Musky

dabber

Given the huge amount of interest and the level of importance given to the current twitter situation I'm amazed that I'm managing to carry on living never having used it.

kingstongraham

focuszing723 said:

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.

I posted that earlier as a reason why anyone decent would be looking to work elsewhere.

They've paused the paid for blue mark of shame now.

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

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...

You've forgotten what it was like here when a bad redesign just happened?

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

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...

You've forgotten what it was like here when a bad redesign just happened?

I do remember it, but I suspect that the reasons for some having a go are less to do with the point that Twitter is crappier than it used to be and more to do with the words above

Jezyboy

Meh, there seem to be plenty of reasons to criticize Musk (and to see him as a cautionary tale of modern capitalism) but I realize that for Tory Boyz being a billionaire puts you above all criticism.

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

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...

You've forgotten what it was like here when a bad redesign just happened?

I do remember it, but I suspect that the reasons for some having a go are less to do with the point that Twitter is crappier than it used to be and more to do with the words above

I think you're showing your bias there.

kingstongraham

Also, you seem to have forgotten this is another subject you don't care about.

pblakeney

dabber said:

Given the huge amount of interest and the level of importance given to the current twitter situation I'm amazed that I'm managing to carry on living never having used it.

Glad to know it's not just me.

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

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...

You've forgotten what it was like here when a bad redesign just happened?

I do remember it, but I suspect that the reasons for some having a go are less to do with the point that Twitter is crappier than it used to be and more to do with the words above

I think you're showing your bias there.

Just a hunch based on those who are most vociferous in this thread.

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

Also, you seem to have forgotten this is another subject you don't care about.

I drop into these sorts of threads from time to time to amuse myself.

rjsterry

morstar said:

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.

Not quite what I said. It has some similarities with a public utility such as a phone network or even just a village notice board, but there are clearly multiple other platforms available. There's even a demand for apps that allow you to simultaneously post on multiple platforms at once.

In any case, wrecking Twitter does not improve competition between other platforms.

Pross

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.

That feels like arguing that if Tesco bought out all the supermarkets it wouldn't be a monopoly because Spar were still operating as an alternative.

Pross

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 mean, if a major tech company can't operate with staff working remotely what hope for any other business sector?

rick_chasey

It just makes them less competitive when it comes to hiring good people.

focuszing723

Nobody bleeds for the King sat in his Castle.

Top > down.

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Also, you seem to have forgotten this is another subject you don't care about.

I drop into these sorts of threads from time to time to amuse myself.

I think there's a word for that kind of poster.

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Also, you seem to have forgotten this is another subject you don't care about.

I drop into these sorts of threads from time to time to amuse myself.

I think there's a word for that kind of poster.

I have learnt well from you, oh wise one.

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Also, you seem to have forgotten this is another subject you don't care about.

I drop into these sorts of threads from time to time to amuse myself.

I think there's a word for that kind of poster.

I have learnt well from you, oh wise one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lA5UqUyFmT0

surrey_commuter

Pross said:

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.

That feels like arguing that if Tesco bought out all the supermarkets it wouldn't be a monopoly because Spar were still operating as an alternative.

More like we do not want Amazon to go bust as Waterstone’s would become a monopoly.

kingstongraham

What area is twitter supposed to have a monopoly in?

briantrumpet

kingstongraham said:

What area is twitter supposed to have a monopoly in?

It would be more accurate to say "an overwhelming dominance in", as with Spotify, Amazon, Facebook, etc. It's not to say that there aren't other providers, but the whole landscape is dominated by one major player in each area, and it's not healthy, as they have too much power to manipulate the market and hold various parties to ransom.

What Twitter does? Spreading gossip and up-to-the-minute chatter, about a wide range of subjects, some of which is useful to know.

briantrumpet

Stable genius. Trying to out-Truss Truss in the U-turm stakes.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/nov/11/twitter-blue-check-verification-impostor-accounts

Twitter’s relaunched premium service – which grants blue-check verification labels to anyone willing to pay $8 a month – was unavailable Friday after the social media platform was flooded by a wave of imposter accounts approved by Twitter.

Before billionaire Elon Musk took control of the social media platform two weeks ago the blue check was granted to celebrities and journalists verified by the platform – precisely to prevent impersonation. Now, anyone can get one as long as they have a phone, a credit card and $8 a month.

On Thursday, Musk tweeted that “too many corrupt legacy Blue ‘verification’ checkmarks exist, so no choice but to remove legacy Blue in coming months.”

Twitter Blue was not available on the platform’s online version, which said signup was only possible on the iPhone version. But the iPhone version did not offer Twitter Blue as an option

Twitter also once again began adding gray “official” labels to some prominent accounts. It had rolled out the labels earlier this week, only to kill them a few hours later.

They returned Thursday night, at least for some accounts – including Twitter’s own, as well as big companies like Amazon, Nike and Coca-Cola, before many vanished again.

tailwindhome

It seems to be going terrifically well

tailwindhome

Oops

briantrumpet

tailwindhome said:

It seems to be going terrifically well

It's almost as if he has no idea how any of it works, but that's not going to stop him trying sticking his screwdriver in various sockets to see if anything is live, despite people warning him it might not be wise. Experts, eh, what do they know?

ddraver

rjsterry said:

Twitter has become more akin to a public utility.

The argument hinges on this point really.

I use it a lot (/waste a lot of time) but I don't believe that it is a utility.

Further, if I'm wrong and it is then something will be along very shortly to replace it. There are plenty of ways "companies can communicate with the public" that don't require all the downsides of Twitter.

Meanwhile, Elon can rest easy it's only half his fortune at risk...

https://twitter.com/business/status/1591165376003334144?s=20&t=UysxLt0THP7WUru35rrfMQ

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Also, you seem to have forgotten this is another subject you don't care about.

I drop into these sorts of threads from time to time to amuse myself.

I think there's a word for that kind of poster.

I have learnt well from you, oh wise one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lA5UqUyFmT0

Oh, the irony of Sea Lion troll boy coming out from under his bridge to post something like that

morstar

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.

Seeing as I was the first person to use the word monopoly, here is my post where I said the position was globally dominant.

I didn’t say it was a monopoly but drew parallels to monopolies and how they are generally considered undesirable in free markets.

As for the competition thing, of course there will be more competition without a massive player dominating the market.

tailwindhome

ddraver

There are some crackers...

https://twitter.com/PopulismUpdates/status/1591173334632632321?t=uUXlcmlND4tvSsKdX6vqQg&s=19

Question is how many views does a tweet need before it makes more than 8 bucks..?