701–710 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Obviously not or he wouldn't have gone so far in the first place.
He clearly didn’t mean to go this far, but Twitter out lawyered him and locked him into an airtight contract. His hubris bit him in the ass this time.
He signed a very clear contract to buy Twitter, he meant to do this.
He started to try and reneg when stocks dropped and his financing was looking extremely shaky.
This sort of justifies the viewpoint that despite all his bluster, Elon will probably run Twitter the way a "reasonable executive" would. Not just release the hounds. Keep the advertisers happy, but try to reduce the reliance on advertisers. Keep moderating content to reduce abuse, maybe eliminate the high profile banning but a person on the ground will have largely the same experience. (probably less action on more…
"Keep the advertisers happy, but try to reduce the reliance on advertisers." I actually think the opposite is going to happen. He's already said he wants Twitter to be the most prolific site for advertisers saying that he thinks advertising can "delight, entertain, and inform you." If he introduces a subscription model TikTok will pull ahead and take over the entire social media space.
This sort of justifies the viewpoint that despite all his bluster, Elon will probably run Twitter the way a "reasonable executive" would. Not just release the hounds. Keep the advertisers happy, but try to reduce the reliance on advertisers. Keep moderating content to reduce abuse, maybe eliminate the high profile banning but a person on the ground will have largely the same experience. (probably less action on more…
"Keep the advertisers happy, but try to reduce the reliance on advertisers." I actually think the opposite is going to happen. He's already said he wants Twitter to be the most prolific site for advertisers saying that he thinks advertising can "delight, entertain, and inform you." If he introduces a subscription model TikTok will pull ahead and take over the entire social media space.
No it won't. A lot of people simply aren't interested in short form video.
I think there will be another app that is half way between Twitter and LinkedIn.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see anything in Elon Musk's past operation of businesses as CEO that suggests to me he's going to have a better sense of how to run a social network than the previous operators. I predict the best case scenario is that he does no worse.
The most likely result seems to be he sells it within 5 years after making zero meaningful changes and taking a massive loss. I don’t know if that’s a good or bad result.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see anything in Elon Musk's past operation of businesses as CEO that suggests to me he's going to have a better sense of how to run a social network than the previous operators. I predict the best case scenario is that he does no worse.
The most likely result seems to be he sells it within 5 years after making zero meaningful changes and taking a massive loss. I don’t know if that’s a good or bad result.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The joke of the article was that she was named "Woman of the Year," so they named her "Man of the Year" to point out the ridiculousness of such an award for her. You can disagree with that, or you can agree with that, but it's still a very tame joke. I don't think the debate on transsexualism is a closed case in many regards. There are important topics to discuss on it; and satire, even if you don't find it funny, is…
>The joke of the article was that she was named "Woman of the Year," so they named her "Man of the Year" to point out the ridiculousness of such an award for her. The award is only ridiculous if you think trans people shouldn't exist in public as openly trans. I mean you even referred to her as "her" so you seemingly recognize that her being eligible for "Woman of the Year" is more appropriate than "Man of the Year".…
This is simply your skewed view and not how many people read the joke. She was named as "woman of the year" BECAUSE she was trans, not because she was/is a woman. That's the joke. USA Today itself probably doesn't care if she is or isn't a woman, the award was issued to get engagement.
> I don't know why this is framed as progressives shutting down the debate on the topic.
Because that is how Progressives have treated the topic in general (at least publicly, privately not so much.)
> It denies the very existence of someone like Levine.
This is not true, it denies how this person views themselves, not their existence; and your existence isn't whatever reality you have chosen for yourself. For example, being gay is something you don't force society to see, you are simply attracted to the same sex. When you change your sex or gender, you are asking for a societal buy-in. That is much different.
> You are free to continue debating whether trans women and cis women have the same experience or whatever, but neither the USA Today or the Babylon Bee was making a statement in that debate.
Actually, both are very much connected, because the idea that you could not experience what a naturally born biological female could is perceive in the eyes of many as to why you cannot yourself ever be a biological female...when you were born male. These are very integrated topics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Twitter ignored multiple reports of personal threats directed at me specifically (involving concentration camps and general death threats, etc.) "This tweet doesn't violate Twitter rules." People I didn't know, who I had zero negative interactions with before. That was way before Musk. You just can't have human moderation at that scale. They have to brainstorm how to prevent these tweets in the first place, rather th…
That’s awful. And I’ve also witnessed the same kind of abuse that goes ignored. Has any large social media site ever solved this? 4chan does by having no rules: if you show up, expect the absolute worst of humanity. Reddit does by having countless volunteer moderators who basically do 98% of the moderation. Facebook suffers from the same problems as Twitter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the debate on misgendering being a "hate crime" is a bit pedantic. A lot of normal things between friends, lovers, acquaintances, colleagues pr strangers can be considered criminal or normal depending on circumstances / context. The idea that you're going to be jailed by accidentally misgendering your buddy is just moral panic at the expense of trans folks. If I walked around the office calling my male co-wor…
When you say something like this to a friend, you're giving them power and control over you because if they decide to make you a criminal, they can. That's not what trust is supposed to mean between friends. If someone stabs a friend they can't claim that since it's between friends, it's ok. This is how you know laws such as what you're discussing are ridiculous. Does it make you an asshole to crack a rude gay joke i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is rather confusing to me. Earlier this year he seemed pretty set on the idea of allowing whatever's legal, making Twitter all about free speech. But now it'll just get some minor changes? If it's true, why the change of heart?
His money is now on the line: He has sunk $44B and has to get it back somehow. It is no longer a cute thought experiment, but cold, harsh reality.