181–190 of 233 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
I don’t think that the FBI recommending that Twitter look into posts that both break Twitter rules and were suspected of being generated by foreign operatives counts as illegal collusion. I also don’t think Twitter was the deciding factor in Biden winning, and the election certainly wasn’t rigged.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
I don’t think that the FBI recommending that Twitter look into posts that both break Twitter rules and were suspected of being generated by foreign operatives counts as illegal collusion. I also don’t think Twitter was the deciding factor in Biden winning, and the election certainly wasn’t rigged.
Media outlets will share what some famous people say on Twitter. Let’s not conflate that with Twitter mattering. It’s just a press release website.
If we want to look at social networks that actually decide elections, let’s look at Facebook.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Go read Twitter Files
I read some of them, and I don't know what they're referring to. Could you link to the relevant "file?" Would be even better if you had a secondary source that confirms the "file's" claims.
Take his advice, go read the Twitter Files.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The white house wasn't even doing the same. The fbi was pointing out tweets that violated Twitter's rules and suggesting that they evaluate them but that it was totally up to Twitter about what to do. The white house was pointing out tweets that embarrassed or otherwise hurt Trump's feelings and demanding that Twitter take them down
Did the FBI manipulate Twitter into censoring the NY Post story on Hunter Biden's laptop?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your understanding is wrong, I’m afraid. Twitter was profitable before the acquisition. (If you look this up don’t be misled by the once-off loss caused by losing a legal case).
Do you have a source on that? I've read several articles claiming that Twitter was only ever profitable in 2018-2019. e.g. https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/mje/2022/12/21/twitter-and-its-f... : > Twitter has been operating at a massive loss for years, failing to book an annual profit since 2019 (Mauer, 2022). For eight out of the last ten years, the company has posted a loss.
https://www.netcials.com/financial-net-profit-year-quarter-u...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What are his viewpoints and how are they amplified considering anybody can post anything?
>What are his viewpoints Musk is very vocal about his far-right views. He's anti-union, anti-public health, etc. >how are they amplified considering anybody can post anything? Anyone can post anything, but Musk can and has systemically prioritized his tweets over organic content.
When any amount of right wing is far right, it just show how far left your perspective is. And if you think far right is in any way worse than far left, that's just more evidence of the same. They're the same people, just with opposite causes.
All of these moves make sense when you zoom out and realize Musk has no interest in Twitter as a business. It is a megaphone to amplify his own voice and the voices that support his viewpoints. Having third party API consumers able to pull in content and reorder it other than how he wants it presented is counter to that goal. The genius of Fox News was "why spend money on buying political attack ads when you can just…
Precisely. That is his end goal to spread right wing viewpoints. https://www.axios.com/2022/10/30/elon-musk-paul-pelosi-tweet...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Academics don't resell the data to others. In fact, their existing agreements with Twitter requires their published datasets (for reproducibility) to be anonymized precisely to ensure they don't become a commercial goldmine. Given that most of the article is about the pricing tiers for academic use, based on marketing communications to universities, your comment seems strangely indifferent to the context of this news…
Academic work has all kinds of costs, why should data be free of charge?
Academic work has costs but nothing like 42k per month, if anything that was the entire budget allocation for one RA's salary for 80% of the year.
The current project I am on now, has only been allocated 250k for multiple people (3 RAs) working on it for the year.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Academics don't resell the data to others. In fact, their existing agreements with Twitter requires their published datasets (for reproducibility) to be anonymized precisely to ensure they don't become a commercial goldmine. Given that most of the article is about the pricing tiers for academic use, based on marketing communications to universities, your comment seems strangely indifferent to the context of this news…
Except if I want to buy some piece of academic research, they sell articles for as high at $60. Why aren’t academics complaining about the absurd costs for the public accessing their information?