Hacker News Reader

Comment by starefossen | Hacker News Reader

For me it is how one person can suddenly own an entire social network and dictate the rules as he likes or dislikes. Mastodon it self is more open, the server you choose to sign up to might have content policies in place.

View on HN

Wait, that's literally Zuckerberg? How was it OK when a Saudi Prince bought into Twitter to make sure Saudi Arabia wouldn't be hit by an Arab Spring[1]?

I don't really like Musk, but is every conversation and topic these days just plain hysteria?

[1] https://www.computerworld.com/article/2471759/arab-prince-bu...

Yeah, it is not about a whole social network being controlled by a single person. It is about a whole social network being controlled by a single person you disagree with.

You don't have to disagree with Elon as a person or politically to feel that an open speech platform controlled by one person who is known to micromanage everyone around him is bad.

The tweets about Pelosi should that he is absolutely open to using his power as a prominent figure to control the narrative long outside his area of expertise

We need to reduce harmful information. Only experts on A may speak about it. Experts are decided by trustable media outlets.

Who determines what is a "trustable media"? Who watches the watchdog? Etc.

I present to you a trustable media outlet deciding on an expert: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6Y2uQn_wvc

You seem a good example of a victim of propaganda.

I may be mistaken, but I read the comments you're replying to as a sarcastic one.

I hope you're right, people like this really exist.

Tweeting isn't controlling any narrative. If you ban one side and not the other, and suppress stories you don't like, that's more along the lines you're talking.

You have to only care about it now.

That's a pretty dishonest framing.

It's not controlled by a single person, it's controlled by those who coughed up the $44b.

Musk is the only one of them who actively desires the spotlight.

Some of us have already left the Meta ecosystem years ago after finally waking up to that.

Now it is time to do the same for Twitter.

But all the social networks are owned by a few individuals. Even twitter before musk bought it was owned by a select few (with real control), and they already dictated the rules based on their own likes/dislikes... that's what started this whole thing in the first place.

> Even twitter before musk bought it was owned by a select few

Except it wasnt

Where have you been for the last few years? That was exactly what was happening.

If I could choulse twitter would be a protocol, but to me the worst case is being owned by an anonymous bureaucracy working exclusively to optimize the platform for add revenue, that changes the 'rules' on the fashions of US local politics. Anything else is an improvement.

It's a private company.

I’m old enough to remember when that was an excuse people used for Twitter. Funny, seems like months ago. Now, it’s a private company but the arguments are all different.

a publicly traded company. not exactly the same as its current status.

You’re right. It was worse to use that argument. But now all the people that did have changed their positions.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com