The ongoing X and Elon Musk Transgressions Thread

[Azure]

I think people are looking at it wrong.

For the common person, we really don't benefit from tweeting, but what if we had a job, such as a reporter or CEO of a consumer brand, etc where we could benefit from sending out a tweet to 5 million people at once. Where else does this ability exist?

I think if there is a paying model for Twitter, it works that way.

[dino7c]

I think people will be sad when they learn many of the "bots" are actual real very stupid people

[activeStick]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Your experience on Twitter is a reflection of the people/accounts you follow. If you see tons of arguments its because you're following accounts that get into arguments, etc.

Exactly this. I hear a lot that Twitter is the worst place, but I've rarely seen anything deplorable. It's a fantastic source for up to the minute sports updates and it's the only source I use for that. Gives the quickest updates on news worldwide and depending on whether you seek it out or not, you can get good insight on things from a different perspective than the west fire house we drink from.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by dino7c

I think people will be sad when they learn many of the "bots" are actual real very stupid people

“Bought Organisms Talking ####”

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by activeStick

Exactly this. I hear a lot that Twitter is the worst place, but I've rarely seen anything deplorable. It's a fantastic source for up to the minute sports updates and it's the only source I use for that. Gives the quickest updates on news worldwide and depending on whether you seek it out or not, you can get good insight on things from a different perspective than the west fire house we drink from.

It really is all about how you use the app that will shape your impression of it. All of my follows are sports personalities, stand-up comedians, comedy/parody accounts, and trusted news sources. As long as I don't look at the comments it is the most current and reliable tool for breaking and ongoing news and is absolutely essential during times like the trade deadline and draft.

If I don't go searching for it I never see the deplorable side of Twitter. However, Facebook aggressively pursues your engagement with clumsy algorithms. Search or visit the wrong person/page and you're inundated with similar suggestions until you're overwhelmed with information and messaging, and it can cultivate some dangerous thought processes. YouTube is remarkably similar. I watched a Russell Brand video about the convoys and was hammered with far-right and pseudoscientific content in my suggestions and homepage.

Twitter has never been like that in my experience. I see Musk trying to change that into a more engaging model like Facebook and YouTube, and that isn't good for anyone.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Azure

I think people are looking at it wrong.

For the common person, we really don't benefit from tweeting, but what if we had a job, such as a reporter or CEO of a consumer brand, etc where we could benefit from sending out a tweet to 5 million people at once. Where else does this ability exist?

I think if there is a paying model for Twitter, it works that way.

They already do this. I have promoted tweets on my feed all the time. Its advertising.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

the moment it costs money to use, twitter is done. I can't see him going that way.
too many other options to out there.

Musk will probably just be more aggressive in mining your data and selling it.

I think this is his plan but I struggle to see how such a limited platform can actually gather much user data

[Azure]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

They already do this. I have promoted tweets on my feed all the time. Its advertising.

I'm not really talking about promoted tweets though. I mean tweeting in general.

Would the CEO of a big brand pay a monthly fee for Twitter if it allows him to send out tweets to hundreds of thousands of people at once?

Obviously there would need to be better features.

I really like Twitter, and use it for sports, news, etc. I think there is a lot of potential as a service, and I think it is in a far better position to do well than Facebook is as an example, because really, who uses Facebook for anything besides family and friends stuff. Its not like we are going to Facebook to follow sports reporters for the latest news in hockey.

[activeStick]

I think the western perspective is also coming through with regards to Facebook and its downfall in terms of use. From what I understand, Facebook is very widely used in developing countries. In the Philippines (I think) for example, Facebook is a pre-installed app on all phones. We've seemed to move on mostly from FB, but other countries are still using it a ton.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by Azure

I think there are two issues.

The free speech angle which seems to have people angry / super happy.
The factor that Twitter probably isn't performing very well as a company in order to bring value to its shareholders.

The perspective's are interesting, and I think we really don't truly understand the role of social media or the digital space in the role of something like 'free speech.' I'm sure many will say they do, and it should be like this or like that, but even Obama, who has come out and talked about the need to regulate has made speeches saying how real change isn't found by doxing people, throwing stones at them and calling yourself 'woke.'

That being said, many seem to think Twitter isn't performing well and it will be interesting to see what Musk does, including the team he will put together.

I also find it strange that most of the board members didn't really hold that much Twitter stock. They're supposed to be there to add value to the company but they don't believe in the company enough to actually own it? Seems strange.

My question is what's Musk's thinking when it comes to allowable speech. Does anything go? Does the platform need some form of moderation? If so, what are the parameters for it. At what point does it degenerate (even more than it already has) to just a vile toxic place for ill intended users to get off on spewing crap at other people.

I feel like the people who are trumpeting how supportive they are of free speech haven't thought about the reality of operating a platform where things can go into messy and nasty territory very easily. Sure there are problems with cancel culture and online mobs but that doesn't mean a completely open system doesn't come with another set of bad problems.

[Barnet Flame]

Originally Posted by zamler

I'm very confident at this point Musk knows how to make money.

Yeah, well someone else knew a little bit about winning.

[GirlySports]

Why would you think that people and business wouldm't pay for twitter the same way they pay for linkedin? Maybe you get 960 characters if you subscribe instead of 240.

[Senator Clay Davis]

The Twitter user base is wildly different than LinkedIn's for starters. More characters actually isn't a good thing, part of the charm of Twitter has always been 140 (now 280) characters only. Upping that to 960 (or removing limits period) just makes it more like Facebook, and people don't use Twitter for making/reading extended diatribes. In fact in general the more you make it like Facebook, the more users you will lose. Most Twitter users hate Facebook.

[opendoor]

Interestingly, Twitter's stock actually dropped below $50 today and is nearly 10% below the sale price. Anyone who owns the stock when the sale goes through will get $54.20 per share, so it could be an easy 10% gain, but it's also a sign that the market is questioning whether it'll actually happen.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Why would you think that people and business wouldm't pay for twitter the same way they pay for linkedin? Maybe you get 960 characters if you subscribe instead of 240.

Well isn't Linkedin more of a employment/business site?

I'd be more willing to pay for something that has to do with my employment, career and networking over social commentary and looking at memes.

people would be even less likely to pay for twitter if it also devolved into a free speech cesspool.

[rubecube]

Sounds like a lot of far-right bots were launched on Twitter over the last couple of days. Will be interesting to see how Musk deals with those.

There also seems to be a migration of leftist accounts to counter.social. Although because the left is the left, there is now backlash against the founder of counter.social over some comments they made 10 years ago.

I'm actually interested to see how the counter.social experiment fares in comparison to attempted right-wing twitter sites such as Parler. I have a theory that the reason that Parler and Trump's social media site haven't seen much success is because so much of the online right's identity is based on trolling the left. So the appeal of Parler is less due to the fact that leftists have no desire to congregate there.

Conversely, I see a space that is designed to keep hate-speech, trolls, and bots out as appealing to the online left. So if they migrate to a new platform, will the online right then lose interest in Twitter?

I think we're several years out from that, unless media personalities also migrate elsewhere, but it'll be interesting either way.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Sounds like a lot of far-right bots were launched on Twitter over the last couple of days. Will be interesting to see how Musk deals with those.

There also seems to be a migration of leftist accounts to counter.social. Although because the left is the left, there is now backlash against the founder of counter.social over some comments they made 10 years ago.

I'm actually interested to see how the counter.social experiment fares in comparison to attempted right-wing twitter sites such as Parler. I have a theory that the reason that Parler and Trump's social media site haven't seen much success is because so much of the online right's identity is based on trolling the left. So the appeal of Parler is less due to the fact that leftists have no desire to congregate there.

Conversely, I see a space that is designed to keep hate-speech, trolls, and bots out as appealing to the online left. So if they migrate to a new platform, will the online right then lose interest in Twitter?

I think we're several years out from that, unless media personalities also migrate elsewhere, but it'll be interesting either way.

You have a remarkably simple view of people other than yourself.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Shazam

You have a remarkably simple view of people other than yourself.

Is that the best you can do?

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Is that the best you can do?

So there's bots? If you believe there's bots, and the bots can move subs that fast, how can you trust anything on Twitter?

But why stop at 80K? Why not a 100K? Or 200K? Or 500K?

Have you told advertisers that there's bots on Twitter?

No wonder the board accepted the offer. It's just bot-on-bot action.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Shazam

So there's bots? If you believe there's bots, and the bots can move subs that fast, how can you trust anything on Twitter?

But why stop at 80K? Why not a 100K? Or 200K? Or 500K?

Have you told advertisers that there's bots on Twitter?

No wonder the board accepted the offer. It's just bot-on-bot action.

Wait, that's what you had issues with? Is your opinion that this is just coincidence? It could be organic, but it's worth pointing out and investigating, too.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1519259925440090114

https://twitter.com/user/status/1519126064806641665