Elon & Twitter

[Discoducky]

OK @Discoducky have at it.

@JRP3 thank you and while the Twitter buyout is a big departure from the fundamentals of Tesla I think it is part of his overall plan.

The tippy top being that when, not if, Twitter is open sourced, each unique human is authenticated (via internationally accredited equivalent to a travel passport) then humanity will have a way to communicate as close to face to face as possible, with all the legal ramifications and consequences in place and that is inherently a good thing.

I was explaining my stance to a friend and I associate this move in a similar way to the Linux open sourced kernel and security layer in conjunction with wikipedia in that when you have a body of code that is open sourced, folks can easily see and modify it (easy for devs) to the point where it can be peer reviewed, A/B tested...etc, it then becomes straightforward to know how useful it is when it helps to further humanity rather than dissuade or harm.

Granted it won't be immediate, will most likely have ups and downs, maybe big steps back at times, but will ultimately move in the right direction to bring humanity closer to a true public square.

How it relates to Tesla is that so much of what I see and what I believe most see when they search Tesla on Twitter is bot swayed sentiment, that it makes sense to start there to achieve a balance with communication and dissemination of information.

A recent example is a few Tesla fires that seem to me to be portrayed in a negative light on Twitter with a multitude of responses from seemingly bot swayed sentiment. With user accountability the conversation, I believe, will move closer to discussion about the current facts and remind folks that very intricate and detailed deterministic telemetry will be available at some point in a timely fashion when a more holistic and complete conversation can begin.

 

[JRP3]

The tippy top being that when, not if, Twitter is open sourced, each unique human is authenticated (via internationally accredited equivalent to a travel passport) then humanity will have a way to communicate as close to face to face as possible, with all the legal ramifications and consequences in place and that is inherently a good thing.

That doesn't fit with Elon's stated importance of people having anonymity when posting, something I agree with.

A recent example is a few Tesla fires that seem to me to be portrayed in a negative light on Twitter with a multitude of responses from seemingly bot swayed sentiment.

This has been going on in the media for years, not just Twitter. It will only stop when Tesla and EV's in general have penetrated into society enough that the average person can see the truth for themselves.

Even if Elon can eliminate bot influence that's not going to stop the penchant of a certain percentage of humans spreading falsehoods. Look at TSLAQ. Social engineering is not Elon's strength and I'd rather see him concentrate on actual engineering problems.

 

[ohmman]

I'd like to take the opportunity to reiterate and clarify two points in @ggr's note upthread when it was temporarily locked.

1. Politics are prohibited at TMC.
2. This thread is about Elon's Twitter deal, not Elon's tweets.

I've been relatively loose about the first rule in this particular thread because of the content, merely moving posts away. But that's a lot of work and it's annoying. So since everyone has pretty much had posts moved, had multiple warnings about politics, I'm going to do the following:

Invoking politics in this thread, especially for existing contributors, will result in an immediate temporary ban.

I understand that it's a twinkly and sparkly topic but it seems that warnings haven't done anything and this is the only way I think compliance with our site-wide rule will improve.

On the second item, there is another Elon Musk thread if you want to discuss the man (but not his politics). If your post isn't about the Twitter deal, that would be a more appropriate place to participate.

I'm sorry and I really hate to take this approach but it's unfair for members to just post whatever they want and leave it to the moderators to keep cleaning things up.

I appreciate your understanding.

 

[advocate8]

Here’s my take: (not that you asked me and probably don’t care but here it is anyway )

What is Elon’s goal? To get everyone to switch to EVs and sustainable energy ASAP. NOT to just buy a Tesla. Tesla has plenty of business. Dems already will buy EVs. Republicans are a bit less likely on average. So pandering to the right a bit will get more of them to consider it. That’s a win for his goal even if he loses customers on the left.

Also he has seen ridiculous attacks from the left. Downright lying from big names like Warren and Sanders. He has also seen major support for Giga Texas by the right. Hence is favoring the right at the moment. This is probably the biggest driver for him supporting the center right.

Since Elon was serious about buying Twitter just like he was serious about starting the boring company while sitting in traffic, this really could not play out any other way.

Twitter didn’t want to sell. Had Elon raised the concern about bots being more than 5% prior to the agreed sale, Twitter would just say, “that’s what it is. If you don’t believe us….tough, walk away”. After all, Twitter was considering a poison pill to keep Elon away.

My prediction is that Elon will go through with buying Twitter no matter what but for (hopefully) a reduced price.

As far as if this is a good move? I think ultimately he could make Twitter very profitable and probably at least double the value when he IPO’s it in a few years.

Probably his money is better kept in Tesla as far as gains are concerned but this Twitter purchase has been insane free advertising so far. (Although I guess buying Twitter isn’t free and the stock has taken a temporary hit.). Therefore really expensive advertising….haha. But… I’m a glass half full kinda person in regards to Elon.

No. Twitter was an impulse purchase. Like a second rock of meth when dealer offers it for 50 percent.
Afterward he came up with rationalizations for buying a company with a bad business model.
This won’t increase EV acceptance, nor was that his goal. He’s just addicted to Twitter.
People are constantly ascribing unspoken crafty plans to Musk
How about one of you point to an example of him playing secretive 3D chess?
Just one thing that wasn’t exactly what it appeared to be?
Elon= WYSIWYG

 

[Crutonius]

I'd like to take the opportunity to reiterate and clarify two points in @ggr's note upthread when it was temporarily locked.

1. Politics are prohibited at TMC.
2. This thread is about Elon's Twitter deal, not Elon's tweets.

I've been relatively loose about the first rule in this particular thread because of the content, merely moving posts away. But that's a lot of work and it's annoying. So since everyone has pretty much had posts moved, had multiple warnings about politics, I'm going to do the following:

Invoking politics in this thread, especially for existing contributors, will result in an immediate temporary ban.

I understand that it's a twinkly and sparkly topic but it seems that warnings haven't done anything and this is the only way I think compliance with our site-wide rule will improve.

On the second item, there is another Elon Musk thread if you want to discuss the man (but not his politics). If your post isn't about the Twitter deal, that would be a more appropriate place to participate.

I'm sorry and I really hate to take this approach but it's unfair for members to just post whatever they want and leave it to the moderators to keep cleaning things up.

I'd like to take the opportunity to reiterate and clarify two points in @ggr's note upthread when it was temporarily locked.

1. Politics are prohibited at TMC.
2. This thread is about Elon's Twitter deal, not Elon's tweets.

I've been relatively loose about the first rule in this particular thread because of the content, merely moving posts away. But that's a lot of work and it's annoying. So since everyone has pretty much had posts moved, had multiple warnings about politics, I'm going to do the following:

Invoking politics in this thread, especially for existing contributors, will result in an immediate temporary ban.

I understand that it's a twinkly and sparkly topic but it seems that warnings haven't done anything and this is the only way I think compliance with our site-wide rule will improve.

On the second item, there is another Elon Musk thread if you want to discuss the man (but not his politics). If your post isn't about the Twitter deal, that would be a more appropriate place to participate.

I'm sorry and I really hate to take this approach but it's unfair for members to just post whatever they want and leave it to the moderators to keep cleaning things up.

I appreciate your understanding.

Mea Culpa.

But in my defense, Musk has intertwined this with politics to the the point that it's getting pretty hard to avoid.

Out of curiosity, why no politics thread? Just let the trolls like us duke it out?

 

[mspohr]

SEC publishes letter asking Elon Musk to explain late Twitter filing

Please advise us why the schedule 13G does not appear to have been made within the required 10 days from the date of acquisition as required by rule 13d-1(c), the rule upon which you represented that you relied to make the submission,” said the SEC in the letter, dated 10 days before Musk announced his takeover bid.

The letter also asks Musk to explain why he filed a 13G, which is for passive investors who are not preparing to shake up the business in question. The SEC points out that an investor must file a different form, a 13D, if they have bought the shares with the intention of changing or influencing the control of the company in question. The day after filing his initial form, Musk refiled it as a 13D, for investors who intend to take an active role.

 

[ohmman]

Out of curiosity, why no politics thread? Just let the trolls like us duke it out?

That's a question for the admins, and you're welcome to recommend it in Site Feedback. Moderators are just volunteers. If you think there's value in a politics only thread, we could theoretically unlock the train wreck that is the Politics Quarantine and let people have at it.

My personal opinion, which I've stated in this thread already, is that injecting politics into discussions online has the tendency to drive a wedge into a community. If the goal of "Tesla Motors Club" is to create a club/community like atmosphere, I feel like allowing politics discussions would act counter to that goal. I also believe that most politics arguments online are about "winning" the argument, and less about being open to discussion. Because of that, I think it's unlikely to really make much of an impact on other members, aside from creating some level of contention. I think if we were to get rid of the politics rule, I'd probably walk away from TMC. So it's one great way to finally get rid of me!

And yes, Elon has made it exceedingly difficult to manage this particular site rule. He really should have consulted with me first.

 

[Buckminster]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1530567475078864896

I have noticed a massive change. Elon will have to buy Twitter now!

 

[mspohr]

SAN FRANCISCO — CEO of Tesla and entrepreneur Elon Musk has reportedly made a public offering to buy a rake he recently stepped on that smashed him in the face.

“Aha, very shrewd, rake,” said Musk, directly to the rake on the ground. “I see you, like many of the other embarrassing things I’ve been injuring myself on lately, have fallen victim to the ‘woke’ mindset that sees you seek out and tear down those with ideas counterintuitive to yours. I don’t respect your approach, rake, but I would like to invest in your future. How much to buy you straight up?”

Eyewitness accounts estimated that Musk waited for as long as ten minutes before realizing the rake wasn’t going to respond to his lucrative offer.

“A lot of us gathered once we realized who it was,” said Tracy Brooks, one of many onlookers. “And after a while we were yelling out, stuff like, ‘Hey Elon, that rake ain’t gonna answer you!’ and ‘You’re bleeding from the nose, Elon!,’ but he just kept on standing there, staring at the rake. Eventually I think he realized nothing was going to happen, so he just made an announcement that he’d been joking the whole time and got the hell out of there. I hope he went and got some help, his nose looked really bad.”

“And to think, he wouldn’t have stepped on that rake in the first place if he just had some yellow caution signs up,” Brooks said. “But he hates the color.”

As of press time, Musk had announced intentions to shoot the rake into space.

Elon Musk Offers to Buy Rake He Stepped On

CEO of Tesla and entrepreneur Elon Musk has reportedly made a public offering to buy a rake he recently stepped on that smashed him in the face.

hard-drive.net

 

[2daMoon]

Solid Gold from SMR and the NY Post.

 

[JRP3]

A business should have the right to remove disruptive and unruly customers. No one would disagree with that in a physical location.

 

[bkp_duke]

A business should have the right to remove disruptive and unruly customers. No one would disagree with that in a physical location.

My company literally has something built into the Terms of Service. If you come in and yell, are disrespectful, etc. to my staff, regardless of if you have a contract for services, we have the right to fire you on the spot. Civility is a requirement for business.

 

[2daMoon]

The Supreme Court (and many others) disagree.

US supreme court blocks Texas law targeting social media rules

Measure passed by Republican-led legislature seeks to bar platforms from removing user posts based on ‘viewpoint’

www.theguardian.com

The US supreme court temporarily blocked a Texas law that would bar social media companies from removing user posts based on their “viewpoint”, as lower courts battle over whether it would violate first amendment rights.

In a 5-4 decision, the justices granted a request from two technology industry groups that have argued the Republican-backed measure would turn platforms into “havens of the vilest expression imaginable”.”.

A wide range of civil rights organizations, including the NAACP, the Chamber of Progress, and ADL, had also urged the supreme court to block the law from going into effect. In a statement, the Chamber of Progress CEO, Adam Kovacevich, said the law would “force social media to host racist, hateful, and extremist posts”.

“Anti-content moderation laws are so actively harmful that our nation’s highest court took an emergency appeal to prevent this law from taking effect,” he said.

What, in any way, does this post have to do with SMR's video that was quoted?

For any who didn't watch the video, it was about how Twitter had blocked the Tweets and Replies history on Elon's account beyond about 17-20 hours and older. But, had left it where Elon could scroll the entire history, so, would never realize it had happened.

Nothing was said about Texas, the Supreme Court, Hate groups, etc.

The quote in the response by @mopohr was a non sequitor.

 

[mspohr]

What, in any way, does this post have to do with SMR's video that was quoted?

The video starts out mocking Twitter for trying to weed out particularly horrible speech. I didn't have the stomach to watch the whole thing. (This guy is just a jerk fanboi.)

 

[2daMoon]

The video starts out mocking Twitter for trying to weed out particularly horrible speech. I didn't have the stomach to watch the whole thing. (This guy is just a jerk fanboi.)

Then, just post what you want to, and don't quote things about which you have no knowledge.

Easy enough?

 

[mspohr]

Then, just post what you want to, and don't quote things about which you have no knowledge.

Easy enough?

I posted the recent Supreme Court ruling about the Texas social media law which directly addressed the slanders in the video.
This is a "fact". Sorry if it doesn't agree with your version of reality.
Twitter can do anything they want. Get over it.

 

[Big Dog]

What, in any way, does this post have to do with SMR's video that was quoted?

For any who didn't watch the video, it was about how Twitter had blocked the Tweets and Replies history on Elon's account beyond about 17-20 hours and older. But, had left it where Elon could scroll the entire history, so, would never realize it had happened.

Nothing was said about Texas, the Supreme Court, Hate groups, etc.

The quote in the response by @mopohr was a non sequitor.

Pretty creative, if that's what they did, but @mspohr is correct in that as a private company, Twitter can moderate anyone in anyway they want (as long as they don't discriminate against a protected class).

 

[bkp_duke]

I posted the recent Supreme Court ruling about the Texas social media law which directly addressed the slanders in the video.
This is a "fact". Sorry if it doesn't agree with your version of reality.
Twitter can do anything they want. Get over it.

The guy in the video resides in Australia. Not much about the Supreme Court decision is going to apply to him.

 

[mspohr]

The guy in the video resides in Australia. Not much about the Supreme Court decision is going to apply to him.

But the Supreme Court does apply to Twitter, and Texas and all of U.S.
The Australia guy can say anything he wants (as long as YouTube doesn't ban him... which they can do for any reason).

 

[2daMoon]

I posted the recent Supreme Court ruling about the Texas social media law which directly addressed the slanders in the video.
This is a "fact". Sorry if it doesn't agree with your version of reality.
Twitter can do anything they want. Get over it.

You seem to be getting quite emotional over this. My preference is to participate in rational dialogue based upon facts that can be shared, rather than "truths" based only upon opinion held by someone clearly holding a bias and avoiding offering support for their opinion.

Support for your claim would be that which anyone else can easily access, view, and measure for themselves.

Please, elaborate upon how you determined there were slanders in the video when you wrote that you didn't watch it. I'm curious about how this works. It sounds intriguing.

You also claim a piece of news that came out prior to release of the video (released hours later) "directly addressed the slanders in the video" correct? Is this some sort of psychic reporting where the Supreme Court directly address the content of a specific video before it is made public?

If you have subsequently viewed it, let me know where in the video these "slanders" can be found (minute:second), and/or what was actually said (quote, paraphrase, etc.), then, elaborate upon what led you to believe made the identified statement a slander.

If you can accomplish this without tearing off into an incoherent rant, that would be great.

To be crystal clear, I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm still just trying to learn more detail about WTF you are going on about.