Elon Musk to join Twitter’s board of directors

Post by BurningFrog » Tue, Apr 05, 2022, 8:34 PM UTC

tedivm wrote: post #568

noetic_techy wrote: post #557

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 sha…

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.

Post by mywittyname » Tue, Apr 05, 2022, 8:38 PM UTC

packetlost wrote: post #604

tedivm wrote: post #568

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Post by valenaut » Tue, Apr 05, 2022, 8:43 PM UTC

adventured wrote: post #574

cbsmith wrote: post #561

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh, wha?

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 swimmin…

Post by philosopher1234 » Tue, Apr 05, 2022, 8:45 PM UTC

gowld wrote: post #672

philosopher1234 wrote: post #593

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 some…

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.

Post by ribosometronome » Tue, Apr 05, 2022, 8:46 PM UTC

caffeine wrote: post #612

TameAntelope wrote: post #541

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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 pla…