Twitter's New Ownership

1 hour ago, Biodegradable said:

Allowing Twitter to essentially transform into a clone of 4chan's notorious /pol/ board in the coming months as some fear would be suicide for the site. This would be especially damning given how much Twitter has been struggling stock-wise and the massive debt it currently owes. Given those little factoids and the fact that the obscure little platforms alt-right shitlords use in place of Twitter have shown no growth or profitability whatsoever over the years; I have a feeling Muskrat isn't going to be the saviour some right-wing blowhards want him to be.

I concur. Honestly, I think Elon's often remarkably immature for someone who has gotten as far as he has, and this whole thing was basically an ill-conceived brain fart that quickly got out of hand. He's going to want it to make him some money, and turning it into an even bigger cesspool than it already is by catering to the "But muh free speech!" crowd (aka I want to be an absolute cock without consequences) will not be conducive to that goal. One only need look at how well Parler and Truthsocial are doing to see how that turns out.

hopefully Musk doesn't purchase Doomworld

5 hours ago, june gloom said:

"Free speech" absolutism just means getting to say slurs without consequence.

Awesome.

Why is that awesome?

2 hours ago, Biodegradable said:

This would be especially damning given how much Twitter has been struggling stock-wise and the massive debt it currently owes.

Given that the site is now privately owned, he doesn't have to answer to shareholders anymore.  He knows he's the sucker who got stuck holding the bag, and I think there's a 50/50 chance that Musk in his hubris decides it's worth the risk to make it /pol/-friendly, either out of spite or because he truly doesn't think it's going to trigger an exodus of users and advertisers.

1 hour ago, RDETalus said:

I enjoy using twitter. I apparently don't suffer from all the mentally harmful twitter stuff you guys talk about, but I definitely recognize that they exist. I think it is a good place to debate with different people and learn new things, provided you choose to engage with reasonable people. It's not hard to figure out who's on twitter to converse and who's on twitter for tribal harassment.

 

I don't think the free speech, or left wing vs. right wing stuff is the real focus here. I'm not really sure what Elon's motive is. His stated goal is to "do something" about the profit driven media where bad news sells better than good news and causes people to 1) think the world is very terrible, and 2) stoke tribal divisions, but it's not very clear to me how controlling twitter or changing how twitter works is going to address that when twitter is really just a small player in a market dominated by media company giants.

Elon's a weird guy. I wouldn't say I trust him. He has ideas I like and don't like, but I will give him the benefit of the doubt for now.
 

I think Elon at his core is a very lonely man who deeply needs to be loved and appreciated (just as all humans do really). He's trying to fill that actual gap in his life with fame and admiration from weirdo libertarians by doing various stunts but it's a poor substitute for actual human intimacy so he keeps trying harder and harder and doing bigger and bigger stunts. At the end of the day he's a con man so he can't really do anything of substance beyond move money around and perform smoke-and-mirrors tricks.

I really highly doubt Twitter is going to "become /pol/-friendly" (inasmuch as it already is), that seems more like a knee-jerk reaction to rightoids who are drinking his kool-aid about "greater free expression," because keep in mind they think they're getting persecuted by Twitter in particular and mainstream media in general.

2 minutes ago, AlexMax said:

Given that the site is now privately owned, he doesn't have to answer to shareholders anymore.  He knows he's the sucker who got stuck holding the bag, and I think there's a 50/50 chance that Musk in his hubris decides it's worth the risk to make it /pol/-friendly, either out of spite or because he truly doesn't think it's going to trigger an exodus of users and advertisers.

Granted, I don't know much about that side of business, so if the debt doesn't suddenly matter anymore then sucks to be them shareholders, I guess. However, based on his history regarding other business acquisitions, I'm not entirely convinced Twitter is going to change much overall if I'm trying to look at it purely from a business sense.

1 hour ago, Biodegradable said:

Granted, I don't know much about that side of business, so if the debt doesn't suddenly matter anymore then sucks to be them shareholders, I guess. However, based on his history regarding other business acquisitions, I'm not entirely convinced Twitter is going to change much overall if I'm trying to look at it purely from a business sense.

The debt is why I think the chances are 50/50.  Notice how the old ownership were especially eager to offload the site - they knew they were going to be in hot water in the next few years with the trajectory of the site, and selling to Musk allows them to make out like bandits and no longer shoulder the blame when the other shoe drops.  Screaming bloody murder when Musk tried to pull out was especially telling of their mindset.

So Musk is now left holding the bag.  In that light, making the site more palatable to neo-nazis seems like the kind of gamble he'd be willing to take.  It will almost certainly alienate advertisers and an enormous chunk of his users, but he may be idealistic enough to think it won't happen.

19 minutes ago, AlexMax said:

The debt is why I think the chances are 50/50.  Notice how the old ownership were especially eager to offload the site - they knew they were going to be in hot water in the next few years with the trajectory of the site, and selling to Musk allows them to make out like bandits and no longer shoulder the blame when the other shoe drops.  Screaming bloody murder when Musk tried to pull out was especially telling of their mindset.

Exactly. There's no other logical reason why they would kick up such a fuss if they didn't think it was a sinking ship.

6 hours ago, Rudolph said:

It is hardly surprising, as that kind of things always happen and those higher-ups were given millions of dollars in compensation.

 

Elon Musk simply did not walk in and smugly show people the door like in the movies.

Turns out that's not true, he fired them For Cause in an effort to avoid severance.  So there is yet more legal circus in the future.

Basically Musk is faced with the conundrum of how to smoke-and-mirrors this failed game of chicken to keep up his image as both a brilliant business mind and genius ideological tactician.  He can't earnestly try to make Twitter profitable, because tech bro libertarian ancap shit and the entourage of puritans and nazis that follow it is bad for ad-tech driven business (also the only thing keeping Twitter afloat is porn).  And owning Twitter puts him on the wrong end of the gun when it comes to payment processor astroturfing to do corporate activism.  So he's gotta do yet another managed decline, and find a way to make lemonade with the trove of surveillance data Twitter represents.

I would expect this general situation to intensify across all media platforms. The entire ad-tech social media sector is in decline as users bail from an increasingly hostile environment, except for porn (NSFW is exempted from a number of elements of algorithmic exposure, making it a more user-friendly experience), and there are vast entrenched political interests aligned to continue using threats against porn to exert financial pressure and extend policy control over the internet.

49 minutes ago, AlexMax said:

In that light, making the site more palatable to neo-nazis seems like the kind of gamble he'd be willing to take.  It will almost certainly alienate advertisers and an enormous chunk of his users, but he may be idealistic enough to think it won't happen.

I'm not convinced he's that much of an idealogue beyond grifter-tier posturing that continues to fuel his self-interest and bolster his cult of personality. Sure, the guy's a dimwit, but I doubt even he would be stupid enough to simply flush $40b down the toilet. I know he's the richest con-artist on Earth right now and blows his nose on $100 bills, but I just don't see this kind of gamble happening. I feel like it's more likely he'll either make a few minor changes that help Twitter scrounge up more cash or does more or less nothing different at all.

If Twitter does become /pol/ 2.0 and then Musk is forced to pull the plug after a mass-exodus, then I owe you a drink, Alex.

6 minutes ago, Biodegradable said:

I feel like it's more likely he'll either make a few minor changes that help Twitter scrounge up more cash or does more or less nothing different at all.

He's been open about having ambitions to making a western equivalent to China's WeChat. That appears to be his end goal with the purchase.

As for how I feel about the whole issue. Twitter needed new management. Will Musk make it better? There's a lot of speculation and political posturing but who knows. It was a sinking ship that only has the use of quickly disseminating information. Maybe he can get it to a point where it has more functionality and cut all the bots but only time will tell. I do enjoy all the "oh no nazis" talk though. The site has been rife with extremists for years. It's not like changing ownership will make it any worse or that Musk is any worse than everyone else who's ever ran the site.

7 hours ago, Gregor said:

In Elon we trust.

The only thing Melon Husk can be trusted for is being a pedo guy. No defamation intended!

4 hours ago, JBerg said:

hopefully Musk doesn't purchase Doomworld

Safe to say we won't need to worry about that ever happening.

I only follow Twitter threads for obscure shooters or technical threads, which makes Twitter a harder-to-read blog.

The amount of time people are willing to invest into hollow debates over everything is a decision i do not share. Its fabricated outrage, and i decided for myself i have better things to do and not worth my time. Making an adult decision.

6 hours ago, PineFresh said:

That's not to say that wealthy people are inherently assholes (though there's a strong correlation). But in Musk's case, his history is clear and his attitude is maybe two notches away from Martin Shkreli territory. So yeah. He can rot in the hell he's being forced to purchase for all I care.

It´s not inherently that wealthy people are assholes, though as you said there is indeed strong correlation, but that especialy bad and selfish people are rewarded with a lot of wealth and influence.
Made worse today is the fact that we somehow as a society got into our head that selfishness and reckless overindulgence are virtues (lol) instead of something to be shuned, which makes today rich assholes arguably worse then they were in the past (depending on society and time period of course).

I'm surrounded by fairly right winged friends. From what I hear from them, Twitter is a breeding ground of left wing groups and moderators and many right wing voices have been banned for having a conflicting view. So the whole free speech thing is in question there. I don't believe everything they say as everyone has a bias but from what I can tell at least some of it is true.

I don't use Twitter so for the most part, I don't care. If Elon musk is screwing with its status quo, I find it an entertaining idea at the very least.

'ate Twotter,

'ate Erlon Moose,

Simple as. 

34 minutes ago, Chezza said:

From what I hear from them, Twitter is a breeding ground of left wing groups and moderators and many right wing voices have been banned for having a conflicting view.

Well, we hear the same exact story in reverse from the left wing groups as well, so I don't know what to make of that. Or it's just that they are both right, and extremes on both ends are getting banned, which is entirely how we would expect things to work normally anyways.

43 minutes ago, Chezza said:

I'm surrounded by fairly right winged friends. From what I hear from them, Twitter is a breeding ground of left wing groups and moderators and many right wing voices have been banned for having a conflicting view. So the whole free speech thing is in question there. I don't believe everything they say as everyone has a bias but from what I can tell at least some of it is true.

 

I don't use Twitter so for the most part, I don't care. If Elon musk is screwing with its status quo, I find it an entertaining idea at the very least.

 

Your friends are full of shit.

The obvious first question is: what kind of "conflicting view" are we talking about? Twitter does not ban you for wanting lower taxes.

Thankfully I don't spend my every waking moment on twitter so I don't care LOL!

im gone from there from pretty much now on

i mean i remember when jack would go out of his way not to ban overt nazi accounts for as long as possible, so it's not like having a bad leader is a sudden development. but elon is such a memelord, such a hater of artists and such a "disruptor" that the place is gonna be his sad little experiment, not even worth trying to communicate through anymore

29 minutes ago, RDETalus said:

Well, we hear the same exact story in reverse from the left wing groups as well, so I don't know what to make of that. Or it's just that they are both right, and extremes on both ends are getting banned, which is entirely how we would expect things to work normally anyways.

Probably a certain degree of confirmation bias goes into these conclusions. Person X tends to stay mostly in the political circles he agrees with, said circles reinforce the notion to Person X that they themselves are more singled out for punishment than others. And when Person X more often sees people in those circles banned or suspended (which is only natural, since he tends to stay inside those circles), this further cements that notion to him.

Twitter is just a literal hellscape and we'll just leave it at that. That's why I intend to avoid it like the goddamn plague.

In general: twitter is...

I put this entire gordon ramsay video here... Just for this post...

39 minutes ago, Caffeine Freak said:

 

Probably a certain degree of confirmation bias goes into these conclusions. Person X tends to stay mostly in the political circles he agrees with, said circles reinforce the notion to Person X that they themselves are more singled out for punishment than others. And when Person X more often sees people in those circles banned or suspended (which is only natural, since he tends to stay inside those circles), this further cements that notion to him.

It´s mostly how modern algorythms work, to put it simply: let´s say you follow content from group A, then based on your preferences the algorythm will bring you more content from group A while sidelining content from group B because you showed no interest in their content.

While this might work well in entertainment it can also often reinforce your biases and can lead you to getting lock in a echo chamber where arguments from group B are only presented by group A etc.

Realy it´s my theory that a lot of people with the rise of social media have been sort off "programed" by algorythms to be grouped into certain groups probably in order to be more identifiable for online advertisers, because depending what group you belong to you also buy certain products, which is what the original purpose of these algorythms was: to make it more easier to group people by their shared interests for purposes of marketing.

Very excited. This could be the BEST thing to happen to Twitter. The fact that Musk already doesn’t like Biden (why would anyone?) is a win in my book. Jack Dorsey was also someone who needed to go. He CLAIMED he’d not allow violence on Twitter, but yet had allowed the taliban to have a Twitter page complete with a cartoon picture of Rambo being killed by the taliban. Trust me if this were the conservatives doing this to someone like Pelosi or Biden, they’d have been banned in an instant. There WAS a double standard wether or not people wanted to admit.

i am incredibly eager to see exactly how the apartheid emerald baby's ineptitude will play out. it would be hilarious to see the entire platform collapse as the hate goblins complain about getting "cancelled" because of it

myspace and its consequences et al

the combination data mine and algo. determined content is the disaster of a disaster we get to see in real time!

Also I’m a little confused on what gets defined as a Neo nazi these days? Cause someone who wants less taxes, less government and wants to own guns is NOT a neonazi like the extreme left claims. We don’t call the extreme left communists (well ok we do), but people need to understand there is such a thing called the CONSTITUTION!!! It’s why we have a right to free speech and are allowed to own guns. Are there some people that should not own guns? ABSOLUTELY!! The ones you hear about shooting up places are not the legal gun owners though. They got those guns off the black market. They make legal gun owners look bad and the MSM isn’t helping shit!!

I predict that less will change than anyone wants or expects until the mounting debts (Both Twitter's and Musk's other ventures) catch up and the site gets resold to Verizon for pennies on the dollar. I also predict that the number of people that leave the site forever following this sale will be roughly on par with the number of people who migrate to Canada after any given US presidential election.

In the meantime, people will continue to complain about how terrible the site is while simultaneously posting on it every 25 minutes, like clockwork, without cessation for sleep or food. Same as it ever was.

47 minutes ago, Spooner5020 said:

Are there some people that should not own guns? ABSOLUTELY!! The ones you hear about shooting up places are not the legal gun owners though. They got those guns off the black market. They make legal gun owners look bad and the MSM isn’t helping shit!!

At risk of derailment because this is so terribly misguided:
Many of the biggest shootings that have happened in the US in recent history were committed by people who had legally owned firearms- even though some technically shouldn't have but due to legal systemic failings managed to get the guns anyways (legally).

P.S. this infographic comes from a mainstream source, but go off, I guess!