Since there has already been a lot of activity on this post, I cannot delete the post. However, I will lock it, and in the future, such posts will be highly filtered from getting posted.
Personal take: it kind of shows how far right Elon Musk exactly is. Giving the likes of him exposure is not healthy for Lemmy.
The guy gets his life force from being talked about. If we ignore him completely and show his daughter the support he never gave her, it will ruin him.
This is revisionist, that sequence of events was what caused him to start to play footsie with the idea of buying Twitter, the SEC saying that’s a big no-no is what made him actually make the offer to buy it and then he was forced by a court to finish the deal after a long legal battle to not buy it
Don’t forget the part where Dorsey literally conned him by playing to his ego. Jack cashed out almost a billion in cash to himself even though Twitter was close to bankruptcy. It was brilliant.
What cracks me up the most is that Jack already had a Twitter clone in the works, ready to be released once Musk burns down the old plattform and people wish for Twitter but without Musk back.
Genuine question: given that running a platform like that costs money, and that money must come from somewhere, what would you actually do if you were in charge of running it? You either take money from advertisers, or you charge users directly, and I'd hazard to guess that if you'd nuke your account upon seeing ads, you probably wouldn't pay actual money to use it.
Not the person you were speaking to, but get nationalised or run on donations as a non-profit.
But I do pay more than my share for most fediverse instances that I use (which reminds me, I use this one enough - should probably make my donation regular)
Honestly, I would love to see a Wikipedia-style social media platform take off, but I really don't know if the finances could work out. Wikipedia already struggles, and it's obscenely useful. I don't think nationalization is really feasible for social media - at least in an American context - because it would be subject to the government's legal limitations on regulating free speech, which are extremely minimal. A federally run platform would not be able to remove literal unironic Nazism, which is probably going to be a bit of a turn-off to normal people.
Not really, no. Freedom of speech is very strongly ingrained in our Constitution. The only legal restrictions on it are essentially direct threats or incitement of violence.
"Go kill this Jew" - Absolutely illegal.
"Go kill the Jews" - Illegal
"The Jews should be killed" - Borderline based on circumstances
"The Jews deserve to die" - Borderline, but probably protected by the Constitution
"The Jews deserved the Holocaust" - Almost certainly protected by the Constitution
Thank you for the breakdown. I had some vague conception of American free speech protections being pretty intense, but this illustrates the individual distinctions well
He also blames a ridiculously exclusive school in Cali for the kids of ridiculouslu wealthy parents for her forming her own opinions about stuff. It’s the same as other conservatives claiming college brainwashes kids.
Also, we can take the “full blown communist” part as seriously as any other time a billionaire says it. She could have said something like “maybe rich people should pay more tax” and get that label from them.
We want you to be well-educated, smart, and be a critical thinker that can think fo…wait…no, stop…not like that. We want you to critically think…but also arrive at the same correct conclusions as us…wtf, are you doing?
They don’t even pretend to want critical thinking…
That was the big push behind “no child left behind”. A focus on rote memorization and following rules.
Because funding was tied to scores, teachers had to focus on what was being tested. And since critical thinking wasn’t tested, it became the lowest priority.
The “boots on the ground” conservatives may not be smart, but the ones at the top of the movement 100% understand what’s going on. And they’ve spent decades trying to increase their numbers.
One reason why Musk bought Twitter this week is because he had little choice. The world’s richest man spent months trying to back out of the $44 billion purchase agreement he originally signed in April. But the uncertainty was so disruptive to Twitter’s business that it sued him in the Delaware Court of Chancery to force the deal’s completion, and a judge gave a Friday deadline to complete the deal or face a November trial that Musk was likely to lose.
This is all bullshit. Self-aggrandizing lies to give the appearance that this massive failure was all in the plan. The guy was trying to play games with stocks and got caught. He’s a dumbass with no idea how the business he didn’t want to own but was forced to buy in the end works. It’s not deeper than that.
I’m sure his daughter hating him is very upsetting but it’s not why he set 40 billion dollars on fire.
Why not both? Because you’re absolutely right that he got fucked on a bad gamble and then tried to save face, but I can also easily see him trying to buy stuff just to stick it to the left. (But in all reality again you’re probably pretty solely right lol)
I question if he actually got fucked on a gamble or if he was just inept and all of his decisions were largely a whim rather than based on some true data and research.
His daughter transitioning and being liberal drove him to the far right on Twitter, because he couldn’t accept it.
Those people kept telling him he should buy it to “save” it.
He started talking about it, and that’s where your article picks up.
It wasn’t just a whim, he had reason to start talking about buying Twitter, then was forced to actually go through with it.
He thinks he’s “saving” it because conservatives believe everyone thinks like them and are just scared to admit it, but his intentional actions are killing it.
A brain scan can reveal a person’s political leaning with like 80% accuracy, and I can’t stress enough how crazy that number is, the remaining 20% usually just aren’t political or in the middle.
It’s done by looking at the size/activity of the amygdala and the prefrontal cortex.
A conservative will have more amygdala activity, which is our flight or fight response.
A progressive will have a larger preferential cortex, the part that gives us logic and empathy.
It’s always important to mention that this isn’t permanent, our brains are like muscles, use certain parts and they get more active and even physically larger (but obviously on a small scale).
We know that because there’s been studies on London taxi drivers. Before training their brains are normal. But since they have to memorize every street in London, by the time they’re certified there’s a noticable difference in the part of the brain that handles navigation.
So it’s not like theyre a lost cause.
And why republican leaders are so hell vent on removing “liberal arts” from schools. The people leading aren’t idiots, they’re trying to make more conservatives
Or maybe you should try engaging others in good faith instead of getting defensive someone challenged a notion that makes you feel superior to conservatives.
The blocking feature on Lemmy is as broken as Reddit and he can still reply to my messages whenever he wants, I just can’t see it.
Which is beef #56484783 I have with Lemmy. What I said should be silly, but it’s not, because the core software doesn’t fix the issues Reddit had especially with blocking. Blocking should give one the last word, but it doesn’t.
And that’s ignoring the fact that block evading is trivially easy as he can just bounce back here with an account on another instance, and even if a mod bans him, he can keep coming back with VPNs.
That last point is really interesting. Conservatives and right-wingers can’t grasp that other people don’t think like they do. I remember during the January 6th insurrection how all the people doing it really seemed to believe they would be seen as heroes. It’s like they had no idea over half of the US didn’t agree with them.
Maybe a bit of an extreme comparison, but it reminds me of when Donald Trump, also in the US, actually got elected president there. I remember thinking he looked quite wan in those early news clips. Like he was shocked to have actually won, and was rapidly having to adjust his expectations of the future.
The only virus out here is the worms squirming around Elmo’s fat head. Treat your daughter like shiat, she’ll hate you for it. Don’t blame the world. Blame the image in the mirror
I could be generous and say they are not evil, but the system that allows them to become billionaires in the first place is evil.
But as soon as you say “Twitter made my daughter hate rich people, so to prove her wrong I bought it and ran it into the ground so people can’t exchange ideas there anymore”…yeah, you’re not making the case you think you are.
This "technology" community is quickly becoming just as bad as the one on reddit.
The insane ravings and personal drama of a lunatic billionaire isn't news about technology.
Even news about Twitter itself isn't technology news. Twitter is a business that sells services. They don't make or contribute to any types of technology.
The only thing that Twitter technology related is that their business operates on the internet. That's it. Chewy.com or NYTimes.com is just as much "technology" as Twitter is.
Yeah this is just the new Society Pages of the rich and famous (ie people whose job is managing your attention).
Even my beloved Paris Marx, of the Tech Won’t Save Us podcast (recommended), can’t help themself from constantly crowing about Musk’s latest tort against humanity.
They don’t make or contribute to any types of technology.
That part isn’t completely true. When they created the bootstrap framework it changed how many people built websites. They can and have contributed to technology. However, your point is valid that news about Twitter is business news.
Mr Musk had initially rushed to embrace the news when Jenna, formally known as Xavier, transitioned at age 16.
To me this suggests that he first thought it would seem hip and contrarian to support his trans daughter, then he realized that actually the people he considers hip and contrarian are all about hating on trans kids now, and so swiftly pivoted to doing that. (I don't imagine he had any strong feelings about his daughter as a person either way - it's not like he was around for her childhood changing diapers or whatever)
Everything in the 90s was Xtreme. He’s 52 which means he was in his 20s that decade. He got way into the X-Games, ate nothing but warheads extreme candies and Taco Bell extreme nachos, drank the 7-11 Xtreme Gulp, and watched the Extreme Ghostbusters.
“Unless the woke mind virus, which is fundamentally anti-science, anti-merit, and anti-human in general, is stopped, civilisation will never become multi-planetary,” Mr Musk told Mr Isaacson.
“If you want to just be a niche player an iconic name, PayPal is a better name, But if you want to take over the world’s financial system it to be impossible to reliably websearch and talk about outside a very specific context, then X is the better name.”
Fixed that for you.
There’s a reason why people still call it Twitter, you know.
He said in April: “Twitter could become what X.com should have been, and we can help save free speech in the process.”
And a potato could become a bell pepper to save my gulasch. Sadly it won’t because reality doesn’t magically revolve around my belly button, and it wouldn’t even if I were rich. So instead I’m making some curry.
Musk should learn to cook.
Mr Musk suggested charging people to be verified to eliminate bots, bring in cash and help transform it into a payments platform - fulfilling his “original vision” for X.com
Ignorance on the nature of his own platform. Even if you demanded a single cent out of it, saner people won’t put their credit card info there, simply because they want to reduce the amount of data that you can vulture out of them.
In other words he flushed the baby alongside the dirty bathtub water.
Mr Agrawal had tried to resign. // “But we beat him,” said Mr Musk’s lawyer, Alex Spiro.
Ever think how ironic it is that people who didn’t care about an actual virus and downplayed it and any attempts to mitigate it for two years are now obsessed over the “woke mind virus” which is totally made up?
Being rich implies you are evil. If you were good, you would give back to the people who create your wealth.
A good person understands they are not entitled to that much money with so much bad things in the world nor need it in the first place to live a decent live.
telegraph.co.uk
Active