Musky

kingstongraham

rjsterry

morstar said:

It’s certainly too powerful a medium to be controlled by one ego maniac.

Oh, he should definitely stick to building rockets and possibly cars. If he could make a fool of himself without taking lots of others' livelihoods with him, please.

There have also been plenty of people showing how stupid the $8 verified thing is.

webboo

Salty seems to having gone missing in action.

kingstongraham

https://twitter.com/ZoeSchiffer/status/1590812793787518977?t=-wDhCBh9KX5Irt0bR9c4_Q&s=19

(Properly verified account.)

focuszing723

webboo said:

Salty seems to having gone missing in action.

No I haven't.

webboo

focuszing723 said:

webboo said:

Salty seems to having gone missing in action.

No I haven't.

That’s good to hear. I’d hate to think you you actually believed anything you were posting and therefore might take a fence. Or gate or even someone’s hedge.

focuszing723

webboo said:

focuszing723 said:

webboo said:

Salty seems to having gone missing in action.

No I haven't.

That’s good to hear. I’d hate to think you you actually believed anything you were posting and therefore might take a fence. Or gate or even someone’s hedge.

I do (with a pinch of salt, with everything in life). I know it seems completely in flux at the moment at Twitter and I'd probably be agreeing with everybody, if and it's a bloody big if, he didn't have two occasions where he and the companies were on the brink, hit the limit, and he managed to turn it around, he never quit, no matter what.

Like I said before, I think he had enough plates to spin as it was.

The employees now know a bloated, loss making company has to start evolving quickly or it's toast and remember as I quoted (I'm good like that), he was endorsed by Jack Dorsey.

briantrumpet

What I find most weird is he actually seems to be trolling everyone who's trying to keep Twitter alive, such as people who have just paid $8:

https://twitter.com/ChrisJBakke/status/1590768857563926529

briantrumpet

Or maybe it's parody, but given Musk's behaviour, who knows?

kingstongraham

focuszing723 said:

webboo said:

focuszing723 said:

webboo said:

Salty seems to having gone missing in action.

No I haven't.

That’s good to hear. I’d hate to think you you actually believed anything you were posting and therefore might take a fence. Or gate or even someone’s hedge.

I do (with a pinch of salt, with everything in life). I know it seems completely in flux at the moment at Twitter and I'd probably be agreeing with everybody, if and it's a bloody big if, he didn't have two occasions where he and the companies were on the brink, hit the limit, and he managed to turn it around, he never quit, no matter what.

Like I said before, I think he had enough plates to spin as it was.

The employees now know a bloated, loss making company has to start evolving quickly or it's toast and remember as I quoted (I'm good like that), he was endorsed by Jack Dorsey.

It wasn't loss making until he bought it.

briantrumpet

Stable genius

https://twitter.com/CaseyNewton/status/1590871813114195969

pinno

A $44bn gamble...
Popcorn time.

Twitters demise would be great for Democrats.
(as said before).

briantrumpet

pinno said:

A $44bn gamble...
Popcorn time.

Twitters demise would be great for Democrats.
(as said before).

Just been having a look around the OSINT stuff for Ukraine, and they are actively trying to guard against the distinct possibility of an early demise of Twitter, but worried that their activities aren't easily replicated on other channels.

rjsterry

briantrumpet said:

pinno said:

A $44bn gamble...
Popcorn time.

Twitters demise would be great for Democrats.
(as said before).

Just been having a look around the OSINT stuff for Ukraine, and they are actively trying to guard against the distinct possibility of an early demise of Twitter, but worried that their activities aren't easily replicated on other channels.

But apparently it will all be a great laugh if it all falls.

surrey_commuter

briantrumpet said:

pinno said:

A $44bn gamble...
Popcorn time.

Twitters demise would be great for Democrats.
(as said before).

Just been having a look around the OSINT stuff for Ukraine, and they are actively trying to guard against the distinct possibility of an early demise of Twitter, but worried that their activities aren't easily replicated on other channels.

I don'tthink that is a good example as I am convinced that the Ukraine propaganda machine has had an outstanding war. Whilst we will all thoroughy approve it is still false information

pinno

surrey_commuter said:

briantrumpet said:

pinno said:

A $44bn gamble...
Popcorn time.

Twitters demise would be great for Democrats.
(as said before).

Just been having a look around the OSINT stuff for Ukraine, and they are actively trying to guard against the distinct possibility of an early demise of Twitter, but worried that their activities aren't easily replicated on other channels.

I don'tthink that is a good example as I am convinced that the Ukraine propaganda machine has had an outstanding war. Whilst we will all thoroughy approve it is still false information

All is fair in love and war.

pblakeney

pinno said:

surrey_commuter said:

briantrumpet said:

pinno said:

A $44bn gamble...
Popcorn time.

Twitters demise would be great for Democrats.
(as said before).

Just been having a look around the OSINT stuff for Ukraine, and they are actively trying to guard against the distinct possibility of an early demise of Twitter, but worried that their activities aren't easily replicated on other channels.

I don'tthink that is a good example as I am convinced that the Ukraine propaganda machine has had an outstanding war. Whilst we will all thoroughy approve it is still false information

All is fair in love and war.

Until somebody does something you don't like.
I'm sure you can come up with some examples yourself.

morstar

rjsterry said:

briantrumpet said:

pinno said:

A $44bn gamble...
Popcorn time.

Twitters demise would be great for Democrats.
(as said before).

Just been having a look around the OSINT stuff for Ukraine, and they are actively trying to guard against the distinct possibility of an early demise of Twitter, but worried that their activities aren't easily replicated on other channels.

But apparently it will all be a great laugh if it all falls.

Global behemoth potentially collapsing is obviously going to have some negative impacts.

That does not automatically mean it is overall a bad outcome. Given the global behemoth is capable of huge factual distortion (and the owner has a clearly radical agenda) I still see its potential failure as a potentially good outcome.

That does not mean I dismiss people losing their jobs or other negative impacts as meaningless. But that happens all the time when any business folds or shrinks.

rjsterry

morstar said:

rjsterry said:

briantrumpet said:

pinno said:

A $44bn gamble...
Popcorn time.

Twitters demise would be great for Democrats.
(as said before).

Just been having a look around the OSINT stuff for Ukraine, and they are actively trying to guard against the distinct possibility of an early demise of Twitter, but worried that their activities aren't easily replicated on other channels.

But apparently it will all be a great laugh if it all falls.

Global behemoth potentially collapsing is obviously going to have some negative impacts.

That does not automatically mean it is overall a bad outcome. Given the global behemoth is capable of huge factual distortion (and the owner has a clearly radical agenda) I still see its potential failure as a potentially good outcome.

That does not mean I dismiss people losing their jobs or other negative impacts as meaningless. But that happens all the time when any business folds or shrinks.

I think you are looking at this far too much through the lens of one man being a d***head.

Innumerable organisations and individuals use Twitter to communicate with the public. Twitter has become more akin to a public utility.

kingstongraham

Twitter failing is really bad - I like it a lot.

Musk offering to buy it for a laugh, being forced to buy it and losing billions because he doesn't understand what he bought is funny. Tweeting through it and making things worse is funny.

briantrumpet

kingstongraham said:

Twitter failing is really bad - I like it a lot.

Musk offering to buy it for a laugh, being forced to buy it and losing billions because he doesn't understand what he bought is funny. Tweeting through it and making things worse is funny.

It is, albeit with the caveats noted by RJS. That there still isn't a viable alternative that has appeared that can perform Twitter's useful functions still surprises me, given the possible financial rewards opening up.

morstar

rjsterry said:

morstar said:

rjsterry said:

briantrumpet said:

pinno said:

A $44bn gamble...
Popcorn time.

Twitters demise would be great for Democrats.
(as said before).

Just been having a look around the OSINT stuff for Ukraine, and they are actively trying to guard against the distinct possibility of an early demise of Twitter, but worried that their activities aren't easily replicated on other channels.

But apparently it will all be a great laugh if it all falls.

Global behemoth potentially collapsing is obviously going to have some negative impacts.

That does not automatically mean it is overall a bad outcome. Given the global behemoth is capable of huge factual distortion (and the owner has a clearly radical agenda) I still see its potential failure as a potentially good outcome.

That does not mean I dismiss people losing their jobs or other negative impacts as meaningless. But that happens all the time when any business folds or shrinks.

I think you are looking at this far too much through the lens of one man being a d***head.

Innumerable organisations and individuals use Twitter to communicate with the public. Twitter has become more akin to a public utility.

Surely this makes the point that it's too big and too powerful. Especially to be in the hands of an agenda peddler (of any persuasion). It is a commercial entity with excessive global dominance of communication. I can't mourn the loss of such a thing.

Crikey, this is exactly the sort of thing anti monopoly legislation is designed to do within a nations markets and yet here is a global entity able to exert enormous influence.

briantrumpet

morstar said:

rjsterry said:

morstar said:

rjsterry said:

briantrumpet said:

pinno said:

A $44bn gamble...
Popcorn time.

Twitters demise would be great for Democrats.
(as said before).

Just been having a look around the OSINT stuff for Ukraine, and they are actively trying to guard against the distinct possibility of an early demise of Twitter, but worried that their activities aren't easily replicated on other channels.

But apparently it will all be a great laugh if it all falls.

Global behemoth potentially collapsing is obviously going to have some negative impacts.

That does not automatically mean it is overall a bad outcome. Given the global behemoth is capable of huge factual distortion (and the owner has a clearly radical agenda) I still see its potential failure as a potentially good outcome.

That does not mean I dismiss people losing their jobs or other negative impacts as meaningless. But that happens all the time when any business folds or shrinks.

I think you are looking at this far too much through the lens of one man being a d***head.

Innumerable organisations and individuals use Twitter to communicate with the public. Twitter has become more akin to a public utility.

Surely this makes the point that it's too big and too powerful. Especially to be in the hands of an agenda peddler (of any persuasion). It is a commercial entity with excessive global dominance of communication. I can't mourn the loss of such a thing.

Crikey, this is exactly the sort of thing anti monopoly legislation is designed to do within a nations markets and yet here is a global entity able to exert enormous influence.

Anti-monopoly laws seem not to be able to cope with modern tech giants: Amazon, eBay, Twitter, Facebook, Spotify...

rjsterry

morstar said:

rjsterry said:

morstar said:

rjsterry said:

briantrumpet said:

pinno said:

A $44bn gamble...
Popcorn time.

Twitters demise would be great for Democrats.
(as said before).

Just been having a look around the OSINT stuff for Ukraine, and they are actively trying to guard against the distinct possibility of an early demise of Twitter, but worried that their activities aren't easily replicated on other channels.

But apparently it will all be a great laugh if it all falls.

Global behemoth potentially collapsing is obviously going to have some negative impacts.

That does not automatically mean it is overall a bad outcome. Given the global behemoth is capable of huge factual distortion (and the owner has a clearly radical agenda) I still see its potential failure as a potentially good outcome.

That does not mean I dismiss people losing their jobs or other negative impacts as meaningless. But that happens all the time when any business folds or shrinks.

I think you are looking at this far too much through the lens of one man being a d***head.

Innumerable organisations and individuals use Twitter to communicate with the public. Twitter has become more akin to a public utility.

Surely this makes the point that it's too big and too powerful. Especially to be in the hands of an agenda peddler (of any persuasion). It is a commercial entity with excessive global dominance of communication. I can't mourn the loss of such a thing.

Crikey, this is exactly the sort of thing anti monopoly legislation is designed to do within a nations markets and yet here is a global entity able to exert enormous influence.

I'm not sure Twitter itself (even less Musk, who I don't think is capable of anything as coherent as an agenda for more than 48hrs) exert enormous influence, at least not in a way that could be easily directed towards a desired outcome. Twitter is full of a multitude of agendas across the full spectrum of political thought. That is its strength. In contrast, avowedly political platforms like Parler or Truth Social are never going to reach the scale of Twitter because they are almost by definition exclusionary.

rjsterry

briantrumpet said:

morstar said:

rjsterry said:

morstar said:

rjsterry said:

briantrumpet said:

pinno said:

A $44bn gamble...
Popcorn time.

Twitters demise would be great for Democrats.
(as said before).

Just been having a look around the OSINT stuff for Ukraine, and they are actively trying to guard against the distinct possibility of an early demise of Twitter, but worried that their activities aren't easily replicated on other channels.

But apparently it will all be a great laugh if it all falls.

Global behemoth potentially collapsing is obviously going to have some negative impacts.

That does not automatically mean it is overall a bad outcome. Given the global behemoth is capable of huge factual distortion (and the owner has a clearly radical agenda) I still see its potential failure as a potentially good outcome.

That does not mean I dismiss people losing their jobs or other negative impacts as meaningless. But that happens all the time when any business folds or shrinks.

I think you are looking at this far too much through the lens of one man being a d***head.

Innumerable organisations and individuals use Twitter to communicate with the public. Twitter has become more akin to a public utility.

Surely this makes the point that it's too big and too powerful. Especially to be in the hands of an agenda peddler (of any persuasion). It is a commercial entity with excessive global dominance of communication. I can't mourn the loss of such a thing.

Crikey, this is exactly the sort of thing anti monopoly legislation is designed to do within a nations markets and yet here is a global entity able to exert enormous influence.

Anti-monopoly laws seem not to be able to cope with modern tech giants: Amazon, eBay, Twitter, Facebook, Spotify...

There are other platforms that provide a similar service, so difficult to describe Twitter as a monopoly. Mastodon seems to be the alternative most popular at the moment, but seems to be struggling to cope with the influx. There are multiple music streaming services. Amazon is big but not a monopoly.

focuszing723

Elon Musk has announced the end of remote working at Twitter.

Musk, who took over Twitter on October 27, sent an email to his employees Wednesday for the first time. The email was sent at 2:39 a.m. ET, according to a time stamp on the email reviewed by Insider.

The billionaire wrote in the email that employees would no longer be permitted to work remotely. He said Twitter expected staff to be in the office for at least 40 hours a week unless they're given approval to work elsewhere, which he'd review.

Musk told Twitter employees, "The road ahead is arduous and will require intense work to succeed."

https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-email-ends-remote-work-twitter-staff-office-2022-11?r=US&IR=T
The little blue bird is definitely in fight mode now.

I sense greatness.

morstar

rjsterry said:

briantrumpet said:

morstar said:

rjsterry said:

morstar said:

rjsterry said:

briantrumpet said:

pinno said:

A $44bn gamble...
Popcorn time.

Twitters demise would be great for Democrats.
(as said before).

Just been having a look around the OSINT stuff for Ukraine, and they are actively trying to guard against the distinct possibility of an early demise of Twitter, but worried that their activities aren't easily replicated on other channels.

But apparently it will all be a great laugh if it all falls.

Global behemoth potentially collapsing is obviously going to have some negative impacts.

That does not automatically mean it is overall a bad outcome. Given the global behemoth is capable of huge factual distortion (and the owner has a clearly radical agenda) I still see its potential failure as a potentially good outcome.

That does not mean I dismiss people losing their jobs or other negative impacts as meaningless. But that happens all the time when any business folds or shrinks.

I think you are looking at this far too much through the lens of one man being a d***head.

Innumerable organisations and individuals use Twitter to communicate with the public. Twitter has become more akin to a public utility.

Surely this makes the point that it's too big and too powerful. Especially to be in the hands of an agenda peddler (of any persuasion). It is a commercial entity with excessive global dominance of communication. I can't mourn the loss of such a thing.

Crikey, this is exactly the sort of thing anti monopoly legislation is designed to do within a nations markets and yet here is a global entity able to exert enormous influence.

Anti-monopoly laws seem not to be able to cope with modern tech giants: Amazon, eBay, Twitter, Facebook, Spotify...

There are other platforms that provide a similar service, so difficult to describe Twitter as a monopoly. Mastodon seems to be the alternative most popular at the moment, but seems to be struggling to cope with the influx. There are multiple music streaming services. Amazon is big but not a monopoly.

You’ve a foot in two camps here.

It’s so big it’s a public utility but it’s not a monopoly.

This is exactly the scenario that anti competition bodies tackle, it doesn’t mean there is no competition, it means there is risk of no effective competition due to the size of the leading player, that is the case with Twitter.

The loss of Twitter remains unlikely imho. But it’s loss won’t leave us short of communication methods so it is not something I fear. A fracturing of communication channels, whilst in some ways more inconvenient still brings many advantages such as effective competition.

morstar

rjsterry said:

morstar said:

rjsterry said:

morstar said:

rjsterry said:

briantrumpet said:

pinno said:

A $44bn gamble...
Popcorn time.

Twitters demise would be great for Democrats.
(as said before).

Just been having a look around the OSINT stuff for Ukraine, and they are actively trying to guard against the distinct possibility of an early demise of Twitter, but worried that their activities aren't easily replicated on other channels.

But apparently it will all be a great laugh if it all falls.

Global behemoth potentially collapsing is obviously going to have some negative impacts.

That does not automatically mean it is overall a bad outcome. Given the global behemoth is capable of huge factual distortion (and the owner has a clearly radical agenda) I still see its potential failure as a potentially good outcome.

That does not mean I dismiss people losing their jobs or other negative impacts as meaningless. But that happens all the time when any business folds or shrinks.

I think you are looking at this far too much through the lens of one man being a d***head.

Innumerable organisations and individuals use Twitter to communicate with the public. Twitter has become more akin to a public utility.

Surely this makes the point that it's too big and too powerful. Especially to be in the hands of an agenda peddler (of any persuasion). It is a commercial entity with excessive global dominance of communication. I can't mourn the loss of such a thing.

Crikey, this is exactly the sort of thing anti monopoly legislation is designed to do within a nations markets and yet here is a global entity able to exert enormous influence.

I'm not sure Twitter itself (even less Musk, who I don't think is capable of anything as coherent as an agenda for more than 48hrs) exert enormous influence, at least not in a way that could be easily directed towards a desired outcome. Twitter is full of a multitude of agendas across the full spectrum of political thought. That is its strength. In contrast, avowedly political platforms like Parler or Truth Social are never going to reach the scale of Twitter because they are almost by definition exclusionary.

What Twitter chooses to allow and how it moderates controls an enormous amount of information.

Misinformation is surely being proven to be one of the biggest threats to democratic societies. Twitter et al are at the heart of how that is facilitated or tackled.
Musk has a clear view that can’t control a narrative itself but can facilitate behaviours I would describe as anti democratic.

focuszing723

focuszing723 said:

Elon Musk has announced the end of remote working at Twitter.

Musk, who took over Twitter on October 27, sent an email to his employees Wednesday for the first time. The email was sent at 2:39 a.m. ET, according to a time stamp on the email reviewed by Insider.

The billionaire wrote in the email that employees would no longer be permitted to work remotely. He said Twitter expected staff to be in the office for at least 40 hours a week unless they're given approval to work elsewhere, which he'd review.

Musk told Twitter employees, "The road ahead is arduous and will require intense work to succeed."

https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-email-ends-remote-work-twitter-staff-office-2022-11?r=US&IR=T
The little blue bird is definitely in fight mode now.

I sense greatness.

I'm just re-quoting my post here (knocked off too quickly), because clearly they're the ones that count in this thread.

Stevo_666

It'll certainly be interesting for a while, that's for sure.

It surprised me that he didn't do (or didn't appear to do) more planning pre-acquisition given the size of what he was acquiring. It does not surprise me however that quite a few people in Cake stop are enjoying having a go at an eccentric and egocentric billionaire...

I suppose one good thing that could come out of this is if some Cake Stoppers reduce how often they quote random Twitterati on here to support their pre-determined views (sorry, arguments)