Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, Apr 26, 2022.
Uh in what country? Because that's certainly not how it's explained in the Bill of Rights:
A three letter platform (agency? he probably is a fed) tried that back in 2016, but not long after the owner had enough of the weeaboo crowd, who would frequently post hentai and have open discussions about what he perceived as "degenerate" topics that didn't align with his religion. He then decided to ban/censor "porn" and went on a banning spree to "protect the children" and keeps banning users proactively at random to this day. I'm by no means a commie, in fact quite the opposite, but those who think censorship is limited to the "left" or [insert party] have been misguided into ignorance...
wait there is more ! Solar city bankruptcy using tesla stock to keep it afloat ...if i am not mistaken he has legal issues yet to be resolved with that . The hyperloop , another snake oil sales pitch that was just not feasible , the solar roof tiles that he "showed " on the stage on 2016 already selling em ...still not ready and most likely never , the Las Vegas tunnels talking about 120 miles speeds with cars on monorails initially automated .... in the end that ended up being tiny tunnels man driven tesla taxis at 30mph underground ....Starlink also it might be working now with how many are up there now 1500~3000 satellites in orbit ,while it works now with few people only on it i can not see it working well , economically it does not make sense at all , supposedly this starlink needs 42000 satellites to be fully deployed and those tiny low orbit satellites have 4~5 years life span this will mean they need 8400 satellites getting lunched every year to just keep the number of em stable on BEST CASE SCENARIO. Now each Satellite costs according to musk 500k usd and each rocket can carry 65 of em at once ...each lunch costs 10 million for the rocket +32.5 million the payload this means 129 lunches each one costing 42.5 million .... 129x42.5 mil = 5.482.500.000 $ yeah 5,5 billions a year BEST case scenario just to keep the thing deployed .Assuming the equipment they give you is not sold at a loss ....witch it is but let's assume they manage to drop the manufacturing cost of your satellite dish etc to 500 dollars ((current price )) from about 1500~2000 that it costs em to make it now .
they will need 54 million people on their network just to break even world wide ...in Best case most generous estimation most likely the number is closer to the 80 million people to break even .100 million people to start having a decent profit after 15 months they broke even from each person's equipment. Also all the above assumes the satellite nodes will not get overwhelmed by the amount of people and they will be able to sustain a good connection with em on laser links for data transfer between em with no issues ... Well all i see when i see Elon Musk is a snake oil sales man and people keep falling for it over and over ...even Tesla is grossly overvalued the worth of the tesla stock is more than every other car manufacturer combined tesla stocks in total worth more than toyota+ford+dmc+honda+nissan ....etc etc etc
I think its possible to make it work. If all the bots get removed it would make it hard for disinformation campaigns. If people are spouting completely dishonest things trying to influence something you can simply change the tweet so it isn't seen as much. The trick imo is when Twitter does it they leave a log or paper trail of sorts soo everyone knows it. Today things get promoted and we never know if it was or was not due to some other means like a person at Twitter.
Tbh, I dont think it can be completely free speech. Otherwise whats to prevent notorious hate groups from using the platform to foment messages of hate, violence or genocide? If it harbors any of these bad characters or entities, I can see tons of ppl quitting the platform en masse in protest. I mean no politician or govt leaders or celebrities will allow their words to be re-tweeted by some hate group to justify their agendas. They will just quit and twitters brand value will plummet to nothing.
Appears Musk hasnt really thought this through or should just be careful with his words or thoughts to avoid appearing like an idiot.
Twitter just became the worlds most expensive hobby
Not quite yet. If his proposed ideas come to fruition, Twitter might be the platform it always should have been. Granted, I don't get how he's supposed to fight the bots.
In any case, I personally don't really care, since I don't use Twitter for anything.
I get the impression government regulations threw a stick in his spokes when it came to the self-driving stuff. But yeah, all the delays and the decrease in production quality is becoming a major problem for Tesla, especially now that there's a lot more direct competition than there was even just 2 years ago.
Yeah... he's just a bit too ambitious and he dumps too much money in too many different things at the same time, not allowing any of them to complete, or at least not to an acceptable level. All of his projects start out pretty good but once they gain traction, he basically just lets them crumble. The good thing about Twitter is, it's been a working product for a while. Adding features to an existing product is a much better position to be in than starting from scratch. So, while I have no faith he will commit to his plans for Twitter, I don't expect it to flop like many of his other ventures.
And what exactly do you think the "boundaries of the law" are? Because while I dislike cancel culture, there are cases of silenced people who are breaching the boundaries of the law. Freedom of speech doesn't mean "I get to say whatever I want without consequence" and it doesn't prevent private institutions (like Twitter) from censoring whatever they feel like. You do not have the freedom to speak if it infringes upon someone else's freedoms. There is nothing illegal about someone suing you into oblivion or terminating an at-will position because of things like slander. What would be a major issue is if the government were to imprison you because of something you said legally.
Well, the problem is, nowadays it's extremely difficult to prove what is honest and what isn't. Major news sources often post stuff ASAP, often aggregating their "information" from some blog post and not checking the legitimacy until it's too late. Small news sources fall under the radar of accountability, but can spout whatever nonsense they want so long as they're preaching to the crowd they target. Things said by political commentators are treated as facts, when they're literally just opinion pieces. Many research firms are biased to set out to prove whatever it is they're collecting data from, because that's otherwise how they either get their funding or push their agenda.
While we live in a time where the world's information is at our fingertips, there is so much information available that you can make a case for just about anything, including some of the most ridiculous conspiracies.
If you think Elon Musk will not have content on Twitter moderated then you are very very very very naïve. All web sites moderate content it's never ever been a story before the anti-SJW lunatics started to target Twitter for whatever reasons.
If Twitter doesn't moderate content they'll get trolled into oblivion.
It has nothing to do with free speech anyway. Free speech relate to the government not censoring content on public space. A private company can and should moderate content on their own private space as long as said moderation is not motivated by race, religion, gender or sexual orientation.
The whole point of the law is to set boundaries for us to live within and set up a system of punishments when those are broken. The law does apply to what we say, and it's not like communication between people was invented by twitter - it's been refined for hundreds of years. It should be able to do this job just like it's done for other world wide communication methods.
With twitter and various social media platforms becoming a key method for communication in the 21st century it's quite important they are free for all to use, and not only available to the chosen. If people want to write stuff you don't like then ignore them, or you could engage them and try to change their minds. If that fails what's not ok is just trying to silence everyone that doesn't think like you. That is not a solution, it just divides and builds up walls which will eventually end up with people killing each other. America is heading in that direction, it is not impossible that it will end in civil war. What will stop that is people understanding the importance of listening to each other, and trying to find some common ground.
Well, it would be a quick civil war since one side has guns and the other thinks words are violence. Hopefully the pendulum slows down so we'll never experience it.
Imagine a world without social networks
Elon Musk’s Twitter takeover sets him on a collision course with Europe
After Elon Musk’s $44 billion deal to buy Twitter, EU officials have a message for the world’s richest man: follow the rules...
User-generated content platforms like Twitter and Facebook will be required to implement robust content moderation systems to ensure they can quickly take down illegal material such as hate speech, incitement to terrorism and child sexual abuse...
Yeah, I guess you have no issue with ISIS on twitter calling for ppls throats to be slit.
just another step to everything going private company
Personally there's a "middle ground" I think I'd be OK with.
1) Any posted illegal content gets removed
2) If someone posts overt misinformation on something, I would be OK with the moderation team or whoever putting a warning label on the post saying something like "Warning: our moderation team deemed this post to be misinformation based on X citation". They could even make it so that the warning label shows on top and the user has to manually click on it to view the given post.
They could do the same kind of thing for whatever they deem to be "hateful" content (though my observation's been sites like Reddit and Twitter are horrendously inconsistent with their own rules -- e.g. "FragileBlackRedditor" was banned but "FragileWhiteRedditor" is totally fine in their eyes. Or how manosphere subs get nuked, but subs like "femaledatingstrategy" are left alone. The very least they could do is be consistent, but they very clearly are not). Also what constitutes as "hateful" is often a toss up depending on who's in charge of moderating -- too often it just ends up seeming to be that moderators are fine with "hateful" content directed at the groups they personally dislike but then even mildly critical comments directed at their preferred groups are then deemed "hateful". You need a system that's actually impartial at the very least.
3) I'm not opposed to categorization of content -- people always bring up the "you wouldn't shout in a movie theatre" thing when free speech comes up but that really is not comparable to a "public square" type site like Twitter and would fall under categorization of content. E.g. If there's a Pokemon subreddit and they remove political posts that belong on another board I don't consider that to be censorship or a violation of free speech because you're just trying to organize/categorize where everything goes.
Now, the issue here again is that Twitter is pretty much an "open public square" type setup so I don't think when people make that comparison it really works for twitter and then also on sites like Reddit they remove all kinds of things simply because they don't agree with it (for example you would think r/politics or r/politicalhumor would permit political content other than just left-leaning content, but they really don't -- that's not the correct application of categorization of content because they're removing things that technically belong in the category they've established, they just remove it anyway because they don't like it).
I do find it hilarious that up until now certain chunks of the American left have pushed the line of "It's a private company they can do what they want!" and they were happy with that so long as the owners/operators/moderators were on their side. Now that the table looks to flip around it's been very amusing to watch the meltdown on twitter.
Been saying his a pro BS artist for the last decade.
- Exec Board will have their salaries reduced to zero
- Twitter H/Q will be turned in to a homeless shelter
- Edit button
- Total freedom of speech
Check back in a year and see how many of these claims actually come true!
Does that mean if, for example, Elon were to do something outrageous like call someone undeserving a pedophile on the platform, Twitter would no longer take him down personally, but instead the EU could fine Twitter out the wazoo and make him haemorrhage even more money and hurt him far more, on top of him being sued directly?
Sounds like a solid win to me.