Support NeoGAF

[Maiden Voyage]

Whoever is in charge is always going to let their biases influence the structure & content. It is inevitable no matter who is in charge.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

 

[AJUMP23]

Whoever is in charge is always going to let their biases influence the structure & content. It is inevitable no matter who is in charge.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

And the boss of twitter needs to be able to sell ads.

 

[DeepEnigma]

I feel like this is going to be reasoned as "he's still learning" ... Not "he's a narcissist".

There is no "good" narcissist.

Read the article.

those articles are simply expecting people to read only the headline which most do.

but the only substance to those articles is that they banned the ElonJet account but he's already back on twitter with a delay.

and that Ellen Irwin who replaced Yoel Roth provided materials for those who posted the twitter files like that's some kind of revelation... no shit.

and the other article is upset because they banned some guy named Chad Loder when there are articles of him doxing, doing targeted harassment and campaigns to get people fired. The guy was a dumpster fire.

 

[LegendOfKage]

People were banned for bigotry, anti-Semitism, racism, spreading conspiracy theories, advocating political violence, harassment

Again you say, so again I ask:

an obvious attempt at disinformation

you're signal boosting the conspiracy theories

The new owner is literally tweeting conspiracy theory

It was an attempt to be responsible as a social media platform.

20 years ago the government said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and used that pretense to start a war. If social media existed then as it does now, the government would have requested the deplatforming of people questioning that narrative. They would have been painted as spreading misinformation.

And even if you do question that hypothetical, the question remains, why do you trust the government to decide what is true and what is false, and then "request" that people be silenced who disagree? With as many times as the power held in government has changed hands over the years, why should anyone willingly accept and even champion a precedent for that sort of censorship?

Why are you so devoted to wanting to be told what you're allowed to say, and someone deciding for you what opinions are right and wrong?

- - -

I asked those questions before, and if you wanted to answer them I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts, but here's something new. If you think people should be removed from social media if they spread misinformation and conspiracy theory, what about all the misinformation we learned about in one of the latest reveals from the twitter files? First some quotes:

“I think we need to just call this out on the bullshit it is.”

“Falsely accuses a bunch of legitimate right-leaning accounts of being Russian bots.”

“Virtually any conclusion drawn from it will take conversations in conservative circles on Twitter and accuse them of being Russian.”

These are the words of Yoel Roth, who had the insider knowledge at Twitter to KNOW that a think tank had pretended that Twitter was filled with Russian Bots, while many news agencies ran story after story that said this was all real. In the end, Twitter decided to do nothing about any of this. Seeing as we all now know this was very much misinformation and literal conspiracy theory, do you feel CNN, NBC News, and The New York Times should be removed from all social media for misinformation?




Because if you create a precedent that says people who post misinformation should be removed from social media, major political parties and anyone else with power will use that power to silence their critics. If you want to keep an eye on Musk and make sure he's not doing the same with his power, I fully support you there, and I welcome any journalists who will challenge him to justify his actions whenever anyone is removed from the platform.

But if you want that sort of thing to be about power and not partisanship, it has to be a two way street, and you have to criticize when people you don't agree with are removed from social media platforms as well. If not, it just drives everyone to situational ethics and keeps us all divided.

 

[Maiden Voyage]

Anyone know why Musk's account is set to private?

https://twitter.com/elonmusk

 

[BadBurger]

Anyone know why Musk's account is set to private?

https://twitter.com/elonmusk

He's a fucking mad man who knows. His life is like a 1980's comedy like The Toy. I could totally see him being the little boy in The Toy, only he's as he is now in his 50's.

 

[LegendOfKage]

Anyone know why Musk's account is set to private?

https://twitter.com/elonmusk

I was curious about this as well, so I went looking for an answer. Apparently this is the reason. You'll have to click the image for the full context, but the quick version is he did it to see if people see his private tweets more than his public ones.

 

[MisterFalcon]

20 years ago the government said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and used that pretense to start a war. If social media existed then as it does now, the government would have requested the deplatforming of people questioning that narrative. They would have been painted as spreading misinformation.

A year ago Matt Taibbi said Russia would not invade Ukraine.

 

[Tams]

20 years ago the government said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and used that pretense to start a war. If social media existed then as it does now, the government would have requested the deplatforming of people questioning that narrative. They would have been painted as spreading misinformation.

I didn't realise it's 2005. Can someone recommend me an iPod?

Frankly, none of that matters as social media was in its infancy and none of that happened.

 

[Maiden Voyage]

Can someone recommend me an iPod?

You need to get yourself a Zune my friend. It’s going to be the future of digital music.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Again you say, so again I ask:









20 years ago the government said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and used that pretense to start a war. If social media existed then as it does now, the government would have requested the deplatforming of people questioning that narrative. They would have been painted as spreading misinformation.

And even if you do question that hypothetical, the question remains, why do you trust the government to decide what is true and what is false, and then "request" that people be silenced who disagree? With as many times as the power held in government has changed hands over the years, why should anyone willingly accept and even champion a precedent for that sort of censorship?

Why are you so devoted to wanting to be told what you're allowed to say, and someone deciding for you what opinions are right and wrong?

- - -

I asked those questions before, and if you wanted to answer them I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts, but here's something new. If you think people should be removed from social media if they spread misinformation and conspiracy theory, what about all the misinformation we learned about in one of the latest reveals from the twitter files? First some quotes:

“I think we need to just call this out on the bullshit it is.”

“Falsely accuses a bunch of legitimate right-leaning accounts of being Russian bots.”

“Virtually any conclusion drawn from it will take conversations in conservative circles on Twitter and accuse them of being Russian.”

These are the words of Yoel Roth, who had the insider knowledge at Twitter to KNOW that a think tank had pretended that Twitter was filled with Russian Bots, while many news agencies ran story after story that said this was all real. In the end, Twitter decided to do nothing about any of this. Seeing as we all now know this was very much misinformation and literal conspiracy theory, do you feel CNN, NBC News, and The New York Times should be removed from all social media for misinformation?




Because if you create a precedent that says people who post misinformation should be removed from social media, major political parties and anyone else with power will use that power to silence their critics. If you want to keep an eye on Musk and make sure he's not doing the same with his power, I fully support you there, and I welcome any journalists who will challenge him to justify his actions whenever anyone is removed from the platform.

But if you want that sort of thing to be about power and not partisanship, it has to be a two way street, and you have to criticize when people you don't agree with are removed from social media platforms as well. If not, it just drives everyone to situational ethics and keeps us all divided.

 

[DeepEnigma]

 

[LegendOfKage]

A year ago Matt Taibbi said Russia would not invade Ukraine.

Well, I think he'd make a lousy psychic then.

I didn't realise it's 2005. Can someone recommend me an iPod?

Frankly, none of that matters as social media was in its infancy and none of that happened.

I figured that my hypothetical example would be dismissed, which is why I added this point. Feel free to respond to it.

And even if you do question that hypothetical, the question remains, why do you trust the government to decide what is true and what is false, and then "request" that people be silenced who disagree? With as many times as the power held in government has changed hands over the years, why should anyone willingly accept and even champion a precedent for that sort of censorship?

Why are you so devoted to wanting to be told what you're allowed to say, and someone deciding for you what opinions are right and wrong?

 

[It's all in the wrist]

I had 1300 shares at 127 average!

I sold at 139.

Feelsbadman.

(I will say that I'm a day trader, so I never should have gotten into that position in the first place and I had godawful losses for awhile, but it still feelsbadman.)

 

[Maiden Voyage]

I'm a day trader

I had godawful losses

It's redundant to say you had godawful losses immediately after saying you're a day trader.

 

[It's all in the wrist]

It's redundant to say you had godawful losses immediately after saying you're a day trader.

Yeah well the jokes on you today buddy, I had Godawesome gains. $1,777 on TSLA.

I'm mad that I missed the part where it shit the bed for a solid hour. Who knows, I probably would have kept trying for the reverse move and lost it all.

Edit: wrong thread? I hope Elon keeps talkin'.

 

[LegendOfKage]

Viewed as less partisan and working towards rewarding creators by sharing ad revenue. Sounds like a good start, after a not so good start. I wonder how many views your tweets need to get in a month to earn eight dollars?

 

[RAÏSanÏa]

The assassins he imagined were after him didn't get him? That must be really impressive. pew pew Maybe Tim Apple called them off after their meeting.

 

[funkygunther]

Viewed as less partisan and working towards rewarding creators by sharing ad revenue. Sounds like a good start, after a not so good start. I wonder how many views your tweets need to get in a month to earn eight dollars?

"Less partisan" because Republicans trust it a whole 10% more than they did three months ago. Scanned the thread, couldn't find a source nor a larger dataset. Another classic Musk graph for you, why are you so keen to believe it?

How much a user gets for having an ad appear next to their replies is something you should know before declaring a "good start". A pyramid scheme only works when there is incentive for the majority at the base.

 

[RAÏSanÏa]

With the changes to blue checks and the related risks, saying that trust has increased seems off. There's more double checking of unfamiliar accounts, even when business/gov related, and more reliance on traditional news sources. It might be adding to the circumstances for the complaints of less engagement. Might explain the attempted bribe with ad revenue, but that won't get principled creative members of the world to work against their own self interest to popularize and normalize Musk's unbalanced delusion against an imagined extreme.

 

[Tams]

Is Musk seriously right now using Tesla to push a cryptocurrency pyramid scheme?!

 

[Maiden Voyage]

You won’t believe what happens next!

 

[BadBurger]

Elon Musk Wants to Charge Businesses on Twitter $1,000 per Month to Retain Verified Check-Marks

Elon Musk wants companies and brands on Twitter to fork over $1,000 per month to get verified check-marks on his social network.

variety.com

They're also planning on charging developers for access to the API starting February 9th. Aggressively limiting access to the platform - let's see how this works out.

 

[Droxcy]

This API charging is bullshit. So many good bots are now left in the dust honestly this is a pretty big nail in the coffin.

 

[Nobody_Important]

Elon Musk Wants to Charge Businesses on Twitter $1,000 per Month to Retain Verified Check-Marks

Elon Musk wants companies and brands on Twitter to fork over $1,000 per month to get verified check-marks on his social network.

variety.com

They're also planning on charging developers for access to the API starting February 9th. Aggressively limiting access to the platform - let's see how this works out.

At this point I am convinced he is just trying to destroy it. You can't extort money from businesses by holding the threat of impersonation and negative PR over their head and honestly expect it to go well.


He is determined to piss off every single advertiser and company.

 

[funkygunther]

At this point I am convinced he is just trying to destroy it. You can't extort money from businesses by holding the threat of impersonation and negative PR over their head and honestly expect it to go well.


He is determined to piss off every single advertiser and company.

I think its more that he's determined to make some money. It just happens that you can't make changes to Twitter's business without redefining the whole business.

 

[Nobody_Important]

I think its more that he's determined to make some money. It just happens that you can't make changes to Twitter's business without redefining the whole business.

He isn't going to make money this way. The fact that he even thinks he can just shows how completely ridiculous he is when it comes to running a business.

 

[funkygunther]

He isn't going to make money this way. The fact that he even thinks he can just shows how completely ridiculous he is when it comes to running a business.

It will always come back to him having paid an insane amount of money to own a company that he didn't want. He'll never escape that.

 

[BadBurger]

At this point I am convinced he is just trying to destroy it. You can't extort money from businesses by holding the threat of impersonation and negative PR over their head and honestly expect it to go well.


He is determined to piss off every single advertiser and company.

This same thing led to a massive reduction in small business participation on Yelp (I believe they referred to their program as "verified business licenses" or something similar). Twitter is a different kind of beast, but, as with Yelp there's no reason for a business to pay for official recognition or the boosted status of the gold check mark on Twitter. If someone wants to check out a company's Twitter they're already going to manually search for it. People aren't going to see some silly tweet from say Wendy's and think "gee I wasn't ready to venture out into the cold for a $6 fast food burger, but the way the Wendy's Twitter account just dunked on Cracker Barrel's made me hungry".

Someone on Reddit commented that he runs his company like how a ten year old runs their fake company for a school project, and that is feeling accurate.

It's also just dumb from a business perspective. Negative press, and riling up businesses, for a paltry sum; if he got 10k businesses to sign up for this, which is laughable, it would net $10m a month. That's like 10% of one of the interest payments on the loans he had to take out to buy the company.

 

[Tams]

I think its more that he's determined to make some money. It just happens that you can't make changes to Twitter's business without redefining the whole business.

Yeah, companies and people have been freeloading off Twitter since its beginning. At the beginning, it's normal for a start-up in order to get marketshare/create a market, but it can't go on indefinitely.

I mean, why else did the previous Twitter stock owners so readily turn about and sell their shares, even going to court to force it? They knew Twitter was a mess financially and just dragged it out longer to get a higher payout.

We'll see if Twitter is actually worth anything and if it can ever be sustainable.

I reckon we're going to see companies show that they really never valued Twitter that much. Most get almost zero interaction on their Tweets, and when they do it's often negative (and even nutty). Plus, it's not that infrequently that Twitter tweets have gotten them into some trouble.

 

[funkygunther]

I reckon we're going to see companies show that they really never valued Twitter that much. Most get almost zero interaction on their Tweets, and when they do it's often negative (and even nutty). Plus, it's not that infrequently that Twitter tweets have gotten them into some trouble.

If mock and copycat accounts are banned (thanks to Musk's translucent skin when people paid $8 to make fun of him) there's absolutely no reason for companies to pay $1000 a month for a colourful checkmark.

 

[Sonik]

A year ago Matt Taibbi said Russia would not invade Ukraine.

Is Matt Taibbi the government? Does Matt Taibbi control social media? And more importantly, did Matt Taibbi try to censor anyone that disagreed with that opinion? Did he even ask for those opinions to be labeled as misinformation? If the answer to these questions is no then your post is a terrible argument made unintentionally at best, used as a deliberate red herring at worst.

 

[Maiden Voyage]

Musk won his court case about taking Tesla private:

Tesla's Elon Musk found not liable in trial over 2018 'funding secured' tweets

A U.S. jury on Friday found Tesla Inc CEO Elon Musk and his company were not liable for misleading investors when Musk tweeted in 2018 that he had "funding secured" to take the electric car company private.

www.reuters.com

This API charging is bullshit. So many good bots are now left in the dust honestly this is a pretty big nail in the coffin.

Should make 25 API calls or some arbitrary amount included with the monthly Blue sub IMO.

 

[Trunx81]

Don’t know what they are doing right now, but it gets worse and worse and worse. Timelines are empty, but when you go into the profiles you see tweets you’ve never seen before. Answering on a tweet and having the author edit it afterwards with Twitter Blue kills your answer. People with 8 views get 21 likes. The list goes on and on and on.

Who’s the developer, CD Project Red???

 

[BadBurger]

Don’t know what they are doing right now, but it gets worse and worse and worse. Timelines are empty, but when you go into the profiles you see tweets you’ve never seen before. Answering on a tweet and having the author edit it afterwards with Twitter Blue kills your answer. People with 8 views get 21 likes. The list goes on and on and on.

Who’s the developer, CD Project Red???

Everyone who worked in tech, or adjacent, warned that this would be the first death knell during the first days of the takeover: Twitter's inability to maintain services while also working on new things when Musk laid off 75% of the staff. Now his few remaining employees are working on simple bugs that would have taken old Twitter maybe 60 minutes to fix while they cannot do anything else, all while they're losing 40% (40 fucking percent) year over year in less than a year. And also lost literally all of their top ad buyers.

All I can say: when you see people fanboying over a nothing of a human being like this, bet against them. If you have that stock, sell that stock. Do not for even one second listen to anyone who looked at this trainwreck of a human being and thought "this is a good investment".

TLDR: If someone keeps telling your they're stupid, don't give them money

 

[Bitmap Frogs]

This week news is that Elon is becoming obsessed about how much people read his tweets and is worried the number is dwindling. When he asked the engineers about this, one showed a google trends search chart indicating the terms Elon Musk went from 100 to 9 and perhaps an explanation is that people are losing interest on him.

Reportedly the engineer was fired on the spot.

 

[MisterFalcon]

Is Matt Taibbi the government? Does Matt Taibbi control social media? And more importantly, did Matt Taibbi try to censor anyone that disagreed with that opinion? Did he even ask for those opinions to be labeled as misinformation? If the answer to these questions is no then your post is a terrible argument made unintentionally at best, used as a deliberate red herring at worst.

Taibbi does influence Musk so he has some control over social media. Stopping Ukraine's ability to use Starlink in battle is probably his idea to help Russia win the war.

 

[Thaedolus]

Everyone who worked in tech, or adjacent, warned that this would be the first death knell during the first days of the takeover: Twitter's inability to maintain services while also working on new things when Musk laid off 75% of the staff. Now his few remaining employees are working on simple bugs that would have taken old Twitter maybe 60 minutes to fix while they cannot do anything else, all while they're losing 40% (40 fucking percent) year over year in less than a year. And also lost literally all of their top ad buyers.

All I can say: when you see people fanboying over a nothing of a human being like this, bet against them. If you have that stock, sell that stock. Do not for even one second listen to anyone who looked at this trainwreck of a human being and thought "this is a good investment".

TLDR: If someone keeps telling your they're stupid, don't give them money

Nah he seems very stable and smart:

 

[Maiden Voyage]

This week news is that Elon is becoming obsessed about how much people read his tweets and is worried the number is dwindling. When he asked the engineers about this, one showed a google trends search chart indicating the terms Elon Musk went from 100 to 9 and perhaps an explanation is that people are losing interest on him.

Reportedly the engineer was fired on the spot.

Yeah, it's being reported by the same group of people that have been driving the anti-musk news since his takeover. There's nothing really of note in the article and it seems incredibly one-sided. I'd like to see someone else's take besides the guy that got fired.

 

[Thaedolus]

I think there are two types of people in the world, where when something seems fucked they have one of two reactions:

1: oh shit what did I fuck up?

2: I’mma find who fucked this up because it couldn’t be me!!

Now, you’ll reasonably make your way from 1 to 2 certain times in life because obviously not everything will be your fault in the end, but the order of operations is rather telling. We’ve all met people who are incapable of even considering #1 and thus jump right to #2. Elon seems to fit that characterization.

 

[Sonik]

Taibbi does influence Musk so he has some control over social media. Stopping Ukraine's ability to use Starlink in battle is probably his idea to help Russia win the war.

The mental gymnastics required to make this post deserve a fucking Olympic medal. Let's put aside the absolutely ridiculous comparison and fallacies in your argument, the fact that you're trying to make Matt Taibbi look like some shadowy figure manipulating Elon fucking Musk from behind the scenes is goddamn hilarious. Taibbi is as leftwing as it can can and he can't even convince Musk not to be such a ruthless capitalist but he sure did manage to make him doubt Musk's own idea about Starlink helping Ukraine, that was Taibbi's priority apparently. Holy shit

 

[MisterFalcon]

What else could have resulted in Starlink doing this now as Russia begins their offensive? Musk suddenly discovering after nearly a year that people are dying in the war?

 

[DeepEnigma]

The assassins he imagined were after him didn't get him? That must be really impressive. pew pew Maybe Tim Apple called them off after their meeting.

 

[funkygunther]

What else could have resulted in Starlink doing this now as Russia begins their offensive? Musk suddenly discovering after nearly a year that people are dying in the war?

I don't think Matt Taibbi is some Machiavellian puppet master controlling Musk to ensure a Russian victory. Musk himself has said some ridiculous things about the war himself, remember his plan for peace which was basically "give Russia what it wants". Musk also threatened to halt Starlink back in October, saying that he doesn't want to pay for it and wants government aid.

Putting this on Taibbi, an apparent anti-establishment journalist who writes Tweets about Hunter Biden on behalf of a billionaire is a bit of a fantasy.

 

[RAÏSanÏa]

Reply on a week old comment from February 4th?

 

[DeepEnigma]

Reply on a week old comment from February 4th?

 

[RAÏSanÏa]

over what? Your harassment is tiresome, but not a threat.

 

[DeepEnigma]

over what? Your harassment is tiresome, but not a threat.

You are on a message board. Your comments are there to be interacted with, you are not being harassed nor are you a victim. What a pussy.

 

[RAÏSanÏa]

You are on a message board. Your comments are there to be interacted with, you are not being harassed nor are you a victim. What a pussy.

You should speak to the comment then. You're just being a loudmouth full of bluster over a message board calling someone names..

 

[DeepEnigma]

You should speak to the comment then. You're just being a loudmouth full of bluster over a message board calling someone names..

Your insecure comment I quoted was just that. Self reflect a little.