Mark Zuckerberg goes in for the kill as Elon Musk’s Twitter bleeds ad dollars

Oh, I don't use Twitter. I set up a handful of accounts to look at information spread, for academic research purposes, and that was it. Once I learned nothing can be deleted, it was enough to deter me from the platform.

Amazing how many such cases we see: "Once I looked upto Elon, but now not anymore". This almost always occurs due to a very specific pathology: You've inferred motives based on outcomes. When he was focused on SpaceX, Tesla he was "earnest", "sincere", "cool". When he focuses on right wing politics and twitter, he's a "wannabe", "selfish", "duplicitous", there are many such descriptions I see online. The only conclusion I can come to upon seeing sentences like this is that you live in a comic book reality. When people have good outcomes, they decidedly have noble and good intentions, when people have bad outcomes, they have evil and selfish intentions. The possibility that someone can have objectively horrible outcomes with noble, pure intentions or vice versa does not exist in this world. To someone who does not live in a comic book, Elon has always had pure and earnest motives, in the sense that if he acted duplicitous he was not consciously aware of it. He does believe he is saving free speech, making humans multi-planetary, saving the environment, saving lives with autopilot etc. Now whether his earnest desires are leading to good real world outcomes is probably something you disagree with and that is a judgement you can make, yet it's very weird when you make assumptions on motivations. In the comic book world:

1. Journalists who often lead to good outcomes are earnest and moral in stature while when you actually interact with journalists you would realize they are easily the scum of the earth and the most deceptive group in real life to ever exist. You do not want to be their friend. When journalists are aware of their pathology you get amazing lines like: (from Hamilton Nolan in Gawker): " Because journalism, particularly at the highest level, is about raw power. It is about bringing important people to heel, on behalf of the public. All I know is that there is only one way the press maintains its power in society: by metaphorically putting the heads of powerful people on pikes. If the Post and all the other respectable media outlets lose their ability to do that, powerful people will, by extension, stop caring what the well-informed segment of the public thinks. "

2. Non Profit's often have very noble intentions and high aspirations Yet, a very large number of Non Profit's are the worst thing to happen to the society they're trying to help. One only needs to look at the drug problem at SF and their enablers, but one can also marvel at the death toll of the Arab Spring.

I have no info on what he banned or blocked. All I am saying is if someone wants a KKK platform or a white hate platform then so be it. As long as they are not harming anyone physically or financially it is fair game. We can't have this now for some reason but I grew up in a time when it was allowed. Nothing bad happened unlike today. The more things are banned the more bad thing happen. Maybe stop banning things? Just a suggestion from personal experience.