Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Elon Musk owns Twitter: The story so far

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

461–470 of 1001 posts

Re: Elon Musk owns Twitter: The story so far

#461

Post by victor106 »

boppo1 wrote: post #404
victor106 wrote: post #381

I didn’t do it for the money, I did it for “humanity” so I want to appease advertisers to make money and save humanity even though I hate advertising. Oh, also there are more than 30% bots on the platform but I still bought this thing because I want the trial to end because I don’t want to answer any more questions and reveal things that would put me in legal jeopardy. Does he really think people are that stupid? I a…

> reveal things that would put me in legal jeopardy. Like what?

We don’t know what. But it’s obvious he didn’t want the trial to go on and wanted it to end immediately when the judge wanted him to testify

Re: Elon Musk owns Twitter: The story so far

#462

Post by insane_dreamer »

thinkingemote wrote: post #248

They need to re-free up the API. Early adopters and hackers really did some great work using the API until they walled-gardened it and rate limited it to make it unusable. They need to do this for goodwill at the very least, but I think it will spark the fire to make it popular with techies again. Based on the recently published discovery chats we will probably see: * High def video * Focus on music publication * The…

yes, but it probably won't be free

Re: Elon Musk owns Twitter: The story so far

#464

Post by cowtools »

mark_l_watson wrote: post #445

I have what is probably an unpopular opinion. I would like to see two things happen: 1. more people use and support by generating content platforms like Mastodon where there is some expectation of privacy and openness. I like Mastodon. 2. I also like Twitter, and I would like to see it a more self regulated platform, with some form of effective real ID, probably charging $1 to $2 dollars a month for its use. This mig…

There needs to be some form of sybil resistance, perhaps allowing unlimited post size, but charging 1 cent per character. Spam needs to be expensive.

The users should be allowed to decide for themselves what they see. My perspective is that hate speech is basically an identical problem to spam. If you can solve spam, you solve hate speech and self-advertisements and whole other classes of problem.

Also, it's a social media platform. You basically dox yourself. The current service requires you to give them your phone number and encourages you to use your real name and location on your profile. It doesn't get much worse than that.

Re: Elon Musk owns Twitter: The story so far

#465

Post by Beltalowda »

sosodev wrote: post #137
mooreds wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. I think he understands that, as indicated by https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1585619322239561728 That doesn't sound like someone burning Twitter to the ground. Also, many are acting like Musk has free rein in running the company. Yes and no. Beyond needing employees to actually run the thing, he also has loans to pay back ($13B!) and investors to maintain good relationships with. More on that here: https…

I'm very skeptical of the idea that Twitter can become a place where people discuss things with civility. It seems like the mechanics of the conversation encourage outrage.

I agree, but these mechanics are not a law of nature, and can be changed.

Whether Musk will actually do that: dunno. But I don't think it's inconceivable that Twitter could become something much better than it is today.

Re: Elon Musk owns Twitter: The story so far

#466

Post by wellthisisgreat »

julianeon wrote: post #57

In the spirit of trying to be high-information and add value: Where Musk is going, there are no maps. So it's very very hard to project. But we can predict likely developments. At a very high level, it's going to involve: bringing back controversial personalities like Donald Trump; increasing Twitter's commitment to 'free speech'; assuaging skittish advertisers; retaining users who might be concerned, while bringing…

How would Twitter be WeChat of America if WeChat is fundamentally for private messages and private transactions (unless it’s groups) but Twitter is for broadcasting yourself

Re: Elon Musk owns Twitter: The story so far

#467

Post by swayvil »

My indignation is high, beyond that I have zip to say.

JK. Good on Elon.

In my opinion a good centralized twitter government is impossible. The only path to goodness that I can see is to empower the individual twitterers with a box of tools for filtering their own personal twitterscape. Beyond that leave twitter 100% freespeechy. But then that's my default opinion for all social media.

Re: Elon Musk owns Twitter: The story so far

#468

Post by freejazz »

boppo1 wrote: post #404
victor106 wrote: post #381

I didn’t do it for the money, I did it for “humanity” so I want to appease advertisers to make money and save humanity even though I hate advertising. Oh, also there are more than 30% bots on the platform but I still bought this thing because I want the trial to end because I don’t want to answer any more questions and reveal things that would put me in legal jeopardy. Does he really think people are that stupid? I a…

> reveal things that would put me in legal jeopardy. Like what?

We didn't have to buy twitter in order to avoid any more legal discovery of our text messages in relation to the lawsuit, so we don't know

Re: Elon Musk owns Twitter: The story so far

#469

Post by smm11 »

IMO he won't do anything to improve the Twitter experience until he allows a number of high-profile banned persons back on, which will cause mass account deletions, and Twitter will become a functional Truth Social within weeks.

Re: Elon Musk owns Twitter: The story so far

#470

Post by not2b »

julianeon wrote: post #57

In the spirit of trying to be high-information and add value: Where Musk is going, there are no maps. So it's very very hard to project. But we can predict likely developments. At a very high level, it's going to involve: bringing back controversial personalities like Donald Trump; increasing Twitter's commitment to 'free speech'; assuaging skittish advertisers; retaining users who might be concerned, while bringing…

The difficulty is that some of these objectives conflict with each other. Backing off on moderation is likely to drive advertisers away; bringing back banned people could in some cases cause legal problems in countries where publishing, say, pro-Nazi speech is against the law. Making major changes will require more people, but stopping the financial bleeding will require fewer people.
Post reply on HN