Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Welcome to Hell, Elon

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 315 posts

Re: Welcome to Hell, Elon

#171

Post by zirgs »

jjeaff wrote: post #106
Bubble_Pop_22 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Starlink alone will make more money than twitter ever could In a world where people are increasingly living in urban areas, fiber will annihilate satellite internet. Starlink is yet another niche thing which Musk is specialized in pursuing. In fact all of Musck companies can be summarized with "everybody has heard of them in the financial and technology press, but not many people use them"

The rural market, RV market, boating market will always be an enormous niche. But fiber and other broadband tech like 5g wireless may win out in the long or mid term. Leaving only the very secluded rural market. I would not have guessed that the satellite tv market would have gone on as long as it has, considering how many satellite customers also have access to cable. And yet, you can drive through any suburb and fi…

Mobile internet is already available pretty much everywhere.

Not that many people need internet access in the middle of the ocean.

Re: Welcome to Hell, Elon

#172

Post by jongjong »

ilyt wrote: post #135
jongjong wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This makes no sense because people on Twitter choose who they follow. If some 'deplorables' want to follow some other deplorables, then let them; I'm sure some companies will still want to advertise to them. The people who only want to consume government and corporate propaganda will only see content from like-minded people anyway; they will get the safe experience that they want. No problem! Companies can target the…

You don't get only stuff you follow tho, you get anything whoever you subscribed to retweeted.

Well you can unsubscribe from those people who tend to retweet stuff you don't agree with. You are free to seal yourself into your filter bubble as much as you want... Just don't try to seal other people into filter bubbles that they never agreed with. You should only have a say about your own filter bubble.

If someone wants to be brainwashed in a particular way by limiting their exposure to alternative ideas, they are free to do that to themselves! But if someone wants to expose themselves to as many diverse ideas as possible and open up their minds as much as possible, then they should also be free to do that!

If this ends up posing a threat to a small number of elites... Maybe it means that these people have too much exposure and power anyway. Maybe society should be reorganized so that power is more spread out; giving up some power is a good way to reduce the number of one's problems and enemies. That's what the British Royal family did; and that's why they still have their heads on their shoulders.

Re: Welcome to Hell, Elon

#173

Post by fatbird »

Dracophoenix wrote: post #160
joshstrange wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, I used to be a free speech absolutist when I was younger, back when I thought the world was black and white and that simple ideas could "solve everything". Then I participated in forums/groups that had zero moderation and it was hell. Even then I didn't recognize the issues fully. It wasn't until I moderated a community myself that it finally clicked. I tried to be unbiased as possible but that lead to me silenc…

The point of free speech is to push the line. Imagine if people stuck with the speech standards of the 1950s. There would be plenty of people here who would be disenfranchised.

The point of free speech is to be free. Pushing the line constantly is a tactic that some argue (or rationalize) is a way to maximize that freedom, but it's not the purpose, any more than the purpose of a right to bear arms is to get as many questionable shootings as possible.

Re: Welcome to Hell, Elon

#174

Post by spacemadness »

noxer wrote: post #163
joshstrange wrote: post #34

Can't wait to see that hot takes from the free speech absolutists who have never experienced that first-hand on a platform they frequent regularly. We already know what that looks like, it's 4chan/8kun/etc and surprise, it's absolute shit.

>it's absolute shit. So is twitter. At least in the last years it turned to absolute s*it. In mid 2021 I resurrected my old long not used account. I made maybe 20 comments in 3 month before I got "banned". I'm probably not really banned I would just have to remove my last comment but I cant do that because I can not login anymore (which may or may not be related to the "banning"). The post in question was an obvious…

No offense, but I see this a lot from folks claiming they got banned but they never say exactly why and keep it as vague as possible while claiming innocence.

Re: Welcome to Hell, Elon

#175

Post by ThrowawayR2 »

minimaxir wrote: post #96

The key quote which other comments are overlooking: > Here are some examples: you can write as many polite letters to advertisers as you want, but you cannot reasonably expect to collect any meaningful advertising revenue if you do not promise those advertisers “brand safety.” That means you have to ban racism, sexism, transphobia, and all kinds of other speech that is totally legal in the United States but reveals p…

To play the devil's advocate: So why haven't advertisers abandoned Fox News? As long as Musk limits his newly acquired toy to being no worse than Fox News (which is plenty bad!), he can still keep advertising dollars coming in.

Re: Welcome to Hell, Elon

#176

Post by tenpies »

nelsonic wrote: post #11

Never bet against Elon. Starlink alone will make more money than twitter ever could. If you don’t see the potential for Twitter. That’s fine. But don’t write an article about how it’s “hell” if you don’t have the vision for how to improve it. That’s like someone who has no idea how to cook leaving a bad review for food they could never hope to improve on. If Elon listened to Haters/Doubters like this Verge journo, th…

> Starlink alone will make more money than twitter ever could.

Is there anything other than aspirational thinking behind this statement? Musk himself has said it's a cash incinerator - and that's by Musk standards (read: used to huge public subsidies and constant capital raises).

Re: Welcome to Hell, Elon

#177

Post by hn2017 »

joshstrange wrote: post #34

Can't wait to see that hot takes from the free speech absolutists who have never experienced that first-hand on a platform they frequent regularly. We already know what that looks like, it's 4chan/8kun/etc and surprise, it's absolute shit.

Yup. It's a new 4chan as of now. Musk just ruined a decent service worse than mediocre.

https://twitter.com/ncri_io/status/1586007698910646272?s=20&...

Re: Welcome to Hell, Elon

#178

Post by CodeSgt »

joshstrange wrote: post #34

Can't wait to see that hot takes from the free speech absolutists who have never experienced that first-hand on a platform they frequent regularly. We already know what that looks like, it's 4chan/8kun/etc and surprise, it's absolute shit.

I think most people that are happy about Elon taking over aren't free speech absolutists in the sense of the term you're using it.

Rather they're just tired of blatant censorship some individuals face when expressing an opinion that goes against popular politics of the time.

There's a middle ground between allowing literal nazi's to do whatever they want and blatantly influencing discussion on a mass scale by silencing those you disagree with.

Re: Welcome to Hell, Elon

#179

Post by ilyt »

happytoexplain wrote: post #128
memish wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

"Literally true" is a good standard for individual libel, but a rarely applicable standard for content moderation. The classic example is, if I post crime statistics, part of which shows that black people commit more crime, then: If I am using it to imply that we should hate black people or treat them differently, it would be reasonable to moderate away; and if I am not, e.g. my post is intended only in some legitima…

> If I am using it to imply that we should hate black people or treat them differently, it would be reasonable to moderate away; and if I am not, e.g. my post is intended only in some legitimate legal/statistics context and is not part of social politics shitposting, then it makes sense not to moderate.

Or just allow it to be downvoted away. No need for moderation if people can just chose to not see something community thinks is shit. Or block the person. No need for overbearing moderation, we're not babies that need cuddling. Reddit is kinda nice example here, on few bigger subreddits like /r/games mod play police by deleting stuff that's already downvoted to oblivion and think they're helping.

> The line gets blurry, and part of that is because the people posting know there's a line. When people are arguing, they would like things to be objective ("but it's true"), but that's unrealistic/irrational.

The other side of it is that biased moderators will cut way before what would be considered a line for most and so you can get to the place where honest question might get banned, just because it is entirely impossible to interpret based on the text alone and mods get into habit of assuming bad will at every step.

Like for example (from few years back) asking what is about those pronouns next to the person's name ? Random troll might use it as bait, my mom would ask that as genuine questions as she's not exactly, well, "modern"

Re: Welcome to Hell, Elon

#180

Post by uni_rule »

joshstrange wrote: post #34

Can't wait to see that hot takes from the free speech absolutists who have never experienced that first-hand on a platform they frequent regularly. We already know what that looks like, it's 4chan/8kun/etc and surprise, it's absolute shit.

Some people will try to push the idea of individualized user-end moderation but that idea has not been successfully implemented since Usenet's Alt heirarchy faded from the internet's popular consciousness. It simply isn't practical and doesn't address that sometimes you just need to kick someone out of the platform for being a caustic shithead. The lunatic-proof glasses put on by some users won't help the fact that people new to the site will be scared off by all the diarrhea mixed with the slowly disappearing amount of actual content to the point where the people being awful are the only ones left. Eventually they'll entrench their bullshit until that becomes the character of the whole site. Normal people are repulsed by it at first glance and those left only descend deeper and deeper into their own mad echo chamber.
Post reply on HN