Comment by mikkergp | Hacker News Reader

Comment by mikkergp | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> This is actually a measure of do the banks believe Musk will deliver and there are huge names saying yes.

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?

>What do you make of the fact that banks can't unload Twitter debt for 60 cents on the dollar?

>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.

> 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.

Order of magnitude wise this doesn't change the point. Why the snark?

It does change your point quite considerably.

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.

the banks can't unload the twitter debt, that is just a fact

>the banks can't unload the twitter debt, that is just a fact

From the articles I've read, its anonymous sources from unnamed banks. It's far from a fact.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com