771–780 of 1001 posts
Some points from the All in Pod. 1. The Twitter board of directors has become a status thing. It's like a country club. They don't have real skin in the game; they don't own much stock. They're not aligned with the shareholders. It's about status and cultural power. 2. Why should we believe that the company will become more valuable when the stock price is where it was way back in December 2013? Compare to how the S&…
Problem? KPIs are through the roof!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The elites have somehow inverted history so they now believe that it is not censorship that is the favored tool of fascists and authoritarians, even though every fascist and despot in history used censorship to maintain power, but instead believe free speech, free discourse, and free thought are the instruments of repression. It feels a little silly to act like the guy trying to spend billions of dollars to get his…
That's like saying SpaceX isn't about going to Mars and Tesla isn't about reducing carbon emissions. At this point we can say these are mission focused moves. This is about free speech in the public square.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To think that a company that has failed to create self-driving for nearly a decade could solve "content moderation", one of the hardest problem on the internet that every single of the big companies (who btw hire the best talent) have been struggling with, is truly a shocking statement to me. If all Google and Facebook couldn't solve it, why could a Tesla engineer of all people...
A large part of the problem for twitter Google and Facebook is their ever shifting goals for content moderation to appease their politically activist employees and media critics. Something tells me Elon would have different goals that should be less of a moving target and easier to accomplish. Less subjective target like "hate speech" and more objective target like true threats of violence, illegal activity, actual b…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't nuke the accounts, you make it so no one can see their posts and they don't realize. Make them waste their time instead of creating a new account.
Implementation detail ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ you can handle this in many ways. The point was that Twitter doesn't currently care to use even minimal effort.
What’s the false positive rate, and is that why people complain they’re being banned or shadow banned?
(Definitions of shadow ban vary: https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2018/Setting-t...)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"his way" vs what? The way of a dozen other guys? Pushing for less censorship isn't "his way" - - I see you've edited to "intra-elite" conflict. So is basically every problem in society then given that governance is handled by few. Not sure what the point is here, just feels like a hollow dismissal.
I didn't edit it. It always said that. And it is "his way" because "less censorship" almost certainly doesn't actually mean they just let people post whatever (and even if it did, do "we" all agree that would be a good idea? Probably not).
I'm still confused about what "less censorship" could mean, he seems pretty clear on it.
And what governance happens public or private that "we" all agree on?
Right now "we" don't agree on how Twitter operates currently. A couple dozen people do. I'm not understanding your point here.
I wonder what stops Musk from buying 14.8%, and then lending money to a few friends who each buy 14.8% and agree to vote in his interest? If there is just a gentleman's agreement between them, then he would not be considered the beneficial owner? Then they could replace the board, repeal the shareholder rights plan, and the friends would pay back Musk's debt in Twitter shares. This is such an obvious loophole, surely…
So, I'm not very corporate savvy and this might be a very stupid question. Is there a NON-culture/political reason for all the push back against Musk buying Twitter? From the read, this just seem to be opening the door for someone else to try and take majority control and pining away for the days of Dorsey (which, if looked at objectively, weren't great... just filling an opportunity).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't edit it. It always said that. And it is "his way" because "less censorship" almost certainly doesn't actually mean they just let people post whatever (and even if it did, do "we" all agree that would be a good idea? Probably not).
My mistake, it's late for me. I'm still confused about what "less censorship" could mean, he seems pretty clear on it. And what governance happens public or private that "we" all agree on? Right now "we" don't agree on how Twitter operates currently. A couple dozen people do. I'm not understanding your point here.
Beyond that, the idea of a totally unfettered Twitter is not really desirable. Such forums fill up with porn, gore, racism, and various other forms of shock content nobody actually wants on their feeds.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To me, this seems obvious. No reason something this fateful shouldn’t be put to shareholder vote. No good reason, at least.
Quoted post unavailable.
(I was going to say it also involves too much money to be lefty, but then I realise that just might be my Overton window and isn’t necessarily related to what you think “lefty” means).