Musk: Twitter will have 1 billion monthly users inside 18 months Call it blind optimism, deployment of a reality distortion field or pure conviction that Twitter will ultimately flourish, but Elon Musk reckons his social media platform will have 1 billion monthly users within 18 months. The world's richest man made public a number of slides at the weekend included in his company talk, in …
Well sales is all about relationships and if you’ve fired the sales people then you’re not helping yourself too much. One person I knew who was in internet ad sales announced he was leaving his then company, he was made redundant. He had more than a few people ask where he was going to and sizeable number of his clients moved with him when he did. The company who had made him redundant were not pleased in the slightest and tried to hire him back. “Fat chance!” was his reply.
This is why sales people should never be asked to work their notice period.
Nor, for that matter, to pack up their own things from their desks.
Pro tip: when you fire a salesperson, have security escort them directly from your office to the street. Have someone else (not a salesperson) pack up their desk and forward their personal effects to them.
This is why sales people should never be asked to work their notice period.
Nor, for that matter, to pack up their own things from their desks.
Pro tip: when you fire a salesperson, have security escort them directly from your office to the street. Have someone else (not a salesperson) pack up their desk and forward their personal effects to them.
Yeah the funny part about it was he didn’t take anything like that with him when he left though. He only posted that he was up for redundancy on LinkedIn (I think it was). He did also email a few people after the first consultation to say he was likely to be off. The clients just followed him of their own free will.
We once fired a salesperson who then demanded access to personal items left in their locked desk. The company didnt trust him to take only his own items out and he didnt trust the company with the key. Ended up with us having to carry the entire desk down three flights of stairs so that it could be opened in reception under the gaze of lawyers.
Twitter is the natural home of YIPs and all things woke. The problem is they are the loudest yell but a small minority. Most people just want to get on with their lives without endless 'you're-guilty-even-if-you-dont-know-it' progressive agendas.
It could be that Twitter gains popularity with the majority of normal people.
(I don't really believe this, Musk has just taken Twitter to the farmer at the end of the lane earlier than its natural demise).....
And the next generation re-discovers Godwins Law...
It's a bit late for the eternal september..
(Odd fact - one of the neighbours has a cat that has facial/head markings that very strongly resemble the leader of a 1930's nationalist party in Germany. I started calling him Mr H. T'missus was Not Amused. He's now called (by us) Charlie after Charlie Chaplin) He's actually a really nice cat and doesn't seem to have any desire whatsoever to annex our garden..)
Personally I thought that Gad Saad's analysis of Elon Musk's purchase of Twitter quite interesting
That's one person in eight, globally.
I'm trying hard to think of anyone I know who is a regular user of Twitter, let alone one person in eight, and I live in a first-world supposedly affluent* country. I don't see anyone flocking** to use it, and I seriously doubt that people in the "Global South" are going to prioritise this over struggling to feed themselves, avoid conflict, and cope with climate change, so you can probably rule out a good four billion people there. So the claim here, is that in first-world countries, every fourth man, woman and child, will be actively using Musk's Twitter which is rapidly becoming an ever more toxic wasteland.
His Muskiness really is bananas, isn't he? Has he decided to do the thing he claimed the former owners were guilty of, and count bots as genuine users?
*mis-government aside
**natch
This post has been deleted by its author
Ironic considering his "there are too many bots on Twitter" comments in the recent past, but their numbers definitely seem like they're up from what I can see, along with the usual influence-peddler sock-puppets. None of which makes Twitter a better place to be, and that's a problem because before Lone Kums took over it was already walking a tightrope in that regard and he appears to have just applied a significant shove.
Maybe Musk's insistence that the former owners tell him how many bots there are on Twitter was so that he could establish whether or not there was room for more before buying. You don't want to buy a bot hotel and then find out all the rooms are full of actual people already.
Twitter had very bad performance outside US and Europe.
If he fixes that there might be more 1 billion _extra_users that will have a look, at least for a while.
Did not use twitter much in the past because the default page is a den of sin and iniquity, but then I was told about the option to see only the people you actually follow, and that is much better.
Everyone I know, either doesn't use twitter, never has and those few that did... Have moved to mastodon already. Even a few of the anti twitter people are trying it.
As for ole Musky... given that about 80% of his own followers are already bots (did he hire a bot farm to boost his own numbers, because it's exactly the kind of thing he'd do?) is he going to allow rampant bot use on the site to achieve that claim.
You make mandatory for every Tesla owner to start their car by login into a Twitter account, to stop it by login into another one, to connect to a SuperCharger using a different account each time, you do the same with Starlink users and the "owners" of a few other devices, and voila!
Maybe he's writing1 a bot to sign up other bots....
"To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion...."
1OK, we all know he's not writing anything (except perhaps bullshit self-aggrandizing tweets), but rather has one of his minions trapped on level L3 writing it, who won't be allowed to leave until his bot has signed up one beeeelion other bots "users".
Twitter chief executive Elon Musk confirmed plans for end-to-end encryption (E2EE) for direct messages on the platform.
Over at The Hacker News... https://thehackernews.com/2022/11/elon-musk-confirms-twitter-20-will.html
Perhaps this coupled with bans being lifted has attracted new readers?
Now on with the Twitter bashing bash!
Musk was talking about sign-ups, not readers. He was not saying lots of new people followed a link and looked at a page of tweets. For a sign-up, a human or bot came up with a unique user name and something resembling a password then jumped through whatever hoops are required to prove/pretend they are not a bot.
Your reason for them doing so is that end to end encryption has been mentioned but is not yet implemented. Even before I start thinking, that seems fr fetched but lets follow this through. Plenty of people click the 'track my every move and sell my data to anyone who offers a little money' button because it is only one click instead of often two plus a little reading and thinking. None of that crowd are going to make the effort to sign up for your reason. Next up, there are some whose lives depend on their communications remaining private. They will make a proper effort to research the product. With the minimal possible effort they will find "not implemented yet" and move on.
Perhaps one day Musk will say encryption is working. On that day anyone with a clue will find out who provided a billion or more to help Musk buy twitter. That list of names would scare away anyone with a genuine need for private communications.
I prefer some other theories.
1) Musk simply made it up. People have a bad habit of believing what they are told despite evidence to the contrary and doing what they think others are doing. Just by saying people are signing up in droves Musk will convince a bunch of people to sign up.
2) One of Musk's employees made it up to avoid getting fired.
3) Some bot herders are taking the opportunity to create a pile of new accounts while Twitter is too short staffed to stop them.
4) Musk hired some bot herders to create accounts that follow him and like his tweets.
I would believe any of those and a bunch less likely over people making an effort to get encryption that is not yet available.
people making an effort to get encryption that is not yet available
.. and as yet untested. Any reader of Bruce Schneier's books knows that getting encryption right takes a bit more than just slapping in an algorithm, plus you can't trust its origin either so that idea carries a rather large meh factor.
I trust the ones that were implemented after open consultations because in that case the US has shown for once a more adult stance on encryption in that it chose the best rather than something that had to be American.
The current AES is based on Rijndael which happens to be of Belgian origin. By looking this up to refresh my memory (damn you, old age) I was amazed to find that AES does not even stand for American Encryption Standard, the "A" stands for Advanced.
Clearly, the people who did this work are unlikely to have a future in the current political climate, but IMHO they did a bang up job. Their approach made us all safer, and I think we ought to recognise that for the good work it was.
Yes, AES won a competition run by the Americans to find a replacement for DES. A Belgian algorithm won, which was subsequently modified to become AES.
The Americans allow AES to be used for data at rest, because they know that AES is extraordinarily difficult to implement in ways that do not make the encoder/decoder leak key information via side channels. The reference implementation of the code has such flaws, some would say deliberately, so that although the encrypted data is pretty secure, the act of encrypting or decrypting is susceptible to eavesdropping.
The Americans have form on this: The 'Swiss' Crypto AG (secretly controlled by the CIA and German Intelligence (BND) en-/de-cryption machines were doctored to enable the search for a decryption key to be made easier (more details here).
NN
I very much doubt the typical Twitter user cares or even values end to end encryption because they're not using the platform for DMs but to consume data. A more likely reason for the uptick in users, assuming Musk is telling the truth for once, is morbid curiosity and a complete collapse of whatever safeguards the platform had in its signup process to stop it being infested with bots.
What's the proportion of DMs versus broadcast on Twitter? I don't think I've ever heard anyone mention using Twitter for direct messaging. The whole point of Twitter is to screech at the passers-by. It's a perch to fluff what passes for your intellectual plumage.
And of that presumably rather small use case, what fraction of users understands what end-to-end encryption might mean? And what fraction of that care? And what fraction of that will investigate whether it's genuinely end-to-end, and how key management works, and how keys will be propagated to multiple devices (because if you did use Twitter for DMs, and you cared enough to want E2EE, you'd probably want access to your account from multiple devices)?
It's a pointless feature.
The only thing keeping me around is a group chat or two. Perhaps this is a strange use of Twitter, I don't know.
Anyway, when the discussions gradually quiet down as time passes and people move somewhere else (as almost always happens, Musk or no Musk), I'll be less and less active. Happened with Facebook, happened with IRC, happened with any number of discussion forums, will happen with Twitter.
What Musk said:
> "I think I see a path to Twitter exceeding a billion monthly users in 12 to 18 months,"
What El Reg writes:
> Musk: Twitter will have 1 billion monthly users inside 18 months
"Seeing a path" is clearly not the same as "will have". Zero journalistic integrity.
And to be clear, I have no axe to grind concerning neither Twitter nor Musk. But I very much take issue with misleading, unprofessional journalism.
(I half expect ElReg's reaction is going to be to put this account on their naughty list rather than taking criticism like grown ups)
> What about the engineer who was fired for disagreeing with him?
He still has his Twitter account active, as far as I know.
Also, not sure he was fired for disagreeing. He was chided for, in musk's opinion at least, not knowing what was going on behind the scenes when their client makes a request to the server.
Musk said the Android app batch called 1200 RPCs. If you stop and think about it microsecond it obviously doesn't. The website doesn't, the iOS app doesn't so why would the Android app? Yet Chief Twit posted this in public, secure in the knowledge that whatever he had heard and misunderstood was completely right and that posting this in public was the right place to talk about this subject. And then he was bothered when the engineer politely told that he was wrong, again in public because Musk started the conversation in public, so Musk fired him.
https://www.followchain.org/ethan-klein-h3-banned-twitter/
Elon obviously didn't think it was funny....
> https://www.followchain.org/ethan-klein-h3-banned-twitter/
Your own article says:
> Ethan Klein was banned from Twitter after he impersonated Elon Musk.
> He changed his name to “Elon Musk” without specifying that it was a parody next to his name.
So he was banned for impersonation, correct? Not for disagreeing with Musk, which is what is being asked.
> But I very much take issue with misleading, unprofessional journalism.
Especially when it foments hate. I really don't understand what this guy has done that now everyone hates on the bastard. It's clear (to me, at least) that there's a real chance that this might end badly, specifically with physical violence against the person, and "journalists" that irresponsibility help create that sorry of environment with one-sided coverage (presumably because drama sells?) will have a lot to answer for.
Let's get shit back on track, shall we?
>I half expect ElReg's reaction is going to be to put this account on their naughty list
Do we know of commentards being blocked for a single criticism of ElReg or is that passing swipe itself an example of distortion and a false accusation of committing "cancel culture"? Anyway, don't worry, you weren't logged in.
> Do we know of commentards being blocked for a single criticism of ElReg
Yes, myself. For responding to an article based on made up facts, which I happened to have personal knowledge of. Their first reaction was to close my account rather than fact check (a well known former contributor's) story.
We all make mistakes and that could have been a one off, but I wasn't impressed, as I am not impressed by this one-sided, irresponsible coverage.
(To be clear, their toys, their rules. I'm fine with them closing accounts for whatever reason or for no reason at all, that's not the issue.)
This post has been deleted by its author
> If that and the post about having had an account closed were also yours, I'm surprised you don't know that.
???
If this is a joke it flew over my head, sorry.
I assure you that I am logged in. The "post as anonymous coward" thing is just a tick that hides my user name from other users, but not from the system or from moderators.
Every single one of my posts is as AC, simply to create more noise for those who genuinely have a reason to post AC to benefit from.
Anyway, don't worry, you weren't logged in.
Nope. El Reg allows you to post anonymously, but you still need an account which responsibility for the post (and gets the up and downvotes of your posts, anon or not). That protects anonymity but still assigns consequence to users.
Musk is purposefully couching his language to avoid being called out for failure while still being able to claim glory if it works. It's a classic BS move and is sophistry (or at least related to it).
Musk has a habit of doing this sort of thing. There's always a "reason", handy excuse, or party to blame; it's out of his control. Then, when something great happens, he's front and centre to tout his divine vision and ability. Why is this ability so fickle? Why can't he bring it to bear on command? Before he'll answer, he'll bring out a "flamethrower" or claims of vox populi and the cycle moves on.
He's a rich hokum vendor, and money loves money; that's his power. He's not made anything, only bought in. It could be that this time he's done so at the worst time in very public fashion.
It's a classic BS move and is sophistry (or at least related to it).
Bullshit, yes. I fail to see how it's sophistry. Which of the Sophists are you thinking of, and which position espoused by him?
Not all rhetorical devices originated in the Sophist school.
Third paragraph: "I think I see a path to Twitter exceeding a billion monthly users in 12 to 18 months," Musk said on Twitter in...
Which you would know IF YOU READ THE ARTICLE?
A certain amount of artistic license is allowed in headlines and sub-headlines. The facts were fully presented in the article.
But you don;t want to read the article you just want to be a childish twat. Fuck off back to the Daily Wail or Fox.
> Which you would know IF YOU READ THE ARTICLE?
Where do you think I copied the original quote from?
> A certain amount of artistic license is allowed in headlines and sub-headlines
Err… no. Journalism is not art. What you're referring to is word play and attention grabbing headlines. There's a difference between those and twisting the facts. That is precisely what is being criticised.
> But you don;t want to read the article you just want to be a childish twat. Fuck off back to the Daily Wail or Fox.
I have reported your post for this reason. I'm personally fine with the odd misplaced insult, but let's see if ElReg practice what they preach. :)
Oh, I'm also more of a Reuters + financial times + monde diplomatique + FAZ sort of person, with the occasional peek at La Reppublica… and of course ElReg for my tech needs. Cheers!
"Journalism is not art."
Unfortunately it usually is, as is almost everything else now, including the UK Shipping Forecast. What used to be considered important information for mariners couched in very specific formal language for clarity is now read by different presenters with all sorts of personal amendments and asides. it's actually promoted by the BBC on the basis that it's "relaxing" to listen to. So El Reg is no guiltier than any other public information source. But this is not a new problem -- just a growing one. See Neil Postman, Amusing ourselves to death, 1985, Penguin. ISBN 0-670-80454-1.
I have reported your post for this reason.
I see reporting a post as a last ditch measure.
If it's something I disagree with but can be discussed I'll post a comment saying so, with our without a vote (it's not exactly mandatory to vote), and I don't have a real problem with people with a limited vocabulary, that's their problem more than mine.
If the post is clearly hardcore inflammatory or seriously outside the bounds of decent discourse such as racism or sexism, THAT I would report, but reporting anything less feels too much like being a snowflake to me, and I imagine El Reg's moderators have enough to do.
Just my opinion.
> I see reporting a post as a last ditch measure.
Agreed, obviously.
> THAT I would report, but reporting anything less feels too much like being a snowflake to me, and I imagine El Reg's moderators have enough to do.
Agreed also. However, since ElReg journos have decided to climb on a high horse about how moderation should be done by others, it seems fair to see if it's a matter of do as I say not as I do.
This is the big that was reported but which seemingly the moderators are OK with:
> But you don;t want to read the article you just want to be a childish twat. Fuck off back to the Daily Wail or Fox.
Presumably is it's OK by them on ElReg it's OK on Twitter as well?
Indeed. On the rare occasions that I have reported posts, it has been because they are hate speech, and they have been removed. For instance, the poster involved knows who they were when they chose to refer to a well-known lawyer as a "bitch" because he didn't agree with her politics, and I'm sure he knows why that crossed the boundaries of acceptable behaviour.
Some strange disconnect in this article (well, another one)
The subscription options are for the mostly for the writing side of thigns that use twitter as some publishing channel. The cited stats are for the mostly readers. Assuming the readers will sign up for subscription is somewhat far fetched.
> When phoning a company
When reading an article and you see "reportedly", do you:
A. Take the report as fact
B. Understand that it's a get out of jail free card for the journalist to write something without taking responsibility for it (though in that case, the source solid be mentioned).
There are of course good uses of "reportedly" but often it's used to publish very dubious claims with no other purpose than to shape the narrative.
Very interesting how people down vote without leaving a comment. I wonder how many do the "report to moderator" as well just because they don't like what's being said.
I'm starting to think this is half¹ of Musk's point: people who just try to silence whatever they don't agree with. Those people are not helpful to society: they're just parasites.
¹ The other half being making money. We all have to earn a living somehow.
> Should I add a comment with every upvote too?
I do if it's a possibly controversial post which raises a good point or if I disagree with some part of it.
Conversely, I don't comment down votes if there is something clearly wrong with it, but I do if I'm disagreeing with a non trivial opinion. The idea being to encourage debate, something that kids seem rather afraid of these days.
I don't think I've ever used the "report to moderator" function. You are free to post stupid stuff. The people reading it are free to downvote it, and don't have any more obligation to tell you why than they have to tell you why they are upvoting you if they're doing that.
This forum would be unusable if everyone downvoting someone had to leave a comment saying why. No one would bother scrolling through all the useless posts to find something of value.
I'm sure you don't need to be told why you are being downvoted, you are just unhappy with unpopular your posts are - you probably live in an echo chamber in other forums and are used to a lot of positive affirmation and are finding life outside that bubble a little harsh! Maybe you should go back to the warm comforting embrace of your fellow stupids.
> It's disagreeing with or disapproving of you. The fact that you need me to point this out
I don't need you to "point this out", thanks very much. I'm suggesting that if people bothered to engage in debate by explaining what part they're disagreeing with (unless it's very obvious to the average man), we'd all get a richer experience out of it, rather than a Farcebook like one.
> doesn't say a lot for your understanding of censorship or the fake version people who make claims like yours tend to believe in.
The fact that you're starting from a false premise rather illustrates the point being made.
> I don't need you to "point this out"
Hmm, earlier you called downvoting
>> people who just try to silence whatever they don't agree with
Yes, you really *do* need to have things pointed out to you.
> The fact that you're starting from a false premise rather illustrates the point being made.
Odd, doublelayer's response certainly seems to be in line with what you wrote; maybe you want to be clearer in your writing in the first place?
> Hmm, earlier you called downvoting
>> people who just try to silence whatever they don't agree with
Err… no. The sentence that you quote is in a different paragraph and refers to the shenanigans in twitter and other places, where people coordinate to get people they don't agree with banned.
The relation between that and the comment about down voting is that this kind of medium is not very conducive to the constructive exchange of ideas. It's fine for you to disagree, but it'd be useful to both of us if you told me why. An up / down vote system is not appropriate for that by itself.
> maybe you want to be clearer in your writing in the first place?
I do apologise for my use of confusing and old fashioned artefacts such as paragraphs, punctuation, and the expression of multiple ideas in the same post. It's of course not my fault but ElReg's for not allowing GIF memes.
> Preventing ... is NOT censorship
???
"Age inappropriate" is a fascinating phrase - ok, a few books may cause nightmares and disturbed sleep is not good (so tell the child that, maybe give a watered down example - definitely reinforce that if they find it scary no shame in putting that book down). But otherwise the "inappropriate" seems to mean "I realise I ought to discuss the book with the child, maybe provide some background material - nah, too much work, books should be like TV - Anodyne is Appropriate."
A child "asking awkward questions" or wanting a tricky book explained to them is a child that is learning.
Aw now that's just not fair!!!
Probably NSFW, trying to pick middle of the road sources, no Fox news :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6Xm4AX25tE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dz1_Ju8yD3A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z146klZXeOw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiVhrhd7R2Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImBvAosqPC4
I have no doubt that if there were books of similar ilk but they portrayed straight people doing a jimmy savile there would be outrage from the far left. (there would also be outrage from everyone else and quite rightly so)
> graphic descriptions of non-consensual acts performed on children
"Oliver Twist", " Nicholas Nickleby", ...
> are being given to junior school kids to read
Hmm, aside from the sudden jump from "preventing" to "being given to" (no middle ground possible, eh?), if I may repeat myself:
>> definitely reinforce that if they find it scary no shame in putting that book down
> I wonder how many do the "report to moderator"
Who knows? Even if a comment is "reported" what is the likelihood[1] that it'll result in the comment being removed? It is still a rare thing to see that a comment has been so removed (and, yes, it does leave a "this comment had been deleted" message so please, no claims that comments have vanished without a trace[2]).
[1] Though I do get a feeling that likelihood has gone up since the Yankification of El Reg but I have no solid figures to back that up
[2] Ok, true, you only get one "this comment..." left visible when the comment and the entire tree of all its replies are zapped by the mod.
what is the likelihood[1] that it'll result in the comment being removed?
In my experience very rare: In the decacde or more that I've been here, I've reported probably half a dozen posts and I think only one was removed. El Reg have/had quite thick skin. (And no, I haven't reported any comments for this article)
Ok, true, you only get one "this comment..." left visible when the comment and the entire tree of all its replies are zapped by the mod.
Strange. I've seen "This comment has been removed by a moderator" posts and replies still existing.
Beer icon for the moderators having to deal with this s**t.
PS Bring back the Moderatrix.
> Who knows? Even if a comment is "reported" what is the likelihood[1] that it'll result in the comment being removed?
If someone does the "I'm reporting this comment on the grounds that I don't agree with it / it hurts my feelings / it hurts my emotional support exotic pet's feelings", not high, but the point is that apparently people have started doing exactly that sometime in the last few years, or so I've been told by someone who moderates forums (not ElReg's).
> I do get a feeling that likelihood has gone up since the Yankification of El Reg
Annoying, eh? ElReg stopped being ElReg when the old guard left.
> Ok, true, you only get one "this comment..." left visible
Seems to be a new change. At least you do see if a comment of yours got caught up in the net and you can always repost it if it makes sense.
I upvoted the previous comment, but whining about downvotes earns a downvote.
You know perfectly well why you're being downvoted: because you're challenging the locally accepted narrative (that Twitter is in its death throes) and that makes people uncomfortable, and eager to dismiss your point.
Personally, I don't think Twitter will die so quickly. For Musk to let that happen so soon after taking over would be humiliating, and I'm sure he is too vain to allow that. Even if it means splurging a few billion more to cover the next year's operating costs.
> You know perfectly well why you're being downvoted: because you're challenging the locally accepted narrative
Gordon bennet, "locally accepted narrative" - will people like you ever stop banging on about this paranoid fantasy that "everyone is ganging up" and having secret meetings to define "a narrative" that we all swear allegiance to!
Don't care which "side" you think you're on, as just about anyone who needs to feel martyred starts spouting that bilge.
"Locally accepted narrative" - bilgewater.
"Musk took it upon himself to personally call CEOs to chastise them, one industry figure told the FT" is from https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/elon-musk-personally-called-ceos-of-companies-that-stopped-advertising-on-twitter-to-complain-report-says/ar-AA14BPiU?li=BBnb7Kz citing a Financial Times article I don't want to pay to read.
Journalists cite lots of sources who don't want to be named. You also apparently don't want to be named, are you publishing dubious claims in an attempt to shape the narrative?
> Journalists cite lots of sources who don't want to be named.
I know. In those cases it is mentioned that the source declines to be named.
> You also apparently don't want to be named
Correct. It is mentioned elsewhere why.
> are you publishing dubious claims in an attempt to shape the narrative?
I don't believe so, but feel free to point out if you see any dubious claims. If those are mine, I'll do my best to back them up, or retract them if I'm mistaken.
> only a few make feeble, pearl-clutching complaints about "journalistic integrity" because of an exaggeration in a headline
A lie ≠ an exaggeration.
There is manipulation that *is* common and accepted within the profession (Reuters for instance have some publicly accessible training about this if you want to know more), but this article's headline is an outright lie. All the editor had to do was use "might" or "could" instead of "will". It would still have been manipulative, but technically not a lie.
Sad thing is, this kind of stuff used to be taught in school back in my day. Not anymore. :(
or
C) Spend some time looking for the source of the "reportedly' (in this case, the FT article) and the number of various other reporters jumping on the story before making a judgement call on how likely it is to be accurate.
(Hint: the El Reg article didn't use the word "cuss")
Downvote because the original comment was obviously a bit of tongue in cheek humour.
While the response was not incorrect per se ('repotedly' is often abused), the tone was not warranted.
So now you know why 1 of the many downvotes came about. It's just my opinion (yours will differ) but your passive-aggressive posts are coming over as bitchy whining
If he was trying to sabotage Twitter and insure its demise I don't think he would be doing anything differently. I've see people claim this is all deliberate by Musk to kill Twitter, though I have a hard time seeing what he would get out of doing so. But the more he does stupid stuff like this the more I have to wonder if that isn't his goal.
It makes no sense, but his actions over the past couple years have become more and more detached from reality so maybe it doesn't have to make sense.
Maybe he needs the "man woman person camera TV" dementia test Trump was given?
I'm wondering if he hasn't picked Twitter as a setup to load up with the debt of his other enterprises and then letting it go bankrupt.
At least that's what I imagine, I'm not rich enough to be on the level with the tricks these people use to pay less tax per annum than the average wage earner but it sure doesn't smell like he's planning on actually have this company around in a few months. I have yet to see any of his alleged innovative spirit - all I see is BS, spin and staff abuse.
Plenty of people run multiple accounts on social media
e.g. lots of potential employers look to see if they can find out about potential new recruits on social media, lets say someone is gay
.. Its a strategy for people to have a really blandly inoffensive social media account, easily found by searching their name.
If they want to actually make use of social media then will have at least 1 more account, less obviously their name (if they have any sense) where they can be themselves (e.g. given there's still plenty of prejudice, their "bland / employer friendly" account might not have references to them being gay, but proper account would (if they live in a country where that's not life limiting to mentions))
Beyond that, people might create different accounts for different areas of their life, might have an account specifically to comment / be heavily involved in LGB issues, another for a particular hobby etc.
So quite likely a keen twitter user may have a few accounts
I'm not a big twitter / social media person personally, but know people who are and they have multiple accounts
I'll stick with calling it "risible bullshit". The more sewer-like it becomes, the less paying advertisers will be willing to pay to have their brand name displayed alongside the effluent. That's how the advertising industry works, and for all his lofty talk, he's bought a not very profitable ad financed business. Pissing off the people whose advertising budgets you need isn't any sort of business genius at all.
> If Twitter is still around in 18 months, I'll be amazed.
That has been said about Tesla before.
In fact, even Mercedes Benz sold their 10% stake at one point because they didn't believe Tesla could ever reach mass production.
I don't care one way or another about Twitter, never saw the point of it, but if I were a betting man I'd wager a fiver on you being amazed.
To be honest, I think Musk's a flailing idiot; but I think Twitter probably has enough momentum to keep the lights on for another month. I actually wouldn't be hugely surprised if it manages to stumble on for years yet – basically until no new greater fool can be found to bet on it.
Advertisers might not want to spend money on it, but they'll continue to use it for free promotional tweets as long as they can, because why wouldn't they? Many ordinary users will stay out of inertia. Musk has his fans. Some niche communities will migrate to Twitter now that moderation is no longer an impediment.
So I think the most likely income is that it will stumble on for a while yet, diminished and mortally wounded, but not actually shut down until debts mount too high for Elon or his successor to wriggle out of for a bit longer.
Or Elon short-sells it to Facebook.
> I think Twitter probably has enough momentum to keep the lights on for another month. I actually wouldn't be hugely surprised if it manages to stumble on for years yet – basically until no new greater fool can be found to bet on it.
We will find out. I do reserve judgment on the person himself as I a) don't need to judge him, b) have not met him and c) am not a very good judge of character anyway.
If Twitter won't stop hate speech then let it go full cesspit. Unless something changes, I hope it becomes the new MAGA hat: a sign that the user is ignorant, racist and should be run out of polite society. I can't wait to get people fired by letting their employer know they're active on post-Musk Twitter. I can't wait to see someone get dumped because I've overheard their name, found their active Twitter account and let their date know.
This is how we fight hate, we may not always be able to get the corporations to bend the knee but we can make the social consequences unbearable for those who foolishly associate.
> a sign that the user is ignorant, racist and should be run out of polite society.
> I can't wait to get people fired by letting their employer know they're active on post-Musk Twitter.
> I can't wait to see someone get dumped because I've overheard their name, found their active Twitter account and let their date know.
…and then…
> This is how we fight hate
/shrugs
> It explains exactly why fascists shouldn't be allowed any speech
No it doesn't. It explains why *some* forms of expression (not just speech) are off bounds. ¹
The other problem is that a lot of those so-called anti-fascist are pretty filofascistic themselves.
¹ Seemingly the problem in the states is where those boundaries are drawn. We're talking about a regime where it's OK to broadcast "entertainment" where the hero tortures other people or where violence is glorified, but heaven forbid should you show a nipple or a dick.
This is quite short sighted view that supposedly only the MAGA stuff constitutes hate speech. The other side has their fair share of hate filled posts, but you probably don't see that as you may be agreeing with them.
That until the narrative changes to something you don't like.
Be careful what you wish for.
Things change all the time. The only difference is that a privileged person like yourself has to actively seek out education on how the world treats the oppressed; they receive a harsh, involuntary lesson in it every day. In order to stay on the right side of history, you cannot expect to hold the same values forever. This is why, before the fascists started using it as a slur, it was called staying woke. If you think this seems unfair don't blame us, blame centuries of privileged oppressors who left a huge amount of shameful history we still need to deconstruct and decolonise.
Something you don't agree with is not 'hate speech' and equally something you agree with can be 'hate speech'.
The OP is the perfect example of this. That person has probably been told their entire life that they are oppressed due to something that happened long ago. The truth is the actual oppressor is the one telling them they are oppressed.
Of course, they want you to remain oppressed otherwise they will no-longer be the ones in power.
If someone is telling you that you are and have always been oppressed and only they can help you to no-longer be oppressed then you are still being oppressed. They are not actually helping you.
> The only difference is that a privileged person like yourself
Or like yourself.
> has to actively seek out education on how the world treats the oppressed;
Not "the world" mate. We.
> need to deconstruct and decolonise.
Oh dear, the bollocksy language of the American middle class.
You don't need to "deconstruct and decolonise". You need to be a decent person, treat everyone with fairness and respect, whether you like them or not, and try not to be too much of a nuisance yourself.
"…don’t give way to hating, and yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise"
It is simple really.
WEF has some biggest investment funds as partners and they own humungous number of companies. They can order them to distance themselves from services that don't push Klaus Schwab's narrative.
That's how billionaire's club has circumvented democracy.
They don't have to make things that expose them illegal, they can just starve them and it works.
Imagine the beautiful new world, when we get CBDC and everyone who is not compliant will be cut off of their money (look at trial in Canada, when Trudeau - Klaus's puppet blocked access to bank account of protesters and people helping them).
WEF also hires hundreds of thousands of propagandists who monitor influential websites and coordinate reporting or downvoting of posts that go against the narrative.
There is an... idea, I don't think it can be called much more than that, called "the great reset", and yes, the WEF has spoken and published about that.
There is another, separate, idea, which says that "the great reset" is a tool of "a global élite that wants to subdue all of humanity, imposing coercive measures with which to drastically limit individual freedoms and those of entire populations".
Talking about the first of these ideas is fine. But this thread is clearly talking about some variant of the second of these ideas, which is indeed a conspiracy theory (= a belief that takes "lack of evidence" as evidence in itself) that is in many ways and formulations antisemitic.
So you're telling me the WEF is NOT a group formed of the global elite who swan around the world in their private jets telling everyone else how to live their lives?
'You will own nothing and you will be happy' is what they've told us amongst other things.
And yes, they have DIRECTLY told us they want to limit what we can do such as travel, foods we can and cannot eat, centrally controlled digital currencies, health passports and ESG scores. That IS limiting individual freedoms and also limiting those of entire populations. They praise China as a model society while the Chinese continue to enforce their zero covid policy by locking people in their homes.
There is no conspiracy theory about it. They freely admit it over and over.
EDIT: they have also boasted about how they have penetrated governments around the world with their people.
You think you're getting the world of Demolition Man but in reality you will be getting Judge Dredd.
At some point you will stop agreeing with what they are doing and by that time it will be too late. It saddens me that the old skool anti establishment types are now the ones in the jack boots and those who want true liberal values are called the alt or far right.
Which means the company will haemorrage money even faster, experience outages. And I wonder who these "users" actually are. My guess is they are exactly the sort of users that no platform wants - bots, trolls, racists, antisemites, misogynists etc. emboldened by a company that doesn't give a shit any more.
I wonder how long before Google and/or Apple decide to pull the same trigger on Twitter that they did with Gab and Parler. Relations with Apple are already rock bottom so it's entirely possible.
Latest report on the BBC says that His Muskiness is picking a fight with Apple over advertising and the App Store 30% charge for in App purchases:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-63788437
Time to pull up a chair and grab a big bowl of popcorn I think.
That will definitely be a fun shit show - Musk wants to charge $8 a month for a blue tick so I can totally see Apple deplatforming the app if Musk tries to evade giving them a 30% cut. Or simply allows all moderation to collapse. Or just insults Apple in public and they use some non-disparagement clause and get rid of them.
Aside from that, Twitter is normally baked into Android phones along with certain other crapware. Could be another storm brewing on that front.
Samsung and other handset manufacturers frequently burn crapware (aka bloatware) onto the device whether the user wants them or not - Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, McAfee etc. On top of that the network might dump their own hot garbage on top.
This stuff is usually baked into the firmware so it wastes space that can never be recovered. And users can only disable this shit but it will never truly be removed. Doubtless it also impacts on firmware update frequency since it complicates testing & deployment.
Some phones which at least have the decency to put it on the user partition where it can be deleted but not all of them. But I've also seen other evil behaviour - I had to set up a Samsung phone recently which that used dark patterns to con new users into installing even more trash during setup through some ad service called Ironsource.
I think all the Android phones I've owned have come with the Facebook app in firmware (and so it can't be uninstalled, just disabled). I don't believe any have come with a Twitter app.
On my current Motorola model, I think the non-Google and non-Motorola preloaded-in-firmware apps are Amazon Music, Facebook, and possibly Kindle. It's hard to be sure without poking around in the filesystem, though, and I'm not going to do that right now.
Apparently Musk is saying Apple have withdraw most or all of their advertising and are threatening to pull Twitter from the Apple store.
it made me smile when I read "Apple has not responded to requests for comment from the BBC."
El Reg is in good company then :-)
"The world's richest man made public a number of slides at the weekend included in his company talk, in which he claimed new user signups in the seven days to November 16 averaged 2 million per day, up 66 percent year-on-year. Further, he said Twitter had recorded 8 billion user active minutes per day for the seven days to November 15, up 30 percent."
...and it sounds like from there, he decided this means Twitter's on trend for a billion users in 18 months. Oh boy.
As someone pointed out elsewhere, this is a lot like the New York Stock Exchange in September 1929 saying "wow, look at all this activity on our trading floor! Things must be going great!"
...or the captain of the Titanic on April 15 proudly noting just how busy traffic seemed to be on the deck...
This post has been deleted by its author
Crazed luny running irresponsible media venture now hallucinating visions of turning around an all ready sinking ship.
It's like the captain of the Titanic, ordering crew to leave all bulkheads open, while telegraphing the world that nothing is wrong, we will be in port soon.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
