Twitter and Elon Musk

[iacas]

2 hours ago, Elmer said:

"Until now, Twitter used the blue checkmark to indicate active, notable, and authentic accounts of public interest that Twitter had independently verified based on certain requirements. Now the blue checkmark may mean two different things: either that an account was verified under the previous verification criteria (active and authentic), or that the account has an active subscription to Twitter Blue"

I just don't get this. A blue mark means your authentic, such as POTUS but also that you paid us, such as POTUS67234512746292.

You have to do a few things to get verified, too:

• not a new account
• no major changes recently
• phone number on record
• etc.

So, they're basically "verifying" that you're not a bot that just signed up to wreak havoc. And they added the gold one so companies get a different color.

[The Flush]

I hope more of the people I follow on Twitter will start posting on Post.news. 

Not many from the sports world yet.

[bking]

On 12/12/2022 at 6:36 PM, iacas said:

They are not, no.

While deleting tweets and other information he doesn't like, including negative tweets about him.

My fear is that he's actually looking for even more - he wants to be a leader, if only just as a "savior", of those nutjobs. 

[iacas]

[boogielicious]

Freedom of speech my ass. Musk is the Twit in Twitter.

[saevel25]

I never understood the freedom of speech argument. Twitter is owned by a company, it isn't a public square thought they want to make it act like one. Just because they can, doesn't mean they do not have the legal power censor it. First Amendment does not apply to Twitter. 

Elon's take on the freedom of speech is laughable as well. I have no clue what happened to him, but maybe once he stepped out of his laboratory he just doesn't handle this stuff very well. 

[DeadMan]

I'm not surprised that "free speech absolutist" turns out not to be a free speech absolutist. People who claim to be free speech absolutists generally have not thought about it enough. Everyone has speech they would like to ban. In an ideal world, wouldn't we all like to ban things like hate speech or Nazism? Even the 1st Amendment's protections are not absolute. 

It absolutely does not surprise me that Elon has turned out to be a thoughtless man-baby about all of this. It's his platform now, so he can (mostly*) do what he wants. Good luck to him having a twitter that has emboldened the worst aspects of social media while tamping down on things people actually use twitter for.

*I say mostly because there are big FTC issues facing twitter. Twitter has likely violated a consent order it entered into with the FTC, which means it will likely get a big fine. Individual employees at twitter might have their own civil and criminal liability. The FTC is not going to mess around with this stuff. And that's before you delve into whether banning posting mastodon links is also anti-competitive. Which it might be.

Edited December 16, 2022 by DeadMan

[Elmer]

1 minute ago, saevel25 said:

I never understood the freedom of speech argument. Twitter is owned by a company, it isn't a public square thought they want to make it act like one. Just because they can, doesn't mean they do not have the legal power censor it. First Amendment does not apply to Twitter. 

Elon's take on the freedom of speech is laughable as well. I have no clue what happened to him, but maybe once he stepped out of his laboratory he just doesn't handle this stuff very well. 

One of my favorite Twitter follows is The First Amendment.
I think people grossly confuse the "free speech" as the freedom to say whatever with the freedom from consequence. When in fact "free speech" is the freedom from the Govt restricting speech.

At this point Musk is showing himself to be a petulant child, who is making rules up on the fly. He was confronted last night on a twitter open space by journalists and could not back up his reason for banning, so he left the forum.
he later put up a poll asking if the suspended journalist should be reinstated. When results came back as a "yes", and answer he did not like, he said he would redo the poll.

After all is said and done, we will find Musk is not the genius people thought he was. He is a just a person with a lot of money who hired very rocket scientist to put rockets into space.

 

[chspeed]

11 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Twitter is owned by a company, it isn't a public square thought they want to make it act like one.

Exactly.

7 minutes ago, DeadMan said:

Even the 1st Amendment's protections are not absolute. 

Not even close. But just like the 2nd amendment, people with an agenda can use it to mean whatever they want it to.

 

I'm really trying not to enjoy the Musk train wreck, but I can't help it.

[iacas]

Poll was at 58.5% "now" when I looked, and that's the re-done poll. The original is here:

To the idea that he's just making shit up as he goes:

Also, this:

In other words:

• These accounts may have linked to an account that Elon himself had previously said he wouldn't ban.
• Elon changes his mind and bans the account.
• Twitter enacts a new "anti-doxxing" policy.
• Journalists who covered or linked to the ElonJets account are retroactively suspended.

What in the actual hell?

[saevel25]

46 minutes ago, iacas said:

In other words:

• These accounts may have linked to an account that Elon himself had previously said he wouldn't ban.
• Elon changes his mind and bans the account.
• Twitter enacts a new "anti-doxxing" policy.
• Journalists who covered or linked to the ElonJets account are retroactively suspended.

What in the actual hell?

I guess we are actually learning that Elon is not a good human being. 

[Hohjoe]

10 hours ago, saevel25 said:

I never understood the freedom of speech argument. Twitter is owned by a company, it isn't a public square thought they want to make it act like one. Just because they can, doesn't mean they do not have the legal power censor it. First Amendment does not apply to Twitter. 

 

Exactly. Freedom of speech applies to the government not a company.

[iacas]

Quote

But I think we’re better off if we face reality on reality’s terms: One of the richest men in history bought something many of us use and like. Because he could. And now he’s going to run it based on his whims. Because he can.

Angry, irrational, erratic: This is Elon Musk’s Twitter

---

It’s not about doxxing. It’s about Elon.

Quote

This is a very obvious point. I’m belaboring it here because I think that during Musk’s ownership we have sometimes failed to fully grasp it: No matter what he says or what plenty of people who (still) admire him think must be the case, Musk has no real plan for Twitter. And whatever he says or tweets could change in a week or an hour because he’s changed his mind. Or maybe he never believed it in the first place.

P.S. I'm now "verified" but as a byproduct of Twitter Blue, which I've subscribed to for a long time now. Editing, undoing sending (helps me catch typos), the "top articles" thing (which replaces Nuzzle), and some other features are why.

[chspeed]

All you need to know about Elon Musk

 

[iacas]

Oh my.

Promotion of Alternative Social Platforms Policy | Twitter Help

At both the Tweet level and the account level, we will remove any free promotion of prohibited 3rd-party social media platforms, such as linking out (i.e. using URLs) to any of the below platforms on Twitter, or providing your handle without a URL:

Prohibited platforms:

• Facebook, Instagram, Mastodon, Truth Social, Tribel, Post and Nostr
• 3rd-party social media link aggregators such as linktr.ee, lnk.bio

Examples: 

• “follow me @username on Instagram”
• “username@mastodon.social”
• “check out my profile on Facebook - facebook.com/username”

What in the f***, seriously?

[The Flush]

 

[iacas]

[bking]

On 12/18/2022 at 6:40 PM, iacas said:

This guy is either playing 3D chess way above my level, or he's bat crap crazy. Buy the company, gut it, then crowdsource a decision to step down?