371–380 of 472 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not everywhere is America. Most institutions in European countries run their own e-mail servers and deliverability is OK.
I guess if you count on-prem Outlook as running your own servers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> basically we don't know Yes, it has been grossly mismanaged from a PR perspective. Expecting no fallout from that is naive.
Honestly there was no way to get good PR out of this. Musk is disliked by those who form "public opinion" and he's been threatening to make their home (twitter) no longer their home (by making it no longer reflect progressive values). There is no universe where Musk takes over twitter and gets good PR.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> basically we don't know Yes, it has been grossly mismanaged from a PR perspective. Expecting no fallout from that is naive.
Honestly there was no way to get good PR out of this. Musk is disliked by those who form "public opinion" and he's been threatening to make their home (twitter) no longer their home (by making it no longer reflect progressive values). There is no universe where Musk takes over twitter and gets good PR.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The real question is, would they have done better by not acting on his antics? Yes, they would have done better. Their business should be providing the platform, not telling the users that is 'true' and what is not. That everyone should decide for themselves. One thing is fighting spam, but what they were doing was Ministry of Truth stuff. And harm from that might be thousandfold greater than whatever Trump could e…
> Their business should be providing the platform That's not how capitalism works. Their business should be doing whatever they think will generate the most long term profit for the owners. It's an advertising platform. Advertisers don't want a platform where users get to decide what the truth is. Advertisers don't want their advertisement next to some anti-vaxxer nutjob or a vocal racist. This is common sense.
Now, advertisers come from different parts of the political spectrum, and if some advertiser would decide to vacate their spot on the platform, some other business would fill the spot.
You know, earlier this year a lot of western companies have quit the russian market, like Macdonalds. Do you think there are no burgers in Russia now?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I still think people are just mad because verified won't be a status symbol anymore. Vanity, nothing more. No matter how Musk handled this, he would've gotten hate because he is just a controversial dude, and he does like to stir the pot.
No one who understood verification thought it was a status symbol. Musk doesn't understand the platform he bought, so he promised to change the existing identify verification system – part of a strategy to combat impersonation and misinformation – to a pay-for-play subscription feature. But Twitter already has a subscription offering! He's just ruining the verification system out of ignorance and spite.
Doesn’t matter what the “in the know” understood, it’s what the blue checks perceived it to be. To them it was a hard to get item that only folks with some degree of “celebrity” received.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> basically we don't know Yes, it has been grossly mismanaged from a PR perspective. Expecting no fallout from that is naive.
Honestly there was no way to get good PR out of this. Musk is disliked by those who form "public opinion" and he's been threatening to make their home (twitter) no longer their home (by making it no longer reflect progressive values). There is no universe where Musk takes over twitter and gets good PR.
But why are people so obsessed with PR in the first place? Who cares? People are obsessed with drama. My view is there is too much of that, cut that crap out, it's irrelevant to your life.
Either Twitter as a product, is useful to you, or it's not, so either use it or don't. Twitter as a product did not change in the past week, if you never read any news headlines, you would be completely none the wiser and still happily using it if you were using it before.
There is too much real stuff to worry about to get caught up in the drama of this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No one who understood verification thought it was a status symbol. Musk doesn't understand the platform he bought, so he promised to change the existing identify verification system – part of a strategy to combat impersonation and misinformation – to a pay-for-play subscription feature. But Twitter already has a subscription offering! He's just ruining the verification system out of ignorance and spite.
> No one who understood verification thought it was a status symbol. Doesn’t matter what the “in the know” understood, it’s what the blue checks perceived it to be. To them it was a hard to get item that only folks with some degree of “celebrity” received.
> I can’t see myself putting the same work in to help the world’s richest man pay the loans he took out So Twitter was “really good” (while it was helping the many rich shareholders of a random public company) but it’s suddenly “work” a couple of days after the owner changed? Nothing wrong for not using it because of ideological reasons, but the product’s accessibility (or anything else really) hasn’t changed yet.
The main difference isn't really who but how much money. One uses a lot of goods and services in ordinary life. Generally speaking one hopes that the provider of these goods and services uses their resources efficiently to provide them for a reasonable price including reasonable profit. When a leveraged buyout happens (this is true for most leveraged buyouts) a large cost is put into the business that wasn't there be…
'Twitter’s priorities are no longer even remotely aligned with my own.' Since when were they? The mistake was perhaps to ever think that they were. It was twitters 'priority to sell themselves to Musk, hence why they took him to court to ensure he bought them. This is a somewhat crazy, knee-jerk reaction to some news headlines, the author has no idea of what is really happening, i'm not saying that i do, but for exam…
This has been my perspective. I’m a neutral observer in regards to Musk the person. Obviously some folks have a pretty strong feelings towards him for a lot of reasons, but watching the knee-jerk reactions to every rumor and all the assumption analysis that follows on HN is entertaining.
I am not neutral on Twitter though, I think it’s a bloody cancer. If it implodes or improves under Musk. I am good either way. I can’t see it getting any worse.