The Twitter Debacle

[Etern4l]

Should (presumably) legal content be banned on major media platforms, just because a proportion of the viewers disagree with it? 
 

Should liars be deplatformed/prevented from having further views published without a court order?

 

I would suggest: only if it is democratically established legal requirement, therefore ‘no’ in most countries I guess.

[saturnotaku]

6 hours ago, 6730b said:

"Elon Musk said the account of right-wing extremist Alex Jones would be reinstated on X -\- The move from the billionaire Musk, who has promoted conspiracy theories himself and elevated a number of extremist voices since taking over the platform, is likely to impact X even further as companies distance themselves from the troubled platform, which has seen hate speech and conspiracy theories surge in the wake of his decisions."

Yeah, free speach!! Like in another time, Musk sure would have reinstated Heinrich Himmler.

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/09/business/alex-jones-restored-x-elon-musk-poll/index.html

 

 

Reddit is thataway ----->

[Mr. Fox]

5 hours ago, Etern4l said:

Should (presumably) legal content be banned on major media platforms, just because a proportion of the viewers disagree with it? 
 

Should liars be deplatformed/prevented from having further views published without a court order?

 

I would suggest: only if it is democratically established legal requirement, therefore ‘no’ in most countries I guess.

Correct. No. In fact, doing it should be prosecuted as a felony if it happens in a public venue. It should only be acceptable in a private club or organization designed to be an echo chamber exclusively for like-minded individuals. In that scenario, expression of a differing view is trolling in a place you have no right to be and are not welcomed.

[Reciever]

18 hours ago, 6730b said:

"Elon Musk said the account of right-wing extremist Alex Jones would be reinstated on X -\- The move from the billionaire Musk, who has promoted conspiracy theories himself and elevated a number of extremist voices since taking over the platform, is likely to impact X even further as companies distance themselves from the troubled platform, which has seen hate speech and conspiracy theories surge in the wake of his decisions."

Yeah, free speach!! Like in another time, Musk sure would have reinstated Heinrich Himmler.

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/09/business/alex-jones-restored-x-elon-musk-poll/index.html

Unfortunately, the unending comparisons Nazi Germany has diluted their value beyond recovery. While Jones is not someone I would seek to break bread with, comparing or alluding to Himmler reduces Himmler instead of elevating Jones to the evil villain.

[Etern4l]

Here is Charles Hoskinson’s take, only watched in part, but worth recommending.

 

I still think it is unfortunate that a controversial person had to step in to play the role of the chief defender of free speech, but that’s how markets work: there was an obvious gap and someone stepped in to fill it. If the whole thing fails, it will be down to the clearly suboptimal execution, although many would use that to propose that the absolutist approach to free speech was the culprit.

[Mr. Fox]

On 12/11/2023 at 6:24 AM, Reciever said:

Unfortunately, the unending comparisons Nazi Germany has diluted their value beyond recovery. While Jones is not someone I would seek to break bread with, comparing or alluding to Himmler reduces Himmler instead of elevating Jones to the evil villain.

It's unfortunate that certain groups want to silence voices and opinions they do not agree with and characterize them as evil, crazy, spreaders of disinformation and other things. It reflects more poorly on those haters than it does those who are the victims and their objects of hate. I think it is fine to think whatever they want to think, but trying to silence them with mischaracterizations that are an ironic reflection of themselves fits the cliche of the pot calling the kettle black. It probably terrifies them that the Jones they want to cast as a lunatic has been so freakishly accurate with his information, forecasts and predictions that they have worked so tirelessly to prevent from becoming public knowledge.

 

 

[Sandy Bridge]

I like the John McAfee analogy.  Both obviously talented at what they were known for in their early-mid adulthood... anti-virus software, and PayPal/electric vehicles/rocket companies.  Both going increasingly off the rails as they get older, and have no need to stay focused on what they focused on earlier.

 

It can both be the case the Elon Musk is/was a genius, and that he's a loose cannon nowadays.  It can be both that he was very disciplined fixing the Model Y production scaling issues, living at the factory, and that now he's basically winging it with running Twitter, and really doesn't have a plan.  Who hasn't had areas of their life that they focus on and do well at, and others that receive less focus?  And those areas can change over time.

 

For all the money he spent on it, Twitter probably is the least important of his three major companies in terms of its impact on his self-perception if it fails.  He's staked his reputation on Tesla and SpaceX, and has had great success at them.  He only staked a decent chunk of his fortune on Twitter, but not so much that he'll be bankrupt if it folds.  Of course it does have carryover impacts on his reputation as well, but "complicated legacy with two successful and impactful companies" is still better than what most of us will have on our Wikipedia entries, even if his former reputation may have remained more intact had he not bought Twitter.

 

 

To me, there's an important distinction between allowing free speech, and being judicious about what speech gets amplified.  You could say whatever you wanted in the 1980s, but you couldn't convince NBC to put it on the evening news unless NBC decided it was worth their airtime.  Now, Elon Musk and the algorithms at Twitter are in a similar position to an NBC (or ABC or CBS) in the '80s.  There's an implicit responsibility to be, well, responsible about how that power is used, but I don't think Musk takes that seriously.

 

To be sure, the trend by the younger and more self-described-as-liberal members of the left to "cancel" and ostracize anyone who disagrees with them is problematic.  To me, that's missing one of the key points of being liberal - being tolerant of those you disagree with.  But two wrongs don't make a right, and there's a lot of extremist rhetoric on the right.  I think there may be a more elegant solution than outright banning, which naturally causes outrage by those who are banned, and encourages their migration to self-reinforcing echo chambers.  Instead, put dampers on the spread of news that is counterfactual or encourages violence or other unlawful behavior.  Some unhinged conspiracy theory is gaining a cult following?  Prevent it from being shown on the News Feed unless someone has specifically subscribed to the person who is posting it.

 

Obviously the implementation would have its challenges, but Musk isn't even trying, and social media in general has a poor record.  The motivation seemingly always is, "what will generate the most clicks?" with no thought as to, "is getting the most clicks actually the most desirable thing over the long term?"

 

But I'm an old-school moderate who thinks things usually work out better if cooler minds prevail, and that generally it's worth figuring out what the facts are before making conclusions.  And having debates on the merits of policy, trying to determine what is actually the best course of action, rather than simply shouting political talking points at each other.

 

Sigh... I wish all election debates were like my state's recent primary.  The candidates were friends with each other and proposed some different policies, but in the end both said the other was also a good candidate, and voices were never raised.  So wholesome.  Later, the winner said she thought her opposing-party opponent was well-intentioned and generally tried to do the right thing, but sometimes lacked the backbone to actually do the right thing when it was inconvenient.  Again, so wholesome.  Not trying to paint the other side as the devil incarnate, just saying maybe we should do some things differently than we have been.

 

This sort of civil debate is what I'd like to see rise to the top.  Twitter used to proclaim it was the "world's forum" or something of that sort, and a new owner could have said, yes, let's be that, but let's encourage healthy debate and exchange of ideas based on facts.  Musk has taken it in the opposite direction.  The loudest yellers gets the biggest megaphones, and everyone's throwing ice balls at each other and thinking the other side is increasingly nasty.  Interesting to watch, yeah maybe, but I wouldn't want to participate in it.

[Etern4l]

15 hours ago, Sandy Bridge said:

This sort of civil debate is what I'd like to see rise to the top. 

 

I am with you, but a large proportion of the Western population does not seem to share the same values, and attempts to suppress the loud/opposing voices seem to have the opposite effect, as expected. Suppression/indiscriminate deplatforming is not the right approach in my view - it elevates the individuals affected into free speech martyrdom.

 

15 hours ago, Sandy Bridge said:

You could say whatever you wanted in the 1980s, but you couldn't convince NBC to put it on the evening news unless NBC decided it was worth their airtime.  Now, Elon Musk and the algorithms at Twitter are in a similar position to an NBC (or ABC or CBS) in the '80s.

 

Not sure how solid this analogy is. A major figure rejected by NBC, would likely find some airtime on Fox. Minor figures wouldn't enjoy any major appearances on network TV due to the bandwidth issue this medium suffers from.

 

At any rate, that kind of bipolar setup is not great, because it leads to hard divisions and echo chambers, hence the rationale for creating a space for everyone to coexist. Not an easy challenge, and Musk is likely too biased to be able to create a fair "town square" platform (truth be told, I'm not really following the situation at X anymore). A decentralised solution is likely the way to go, and yes, the algo should be open, and any changes should be approved by direct vote (that's roughly the approach advocated by Hoskinson).

 

[6730b]

Am (very?) critical of many of Musk's whims (example twitter) and pseudopolitical-social derailments. ...but what he managed to create, like tesla & spacex ?? Profound and unending admiration.

Especially the spacex tech, remember seeing the first successfull rocket return landing. What an achievement. Now, he surely did not design the inside and engines of the spaceships, but got that immense skill in gathering and inspiring the best brains available, and keep everyone working towards a goal. But for twitter seemed he did the opposite, best brains (and now best advertisers) left \ fired, ftm his behavior looks like he's aiming for, and would welcome, trouble and crashes instead of sucessful landing and prosperity.

[Reciever]

It could be just my experience around Twitter, but I dont remember it ever being touted as a free speech zone. More of a means to be able to interact with your favorite celebrity. It wouldnt surprise me if the marketing changed to lean that direction, but it was one of the reasons I never made an account there, I didnt see the value.

 

These days its being framed as a free speech zone, there are reasons for and against that notion though as @Sandy Bridge mentions its hardly ever a rational discussion. One could argue this is due to having no repercussion to elevating discussions into arguments where insults tend to fly coupled with no intention to even understand the opposing view before ramming their own. I hold all political leanings to account on that.

[Aaron44126]

I think the free speech stuff started when Elon Musk made his original bid to take it over?  It was definitely part of his opening message.

 

(In the U.S., there isn't a requirement that "online communities" be bound to any notion of "free speech" by whoever posts there.  Whoever runs the forum/site/community can operate or moderate it however they want, other than being required to take down "illegal" speech [threats of violence, piracy, etc.].  Actually, attempts by government entities to influence or control how online communities are moderated could be construed as a violation of the managing company's freedom of speech.  There have been some attempts by certain state legislatures to force more loose moderation practices that are currently blocked by the courts, and will presumably soon be reviewed by the Supreme Court.)

[Etern4l]

8 hours ago, Aaron44126 said:

 There have been some attempts by certain state legislatures to force more loose moderation practices that are currently blocked by the courts, and will presumably soon be reviewed by the Supreme Court.)

“the companies contend that the laws violate their First Amendment rights.”

 

Honestly, was not aware that the US constitution is there to protect the rights of US companies, rather than its citizens.

The general problem with that is that US citizens clearly require protection against certain US companies.

 

That said, the following apparently applies (from Wikipedia):

 

Although the First Amendment applies only to state actors,^[a][1] there is a common misconception that it prohibits anyone from limiting free speech, including private, non-governmental entities.^[2] Moreover, the Supreme Court has determined that protection of speech is not absolute.^[3]

 

BTW here is another issue with Musk’s centralised “commercial free town square” approach: it relies on ads, and advertisers are definitely free not to do business with them on any grounds, including not wanting to be associated with some of the content, and publicly hurling insults at those advertisers is not going to help.
Apparently they have been trying to lure content creators in with good profit sharing, but the pie is shrinking, and some left the platform just due to “the vile stench of Musk”.

 

Elon Musk’s X ad revenue reportedly fell $1.5B this year amid boycotts

 

 

[Aaron44126]

5 hours ago, Etern4l said:

Honestly, was not aware that the US constitution is there to protect the rights of US companies, rather than its citizens.

The general problem with that is that US citizens clearly require protection against certain US companies.

 

Indeed.  But what's the line?  Companies are just people organized together to do some kind of work (more or less).  "Mega corporations" and social media didn't exist when the Constitution and first amendment were framed.

 

Will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court handles it, especially given its current composition.  Lower court rulings have been mixed.  (I think one of those state laws was blocked in the original court but then unblocked in the appeals court...?)  But I personally suspect that efforts from governments to force more "lax" moderation policies will not fly.

  

On 12/14/2023 at 12:54 AM, Sandy Bridge said:

Sigh... I wish all election debates were like my state's recent primary.  The candidates were friends with each other and proposed some different policies, but in the end both said the other was also a good candidate, and voices were never raised.  So wholesome.  Later, the winner said she thought her opposing-party opponent was well-intentioned and generally tried to do the right thing, but sometimes lacked the backbone to actually do the right thing when it was inconvenient.  Again, so wholesome.  Not trying to paint the other side as the devil incarnate, just saying maybe we should do some things differently than we have been.

 

This sort of civil debate is what I'd like to see rise to the top.  Twitter used to proclaim it was the "world's forum" or something of that sort, and a new owner could have said, yes, let's be that, but let's encourage healthy debate and exchange of ideas based on facts.  Musk has taken it in the opposite direction.  The loudest yellers gets the biggest megaphones, and everyone's throwing ice balls at each other and thinking the other side is increasingly nasty.  Interesting to watch, yeah maybe, but I wouldn't want to participate in it.

 

Might be getting a little politic-y but I'd really like to see ranked choice voting take off.  That could end the system we have now of basically having to vote for someone on one extreme or the other, or what I find myself doing which is voting "strategically", shooting for the "least bad reasonably possible outcome" rather than actually voting for who I would actually want most for some positions.  And, if more centrist/moderates got elected then we'd also avoid the lost progress that happens when there is a party switch at the top and the new people in power push really hard to move in a different direction.

 

https://www.npr.org/2023/12/13/1214199019/ranked-choice-voting-explainer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlapbFzl_ZU

[Etern4l]

22 hours ago, Aaron44126 said:

But what's the line?  Companies are just people organized together to do some kind of work (more or less). 

 

I am not a legal expert, but do have a bit of background and I believe citizens/individuals have always been treated very distinctly from other legal entities, since the inception of the foundations of modern law by the Romans.

 

The line is normally drawn at 1. You can be a part of the organized group of people one day, and in the US the relationship can typically cease immediately. You can also be a part of more than one legal entity. Legal protections granted to the individuals and legal entities are completely different things, in fact there is often a stark conflict of interest. 

 

By way of another example, if you excuse a bit of reductio ad absurdum: you can be a part of a particular sports team (again, today - who knows if tomorrow), that doesn't mean that the team should enjoy the same legal status, privileges and protections as you.

 

Looks like a bogus suit TBH. They just need to comply with the regional legal requirements, big tech is not quite above the law (yet).

[Etern4l]

Well, how do you rise to the top of the capitalist hierarchy? Generally by scr...ing people along the way:

 

 

Twitter violated contract by failing to pay millions in bonuses, US judge rules

[Etern4l]

More like „The Musk Debacle”, although there is a Twitter angle since apparently his behaviour got worse since the takeover:

 

SpaceX charged with illegally firing workers behind anti-Musk open letter

[Etern4l]

Elon found himself in John Oliver’s crosshairs…. The main message should not be too controversial: too much power in one erratic person’s hands.

 

 

[ryan]

elon musk is a great guy but with his comments about the jews its tainting my views of him. in the big scheme many people will love him many will hate. similar to bill gates, bill helped alot of people and was still taking blows from people. also I looked up twitter dabacle on google and the like the only place still talking about this is NBT. seems a bit obsessive, but an interesting read. do you guys see his collapse or continued rise?

[Reciever]

9 minutes ago, ryan said:

elon musk is a great guy but with his comments about the jews its tainting my views of him. in the big scheme many people will love him many will hate. similar to bill gates, bill helped alot of people and was still taking blows from people. also I looked up twitter dabacle on google and the like the only place still talking about this is NBT. seems a bit obsessive, but an interesting read. do you guys see his collapse or continued rise?

The thread has evolved to more than just X since Musk is more or less at the center of a few different topics. 

[Aaron44126]

1 hour ago, ryan said:

do you guys see his collapse or continued rise?

 

I still see articles on X/Twitter/Musk on tech sites like The Verge, Ars Technica, etc.  The news is just not coming at as fast a pace as it did in the weeks and months immediately following Musk's Twitter takeover.

 

My thoughts...

 

I don't see how Twitter/X can survive, just financially.  They have to pay about a billion dollars a year in interest to handle the $13 billion loan that Musk took out to buy them.  (Twitter/X is on the hook to make those payments, not Musk himself.)  Twitter is not typically profitable, they are certainly not doing better now since a lot of their advertising income has gone away, and adding a negative billion dollars per year certainly won't help.

 

(We won't necessarily see these numbers for 2022/2023, as Twitter/X is now a private company, they don't have to report it.)

 

So, I can really see three possible options.

• Musk throws in his own cash to keep Twitter/X afloat.  (He'd probably have to sell Tesla shares or something, which could mess with things over there.)
• Musk tries to "renegotiate" the terms of the loans and lower the interest payments or otherwise somehow cut him a break.  I'm not sure how well this could go, as banks have got to be now realizing that they made a bad bet, but I've seen crazier financial decisions made by banks.
• Twitter/X is forced to declare bankruptcy, which would probably result in Musk no longer being in charge of it.

In the case of a bankruptcy, I'm wondering if Twitter/X will eventually shrink to something like Yahoo! or AOL, that used to be big names in the "social tech" space but now are a shadow of their former selves.  Time will tell.

 

As for Musk himself, my opinion of him used to be positive but has been heavily tainted by this whole thing, specifically with regards to how he has treated his Twitter employees (current and former) after taking over.  I do think that he will be sticking around in the public space for many years to come...  But if he tries any more new ventures, after seeing how Twitter went (I didn't even mention how he has been actively refusing to pay rent, legal bills, and several vendors) there are definitely many people/banks/businesses who will think twice about doing business with him.

[Etern4l]

My guess is that Musk will just continue carrying this, since nothing probably strikes his gigaego more, and that’s what obviously matters a lot.

BTW the X/Twitter rename is just awkward. What was wrong with Twitter, the brand? If he wanted to start using this to build up his X dream, why not rename it to Twitter/X.. and do so consistently. Erratic.

[Aaron44126]

2 minutes ago, Etern4l said:

BTW the X/Twitter rename is just awkward. What was wrong with Twitter, the brand? If he wanted to start using this to build up his X dream, why not rename it to Twitter/X.. and do so consistently. Erratic.

 

How come the service is now officially called "X" but it still lives at twitter.com?  (Musk does own x.com.)  Confusing...

[Etern4l]

6 minutes ago, Aaron44126 said:

 

How come the service is now officially called "X" but it still lives at twitter.com?  (Musk does own x.com.)  Confusing...

Yep, that’s what I meant by “do so consistently”. 
 

It looks like he is just not confident getting rid of twitter.com is a good idea lol

[Reciever]

 

I'd rather keep that off the forum, can stretch things for X but the nature of that issue doesnt really suit discussion here.

[Etern4l]

OK, no posts regarding gross issues around working conditions at Musk’s X-companies I guess. Anyone remotely following the topic must be aware of the pattern anyway.