Elon Musk largest stakeholder of Twitter

[Fritz]

I can't wait to see how this shakes out. 

https://www.foxbusiness.com/business-leaders/elon-musk-purchases-stake-in-twitter-after-slamming-its-approach-to-free-speech

[Katy]

Hmmmm.  Certainly will be interesting.

[Faith-manor]

13 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

Lest there be any doubt that the "cancel culture" stuff is complete BS. 

 

Wow! So basically, don't regulate business because "capitalism" until business has a policy or makes a statement you don't like that hurts your feel feels, then do illegal things to them like strip them of copyrights though they have not committed copyright law infringement. Yep, they can take their cancel culture crap and stuff it where the sun doesn't shine.

[Matryoshka]

27 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

Lest there be any doubt that the "cancel culture" stuff is complete BS. 

 

So... he says 'cancel culture has no place in American society' - and his 'solution' is to cancel Disney?   🤔

Edited April 4, 2022 by Matryoshka

[Katy]

58 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

Lest there be any doubt that the "cancel culture" stuff is complete BS. 

 

I don't think I've seen so many statements strung together that are so factually incorrect AND simultaneously hypocritical. I read something yesterday that Disney halting political contributions to those supporting the Don't Say Gay bill (whatever it was actually called) meant all these people are now calling Disney's decision "the grooming bill."  You know, because explaining to kids in early elementary school that some people are gay is exactly the same thing as grooming children.  That's how that works.  </end sarcasm>

[KSera]

3 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

now it's back to gay rights and teaching girls about their bodies. 

A bit off-topic, but what was the teaching girls about their bodies part? This whole thing is so frustrating that I have not clicked on many headlines about it. Particularly the Disney part I’m clueless on right now except to know that it’s going on.
 

Also, does anyone have a better way to refer to the “don’t say gay” Bill? I end up calling it that myself, but I know it’s not accurate and I don’t like being hypocritical by being disingenuous when I’m talking about something (though I do see the argument that it could indeed potentially have the end result of “don’t say gay” for teachers in the classroom. Still, I’d rather be more accurate when talking about it, but the actual title was long and not accurately descriptive either). 

[KSera]

55 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

 

 

[deleted]

Probably not a good idea on this side of the board. 😢

Edited April 4, 2022 by KSera

[KSera]

5 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

I didn't write anything about trans issues.

Yeah, I know. MTG did. I had quoted just her tweet that you quoted.

[Melissa Louise]

Anti-semitism is always in fashion, right and left. 

I'm interested to see what happens with Twitter. It has outsize influence given that most people are not using it. 

 

[Fritz]

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/twitters-chickens-come-home-to-roost?s=r

Elon Musk has reportedly attempted to purchase Twitter, and I have no idea whether his influence on the company would be positive or not.

I do know, however, what other media figures think Musk’s influence on Twitter will be. They think it will be bad — very bad, bad! How none of them see what a self-own this is is beyond me. After spending the last six years practically turgid with joy as other unaccountable billionaires tweaked the speech landscape in their favor, they’re suddenly howling over the mere rumor that a less censorious fat cat might get to sit in one of the big chairs. O the inhumanity!

A few of the more prominent Musk critics are claiming merely to be upset at the prospect of wealthy individuals controlling speech. As more than one person has pointed out, this is a bizarre thing to be worrying about all of the sudden, since it’s been the absolute reality in America for a while.

David Sirota @davidsirota

as someone who isn't a fan of Elon Musk, I still find it darkly funny that billionaire-owned media is suddenly having a moral panic about a billionaire possibly buying Twitter

April 14th 2022

94 Retweets604 Likes

Probably the funniest effort along those lines was this passage:

We need regulation… to prevent rich people from controlling our channels of communication.

That was Ellen Pao, former CEO of Reddit, railing against Musk in the pages of… the Washington Post! A newspaper owned by Jeff Bezos complaining about rich people controlling “channels of communication” just might be the never-released punchline of Monty Python’s classic “Funniest Joke in the World” skit.

[KSera]

48 minutes ago, Fritz said:

as someone who isn't a fan of Elon Musk, I still find it darkly funny that billionaire-owned media is suddenly having a moral panic about a billionaire possibly buying Twitter

People aren’t unhappy at the idea of any old billionaire buying Twitter, it’s Elon musk in particular. He is not a rational guy. I don’t like to diagnose people on the Internet, so I won’t, but there’s some stuff going on there. 

[livetoread]

I can't imagine that any fully free speech space would last very long. Who really wants to be in that cesspool? It's a tough balance to know where to draw lines, but in my experience, unregulated speech devolves faster than one can say, "I'm a woman and I want to voice my opinion about something you disagree with me about!" I don't know why he thinks Twitter would flourish with less regulation, but good luck with that.

 

[Clarita]

2 hours ago, KSera said:

People aren’t unhappy at the idea of any old billionaire buying Twitter, it’s Elon musk in particular. He is not a rational guy.

But also who cares. Twitter doesn't even have a monopoly as a social media medium. Everyone can decide to use a different platform if they don't like him; they can choose to stop telling everyone what gets posted on Twitter as news. 

[KSera]

1 hour ago, Clarita said:

But also who cares. Twitter doesn't even have a monopoly as a social media medium. Everyone can decide to use a different platform if they don't like him; they can choose to stop telling everyone what gets posted on Twitter as news. 

Well, sure. If he buys it and turns it into something resembling 4chan or something, then people will bail and a different platform will have to be developed. But also, for people who do find Twitter valuable currently, it's more than a who cares. It's not of zero consequence to have whoever buy whatever. Doesn't mean it can't happen, but people will understandably care. I mean, if McDonalds bought my favorite health food store, I would care. Yes, someone else could open a new one and I would stop going to the old one, but I would still care. For myself, I find Twitter a mixed bag. There's a lot of utter cr@p on it, but I also have found it to be one of my best sources for following Covid scientists, as I can read from the scientists themselves and follow links to the studies they post, etc.

[Dmmetler]

8 minutes ago, KSera said:

Well, sure. If he buys it and turns it into something resembling 4chan or something, then people will bail and a different platform will have to be developed. But also, for people who do find Twitter valuable currently, it's more than a who cares. It's not of zero consequence to have whoever buy whatever. Doesn't mean it can't happen, but people will understandably care. I mean, if McDonalds bought my favorite health food store, I would care. Yes, someone else could open a new one and I would stop going to the old one, but I would still care. For myself, I find Twitter a mixed bag. There's a lot of utter cr@p on it, but I also have found it to be one of my best sources for following Covid scientists, as I can read from the scientists themselves and follow links to the studies they post, etc.

And twitter has a ton of early career researchers on there supporting each other and sharing their finds. I cannot understate how important Twitter has been to my budding biologist, because it has made talking to people working in the field so easy-it was especially important in getting off the record information about specific programs and PIs. 

[Melissa Louise]

6 hours ago, Fritz said:

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/twitters-chickens-come-home-to-roost?s=r

Elon Musk has reportedly attempted to purchase Twitter, and I have no idea whether his influence on the company would be positive or not.

I do know, however, what other media figures think Musk’s influence on Twitter will be. They think it will be bad — very bad, bad! How none of them see what a self-own this is is beyond me. After spending the last six years practically turgid with joy as other unaccountable billionaires tweaked the speech landscape in their favor, they’re suddenly howling over the mere rumor that a less censorious fat cat might get to sit in one of the big chairs. O the inhumanity!

A few of the more prominent Musk critics are claiming merely to be upset at the prospect of wealthy individuals controlling speech. As more than one person has pointed out, this is a bizarre thing to be worrying about all of the sudden, since it’s been the absolute reality in America for a while.

David Sirota @davidsirota

as someone who isn't a fan of Elon Musk, I still find it darkly funny that billionaire-owned media is suddenly having a moral panic about a billionaire possibly buying Twitter

April 14th 2022

94 Retweets604 Likes

Probably the funniest effort along those lines was this passage:

We need regulation… to prevent rich people from controlling our channels of communication.

That was Ellen Pao, former CEO of Reddit, railing against Musk in the pages of… the Washington Post! A newspaper owned by Jeff Bezos complaining about rich people controlling “channels of communication” just might be the never-released punchline of Monty Python’s classic “Funniest Joke in the World” skit.

Isn't part of it owned by a Saudi prince or something? Nobody has any morals when it comes to using Twitter, so I do think the outcry is a little hypocritical. None of our public squares are run by the public. They're all run by mad oligarchs, and people behave like the place is a circus. 

I would just like moderation to be more consistent. I've reported posts which goad others (mostly Jewish writers and feminists,  but not only) to self harm and suicide, and I've reported rape threats* - and they somehow don't break the T & C's, but others get bans for life for much, much less. Over a single issue in particular.

Anyway, social media is the great curse of our era, and Twitter is particularly unrepresentative and with outsize influence, so I'm all for destabilizing it. 

*Not to me, I don't post on Twitter. 

 

 

[Idalou]

https://www.indiatimes.com/technology/news/elon-musks-tweets-over-taking-tesla-private-were-false-rules-us-federal-judge-567251.html

So he lied on Twitter. Maybe he SHOULD add an edit button if he takes over.

[TravelingChris]

I think the rules should be very clear.  They ban a satire media outlet but let Taliban post.  I have never been banned as far as I know or censored but I guess since I didn't like the mandates and think the 2020 election was very questionable, they could.  I think I have only once made a post that was not replying to another post.  I mainly use Twitter as one of my news sources.

I am all for Elon Musk's buy.  It is significantly above the current value. 

[Frances]

13 hours ago, TravelingChris said:

I think the rules should be very clear.  They ban a satire media outlet but let Taliban post.  I have never been banned as far as I know or censored but I guess since I didn't like the mandates and think the 2020 election was very questionable, they could.  I think I have only once made a post that was not replying to another post.  I mainly use Twitter as one of my news sources.

I am all for Elon Musk's buy.  It is significantly above the current value. 

Please read the extensive research that has been done regarding the integrity of the 2020 presidential election results. For one source, much has been posted on multiple threads on this board, including from individuals who have actually read all of the court documents. Continuing to spread false information about its validity is such a grave risk to our country. Given the terrible results of the Russian propaganda and misinformation machine in regards to Ukraine, it deeply saddens and worries me when people here in the US who have access to a wide range of news and information, choose very biased sources that make their money off of lies, propaganda, misinformation, and fear mongering.

Edited April 19, 2022 by Frances

[Fritz]

22 hours ago, KSera said:

People aren’t unhappy at the idea of any old billionaire buying Twitter, it’s Elon musk in particular. He is not a rational guy. I don’t like to diagnose people on the Internet, so I won’t, but there’s some stuff going on there. 

Right, I know, he's not the right kind of rich guy! He actually believes in free speech, whereas the right kind of rich guys do not. 

Edited April 19, 2022 by Fritz

[KSera]

47 minutes ago, Fritz said:

Right, I know, he's not the right kind of rich guy! He actually believes in free speech, whereas the right kind of rich guys do not. 

Lol, yeah, no, that’s not the issue. You’re unaware of his particular issues perhaps? I would prefer to see Elon Musk start his own platform if that’s what he wants. No one (in the US) has lost their right to free speech either. It makes me laugh when I see people ranting about how they don’t have free speech anymore while live streaming their rant about their lack of free speech all across the internet 🙄. There are certainly other countries people can look to for examples of what loss of free speech looks like. Here’s some from Russia: https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/kremlin-crackdown-silences-war-protests-benign-bold-84075238

[Jean in Newcastle]

1 hour ago, Fritz said:

Right, I know, he's not the right kind of rich guy! He actually believes in free speech, whereas the right kind of rich guys do not. 

And the penny drops about what kind of fight you're trying to start this time. . .

[Fritz]

31 minutes ago, KSera said:

Lol, yeah, no, that’s not the issue. You’re unaware of his particular issues perhaps? I would prefer to see Elon Musk start his own platform if that’s what he wants. No one (in the US) has lost their right to free speech either. It makes me laugh when I see people ranting about how they don’t have free speech anymore while live streaming their rant about their lack of free speech all across the internet 🙄. There are certainly other countries people can look to for examples of what loss of free speech looks like. Here’s some from Russia: https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/kremlin-crackdown-silences-war-protests-benign-bold-84075238

We're not talking about free speech "all across the internet". We're talking about free speech on Twitter which currently does not happen. 

What's the "issue" with Elon Musk that you think makes him ineligible to buy Twitter? I too would like to see him start his own platform, sell all of his shares of Twitter, and sit back and watch the upcoming lawsuits filed by the shareholders against the Twitter board that would likely be filed.

 

[KSera]

Time magazine actually did a pretty good article on why opening social media platforms like Twitter up to be completely unmoderated ends up resulting in the opposite of free speech.

‘The Idea Exposes His Naiveté.’ Twitter Employees On Why Elon Musk Is Wrong About Free Speech

“Since the explosion of social media usage more than a decade ago, researchers and technologists have forged an understanding of the ways that the design of social media sites has an impact on civic discourse and, ultimately, democratic processes. One of their key findings: sites that privilege free speech above all else tend to result in spaces where civic discourse is drowned out by harassment, restricting participation to a privileged few.”

[Fritz]

15 minutes ago, KSera said:

Time magazine actually did a pretty good article on why opening social media platforms like Twitter up to be completely unmoderated ends up resulting in the opposite of free speech.

‘The Idea Exposes His Naiveté.’ Twitter Employees On Why Elon Musk Is Wrong About Free Speech

“Since the explosion of social media usage more than a decade ago, researchers and technologists have forged an understanding of the ways that the design of social media sites has an impact on civic discourse and, ultimately, democratic processes. One of their key findings: sites that privilege free speech above all else tend to result in spaces where civic discourse is drowned out by harassment, restricting participation to a privileged few.”

Restricting participation is already happening on Twitter. I doubt he intends for there to be no moderation. Perhaps more even handed moderation would be nice.

Because you have decided he isn't a "rational person" he should not be allowed to make this purchase?

Edited April 19, 2022 by Fritz

[KSera]

20 minutes ago, Fritz said:

Because you have decided he isn't a "rational person" he should not be allowed to make this purchase?

Who said anything about “allowed”? So far the discussion has been about people being happy or unhappy about it. 

[Idalou]

Rational or not, can't we all agree he's got a wide fan base?He's very different online than this persona of a decade ago. Trumpers, bitcoin lovers, hardcore libertarians, low-information types, even business investor types like him.

I think I read this sentiment about him that sums it up: He's a sh!tposter who attracts sh!tposters to Twitter, where they religiously follow him and attack his critics. Twitter seems to be the perfect place for that, because it appears that most people go there not to learn or chat but to outrage and be outraged. 

Dog and CatTwitter, IMO, is the place to hang out.

[Pawz4me]

28 minutes ago, Idalou said:

 

Dog and CatTwitter, IMO, is the place to hang out.

#truth

[catz]

14 minutes ago, KSera said:

Lol, yeah, no, that’s not the issue. You’re unaware of his particular issues perhaps? I would prefer to see Elon Musk start his own platform if that’s what he wants. No one (in the US) has lost their right to free speech either. It makes me laugh when I see people ranting about how they don’t have free speech anymore while live streaming their rant about their lack of free speech all across the internet 🙄. There are certainly other countries people can look to for examples of what loss of free speech looks like. Here’s some from Russia: https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/kremlin-crackdown-silences-war-protests-benign-bold-84075238

Agree.  I find it ironic that the same people ranting about censorship on social media are often the same people praising how wonderful capitalism is and how we have a free market and anti-regulation.  

Just as you are free to say anything you want, a private company is free to have terms of service.   You could set up a soap box on any street corner and host your own blog.   I don't know why Elon has his sights set on twitter, he could easily finance his own platform.   And here we are right now on a moderated forum.

[shawthorne44]

On 4/18/2022 at 3:06 PM, livetoread said:

I can't imagine that any fully free speech space would last very long. Who really wants to be in that cesspool? It's a tough balance to know where to draw lines, but in my experience, unregulated speech devolves faster than one can say, "I'm a woman and I want to voice my opinion about something you disagree with me about!" I don't know why he thinks Twitter would flourish with less regulation, but good luck with that.

 

The problem with Twitter is that the line was drawn on the wrong side.   Child porn is A-OK with Twitter.   People disagreeing with The Powers That Be, that isn't OK.    

The solution to bad speech isn't suppressing the bad speech it is more speech.    
 

ETA:   I was on twitter for two one-week time periods.   I had stopped because of the cesspool of it.  I do miss Larry Elder's posts though.  

 

Edited April 19, 2022 by shawthorne44

[KSera]

58 minutes ago, shawthorne44 said:

 

The problem with Twitter is that the line was drawn on the wrong side.   Child porn is A-OK with Twitter.   People disagreeing with The Powers That Be, that isn't OK.    

The solution to bad speech isn't suppressing the bad speech it is more speech.    
 

ETA:   I was on twitter for two one-week time periods.   I had stopped because of the cesspool of it.  I do miss Larry Elder's posts though.  

 

I agree parts of Twitter are a total cesspool. I don’t have an account and use it only to read what current scientists are saying on Covid topics. I don’t know what the reference to child abuse material being okay is though and I’m honestly not willing to put any search terms in my search engine to research what would make you say that, other than that fact that some people like to make anything they disagree with these days as being somehow related to child abuse. It’s bizarre. 

[shawthorne44]

6 minutes ago, KSera said:

I agree parts of Twitter are a total cesspool. I don’t have an account and use it only to read what current scientists are saying on Covid topics. I don’t know what the reference to child abuse material being okay is though and I’m honestly not willing to put any search terms in my search engine to research what would make you say that, other than that fact that some people like to make anything they disagree with these days as being somehow related to child abuse. It’s bizarre. 

There have been lawsuits where Twitter was told by parents that certain materials was child porn (where their child was in the porn) and Twitter refused to pull it.     That isn't "make anything they disagree with these days as being somehow related to child abuse."   Can you imagine images of your child being out there and a 'responsible' company is OK with that?    

Just based on that, if Musk figuratively burns the house down, I'd be OK with that.  
 

[KSera]

14 minutes ago, shawthorne44 said:

There have been lawsuits where Twitter was told by parents that certain materials was child porn (where their child was in the porn) and Twitter refused to pull it.     That isn't "make anything they disagree with these days as being somehow related to child abuse."   Can you imagine images of your child being out there and a 'responsible' company is OK with that?    

Just based on that, if Musk figuratively burns the house down, I'd be OK with that.  
 

Well, that’s grotesque and egregious if that’s the case and they should be held liable in some way if so. At the same time, I don’t expect Musk’s concept of free speech to make that particular issue better. 

[Melissa Louise]

1 hour ago, KSera said:

I agree parts of Twitter are a total cesspool. I don’t have an account and use it only to read what current scientists are saying on Covid topics. I don’t know what the reference to child abuse material being okay is though and I’m honestly not willing to put any search terms in my search engine to research what would make you say that, other than that fact that some people like to make anything they disagree with these days as being somehow related to child abuse. It’s bizarre. 

Sadly, there are literal so-called MAPs posting on Twitter, freely it seems, arguing for their 'legitimate' orientation. 

You don't have to search for abuse materials on Twitter. If you are anywhere in social science Twitter, you will see various abuse materials, which are sometimes removed, sometimes not.

It is possible to silo oneself - cooking Twitter is pretty nice! and so is otter Twitter! - but that doesn't mean the site as a whole upholds any form of standards re abuse/rape/death threats. 

No, Musk won't suddenly create a Wonderland. I just think the outcry is hypocritical. It's not as if he's going to make it any worse. It already allows a lot of nasty stuff. Things I've seen - unwillingly - with my own eyes. Nothing to do with idiotic groomer discourse. 

 

[KSera]

21 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

It is possible to silo oneself - cooking Twitter is pretty nice! and so is otter Twitter!

I guess I’ve been fortunate in not running into it. I run into plenty of idiotic comments, but nothing nasty in that particular way. I don’t doubt it exists though. I do notice that even the comments section varies dramatically depending whose feed you are reading, so I can imagine that the more gross aspects show up more in certain arenas than others. Covid science and med Twitter has been clear of that from what I’ve seen, though it does get the crazies and I know some of the scientists themselves get a lot of death threats.

It’s definitely hypocritical the other way around as well though, as the people who are so excited about Elon Musk taking it over are certainly not big free speech advocates in general. I’m just not at all fan of Elon Musk myself, that’s my whole issue with it. There are plenty of other people I’d be unhappy to hear were buying it as well.

[Melissa Louise]

20 minutes ago, KSera said:

I guess I’ve been fortunate in not running into it. I run into plenty of idiotic comments, but nothing nasty in that particular way. I don’t doubt it exists though. I do notice that even the comments section varies dramatically depending whose feed you are reading, so I can imagine that the more gross aspects show up more in certain arenas than others. Covid science and med Twitter has been clear of that from what I’ve seen, though it does get the crazies and I know some of the scientists themselves get a lot of death threats.

It’s definitely hypocritical the other way around as well though, as the people who are so excited about Elon Musk taking it over are certainly not big free speech advocates in general. I’m just not at all fan of Elon Musk myself, that’s my whole issue with it. There are plenty of other people I’d be unhappy to hear were buying it as well.

I saw an article pithily explain it as ' 'same toilet, different brush'. 

 

[Goldcrest]

11 hours ago, KSera said:

Lol, yeah, no, that’s not the issue. You’re unaware of his particular issues perhaps? I would prefer to see Elon Musk start his own platform if that’s what he wants. No one (in the US) has lost their right to free speech either. It makes me laugh when I see people ranting about how they don’t have free speech anymore while live streaming their rant about their lack of free speech all across the internet 🙄. There are certainly other countries people can look to for examples of what loss of free speech looks like. Here’s some from Russia: https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/kremlin-crackdown-silences-war-protests-benign-bold-84075238

Honest question. Why would any person with the most modicum of intelligence start something from scratch when they can simply buy something that is already built and that also has an existing user and advertiser platform, that they can then tweak in various ways to increase user interface, and thus advertiser investment and profit share? That would seem to be an idiotic business move to start from the ground floor, would it not? Why would you start something from scratch when you can buy something that already exists? Are you talking of actual common sense investment or something idealistic yet impractical? 

Edited April 20, 2022 by Holmesschooler

[KSera]

20 minutes ago, Holmesschooler said:

Honest question. Why would any person with the most modicum of intelligence start something from scratch when they can simply buy something that is already built and that also has an existing user and advertiser platform, that they can then tweak in various ways to increase user interface, and thus advertiser investment and profit share? That would seem to be an idiotic business move to start from the ground floor, would it not? Why would you start something from scratch when you can buy something that already exists? Are you talking of actual common sense investment or something idealistic yet impractical? 

Elon Musk does all kinds of things that have nothing to do with what makes the most good business sense. It’s practically his MO. Doesn’t mean he hasn’t made some really good business decisions as well, but it really doesn’t seem to be his motivator. He has quite a history of coming right out and saying and doing things that immediately drop tesla stock price. I don’t think he wants Twitter for investment reasons. Honestly, I don’t like the concept that a business must sell to the highest bidder. It’s like my McDonald’s buying my favorite health store example. Or like Kanye West buying The Welltrained Mind. Just because someone has the money and wants it, I don’t like the idea that they are automatically entitled to it.

[Clarita]

1 hour ago, KSera said:

It’s like my McDonald’s buying my favorite health store example. Or like Kanye West buying The Welltrained Mind.

Also, one of Twitter's founders, Jack Dorsey, seems to like the idea. What Jack Dorsey Has Said About Elon Musk (newsweek.com) He was also the CEO of the company until late last year. So, I'm not sure the McDonalds buying a health food store is a good comparison. 

If you own a company you don't have to it to the highest bidder you can choose to sell it to anyone or not to sell it at all.  Twitter is just a publicly traded company so in that sense anyone is able to buy a lot of shares and request to have some say in the company. In that same sense shareholders (current owners of Twitter) don't have to sell their shares to Elon Musk if they are so offended at his desire to own it.

@Melissa Louise 's quote said it best "same toilet different brush".

 

[Frances]

10 hours ago, shawthorne44 said:

The solution to bad speech isn't suppressing the bad speech it is more speech.    
 

 

If only it actually worked that way. But research has shown that repeating lies, misinformation, and propaganda enough actually helps make people believe it. Certainly we’ve all seen daily evidence of that repeatedly for the last six years. 
 

Ultimately, I’m not sure it much matters who owns Twitter. The genie is out of the bottle. People can choose to live in news and social media bubbles and consume a steady diet of lies, misinformation, and propaganda. As a society, we no longer share a basic set of facts and more concerning, I don’t think many people anymore even want to operate using facts and truth. All that’s important is what leads to power, especially political power, and money. Honesty, integrity, morals, democracy, etc are no longer fundamental shared values. Authoritarianism, while loudly claiming to be the true patriots and defenders of freedom and democracy, is what many now desire and support.
 

[Fritz]

On 4/20/2022 at 12:47 AM, Frances said:

If only it actually worked that way. But research has shown that repeating lies, misinformation, and propaganda enough actually helps make people believe it. Certainly we’ve all seen daily evidence of that repeatedly for the last six years. 

 

Recent examples of repeating lies, misinformation and propaganda enough...

Moderator, please remember Hunter Biden is not a political figure as Jen Psaki has pointed out.

 

 

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/06/the-lab-leak-theory-inside-the-fight-to-uncover-covid-19s-origins

On February 19, 2020, The Lancet, among the most respected and influential medical journals in the world, published a statement that roundly rejected the lab-leak hypothesis, effectively casting it as a xenophobic cousin to climate change denialism and anti-vaxxism. Signed by 27 scientists, the statement expressed “solidarity with all scientists and health professionals in China” and asserted: “We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.”

Edited April 25, 2022 by desertflower
No politics allowed

[Fritz]

9 hours ago, Clarita said:

Also, one of Twitter's founders, Jack Dorsey, seems to like the idea. What Jack Dorsey Has Said About Elon Musk (newsweek.com) He was also the CEO of the company until late last year. So, I'm not sure the McDonalds buying a health food store is a good comparison. 

If you own a company you don't have to it to the highest bidder you can choose to sell it to anyone or not to sell it at all.  Twitter is just a publicly traded company so in that sense anyone is able to buy a lot of shares and request to have some say in the company. In that same sense shareholders (current owners of Twitter) don't have to sell their shares to Elon Musk if they are so offended at his desire to own it.

@Melissa Louise 's quote said it best "same toilet different brush".

 

It is not the shareholders choosing not to sell. The board members, not the actual shareholders, are making the decision to choose the "poison pill" rather than sell to Musk.

[Clarita]

46 minutes ago, Fritz said:

It is not the shareholders choosing not to sell. The board members, not the actual shareholders, are making the decision to choose the "poison pill" rather than sell to Musk.

Yes, I know that. It also seems they are largely upset because they want more money. I'm just commenting that if Elon Musk does end up owning Twitter it is not because of some systemic injustice, If people cared so much about this one billionaire owning this one company they can individually or band together and become shareholders to prevent that from happening.

[shawthorne44]

11 hours ago, Frances said:

If only it actually worked that way. But research has shown that repeating lies, misinformation, and propaganda enough actually helps make people believe it. Certainly we’ve all seen daily evidence of that repeatedly for the last six years. 
 

Ultimately, I’m not sure it much matters who owns Twitter. The genie is out of the bottle. People can choose to live in news and social media bubbles and consume a steady diet of lies, misinformation, and propaganda. As a society, we no longer share a basic set of facts and more concerning, I don’t think many people anymore even want to operate using facts and truth. All that’s important is what leads to power, especially political power, and money. Honesty, integrity, morals, democracy, etc are no longer fundamental shared values. Authoritarianism, while loudly claiming to be the true patriots and defenders of freedom and democracy, is what many now desire and support.
 

What we've seen in the last 6 years is the effects of the repression of speech/information, not more of it.  I know when I see a warning from Facebook and a suppression of the information, I first think "Well, that's probably true" and I want to know more.    It is like that Belgium group that censored their own list of books to censor because people were using it as a reading list (around the time of the American Revolution).  

Joke going around, "What is the difference between facts and a conspiracy theory?"   "About 6 months"    
 

[KSera]

53 minutes ago, shawthorne44 said:

I know when I see a warning from Facebook and a suppression of the information, I first think "Well, that's probably true" and I want to know more.

Yikes! Well, you’re certainly correct that that is a big explanation for how things have gone so wrong over the past six years. Hopefully you look into it using different reliable sources, in which case you find that overwhelmingly it’s false and don’t fall into the trap so many others have fallen into of trusting bad sources and thinking that if someone you don’t like says it’s false, it’s automatically true, and vice versa.

Edited April 20, 2022 by KSera

[Frances]

2 hours ago, shawthorne44 said:

What we've seen in the last 6 years is the effects of the repression of speech/information, not more of it.  I know when I see a warning from Facebook and a suppression of the information, I first think "Well, that's probably true" and I want to know more.    It is like that Belgium group that censored their own list of books to censor because people were using it as a reading list (around the time of the American Revolution).  

Joke going around, "What is the difference between facts and a conspiracy theory?"   "About 6 months"    
 

I can’t say that I agree. We have so many more news and social media sources than ever before that people can easily choose to only read/consume media and news that fits their biases. If they see something has been censored on Twitter or Facebook, they can easily find whatever information they want about it. The problem is that lots of people don’t want the actual truth and facts, rather they’ve fallen for the very effective massive misinformation and propaganda campaigns that are threatening the very core of our democratic norms and institutions. Unlike in Russia, people here still have the ability to easily read multiple sources and seek the least biased and most factual information, so many are just not choosing to do so. Right in this very thread on the WTM board, we have people still questioning the validity of the 2020 presidential election results. That scares the heck out if me, as does the idea that it’s no big deal, as has been shared by others at times. It’s a frightening example of just how effective an ongoing campaign of lies, misinformation, propaganda, and fear mongering can truly be.

Edited April 20, 2022 by Frances

[Spryte]

1 hour ago, Frances said:

I can’t say that I agree. We have so many more news and social media sources than ever before that people can easily choose to only read/consume media and news that fits their biases. If they see something has been censored on Twitter or Facebook, they can easily find whatever information they want about it. The problem is that lots of people don’t want the actual truth and facts, rather they’ve fallen for the very effective massive misinformation and propaganda campaigns that are threatening the very core of our democratic norms and institutions. Unlike in Russia, people here still have the ability to easily read multiple sources and seek the least biased and most factual information, so many are just not choosing to do so. Right in this very thread on the WTM board, we have people still questioning the validity of the 2020 presidential election results. That scares the heck out if me, as does the idea that it’s no big deal, as has been shared by others at times. It’s a frightening example of just how effective an ongoing campaign of lies, misinformation, propaganda, and fear mongering can truly be.

Yep. Sowing cynicism and distrust is an effective form of propaganda. 

[Happy2BaMom]

4 hours ago, shawthorne44 said:

Joke going around, "What is the difference between facts and a conspiracy theory?"   "About 6 months"    
 

I'm wondering if there are actually specific examples of this.

Flat earth?

Someone else subbing in for Joe Biden (let's not forget those ear lobes)?

Faked moon landing?

JFK Jr really is alive?

Urine (or fill-in-the-blank) really is a miracle cure for Covid that doctors (whom are all paid more when patients die from Covid) just don't want you to know about?

Seriously, what former conspiracy theories are now considered fact?

Edited April 20, 2022 by Happy2BaMom

[Happy2BaMom]

I don't particularly care about Musk/Twitter. It's possible he could change it such that people eventually are driven to other platforms.

It's also possible that all the hype will...eventually settle quickly into nothing. Truth Social come to mind?

 

Edited April 21, 2022 by Happy2BaMom

[shawthorne44]

13 hours ago, Happy2BaMom said:

I'm wondering if there are actually specific examples of this.

Flat earth?

Someone else subbing in for Joe Biden (let's not forget those ear lobes)?

Faked moon landing?

JFK Jr really is alive?

Urine (or fill-in-the-blank) really is a miracle cure for Covid that doctors (whom are all paid more when patients die from Covid) just don't want you to know about?

Seriously, what former conspiracy theories are now considered fact?

I remember the ear lobe one, that was funny.    Of course he's had a lot of work done.  I hadn't even heard of the JFK JR one.   Who even cares enough about him to make up a conspiracy about him?  Not a conspiracy theory, but I enjoyed the Hitchhiker's Guide series take on Elvis not being dead.   You mentioning the idea that JFK Jr being alive reminded me of that.  Awesome series for a family-friendly road trip when the youngest is at least preteen.  

Russia-Trump collusion and Biden's laptop being fake are two that come to mind.   
Many things related to SARS2 including that the numbers were inflated and that the shot can effect menstruation.   Both have been admitted now, and up until the second before