tchaffee

> If Twitter becomes interoperable with other services, this is literally the opposite of tech neofeudalism.

It's not interoperable. It's controlled by one person. Like Facebook. When that changes we can discuss it. But until then, it's just an empty promise.

> Based on talking to those who dislike him

So anecdotal evidence?

> they're mostly pretty hating him for things he hasnt done, views he doesnt hold and traits he doesnt have

So they have actual reasons to hate him. Superficial reasons, but you didn't once mention anything having to do with it being in vogue. Evidence of it being in vogue would be people who don't know why they hate Elon, but they do know their friends hate Elon.

> no, he isnt a success because he had an uber wealthy father who owned an emerald mine, it was a tiny share in a mine and his father contributed little to Musks business ventures

This is debatable by reasonable people.

> Musk is a driven, childish, stubborn

These sound like real reasons he could be disliked rather than it being your claim that it's simply in vogue or "traits he doesnt have" in your words.

> who really likes first principles reasoning

That's part of his PR and the image he tries to convey. He fails at it quite often because of his childishness and impulsive knee jerk reactions that he falls victim to on a regular basis. He is far more driven by emotion than by reason. I mean it's highly probable he owns Twitter now by being legally held to a poorly written contract he had no real intention of following through on. It ironically seems like neither he nor many of his customers want to be at this party he ended up at.

That doesn't tell the real story though. Actual alternatives to these services do exist now and have some popularity. So some people do actually move. MySpace is an example of an eventual mass exodus.

Anecdotal, but I personally know a handful of people who deleted their Facebook account and use other platforms instead. So it does happen. The question is whether or not it affects their advertising revenue in the long run. Zucks's solution so far seems to have been buying up the competition.

It's not out of the question that one of these massively popular social networks will collapse in the next decade.

You are wrong.

The act or practice of conspicuously displaying one's awareness of and attentiveness to political issues, matters of social and racial justice, etc., especially instead of taking effective action. [1]

And from the person who coined the term:

British journalist James Bartholomew claims to have originated the modern usage of the term "virtue signalling," in a 2015 Spectator article. His 2015 formulation described virtue signalling as empty boasting.

"No one actually has to do anything. Virtue comes from mere words or even from silently held beliefs. There was a time in the distant past when people thought you could only be virtuous by doing things...[that] involve effort and self-sacrifice." [2]

[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/virtue%20signalin...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue_signalling#History

Getting good PR and having disastrous PR are not the only two possible outcomes. This could have been managed far better. But Musk is impulsive and there are PR consequences to being impulsive.

You could also consider that Musk rushed into buying Twitter with a poorly written contract and he was legally forced to buy the company. He didn't end up there due to a well managed plan. He's there thanks to his impulsive and childish nature.

You avoided my question. Can you provide your source for your claim about Facebook?

For the same reason companies have security teams. Or frontend and backend teams. Engineers can't be experts in everything. There is far too much to know.

Source?

Only one average person needs to own Twitter stock for my statement to be true. And the number was far higher than one.

And yes, of course pension funds count. Why wouldn't they?

Of course. What's your point?

I said some people don't like him. I guess it's also true some people find him despicable. What's your point?

> we have zero indication.

That's a gross mismanagement of sweeping changes. Which is in itself an indication. Anyone could have predicted people leaving the platform if they were told ahead of time how the layoffs and extra hours would be so poorly communicated.

> we have zero knowledge

So a grossly mismanaged change from a PR perspective. Of course there is going to be fallout from that.

By your reasoning hating on Kevin Spacey is also in vogue. It's probably not in vogue. It's more likely that his own words and actions are resulting in lots of people not liking him. Imagine that. A world where your own words and actions have consequences.

> basically we don't know

Yes, it has been grossly mismanaged from a PR perspective. Expecting no fallout from that is naive.

Not liking Elon Musk and moving to a different platform is taking an action. Taking action is the opposite of virtue signaling.

Or the simpler answer that doesn't fit your narrative is that lots of folks don't like Musk and his actions and his approach to running businesses. Lots of people find Musk repulsive. It shouldn't be a surprise that those people want to leave.

Twitter also used to be owned by average people. Like most publicly traded companies. So no, it's not from "many rich shareholders" to Elon. It's more nuanced than you're making it out to be.

Twitter was also owned by average people. As are the vast majority of publicly traded companies.

Accessibility is supposed to change and improve. It's fair to expect that to halt when the entire staff has been fired.

What's your source for popularity and does it do a breakdown by demographics advertisers are most interested in? Because I think that tells a very different story from "still most popular with boomers". Their earnings and stock price also tell a different story from "still most popular".

It's safe to say you don't have a source and just made your numbers up.

And you just asked me in another thread for an answer without sarcasm and yet here you are being sarcastic. One rule for us, another rule for you. Whatever indeed.

USD $0.66 is cheap for Brazil. What I said is more specific: I said that it's not cheap for Brazilians who run out of money for food before their next pay. Both can be true if you're not looking for a debate.

You don't know my friends. I do. When my friends say they are left and believe in socialized medicine and other leftist policy, I can comfortably decide they are left. Also note: no true Scotsman logical fallacy.

Did you come up with a source for your claim that 9 out of 10 PT members will say Lava Jato was a complete farse and that no one was guilty of corruption?

I'm not pushing an agenda. This is basic math.

> What percentage of them would you say have the opinion that the Lava-Jato operation was a farce?

That depends on what details you ask for. If you ask if them if Moro was biased and corrupt, they can simply point to the court ruling that he was.

If you ask them if the politicians who went to jail were all innocent, you'll get far far fewer people supporting that idea.

The details are important.

> 9 out of 10 PT supporters make this claim,

Please share your source for this information.

> The people you're referring to is not 'the left'.

They are. When my friends tell me they are politically left, it's not up to you to decide they aren't the "real" left, whatever that might be.

No fine is cheap when you already can't buy enough food.

No, it's the rich who want our money. And they were getting better at taking it. With the labor shortage working class folks are starting to realize no one gets rich if there are no workers and people are demanding better pay. Good for them.

I live here too. I already said that Lula is the exception.

Yes, the more radical left does say that. At least now you're being more specific and more accurate. Your original claim was far more sweeping. And wrong.

That's not cheap for the millions earning less than $200 a month.