collegeburner

twitter could invoke the "faltering company" exemption given that its now saddled with many $B LBO debt, or unexpected contracts loss given that some advertisers are pausing spend.

"I couldn't get this working so nobody else can either". Classic gifted kid response to failure tbh.

the imessage model works because its a "status symbol" that actually isn't: the majority of people in America have the blue bubble (and way more among demographics that care). this in turn enables building cool extra features because it's a "status symbol" but actually common enough for them to work, even though both parties have to have an iphone. this produces a network effect, almost like a social media platform..... oh wait

that's not a job? there's a reason one of the most common ways to insult them is "they do it for free".

how is he supposed to pay off a huge LBO by making it harder to monetize?

sorry jannie is a derogatory term for a internet moderator who does it for free. nothing at all against actual janitors who have real jobs. sometimes i get too zoomer for hn.

cool idea except that would require using reddit. twitter is full of retards, but reddit is full of insufferable retards who think they're very intellectual and will let you know it. it's an entire site full of IFL Science type bozos.

also didn't reddit proudly make a blogpost earlier this year that they now censor more speech than the bird site and calling on it to do the same?

(oh and i've been linked normal, SFW stuff where reddit now tries to make me create an account to see it because it's "18+". no, i am not "becoming a redditor" especially not to view one link. if they kill old.reddit.com and i.reddit.com it will be literally unusable.)

dude the middle east is where civilization started, who tf was colonizing them? the middle east has been in conflict literally as far back as we have recorded history. imperialism sure asl hasn't helped it keep up in the last 300 but my point is this isn't exactly new.

> You're racist

stfu man, i can't even argue with you if you won't operate with a bare minimum of good faith.

this is literally not true. nost diligence has a technical component, esp in M&A (vs. early-stage)

lol bsfr, you really think the middle east would be a paradise without us? it's "the graveyard of empires" with a 3 thousand year track record of being a mess. british and french imperialism obv didn't help but come on, don't be pretending things would be all rosy if not for America. it would still be a mess just with different people in charge.

then why are nut allergies the most common when there are no GMO nuts? or shellfish when we don't have GMO shellfish? why do whites have higher rates of childhood allergies (6.6%) but blacks are now rising the fastest?

none of this really seems to fit with a GMO hypothesis.

uhh what? looks like he's just keeping his stake in the go private. rolling equity doesn't make him a creditor it just means now he has a stake in the private venture. where'd you get this info?

not just immune disorder, i mean that "allergy kids" always seemed to be the 110lb scrawny ones, never go outside, never play sports, and burst in to tears for things that made other kids say "ow". idk but makes it seem like maybe there's as much nurture as nature here, i bet

ngl i think this is just a epigenetic shift from people who have been "raised weak" for several generations. i can't prove it completely but there is some research showing that kids with milk allergies end up runty:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4362703/

https://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749(19)31475-7/ful...

this is true up to a point: wind and solar require huge overbuilding relative to generation capacity as they make up an increasing fraction of the grid. plus storage which is also expensive.

is it really fair to blame America? we are now a net exporter, although obv oil isn't perfectly fungible for purposes of refining and petrochemical production. but the real problem is not America, its other nations who can't produce as much as they consume. if we block saudi arabia and opec then the issue would be other buyers driving up prices for American consumers despite us net exporting.

besides europe won't even enforce many restrictions on iran. no way would they get on board with saudi arabia (esp since it would likely mean open more broadly).

rolling equity is not "subsidizing", as your link put it. the saudis have just under 17% so not a controlling interest.

another hypothesis i heard was rural kids grew up with their immune systems exposed to more stuff and so better trained/less likely to overreact. personally, i always noticed kids with allergies tended to be weak and sickly much more often, so maybe that's related.

where can i read more on this? tbh it doesn't make intuitive sense, like we don't have glyphosate peanuts so why are peanut allergies all of a sudden a thing but not corn?

who says you can't still advertise to them? if twitter goes the "screw the eu" route they don't even have to follow gdpr so that makes for a competitive advantage.

no, restrictive of what you consider hate speech. here's a example: it is pretty common for my generation (zoomers) to joke about suicide. so if i mention i got a 89 on a recent exam a friend might reply "lol kys". this isn't actually hateful. similarly, i was talking with a few friends. one mentioned her boyfriend broke up with her suddenly, and another female friend rolled her eyes and said "kill all men". again, not actually hateful.

now apply this problem of "potentially hateful depending on context" to more important stuff. some racists have abused studies on demographic differences to give hateful rhetoric some "scientific" backing, ignoring that you can't generalize from a population to an individual. this has led to mention of demographic differences being very sensitive subjects and sometimes labeled as "hateful". but i don't think we want to stop all research involved with this.

i do not trust the government to make these determinations about when context is hateful and not. since Americans are much less trusting of government than most europeans maybe you can see why we come down on a much higher bar for the government restricting speech and even higher for prior restraint.

let's take a counterexample from your country, where a man was sentenced to community service for a "grossly offensive tweet": the only good Brit soldier is a deed one, burn auld fella buuuuurn

he faced possible jail time. now i think this is more easy to identify as "hateful" than prior examples i've listed. i don't know if this was the person's intent, but in this case hate can serve a legitimate political purpose (anti-imperialism/anti-military industrial complex). similar to how "all cops are bastards" is "hateful" towards cops but again serves a legitimate political purpose (protesting police brutality, racial profiling, etc.)

so again, should anyone really trust a government to be the entity to determine what is "too hateful"?

no, its his legal name.

tbh i've heard quite a few CLOs are sitting with warehouses now open for upwards of 200 days, so MS may just be waiting for them to get desperate to fill up so they don't take so much of a haircut. my guess is the overall prime to sub-IG spread isn't going to be moving down, but this is kinda an advantage for illiquid 144a offerings.

why? i have a legitimate interest in looking at "russian propaganda" sometimes because it's relevant to understanding the ongoing conflict. it may not be fact ually accurate but the official position of their government is relevant to grasping geopolitical problems of the day especially since basically everything their government releases could be reasonably classified as "propaganda".

but i guess only the "verified journalists" or whatever will be allowed to review this then explain it to us proles as they see fit.

yes you are supposed to want that. because there are plenty of cases where truthful and legitimate points have been classified as lies or hate.

ofc defamation law exists. the difference is that is decided in court not by some eurocrat apparatchik. and there has to be some harm demonstrated. and there are special protections for e.g. journalists (see times v. sullivan) that make it even harder in those cases.

how is brussels going to "ban those websites out of europe lol"? license the great firewall from china? hmm yes definitely sounds like a free and open society to me.

> what "we" defend there is called "human rights"

ok cool y'all think that. we think that y'all's vision of "free" speech is authoritarian and necessarily prevents civil disagreement on some important issues, it's already obvious we don't agree on that. but that's not the problem, it's how to reconcile 2 different legal concepts on the same platform. tbh there's no reason why an American would care. if anything it's the euros expecting the rest of the world to police their speech to euro standards that think they're the center of the universe.

no it's not, because the internet doesn't require you to be present in some place so you are not subject to that jurisdiction. i do not recognize the jurisdiction of a country to demand a block of its citizens from a company located in an entirely different nation, and i doubt American courts would either.

like imagine i host a human rights site. if iran says it is illegal for me to provide access to content supporting womens rights to iranian citizens, it is not "illegal" for me to continue doing so because i am American, i live in America, and i operate only by American laws. America would not extradite me to iran for failing to comply with their internet rules.

"ban" twitter how? go to china and ask to license the great firewall? you could restrict it from operating a EU office or servers, you could restrict it from taking payment in euros, you could even restrict EU domiciled business from paying it but actually "banning" it is a much more authoritarian option.

> just because europeans subscribe to a different notion of freedom of speech that doesn't mean that people want siloed and separated social media

i mean the point here is not to argue which vision of free speech is correct, as an American i obviously disagree but what's at issue is how they're separated. y'all may not want a "siloed" solution, but y'all have also passed laws that restrict stuff more than the rest of the world. the rest of the world is not willing to have its speech policed to meet german/EU sensibilities so this is a possible compromise.

i have a website. i host it in America. i do not check where my visitors are coming from and just comply with American law since this is where me and my server are.

am i "operating" in zimbabwe, or moldova, or fiji? no.

if twitter stops selling ads to EU entities, closes any offices, and hosts just outside the EU borders it does not have to comply. if for no other reason then the eu loses its power to enforce.

i doubt America would back that since at that point twitter is doing nothing illegal here. just refusing to block eu citizens. similar to how extradition generally requires something being a crime in both countries.

its a veiled threat because elon is a self-described free speech absolutist where the eu does not believe in significant chunks of free speech (so called disinformation or hate). tbh i hope he closes any physical EU presence and ignores all of brussels laws.