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

481–490 of 1001 posts

Re: Elon Musk owns Twitter: The story so far

#481

Post by phailhaus »

seydor wrote: post #474

- That is not a kitchen sink - Twitter is a telegraph office. Journalists love twitter because it makes their job easier by stealing stories/news from each other. For the world outside media twitter is pretty much meh. - Musk unbanning someone doesnt mean much. trump might have sent out tweets with carrier pigeons and the mass media would still pick it up because it sells. twitter bans have very little effect, from t…

> twitter bans have very little effect, from the covid misinformation to ukraine stuff

This is false, the ban on Trump had a massive effect on online misinformation. [1] Platforms really do matter.

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/16/misinfo...

Re: Elon Musk owns Twitter: The story so far

#482

Post by freejazz »

_fat_santa wrote: post #312
cutenewt wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's going to be more in the other direction. He really hates the bots, so he'll probably close up the API. Until bots gets solved, no developer should expect the API to open up.

The problem isn't the bots, the problem is the lack of differentiation between bots and real accounts. I say open up the API and let people make whatever bots they wish, but if you tweet through the API then you get a big "BOT" tag next to your username on the feed.

This is just kicking the can down the next level on the issue. They can't tell which bots are bots so what difference does it make it if the solution isn't to ban them but to just limit them? The problem is identifying the bots.

Re: Elon Musk owns Twitter: The story so far

#483

Post by rossjudson »

bambax wrote: post #353

The reason why Musk eventually bought Twitter, when he did, and at the price he paid, was to avoid having to testify under oath in the lawsuit against him. He was going to be deposed, exposed, and in the end he was also going to lose and suffer the indignity of having to pay a high price for something he fiercely said he didn't want anymore. Better bite the bullet earlier than later. Now that doesn't explain why he w…

The political effects Musk is after are mostly accomplished by removing bans on a small number of people and accounts. The rest can stay (roughly) the same.

Re: Elon Musk owns Twitter: The story so far

#485

Post by unity1001 »

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…

You forgot the bot cleanup.

Re: Elon Musk owns Twitter: The story so far

#486

Post by Manu40 »

mullingitover wrote: post #320
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…

> managing the exodus of users (size:?) that will happen regardless; This is probably the biggest risk in this acquisition. Twitter wasn't doing anything special, and it's easy to launch a clone of their business model. Elon's talking about taking an axe to the things that keep the lights on at Twitter: effective content moderation and talent.

> taking an axe to the things that keep the lights on at Twitter: effective content moderation and talent.

I have experienced the 'effectiveness' of Twitters moderation team on multiple occasions where they were very ineffective at upholding the very clear cut rules surrounding things like doxxing on their website. I had my personal information made public, and they ignored me. Multiple times. I even created a new account with no way for there to be any publicly available personal info; and yet I was still doxxed somehow, and they still ignored me.

So, in the spirit of HN's rules, I just want to say this, since end user experience should be allowable to share (I hope.).

Effective moderation at twitter is a myth as far as I see it, and their only talent is making it look like they have effective moderation when they care.

P.S. I also was doing nothing wrong in any case where this happened. It was all conversations which should have been considered civil (mostly) and one situation where it had nothing to do with politics or philosophy at all. Yet they did nothing.

Nothing.

Re: Elon Musk owns Twitter: The story so far

#487

Post by seydor »

phailhaus wrote: post #481
seydor wrote: post #474

- That is not a kitchen sink - Twitter is a telegraph office. Journalists love twitter because it makes their job easier by stealing stories/news from each other. For the world outside media twitter is pretty much meh. - Musk unbanning someone doesnt mean much. trump might have sent out tweets with carrier pigeons and the mass media would still pick it up because it sells. twitter bans have very little effect, from t…

> twitter bans have very little effect, from the covid misinformation to ukraine stuff This is false, the ban on Trump had a massive effect on online misinformation. [1] Platforms really do matter. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/16/misinfo...

they are counting twitter retweets after they banned twitterers. how is that even a valid claim

Re: Elon Musk owns Twitter: The story so far

#488

Post by causality0 »

rafaelturk wrote: post #484
causality0 wrote: post #471

It's very strange to me he intends to un-ban Trump when he gave up trying to work with him on that advisory council thing early in Trump's presidency.

Freedom of speech, even Trump deserves it

I don't think everybody else is going to receive the same degree of patience.

Re: Elon Musk owns Twitter: The story so far

#489

Post by fleddr »

As for free speech vs censorship, a lot of people think in absolutes. It should be absolutely possible or impossible to say this thing. And this particular individual should be banned or not.

What I think is far more important is the level of amplification. Currently, the most unhinged extremists from every political angle are massively amplified. They know exactly how to play the engagement game.

Twitter rewards the wrong thing. Those stoking controversy get the engagement, after which that account is injected as "recommended" into all kinds of places, snowballing those accounts into power.

That situation should be flipped. Reasonable people should be amplified, not crazy ones.

Re: Elon Musk owns Twitter: The story so far

#490

Post by bambax »

leobg wrote: post #428
bambax wrote: post #353

The reason why Musk eventually bought Twitter, when he did, and at the price he paid, was to avoid having to testify under oath in the lawsuit against him. He was going to be deposed, exposed, and in the end he was also going to lose and suffer the indignity of having to pay a high price for something he fiercely said he didn't want anymore. Better bite the bullet earlier than later. Now that doesn't explain why he w…

He said exactly why he bought Twitter. Yet you dismiss his reasons out of hand. Don’t even mention them in your analysis. And presents this theory of a very reactive, fearful personality who is motivated by money and has little vision for the future. (People will agree with you. Because the question they ask is: “How is Elon Musk a smaller person than I am?”. They ask that not because they want to understand. But bec…

> Don’t even mention them in your analysis.

Neither do you. Are you referring to the bots saga? He initially said he wanted to buy Twitter because he wanted to rid it of bots. Then he said he didn't want to buy Twitter because there were too many bots. That doesn't make a lot of sense.

If not, what exactly are you referring to?

Post reply on HN