The reason for the lawsuit [1] seems to contradict itself; it's against spreading misinformation on X, while invoking the principle of allowing misinformation on X? > "But for speech to be truly free, we must also have the freedom to see or hear things that some people may consider objectionable. We believe that everyone has the right to make up their own minds about what to read..." So... "Let [Media Matters] say wh…
Ultimately this sort of thing gets justified as "I'm picking on people my own size", or "I'm defending the regular person against these other powerful entities".
Even billionaires like to think of themselves as Robin Hoods.
There is a lot here to be think about. Three most interesting points to me are 1. These companies have bottom-of-the-barrel moral standards and don't care what one person on Twitter is Tweeting. This has to be political manoeuvring of some sort. 2. A lot of advertisers were quitting Twitter a while ago weren't they? But it has been months now. If they're still quitting, that suggests the flood of quitters is more of…
> These companies have bottom-of-the-barrel moral standards and don't care what one person on Twitter is Tweeting. Advertisers have cared about placement for as long as advertising has existed.
> Advertisers have cared about placement for as long as advertising has existed
And advertising executives care about not having to monitor Elon's Twitter account in case he tweets something stupid on a Saturday.
The reason for the lawsuit [1] seems to contradict itself; it's against spreading misinformation on X, while invoking the principle of allowing misinformation on X? > "But for speech to be truly free, we must also have the freedom to see or hear things that some people may consider objectionable. We believe that everyone has the right to make up their own minds about what to read..." So... "Let [Media Matters] say wh…
Ultimately this sort of thing gets justified as "I'm picking on people my own size", or "I'm defending the regular person against these other powerful entities". Even billionaires like to think of themselves as Robin Hoods.
Definitely agree with that. And it's media vs. media, so they both have to sell a narrative since the stronger story, not who's actually right, will win.
> 3. Musk is still the wealthiest human on the planet (in history? I expect in nominal terms he's the wealthiest in history). John D. Rockefeller would like to have a word if we're talking about Americans, as would Carnegie and Vanderbilt: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_richest_Americans_in_h... Internationally: Augustus Caesar, Emperor Shenzong, Akbar I: * https://www.scmp.com/magazines/style/celebrity/arti…
It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to refer to heads of state as having the wealth of the state. Musk can effectively spend all of his wealth if he chooses to (after paying his debts). Heads of state really can't, except on the state itself. Not even absolute monarchs.
> doesn't make a whole lot of sense to refer to heads of state as having the wealth of the state
Caesar Augustus was personally very, very rich. The British Crown has, similarly, its own private assets.
It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to refer to heads of state as having the wealth of the state. Musk can effectively spend all of his wealth if he chooses to (after paying his debts). Heads of state really can't, except on the state itself. Not even absolute monarchs.
> doesn't make a whole lot of sense to refer to heads of state as having the wealth of the state Caesar Augustus was personally very, very rich. The British Crown has, similarly, its own private assets.
The British Crown is barely a billionaire.
Augustus may have been independently wealthy, I'm just saying don't attribute the wealth of the state to him as well.
> 3. Musk is still the wealthiest human on the planet (in history? I expect in nominal terms he's the wealthiest in history). John D. Rockefeller would like to have a word if we're talking about Americans, as would Carnegie and Vanderbilt: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_richest_Americans_in_h... Internationally: Augustus Caesar, Emperor Shenzong, Akbar I: * https://www.scmp.com/magazines/style/celebrity/arti…
It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to refer to heads of state as having the wealth of the state. Musk can effectively spend all of his wealth if he chooses to (after paying his debts). Heads of state really can't, except on the state itself. Not even absolute monarchs.
Your reply wouldn't make any sense to Octavian (Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus) whose lifetime was marked by frequent episodes of intercepting state funds and adding them to the already stupendous coffers of his family fortunes and using those to divert state armies to his own personal power plays.
As a time traveller you'd have little chance of making your case to Octavian, Divi filius (aka "son of a god") that he was bound by some modern rules applied to mere "heads of state".
> doesn't make a whole lot of sense to refer to heads of state as having the wealth of the state Caesar Augustus was personally very, very rich. The British Crown has, similarly, its own private assets.
The British Crown is barely a billionaire. Augustus may have been independently wealthy, I'm just saying don't attribute the wealth of the state to him as well.
> British Crown is barely a billionaire
I'm using the Crown to illustrate the difference between the personal assets of a head of state and the assets of their state.
> just saying don't attribute the wealth of the state to him as well
The SCMP article you're responding to makes it clear they aren't doing this.
It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to refer to heads of state as having the wealth of the state. Musk can effectively spend all of his wealth if he chooses to (after paying his debts). Heads of state really can't, except on the state itself. Not even absolute monarchs.
Your reply wouldn't make any sense to Octavian (Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus) whose lifetime was marked by frequent episodes of intercepting state funds and adding them to the already stupendous coffers of his family fortunes and using those to divert state armies to his own personal power plays. As a time traveller you'd have little chance of making your case to Octavian, Divi filius (aka "son of a god") that he was…
As a time traveler I'm fine. Because in those time travel fantasies I've already ascended to godhood on the Prime Material Plane, and am time-travel gating to Rome in a bolt of lightning during the Flavian era 6 months or so before the eruption of mount Vesuvius to order the Senate and Legions to take action to relocate the inhabitants of Pompeii. (Seriously, I almost never think of the Roman Empire unless prompted to do so by others, but this is a genuine daydream of mine.)
The British Crown is barely a billionaire. Augustus may have been independently wealthy, I'm just saying don't attribute the wealth of the state to him as well.
> British Crown is barely a billionaire I'm using the Crown to illustrate the difference between the personal assets of a head of state and the assets of their state. > just saying don't attribute the wealth of the state to him as well The SCMP article you're responding to makes it clear they aren't doing this.
Sort of. But they're also trying to convert percentages of much poorer and much smaller empires of yore into percentages of today's GWP.
> doesn't make a whole lot of sense to refer to heads of state as having the wealth of the state Caesar Augustus was personally very, very rich. The British Crown has, similarly, its own private assets.
The British Crown is barely a billionaire. Augustus may have been independently wealthy, I'm just saying don't attribute the wealth of the state to him as well.
> The British Crown is barely a billionaire.
The Crown is a billionaire many, many times over.
The monarch as an individual may or may not be "barely a billionaire", depending on how you look at things.