41–50 of 56 posts
In theory, (most) botnet operators can’t afford $8/month/bot; so this seems like a reasonable strategy from that point of view
The last vote had 17 mil votes. If I were Russia or China, I would gladly pay 150 mil if I could steer Twitter into a direction I want.
In theory, (most) botnet operators can’t afford $8/month/bot; so this seems like a reasonable strategy from that point of view
In theory, yes, but it's known that these gangs who do platform manipulation somehow acquire SIM cards in bulk to register accounts en masse . And that costs money.
You think teleoperators would deny such a request from the sitting government in their country?
Musk could've easily accomplished all of his goals if he could just be more selective about what he says. Should've never mentioned anything about "absolutist" or "wokeism." Could've made all the same decisions (like trimming half the company, introducing "Blue", polling about re-admitting ex-presidents) and would now be in a totally different, much better position. When he speaks, he closes doors and creates surface…
The idea is to auction off the rights to ban/allow controversial users. Twitter collects money for selling this right and the people that feel the strongest about whether or not someone’s speech should be allow on the platform can have a direct say in that decision—all they have to do is put their money where their mouth is. If they don’t, then it’s obviously not worth it to them to have someone be banned or allowed on Twitter.
Let the free market sort out what speech is acceptable. It’s dynamic and is a better representation of what society actually wants at any given time compared to any other system.
Elon should embrace this especially as he just found out that the government was doing exactly this by paying Twitter to censor people. Why not just open it up to everyone?
This is perfectly legal, and OK with me, but many will perceive it as "democracy for those who can pay."
They'll perceive it that way because that's how it is. There's no need to muddy the waters with "many will perceive it[...]" when the reality is that in order to participate in the vote you have to pay money.
Not sure the best idea, but it's the same in the stock market - only shareholders can vote.
the stock market has never made any anti-consumer choices using this system
Musk could've easily accomplished all of his goals if he could just be more selective about what he says. Should've never mentioned anything about "absolutist" or "wokeism." Could've made all the same decisions (like trimming half the company, introducing "Blue", polling about re-admitting ex-presidents) and would now be in a totally different, much better position. When he speaks, he closes doors and creates surface…
All he had to do was nothing.
Musk could've easily accomplished all of his goals if he could just be more selective about what he says. Should've never mentioned anything about "absolutist" or "wokeism." Could've made all the same decisions (like trimming half the company, introducing "Blue", polling about re-admitting ex-presidents) and would now be in a totally different, much better position. When he speaks, he closes doors and creates surface…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The last vote had 17 mil votes. If I were Russia or China, I would gladly pay 150 mil if I could steer Twitter into a direction I want.
if all results are within say 10% of each other, your botnet just needs to make up the dif. So it would really just cost a fraction of that.