Hacker News Reader

Comment by seydor | Hacker News Reader

Well, OTOH Elon cannot run for POTUS , so this is kind of a second best. But he can really have some political influcence if he (a) clones substack into twitter and (b) hires a bunch of journalists from Nytimes & Wapo to make twitter his own publication.

View on HN

Twitter had its own substack feature but Musk shut it down the other day because Jack started using it and it made him cry.

There's also a whole heap of different laws applying to being a "publication" which Twitter currently skirts by claiming to be a platform not a publication - if they declared themselves a publication (as Musk accidentally did the other day because he's not very bright) they would lose the Section 230 protections.

> There's also a whole heap of different laws applying to being a "publication" which Twitter currently skirts by claiming to be a platform not a publication - if they declared themselves a publication (as Musk accidentally did the other day because he's not very bright) they would lose the Section 230 protections.

That's not how section 230 works. See [1] for a decent explanation.

[1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/12/publisher-or-platform-...

Thanks, that's an excellent write-up and I stand corrected.

He is certainly got journalists' attention. Maybe not in a way that is great for recruiting them.

I'd say that owning Twitter might give you more power than being POTUS. But also, being a multi-billionaire gives you more power than the "average" POTUS.

Twitter is a medium but it doesn't control any narrative. He needs the writers to create it.

It is wild exaggeration to compare it with being President

Is it? Presidency is a position. You need a heap of advisers and legal executives to handle this. I'd argue that the president themself is not as powerful in making people believe something as digital media in general is.

A president can imprison a billionaire / media owner, not the reverse

I think you are vastly overestimating POTUS' powers. They can't simply issue an edict to send someone to prison.

On the hand, I think you're vastly underestimating POTUS' powers.

Those NASA contracts sure looks nice ... it'd be a shame if someone quietly underminded their frequency.

Arguably Musk has donkey's mess all over him right now precisely because of POTUS' stance in ignoring Tesla. Again, arguably, there is a direct line from that all the way to Musk's current petulant child act jumping into bed with the right wing ass kissers. He was (ignoring some warning signs) the golden child (to the majority) before that.

The reputational damage that has been done from that, and Musks counter-actions, is measured in the billions ... arguably trillions over the long term.

And not an edict was even issued.

I think we should define "power" here. My stance is that POTUS may have more direct influence on single entities, like CEOs or companies. Social media however can be used as tool to influence how people think, the majority of the populus. From influencing to straight up brain washing.

I think that this bottom-up influence is far more powerful in the long run than a direct top-down control style if you want to achieve certain beliefs, mindsets, obedience.

Not a chance in hell. You're way off beam.

Sure, a billionaire could well undermine a Presidents' chances of re-election, but they have nowhere near the power of a sitting POTUS.

This is Twitter we're talking about, headed up by a Chief Twit man-child ... not Spectre or something ...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com