Musk offers to buy Twitter

[Cmaier]

The moderation policy there is braindead, and killing PRSI just took the stupidity to a new level. They could have put that thread into PRSI, but instead they shut down reasonable discussion of a major news event. Sure, a lot of the comments were stupid, but people are stupid.

The only thing Arn wants on the MR forums is vapid shit like “which color iPhone did you order?” Anything else can get you banned.

Don’t talk about color.

 

[Deleted member 215]

But they do allow this because the dominant voice there is right-wing, yet any mention of LGBT or race and we’re not allowed to talk about it.

 

[Alli]

Heh I'm surprised I haven't got timed out for ticking the "I don't like this ad" box that Twitter offers related to the"promoted" inserts in one's feed. I have used that pretty often. Of course they find some other stuff to pop in there instead. Haven't figured out yet whether using that box means the ads get even more obnoxious or maybe more subtle, i.e. hoping you click on something because not realizing it's an ad.

When I see those, I just mute the account. I don’t see many promoted tweets anymore. LOL!

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Two days. I guess they don’t want to permanently ban me yet, though others have been banned for less. They deleted every comment about why that thread is allowed to stay up as “off-topic” yet they’re allowing people to simply bash any political side like that’s somehow relevant to the conversation They just can’t stand anyone pointing the hypocrisy and inconsistency of the moderation

The moderation policy there is braindead, and killing PRSI just took the stupidity to a new level. They could have put that thread into PRSI, but instead they shut down reasonable discussion of a major news event. Sure, a lot of the comments were stupid, but people are stupid.

The only thing Arn wants on the MR forums is vapid shit like “which color iPhone did you order?” Anything else can get you banned.

With respect, I beg to differ.

Not that the moderation policy isn't what you argue (I agree, this has been the case for years, now, and is only becoming even - and ever - more pronounced), but in what the aim (behind the moderation on the site) is.

For, it is not "braindead".

Rather, it is all about maximising "clicks", "views", "likes", "reactions", in other words, encouraging engagement (and yes, emotion), and generating and promoting traffic, and hence, income.

But they do allow this because the dominant voice there is right-wing, yet any mention of LGBT or race and we’re not allowed to talk about it.

Well, yes.

However, unfortunately, that is nothing new.

 

[Eric]

 

[Runs For Fun]

 

[SuperMatt]

With respect, I beg to differ.

Not that the moderation policy isn't what you argue (I agree, this has been the case for years, now, and is ony becoming ever more pronounced), but in what the aim is.

For, it is not "braindead"; rather, it is all about maximising "clicks", "views", "likes", in other words, promoting engagement and generating traffic, and hence, income.

Well, yes.

However, unfortunately, that is nothing new.

Good point. Arn is not braindead. But he is encouraging the most braindead people to post the most. And like you said, (and Fox News proves), aiming for the lowest common denominator can be quite profitable.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

Interesting stat here from Statista, who knew that Twitter was at the bottom of the list.

Most popular social networks worldwide as of January 2022, ranked by number of monthly active users (in millions)​

View attachment 13551

Like I said, most people don't use Twitter. Instead Tweets get amplified outside Twitter which gives off the impression more people are using it than there actually are. Most Trump tweets were probably read by people who aren't even on Twitter but were posted elsewhere.

 

[Alli]

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1518711457935986690/

 

[Runs For Fun]

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1518711457935986690/

Well that was fast

 

[Eric]

Well that was fast

A splinter group where the same members will join the new platform and post the same content at both places while bitching about how the previous one has wronged them.

 

[SuperMatt]

Twitter always seems to get lumped in with Facebook, but the platforms are drastically different.

 

[Deleted member 215]

A splinter group where the same members will join the new platform and post the same content at both places while bitching about how the previous one has wronged them.

Well, I never

 

[Cmaier]

A splinter group where the same members will join the new platform and post the same content at both places while bitching about how the previous one has wronged them.

And then the splinter group splinters.

 

[lizkat]

Interesting stat here from Statista, who knew that Twitter was at the bottom of the list.

Most popular social networks worldwide as of January 2022, ranked by number of monthly active users (in millions)​

View attachment 13551

Heh, never can tell what's "elite" or what's "shunned" or what's annoying because of ads or website design or whatever. I have a Pinterest setup that I have wanted to make more use of but its design has always struck me as a royal PITA to work with, and sometimes even to lurk in.

Part of Twitter's being down towards the bottom of that list is that there IS some pretty effective moderation of garbage on Twitter. The company HAS been trying to moving towards effective adoption of the Santa Clara Principles. It's hard to do at scale, and mistakes do get made.

Still, anyone who has used the platform over the past five years may have noticed results of those efforts --voluntarily or otherwise-- especially with respect to transparency and clarity of asserted rights to moderate content. It's been made more clear what's permitted and what's not, easier to report perceived abuses and so forth.

If a Twitter user doesn't like the ongoing efforts to run a site that permits commentary without permitting peddling of egregious falsehoods and conspiracy theories. there is the option to leave ahead of getting banned.

The combination of the rules and enforcement of them may have helped suppress total usage of the platform. People who appreciate the results though may be (if somewhat grudgingly) grateful.

The biggest problem, though, and one that no set of principles can resolve, is behavior by countries whose governments don't want a venue like the current Twitter to be accessible to its citizens. And I think that's now a concern in the minds of some who realize that Musk stepping in to try to get a handle on Twitter is not all that different to a sovereign and autocratic government saying OK if you're going to have a social media platform then I alone am who will control access and moderate it, full stop, stay tuned.

See that is not at all the direction that Twitter --before Elon Musk's acquisition-- had chosen, whatever we may think of how the platform's moderation has been evolving.

Contrary to how Musk sees the platform, plenty of free speech has been taking place on Twitter even after the effects of moderation. Which is precisely what has bothered some autocratic sovereigns enough to suppress access to the platform.

But in the USA? Now we have Musk saying he will define more generously what free speech on Twitter means. Heh, the platform's already filling up with tweets noting with some hilarity that Musk has blocked them...

 

[SuperMatt]

Heh, never can tell what's "elite" or what's "shunned" or what's annoying because of ads or website design or whatever. I have a Pinterest setup that I have wanted to make more use of but its design has always struck me as a royal PITA to work with, and sometimes even to lurk in.

Part of Twitter's being down towards the bottom of that list is that there IS some pretty effective moderation of garbage on Twitter. The company HAS been trying to moving towards effective adoption of the Santa Clara Principles. It's hard to do at scale, and mistakes do get made.

Still, anyone who has used the platform over the past five years may have noticed results of those efforts --voluntarily or otherwise-- especially with respect to transparency and clarity of asserted rights to moderate content. It's been made more clear what's permitted and what's not, easier to report perceived abuses and so forth.

If a Twitter user doesn't like the ongoing efforts to run a site that permits commentary without permitting peddling of egregious falsehoods and conspiracy theories. there is the option to leave ahead of getting banned.

The combination of the rules and enforcement of them may have helped suppress total usage of the platform. People who appreciate the results though may be (if somewhat grudgingly) grateful.

The biggest problem, though, and one that no set of principles can resolve, is behavior by countries whose governments don't want a venue like the current Twitter to be accessible to its citizens. And I think that's now a concern in the minds of some who realize that Musk stepping in to try to get a handle on Twitter is not all that different to a sovereign and autocratic government saying OK if you're going to have a social media platform then I alone am who will control access and moderate it, full stop, stay tuned.

See that is not at all the direction that Twitter --before Elon Musk's acquisition-- had chosen, whatever we may think of how the platform's moderation has been evolving.

Contrary to how Musk sees the platform, plenty of free speech has been taking place on Twitter even after the effects of moderation. Which is precisely what has bothered some autocratic sovereigns enough to suppress access to the platform.

But in the USA? Now we have Musk saying he will define more generously what free speech on Twitter means. Heh, the platform's already filling up with tweets noting with some hilarity that Musk has blocked them...

The “better” Twitter will be just like the “$35,000” Tesla model 3. That disappeared immediately. The “cheap” model 3 starts at $47K.

Or like the Boring company.

Or like his magical mini-sub cave rescue, that ended with him doing nothing except calling others pedophiles.

 

[Joe]

Musk is a genius.

He already knows he has the tree huggers with Tesla. Now he has the capitol rioters/trumpers with Twitter. He will convince them to buy Teslas

 

[lizkat]

And then the splinter group splinters.

Yep. Hah, even now someone's writing their doctoral dissertation on the Balkanization of social media.

It's more or less like AA, where in theory, all it takes to form a new group is a coffee pot and a resentment. Of course there are the more practical matters like how to keep a roof overhead and the lights on in the new hangout. But that always comes later.

What interests me though in the cyberspace equivalent of our attempts to make silos (despite saying that's not what we're about) is that beneath all the public squabbling ON social media ABOUT who controls our access to and use of those platforms, there are equally or even more consequential wars: the ones among chief providers of physical cloud facilities, infrastructure as service, software as service.

Lately those providers' focus is on integrating features to make it harder for entities or people to move their stuff at will. Meanwhile at least in the USA, Congress drones on about whether Facebook needs to be reined in, even as party leaders get their legislation-tracking apps tweaked.

All that stuff runs on "platforms" operated by a $180 billion industry with only a few key players in charge of maintaining access to and integrity of all the fricken data on the planet including who's got which weapons deployed this hour in Ukraine or Russia's staging areas for its land grab there.

Top cloud providers: AWS, Microsoft Azure, and Google Cloud, hybrid, SaaS players

Cloud computing in 2021 became the de facto choice of IT due to digital transformation shifts accelerated by remote work and the COVID-19 pandemic. Here's a look at how the cloud leaders stack up, the hybrid market, and the key SaaS players.

www.zdnet.com

Take all that and one can dig this week's New Yorker cover as a possible clue to where we're headed while we amuse ourselves to death on social media.

​

 

[Eric]

"Self-made"

 

[lizkat]

I had thought the Twitter board would care much more about the idea of Twitter as an evolving place to have discussions, find new sources of information, discover more about the world, than to cave so readily to Musk, even granted the perils that trying to fend off a hostile takeover could present.

The more I think about it, the more I think we should feel quite disappointed, actually. I mean QUITE disappointed.