341–350 of 542 posts
Serious question: Who cares? I am not trying to make a joke or seem edgy. Literally, what group of people is actually impacted by this by first or second order effects of…whatever the hell this story entails? In other words, this is on the front page of hacker news. Why?!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps a realist would suspect that Elon is mercurial and easily bored.
Yes, he started Tesla and then just gave up as it was too hard. Started a space company and never got rockets into space, let alone the largest one ever...
It’s funny that the first paragraph of the letter says they believed it was best for Elon to join the board. Then the second paragraph says that Elon declined to join the board and they believe it was also for the best.
Those beliefs occurred at different times (one is past tense, one is present tense.) And only two significant events are cited as happening between them: a background check and Elon deciding not to join the board. Either the basis of the change in belief is “whatever Elon wants is best”, that implies a background check problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> An optimistic would think that Elon had enough self-awareness to realize it would be an overall distraction for Twitter with little benefit. Assuming Musk did take over Twitter, he wouldn't need to be much of a distraction. He could dictate a few rules (don't moderate Twitter, don't ban anyone, etc.) and then leave the company to function as it did before. I think what he doesn't realize is that reducing moderation…
Assuming Musk did take over Twitter, he wouldn't need to be much of a distraction. He could dictate a few rules (don't moderate Twitter, don't ban anyone, etc.) and then leave the company to function as it did before. Not really. One of the hard things about changing the course of a company is that you actually need people to do the things you want them to do. That means actually being hands on and checking things ar…
Dorsey chose not to ban Trump, and then he did. That was a huge change for Twitter, and it didn't seem to rock the boat at the company at all.
Twitter also didn't ban politicians at all for a long time. That was another major policy change that Musk could simply revert back.
Reading between the lines and the PR speak a little bit: 1. Parag is covering his own ass and making clear that the initial announcement was always contingent on a few things and not a done deal. 2. He is heavily implying that being a fiduciary of the company and having to act in its best interests (including, I imagine, not randomly criticizing it in public or promising non-existent features) was the deal breaker fo…
More like him criticizing the company and promising features was a deal breaker for Twitter's board and investors, and they have the power to tell him to fuck off. Elon's lived in a fantasy land for years thanks to the Tesla board and investors letting him do whatever he wants.
I doubt that's his intention though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
- "CEO of Twitter has posted an image of text (from the iOS Notes app?)" At least he made the effort to include accessible alt-text. (Interestingly, the accessible text differs *slightly* from the picture-of-text version -- different draft revisions? Even social media CEO's don't seem comfortable with this workflow). edit: here's a diff with highlighting: https://i.imgur.com/R9wf2H5.png I'm relying on Verge's transcr…
i wonder how the original text would have fared if it went through the grammarly filter instead.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Comment isn't referring to spam bots, but the bot networks used for astroturfing.
The "bot networks used for astroturfing" are a much used fiction of pro-Musk and anti-Musk people alike. They basically don't exist. Upvote bot networks exist certainly however.
What evidence do you have that Twitter is lying about this? Why would they harm their brand by saying that they're infested with bot networks when they actually aren't?
1. https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/exclusive-twitter-pul...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How can anyone tell the difference between a fascist disinformation network and a sincere idiot?
Well, one has a social security number. Just look at all the information Facebook takes from people, requiring a government issued credential to verify your account isn't even farfetched anymore. Many governments have been rolling out SSO for their suite of digital service applications, I can totally imagine an "internet passport" type situation in the future, where a government issued SSO authorization can be used b…
Facebook already does this with driver's licenses in the US in some cases.