71–80 of 834 posts
Remember the Arab Spring and how Twitter was hailed as a tool for the masses to fight against their oppressors? And remember how Elon bought Twitter, loudly proclaiming he was doing so to defend free speech? I'm mildly curious to see how X tries to justify this, but I suspect they've reached the stage where they don't even need to pretend to pay lip service to their notional values.
> I suspect they've reached the stage where they don't even need to pretend to pay lip service to their notional values. It took 6 weeks for that milk to rot: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_2022_Twitter_suspensi...
A justification [0] of sorts is provided for the journalist suspensions:
> Criticizing me all day long is totally fine, but doxxing my real-time location and endangering my family is not
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_2022_Twitter_suspensi...
I'm not defending Twitter or their policy in any way (disclaimer: I left Twitter the moment Elmo took over. I despise his hypocrisy and his fascist ideas) But this could be a "legitimate f-up". Normally, most of these unsafe-url protection and detection is automated in something with the scale of Twitter. Just like URL-shorteners often are (were?) "seemingly randomly" banned, because a portion of the shared urls are…
https://signal.me/#eu/fdy5h1miMifXa...
The URL hash (the part after #) is often not considered by automated systems to be a part of URL that's meaningful, because hash is normally only used for addressing parts of the website that was loaded based on the previous part of the URL. If a particular Signal.me link was flagged for whatever legitimate reason (contained malware or illegal content) it's entirely reasonable that an automated system would strip the hash and block the whole domain (because the path part in this URL is just "/" and nothing else).
It'll be interesting to see whether they address and reverse it. If not, then we can be fairly sure this was intentional.
Somehow I don’t believe this, it is too much out of character, even if it fits so nicely with how we want to see Elon. Did anyone here actually confirm this? I never used Twitter nor X or id check myself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There never was any demand for free speech from him. He just wanted to advance his fascist agenda and used whatever means he had at his disposal.
[flagged]
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1499976967105433600?lang=en-GB...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mm. On balance, I think you are correct. But: precisely because DOGE is a QUANGO* that's much harder to demonstrate, whereas the hypocrisy is very on-the-nose. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quango
The problem with hypocrisy is it's a milquetoast charge. Plenty of people, including very powerful people, are hypocrites and we tolerate them fine. Most of us--hopefully--don't know someone who's corrupt.
Unfortunately, I think this is just a comfortable illusion that most of us choose to believe.
Between https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/bribery-rates?tab=table&t... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index, I think it's fairly likely almost everyone both knows personally someone corrupt, and has done business with someone who is corrupt, even in the UK, Germany, and the USA.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People have only that much power we give to them. If everyone stops using Twitter/X, it is nothing. Nobody buys Teslas - it is nothing. The list goes on since his # in wealthy ranks defines his position. Just make it drop.
There really should be a bigger campaign for everyone to sell their Tesla shares. As you said, take away his money and he goes away.
It's been overvalued before, and now it's cruising on "how good will the government corruption money be". Needless to say, you can look at how things worked out in Russia for who gets paid, and how much that winds up being worth in the end.
Remember the Arab Spring and how Twitter was hailed as a tool for the masses to fight against their oppressors? And remember how Elon bought Twitter, loudly proclaiming he was doing so to defend free speech? I'm mildly curious to see how X tries to justify this, but I suspect they've reached the stage where they don't even need to pretend to pay lip service to their notional values.
You can also ignore any justification X gives, all the statements coming from Musk and the other tech companies and the government are untrustworthy or deceptive. But people are still hopeful in that Musk saying "free speech" actually gives them any reasing to keep using Twitter.
Nobody (sane) would allow a psychotic individual to run for president or become a CEO. This is the same thing, except they are less of a danger to themselves and more to others.
And of course they're able to craft more convincing lies. Mr. Musk never cared about free speech, only about being worshipped and the best way to achieve that is to say what people want to hear.