously defined goals. | | Some people really go close to conspiricy theory mode and | still get upvoted. | mhh__ wrote: | Or for Elon Musk, depends who you ask. HN is't a person's | initials. | sixQuarks wrote: | Puh-lease. Bias means tendency to lean a certain way, you | can't have bias in 2 opposite directions. | | The pro Elon crowd here is a minority. Something I'll never | understand, being that this is an entrepreneurial forum and | Elon is the worlds best entrepreneur. Jealousy perhaps? | mhh__ wrote: | What I'm saying is that you can't reduce the whole site | down to one made up measure of bias. | | Maybe it is jealousy, maybe it's that he's a neurotic | moron who's more than happy to try and ruin the careers | of little people. | | How many of the great entrepreneurs of history got | embarrassed after their scheme doesn't work and call | their competitor a paedophile? You can recognize his | skills while also recognizing that he's not a very nice | man. | 0F wrote: | No, the bias is everywhere and HN is just reflecting that | universal bias. It's very popular to dislike Elon musk | and it's very unpopular to be a supporter. Count the | number of supporters vs detractors in any mainstream | thread -- musk haters will be the majority every single | time despite the fact that his detractors refer | constantly to a phantom army of supporters. Every Reddit | thread is basically 100 people responding to non-existent | "fan boy" straw men. And they also like to spread the | falsehood that Elon musk used gem mine money to become | successful. It's literally just made up nonsense. | | People like to act like his pedo tweet was some kind of | crime against humanity. Let's have a look at your twitter | if you're so indignant. People are such shameless | hypocrites. | mhh__ wrote: | I have never called anyone a paedophile on the internet, | no. Have you? | 0F wrote: | The average person has simultaneously been outraged at | his pedo tweet and also tweeted the same or worse. Have | you actually been on twitter? It's mostly irrational hate | and insults | | Also I assume you're British so it's not the same. You | people have a problem with pedophiles. You actually bleep | out when people say the word and censor the word when | people write it. It's like some kind of big deal over | there. That's just you bro, nobody else is like that. | mhh__ wrote: | None of that last paragraph is true other than me being | British. | | You're completely in the realms of fantasy. Seriously? | 0F wrote: | I've seen it so maybe uncommon but not untrue. But it's | 100% true that British people have a weird problem with | pedophilia, even compared to other western countries. | Problem both in the sense that you all seem to be | pedophiles and also in that the topic is enveloped in | moral dogma. | mhh__ wrote: | I'm glad that I only seem to be a paedophile, that means | I won't get found by the police for a little while yet. | You should join in, it's fun. | panick21_ wrote: | He is involved in global conspiricy to manipulate | Dogecoin so he can buy more Slave mines to mine cobalt. | That a fact. | honeybadger1 wrote: | Jealousy indeed, I am a fan of Elon because I can | appreciate that he is an engineer first in almost every | way he communicates professionally. It is very obvious he | keeps abreast to physics, engineering, and he even has | core IT knowledge. I watched a 30 minute video where he | spent 2 minutes explaining a trace route to a interviewer | in detail and it made me like him even more. | SalmoShalazar wrote: | You could claim jealousy, but that's reductive. Elon Musk | annoys a lot of people, for a plethora of reasons. It's | pretty easy to find wide ranging genuine criticism of him | from numerous perspectives, if you want to actually | understand. Or you could hand wave it all away and claim | jealousy I guess, just know it's a lazy explanation. | jillesvangurp wrote: | None; sounds like a good change for Twitter and probably the | best thing that happened to their board in quite some time. I | did laugh out loud when I heard about this yesterday. There is | a more than a bit of history between Elon Musk and his many | detractors and a lot of that involves Twitter. So, Elon Musk | buying himself a seat on the board is more than a bit ironic. | | The man definitely seems to float from one controversy to | another and quite a few of those controversies seem to involve | Twitter. Buying a big share in Twitter is kind of a ballsy | thing to do. But why not? Might I suggest shorting the stock if | you disagree ;-). | EricE wrote: | The gatekeepers are loosing control - or so they feel. Always | fun to watch totalitarians get the boot. | [deleted] | [deleted] | tmp_anon_22 wrote: | Its a modern incarnation of a billionaire buying a newspaper. | Has that ever worked out well? Has it ever been altruistic? | neilc wrote: | I don't think Bezos' ownership of the Washington Post has | gone badly so far. | manquer wrote: | Not much for WaPo perhaps, but for bezos that put him in | the target sights of lot of people | | Many of them state sponsored like Saudi government which | targeted him after kashtogi. | | He also got hacked and his dick pics were maybe | compromised. | | Those hacks could have accelerated his divorce too. | topspin wrote: | And yet, in a remarkable display of self unawareness, WaPo | has declared[1] that Musk's move "Could Be Bad News for | Free Speech." | | [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/elon-musks- | twitter-i... | jdrc wrote: | Bezos is not happy | https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/elon-musks-twitter-i... | AustinDev wrote: | The linked article is from Bloomberg so you can add him to | the list people who are big mad. | ausbah wrote: | likely something about the platform not promoting free speech | enough via overreaching censorship, interpret that how you like | mynameisvlad wrote: | A decent chunk of people in the previous thread were saying | he's doing it to kill the bot that tracks his plane's | movements. In general, he seems to be an active enough user | that there's concerns he will use his new power as a way to | shield himself from the consequences of his activity. | sebzim4500 wrote: | >A decent chunk of people in the previous thread were saying | he's doing it to kill the bot that tracks his plane's | movements | | Those people are idiots though. The kid said he would turn | off the bot for $50k. You think Elon bought 9% of Twitter to | avoid paying $50k? | root_axis wrote: | I don't think it's about that, but I am absolutely sure | that Musk would sooner pay 100x the cost in order to send a | "fuck you" to someone that rankled him rather than take the | ego hit and pay the 50k even if it's a pittance to him. | daemoens wrote: | No it's because it's extremly simple to setup another | account to do the exact same thing. You'd have 10 new | ones the next day asking for the same amount. | panick21_ wrote: | That a totally insane take. Maybe if it was Bezos or | somebody. Not for some kid. | root_axis wrote: | Not insane at all, Elon has a long history of petty | behavior. | therouwboat wrote: | Its not like he lost that money, twitter stock is up 20%. | scop wrote: | By "shield himself from the consequences of his activity" I | think Elon literally meant "I don't want to get shot by some | crazy person following my movements". No perfect solution, | but I can get his motivation. | manquer wrote: | Buying Twitter is hardly solving the problem. | | The content creator can just move to Facebook/Instagram or | /tiktok or wherever. | mynameisvlad wrote: | ADS data is public. Just because a Twitter bot puts it in a | nice easy to digest format doesn't mean the data isn't out | there, and there's nothing Elon or really anyone can do | about it. | | It is trivial to track a plane if you have its tail number | and Elon only flies on a small number of jets. | | And, no, by "shield himself from the consequences of his | activities", I mean things like calling someone a pedophile | on Twitter. He is one of the biggest Twitter drama quee s | and it would be a lot easier to clean up his messes if he | practically owns the company. | E4YomzYIN5YEBKe wrote: | Voter registrations make people's home addresses public | information (in many states) but posting that on Twitter | violates their doxxing rules. | mynameisvlad wrote: | Doxxing is very specific-- you are revealing the link | between the pseudonymous account and the holder. Elon | Musk is a public figure, and posts under his own account. | | Additionally, a jet plane, whether private or public, | does not have any rights. You cannot "doxx" an airplane. | Aside from the practical benefits that ADS-B provides, | the public nature of it holds everyone accountable. | peeters wrote: | Plenty of things are public but are unethical to | broadcast, and can range from benign to extremely creepy | or harassment. | scop wrote: | I find this to be incredible news. I used to think Elon-hype was | stupid, but both (a) his achievements and (b) his mind have | gotten me to be an admirer. | | Re (a) achievements, the man has basically bootstrapped space | travel and electric vehicles. Seems like a big deal. Yes, I know | it's more _nuanced_ than that, but you get the point. Can you | name someone else who broke through two fundamentally stalled | /deadlocked industries on such scale? Now here he is putting his | plow to the field of one of the most difficult problems of our | age: information and social media. | | Re (b) his mind, I have been very impressed by his interviews on | podcasts as well as his willingness to go on various long-form | podcasts. He seems to be somebody who is very eager to learn | about a great variety of fields (history, software, hardware, | physics). He also seems to take great care in extrapolating side- | effects down a chain of events in order to think in a complex way | of "what would happen if we do X". The world is not black & white | and Elon seems to operate very comfortably in known & unknowns. | | I don't agree with everything Elon says or does. But it's so | bloody stupid that I have to even say that. What sort of bubble | do you live in where you actually have various people who you | fully agree with across all spectrums? Get out in the real world | for goodness sake. | | We need more Elon Musks. | | Addendum: | | (he also posts dank memes while on the pot, which is another | plus) | nebula8804 wrote: | He is never really challenged with uncomfortable\difficult | questions on his interviews. The one time I recall he was asked | an uncomfortable question he threatened to end the interview. | | [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYOI8h9-uXs | | I cannot find the complete interview on YouTube unfortunately. | | In this other interview, I am disappointed at how she didn't | even push on some of his answers, for example when talking | about his "rabid fan base". You just need to look at this | thread for proof. | | [2]:https://youtu.be/sM9RyZT0Rrg?t=219 | | Also, she is not as technically informed about the mistakes his | companies made. Would love someone to challenge him on the | obvious mistakes he has made with Tesla that everyone else in | the industry were adamant would be failures. Things such as the | "Alien Dreadnaught" were repeats of documented mistakes that GM | and Ford made back in the 80s. Even technical interviewers | always gush over him about how amazing he is and never | challenge him. They all just don't want to lose access. | marban wrote: | The expensive way to get yourself an edit button for tweets. | loceng wrote: | The profitable way to get yourself an edit button for tweets; | Elon's ~$3 billion stake now worth ~$4 billion. | | Making $1 billion by simply spending $3 billion is pretty | sweet. | jdrc wrote: | Expensive is relative | mosselman wrote: | He has $260 billion and spent $2 billion to buy himself into | one of the biggest communication platforms ever. | | Some people have about $260.00 in their name and spend $6 at | Starbucks on some caramel coffee. | cityzen wrote: | in other words, trump will be back on twitter soon | werber wrote: | I kinda thought twitter was just a porn company now. | JoshTko wrote: | One single feature can solve the spambot problem, monetization | problem, and comment quality. Pay to comment - the cost scaling | up based on the follower count of the tweeter. You comment is | free if enough whitelisted folks like your comment. Note, this is | just pay to comment. Tweeting should remain free. The whitelist | would be ~10% of users. List initially aglo determined and long | term curated manually. | suyash wrote: | Much needed change, I would hope he will fire the CEO and the | existing leadership at Twitter and replace them with those who | really want to make Twitter a neutral, respected platform for | discussion. | boppo1 wrote: | is the current ceo less neutral than Jack was? | rednerrus wrote: | I know it's not popular but I like the fact that he's annoyed and | did something about it. | breadbreadbread wrote: | "doing something about it" is a privilege awarded by wealth, | not competency. He could have installed someone with experience | in free speech advocacy and policy but he took it for himself. | People need to seriously understand that being good at one | thing doesnt make you good at all things. There are people who | dedicate their entire careers to understanding the challenges | of enacting "free speech" (which is often more complicated than | just "no moderation"). Elon Musk not that, he is the guy with 5 | companies who is mad that people dont like him. | [deleted] | kache_ wrote: | He's not popular on hacker news. He's definitely popular | tim333 wrote: | I'd say there's a mixed reaction on HN. I think he's kinda | cool with the 0-60 in 2 secs cars and trying to make mankind | multiplanetary but the haters seem much more inclined to | post. | | It seems a little contrary to the - Have curious | conversation; .... Please don't sneer... guidelines. A lot of | sneering going on when Musk gets a mention. | sterlind wrote: | I'm in a similar boat. I like what he's achieved with | SpaceX, Tesla and Starlink. I don't like his views on trans | people (which are ironic, considering he named his | droneships after Culture Minds), as well as his | inflammatory character. Art vs. Artist and all that. | sixQuarks wrote: | What are his views on trans people? | sterlind wrote: | I don't think he has any well-articulated principles | about us, just mocking. Like changing his Twitter name to | "Elona" and posting shitty memes in response to his ex | dating Chelsea Manning, along with posting that gender | pronouns are "dumb." 4chan Twitter troll cringe, | basically. | | I don't believe much in canceling and like what SpaceX is | doing, I just don't like Musk making fun of people like | me and so I'd sooner work for his competitors than for | him. | dnissley wrote: | The word we're searching for here is "divisive" | rc_mob wrote: | I was hoping "unpopular" would be the word we used | deltarholamda wrote: | The people I agree with are visionaries. | | The people I disagree with are divisive. | [deleted] | dnissley wrote: | Definitely a visionary, no argument here | zen_of_prog wrote: | Guess that makes you a visionary too | ollien wrote: | I know the point you're trying to make, but I can't | imagine that even the largest Elon Musk fanboys would | disagree that he's divisive. At best, I can imagine them | saying it's not his fault and people overreact, but | that's still recognition of the divisiveness. | deltarholamda wrote: | Why is Elon described as divisive? Because it sounds bad. | | Ruth Bader Ginsburg was never described as divisive, | though she was objectively more divisive than a rich guy | who makes cars and rocket ships and flamethrowers. | Antonin Scalia _was_ described as divisive, so the | argument can 't be made that SC justices are somehow | different. | | It's a rhetorical trick that's been used for many | decades. It's obvious, and it's tiresome. | [deleted] | m463 wrote: | maybe controversial? Personally I'm behind 95% of what he | does, but the square steering wheel/take away driver | control thing is annoying. | paxys wrote: | Doesn't hurt that him buying 10% of Twitter is equivalent to | the average person buying a new computer. | manquer wrote: | 4 billion is still a lot of money even for him. | | Also liquid assets for investment are harder for people that | rich so still likely a major decision. | | Either he used proceeds from last year stock sales or he | leveraged some Tesla stock for this . | dlp211 wrote: | Can we stop with this fiction. Billionaires can easily | liquidate their equity assets and do so regularly. | manquer wrote: | I am not saying it is a lot of risk for him. I am saying | moving that kind of money is a major operation. | | Twitter trading volumes are not so high that anyone can | just come in make a 4 billion buy order . | | Acquiring 10% stock of any public company without | upsetting the price to much takes time and effort [1] | | It is not some whimsical impluse buy, no matter how much | money he has , this was calculated buy he must have | considered for a while. | | Jack Dorsey stepping down probably helped him to decide | to make a move, a hostile founder CEO can make it ugly. | Especially somebody like Jack who has another very high | value startup and doesn't derive his wealth from just | Twitter can make it expensive and ugly if he choose to. | | [1]- unless someone is selling you a block trade outside | of the market. No institutional investors have left or | reduced their stake that much in the last quarter so Elon | couldn't have used this route | [deleted] | colinmhayes wrote: | $4 billion is a lot of money. Having a lot of money doesn't | change the amount of stuff $4billion can buy. | seabird wrote: | This incorrect idea that there's any trivial way to make a $4 | billion purchase is popular because most people don't | understand money in those amounts. It's fine if you have a | problem with extreme wealth, but if this is how you think of | it, you might not be seeing the actual problems. | johnla wrote: | Can't argue that he puts his money where his mouth is. He's | just not just a passive critic. | jdrc wrote: | I sympathize but very rich people owning the media never ends | well | memish wrote: | Who owns the media and big tech now??? It's not poor people! | | At least Elon Musk is a very rich person who believes in free | speech. Which is good for us poors. Twitter and the national | discourse will be objectively better for working class voices | as a result. Less so for the gatekeepers and media elite | commentariat. | rc_mob wrote: | Elon Musk definitely does not believe in free speech that | criticizes Elon Musk. | jesushax wrote: | chollida1 wrote: | > At least Elon Musk is a very rich person who believes in | free speech | | Tell that to the people who released valid short research | on Tesla. | [deleted] | rplnt wrote: | > At least Elon Musk is a very rich person who believes in | free speech. | | He believes in his free speech. Maybe. Definitely not when | it comes to people who work for him or people that | criticize him. | sillysaurusx wrote: | What evidence is there of this? | | Honestly this thread has been pushing me more towards the | Musk camp, which I didn't think was possible. But not one | person seems to be able to point to specific, concrete | criticisms with references. | rplnt wrote: | I mean, it's covered enough in media. | | e.g.: https://www.businessinsider.com/free-speech- | absolutist-elon-... | | His reactions towards criticism (like harassing or | banning journalist criticizing Tesla, or that whole | fiasco with his submarine) are always well covered too. | And while it's not exactly suppressing free speech, that | level of pettiness doesn't look too good. | | Also, how is this pushing you towards the Musk camp? (The | fact that there's such thing, and there is, is troubling | on its own) | psyc wrote: | If you believe every free speech proponent _secretly_ | means speech they like, you may be projecting. To be | fair, I may also be projecting. | shmde wrote: | > At least Elon Musk is a very rich person who believes in | free speech. | | Yes thats exactly why he was willing to shell out 50,000$ | to a kid to remove his flight tracking bot. | | Stop licking his boot. | sixQuarks wrote: | Oh wow, what a great example. You have totally changed my | mind. /s | sebzim4500 wrote: | The kid asked for $50k, Elon said no, which is why the | bot is still up. In any case, paying someone to shut up | is no violating their free speech. | sdfgdf wrote: | srveale wrote: | Neither is a private company deciding what they will | allow on their platform | memish wrote: | Nice projection. Who is licking the boots here? | | 1. Those who back authoritarian style censorship | conducted in opaque fashion | | 2. Those who back free speech and transparency | dlp211 wrote: | Yes, I too can't wait for the entire internet to be | 4chan. | | There is no such thing as absolute free speech and I have | no idea where you all are coming up with this idea. By | definition, absolute free speech cannot exist because | your speech ends where mine begins. Free speech does not | mean free from moderation or consequences and criticisms, | both are forms of speech themselves. There is no | authoritarian censorship going on here. | krapp wrote: | >There is no such thing as absolute free speech and I | have no idea where you all are coming up with this idea. | | As with so many plagues on American society and current | political discourse, this came from Trump supporters, | specifically angry at being banned from social media | platforms for hate speech and disinformation, and | suddenly deciding that rules and social consequences for | their behavior were a violation of their civil rights. | The attempt to redefine free speech is part of a movement | to impugn social media platforms as engaging in | widespread politically motivated suppression of free | speech, with the implication they need to be forced by | law to host the kind of content they would otherwise | refuse to. | MockObject wrote: | > absolute free speech | | This is a strawman argument, that nobody seriously | proposed. | arjun_krishna1 wrote: | Ummm... This is still up? https://twitter.com/ElonJet | syshum wrote: | Offering someone $50K to stop doing something == Free | Association and Free Market | | Advocating Totalitarian controls via Terms of Service, | and/or Government !== Free Association | | Come back when it attempts to have Twitter ban this | persons account, then you may have a case, offering an | monetary incentive for someone to change their behavior | is not censorship in any form. | | Stop being a tool | jpadkins wrote: | isn't by definition that very rich people own the media? Or | was there a time period where the media wasn't very | profitable and the people who owned them weren't very rich? | ariedro wrote: | Because that wasn't happening in the first place? | jdrc wrote: | The comparable cases are Bezos & Zuck, the parallel is | Berlusconi. Yes it's all scary | Loughla wrote: | What does that matter? The original question was: | | >I sympathize but very rich people owning the media never | ends well | | How does the history of the ultra-wealthy controlling the | narrative in media for their own gain change that | statement? | [deleted] | dalbasal wrote: | I don't think this counts as "done something about it." At | least not yet. | rrix2 wrote: | guelo wrote: | Can't wait for the "Twitter is a public utility" argument to | switch partisan sides. | [deleted] | gotaquestion wrote: | So does his new free speech wagon mean disinfo is back on the | menu at twitter, and a return of the former president*? | bjt2n3904 wrote: | The comments in this thread are a gold mine. | | 1) Twitter doesn't ban people for wrong think! That's a myth! | | 2) Musk was accused of racism! | | 3) Musk isn't doing this for freedom of speech, he's only doing | it for his own interests! | | I want to see the Venn Diagram of people who said one of these | things, and were glibly sharing XKCD #1357 whenever someone got | banned from Twitter that they disagree with. | | The tides have started to slowly turn, and all they can do is | play the same three cards over and over: "that's not true, this | is racism, capitalism bad!" | | Surprise! Nobody believes this anymore. They're sick and tired of | being told what to believe by "experts". They're tired of you | crying wolf. And they're tired of being gaslit that none of this | is happening. | philosopher1234 wrote: | I doubt you actually understand the people who make these | criticisms. | ComradePhil wrote: | > Twitter is a private company, it can do what it wants | | > Elon Musk: _buys ~10% and lays out intension to make | changes_ | | > No, not like that | jdrc wrote: | cloutchaser wrote: | This seems like a silly post on first reading, but actually | thinking about it, that would mean the first amendment actually | applies to Twitter right? In which case it would actually mean | government can't interfere with it? | | It's an interesting mind exercise. What happens with blatant | spamming, or bots, is the government allowed to interfere with | those? Or does the 1st amendment block that too? | nonameiguess wrote: | The government already owns a support foundation for | publicly-owned broadcasters (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co | rporation_for_Public_Broadca...). Nothing about the 1st | Amendment seems to prevent these broadcasters from | restricting access to their airwaves. Anyone with a camera or | mic can't just walk into a PBS studio and start transmitting | whatever message they want. The Public Broadcasting Act of | 1972 that created the CPB does stipulate that it has to be | objective and balanced when dealing with controversial | subjects, but it doesn't say every single person with a | voice, no matter what they want to say, needs to be allowed | to speak. | | I aint no lawyer, of course, but this doesn't seem | inconsistent with other arenas of free speech. Even literal | public squares don't have infinite space. If some group tried | to go occupy a government-owned park with a few thousand | people more or less permanently, preventing anyone else from | ever getting access, that would be illegal. Rationing and | rate-limiting are not censorship, though presumably at least | some people subject to it will probably try to say they are. | jdrc wrote: | But twitter isn't inherently limited by airtime or | bandwidth, it's in principle infinite. | shkkmo wrote: | PBS is a publisher, not a platform, and is legally liable | for the content they publish in a way that Twitter is not. | | > Rationing and rate-limiting are not censorship, though | presumably at least some people subject to it will probably | try to say they are. | | When rationing and rate-limiting are applied on the basis | of the content of the speech, then yes is is absolutely | censorship and there are supreme court cases to back that | up. | spsful wrote: | So many people compare twitter to the national government | (even Elon) and make the case that their censorship is akin | to a violation of free speech. I would say they need a civics | class more than anything. | | But in terms of a nationalized social media network, I can't | imagine it going well. The lack of innovation in the | government would probably mean the site gets overwhelmed and | taken down shortly after it was made. | robbedpeter wrote: | Nuisance on public infrastructure - like loitering and | littering, some trolling and all spam could become | misdemeanors subject to enforcement. Twitter officers lol. | Imagine joining the fbi and ending up manning the Twitter | troll patrol. | | Absurd idea, but amusing consequences if you ignore the | obvious roadblocks. | incomingpain wrote: | >This seems like a silly post on first reading, but actually | thinking about it, that would mean the first amendment | actually applies to Twitter right? | | Without Section 230 Twitter would be liable for every evil | thing that is said on their platform. | | What Section 230 does is create a category in which you are | not liable for the content on the platform but they | specifically setup limited rules for what can be censored. | All censorship must be done in good faith. Lewd, obscene, | harassment etc is censorable. But again good faith, you cant | just say everything is harassment or obscene so you can | censor speech. | | So absolutely, twitter is legally obligated to allow free | speech. The big controversy is that they are clearly in | violation of this but nobody is punishing them. They just get | away with it. | | >It's an interesting mind exercise. What happens with blatant | spamming, or bots, is the government allowed to interfere | with those? Or does the 1st amendment block that too? | | No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall | be held liable on account of- | | (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict | access to or availability of material that the provider or | user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, | excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, | whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; | or | | So twitter could ban porn under lewd category but they choose | not to do. Same with gore and obscenity in general. | | You dont have to censor these things, but you can if you | please. | | Censoring political speech under any of those categories is | going to be virtually impossible to justify that they are | doing this in good faith. | shkkmo wrote: | You seem slightly confused about what 230 does. What it | does is allow companies to do some moderation without | legally liable as publishers for all content they host. | Without section 230 companies have a choice to either do no | moderation or to assume full liability as publishers. | | Section 230 was created to encorage online moderation by | removing the liability that moderation would bring in an | offline context. | incomingpain wrote: | >You seem slightly confused about what 230 does. What it | does is allow companies to do some moderation without | legally liable as publishers for all content they host. | | I did copy and paste the law. It's clear to me what is | says and the free speech that is required. Censorship | must be done in good faith. | | >Without section 230 companies have a choice to either do | no moderation or to assume full liability as publishers. | | Without section 230 they would assume full liability as | publisher. | | >Section 230 was created to encorage online moderation by | removing the liability that moderation would bring in an | offline context. | | Section 230 was created to allow entities like twitter to | exist. Without section 230 twitter stops existing. | | Let's be realistic, Elon just put $9 billion down because | his poll showed significant problem with censorship. | Fixing this will take twitter from $40 billion to much | higher. | pmyteh wrote: | There was case law before s.230 was passed, which said | what parent claimed: if you moderated your content you | carried liability as a publisher, if you were careful not | to look at what went up on your service then you didn't. | s.230 was added to the Communications Decency Act | specifically to remove that perverse incentive in order | to encourage 'family friendly' moderation. That's it. It | doesn't anywhere require good faith. The entire | legislative history is on record. And it long predates | Twitter. | incomingpain wrote: | >There was case law before s.230 was passed, | | The CDA was from 1996. What social media predated 1996? | Even ICQ does not predate the CDA. | | > It doesn't anywhere require good faith. | | I literally copy and pasted the law. It literally has the | words good faith in it. | | >The entire legislative history is on record. And it long | predates Twitter. | | Section 230 long predated all of the things. It is how | they function today. | pmyteh wrote: | 'Social media' in the web 2.0 sense is post 1996, but | there were plenty of websites with comments sections and | online forums before that. Cases over intermediary | liability for online content have some antiquity; in | Cubby v. CompuServe (776 F. Supp. 135; S.D.N.Y. 1991), | for example, CompuServe were found non-liable because | they had no first-hand knowledge of the defamatory | posting. Whereas in Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy (No. | 31063/94, 1995 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 229; N.Y. Sup. Ct. May | 24, 1995) Prodigy were found liable as the publisher | because they'd set content rules and run a filter over | users' contributions. Congress thought that latter result | was unhelpful (because it incentivised people to run | cesspools rather than to actively moderate them) and | legislated. | | And sorry, I should have been clearer on good faith. The | section preventing providers being liable as a publisher | (which is the core of s.230's value to social media | platforms) has no good faith requirement. "No provider or | user of an interactive computer service shall be treated | as the publisher or speaker of any information provided | by another information content provider." (s.230(c)1) is | the whole clause. Platforms don't acquire intermediary | liability even if they delete every post praising the | Yankees while laughing maniacally and falsely claiming | it's a result of profanity use. They simply aren't | "treated as the publisher or speaker" full stop. | | The good faith language comes from (c)2, which further | limits liability (to the speaker) for good faith removals | on the grounds that the speech might be offensive. That's | not an intermediary liability issue, as such, though. | incomingpain wrote: | >The good faith language comes from (c)2, which further | limits liability (to the speaker) for good faith removals | on the grounds that the speech might be offensive. That's | not an intermediary liability issue, as such, though. | | We are arguing over a moot point. If section 230 or | whatever does not provide for free speech. Then that is | what needs to be improved upon. Perhaps make it more | clear that free speech is guaranteed. | shkkmo wrote: | > If section 230 or whatever does not provide for free | speech. Then that is what needs to be improved upon. | | The problem is that people have wildly different takes on | how to "fix" section 230. | | One group wants to eliminate the liability protections, | regardless of how much moderating you do. The concern is | that this basically makes hosting user generated content | at any sort of scale impractical from a business | perspective since scaling competent human review to | reduce the legal liability below the value per user is | impractical for any sort of modern social media. | | One group want so eliminate section 230 so only companies | that do no moderation have liability protection, forcing | social media companies to stop doing any moderation. The | concern here is that some level of moderation of abuse / | spam seems necessary to keep platforms from degrading | into wastelands that no-one wants to use. | | The moderate middle ground is reforming section 230 to | limit the types of moderation activity that can be | performed without losing liability protection. | | This last seems politically unlikely as it doesn't | provide a political win, despite being good for society. | | One group wants to eliminate | papercrane wrote: | > The CDA was from 1996. What social media predated 1996? | Even ICQ does not predate the CDA. | | Forums existed well before 1996. Both CompuServe and | Prodigy were found liable for things people posted on | forums on their platforms. | incomingpain wrote: | >Forums existed well before 1996. Both CompuServe and | Prodigy were found liable for things people posted on | forums on their platforms. | | Dont take me as opposing the CDA. I think Section 230 is | superb and necessary. | | What I believe is that we simply enforce the rules. Free | speech is guaranteed on twitter. | papercrane wrote: | Your reading of the "good faith" requirement is not in | line with how it's been interpreted by the courts. | | https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been- | referre... | barelysapient wrote: | I think that's a solid read. | | The social media platforms need some sort of speech | regulation enforced on them. Imagine if AT&T cut off your | phone call because you started talking about Donald Trump or | Hunter Biden's laptop. | | Social media companies enjoy immunity under Section 230 of | the Communications Decency Act[1] but then editorialize their | platform to allow only conversations socially acceptable. | | Enforcing free speech on the platforms, as its accepted today | by the courts[2], with criminal penalties for noncompliance, | is the only solution. | | [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 [2] | https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational- | re... | divs1210 wrote: | please tell me you're joking? | agilob wrote: | Yes, Russia should nationalize it :) | sbarre wrote: | So while this one-liner comment seems to be drawing ire, I do | think it brings up a difficult point. | | As more and more of our civic discourse moves online, there are | no "public spaces" online where the rule of law and public | interest comes first. | | There is no town square, no soapbox in the park, no public | access TV, or the ability for masses to organize and march or | protest (or whatever the online equivalent is), with only the | government's laws as written to contend with. | | Everything (that has meaningful reach and impact) is private, | and all these meeting and communication spaces have a company | with shareholders and therefore goals and motivations that | override public interest. | | I certainly don't have the answer to this problem but this | erosion is a problem that will need to be reckoned with at some | point. | zdragnar wrote: | We have never had a public town square larger than a literal | town square, excepting maybe ham radio. Every other space has | in some way been moderated or fashioned to purpose. Even | public TV, news and radio are groomed to certain standards. | sbarre wrote: | And yet we've had demonstrations and protests that have | drawn hundreds of thousands of people, perhaps millions, | into the streets around the world to demand change or rally | around causes. | | Where does that happen online, with the guarantees afforded | by only the rule of law? | zdragnar wrote: | Various governments have ways to petition online. | Change.org or whatever is reasonably open to things | covered by the first amendment, though of course it is | privately controlled without real guarantees. | coldpie wrote: | I think we do, it's called the DNS. Buy a domain and put | whatever you like on it. It does get hard/expensive if you | get a truly massive audience, but that has always been true. | You are not and have never been owed the benefits of someone | else's platform, but it's still easier now to have a truly | public discussion than ever before. | jdrc wrote: | Yup, we actually need public twitters. Nothing fancy, no | recommendations, not even sophisticated antispam, just simple | follow list like rss with feedback. People can learn the | self-curate | [deleted] | sbarre wrote: | Sure but who owns and runs that? Who is responsible for the | infrastructure costs, the operations of it, the uptime, | etc.. | | The government? Which government? The Internet is global, | so would you have a public Twitter for every country? How | do you geo-restrict this then? Whose laws apply? How is it | reported or enforced? Do we need "Twitter cops"? | | You can throw out easy answers all you want but it's | actually a really complex issue. | jdrc wrote: | The govt, municipalities etc. Public spaces are public | and the whole thing can be decentralized so it s not | compute and bw heavy. It should be very cheap compared to | e.g. roads | sbarre wrote: | You are grossly oversimplifying the technical and | governance effort required to do something like this. | krapp wrote: | Yes, because when the American government controls Twitter, you | can be certain all views will be respected and treated | impartially... | jdrc wrote: | Does American government censor the press? Or mail? | krapp wrote: | America just had a President who explicitly declared the | press to be the enemy of the people. | | Ignoring the degree to which the American press voluntarily | acts as a propaganda platform[0], the US government | absolutely does censor the press, by revoking or | controlling press credentials, arresting reporters covering | protests, harassment, etc[1]. | | And the US has historically censored the mail, yes, usually | during wartime. But the bigger problem is surveillance - | the USPS tracks, photographs and logs all paper mail for | government surveillance and law enforcement[2]. The USPS | also has a 'covert operations' division that monitors | social media posts[3]. | | You could (correctly) claim that this isn't nearly as bad | as the surveillance and censorship regimes elsewhere, but | it's difficult to see how making that easier by giving the | government direct control over a primary means of global | communication makes it less likely. | | [0]https://www.thoughtco.com/how-media-censorship-affects- | the-n... | | [1]https://fair.org/home/us-censorship-is-increasingly- | official... | | [2]https://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/04/us/monitoring-of- | snail-ma... | | [3]https://www.salon.com/2021/04/21/is-the-post-office- | spying-o... | sbarre wrote: | During the Trump administration, their vindictive treatment | of the press and the selective removal of access to the | White House by outlets not toeing the line more or less | amounted to quasi-censorship in practice. | jdrc wrote: | Small potatoes compared to the ugliness around the world | lkbm wrote: | Other governments' behavior isn't a relevant comparison. | The discussion isn't "Should the US nationalize Twitter | or should China?" | jdrc wrote: | Ok then, if comparing censorship by the us govt vs | private companies it's clear who wins | onpensionsterm wrote: | In living memory, through McCarthyism. | zionic wrote: | >McCarthyism | | Isn't that "ism" largely discredited? He was right, the | government/institutions _were_ full of communists. Today | they've rebranded as socialists, but to my knowledge | everything he fought against came to pass. | | Attaching the -ism label is just a thought-terminating | cliche. | Miner49er wrote: | Communists should have freedom of speech too? | mardifoufs wrote: | It maybe wasn't "full of communists" but you are right | that project VENONA has shown that McCarthy wasn't | totally wrong either. Institutions were deeply | inflitrated at all levels. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venona_project | the_only_law wrote: | I wonder what the overlap between those accused by | McCarthy and those who were actually spies. | ALittleLight wrote: | I guess that depends if you consider WikiLeaks part of the | press. | sebow wrote: | Nationalizing in the traditional sense is not the solution, | indeed, but rather hold the platform up to the letter of the | constitution. This right now is not exactly possible given | that "twitter is a private company", therefore arguably if | one puts it in the hands of the government, you have the | double-edged sword of potentially being abused by the | government, and on the other hand the solution i | forementioned on holding it accountable given that it would | become public under the law. However, just like with any | other gov. institution, being held accountable is more often | than not up to the people through their civic initiative and | probably not something that the government will do out of | interest. So in this regard in US it could work given the | nature of the constitution, whereas in other countries | Twitter would just become a propaganda machine (isn't it one | already?). | nradov wrote: | Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas suggested extending | common carrier legislation to cover social media platforms. | That would essentially prevent them from censoring any | content legal in the US. | | https://www.brookings.edu/blog/techtank/2021/04/09/justice- | t... | sebow wrote: | Thanks for the link, I remember hearing about Clarence | Thomas' take on this subject but I never took the time to | study it. My personal opinion (before reading the | material above) is that the "core issue" stands on the | S230 "loop-hole" (I don't want to use the term 'abuse' | given the negative connotation ... so far it[S230] has | been a net good since it made the internet grow so much | since 2007, but things have started to change with the | rise of monopolistic corporations) giving companies both | privileges with less responsibility than should | necessary. At least in principle a Bill of Rights should | exist, especially considering that places like Twitter | are considered fairly often under the law (think court | cases) 'public spaces'. Therefore in my mind if the | public street is a place where i can speak freely, so | should one be able to on Twitter/any other such deemed | public space. | missedthecue wrote: | Without irony, you probably would have less censorship than | should a private company own it. Is that a good thing? Not | sure. Seems like spam would overtake it quickly. | krapp wrote: | Sure, until an American president decides to ban another | country's account for disrespecting him, or use it for | leverage in negotiations, or have the NSA bulk scan their | citizens private messages for 'terrorist' communications, | or have the algorithm bias other country's newsfeeds in | favor of American propaganda. | | Twitter is a global platform and much of the world wouldn't | trust the US as far as they could throw an American nuke | (not withstanding how much they would also trust their own | government.) The only reason Twitter works as well as it | does _now_ is that its primary concern, as a company, is | profit, and not the national interests of one specific | country. | oceanplexian wrote: | That ship long since sailed. Look at Russia, for example. | They have basically been cut off from all forms of social | media and the president didn't even need to order them to | do it (Even though the president has more or less total | power over anything involving international trade). The | social media companies did it voluntarily. | krapp wrote: | I would still prefer it to be the choice of individuals | and private platforms, which can be competed with and | avoided, than a government. Even if I think blacklisting | Russians at every opportunity is a terrible, unproductive | and ultimately self-sabotaging move for Americans to | make. | stale2002 wrote: | > Sure, until an American president decides to ban | | Well, that is what the court system, and the supreme | court is for. | | The court system puts very strong restrictions on what | the government is able to do, regarding speech. | | Sure, maybe a president would want to do something. And | the courts, which have a very established history of | protecting speech rights would stop them. | | A better solution, though, would be to make a new law | that requires twitter to follow similar standards as the | government has to follow, in the same way how we put | strong restrictions on what telephone companies are | allowed to do | | (So don't give me any objections about how such laws | would be illegal, when we already have them! Use our | phone laws as the model, to do something similar, if not | exact the same). | krapp wrote: | Social media companies aren't common carriers. People | want them to be so they have to follow the same laws, but | they never claimed to be neutral. They have rules, they | have distinct cultures and business models. They also | exist within an ecosystem of competitors - Twitter being | popular doesn't mean they control communications | infrastructure. Facebook serving a billion people no more | makes it a public good than MacDonald's. | stale2002 wrote: | Did you read this part, or are you just going to | completely ignore it? "The [modern day] court system puts | very strong restrictions on what the government is able | to do, regarding speech." | | I am not sure how anyone who has read any supreme court | opinion in the last 40 years, could come to the | conclusion that the government is not strongly prevented | from engaging in large speech restrictions. | miked85 wrote: | That might actually be the worst way. | jdrc wrote: | In most of the world yes, but america's laws are unique | elicash wrote: | He filed forms that he was going to be a passive investor, and | the same day joined the board after discussion that had been in | the works for weeks. This is strike two on misleading investors. | | I haven't seen analysis on whether it was illegal, but I wouldn't | want somebody like him on my board even if it succeeded in | keeping him from buying up more stock. With him on the outside, | maybe he causes more trouble than on the inside but I would be | wary of the association. | throwaway879080 wrote: | golemotron wrote: | > I wouldn't want somebody like him on my board | | It's his board. | akyu wrote: | >He filed forms that he was going to be a passive investor | | No he didn't. | SalmoShalazar wrote: | If you're going to write a terse, incorrect response, at | least include a misleading source. | bryanlarsen wrote: | https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/0001418091/000110465. | .. | gpm wrote: | Nowhere on that page does it say anything about being a | passive investor? | s1artibartfast wrote: | it is the bold "13G" at the top of the page. | gpm wrote: | I see, thanks | E4YomzYIN5YEBKe wrote: | Rule 13d-1(c): Passive Investors that have not acquired | the security with the intent nor effect of influencing | control over the issuer, are not an "institutional | investor," and are not directly or indirectly the | beneficial owner of 20% or more of the security. | [deleted] | manquer wrote: | He filed 13g instead of 13d. Any activist investors who want | to influence the course of the company get involved in proxy | fights , change the board should not file 13g that is only | for passive investment. | | There was discussion yesterday whether him polling his | followers last week about twitter and social media was | activism. Joining the board certainly is. | s1artibartfast wrote: | My question is why?? 13d doesn't seem to make a difference | so why file the other. | cloutchaser wrote: | thepasswordis wrote: | >I wouldn't want somebody like him on my board | | You wouldn't want the CEO of two of the most innovative, most | successful companies of all time on your board? Why? | johnla wrote: | because of personal biases and feelings | psyc wrote: | Because I checked the temperature on social media, and | noticed people with similar politics to mine mock him a | lot. | nvggyjc wrote: | Ferrotin wrote: | Shareholders like him on the board, and they would be even | happier if he were running the company, because an Elon-run | Twitter would be a lot more profitable. | [deleted] | bobkazamakis wrote: | he hasn't had any experience running a company that doesn't | rely on subsidies in over a decade but I appreciate your | optimism. | jermaustin1 wrote: | > an Elon-run Twitter would be a lot more profitable. | | I'm not so sure about that. He doesn't have a lot of | experience with running ad sales. His big breaks have been | PayPal (kind of), Tesla and SpaceX. None of which were | social, none of which were "free". | Ferrotin wrote: | I'm not sure either (there is of course uncertainty). But | in Tesla and SpaceX, he shows good management, while my | (outsider) impression of Twitter's is that it's dropping | the ball. | | Also, I think Twitter was undervalued compared to its | potential, and Elon wouldn't be buying part of it if he | didn't think he could turn a good profit. | blendergeek wrote: | > and Elon wouldn't be buying part of it if he didn't | think he could turn a good profit. | | Unless he was buying a seat on the board so that he could | help effect change that he desired. | fallingknife wrote: | He didn't have a lot of experience in cars or rockets | either. | rhacker wrote: | My paypal account is free. It is way more useful than my | twitter account which I don't even know my handle. | jonwachob91 wrote: | Your paypal account charges you every time you make a | transaction. It is not free. | openknot wrote: | This is false. There is no fee when making a purchase in | at least the US or Canada [0]. The exception is when | there is a currency conversion involved (about a 4% fee). | | There are fees when receiving money as a result of | selling a product or service, which is where PayPal makes | (likely most) of its money. | | [0] https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/paypal-fees | jimnotgym wrote: | It is not false, when you pay for a product with paypal | it takes a fee off the person receiving the money. The | person receiving the money knows of this cost in advance | so adds it onto the price in advance. Therefore the | purchaser pays. | openknot wrote: | It's not always true that a vendor receiving money will | increase prices to pass the PayPal fees to the consumer. | You can see that many checkouts offer multiple options | (e.g. both PayPal, Stripe, and/or other methods), with | the item price usually the same even if each method has a | different fee. The idea is that you want to make | purchasing as convenient as possible, as it costs more to | lose a sale, versus paying an incremental fee difference | with PayPal. | | If a vendor makes PayPal purchases slightly more | expensive, it can cause bad will with the customer (who | is less likely to return and make more purchases). | Exceptions are sometimes with one-off purchases (e.g. a | conference ticket or course fee). | | Separately, the original comment asserted that the PayPal | account charges you each transaction (which is false). | The new argument is different, which asserts that a | vendor may charge you more due to PayPal fees. | jimnotgym wrote: | >The new argument is different, which asserts that a | vendor may charge you more due to PayPal fees. | | You misunderstand me. I didn't say you got charged extra | for paypal over Stripe, for instance. | | Stripe which you mention is also expensive, and also | factored in to the price. I don't know of any serious | eccomerce company that is not acutely aware of card fees. | Every payment gateway charges high fees and it is | factored in to the price the consumer pays. | Consultant32452 wrote: | Twitter is simultaneously useless and also the life-blood | of western politics. The people in power care more about | what Twitter thinks than what voters think. | seized wrote: | It's free to someone who only buys product. It's not free | to someone receiving money. | dangwu wrote: | So you think he got 3 lucky breaks when with electronic | payments, electric cars, and space rockets, and Twitter is | too hard? | jimnotgym wrote: | He got a lucky break with payments that allowed him to | try his luck on the other two | elicash wrote: | It's certainly true that the stock is currently way up on the | news of his investment. | | I personally would not invest in a company where I cannot | trust claims being made by the board. | SuoDuanDao wrote: | I am so curious as to what's in your portfolio... | Overtonwindow wrote: | More profitable, more open, and more fair to all voices. | Twitter has become a liberal vacuum that, as a liberal, has | gone way too far to the left in silencing voices. It's not a | private company, it's a public company, and I hope Elon turns | it around into a true, free speech town square, instead of | just an echo chamber for blue checks. | frob wrote: | No, it is literally a private company. Which is why we are | having this discussion based off of SEC filings. | | Edit: sorry, I mixed up public company and public good. | Twitter is a public company, but not a public good. | himinlomax wrote: | If it wasn't a public company, it wouldn't be under the | SEC's jurisdiction. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _If it wasn 't a public company, it wouldn't be under | the SEC's jurisdiction_ | | All securities are under the SEC's jurisdiction, | including those issued by unlisted companies, _e.g._ | start-ups. | xeromal wrote: | I believe they mean public in the publically-traded | sense, but I agree with you. It's not in the public | (citizen controlled) sense | Ajay-p wrote: | I don't think that means what you think it means, perhaps | you are international? A Public company is one that is | owned by shareholders of a public exchange. This is why | Elon can buy into it and become a member of the board. If | it were a private company he could not do that. | dahfizz wrote: | No, it is literally a public company. TWTR is traded on | NASDAQ. Which is why we are having this discussion based | off of SEC filings. Private companies are not required to | file with the SEC. | nemothekid wrote: | > _More profitable, more open, and more fair to all | voices._ | | I wonder if people who say things like this actually use | Twitter. Twitter has far _less_ moderation than the other | social media giants. It's a high school popularity contest, | and the cool kids didn't need blue check marks from the | teachers to be cool. | Jiejeing wrote: | "As a liberal, twitter has gone way too far to the left in | silencing voices?" Twitter moderation is blind on | harassment, nazis who brag about it are using the platform | to dox people without any repercussions, send death | threats, etc. what the hell are you even talking about? | detcader wrote: | > blind | | Wow that's very troubling. Can you show some examples of | studies, or representative serious anecdotes? | Mountain_Skies wrote: | Sounds like a job for the legal system, not yet another | secret kangaroo court run by people with a very narrow | ideological bent. | colinmhayes wrote: | The legal system is too slow. If twitter couldn't | moderate itself it wouldn't be moderated. That may sound | good, but honestly, think about it for a second. That | would pretty much be the end of twitter. | freshpots wrote: | Blue checks do not equal blue voices, but you already know | that. Twitter is the worst mainstream platform when it | comes to right wing propaganda and scientific | misinformation. Free speech in this case is code for saying | anything without consequence and weaponizing it at morons. | Twitter excels at it already, let's not make it worse. | detcader wrote: | Do you think the government should censor incorrect or | hateful speech and if not, why not? | tayo42 wrote: | The conversation is about Twitter, why are you bringing | up the government. | detcader wrote: | It's a really simple question (yes or no, and just a | single sentence about the reasoning if "no") and I hope | the principle of charity can be extended when I say the | discussion will come back to Twitter very quickly. | | The OP hasn't provided their answer but I'd be interested | in your answer too! | [deleted] | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _haven 't seen analysis on whether it was illegal_ | | He and Twitter will pay the SEC a fine and be done with it. The | SEC is a civil agency. And this doesn't seem to rise to the | level of criminal negligence. | | (Practically speaking, he's probably losing his Tesla tweet- | review case as a result of this. If he can't figure out if he's | an activist when considering a Board seat, he probably needs | someone with domain experience looking over his public | statements.) | hayd wrote: | SEC: S Elon's C. | justapassenger wrote: | Misleading investors is one of Elon's main jobs. And he'll | continue doing so, as we doesn't face any consequences for it | (expect for becoming ultra rich). | 01100011 wrote: | The SEC has been asleep for years now. Every week we see | market whales pulling gamma squeezes and pumping tech stocks | higher and higher. The market is a joke at this point. | zionic wrote: | Asleep? SEC has been screwing small investors for as long | as it's been around. | | Screw the SEC, just another in a long list of government | agencies that shouldn't exist. | Loughla wrote: | >just another in a long list of government agencies that | shouldn't exist. | | I would add 'in its current form' onto the end of that. | | The problem is, we have these agencies, so we can say, | "look, we're fixing the problem," but then we provide | them neither the power nor funding to really do anything | but be annoying. I am firmly convinced this is by design. | One side gets to say, "look we fixed it" and the other | gets to say, "look it doesn't work and never will," and | nothing changes. | cguess wrote: | You're big into crypto, aren't you? | zionic wrote: | I'll bite. Yes I am, but on the other hand none of the | SEC's decisions have impacted me negatively. I have never | held XRP for example, so while I dislike them it's | entirely because I don't believe they should exist in the | first place, they haven't cost me money. | emteycz wrote: | Are you a shareholder of TSLA? I am, and I am happy with | Elon. | justapassenger wrote: | You can generate great returns for investors and mislead | them at the same time. | emteycz wrote: | I don't feel being misleaden. Yes, Elon is sometimes over | hyping things. I don't mind. He makes extremely cool | stuff which sells by its merit. I like the visionary | talks because a company that never talks about the | possibilities of future is super-boring and IMHO can't be | as successful as Tesla is - even if it doesn't | materialize in the specified time span or in its entirety | - because there'd be nothing truly new, just linear | change otherwise. | eganist wrote: | > I don't feel being misleaden. | | That doesn't mean you weren't. | | The rest of your comment almost reads like stockholm | syndrome - or mostly just rationalizing being misled. | emteycz wrote: | Let me decide that, thanks. | | There's nothing to rationalize. Elon had some nice | visionary talks which I like, but mostly don't care about | - and I'm not going to be mad just because he said | something will be in 3 years and it's in 6 or 9 - even 12 | is good in my eyes, so what. I like his optimism much | more than the """realism""" (read: pessimism) of mostly | any other public company's management. His optimism is | one of the primary things pushing Tesla forward - kill | that and you kill the company. | | I mostly care about hard facts on the ground, and these | go more than well enough. Along with my investment. | pavlov wrote: | I've been both a shareholder (since 2013) and customer of | Tesla, and probably won't buy one of their products again. | I feel deceived about spending over $5k on that "full self- | driving" package that three years later still does nothing | of the sort. | | The fact that I made a little money on Elon's coattails | doesn't make it OK for him to constantly lie to customers. | Sohcahtoa82 wrote: | I bought a Tesla in 2019 and chose not to buy FSD because | I knew it wasn't implemented yet and won't be for several | years. If you thought you were going to get FSD any time | soon, you weren't paying attention. | mypalmike wrote: | Maybe Musk himself wasn't paying attention? | | "I would be shocked if we do not achieve full-self- | driving safer than a human this year. I would be | shocked." - Musk in a 2021 earnings call. | pavlov wrote: | Paying attention to what? The lackluster sensor hardware | on the Model 3? I guess I wasn't paying enough attention | to that at the time. | | That's not some kind of consumer protection escape hatch, | though: | | "Yeah, we sold them software that will never exist, but | because it's actually impossible to implement on our | hardware, it's their fault for buying it." | Sohcahtoa82 wrote: | I disagree with the idea that the hardware isn't | adequate. I think it is, but that the software is much | harder than Elon thinks, and even after nearly 10 years, | he still hasn't learned how hard it is. | | I think the software WILL eventually exist. Just not on | the timeline Elon thinks it will. | cactus2093 wrote: | 150x on your investment in 9 years is more than "a little | money". | dwighttk wrote: | ~10x? Or were there _a lot_ of splits my numbers aren't | showing? | cecilpl2 wrote: | Depends on when you bought in 2013. I bought in early | 2013 at $32 (pre-split), for about 200x. | | If you bought late in 2013 you probably paid ~$180, for | only 30x. | pavlov wrote: | It was a very good return on a small investment. I mostly | missed the post-pandemic boom selling too early, so I | guess I made around 20-30x overall. | | Doesn't change my opinion of Musk's practices. If he's | selling very expensive features that are actually | donations into the hopes & dreams tip jar, it should be | clearly marked as such. | falcolas wrote: | Do you realize how short sighted this sounds? | | "I don't care what Elon does as long as it makes me money." | sillysaurusx wrote: | Why is that short sighted? That seems the opposite. | | If you had a money printer, wouldn't you give it a lot of | freedom? Personally I'd draw the line at killing a dog or | cat. Other than that, well... If it wanted to knock out a | few walls, I'd just sigh and put up with the noise for a | few months. | | (For context, I'm undecided about Elon. But none of the | counterarguments to his behavior seem persuasive yet.) | falcolas wrote: | Because short term gains at the cost of long term | sustainability is simply putting off problems for the | future. | | Your money printer may print you money today, at the cost | of putting you in jail for counterfitting tomorrow. It | could result in the Mafia to come and break your legs to | take it (and the money it printed) from you. Or greatly | increase inflation (since mechanically, inflation is a | result of more money being added than removed from | circulation) in the future so your future earnings are | worthless. | emteycz wrote: | You interpreted me wrong. | | What I'm saying is | | 1) that I care about the merit of the company (the | products) much more than I care about what their talking | heads say | | 2) that I don't think Elon's _that_ bad as some say / | IMHO he's a semi-autistic person (don't know what his | exact diagnosis is) who fucking loves technology and | sometimes gets over-excited. I cut him some slack because | _he delivers_ - even if late and something 's missing, | well so what - it's still revolutionary and that's more | than enough for me, everything on top of that is a bonus | claaams wrote: | This. He lies constantly about his products, intentions and | behaviors and faces no repercussions. But stocks go brr so | who cares | andrewtbham wrote: | andrewtbham wrote: | Sohcahtoa82 wrote: | Other than lying about timelines (Which I'm not sure I'd | really call lies, he just hasn't learned how to set | realistic timing on goals), what has he lied about? | | Like, I know he hasn't delivered on FSD (And I know he | won't for a long time, which is why I didn't buy FSD when I | bought my Model 3 in 2019), and the Cybertruck and Roadster | have been very delayed, what has he lied about? | philistine wrote: | You yourself have admitted he lied about timelines. This | is not a different category of lying. It's straight up | lying about your products. And the world is not simply | black and white. It's morally gray. You can lie about | something once in a while and get away with it. But if | you consistently lie about FSD capabilities, it's a | pattern of willful deception. | | https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/threads/fsd-timeline- | promise... | unmole wrote: | > what has he lied about? | | "Funding secured" | hanselot wrote: | tim333 wrote: | Some good products too. | slibhb wrote: | Elon Musk is kind of obnoxious. He lies (or "exaggerates"). | But what Tesla has done is insane. It's happened so quickly, | and that's leaving aside the rockets. The hard evidence that | we can build new things, that we can progress and build a | future that's better than the present is so important. If it | takes a flawed man to show us that, I'll take it. | | If you hate Elon Musk, consider probing your mind deeply to | figure out why. It may just be that you're an Ayn Rand | villain. | jasonwatkinspdx wrote: | If Ayn Rand called me a villain I'd beam with pride. | | I don't think we in any way need to lionize the mythology | of John Galt like figures to make progress and build a | future better than the present. | prionassembly wrote: | Ayn Rand's heroes are overwrought and improbable, but her | villains are nothing to emulate either. | the_only_law wrote: | > It may just be that you're an Ayn Rand villain. | | Something, something terrorists and freedom fighters. | Karellen wrote: | > Elon Musk is kind of obnoxious. He lies (or | "exaggerates"). | | > If you hate Elon Musk, consider probing your mind deeply | to figure out why. | | I'm not a hater, but I can understand why others are. Like | you said, he's obnoxious. And he lies. Which should be | enough justification by itself. But he's also really | fucking rich, which is a teeth-grindingly annoying | combination. | | I really admire what he's done for the Electric Vehicle | industry, and the rocket industry, (and the satellite | broadband industry) and I absolutely cannot wait for | Starship to fly to orbit. That's gonna be amazing. He can | execute on a vision like almost no-one else. | | But he's a dick - I can't deny that. And for people who | don't really care about EVs, or rockets, or satellite | broadband (i.e. non-nerds), the "being a dick" part is | what's going to stand out the most. | slibhb wrote: | Lots of celebrities are gigantic douchebags and no one | cares. Why do people care with Elon? Why does he have a | parade of haters not just criticizing his attitude but | also claiming that his work isn't valuable? | | It's not because "they don't care about EVs or rockets," | it's something deeper and uglier. | sd8f9iu wrote: | Celebrities who are douche bags are criticized all the | time -- I'm not sure what your point is exactly. Musk is | not just a "celebrity," he is one of the most powerful | men on the planet. Most celebrities don't control 10% of | one the most powerful media apparatuses in the country. | | Musk is seen by many as a sociopathic narcissist who will | do whatever it takes to get what he wants. Doing things | like sending private investigators to try and dig up dirt | on that rescue diver who criticized him hardly distances | him from that image (and doesn't help his claims of being | a "free speech absolutist" either). Those traits combined | with tremendous power are generally not a good | combination. | | We don't owe him anything for his business ventures. He | isn't running a charity. He isn't doing it for you and | me. Electric cars and rockets are very cool, but are not | moving humanity into some new dawn. The idea that he is | some necessary component of "hard evidence that we can | build new things" that deserves special treatment is | borne straight out of a personality cult. Pointing this | out is a far cry from "claiming his work isn't valuable." | tayo42 wrote: | Celebrities with bad personalities have consequences for | it all the time. Elon isn't getting special treatment. | citizenkeen wrote: | Musk isn't just a celebrity. He has the money and power | to alter both the political and technological landscape | of the United States (and the world at large). It's not | uglier. | [deleted] | wbsss4412 wrote: | > Lots of celebrities are gigantic douchebags and no one | cares. | | Tons of people care, an entire industry of celebrity | gossip lives off of it. | | Elon has just as much of a cult following as he has | haters, the fact that you can't see how perfectly this | mirrors wider celebrity culture suggests that you are | either very out of touch with pop culture, or are a part | of the Elon cult. | slibhb wrote: | > Tons of people care, an entire industry of celebrity | gossip lives off of it. | | You have a point. But what does it say about someone that | they spend time hating celebrities? Do they think "this | celebrity is a bad person, if I were rich and famous I | would be a good good person!" Is that true? Or is it just | childish resentment? | | Do we defend the people who have a deranged hatred | towards Anne Hathaway? No we find them bizarre and | disturbed. | wbsss4412 wrote: | Do we defend people for being annoyed by a drunk guy at a | bar? | | You seem to be under the impression that there is nothing | legitimately off putting about Elon's public persona. | slibhb wrote: | Here's what I originally wrote: | | > Elon Musk is kind of obnoxious. He lies (or | "exaggerates"). But what Tesla has done is insane. It's | happened so quickly, and that's leaving aside the | rockets. The hard evidence that we can build new things, | that we can progress and build a future that's better | than the present is so important. If it takes a flawed | man to show us that, I'll take it. | | > If you hate Elon Musk, consider probing your mind | deeply to figure out why. It may just be that you're an | Ayn Rand villain. | | Please show me where I said "there is nothing | legitimately off putting about Elon's public persona". | wbsss4412 wrote: | Apologies, I seem to have lost track of that part of the | thread. | | You just come off as so aghast at criticism of the man. | the_only_law wrote: | > But what does it say about someone that they spend time | hating celebrities? | | Probably about the same thing as people that spend their | time defending and dickriding celebrities on the | internet. | wbsss4412 wrote: | One other point. | | Elon didn't like how Twitter was being run, so he spent a | relatively minor fraction of his overall wealth to buy a | large stake in the company and get himself onto the | board. This is beyond comprehension to the average person | who is typically just a the will of these large | corporations. | | Elon is _extremely_ powerful, and as such he deserves to | be held to a higher level of scrutiny, beyond even the | level of some random celebrity. | [deleted] | the_only_law wrote: | > It's not because "they don't care about EVs or | rockets," it's something deeper and uglier. | | Then stop hand waving with poor analogies and just say | what it is then. | syshum wrote: | memish wrote: | That's part of it, but I think it's more envy driven. He | took his winnings at Paypal and bet it all to transform 2 | industries. While most of us would have retired, blew it | on a mansion and binge watch Game of Thrones in our | private theater. Where would we be with electric cars and | space right now if he had spent the past 20 years sailing | on a yacht collecting supermodels? He could have done | that instead. | | He shows what's possible and it exposes our inadequacies | and sloth. If you're insecure, he is constantly touching | a nerve with success after success, his massive fanbase | and ever presence in the news. | cguess wrote: | Remember when he called that diver in Thailand a | pedophile because the diver (one of the most experienced | cave divers in the world) called his idea dumb as shit? | That's why I don't like him (well, one of the many many | reasons, but a big one). | memish wrote: | I didn't like that either, but put it in context. It's 1 | of 17,000 tweets. There aren't many users with that many | tweets who haven't lost their cool and called someone | else a name. It's one of the most common things you see | on twitter. Not excusing it, just saying it's worth | looking at in context and importantly it's not something | he's repeated. | syshum wrote: | The modern era, no one can make a mistake, no one can be | allowed to ever forget their mistakes, and we must always | use any minor mistake to cancel the person if they do not | agree with us politically | profunctor wrote: | Probably also the abuse of his workers. Some people | really can't stand that. | syshum wrote: | Some people also have wildly different views on what | "abuse" is... | ashtonkem wrote: | All I see with Tesla is how government policy can | successfully change markets. Tesla exists not because of | Musk's genius[0], but because of tax credits and carbon | offset credits that allowed Tesla to be profitable early. | Without Musk, someone else would've pulled it off, without | the policy Musk would have done something else. | | 0 - Again, Musk didn't found tesla, he did a hostile | takeover and has tried to rewrite history with him as the | founder. | slibhb wrote: | > Without Musk, someone else would've pulled it off, | without the policy Musk would have done something else. | | You can use this argument to say that no one deserves | credit for doing anything. Seems like a dead-end way of | thinking about the world to me. | HWR_14 wrote: | I give credit to lots of people for what they do without | thinking only they are the only ones who could do it. | ashtonkem wrote: | What a wildly uncharitable interpretation of my post. | "Dead-end"? Come now. | | All I see in this "we wouldn't have EVs without Musk!" | discussion is a rehash of the old "great man of history" | theory, something that's generally been discredited in | the historical fields. The whims and decisions of | individual actors matters, yes, but they also act in a | context that molds and constrains them. The specific | circumstance that made Musk and Tesla took both his | initiative, and a specific cultural and policy | environment to support his actions. We overweight the | former. | | First, one must acknowledge that Tesla would've died on | the vine without the policies I mentioned above. They | finally turned a profit excluding emissions credits in Q1 | 2021. A feat, yes, but also one that was wholly dependent | on public policy to survive and grow. You can give credit | to Musk for recognizing the opportunity here, but he | didn't make it. | | Second, there's really nothing to suggest that nobody | else would have taken this path if Musk had not, albeit a | bit later perhaps. History is full of "great men" who | discover and create, but dig under the surface and one | will find dozens of uncredited inventors who were either | a close second, or less lucky in marketing. Heck, there | is no real reason to believe that Musk was even critical | for Tesla; remember that he took it over, and we have no | idea where it might have gone absent his involvement. | slibhb wrote: | Who in this thread said "we wouldn't have EVs without | Musk"? | | To say that the idea of one person changing the world has | been discredited is so wildly wrong I don't even know | where to start. We can't neglect the background but we | can't neglect individuals and the choices they make | either. | | What we can say is that Musk presided over the growth of | a company that has sold 2 million EVs. We can't say | "someone else would have done that if he had never been | born," which is what you said. Unreal. | ashtonkem wrote: | > Who in this thread said "we wouldn't have EVs without | Musk"? | | I was attempting to paraphrase a common sentiment, and | should have been more clear about that. It's pretty easy | to find people stating a varient of this idea in sibling | threads. | | > To say that the idea of one person changing the world | has been discredited is so wildly wrong I don't even know | where to start. | | You could start by actually reading what I said, rather | than making up for yourself and then arguing against | that. Everything you said here is unrelated to my point, | and directly countermanded by my actual words. | jfk13 wrote: | > Elon Musk is kind of obnoxious. He lies (or | "exaggerates"). But what Tesla has done is insane. It's | happened so quickly, and that's leaving aside the rockets. | The hard evidence that we can build new things, that we can | progress and build a future that's better than the present | is so important. If it takes a flawed man to show us that, | I'll take it. | | Or in other words, the end justifies the means? | | Not all of us share that philosphy. | slibhb wrote: | Nowhere in my post did I make that argument. If Elon used | slave labor to run his factories, I wouldn't defend it. | However, "being a troll, exaggerating, and sometimes | lying" are not mortal sins. | Loughla wrote: | Again, not sins to you. Your values dictate that being a | troll, exaggerating, and lying are okay. | | To others, those things _are in fact_ enough to say that | Elon Musk is a shithead. | | It's as if there are gradients of human behavior, and not | everyone is always a cartoony villain or Dudley Do-right | all the time. | slibhb wrote: | They _are_ sins to me, they aren 't mortal sins. Read | slowly and take your time please. | Jcowell wrote: | Reading it slower or faster wouldn't fix this since | colloquial English would allow it to be read either way. | slibhb wrote: | Bullshit. I wrote: | | > However, "being a troll, exaggerating, and sometimes | lying" are not mortal sins. | | Mortal sins are serious sins, venial sins are less | serious sins. "Colloquial" doesn't mean you get to delete | words you find inconvenient or don't understand. | rowanG077 wrote: | Some ends justify some means. He lies to some investors. | Not good. Because of the this the chance we get into | serious trouble due to climate change is significantly | reduced. We also gain the technology to go to Mars | economically. So Yeah I would say this end justifies | lying to some investors. | unmole wrote: | > Because of the this the chance we get into serious | trouble due to climate change is significantly reduced. | | In which alternate reality? | rowanG077 wrote: | You can say what you want about Tesla, but they single | handedly moved electric vehicles to the mainstream. | jjulius wrote: | Can you please provide data that shows Tesla's movement | of "electric vehicles to the mainstream" has | "significantly reduced" climate change? | rowanG077 wrote: | What kind of data do you want? For example more then half | of all cars sold in Norway right now is electric. A fact | that wouldn't be the case if Tesla wouldn't exist. Every | yeah the market share of electric vehicles is increasing | with projections that almost no gasoline vehicle will be | driven in 2050 in west EU. | | You just have to look at the pandemic to see what | difference no combustion engine cars would make for the | world. Cities that were covered in smog suddenly had | clean air because of the stay at home directive. | jjulius wrote: | None of that is direct evidence that Tesla's movement of | "electric vehicles to the mainstream" has "significantly | reduced" climate change. Yes, 50% of all cars sold in | Norway are electric. Yes, EV market share is increasing. | Yes, emissions decreased in major metropolitan areas at | the onset of the pandemic. | | Despite all of that, climate change itself has not been | "significantly reduced" in any way, nor has there been | any evidence that increased adoption of EVs has slowed | down or altered climate change's progression. | rowanG077 wrote: | internal combustion engine cars create 7% of the worlds | CO2 emissions. That's highly significant. Electric cars | will reduce that to near 0%. A fact we have to give Tesla | massive credit for. 7% is country level huge. | jjulius wrote: | I don't disagree with those numbers, but I still don't | understand how they bolster the assertion that, "the | chance we get into serious trouble due to climate change | is significantly reduced". Just because something _could_ | happen doesn 't mean that it _will_ happen, or if it | does, that it will happen when we need it to or that it | will even be enough. | | Two years ago we needed to start reducing emissions by 4% | every year. We didn't. We must now reach a whopping 50% | emissions reduction by 2030 to limit temperature | increases to 1.5C, because the current path we are on | could increase temperatures by 4.4C by 2100. | | Getting every nation to ditch their ICE vehicles has to | happen, yes, but it's not that simple. You can't just ban | the sale of new ICE vehicles and expect that 7% to drop | to 0%, because everyone who already owns an ICE vehicle | is going to keep driving it until they've decided they're | done with it for whatever reason. So, the only way to get | to 0% ICE vehicles by 2030 would be to make it illegal to | operate one - _today_. | | Politics is involved. Getting large swaths of America (or | anyone in any nation with an affinity for an ICE vehicle, | but this subset of folk is a great example) to give up | their gasoline and their trucks and their mustangs is | like asking someone to stop breathing. Asking developing | nations with little money or ability to modify their | infrastructure to support only ICE vehicles over the next | eight years is an outstandingly daunting task. I could go | on and on, and while I admire your hopefulness, what | you're saying requires the entire world to accomplish the | same goal in a far shorter amount of time than we | actually have. | | I want to view the future through rose-colored glasses. I | want to have high hopes that EVs will save us. | | They won't. | unmole wrote: | 1. Electric vehicles are not mainstream. | | 2. Tesla accounts for ~14% of EVs sold. | | 3. Passenger vehicles account for less than 7% of total | CO2 emissions globally. | rowanG077 wrote: | 7% is HUGE. Like country level huge. Besides Teslas | impact is not only the EV they have sold. They made EVs | popular and desirable. Electric vehicles are definitely | mainstream. In my country(Netherlands) 20% of all | vehicles sold are electric. In Norway it's more then 50%. | You really can't get more mainstream then that. | ashtonkem wrote: | 4. Tesla was able to make EVs profitably thanks to | government policy designed to incentivize exactly that | outcome. If Tesla didn't exist, some other company | would've filled that role. | jimnotgym wrote: | I may be seen as a villain to Ayn Rand disciples, mainly | because I may point out I have seen people do amazing | things without becoming billionaires at consumers expense. | nvggyjc wrote: | At consumer's expense? Nobody is forced to buy a Tesla, | people do it because they like having a car more than | money. | | You can argue that Tesla in particular is successful off | the back of the taxpayer; are you advocating against | government incentives for electric vehicles? | nullc wrote: | We're forced to share the road with them. Because Teslas | are glass cannons with easily damaged body panels and a | closed repair network that has extraordinary prices, | their presence on the roads has a real impact on all of | us. | | Who knows what costs we'll be exposed to as their | somewhat suicidal 'self driving' functionality becomes | exposed to more of the buysers they sold it to on the | back of improbable promises (such as "your car will | eventually pay for itself by acting as an antonymous | taxi"). | slibhb wrote: | I'm not an Ayn Rand disciple. But she had a point about | certain people and how they view the world. | | Musk is rich on paper but the stocks are massively | overvalued for various reasons. The idea that | "billionaires are evil people who exploit innocent | laborers" is false and it comes from a place of | resentment. | cguess wrote: | She did talk about how certain people view the world. She | also advocated for that world view, and then died on | welfare (the irony). | | And yes, billionaires absolutely build their wealth on | the backs of others. There's simply no way to become a | billionaire without exploiting a system and taking | advantage of others in some way. It may be legal, but | legality took a sharp turn away from morality a long long | time ago. | slibhb wrote: | I don't agree with Ayn Rand that welfare is bad. I also | don't agree that charity is bad. | | I agree with her that some very smart people are | completely consumed by resentment. | | > And yes, billionaires absolutely build their wealth on | the backs of others. There's simply no way to become a | billionaire without exploiting a system and taking | advantage of others in some way. It may be legal, but | legality took a sharp turn away from morality a long long | time ago. | | You're just resentful of people who have accomplished | more than you. What's stopping Bob, who makes less money | than you toiling in a factory, from saying the exactly | same thing about you? You're an exploiter, it's how you | earn a living without getting your hands dirty. | beepbooptheory wrote: | The everyday work of the normal laborer is more worthy of | admiration and support than anything that happens in a | board room, on the golf course, or in whatever internal | email chain that decides these things. It's not amazing | to be an investor and make big decisions that shape lives | and the flow of money, that is simply what you can do | when you are in that position. The worker who can live | within the turmoil the former creates, and still find | love and happiness, not to mention keep the lights on and | take out the trash, are the true heroes of humanity. | sillysaurusx wrote: | Unless they refuse to get vaccinated. | | It may seem like an off-topic point, but I recently had a | big wake-up call with the kinds of people you mention. | The flip side of your flowery description is that they're | often short-sighted, vicious people who can get worked up | into a frenzy with little warning, or reason. Sometimes | they want to for no reason. | | You're trying to describe the nobility of people with no | skills (valued by society). But imagine if the entire | world were populated by them. Would you really want to | live in it? | | And if not, can they be called heroes of humanity? | beepbooptheory wrote: | Beyond a few pretty questionable assumptions at work here | (that the labor market is an effective decider of what | skills are valuable to society full stop; that someone's | labor dictates what skills they have; that what someone | has to offer the labor market could correlate at all to | something like character), I would simply reflect on | whatever thought process has brought you to the situation | where someone simply says, in so many words, that "the | meek shall inherit the earth", and your first impulse is | to say "no, in fact, they are shortsighted and viscious | people who get whipped into frenzies for often no | reason". | | I dont even think Rand would follow you there; I can't | really think of any corollary to that sentiment other | than fascist rhetoric. To know nothing of a group of | people but how much they make at work, and to _go that | far_ in painting a picture of them... Its shocking! Haha | | I'm sure you mean well, and are genuinely reflecting, but | this is not a good look at all to anybody but the most | rightwing people. What amounts _Idiocracy_ lore is not a | suitable or humane thing to ground political beliefs on. | jjulius wrote: | >If you hate Elon Musk, consider probing your mind deeply | to figure out why. | | So, I'm going to reply to your comment but really, this is | relevant to most of this thread (and nearly every thread | about him), because I'm just _tired_ of these | conversations. | | Yes, by many measures, he has been incredibly successful at | both running businesses and amassing wealth. There are a | lot of metrics that you could cite that support that | assertion. | | At the same time, by many measures, you could successfully | - and easily - argue that he's a pretty shitty person. | | And guess what? Both are true. I don't know what my | ultimate point here is besides saying that yeah - some | people think he's awesome, some people think he's shitty, | and _neither view is technically incorrect_. Move on. | slibhb wrote: | "On one hand you have the rockets, and cars, and all | that. On the other hand you have his flippant, obnoxious | attitude. Yeah, it's about even." | | So absurd that anyone takes that argument seriously. | jjulius wrote: | The funny thing about life is that everyone places | different levels of importance on things. You might think | that innovation in EVs and space exploration far outweigh | how someone treats other individuals, whereas others | might place far greater importance in treating others | with respect and equality over innovation in EVs and | space exploration. | | And you know what? That's OK. :) | slibhb wrote: | The question I'm asking, that you keep dodging, is: _what | is the reason for putting more importance on someone 's | attitude rather than the 2 million cars they've sold and | the rocket ships they've invented?_ | | You hint that Elon Musk treats other people badly. Has he | raped anyone? Murdered anyone? Waged any wars? Are there | abuse allegations? No, he's a troll on twitter. | mschuster91 wrote: | > You hint that Elon Musk treats other people badly | | Leaving aside the stunt where he called a rescue diver a | pedophile, there has been enough and substantially bad | racism at Tesla under his leadership that the company was | ordered to pay 137 million dollars [1]. | | [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/05/tesla-must- | pay-137-million-t... | jjulius wrote: | >The question I'm asking, that you keep dodging, is: what | is the reason for putting more importance on someone's | attitude rather than the 2 million cars they've sold and | the rocket ships they've invented? | | I truly don't know how else to make my previous post any | clearer to you. The simple fact of the matter is that | everyone has their own personal reasons for putting more | importance on one thing over another. Nobody ever owes | you an explanation for _why_ they might put more | importance on how someone treats someone over how many | units of a product they sell. I could speculate as to any | number of reasons why that may be, but for the sake of | this conversation, that 's not my place. I will, however, | say that I'm incredibly surprised and perplexed by your | inability to understand that there are people out there | who "place people over profits". | | >You hint that Elon Musk treats other people badly. Has | he raped anyone? Murdered anyone? Waged any wars? Are | there abuse allegations? No, he's a troll on twitter. | | As I've made clear in this thread, I am not taking a | position on Musk. All I can say is that what I've alluded | to, in regards to how he treats people and his employees, | are all things that have been very publicly discussed in | the past and should be surprising to nobody who has paid | even a modicum of attention. | slibhb wrote: | Your post is perfectly clear. It's just not answering the | question. Ditto this post. | | No one owes me anything. I'm asking a question and you're | not answering it, you're just restating "some people | value different things and we can't say why". | | My point is that people _should_ value Elon 's | accomplishments more than his attitude. The fact that | they don't is bizarre and demands an explanation. | Loughla wrote: | You're just missing the point entirely. Some people | believe his shitty attitude far outweighs any economic | value he has created, or wealth he has amassed. | | To them, your attitude is bizarre and demands an | explanation. To them, you _should_ value someone who is a | decent person over any money they make. | | OP wasn't saying Elon Musk is a shithead. S/he was | pointing out that both things can be true - he can be a | shithead, and he can create wealth and innovation. Both | can be true, and some people will place value on one over | the other, much as you have done. | slibhb wrote: | How did I miss the point? I summarized exactly what you | wrote in the post you responded to. | | We can't talk to each other because you're coming from a | value-relative perspective ("people value different | things, no one is wrong, and we can't say why"). To me | this is insane. If someone values 5 dollars more than | their life, we can question that. When people say Elon | Must being a mean person on twitter outweighs everything | he's built, we can question that. | | And I never said anything about money. | jjulius wrote: | I'm going to respond to this post, and your most recent | post in the chain, together in this comment because it's | easier that way. | | >Your post is perfectly clear. It's just not answering | the question. Ditto this post. | | It _does_ answer the question, you just don 't like the | answer. Notice how I'm not questioning the _why_ behind | why you choose to value how many units of his product he | has sold over how he treats others? The simple fact of | the matter is that many people put "people over profits" | for _many_ reasons - I am but one person and cannot | answer for them. This is no different from why _you_ can | 't speak to _why_ every single Musk fan supports him, | because everyone 's reasons are different. | | >No one owes me anything. | | And yet you have repeatedly said... | | >The fact that they don't is bizarre and demands an | explanation. | | I'm not sure how you can say people don't owe you | anything when you've demanded it repeatedly. | | >... Elon Must being a mean person on twitter... | | Actually, I've been speaking broadly this entire time. | When I reference how Musk treats people, I am referencing | everything he does, not just his actions on Twitter. | | I think what this ultimately boils down to is akin to the | question you first posed in this thread - "If you hate | Elon Musk, consider probing your mind deeply to figure | out why." I would like to ask you, why is it so important | to you what other people think about Elon Musk, and why | do you seem to let it bother you so much if they don't | like him? He doesn't seem to let the court of public | opinion bother him or hold him back from doing nearly | whatever he wants, so he's going to keep doing what he's | been doing regardless of what other people think. With | that in mind, what does it matter to you - you, who isn't | Elon Musk - if an internet stranger isn't a fan of him? | slibhb wrote: | > So, I don't think that you suggesting that business | success outweighing how you treat people is "insane" | | I never said business success outweighs how you treat | people. I said, in the specific case of Elon Musk, what | he has built outweighs his obnoxious attitude. That's a | specific, not a generality. | | Anyway, we've arrived at a conclusion. To you, values are | relative. That's an answer but it's not acceptable to me. | thepasswordis wrote: | >As I've made clear in this thread, I am not taking a | position on Musk. | | You literally called him a "shitty preson", and you're | saying you're not taking a position on him. Are you | joking? | jjulius wrote: | I did not call him a shitty person. Here's are the full | two sentences: | | >Yes, by many measures, he has been incredibly successful | at both running businesses and amassing wealth. There are | a lot of metrics that you could cite that support that | assertion. | | >At the same time, by many measures, you could | successfully - and easily - argue that he's a pretty | shitty person. | | I simply said that there are reasons people could | successfully argue that he's shitty. What I did _not_ do, | however, was take a position on those arguments. The | phrase, "You could successfully argue" does not mean, | "This is what I believe". | thepasswordis wrote: | Oh yeah okay """""people""""" could _argue_ that he 's a | shitty person, but of course you aren't. | | Have a nice day man. I'm not replying to you anymore. | jjulius wrote: | One thing that I might suggest you do is to ask yourself | why it seems so important to you that other people like | Elon Musk, and why you let it bother you so much if they | don't. After all, he's going to keep doing what he's | doing (and has been, for years) regardless of public | opinion - so what does it matter to you if an internet | stranger isn't a fan? | | I truly hope you have a pleasant day as well. :) | thepasswordis wrote: | >I'm just tired of these conversations. | | And yet here you are, engaging in one of them. I echo the | parents request of a deep meditation on why you are | feeling this way. | jjulius wrote: | >And yet here you are, engaging in one of them. | | Pointing out the futility of a conversation is different | than engaging in it. | | >I echo the parents request of a deep meditation on why | you are feeling this way. | | Please highlight where, in this thread, I've stated my | own feelings about Elon Musk. | thepasswordis wrote: | >Pointing out the futility of a conversation is different | than engaging in it. | | [...] | | >At the same time, by many measures, you could | successfully - and easily - argue that he's a pretty | shitty person. | | Right here. | jjulius wrote: | There's a difference between recognizing that something | is a strong argument, and agreeing/disagreeing with it. | I'm simply pointing out that strong arguments can be made | in both directions, and commonly are in these threads. | Over, and over, and over. | | Kind of like how this very comment chain is going, no? | mostertoaster wrote: | I dont know about electric cars, but what Elon did with space | x is simply incredible. | | Commercial space flights were becoming rarer and rarer out of | the US, and now it is the most common. | | The price of space flight while still high, was reduced by a | huge percentage. | | I'm sure he told many lies to get there. But economics and | physics don't really lie. | | I like him for the reasons I like Kanye, Bernie Sanders, and | Trump (though I only voted for the first). Just says crazy | things, but some of them are just truths that we've all | chosen to ignore it don't like to accept. | OscarCunningham wrote: | If only there was a way to filter the signal from the | noise. Maybe if we locked them in a room together? | mostertoaster wrote: | I would love to be a fly on that wall. | | Elon, Bernie, Kanye, Trump - most things they say are | just noise. | dehrmann wrote: | > I dont know about electric cars | | There was that time Tesla bought Musk's cousin's failing | rooftop solar company. | mostertoaster wrote: | Yeah seems suspect huh? | izzydata wrote: | What did Elon do exactly beyond take credit for the work of | talented engineers? | microtherion wrote: | Even if Musk were nothing but hype (and I think he | deserves a bit more credit than that), that very hype | appears to have been a decisive factor in solving the | chicken-and-egg problem of electric car proliferation | needing charger networks, and charger networks needing | electric car proliferation. | | So I would credit him with at least that accomplishment. | Kranar wrote: | Provide an environment where those talented engineers | could accomplish something no other environment allowed | them to. It's not like there aren't talented people at | Boeing or Lockheed and it's not like those talented | people just came out of thin air, it takes amazing | leadership and a strong vision to bring talented people | together to accomplish something that to this day no | other rocket company is still capable of doing. | izzydata wrote: | There are probably a lot of great leaders and managers at | SpaceX. | nathanvanfleet wrote: | You must own NFTs it sounds like you really buy into hype. | People just say they are Jesus Christ come to earth and you | just go "Well yeah okay that's amazing" | mostertoaster wrote: | What are NFTs? One of those blockchain proof of ownership | things right, but like for gifs? What's weird is I can | imagine a dystopian future where NFTs are valuable. I | hope not though. But post COVID the world seems | ridiculous to me so who knows. | | "Hands on" on the Jesus is King album is one of my | favorites, and I do think he might have a messiah | complex, but he isn't saying follow me, but follow God. | | Kanye is not a role model to imitate. But he does seem to | play a large role in the cosmos (or think the story that | will be told centuries from now). Like Elon I'd say. | | I can appreciate Trump, and I can appreciate Bernie. I | appreciate Kanye's art and often his blunt words. My vote | for him was purely symbolic. He wasn't even on the ballot | in my state. | electrondood wrote: | > I can appreciate Trump | | The guy incited a deadly insurrection to subvert | democracy to keep himself in power. He also extorted | Ukraine by withholding weapons for his personal political | gain. He was impeached for both. | codr7 wrote: | May I suggest quitting news for a while and going | outside? | | You're not making any sense right now... | mostertoaster wrote: | Well I did appreciate him until he paid Putin his buddy, | to start a war with Ukraine just so Biden would look bad. | | The crap economy is definitely all his fault. And gas | prices, his fault. And he doesn't even care about climate | change. | thirdwhrldPzz wrote: | lolwowthere wrote: | You wrote in Kanye West for president, thought enough other | voters would join you to make doing so worth anything to | you and your vote, and share that extremely poor adult | judgment confidently and publicly? You like him because he | says shit? I mean I say shit, too, would you vote for me | even if my entire policy platform was incoherent and I | stalk and abuse my exes and their new partners in public? | You realize his entire presidential bid was for attention | and his staff couldn't even make the deadline to get him on | the ballot, right? | | With respect, this comment makes you sound like a | contemptible, gullible fool that makes society actively | worse. I really hope you're being a bit facetious. | nullc wrote: | How is writing in Kanye West for president in any way | inferior to just not voting? It's obviously a protest | vote. | | "a contemptible, gullible fool that makes society | actively worse", seems a little overwrought to me. | goddamnisuck wrote: | mostertoaster wrote: | Kanye 2024. :) | | Seriously though this is my point. Kanye is absurd. A | fool you might say. Like Trump and Bernie. Yet if you | live in an upside down world, you might say some obvious | truth, and it will further make you like a fool. | | I like that back in 04 he was talking about the way | blacks are treated in America, before all the woke fools | decided it was popular. | | And Beyonces video was better than Taylor's. | | The funny part to me is you actually think your vote for | Joe means something. | freemint wrote: | Why is Bernie absurd? His policy positions are pretty | standard in the conext of European Democracies. | mardifoufs wrote: | It's really not. | | >Sanders, in particular, suggested that the US could | adopt a socialist system by emulating Scandinavia. "I | think we should look to countries like Denmark, like | Sweden and Norway, and learn from what they have | accomplished for their working people," said the US | presidential candidate, who identifies himself as a | "democratic socialist." | | But Danish prime minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen, speaking | at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government this week, says | Sanders got more than a few things wrong. | | "I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic | model with some sort of socialism. Therefore I would like | to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist | planned economy. Denmark is a market economy." | | https://qz.com/538499/denmark-says-it-isnt-the-socialist- | uto... | | https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/bernie-sanders- | wrong-d... | mostertoaster wrote: | "George Bush doesn't care about black people" - at the | time made Mike Myers jaw drop. People forget that being | publicly critical like that was unpopular back then. That | it would cost you money and contracts. | | Now if you say "I think Trump likes black people" you are | lambasted like Kanye was for saying George bush didn't. | gkoberger wrote: | Here's a thread on it: | https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1511323908129054725?s... | next_xibalba wrote: | > He filed forms that he was going to be a passive investor | | This was almost certainly done by a lawyer working on his | behalf. This strikes me as a technicality of paperwork that is | being seized upon by the media as a way to portray Musk in the | worst possible light. | | > I wouldn't want somebody like him on my board | | In this hypothetical, what is your role (i.e. fellow | shareholder, CEO, employee)? I ask because shareholders (aka | the owners of the company) choose the board. Musk owns nearly | 1/10th of the company, and is now the largest shareholder, | institutional or individual, by a good margin. In other words, | whatever your hypothetical role, you wouldn't have much of a | choice. | | Setting the mechanics of boards aside, there is strong case for | him being the most successful business person alive. He is | right up there with Bezos, Gates, and Zuckerberg. Shareholders | should be cheering this on. And there is some evidence, in the | form of the stock price, that they are. | maxfurman wrote: | If the difference is not material, then why are there two | different forms? Genuine question as this is not my area of | expertise | ashtonkem wrote: | > This was almost certainly done by a lawyer working on his | behalf. | | This is like saying that you can't be responsible for tax | dodging because your accountant filed on your behalf. | | > This strikes me as a technicality of paperwork that is | being seized upon by the media as a way to portray Musk in | the worst possible light. | | Almost all of securities law is "technicalities", it still | has the force of law. | elicash wrote: | > This was almost certainly done by a lawyer working on his | behalf. | | Are you arguing that when he signs his name and certifies | that the (short) form is "true, complete and correct" that he | is not responsible because the form was prepared by an | attorney of his? | | > being seized upon by the media | | How did "the media" seize on this? When I last checked, there | were zero articles. And even if they had, why wouldn't | discussion be merited? | next_xibalba wrote: | > How did "the media" seize on this? | | Let me ask you this: how is it that you are aware of the | form and how Musk (or, more likely, a lawyer) filled it | out? | | It is being reported [1]. Every word in an article for a | major news outlet is meaningful in some way. Journalists | are not provided limitless word count, so decisions have to | be made about what is and is not included. | | Now, one could definitely argue that journalists merely | reported on it as they were trying to divine Musk's | intentions. But to then interpret this, as the GP has done, | as a sign of Musk's dishonesty and lack of integrity is too | great a leap (in my opinion). | | [1] | https://news.google.com/search?q=elon+musk+twitter+passive | | Edit: Also, I love your handle. "Wildcat. Wiiiiiild cat." | elicash wrote: | Those articles are mostly about announcing as a passive | investor -- not whether he misled the public in his | filings. This collection of articles only further makes | the case that the media has mostly reported uncritically | his misleading claim. | | RE: handle, thanks! | | Also, I have since-posting found one article kinda about | this: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/04/elon-musk-thumbs- | his-nose-at... | | However, even that article is just about the lateness of | the filing. It doesn't mention the debate over whether | the filing itself was misleading. And this is the best | example I could find! | colechristensen wrote: | Does it matter? Was there any consequence of filling out a | form then doing something different? | | I have heard it several times already today, but so what a | form was filled out wrong, is there any consequence to that | that anybody would care about? (I doubt anybody complaining | about it actually knows anything about how important it is, | it's just being latched on to because it's a way to match | events with preexisting opinions) | xadhominemx wrote: | 13Ds and Gs have different filing thresholds and | requirements | [deleted] | elicash wrote: | Yes. He is currently in court claiming SEC is picking on | him on another matter and this (and the fact that the | filing was late) is likely going to hurt his case with | the judge. And while I don't like speculating, since | you're asking me to do so I'll add that it's entirely | possible that any misrepresentations here get pursued on | its own merits, as well. | colechristensen wrote: | "He broke the rules!" ok, sure. | | But why is that form there and what is the consequence of | filing one way or the other? I mean besides being | punished for doing it wrong, why does that rule exist and | what are the effects of filling it out one way or the | other? | | Why is this anything more than an administrative mistake? | Did he get some benefit from filing the form that way? | | ... or, what it seems, is this just a "gotcha!" for | people to complain about on the Internet. | elicash wrote: | "Schedule 13D is intended to provide transparency to the | public regarding who these shareholders are and why they | have taken a significant stake in the company. The form | signifies to the public that a change of control, such as | a hostile takeover or proxy fight, might be about to take | place so that current shareholders in the company can | make informed investing and voting decisions." | | https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/schedule13d.asp | wewtyflakes wrote: | I think there is a perception that he regularly engages | in bad faith, and this is not a simple one-off | administrative mistake. | spicybright wrote: | It's really isn't a lot to ask to fill a form out | correctly for transparencies sake. Especially with | something as important as this. | | I'd almost say it was on purpose for whatever reason. You | don't get rich like Elon by hiring incompetent lawyers. | ashtonkem wrote: | It's worth pointing out that the SEC is extremely image | conscious. They count on their reputation as the hammer | of god himself to keep traders in line. Elon repeatedly | snubbing them is going to tempt them to pull out all the | stops. | nullc wrote: | SEC's actual power is extremely limited. -- This is why | e.g. with ICO scams you see them taking no action at all | or imposing a fine that is just a cost-of-doing-business | percentage of what they took in from the general public, | at least against ICOs that are wealthy enough to keep the | SEC tied up in litigation. | lstamour wrote: | > When I last checked, there were zero articles. | | Can I introduce you to Matt Levine? A very popular opinion | columnist - you can get his column by email even without a | subscription to Bloomberg, but he's one of the reasons I | subscribe. | | His take on this was emailed out midday yesterday and I | enjoyed every minute: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/art | icles/2022-04-04/elon-m... | | You can find an archive of columns here: https://www.bloomb | erg.com/opinion/authors/ARbTQlRLRjE/matthe... and the email | sign up is at http://www.bloomberg.com/newsletters (it used | to be a bit easier to find... but pick "Money Stuff" from | the list) | iratewizard wrote: | I personally find this style of writing pretentious, | obnoxious and egotistical. | unmole wrote: | He keep making jokes about how boring and unimportant he | is compared to the people he writes about. How do you get | pretentious or egotistical? | iratewizard wrote: | colinmhayes wrote: | He's a harvard/yale educated lawyer who worked at goldman | and Wachtell, Lipton. Of course he's pretentious and | egotistical. He's also funny and informative. | [deleted] | lstamour wrote: | Yes, it can be. It can also be funny and informative, | though. Check out the archives, a lot of topics build on | past articles and not everything is a joke, sometimes | there are clear and simple explanations of financial | terms: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/authors/ARbTQlRL | RjE/matthe... | pmalynin wrote: | burnished wrote: | Well, the recommend may have bounced off the intended | target but I appreciated it. | justapassenger wrote: | > This was almost certainly done by a lawyer working on his | behalf. This strikes me as a technicality of paperwork that | is being seized upon by the media as a way to portray Musk in | the worst possible light. | | Elon openly attacks and disregards SEC. He doesn't have any | benefit of the doubt left, when it comes to activities that | SEC is suppose to be regulating. | fallingknife wrote: | This is the USA. You are allowed to insult the government. | abduhl wrote: | You're allowed to insult the government. You're not | allowed to lie to the government when filing substantive | documents. | next_xibalba wrote: | What is the substantive effect on the public (aka | "investors") if this value in this field on this form was | incorrect? | | This is a tempest in a teapot. People who don't like Musk | are pointing to it and saying, "See? SEE!? He is a liar. | He is bad." | | But the reality is, this doesn't actually hurt anyone and | its not really a big deal at all. | | But let's take the least charitable interpretation and | play it out: Musk filled out the form himself. He | intentionally with malice aforethought lied. The day | after the SEC form becomes public, he takes a board seat. | What is the material damage done to the public? | | Twitter shareholders got a huge 2-day pop. That would | have happened regardless of Elon's intent. | [deleted] | SantalBlush wrote: | >You are allowed to insult the government. | | That's entirely irrelevant. The point is that his past | behavior shows a pattern of disregarding financial laws. | weird-eye-issue wrote: | It's ironic you call it out as a technicality because whether | a lawyer or Musk filled out the form is itself a technicality | sanderjd wrote: | Yeah this isn't how contracts work. You don't get to say | "what do I know, it was prepared by an attorney". | onedognight wrote: | > Yeah this isn't how contracts work. You don't get to say | "what do I know, it was prepared by an attorney". | | Yes, you do. Many crimes, like tax evasion, require | "willful" violation, so blaming your tax attorney is a | valid defense. | sanderjd wrote: | This is not tax evasion. | rowanG077 wrote: | What? Of course it does. There are many cases that if you | can prove you didn't know you get away scot-free. | kgwgk wrote: | > This was almost certainly done by a lawyer working on his | behalf. | | That makes it worse, not less bad. It makes the good-faith- | mistake defense untenable. | dkjaudyeqooe wrote: | Musk seems to be looking for more ways to pick a fight with the | SEC, probably so he can press his perceived grievances. | someelephant wrote: | He is the "investors". | zanethomas wrote: | Pass the popcorn. | Xenixo wrote: | Weird that Elon musk would do something like this | | I assumed he would optimize how he spends his time. | | He mentioned once that he sometimes sleeps/slept at the factory. | | I had a similar thought on Putin: as long as the war is ongoing | he has less time to do other things. | | When Biden took over trump I also thought that bidens team might | be able to do more change than the trump team because he fired so | many and golfed often. | its_ethan wrote: | Might be time to revisit some of those assumptions then? | Xenixo wrote: | Of course. | | I posted it though to share my thoughts. This made me realize | that Elon musk takes twitter much more serious than I | thought. | Reebz wrote: | This is just a 2022 version of a billionaire buying a | newspaper. Not shocking. | Xenixo wrote: | To do what? | | A newspaper I get. Forming opinions is easy with a newspaper. | | But with twitter? Manipulating Twitter trends? Who cares? | dandanua wrote: | This cult of personality won't end well. | | He already has a very questionable reputation as an "example to | all humans". | shmde wrote: | Does HN crowd REALLY believe he is going to remove censorship and | preserve the voice of the underclass ? Thats the most naive thing | to believe. | Tehchops wrote: | No, it's the pseudo-libertarian HN crowd that's super excited | because they think it means they can be assholes and engage in | derogatory/discriminatory speech online again, all in the name | of combating the nebulous "woke" bogeyman. | dav_Oz wrote: | My take on this is that he wants to bring back more of a wild | west. I kinda sympathize with the sentiment to create a more | relaxed version of Twitter where only the obvious in terms of | free speech is excluded (like MMA/Vale Tudo - in terms of a | "free fight"- not allowing eye gouging etc.) but this certainly | isn't something for everyone. Not a lot of people can stomach | 4chan taking this to an extreme. | | So how you go about this? As a mere mortal you are damned to | create a new thing, create a PR-campaign from the outside to | pressure Twitter ... the usual things. But as the richest | person on the planet you don't only possess the resources to do | all the above way better, additionally you can simply just buy | up "Twitter". Which is kind of crazy like buying up a | restaurant after not being satisfied with the service. | | Well, the stock price did go up significantly and yeah, in | order to make things "more fun" for Twitter users again (the | most active being obviously not underclass) one can relax some | "out of control" censorship practices. | nemothekid wrote: | > _I kinda sympathize with the sentiment to create a more | relaxed version of Twitter where only the obvious in terms of | free speech is excluded_ | | How does this happen though? When someone is "cancelled on | Twitter" what does that mean? Is it Jack Dorsey going in a | banning your account? Twitter suspensions, by the actual | company, are relatively well reasoned. What most people don't | like is the Twitter mob, who does not work for Twitter. | Despite people saying they want "more free speech" what they | actually want is to suppress the free speech of others so | they can say what they want. | lvs wrote: | tootie wrote: | This story was two weeks ago: | | https://www.reuters.com/business/us-sec-says-teslas-musk-sho... | zydex wrote: | That story has nothing to do with this one. Did you even read | the above story? | tootie wrote: | Not directly, but my implication here is that Elon Musk is in | the bad graces of the SEC of is being made an insider of | another huge company who facilitated him falling out of favor | with that SEC. It is Twitter saying they don't care about the | SEC and don't see any potential conflict with empowering | someone who flaunts SEC penalties. And also, that I would be | 0% surprised if Musk did this out of spite. | zozbot234 wrote: | I certainly agree that Elon Musk has a habit of flaunting | SEC penalties, but I don't think this alone will lead to | any real conflict. Things would be rather different if he | started _flouting_ them, of course. | manquer wrote: | He has been flouting them, SEC hasn't had a lot of teeth | to do anything about it . | draw_down wrote: | gnicholas wrote: | So does this mean Elon can't be blocked/booted on Twitter? I | guess a seat on the board is the ultimate blue-check. | Whatarethese wrote: | Trump furiously trying to find a way onto the board. | hindsightbias wrote: | People hate Musk for the same reason they hated Jobs. They love | living in their world but hate themselves for it. | | Think Different might have more than one meaning. | ladyattis wrote: | I don't think that's the case. I don't like Musk because he's | all sizzle and very little in terms of steak with his products. | Like the most useful any of his companies has done is the work | with battery tech at Tesla. The rest has been copy and paste | from research done in the past. Plus, he often bungles into the | product development process on the technical parts often | without any context for him to make anything close to a | reasonable analysis. It's why so many engineers move on as soon | as possible from his companies. He literally burns out folks | not because he's magically brilliant but rather because he's | unbearable and not a team player. | colinmhayes wrote: | Or because he calls people who disagree with him pedophiles? | randyrand wrote: | did you like him before that happened? | pb7 wrote: | Since it happens so often, please provide two instances of | this. | streb-lo wrote: | So accusing someone of being a pedophile once is OK | behaviour? Interesting. | psyc wrote: | Consider the phrasing: "So calling someone 'pedo guy' on | Twitter once is Ok behavior?" You chose to unpack the | facts in a direction chosen by you. A court of law | unpacked it in a different direction. | | I call this Rhetorical Mischief. | pb7 wrote: | It's both not okay and not a big deal. The fact that it's | brought up so often is because there's so little you can | pin on Musk to warrant your hatred for him. I bet you've | done similarly shitty things. | thissiteb1lows wrote: | Lamad123 wrote: | Many many people use and have used something related to Jobs, | but how many people use Aloni's? The average person doesn't | drive a lithium car! | ecf wrote: | > They love living in their world but hate themselves for it. | | I can't help but think this is sarcasm. | caffeine wrote: | This is great news! Twitter and the rest of the rotten and | censorious platforms could use a proper shake-up. Hope the | authoritarians and political repressives and anyone who works on | the content moderation team all resign in protest! Good riddance! | pixelatedindex wrote: | Very unclear if this should have ended in a /s or not - which | is more of a reflection of the world in which we live in rather | than the comment itself. | caffeine wrote: | I meant every word (and more.) | fortyseven wrote: | [deleted] | systemvoltage wrote: | It is crazy that sane things are controversial and insane | things are mainstream. | TameAntelope wrote: | It's easy to call for change without actually having to build | any of it. | | Odds are zero things change about Twitter's content policy, as | it's about as permissive as you can get while operating in the | US. | | There's a lot less sinister intent than one might think at | first blush; Twitter _wants_ users to stick around, banning | them is a really bad way to do that. | parkingrift wrote: | What's to build? Twitter already built all the tools to ban, | censor, and editorialize content. OP is simply suggesting | that Twitter use those tools less. | Jtype wrote: | Sure, banning users from posting a published news story is | "permissive". | TameAntelope wrote: | Since when is "published" a meaningful quality barrier to | content? | | Any idiot with a WP site can "publish" a "news story". | | Besides, if I reply to your tweet, "My child just died in a | fire." with an article about how fire deaths are among the | most painful ways to die, it doesn't really matter much how | "published" that "news story" is, it's hateful and has no | place on the Internet. | gjs278 wrote: | nullc wrote: | Above you said that twitter was pretty much as permissive | as they could as you can get while operating in the US. | Don't you think you're moving the goalpost in your | response here? | | I don't see how anyone could seriously sustain an | argument that twitter is as permissive as they could be | lawfully. (Nor would I argue that they should be /that/ | permissive in any case, the law in the US is a very very | low bar, in part because we recognize that there are | other ways to deal with bad speech than prohibiting it by | law) | TameAntelope wrote: | I didn't mean legally, I meant what the US population | (western population generally), as an aggregate market | segment, will tolerate. Twitter, as a company, should be | allowed to pursue whatever market they believe will best | provide value to their shareholders, and if that market | includes "Americans with typical sensibilities" then I | doubt they'd be able to pursue that market while allowing | hate speech and harassment on their platform. | | I think it's only fair we defend Twitter's right to | freely associate as a form of free speech just as | vigorously as we defend the right of people to be able to | say whatever they like (with some exceptions around | protected groups). | caffeine wrote: | > it's hateful and has no place on the Internet. | | Well that's where we (you and I, but also us collectively | as a country, it seems) disagree. | | I don't care that it's hateful, and I think it should | have a place on the internet, and so long as we allow | monopolies on the internet, then it needs to have a place | on whatever monopoly platform there is. | | Anyone who thinks they should be deciding what is | "hateful and has no place on the internet" is EXACTLY who | should NOT be deciding such things. | TameAntelope wrote: | You're totally right, I was trying to do a two part thing | and I ruined it by saying, "no place on the Internet". | | I _should_ have said, "No place on Twitter." On the | Internet? Yeah, totally in agreement. | | On Twitter? Couldn't disagree more, and my one-two punch | of a point was going to be that 1) it's up to Twitter to | decide that, and 2) they've landed at about as free as | American society will tolerate. | | 1) because Twitter has rights too. If we actually respect | freedom of speech, we also have to respect Twitter's | right to decide who to associate with and, | | 2) Twitter is completely tolerant to many things we'd | probably consider offensive. My example probably isn't | even enough to get banned on Twitter for, even though I | think Twitter would be wise to avoid associating with | people who get that mean in their trolling. | | I think the only way to support free speech is to support | Twitter's right to decide who it allows on its platform. | I don't think they should let Trump on their platform, | for example, but that's up to them, and they can change | their minds. And now, apparently, (at least partially) up | to Elon! | ribosometronome wrote: | And yet, you're a long time, heavy-ish poster on the more | heavily moderated Hacker News. | rideontime wrote: | jfyi, if this is in reference to a certain viral tweet going | around, you got trolled. | caffeine wrote: | Can you post a keyword or something that I can use to find | the tweet? | verisimi wrote: | His family are in the club, he's only playing a role. And its | not going to be about increasing freedom, sorry. | | https://web.archive.org/web/20140809023548/http://www.forbes... | | In South Africa, my father had a _private plane_ we'd fly in | incredibly dangerous weather and barely make it back. This is | going to sound slightly crazy, but my father also had a share | in an _Emerald mine in Zambia_. I was 15 and really wanted to | go with him but didn't realize how dangerous it was. I couldn't | find my passport so I ended up grabbing my brother's - which | turned out to be six months overdue! So we had this planeload | of contraband and an overdue passport from another person. | There were AK-47s all over the place and I'm thinking, "Man, | this could really go bad." | | His grandfather (Dr Joshua Haldeman) was head of Technocracy | Inc: | | https://www.technocracy.news/shock-elon-musks-grandfather-wa... | verisimi wrote: | Lots of downvotes - but this is verifiable! | fleddr wrote: | I think people are really over-analyzing this move. I think it's | motivated by prestige, not money, nor is free speech the heart of | the matter. | | Twitter is a stagnant company. They have thousands of engineers | that in the span of a decade don't seem to produce much at all, | nothing visible or memorable anyway. Long-lasting Twitter | problems (culture, spam, algorithm issues) never seem addressed. | User growth is stagnating as Twitter fails to appeal to "normies" | in a way Facebook and other networks can. | | A perfect target for Musk to come in, do a few sweeping changes, | and get out. Thereby proving once again that he gets shit done | where others can't. Case closed. | | It doesn't take much. People have been begging for an edit button | for a decade. If he'd get only that feature implemented, it will | be remembered forever. | PostOnce wrote: | "stagnant company" | | Why must every company sustain boundless growth and 24-hour | engagement? Change and growth for their own sake can be | cancers. | | Twitter does what it does and people like it (as seen by the | fact that they all use it), yet armchair generals cry out that | twitter's refusal to turn into "not twitter" is somehow a | failure of engineering and management, or some form of | incompetence. | | So, I disagree, I guess. | stjohnswarts wrote: | Why do they need so many engineers though. It's not like | twitter is facebook or gmail or apple tv where things are | constantly shifting? I think the point was why does it take | so many people? They should be raking in the cash after a 25% | cull. Just saying this from the point of view if I was | interested in buying their stock. | sllewe wrote: | Because that growth is used as a substitute for profit (or | net income or EBITDA - take your pick). For a public company | having one or the other (or rarely, both) keeps the ticker | price moving in the right direction. | 0xffff2 wrote: | While I agree with you, at the same time if Twitter as a | company isn't really doing much, why do they have thousands | of developers on staff? I don't think there's anything wrong | with being a stable, profitable company, but logically it | should also come with a whole lot of layoffs. | kyawzazaw wrote: | Maybe maintenance of current user base itself requires lots | of innovation although not ground breaking(thus jobs)? | | Why the need for layoffs? | | They did make Twitter Spaces and so far, that move alone | has shadowed Clubhouse even though itself is not doing | well. Also built discontinued Fleets. | MisterSandman wrote: | > at the same time if Twitter as a company isn't really | doing much, why do they have thousands of developers on | staff? | | ...to keep the app running? New devices, new standards, a | lot of things change that you need devs to keep up with. | | Also, what's up with people saying twitter is stagnant? | They've added Spaces, Twitter Blue and Crypto Profile | Pictures - all 3 massive features added to their product. | They're all trash, but that's besides the point. | honkdaddy wrote: | FWIW, I have a close friend who worked on Twitter's | "Health" team whose job at one point was building mini | games for the support/moderation staff to play during | company mandated breaks in between looking at racist | tweets and CP. He coasted for a while then moved onto a | job with more work. | | This is entirely anecdotal, but from the little I know | from his couple months there, Twitter has no idea what to | do with the huge amount of engineers they employ. This is | by no means an endorsement of Musk, but the company could | use some new direction I think. | ceeplusplus wrote: | Those things you mention hardly justify thousands of | expensive developers to maintain and create. I bet a team | of 10 top notch engineers could create Spaces+Blue+Crypto | pfp's in a couple months and run it at Twitter scale. | Don't forget Instagram was acquired when it had 13 | employees serving tens of millions of users. | | Speaking out of experience, most engineers in big tech | are bike shedding on internal tools that don't do | anything useful. A small minority deliver the majority of | the impact. On top of that at companies like Twitter and | Google some of those useless employees spend their time | complaining about social justice initiatives rather than | doing work. | dkislyuk wrote: | I think this is a pretty naive take. Developing anything | at Twitter-scale will run into security considerations, | infrastructure development or optimization, constructing | data workflows, multiple design iterations, UX design | (how do people find and use this feature?), i18n, | accessibility, product marketing, user testing, copy | testing, and other functions and that's not even | considering the actual product development, which is of | course across multiple platforms. See also: | https://danluu.com/sounds-easy/ | throwanem wrote: | Speaking out of _what_ experience? You 've just appealed | to your own authority; it seems not out of line to ask | whence that comes. | ceeplusplus wrote: | Working at several big tech companies in industry. I | can't say my experience is fully representative but I do | start to see a pattern when my experiences line up with | that of all my friends. There are a _lot_ of internal | tools and anecdotally many of them seem like they're | designed to abstract away things which wouldn't need | abstracting for a company that exclusively hired high | performing engineers. | xiphias2 wrote: | Spaces is amazing. It was great listening Nayib Bukele, | the president of El Salvador talk while they were making | history by voting Bitcoin to be adopted as legal tender | in the country. He was just looking at his Twitter feed | at that time, and was interested in what people are | talking about the bill in spaces. | | I know he's controversial, but I wish more politicians | would make themselves more accessible through Twitter | (and I'm not a Trump fan, I just think he used it more | effectively than other politicians). | kerkeslager wrote: | > They're all trash, but that's besides the point. | | No, that's _exactly_ the point. Just because you make | something doesn 't mean it was progress. | cyberlurker wrote: | R&D is not useless. | imtringued wrote: | Because investors have options like sitting on their money | until a recession comes along and buying things during the | fire sale. | onelovetwo wrote: | Well even their team disagrees with you, they have for the | last years chosen to focus on things like stories (dead), | clubhouse (soon dead)instead of working on removing | spam/scams | pengaru wrote: | > Twitter does what it does and people like it (as seen by | the fact that they all use it) | | Last I checked not even half the US population is on twitter, | not even close to half. Who is this "all" in "they all use | it?" | olliej wrote: | The 217 million active daily users? It is "only" $~80 | million in the US, I'd love to know how a quarter of the US | population using it daily represents an insignificant user | base. | HWR_14 wrote: | What percentage of those 80 million users are individuals | vs companies? | pengaru wrote: | > I'd love to know how a quarter of the US population | using it daily represents an insignificant user base | | I'd love to know which variant of the English language | treats "all" as analogous to not "insignificant". | saurik wrote: | Near as I have ever seen, most English speakers actually | do mean something more like that when they say "all": | maybe it would be good to mentally model it as "it feels | as if it would be hard to choose at random and not find | this statement to be true". | fleddr wrote: | I get what you're saying from a moral point of view, but we | live in the real world. | | In the real world, Twitter is a public company. It has | existed for a long time and has barely every made a penny. It | fails in comparison to other high growth networks (Facebook, | Tiktok, Youtube). | | And it's not an armchair comment. Twitter's own PMs have | openly admitted to some of its flaws, it's failure to appeal | to the masses. They're self-aware about their own | incompetence. | memish wrote: | He could do that with any number of stagnant companies. Think | bigger picture. | | Tesla: Sustainable transport | | SpaceX: Becoming a multiplanetary species | | Twitter: Free speech in the public square | | IMO it's actually the most important mission of the 3 since | it's the basis for societal progress. | systemvoltage wrote: | I think this is a charitable interpretation of what's going | on, unfortunate to see so many IMO reasonable comments | getting downvoted here. | lemoncookiechip wrote: | > It doesn't take much. People have been begging for an edit | button for a decade. If he'd get only that feature implemented, | it will be remembered forever. | | Funny you mention that: https://www.ign.com/articles/elon-musk- | largest-twitter-share... | colinmhayes wrote: | > People have been begging for an edit button for a decade. | | And they haven't implemented it because it's a truly horrible | idea. If you messed up your tweet delete it. If it's already | got traction, then it shouldn't be changed, especially because | the edit feature would mostly be used maliciously to cancel | retweeters. | tomcam wrote: | What if it's accompanied with a history feature that shows | all the tweet edits? | grenoire wrote: | thank you Papa Musk for the edit button <3 | marstall wrote: | >Long-lasting Twitter problems (culture, spam, algorithm | issues) ... | | don't see how an edit button will change any of that! | deanCommie wrote: | Counterpoint: Twitter is the only social network I use where I | get an unfiltered balance of ideas big and small - CEOs and | random Joes. It's where memes are born and proliferate | everywhere else (other than TikTok). | | Twitter WORKS. If it's profitable, it doesn't need more growth. | Facebook got ruined because it thought everyone's parents and | grandparents should be on it, and now that's the only people on | it. | | My parents and grandparents are scared of Twitter, and that's | how I like it. | | It also doesn't try to charge me for access to my own followers | like Facebook does. | | Twitter may have problems but I like the balance they've | struck. | | An edit button by the way would RUIN it because people who have | gone viral with a bad take would simply edit it away. | fleddr wrote: | lol "unfiltered". It's an extremist network that filters in | particular sanity. | | "Twitter WORKS. If it's profitable, it doesn't need more | growth." | | You don't get to decide that. It's a publicly traded company. | Which means you do need more growth. | | "My parents and grandparents are scared of Twitter, and | that's how I like it." | | Strange thing to be proud of. I guess your own family isn't | "cool" enough. | | Finally, an edit button can have a timer, as every edit | button ever has had for decades. | martin_a wrote: | > If it's profitable, it doesn't need more growth. | | Stakeholders will think otherwise. | | > An edit button by the way would RUIN it because people who | have gone viral with a bad take would simply edit it away. | | Just add a change history like (I think) FB has. No big deal. | ejb999 wrote: | >>Twitter is the only social network I use where I get an | unfiltered balance of ideas | | If you think you are getting 'unfiltered balance' from | twitter, then you don't know twitter very well. | [deleted] | nirav72 wrote: | People have deleted bad tweets and they still have gone | viral. | orblivion wrote: | Why would Elon Musk spend his capacity to get things done on | something like Twitter? He's got planets to colonize. | Interesting point to question his motives, but for now I take | him at his word regarding the free speech thing. I guess it | could be something more nefarious as well. | trashtester wrote: | Hopefully, Musk want to make sure we don't all kill each | other with nukes before the Mars colony is ready. To prevent | that, someone may help cool down the polarization. | | Maybe free speach with help, or at least some appearance of | balance? Maybe he can somehow help find a way where the | algorithm is less dependant on outrage to sell adds? | | I'm not an American, but I see both MAGA and WOKE as | political antipatterns that need to be countered or | displaced. | chc wrote: | You see both white nationalism and civil rights as | political antipatterns? What do you consider a healthy | political environment? Complete stagnation where people who | got theirs are OK but no one else can ever rise to that | level? Or do you mean something different by "woke" than | its usual meaning of "aware of inequities and desiring to | fix them"? | da39a3ee wrote: | Woke is a disparaging term used to refer to people | espousing broadly left wing "progressive" ideologies, who | are obsessed with issues affecting minorities and | "inclusion", yet fail to recognize that their intolerance | and refusal to respect differing views are utterly | exclusionary. | chc wrote: | So what you're saying here is that helping minorities and | including them is a political antipattern if bigots don't | like when you do it? | fleddr wrote: | Like I said, prestige. | | When you're the richest man in the world, and your main | companies are on track, what is it that motivates | billionaires? | | Prestige. Visibility. Legacy. | KerrAvon wrote: | > A perfect target for Musk to come in, do a few sweeping | changes, and get out. Thereby proving once again that he gets | shit done where others can't. Case closed. | | Whatever merit or lack thereof Musk on the Twitter board has, I | would bet money this particular scenario does not happen. Musk | is not a turnaround expert or corporate savior (and for the | record he's not claiming to be). | bennysomething wrote: | Well he did turn tesla round in a way, as in he wasn't a | founder. | HeavyStorm wrote: | Yeah, I was thinking exactly that. Assuming that this is the | case - that Musk is joining as a savior - is silly. He | doesn't fit the profile nor has the track record for that. | | He may be a visionary (whatever that means), but a excellent, | renowned executive that revitalizes companies, heck, that | really has never been the case. | fleddr wrote: | Strange that both of you would say that. He's a ruthless | result-driven executive that doesn't accept excuses. If | it's at all impossible for something to get done, he'll get | it done. | | I'm not at all a fan of him, but his power is in execution. | A vision is worthless. | hooande wrote: | yeah, The Boring Company is absolutely killing it. I use | that thing every day | mensetmanusman wrote: | Why are you gambling so much in Vegas? | trashtester wrote: | The vision may be worthless on its own, but in people | like Musk or Jobs, the combination if the vision and the | ability to execute is absolutely explosive. | | Both sell/sold products that hardly need any marketing. | Closi wrote: | Musk has proven to be a 'get shit done' kind of guy though, | so if he did want to push through changes he certainly has | the capability to do it. | jarrettcoggin wrote: | He often doesn't do things "by the book" and will not wait | for what he thinks is unnecessary red-tape. He will skirt | around regulations and taunt the process the entire way. | We've seen it many times before, and it's always purely in | the benefit of whatever company he's helping at the time. | | He has no problem throwing people/money/etc. at the problem | to get the result he wants and if someone so much as says | the opposite, they are removed from the equation (fired, | publicly ridiculed, etc.). | | I personally don't see what benefit he can bring to Twitter | other than shaking up the culture. Who knows, he may even | come in, take over, and claim to be a founder of Twitter, | just like he did with Tesla. | TaylorAlexander wrote: | Considering where Tesla was when he joined and what they | have become, I'd say it's fair to call himself a late- | joining founder. This would obviously not be true of | Twitter. | stjohnswarts wrote: | It's only useful if the shit that is "gotten done" is | actually an asset to the company and its bottom line or | service to the public. Change for change-sake is almost | always a bad thing. | nicce wrote: | Well he has the money. Money talks, always. | spsful wrote: | - Completely redesigning their UI two times over, - Launching a | subscription-based service (which seems to make it the first | social media network without ads) - Lengthening tweets to 280 | characters - Letting users make money off their following | (super followers) | | I'm confused as to how any of this makes it stagnant. | namecheapTA wrote: | As a one man show SAaS with enough customers to basically | live my life.. I lol at these achievements. | chc wrote: | Four achievements in 10 years isn't actually a lot, and two | of those are just "they added more monetization." | paxys wrote: | He is a board member, not the CEO/COO. He can demand changes, | but how will they magically get done? | dieortin wrote: | In my experience Twitter is way more appealing to younger | people than Facebook. | ejb999 wrote: | and tiktok is 100X more appealing to them than either of | those. | | Facebook is for grandparents, twitter is for bots. | mavhc wrote: | Twitter is for journalists who now don't have to walk | downstairs to get the pointless opinion of the man on the | street | kklisura wrote: | > They have thousands of engineers that in the span of a decade | don't seem to produce much at all, nothing visible or memorable | anyway. Long-lasting Twitter problems (culture, spam, algorithm | issues) never seem addressed. | | Why do you assume it's engineering problem? I think engineers | at twitter are well capable to solve any problems, but it's | just not a business need. The real problem are product | owners/stakeholders/business people, incapable to transform, | envision and lead at Twitter. | kappi wrote: | Why does linkedin require 15000 employees? a website to post a | glorified fake resume! ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-04-05 23:00 UTC)