751–760 of 1001 posts
I bet some of those who advocated "it's a private company, it can deplatform whoever it wants" are probably re-thinking their stance on deplatforming from a major social media.
Controversial post rarely reach the front page anymore and if they do they are full of reasonable and true comments fading into gray and finally away. Meanwhile the most on the nose, vile and hateful propaganda get's voted to the top with rarely anyone speaking against it.
I understand you do this for a good cause, because you think it will save lives or make society better. It won't.
There is an underlying reality with it's ground truth and that can only ever be glimpsed through the verbal sparring of ideas and ideologies.
To those truly concerned about "harmful misinformation", you should know that the greatest atrocities in human history were committed when one side, faction or ideology could dictated what everyone said and wrote.
This is not an accident.
The most harmful misinformation is that which no one is allowed to correct.
This thread is hilarious. In the cesspit of a social media website, people accuse Twitter of being a social media cesspit. I've seen people arguing for absolute freedom of speech, except in malicious circumstances, but seem to think that malicious is easy to define. I've seen people ask if there really are any other alternatives to individuals owning huge wealth. Or people saying that doing immoral things is ok if it…
I think most people don't want to come across as puritanical hard-asses, so either keep quiet or are not as forceful in their criticisms and condemnations in a public forums like this with lots of different subgroups. That may make it seems like people are generally accepting of a behavior when they're not.
Importantly, I think this isn't limited to online forums, but it is lessened when there's more conformity in group discussion which is easier when it's smaller. That has it's own dangers though, such as being much more accepting of problematic behavior because the group is all similar in a way that makes it acceptable.
I think the solution is to see it for what it really is, and just realize what you see isn't always representative of the norm.
Free speech is an ideal that doesn't really exist. Even in the USA I can't threaten to kill you or announce that a bomb is in the building.
What if Twitter employees threaten to leave en-masse? I'd seen some reports that people quit when he became the largest shareholder. It's not outside the realm of possibility.
So Twitter was at $70 per share a year ago. So what? Jack Dorsey was CEO a year ago, too. The share price was $33 less than a month ago. But, despite an absolutely incredible roller-coaster news cycle, things have been definitely trending down at Twitter ($33/share last month), which was reflected in its share price. The current executive team (and Dorsey) had wasted time focusing on things that didn't matter instead…
If they don't accept this offer, the stock will plunge.
So Twitter was at $70 per share a year ago. So what? Jack Dorsey was CEO a year ago, too. The share price was $33 less than a month ago. But, despite an absolutely incredible roller-coaster news cycle, things have been definitely trending down at Twitter ($33/share last month), which was reflected in its share price. The current executive team (and Dorsey) had wasted time focusing on things that didn't matter instead…
Everyone currently holding $TWTR believes that the true value is greater than the current price. To make a successful hostile bid, you need to pay not just "more than the current price", but "more than the holders of 50% of current shares believe the company to be worth". Usually bidders use analyst price targets to guess at the distribution of holders' internal price targets. This is what makes it so difficult, and…
I bet some of those who advocated "it's a private company, it can deplatform whoever it wants" are probably re-thinking their stance on deplatforming from a major social media.
Nah, the people who advocate that private platforms reserve the right to censor themselves tend to know what the 1st amendment means regarding government censorship.
As a free speech absolutist, I might actually start using Twitter if it were run by Elon. Unfortunately I’m not terribly optimistic about it happening.
So Twitter was at $70 per share a year ago. So what? Jack Dorsey was CEO a year ago, too. The share price was $33 less than a month ago. But, despite an absolutely incredible roller-coaster news cycle, things have been definitely trending down at Twitter ($33/share last month), which was reflected in its share price. The current executive team (and Dorsey) had wasted time focusing on things that didn't matter instead…
"NO RISK"? There is a very clear risk of transformating the social media titan that is Twitter into Truth Social, a sideshow of a forum that is dedicated to the worship of one man. That would plummet the stock price.
From the point of view of the investors, there is no risk. If offer is accepted, they get their bags of cash and walk away with hopefully more than what they paid for those share. Musk could shut down the business to the ground on day 1 and they still get to keep their cash (I wish he would).