Elon Musk issues ultimatum to Twitter staff: Go hardcore or go home Following a public engineering spat and multiple firings, Twitter CEO Elon Musk has issued an ultimatum to his employees: get hardcore or get out of my way. It turns out he was not talking about punk rock, or road construction, but the vision of a new Twitter, the 2.0 iteration of the pioneering social media platform he was …
You can, and just did, discuss these things openly.
Doing so in 2020 was equally possible. Easy enough to get another burner account and say the same thing if you did happen to get banned.
You're confusing "receiving consequences afterward" with "being able to discuss openly".
I've seen any number of people attempting to make those points, they're very easy to find because many of them are way too committed to the argument, they're really persistent, some set up automated systems to post their narrative, and they've shown up everywhere there's a loose enough moderation policy (and enough possible targets to make it worth their time).
"A incorrect analysis from the facts is not 'against the narrative', it's just incorrect. Whether that's on evolution, UFOs, deep state conspiracies, effectiveness of vaccines...."
This is the problem - people who see everything in black and white. OK, a few things are black and white but many simply aren't, especially when it comes to scientific interpretation. If you are sure of your point of view, the expectation should be that you argue it more convincingly than those with an opposing view, not that you get them censored.
I very much dislike Musk . Thre were people kicked off Twitter for saying things like a transwoman is not a woman or getting vaccinate against COVID will not prevent you from catching and spreading the disease . But there were other things which I think should be blocked on twitter . Who draws the line ? What is hate speech ?
"suppress voices which go against "the narrative","
A dubious statement - Twitter is not about "discussion", it's a sewer, and Musk is enabling the pond life that lives in it. Free speech is fine as long as there are consequences - by readmitting those who broke previous Twitter rules all he is doing is saying "you can say what you like as long as it's pro Trump, racism and hate speech is fine"
I'm not allowed back on Twitter... because I got kicked off for "abusing" a homophobic right wing nut job from a far right wing political party... and I have shots at far right wing dickheads all the time.
They claim that I just create accounts to abuse people. Which isn't true. I created the extra accounts because their AI couldn't read the "" around a comment I made regarding a cartoon image. But being a pro-Russian trump chimp who wants to hang LGBTQ and POC and Jews from the nearest tree is fine according to their algorythms.
> Now it seems he deserves to fail, as he expects everyone to work as hard as he does (but without getting the monies).
In the first instance, I'd question how hard Elon actually works, since he seems to spend most of his time trolling on Twitter.
In the second instance, I'd question whether anyone can actually work hard enough to justify the amount of money he has. But then, that's arguably true for all billionaires.
> I really hope the next person is hot on free speech (that doesn't mean consequence free / hate speech) and we can be allowed to have an open and honest debate about certain things (mostly things since 2020) on a large enough platform.
Ah. There's the problem, y'see.
An open and honest debate depends on all sides being open and honest. However, the various - and generally hard right-wing - people who have been bellowing loudest about the lack of free speech and cancel culture have generally been shown to be knowingly lying and/or have a significant conflict of interest - usually financial, but also political and legal.
Boris and Trump are two obvious examples, but there's plenty more:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/11/right-wing-doctor-group-led-by-anti-vaccine-insurrectionist-implodes-in-scandal/
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/11/10/media/alex-jones-sandy-hook-damages/index.html
And that's literally led to the deaths of thousands and even to the well-televised invasion of the US White House, as part of what may have been an attempt at insurrection.
These people are not being honest, nor are they being open. And that's why their input into any debate needs to be monitored and (where necessary) restricted.
"free speech (that doesn't mean consequence free / hate speech)"
That right there is the problem.
You either have free speech or you don't. There is no safe, curated middle ground.
If you want free speech, you have to accept that will be hate speech and other shit to go along with it.
You can't have serious conversations or debates without the risk of offending someone. It's impossible.
Yes, people say hurrendous stuff. Yes, people are incredibly offensive and hate speech is abhorrent. I would never advocate for it, but I wouldn't advocate for rules to ban it either because that is a slippery slope.
If dialling down the noise and filtering out bullshit were conducive to a successful conversation, nobody would meet their friends in a pub.
"hate speech is abhorrent. I would never advocate for it, but I wouldn't advocate for rules to ban it either because that is a slippery slope."
Hmm - so you would advocate for Hitler (were he around) to post his views on Twitter without any consequences? Where do you draw the line?
The problem with Twitter etc is that people use social media instead of actual factual sources - you can see the effects on this thread - and while someone shouting that all world leaders are shape changing lizard people is amusing and doesn't affect anyone else, someone claiming that masks were what killed a million americans or that jews run the world and suddenly they are influencing countless people. Look at Alex Jones - people STILL cling to his deluded nonsense.
(Facebook is equally guilty of inept moderation - you can make outrageous claims or racist statements without any effect on your account but if you call the poster a moron you get a ban for "bullying")
No. Read my post, I wouldn't advocate for it, nor would I seek to ban it. I would use my own free speech and be vocal in a public forum about it and highlight how fucking dumb it is though.
Also, well done for invoking Godwin's law. If you want to bring Nazis in and be correct about it, remember that they actively burned literature and attempted to curb free speech. Banning people from Twitter with viewpoints contrary to their own is exactly what the Nazis would do.
Banning free speech on one platform doesn't prevent cunts finding other platforms or building their own.
Also, if you disagree with someone, no matter how insane the other person is, your opinion might be viewed as hate speech even though you think it isn't.
"Also, well done for invoking Godwin's law."
It's simply an extension of your "all speech must be free" mantra - I chose an extreme example. If we're talking about banning books then that's what the GOP are actually doing. Still, i will repeat what has been said before - Twitter can do as they like, its not censorship.
This is not the time to even considered soliciting promises of large pay cheques. The actual clauses you could be looking for are "payment in advance" and "severance pay held in escrow". The key phrase I would be looking for is "job satisfaction" and I wouldn't bother looking for it at Twitter.
There was I, thinking that "proofreading" was the act of reading proofs, a "proof reading" would imply some sort of act where everyone sits in a circle and reads proofs to each other, which sounds like the sort of thing any actual proofreaders would run a mile to avoid.
As it happens, no, I don't work for the BBC, yes I do know people who do (and who do work on some of its flagship nature documentaries), and yes, I have done plenty of work in the past where part of my job involved all parts of the print process from laying out to proofreading. It’s shitty, poorly paid, and highly skilled work, and, incidentally, requires a firm grasp of the English language.
Nobody reading proofs would ever utter a sentence such as "let's do some proof readings," except possibly ironically, in the voice of an animated advertising meerkat, because it's just not normal syntax.
For what it's worth - I worked for the BBC for over thirty years... initially in BBC TV news. And I recall newsreaders like Peter Woods, Kenneth Kendall, and Richard Baker all returning scripts to the newsroom to correct grammatical errors, sometimes at minutes before the broadcast.
I suspect that this behavior these days would be frowned upon.
Having witnessed Kaye Burley on screen I can safely say the glory days of intelligent reporters on TV are long gone back in the late 1970s. Just find the YouTube video of her interviewing RMT leader Mick Lynch, it's embarassing how much of an absolute tool he makes her look with her banal, mindless questions.
Whilst the Grauniad has made a fair few hilarious errors in its history, the narrative that it was somehow more prone to typos than any other publication was largely put about by the incumbents on Fleet Street, who didn't like the upstart over which they had little influence, and who were trying to draw an inference that because they had lots of money to employ proofreaders, that somehow made their journalism more trustworthy. That's fairly rich coming from the likes of the Daily Mail, which was pretty much founded as a rich-man's outlet for telling lies.
It was only last night that the BBC reported that a "russian missile" had hit Poland. Not sure where they got that "news" from, but to be fair pretty much all the newspapers also reported the same thing, before rapidly rowing back today. Last night was all talk of invoking article 4, but that seems to have gone quiet now that it looks like it was the "good guy" who fucked up. Why would the same rules not apply to a different non nato country attacking Poland?
I take it you saw the IAEA eye-rolling at the Russians trying to explain that the Grad missile embedded in the ground, with the tail pointing *towards Russian positions* couldn't have come from Russian positions, because (unguided) Grad missiles do a 180 immediately before impact, then..? ;)
"pretty much all the newspapers also reported the same thing"
In my (very limited) experience with journalists those reports can probably be traced back to a statement by a single 'spokesperson'.
Taking a wider view I like to keep in mind the reason there are missiles and anti-missile missiles flying around at one or two mach in Europe. Namely the invasion of a small country by a much larger one despite existing agreements and treaties.
"Why would the same rules not apply to a different non nato country attacking Poland?"
For two reasons. First, because it only matters whether the country being attacked wants to do something. The same reason that, if you punched me, I could decline to press charges and tell the police that it's fine and they would leave you alone. There is no requirement that anything that could be considered an attack gets an instant response.
The second reason is that it appears accidental. Even when I heard the initial reports that it was a Russian missile, my initial thoughts were that this was not a deliberate attack on Poland but a missile intended to hit Ukraine that missed. Certainly something Poland would have complained a lot about, but not necessarily worth starting a world war about. Calling in NATO to discuss it would have been a way to indicate to Russia that a mistake like that was really not good and bad things could happen if they weren't careful. If the newer reports that suggest it could have been a Ukrainian missile trying to shoot something down prove correct, it is still an accident and not likely to start a war. As I'm not Poland, I cannot say what their government would have or will do under each case, but that's a pretty good reason why they would choose a different action, which contrary to your statement is entirely within the rules.
I think that's true in many countries, including the U.S. In practice, however, if the attackee declines to participate, most police forces won't decide they care unless it's a big crime (you couldn't use that to get out of a murder investigation, for instance). Also, if they need the attackee to testify and they don't agree to do so, they may have trouble actually proving a crime. It's not that they are forbidden from pursuing a case if you don't have someone who agrees to, but that if everyone agrees that they don't want to do anything, the police usually don't have a reason to ignore that and proceed anyway.
Similarly with NATO, any NATO member is free to decide that Poland was attacked by whoever and they're going to fight a war over it, but if Poland doesn't make an official request, it's very unlikely that any will.
Cases brought forward with no evidence other than that from what is known as a "hostile witness" tend to fall apart pretty quickly, so whilst in theory the CPS can prosecute a case that they may think is in the public interest, if the only witness they have doesn't want to give evidence, they can clam up in court, or just not turn up at all. This can in turn result in them being summonsed, but this can do nothing about them being mysteriously not at home when the police go to collect them, and whilst it is a civic and legal duty to go to court to give evidence, it is very rarely in the public interest to prosecute people for not doing so, especially within a justice system that has been pared to the bone by systemic underinvestment, austerity and decade-long pay freezes at a time of record inflation.
Regardless of who fired it, it was a Russian built missile so the reporting was correct.
If it was Ukrainian, the only reason it was fired was to try to intercept the Russian missiles being fired at them. If Russia wasn't firing at Ukraine, Ukraine would not have needed to launch anything.
So either way, the cause of the hit on Poland was Russia attacking Ukraine.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
