Elon Musk buys Twitter to bring back Free Speech

[Love Zhaoying]

44 minutes ago, Ceka Cianci said:

I didn't realize the twitter buy is a done deal.. I thought there was still things that needed to be taken care of..

 That went pretty quick..

Apparently, he had to sell some Tesla stock to raise the "cash". (In today's news.)

[Sukubia Scarmon]

I still f****** hate the superrich. 

[Luna Bliss]

15 hours ago, CaithLynnSayes said:

It's so predictable, it's not even funny anymore. - Why is it so difficult to see a joke these days when it clearly smacks you in the face? And the worst part is way too many people fall for this. Pathetic...

I don't know why some others don't find the coca-cola joke funny, but I know why I don't.  If I'm angry at someone because I think their actions could likely harm others in the future I don't feel like laughing with them.   

[Istelathis]

16 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Apparently, he had to sell some Tesla stock to raise the "cash". (In today's news.)

I wonder if having control over a social media platform is a pretty good way to manipulate the market.  I wonder how low Tesla stock becomes, before it has a swift recovery an how many shares Elon will have when all is said and done.

No one pay any mind to that though.. just think "free speech", squabble amongst one another, "free speech", "free speech", "free speech"  Elon will save us all, through meme magic and battling the woke cancel culture.

[Lyssa Greymoon]

1 hour ago, Ceka Cianci said:

I didn't realize the twitter buy is a done deal.. I thought there was still things that needed to be taken care of..

 That went pretty quick..

It's not. It still has to be voted on by the shareholders and get regulatory approval.

[Luna Bliss]

700 US Billionaires Got $1.7 Trillion Richer During Two Years of Pandemic    *including Musk*

"A new analysis finds that the 704 billionaires in the U.S. now own more wealth than the bottom half of Americans—roughly 165 million people.

During the first two years of the coronavirus pandemic, the collective wealth of billionaires in the United States grew by a staggering $1.7 trillion as Covid-19 killed millions of people across the globe and threw entire nations into turmoil, worsening extreme poverty, hunger, and other preexisting crises.

"We can't accept an economy and tax code that allows billionaires to hoard trillions while working families struggle."

For billionaires it's been two years of raking in the riches, while for most families it's been two years of fear, frustration, and financial worry," ATF executive director Frank Clemente said in a statement.

According to ATF's new analysis, the biggest billionaire winners during the coronavirus pandemic's first two years were:

    Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, who saw his net worth skyrocket by $209 billion;
    Google co-founder Larry Page, whose fortune grew by $63 billion; and
    Google co-founder Sergey Brin, whose wealth increased by $60 billion.

"We can't accept an economy and tax code that allows billionaires to hoard trillions while working families struggle to afford healthcare, childcare, education, and housing," the group added. "It's wrong, and we can do better.""

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/03/11/700-us-billionaires-got-17-trillion-richer-during-two-years-pandemic

Edited April 29, 2022 by Luna Bliss

[Arielle Popstar]

21 minutes ago, Istelathis said:

I wonder if having control over a social media platform is a pretty good way to manipulate the market.  I wonder how low Tesla stock becomes, before it has a swift recovery an how many shares Elon will have when all is said and done.

No one pay any mind to that though.. just think "free speech", squabble amongst one another, "free speech", "free speech", "free speech"  Elon will save us all, through meme magic and battling the woke cancel culture.

Musk isn't in the right political camp and is therefore watched like a hawk from that perspective. Unlike Soros, Bezos, Google etc.

[Silent Mistwalker]

2 hours ago, Orwar said:

 

The CC isn't in English. Why do they do that? Why do they keep making it impossible for people with hearing loss? *cries*

Not your fault Orwar and I'm not blaming you. It's just decades of frustration. Even the one person that has lived with me the longest (over 20 years) will just suddenly (and rudely) start walking away from me when talking so I can't see his face.

My initial inclination, after sitting here looking at this post for the past 10 minutes, was to delete it and move on. I'm posting it anyway because people need to be made aware when they do this kind of thing and do it repeatedly, they are damaging their relationship.

Edited April 29, 2022 by Silent Mistwalker

[Arielle Popstar]

52 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

700 US Billionaires Got $1.7 Trillion Richer During Two Years of Pandemic    *including Musk*

"A new analysis finds that the 704 billionaires in the U.S. now own more wealth than the bottom half of Americans—roughly 165 million people.

During the first two years of the coronavirus pandemic, the collective wealth of billionaires in the United States grew by a staggering $1.7 trillion as Covid-19 killed millions of people across the globe and threw entire nations into turmoil, worsening extreme poverty, hunger, and other preexisting crises.

"We can't accept an economy and tax code that allows billionaires to hoard trillions while working families struggle."

For billionaires it's been two years of raking in the riches, while for most families it's been two years of fear, frustration, and financial worry," ATF executive director Frank Clemente said in a statement.

According to ATF's new analysis, the biggest billionaire winners during the coronavirus pandemic's first two years were:

    Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, who saw his net worth skyrocket by $209 billion;
    Google co-founder Larry Page, whose fortune grew by $63 billion; and
    Google co-founder Sergey Brin, whose wealth increased by $60 billion.

"We can't accept an economy and tax code that allows billionaires to hoard trillions while working families struggle to afford healthcare, childcare, education, and housing," the group added. "It's wrong, and we can do better.""

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/03/11/700-us-billionaires-got-17-trillion-richer-during-two-years-pandemic

Off topic

Edited April 29, 2022 by Arielle Popstar

[Silent Mistwalker]

11 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Well and then ask yourself how that happened with mandated vaccines, lockdowns etc. Those who cried for such things played a big part in enriching those people who supplied the services required to weather through that.

In my area, it wasn't the people with money that were organizing to make deliveries. It was the local people who don't have a lot of money. They're the ones who supplied the services, not the rich. Services that are still in operation and likely will continue.

[Theresa Tennyson]

20 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Well and then ask yourself how that happened with mandated vaccines, lockdowns etc. Those who cried for such things played a big part in enriching those people who supplied the services required to weather through that.

Jeff Bezos runs Amazon. You might be able to argue that lockdowns increased online shopping; however, interestingly enough, Amazon's shopping operations operate at a loss. They have positive income only through the AWS web infrastructure business, which probably would have done a similar amount of business without lockdowns.

https://www.investopedia.com/how-amazon-makes-money-4587523

Here's a list of the other top billionaires. Explain to us how the lockdowns improved their business in ways that wouldn't have happened otherwise.

https://americansfortaxfairness.org/issue/2-years-covid-u-s-billionaires-1-7-trillion-57-richer/

Sometimes when you ask yourself questions you discover the answers aren't what you thought.

 

[Arielle Popstar]

16 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

Jeff Bezos runs Amazon. You might be able to argue that lockdowns increased online shopping; however, interestingly enough, Amazon's shopping operations operate at a loss. They have positive income only through the AWS web infrastructure business, which probably would have done a similar amount of business without lockdowns.

https://www.investopedia.com/how-amazon-makes-money-4587523

Here's a list of the other top billionaires. Explain to us how the lockdowns improved their business in ways that wouldn't have happened otherwise.

https://americansfortaxfairness.org/issue/2-years-covid-u-s-billionaires-1-7-trillion-57-richer/

Sometimes when you ask yourself questions you discover the answers aren't what you thought.

 

Wasn't the topic anyway and I should not have responded to it. Deleted my response.

[Rowan Amore]

What services?  Our town and towns around us worked together to supply those who were in need.  There was no influx of $ from any billionaire.  It was regular people helping regular people.   The government did try to help out with various programs and pandemic assistance checks but I sure as heck didn't receive a damn thing from anyone on the list of billionaires.  Or did I miss something?

[Love Zhaoying]

57 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Musk isn't in the right political camp and is therefore watched like a hawk from that perspective. Unlike Soros, Bezos, Google etc.

Methinks he's more a "glamper" than a "camper".

[Love Zhaoying]

6 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

It was regular people helping regular people.

Queue the "Sweet Caroline" lyrics! 

Hands, touching hands
Reaching out, touching me, touching you

 

[Arielle Popstar]

5 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Methinks he's more a "glamper" than a "camper".

I don't know what that means.

[Luna Bliss]

1 hour ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Musk isn't in the right political camp and is therefore watched like a hawk from that perspective. Unlike Soros, Bezos, Google etc.

Nope, that's not the issue.

Social media has become so powerful that it has the ability to influence presidential elections. During the last election the US almost became an autocracy as the rioters stormed the Capitol and attempted to overthrow a democratic election, and social media was influential in making this happen.
Social media should not be owned and governed by one man who, being limited in perspective, simply can't see or have empathy for others outside the perspectives of his own biased mind.

When any faction of the population, of any political persuasion, buys a powerful institution that should exist for the common good this is an extremely dangerous situation. This is actually one of the primary steps taken by those who desire autocracy -- they buy the powerfully influential institutions of that society in order to mold it to their desires.

[Love Zhaoying]

19 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

25 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Methinks he's more a "glamper" than a "camper".

I don't know what that means.

"Glamping" = "Glam" + "camping". Pretty old word these days..maybe 10-20 years?

Rich (or lazy, or spoiled, or non-camping) people would have a luxurious camping setup instead of a true "back-to-nature" setup like a plain tent. 

[Arielle Popstar]

7 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Nope, that's not the issue.

Social media has become so powerful that it has the ability to influence presidential elections. During the last election the US almost became an autocracy as the rioters stormed the Capitol and attempted to overthrow a democratic election, and social media was influential in making this happen.
Social media should not be owned and governed by one man who, being limited in perspective, simply can't see or have empathy for others outside the perspectives of his own biased mind.

When any faction of the population, of any political persuasion, buys a powerful institution that should exist for the common good this is an extremely dangerous situation. This is actually one of the primary steps taken by those who desire autocracy -- they buy the powerfully influential institutions of that society in order to mold it to their desires.

You'd have to come up with some proofs for that as we have only seen that scenario you describe when the social media algorithms are being tweaked, enforced and mediated by those on one side of the aisle. Musk up to this point has stated he wishes to level the playing field by allowing speech from both sides and not having Twitter moderators cancelling any and all of those challenging narratives from either the radical left or right. That strikes me as a lofty goal considering what we have seen from social and mainstream media's over the past few years.

[Istelathis]

23 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Social media should not be owned and governed by one man who, being limited in perspective, simply can't see or have empathy for others outside the perspectives of his own biased mind.

I'm okay with Elon owning twitter, it is us after all that give these networks whatever power they may hold - despite the algorithms that feed into them.  What I do wish the government would regulate are the algorithms which lead people to a hopeless addiction to them, through use of manipulating their emotions - especially when it comes to paranoia and hate.  When something is patently untrue, and it is used to generate more views and revenue at the cost of society it should not be abused in such a way.  Unfortunately, this just leads to a whole lot of problems, because then we have to figure out who would be the "Minister of truth" in which could also just as easily be manipulated.  

The only solution, I find that is fair and will not lead to further societal decay is to stop social media from making suggestions in the first place.  Leave the searching up to the individual, to find the information they want to find.  Get rid of the algorithms that suggest content, and let people share that information with one another individually and organically.  This is definitely not as profitable in the long run for social media sites though, it would make them less popular.  

But yeah, Elon is not in this for free speech - that sounds great and all.. but the guy is not wealthy because of his ethics, it is due to the fact that the knows the system and how to play it.

Edited April 29, 2022 by Istelathis

[Lindal Kidd]

On 4/28/2022 at 10:02 AM, Luna Bliss said:

...bringing to light someone's bad behavior and forcing them to face consequences for this bad behavior can be a positive force for change -- especially when levied against those with great power in society who would otherwise be able to get away with the bad behavior....

Taking the example of a sexist boss who treats women badly,

Please don't go changing the situations being used as examples. My point about cancellation being bad is that it is disproportionate. It's real economic harm in retaliation for words. Even, sometimes, words that were spoken decades before.

It is also a sort of mob rule. Social media has made it very easy to drum up an angry crowd of peasants with torches and pitchforks screaming "Kill the monster!" and the poor monster is forced to flee for his life. Sure, some monsters deserve to be burned, but who decides? Shall we simply concede that power to those with the largest followings, or with the most strident voice?

A "sexist boss who treats women badly" is engaging in more than words, and the response should be proportionate: a lawsuit, perhaps, or an appeal to a higher level manager.

[Love Zhaoying]

3 minutes ago, Istelathis said:

But yeah, Elon is not in this for free speech - that sounds great and all.. but the guy is not wealthy because of his ethics, it is due to the fact that the knows the system and how to play it.

Well said!

[Theresa Tennyson]

 

8 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

You'd have to come up with some proofs for that as we have only seen that scenario you describe when the social media algorithms are being tweaked, enforced and mediated by those on one side of the aisle. Musk up to this point has stated he wishes to level the playing field by allowing speech from both sides and not having Twitter moderators cancelling any and all of those challenging narratives from either the radical left or right. That strikes me as a lofty goal considering what we have seen from social and mainstream media's over the past few years.

A research study found that social media isn't biased against conservatives:

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5b6df958f8370af3217d4178/t/60187b5f45762e708708c8e9/1612217185240/NYU+False+Accusation_2.pdf

You are, of course, free to say the researchers have their own bias; however, at least they have done work and said specifically what that work was. Meanwhile, here's what you've said are your qualifications:

On 4/25/2022 at 11:22 PM, Arielle Popstar said:

In spite of having an account on twitter, I open it once a year mostly from misclicking the app on my phone but other than that know very little about it other then the reports of how many were banned from it during the last US presidency. What a few posters have already shared about it is more then I knew before I started this thread.

[Love Zhaoying]

Remember the good old days? I don't, but wish this would come back.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine

[Innula Zenovka]

19 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

 Musk up to this point has stated he wishes to level the playing field by allowing speech from both sides and not having Twitter moderators cancelling any and all of those challenging narratives from either the radical left or right

Has he?  The Guardian reported yesterday that

Quote

Musk has argued that his changes would affect all users. “Attacks are coming thick and fast, primarily from the left, which is no surprise,” he said, in a reply to the rightwing media personality Ben Shapiro. “However, I should be clear that the right will probably be a little unhappy too. My goal is to maximise area under the curve of total human happiness, which means the ~80% of people in the middle.”