Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Elon & Twitter

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Elon thinks big, and he knows that newspapers are not the future. Social media platforms are.

So I think this is Elon's play to go one up on Bezos (yet again). It's a competition to have the best and most respected source of public truth. I doubt Bezos even knows there's a battle on yet.

He really likes Twitter. He doesn't like some of the issues with it. He has money.

And I think he will want to turn Twitter into a global (except China) WeChat supporting a fully-fledged payments system.

Nothing to do with Bezos.
 
It's a competition to have the best and most respected source of public truth.
He doesn't want truth - he wants "free speech". They are diametrically opposite ideas.

By definition with "free speech" you are free to lie. And people reading can't make out what is true and what is not.

ps : Basically the idea is nobody should be in the position to "determine" what is true - since they could use the position to push their own lie as truth or suppress inconvenient truths. When everyone can lie / tell truth, its up to the reader to figure it out. But a moderated decent publication like WaPo will always have much higher SNR than twitter.
 
Last edited:
He doesn't want truth - he wants "free speech". They are diametrically opposite ideas.

By definition with "free speech" you are free to lie. And people reading can't make out what is true and what is not.

ps : Basically the idea is nobody should be in the position to "determine" what is true - since they could use the position to push their own lie as truth or suppress inconvenient truths. When everyone can lie / tell truth, its up to the reader to figure it out. But a moderated decent publication like WaPo will always have much higher SNR than twitter.
If you want truth, you need to go to Truth Social!
 
Your own chart appears to show far right wing violence happening at roughly 2.5-3 times the rate of far left overall.... Both sides are radical, but one is pretty clearly more actually violent and law breaking about it- particuarly over the last decade or so (as that ratio appears to be similar to (or sometimes even smaller a ratio than) almost the previous 10 years per factcheckings chart.)

So as FactChecking points out, that means a neutral arbitrator would ban that side significantly more often, though still be doing some banning on both sides.

Which is literally what we have seen happen on twitter and other platforms.
So how many people killed and BILLIONS of dollars in damage done by the left over the last couple of years vs the “attempted government insurrection” I think you call it? I rest my case. The left is far more violent and destructive. Any thing they don’t like it is a protest and riot. Oh wait it is the far left protesting as we speak. .
 
So how many people killed and BILLIONS of dollars in damage done by the left over the last couple of years vs the “attempted government insurrection” I think you call it? I rest my case. The left is far more violent and destructive.


You literally posted a chart saying the opposite of your claim.

far-right violence outnumbered far left roughly 3 to 1. And has for near a decade now by all available stats.



I guess having been caught out on that untrue argument, proven untrue by your own chart, you're moving goalposts to comparing $ value of property damage? Because now you don't care about human violence, just folks looting the mini-mart?

(which is impossible to compare since unlike specific acts of violence where we know who did it and why you have no way to know the political leanings of people who are never caught stealing TVs while the cops are distracted night-sticking protesters elsewhere)




Like I said before- Brandolinis law.

I don't expect Elon has any better solution for this garbage than anyone else.
 
The left is far more violent and destructive.
You mean people like Gandhi and Dalai Llama ? Or people like Stalin ?

This is the reason "left" - "right" uni-axis is such a stupid thing.

ps : But that is not Elon's issue at all. He is just talking about "culture war" i.e. what the alt-right calls "woke" culture. He thinks the "left" is moving too far, what he doesn't understand is when left moves a step, reactionary right wants to nullify the progress of the last decade, some of which has over 80% support.

 
Last edited:
He doesn't want truth - he wants "free speech". They are diametrically opposite ideas.

By definition with "free speech" you are free to lie. And people reading can't make out what is true and what is not.

ps : Basically the idea is nobody should be in the position to "determine" what is true - since they could use the position to push their own lie as truth or suppress inconvenient truths. When everyone can lie / tell truth, its up to the reader to figure it out. But a moderated decent publication like WaPo will always have much higher SNR than twitter.
Oh, I think Elon wants truth. He thinks that free speech is the only way to get there. And he's punting on figuring out free speech by just saying it's whatever's legal. Seems to me he's unlikely to end up with anything either good or workable.
 
Does Twitter have a left-wing bias, or does Elon have a right-wing bias, or has Elon's interactions with Twitter caused it to feed him left-wing biased content?

All good questions to ponder... I would argue that perhaps to some degree all are true, but maybe only because the right has moved so far to the right, it only looks that way.

Who would have thought that in our lifetimes we would have main stream politicians siding with Russia, rolling back basic human health care rights, rolling back voting rights, plotting to overthrow the government, rolling back environmental protections, rolling back gender and sex equality rights, fighting against free speech and more?

The right is actively fighting to destroy democracy and turn the country into a authoritarian fundamentally christian controlled state and the speed at which this is happening is shocking.
 
Does Twitter have a left-wing bias, or does Elon have a right-wing bias, or has Elon's interactions with Twitter caused it to feed him left-wing biased content?

All good questions to ponder... I would argue that perhaps to some degree all are true, but maybe only because the right has moved so far to the right, it only looks that way.

Who would have thought that in our lifetimes we would have main stream politicians siding with Russia, rolling back basic human health care rights, rolling back voting rights, plotting to overthrow the government, rolling back environmental protections, rolling back gender and sex equality rights, fighting against free speech and more?

The right is actively fighting to destroy democracy and turn the country into a authoritarian fundamentally christian controlled state and the speed at which this is happening is shocking.ou
Just sticking with Tesla, since this is a Tesla forum....
The problem has zero to do with facts, about what is and isn’t bias, what I think is bias, what any of you think is... or really even the facts of what Elon is or isn’t saying or doing.
It is entirely about the PERCEPTION he is creating. You all can argue here indefinitely about whether Elon is or isn’t moving right. It doesn’t matter. More and more people BELIEVE he is. That’s a simple truth, or Goin2Dirt et al wouldn’t be so approving of Elon and the Twitter deal.
 
This strikes me as a really bad idea insofar as getting informative news. Cafeteria plan news means that people only get what they want to hear, instead of being informed by a broad variety of sources. It's partly what has happened since the move from physical newspapers to click news, but at least with news outlets, they can subsidize the less click-worthy stories by subscription fees. Not to get all old-man on readers, but the nice thing about an old newspaper is that you could read it cover to cover and get a broad set of information on topics you wouldn't necessarily have chosen otherwise, but might round out your interests.

Humans are moved more by storytelling than they are by facts. We are moved more by outrage than we are by simple information. The idea of humans as rational actors in economics and psychology has long been abandoned, so the concept that we'd pick only the most accurate news to "tip" seems very unlikely. Humans would pick the most compelling and emotion-inducing articles and those would rise to the top. The incentives for journalists would be to create more of these. People like Alex Jones have been able to profit off of this particular combination for years. A platform without guardrails would result in a lot of Alex Jones types across all subsets of political and ideological views. I seriously doubt it would incentivize long form, multi-reporter investigative journalism that may or may not pay off. The financial model would certainly be much more lucrative for spewers of emotion-inducing nonsense.
Exactly. It would amplify the bad. Essentially just a new and more direct way of encouraging a “journalist” to preach to the choir. Which is to a degree what had already, in the last 25 years or so, become the root problem with news.
People need to have their closely-held beliefs challenged by facts, not affirmed by spin.
The opposite effect is seen only rarely. I would argue the Washington Post, for example, was headed in the wrong direction, aiming more at chasing hits in a desperate move to find revenue lost by the demise of local advertising... until Bezos bought the place and gave the some financial freedom. Ever since, they have been on a hiring spree, picking up many of the best reporters available and now in many ways they are able to beat the NYT on in-depth reporting that brings context to the events of our time.

Someone up above tried to characterize the Twitter purchase as a move to compete with Bezos, and outflank him with a more nimble, fresher platform. I shudder to think what it would be like to try to understand the world via Twitter... even an aggressively retooled twitter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dave EV
"Musk holds all the cards here," Hindenburg, which has a short position on Twitter, said in a report. "If Elon Musk's bid for Twitter disappeared tomorrow, Twitter's equity would fall by 50% from current levels. Consequently, we see a significant risk that the deal gets repriced lower."
 
Haha, major Twitter outage in progress. The entire site is inaccessible. Maybe Elon finally got tired of everything and just deleted Twitter.

New social media service Musker launches tomorrow!

It's not twitter. It's CloudFlare, which caches major portions of the internet. They have had issues all day that my company has been having to refer back over to them. 🤬
 
  • Informative
Reactions: JRP3 and MitchMitch
The biggest issue with Twitter is that dissent is being censored. Dissent against the current government. Twitter has shown itself to be a defender of the U.S. government's positions. This means that non-U.S. entities that relay information against the USA's dreadful foreign policies frequently get censored off of Twitter. U.S.-based entities that relay information contradicting the American government's actvities and flavour of propaganda - especially if they're contradicting it with factual reports - frequently get censored off of Twitter. One recent example would be Scott Ritter, a former U.S. marine-turned-weapons inspector who reported that Iraq had no WMDs. He continues to report factual stuff about ongoing wars & conflicts and has been contradicting the U.S./NATO propaganda regarding Ukraine & Russia. Censored off of Twitter.

This is the problem EM hopes to solve. The "left versus right" thing in U.S. domestic politics is secondary.
 
The biggest issue with Twitter is that dissent is being censored. Dissent against the current government. Twitter has shown itself to be a defender of the U.S. government's positions. This means that non-U.S. entities that relay information against the USA's dreadful foreign policies frequently get censored off of Twitter. U.S.-based entities that relay information contradicting the American government's actvities and flavour of propaganda - especially if they're contradicting it with factual reports - frequently get censored off of Twitter. One recent example would be Scott Ritter, a former U.S. marine-turned-weapons inspector who reported that Iraq had no WMDs. He continues to report factual stuff about ongoing wars & conflicts and has been contradicting the U.S./NATO propaganda regarding Ukraine & Russia. Censored off of Twitter.

This is the problem EM hopes to solve. The "left versus right" thing in U.S. domestic politics is secondary.
Dude, if Ritter is your example for this case you’re trying to make, you need to move along.
Ritter is a convicted sex criminal -- one of the many charges was unlawful conduct with a minor” -- and he was married to a suspected KGB agent and the tweet he was tossed for recently looked a LOT like propaganda for Putin.
He said basically Ukraine was responsible for the slaughter of hundreds of Ukrainian citizens in Bucha as a false flag to blame on Russia ...and called Biden a war criminal for backing Ukraine on this.
Great example of the kind of thing that needs to be blocked off Twitter. Please don’t compound his corrosive hogwash by citing him here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.