Elon Musk Offers to buy Twitter for $43 Billion dollars
The link is a Google search quey. Pick your source for details.
The short story is that we are about to see a battle of titans. America's richest man vs. the capital interests involved with Twitter. Musk has offered $43 Billion, and `they' say his plan is to take the company private—giving him complete control, and less regulatory scrutiny.
This one is already on fire. Basically, (from media sources), the Right is going orgasmic with points about "Free speech," an attack on the Cancel warriors and liberal censorship,. and the Left is girding for battle with points about legality, walk-outs, the counter-power, (to stop Musk), of their investors and institutional shareholders.
I'm not yet sure where I fall on this one. That's a lot of control for one man.
This one is going to be good. I'm stocking up on popcorn.
I am probably late to the party, but here is Elon Musk at a post Twitter TED Appearance
I liked it.
You have to take sides in this world.
I'll side with Elon over those who want to take him down.
In fact, those who have issue with Elon are the problem, in some cases the very worst problems we have in our country today.
I like it when people target Elon with their rhetoric, it lets me know in no uncertain terms they are the enemy of America, working Americans, and American exceptionalism and success.
Yes, I think you can think of worse scenarios of being the richest man on earth...
Elon at least has a vision and starts projects to make this place a better world and not one that involves nasty wars
Me too... I always appreciate self-made people, who just stand out due to their pure accomplishments. So, pleased he has taken up the right to fight for free speech. Not a phony bone in this guy's body. Good interview.
Interesting and worth pondering while I am left with the question . . . Why? That is a fault I have always asking Why? Is it a pure money making endeavor? Like mentioned in the Ted Talk he stated, paraphrased, it is not economic.
Seemed he placed an emphasis on Free Speech with loosening up the algorithms. Was that because of what happen to Trump and with cancel culture today? I found it interesting about having an edit function, yet I would go one step further limiting it to a one time use within say five minutes of a post. I hate it when in these forums a reply is made and then the original post it was made to is changed, thus the context is lost for the reply that was made. Oh well . . .
Anyway, when I question why I go poking about. Already knowing from Pew Research that people get their news via digital (80%) I can see why he is not interested in buying a cable network to cause a change in how information is disseminated. Maybe he is interested in doing a study on Information Entropy being an inquisitive sort.
So, I went poking about looking closer at Social Media than I have before specifically at the demographics making some discoveries. For instance 10% of Twitter users do 80% of the Tweets. Who are they? Does he have influence over them? Obama has the most followers with over 111 million (2019). Trump was 10th then. CNN Breaking News was 16th and Fox wasn't in the top twenty at least. So, though they are the top cable network for politics, just maybe they aren't reaching anybody really.
In other words as I am now I just wandered about wondering Why. Certainly Musk looked about too or at least had a team do it for him specifically aimed at what he wanted to know from his both curious and imaginative mind.
Just for giggles if interested two links to Twitter Demographics and Statistics. They both have great graphics getting the point across.
Top Twitter Demographics That Matter to Social Media Marketers by HootSuite (05/28/2020)
33 Twitter Stats That Matter to Marketers in 2022 by HootSuite (3/16/22)
Edit: Oops didn't leave the link to the second Twitter Stats article. Sorry!
Hard to say.
But combine Twitter with AI, Neurolink or self-driving cars.
You can see that Twitter could be a communication channel used in business to be as an interface of some kind.
Twitter has a huge potential and it's still in a raw format. Not like Facebook which is cluttered with too much stuff and is already dying.
Musk is thinking grand scale, and not about money. He's seeing Twitter as a part of his concept. leading a way where Artificial Intelligence and human intelligence integrate. Twitter is a hive. and could be a grow into a hub.
I think Musk is doing a lot with his gut feeling, thinking like an artist. You know which decision is right and which is wrong, but it's hard to know why.
It could well be Musk doesn't know either why he wants Twitter, only that it fits inside his general vision.
I am all for free speech and letting those on the other end weed around the speech. I mean I think anyone here would ascertain, I am loving this.
A little tune is playing in my head "Guess who's back, back again
Shady's back, tell a friend
Guess who's back, guess who's back
Guess who's back. guess who's back
Guess who's back, guess who's back, guess who's back"
"Now this looks like a job for me
So everybody just follow me
'Cos we need a little controversy
'Cos it feels so empty without me
Now this looks like a job for me
So everybody just follow me
'Cos we need a little controversy
'Cos it feels so empty without me
"Feel the tension soon as someone mentions me
Here's my 10 cents my 2 cents is free
A nuisance, who sent, you sent for me"
"Though I'm not the first king of controversy
I am the worst thing since Elvis Presley" Source --- Eminem Guess Who's Back !
My Oh My...
Wow... Eminem being quoted in the Hubs Forums, I think I've seen it all now!
I had to inject the lyrics -- I swear the minute I heard Musk was trying to buy Twitter, the song popped into my head. I mean yes, many on social media assume Musk would lift the ban on Trump. Hey, a little levity never hurts!
It was an interesting input into the discussion for sure.
Check out this link, for the first few moments anyways, for the latest on the Twitter escapade.
(EDIT) Actually this is better one:
I don't know much about this stuff.
But isn't that called privatization!!! sarcasm)
Isn't it the open market and everybody can make a bit and buy things?
Is Mark Zuckerberg not also a rich person owning an incredibly influential social media platform.
What would the newspapers have written if the US State would have bought the platform!!!
Free speech is not the issue here. As with free speech, you make more money than with censorship (ask Zuckerberg) and Musk is a businessman and not stupid.
And yes, got my corn poppin'..
So you don't know much about this stuff? Welcome aboard, and neither do most of us.
Although I get your sarcasm, I don't think this is the "privatization" that most folks think of—relative to private vs. shareholder ownership of a company.
I grabbed the topic because it is going to be a vocal Right vs. Left battle for message control, so that's where the popcorn comes in.
With my obvious conservative leanings, my view is that the Left is in a panic at the thought of losing control of this particular "public square." I do understand that a liberal-leaner will see this as a battle against disinformation, misinformation, and outright seditious lies, (any information they disagree with).
The best part is that both sides are going to twist like pretzels to rationalize their support or opposition. I also don't think this is really a Free Speech issue.
Elon Musk is framing it as a free speech issue. He continually points to his stance as a free speech absolutist.
One issue that hangs in the balance that no one has mentioned is Section 230. This section of Title 47 of the United States Code enacted as part of the United States Communications Decency Act, that generally provides immunity for website platforms with respect to third-party content.
Specifically, Section 230 provides legal immunity from liability for internet services and users for content posted on the internet.
Both parties want it reformed or repealed. Of course for different reason.
If websites/platform aren't protected from lawsuits if a user posts something illegal, how will that impact their idea of unfettered speech?
Critics argue that its broad protections let powerful companies ignore real harm to users.
So, Private companies can create rules to restrict speech if they so choose. This is why Facebook and Twitter ban hate speech, for example, even though it is legally permitted in the United States. These moderation rules are protected by the First Amendment as well.
This issue is distinct from discussions over whether platforms should be liable for what their users post.
I will try not to dig myself any deeper in this hole. Maybe I am just splitting hairs.
Here is my `but' when I say it isn't really a Free Speech issue.
As a generalization, you're right it is about Free Speech, but . . . that is only the mantle the issue is wearing. The real issue under that mantle is the definition of free speech, which will define its limits.
With two opposing views, (R v. L), of what free speech is, of course it will be framed as a Free speech issue, but it is still an issue of control—not whether there is a Right to free speech.
I haven't looked at Musk's absolutist position yet, but I will probably like it when I do. The 'yell fire in a theater ' example is my kind of limit.
Relative to content publication, I think I support Section 230's intent. And at this point, in our current legal structure, I do think private companies have a protected right to choose their own rules.
Remember, defining free speech is like defining porn, `we' might not agree on a definition, but we each know it when we see it. And the "porn" in this issue is the definition of free speech.
So yeah, it is a Free Speech issue., in the end.
I don't see the left-right issue here. To see everything in left and right is not seeing things with nuance.
Twitter is used for a ton of things that has nothing to do with the USA nor with politics.
Twitter is used in many countries outside the US by parties of all kinds of colour and persons with hobbies, interests in particular cts, sports, arts, book clubs etc.
To make this a left-right thing is like making the dishes a left-right thing. it makes no sense. It makes only sense for those who see everything left right in life like cultists who can't imagine there are also other options in life.
Good topic though. but I hope it won't turn into a QAnon non-conversation with Elon Musk being the leader of an alien lizard gang trying to subdue the world and siphon the energy to Alpha Centauri. As Elon is trying to insert a secret code into Twitter when he controls it controlling your mind through Neurolink....
Good one with the last paragraph! I had not heard of Neuralink until this thread and it at this time blows my mind, frankly. For some odd reason I am thinking of a movie on that, yet is just out of my grasp. Maybe it was Schwarzenegger in the lead role. I dun'no . . .
Nerualink is an amazing project. combining computer and mind. AI is here to stay, if we want it or not. And it's probably the next evolutionary step. (The Borg are coming...Resistance is futile)
I think the next development in the coming years is in Artificial Intelligence, Genetics, Neurology and Bio engineering -
SciFi will always come true one way or another. But only crazier than in books or films.
Yep, and let's hope the Three Rules of Robotics are part of that AI development.
Yes indeed, what Musk has his hands in moving forward is mind boggling, most people have no idea all the things he has in the works.
He literally is moving humanity into a new age, while all the crooks and corrupt politicians do their best to get in his way.
Does SkyNet' ring a bell?
Yeah, that is it isn't it! Not remembering at first and reading the Wikipedia article on it seeing it being the thread that runs through the Terminator series I am now interested in watching all of them paying attention to how Skynet streams through them. One thing that amazes me almost incessantly is how the minds of those writers work realizing at least to me they are as brilliant as Musk in their own way. Just as the minds here in these forums are to me. Amazing!
Don't worry about seeing all the Terminator movies. Like most `serial' movies, after the 2nd one, they are bombs.
You have fair points Peterstreep, but I think they are in a different direction than the point of the OP.
That point was that this will be a battle framed by ideologies. I have only been speaking to the American perspective, which in this case I tried to localize by using "R v. L," (Right vs. Left), rather than "C v. L." (conservative v. liberal), which would carry a stronger universal inference.
The message of the OP, (and the trend of the responses), was one of politicization from the start. No nuances are needed. It's just a matter of picking a side and finding comfortable confidence in your choice.
I skimmed through the reactions already posted.
And to be honest I don't get it.
This idea of Left vs Right battle for message control.
Is Elon Musk seen as left-wing? The biggest capitalist in the world?
Actually, Elon Musk is seen as a Right Wing Extremist by most on the Left.
You have to understand that USA's Left, in particular those controlling Social Media and MSM news sources do not believe in free speech, they do not believe people have a right to all information, they consider people more like a flock of sheep, that need to be guided and protected and kept unaware of many things those who control the information flow don't feel they need to know.
Social Media post 2016 Trump Election has taken it upon themselves to ensure that people cannot "assemble" on their platforms to voice their disdain or outrage for their government, they ensure that only those voices that target non-governmental entities or majority population distinguishers (IE- White, Straight, Christian, Republican, Putin) are allowed to "gather" on their platforms in "groups". Say the wrong things against the wrong target type (IE - Black, LGTBQ, Islam, Democrats, Omar) and you will be banned, labeled, and if you are a public figure of any type, shamed.
Elon Musk's crimes are that he has spoken out against Democrat figures of power (IE - Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden), he believes people have a right to ALL information and a right to voice ANY opinion (not just the accepted politically correct and pasteurized ones) so long as it is not meant to be viciously harmful to others. He doesn't believe people should be forced into draconian lockdowns (IE - China, California), etc. etc.
For many in the USA, as you can see in discourse in these threads, it is a "if you aren't with us your are against us" world. Musk is too much of a free thinker and problem solver to ever be for one side or the other of the political extremes so Musk falls into the "you're either an Ally or an Enemy" distinction of being the Left's enemy.
A fight for the power to control `the message' that people hear, are you sure you don't get it?
Currently, I don't think Musk fits a Left or Right label. If he has to have one, I think it would probably be Classical Liberal. Certainly not Left-wing.
The Right has adopted him as their culture warrior in this Twitter battle, but that doesn't make him Right-wing either. I wonder how he considers himself to be politically aligned?
No I think this is a hyped-up discussion.
Control on "the message" - what about other broadcasters? Murdoch's Fox news, CNN, Hollywood with their stereotypes, Netflix, HBO, Al Jazeera, NYT, CBS, Bezos' Washington Post, and the other thousands of channels you have. plus the, blogs etc.
To me it looks as if you (we) have plenty of choices to confirm your/my own bias toward this or that topic.
You are right about the mass of available sources, but which are the most influential to certain demographics is important. Currently, that is the social media platforms. And it seems most `predicters' agree, that importance and demographic penetration will only increase with the increase in connectivity of each new generation.
Cable will become a news dinosaur just for us oldsters. The same with broadcast news and print media—older demographics. The future is the constant connectivity of social media, which translates to an `always-on' audience.
I don't think it's a hyped-up perspective. I think it is predictive. Facebook and Twitter may not be in the final evolution of social media and mass connectivity, but they are the roots the final product will grow from.
Facebook and Twitter may not be in the final evolution of social media and mass connectivity, but they are the roots the final product will grow from.
communication is a constantly evolving network.
But I do not think it will go right or left in any way. As there are lot of birds of different colours on the internet.
Like subgroups about vinyl records before WWII up to archeological digs in Mozambique.TikTok for instance is used by a lot of human rights groups, although you would think it's just a selfie tool
I think there is actually more info out there than ever before. (it used to be a couple of newspapers and tv channels - remember tv was only black and white and three channels in Holland - now that's easy to control by the powers that be..)
With the war in Ukraine for example you see how news is broadcasted by personal phone videos, uncensored.
I think it's the worst nightmare for governments, they want to control it with "classic" tv broadcasts, but with your phone and twitter, tiktok or instagram you can lifestream the church you want to blow up (negative example) or whats really happening during a war (positive example)
So I think we live in an age where freedom of speech and reach has never been so big. And pandora is out of the box I don't think it's controllable anymore, Not by Zuckerberg, Musk nor Murdoch.
So Elon Musk bought Twitter that went fast!
I've not finished my popcorn yet!!
You have time. Just check youtube for the news coverage from Fox and CNN, (or pick your own conservative v. liberal media), from about 5pm EST yesterday, (4/25), to now.
The entertainment value is off the charts. There might be many interpretations of the messages, but their range is narrow: The god of freedom has struck a blow against Satan's plan, or the richest man in the world is taking control of the most important messaging platform that everyone has to use.
Yep, plenty of time for that popcorn. Just for kicks, check several outlets for each perspective and see how quickly you can spot the same key 'talking point' phrases repeated by different sources.
As a [C]conservative I should be feeling guilty about watching the Left go nuts with glee and not feel the same way about the Right's scale of hyperbole. But I don't. I am used to Republican conservatives going hyperbolic, (as in ballistic?), so I just shake my head. In this case, the Left is going so far with so little information it's like watching a trainwreck in progress.
As I was posting this I heard a blurb that Jeff Bezos has said something about maybe China supporting Musk because it would give them some leverage, a la Tesla's dependency on China as their biggest market, and being their prime supplier of the raw materials they need for their battery components and future production.
Somehow Putin will probably be involved by the time we get to the evening news.
The entertainment value is off the charts. There might be many interpretations of the messages, but their range is narrow: The god of freedom has struck a blow against Satan's plan, or the richest man in the world is taking control of the most important messaging platform that everyone has to use.
haha - This sounds like an opera.
After the hit the Sound of Meta, now the sequel Twitter Galore.
Yep, plenty of butter on the popcorn too.
I have seen this letter image somewhere else and didn't pay attention to it, and don't know anything else about it, but to your point, (you posted it because you agreed with it?), that it's a good thing, I have a worse perception. Not of you or your endorsement, but of the politics of the letter.
I think everything about the letter is terrible; from the motive to create it to its contents, (generally, not point-by-point specific), and what Musk will think of it. As a kicker, look at all the possible tangent-battle openings, (for flanking or deflection), it gives to the Left, (not a bad inference).
It is a political stunt. It is trying to pull Musk into its camp. The Left courted Disney and now the Right is courting Musk. Both moves are dumb—politically.
The letter is sticking its nose in a worse place than where it has no business, it is stirring the pot and trying to draw lines of connection for political gain. It is asking for, (even suggesting directions), 'investigations.'
That's just my perception of the letter Kenna, not of your posting it.
That opinion of the letter probably sends the wrong message. I do support everything "Musk" about this deal. I love it. But Republicans are going to find some way to screw things up by trying to hitch a ride. This is a course direction happening, Republican politicians should get out of the way and let it happen.
Allow me to share a Message sent to me just yesterday that came in a response to me stating that I hadn't posted on FB for years (other than family photos and such), around the time Trump got elected:
My last Hatebook account got deleted because I had a carry permit. I lost 11 years of stuff poof just like that never seen again. Took me two years to get a new account where I could use it with my business page because my cell phone number didn't change.
I don't post anything political on my page I just work to make the best income I can and contribute large amounts of money to RPAC and ______ our active Realtor Congressman
I was chairman of government affairs and on the Board of Directors at _____ I got hate mail in my mail, hate mail email, on Facebook, my tires slashed, someone stood on the roof of my car and took a shit, I kid you not.
I let someone else do government affairs, I had my fill, the whole thing was crazy.
Expressing opinions on Facebook or Twitter is a fools errand IMO.
How did the messenger know it was their carry permit that got the account deleted? I don't use facebook either, so I don't know the process.
Interesting question, one I most likely will not pursue.
Considering the individual is a former scientist that worked on rockets and a current RE Broker/Businessman, I can only assume he made the mistake of being a little bit too forthcoming with his beliefs on free speech and rights to bear arms, etc.
This gentleman is about as far away from redneck as one can get, but not so savvy on understanding which way the political wind is blowing.
Without an ironclad reasoning as to why they'd reject such a premium offer the board will get sued by investors who felt the offer was fair.
Public companies exist to make the shareholder's money grow, not to push political agendas, which is clearly what is at the heart of the Twitter Board/Leadership today.
It's a premium of 54%, which if anything is quite rich. If the board does not accept the offer, shareholders will sue them for shirking their fiduciary responsibilities.
I expect the board to do just that, because they put politics and pettiness above actually doing their jobs and running the company profitably. I believe they are self-absorbed Woke a-holes that don't grasp the shit storm Elon is about to hit them with.
Such ignorant actions by the Board will in turn will send the stock price plummeting, allowing Musk to buy it on the cheap, get a 51% majority ownership and do what he wants anyways.
Either way Musk wins, eventually, and one very Woke Social Media site will become open for free speech once again. While a great many arrogant self-important censoring employees at Twitter will find themselves without a job.
I'm still having fun pondering in ignorance. I don't know much about the details of either side's perspectives. I also don't know much about Musk.
So I will start with Musk, (the TED link was a good start), and play with the conceptuals, (i.e. your `buy-in at crashed prices' idea). I think I have heard of other deals that went like that.
After that TED viewing, I think I'm going to like the guy. Plus, he plagiarized me in his talk. Well, sort of. In comments about truths, (basically of the Universe, but extrapolated to truths in life), he said, "I think `why' is very important."
I know I have said that before, somewhere. I must have. And since I have never listened to Musk before, (relatively), it couldn't be me doing the plagiarizing. ;-)
Musk has taken every good idea I have ever had in regards to Solar Power and EVs (electric cars) and made them reality.
Back in 2009 when I held the lofty title of Director of Energy, Housing and Green Jobs I was relatively unaware of Elon Musk.
I became aware of him, in a way, because of Solar City when they were making their push into NY and the Governor was courting them to invest themselves into the State.
I even went to an interview for a Regional Director position, I remember it because of the really negative impression I got of the people conducting the interview, it was right off the Airport in Albany, they flew in to conduct the interviews and I was actually on my way out of town catching a flight soon after that interview.
They were young, the types that were more concerned about their looks, their workouts and their nightlife then actually being the best at their jobs. Solar City had terrible leadership and they were doomed to failure despite the fact that there were so many die-hard believers in Solar Energy and the potential to grow a huge customer base in NY.
I remember asking them about an Energy Conference that had been held a couple days prior at Marist College, if they knew about it, and why Solar City hadn't been present... it was a who's who type of event, considering their efforts in NY at that time, they should have had a presence there. I remember having a conversation with a Vice President of HESS, corporate strategies, or some such, very eye-opening information he gave me about the soon to be abundance of oil production to come to the US because of fracking and other new techniques and how for the next 10 to 20 years America would have a renaissance of energy production.
Which definitely proved itself out.
Anyways, they had no clue about that, or NY's Solar Energy Consortium which was big in that part of NY especially, they were essentially well groomed, well educated, idiots that didn't belong having anything to do with promoting Solar Power/Energy for anyone.
Elon Musk has come a long way from those days, his employees today are disheveled, some would say dirty, some look like Grizzly Adams wanna-be types, but they know their stuff, they are dedicated to their work (you have to be or you will be weeded out of Tesla or Space-X soon enough).
You know who has well manicured, well educated, but not highly motivated to get things done employees today? Blue Origin, Bezos' pet space project that is down the road from Space X here on the Space Coast.
Well, I guess I have rambled on enough... I am not impressed by many people, not Presidents, not Billionaires (most I think are just shit lucky more than brilliant like Mark Cuban or Jack Ma), but what Musk has done is already beyond what any other human has accomplished... but his goals, what he is striving to accomplish is truly awe inspiring.
And he just might accomplish them.
Let's not hold the plagiarizing and idea-stealing against him. He definitely doesn't seem to be a Bezos-type guy.
In the TED talk his speaking was unusual. No smooth flow, even a bit choppy and piecemeal at times, to the point that it made me focus even more on what he was saying.
I did leave with the impression that this isn't a `money thing' for him. He was believable when he said, "I don't care about the economics at all."
But still, the details of his plan will be deciding factors for me.
Here's a `what if.'
What if Musk sees FB, (Meta), and Twitter as evolving into more than just social media platforms, what if they evolve into the primary information carriers, (and influencers), for the world's populations? As mentioned, it will be a battle of titans to get control of Twitter, and then it will be a battle of titans—Meta vs. Twitter, for control of the world's information sources.
The TED interviewer spoke to your "disheveled" point. Stuff about Musk working in, and sleeping on the floors of 3(?) Tesla factories in his 3-year survival battle.
He was compared to a hands-off visionary leader, (Bezos, Zucker, ?); asked that wouldn't it have been wiser for a leader of his talent and responsibility to be more concerned about his health, (ie. the 20-hour days and sleeping stuff), so that he had the strength to be at his best.
He used the example of a fatigued and sleep-deprived mind's decision-making coherence vs. that of a well-rested bright-eyed mind. I heard that and thought hmm . and then got mental whiplash as my wait-a-minute brake slammed on. In the context of this instance, that doesn't mean beans. It is trying to compare a norm with an anomaly.
Let's see where that leads.
There are times when you have to burn the midnight oil and work hard. Nothing wrong with that. People today want cushy jobs. Vocational jobs are in high demand, but nobody wants to work hard. They want it all without working hard. That's a pipedream or criminal.
Yes, I did get that inference also, but, my criticism was more to the hypocrisy of the judgment in the interviewer's statement. He thinks he gets it, but he doesn't.
Yes. I agree. The interviewer was not focused.
Thanks for rambling on Ken,
Yes, I too have respect for what Elon is doing. He's doing things with a vision for the future and not just to make more money.
And it's getting more difficult. He already noticed that he can't say everything he wants as every word has an effect on the stock exchange.... So far for freedom of speech. You have it but can't use it..
I hope Musk will win this case. As Twitter is still on the fence about where to go next. It could use an input.
As you need a good counterbalance against Facebook/Instagram and TikTok
I am curious how this will play out.
I figure he will gain control, but who knows.
I just wonder how it will affect the Twitter platform
I found this to be a key statement from his TED talk,
“I think it’s very important for there to be an inclusive arena for free speech. Twitter has become kind of a de facto town square, so it’s really important that people have both the reality and the perception that they are able to speak freely within the bounds of the law,”
It concerns me because social media is already a conduit for so much disinformation and hate speech.
I also find it mind-boggling that It would only cost Musk 1 percent of his net worth to become a hugely influential player in the development & direction of a social media platform that’s indispensable to the distribution of news and commentary especially in the worlds of politics, technology and entertainment across the world. The influence of one individual would be huge. I'm not sure that there is any thing/ situation that compares.
He has expressed interest in a more "decentralized internet"and has used the platform to be adversarial and provocative to the point that he has gotten embroiled in a defamation lawsuit. Given his inclination to use the platform like a troll, some feel he’s likely to lobby for Twitter to adopt more lax content regulation. There’s also been significant speculation as to whether that would entail ending Twitter’s ban on former President Donald Trump’s account.
In my opinion it’s more than a little unnerving that platforms that are so central to digital civic life in America can so easily come under the influence of the wealthiest members of society.
Maybe the next "Musk" won't favor deregulation, but will instead champion heavy-handed over-regulation that could silence certain kinds of political dissent.
Is leaving these companies overly vulnerable to billionaires who can wield autocratic modes of power a dangerous game?
Just who, or what, do you think controls them now?
Do you think they are controlled by well intended benevolent individuals today?
Do you realize Twitter (and Facebook) are used as political tools and controlled by people with extreme bias?
These people pick and choose who can speak, comedians are banned for making an off color comment, but a raving lunatic who speaks endlessly about killing people based on race or religion maintains their account (because it is deemed acceptable that the targeted race or religion is persecuted by those intent on hate and violence, because they don't fall under a particular victim or minority status).
Maybe you don't see that, but Musk does.
I'll trust Musk's brilliance and morals over those who have probably never accomplished anything more noteworthy in life than graduating from college with their Masters Degree in Social Justice to determine what is acceptable and what is not.
On that note have you read the 50 Biases that Musk says a child should be taught? Worth a read! I have read them twice now and hope to remember more and more each time I do.
Elon Musk says all children must be aware of these 50 cognitive biases, and to avoid them shared by Insider (02/02/2022)
https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-mu … ses-2022-1
Musk's musings on cognitive biases? meh.
As I read the first few I was thinking, "yeah, and?" And then I hit these two:
"12. Defensive Attribution: As a witness who secretly fears being vulnerable to a serious mishap, we will blame the victim less and the attacker more if we relate to the victim.
13. Just-World Hypothesis: We tend to believe the world is just; therefore, we assume acts of injustice are deserved."
. . . and passed on the rest.
meh, he might be a visionary, but that list didn't read like deep insight to me. It neither adds nor subtracts from my forming opinion of him.
Plus, who the hell can remember all those hyphenated psychology terms.
Yeah, I know how that response sounded, so I used the "meh" to add some tone to it.
Until #12 & 13 stopped me, I was thinking they were just common-sense stuff that everyone knew about—even if they do ignore most of them.
For instance, #1 - 5 aren't headscratchers. Of course, we favor others of "us." And of course, jumping on the bandwagon amplifies whatever message the bandwagon is.
See what I mean? There is nothing `special' about me, so if I have that perception, there's nothing especially "deep" about them. Beyond the fact that folks should pay attention to them.
As to the point about teaching them to children I completely agree. I think good parents do that all the time in the raising of their kids.
As an example: teaching kids about "groupthink," A mom is more likely to say something like, "If Johnny jumped over a cliff . . ."
What about #1, "Fundamental Attribution Error," doesn't that sound like "Don't judge a book by its cover"?
And #13, "Just-World Hypothesis" A hypothesis? Really? (couldn't resist), I wonder if any parent hasn't taught their kids that the world isn't fair, (an equivalent to just"?), and I doubt many kids grow up thinking it is. And that is his deep hypothesis?
Now, to be clear, I am not criticizing Musk, or his list, I think they are all good things for kids to learn to recognize and hopefully listen to what they recognize. His list just didn't seem "special" to me.
Or, maybe I just got it all wrong because I'm not recognizing one of his listed biases in myself? *shrug
Sounds good to me! The reason why I said, "Oh Well . . .", is having read the list several times while pondering each one a moment or two I was in state of self-reflection while at the same time saw a bias with the replies I thought of. Since I opened the door maybe best to not say anything.
Borrowing from scripture paraphrased, "All have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God" comes to mind with biases. In other words I really don't think anyone can say they don't have one or more biases. Kinda' like prejudices. Yet, perhaps, it is those biases we intrinsically hold that gives each one their identity, which is needed to simply grasp our life journey and where in the moment of 'Now' one is.
For a little humor as I pondered that reply, though may be full of holes of bias, logic, and etc I offer the following. It is from a comic, so the full effect is not present.
"My desire to be well-informed is currently at odds with my desire to be sane."
Most people would benefit from learning the cognitive biases.
Good link, worth the read despite the annoying ads that pop up.
Will have to track down a more reader friendly version, was looking for something to discuss with my son this weekend, this topic and article will work nicely.
The more information you gather about Musk and what he is trying to do, the more I think you will like him. Based on your posts tsmog you might even see some similarities in how he approaches things with your own.
EDIT/Added (for tsmog ):
The Link on that webpage to the TitleMax original.
I did some digging to be sure it was Musk responsible for it.
"Tech genius and TIME's Person of The Year 2021, Elon Musk, on Sunday, shared a list of ‘50 Cognitive biases’ that people should be aware of in order to be the best version of themselves. The 50-year-old posted the graphic on Twitter, wherein he asserted that everybody should be made aware of the biases at a very young age."
I think Musk's interest in Twitter stems mostly from it being HIS way of communicating to the hundreds of millions of people who follow him, and secondly, from his observing many people he felt were positive contributors (no not Trump) being banned from the platform while others who are quite reprehensible, some would say evil, maintain their presence.
Thanks! On my poking about yesterday with this endeavor by Musk regard Twitter is when I discovered several articles on him sharing the bias thing. Not knowing the age of your son, while not having kids of my own, I have not the faintest idea of how to teach them. It will certainly be an adventure in learning for both of you.
On a tangent I think more can be learned of Musk at the point where the SNL segment is introduced. Not the free speech stuff, at least for me. From that point forward I easily could identify with him. I watched while listening closely picking up things like he mentioned Information Theory, typing symbols in a computer endlessly at night while young, and wondering about the meaning on life.
We are talking about one sole man privately owning and controlling one of the largest social media platforms. So what would one person do with all of that power if he gets a hold of it? That's a whole lot of influence weilded by an individual.
So Elon Musk calls himself a, quote, "free speech absolutist." He also has said he'll unlock Twitter's potential and allow all legal speech. So What should we make of that?
What Mr. Musk is describing is in the United States, for instance, to allow all legal speech technically allowed under the First Amendment onto the platform, you would have to allow all spam to stay up on the platform. You would have to allow all pornography to stay up on the platform, all forms of hate speech. That's all First Amendment-protected speech. And so all of that would stay up, at least within the U.S. It could make the platform functionally unusable.
Would a platform owned by Elon Musk open the door again for speech that is being taken down and seen as dangerous?
I'm not second guessing or down playing his genius in terms of his accomplishments but this is in quite a different realm that in my opinion, has nothing to do with his brilliance. His accomplishments don't guarantee he he's the right person to take over Twitter.
Maybe Some folks are experiencing the cognitive bias of the "Halo effect" when viewing Mr. Musk.
Again, I'll trust that one man more than I'll trust my government, a corporation, or political extremists (which is what we have controlling them now).
That one man has done more to create a better world than any corporation or political entity I know of.
Do you think Facebook being controlled by one man is OK?
Do you think its in the best interests of "free speech" that entities like Vanguard control Alphabet?
Vanguard itself, has a unique structure that makes its ownership to many of the oldest, richest families in the world hard to discern, but they can be linked to control of Vanguard funds when one does enough digging.
Do you think its OK that one man, George Soros, has funded more American politician campaigns for Governorship, Senator, and President than any man alive?
More than 180 different media-related organizations receive money from billionaire George Soros or are controlled by one of his entities.
Soros, since the 2004 election, used his influence and billions to push a laundry list of left-wing causes. His Open Society Foundations likely fund everything from pro-illegal immigration to anti-Israel and, ultimately, anti-America efforts.
He has "donated" over $8 billion to his Open Society Foundations. Soros headlined a meeting of 70 millionaires and billionaires in Scottsdale, Ariz., to discuss how to grow the left's ideological assets back in Aug. 18, 2005.
They now control almost all "Free Press" in America.
Soros has direct ties to more than 30 mainstream news outlets including The New York Times, Washington Post, the Associated Press, CNN, etc. Each one of those operations has employees, often high-level ones, on the boards of Soros-funded media operations.
Do you have a problem with this one man having more control and influence over everything heard and read in America than any other corporation or individual?
I think maybe if you understood who controlled all your information, news, education, and what is allowed on social media and what is not, Elon Musk trying to control Twitter would be your last concern.
One social media site being free from all others would not be a danger, it would be a place where alternative thoughts and ideas could be heard and discussed.
A place not under the influence of Soros or the Saudi Royal Family or Vanguard which represents the oldest, wealthiest families in the world.
Facebook is not a privately owned company.
You have shot off into a lot of different directions here but in terms of George Soros I'll counter you with The Koch Industries Do you have a problem with them? Well one is now deceased but the conglomeration marches forward.
Essentially, Facebook is a dictatorship entirely controlled by Mark Zuckerberg. This total control is ensured by a two-tier share ownership structure that gives him unrivaled power.
So your point there is moot.
Yes I have problem with the Koch brothers as well, but not near as much as Soros who has had a hand in destabilizing many countries and profiting from those efforts.
"His accomplishments don't guarantee he's the right person to take over Twitter."
My gosh, I must go there --- And who decides this? Who actually decided on the ability of any of the people that created and run our current social media sites? Such as Facebook, and Twitter? Or is it just that Musk obviously does not hold your standard to pwn own and promote a social media site?
We at this point have no idea what Twitter would look like under Musk. It seems you have assumed the worse due to him sharing that he would allow "all legal speech".
As of yet, I have not noted he shared a complete platform, what he would and would not allow.
In my view, the only danger the left should worry about is that the other side will be heard. And not just certain news stories will be discussed, but all news stories. For instance Huter Biden. We saw that story buried on social media as well as in select news outlets.
Free speech platforms are long overdue.
Look at the door your "seen as dangerous" opens. Seen as dangerous by who? What kind of danger? And others.
And what about content that was taken down, shouldn't it be restored when it turns out not to be dangerous?
You will probably find a lot of confirmation bias to go along with that Halo effect, but neither disqualify the thoughts influenced by either, they don't have to be fatal distortions. Especially if they are otherwise right.
"It concerns me because social media is already a conduit for so much disinformation and hate speech. I also find it mind-boggling that It would only cost Musk 1 percent of his net worth to become a hugely influential player in the development & direction of a social media platform that’s indispensable to the distribution of news and commentary especially in the worlds of politics, technology and entertainment across the world. "
Are Google, Facebook, AOL, and several other left social media platforms the arbiters of free speech? Is there no room for another platform? What makes the above-mentioned any more qualified to distribute news and commentary, especially in the worlds of politics, technology, and entertainment across the world. than a company that would be owned by a proponent of free speech?
It is very clear all mentioned are liberal platforms, that openly ban whatever they please. Do you chat on AOL or do you use Twitter and Facebook? I do, and these platforms are clearly biased to the left ideologies.
"In my opinion, it’s more than a little unnerving that platforms that are so central to digital civic life in America can so easily come under the influence of the wealthiest members of society."
"Is leaving these companies overly vulnerable to billionaires who can wield autocratic modes of power a dangerous game?"
Faye, do you know the wealth of those that founded and are involved with the left-run social media companies?
Do you feel that free speech is allowed on Twitter, Facebook, and AOL?
I respect free speech, my right to hear it, and my right to make up my own mind on its truth or if it is misinformation. I don't need someone to choose what they feel is true or relevant for me to see.
Most social media sites use overreached to block free speech. The overreach of these sites in my view is the left's way of saying -- we have the power, and want all the power, to determine what you view, what you hear. What you get to view are our ideologies, our views. If you say something we disagree with, we will remove it. This is what is happening to conservatives on social media.
Autocratic modes of power are what the left offer on social media. They strive to block any other ideologies but their own. And yes they played a dangerous game. But looks like Musk has taken it upon himself to end the game. It is clear the left is freaking out over the threat of social media where all voices are heard. As I said they have strived to keep power over what we hear, and what we can say. It should not surprise them that many of us want to crush this form of autocratic mode of power.
And looks like we have just the guy to do it.
Mr. Musk’s “absolutist” stand on free speech, for me, hasn't answered questions raised by blatant misinformation, disinformatiom expressed on social media platforms, some of which can translate into violence against persons or groups, and even compromise election integrity and other fundamental institutions of democracy. At some level it appears that there does need to be some form of moderation over any platform. I don't feel that democracy or free speech mean that fake news, dangerous misinformation and hate speech should have a free rein.
Elon Musk is a self-proclaimed "free speech absolutist" although There is a history of Mr. Musk squashing the speech of others when it is against him.
His adamant support for free speech apparently even extends to Russian news agencies that are repeating propaganda for the Russian government. Mr. Musk tweeted earlier in March that he wouldn’t remove Russian news channels from his Starlink satellite internet service “unless at gunpoint,” This, I don't agree with.
As I had mentioned to Ken earlier, to allow all legal speech technically allowed under the First Amendment onto the platform, you would have to allow all spam to stay up on the platform. You would have to allow all pornography to stay up on the platform, all forms of hate speech. That's all First Amendment-protected speech. And so all of that would stay up, at least within the U.S. It could make the platform functionally unusable.
It'll be interesting to see the fate of the platform if he takes charge of it And it becomes privately held.
Well that is certainly something I can understand you being concerned about, considering the blatant silencing of certain opinions and voices going on today, while they still allow violent, radical, extremist elements of their choosing to still speak freely on their sites.
Obviously we have a biased and failed social media today, so one can only hope someone as brilliant as Musk can come up with something better.
" I don't feel that democracy or free speech mean that fake news, dangerous misinformation and hate speech should have a free rein."
So, do we protest and demand the current social media sites be shut down? Because they allow all of what you fear and more. They do it via selecting what you see and hear.
" I don't feel that democracy or free speech mean that fake news, dangerous misinformation and hate speech should have a free rein."
But it does on all our major social media sites. And worst of all the misinformation, the hate speech, is supported on these sites in the form of fake news.
" His adamant support for free speech apparently even extends to Russian news agencies that are repeating propaganda for the Russian government. Mr. Musk tweeted earlier in March that he wouldn’t remove Russian news channels from his Starlink satellite internet service “unless at gunpoint,” This, I don't agree with."
You don't agree --- Musk believes in a free speech why would he not purpose it in regard to leaving Russia up on Starlink? Do we need to be protected from what we might hear? Have we become a society that can't think for ourselves? Are we too unintelligent to decipher propaganda? I hear it and read it from our very own journalists. Hell, I hear it from our Government representatives, as well as the president.
" to allow all legal speech technically allowed under the First Amendment onto the platform, you would have to allow all spam to stay up on the platform. "
You have no way of knowing what a Musk Twitter platform would look like, none, nor do I. But you jump to the conclusion of what you might see. and all very negative.
This is a true example of one of the characteristics that separate right from left. You are threatened by the unknown, the if come... You are quick to criticize, and made this assumption -- "As I had mentioned to Ken earlier, to allow all legal speech technically allowed under the First Amendment onto the platform, you would have to allow all spam to stay up on the platform. You would have to allow all pornography to stay up on the platform, all forms of hate speech. "
We have no idea what Musk would and would not allow on a new Twitter platform. You assume he might allow pornography, and hate speech. It certainly would be up to him to include what you fear. I could assume he may be an individual that finds pornography disgusting, and would never allow it. If I did that I would join the "what if crowd".
Again you assume -- " And so all of that would stay up, at least within the U.S. It could make the platform functionally unusable."
Why would it become functionally unusable? People can frequent porn sites. This is factual. But assuming Musk would allow porn as of yet is not factual in any respect at this point.
Sharlee, Elon Musk stated that he was a "free speech absolutist" numerous times. That has a specific definition. It is a well-defined set of beliefs. Of course it makes me wonder within that framework what the platform will look like If it is under the control of an "absolutist" I think moderation is needed. I'm not guessing or assuming anything about him, He has stated it for himself. And he's actually enacted it by letting Russian propaganda be broadcast on his Starlink. Why would you propagate the spread of lies? Why would you broadcast Putin declaring a special military operation on Ukraine to "de-nazify" it?" I wholeheartedly do not agree.
I'm responding to what he has already stated And he has stated his opinion on free speech over and over emphatically. He has not wavered at all on his position of being a free speech absolutist. These aren't my assumptions.
Are you assuming he's going to change his direction?
" I'm not guessing or assuming anything about him, He has stated it for himself."
I did not dispute that he may have said he would broadcast Russia on Starlink. I did not say you assumed that. Here is what I said -- (You don't agree --- Musk believes in a free speech why would he not purpose it in regard to leaving Russia up on Starlink? Do we need to be protected from what we might hear? Have we become a society that can't think for ourselves? Are we too unintelligent to decipher propaganda? I hear it and read it from our very own journalists. Hell, I hear it from our Government representatives, as well as the president.)
Here is what I felt you did assume - "As I had mentioned to Ken earlier, to allow all legal speech technically allowed under the First Amendment onto the platform, you would have to allow all spam to stay up on the platform. You would have to allow all pornography to stay up on the platform, all forms of hate speech. "
Are these not assumptions?
"I'm responding to what he has already stated And he has stated his opinion on free speech over and over emphatically. He has not wavered at all on his position of being a free speech absolutist. These aren't my assumptions."
Again, have you heard Musk claim he would leave Twitter open to porn, hate speech, and misinformation on Twitter? Could you offer a source where he shared his platform, and what would be allowed?
No, When he has stated repeatedly that he is a free speech absolutist (that has a definite set of beliefs) I assume he will remain true to his beliefs. Why wouldn't you? You're saying you believe there is a possibility he will change his set of beliefs?
I don't agree with free speech absolutists. Just my opinion.
And in terms of starlink it's not about our country it's about the rest of the world also where it is being broadcast. In Russia, in Ukraine, in Eastern Europe. I feel the truth needs to be broadcast and not lies. Putin is not on a mission to "de-nazify" Ukraine and that message shouldn't be willingly repeated to anyone, anywhere. Why would anyone propagate lies? A free speech absolutist thinks that's okay, I do not. You may, and that's your right completely.
As far as I know currently he has not defined any specific policies that he would enact or keep or get rid of if he were to become the sole owner of Twitter. But his views on free speech are clearly stated from source after source and he has not wavered, I wouldn't expect for him to change his whole system of beliefs on free speech.
"You're saying you believe there is a possibility he will change his set of beliefs?"
I actually do not know his beliefs. I know he is an American citizen that has the right to put a bit in to purchase Twitter. I know he is very much a person that appears to succeed at most he has set his mind to. And I also have not read or heard a thing about what he plans to do with Twitter, only that he feels free speech is missing on the site. He objects to twitters form of monitoring free speech to suit certain ideologies.
"I feel the truth needs to be broadcast and not lies."
You do realize our very own media lies to us profusely?
I am for free speech, I think when it is muffled or carefully constructed to suit agendas, it does not resemble free speech.
I found him generous and kind to see that Ukraine's internet was activated via SpaceX's Starlink. His company sent antennas and terminals to the country to help restore internet and communications after widespread outages caused by Russia's invasion.
I don't expect him to change his beliefs in regards to free speech either.
He is very much his own individual, I don't think he cares much about those that hope he will conform. I can see why he is such a threat to some. To me, he is a free thinker and a guy that is willing to stand up for free speech. I admire those traits.
This is an example of his free speech absolutist position. Anyone can say absolutely anything they want to say with no consequence. This is a step too far in my opinion
https://www.foxbusiness.com/business-le … absolutist
Its far better than the current stifling of opinion and information.
Its funny, you never responded to my point about Zuckerberg and Facebook, which has billions, not mere millions of users like Twitter.
Zuckerberg is OK then to have control of all that personal information and control of who can speak, and who cannot... but Musk having control of Twitter is no good?
It's not stifling opinion. It's curbing out right lie. Come on. Do I need to list one after the other of outrageous lies that have been tweeted? Really? This is ludicrous. Facebook Is basically a cesspool of lies. Yes, unfettered, unstifled lies. Mark Zuckerberg has laid out a welcome mat to disinformation and troll farms.
https://www.npr.org/2021/03/06/97439478 … t-how-much
That is your opinion, one I vehemently disagree with.
More importantly your opinion is provably wrong, the Hunter Biden story being banned is one example of truth being squelched in favor of lies.
They banned the campaign account of Pennsylvania Senator Doug Mastriano, for organizing the election integrity hearing by the Senate Majority Policy Committee.
Alex Berenson, former New York Times reporter and the author of 13 novels, two non-fiction books, was permanently suspended from Twitter.
Politics is what gets you banned on Twitter as much as anything else, if you have the wrong political views, you go bye bye.
"I know of no academic research that concludes there is a systemic bias – liberal or conservative – in either the content moderation policies or in the prioritization of content by algorithms by major social media platforms," said Steven Johnson, an information technology professor at the University of Virginia McIntire School of Commerce. If anything,” Johnson said, “there is evidence that content from highly conservative news sites is favored by Facebook algorithms.” "
"Like previous research, “False Accusation: The Unfounded Claim that Social Media Companies Censor Conservatives,” concludes that rather than censoring conservatives, social media platforms amplify their voices.
“Republicans, or more broadly conservatives, have been spreading a form of disinformation on how they're treated on social media. They complain they’re censored and suppressed but, not only is there not evidence to support that, what evidence exists actually cuts in the other direction,” said Paul Barrett, deputy director of the NYU Stern Center for Business and Human Rights"
You can find someone to spout some misinformation on just about anything these days, sometimes a reputable sight, sometimes a reputable person, doesn't mean it is worth the time it takes to type it.
So, it is prudent to use your own common sense (I know that is in short supply for a lot of people in today's world), your own ability to sift through information, and basically pay attention to what is going on, in general.
You can find supporting information to most controversial positions.
"We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false."
- William Casey, CIA Director 1981-1987
That is a true quote BTW, regardless of what you may read that says otherwise, but then... that's the point, you can find supporting information on just about anything, including someone saying this isn't a legitimate quote.
Fewer and fewer are the concrete facts in our world. Twenty years ago there were only two sexes, today there are 72. Thirty years ago we all knew there were 9 planets in our solar system, then they changed it to 8, but you can find sites that say we have 13.
Twenty years ago, the idea of strangers discussing sex related content with children under age 5 was unheard of and considered reprehensible, today they want to make it part of pre-school education. If you have a disagreement with this "new think" viewpoint, you can be banned from Twitter for expressing it. That is not freedom of speech, that is stifling opinions and pushing a bias.
We get closer to 1984 all the time, heck, they are living that and worse in China today, and if we keep going down this road, that will be our future as well.
Here are my thoughts: Musk is a reader. Readers tend to be more aware of the truth and know when others are ignorant and arrogant. He is right. AI is the way of the future. He's also right that free speech is imperative. Fear mongers will have their say. They always do. Free speech is essential. Twitter/FB banning and controlling information needs to stop.
Just a thought, Is there more conservative support for Elon Musk privately owning Twitter because there's the belief that he is conservative? In my opinion his politics have occasionally been confusing. The most consistent theme has been that he is "socially liberal and fiscally conservative", or even "socially very liberal". He has claimed to be registered as an independent and said: “To be clear, I am not conservative"
And another point he claimed to be a "socialist" "But not the kind that shifts resources from The most productive to the least productive." Huh?
And interestingly enough his political contributions to either party over the years have remained pretty even.
What about his social beliefs?
He is clearly had quite a libertarian streak which I can completely relate to. Favoring direct democracy over representative democracy.
Similarly, Mr Musk has long argued for universal basic income As he has said to support workers whose jobs would be replaced with artificial intelligence. In some ways that's a pretty left-wing idea since it would obviously involve large amounts of taxpayer dollars.
This man is in enigma to say the least.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl … 51680.html
"Just a thought, Is there more conservative support for Elon Musk privately owning Twitter because there's the belief that he is conservative?"
In my view --- I could care very little about all of his ideologies. I like and appreciate his current cause, and passion for 100% free speech.
He is very much one of a kind, he seems to walk or I should say builds his own path.
I think a lot would be very concerned if one man who privately owns one of the largest social media platforms uses it to advance his own ideologies. Especially when that's unfettered , unchecked posts about absolutely anything. It goes both ways. Bot farms can just easily convince a population that universal basic income is what they need now as well as they can convince that autocracy is our savior. They convinced quite a number to believe the Hillary Clinton is running a child sex ring out of a pizza parlor. Don't get me wrong I'm all for free speech completely but where do you draw the line? You know as well as I do There are a lot of gullible folks out there.
I think I'm going under for the 3rd time in that sea of confirmation bias, (since we were speaking of biases, and all). And it looks like that Halo bias thing is also a danger to look out for.
I stumbled across this Musk interview from Apr. 8(?):
Elon Musk On Putin, Nuclear Power, And Love
I agree with every damn perspective he offered. My favorite of all was his view on extended life spans, (5:10 mark). He is right. We all get our turn.
I knew I was going to like the guy. I don't recall knowing this; he launched a Tesla convertible, with a manikin wearing an astronaut suit in the driver's seat—on a trajectory for a Mars fly-by.
The purpose was to prove to NASA it had the cargo capacity. Other space companies, (Boeing?), just used weighted metal boxes.
Ya gotta see this. The whole link is worth the watch, but the Space Tesla thing starts around 41:30.
*The image is clickable, but you might have to go to 41:30 yourself.
Mr. Musk's views do not fit neatly into the American political framework. Although, It currently appears that conservatives are "claiming" him as one of their own. So many in the U.S. have become intractably partisan. They live their lives dividing just about everything and everyone into a left/ right box.
Mr. Musk may pose a challenge to that thinking. He is often described as a libertarian.
He told Fortune magazine that "he is pleased with the new administration's focus on climate change" something conservatives have railed against.
He has also called himself socialist, but later on has said "I’m openly moderate. There, I said it.’
He is supposedly a registered independent and politically moderate. Through the years he has made contributions, equally to both parties.
Although claimed in a tweet ‘To be clear, I am not a conservative."
And sounding decidedly liberal here:
"Humanitarian issues are extremely important to me & I don’t understand why they are not important to everyone.’
He also supported Andrew Yang in the 2020 primaries.
Although he did oppose President Biden's support for organized labor. In particular, he objects to a tax credit proposal that would give a $4,500 discount to consumers buying electric vehicles made by unionized autoworkers, giving Big Three automakers an edge over Tesla, Toyota and others. He does not support unions.
All in all he seems to defy attempts to be categorized as solidly left or right.
To me, that may be the largest part of his "genius" or character that he doesn't identify with a label or party. I like to see an individual who can fairly evaluate all aspects of an issue and hold a wide variety of beliefs across the political spectrum. To me that is just realistic. I wish more people would thought this way.
Well hell Faye, I could have saved some keystrokes if I had read your comment before replying to Peterstreep. I have the same perception of him.
Right or left. Just glad he chose to become an American citizen. He is an innovator., with drive. I remember this as being an attribute in America, it was called "The American Dream". Elon certainly appears to have become a large threat to the left. One only needs to check the media scramble to make him enemy number one. And all because he promotes free speech. They have taken up the very words "free speech". and claimed Musk sees the words to mean something far different than what they actually mean. literally whipped those words up into having a negative connotation. This is very common with today's media. The media simply mixes up word salad that suits their narrative.
"I am frightened by the impact on society and politics if Elon Musk acquires Twitter. He seems to believe that on social media anything goes. For democracy to survive, we need more content moderation, not less," Max Boot
Frightened? Do we need more moderation of free speech? And why do we need self-appointed leftist Gods to provide monitoring our thoughts, our views? Have we become a society that fears hearing others' views? Have we become a society where we will permit our free speech stifled? Do we need protection from misinformation, the inappropriate, the abhorrent, or can we rely on our own intelligence to decipher the inappropriate on social media? Social media opens a forum to express, and it also opens a community where people disregard information they see as inappropriate. Why have social media if only to dictate what one can share? The current social media sites clearly ban views they feel go against their left ideologies. This alone should be abhorrent to anyone that hopes to protect our right to free speech.
It is obvious Elon Musk is a threat to the left, and it is also clear he could care very little about left or right. He is living his best life and clearly needs no tribe, no one box. He has created his own space, that space provides him a home to be a free thinker and a doer. We have so few today.
Curious . . . what do you think about the moderation at Trump's Truth Social?
I have only visited the site a handful of times. It is the conversations back and forth on current headlines. They naturally get some conversations that get nasty. It did not appear that opposite views were being deleted.
It seems to be a place one can share views openly. I have witnessed comments being deleted when they get to just being obscene. to be obscene.
One will find a good mix of views being shared. It's a nice place for a conservative to land. They naturally share many of the same views, and can openly converse, without being overrun so to say as they are on other left social media sites.
The conservative's conversation on "Truth" leans toward current news and concerns about where the country is headed.
Not a lot of moderation from what I could see.
Musk is not a threat to the left. He is a threat to the Fossil Fuel powers. As he is thinking in a different direction than the coal and gas industry.
He was not particularly a friend of Trump and didn't want to meet him as I can recall.
I think Musk is closer to the left and the New Green deal than to the coal industry.
If one is a multimillionaire does not directly qualify you as a conservative.
For instance, Trump and Musk (and Musk can buy Trump out any time) have completely different ideas about eh probably anything.. Trump is a born millionaire and grew up in elite circles, Musk is a self-made millionaire!!
Hmmm ---- I have no idea what Elon Musk thinks about the future of Fossil Fuel. But recently he shared a few tweets that were very interesting, and touched on the subject.
"Hate to say it, but we need to increase oil & gas output immediately. Extraordinary times demand extraordinary measures" Elon Musk
"Obviously, this would negatively affect Tesla, but sustainable energy solutions simply cannot react instantaneously to make up for Russian oil & gas exports." Elon Musk
Yet, on the other hand, he is working on a solution to the climate crisis. He announced a while back that SpaceX and Tesla have plans to launch a new initiative to capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and convert it into rocket fuel.
I am not sure how the conversation turned to the qualifications of a "multimillionaire ". or about who could buy who. Or how Trump came into the conversation. I will leave that conversation for anyone that
wants to take it on.
I wonder if Elon will run for president. President Musk. Sounds so weird.
Elon Musk won't go for the presidency, why should he?
A businessman as a president is not a good idea. As you have too many conflicts of interests. And the moment Musk will be president he will be attacked of these conflicts of interests (and probably rightly so)
That's one of the reasons why Trump was not a good idea as a president. He too, as a businessman had too many conflicts of interests.
Yeah, you wouldn't want someone that is accustomed to running a business, that actually has a good ability to solve and avert problems.
Musk has important goals to work towards, the last thing he needs is to be tied up in that circus show we call our government.
No you don't want that. running a business and being a president are different professions.
And by the way, as a top entrepreneur like Musk, he has far more freedom and possibilities to really change something than being a president and being entangled in a web of bureaucracy and petty political fights.
Are you sure they are different professions?
Of course they are, but at the same time there is considerable overlap, at least if you want a country with a good economy, jobs for people, and production of things for the people.
Yes, you could also have an artist, a dentist, a teacher, a fisherman or a general have as a president for the same reasons. You always find an overlap.
The cynical me says: the only qualification for being the president of the US is to have lots of money..
Look what a great job a politician with 50 years is doing. Guess some adequate words that ultimately are meant to placate citizens are more important than a satisfactory economy, jobs, or the production of things for the people.
... Sanders had a chance, did he not?
What if Sanders was in the hot seat right now?
I agree with Musk in the video that a politician should not be older than 60. (can't exactly remember the age Musk said, but 60 sounds good to me)
As in a rapidly changing world, older people have built their ideas on visons on a worldview that perhaps is out of date.
I also agree with that point, and the one that followed when asked about pursuing the science of extremely extended lifespans. He wasn't for it, essentially making the same point—we get our turn, and then it is the next generation's turn.
I'n not for it either as imagine you could extend your live span with 20 years.
This technology will be accessible for the super-rich first. creating a rift between the super-rich and the rest of humanity. a select part of people will live (and know before they reach this age) that they will have a life expectancy of prox 120 ruling over the people who will live up to prox 80
This will change how you do things in life. but essentially you will have the people with short life spans (the expendables, us) and the top. Stuff for dystopian scifi.
Oh hell no, now you're really getting into it. Just imagine the fun we could have going through all the books and movies that have examined your scenario.
However, just like the science fiction of space flights and ray guns has/is become reality, I think the medical divisions of your idea will too. For a short while.
Ah yes, the super modern sliding doors of Startrek and their mobile communication tool!!
I think sci-fi is always a simplified version of the future. As reality is too complex to really predict.
That is halfway where we are right now.
Blood transfusions, hormone therapy, stem cell injections, etc.
yes, "progress" is unstoppable.
but still the "humans soul" hasn't changed that much over the thousands of years. There is still hate, love, forgiveness, jealousy, playfulness, compassion, etc. hopeful this mixed bag of emotions will be enough and counterweight the technical evolution we're going through and find some symbioses in an away
That is a disturbing thought, flower power can only go so far -- not sure of what Putin would do if offered a friendship daisy. LOL
Well, Kathryn, he does stand out in regards to being very intelligent, very much willing to be unafraid of sharing his views, and is a true innovator.
I can see where you might recognize all of these characteristics as being weird. We have so few like him anymore. So yes he stands out as weird.
A bit sad, is it not?
"Hate to say it, but we need to increase oil & gas output immediately......"
Yes, that sums it up. Musk is a realist. He knows there is a climate crisis, he knows and is actively finding a way to deal with it. But he also knows you can't wave with a magic wand and it's all fine.
Still, this is a different attitude that a lot of rich capitalists have.
I think for example that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez could make easier a deal with Musk about a green deal than many a conservative political figurehead.
I put Trump in the conversation (and wise to throw him out again otherwise it can go all directions) to show that having money doesn't mean you are a conservative by definition. That's why I think that Musk is not "obviously" a threat to the left.
Very insightful post, reflects my own I made on this thread a handful of posts back.
This morning I was watching squawk on the street, and David Faber shared what I view as a doltish view.
"I just hope he ( referring to Elon Musk) can figure out how to run Twitter".
Krammer looked like he would fall off his chair... But did not cut Faber off at the knees, but the look on his face was that of pitty. LOL
My immediate thought --- Hey, David, he created SpaceX, which at this point
handles about two-thirds of NASA's launches. And not to mention Starship.
In my view, Twitter would pose few challenges, it should be a no-brainer to support free speech. II realize presently those that run Twitter have accomplished stifling that right pretty dam good. But, unfortunately, many of us are not willing to ascribe to being stifled.
And feel very lucky to have someone like Musk step up and shine a light on free speech to all.
Yes, he is driving many liberals into scrambling for safe spaces and feeling the pangs of losing the game of suppressing free speech. However, that would be their problem in my view.
This should please liberals --- Elon Musk would eliminate salaries for Twitter's board if the buyout succeeds.
Hmm . . no wonder you didn't add any teaser details.
Just watched while listening carefully while remembering my days of hiring, firing, and leading. Thought of this thread and am posting just because it is about Musk. Interesting!
"Why I Fire Employees Every Day" - Elon Musk
Thanks for posting this interesting intervie. I was impressed what he looks for when he interviiews. He seems to be looking for a very special type of person, true people that think for themselves, and solve problems I am very much a big fan of Musk, always have been.
Twitter officials are expected to meet Sunday to re-examine Musk's offer to buy the company, WSJ reported.
The change of pace comes after the billionaire Tesla CEO confirmed $46.5 billion in financing, proving in a regulatory filing earlier this week that he's locked in funding agreements from banks and other entities.
What's that old saying --- money talks -------
When you’re the wealthiest person in the world you can buy one of the biggest megaphones in the world called Twitter and then decide who can use it, what its algorithms are going to be, and how it either invites or filters out big lies. "Free speech” is another freedom that turns on wealth.
If consumers don’t like what Mr. Musk does with Twitter, they cannot simply switch to another Twitter-like platform. There aren’t any. The largest social media platforms has grown gigantic because anyone who wants to participate and influence debate has to join. After they reach a certain size, they’re the only megaphone in town. Where else would consumers go to post short messages that can reach tens of millions of people other than Twitter?
Once a platform is dominant it becomes even more dominant. As Donald Trump discovered with his “Truth Social” fiasco, upstarts don’t stand much chance.
Mr. Musk’s real goal may have nothing to do with the freedom of others. His goal may be his own unconstrained freedom. The freedom to wield enormous power without having to be accountable to laws and regulations, to shareholders, or to market competition. Which may be why he’s dead set on owning Twitter.
Boy, you're such a cynic. Musk's business history doesn't show him to be an 'in-it-for-power' kinda guy.
Am I getting into his psyche any more than others? I'm far from a cynic. I am willing to play out every angle of a scenario though.
Mr. Musk has a history of silencing the speech of critics.
https://fortune.com/2022/04/22/elon-mus … g-critics/
Sounds a little hypocritical to me. Others may trash Musk under the guise of free speech, but if Musk responds in kind it is silencing the speech of critics. He's even been taken to task for "silencing" the voice of a guy providing the world with information vital to Musk's personal security, for Pete's sake!
It appears many are very much unhappy with Musk buying Twitter. It is clear to me Musk has always been yes outspoken and is more than willing to speak up offering his view. He takes free speech to new highs.
I am very excited to see what he does with Twitter. I will share I have been saying for some years that Twitter and Facebook needed competition. Never dreamed Musk would offer that competition. Could not think of a better guy to run a social media site.
This one deserves a bump, Twitter has accepted Musk's deal.
And 'nobody knows nothing' about what to expect from Musk, specifically. He hasn't said. He has stated generalities and goals, but no details.
But, everybody, (the media's presenters and experts), has speculation. The positions of both sides have basic roots; the Left's complaint is about the danger of the world's richest man, (that is the current talking point phrase), having control of such communications power, and the Right is cheering for a Free Speech 'victory'.
Until Musk speaks to details, (hours, days, weeks?), it's going to be nuts on the media panels. And after details become known, a lot of those experts on going to look silly for some of the dumb speculations they made. But, whose side?
That's the stage.
I think Musk is going to succeed with Twitter. I think the liberals, (as a word for the Left media and Twitter supporters—no bad inference), are going to face a lot of disappointment relative to their dire predictions, and a big loss of information control.
I think the conservatives are going to gain a lot less than they are expecting. Pres. Trump might be back, but Twitter will not become a wild free-for-all of insults and misinformation, nor a Right's version of the previously Left's Twitter. (Damn. Left Twix or Right Twix?)
I'm with Musk and the conservatives on this one.
Musk made his intentions clear.
Much Ado About Nothing.
Truth is the richest man has always had control of the world's largest Social Media site.
His name is Mark Zuckerberg.
Facebook is a dictatorship entirely controlled by Mark Zuckerberg. This total control is ensured by a two-tier share ownership structure that gives him unrivaled power.
Twitter is child's play in comparison to Facebook, which has billions of users. Twitter... maybe a 100 million.
I think this is a big deal. It is more than a comparison to Facebook's power. This is a case where size, (as in being the biggest), isn't the point. It is seen as a big moral victory by folks that think they have suffered an unending stream of moral defeats.
Your Zuckerberg thought illustrates the silliness of the 'too much power for one man' argument of the anti-deal folks.
It may be a break in the unified social media front the silicon valley created to sensor and control narrative and information.
But Twitter is a very small platform used by a small percentage of people.
Facebook and Google have billions of people using their social media sites.
Twitter may grow because of Musk but today Twitter is not used by the majority of people.
Agree... Found out long ago Facebook does not allow any views they are not on board with. Conservative views are not readily shared on FB. I keep it as a place to have light conversations with friends and post fluffy photos.
I am so pleased to see Musk buy Twitter, I think we will now have a place to voice our opinions without the hammer coming down on our views.
Yes. I expect Twitter to become a lot like these HP forums a place where both sides can vent their opinions for people to review and make their own minds up on.
Which is why many didn't want this Musk takeover.
I think you are correct. I think it will be open to individuals' views and can vent. But, one won't have their views removed due to not agreeing with another's ideologies... I could not be happier to think as a conservative/capitalist my comments/views will be heard.
I am with Musk too and think that Twitter may become a site worth a conservative's time and energy. Not sure how many here used Twitter, but I have, and can honestly say they remove most conservative views.
I hope it all works out well, and I was glad to see him make the new site private. This upfront tells me something.
I don't think Trump will spend much time on the new site, he is trying to get "Truth Social off the ground.
I hope he changes the name, the name in my view carries connotations
--- birds have small tiny brains.
Never liked the name.
I am with Musk too and think that Twitter may become a site worth a conservative's time and energy. Not sure how many here used Twitter, but I have, and can honestly say they remove most conservative views. I note Musk is already being called a racist, by some on MSM, all before he has released any plans on where he will take the platform.
I hope it all works out well, and I was glad to see him make the new site private. This upfront tells me something.
I don't think Trump will spend much time on the new site, he is trying to get "Truth Social" off the ground.
I hope he changes the name, (I think he will) the name in my view carries connotations --- birds have small tiny brains.
Never liked the name.
I am waiting to see if some of the techs at Twitter keep their promise and leave. After watching the video tsmog shared, of the interview that shares how Musk hires, I pretty much feel some will get a pink slip anyway.
Well if he is a free speech absolutist like he claims then we can expect to see a lot more than usual on Twitter in terms of disinformation and that goes both ways. I think it'll drive a lot of people away from the platform. A lot of us just aren't interested in reading lies and crazy stories. I suppose the bot farms will run a muck also in the name of free speech?
Faye, I am curious. You've been a member for five months. You don't have any articles, but you antagonize the forum. What is up with that?
What do you mean by antagonize? Give an opinion? Most here float statements without any factual foundation whatsoever. At least I've gone to to some lengths to back up anything I've said. And is there a requirement to write articles?
Wow, guess I better get busy writing an article. For whatever that's worth.
I don't know Kenna, what's up with you? Are you trying to say You have a problem with me?
It appears rabble-rousing, arguing for argument's sake. You sound like someone who got band from HP. I look forward to seeing your first article.
What's the point of an article? It would be the same as anything I've posted in response to others?
And no I haven't been banned.
I'd like to know, specifically What has been "rabble rousing" in your opinion?
Have I offended you somehow to have specifically singled me out for expressingy views on a public forum? Interestingly enough on a thread about FREE SPEECH
I find it interesting that you post in the forum, but you don't write articles. What's the point?
It's a forum, correct? there are two separate functions. Articles and a discussion forum. But hey let me put up an article with my exact same views I have researched and posted on these forums because then somehow that makes them more legitimate. Ok. Gotcha. Makes complete sense. Good thing you are policing what people post.
I've always found it very peculiar here how people try to chase you away because you haven't posted an article. Somehow your views and opinions are meaningless until you've put up that article. Really strange.
That is because hubpages exists for authors to post articles and stories first and foremost, the forums are just a side show that has no real bearing on hubpages.
As your primary concern is just to participate in political arguments with a handful of people on a little known forum section, you may have missed the true purpose of hubpages.
Curious,l I haven't written an article since 2017. Am I allowed to post here? Do I have to have a certain view accolade to post? How many articles do I have to have to post in the forums?
I don't think that was the point.
Almost all of us found our way here to post articles, stories, etc.
And then we found the forums afterwards, back in the day, they were used more to generate ideas for Hubs and gather Intel or get answers to questions.
Kenna, Love you... But perhaps step back a bit, and rethink your sentiment. Many of us here find this a comfortable place to land and share free speech. We may need to keep in mind we all need to keep the flow of free speech opens on this forum.
Sure. No worries.
Twitter did not need a bot farm, it controlled every post, and delete what it felt was inappropriate. The only problem the posts much of the time were not inappropriate, just a conservative view or current news that Twitter did not want to be shared. Twitter was nothing but a poorly run propaganda forum. One-sided free speech.
I predict the number of users will double quickly. Many conservatives will return now that we will be provided a place to share our views.
" I think it'll drive a lot of people away from the platform. A lot of us just aren't interested in reading lies and crazy stories."
Do you tweet? I can tell you there are already crazy lies being spread daily. But the lies are one-sided. They don't or did not need malicious bots --- they have or had people that were allowed to share one-sided liberal ideologies.
I'm a casual user of Twitter. I'm probably led there more often than not for entertainment purposes but I do like to check in on tweets of different politicians.
That being said, I've found, at times, quite a bit of disinformation and I'd have to say that it runs equal and left /right nature.
I have recently read that Mr Musk wants to make the Twitter algorithm more transparent which I think is a very positive move.
In terms of the algorithm's bias,
I wanted to take a look if anyone has looked at this in a systematic manner. Twitter has admitted it amplifies more tweets from rightwing politicians and news outlets than content from leftwing sources.
"According to a 27-page research document, Twitter found a “statistically significant difference favouring the political right wing” in all the countries except Germany. "
I think there is a perception that right wing posts are somehow targeted but some studies show that their content often leaves them open to more moderation. In
fact, one from Cornell University suggested that former president Trump was the largest single driver of Covid disinformation.
So it's perhaps not surprising that he was targeted disproportionately by Twitter moderators. Additionally, many posts and tweets targeted for moderation were due to election fraud claims or content. That type of content would obviously disproportionately affect Republicans.
I will still stand on my opinion that social media needs some sort of moderation for the most outrageous disinformation.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ … ws-outlets
My own experience with Twitter speaks loudly. I have made very carefully worded tweets that were removed on a regular basis.
There is tons of misinformation, and ugly insults directed at our Representatives, that border on slander. It is to me clear Twitter promotes this form of propaganda.
We from the right have little chance to share our views.
I am pleased that Musk bought the forum. For some time I hoped someone would buy it and just shut it down. It is a vile forum where anything goes, as long as it insults the Republican party, conservatives or anyone that does not ascribe leftest groupthink.
This is my view, and I came by it from my own experience
using the site. They suppressed free speech and promoted misinformation.
I agree that moderation is the key to Twitter's future success. Twitter will have to have it or get sued out of business, (or wither away from a further lack of credibility).
I believe Musk must have given a lot of thought about what he wanted to do, and most importantly, how to do it, before he made his decision.
Some interesting speculation might come from what he has said about the primary obstacle to safe self-driving cars—the advancement of his AI concept. His recent statements about self-driving sound like he has made some major steps forward. What if he finds, (has found?), a path to tie his AI program into Twitter's moderation algorithms, giving them more than just canonical keyword associations as the foundation? Or, maybe with some secret futuristic quantum computer connections that can create the digital equivalent of our neural network?
As altruistic as one might judge Musk's stated Free speech ideas, what if they were true, but secondary to his real goal: a 'thinking' moderation algorithm, (maybe "algorithm wouldn't be the right name for this new thing)?
As mentioned from the very start, this is going to be an interesting ride, and its ripples are going to be a lot more important than the economics of the deal. Maybe even more impacting than Twitter turning into a gangbuster success.
Adding is Twitter has been using AI at least since 2019 and IBM's Watson as well. I agree that Musk has something up his sleeve, yet it may take some time for it to come to fruition. I would love to see his Mind Map for what his concept is.
How Twitter Uses Artificial Intelligence? by Global Tech Council Feb 22, 2019
https://www.globaltechcouncil.org/artif … elligence/
The ultimate 'otherism', you can't post here, you haven't written any HP articles. "You ain't one of 'us', you have no standing here."
Surely somebody can see how reflective that stance is.
Oh I see it alright
HP is not a commenting platform or a social media site like Twitter or Facebook.
It's a site for people to post articles, stories, reviews, it's forums are a offshoot of that.
So if you aren't publishing any articles at all what IS the point of being here?
That response surprised me.
It's the truth, is it not?
Yes I spend plenty of time in the forums, but that is because of a few people like tsmog, credence, yourself typically give insightful or hilarious posts.
And also because I do not care to post what I consider truthful and factual opinion on sites like FB or Twitter... For obvious reasons.
I don't mind anyone joining the discussions we have on these forums, but I don't think ANY of us "old time" posters to HP originally came here for the forums... We came to publish articles or stories or poems and many came to try and build a legitimate source of second income.
A long time ago .....
With the expansion of your comment, I may have been primed to only read the words as they were painted by your closing question.
Until that question your comments were truthfully descriptive, but following the context of this mini-exchange, the question shades what came before it.
I came here for the reasons described, to write income-generating content. When I learned the probable scope of that, (over more than a few years), I went with my own sites. I stayed on HP for the forums. My reason for being here is the fun of the interactions in them. I never felt like the legitimacy of that fun hinged on club membership. So to me, your question followed the narrative it joined.
I can see how you came to that take.
I felt you were a tad too aggressive in your response to Kenna.
I stand by my point, hubpages exists for authors to post articles and stories first and foremost, the forums are just a side show that has no real bearing.
While you or I may not post new content often, the vast majority of us have posted plenty of articles on here, and we maintain them as needed.
Those articles in turn, give insight into the author, their perspectives and interests, to help round out who is commenting in HP's forums.
When you have no articles, what is the point of being here?
Hence Kenna's questions:
"I find it interesting that you post in the forum, but you don't write articles. What's the point?
"It appears rabble-rousing, arguing for argument's sake." ...
I find that to be valid, someone who comes onto HP merely to engage in the forums and be argumentative with those who do not share the same values.
I find your outlook valid as well, which I would believe to be that you appreciate another voice added into the mix, so long as it is one that is typically respectful and tolerant.
Perhaps I was too eager to jump to the defense of the 15 year vet with 175 articles, while you were looking out for the 5 month young newbie with no articles ;-)
My bad as well??
"I find that to be valid, someone who comes onto HP merely to engage in the forums and be argumentative with those who do not share the same values."
Argumentative? Really, You've determined my sole purpose, How so? How is stating an opposing view with supporting references argumentative? It sounds like you would rather have a homogeneous forum of like-minded people? Is that what this is supposed to be? Seems a little closed minded. Why do you take such offense if someone doesn't agree with you? Again, under the topic of "free speech" which is laughable.
Yes I'm a 5-month "newbie" on this forum But a 25-year veteran educator with a rich life experience. It says a lot about you how you rank the two.
But in the spirit of unbridled free speech, I'll probably keep sharing my opinions, citations and values that don't conform to yours.
Why are there so many forums here?
Hubpages offers a list of topics to write an article on. Each topic also has a forum. to share views.
They have considered shutting them down more than once, and honestly I would rather have comments on articles returned to us than for these forums to remain.
Some of the most fruitful interactions came from people who read my articles and initiated conversation, and the author of the article was allowed to censor out whatever they deemed inappropriate.
It also helped increase traffic to those articles as conversation required repeated visits to continue.
Those who followed the author would also get notices when the author commented and could join the discussion as well.
Many are claiming that there is a bias against conservatives on Twitter. Conservatives have claimed that right leaning views are censored. I'm not finding much empirical support for that.
Recently , researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Yale and the University of Exeter have released a study that takes an independent, empirical look at the bias claim. Twitter, they found, does tend to suspend Republican users far more frequently than Democrats. But that’s not necessarily because of partisan favoritism. Instead, it’s just as likely that Republicans were suspended because they tend to spread far more misinformation.
Evidence that Twitter tilts against the right? Not so fast, the researchers said.
The study team scrutinized their subjects’ appetite for sharing misinformation, meaning provably false content such as phony COVID-19 cures or QAnon conspiracy theories. The researchers found that the Republican Twitter users shared “substantially more news from misinformation sites.” (Misinformation sites had been labeled as untrustworthy by either professional fact-checking organizations or surveys of politically balanced and demographically representative laypeople.)
“Critically,” the researchers said, “we found that users’ misinformation sharing was as predictive of suspension as was their political orientation. Thus, the observation that Republicans were more likely to be suspended than Democrats provides no support for the claim that Twitter showed political bias in its suspension practices. Instead, the observed asymmetry could be explained entirely by the tendency of Republicans to share more misinformation.”
In addition to tracking Twitter suspensions, the researchers surveyed 4,900 Americans on their attitude toward misinformation, finding “strong bipartisan support” for social media platforms taking action against provably false content. Nevertheless, on Twitter, Republicans are more prone to amplify misinformation. “As a result,” the researchers said, “our study shows that it is inappropriate to make inferences about political bias from asymmetries in suspension rates.”
Asymmetry is a key word when thinking about misleading and polarizing content online. Previous studies have determined that conservatives tend to share dramatically more content from low-quality “fake news” sites than liberals and were more prone to visit such sites. Research has also shown that Republican Twitter users are exposed to more misinformation from their political leaders than Democrats.
https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/ … otherwise/
Interesting. Some speculating that Mr Musk's Twitter deal won't go through
Fox Business: Musks' past, present entanglements suggest he may not go through with Twitter buyout: report.
https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/ … out-report
That would be the grand climax, wouldn't it?
The Right will be thunderstruck, wondering what the hell just happened, and the Left will initially melt into their chairs with a sigh of relief, only to realize that the genie can't be put back now, there's a Disinformation Board to finance groups opposing conservative censorship.
Musk would walk away with a bunch of new Billions.
Just fun speculation about an "if."
I can't let this one die, I still have popcorn left. Today's headlines from the major players, (maybe some minor leaguers too):
The New York Times
Opinion | Elon Musk Is the Problematic Fiancé Twitter Deserves
Elon Musk’s business ties to China draw scrutiny after Twitter purchase
*a dossier may be in the works.
Here's what we know about Elon Musk's ownership plan for Twitter
Elon Musk Considering Charging a Fee to Quote or Embed Tweets.
Elon Musk tells AOC to 'stop hitting on me' after Twitter purchase criticism
*This one got me, I had to click.
New York Post
Twitter's 'chief censor' making $17M per year could be fired by Elon Musk
*Think about this one, how many crimes will the Left name that move?
Wall Street Journal
Twitter, Tesla and Copious Emojis: What and When Elon Musk Tweets
This dispatch is said to be an internal DHS memo.
"WASHINGTON, D.C.—The Disinformation Governance Board has wasted no time since its official formation this week, and has already deployed thousands of advanced disinformation detectors throughout the country. The board was shocked when after only a day, the detectors detected a deluge of deadly disinformation in D.C.
"One of our disinformation detectors picked up an unusually strong signal coming from a mysterious white building in the National Mall at our nation's capital," said Head Disinformation Detective Harry Pomquank. "We're not sure what's causing it, so we've dispatched an elite squad of Disinformation Investigators to find out."
Sources say the investigators found a doddering old man shuffling around in his loafers talking about the time he hiked through the Himalayas with President Xi, a Press Secretary claiming inflation is all Putin's fault, and an HHS Secretary talking about how little girls can become little boys.
"Looks like this was a false alarm. We'll have to calibrate our disinformation detectors," said Pomquank.
The board is claiming some early successes, though, as they have already arrested 7 satirists and 12 meme-makers."
Latest headline to drop:
Musk's Twitter Purchase Fails After 138,000 Board Votes Found Overnight
April 26th, 2022 - BabylonBee.com
LOL...I don't care who you are, that's funny right there!
As tsmog might say, this one is just for giggles. It's another BabylonBee piece. It's too silly to be good satire and I'm not promoting a pro or con by posting it. The punch line is almost priceless.
"WASHINGTON, D.C.—Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was brutally murdered this week as a result of Elon Musk buying Twitter, says AOC. Twitter accepted Musk's offer to buy Twitter on April 25th, which AOC says makes them an accessory to her murder.
"I have never been more dead than I am right now," said AOC while attending a disinformation fundraiser. "A privileged white man violently assaulted me by legally buying Twitter and defending free speech! He literally cut off my head and now I am dead!"
An official complaint was filed with the U.S. Secret Service which subsequently reached out to Elon Musk for questioning. Musk has reportedly denied any involvement in AOC's death and claims the congresswoman is not dead at all.
"She's right over there," Musk allegedly told authorities. "Just turn your head."
AOC has claimed Musk's words are disinformation of the worst sort and have caused her to experience a second death.
"That makes him double guilty!" she wept.
According to sources, Elon Musk was taken to Guantanamo Bay for further questioning "off the books" but then he bought the facility and had himself released."
Some semi-recent Pew research, (2019) offers a perspective that the Right's claims of liberal bias on Twitter may have a basis for circumstantial support, but it might be casting some doubt on the idealism of free speech in a genuine Public Square as the motivation. Twitter might be more of a 'tool' than a public square. Or, if it is a public square, it's in the rich section of town.
Used by 20% of U.S. adults; 80% identify as Democrats; the user demographic trend is younger, more educated high-income earners. And, 2/3 of website links are posted by bots.
10 facts about Americans and Twitter
The Right looks right about Musk raiding a liberal bastion, but the reason for that raid might not be what they think.
I don't mean to promote that as a contrarian view, but since no one seems to know anything else, it does drive a few thoughts in that direction.
Off topic as I mentioned in another thread Identity be that a person or group is dependent on what it is not as much as what it is at least to my knowledge today. As shared Twitter is a 'liberal bastion' thus perhaps opportunity for affirming identity as there are 'conservative bastions' such as Parler advocating 'Where Free Speech Thrives', Gab, and today Truth Social, which is Trumps site. Perhaps there is some evangelizing occurring seeking converts or maybe a repeat of the crusades? Just kidding.
Looks like the left is spinning out of control, and has finally reached for one of their well-used ploys --- when in doubt use the Racecard.
NY Times for Elon Musk ‘white privilege’ hit piece: ‘They’re calling him a racist
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/05/worl … frica.html
https://www.foxnews.com/media/twitter-u … uth-africa
I would think by now they would learn this soggy race card does not work much anymore...
https://nypost.com/2022/05/05/ny-times- … -blowback/
Well, you know, "when all else fails"...
I hit the NYT paywall, so I couldn't read the article. If it says what the other links say, then it's almost no surprise from them, they're just getting more desperate and, you say, "spinning out of control."
A Musk tweet response will probably be the next headline.
Crazy lefties are sooooo ----- very unhappy over Musk's Purchase of Twitter they are coming out from their usual underground sewers dwellings, and really being carless in the light of day.
REVEALED: George Soros, Clinton and Obama staffers and European governments are behind anti-Musk campaign to force big corporations to boycott Twitter - after Elon demanded to know 'who funds these organizations?'
A group of 26 activist organizations and NGOs signed a letter to companies who advertise on Twitter, warning them to reconsider if Elon Musk makes changes
Musk has pledged to lift the 'censorship' of Twitter: critics worry that he will give free rein to those trafficking in hate speech and dangerous scientific theories
The letter writers said that Musk 'will further toxify our information ecosystem and be a direct threat to public safety'
They wrote: 'Twitter risks becoming a cesspool of misinformation, with your brand attached'
Musk REPLIED, wanting to know who was behind the 26 groups signing the letter, and commenting: 'Sunlight is the best disinfectant'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl … paign.html
"our information ecosystem"
Curious choice of words, revealing ones.
Yes, I thought the same --- liberal propaganda is a delicate ecosystem, all depending on -- what if BS, a landscape of doom and gloom, a very regimented form of groupthink, and an illogical thought process, together to form an eco-bubble
A bubble that Musk has stuck a little pin in, and the bubble is deflating slowly causing a form of frustration that just is sending them into complete meltdown.
I do think the lefts information ecosystem is doomed.
I don't know Sharlee. Don't you think that the exact same words can be said towards the right propaganda?
Personally, I think both sides are pretty BS.
Today I read an article in the newspaper that the US is more divided than ever Red states are more red and blue states are bluer. Most people don't want to live next to neighbours with a different voting preference. Let alone a marriage. (like the old days where Catholics were not allowed to marry Reformed)
It looks as if Republicans are going to move to red states making them redder and Democrats voters move to a blue state. (except for those who have no option to move)
This sounds to me like a very unhealthy situation. Will the US split up in the end?
Our situation is very unhealthy, and dangerous in many ways. It is very clear that there is little chance of the divide we have ever been fixed.
The problem that has occurred is that both sides have such different ideologies. This is an impossible situation. Let's face it people as a rule will not abandon their ideologies to suit another.
I think the country is at a breaking point, and yes we will have red states and blue states both having different governments that suit their own ideologies. The first example will be abortion laws. Red states will be very much different from blue states.
And we will proceed from there, voting laws will differ, and law enforcement will differ, education will differ, and on and on...
The US is very much in trouble, and one can only guess where it all ends.
Perhaps it's time for new parties to come forward. It seems the two-party system is killing itself. It's my impression that a lot of people are voting against somebody instead of voting in favor of somebody.
It saddens me to see the US this way.
You hit the nail on the head. Many vote not for someone they feel can do the job, but vote against someone they just do not like.
I would feel the US is drifting away from the two-party system. It is obvious to many that the country is not at all what it was.
In a new turn of events, it seems Elon Musk has uncovered massive fraud, and deliberate skewing of followers and users, regarding Twitter.
The actual amount of twitter users may be more bots and spammers than had been imagined, and now that the deal was legitimately on track to get done, this information became known to Musk.
The "woke" bias and banning or marginalizing of "conservative" accounts is proving far more significant than even the most conspiracy theorist conjectures had imagined.
Here is a fight that might be a bad idea.
Brands should force Twitter to uphold content policies under Musk, advocacy groups say
"(CNN)Some of the nation's biggest brands including Coca-Cola (CCEP), Disney (DIS) and Kraft (KHC) are facing calls to boycott Twitter if the company's soon-to-be owner, billionaire Elon Musk, rolls back content moderation policies limiting hate speech and election misinformation.
. . . said marketers should secure commitments from Twitter to retain its most critical policies, including on civic integrity and hateful conduct, and threaten to withdraw funding if Twitter does not comply.
. . . As top advertisers on Twitter (TWTR), your brand risks association with a platform amplifying hate, extremism, health misinformation, and conspiracy theorists," the letter said, adding: "Your ad dollars can either fund Musk's vanity project or hold him to account."
Imagine the battle: activist organizations pressuring activist corporations, (who, unlike the activist, may have something to lose), to take on an eccentric richest-man-in-the-world, (who has demonstrated how he reacts to such pressures)
Time for more popcorn.
Will he, or won't he?
Elon Musk has finally said that if he seals the Twitter deal, he will 'unban' Person 1.
Person 1 says no thanks, he has his own place now and doesn't need Twitter.
I predict those will be 'famous last words. A Person 1 surrogate will be authorized to speak for Person 1 on Person 1's 'old' and now unbanned account. Shortly after which, Person 1 will discover a reason to use his old account to speak about his new place.
Just for grins: The Musk/Twitter saga now seems to be headed for renegotiations—probably a drop of $10 Billion, or so in the offer. Musk recently tweeted this image:
10:47 PM · May 27, 2022·Twitter for iPhone
94.5K Retweets 7,966 Quote Tweets 1M Likes
He looks like he's enjoying this.
by Jack Lee 4 years ago
How does the CEO of a major company think this is acceptable behavior? Why is he still in charge of Tesla? Where is the sane people in his company? If I was an employee of this company, I would take as message it is ok to smoke weed as well... The question for all Tesla owners is this - do you want...
by Angie B Williams 13 months ago
The FB post shared, does a great job at explaining what I and so many others have been up against, throughout all of social media, for far too long. Hopefully, things are changing for the better.Thoughts?
by Sharlee 7 months ago
First, so many need to be thanked for helping with the current disaster that Hurricane Ian has caused. So, many heroes, and so wonderful to see so many come together to help with this tragedy. All need to be recognized as heroes. Elon Musk has stepped up quickly to help the people of Florida --...
by Readmikenow 2 years ago
DELTA Airlines BOOTS Two Women For Private Conversation About President Trumphttps://thewashingtonstandard.com/delta … ent-trump/Pilot threatens to 'dump' Trump fans in Kansas after they start chanting 'USA' on his flighthttps://www.wnd.com/2021/01/pilot-threa … sa-flight/
by ga anderson 9 days ago
Hot Damn, this will have the Left losing their minds.DeSantis to use Twitter Spaces to announce he's running for president.GA
by Tim Mitchell 15 months ago
On Feb 21st, 2022 Trump's social media site Truth Social launched. It is being called a Twitter wan'na be site. Though a little rocky start with some glitches, it was Apple App store #1. If you join today 02/23/22 you will be put on a wait list due to demand. It's easy to join and uses an email...
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
Copyright © 2023 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective owners.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|