The ongoing X and Elon Musk Transgressions Thread

[photon]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Maybe Twitter should just be a platform under an NPO and is funded by donations from individuals, institutions and corporations and monitored by decentralized community moderators and fact checkers. Similar to Wikipedia?

I've always wondered if the meta-moderation feature that /. used to have (or maybe still does, who knows) would be beneficial for something like twitter.

Community moderators who's moderation decisions themselves could be moderated by other moderators and/or a set of appointed moderators.. moderators that make good decisions get a better moderator rating and can moderate more.. ones who don't eventually lose their moderation ability.

It used to be on /. you could get randomly be selected to be a moderator.

EDIT: I should add the idea of a non-profit social media site is interesting. Has anyone tried it already?

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Matata

Before Elon, twitter was owned by huge investment firms that manage trillions in assets and that also own significant amounts of all 6 major US media companies. Twitter has a profound ability to shape public discourse, influence politics and impact businesses. There are countless ways to extract value from twitter that aren't directly financial, but probably not so much that you still sell it to whatever schmuck is willing to pay $40B for it.

Even if you are right - that some investment firm cabal owned twitter to spread misinformation - wouldn't it still be in their best interest to have it be more popular and by extension - make money.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by photon

I've always wondered if the meta-moderation feature that /. used to have (or maybe still does, who knows) would be beneficial for something like twitter.

Community moderators who's moderation decisions themselves could be moderated by other moderators and/or a set of appointed moderators.. moderators that make good decisions get a better moderator rating and can moderate more.. ones who don't eventually lose their moderation ability.

It used to be on /. you could get randomly be selected to be a moderator.

EDIT: I should add the idea of a non-profit social media site is interesting. Has anyone tried it already?

No idea about /. but reddit has community mods and a lot of the sub-reddits quickly become wildly slanted one way or the other politically. Wikipedia seems to avoid that somehow (although I'm sure that means Yoho thinks its a liberal haven)

[Wormius]

The shadow banning that is going on now is making the platform terrible. Can’t even follow conversations.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Even if you are right - that some investment firm cabal owned twitter to spread misinformation - wouldn't it still be in their best interest to have it be more popular and by extension - make money.

I mean, the whole premise is pretty unbelievable.

But if you wanted to use Twitter to make money nefariously trying to swing popular opinion wouldn't be the easiest way. It wouldn't be that hard to identify users who are susceptible to stock/crypto etc promotion, and then control what they see. Musk already has some experience with that (eg, he absolutely took money from people on Dogecoin). Personally, I think it's more likely something like that happens under his ownership than when it was public.

But from an expense side I think they'll have way lower overhead under musk, so if they get over the hill of users/advertisers quiting they'll be better off than they were before, and Musk can IPO/merge them into a SPAC in a few years and take billions more in profits triumphantly from his followers.

[rubecube]

The hilarity continues.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1589853148679929857

https://twitter.com/user/status/1589853663140679680

[saillias]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1590109344976470016

I don't understand what they're doing anymore

[Ozy_Flame]

$44B to have the developers add a new DIV and fill it with "Official". A CSS icon positioned on the left. Under the handle.

[photon]

And you have to click through to see it rather than telling at a glance if an account is verified or not, great design.

Just make the blue check different for official accounts or something.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by photon

And you have to click through to see it rather than telling at a glance if an account is verified or not, great design.

Just make the blue check different for official accounts or something.

I said it before, but the solution is multi-coloured check marks. I predict they will realize this in less than a week.

[Roughneck]

I wonder how many lines of code that took them?

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I said it before, but the solution is multi-coloured check marks. I predict they will realize this in less than a week.

It's almost like you're thinking of what would be both practical and easily understood by users before implementing a change! You don't sound like you are cut out for IT. If your user interface can't aspire to byzantine, it must at least be stupid.

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I said it before, but the solution is multi-coloured check marks. I predict they will realize this in less than a week.

It would also be a good way to introduce tiered pricing. Why charge a large corporate the same as an average user for a checkmark? There's no doubt that large brands would end up being willing to pay a hell of a lot more than $8/month for a special checkmark that authenticates their brand, especially if they get a few extra benefits tacked on as value adds.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by photon

And you have to click through to see it rather than telling at a glance if an account is verified or not, great design.

Just make the blue check different for official accounts or something.

Maybe not great, but definitely intentional.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by saillias

https://twitter.com/user/status/1590109344976470016

I don't understand what they're doing anymore

Basically coming to the same conclusion that most people posted here. The bluechecks were more valuable to the readers of twitter than it is to the people with the bluechecks.

[PeteMoss]

Not going great for the TSLA stock either and I can't imagine the report he sold another $3.95 billion that came out tonight will help.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Basically coming to the same conclusion that most people posted here. The bluechecks were more valuable to the readers of twitter than it is to the people with the bluechecks.

No the value is to the blue check-marked. The verification of being not some rando carriea huge value for journalists and politicians.

The issue in my opinion was the diluting of value by allowing anyone to have it. Now that they have restored the exclusiveness of it you will find significant blue checks in media and politics paying.

[Azure]

Meta fires 11,000 people, or at least 15% of their workforce.

Not a good time to be a tech company. Unreal how overstaffed they must be if they can so easily fire that many people.

In my industry it is painful every single person that we ever have to let go simply because they are generally good workers, and you've tried everything to keep them on. In the meantime tech companies just pulling names out of a hat.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by GGG

No the value is to the blue check-marked. The verification of being not some rando carriea huge value for journalists and politicians.

The issue in my opinion was the diluting of value by allowing anyone to have it. Now that they have restored the exclusiveness of it you will find significant blue checks in media and politics paying.

Evidently twitter disagreed - because you don't have to pay to get this 'official' badge right now.

The bluecheck just says 'I paid' so not sure what value that is to anyone on its own.

[PeteMoss]

These 'official' tags also look awful in the timeline. The old checkmark beside the name was approximately 10,000 times better than adding a entire row under their display name and @ name that says 'official'.