Elon Musk jettisons Twitter leadership, says takeover was 'to try to help humanity' Famed cave rescue expert Elon Musk has realized his dreams and completed the acquisition of influential social media platform Twitter. Following the closing of the $44 billion deal yesterday, the electric car enthusiast posted a statement on the microblogging website which claimed in all seriousness that he was executing the …
As Elon is in late stage "Howard Hughes syndrome" at this point I can't rule it out, but I suspect that is a secondary benefit as far as he sees it.
I'd rather not see how this pans out mind you, but it is interesting to see how people are still acting as if getting cut off from Twitter is like being stuck on the far side of the moon. As the article said, Trump still had a voice. No one who wanted to hear it had any trouble finding it. Most of us that were already sick of it couldn't avoid it either.
But his ability to incite and inflame (as well as swindle) people was effectively curtailed, though sadly not halted. We will have to see what happens if he is reinstated, and what code of conduct changes or notifications follow his posts.
Note that like Facebook, we tend to treat this as a US only problem. But the same issues have lead to worse outcomes with foreign social media, and Musk is now personally responsible for the policies he is forcing on Twitter. He might be able to afford to buy it, and even to ruin it and lose that investment, but if he isn't careful he will be personally liable for it as well. If not as owner as the executive making the (insane) decisions.
And Elon Musk is NOT careful. This shiny little ring he can't let go of may yet take him to Mount Doom, and in the fires unmake him.
"And just in time to shut down the oxymoronic "Truth Social", right before the creditors and SEC come calling. Funny how that works..."
I was just reading about that the other day. As far as anyone can tell, it seems all the investment bar $10m came from various donations and investors. No one seems to be able to account for the that other $10m or where it came from. Not to mention the links to Chinese investors and companies and other foreign entities, something Trump was strongly against while President.
I don't get the appeal of buying Twitter for Musk, other than as a 'pet project', that is going to cost him dear. He seems to be getting sidetracked with his frustration with the meddling regulatory 'blob'. In his younger days, he'd just have taken it in his stride. He needs to ask his younger self again, what he'd do, and it wouldn't be buy Twitter.
The regulators are lining up their sights already, they see someone who potentially is argumentative, and won't toe their line, and basically see Musk as a cash cow, and they'll use January 6th in Washington as their reasoning. Musk is like someone driving at 35 in a 30mph, antagonistically pushing the boundaries, but in general, no real harm to anyone, but keep doing it, they will target him as a box ticketing exercise, based on the routine he follows, until they've effectively put him into a straitjacket of conformity.
Is it really worth it, is twitter in any way really meaningful? Other than a breaking news story, it has a window of opportunity, in that things are nearly always better covered by a well researched follow-up editorial, once the full facts are known.
For me, (and I've tried to like it, work with the frustrations) Twitter's interface is shocking, so frustrating, how anyone follows any conversation other than random rants (like this) is anyone's guess. So much to pull you away from the thread you're trying to follow. Though, I'm probably not the best judge, as having tried, each time it ends up in pure frustration, thankfully I don't have that kind of money to waste on purchasing Twitter.
Do you mean it should be "Chief F***wit"?
Well, a fool and his money have been parted. I think his coinvestors are going to be extremely cross with him soon, if they're not already. I think Tesla shareholders are going to be cross with him too, now that he's appointed himself CEO.
As I see it this should be the begining of a huge shakeup within the world of the media/social media and this should help bring the pendulum back to the center a little.
The only people that won't like the idea of what is happening are the extremists and ideologists. Ask them why they and their answers are likely to be very revealing of divisive and unaccepting mindsets... they and only they can judge what can and cannot be said... hence their fury to lose their primary platform.
Elon Musk has very well understood what he has bought and I think that he will really try to make it an open platform, and everyone from all sides can only benefit from such a platform.
When we stop talking freely that is when we stop learning...
Ah, America, where yelling "fire" in a crowded cinema is a daily occurence, and absolute right, and has absolutely no downsides to it at all.
So let's see how the great algorithmally-driven echo chamber social (media) experiment goes just before election time comes round again. Nothing could possibly go wrong at all.
Yes, it is such a great idea to welcome a new multi-billionaire "benefactor", one who has openly spoken regarding his agendas. That being, it's My Way or the Highway.
But this is America, after all. Where the Rich can do no wrong, because Money. And if you vote for Money one day, maybe, someday - when all 230 of the planets aligning including the ones in Alpha Centauri - you, too, may have a bit of dime to share in their glory.
But not much dime, because after all a dime in your pocket is a 'dollar out of theirs'.
And you really wouldn't want them to suffer that indignity, would you??
I love it when rich people use their money just to smack people around. Like when Peter Thiel bankrolled Hulk Hogan into suing Gawker out of existence. I wish Gawker was still dead. They're worse than zombies. They need to be beaten like a rented mule.
I hope Musk fires everyone, down to the janitors. That'll be revenge for screwing with my timeline and subscribing me to crap I wasn't interested in. Hit 'em again, Elon!
"screwing with my timeline and subscribing me to crap I wasn't interested in."
I had another go at creating a Twitter account today. The feed was full of crap pretty much as expected. I selected to follow a handful of scientists and was in the middle of watching a short film posted by one of them when I got a full screen message saying my account had been locked for "unusual activity". Twitter demanded I do an "Arkose challenge" whatever that is, and to know my phone number to unlock the account. As I don't trust Twitter with my phone number, that is the end of that. Twitter user for all of thirty minutes. I must be one of the bots Elon was worried about.
I have had the same experience myself with all of the anti social media platforms, you sign up with just an email address and then browse a few posts for a while to get told its 'unusual activity' and they want your phone number to be able to verify your account. I call it back door way of making sure they get everyones phone number, Id never provide them my real phone number anyway, id either use a online SMS verification service or a pay and go sim just for things like that not linked to your actual number.
"back door way of making sure they get everyones phone number"
I think you're right. I was around 4 minutes into watching a short film when the message came up. I was passively watching the screen, not doing ANY activity, usual or unusual. Sounds like a blatant lie just to get your phone number. They've failed with me.
Microsoft do this incessantly with Outlook mail, aka. "Unusual activity, verify with a mobile number" lately, even when you've created Microsoft account Recovery code, and given an alternative email (the first thing you should do under security setting, when on creating an Outlook account, give the Microsoft account an alternative recovery email).
The problem is everyone on El-Reg knows IMEI and mobile numbers have a massive 'routine' well established surveillance structure in place for triangulating location and access (when phones are on/off network), with access to the metadata, regarding the numbers and call duration, made.
Even two factor, is essentially spyware, because from the contents of the text messages they know the website you have just requested access to. In essence, two factor is leaky.
I just love it when you sign up because it's the only way to get anything resembling service from a company, tweet them your problem, you get a reply telling you to DM them, you compose the DM them then when you hit send Twitter comes blocks you for unusual activity.
They probably do it to everyone who signs up then tries to DM a business as they've got you by the short and curlies and they know it.
I hope Musk fires everyone, down to the janitors. That'll be revenge for screwing with my timeline and subscribing me to crap I wasn't interested in. Hit 'em again, Elon!
It seems I'm missing a lot by not using Twitter.
Clearly that was and remains a good decision.
A tweet is not an immediate life threatening act, it's just some words on a screen whereas "yelling fire" in a Cinema is a whole other ball game.
"So let's see how the great algorithmally-driven echo chamber social (media) experiment goes just before election time comes round again. "
Why would it be any different from the last election or any different from what the MSM is doing actively on a daily basis ?
Tweets can reach the entire world, and be repeated and amplified beyond the initial audience. What you say in a Tweet, like in a theater, can have consequences.
Facebook accelerated a literal genocide. Twitter has been used both to co-ordinate pro-deocracy protests and hate crimes. So tweeting "a gunman is shooting up movie theaters" may still reach people in theaters, who may in turn panic in the dark and cause a stampede. Same for swatting, and even dumb stuff like claiming a 2 for one special on PBRs at Walmart.
So a policy where posts that may endanger people are restricted, and Posters that have already violated that policy may be kicked off, not preemptively but after they have already done so (often repeatedly) is actually legal, sane and reasonable.
Not true at all, on either count. First, there's a lot of not-lying by people who sincerely, if not very conscientiously, believe what they say.
Second, when people do lie, there's a lot you can learn from what they say. You can learn what they care about, what they think about themselves, and often what they want or fear.
"listening" is NOT the same as "agreeing"
But to argue that point, I have occasionally done a "repeat back" of what was said [using skills learned in the U.S. Navy for short-term memorization] just to make a point. I "listened". Then I *DISAGREED*,
So yeah, "listening" and "agreeing" are TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS.
"fact-checked by my experience and observations" - something like that.
No, he's not disagreeing with the thing that was actually said, he's under the impression something else was said and now a year later he's upset that the thing that was not said has not happened.
Where did he get the idea that the thing that was not said was really said? Odds are it was a social nework upholding a free speech policy which allows anything to be said without any grounding in fact or reality.
Over a year ago that virus was LETHAL. Maybe your short time memory won't hold data for that long, but globally we were stacking bodies in freezers because peopel were dying faster than they could be buried.
Due to scientific advances in mRNA it only took a year to develop vaccines that moved an infection from lethal to an irritating flu for most people, even as it was creating variants.
I call that indeed a success, and a resounding one at that. That this got buried under piles of crap and lies for political reasons (and believed and repeated by morons) can IMHO truly be deemed a crime against humanity.
Don't worry, I've been on El Reg for many years and have become accustomed to the leftist swing, especially the articles from the SF Office.
But Times are a Changing, merci Monsieur Zimmermann,and they will start to swing the other way, pendulums don't remain on one side forever.
I kind of enjoy the downvotes, each one makes me feel a bit more like Winston in Orwell's Nineteen Eighty Four.... To experience chilling feeling "for real". Well I guess the novelty of it will wear off eventually, and the sinister feeling will start to feel very unpleasant and uncomfortable....
So far I got 853 upvotes and 322 downvotes. The bulk of those votes in the last month. So 72.6% of my posts get upvoted, and 27.4% downvoted. And nearly all the downvotes came from criticising oppressive moral* orthodoxies in society, one way or another, which I will keep on doing, no matter what.
* = they are making a mockery of the concept of "morality" in a truly Orwellian fashion. It seems that some of the the worst atrocities and human rights violations are committed in the name of "morality", especially those to do with sex and gender issues.
So keep up with the downvotes, SJWs, you would have to make a LOT of downvotes to bring my karma down to below 50%...
Just speculating: I suppose the mob is going to brigade all my posts then??? That will be fun to see. Well I'll just create another account.
I noticed it was timezone specific, yes. And the same behaviour on Slashdot as well.
I hope that Musk taking over Twitter might restore a bit more balance, so that opposing voices are more equally heard. I think Twitter is the epicenter of all this Woke orthodoxy and also Tumblr used to play a big part in the past, but not so much anymore.
Yes, I too would also like Musk to restore balance to social media algorithms.
Your problem is you believe the conservative talking point that right-wing views are not being recommended by social media algorithms as much as left-wing views, when in fact the reverse is true.
YouTube loves recommending conservative vids regardless of your beliefs
A similar effect has also been observed on Twitter. Its recommendation algorithm tends to boost posts from right-wing politicians and news publications more than left-wing ones. Political scientists from the same team at NYU previously commented that it may be because conservative content is more likely to generate more outrage and, therefore, lead to more engagement.
We've also, by the way, noted before that it's conservative talking-point that right-wing views are routinely unfairly censored or hidden away on the internet by Big Tech. That may be because conservative political communication gets seen and flagged as misinformation more often than the opposition messaging.
But Times are a Changing, merci Monsieur Zimmermann,and they will start to swing the other way, pendulums don't remain on one side forever.
Banned British far-right figures return to Twitter within hours of takeover
And remember, this is the side that the algorithm was proven to favour.
Looks like that pendulum is stuck.
Then society has deemed them not acceptable in spite of algorithmic bias towards them. Suck it up, buttercup.
By the way, Musk posted a conspiracy theory over Nancy Pelosi's husband over the weekend then deleted it a couple of hours later presumably when he looked at it in the cold light of day. Isn't it great that your supposed great saviour of freedom of speech can be counted amongst the nuts and cranks peddling sheer bullshit and believed by the weak of mind and credulous because the Internet said so? I guess you also believed that nonsense that Musk posted, right?
I was thinking it's a measure of how many pathological people we have in society. And we don't usually get to see them, because they are usually do their dirty tricks behind closed doors.
But with the woke stuff, they are now all out in the open. Sometimes the most ordinary looking people, they seem so normal, but behind closed doors they are of a completely different character.
That is the nature of people who can have personality disorders, a psychiatric condition that predisposes them to highly controlling, manipulative and aggressive behaviour.
To summarize, I am starting to suspect that some members of the "woke" crowd, particularly the most aggressive ones, might have that or a similar disorder. Although a psychiatrist would only be able to make a formal/proper diagnosis. But what I'm thinking is at least hint in the right direction as to what is going on.
I've seen similar shit first hand, from workplace bullies and other nasty corporate personalities, by the way. They can be very controlling and manipulative. Sometimes extremely so. These types rise to the top of hierarchies, they want to be in power and control of everything. And they push the weaker, less determined people out.
If you ever bring this issue up, as I am doing here, they have a tendency to shut you down and try to invalidate your message. They don't like it when people wise up to their Machiavellian behaviour. They sort of rely on people being ignorant to it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder
https://www.familylives.org.uk/advice/bullying/bullying-at-work/serial-bullies-in-the-workplace
Here's a book about the "Political Ponerology" by the way, it mentions a lot about the new "ideological virus" - the woke ideology of social justice.
From page 15 - "The current ideological virus - 'social justice' - has since escaped the lab of the universities to mainstream culture: business, politics, church, education. Only this time there was no government coercion necessary."
"The fact is, social justice ideology, with roots in 'gender theory', 'critical race theory' and the ever growing list of academically questionable 'studies' separtments, is a Trojan horse."
"Lobaczewski, who died in 2007, warned about this over thirty years ago, diagnosing the psychopathological nature of totalitarianism in all its forms, laying out how and why it develops, and proposing solutions in the hopes of preventing it from happening again. "
It's funny how many people down vote your very sensible comment. It shows how far the rot in our culture has spread that the idea of hearing opinions outside of one's own is so intolerable to so many. The reason people like trump got so much support is because the left reacted so badly to him - had they ignored him as the nut bag he is he'd have disappeared into obscurity. Censorship is not the way to fix society.
Just off the top of my head, I am not sure if it's 100% correct:
In pre-Nazi Germany, people were angry with the bullshit from Communists, so they voted right-wing parties in, such as Hitler's.
So we *really* need to stop this Woke orthodoxy in its tracks because we could get a right wing tyrant in power eventually, something a lot worse than Trump?
It shows how far the rot in our culture has spread that the idea of hearing opinions outside of one's own is so intolerable to so many. The reason people like trump got so much support is because the left reacted so badly to him - had they ignored him as the nut bag he is he'd have disappeared into obscurity. Censorship is not the way to fix society.
Yup. People are strange. But ohnoes! I'm being ratioed for microagressions against humanity!
In total, your posts have been upvoted 16026 times and downvoted 7093 times.
The whole Twitter thing has been very strange. A sitting President gets kicked off a 'news' platform because staff don't like what he says. Twitter claimed to be standing up for journalism by kicking the New York Post for reporting the Biden laptop story. Clinton claimed Trump stole the election, Trump claimed Biden stole the election. Voting irregularities have been reported and prosecuted since. People are still determined to get Trump. many years later because he says things people don't like. Old guy gets assaulted by illegal immigrant in SF, and it's still Jan 6th. Far left extremists occupy the Capitol in Seattle and claim independence, but trespass in Washington was the real 'insurrection'.
But I agree. Trump is easily ignored. If Trump is such an existential threat to fragile psyches, he probably should be ignored. AFAIK Twitter makes that easy. Unfollow Trump. If people retweet, unfollow them. Create your own 'safe space' or echo chamber, where you can find only opinions that you agree with. Stay up to date with the latest attempts to impeach Trump, or hang insurrectionists. Ignore or unfollow anyone who mentions the US is rapidly running out of diesel, and the US 'strategic' diesel reserve only has enough capacity to last around 6 hours.
Focus on Trump, and the threat of the 'extreme right'. Not what would happen in the US when diesel runs out. Diesel's filthy anyway, and the economy will be just fine with electric semis. Or it's the kind of problem politicians should be focusing on, not witch hunts. But I was a bit suprised to learn there'd been no diesel refineries built in the US since the '70s. Oil execs have been pointing out that despite impending shortages, there won't be any now, because politicians have been busy virtue signalling about ending the dependence on fossil fuels, and it's production.
Trump is obviously the far greater threat to America.
But it's al very strange. I don't know if the US Constitution was written in order of priority, but straight in at #1 was the right to free speech. Sure, that's always been conditional, based on the legality of that speech. But to many 'liberal' Americans, free speech must be curtailed because they've become twisted Popperians who are intolerant to tolerance. It's all been about demanding the right to curtail free speech from anyone they find objectionable, which is a rather facist perspective. One thing I think will be interesting is seeing where Twatter's dearly departed execs go next. Or for ones like Gadde, how influential they'll remain. She may end up on Rogan again, or she may find herself being ghosted by the rich & powerful now that she's no longer an influencer. The departing execs gave themselves a nice golden parachute though, so I'm sure they'll be keeping warm this winter.
> the idea of hearing opinions outside of one's own is so intolerable to so many
Is that what you think a down-vote is? A statement to the effect that "I find this opinion intolerable"? I can tell you that as far as I am concerned, the up- and down-votes are (a) used sparingly, and (b) used respectively for opinions and comments that I think are insightful, or wrongheaded, in both cases of course In My Humble Opinion. If someone actually posts something intolerable then I'm going to jump in with a full keyboard. [1]
Nobody should comment in a public place (write to the newspaper, post on social media, whatever) if they're too thin-skinned to field the push-back from people who think differently. I think clicking the down-vote button for a comment that one finds distasteful is the mildest of censures.
Also, this is not a modern "rot in our culture". You should have seen the flame wars on Usenet.
[1]This is not one of those moments!
.. the extremists and ideologists. Ask them why they and their answers are likely to be very revealing ..
WRONG !!!
Do NOT engage - at all - with anyone displaying moral certainty to the exclusion of other peoples existence. Dont give them airtime, walk away when they try to talk at you ( it wont be 'with' you ), dont 'like', 'click', or 'follow'. Leave them alone to either grow up, or implode.
Your covertly harvested browsing history, attention and time is apparently quite valuable to somebody, so dont waste it on self-promoting media whores..
I assume in the coming weeks we will get to know what the value of the sunset clauses and windfalls due to Tweeter directors and major investors. The question is whether Musk will allow them to be paid or will try and prevent payment, requiring beneficiaries to go to court...
Elon folded because even he understood that Kathaleen McCormick wasn't going to cop it from a tosser like him
Game score
Delaware 1 Musk 0
Berghain 1 Musk 0 (They've seen plenty of wannabees at Berghain)
There's a pattern here
His purchase of Twitter looks like one of the greatest incinerations of capital, look for the business school case study
Couldn't happen to a nicer person .... apart from Donald the Russian asset
Those kinds of contracts are called "golden parachutes" and are often done to make buying up a company and "evicting" the "Ivory Tower" more expensive.
Seriously, it is a fraction of the total cost of buying the whole company in this case. And as I recall, such contracts require approval from the Board of Directors, who (at the end of the day) want to MAKE MONEY on the purchase (if any).
Humanity is a camp of thought that functions as a religious faith in the minds of those consumed by it.
Not to be confused with the humans themselves.
I respect humans.
But "Humanity" can sit in the the bin of religious worship, alongside Christianity, Judaism, Scientology, and Kool-Aid drinking comet worshippers and and all the other self-justified virtue signaling cults.
I don't think humanity is properly a thing. I'm pretty sure some few opportunistic humans dreamed up that theatrical strategy and propagated it to form a platform API of emotional manipulation regarding the masses.
I've no respect for social strategies that manufacture and weaponize exaggerated emotional response to garner control.
People inebriated by strong emotion tend to exhibit poor judgment. Consequently, they screw i up that which they care about as well as what other people care stemming from their berserker fits of socially normalized passionate dysfunction.
Let cooler heads prevail. For the sake of function and success in any good endeavor.
society can be a religion that one is consumed by.
Or it can be an acknowledged statistical overview of measured behavior averaged within a selected territory or network of social influence, as a tool for studying past historical trends.
Only the second is healthy.
It's stupid undeclared distinction that the two very different concepts share the same written and auditory call-signs.
The problem is that Musk thinks that his purchase has now made him mayor of that town, and he, and he alone, gets to decide what the rules are there. At the moment, he's saying that there are no rules. But I think he's being a bit presumptive if he thinks that his dollars give him more authority than any democratically elected government has to decide this. There are already reports of the site being flooded with racist posts. Expect lots of controversy, and tedious attempts by Musk to boast of how he's defending freedom, as he enables the forces of hate and repression.
...reminds me of bonfire nights. And here we'll hang around waiting for it go bang, in supposed remembrance of a failed attempt to overthrow the government by a small angry group who didn't like the way democracy was going for them. Maybe in the future we'll burn Elon effigies around this time of the year. Penny for the Musk guv'na?
Referring to the subject . . . why?
Civilisation grew from nothing to the world as we know it without a common town square. Hell, it wasn't that long ago (in human terms) that the Americas were "discovered", not to mention all the other old world colonisation messes. Even as I write this, some idiotic twats still believe that the best way forward is lobbing ordinance at civilians.
The only thing civilisation needs is to have the grown-ups in the room talk to the grown-ups from other places. Twitter? That's preschool with swear words.
Civilisation grew up, as you put it, in a state of perpetual warfare with basically everyone who didn't share the same talking shops ("town square").
That's why the idea of a single talking shop where everyone has a voice is so powerful. The UN was supposed to fill this role, but its problem is that it's a meeting of governments, many of which make no attempt to speak for their people.
"The problem is that Musk thinks that his purchase has now made him mayor of that town, and he, and he alone, gets to decide what the rules are there. ... But I think he's being a bit presumptive if he thinks that his dollars give him more authority than any democratically elected government has to decide this."
I disagree with that - he's the owner now so he gets to decide content, just like every media company, under current law. If you wish that the democratically elected government could decide content of arbitrary media companies, I believe you are entering a game of musical chairs where Democracy is the loser.
However, Musk and Twitter are not exempt from law.
Musk might find that section 230 doesn't cover his OWN tweets because he owns Twitter. The case of the British cave diver who sued Musk for defamation might have gone differently if it had been a suit against Twitter instead of Musk personally.
Also, suppose investigations found that Musk was effectively using Tesla's China plant and business as a vehicle receiving payment for broadcasting CCP (Chinese Communist Party) propaganda over Twitter - then Musk might be found guilty of violating the US' Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).
Also, suppose investigations found that Musk was effectively using Tesla's China plant and business as a vehicle receiving payment for broadcasting CCP (Chinese Communist Party) propaganda over Twitter - then Musk might be found guilty of violating the US' Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).
Are you saying that cash for influence may be illegal? Strange, I don't remember hearing much about that in another case where Chinese oil companies were paying American influencers large slabs of cash.
Nonsense. It entirely celebrates Trump being banned from Twitter for telling people to "go home in peace" and attacks Musk for daring to support free speech.
Your point would only be credible if the illegitimate congressional investigation into the events of 6th January 2021 (El Reg editors: notice the correct way to format dates) were allowing Trump to testify in person live on TV, and if they had also demanding that Pelosi explain why she refused the support of the National Guard and if they had properly explored the role of Ray Epps.
In that context I can entirely understand why you're being voted down.
Pelosi didn't refuse the National Guard, the DoD was ordered not to authorize the National Guard. And you know who that order came from, you just don't want to admit your orange insurrectionist was behind the entire thing.
Looking forward to seeing Trump indicted next year, and eventually fleeing the country to somewhere without an extradition treaty to avoid serving jail time. He'll hate living in Saudi Arabia with MBS, it is way too hot for a fat guy like him to play golf.
This post has been deleted by its author
One, Trump wasn't banned for telling people to go home in peace. But you know that.
Two, the congressional investigation is not illegitimate, it was formed following all relevant laws and procedures. But you know that.
Three, how El Reg chooses to format dates is entirely their decision. There is no basis for calling any reasonable format "incorrect". But you know that.
I could try to check your supposedly more substantive points about Pelosi and Epps, whoever he is, but since you're clearly not making any attempt to argue in good faith, I'll save myself the bother and just assume you're blowing smoke with those as well.
This post has been deleted by its author
I could try to check your supposedly more substantive points about Pelosi and Epps, whoever he is, but since you're clearly not making any attempt to argue in good faith, I'll save myself the bother and just assume you're blowing smoke with those as well.
Ah, smokescreens.
So Pelosi. Currently Speaker of the House-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speaker_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives#Other_functions
Oversees the officers of the House: the clerk, the sergeant-at-arms, the chief administrative officer, and the chaplain
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergeant_at_Arms_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives
As the chief law enforcement officer of the House, the Sergeant at Arms is responsible for security in the House wing of the United States Capitol, the House office buildings, and on adjacent grounds. Under the direction of the Speaker of the House or other presiding officer, the Sergeant at Arms plays an integral role in maintaining order and decorum in the House chamber.
So Pelosi was responsible for security on that fateful day. She quickly fired her Serjeant. So in a reasonable investigation into the events, one might reasonably expect the Speaker and the Serjeant to explain what they knew, when, and what actions they took. Of course if you control the investigation, it's easy to exclude your own part in them, and any blame.
Ray Epps is a little more curious-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack#Trump_supporters_gather_in_D.C.
Ray Epps, an individual with history in the Arizona Oath Keepers, was filmed during two street gatherings on January 5 urging people to go into the Capitol the next day.[172][173] Epps later stated that he had helped orchestrate the flow into the Capitol building.
And was videoed at several times encouraging people to 'storm' the Capitol, remove barricades etc. He was briefly on the FBI's Jan 6th Most Wanted list.. until he wasn't. Unlike many of the other peaceful (but not fiery) protestors, he also isn't in jail awaiting trial. Which seems a little curious, hence why some people question his role in those events. But there's also been other strange news, like this case-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gretchen_Whitmer_kidnapping_plot
Where the FBI seems to have been... highly effective at infiltrating militias and extremist groups. Well, some of them at least.
One of the big loans was taken out by Twitter. If Twitter fails to pay the interest on that loan it will be promptly controlled by bankers.
Other big loans use Musk's Tesla stock as security. Tesla has been overvalued for a long time, to the point where the banks will not lend more against what Musk has already committed. This is why Musk had to sell billions of it to buy the rest of Twitter with cash. The major creditors would love to reduce their risk by selling some of the debt to other banks. Other banks are not buying - not even Deutsche Bank or Alfa. Musk has to keep paying interest on those loans or the banks will sell his Tesla shares.
People will not buy products from adverts next to Donald's Tweets. Advertisers will not buy adverts from Twitter. Musk will quickly have to follow through on his promise to start charging for free speech - or at least his version of it.
$55 billion? well seems nice that he'd get a ~20% profit!
*whisper* the truth about these acquisitions is that the company becomes a form of currency, and as long as the banks continue to get their loan payments, it becomes part of "net worth".
But yeah, "Free Bird" was his goal.
/me now goes into that classic Lynyrd Skynyrd guitar solo...
Latest figures I've seen are that Twitter generated something $3.5B in revenue in 2020. How much of that is profit and/or if it's increased or decreased since then would give us an idea of how many years it will take to earn back the purchase price. And don't forget the interest payments! Maybe that's what the other poster meant when he mentioned $55B
I've never had any interest in investing in Twitter because their service is so simple. It's pub/sub WORM of very limited data types. An AI/ML engine categorizes pubs and subs to provide recommendations. No calculations are critical or highly time sensitive. It's all a classic example of an easily scalable system. Anyone can implement it. Most startups can probably make up the operational logistics as they grow.
Twitter's only unique product is their brand and Musk will burn it to the ground.
Funny how every time someone *has* gone to the trouble of trying to build a replacement, it's been instantly maligned as "racist," "bigoted," "right-wing," "alt-right," "haven of not-sees," etc. Often also debanked and deplatformed while being smeared in the press as well.
Clever trick, really. Ban the "out" group by calling them [Mean Label 1 Wot Must Ban User When Applied]. Tease them that since Twitter is "private property" (lol, how'd that work out?) they can do as they please, so if they don't like it, they can go build their own. Once they do build their own, since you've already labeled them with [Mean Label 1], immediately label the new platform [Mean Label 1] because it's a haven for [Mean Label 1] and surely now represents the single biggest threat to humanity the world has ever seen (hurt feelings are srs business). Have your friends in the press publish and broadcast endless smears to that effect. Pressure Visa/MC to refuse to process payments for the target. Pressure banks to deny them service. Pressure ISPs to deplatform them.
I'm so glad this purchase went through. Now, I get to remind people that Twitter is a private company and can do what it pleases, and if you don't like it, you can go build your own. Go right ahead. There's a handy battle-tested blueprint available now to help deal with challengers to the throne. Surely no one would ever use such a thing, even if they've had it leveled against them in the past. Surely not.
God this is hilarious. I'm loving every second of it, and the seething sustains me.
I will assume that Elon wants to make money with this investment. Since nobody is going to pay money to subscribe to Twitter, that means advertising dollars.
I suspect Elon will soon discover that a 'free marketplace of ideas' that becomes a cesspool due to no moderation will result in a mass exodus of advertisers.
I could be wrong, but I don't think so.
My money is on Cancel Culture here.
Good grief, but that article was a tad negative, shall we say? In fact, I've noticed a trend of that in the media. It would be good (and I'm talking about the media in general here, not just the reg) to see some impartiality like the old days.
That's not to say Elon Musk is an angel, saint, etc because he isn't and it remains to be seen as to whether he will be a force for good or the opposite.
Platform-wise, I hope that, whatever the rules end up being that they are applied evenly and fairly. A big complaint which comes up repeatedly is that the rules are applied unevenly. It could also possibly have a facelift when it comes to how it's implemented to allow people not get less reactionary/worked up.
I'm not at all surprised that the previous administration was given the heave-ho, as that's not unusual if you want to make a culture change within an organisation. Sounds like they're landing on their feet with their compensation, though: I could use a cool $40 million, personally.
Anyway, going to be interesting to see where this goes.
Twitter moderation was until today subject to a deliberately opaque set of rules that were applied or ignored depending on the topic.
Now the moderation is at the mercy of a single, narcissistic person with a long and well documented history of tantrums and outbursts against whomever he doesn't like.
Is the new status objectively worse than before? That's debatable.
Is it better? Hell, no!
Well, we'll see, although it just feels like everyone has built Elon Musk up to be this terrible ogre, mostly seemigly pushed by the media (which is why I mentioned them in my original post). Should he be cirtised for acting unprofessionally at times? Yep, although sometimes it's good to see someone as a human being. Is he up for a bit of free speech? Yes, which is good, btw, as long as it's fairly applied to all sides and not absolute ( you still need rules against genuine hate, stalking, doxxing, etc.). And will it be good to see those opaque rules become less so? Yes.
What Elon Musk should do in my admittedly less than expert opinion, is to set up a transparent set of rules, set up systems within twitter to safe guard neutrality and fairness which operate in the open and then go very obviously hands off. I.e. he stays out of twitter completely (no twitter commentry, etc.), but keeps a beady eye on the systems he has put in place to ensure that they keep functioning as intended.
I have not been basing my opinions on what the media says about Musk. His own words alone are damning. Compare his company's court filings to his own words and it becomes clear why he is in deep legal shit and needs to either control free speech or buy a president to stay out of trouble.
I love the rockets but Musk's words and actions make me feel guilty for doing so.
You are talking like Elon is going to moderate every tweet - he has better things to do...
Let's wait and see. What if Twitter puts out a transparent set of rules for everyone to follow and applies them equally to everyone? At one point Musk said the algorithm could be made public, which says that he intends on transparency.
That has to be better than the completely opaque system in place now.
Fair enough, but people will naturally interpret it as news as everything is a "commentary" these days. So really it doesn't matter if one marks an article as such.
Also, if someone posts an article which presents a given view then anyone reading it may assume that the views within it are those of the website/organsation who's banner it is published under. If it's a powerful or well known org then that may carry significant weight. Not so good if the article happens to be unbalanced/biased because it's a commentary.
No, he agreed with you in that he missed that it was commentary, not news, but he does raise an important point in that it's actually quite hard to find actual unbiased news in amongst the flood of commentary these days. Just look at Fox News for one of the best examples. It even has "News" in it's name it's but almost entirely commentary and opinion. It's the downside of 24 hour rolling "news". There simply isn't enough news to fill that space so instead of repeating actual news every hour or so and highlighting what might have changed or is new, they spend the vast majority of that 24 hour cycle discussing it and giving opinions.
This post has been deleted by its author
At the moment Musk is in the press stating that there will as (as yet) no changes to the moderation policy but that's IMHO totally untenable with the amount of staff cuts he has announced. It's one or the other.
Unless, of course, he's trying to introduce AI, and we know already that it's not quite working as advertised in his cars..
...and I see (as usual) that EM is not at his office, do I have, as a stockholder of these companies, the right to ask for his immediate dismissal with extreme prejudice?
Yes (you might need to clarify the 'with extreme prejudice' bit). You have that right even if you're not a stockholder. Perhaps you could even post your demand on Twitter?
I don't understand. Why is everyone upset with the word "nAgger"?
And the rest - Britain First getting their account back.
It's just odd, after all the mixed opinions people have said about Musk, and all the stuff he's achieved - he's now going to be permanently associated with supporting abuse and hate. Less Iron Man, more Sauron.
The takeover occurred because he painted himself into a corner with his half-assed remarks and couldn't back out of the deal. If he hadn't gone forward with the takeover he would've been forced by the Courts and publicly humiliated. Which in turn could've hurt both SpaceX and Tesla.
I predict he's gonna offload Twitter at the first possible opportunity. But he's going to lose a sizeable amount of his fortune since Twitter isn't nearly worth the $45 billion he spent on it.
One of the problems with free speech is that people are going to say all sorts of unwelcome things. This leaves you in a bit of a bind -- if you start restricting someone's speech then who's going to stop someone else from restricting your speech.
I might be an oddball myself but I'd prefer to have T***p out in the open blathering away with his nonsense than try to de-platform him. After all, if he's given enough rope he might just hang himself with it.
What needs to change at Twitter -- and other social media sites -- is the illusion of anonymity. If you post it you own it. That, along with the overall rules about libel and slander should be the moderating influence (along with "its really not smart to self-incriminate"). This would also help with the numerous automatic (bot) accounts that do a bit more than just make noise, they tend to be used to guide opinion, to market things or ideas, which would be OK if the source was verified so we could choose to ignore it if we wanted to.
While I agree in principle, it's not actually workable in practice because none of the "social media" sites have cracked monitoring and moderation yet. They simply can't or won't put enough people in place to either do the monitoring or respond properly to complaints.
For a current example on the BBC site for the latest Panorama programme:
Travis Frain was trolled by online conspiracists after he was filmed just after being hit by a car during the 2017 Westminster Bridge terror attack. Mobile phone footage of him standing on the bridge after breaking his leg - adrenaline delaying the pain - inspired a wave of online abuse.
He received the first message about the attack in hospital the next day.
"We know the attack was staged. I hope they hang you," it read.
In the months after the attack, Mr Frain flagged videos and posts to social media sites using their reporting tools, but he said nothing happened until his lawyer wrote to them.
YouTube did then take down various videos which promoted the theory that he was a "crisis actor", but he said he has had only varying degrees of success with other major social media sites.
We are constantly reminded by the "MSM" that complaining to "social media" has little effect unless it's about something especially egregious and/or the media or lawyers get involved which may give rise to bad publicity for the likes of Zuckerberg.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
