Twitter announces that it's being acquired by Musk for 44 billion

1988RedT2 said:

Information that you disagree with is not "misinformation."  It's called a "dissenting point of view."

Not always. When blatant untruths are presented, they can be categorically called misinformation.

e.g.: The earth is a flat disk, which is provable to be misinformation. It's not untrue to call somebody disagreeing with a flat earth viewpoint as having a "dissenting point of view" but that dissenting point of view is also able to be proven to be correct.

I still think one of the worst things to happen in the U.S.A was the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine. 


 

I think that people get way too wrapped up in how much they like or dislike things. Opinions are like.... well you know.  I DO NOT want to get political, but Donald Trump is the perfect example of someone who elicits such strong emotional reactions that I'm willing to bet that most of both his detractors and his supporters would fare poorly on a test regarding things that he actually did. 

Elon is a big time genius. The thing about the Twitter acquisition is that it exists by our good graces. If he blows it, there are other platforms waiting with arms open for our attention. Think how quickly Myspace went south.

That's a lot of money. I am curious to see what changes will follow. We know he wants an edit button.

I hope he mixes in a trustworthiness gauge for every participant - so frequent purveyors of bullE36 M3 can be contact traced. 

Boost_Crazy said:

In reply to dculberson 

Nah, I disagree - we tried that and it ends up being all Nazis, all the time. Nazis deserve to be punched and not provided a platform, so some form of moderation is required.

So, who gets to decide who the Nazis are? Wouldn't you just be able to call someone you disagree with a Nazi if you have trouble rebutting their argument, and get them banned? Yea, you "win." No, that would never happen, thank God Twitter saved us from all of the Nazis.

Nazis are easy to spot. They have lightning bolt tattoos, swastikas, and advocate for racial purity and the extermination of Jews. I am not discussing rhetorical nazis here. I mean actually white supremacist nazis. They do not deserve a platform and they are not "dissenting views." We went to war over this, and won. Punch them back into history. 

This subject came up last night during a space-related live stream last night.  Being space-related, the host is naturally well acquainted with Space-X and following the "world of Elon Musk."  He begrudgingly has a Twitter account mainly to help promote his main space news website.  He is of the opinion that Twitter is cesspool of the internet and can't possibly get any worse, so if Musk think he can actually make it better, then he's welcome to try.  All he knows is he gets a constant barrage of negativity towards anything he tweets to the point where he doesn't really pay attention to it - it's simply not worth his time.

Years ago I subscribed to an investment newsletter and one of the popular subjects was Tesla.  For some time, they were firmly anti-Tesla and recommended shorting the stock when they looked at the financial metrics, essentially believing there was no way the company could survive and the stock would crash any day now.  This was back when the production of the Model 3 was struggling to get started.  Eventually they started to backtrack from this position as they realized Tesla was kept afloat purely by the force of Musk's personality and how he could keep investors believing things would turn around. 

Musk is a driven person who seems to like having a challenge in front of him to focus on.  Tesla seems to be pretty much running well on its own without him needing to do much.  Space-X seems to be heading in that direction as well. Maybe he can make Twitter better, maybe it's a lost cause and he can't.  It'll be interesting to watch either way. Personally, I don't care and it doesn't make me any more likely to open a Twitter account.  FB, IG and the internet in general chew up too much of my time as-is.

Regarding the "Freer Speech Makes Better Interwebz!" argument...

Look where we are. Look at what a great place this is. Look at the community. This is basically the only public forum I know of where people engage in anything remotely resembling rational discussion of difficult topics. I don't expect discussions here to flip anyone on issues, but it seems like a place where discussions do move the needle in people's beliefs.

Find me a better forum. Go ahead.

Still here? Of course you are, because this place is great.

What makes this place so special? (I've actually been thinking about this lately, because a friend wants to make an online platform for positive discussion. So I'm using the one functional community I know of as a template.)

One of the big things is how moderated this place is. When things get out of hand and a few parties poison the well of a discussion thread so that it's just a self reinforcing shouting match, mods shut that E36 M3 down. If one or two people bear the responsibility, they can put them on time out.

Giving people more freedom of speech to flounder threads doesn't make the speech on the platform as a whole more free. It would mean fewer productive discussions of controversial topics. I know some people here like to bemoan how "this place has changed..." but despite the "no [topic]" rules, the mods actually allow a lot of leeway and really only shut things down when they've become or on direct trajectory to turn into, hot garbage.

This forum is better because it's moderated.

Saw a good speech about how "There is No Algorithm for Truth". The most significant section to this discussion is the bit about "Echo Chambers and Nazi Bars".

I think the other big things that make this place good - we're united around a hobby and sharing practical information, not just a forum for people to vent their spleens with "hot take" opinions. Status here is functional based on actually being able to build, fix, and/or drive well, or provide useful information for others to do so - rather than being achieved by tearing others down. Enough people have met or might meet in person, that we view other people on here as PEOPLE, and not just NPC's on the internet.

In reply to Beer Baron :

This place is great, however, many people have stopped participating because the moderation is very biased. It's their right to moderate, but don't assume it's a great place because YOU have not been on the moderated list. A group of people doing nothing but agreeing with each other, is not an example of success. 

Steve_Jones said:

In reply to Beer Baron :

This place is great, however, many people have stopped participating because the moderation is very biased. It's their right to moderate, but don't assume it's a great place because YOU have not been on the moderated list. A group of people doing nothing but agreeing with each other, is not an example of success. 

No place is perfect. I'm not debating those specific views or opinions.

Are you going to argue that Reddit, Twitter, and Facebook are better places to have discussions?

In reply to Beer Baron :

Lol, not sure those even meet the definition of discussions. 

Boost_Crazy said:

In reply to GameboyRMH :

Examples of Twitter silencing truth? I know they perpetuate lies just by existing as an open discussion platform people are largely free to lie on, but I can't think of when they've done that through any moderation action.

You are kidding right? Right? 

No I'm quite serious. I don't know of any examples of them silencing truth or perpetuating lies through moderation actions.

aircooled said:

If a bunch of Nazi's want to yell into an empty field, I am fine with that.  If someone wants to stand in that field, I say shame on them.

Isn't this a recipe for being chased from field to field by Nazis though?

GameboyRMH said:

Boost_Crazy said:

In reply to GameboyRMH :

Examples of Twitter silencing truth? I know they perpetuate lies just by existing as an open discussion platform people are largely free to lie on, but I can't think of when they've done that through any moderation action.

You are kidding right? Right? 

No I'm quite serious. I don't know of any examples of them silencing truth or perpetuating lies through moderation actions.

Actually. Im interested in this as well. I know of people being launched for violating their terms of service, but not telling the truth.  

Fueled by Caffeine said:

GameboyRMH said:

Boost_Crazy said:

In reply to GameboyRMH :

Examples of Twitter silencing truth? I know they perpetuate lies just by existing as an open discussion platform people are largely free to lie on, but I can't think of when they've done that through any moderation action.

You are kidding right? Right? 

No I'm quite serious. I don't know of any examples of them silencing truth or perpetuating lies through moderation actions.

Actually. Im interested in this as well. I know of people being launched for violating their terms of service, but not telling the truth.  

Hunter Biden Laptop story is just one example. Blocked by Twitter as misinformation but turned out to be legit.

Many more examples out there, just do a search.  Unless you always believe the media when they call something Russian misinformation.

Steve_Jones said:

In reply to Beer Baron :

This place is great, however, many people have stopped participating because the moderation is very biased. It's their right to moderate, but don't assume it's a great place because YOU have not been on the moderated list. A group of people doing nothing but agreeing with each other, is not an example of success. 

The times I have seen a person on here get scolded by the mods, (which seems quite infrequent) the person was being a jerk and deserved it, even if they lacked the self awareness to realize it.

Brett_Murphy (Agent of Chaos) said:

1988RedT2 said:

Information that you disagree with is not "misinformation."  It's called a "dissenting point of view."

Not always. When blatant untruths are presented, they can be categorically called misinformation.

e.g.: The earth is a flat disk, which is provable to be misinformation. It's not untrue to call somebody disagreeing with a flat earth viewpoint as having a "dissenting point of view" but that dissenting point of view is also able to be proven to be correct.

I still think one of the worst things to happen in the U.S.A was the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine. 


 

Even so, we should not rely upon those who control media to determine what is a "blatant untruth" as that might prove to be an effective way to silence views to which they themselves are merely opposed.  We should be happy to discuss the compelling arguments supporting the idea of Earth as an oblate spheroid with those who are convinced of its flatness.

We must never forget that censorship has long been the tool of oppressive regimes throughout history.

FieroReinke said:

Fueled by Caffeine said:

GameboyRMH said:

Boost_Crazy said:

In reply to GameboyRMH :

Examples of Twitter silencing truth? I know they perpetuate lies just by existing as an open discussion platform people are largely free to lie on, but I can't think of when they've done that through any moderation action.

You are kidding right? Right? 

No I'm quite serious. I don't know of any examples of them silencing truth or perpetuating lies through moderation actions.

Actually. Im interested in this as well. I know of people being launched for violating their terms of service, but not telling the truth.  

Hunter Biden Laptop story is just one example. Blocked by Twitter as misinformation but turned out to be legit.

Oh, this laptop?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/12/now-warning-about-hunter-biden-laptop-disinfo-guy-who-leaked-it/

Not so legit, even according to the guy who started the leak.

This is not a good thing as far as controlling misinformation/falsehoods/conspiracy theories getting broadcast out instantly, around the world.  The fact that he's taking it private means he can do whatever he wants with ZERO oversight

In reply to GameboyRMH :

"We had multiple experts examine the contents of a hard drive that purported to contain the laptop’s contents, validating tens of thousands of emails as likely to be legitimate."

Doesn't sound like they exactly turned Hunter back into a squeaky clean member of society. The photos and videos we have now, starring Hunter, aren't really great, either.

At any rate, Twitter shouldn't be taking a stance.

Twitter's shareholders included staunch adherents of democracy like the crown prince of Saudi Arabia. I think just about anything will be better than that. 

Ya'll arguing about this laptop are gonna get this thread killed.

dculberson said:

JThw8 said:

Agreed, Im not on twitter but in general I'd rather see all social media platforms unfiltered and let people use their own thought processes to decide what they want to see.  Provide the end user tools to filter as they see fit but dont restrict speech.  Or go the other way and shut it all down.  Honestly social media is great in that it has given everyone a voice, and its been terrible in that its given everyone a voice.   

Nah, I disagree - we tried that and it ends up being all Nazis, all the time. Nazis deserve to be punched and not provided a platform, so some form of moderation is required.

Research shows that providing a platform boosts a message. I have no problem with Twitter / etc filtering what they allow on their platform, just like this platform filters what's allowed.

@RevRico: I highly doubt most of what you're describing as being on Twitter is actually on Twitter and "celebrated." Seems like a "pretty women don't get speeding tickets" kind of claim. Meaning, made up and pushed on you by someone with an agenda.

Search the hash tags #twittertakeover #riptwitter

keywords to search separately as they're not hashtagged (berkeley I hate that word) deactivation, leaving Twitter, fascists, white genocide. 

You'll see it all, with a healthy dose of "everyone who disagrees with me is a Nazi/Russian bot/fascist" and quite a disturbing amount of "govern me harder daddy". Pay particular attention to the people with blue checks next to their name, as they're "Twitter verified" which gives then pseudo credibility in the platform and an ability to push their reach and narrative however they want. 

But why take 5 minutes to search and scroll when you can just pretend people really aren't that stupid, and that Twitter has been anything other than a breeding ground for people so far to the left they're indistinguishable from the actual far right, which is another term coopted by the Twitter brigade worth searching. 

And for everybody pretending that a billionaire buying the home of 200 million idiots is a threat to democracy, where were you when Bezos bought Washington Post? Have you ever followed the money and ownership trails of the "news" organizations, or do you just blow the people off as "conspiracy theorists" when they point out that just a handful of companies actually own everything, even when Popular Science of all places did a pretty in-depth report on it back in 2013, and the reigns have gotten even tighter since?

Or is casting this purchase as a "threat to democracy" just doing the site work to invade or absorb Twitter in the name of freedom and democracy?

FieroReinke said:

Fueled by Caffeine said:

GameboyRMH said:

Boost_Crazy said:

In reply to GameboyRMH :

Examples of Twitter silencing truth? I know they perpetuate lies just by existing as an open discussion platform people are largely free to lie on, but I can't think of when they've done that through any moderation action.

You are kidding right? Right? 

No I'm quite serious. I don't know of any examples of them silencing truth or perpetuating lies through moderation actions.

Actually. Im interested in this as well. I know of people being launched for violating their terms of service, but not telling the truth.  

Hunter Biden Laptop story is just one example. Blocked by Twitter as misinformation but turned out to be legit.

Many more examples out there, just do a search.  Unless you always believe the media when they call something Russian misinformation.

Western journal?   That is a misinformation source.

do better. 
 

but if you're trolling this is a masterful job. Tries to debunk misinformation truth by posting article from known misinformation site.  Hats off brother. 

Mr_Asa said:

Ya'll arguing about this laptop are gonna get this thread killed.

what kind of laptop? HP? Apple? I really like gaming laptops. I've had a few Asus ones. 

RevRico said:

"white genocide. "

I'll take "ways to make most people instantly stop taking your argument seriously for $1000 please, Alex."  You're getting into conspiracy theory territory with that one. 

I'm about as far left as you can get and still be capitalist, but I really didn't like Bezos buying WaPo for the same reason I don't like Musk buying Twitter.  Billionaires consolidating power over the information we consume (whether they leverage that power or not) is not a good thing.  I have a feeling a lot of people are going to get back on to Twitter who previously weren't, and I do believe he'll try to weed out the botposting.  But based on his really thin-skinned responses to criticism in the past, I don't believe anyone with anything bad to say about him is gonna last on that platform.  

Honestly curious, what is white genocide?