151–160 of 412 posts
So they will treat the following two tweets differently? • down with people who believe X! • long live people who believe not-X! The line between negativity and positivity is just a matter of framing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> At this point its best to hope markets dont start reconsidering your other companies as risky business. I think this is inevitable. One, Elon is trying to prop up Twitter by using SpaceX money to buy ads. He's dipping his hand into other companies to keep his new toy afloat for a while longer. I don't know if the word "contamination" is appropriate here, but it's pretty clear that Elon doesn't see any kind of sharp…
Elon deserves a lot of credit for Tesla. But now I'm starting to hear the term "Muskmobile" bandied about when people refer to his car. It's not like Tesla is the only game in town anymore either. In a weird tangent, I've been thinking about the TV Show "Ted Lasso", and why it's so popular lately. Ted Lasso is the exact opposite of Elon Musk, even to a fault. People don't care if Elon succeeds anymore, but they do wa…
I'm certainly not a fan of how Musk has handled the Twitter takeover, but this sentiment, "New Twitter policy is freedom of speech, but not freedom of reach", seems highly reasonable to me, no? That is, what I find so awful about most social media (and places like YouTube) is how they focus on some of the most anger-inducing content for "engagement". That is, I think the problem is much more their algorithms than wha…
People’s problem with Twitter was always that they would arbitrarily decide what is or isn’t acceptable speech, and Elon’s new solution does…exactly the same thing. The only thing that will change now is that liberal politicians and views will start being targeted rather than conservative/alt-right ones. Is anyone here really naïve enough to believe that this whole saga has been about “free speech”? It is simply a sh…
If anyone doesn't believe this how those involved viewed the situation, read Musk's text messages that were exposed in court[1].
I'm certainly not a fan of how Musk has handled the Twitter takeover, but this sentiment, "New Twitter policy is freedom of speech, but not freedom of reach", seems highly reasonable to me, no? That is, what I find so awful about most social media (and places like YouTube) is how they focus on some of the most anger-inducing content for "engagement". That is, I think the problem is much more their algorithms than wha…
Many commentators seem to think this is a sudden, recent backpedaling from a previous absolutist view on free speech. However, Musk has been promoting the "freedom of speech" vs "freedom of reach" distinction for a while, at least months before his takeover, including describing how such a policy should be implemented at Twitter. Here's one example quote from June, 2022: “I think there’s this big difference between f…
Confusingly, that's what all the free speech absolutists spend their time yelling about. The right to not speak in the public square but have a megaphone.
The prime example is when someone's tweets don't show up in the timelines of subscribers. People who specifically what to hear that speech never get a chance to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even if it is, he's right. Although this is anecdotal, I have a friend who works in finance that said the drop in stock was coincidental to the stock price dropping. Apparently pharmaceuticals are a defensive sector in a bear market, and the market popping up last week meant the price of Eli Lilly dropped, as I understand it. In his words that tweet causing the stock to drop was "fake news"
There is never going to be a way to conclusively ascribe the drop in stock price to any one event. However, the act of pointing out the high cost of insulin to a large audience not causing a drop in stock price would be highly suspect. I personally doubt it was the Tweet itself that caused the drop. No one should/would have believed it was an actual statement by Eli Lilly. But in a bear market, this bad publicity abo…
I know this is orthogonal to the stock price drop, but this kind of bad publicity (gouging sick people in need of your product) actually turned out to be a good thing for the public and for overall justice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even if it is, he's right. Although this is anecdotal, I have a friend who works in finance that said the drop in stock was coincidental to the stock price dropping. Apparently pharmaceuticals are a defensive sector in a bear market, and the market popping up last week meant the price of Eli Lilly dropped, as I understand it. In his words that tweet causing the stock to drop was "fake news"
There is never going to be a way to conclusively ascribe the drop in stock price to any one event. However, the act of pointing out the high cost of insulin to a large audience not causing a drop in stock price would be highly suspect. I personally doubt it was the Tweet itself that caused the drop. No one should/would have believed it was an actual statement by Eli Lilly. But in a bear market, this bad publicity abo…
Your second sentence is probably true, but the first one is questionable.
It's well-known that there are high-frequency stock trading bots which watch Twitter, news headlines, etc.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but this is the sort of damage control id expect to see from someone only peripherally aware of or involved in their businesses accountability or strategic operations. This concern from advertisers has existed far too long for an executive action to have any meaning. the marketing conference call on november 3rd was your red flag where advertisers voiced their displeasure with firin…
Please stop spreading the falsehood that Eli Lilly lost billions because of a fake verified tweet. https://medium.com/@westwise/did-twitter-just-take-8-billion...
https://seekingalpha.com/news/3907399-fake-free-insulin-twee...