Elon Musk never cared if Twitter was a business failure–he wants a political win
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
And a platform dominated by Andrew Tates and Donald Trumps will be strongly popular (inspire fanaticism), but not broadly popular, and may alienate people. If Elon Musk lets twitter become a cesspool, and conservatives embrace the cesspool, I think it will lead to a new understanding of "brand safety".
The reality is the large divide between red and blue in the USA. Both sides just insult and attack each other constantly. Never honour successes or be positive about the other side. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_American_Civil_War
What exactly is Elon Musk doing for the political win? History is full of violence, there is currently only 1 known good way to prevent violence. Open and fair discussions.
Something which is clear now; a certain political group was censoring their political opponents and then telling their side it was all legitimate content moderation. This has now ended.
What do you make of the fact that banks can't unload Twitter debt for 60 cents on the dollar? https://www.marketplace.org/2022/11/11/banks-that-helped-fin...
> Open and fair discussions
How do you define open and fair discussions? If Twitter becomes a one way shouting match for the far right, it's not really a discussion, more like RTLM. How do you think Twitter could actually facilitate open and fair discussions, or, if demoderating Twitter doesn't lead to them then it wasn't possible in the first place?
> a certain political group was censoring their political opponents and then telling their side it was all legitimate content moderation.
What makes this clear? Why all the hush-hush around a "certain political group". Why not just name them? Do you think your analysis is broadly inclusive of all political parties involved or is biased towards the worldview of one?
>They’ve reportedly received offers for as little as 60 cents on the dollar.
The article isn't saying the highest bid is 60cents/$. It's saying this was the lowest bid. Very weasel way to put it, intentionally trying to mislead. They seemingly got you.
>How do you define open and fair discussions?
I could probably put something together we would both agree upon. I'm largely speaking thinking about a university debate hall type thing.
-Unstructured -anyone can speak for however long as they like. -no rules government anything, turns, offtopic, or any constraints on the kind of speech. -venue cannot impose restrictions.
>If Twitter becomes a one way shouting match for the far right, it's not really a discussion, more like RTLM. How do you think Twitter could actually facilitate open and fair discussions, or, if demoderating Twitter doesn't lead to them then it wasn't possible in the first place?
This isn't how twitter works. If you're being bombed on because you said something some group somewhere doesnt like. Then you should wonder why you're being bombed on. Then just get to blocking and muting people as needed.
Twitter regularly does have tons of open and fair discussions. The subjects may be boring or at least not controversial. So claiming twitter cannot have what it regularly has would be wrong. The better question is why the republicans seem so upset.
Order of magnitude wise this doesn't change the point. Why the snark?
I feel like you're smart enough to read it for yourself and come to the same conclusion. Being fooled by tricks like this should be taken with the pain which it is. That is to say, no pain except for intellectual or cognitive pain. You can now read your source for what it is.
I have provided you a cognitive inoculation today.
From the articles I've read, its anonymous sources from unnamed banks. It's far from a fact.