Musky

briantrumpet

An official Washington State body trolling Musk...

https://twitter.com/waDNR/status/1591090938990198784

rjsterry

ddraver said:

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

What are the downsides of Twitter are that aren't already present on any other social media platform, TV station or newspaper?

ddraver

Doesn't stop them being downsides.

I've not got much interest in exactly what it how comes next, just that it will. Tiktok is locked down CCP style but it's still kinda fun for nearly all the stuff I use Twitter for. Only reason I don't post links more often is because it doesn't embed so well.

briantrumpet

ddraver said:

Doesn't stop them being downsides.

I've not got much interest in exactly what it how comes next, just that it will. Tiktok is locked down CCP style but it's still kinda fun for nearly all the stuff I use Twitter for. Only reason I don't post links more often is because it doesn't embed so well.

But Twitter has evolved to be a vaguely unfiltered source of news, alongside all the expected tosh that humans are going to post. You're not going to get one without the other. Ditto Facebook. Of course there will always be arguments about what the limits of 'free speech' are (the 'shouting "Fire" in a crowded theatre' example), and Twitter and FB are far from perfect, but both serve a function.

Any global social media site is going to have downsides, just as every form of government does. Because, well, humans.

ddraver

Which is why there will be another one...

rjsterry

morstar 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.

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.

If the major competitor in a market ceases to exist, there is less incentive for the others to improve, not more. It means they don't have to try as hard.

rjsterry

ddraver said:

Doesn't stop them being downsides.

I've not got much interest in exactly what it how comes next, just that it will. Tiktok is locked down CCP style but it's still kinda fun for nearly all the stuff I use Twitter for. Only reason I don't post links more often is because it doesn't embed so well.

But what are they?

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 said:

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.

Propaganda is as much as a weapon as arms.
I care not that Ukraine uses propaganda given the stakes - which go beyond the region and the effects of this conflict are global.

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

ddraver said:

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

What are the downsides of Twitter are that aren't already present on any other social media platform, TV station or newspaper?

I find it hard to use. There is a log in wall for starters. Plus Twitter threads.

morstar

rjsterry said:

morstar 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.

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.

If the major competitor in a market ceases to exist, there is less incentive for the others to improve, not more. It means they don't have to try as hard.

If there is one great white in a sea full of minnows, the minnows are solely competing to be the best of the rest.

If anything, I suspect people with eyes on a prize of more market share will be accelerating efforts right now, the total opposite of sitting there assuming they are going to be gifted lots of disgruntled Twitter users.

rjsterry

morstar said:

rjsterry said:

morstar 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.

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.

If the major competitor in a market ceases to exist, there is less incentive for the others to improve, not more. It means they don't have to try as hard.

If there is one great white in a sea full of minnows, the minnows are solely competing to be the best of the rest.

If anything, I suspect people with eyes on a prize of more market share will be accelerating efforts right now, the total opposite of sitting there assuming they are going to be gifted lots of disgruntled Twitter users.

Use of different platforms is not mutually exclusive. Many people are now posting on Mastodon and Twitter for example. Many have been cross posting on Twitter, Instagram and Facebook for years. It's not a market where people use only one platform.

pangolin

rjsterry said:

morstar said:

rjsterry said:

morstar 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.

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.

If the major competitor in a market ceases to exist, there is less incentive for the others to improve, not more. It means they don't have to try as hard.

If there is one great white in a sea full of minnows, the minnows are solely competing to be the best of the rest.

If anything, I suspect people with eyes on a prize of more market share will be accelerating efforts right now, the total opposite of sitting there assuming they are going to be gifted lots of disgruntled Twitter users.

Use of different platforms is not mutually exclusive. Many people are now posting on Mastodon and Twitter for example. Many have been cross posting on Twitter, Instagram and Facebook for years. It's not a market where people use only one platform.

I'm going to agree that I'm unclear what point you're making. Is twitter the dominant player, or are there plenty of platforms?

kingstongraham

Who's going to be the first company to sue twitter about the fake verified accounts?

pinno

kingstongraham said:

Who's going to be the first company to sue twitter about the fake verified accounts?

Trump?

ddraver

😁😁

https://twitter.com/LaurenWhitticom/status/1591307909102596096?s=20&t=fTnul9PzOHU80aByxUe6qw

rjsterry

pangolin said:

rjsterry said:

morstar said:

rjsterry said:

morstar 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.

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.

If the major competitor in a market ceases to exist, there is less incentive for the others to improve, not more. It means they don't have to try as hard.

If there is one great white in a sea full of minnows, the minnows are solely competing to be the best of the rest.

If anything, I suspect people with eyes on a prize of more market share will be accelerating efforts right now, the total opposite of sitting there assuming they are going to be gifted lots of disgruntled Twitter users.

Use of different platforms is not mutually exclusive. Many people are now posting on Mastodon and Twitter for example. Many have been cross posting on Twitter, Instagram and Facebook for years. It's not a market where people use only one platform.

I'm going to agree that I'm unclear what point you're making. Is twitter the dominant player, or are there plenty of platforms?

It's certainly one of the leading platforms. My point is that Twitter disappearing (not because of a fault with Twitter, but because someone bought it by mistake) doesn't directly 'free up' users for other platforms.

orraloon

Hasn't the Muskrat got more important things to do rather than prattling about on t'internet? Isn't he CEO of several 'big' things? Or is he just a figurehead, one of the friggin' in the riggin' type?

Stevo_666

orraloon said:

Hasn't the Muskrat got more important things to do rather than prattling about on t'internet? Isn't he CEO of several 'big' things? Or is he just a figurehead, one of the friggin' in the riggin' type?

He's CEO of several companies as well as a shareholder of several - in a few cases he is both (e.g. SpaceX, Tesla, Twitter)

tailwindhome

orraloon

Stevo_666 said:

orraloon said:

Hasn't the Muskrat got more important things to do rather than prattling about on t'internet? Isn't he CEO of several 'big' things? Or is he just a figurehead, one of the friggin' in the riggin' type?

He's CEO of several companies as well as a shareholder of several - in a few cases he is both (e.g. SpaceX, Tesla, Twitter)

Isn't that ironic don't you think a little too ironic...

Stevo_666

orraloon said:

Stevo_666 said:

orraloon said:

Hasn't the Muskrat got more important things to do rather than prattling about on t'internet? Isn't he CEO of several 'big' things? Or is he just a figurehead, one of the friggin' in the riggin' type?

He's CEO of several companies as well as a shareholder of several - in a few cases he is both (e.g. SpaceX, Tesla, Twitter)

Isn't that ironic don't you think a little too ironic...

Not sure what you mean? If you own a business or a substantial stake in it, its not abnormal to also be one of the senior execs. Expecially as being one tends to give you choice in the other.

briantrumpet

The Genius seems to think that Twitter quips will protect him from legal actions.

https://twitter.com/mattblaze/status/1591850142952398848

TheBigBean

briantrumpet said:

The Genius seems to think that Twitter quips will protect him from legal actions.

https://twitter.com/mattblaze/status/1591850142952398848

I'm interested in the balance of responsibility on this. Presumably the users are more guilty than Twitter.

pinno

tailwindhome said:

What is that picture?

tailwindhome

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disaster_Girl

Pross

So someone paid over $400k for that photo as an NFT. Was it Musk as it makes about as much business sense as his purchase of Twitter.

briantrumpet

t

TheBigBean said:

briantrumpet said:

The Genius seems to think that Twitter quips will protect him from legal actions.

https://twitter.com/mattblaze/status/1591850142952398848

I'm interested in the balance of responsibility on this. Presumably the users are more guilty than Twitter.

I'd guess that Musk will find it hard to show that he has adequate safeguards against impersonation and remedies for timely redress, if they are requisites for social media companies. You'll not stop people doing it, but I would imagine that there are minimum standards required by law for how companies deal with it when it does happen.

pinno

tailwindhome said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disaster_Girl

Ta very much.

rick_chasey

https://twitter.com/frances_coppola/status/1591907784270151680?s=46&t=ZtLKjCRJSNtsUOJ9MMwLJA

He’s really going to have it make a lot more money than it is

briantrumpet

rick_chasey said:

https://twitter.com/frances_coppola/status/1591907784270151680?s=46&t=ZtLKjCRJSNtsUOJ9MMwLJA

He’s really going to have it make a lot more money than it is

Hence his flailing around, I guess.