What do you think about the twitter purchase by Elon?

As some people said on my rant. It either is going good or absolutely not

@Frederick "tell me what you're about without telling me what you're about."

If you are a public figurehead and are spreading disinformation(not the same as misinformation) you should have your privileges revoked.

Access to a platform like Twitter is a privilege, not a right.

Nobody is saying, "you can't say that."

But we are saying, "you can't say that HERE."

@Frederick

Morals are completely subjective to the community that upholds them.

Ethics is a body of rules that are set to encourage stability within society.

Law is a body of regulation that maintains the stability within that society.

It is your constitutional right to free speech that allows you to say whatever you want(however hurtful or damaging it is). But once your actions infringe upon someone elses' rights, you break constitutional law, full stop.

The constitution is meant to protect the citizens from their government, very rarely have constitutional rights been infringed upon between two citizens.

Twitter, and many other companies like it, are not agencies of the government and do not legally need to uphold constitutional law. They can exercise whatever rights are afforded to them (no matter how damaging or unethical).

My opinion? They have a responsibility to ensure they are not willfully damaging society, but not uphold your constitutional rights.

Furthermore, if your message goes against their moral code, they have the right to remove you from their community. It's not censorship, it's not illegal, and it's not immoral. It *could* be considered unethical, but it entirely hinges upon what the modus operandi is. It's no different than a Karen being forcefully removed from Walmart because she's covered in shit and screaming at the top of her lungs about being oppressed by the "establishment".

Couldn't care less.

Arbitrary people at the top will make arbitrary decisions no matter who they are. Twitter is already pretty much a cesspit, it may end up more so but meh - I have bigger things to worry about.

@lambda123 the law hasn't changed, but the will of the people has.

If you go into your job with a swastika tattooed on your forehead, there's a 99% chance you're going to be fired.

It's your right as an American citizen to have the freedom to tattoo a disgusting symbol of hate onto your body. However, society has the right to express their opinion about your decision, and in this case would mean losing your job and hopefully more.

I find it depressingly ironic that you don't believe in free speech while expressing socially unpopular opinions online without fear of government retribution. How about you move to China and express some negative opinions about ole pooh bear and tell me how that goes.

i do not care. twitter is irrelevant.

@lambda123 a "social credit system" is just a fancy way of describing a community.

If you go back to the 16th century and Johann up the road decided to burn down his neighbors field, the community would do one of two things:

- reject him from the community and all the benefits that come with it
- lynch him

In civilized society today we rarely lynch our Johanns because of the illegal nature of murder.

The major difference in how China(and future society) deals with these incidents, is that poor Johann can't just move to a new community and start over. But even more concerning in China's case is that these morals are being enforced by a single government as law.

Law is law and morals are morals for a reason.

I think this is the danger of moving to a globalized society that we just haven't got a handle on yet and I think that the next big social network will have a very defined handle on trying to control these communities at a global scale, much like China has.

@sariel It's not even about free speech. Twatter has never applied its TOC in an unbiased way, at all, that's the only problem. Twatter employees are overwhelmingly left leanging or hard left, and especially the management.
As a first example: How is an actual fucking terrorist organization like the Taliban allowed to spread antisemitic messages while some conservatives get banned arbitrarily?
Or take The Babylon Bee, which is pure satire.

Free speech has never been the problem, but blatant bias has.

twitter reported 1billion revenue in 2020 and 200million in 2021 and advertising income grow by 25% from 3billion 2020 to 5billion 2021 if he don’t break it he can get return in 20 years so lol

on the other hand he owns big news aggregator and creative medium that never been fully exploited, compared to facebook, twitter always had potential as it is closest to instant messaging social network

might be he would launch a twitter coin to pay for paywall news or nft images posted on twitter but that’s only loose idea

there’s 50/50 chance he would screw it up

@PonySlaystation this is the ethical argument, and what you're saying is true.

But since ethics are not law, Twitter is not breaking any laws.

Twitter also has every right to enforce their TOS how they see fit to protect their product and investments.

As an opinion, they have a moral obligation to remove users that incite or negatively impact society, but they have no legal or ethical obligation to do so.

It's not just Twitter either, it's all online social media. I have been banned from multiple social media platforms because I stood up against assholes that were clearly breaking rules set in the TOS. Those that I spoke out against remained to continue spreading their moralisticly reprehensible filth. Is it fair to me? No! Is it illegal? Also no! Is it ethical? Questionable at best. Will I stand by their decision to apply their TOS as they see fit, absolutely.

Because the alternative is to deny what we as a society want to uphold as the self-evident truths that were given to us.

@vane I have to correct you there: The money Elon bought Twatter for is not "lost" and neither does he have to make full ROI. He bought the company shares thus his money has just transformed from a fixed amount into a variable amount depending on the market.

@bigmonsterlover i don't care. the annoying orange is irrelevant, as well.

@PonySlaystation you’re wrong it’s lost cause once he buy it will be delisted from nasdaq and if he wants that money back he need to sell it again hoping that people won’t screw him up and go somewhere else cause some random teenager with rich parents decided to make his own social network that’s booming around people in age 12-27 cause that’s the target you’re aiming for social networks

if you can’t attract young people you’re screwed

@vane how am I wrong when you just said it yourself: He could sell Twatter again.
Thus the purchase was an investment and the money is not lost but in a different form and not at a fixed amount anymore. The possible delisting from some stock exchange doesn't make the investment disappear...
It would be extremely stupid to buy a company IF the money was lost at the very moment of the purchase.

Elon buying Twatter is a good move, for developers, enterpeneurs and the world.

Especially since he wants to open source those algorithms. It can do a great service.

My prediction (and hope) is thay he will donate the code to ASF in 2023, as an open source project like many tech companies did in the past.

@PonySlaystation once he delist company it’s no longer valued by the market and no longer needs to publish its financial information so yeah you can say it’s worth 44 billions but without data and without market value it’s worth nothing, that’s what’s called risk

the whole concept of stock exchange is to get market value of company and only second one is bring back money to investors and gain money for investments

that’s why you don’t start companies on stock exchange cause nobody would invest, that’s why you have corporate bonds and venture capitals that buy dreams and accept risk to loose money - you’re denying 100 years of financial industry that shaped this planet

Twitter should be nuked from orbit, together with all "user engagement" based social networks.

@bigmonsterlover i'm saying that donald trump is:

1. annoying

2. orange and

3. irrelevant ;)