711–720 of 789 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, if you go back and take a gander at US history, you'll learn that there is a long history of restricting speech that is likely to cause another person harm. Is that something you are unaware of?
You're still looking at this from a legalistic perspective.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a few reasons I'm skeptical. For one they have an equally spotty reputation for arbitrary editorial policy while claiming to be completely agnostic. And secondly there have been a few stories about their distressed fiscal situation. They spent a load of VC money from the zero interest era on prominent writers. Far more than they'd bring in as revenue in the hopes they'd juice the brand. Classic strategy of se…
Honestly, my confidence in the Fediverse is in part because it has no business strategy. The tooling behind it is at the moment pretty much universally AGPL (a license which I don't think is very good but it seems to keep away big businesses). It probably won't reach mass-appeal outside of gradually amassing tech nerds, but at the same time... maybe that's for the better? I dunno, I think a lot of the enshittificatio…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Losing only 24 million sounds like a bargain. Imagine spending 40 billion to pay 1 billion more in interest each year.
They haven't lost it. They paid advanced to writers but they will gather their share in a few years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Imagine spending only 30% of your net worth and getting to experiment with buying and growing one of the most used and talked about sites on the internet. If I spent 30% of my net worth I could buy a condo in the bay, possibly. Although odds are it would be worth close to that if I needed to sell it. But many people spend 30% of their net worth trying to start businesses with almost no traction. Musk spent 30% to buy…
Imagine spending only 30% of your net worth and getting to experiment with buying and growing one of the most used and talked about sites on the internet. That sounds like one of the least interesting things I could do with $44bn. With that sort of money I could fund 1000 Twitter rivals, and after a couple of years combine the successful and interesting ones into a single rival that would actually do something better…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That 'censorship regime' (your words, not mine) was doing a very good job compared to the clown running it today.
Somehow Elon's Twitter is even worse for anything remotely queer. I run into the "sensitive content" click walls any time I follow a link to anything on furry Twitter these days, and it's never a tweet that remotely warrants it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Twitter now has daily outages where parts of it just don’t function and no one knows when we’ll experience a more serious one. It serves the daily/hourly whims and mood swings of a single person who has proven to be petty, vindictive (to his employees), and devoid of integrity. That lack of stability in my opinion accumulates. Sooner or later it will balance out the momentum.
You'll need a citation for this. I've been using it for years and haven't noticed any difference or outages.
I use Twitter once a day and not every day.
I don’t have a monitoring service so this is the best citation I can offer.
In the last month I have experienced more issues than in the last four or five years if similar use.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's the report, the claim had no misinformation. https://beamdisinfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Antisemit... Hate speech IS up. The claim was "hate speech is up". Impressions being down matters to the impact of the speech, but the claim stands - hate speech is up. You can claim it doesn't matter (and I might agree with you, since impressions are down, people know what to expect now, and the increase is signifi…
I'll retract my opinion that "hate speech is down" as it's apparently difficult to measure but I am going to continue to say that "hate speech is up" is at the very least "highly misleading" as it gives the impression that the platform is worse for minorities than it was pre-acquisition. The reverse is the truth, given the lower impressions of hate speech, it effectively means that those that would verbally attack mi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's no evidence to support that statement. Given he continues to talk with the man at times (he replied to one of his tweets the a few days ago) and there's no evidence to support the idea that he did it for monetary reasons, other explanations are much more reasonable. Namely that it was a simple mistake.
Honest question: why do you see it as your job to defend Elon Musk online? I see a lot of people doing it and I find it strange. Why do you care?
I like Musk because he doesn't appear to be a woke tool. Is he a tool of a different kind? Probably. But I don't like woke, so I stick up for the non-woke. Is he perfect? No. None of us are.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course they did. That ought to be their slogan. "Microsoft: finding a way to make it worse since 1975"
Yes, I wonder why is so difficult for people to understand this. Microsoft wants to make your life worse, even when they have good software.
I think that they are simply ok with making my life worse if it makes their life better at all.