Society/Culture Elon Musk - Takeover of Twitter?

[Not Important]

they are shit cars anyway. going electric, get a volvo.

 

[Chicken Treat]

I'm just going to put this on here because it's relevant to people's concerns about the platform. (I'm not a fan of Elon and the way he has changed the site)

 

[MJG14]

Amongst other issues, he's made the platform so frustrating to use, The comments section to popular posts has turned to shit because of the high number of blue tick bots posting irrelevant garbage. The blue ticks being given priority has made discourse worse.

 

[Not Important]

it’s about an 8-minute watch, but the deal musk has with trump should he win is alarming.

PBS News Hour | What's behind Elon Musk's massive effort to elect Trump | Season 2024 | PBS

What's behind Elon Musk's massive effort to elect Trump

www.pbs.org

 

[Satan]

Lol

 

[Gethelred]

I'm just going to put this on here because it's relevant to people's concerns about the platform. (I'm not a fan of Elon and the way he has changed the site) View attachment 2150222
View attachment 2150223
View attachment 2150224

I actually struggle a little to disagree with her.

People behave like their specific site or blog or service or whatever have you isn't a business that you can opt in or out of their product. If that product no longer specifically appeals to you - for whatever reason - don't use or consume it. It's not fundamental to your identity; you don't need it for work unless you work in a very specialised field, you don't need it socially unless your friends are chronically online (and if they are, there's alternatives like discord, whatsapp), you don't need it to do anything. It's a way of being connected, and there are other ways to do that.

If you have privacy concerns stemming from online stalking - or doxxing - then that's potentially a separate issue, the solution ostensibly remains the same: get off the site. Scrub your profile, tell them your reasons, and leave.

If Woolies ceases to sell a product you like, find it elsewhere. You're not going to whinge at Woolworths for neglecting to stock a product you liked. If you don't like prepaying for fuel, don't go to the sites which force you to do it after hours.

If you don't like that Twitter won't let you block people, go to an alternative that will.

 

[Chief]

I actually struggle a little to disagree with her.

People behave like their specific site or blog or service or whatever have you isn't a business that you can opt in or out of their product. If that product no longer specifically appeals to you - for whatever reason - don't use or consume it. It's not fundamental to your identity; you don't need it for work unless you work in a very specialised field, you don't need it socially unless your friends are chronically online (and if they are, there's alternatives like discord, whatsapp), you don't need it to do anything. It's a way of being connected, and there are other ways to do that.

If you have privacy concerns stemming from online stalking - or doxxing - then that's potentially a separate issue, the solution ostensibly remains the same: get off the site. Scrub your profile, tell them your reasons, and leave.

If Woolies ceases to sell a product you like, find it elsewhere. You're not going to whinge at Woolworths for neglecting to stock a product you liked. If you don't like prepaying for fuel, don't go to the sites which force you to do it after hours.

If you don't like that Twitter won't let you block people, go to an alternative that will.

Listening to people who use it for their work and activism, they say that when someone is getting creepy, most of the time blocking them takes away easy access to their little obsession and they give up.

The friction of starting a new account is usually too high. Creepy trolls are lazy.

This is purely a way to get more views and time on site for creeps.

 

[peetoo]

Lol

Standing up and talking about ‘rounding up’ sections of soceity is kind of a hitler thing

 

[Kram]

Australian shares are poised to fall as US stocks cooled further, but Tesla provided a late boost to Wall Street after surpassing earnings estimates for the three months to the end of September, with the electric carmaker turning around a slide that began earlier this year.
In an after-market update, the Elon Musk-founded company said net income had hit $US2.2 billion ($3.3 billion) in the three-month period, up 17 per cent on the same time last year. It has been attempting to turn around poor new car sales over the last year through discounting and other promotion.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

 

[jannissary]

I actually struggle a little to disagree with her.

People behave like their specific site or blog or service or whatever have you isn't a business that you can opt in or out of their product. If that product no longer specifically appeals to you - for whatever reason - don't use or consume it. It's not fundamental to your identity; you don't need it for work unless you work in a very specialised field, you don't need it socially unless your friends are chronically online (and if they are, there's alternatives like discord, whatsapp), you don't need it to do anything. It's a way of being connected, and there are other ways to do that.

If you have privacy concerns stemming from online stalking - or doxxing - then that's potentially a separate issue, the solution ostensibly remains the same: get off the site. Scrub your profile, tell them your reasons, and leave.

If Woolies ceases to sell a product you like, find it elsewhere. You're not going to whinge at Woolworths for neglecting to stock a product you liked. If you don't like prepaying for fuel, don't go to the sites which force you to do it after hours.

If you don't like that Twitter won't let you block people, go to an alternative that will.

i can see the validity behind their post, however, at the same time, shouldn't the space you use (and frequent be safe). i thankfully don't post often on twitter bc i'm boring and am not vain enough for social media (being vain in saying that, ironically) but people who're big(ger) than me should be able to disallow trolls, creeps or freaks from interacting and engaging with them, right?

now that twitter harbours far more neo-nazis and the like than before, i'd say rivalling it's contemporary in stormfront, i'd rather be able to block them from seeing what i'm interested in.

 

[faible]

I actually struggle a little to disagree with her.

People behave like their specific site or blog or service or whatever have you isn't a business that you can opt in or out of their product. If that product no longer specifically appeals to you - for whatever reason - don't use or consume it. It's not fundamental to your identity; you don't need it for work unless you work in a very specialised field, you don't need it socially unless your friends are chronically online (and if they are, there's alternatives like discord, whatsapp), you don't need it to do anything. It's a way of being connected, and there are other ways to do that.

If you have privacy concerns stemming from online stalking - or doxxing - then that's potentially a separate issue, the solution ostensibly remains the same: get off the site. Scrub your profile, tell them your reasons, and leave.

If Woolies ceases to sell a product you like, find it elsewhere. You're not going to whinge at Woolworths for neglecting to stock a product you liked. If you don't like prepaying for fuel, don't go to the sites which force you to do it after hours.

If you don't like that Twitter won't let you block people, go to an alternative that will.

Seems very victim-blamey to me.

'grow up'
'too fragile for social media'
you need to coexist with the public, if you can't gtfo'
'whining'
'internet babies'
'grow up'
'whiny brats'

It's a no from me.

We wouldn't accept harassment in any other public space (and social media is a pseudo 'public' space even if privately owned) or tell people to suck it up, stop whining, and leave if they don't like it were they being harassed anywhere else.

I suspect if it was a male posting this kind of stuff you'd have different thoughts on it.

 

[Gethelred]

Seems very victim-blamey to me.

'grow up'
'too fragile for social media'
you need to coexist with the public, if you can't gtfo'
'whining'
'internet babies'
'grow up'
'whiny brats'

It's a no from me.

We wouldn't accept harassment in any other public space (and social media is a pseudo 'public' space even if privately owned) or tell people to suck it up, stop whining, and leave if they don't like it were they being harassed anywhere else.

The post being rather rude and victim blamey doesn't detract from the logic of the thing.

I suspect if it was a male posting this kind of stuff you'd have different thoughts on it.

I doubt it.

 

[Gralin]

I think its pretty simple at a high level

if a community isn't safe and the people running the community don't want to make it safe

then you're in the community at your own risk

if a community proposes to be safe but isn't and after being called on it does nothing then as above

in this case we're talking about what used to be a really good resource for people with a level of safety that is no longer there

Elon isn't going to make it safe no matter how much you complain

so it is a bit accept it or leave

of course the issue there is that all of our online spaces are at the mercy of the owners and their business models

there might not be anywhere else to go

there are legitimate concerns around the block removal and people should be able to express them, but at the end of the day if those concerns are ignored its up them to decide if they stay or not

 

[RedStarUncle]

I actually struggle a little to disagree with her.

People behave like their specific site or blog or service or whatever have you isn't a business that you can opt in or out of their product. If that product no longer specifically appeals to you - for whatever reason - don't use or consume it. It's not fundamental to your identity; you don't need it for work unless you work in a very specialised field, you don't need it socially unless your friends are chronically online (and if they are, there's alternatives like discord, whatsapp), you don't need it to do anything. It's a way of being connected, and there are other ways to do that.

If you have privacy concerns stemming from online stalking - or doxxing - then that's potentially a separate issue, the solution ostensibly remains the same: get off the site. Scrub your profile, tell them your reasons, and leave.

If Woolies ceases to sell a product you like, find it elsewhere. You're not going to whinge at Woolworths for neglecting to stock a product you liked. If you don't like prepaying for fuel, don't go to the sites which force you to do it after hours.

If you don't like that Twitter won't let you block people, go to an alternative that will.

In one sense, I agree. Ultimately it's a product not a public space. The fact that people perceive it as a public space doesn't stop it from being so.

But at the same time, as a product it still has obligations to protect fundamental safety of those using the product. Woolies aren't allowed to have dangerous products. The petrol station isn't allowed to get away with not managing fire risks on their premises. If you walk into a cafe and someone is hurling abuse and screaming at the clientele, the cafe owners have both a right and obligation to remove that person.

So whether virtual reality space that is Twitter is adequately safe for it's customers, whatever the answer, is a question that deserves an answer.




More generally... I've never understood why social media platforms aren't treated as publishers for any and all content that is generated on them and then thrust into the public space. They should be just as accountable for every post, comment, and photo as a publisher is for its authors and, to a lesser extent, a newspaper is for its journalists (although they have a higher responsibility as an employer of said journalists).

 

[Gethelred]

In one sense, I agree. Ultimately it's a product not a public space. The fact that people perceive it as a public space doesn't stop it from being so.

But at the same time, as a product it still has obligations to protect fundamental safety of those using the product. Woolies aren't allowed to have dangerous products. The petrol station isn't allowed to get away with not managing fire risks on their premises. If you walk into a cafe and someone is hurling abuse and screaming at the clientele, the cafe owners have both a right and obligation to remove that person.

So whether virtual reality space that is Twitter is adequately safe for it's customers, whatever the answer, is a question that deserves an answer.

This is an interesting thought, but Woolies absolutely sell products that are dangerous, with a variety of different rules. You cannot buy a kitchen knife as a child - at least, you used to not be able to - and you cannot purchase cigarettes or alcohol at Liquorland without ID. You can make a Twitter account without ID; you're meant to be above a certain age to do so, but all you need's an email account.

The difference is therefore one of regulation, and governments haven't been open to regulating the online behemoths yet. Too aware that those same businesses can burn them and burn them hard come election time, but it's also because politicians tend towards not understanding the implications of new technology.

In very real terms, Australian politicians (and politicians as a whole) are insulated against the consequences of online spaces precisely because their interactions with those spaces are mediated through other, more tech savy people. Until they regulate those spaces, there's no-one between the kids and the smokes.

More generally... I've never understood why social media platforms aren't treated as publishers for any and all content that is generated on them and then thrust into the public space. They should be just as accountable for every post, comment, and photo as a publisher is for its authors and, to a lesser extent, a newspaper is for its journalists (although they have a higher responsibility as an employer of said journalists).

It's because politicians are slow on the uptake and silicon valley were clever in their lobbying. Nothing prevents regulation worldwide than the US government capitulating.

 

[RedStarUncle]

This is an interesting thought, but Woolies absolutely sell products that are dangerous, with a variety of different rules. You cannot buy a kitchen knife as a child - at least, you used to not be able to - and you cannot purchase cigarettes or alcohol at Liquorland without ID. You can make a Twitter account without ID; you're meant to be above a certain age to do so, but all you need's an email account.

The difference is therefore one of regulation, and governments haven't been open to regulating the online behemoths yet. Too aware that those same businesses can burn them and burn them hard come election time, but it's also because politicians tend towards not understanding the implications of new technology.

In very real terms, Australian politicians (and politicians as a whole) are insulated against the consequences of online spaces precisely because their interactions with those spaces are mediated through other, more tech savy people. Until they regulate those spaces, there's no-one between the kids and the smokes.

It's because politicians are slow on the uptake and silicon valley were clever in their lobbying. Nothing prevents regulation worldwide than the US government capitulating.

Yep about my thinking... the problem is a lack of regulation, and now that social media is ubiquitous it's very difficult to retrospectively introduce regulation.

And these easiest regulation of all would be to regulate them as equivalent to publishers, but the industry is now too big and too powerful with too many customers to be curtailed to that extent.




So the cat's out of the bag and there's not much practical scope to put it back in. Which means "not using it" is the only realistic choice an individual can make if they don't like what social media is and does.