991–1000 of 1001 posts
Looks like activist investors are getting their Christmas wish this year. Twitter's not immune from ending up on this list (on a long enough timeline): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_defunct_social_network...
I think conversely Twitter is the only one that is immune.
More a risk of becoming the next Tumblr.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Has mediating access to information been the defining tool of control for civilizations? Maybe in tyrannical, despotic societies that is true, but those don't allow Twitter today via firewalls, so that's mostly a moot point in this thread. I'd say the sword and the coin have both been far more controlling than limited information spread. What of free society? Is the government of the USA, UK, or other "enlightened" s…
>Is the government of the USA, UK, or other "enlightened" societies throughout history That sentence piques my interest, do people see the USA and UK that way? I think of Switzerland and Canada that way, for example, but my knowledge is all based on stereotypes. Maybe it depends where you're from, as the stereotypes must differ among regions.
That is some pretty dim enlightenment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Twitter is extremely toxic and divisive, and Dorsey is... the same. People are hoping his removal will allow the platform to mature.
Twitter is THE social media I am not able to use without letting it affect my mental health. Anytime I logged into Twitter, I came out more angry, bitter and outraged. It's like the whole platform is built around hot takes, dunking, bullying, and outrage. It always baffles me how mainstream media never utters a word how toxic Twitter is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
USA is literally founded on this principle: Congress shall make no law /.../ abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press IIRC the founders explicitly did not include that in their constitution. Hence it being called "First Amendment " rights.
Your founders were a bunch of tossers. The American fascination with elevating them to god like status is laughable.
A few reflections on this announcement. 1) Remember that CEOs of public companies are essentially unable to say what they think or want. The cost of doing it is being sued for damages, having to spend countless hours with lawyers, etc. Jack might think X, but he's only allowed to say Y, and he doesn't want to go beyond that because he doesn't want to fight that fight. Only people in a close circle really know what's…
> There are so many things that can go wrong, so many other things that will set your company on fire without warnings, and that doesn't give people the time to think strategically on how to tackle certain difficult scenarios. > never seen such amount of power in the hands of a few companies. These two points seem contradictory. If you are very powerful, you can draw on great resources, and you can address many thing…
Socrates's prosecutors called, they want their undisprovable accusation back! Serious any claims of "ruining" or "harming" society are specious and a classic symptom of a moral panic. You would think people would have learned from atonal music, Jazz, rock and roll, and rap alone having already ruined society. Let alone allowing women and minorities to vote and gay marriage and things getting better from a "ruined" society.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“Rules for thee but not for me” is interesting when placed in juxtaposition with a famous quote from the software architect and composer Frank Wilhoit: Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect. That applies to no-moonlighting clauses, but also to no sexual harassment clauses,…
I look at this and ask - from this analysis, what distinguishes conservatism from feudalism?
Feudalism is about a structure of hierarchical allegiences. You swear fealty to your count who swears it to his duke, etc.
The conflation is basically a shibboleth for Marxists in the same way that creationists pluralize evidence as evidences, and holocaust deniers ask if a conclusively documented and damning event happened.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The truth is that someone's gotta pay the bills. Pleasing the crowd by giving the content away is easy; finding a way to pay the bills while upsetting the least amount of people who are strategically important for the next month's bills is the hard part. Twitter never "paid the bills" under his leadership. That's what added insult to the injury of removing previous open functionality: they pissed everybody off and di…
holy crap, yes, this is exactly how Twitter can monetize decentralization. Charge the kardashian clan x amount of dollars to run a managed version of Twitter's software on kardashian.com and allow for full interoperability with other services that speak a common protocol (the w3c has a protocol. use it!) you can also have governments and other institutional actors running the hosted software (then you can have @AOC@H…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The truth is that someone's gotta pay the bills. Pleasing the crowd by giving the content away is easy; finding a way to pay the bills while upsetting the least amount of people who are strategically important for the next month's bills is the hard part. Twitter never "paid the bills" under his leadership. That's what added insult to the injury of removing previous open functionality: they pissed everybody off and di…
I think you have it backwards, or at least you're missing half of the equation. The influencers are also valuable to Twitter, not just the other way around.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It also encourages you to be more concise, clear and mindful of what you want to say. The problem you outlined stems from the posters and not the platform.
That’s only useful if you have really simple thoughts with no nuance to express.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But almost all countries are more liberal than those two. My question isn't if the US and UK are the least enlightened countries in the world, but rather, if people see them as particularly enlightened among countries. Ie compared to any other random liberal country like Mexico or Czech Republic. I understand OP's point, just curious whether the examples used reflect a common perception. To me when thinking of stereo…
I understood "enlightened" to mean "espousing modern values of enlightenment" - basically fostering a belief in science and reason and trying to push mankind further in terms of technological and moral progress. In this regard, both of those countries would be considered B-tier at worst.