Great to hear. Preferably from a more neutral source next time. Hard to take it at their word when it’s so editorialized and filled w/ name-calling. And I say this as someone who probably would end up on a watch list if I gave my personal opinion of Elon
I agree , the source is doubtfull. And about Musk… we should cut his head without ceremony and ditch it in a sewer… I think there is a lot of us on that watchlist
Impossible nowadays to get unbiased news. For instance, despite Reuters excellence in journalism awards, people still love sharing their Daily Mail and Mother Jones.
Is the author actually accusing the company itself of running the bots in that sentence? The more I read it the more it hurts my brain. The more times I read this article my brain just hurts more and more. They’re not even attempting to explain, let alone justify, this assertion.
It wouldn’t be the 1st platform to try and use bots to boost numbers, except it is usually in the beginning when trying to reach that critical tipping point mass that brings people organically. This would be to make the ship look less underwater to save face (and possibly stop the whole platform imploding).
Edit - Also it very much says they believe Musk is running the bots in this sentence - “Fast forward a year and it appears Xitter, the steaming remains of Twitter, is using bots to generate Tweets and look bigger.”
This is really an important difference. Defrauding advertisers on purpose with clear intent is very different from doing do because one decided not to look. Not in effect but in how cheated the mypillow guy will feel.
Yes. Musk claimed that Twitter was full of bots, but bought Twitter anyways. He now has access to everything, and yet the bot still exist. So he either has done a 180 on the bots being bad because they are helping the platform look bigger, or he actually did squash the previous bots and has deployed bots he finds more favorable to his platform/himself. Either way it looks that he is not actively fighting the bots after having stated the platform was full of them.
The actual source is this video where he spends almost two minutes trying to say how the conflict itself was bad and thinking if it was negotiated there wouldn’t have been a war.
Don’t know the full video, but I would like to believe he was trying to show sympathy for the actual losses and casualties. It’s Trump so he was probably going on a tirade on how if he had negotiated that there wouldn’t have been a need for a civil war, or something along those lines.
Technically, he is right in “The Civil War” being avoided BUT it would have just deferred conflict in the long run. There was no way the US would have continued with slavery. Absolutely zero chance due to an economic perspective.
The federal government would have 100% stroked a deal where select southern states could have kept slavery but the other states and especially the newest states would not be able have slavery. Not being able to negotiate this is what actually led to civil war. The confederates did not want to negotiate.
The North is industrial and made products to sell and export. The south used slavery for agriculture. If the slavery states would use that free labor to go industrial it would be a DISASTER for the slave free sates. Conflict would then arise to make sure the south no longer has that “economic advantage” over the north.
tldr: Any market with legal slavery will go “capitalism full bloom” and create a market where free Americans have no chance to compete.
What is ironic is that the civil war could have been avoided by the South just realizing they’re wrong, and letting slavery be banned. Instead they freaked out and attacked US military installations while declaring secession.
So he’s right, but not in a way any conservative would want to hear.
Thanks for making clear that MAGA is in reference to the 1860s. Any Republicans with lots of support speaking out against this? No? Then the message is clear: Vote Blue!
I verified Montana with another website. If you want to know the full list of per capita. Just google it. But all that hate isn’t trapped in the south. Though, I admit that there is more than enough to go around down here.
Right. What I was saying is. Calling the civil war the “war of northern aggression” may make some of the racists that currently live in the northern states upset.
I meant northern as a literal geographic area. Like how Oregon is in the north. As opposed to some arbitrary line like the 31st parallel, or the mason Dixon line.
No, much like I said in my comment. Now, just like then. The racists are everywhere. They are in the north and the south. Trump welcomes racists from all over the US irregardless of geographical location.
boingboing.net
Newest