
The poster Khaptain, here
Has in the past posted about the Fascism being a good thing
A pair of researchers say they've determined that July 13 was likely the day that X, formerly known as Twitter, made platform-level algorithm changes that increased the visibility of posts made by Elon Musk and Republican-leaning accounts in the run-up to the US election. That date may stick out in the memory as when Elon Musk …
If 80% are bots, they hijack the algorithm and rule the platform.
Post timing also matters. Far fewer readers scroll to the bottom of elReg forum, for example. Always-on bots win.
Drowning valuable messages with spam discourages thoughtful posters. This is shaping bias.
"Has in the past posted about the Fascism being a good thing"
Ok please show to the world what "you" believe I did to state such a thing and then I will explain why you are a fool.
I would truly like to meet you in person just to see how brave you really are, I am 100% sure that you would not use the same tone.. Keyboard warriors are truly the cave dwelling low lifes that their stereotypes portray them as.
I am not sure this can be much of a shock considering Twitter was exposed for shadow banning and removing posts that they and the government didnt agree with, to the extent of removing fact to promote lies. Even in trying to release the Twitter files Musk found a government plant editing the information before release and fired him.
So merely by not skewing left I would expect to see right wing posts being more prominent. They were happy to ban the President of the US while still providing a platform for known terrorists.
"The Guardian newspaper is among the more famous brands to have officially exited the platform"
From what I hear it was one of their most popular posts on the platform.
@Elongated Muskrat
"Are you on bluesky yet, CJ? If so, what's your handle, so we can add it to a block list?"
Nope. No X/Twitter, bluesky or any of those. I have no use for it.
Guess you will just keep seeking me out on here.
*And no I wont create an account just so you can bother me on another platform
*And no I wont create an account just so you can bother me on another platform
No need to fear, if you were on there, you'd be instantly onto a block list. I doubt you'd find you got very much engagement with anyone at all there, to be honest, the ethos is to block trolls immediately.
Nice "playing the victim" there, though, right out of the Joe Goebbels play book.
@Elongated Muskrat
"No need to fear, if you were on there, you'd be instantly onto a block list"
So why did you ask me if I was on there and can you can have my handle? Are you suggesting there are so few users that you would see me posting on there? And if I would instantly be on some block list why would you need to seek me out?
"I doubt you'd find you got very much engagement with anyone at all there"
Why is it that you say you want to block me, dont want to read my posts, wouldnt engage with someone like me and yet you seek me out on these forums to reply to my comments? Why is it that you claim I would be instantly blocked on another site, but ask if I am on there so you can find me elsewhere? Why is your self control so lacking that you claim these things yet cant resist reading my posts and replying to me (often entirely unrelated to the discussion)?
@Elongated Muskrat
"You see, this is why I wish I could block your stream-of-consciousness bollocks, CJ.
But then again, it's so fun to trigger you."
Let me refer you to- https://forums.theregister.com/forum/all/2024/11/20/x_marks_the_spot_for/#c_4969281
This is why I would never share any other accounts I have with you because you wouldnt block me. Your life seems so empty that you cannot help yourself but to follow me around. You wish you could block me but your lack of self control just wont let you. You must read, you must reply, you cant help yourself. Maybe the reg should add a lost puppy icon
Who is this "the left" you speak of, anonymous shitposter? Left of whom? You, Trump? Musk? Mussolini? Hitler?
I'm getting very tired of hearing this false left/right dichotomy, because at this point this mysterious cabal of "the left" appears to consist of 98% of humanity.
The insult is directed at you, for your cowardly shitposting, not for your political stance, although that, too, is clearly worthy of ridicule.
"appears to consist of 98% of humanity"
Except that the majority in the USA voted right, France is moving right, Germany is moving right, The Netherlands has moved right, Italy has moved right... Maybe, just maybe, the populist identity politics farce just isn't cutting it any more and people are getting fed up with the constant smug condescending attitude of the perpetually offended, the liberal virtue signallers and the post-truthers who will stand in the pouring rain and tell you they are not getting wet.
"Except that the majority in the USA voted right, France is moving right, Germany is moving right, The Netherlands has moved right, Italy has moved right..."
Apples and oranges. The "right" in Europe tends to be much more left or centre compared the "right" in the USA. The USA "left" is commonly seen as right leaning by most Europeans. The biggest problem is the labelling itself, especially when the talking heads don't actually understand the labels they are using and/or applying to wide range groups of people who probably don't ever see themselves as being part of that group anyway. I mean, FFS, "liberal" is used as an insult in the USA, the land of the "free". In case you didn't know, "liberal" traces it's root to the Latin for "free"
"The terms ‘right wing’ or ‘left wing’ are now almost meaningless"
which is really dangerous as most seem to have forgotten the fucking right wing nazis are the fucking baddies!. and indy jone needs to start punching the fuckers again.
At the moment it seems a lot of fuckers are cheering on the fucking nazi's like musktwat
Please re-read. I said 'moving right'.
And I think many would disagree that 'the right' in Europe is centre left. RN, AFD, PVV, Reform are probably to the right of the GOP on the grand scale of things. I'm sure many Americans would be aghast at the prospect of a party called 'Christian Democrats'.
In the USA the whole system has moved slightly leftwards where the GOP are now campaigning on what are basically Democrat policies from 10-15 years ago while the leadership of the Democrat party has foolishly followed the deranged loonies and have romped off into the distance as they head for the left pole.
https://www.ft.com/content/84b81600-d107-4050-80cf-1d1e276ea54d
No. You said:
"The "right" in Europe tends to be much more left or centre compared the "right" in the USA."
Not "Europe tends to be much more left or centre compared the "right" in the USA."
Notice the extra 3 words at the start of your original quote that you then missed off. "The "right" in"
Yes, in the grand scale Europe is more centre left. But "The right" in Europe, your original statement, are not more left of the right in the USA. There are elements of the right in Europe that are further right than the GOP by some margin. Part of the joys of having lots of parties and coalition governments.
Yes, the "right" in general. Of course there are always a few extremists, at both ends of the spectrum. But reading the posts here, it seems everyone is labelled "far left" or "far right", especially if the poster doesn't agree with whoever they are replying to. Can we at least agree that the USA "left" is actually not very "left" at all and might even be described as right of centre" and the USA "right" is even further right in terms of European politics?
And least I quoted more of myself than you did unoriginally :-)
The turnout for the 2024 US election was >60%. This would constitute a majority.
This is why the Biden anomaly stands out. If it had been like the UK and a low turnout, it would be easier to explain. But it wasn't, which gives Trump a clear democratic mandate. Unlike the UK, but that's democracy for you. Not like our choices in the UK were great for that one.
No need to fear, if you were on there, you'd be instantly onto a block list. I doubt you'd find you got very much engagement with anyone at all there, to be honest, the ethos is to block trolls immediately.
Good news! I have a couple of Bluesky accounts. Shame you say there's a lack of engagement and diversity because I might look forward to discussing your comment wrt to Karl Popper's (in)famous Paradox of Tolerance. Which I strongly suspect you haven't read, or certainly haven't understood. Or even this famous quote-
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Which has been 'modernised' by the far-left to be more inclusive, tolerant and promote diversity by changing it to-
I disapprove of what you say, but will do everything in my power to prevent you saying it.
Such is progress..
@refitman
"Weren't the 'Twitter Files' thoroughly debunked?"
When? When the first batch was to be released a government plant was fired for editing the information coming out (claimed to be vetting it). And they went on to show the government was telling twitter what the official line is and to remove or shadow ban anything against the official line. Happened with covid and the Hunter Biden laptop.
On top of that twitter publicly banned the US President but kept terrorists on its platform. At no point am I defending twitter/X in its former or current state, but just pointing out these facts seems to upset some people.
keep believing that box of fucking lies.
the only fucker trying to censor using the gov was fucking orangeturd, every accusation is a fucking admission as far as the turd is concerned.
here's to hoping you drown in the shit you wanted stuffed down your throat! and the rest of us survive the aftermath of your right wing shit fest
> that they and the government didnt agree with
Given the change of geo politic’s might need to start qualifying “the government” as “the US government” or “the UK government”.
Obviously, in this context it is the US variate t being referred to, as we know US corp’s ignore anything the UK government say.
"So merely by not skewing left I would expect to see right wing posts being more prominent."
*IF* it was skewed left previously, "merely by not skewing left" should have restored the "natural" balance, which the vote results demonstrates is a pretty even split between left and right. Allowing for the non-aligned or middle of the road viewpoints, can you explain why Twitter/X is now very markedly right-leaning?
@John Brown (no body)
"*IF* it was skewed left previously, "merely by not skewing left" should have restored the "natural" balance"
To be honest I am not on there, I have never used twitter and only seen what others had linked to which is usually a short video or something. I was only referring to the natural balance which would be restored if the left leaning curating was removed. I dont claim to suggest to know if it is now naturally balanced (which is unlikely to be 50/50) or right wing biased. I also dont know if X now applies filtering the other way, the left have abandoned the platform for allowing other views or that Europe and the US is more right wing than the twitter Overton window.
I didnt consider the platform interesting before and I still dont now so I dont even have any personal insight to give. Only that the very public left curating has gone.
I suspect you consider conspiracy theories to be factual.
After Musk took over, I saw a huge change. Twitter/X became a cesspool of election conspiracy theories and Covid misinformation and other incendiary claims. I recall one post that claimed that 20 % of New Zealand's population had been killed by Covid vaccinations - most viewers seemed to take it at face value. Other posts claimed that trans people were responsible for most school shootings. I could go on and on, but that gives you the idea of what was going on. Moreover, this stuff was pushed at me and I am not even an American.
@Robert 22
"I suspect you consider conspiracy theories to be factual."
No, a conspiracy theory is something a group of people believe, facts are proven.
"After Musk took over, I saw a huge change."
Yes I believe so. Publicly it was found that the government was very much interfering and also they had someone embedded in twitter who got fired for editing the information known as the twitter files.
"Twitter/X became a cesspool of election conspiracy theories and Covid misinformation and other incendiary claims"
Interesting you mention covid as it was one of the things heavily curated to push the official line. Unfortunately the official line was very authoritarian and not always accurate. Also the Hunter Biden laptop which was claimed a conspiracy theory but proven factual.
"Moreover, this stuff was pushed at me and I am not even an American."
I think we all here mock the algorithms trying to show relevant ads or content on various platforms. I never rated twitter anyway but after the facts came out it confirmed what people already knew about the content on twitter and FB
"Interesting you mention covid as it was one of the things heavily curated to push the official line. Unfortunately the official line was very authoritarian and not always accurate."
But Trump still pushed dangerous "solutions" on camera, even if, as claimed, the "official line" was being pushed on Twitter and Facebook, authoritarian and/or inaccurate as claimed. I'm now confused as to whether Trumps comments as POTUS were "official" or not or if the "deep state" were the ones undermining him by forcing Twitter et al to post their version of the truth. I think my tinfoil has worn thin by constant bombardment of though control rays and needs replacing.
@John Brown (no body)
"But Trump still pushed dangerous "solutions" on camera"
Like what?
"even if, as claimed, the "official line" was being pushed on Twitter and Facebook"
No if, not a claim, it is factual. Zuck apologised and thats after the twitter files exposed it.
"authoritarian and/or inaccurate as claimed"
What authoritarian dictats did Trump make? Biden did, he had people removed from jobs if they didnt get the vaccine.
"I'm now confused as to whether Trumps comments as POTUS were "official" or not"
Trump is allowed opinion. People are allowed to have opinions. Actually its not an 'allowed' its a right.
"or if the "deep state" were the ones undermining him by forcing Twitter et al to post their version of the truth."
That was factually shown. Remember it definitely didnt come from a lab, until Biden won and then it was possible and now practically a certainty. Anything but the official line was acceptable about covid. And the Hunter Biden laptop was a lie until it was proven fact. The fact checking wasnt based on facts but the political narrative.
"But Trump still pushed dangerous "solutions" on camera"
No he didn't. You were TOLD that he did but the reality is different.
Just like with the Liz Cheney 'firing squad' BS. Each news article cited the one before it resulting in a complete re-writing of what was said.
The Democrats are always claiming that context matters but they LOVE to take things out of context and run around screaming.
Yes I believe so. Publicly it was found that the government was very much interfering and also they had someone embedded in twitter who got fired for editing the information known as the twitter files.
You mean someone Trump embedded? He was President for most of the worst of the pandemic, he is the one who gave the official line.
@collinsl
"You mean someone Trump embedded? He was President for most of the worst of the pandemic, he is the one who gave the official line."
Nope and that was the problem. It was someone who was working for the security services and only discovered and sent packing by Elon when he tried to release the twitter files unedited and the plant was editing them.
After Musk took over, I saw a huge change. Twitter/X became a cesspool of election conspiracy theories and Covid misinformation
It was ever thus. If Trump won, it would be the death of Democratcy, 'Project 2025' would be implemented in full, civil servants who may have violated the law & Hatch Act would be rounded up and shot. Then Musk and Trump are the reincarnations of Hitler, Pol Pot and Stalin combined. And on the Covid front, don't take Ivermectin, you are not a horse. Despite Ivermectin being very widely prescribed to humans and has been very beneficial. Jury still seems to be out on whether it has any effect on Covid, but at the time Ivermectin was officialy denied, that was clearly official misinformation because nobody really new and research & trials are still ongoing. Then there was more official misinformation regarding the effectiveness of masks, vacciines, policies, origins and more.
Of course under the Dorsey regime and their government contracts, anyone that dared challenge the official misinformation was almost immediately banned. Under Musk, people can discuss and debate these topics with less fear of retribution. Like inconvenient questions about the 10m or so additional voters that appeared to vote for Biden, but weren't around in previous elections, and evaporated for this election. That is a clear statistical anomaly that deserves rational discussion and explanation.. Which couldn't happen under Dorsey because it'd invoke instabans for election 'misinformation'.
Moreover, this stuff was pushed at me and I am not even an American.
Hopefully you're well enough educated to recognise misinformation, official or unofficial. Sadly many people are not, hence the political divsion, polarisation and government attempts to ensure that you only get their official misinformation.
Ah yes, I remember in 2020 if you suggested a recount or an audit you were called an election denier and anti-democratic. Now those calling for recounts and audits are lauded as heroes and being told to 'fight' for democracy.
"And on the Covid front, don't take Ivermectin, you are not a horse."
After Chris Cuomo admitted he'd been taking ivermectin he denied making the 'you are not a horse' comment and it was utterly hilarious when he shown his own video clip.
Ah yes, I remember in 2020 if you suggested a recount or an audit you were called an election denier and anti-democratic. Now those calling for recounts and audits are lauded as heroes and being told to 'fight' for democracy.
Yep. One of those frustrating things, especially in a representative democracy. Elections should be fair, and seen to be fair. There were suggestions to do random sampling and audit machine votes via human checks. Democrats naturally objected, although doing that kind of audit would (hopefully) knock the idea that the machines are rigged on the head.
After Chris Cuomo admitted he'd been taking ivermectin he denied making the 'you are not a horse' comment and it was utterly hilarious when he shown his own video clip.
Yep. The Internet never forgets. Another curious one was whether Newsom developed Bell's Palsy after being vaccinated. Videos show he may have, and that was a known potential side effect. Or it could have been a coincidence. But this is the problem with 'misinformation'. 'Fact checkers' like <cough> Snopes are making determinations, even though actual experts are still researching and debating whether there is or isn't any actual scientific basis behind those claims. Which is much like Ivermectin given years later, the evidence for that is still subject of proper scientific study and debate.
Which is also a 'social media' phenomena, ie scientists can use aspects of that to create their own group chats to share, debate and discuss with less fear of non-expert 'moderators' deplatforming them. It's kind of funny that 'new media' is falling back on very old Internet concepts like the way Usenet sci.<whatever> groups could moderate themselves to try and improve the SNR.
Indeed, lets not forget that if you questioned certain things you'd get shouted down with 'you are not a <insert specialist name>'. Yet when Bill Gates comments (who is not a medical specialist of any kind) or a fact checker with no qualifications in the specific field 'fact checks' it was taken as gospel.
Doctors and scientists who DID know what they were talking about were aggressively shut down.
There was also the massive reverse ferret in 2020 as prior to the election a number of prominent democrats were highlighting the well documented issues with some voting machines as well as touting 'Russia Russia Russia' and after Biden won they immediately switched to 'most secure election in history'.
@Robert 22
"cesspool of election conspiracy theories"
Your timing is impeccable. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has just slapped 3 counties for intentionally breaking the law and counting illegal votes to try and help their preferred candidate (dem) to win. The candidate Bob Casey wanted Trump impeached for questioning the result in 2020 and yet they have been found doing exactly as accused in this election.
...using misinformation to sway voters. You can't use it to get a bank loan, or to drive up the price of a stock. You can't sell a product based on misinformation in its advertising, I.E. snake oil, but you can still sell snake oil legally today if you follow the Rules of Law. When it comes to voting, snake oil is what keeps the U.S. political machine running these days.
Wait a sec. If you are confident enough to post it, why aren't you posting under a confirmed account name? Why the AC? Are you that insecure about who you are? I live in a country where even a gay man can walk down the street with PRIDE so I put little stock in the mutterings of Anonymous Cowards.
This is why we need the facility to block accounts on El Reg's forums. Even Facebook can manage this, it's only Musk who has decided that he'll still allow users you've blocked to interact with your tweets, and Bluesky's implementation of subscription blocklists seems to work quite well (although has potential openings for abuse if you're not careful with which lists you subscribe to).
Here's the thing; the loud right-wing voices on Twitter that drown everything else out (and are algorithmically promoted to do exactly this) shout about how Bluesky is an echo chamber, but Twitter has become exactly that; all you can hear there are the loud echoes of far-right speech. On Bluesky, blocking the minority of people who shout the loudest has actually allowed the plurality of quieter voices to be heard, which is pretty much the opposite of an echo chamber. As always, the impact of social media comes down to how you use it, and the main problem with Twitter is that its owner has decided to control the way in which everyone uses it, to promote his favoured content to everyone. That sort of monoculture is deeply harmful, and is verging on propaganda.
I don't have any issue with "opposing ideas", I have issues with pages and pages of counterfactual bollocks from certain posters drowning everything else out, and anonymous shitposters pretending that 50 posts containing demonstrably-false right-wing propaganda should be given the same weight as one single sensible post, that's actually about the topic of the article, and not rage-bait.
Sometimes I enjoy baiting those posters, and systematically sitting down and pointing out how each of the things they have said is drivel, so that others can have the counterpoint to it, and sometimes, I'd like to be able to scroll past, because, let's face it, I'm not paid to correct bullshit, and I doubt anyone else here is either.
There is a fundamental "balance" issue here, as well. Phrasing propaganda and lies as "opposing ideas" in order to cast them as a genuine plurality of opinions polarises people. I know that's what you're after, because when you do that, you can present everything as a false dichotomy and control the narrative, but really, I'd rather you just fucked off. I think most other people here are intelligent enough to have a similar opinion.
"I'd rather you just fucked off"
Oh the left are such a friendly and welcoming bunch. Not exactly a shock given the frequency to which your ilk use ad-homs and just plain abusive language. And given the lengthy diatribes you post with the 'I'm smarter than you' tones I think you'd actually be bored if you could block people here.
This post has been deleted by its author
I suggest you re-read Karl Popper (it's barely more than 200 words). "Intolerance" doesn't mean ideas that we, in the modern day, describe as 'intolerant', it means an intolerance for peaceful discussion. By jumping the gun you, ironically, are starting to meet Popper's definition. It's perfectly fine to have your own ideas about how you should respond to people engaging in speech you find objectionable but please own your ideals, rather than hiding behind a distorted version of Popper.
I have no love for the far right but it's hard to claim that the tactic of chasing them off platforms has led to anything but huge electoral upsets. Pointing out a lie is infinitely more effective than gagging the liar.
Maybe think about it in terms of a Social Contract than a Paradox of Tolerance: play nice and you get treated with a bit of respect; if you're not nice then people are free to either ignore you, or tell you to sod off, especially if they set their moderation rules within the bounds UK law.
I don't have any issue with "opposing ideas", I have issues with pages and pages of counterfactual bollocks from certain posters drowning everything else out, and anonymous shitposters pretending that 50 posts containing demonstrably-false right-wing propaganda should be given the same weight as one single sensible post, that's actually about the topic of the article, and not rage-bait.
Sometimes I enjoy baiting those posters, and systematically sitting down and pointing out how each of the things they have said is drivel, so that others can have the counterpoint to it, and sometimes, I'd like to be able to scroll past, because, let's face it, I'm not paid to correct bullshit, and I doubt anyone else here is either.
There is a fundamental "balance" issue here, as well. Phrasing propaganda and lies as "opposing ideas" in order to cast them as a genuine plurality of opinions polarises people. I know that's what you're after, because when you do that, you can present everything as a false dichotomy and control the narrative, but really, I'd rather you just fucked off. I think most other people here are intelligent enough to have a similar opinion.
once a bully always a bully
swearing and abuse for daring to expressing a different opinion is reason enough to avoid the guardian/bluesky/theregister.
not seeing any abuse from the so called "right", just seeing plenty from the righteous mob who are clearly guardian subscribing musk hating so and so's.
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
> This is why we need the facility to block accounts on El Reg's forums.
Unless they went through a full personal transformation, not seen any post for some years from the user formerly known as Eldon..
Ie. It is possible to block accounts, just not easy.
One of the things I really do miss from Usenet/Newsgroups is the ability to put a thread on ignore.
Sometimes it is useful to block/ignore a Troll/Shit-poster entirely - but more often it would be nice to skip a sub-thread that has gone off-topic or descended into irrelevance (other than for the parties bickering).
Conversely, sometimes I find a very informative post and take time to look at what other things the poster has commented on to see what other pearls there might be. ften I think it would be nice to put them on a watch-list.
Ho hum - if wishes were horses ...
I have absolutely no idea why you made that last statement. You don't walk down the street with a sign saying who you are or other details. You are anonymous out there.
The reason to be AC is that there are users on here who are very petty and will go and downvote every single post you make as they have nothing better to do and even try and stalk you to other forums.
Guess what, anonymous troll, my real name isn't Elongated Muskrat, and I don't use that handle anywhere else. How on Earth would someone "stalk me to another forum"?
Perhaps the actual reason you get downvotes is that what you write is industrial-grade bollocks?
Yes, in response to someone complaining that if they don't post anonymously, they get down-voted. My point, and it still stands, is that the up/down votes don't matter, beyond a vague indication of what other people think, and the self-selecting small group of people hitting that down-vote button can easily be gamed. For example, I get far more down-votes for my comments on any article concerning Musk, which naturally attracts more of his simps.
Here's the thing, I don't care if you down-vote me, when I post anonymously, which, on the rare occasion I do, it's to actually protect my identity, because in those cases, I might be posting something that, in conjunction with other things I post, might help reveal my real-world identity, and I don't really fancy being doxxed by some basement-dwelling man-child.
So, to make it clear, I was taking the piss out of you, and you specifically, assuming you're the same AC who has been posting throughout. If your regular handle reveals your IRL identity, I suggest you change it, but don't pretend you're posting anonymously to protect yourself, when those posts don't reveal anything about your identity, just your personality. I suspect the irony of complaining about being down-voted in the voice of Gollum sailed over your head, which pretty much goes to solidify my previous suggestion that you might be a bit of a thicko.
So many countries to choose from and push rightwards...
Musk spent $44bn to turn Twitter into another irrelevant alt-right app like Truth Social, Parler, or Gab, the only difference is unlike the rest it's still relevant so more people may be susceptible to this nonsense. The best thing that can happen at this point is for every unaffected person, business, and media outlet to vote with their feet and abandon X for Bluesky, Threads, and/or Mastodon in an effort to hasten that irrelevancy and contain the disease.
Ah, the echo chambers of left wing anger, hate and bigotry. Why would anyone want to go there unless they are mentally ill.
Simple really-
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/leftists-leave-x-bluesky-only-overwhelm-site-mass-censorship-demands
It didn't take very long for the new arrivals to saturate the platform with censorship demands, post flagging and general complaints about other users. Bluesky gave notice recently that in only 24 hours the site was inundated with over 42,000 reports and the censorship requests have expanded to over 3000 flags per hour.
Haters gotta hate somewhere. Blueski apparently added 3m users.. I mean accounts since October, taking them to 15m! But those 3m also seemed to have generated a lot of noise, work for Dorsey's mod-squad and are settling in to shape the echo chamber just the way they want it.
But El Reg also explains further..
They also lend support for anecdotal claims that the platform had become more right-wing, exposing users to more reactionary views
Can't be having that now, can we? Won't someone think of the thumbs? It's absolutely shocking that innocent users might be exposed to alternative viewpoints, especially if it risks breaking their conditioning that's been created after years of pablum from the likes of CNN, MSNBC, Bbc etc etc. Some of which have noticed that.. maybe, just maybe they're not engaging with the majority of their potential audience and that was reflected in the recent 'red wave'. Or just their ratings. But how could this possibly be, when shows like 'The View' are the pinnacle of diversity, inclusion, representation and equality with their all-female screech team? Plus media companies are also looking at a bit of a cull, so perhaps the 'New View' might have a somewhat more balanced lineup that includes some Republicans and ends up with more interesting debate. Multiple View-points. Crazy idea I know..
But there's another important point-
Equally, the pair add, Republican-leaning posts were found to have enjoyed a more significant boost in terms of their visibility to users, and engagements were also vastly higher than those on Democrat-leaning posts
Oh dear. This is potentially catastrophic, if you're a social media influencer who's built their career based on views and engagements, or just to fuel their egos. Plus ad revenues, sponsorship deals, and lots of free stuff. Metrics fall off a cliff, money and freebies dry up and they might have to find a real job. Oh the humanity! But McDonalds is still hiring. So..
The Guardian newspaper is among the more famous brands to have officially exited the platform, calling it "toxic," while the likes of Ben Stiller and Jamie Lee Curtis are among the household Hollywood names to have also left.
There's a popular expression about doors that springs to mind. Lefties left. Shocking. More news after these messages from our sponsors. Genius move from the Grauniad, especially as they're stll bleeding cash and hemorrhaging customers. Genius move jumping to a platform with vastly fewer users and who are less likely to become subscribers. As for 'Hollywood names', who cares? They might, after all their jobs and money relies on flogging cinema tickets, PPV, streams and merch.. Which has been a fun one to watch with the way Rachel Zegler's been 'promoting' Disney's upcoming, and very expensive re-imagining of Snow White. Being toxic to over half your potential audience is one way to flog tickets I guess, and not long to wait and find out just how badly that one bombs.
On the plus side, Hollywood could save billions by choosing actors over activists, and those once household names can be left to shout at their Bluesky.
The main problem with leaving Twitter, is the one of "where to go". Some of those platforms have their own issues.
Threads, for example, is owned and controlled by Meta, and still curates feeds, and collects data (hence why it's not available in the EU) so metaphorically that's a bit like swapping Hitler for Stalin. I mean, I'm on there, but I don't post a lot, and certainly nothing that might be useful for Zuck. I can't see it becoming the Twitter-killer, more of an extension to Facebook.
Mastodon has a bit of a technical barrier to adoption, in that it is instanced, and that confuses people enough that they avoid it.
Bluesky seems to have hit the sweet spot: it's enough like Twitter used to be before it got shit, it doesn't have ads, and it has an open framework where you can manage your own feed algorithms if you really want to. By default, as the article says, it shows you things from people you follow, in chronological order. It also has block lists and "starter packs". This is why it's currently gaining about 1M users a day, and people who have moved from Twitter are reporting much more engagement from smaller follower counts. Time will tell whether it reaches "critical mass" (or whether it has already done so), or whether issues become apparent as it grows. At the time of writing this, it has 20.5M users, which is a fraction of the "250M active daily users" that Musk claims for Twitter, but the crux is whether the network those users form is widely spread; for example, if all the tweets you're seeing on Twitter come from a few hundred accounts, and ones from a certain political group are heavily promoted over others, the rest of those 250M users are moot because you'll never see or interact with them (making that platform the real echo chamber). I'm already seeing posts on Bluesky from people I'd never have otherwise interacted with, or heard of, and being followed by the same, this seems like the antithesis of the purported echo chamber that RWNJs are furiously claiming it is. Most of these are completely non-political stuff as well, which is the way it should be. I have no idea about whether all those people on there are "the left" because, unlike the far right shouty-men on Twitter who won't shut up about politics, and their culture war agenda, the rest of humanity has a plurality of opinions and interests.
edit - I'll also add, that those "250M daily active users" are the figure given by Musk. Since he fired the team responsible for moderation as one of the first things he did, there's no reason to suspect that a large portion of those accounts are not bots, scammers, spammers, and trolls. The number of "real" users is almost certainly less than that, and falling rapidly.
Some other issues with Threads are:
that you can ONLY get posts via the algorithm. There is no option to see a timeline of the people you follow, in chronological order
You can't post links, so it's useless for promotion. That's one reason why loads & loads of writers are on Bluesky, because they can actively promote their work.
This is very true. I'm seeing a lot of writers, comedians and artists on there. If being engaged with creative people is a "left-wing echo chamber", then more of this, please. I have to say, although the trolls here are desperately trying to make out that the platform is filled with hate, I have seen none whatsoever (and the only hate I see is coming from the people claiming this "left-wing hate" exists). Classic projection propaganda there. Again, Joe Goebbels would be proud.
I mean, I'm on there, but I don't post a lot,
you've done 1766 posts since 2022,
I've managed 1520 since 2018 with this account & 2802 In total since 2007.
perspectives vary.
I'm already seeing posts on Bluesky from people I'd never have otherwise interacted with, or heard of, and being followed by the same, this seems like the antithesis of the purported echo chamber that RWNJs are furiously claiming it is. Most of these are completely non-political stuff as well, which is the way it should be. I have no idea about whether all those people on there are "the left" because, unlike the far right shouty-men on Twitter who won't shut up about politics, and their culture war agenda, the rest of humanity has a plurality of opinions and interests.
as your enjoying their company its fair to say that those new smf's of yours are on your political spectrum, good for you, pleased you've found a happy place.
RWNJs
if your going to keep bringing up RWNJs, you realise your bringing up politics in a shouty way in a context of culture wars.
I wish you well in the bluesky.
I'm not sure about this.
The fact that Musk endorsed Trump would naturally attract more right (in the American sense) leaning support and was probably a significant contribution towards those increased exposure statistics. But the argument presented is that the increased exposure *artificially* increased on the day he endorsed Trump. I'm not sure the paper differentiates or, without inside information, could differentiate between the two scenarios. Once the ball was rolling, the retweets etc follow and is the way X works - publicity creating publicity.
@Andy: these were also my doubts
A pair of researchers say they've determined that July 13 was likely the day that ...
did these researchers ever hear about "correlation is not causation " ? If 13-th of july was the date Musk announced his endorsement of Trump, then it would be logical that some sort of online social movement started that day which led to the change in results in the – may-be same – algorithm.
did these researchers ever hear about "correlation is not causation "
Doubt it. Those pages probably included other important subjects like "confirmation bias" that the cats ended up using as a litter tray. But they know what results they want, so it's all good. There's millions and millions in grant money available for ways to 'counter misinformation', if you can produce the right results.
I do think, yes. Do you? The "choice morsels" seem like cherry picking possibly from a quick skim to back up your point of view while ignoring the bits that are a bit "inconvenient" or simply not read at all.
As for the quotes, did you mean "confirmation bias" or 'counter misinformation', A couple of two word "quotes" which may or may not be direct quotes.
Here's a better quote from the article for you:
"These findings underscore a distinct pattern that may indicate an algorithmic shift that disproportionately favored Musk's account, contributing to a considerable engagement advantage," the researchers noted. "This visibility bias, if linked to platform algorithm adjustments, highlights the impact of such structural changes on engagement dynamics and the potential for differential treatment among users.
See how it works? You quote something in context and maybe emphasise the bits to support you argument.
Do you? The "choice morsels" seem like cherry picking possibly from a quick skim to back up your point of view while ignoring the bits that are a bit "inconvenient" or simply not read at all.
See? Confirmation bias, and the risk of jumping to conclusions unsupported by evidence. So yes, I read the article, and I even read the paper. And the bit you quoted is just typical of this kind of research-
"These findings underscore a distinct pattern that may indicate an algorithmic shift that disproportionately favored Musk's account, contributing to a considerable engagement advantage," the researchers noted.
ie the researchers didn't find any strong evidence to support a conclusion that there was an 'algorithm shift', so just use the weasel words 'may indicate' instead. Which is obviously strong enough to generate a press release, and then journalists using their own confirmation bias to write their own articles.
[This operation was performed by a moderation algorithm]
Seem familiar anyone?
We need to strip social media of the pretense that algorithms are moderation. They're required by law to do something about hate speech and disinformation on their platforms, but they abdicate that responsibility to algorithms that regularly do the exact opposite. For some reason they keep getting away with this.
Oh, you mean inexistant ?
Social interactions should be in person. This artificial world we have created is alluring, to be sure, but it is not real. Email is fine for corresponding with family. Internet video is fine for seeing one's loved ones from time to time. SMS works great for near-instant chat with actual, real-life friends. But spending all day long on web sites that "connect" you is debilitating and does not give any real sense of contact, much less human interaction.
It's all a dream, Neo. Take the red pill and come back to reality.
I don't trust these newly domesticated "horse" things, and that guy in the next valley has definitely been looking at your mud funny.
Look on the bright side. Algorithms, auto-moderation and occasionally human moderation have made virtual witch burning so much easier. Milk gone sour? Burn the witch! Ban the witch! SS, DD. Oh, how the 'progressives' are regressing..
Exactly why people are fleeing Twitter for a platform that doesn't have algorithmic moderation, and where the blocklists are managed by the community.
Fucking Communists, eh?
Seriously though, I think this might be one of those rare occasions where you've made a valid point, although probably inadvertently. "The algorithm" is what is wrong with most of the social media platforms - opaque filtering and promotion of one piece of content over another, over which the user has no control.
At the moment, Bluesky doesn't have this, or at least, not in the same way. It has a feed containing content from people you follow, in chronological order, a "suggested" feed that is based on the network of people you are already following, and your declared interests (and which you don't have to look at), user-created "starter lists" of accounts you might like to follow, and user created "block-lists" of accounts you might like to block. You can subscribe to these in their entirety, or pick individuals from them. You can also add additional feeds based on user-added algorithms, for example, feeds for certain topics or interests. None of these things are under any sort of centralised control as far as I can tell.
So, not so much "burn the witch" like on Twitter, but more "ignore the people going round burning witches". Oh, and accounts that post hate-speech get banned. Like they should. I think that's about the only bit of centralised moderation. Apparently Yaxley-Lennon got his account banned in just one day; one of the big problems with Twitter is that Musk let all the banned hate-speech accounts back on, like that particular serial-grifter, and scum like Andrew Tate. I've no problem with never seeing anything from those people.
Oh, and accounts that post hate-speech get banned.
Now define 'hate speech'? Have celebs who've fled to the safe harbor of Bluesky and frequently call.. somewhat important and influential people like Trump, Musk etc Nazis been banned? Or don't you think that qualifies as 'hate speech'?
Seriously though, I think this might be one of those rare occasions where you've made a valid point, although probably inadvertently. "The algorithm" is what is wrong with most of the social media platforms - opaque filtering and promotion of one piece of content over another, over which the user has no control.
Nope, and it was absolutely intentional. As was my other post about Blueski struggling under the influx of Karens and haters. Dorsey knows both the problems, and the risks given he's basically cloning Twitter again. Self-policing might work, or it might (will) end up with the same problems other sites like Wiki, Reddit ect has when subjects might get a bit political, and editors or mods start acting as gatekeepers. Or just as Twitter was when his army of staff acted as gatekeepers, along with being a huge opex.
But context is key. Hang out with writers, maybe discussing a book you're writing and set in or about WW2. Discussing Nazis would be relevant. Someone piling in and ranting about Trump or Musk and Nazis would get swiftly blocked, banned or ignored. As they might be if it's a bunch of sociologists chatting about the current toxicity of modern discourse, especially political discourse.
But algorithms and 'AI' are currently very bad at this. They might be able to flag on keywords, but can't do context or nuance. So then need to flag that to a human, who would need to be objective. And if they're attempting to make a decision about 'misinformation', should also need to have some understanding of the subject.. Which they've got pretty much zero chance of doing if, say, it's two (or more) virology professors arguing about Covid.. Which again Dorsey knows all about. His government contacts would tell Twitter's mod-droids what the official misinformation was, and they'd deplatform accordingly.. Even if it later turns out that the people banned for 'spreading misinformation' were actually correct.
Self-policing doesn't scale. Algorithms don't work. Humans cost money, even if you're not giving the latest bunch free wine & beer in their offices. Dorsey may also have better auditing to stop his new employees taking backhanders to moderate, ban, promote etc.
And on top of all that mess, there's the velvet fists of governments. On the left knuckles, governments demand 'social media' do.. something to restrict free speech and block/ban things they can't really define. And if you don't, you'll get fined lots and lots of money which you don't have. On the right knuckle, there's s.230 'safe harbor' provisions that might vanish, if social media companies are publishers rather than just common carriers.
So a couple of conflicting challenges to solve, with a whole bunch of complexity and costs. Plus behind all that, governments using existing legislation to set law enforcement on anyone who publishes or shares a mean post. I think most people would much prefer LEAs dealing with crimes like child abuse, violent crimes, thefts instead of arresting someone who called a prominent German an imbecile.
I've not seen anyone even use the "N" word there, but you do you.
There are plenty of good descriptions of what hate speech is, you don't need me to google it for you, or to post engagement bait asking me to define it for you. It's your job to educate yourself, and nobody else's.
Well, since your reaction seems to have been to instinctively jab at that down-vote button, rather than to go off and educate yourself, here is a link to the Wikipedia article on Hate Speech. I'd advise reading past the first sentence, and digesting the entire article (and not cherry-picking, if you can resist your seemingly innate urge to do so), because it has some interesting points to make. Perhaps it is time for the US to bring back the concept of "group libel"? Of course, that was a response to the rising threat of overseas fascism the first time round, it might be too close to home now.
Most countries have a more nuanced approach to the limits of free speech than the US, in that in most cases, free speech is the freedom to say things that are not actively harmful to others (hence the existence of "incitement to..." laws). The free speech absolutists like Musk would like there to be no limits on hate speech in this way, but are seemingly always very sensitive if people expressing their opinions openly threatens them in any way (see also: you can't post the word "cisgendered" on Twitter), and the laws governing harmful speech in the US are clearly not strong enough when there are openly fascist groups with swastika tattoos marching around with flaming torches, inciting violence against other groups.
Well, since your reaction seems to have been to instinctively jab at that down-vote button, rather than to go off and educate yourself
I'll take your wiki link and raise you-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranoia
Wasn't me, and why would you be bothered anyway? It won't affect your social credit score.. yet.
Perhaps it is time for the US to bring back the concept of "group libel"? Of course, that was a response to the rising threat of overseas fascism the first time round, it might be too close to home now.
It has never really gone away and is still pretty much the basis of most 'hate speech' legislation. Some goes back to the days of 'blood libels' used to demonise Jews or Catholics, and if today I posted on FaceMelta that "all Jews hate marshmallows*", I might get a knock on the door because that might be considered 'hate speech' and a 'group libel' because the remark is aimed at all members of a group. Similarly, claiming that all Republicans (or Conservatives, Brexiteers) are nazis, racists, extremists, etc could be considered a 'group libel', although it would probably be a brave lawyer who tried to make a class action out of that. People that call Musk a Nazi, or compare him to Hitler may be easier to prosecute for defamation or hate speech, especially as Musk can afford a lot of lawyers.
Or maybe we could just go back to being a more civil society, with much-less online name calling, hate speech and group libelling and people just accept that not everybody is going to share the same point of view.. Which is probably just as well. Imagine a world where everyone 'agreed', who then would be the out-group or outsider to hate on? Bluesky eventually reaches their singularity when only one member remains, having banned everyone else..
*Ok, so I'm a bit bored right now and so had to look this up. Apparently "No, marshmallows made with gelatin are not kosher because most gelatin comes from non-kosher animals.". So I learned something new today. Or learned a little more about the challenges of defining 'hate speech'. So apologies if I offended anyone, but in my defence, the comment is arguably true for observant Jews, untrue for non-observant Jews.. So hopefully I won't get the knock.
Its JE. He thinks vatnik is a racial slur and that he is an ethnic group...
Again, you are confused. I am a member of an ethnic group. Actually a couple, so I can choose to be offended on at least 3 possible ethnic slurs, or when race gets confused with ethnicity, those as well. Which can all be offences under the UK's Public Order Act, and which Starmer's government seem to be aggresively pursuing. Context is also important, ie when you use 'vatnik', which as you know is an ethnic slur, you are being deliberately offensive. Which should tell people more about you than I.
That would be an interesting interpretation.
Context is everything. So it's a slur based on an ethnic characteristic, and is used as such. Much like the way the bastions of EU values also refer to Russians as 'orcs'. Context is also very important when it comes to things like the Public Order Act, where the scope can be very broad. And now we have new legislation related to 'hate speech'.
(and in other news, it looks like our 'leaders' FAFO'd. We let Ukraine hit Russia, Russia may have just responded with an ICBM. I wonder if Biden's retirement plan includes spending time On the Beach.)
vatniks isnt an ethnic groups but you keep on believing that.
And yet you're continuing to use it as a slur.. I'm also not defending Russia's attack, simply pointing out that it was inevitable, and expected. Wonder why the US and other countries closed their embassies yesterday and warned their staff to shelter in place? Our 'leaders' knew this was coming.
Wow, of course they knew it was coming. Its called gathering intelligence and drawing conclutions. And the warned about the attack...
Oh sorry. You are a UK Vatnik. Thats the definition of what you are. Not a slur. Every post about russia and Ukraine you keep defending russia. Its just pathetic that you deny it.
You're comparing being called out for hateful rhetoric to Blood Libel and Antisemitism? What's wrong with you, man‽
<libmode=on>How dare you assume my gender, you hateful hater!</libmode=off>. Again an AC demonstrates a comprehension failure and jumps straight into attack mode.
Self-policing doesn't scale.
Well, so far, as of today, it has scaled to (checks counter) 20,556,120 accounts (and currently rising at 7.13 a second). Where's this phase change where it stops scaling? Do you have a crystal ball, or is that just unsubstantiated bollocks from you again?
This is the real story here : how he spent $48 billion to buy a big platform just so he could push his own opinions into everybody's face on it, and then have his often ignorant and childish trolling seen as "popular". Buying influence is certainly effective, but it's always blatantly obvious, and never going to earn the same respect as influence earned with good well-built arguments persuading people by nature of the quality and intelligence demonstrated. Musk apparently realises this, and it just makes him even more angry and reactionary as he's reduced to just lashing out at or trolling his critics every day.
It's such a shame, is what it is. Twitter could have been (arguably was, formerly) a good and useful thing for the world, and he's taken all that clout and potential and pissed it up the wall. "But for Wales?"
What's more saddening is: What has Musk done that any mediocre mind hasn't dreamed of, given that level of wealth? That's the draw to him - the idea their petty fantasy can be made real by latching on to a "great man."
It's not enough that he's the richest man in the world, that he can use his ridiculous wealth to buy and ruin our platforms and our governments. Not for him. He wants to do that and be loved for it, and he simply cannot comprehend why he isn't.
Seeing him alongside the other creepy TESCREAL Wealthbros slithering around the crevices of the new administration is deeply unsettling.
Very true, but the content which made those platforms was user generated and could be curated by users, you could choose which you saw, block objectionable users, create your own 'private' cliques etc so they had at least the appearance of being user focused and owned spaces
Very true, but the content which made those platforms was user generated and could be curated by users
This is what I don't get with some of the fuss around X. I don't use them, but they still allow users to choose who to follow/block/ignore if they find someone or something objectionable. So if users have that ability, why all the fuss about wanting to outsource that?
Because, despite the ability to block users, Elmo has made it so that those same users that you have blocked can still see your tweets and interact with them. That might not bother you, but for anyone who has ever had a stalker, this is terrifying.
Also, (and I'm going from what I've been told here, as I was never a big user of Twitter even before it was owned by Musk), rather than a chronological timeline of people you follow, it algorithmically promotes "sponsored" and paid-for "blue-tick" accounts over those you actually follow, and doesn't necessarily show you tweets from people you do follow, dramatically reducing its usefulness in terms of seeing the content you want, over political posts, paid-for spam, and rage-bait.
I was never a huge fan of Twitter, I've been signed on to it for years, but of the last couple of years I only really follow one or 2 accounts, Musk isn't one of them, but somehow, recently, he keeps showing up in my Notifications, so I'm guessing he's told his employees to boost his own posts to everyone.
I finally got around to turning of notifications for it though.
Journalists and researches might like Twitter because it's fairly easy to get data about it, but it's never really been that popular even before messenger apps appeared, after which it started a slow decline in popularity that was accelerated by Musk.
Looking at the results of the American elections, it's fairly clear that there, while there was a general shift away from the status quo, it was more pronounced among organised labour and immigrants (not mutually exclusive and not comprehensive): not generally the groups associated with Twitter. I'd expect TikTok, YouTube and messenger groups to be more important. My own anecdotal evidence is limited, but when using YouTube anonymously I notice that most of the suggested political videos I get, even when looking for completely unrelated stuff, tend towards the extremist.
not generally the groups associated with Twitter.
Yep. I think this is a bubble thing. Billions spent on this election, millions spaffed on 'social media' and 'social media experts'. Stuff like Twitter might be vital to them, but to the millions existing outside of their bubble, nobody cares. Challenge for the spin doctors is figuring out ways to try and capture the attention of those millions who don't consume media the way they'd like. See also the reaction from a typical young person when you ask them to check out your FaceMelta page. Or MySpace.
Yep. From (limited) observation of SWMBO(S) kids and their friends, it's mostly WhatsApp and then recommendations from their friends or social group. Also after watching how fast her youngest kid's fingers moved, I managed to get her interested in violin lessons. Especially after pointing out electric violins exist, as do synth interfaces and she's been doing 'gravity drop' drum solos with her violin. They're also very proficient at eliminating any 'recommendations' WhatsApp's ad bots try to sneak in.
My own anecdotal evidence is limited, but when using YouTube anonymously I notice that most of the suggested political videos I get, even when looking for completely unrelated stuff, tend towards the extremist.
I've noticed the same and it's almost certainly down to the algorithms again. Other than sponsored or promoted posts, it seems mostly driven by engagement again. Don't forget to like/share/subscribe/leave a comment (breathe) and then the algorithm picks up that activity and promotes it. Aided and abetted by bots which will leave innocent but irrelevant comments to drive the algorithm, hopefully propelling the video to the holy grail (and $$) of virality. Sad part is the promoted & manipulated vids are very obvious because they're either some band I've never heard of and a genre I never listen to wasting money on promoting their vid. Or worse, desperate creators hoping to hit the big time by paying AlphaGoo to promote their vid. They're easy to spot because they'll be stuff like livestreams with only 1 viewer, or <100 views, or <100 subscribers.
Asking why these appear in my 'recommended' videos is pointless, and just demonstrates that AlphaGoo really is that evil. As long as they're getting paid, they don't care.
The reasons for this, are, sadly, simple. Alphabet, Youtube's parent company, is an advertiser. They make more money on more advertising impressions. They promote videos that get the most engagement, be it positive, or negative, because this makes more money for them. Extremism gets more engagement. Unless there's a feedback to prevent this, content that is disturbing or controversial, but not so disturbing or controversial to be illegal, or trigger total revulsion, is naturally the most profitable for them, and they are driven by profit and not ethics. The answer would, it seems, be to put control of the algorithms that choose what content to display in the hands of the consumer, not the host. Again, that's a problem of public good vs capitalism, and any sensible discussion of public goods inevitably quickly degenerates into accusations of Marxism, which itself has a chilling effect and moves the Overton Window to the right. Looking at it dispassionately, these feedback mechanisms are obvious.
Well, duh! And Musk has turned an about ~40 billion loss into likely profit through regulatory capture. However, that wasn't what caused the landslide losses. That was caused by the Democratic Party being locked in bubble of its own making - a horrifying alliance of regulatory capture "light", PAC money, and their foot soldiers armed with social-media-bubble-captured activism that discourages debate in favor of downvotes and is expected to save the day with last minute "messaging".
The idea that the landslide loss was caused exclusively by strategic messaging forcing "the public who don't know better" into being brainwashed is false. It was actually caused by the inability of Democrats to listen to "the public who do know better", i.e., to respect the Democratic process.
The fix is a good dose of humility, enough to change the Democratic Party primary system. A ranked choice primary allowing anyone not registered to another party to vote (because "inclusive"), with no special weighting given to party leaders or donors, and votes summed over all states. The Party's only special power would be to vet candidates to prevent sabotage - supposing they could be trusted to do that wisely. That's just the kind of election many wish we had at the presidential level.
I will qualify this by saying stubborn activists stuck on their beliefs are a valuable asset to society and are deserving of respect for that - they play a valuable role. However, it is their job to promote their ideas and persuade, not force them. The decisions have to be gated by Democracy.
"Musk has turned an about ~40 billion loss into likely profit through regulatory capture."
Likely? Hardly. If Musk can turn "being a friend of Donald" into 40 billion dollars then the US really has gone down the pan. DJT himself didn't manage to turn his first term into a big pot of cash for himself, so I can't see that he'll be able to help Musk in this regard this time around.
"Musk has turned an about ~40 billion loss into likely profit through regulatory capture.”
Maybe, maybe if it does give Musk instant access to POTUS and ‘favours/favors’, then possibly it was worth it. Although any ‘advantages’ could be short term
On the other hand, DJT can’t run again so arguably doesn’t need X/Twitter/Musk’s support any more, could just dump him!
Who can say?
Let me guess. Bet-ya those two media studies "misinformation" wowsers in QLD never voted NLP. I do miss the good old days of Joh Bjelke Petersen. An honest to goodness genuine old school right wing loon. And I mean loon.
So I guess the only reason in the recent election in San Francisco the left wing / progressive candidate for mayor came in a bad third, and all but one of the left wing / progressive Supes are gone (and the surviving one only held on by the skin of her teeth) is because of the "rightward lurch" of Twitter. Who knew there was such power in that building at 10'th and Market. That "rightward lurch" must have got Price in Alameda and Gason in LA recalled too.
Media studies guys with Python scripts always produce total b*ll*cks. Its one of those immutable rules of academic papers.
As an end note. There is a new "progressive" Supe in SF who looks like she not just another "radical politics" cosplaying affluent (usually white) suburbanite / out-of-stater with a law degree. Looks like a genuine tribal member of the Lakota / Three Affiliated Tribes. I knew some Nakota in the PNW and her background story so far rings true. Totally disagree with her politics but will give her a huge benefit of the doubt due to the immense respect I developed for the Native tribal members / Amerindians I've known over the years. So should be interesting to see how things pan out in the Board of Supes next few years. I wish her the best.
Sure, his Muskiness has unprecedented power to shape the public discourse in his private hands now. That's the first reason to be somewhere between vigilant and militant against him, whatever your politics might be, if you happen to disagree with his.
But suppose, instead of getting people to vote, you wanted to get people to buy your new widget. How much would you have had to pay hard cash to his Muskiness to purchase the sort of influence he just wielded? Because that is the size of the in-kind undeclared political donation he just made. That's the second reason, because, to start with, it's illegal. But unless someone can subpoena what might have simply been a quiet word in the ear of one of his senior engineers, there will be no evidence of the crime.
Now he will want to be paid for his generosity, in so many ways.
I got banned from twitter for upsetting an idiot.
They had posted that NHS consultants were paid too much and they should all be sacked.
I simply said that I hoped the poster contracted a really interesting disease.
I trust you can see the irony of my comment. Twitter couldn't and banned me until I apologised.
Best move I ever made.