Elon Musk $41B offer for Twitter

[Byker28i]

Another day another twitter allegation about extreemists on twitter/X, that Musk changed the terms of service because a neo-Nazi cartoonist that was racist, homophobic, and antisemitic language, with hundreds of thousands of followers was identified as Hans Kristian Graebener, and has been suspending accounts that identified him.

Musk is blocking researchers for outing neo-Nazi cartoonist Stonetoss, X has updated its privacy policies to specifically prohibit people sharing "the identity of an anonymous user"

https://www.wired.com/story/elon-musk-x-blocked-jo...

[EddieSteadyGo]

Byker28i said:

Another day another twitter allegation about extreemists on twitter/X, that Musk changed the terms of service because a neo-Nazi cartoonist that was racist, homophobic, and antisemitic language, with hundreds of thousands of followers was identified as Hans Kristian Graebener, and has been suspending accounts that identified him.

Musk is blocking researchers for outing neo-Nazi cartoonist Stonetoss, X has updated its privacy policies to specifically prohibit people sharing "the identity of an anonymous user"

https://www.wired.com/story/elon-musk-x-blocked-jo...

I think this is an interesting case.

On the one hand, you have "nasty twitter user gets his comeuppance for his hateful actions, and, yet again, Musk picks the wrong side".

Then you have the "The 1st Amendment protects free speech, and this cyber-bulling was designed to intimidate and threaten, in order to effectively silence dissenting views, hence it is an attack on the basis of democracy"

There are also over-arching questions about the extent of 'right to privacy' rules and whether, lets say instead the person who was being doxxed was a "good person" being attacked by "right wingers" whether those same people who are now revelling in Stonetoss being identified would be demanding Twitter do something to protect the "good person's" privacy.

My view is that if you post (effectively publish) something online, you don't have the automatic right to anonymity. Free speech isn't free from consequence. So whilst unpleasant, doxxing someone would therefore be ok. But that cuts both ways - it would apply to both "good people" and "bad people".

[hidetheelephants]

98elise said:

Dog Star said:

Leon R said:

The really interesting thing for me about starlink is going to be the impact on the aviation industry.

Yep - one of my mates is an aeronautical engineer and was saying about the costs of getting (I can’t remember the planes or exact costs ) internet on an airbus was about a million dollars - and relatively speaking, it’s pretty poor. Starlink $150k equipment and $25k/month and it’s fast. I suspect those costs will fall.

It's also getting big with shipping. Curently it's an expensive and limited service. Starlink is magnitudes cheaper.

The downside is crews are now less sociable because they all have unlimited internet in their cabins.

You're not kidding; don't get me wrong, it's a boon compared to what communications were like when I started at sea but allowing continuous free access is a huge failure to understand how crews work, or don't work. If the system monitored use and limited you to 2-3 hours a day or something I might get to see my shipmates other than at dinnertime and abandon ship drills.

[KarlMac]

EddieSteadyGo said:

My view is that if you post (effectively publish) something online, you don't have the automatic right to anonymity. Free speech isn't free from consequence. So whilst unpleasant, doxxing someone would therefore be ok. But that cuts both ways - it would apply to both "good people" and "bad people".

This is the crux of the issue with Elon’s Twitter, it invariably doesn’t cut both ways. He will protect the type of free speech he likes but not the type he doesn’t like. There have been countless instances of him banning journalists reporting things he’d rather not be reported.

[EddieSteadyGo]

KarlMac said:

EddieSteadyGo said:

My view is that if you post (effectively publish) something online, you don't have the automatic right to anonymity. Free speech isn't free from consequence. So whilst unpleasant, doxxing someone would therefore be ok. But that cuts both ways - it would apply to both "good people" and "bad people".

This is the crux of the issue with Elon’s Twitter, it invariably doesn’t cut both ways. He will protect the type of free speech he likes but not the type he doesn’t like. There have been countless instances of him banning journalists reporting things he’d rather not be reported.

I have to agree. I think the cause is a logical contradiction in Elon's policy changes. On the one hand, he uses the legal definitions to describe what speech should be restricted or allowed. That gives the platform the widest possible interpretation of free speech, which inevitably means there will be lots of views which some people find hateful, racist, offensive etc etc. But he has also applied his own additional rules, particularly related to 'privacy', which means some speech, which is legal, will still get suppressed because he finds it inconvenient, or invasive, or embarrassing.

Without being too grandiose, I'd like to see Elon divest himself from being involved in all content-moderation issues. I'd like to see a set of principles established for the platform, written by experts, with the perspective of being able to last several decades without major changes, that should seek to have broad cross-party support. I'd personally prefer it used the legal definitions of what speech is allowed, and then if Elon, or anyone else, wanted for example privacy rules to be 'improved' he could campaign for a change in the law, rather than just change the platform policy.

That would resolve many of Twitter's (and Elon's) issues. And I think it becomes much easier to defend/justify too.

[soupdragon1]

This one here cracked me up

Look how level headed and moderate I am



I mean, Putin could say 'I work hard to try and win the election so that I can lead the Russian people'. Technically true, but in no way represents his actions.

Let's look at the inverse of what Elon is saying here.

I don't want border controls
I want dirty and dangerous cities
America should spend heavily and try to go bankrupt
Racism is good
Kids can be sterilised anytime after they leave the womb

His mind is so far gone if he actually believes there are lots of people who want those (inverse) things. Surely to God he's smart enough to know that's not true though?

[2xChevrons]

soupdragon1 said:

This one here cracked me up

Look how level headed and moderate I am



I mean, Putin could say 'I work hard to try and win the election so that I can lead the Russian people'. Technically true, but in no way represents his actions.

Let's look at the inverse of what Elon is saying here.

I don't want border controls
I want dirty and dangerous cities
America should spend heavily and try to go bankrupt
Racism is good
Kids can be sterilised anytime after they leave the womb

His mind is so far gone if he actually believes there are lots of people who want those (inverse) things. Surely to God he's smart enough to know that's not true though?

Like a lot of self-proclaimed centrists (who are invariably quite right wing when it comes down to it) he states goals that are reasonable and inoffensive but doesn't elucidate what methods he wants to use to get there or his motivations for them.

"Secure borders" can mean anything from a presumptively open immigration system with Ellis Island-style vetting/checking facilities to armed patrols roaming the banks of the Rio Grande between rows of razor wire.

"Don't bankrupt America with spending" can mean anything from 'so let's cut defense spending so it's only equivalent to China, not China and the other top nine spenders combined' to 'so we'll implement an Eisenhower style 90% top income tax on the rich to balance the budget' to 'cut welfare payments and environmental spending to fund tax cuts for business' to 'End The Fed and amend the constitution to mandate a balanced budget every year.'

"Clean and Safe Cities" can range from "Defund the police, pedestrianise the city center, municipalise housing and build tram networks" to "introduce stop and search policies in every city, ramp up police powers and localise tax spending so communities are responsible for their own upkeep"

Etc. Etc.

It's rampant unquestioned personal politics with zero self-reflection at best, massively deceptive and disingenuous at worst.

[hidetheelephants]

Big Reform Party Manifesto vibes.

[Byker28i]

Musk /X have lost their case against the CCDH, with the judge ruling that the suit was intended to punish CCDH for free speech.
"A complaint is so unabashedly and vociferously about one thing there can be no mistaking that purpose "



Full ruling here
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24512088-r...


Will Musk pay their legal fees - he's repeatedly claimed that he would reimburse anyone who has had their freedom of speech attacked on his platform.

[off_again]

Twitter launching a smart TV app:

https://gizmodo.com/x-tv-app-elon-musk-youtube-rip...

Looks like Elon wants some of those sweet dollars that YouTube is hoovering up. I will admit to using the YouTube app on my Apple TV and the recent update makes it even easier (no crappy switching between ads and the video as well as ads that are more suitable for a TV format). Stuff like true crime videos (recommend Truly Criminal if you havent found them) and a few others. Ads can be a little annoying, but its all good.

And Twitter will launch something similar? What are they going to put on it? From what I can see, most of the video footage on Twitter is portrait, which isnt going to look good, and I am not sure that there is an audience for an Instagram-like video feed, which will absolutely show something inappropriate.

Happy to be proven wrong, but this doesnt seem like a great direction they are going in.

[IanH755]

Byker28i said:

Musk /X have lost their case against the CCDH, with the judge ruling that the suit was intended to punish CCDH for free speech.
"A complaint is so unabashedly and vociferously about one thing there can be no mistaking that purpose ".

As always the context is removed - The judge found that X's complaints were valid and that CCDH did everything X said they did, but that protecting the stories written by CCDH, as a "news gathering platform", were more important regarding the "Right of Free Speech" than CCHD's proven infringements of X's policies, over which they were being sued.

[off_again]

IanH755 said:

Byker28i said:

Musk /X have lost their case against the CCDH, with the judge ruling that the suit was intended to punish CCDH for free speech.
"A complaint is so unabashedly and vociferously about one thing there can be no mistaking that purpose ".

As always the context is removed - The judge found that X's complaints were valid and that CCDH did everything X said they did, but that protecting the stories written by CCDH, as a "news gathering platform", were more important regarding the "Right of Free Speech" than CCHD's proven infringements of X's policies, over which they were being sued.

So a change to the context, but did Twitter still lose? And do they have to pay for the legal fees of the CCDH?

I am going to take that as a fail on behalf of Twitter and a win for the CCDH, no matter what additional context is provided.

[soupdragon1]

off_again said:

Twitter launching a smart TV app:

https://gizmodo.com/x-tv-app-elon-musk-youtube-rip...

Looks like Elon wants some of those sweet dollars that YouTube is hoovering up. I will admit to using the YouTube app on my Apple TV and the recent update makes it even easier (no crappy switching between ads and the video as well as ads that are more suitable for a TV format). Stuff like true crime videos (recommend Truly Criminal if you havent found them) and a few others. Ads can be a little annoying, but its all good.

And Twitter will launch something similar? What are they going to put on it? From what I can see, most of the video footage on Twitter is portrait, which isnt going to look good, and I am not sure that there is an audience for an Instagram-like video feed, which will absolutely show something inappropriate.

Happy to be proven wrong, but this doesnt seem like a great direction they are going in.

Mad. Who on earth will be downloading that? Probably cost a dollar or 2 to launch and then fail miserably. It's been failure after failure of hair brained ideas.

There is no engagement on Twitter anymore for non subscribers and those that do subscribe get boosted, regardless of the quality or ability to drive discussion. Engagement farming is counter productive in lots of ways but they've went with it, and growth of the platform is in negative territory.

The app is getting worse instead of better.

[Some Gump]

IanH755 said:

As always the context is removed - The judge found that X's complaints were valid and that CCDH did everything X said they did, but that protecting the stories written by CCDH, as a "news gathering platform", were more important regarding the "Right of Free Speech" than CCHD's proven infringements of X's policies, over which they were being sued.

Isn't the context in this case the judge saying "this is the context" on that screenshot?

I know that the X Commandments say "thou shalt not hear false witness against thy twitter" but I'm not seeing any "look they're doing it again they just want Elon to look bad because they're totes jelly" agenda in Byker's post...

[EddieSteadyGo]

Some Gump said:

IanH755 said:

As always the context is removed - The judge found that X's complaints were valid and that CCDH did everything X said they did, but that protecting the stories written by CCDH, as a "news gathering platform", were more important regarding the "Right of Free Speech" than CCHD's proven infringements of X's policies, over which they were being sued.

Isn't the context in this case the judge saying "this is the context" on that screenshot?

I know that the X Commandments say "thou shalt not hear false witness against thy twitter" but I'm not seeing any "look they're doing it again they just want Elon to look bad because they're totes jelly" agenda in Byker's post...

This is another case though where more than one thing is true at the same time. I think most reasonable people would accept the CCDH were making mischief with their original narrative. Anyone who has any experience using something like Google's display network for example will know that, even their content placement settings are not infallible. So the implied accusations being made against Twitter weren't exactly fair.

However, the reason I think the story gained traction was for two additional reasons i) Musk's perceived blase attitude to unpleasant content on Twitter ii) Musk's desire to push his own political views on Twitter, which many consider unpleasant, whilst at the same time conflating his own personal brand with that of Twitter.

Therefore, advertisers who place their ads on Twitter are risking their brand being associated with Musk. And whilst Musk doesn't care about alienating potentially half his customers, advertisers like Disney etc will need to be much more cautious.

Personally, I think we need a major platform which allows the widest possible definition of free-speech. I disagree with people like Don Lemon who think Twitter should have additional 'guard rails' in terms of the content which can be posted, over and above the legal definitions which already exist.

I think even many major brands could accept that, as I think most people support the core principles of 'free speech' and understand why it is important, regardless of where they are on the political spectrum.

But as the custodian of this platform, Musk is in a privileged position. So he shouldn't force-feed his Republican-lite political views, whilst pretending bad content doesn't exist on Twitter, or that he doesn't much care, or that any advertisers who express concerns should "fk off". He should spend his time explaining these principles and why they are important whilst taking a politically neutral position. If he did that, I think even his harshest critics would maybe grudgingly accept he was doing something worthwhile.

[Byker28i]

Some Gump said:

IanH755 said:

As always the context is removed - The judge found that X's complaints were valid and that CCDH did everything X said they did, but that protecting the stories written by CCDH, as a "news gathering platform", were more important regarding the "Right of Free Speech" than CCHD's proven infringements of X's policies, over which they were being sued.

Isn't the context in this case the judge saying "this is the context" on that screenshot?

I know that the X Commandments say "thou shalt not hear false witness against thy twitter" but I'm not seeing any "look they're doing it again they just want Elon to look bad because they're totes jelly" agenda in Byker's post...

I posted the whole judgement, not sure how I can be accused of bias, when the marketeers come riding in without reading the ruling. How can I be changing the contestants I posted the whole judgement?

Remember this was musk claim that their claims were false and driven by their competitirs, with funding etc. They reported on the rise of hate speech, racism, white supremacist post, some of which Musk himself amplified.
https://variety.com/2024/digital/news/elon-musk-x-...

Fact, the case was dismissed and the judge shared his views on Musks malicious actions

"It is also just not true that the complaint is only about data collection… It is impossible to read the complaint and not conclude that X Corp. is far more concerned about CCDH’s speech than it is its data collection methods.”

“The Court notes, too, that X Corp.’s motivation in bringing this case is evident. X Corp. has brought this case in order to punish CCDH for CCDH publications that criticized X Corp. — and perhaps in order to dissuade others who might wish to engage in such criticism… If CCDH’s publications were defamatory, that would be one thing, but X Corp. has carefully avoided saying that they are.”

Edited by Byker28i on Monday 25th March 21:52

[Byker28i]

he has to comment and stir even though that wasn't the reason. Supporting and pushing trumps big lie was the reason

[mko9]

EddieSteadyGo said:

Some Gump said:

IanH755 said:

As always the context is removed - The judge found that X's complaints were valid and that CCDH did everything X said they did, but that protecting the stories written by CCDH, as a "news gathering platform", were more important regarding the "Right of Free Speech" than CCHD's proven infringements of X's policies, over which they were being sued.

Isn't the context in this case the judge saying "this is the context" on that screenshot?

I know that the X Commandments say "thou shalt not hear false witness against thy twitter" but I'm not seeing any "look they're doing it again they just want Elon to look bad because they're totes jelly" agenda in Byker's post...

This is another case though where more than one thing is true at the same time. I think most reasonable people would accept the CCDH were making mischief with their original narrative. Anyone who has any experience using something like Google's display network for example will know that, even their content placement settings are not infallible. So the implied accusations being made against Twitter weren't exactly fair.

However, the reason I think the story gained traction was for two additional reasons i) Musk's perceived blase attitude to unpleasant content on Twitter ii) Musk's desire to push his own political views on Twitter, which many consider unpleasant, whilst at the same time conflating his own personal brand with that of Twitter.

Therefore, advertisers who place their ads on Twitter are risking their brand being associated with Musk. And whilst Musk doesn't care about alienating potentially half his customers, advertisers like Disney etc will need to be much more cautious.

Personally, I think we need a major platform which allows the widest possible definition of free-speech. I disagree with people like Don Lemon who think Twitter should have additional 'guard rails' in terms of the content which can be posted, over and above the legal definitions which already exist.

I think even many major brands could accept that, as I think most people support the core principles of 'free speech' and understand why it is important, regardless of where they are on the political spectrum.

But as the custodian of this platform, Musk is in a privileged position. So he shouldn't force-feed his Republican-lite political views, whilst pretending bad content doesn't exist on Twitter, or that he doesn't much care, or that any advertisers who express concerns should "fk off". He should spend his time explaining these principles and why they are important whilst taking a politically neutral position. If he did that, I think even his harshest critics would maybe grudgingly accept he was doing something worthwhile.

You are missing the biggest reason. The legacy media are getting their ass handed to them on TwitSpace every. single. day. Nothing breaks in the media, it breaks on TwitSpace. Then the media picks it up. So the media were happy to play along with the narrative, it could only help them, at least in the short term.

[off_again]

mko9 said:

You are missing the biggest reason. The legacy media are getting their ass handed to them on TwitSpace every. single. day. Nothing breaks in the media, it breaks on TwitSpace. Then the media picks it up. So the media were happy to play along with the narrative, it could only help them, at least in the short term.

Fair. But I would take this a step further. Much of the media have got incredibly lazy and just crawl through social media to find stories. Its lazy journalism and its also very cheap to create stories. Why do anything that involves work when you can swipe through a couple of apps and find something to write about.

And dont forget that much of this is the creation of the media as a whole. They drove down the pricing for stories and many adopted a per article / per word model from their print days. The result was a model that was easily abused and promoted the less scrupulous media companies. Legacy media was slow to react and are now stuck. As a result, much of the just resort to the cheapest way to fill out the website or the channel.

Existing media companies still make a lot of money though. Its going to take time for that to be impacted.

[Byker28i]

That post aged well SBF just got 25 years in jail