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

Elon Musk owns Twitter: The story so far

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 1001 posts

Re: Elon Musk owns Twitter: The story so far

#181

Post by o_1 »

bbreier wrote: post #125
hn8305823 wrote: post #69

He literally said it will not be a free for all. He may be chaotic, but he's not stupid. There is a huge difference between no moderation (anarchy), and not targeting conservative voices solely based on ideology.

I'd love to see some clear examples of conservative voices being targeted solely based on ideology, cause I don't think they exist. The replies so far seem to just confirm my point. Doesn't seem like any of them were banned "solely based on ideology" at all. Come on y'all, show me one example where someone was banned for asking for lower taxes!

The entire interview with JRE Vijaya Gadde can be referenced. Like Tim Pool or not he clearly shows the bias, Jack is mostly silent on those instances.

Re: Elon Musk owns Twitter: The story so far

#182

Post by cinntaile »

Animats wrote: post #129

OK, so far, not much. Musk is getting stretched rather thin. Space-X seems to be doing OK with Gwynne Shotwell running things. Tesla, which Musk apparently does really run personally, is doing OK, but their side ventures are not. Self-driving is a mess. Solar panels (yes, Tesla has a solar panel business) are not doing well. The Cybertruck is years late. (Maybe next year.[1]) So is the Tesla Model 2, the low-end vehi…

I think Starlink is a gamechanger, but I guess that's part of SpaceX?

Re: Elon Musk owns Twitter: The story so far

#183

Post by nightski »

Analemma_ wrote: post #143
nightski wrote: post #130

We can argue about free speech & all that jazz to no end. But at the end of the day it's as simple as not banning elected officials. I don't care how divisive they are, we need to know what they say and do. These are people chosen by the people whether you love or hate them. Secondly, I just visited Twitter today and at the top it has statements about false accusations and fact checking prominently displayed. I follo…

Hard disagree. The whole point of the rule of law is that elected officials are not supposed to be special, they have to follow the same rules as everybody else. If I'd get banned for a tweet, an elected official should also get banned for the same tweet. Your proposal means creating a caste system where special people get more free speech than the rest of us.

I feel like it means exposing elected officials and making them responsible for what they say online. If anything I view it as holding them to a higher standard.

In addition, it reduces the extreme polarization in our country. When you silence an elected official, you are silencing all the people who voted for such official without forcing them to realize what that elected official said/did.

Re: Elon Musk owns Twitter: The story so far

#184

Post by NaturalPhallacy »

mlindner wrote: post #12

I feel like this techcrunch article itself violates hacker news policies because it has numerous personal attacks and deriding commentary throughout the article. Including calling the purchase of twitter a "toy". More so calling it "crowning himself CEO" as if that wouldn't be automatically required if you layoff the existing CEO. A temporary CEO would be required until a new CEO is found. I think it's also important…

>I feel like this techcrunch article itself violates hacker news policies because it has numerous personal attacks and deriding commentary throughout the article. Including calling the purchase of twitter a "toy".

HN is little different from big tech ideologically, and your comment is already fading out of existence. I expect it will be completely censored soon.

Re: Elon Musk owns Twitter: The story so far

#185

Post by lupire »

KerrAvon wrote: post #148
lake_vincent wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, speaking in those terms, I think the thing to watch will in fact be censorship. Elon is extremely idealistic, so it will be fascinating to watch him melt down when confronted with the reality of how complex free speech and censorship issues really are. I predict that he will succeed in turning Twitter into the rightwing safehaven that "Truth" Social, Parlor, etc have all been trying to become. He's making a dea…

Quoted post unavailable.

No one said his ideals are good, and his father's mine and government subsidies are completely unrelated to whether he had ideals. Maybe his ideals are for government investment.

Re: Elon Musk owns Twitter: The story so far

#186

Post by adrr »

memish wrote: post #29
halfmatthalfcat wrote: post #9

Prediction: Brain drain at Twitter begins as Elon starts enacting unpopular policies. Valuation tanks. Morale becomes non-existent and Twitter slowly starts to fade from existence while competitors begin to fill the void. I give it 3-5 years before it's gone full husk.

Prediction: Twitter becomes more efficient, focused and profitable than they ever have been. And it will return to the platform neutrality and free speech ideals it had prior to 2015ish.

That’s counter to profitability. Advertisers don’t want free speech. They don’t want controversy.

Re: Elon Musk owns Twitter: The story so far

#187

Post by rglullis »

davidw wrote: post #84
hn8305823 wrote: post #69

He literally said it will not be a free for all. He may be chaotic, but he's not stupid. There is a huge difference between no moderation (anarchy), and not targeting conservative voices solely based on ideology.

There are tons of conservative voices on Twitter.

But you simply don't know if "the algorithm" is being fair at giving reach to these voices.

Re: Elon Musk owns Twitter: The story so far

#188

Post by wccrawford »

danjoredd wrote: post #142
Animats wrote: post #129

OK, so far, not much. Musk is getting stretched rather thin. Space-X seems to be doing OK with Gwynne Shotwell running things. Tesla, which Musk apparently does really run personally, is doing OK, but their side ventures are not. Self-driving is a mess. Solar panels (yes, Tesla has a solar panel business) are not doing well. The Cybertruck is years late. (Maybe next year.[1]) So is the Tesla Model 2, the low-end vehi…

The problem with Musk's solar panel business is that it is more expensive and less effective than normal solar panels. They look nicer than normal panels, but to thrive off of solar you need as much efficiency as possible. Tesla panels don't provide that especially for the cost.

The problem I hear with their solar panel business is customer service. A friend of ours had their panels installed for months but couldn't get Tesla to actually turn them on.

We went with a local company and it it took a couple weeks longer to install than estimated and they were turned on immediately after install. The power company has even changed out the meter now, so we're fully installed and done.

Re: Elon Musk owns Twitter: The story so far

#189

Post by ipaddr »

bbreier wrote: post #125
hn8305823 wrote: post #69

He literally said it will not be a free for all. He may be chaotic, but he's not stupid. There is a huge difference between no moderation (anarchy), and not targeting conservative voices solely based on ideology.

I'd love to see some clear examples of conservative voices being targeted solely based on ideology, cause I don't think they exist. The replies so far seem to just confirm my point. Doesn't seem like any of them were banned "solely based on ideology" at all. Come on y'all, show me one example where someone was banned for asking for lower taxes!

The latest Kanye West purely ideologist posts could be on.

Silencing those who oppose: co-ed bathrooms, gender reassignment for tweens and teens or gay marriage. Can we jump to the covid blacklists yet

Re: Elon Musk owns Twitter: The story so far

#190

Post by adamsmith143 »

NaturalPhallacy wrote: post #152
hn8305823 wrote: post #69

He literally said it will not be a free for all. He may be chaotic, but he's not stupid. There is a huge difference between no moderation (anarchy), and not targeting conservative voices solely based on ideology.

> targeting conservative voices solely based on ideology. Clearly happening, yet even here already we have four people so far claiming that it doesn't, and people flagging/downvoting you for telling the truth. They banned a conservative satire publication ffs. The Babylon Bee. "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." —George Orwell, 1984

Yeah it's crazy that Twitter banned all Conservatives from twitter and not just ones that blatantly and repeatedly broke their guidelines. Oh wait...
Post reply on HN