81–90 of 122 posts
If he replatforms Trump or brings in fb-esque name transparency (ie real names only) then I'm out. Till then it's lets wait and see.
I think Trump has said he will not join Twitter even if there is the offer to reinstate his account.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think Trump has said he will not join Twitter even if there is the offer to reinstate his account.
That you still believe there is truth in anything that Trump says is absolutely mind boggling. Given the chance, Fat Boy would be back on twitter in a heartbet.
Hell no, Donald Trump is guaranteed to have his account restored and I want to be there for the absolute sh*tstorm that ensues.
He actually said he won't be coming back no matter what according to Fox News. He has his own twitter competitor now so that makes sense.
Hell no, Donald Trump is guaranteed to have his account restored and I want to be there for the absolute sh*tstorm that ensues.
He actually said he won't be coming back no matter what according to Fox News. He has his own twitter competitor now so that makes sense.
Why would anyone work for Twitter if they take it private?
They are going to have to pay cash at crazy salaries.
Hell no, Donald Trump is guaranteed to have his account restored and I want to be there for the absolute sh*tstorm that ensues.
You kinda touch on something I think is interesting and I'm hopeful for - a more return to balance. It seems a lot of people and groups who go against the status quo were effectively banned or suspended until they fall in line. Where's the fun in that? Do I want to see it turn into Voat? God no. But I'd appreciate way more diversity in thought than they currently allow.
> But I'd appreciate way more diversity in thought than they currently allow.
I keep hearing this sentiment and I guess I don’t get it. Richard Spencer wasn’t banned for his “diverse thought”, he’s still on the platform. Trump wasn’t either. I see plenty of absolutely repugnant comments and tweets so what does this mean?
These debates about what should and shouldn’t be allowed seem almost intentionally vague. What are people getting banned for saying that they shouldn’t be banned for?
I honestly don't think it'll change that much. Musk's statements thus far suggest that he lacks a basic understanding of the problems inherent to running a platform like Twitter, so he'll probably just get frustrated and lose interest once he starts running into them. I suspect that the company will end up in the hands of a group indistinguishable from the current board, except they'll be Musk's friends.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They've pretty much all tried having comment sections, and removed them. Turns out, it's kind of hard and the incentives discourage it.
This is not what I mean. What I mean is that they (CNN, FOX, MSNBC, NYT, WSJ et caterva) could, e.g, set up a Mastodon server and give accounts to their staff and at least encourage cross-posting. They could give free accounts to their subscribers. There is so much that they could to send a strong signal that they are against Twitter/Facebook as the single place of public discourse. But of course they don't do any of…
btw it'd be nice to see the fedi grow beyond being the "mastoverse", other implementations of AP exist