- Joined
- 21 January 2015
- Messages
- 11,580
- Reaction score
- 14,851
Elon Musk Buys Twitter
- Thread starter Flyaway
- Start date
- Status
While I can appreciate his desire to revamp that wretched hive of scum and villainy, $43 billion is a respectable fraction of his total value. I'd rather see him invest his money into something undeniably good than something that starts off bad and *might* be fixable. An extra $43 billion devoted to SpaceX or to nuclear power or, heck, home desktop multi-media omnifabricators capable of producing high quality *finished* products from flashlights to auto parts to AK-47 components might well be a better use of his money. But, it *is* his money, so he can do with it as he pleases.
I bet $43 billion could go far in developing a machine the size of a microwave that can spit out any drug you give it the chemical composition to. Imagine spending two grand for a Chem-O-Fab, and then never having to spend another dime on medicine.
I bet $43 billion could go far in developing a machine the size of a microwave that can spit out any drug you give it the chemical composition to. Imagine spending two grand for a Chem-O-Fab, and then never having to spend another dime on medicine.
pathology_doc
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 6 June 2008
- Messages
- 1,562
- Reaction score
- 1,415
I don't want to get too deeply into politics, but there have been accusations that it has been less than impartial in enforcing its terms of service, in a way that ought to make your blood boil. That wretched hive of scum and villainy needs a cleanout on the scale of the Augean stables.
And even beyond that... it can hardly be argued that the cumulative effect of Twitter and similar social media platforms hasn't been a general dumbing down and coarsening of discourse. "Outrage Mobs" are now dominating large sections of politics and culture. Someone can express a perfectly reasonable and commonplace point of view and the online Outrage Mob gets to work and jobs are lost, lives are ruined, whole swathes of culture are wiped out and torn down. I'm convinced that had not Twitter and such existed, Star Trek and Star Wars may well have produced *good* content in recent years, not content calculated to appeal to the crazies.
I don;t know if Musk can fix that. But if he takes over and the crazies abandon Twitter in outrage... so much the better.
Mr. Musk has stated that Twitter has great potential and he will unlock it. It appears he does not believe they knew what they were doing.
- OR -
"I have billions of dollars. What shall I do with it?" This was heard by his assistant, Bob, who said: "I know. Why don't you buy Twitter?" And so it goes.
- OR -
"I have billions of dollars. What shall I do with it?" This was heard by his assistant, Bob, who said: "I know. Why don't you buy Twitter?" And so it goes.
Yes, yes. Twitter presaged the downfall of civilization, caused death and destruction... AND cAn BE CoMpLetely ignored by AnYOne. Not to mention the incalculable damage it has caused both Star Trek And Star Wars... Oh brother, I can't believe someone even alluded to that.
Here is the formula used by Total Strangers (TM), also called crazies. Find some issue, and (no) thanks to the internet, watch the numbers. Wherever the numbers are going up, fan the flames. If they keep going up, fan them some more. Then charge more for advertising. Because it's really about money and influence. In the alternative: Ignore Twitter entirely. Never engage the crazies. And sleep well at night.
- Joined
- 21 January 2015
- Messages
- 11,580
- Reaction score
- 14,851
I’ve seen him being accused of this being a pump and dump scam. That he’ll make hundreds of millions in profit and may get a slap on the wrist from the regulator. Also that he doesn't have the financing to actually buy out 100% of the shares. Finally he’s accused of doing this before.
- Joined
- 13 August 2007
- Messages
- 7,883
- Reaction score
- 9,016
Here Musk original offer
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/0001418091/000110465922045641/tm2212748d1_sc13da.htm
current situation at Twitter HQ and other firms Elon Musk show interest in.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/0001418091/000110465922045641/tm2212748d1_sc13da.htm
current situation at Twitter HQ and other firms Elon Musk show interest in.
I completely agree that Musk actually shelling out $43Bn (or more) to acquire sole control of Twitter is irrational, both in the framework of his stated aims and the universal context of what that kind of money can buy.
Moreover, despite his preferred "sometimes benign libertarian" image, Musk certainly doesn't appear to be a free speech absolutist who would in any real sense correct the platform into an actually more egalitarian direction, witness only his petty treatment of a teen who decided to track his private jets' flightpaths. He'd have to spend an insignificant fraction of his wealth compared to his Twitter offer to try and salvage Truth Social and it'd probably be more to his tastes, anyway. It's thoroughly illogical to argue that more or less autonomously emergent masses of people getting all excited about this and that on private platforms are somehow a greater problem than the ability of single individuals gaining complete control of these media and just ending said phenomena in one fell swoop if they so wish. Even now, just casually observing the various rankings of "influencers" and "trends" on different platforms year in, year out quickly brings into a sharp focus which ones are the most prolifically astroturfed, pushed and thus most efficiently percolate through the networks. Looking at those data, it really is obvious that it isn't the oligarchs of this world who need more of a bullhorn in public discourse.
Your experience of Twitter may vary depending on how you use it. There certainly are cesspools but IMHO it is quite possible to avoid those altogether; being at least half-way proficient with Twitter's deep search functions is advisable. These go beyond just following interesting experts in their fields as they go, well into exploring their networks in time, media and resources they have posted and so forth. It can be very efficient, really. Quite typically for myself, the social side of things is secondary to a sort of a general exploration and appreciation of ideas. On a sidenote: Worryingly for my types though, research indicates that browsing "social media" passively is either indicative of depression or a risk factor for it; for the time being I've decided that this conclusion is dependent on researchers' limited presuppositions of utility and thus does not really apply to me personally.
Anyway, I can see nothing good coming out of Musk's interest (most recent obsession?) into Twitter. Oligarchs trying to solidify the structures that support their power and within that framework monetize their influence most reliably remove just those functions that are of most value from public use and retain the very "cesspools" so deplored here as the public facing "goods" Twitter has to offer. It's less of an upcoming paywall than a "powerwall", if Musk gets his way, I'm afraid. This process is pretty far along all over anyway but on Twitter some true utility does remain. On the other hand, Musk's antics may just be a simple case of market manipulation just like @Flyaway said because there's scant discouragement from that kind of thing anymore. Let's call that a preferred outcome, or a lesser possible evil at least.
Moreover, despite his preferred "sometimes benign libertarian" image, Musk certainly doesn't appear to be a free speech absolutist who would in any real sense correct the platform into an actually more egalitarian direction, witness only his petty treatment of a teen who decided to track his private jets' flightpaths. He'd have to spend an insignificant fraction of his wealth compared to his Twitter offer to try and salvage Truth Social and it'd probably be more to his tastes, anyway. It's thoroughly illogical to argue that more or less autonomously emergent masses of people getting all excited about this and that on private platforms are somehow a greater problem than the ability of single individuals gaining complete control of these media and just ending said phenomena in one fell swoop if they so wish. Even now, just casually observing the various rankings of "influencers" and "trends" on different platforms year in, year out quickly brings into a sharp focus which ones are the most prolifically astroturfed, pushed and thus most efficiently percolate through the networks. Looking at those data, it really is obvious that it isn't the oligarchs of this world who need more of a bullhorn in public discourse.
Your experience of Twitter may vary depending on how you use it. There certainly are cesspools but IMHO it is quite possible to avoid those altogether; being at least half-way proficient with Twitter's deep search functions is advisable. These go beyond just following interesting experts in their fields as they go, well into exploring their networks in time, media and resources they have posted and so forth. It can be very efficient, really. Quite typically for myself, the social side of things is secondary to a sort of a general exploration and appreciation of ideas. On a sidenote: Worryingly for my types though, research indicates that browsing "social media" passively is either indicative of depression or a risk factor for it; for the time being I've decided that this conclusion is dependent on researchers' limited presuppositions of utility and thus does not really apply to me personally.
Anyway, I can see nothing good coming out of Musk's interest (most recent obsession?) into Twitter. Oligarchs trying to solidify the structures that support their power and within that framework monetize their influence most reliably remove just those functions that are of most value from public use and retain the very "cesspools" so deplored here as the public facing "goods" Twitter has to offer. It's less of an upcoming paywall than a "powerwall", if Musk gets his way, I'm afraid. This process is pretty far along all over anyway but on Twitter some true utility does remain. On the other hand, Musk's antics may just be a simple case of market manipulation just like @Flyaway said because there's scant discouragement from that kind of thing anymore. Let's call that a preferred outcome, or a lesser possible evil at least.
On a larger level, it would be *far* better culturally to have a single fully accessible public forum where people are treated fairly, rather than two separate echo chambers, especially when one echo chamber has a many-year lead. A right-wing alternative to Twitter would be possible, but it would always be the "right wing" alternative, while Twitter has the lefties and the great bulk of the centrists, because the centrists signed on before Twitter fell to the mob, and it's all they know.
He has no intentions of spending that money. His rejection of the board seat was the first clue. This is all about f#$king with the twitterverse in the same way the twitterverse disinformation hordes have been f#$cking with his Boca Chica facilities. Anybody that slows the progress to Mars down is going to get crushed.
- Joined
- 21 January 2015
- Messages
- 11,580
- Reaction score
- 14,851
That’s a really weird reading of the situation and I don’t think you would find many that would agree with you.
The primary issue is anonymous people behaving badly for reasons ranging from boredom to making money. There is no Utopia anywhere in human society. Anyone can try to create some social media platform that is and does everything right. But the anonymous can use and abuse people for profit or other reasons. The 'social contract' that exists between people in real life can be broken on the internet. And let's face it. When (D)ARPA released it into the wild, it was for the purpose of making money and influencing others.
I am in no position of confidential trust with anyone online except for people I know in real life.
Excerpt from today's MarketWatch:
Twitter Inc. TWTR, -1.68% announced on Friday that the company has adopted a shareholder rights plan, or "poison pill," that will reduce the chances that a person or group will take control of the company. The announcement comes after Elon Musk's offer of $54.20 per share was made public on Thursday. There were reports that Twitter was considering a rights plan before it was announced. "Under the Rights Plan, the rights will become exercisable if an entity, person or group acquires beneficial ownership of 15% or more of Twitter's outstanding common stock in a transaction not approved by the Board," the announcement said. The rights plan doesn't preclude Twitter from considering offers or accepting them if they are in the best interest of shareholders. The rights plan expires on April 14, 2023. Twitter stock closed Thursday down 1.7%, but is up 4.3% for the year to date.
Twitter Inc. TWTR, -1.68% announced on Friday that the company has adopted a shareholder rights plan, or "poison pill," that will reduce the chances that a person or group will take control of the company. The announcement comes after Elon Musk's offer of $54.20 per share was made public on Thursday. There were reports that Twitter was considering a rights plan before it was announced. "Under the Rights Plan, the rights will become exercisable if an entity, person or group acquires beneficial ownership of 15% or more of Twitter's outstanding common stock in a transaction not approved by the Board," the announcement said. The rights plan doesn't preclude Twitter from considering offers or accepting them if they are in the best interest of shareholders. The rights plan expires on April 14, 2023. Twitter stock closed Thursday down 1.7%, but is up 4.3% for the year to date.
Last edited:
Exactly. Even if those were running like champs, who'd sign up for them? Right wingers only, or those *deemed* right wing after having been booted from Twitter for some ridiculous reason. The great majority who don't much care about politics wouldn't sign up for them as they are already on Twitter, and don't recognize Twitters ideological leanings because they haven't said some perfectly reasonable thing that has gotten them cancelled. Yet.
Exactly. Even if those were running like champs, who'd sign up for them? Right wingers only, or those *deemed* right wing after having been booted from Twitter for some ridiculous reason. The great majority who don't much care about politics wouldn't sign up for them as they are already on Twitter, and don't recognize Twitters ideological leanings because they haven't said some perfectly reasonable thing that has gotten them cancelled. Yet.
Right wing, left wing, who cares? Shouldn't everybody get to join in and talk or are sites just "captured" by some group? If it is the case that various groups can stage takeovers of almost any site, well, that is the problem.
I mean, shouldn't casual conversation be the norm? Apparently not, especially when certain motivated groups can just takeover the site and call it their own.
For the record, I do not participate in the following so-called "social (not so much) media" sites at all:
TikTok
Snapchat
Add Facebook and I am with you.
Do you have a solution? Mine is: spend more time with real people and ignore social media.
Yes, but it involves a well-supplied bomb shelter.
Modern social media is essentially a drug designed specifically to not only addict human minds, but to twist them. It thrives on cognitive dissonance. It operates as something akin to both a disease and a religion, driving its adherents to infect/convert more, and to combat those who believe differently.
Read "The Machine Stops" to see the endgame in action, as written more than a century ago.
Modern sci-fi such as Star Wars and Star Trek seem odd in that virtually nobody in them is glued to the futuristic equivalent of social media. The closest was the holodeck in Star Trek, which did actually show that some people got addicted to it... but apart from those rare saps, it was used sparingly. How do we get from today to a technologically advanced future where humans aren't plugged into joy-machines? Laws and a changed culture are about it, I suppose.
I don't need laws. I just avoid the whole mess. If someone tells me that this or that site is filled with vicious people, and I can see that going on for myself, I won't stay there, ever.
The addiction model is very old, from cigarettes to stupidly named vaping devices.
The point is this: You walk into a totally dark, totally silent room, and you are told it is filled with people. You can't see them, you can't speak with them - you can only type messages back and forth. The alternative is spending time with real people you can see, speak to and interact with on a personal level.
It is not possible to really get to know or trust anyone online. In real life, as one gets to know a person, the decision to trust them is based on those elements. The internet lacks this. And the internet lacks the ability to have a full human relationship with anyone.
Exchanges of information. That's it. I'm not interested in 'Real Life Lite' to the level of substituting it for real life, much less allowing an addiction to take hold.
I don't take the drug, and I've dumped a number of sites.
The addiction model is very old, from cigarettes to stupidly named vaping devices.
The point is this: You walk into a totally dark, totally silent room, and you are told it is filled with people. You can't see them, you can't speak with them - you can only type messages back and forth. The alternative is spending time with real people you can see, speak to and interact with on a personal level.
It is not possible to really get to know or trust anyone online. In real life, as one gets to know a person, the decision to trust them is based on those elements. The internet lacks this. And the internet lacks the ability to have a full human relationship with anyone.
Exchanges of information. That's it. I'm not interested in 'Real Life Lite' to the level of substituting it for real life, much less allowing an addiction to take hold.
I don't take the drug, and I've dumped a number of sites.
- Joined
- 19 July 2016
- Messages
- 4,002
- Reaction score
- 3,050
I have a solution, social (Or anti social) media is about as reasonable as formalising a one legged seat kicking championship. Just ban it now or we will have to eventually nuke it from space.
Bully for you. Billions of other people aren't the same. If you say in some public forum something that has been common sense for the last four thousand years but which was deemed Problematic a week ago, of those billions millions might well get all upset, thousands might contact your employers/customers/co-workers/clients/constituents in an attempt to ruin your business and your life, and hundreds might well physically show up to chase you out of the public, and a few might try to set your house on fire.
Be as Above It All as you like, most people aren't. Social media increasing enables and promotes irrationality, mental illness, hatred and just generally awful things... whether *you* are involved or not. So we're back to "how do we fix this." Selling Twitter to someone likely to bulldoze the thing is as good an idea as any.
I agree, social media turned out to be a big waste, Elon Musk should invest in advancing Space X and his technology/systems, he has outpaced Virgin Galactic and Blue Origin as examples (space station resupply missions, micro-sat deployments, etc) and then there is NASA SLS (Saturn V Part II), wants to repeat the Moon missions?
OK. I get that others participate. But for me, and others I know, the new car smell is gone now. The novelty is gone.
I hope people realize that some sites are nothing more than surveillance to sell you something and collect marketing data. I hope people realize that some people are paid to pose as Average Joe to try to convince them of something. And like a disease traveling through a body, there are those who watch where the most people congregate and try to brainwash them. What's the difference between honest outrage and the outrage that is manufactured in the Outrage Factory? No one can tell.
If the site is bulldozed, another will pop up. One answer is to tell people in advance that various groups that want to promote various issues will infect that new site, make sure they and their buddies are the majority and it's back to square one.
"A sucker is born every minute." P.T. Barnum. This is nothing new but There Are No People to Blame Because they ARE Anonymous.
And I am sick and tired about hearing that people post private information online as if they don't know that everything they say/type will be used against them if possible
From one point of view that actually might (*might*) be a positive. A few decades ago, being gay or doing anything much beyond the straight and narrow would preclude you from many jobs, certainly from having a security clearance. Your private affairs could be used against you by enemy powers, holding evidence of your dirty, dirty deeds over you as a way to blackmail you. Now, we're about fifteen minutes from hearing about "Madam President's Onlyfans account."
While the coarsening and debasement of culture is of course a bad thing, it's difficult to blackmail people who have no shame. How do you blackmail someone with images and videos stolen from their laptop or phone camera when they prance around naked in front of a planetary audience anyway?
Don't quite know how we got here but now I'm
a) thinking up new and surprising morals to the "Emperor's New Clothes" tale
b) trying not to think too much about world leaders in their birthday suits
c) considering whether Musk could avoid wasting his billions on Twitter by showing up at the next SpaceX infomercial buck naked?
a) thinking up new and surprising morals to the "Emperor's New Clothes" tale
b) trying not to think too much about world leaders in their birthday suits
c) considering whether Musk could avoid wasting his billions on Twitter by showing up at the next SpaceX infomercial buck naked?
- Joined
- 13 August 2007
- Messages
- 7,883
- Reaction score
- 9,016
Elon Musk motive are nobel
He want to buy Twitter, pull it out Stockmarket and guarantee free speech on it.
its good Idea (at first) Compare to the others:
Facebook collect everything you do, filters only that what they not need, the rest data is commercial sell to third party !
Telegram, better know as Terroristgram offer instant messaging service to everybody like criminals, terrorist, extremist...
That serious problem that Telegram owner has for moment, now the German authorities arrested a Telegram group chat
For planned coup d'état, attempted kip napping the minister of health karl Lauterbach and terrorist attacks
not the first time that happen with Telegram and not last time...
Jeff Bezos buy the Washington Post to "protect free speech", but is now behind a Paywall (the poor no access to free speech)
and i bet the news paper feature ZERO article that criticise Jeff Bezos
but what free speech will Elon Musk offer ?
Total ? in that case Twitter will become second Facebook and Telegram with all extreme you will find !
also it will become battle ground for political extremist like Nazi, the Wokies and National Socialist Warriors.
and platform for Terrorist, criminals...
Moderate ? then need Twitter army of people and AI to filter the dirt in real time
and what to filter ? how to deal with Terrorist, criminals, paedophiles ?
the CIA, FBI, BKA, Interpol, Mossad and a Unknown Chinese Agency would be very interested in tweets
He want to buy Twitter, pull it out Stockmarket and guarantee free speech on it.
its good Idea (at first) Compare to the others:
Facebook collect everything you do, filters only that what they not need, the rest data is commercial sell to third party !
Telegram, better know as Terroristgram offer instant messaging service to everybody like criminals, terrorist, extremist...
That serious problem that Telegram owner has for moment, now the German authorities arrested a Telegram group chat
For planned coup d'état, attempted kip napping the minister of health karl Lauterbach and terrorist attacks
not the first time that happen with Telegram and not last time...
Jeff Bezos buy the Washington Post to "protect free speech", but is now behind a Paywall (the poor no access to free speech)
and i bet the news paper feature ZERO article that criticise Jeff Bezos
but what free speech will Elon Musk offer ?
Total ? in that case Twitter will become second Facebook and Telegram with all extreme you will find !
also it will become battle ground for political extremist like Nazi, the Wokies and National Socialist Warriors.
and platform for Terrorist, criminals...
Moderate ? then need Twitter army of people and AI to filter the dirt in real time
and what to filter ? how to deal with Terrorist, criminals, paedophiles ?
the CIA, FBI, BKA, Interpol, Mossad and a Unknown Chinese Agency would be very interested in tweets
Here's a Twitter thread from Yishan Wong (fmr. Reddit CEO, member of the "PayPal Mafia", etc.) on Musk's bid.
While I don't agree on a whole lot of things he states here, he does have something of an insider's view on the matter, on what the "birds' eye view" from the ivory towers within looks like (or how he wants it too look like, perceptions may vary). So some information value and thoughts worth considering, regardless.
The original thread is here, I've omitted the images and links and just retained the raw text as best I could.
While I don't agree on a whole lot of things he states here, he does have something of an insider's view on the matter, on what the "birds' eye view" from the ivory towers within looks like (or how he wants it too look like, perceptions may vary). So some information value and thoughts worth considering, regardless.
The original thread is here, I've omitted the images and links and just retained the raw text as best I could.
Yishan Wong said:
A week old article (it's loo ... snooze ... ooong, but there's also a listening option) touching on the subject of trying to ameliorate or reform "social media" by Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist. Posted with the vaguest of caveats that I certainly don't agree on all he writes but as it's a well argued and coherent view it certainly adds to the conversation. It's sometimes in line with some of Wong's themes and diverges on others. The allegories are nice anyway. Very US centric but somewhat applicable more widely.
www.theatlantic.com
Why the Past 10 Years of American Life Have Been Uniquely Stupid
It’s not just a phase.
- Status
