> Riddle me this snowflakes, when has Musk ever called for censorship or more “content moderation”?
That doesn't matter. The current regime of content regulation was forced on Twitfaceooglezon by the feds on whom Musk depends just as much if not more. Hence he will find himself in direct conflict with DC pols if he unwinds that content regulation. He will have to comply or they will fuck him up. Popcorn time.
Call people snowflakes, make up funny terms, "eat some popcorn" while concentrating on the circus. That's exactly the point, Tom.
You're so excited watching the gladiators fighting inside the Overton colosseum that you aren't even questioning what Musk's real goal is here. If you believe he's investing $43,000,000,000 just because he values free speech I've got some Arizona beachfront property I'd like to sell you.
Subjects Musk's Twitter won't pushing with an updated algorithm:
- Oligarchs should not be able to buy huge media companies when those media corporations will affect public opinion on their other businesses
- The massive US wealth concentration should not be allowed in an alleged Democratic society
- The US should not be meddling militarily in other countries
- The US should be spending more money on the American public and less on the military
I am curious to see how this conflict resolves itself. It is a classic relationship between a wannabe olligarch and a government that's for sale. They need each other.
I argue he isn't full oligarch because while certainly very influential, the feds still have the legitimate authority to regulate his businesses into the red. His business are profitable only because of government subsidies including direct grants, purchases, various incentives and even corporate and tax laws in all the jurisdictions he operates in. Since Musk knows that, he's just using his enormous influence.
Now we'll see how much more influence owning Twitter gives him. Maybe it gives him enough to totally push the feds and pols around like Kolomoyskyi does with Zelenskyy, and unlike Russian billionaires (so-called but not really oligarchs) with Putin. As I said, it's popcorn time.
---
EDIT: TBH, @feral-finster, I referred to Musk as an oligarch in my first post here today (low down ↙ cuz too few hearts) but that was for rhetorical effect (kinda like when we call a conservative bigot a fascist) but on further reflection I see it's not entirely correct in technical terms.
“He will have to comply or they will fuck him up.”
Pure speculation. I don’t think Musks government contacts are in conflict with Twitter content moderation policy or practice. While I don’t deny the existence of a globohomo cabal arguing that Twitter policy and SpaceX contracts are somehow intertwined is a big stretch.
Well if Zuckerberg is compromised (it seems likely) then he was compromised from day 1. Elon isn’t acting like someone who is compromised.
Maybe in time Bezos and Blue Origin steps up and SpaceX is marginalized. But until that happens they need SpaceX as much or more than SpaceX needs them.
Yes, for sure. I find Musk to be one of the most fascinating people around. I used to be a hater while finding him interesting. So I began watching every interview and podcast I could find of his. I might have been through all of them on YT and Rumble at this point.
I won’t admit to being smitten by him, but I’ve gone from hater - not going as far as joining the short army - to appreciating his work. I appreciate his moderate stance on climate even though I think his solution to renewable energy is not achievable.
I try to judge people based on actions and words. Musk isn’t perfect but I’ve not found evidence to place him firmly in the bad guy camp with Bill Gates, Klaus, etc.
Maybe you will be correct, it’s in the realm of possibility even if I think it’s not probable. I think we can both agree that watching the blue check Twitterati self-immolate is going to be great fun.
Sorry, but how does supporting the coup of an elected official in Bolivia in order to facilitate lithium mining for a spuriously green transport model [electric cars] not land someone squarely in the bad guy camp? #askingforafriend
Certainly. Around the time when Trump was elected in 2016, Senator Chuck Schumer remarked that Trump would be given little choice but to follow the alphabet agencies' orders:
“Let me tell you: You take on the intelligence community — they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you,” Schumer told MSNBC’s host Rachel Maddow.
Thanks for the link. It’s a good point that the Deep State can fuck you up if they want, I guess ask JFK how that went.
To admit that the DS has the power to murder Presidents or derail their administration is one thing. To take that several steps further and say that the CIA is allowing Musk to purchase a company is another. That might be true, but in how many universes? I believe there are more universes where this is false than true.
My current line of thinking takes me to the SEC and then stepping in to block the sale. I’ve not really thought the entire thing through so that might be absurd...seems possible though.
So you think allowing the ds the power to murder presidents is acceptable? Yet you think Musk circumventing sec rules on purchasing companies is sacrosanct? Explain please how extrajudicial killings of adversaries are more egregious than securities fraud?
The laws in the United States are broad enough and far-reaching enough that a pretext can always be found to ensure that the establishment gets what it wants.
> Riddle me this snowflakes, when has Musk ever called for censorship or more “content moderation”?
That doesn't matter. The current regime of content regulation was forced on Twitfaceooglezon by the feds on whom Musk depends just as much if not more. Hence he will find himself in direct conflict with DC pols if he unwinds that content regulation. He will have to comply or they will fuck him up. Popcorn time.
Call people snowflakes, make up funny terms, "eat some popcorn" while concentrating on the circus. That's exactly the point, Tom.
You're so excited watching the gladiators fighting inside the Overton colosseum that you aren't even questioning what Musk's real goal is here. If you believe he's investing $43,000,000,000 just because he values free speech I've got some Arizona beachfront property I'd like to sell you.
Subjects Musk's Twitter won't pushing with an updated algorithm:
- Oligarchs should not be able to buy huge media companies when those media corporations will affect public opinion on their other businesses
- The massive US wealth concentration should not be allowed in an alleged Democratic society
- The US should not be meddling militarily in other countries
- The US should be spending more money on the American public and less on the military
[edit] typos
Things would not have been allowed to get to this point if it were not certain that Musk would not comply.
I am curious to see how this conflict resolves itself. It is a classic relationship between a wannabe olligarch and a government that's for sale. They need each other.
Not sure that Musk is a "wannabe" oligarch.
He sure seems like a bona fide oligarch from here.
I argue he isn't full oligarch because while certainly very influential, the feds still have the legitimate authority to regulate his businesses into the red. His business are profitable only because of government subsidies including direct grants, purchases, various incentives and even corporate and tax laws in all the jurisdictions he operates in. Since Musk knows that, he's just using his enormous influence.
Now we'll see how much more influence owning Twitter gives him. Maybe it gives him enough to totally push the feds and pols around like Kolomoyskyi does with Zelenskyy, and unlike Russian billionaires (so-called but not really oligarchs) with Putin. As I said, it's popcorn time.
---
EDIT: TBH, @feral-finster, I referred to Musk as an oligarch in my first post here today (low down ↙ cuz too few hearts) but that was for rhetorical effect (kinda like when we call a conservative bigot a fascist) but on further reflection I see it's not entirely correct in technical terms.
I see what you are saying, but it's not as if you have to be omnipotent to be an oligarch.
No, but you do need to have the balance of power over the nominally democratic ruling elite. I think that's part of the definition of the word.
“He will have to comply or they will fuck him up.”
Pure speculation. I don’t think Musks government contacts are in conflict with Twitter content moderation policy or practice. While I don’t deny the existence of a globohomo cabal arguing that Twitter policy and SpaceX contracts are somehow intertwined is a big stretch.
Ofc it is speculation because I am talking about the future. But it's *exactly* what the feds did with Zukerberg and he fell in line PDQ, remember?
Well if Zuckerberg is compromised (it seems likely) then he was compromised from day 1. Elon isn’t acting like someone who is compromised.
Maybe in time Bezos and Blue Origin steps up and SpaceX is marginalized. But until that happens they need SpaceX as much or more than SpaceX needs them.
You appear to trust that Musk's motives are virtuous more than I do.
Yes, for sure. I find Musk to be one of the most fascinating people around. I used to be a hater while finding him interesting. So I began watching every interview and podcast I could find of his. I might have been through all of them on YT and Rumble at this point.
I won’t admit to being smitten by him, but I’ve gone from hater - not going as far as joining the short army - to appreciating his work. I appreciate his moderate stance on climate even though I think his solution to renewable energy is not achievable.
I try to judge people based on actions and words. Musk isn’t perfect but I’ve not found evidence to place him firmly in the bad guy camp with Bill Gates, Klaus, etc.
Maybe you will be correct, it’s in the realm of possibility even if I think it’s not probable. I think we can both agree that watching the blue check Twitterati self-immolate is going to be great fun.
> Yes, for sure. I find Musk to be one of the most fascinating people around.
I agree. In the same was as Anna Sorokin or Adam Neumann. Absolutely fascinating. I'm perfectly serious.
Sorry, but how does supporting the coup of an elected official in Bolivia in order to facilitate lithium mining for a spuriously green transport model [electric cars] not land someone squarely in the bad guy camp? #askingforafriend
"They have six ways until Sunday...."
Please elaborate one just one. I’m ignorant but I’d like to learn.
Certainly. Around the time when Trump was elected in 2016, Senator Chuck Schumer remarked that Trump would be given little choice but to follow the alphabet agencies' orders:
“Let me tell you: You take on the intelligence community — they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you,” Schumer told MSNBC’s host Rachel Maddow.
https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/schumer-intelligence-agencies-have-six-ways-from-sunday-of-getting-back-at-you/ contains a link to the interview in question.
Thanks for the link. It’s a good point that the Deep State can fuck you up if they want, I guess ask JFK how that went.
To admit that the DS has the power to murder Presidents or derail their administration is one thing. To take that several steps further and say that the CIA is allowing Musk to purchase a company is another. That might be true, but in how many universes? I believe there are more universes where this is false than true.
My current line of thinking takes me to the SEC and then stepping in to block the sale. I’ve not really thought the entire thing through so that might be absurd...seems possible though.
So you think allowing the ds the power to murder presidents is acceptable? Yet you think Musk circumventing sec rules on purchasing companies is sacrosanct? Explain please how extrajudicial killings of adversaries are more egregious than securities fraud?
The laws in the United States are broad enough and far-reaching enough that a pretext can always be found to ensure that the establishment gets what it wants.
And it's perfectly legal.