Subject: Where's your source on that?
Author:
Posted on: 2022-11-20 01:16:37 UTC
From what I can tell about leftism, most leftists would not be willing to content-mod for Musk and would probably quit or try to start a union. It's also possible that this is an Overton window thing -- the U.S. is further right than comparable societies, so things that are well-accepted in the EU and Australia (universal healthcare) are super-contested here.
I'd be less concerned about the future of Twitter if every Smauging Japanese fan content creator weren't on there and a host of Japanese content creator platforms (privatter, poipiku, shindanmaker, slot-maker) didn't require Twitter accounts.
I'm not on it and it never appealed to me personally, but people who genuinely care for the platform and may even depend on it have my deepest sympathies. Taking a thing and destroying it in jealousy and spite is a true example of evil.
~Neshomeh
Given that he just suspended Kanye West for inciting violence.
I agree totally with this move. Kanye has been seemingly searching for deeper and deeper ends to go off of, and recently praised and defended someone he really shouldn't have (tw: super anti-semitism. Like, massive massive anti-semitism. Just... don't click this unless you really want to, okay?). But... if people have to push to the point of defending THAT to get suspended, then you're being too lenient. Donald Trump also incited racist violence with his Jan 6th stunt, and Elon reinstated him all the same. He's also reinstated known misinformation spreaders like Jordan Peterson in the name of fairness (to whom, might I ask).
So, the lesson is just because someone isn't cartoonishly, mustache-twirlingly evil with no standards whatsoever doesn't mean they're not evil.
...also the replies to Elon's tweet are seriously defending Kanye's right to not be suspended over this and claiming that this is some sort of threat to free speech. Like, I can think of two reasons you'd consider Kanye's words to fall under free speech protection. The first is that you're stupid. The second is that you agree.
If Elon Musk thinks he can profit from allowing the speech, it should be protected at all costs.
If Elon Musk thinks he can't profit from allowing the speech, get 'em outta here.
Ethics has nothing to do with it. It's just that Kanye is so radioactive with advertisers that there's more to lose than to gain by keeping him around.
We'll see if the pattern holds depending on how things go with Trump's tax returns and the Jan. 6 investigation and so forth.
~Neshomeh
I interpret Elon as being entirely 100% dead serious about how utterly idiotic he is all of the time, because... he hasn't really given me any reason to think otherwise? His ill-advised changes to Twitter Verification, his firing of 75% of the workforce and then begging them to come back when he couldn't understand the system, his banning of anyone who huwt his feewings, his Tweets, this whole Twitter deal, his particular style of grandstanding... the pile of mistakes is just too high to read as anything less than pure sincere stupidity to me. Plus, if he can have fans then it's totally plausible that he can be just as irrational as them. So I do think he seriously thought he'd be able to change the rules of social media, to defy political correctness and show those woke moralists who'll cancel who -- in other words, "If Elon thinks that this speech should be on the platform, he will allow it. If he doesn't think so
The problem with this is that Elon is a businessman first. His goal in running Twitter is to make money, and since he keeps insisting to the world (and his shareholders) that he can "make Twitter profitable" he's going to be forced into profitable policies whether he likes it or not. And those policies are probably going to look a lot like the previous Twitter administration, because they knew from years of experience what they were doing. Capitalism is just so powerful a system that even the people on top are forced into its trends because they are still playing the same game by the same rules with the same objective: Crush the opposition and grow at all costs.
It's... kind of sad, honestly. I have negative sympathy for the guy who unbanned Donald Trump but the knowledge that even the people at the top can't escape the soul-crushing, individuality-erasing, personality-greyifying effects of capitalism is disturbing. Maybe one day people won't have to live under so irrational a system.
And you seem to have left out a sentence.
And capitalism bad. Of course. Hooray.
—Ls
...namely that it forces people, like Elon, to entirely align their actions with the profit motive to survive. And those who do not? Don't. Under a profit system there are simply no resources to spare for anything that does not make a profit against its competitors, no matter how valuable.
You can see this in the progression of media centralization as documented in Chomsky and Herman's seminal work Manufacturing Consent. In Britain and America, the radical, working class press, despite its own readers ranking it higher than readers of other papers ranked their own papers, was pushed out of business by the fact that they weren't profitable. One factor that led to this was advertising: it used to be that papers had to cover the entire costs of production in their sales. But when advertising came along, suddenly papers that could attract ads could not only afford to produce much lower prices, but could make their papers much more salable. And guess which papers attracted the most ads? The ones which marketed to the affluent of society, the people who had money to spend on purchases -- and, just as importantly, did not threaten the capitalist status quo that advertisers depended on. Working-class papers were disadvantaged on both counts. News readers thus switched to those papers, and working-class papers, no matter how well-liked they were by their own readers (the Daily Herald had twice the readership of the Times, Financial Times, and Guardian combined, and was ranked more highly by its own readers than those other papers were by their own readers), fell apart and died.
Advertising and the profit motive also sanitize the content of existing news outlets: Anything that doesn't put consumers in the "buying mood" risks getting shelved. I'll just post some passages from the book here:
These are direct, concrete negative effects on journalism caused by the profit motive, and exactly the same phenomenon as Elon Musk being forced to repeat the previous Twitter admin's policies because that's what is profitable. In a world where you have to make money to survive, money becomes the sole measure of value -- and everything else dies.
Do you have a counterargument?
You’ve stated your view of why Elon bought Twitter, and your prediction of it failing. But, frankly, I don’t see how you can prove that without a time machine. You’re entitled to your own views. But I don’t believe they constitute proof as such.
And, yes, that is a interesting point that Chomsky and Herman make. However, I very much disagree with their assertion that corporations are generally conservative. While that may have been true(r) in 1988, it is definitely not so today.
However, journalistic sites that, instead of having advertisers, have a paywall are not likely to be affected by such bias.
I do have a counterargument: namely that when companies and consumers have the same values, they can cooperate to that end in a way that is still profitable for that company. For example, consumers who are willing to buy more expensive products that are environmentally friendly, whether that be buying organic or going for products with zero carbon footprint.
—Ls
PS: How close is that mission I beta’d to being done?
PPS: The link on your Discord profile is broken.
No one is forcing you to participate in this thread. You're welcome to present a dissenting opinion, but if you can't treat your fellow PPCers with respect while doing so, then don't bother.
~Neshomeh
I'm sorry if I sound cynical or callous.
Elon is a loose cannon and your concerns are reasonable.
I find it despicable that Musk claims he's following the will of the people (which people, I'd like to know) even though he previously stated publically that this is exactly what he would do if he bought Twitter. It's like a giant trying to hide on the wrong side of a short hedge. Who does he think he's fooling? {= /
In the spirit of fairness to Mr. Musk, I'll add that that the people who agreed to sell Twitter to him should also share the credit/blame for whatever comes of their decision. I'd be interested to hear what they were thinking (apart from, y'know, $$$$).
~Neshomeh
Said Twitter poll happened to be on his account, which not everyone is following (particularly anti-capitalists, people who aren't cishet white men, and people who are at risk from his selective application of freeze peach) and thus not everyone would know about until it was over. Imagine if your country held an election for mayor but didn't tell anyone so the people who knew in advance were the ones who got to choose what happened? It's like that, except Musk knowingly put the poll on an account he knows is followed by people who agree with him (instead of notifying everyone on the site about decisions that would affect them) and it's absolutely disingenuous.
...either that or he seriously thinks his Twitter audience is "the people." Which could very well be the case. He's not known for his grip on reality.
The board either was (or could've reasonably thought it was) legally required to bring the deal to a vote. If the company was worth $X, and Musk had offered to pay $Y for it, with Y > X by a bunch, "no, you're a jerk, we're not even going to entertain this" could've led to shareholders arguing the company owed them their share of $(Y - X) because they refused to consider the offer.
And while, as I remember hearing, courts generally don't second-guess corporate boards on the theory that they know how to run their particular business better than the judge does, and so the old Twitter folks could've probably gotten away with "it's a bad idea to talk to you - it'll tank our company just because of the possibility and also you're sometimes not serious here" ... the possibility that shareholders would go after over them over that is a understandable reason for them to just take the money and run.
I understand they were also holding Musk to a deal he tried (illegally?) to back out of, which I more or less approve of. But it still boils down to $$$$.
And I think the whole thing speaks to the problem of companies being beholden to their shareholders over their consumers, quality standards, and moral/ethical standards. I'm sure there's a good-faith debate to be had about how much of a problem it is in general, but this particular case has undoubtedly been a disaster for anyone who didn't get a piece of Musk's money at the outset, which is a great many more people than those who did and happens to include Musk himself. I doubt if he's getting that 44 billion back, at least not from Twitter.
... I wish I remembered how to find a video I watched recently discussing how the measure of economic success has been reduced to "line goes up!" in the stock market. It was an interesting video, and I think relevant.
~Neshomeh
...it's not out of jealousy or spite. Elon LOVES Twitter, posts on it every day, that's where most of his bootlickers worship. He's destroying the site because he's just that incompetent. He was confident that the creator of Tesla and SpaceX who totally made all that money by himself with Super Business Genius would make the site infinitely better, then fired 50% of Twitter's contract employees because he didn't understand what they did (as well as people who criticize him) and told the others to "go hardcore". Oh yeah, and he reinstated the Babylon Bee and Jordan Peterson, because freeze peach is when people can harass and bully minorities into silence but not when you can criticize the Chief Twit.
This incident would have entirely destroyed the myth of the billionaire (or at least Elon) as visionary genius if there were any justice in the world. From what I understand Elon was never as visionary as he claimed to be (even beyond the normal parameters of CEOs taking credit for workers' labor) but this is stupidity on a wider scale than he's ever demonstrated. Not to mention the sheer callousness he's showing Twitter employees, although I guess his simps don't care about them because they're edgy little monsters who hate Twitter and everyone who works there for the crime of shutting down online misinformation that aligns with their views.
So, yeah, not a fan of him either.
--Ls
From what I can tell about leftism, most leftists would not be willing to content-mod for Musk and would probably quit or try to start a union. It's also possible that this is an Overton window thing -- the U.S. is further right than comparable societies, so things that are well-accepted in the EU and Australia (universal healthcare) are super-contested here.
...other comparable societies are further-left. And, for a US-based company, one would measure based on US political standards.
As for source, this article mentions it in the first couple paragraphs.
--Ls
...the Federalist isn't the most reliable of sources.
Quote from their Wikipedia page: > During the COVID-19 pandemic, The Federalist published numerous pieces that contained false information or information that was contrary to the recommendations of public health experts and authorities.[5][29] The Federalist published articles denouncing social distancing, as well as articles claiming that fears over the pandemic had been overhyped by the Democratic Party and the media. The Federalist co-founder Sean Davis said that Democrats were intentionally trying to "destroy the economy" as a "last-ditch 2020 play", and that "All they care about is power. And if they have to destroy your life and business to get power back, they will." The Federalist published articles calling on the government to quickly end social distancing directions, and to open businesses again.[29] Co-founder Domenech attacked a prominent analysis from Imperial College London which estimated the loss of life due to the pandemic; Domenech attacked the analysis for revising its figures downward, but the reason that the analysis did so was that the analysis incorporated the social distancing and shutdown strategies that had increasingly been implemented.[30] Robert Tracinski, a former contributor, wrote in The Bulwark that The Federalist had devolved over time into a "conspiracy-mongering partisan rag that has now become a menace to public health".[30]
> While ballots were being counted in the 2020 election, The Federalist made false claims of large-scale fraud.[8][9] One of The Federalist's tweets said, "Yes, Democrats Are Trying To Steal The Election In Michigan, Wisconsin, And Pennsylvania."[8] The website falsely insinuated that fraud was occurring in Michigan.[50] Other news outlets quickly showed that the purported fraud was a clerical error that was quickly corrected; The Federalist did not delete the story, which had gone viral.[51] Co-founder Sean Davis shared the misleading story, leading Twitter to tag his post as containing disputed information.[52]
Republican congressman Cliff Bentz of Oregon referenced Federalist articles as the source of his allegation during a town hall in La Grande that Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg "bought" the 2020 election for Joe Biden by financing a 503c non-profit to expand poll worker training and security.[53]
I wouldn't consider them a reliable source.
As long as everyone remains civil, there's no need to shut down a discussion people are engaged in—even a discussion in which people disagree with each other. The capacity to disagree with one another respectfully is an important life skill worth practicing. If you see someone crossing the line into bad behavior, by all means call them out on it, but I don't think that's happened so far.
I invite everyone to refer to the Constitution to double-check what is and is not acceptable, and ask if you're not sure.
~Neshomeh
I didn't know it would turn into this.
This is kind of a big deal, and will likely have an impact on many of us—even people on the sidelines like me are impacted because we know people who will be directly affected, such as my partner Phobos, who wrapped up his livestream today by saying "Normally I'd ask you to follow me on Twitter, but we don't really know how that's going right now, so..."
Bringing it up wasn't wrong. Discussing our feelings about it politely isn't wrong, either.
~Neshomeh
He tweeted this out 3 hours ago as of this writing: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1594191387519373313 (I politely request that no one mentions what the replies/retweets are, thanks – I don't want myself or anyone else here to be any more upset than we already are).
What exactly is going on a Twitter?
NY Times goes into the gritty details here.
See also: the Washington Post covers the blue-check debacle, which would be funny if it weren't so potentially damaging.
~Neshomeh
I once played a game in which there's a (heroic) character who manages a performer troupe. When he realizes his troupe is losing audience, he decides to up and quit on the spot and refuses to explain, dealing a huge blow to his performers' morale and leaving them without management. When this draws a lot of public attention, the guy just drags his underhanded butt back and reveals it was all a stunt. (No, he's not Azul Ashengrotto). (The troupe forgives him because this wasn't a super emotionally heavy game). Methinks Mr Musk is trying to pull something similar.
forbids someone from making money off a troupe member's image… because he's the only one allowed to do it, fOr ThE tEaM's GoOd. (No, I swear he's not Azul Ashengrotto). The story's funny enough not to make you wanna reach through the fourth wall to slap him.
But it’s been only two weeks, hopefully things will be resolved soon
—Ls doesn’t particularly care, but he’s glad to understand what the discussion is over
Mr Musk is doing weird things with it.
P.S: No matter your opinion on his actions, please don't flame or say mean things about him.
He also reinstated hateful spite-spewers whose job is to sit at the computer and whip people into a frothing-at-the-mouth frenzy because they have to show trans people the bare minimum of decency (although Alex Jones is still off, thankfully). He has earned his flames, and given how cultish his fandom is and what that's done to his ego, I think he really needs them.
but it's never quite caught on in Japan, plus it's an image-only platform, making it functionally similar to pixiv.
This post has my full handle on it, I use Damian Brighte when discussing nice happy non-stressful stuff and Darke when discussing Serious Business.
I was also going to do this with my dreams of stardom, but those have long since faded...
I really hope.
Twitter has been shedding essential technical staff, it's losing advertisers, and as a result it's probably losing more money than ever. Who knows?
Myspace is still alive. Go figure.
Last I heard - and it's been a few hours - he's tried to pull his American-style "agree to this or you're fired" thing in Europe, where that is highly illegal. The man's not going to have any employees or money left if he keeps this up.
I've been on Twitter for five years or so. It's probably my biggest online space - I don't really use Facebook, and other than that I have the Board and another, even quieter forum. I've found a lot of cool things through Twitter - two you can easily look up are "Dragons of Wales", and Oliver Darkshire's "Once Upon a Tome" [sic].
If Twitter goes, I won't be moving anywhere else; I'll just drop back into the silence I've held since the end of Livejournal. So I'd really rather it stayed a while longer.
hS
Given how big Twitter is in Japan, this is a problem of a whole country having nowhere to move to.
NPR doesn't think a complete shutdown is likely as of yesterday, but that may be cold comfort if the platform can't function effectively anymore.
I heard a rumor that Musk is trying to sell it now, but I haven't found anything to back that up; just a paywalled Boston Globe article with a headline advising him to do so.
~Neshomeh
Sort of like how nicovideo is the Japanese counterpart to Youtube, and pixiv one to deviantArt.
I have heard there's a healthy Japanese community on various instances of Mastodon? Which is where a lot of Tech Twitter is going (except to different instances). American fandom seems to be moving more in the direction of tumblr (but Tumblr still has its own problems with NSFW content bans...). I dunno.