Just a quick question...How does it affect your life one way or the other? It certainly doesn't change mine one iota. What was it that buzz used to say about not sweating the small stuff and not petting the sweaty stuff or something like that. Life is way too short, D!
In as much as he controls one of the largest social media platforms on the planet in an era in which that matters, yeah, it matters. That makes it kinda big stuff.
For these reasons, the Twitter Files are best understood as an egregious example of the very phenomenon it purports to condemn â that of social-media managers leveraging their platforms for partisan ends. (...)
Twitter has made no secret of the fact that it punishes accounts by limiting their visibility. Since at least 2018, Twitterâs help page has said, âWhen abuse or manipulation of our service is reported or detected, we may take action to limit the reach of a personâs tweets.â Twitter also listed âLimiting tweet visibilityâ as an enforcement option under the companyâs terms of service, writing, âThis makes content less visible on Twitter, either by making tweets ineligible for amplification in top search results and on timelines for users who donât follow the tweet author, by down-ranking tweets in replies (except when the user follows the tweet author), and/or excluding tweets and/or accounts in email or in-product recommendations.â
Twitterâs current ownership has openly embraced this form of content moderation. Last month, Musk tweeted: âNew Twitter policy is freedom of speech, but not freedom of reach. Negative/hate tweets will be max deboosted & demonetized, so no ads or other revenue to Twitter.â
Nevertheless, after reporting that the conservative commentator Charlie Kirk had been put on a âDo not amplifyâ list, Weiss bizarrely claimed that Twitter had long âdenied that it does such things.â
Weiss did not try to reconcile that claim with Twitterâs long-standing terms of service; in fact, she did not even inform her readers of the existence of those terms. Rather, in justifying her assertion, Weiss wrote, âIn 2018, Twitterâs Vijaya Gadde (then Head of Legal Policy and Trust) and Kayvon Beykpour (Head of Product) said: âWe do not shadow ban,ââ a term that she proceeds to define as âvisibility filtering.â
But Gadde and Beykpour never denied that Twitter limited the visibility of some accounts. Rather, in their blog post, they wrote, âThe best definition we found is this: deliberately making someoneâs content undiscoverable to everyone except the person who posted it, unbeknownst to the original poster.â And Twitter does not in fact âshadow banâ in that sense of the term.
Weiss ostensibly read Gadde and Beykpourâs blog post. So, she knew that they did not actually deny that Twitter limited the visibility of some accounts. Yet she led her readers to believe that sheâd caught Twitter in a lie. In other words, she deliberately misled her audience. (...)
Now that a fellow right-wing nut owns Twitter, kurtster might actually start using social media to keep track of all the blood-drinking pedophile elites.
"Kung Fu class"
Umm, the former FBI agent, whose name I forget that ended up working for Twitter was basically a direct link back to the FBI, one of many but the primary one.
Private companies recently hired a LOT of former FBI and CIA officials, primarily because of their experience in dealing with foreign governments and disinformation. It doesn't mean that the government is conspiring with Twitter.
I guess we can assume that Truth Social colludes with Congressional Republicans via Nunes. Hmmmm.... maybe you're right about this stuff after all.
...
No it was not a group of overpaid people sitting in a room trying to figure out things on their own. It was a group of highly paid individuals who collectively were collaborating with government agencies over how to implement an agenda.
Now go ahead and call my last statement a wild conspiracy theory. Ya sure, you betcha' ...
From Matt Taibbi: âAlthough several sources recalled hearing about a âgeneralâ warning from federal law enforcement that summer about possible foreign hacks, thereâs no evidenceâthat I've seenâof any government involvement in the laptop story.â
Collaborating with government agencies? Does anyone ever decide that the facts suggest not posting something...rightly or wrongly? Apparently, Republicans make mistakes, and Dems collaborate.
No need to let the facts get in the way of a good theory though.
..... No it was not a group of overpaid people sitting in a room trying to figure out things on their own. It was a group of highly paid individuals who collectively were collaborating with government agencies political operatives over how to implement an agenda. Now go ahead and call my last statement a wild conspiracy theory. Ya sure, you betcha' ...
I saw no mention in those Tweets of any government agencies being involved with suppressing of re-Tweeting of the elsewhere-published Hunter Biden story. In fact, from Taibbi's Tweets: "there’s no evidence - that I've seen - of any government involvement in the laptop story". The DNC and RNC are not "the government", nor are they even government agencies.
It is more than Hunter's laptop.
Umm, the former FBI agent, whose name I forget that ended up working for Twitter was basically a direct link back to the FBI, one of many but the primary one.
Ancient and unrelated to the current internal politics here in the states.
But since you brought this up, how about Apple working hand in hand with the CCP over limiting the use of certain apps within China to suppress dissent, ie the A4 revolt ?
Or is this just another case of the dreaded "Yellow Peril" as you so love to call anything that questions CCP policies ... ?
It's only bad when it's domestic, when it's not 'your guy', or when it doesn't address your ideological concerns? Expedience as usual.
There is also a formalized process for government officials to directly flag content on Facebook or Instagram and request that it be throttled or suppressed through a special Facebook portal that requires a government or law enforcement email to use. At the time of writing, the âcontent request systemâ at facebook.com/xtakedowns/login is still live. DHS and Meta, the parent company of Facebook, did not respond to a request for comment. The FBI declined to comment.
The notion that Twitter was working hand in hand with government agencies to regulate certain posts and posters was once considered another right wingnut conspiracy theory. Do I need to keep going ?
Ancient and unrelated to the current internal politics here in the states.
But since you brought this up, how about Apple working hand in hand with the CCP over limiting the use of certain apps within China to suppress dissent, ie the A4 revolt ? Or is this just another case of the dreaded "Yellow Peril" as you so love to call anything that questions CCP policies ... ?
The notion that there was Shadowbanning on Twitter was once called a wild right wingnut conspiracy theory. The CEO lied about that under oath in Congress. You all believed him, simply because he is your guy. Now we know otherwise.
The notion that conservatives were singled out and their legitimate thoughts and ideas were censored because they were just disinformation with no basis in truth was once called a right wingnut conspiracy theory.
The notion that Twitter was working hand in hand with government agencies to regulate certain posts and posters was once considered another right wingnut conspiracy theory.
Do I need to keep going ?
Like I said a couple of days ago, the real conspiracy is to make you all think that the things mentioned above were just wild unfounded right wingnut conspiracy theories, when as we have since find out they were not.
No it was not a group of overpaid people sitting in a room trying to figure out things on their own. It was a group of highly paid individuals who collectively were collaborating with government agencies over how to implement an agenda.
Now go ahead and call my last statement a wild conspiracy theory. Ya sure, you betcha' ...
this is a quick scan from Lazy's link below:
10.Both parties had access to these tools. For instance, in 2020, requests from both the Trump White House and the Biden campaign were received and honored. However:3:58 PM · Dec 2, 202213K Retweets2,116 Quote Tweets85.4K Likes Matt Taibbi@mtaibbi·Dec 2Replying to @mtaibbi11. This system wasn't balanced. It was based on contacts. Because Twitter was and is overwhelmingly staffed by people of one political orientation, there were more channels, more ways to complain, open to the left (well, Democrats) than the right
Yes it shows an imbalance, but not a conspiracy to silence conservatives.
.....
No it was not a group of overpaid people sitting in a room trying to figure out things on their own. It was a group of highly paid individuals who collectively were collaborating with government agencies political operatives over how to implement an agenda.
Now go ahead and call my last statement a wild conspiracy theory. Ya sure, you betcha' ...
I saw no mention in those Tweets of any government agencies being involved with suppressing of re-Tweeting of the elsewhere-published Hunter Biden story. In fact, from Taibbi's Tweets: "thereâs no evidence - that I've seen - of any government involvement in the laptop story". The DNC and RNC are not "the government", nor are they even government agencies.
The notion that Twitter was working hand in hand with government agencies to regulate certain posts and posters was once considered another right wingnut conspiracy theory.
It's funny to watch Kurt and the right climb on board any and every conspiracy as another way for the government to manipulate people and maintain control. It's ultimately just a group of overpaid people sitting in a room trying to figure out what do to about things they never considered before. Corporate structures and mission statements bleed into decision-making, which quickly becomes much more about protection (of one's job and income) than it is about carrying out any master plan for governments or individuals. There is no conspiracy... it's just people trying to keep their jobs and do what's right (in that order).
The notion that there was Shadowbanning on Twitter was once called a wild right wingnut conspiracy theory. The CEO lied about that under oath in Congress. You all believed him, simply because he is your guy. Now we know otherwise.
The notion that conservatives were singled out and their legitimate thoughts and ideas were censored because they were just disinformation with no basis in truth was once called a right wingnut conspiracy theory.
The notion that Twitter was working hand in hand with government agencies to regulate certain posts and posters was once considered another right wingnut conspiracy theory.
Do I need to keep going ?
Like I said a couple of days ago, the real conspiracy is to make you all think that the things mentioned above were just wild unfounded right wingnut conspiracy theories, when as we have since find out they were not.
No it was not a group of overpaid people sitting in a room trying to figure out things on their own. It was a group of highly paid individuals who collectively were collaborating with government agencies over how to implement an agenda.
Now go ahead and call my last statement a wild conspiracy theory. Ya sure, you betcha' ...
Musk may or may not be suppressing content he doesn't like. It is hard to tell for sure from the outside but there are numerous accounts complaining about being unfollowed by accounts that did not wish to do so. One thing for sure, he is actively promoting his own political agenda. His tweets show up, even if you don't follow him. I had to block the prick.
BTW, is there a reliable source documenting that the previous twits were suppressing content for political purposes, because I missed it.
Musk has promised more transparency, and it's appropriate to hold his feet to the fire.
Please explain the partisan nature of the private jet stalking and vanity-enhancing content deletion here.
Yes, deleting news embarrassing to Musk (if that is, indeed, what happened here) is a tad hypocritical, but I'm not seeing any conflict with the conditional statements bolded in your post. Twitter's previous management has been caught red-handed putting its thumbs on the political scales by suppressing content that disadvantaged their party. While they had every right to do that (and they did nothing illegal when they denied doing it) it was a shady business practice and directly led to competitors appearing to take advantage of it. If Musk can avoid that temptation and resist the incessant calls to censor content coming from our political elites then Twitter can do a lot of good and should attract the advertising it needs to thrive.
Musk is on a learning curve. Unlike his previous ventures Twitter is a fully-formed business; he's not starting small where his missteps are mostly out of the public eye. He's got money and that will buy him some time. Let's see what he does with it.
Musk may or may not be suppressing content he doesn't like. It is hard to tell for sure from the outside but there are numerous accounts complaining about being unfollowed by accounts that did not wish to do so. One thing for sure, he is actively promoting his own political agenda. His tweets show up, even if you don't follow him. I had to block the prick.
BTW, is there a reliable source documenting that the previous twits were suppressing content for political purposes, because I missed it.
Elon Musk Gets Viciously Booed by Stadium Crowd at Dave Chappelle Show
...
The crowd erupted into a mixture of cheers and boos, before the boos clearly won out, according to footage posted on <a data-ga="<<" embedded="" url="" link="" twitter.com="" cleopat48937885="" status="">>"="" href="https://twitter.com/CleoPat48937885/status/1602214514232938497" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-uri="497b6ba5960ed202d5c4cba48e0da765">Twitter. Update, 6:40 a.m. ET: The footage appears to have been deleted from Twitter for some reason, but you can still watch it <a data-ga="<<" embedded="" url="" link="" youtu.be="" czkrebmhufy="">>"="" href="https://youtu.be/CzkreBMHUFY" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-uri="08806a17a9769a7902ddf1c818271593">below.
Also, hasn't he banned KanYe? What about fee speech absolutism? Anyone should be free to spout anything they want. In case it's needed, I'm actually being sarcastic and just pointing out the rampant hypocrisy that we all knew was there.
Please explain the partisan nature of the private jet stalking and vanity-enhancing content deletion here.
Yes, deleting news embarrassing to Musk (if that is, indeed, what happened here) is a tad hypocritical, but I'm not seeing any conflict with the conditional statements bolded in your post. Twitter's previous management has been caught red-handed putting its thumbs on the political scales by suppressing content that disadvantaged their party. While they had every right to do that (and they did nothing illegal when they denied doing it) it was a shady business practice and directly led to competitors appearing to take advantage of it. If Musk can avoid that temptation and resist the incessant calls to censor content coming from our political elites then Twitter can do a lot of good and should attract the advertising it needs to thrive.
Musk is on a learning curve. Unlike his previous ventures Twitter is a fully-formed business; he's not starting small where his missteps are mostly out of the public eye. He's got money and that will buy him some time. Let's see what he does with it.
Because while I think managing a communications venture is fundamentally different from the manufacturing and R&D-intense businesses he has managed in the past, he has good instincts and a commitment to principles that will make a communication medium thrive.
I also like watching certain heads explode.
Lazy8 wrote:
**Provided Twitter stays unregulated by any agency that can dictate content moderation and that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act stays intact. If it becomes a politically neutral free-speech platform I'm betting it will thrive.
Also, hasn't he banned KanYe? What about fee speech absolutism? Anyone should be free to spout anything they want. In case it's needed, I'm actually being sarcastic and just pointing out the rampant hypocrisy that we all knew was there.
Elon's Twitter may eventually be profitable, but it won't be from advertising. When he purchased the company, he raised money and had a pitch deck. His big plan is to get into the payments business. Subscriptions and data services are other revenue options. Ad revenues are projected (in the deck) to be around 40% of Twitter revenue in 5 years.
It's funny to watch Kurt and the right climb on board any and every conspiracy as another way for the government to manipulate people and maintain control. It's ultimately just a group of overpaid people sitting in a room trying to figure out what do to about things they never considered before. Corporate structures and mission statements bleed into decision-making, which quickly becomes much more about protection (of one's job and income) than it is about carrying out any master plan for governments or individuals. There is no conspiracy... it's just people trying to keep their jobs and do what's right (in that order).
Elon is without question a brilliant guy. Bad father/husband/boyfriend, a bad boss, a bad person...maybe, but he has an incredible ability to look at a problem and find an unconventional answer. "Why don't we re-use the booster rockets instead of throwing them away" is brilliant, if you can figure it out. Every time a SpaceX booster returns softly back to earth, you can't help but think "that's F@#$ing amazing".
Twitter is different. Twitter isn't his applying science to an issue, it's his applying ego. Because of that, I don't think Twitter is a solid bet. Other platforms (see TikTok... but likely someone else(s) soon), better existing payment platforms in an already crowded space, and his tinkering will prove fatal to Elon's egomaniacal pursuits on this one. I'm not betting, but if I were it would be against Twitter.
Specifically on this point: I've managed a lot of teams and run some moderately sized organizations. One rule I eventually came to was the 'No Assholes rule' (there's a book about it too). Basically it's that no matter how brilliant or effective someone is, if they are an asshole, they are a net drain on the group, and the group as a whole would be stronger/better without them. I've not managed billionaires, so I can't say for certain that it scales that far. But I have only once been prevented from dumping an asshole (nepotism) and it was a constant source of problems and held back the group. When we eventually sold the company, I was able to point to specific actions by this individual and showed that it took several million dollars off the final valuation when we sold. Several of the non-related members of the board apologized to me after that.
