French Twitter is convinced. This is weird and intrusive from Macron, it looks bad, creepy and patronising
I agree it's rather cringeworthy from Macron.
At best he's shamelessly trying to milk photo-ops from his "sympathy" for the players - to the extent of discomforting them. At worst there is something genuinely homo-erotic going on and - in his no doubt sincere emotion (it was an incredible game) - he does not realise that he is crossing several lines in front of cameras
Really its just a shame Musk cannot run for US President, as he's clearly the right person to spend an entire presidency and aftermath on winding people up on twitter.
Musk versus Trump would be funny, in a terrifying sort of way.
Musk one of the only people who could infuriate Trump by saying 'I am much richer than you!'
Although there are rumours most of us could actually say that to Trump at the moment...
As the old saying goes, if you owe the bank £10k it’s your problem, but if you owe it £10Bn then it’s the bank’s problem.
Or as Morgan Kelly memorably put it:
'The ECB can learn the basic economic truth that when you lend €160 billion to insolvent banks backed by an insolvent state, you are no longer a creditor: you are the owner.'
I know, what a doofus. He did say that before he got suspended though.
His snivelling deference to Musk I put down to sunk cost fallacy after he did his "Lol idiots, Musk makes rocket ships go zoom - how hard can running a social network be" posts.
It'll be interesting to see if this applies to historic posts (i.e. those that contained links in the past). Will they suddenly be removed or made invisible?
in fact, it'd be interesting to know how long a twitter post remains 'current' (i.e. how long after a twitter post is made before it is rarely seen). I'm guessing a couple of days for most posts, and shorter if someone regularly tweets.
Funny who is and isn’t included. Discord, TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, Tumblr and OnlyFans all fine.
The banned list is of all the social media sites which might be a rival to Twitter by replicating at least some of its main model. YouTube and OnlyFans do not do that
Question is whether Elon Musk ran it past the legal department (assuming he's not sacked it) regarding (a) monopoly and (b) publisher versus platform.
*If* Twitter is the big boy in this particular social media space, then it does seem anticompetitive - other sites can feed into Twitter, but Twitter will not allow links to smaller potential rivals, allowing them to grow. Although as Facebook and Instagram are on the list, that might not be the case. But are FB and Instagram in the *same* space?
Will Facebook and Instagram respond in kind?
It'll be interesting to see how this works out, both legally and business-wise. But on a personal level, I quite like the Internet being as open as possible. If other companies do the same, we'll go further down the road of content walled gardens. And I think that's a bad thing.
Other sites already do this. You can't put URLs into an Insta post, for instance. You can't link through to other sites. Vastly frustrating and of course deliberate
World governments need to start regulating this stuff properly. Either you are a publisher or you are a platform. Platforms should have to be neutral and, over a certain size, should face regulation like a utility, ensuring they are treating people fairly. America won't do it, as their system is owned by corporate interest, but the EU and UK should step up.
What is very sad is how much HMG bows to the interests of a handful of monopolists even though they don't benefit that much from political donations. It's a pure subservience mentality.
Being neutral does not mean you have to allow people to advertise your competitors. And frankly world governements have to regulate this stuff? Really I wouldnt trust any governement to regulate the internet thats when we get the shit we do like the uk's online safety bill, the us KOSA act, the EU copyright and DSA acts and the austrailians declaring the law of mathematics does not trump the laws of australia
All of those are better than the world's information flows being distorted by the whims of the Elon Musks of the world. Democratic governments are held accountable to public elections. Megalomanic billionaires are held accountable to no-one.
Also, no-one is requiring Twitter advertise their competitors. They would not be being made to publish anything. But they don't claim to be a publisher, they claim to be a platform, and platforms should be required to be neutral to all.
You can't link to Facebook or Vimeo from YouTube.
But you can instagram...lots of these sites seem to have inconsistent and random rules in terms of links elsewhere.
Inconsistent and random if you don’t know the ownership of the sites/apps
For example - you can’t buy kindle books (Amazon) on the iPhone App for Amazon. Ever wonder why?
It'll be interesting to see if this applies to historic posts (i.e. those that contained links in the past). Will they suddenly be removed or made invisible?
in fact, it'd be interesting to know how long a twitter post remains 'current' (i.e. how long after a twitter post is made before it is rarely seen). I'm guessing a couple of days for most posts, and shorter if someone regularly tweets.
Funny who is and isn’t included. Discord, TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, Tumblr and OnlyFans all fine.
The banned list is of all the social media sites which might be a rival to Twitter by replicating at least some of its main model. YouTube and OnlyFans do not do that
Question is whether Elon Musk ran it past the legal department (assuming he's not sacked it) regarding (a) monopoly and (b) publisher versus platform.
*If* Twitter is the big boy in this particular social media space, then it does seem anticompetitive - other sites can feed into Twitter, but Twitter will not allow links to smaller potential rivals, allowing them to grow. Although as Facebook and Instagram are on the list, that might not be the case. But are FB and Instagram in the *same* space?
Will Facebook and Instagram respond in kind?
It'll be interesting to see how this works out, both legally and business-wise. But on a personal level, I quite like the Internet being as open as possible. If other companies do the same, we'll go further down the road of content walled gardens. And I think that's a bad thing.
Other sites already do this. You can't put URLs into an Insta post, for instance. You can't link through to other sites. Vastly frustrating and of course deliberate
World governments need to start regulating this stuff properly. Either you are a publisher or you are a platform. Platforms should have to be neutral and, over a certain size, should face regulation like a utility, ensuring they are treating people fairly. America won't do it, as their system is owned by corporate interest, but the EU and UK should step up.
What is very sad is how much HMG bows to the interests of a handful of monopolists even though they don't benefit that much from political donations. It's a pure subservience mentality.
Being neutral does not mean you have to allow people to advertise your competitors. And frankly world governements have to regulate this stuff? Really I wouldnt trust any governement to regulate the internet thats when we get the shit we do like the uk's online safety bill, the us KOSA act, the EU copyright and DSA acts and the austrailians declaring the law of mathematics does not trump the laws of australia
All of those are better than the world's information flows being distorted by the whims of the Elon Musks of the world. Democratic governments are held accountable to public elections. Megalomanic billionaires are held accountable to no-one.
Also, no-one is requiring Twitter advertise their competitors. They would not be being made to publish anything. But they don't claim to be a publisher, they claim to be a platform, and platforms should be required to be neutral to all.
You can't link to Facebook or Vimeo from YouTube.
But you can instagram...lots of these sites seem to have inconsistent and random rules in terms of links elsewhere.
Inconsistent and random if you don’t know the ownership of the sites/apps
For example - you can’t buy kindle books (Amazon) on the iPhone App for Amazon. Ever wonder why?
It'll be interesting to see if this applies to historic posts (i.e. those that contained links in the past). Will they suddenly be removed or made invisible?
in fact, it'd be interesting to know how long a twitter post remains 'current' (i.e. how long after a twitter post is made before it is rarely seen). I'm guessing a couple of days for most posts, and shorter if someone regularly tweets.
Funny who is and isn’t included. Discord, TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, Tumblr and OnlyFans all fine.
The banned list is of all the social media sites which might be a rival to Twitter by replicating at least some of its main model. YouTube and OnlyFans do not do that
Question is whether Elon Musk ran it past the legal department (assuming he's not sacked it) regarding (a) monopoly and (b) publisher versus platform.
*If* Twitter is the big boy in this particular social media space, then it does seem anticompetitive - other sites can feed into Twitter, but Twitter will not allow links to smaller potential rivals, allowing them to grow. Although as Facebook and Instagram are on the list, that might not be the case. But are FB and Instagram in the *same* space?
Will Facebook and Instagram respond in kind?
It'll be interesting to see how this works out, both legally and business-wise. But on a personal level, I quite like the Internet being as open as possible. If other companies do the same, we'll go further down the road of content walled gardens. And I think that's a bad thing.
Other sites already do this. You can't put URLs into an Insta post, for instance. You can't link through to other sites. Vastly frustrating and of course deliberate
World governments need to start regulating this stuff properly. Either you are a publisher or you are a platform. Platforms should have to be neutral and, over a certain size, should face regulation like a utility, ensuring they are treating people fairly. America won't do it, as their system is owned by corporate interest, but the EU and UK should step up.
What is very sad is how much HMG bows to the interests of a handful of monopolists even though they don't benefit that much from political donations. It's a pure subservience mentality.
Being neutral does not mean you have to allow people to advertise your competitors. And frankly world governements have to regulate this stuff? Really I wouldnt trust any governement to regulate the internet thats when we get the shit we do like the uk's online safety bill, the us KOSA act, the EU copyright and DSA acts and the austrailians declaring the law of mathematics does not trump the laws of australia
All of those are better than the world's information flows being distorted by the whims of the Elon Musks of the world. Democratic governments are held accountable to public elections. Megalomanic billionaires are held accountable to no-one.
Also, no-one is requiring Twitter advertise their competitors. They would not be being made to publish anything. But they don't claim to be a publisher, they claim to be a platform, and platforms should be required to be neutral to all.
You can't link to Facebook or Vimeo from YouTube.
But you can instagram...lots of these sites seem to have inconsistent and random rules in terms of links elsewhere.
Inconsistent and random if you don’t know the ownership of the sites/apps
For example - you can’t buy kindle books (Amazon) on the iPhone App for Amazon. Ever wonder why?
Because Apple would take 30%.
It’s more than that - iBooks.
Straight up, “no you can’t sell your stuff on our platform.”
Otherwise Apple would have refused the Amazon App completely.
It'll be interesting to see if this applies to historic posts (i.e. those that contained links in the past). Will they suddenly be removed or made invisible?
in fact, it'd be interesting to know how long a twitter post remains 'current' (i.e. how long after a twitter post is made before it is rarely seen). I'm guessing a couple of days for most posts, and shorter if someone regularly tweets.
Funny who is and isn’t included. Discord, TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, Tumblr and OnlyFans all fine.
The banned list is of all the social media sites which might be a rival to Twitter by replicating at least some of its main model. YouTube and OnlyFans do not do that
Question is whether Elon Musk ran it past the legal department (assuming he's not sacked it) regarding (a) monopoly and (b) publisher versus platform.
*If* Twitter is the big boy in this particular social media space, then it does seem anticompetitive - other sites can feed into Twitter, but Twitter will not allow links to smaller potential rivals, allowing them to grow. Although as Facebook and Instagram are on the list, that might not be the case. But are FB and Instagram in the *same* space?
Will Facebook and Instagram respond in kind?
It'll be interesting to see how this works out, both legally and business-wise. But on a personal level, I quite like the Internet being as open as possible. If other companies do the same, we'll go further down the road of content walled gardens. And I think that's a bad thing.
Other sites already do this. You can't put URLs into an Insta post, for instance. You can't link through to other sites. Vastly frustrating and of course deliberate
World governments need to start regulating this stuff properly. Either you are a publisher or you are a platform. Platforms should have to be neutral and, over a certain size, should face regulation like a utility, ensuring they are treating people fairly. America won't do it, as their system is owned by corporate interest, but the EU and UK should step up.
What is very sad is how much HMG bows to the interests of a handful of monopolists even though they don't benefit that much from political donations. It's a pure subservience mentality.
Being neutral does not mean you have to allow people to advertise your competitors. And frankly world governements have to regulate this stuff? Really I wouldnt trust any governement to regulate the internet thats when we get the shit we do like the uk's online safety bill, the us KOSA act, the EU copyright and DSA acts and the austrailians declaring the law of mathematics does not trump the laws of australia
All of those are better than the world's information flows being distorted by the whims of the Elon Musks of the world. Democratic governments are held accountable to public elections. Megalomanic billionaires are held accountable to no-one.
Also, no-one is requiring Twitter advertise their competitors. They would not be being made to publish anything. But they don't claim to be a publisher, they claim to be a platform, and platforms should be required to be neutral to all.
You can't link to Facebook or Vimeo from YouTube.
But you can instagram...lots of these sites seem to have inconsistent and random rules in terms of links elsewhere.
Inconsistent and random if you don’t know the ownership of the sites/apps
For example - you can’t buy kindle books (Amazon) on the iPhone App for Amazon. Ever wonder why?
It'll be interesting to see if this applies to historic posts (i.e. those that contained links in the past). Will they suddenly be removed or made invisible?
in fact, it'd be interesting to know how long a twitter post remains 'current' (i.e. how long after a twitter post is made before it is rarely seen). I'm guessing a couple of days for most posts, and shorter if someone regularly tweets.
Funny who is and isn’t included. Discord, TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, Tumblr and OnlyFans all fine.
The banned list is of all the social media sites which might be a rival to Twitter by replicating at least some of its main model. YouTube and OnlyFans do not do that
Question is whether Elon Musk ran it past the legal department (assuming he's not sacked it) regarding (a) monopoly and (b) publisher versus platform.
*If* Twitter is the big boy in this particular social media space, then it does seem anticompetitive - other sites can feed into Twitter, but Twitter will not allow links to smaller potential rivals, allowing them to grow. Although as Facebook and Instagram are on the list, that might not be the case. But are FB and Instagram in the *same* space?
Will Facebook and Instagram respond in kind?
It'll be interesting to see how this works out, both legally and business-wise. But on a personal level, I quite like the Internet being as open as possible. If other companies do the same, we'll go further down the road of content walled gardens. And I think that's a bad thing.
Other sites already do this. You can't put URLs into an Insta post, for instance. You can't link through to other sites. Vastly frustrating and of course deliberate
World governments need to start regulating this stuff properly. Either you are a publisher or you are a platform. Platforms should have to be neutral and, over a certain size, should face regulation like a utility, ensuring they are treating people fairly. America won't do it, as their system is owned by corporate interest, but the EU and UK should step up.
What is very sad is how much HMG bows to the interests of a handful of monopolists even though they don't benefit that much from political donations. It's a pure subservience mentality.
Being neutral does not mean you have to allow people to advertise your competitors. And frankly world governements have to regulate this stuff? Really I wouldnt trust any governement to regulate the internet thats when we get the shit we do like the uk's online safety bill, the us KOSA act, the EU copyright and DSA acts and the austrailians declaring the law of mathematics does not trump the laws of australia
All of those are better than the world's information flows being distorted by the whims of the Elon Musks of the world. Democratic governments are held accountable to public elections. Megalomanic billionaires are held accountable to no-one.
Also, no-one is requiring Twitter advertise their competitors. They would not be being made to publish anything. But they don't claim to be a publisher, they claim to be a platform, and platforms should be required to be neutral to all.
You can't link to Facebook or Vimeo from YouTube.
But you can instagram...lots of these sites seem to have inconsistent and random rules in terms of links elsewhere.
Inconsistent and random if you don’t know the ownership of the sites/apps
For example - you can’t buy kindle books (Amazon) on the iPhone App for Amazon. Ever wonder why?
Really its just a shame Musk cannot run for US President, as he's clearly the right person to spend an entire presidency and aftermath on winding people up on twitter.
He'd push the envelope further in more than one of the directions that Trump pushed it.
* He's a centibillionaire, not a mere billionaire. * Arguably he's an ultrad*ckhead on Sh*tter whereas Trump was a mere superd*ckhead. * He'd probably find it easier to win votes from youngsters.
On other measures he's at par, lagging behind, or signally different.
* Both men have a record doing comedy stuff to large audiences. * He is a liar but he's nowhere near at Trump's level. * He's saner than Trump. That's an awfully low bar, but I think he meets it. * AFAICT, he works hard. Trump's business is mainly his brand.
Musk has a short surname, though - a well-known advantage.
Kennedy 7 Johnson 7 Nixon 5 Ford 4 Carter 6 Reagan 6 Bush 4 Clinton 7 Obama 5 Trump 5 Biden 5
Only 10% of surnames in the US have 4 or fewer letters. Only 28% have 5 or fewer.
Musk can run. But the only realistic way he could get himself accepted as eligible to become US president would be if the Supreme Court were to declare that the natural born citizen requirement has already been repealed implicitly and is therefore a dead letter. Unlikely.
It'll be interesting to see if this applies to historic posts (i.e. those that contained links in the past). Will they suddenly be removed or made invisible?
in fact, it'd be interesting to know how long a twitter post remains 'current' (i.e. how long after a twitter post is made before it is rarely seen). I'm guessing a couple of days for most posts, and shorter if someone regularly tweets.
Funny who is and isn’t included. Discord, TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, Tumblr and OnlyFans all fine.
The banned list is of all the social media sites which might be a rival to Twitter by replicating at least some of its main model. YouTube and OnlyFans do not do that
Question is whether Elon Musk ran it past the legal department (assuming he's not sacked it) regarding (a) monopoly and (b) publisher versus platform.
*If* Twitter is the big boy in this particular social media space, then it does seem anticompetitive - other sites can feed into Twitter, but Twitter will not allow links to smaller potential rivals, allowing them to grow. Although as Facebook and Instagram are on the list, that might not be the case. But are FB and Instagram in the *same* space?
Will Facebook and Instagram respond in kind?
It'll be interesting to see how this works out, both legally and business-wise. But on a personal level, I quite like the Internet being as open as possible. If other companies do the same, we'll go further down the road of content walled gardens. And I think that's a bad thing.
Other sites already do this. You can't put URLs into an Insta post, for instance. You can't link through to other sites. Vastly frustrating and of course deliberate
World governments need to start regulating this stuff properly. Either you are a publisher or you are a platform. Platforms should have to be neutral and, over a certain size, should face regulation like a utility, ensuring they are treating people fairly. America won't do it, as their system is owned by corporate interest, but the EU and UK should step up.
What is very sad is how much HMG bows to the interests of a handful of monopolists even though they don't benefit that much from political donations. It's a pure subservience mentality.
Being neutral does not mean you have to allow people to advertise your competitors. And frankly world governements have to regulate this stuff? Really I wouldnt trust any governement to regulate the internet thats when we get the shit we do like the uk's online safety bill, the us KOSA act, the EU copyright and DSA acts and the austrailians declaring the law of mathematics does not trump the laws of australia
All of those are better than the world's information flows being distorted by the whims of the Elon Musks of the world. Democratic governments are held accountable to public elections. Megalomanic billionaires are held accountable to no-one.
Also, no-one is requiring Twitter advertise their competitors. They would not be being made to publish anything. But they don't claim to be a publisher, they claim to be a platform, and platforms should be required to be neutral to all.
You can't link to Facebook or Vimeo from YouTube.
But you can instagram...lots of these sites seem to have inconsistent and random rules in terms of links elsewhere.
Inconsistent and random if you don’t know the ownership of the sites/apps
For example - you can’t buy kindle books (Amazon) on the iPhone App for Amazon. Ever wonder why?
It'll be interesting to see if this applies to historic posts (i.e. those that contained links in the past). Will they suddenly be removed or made invisible?
in fact, it'd be interesting to know how long a twitter post remains 'current' (i.e. how long after a twitter post is made before it is rarely seen). I'm guessing a couple of days for most posts, and shorter if someone regularly tweets.
Funny who is and isn’t included. Discord, TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, Tumblr and OnlyFans all fine.
The banned list is of all the social media sites which might be a rival to Twitter by replicating at least some of its main model. YouTube and OnlyFans do not do that
Question is whether Elon Musk ran it past the legal department (assuming he's not sacked it) regarding (a) monopoly and (b) publisher versus platform.
*If* Twitter is the big boy in this particular social media space, then it does seem anticompetitive - other sites can feed into Twitter, but Twitter will not allow links to smaller potential rivals, allowing them to grow. Although as Facebook and Instagram are on the list, that might not be the case. But are FB and Instagram in the *same* space?
Will Facebook and Instagram respond in kind?
It'll be interesting to see how this works out, both legally and business-wise. But on a personal level, I quite like the Internet being as open as possible. If other companies do the same, we'll go further down the road of content walled gardens. And I think that's a bad thing.
Other sites already do this. You can't put URLs into an Insta post, for instance. You can't link through to other sites. Vastly frustrating and of course deliberate
World governments need to start regulating this stuff properly. Either you are a publisher or you are a platform. Platforms should have to be neutral and, over a certain size, should face regulation like a utility, ensuring they are treating people fairly. America won't do it, as their system is owned by corporate interest, but the EU and UK should step up.
What is very sad is how much HMG bows to the interests of a handful of monopolists even though they don't benefit that much from political donations. It's a pure subservience mentality.
Being neutral does not mean you have to allow people to advertise your competitors. And frankly world governements have to regulate this stuff? Really I wouldnt trust any governement to regulate the internet thats when we get the shit we do like the uk's online safety bill, the us KOSA act, the EU copyright and DSA acts and the austrailians declaring the law of mathematics does not trump the laws of australia
All of those are better than the world's information flows being distorted by the whims of the Elon Musks of the world. Democratic governments are held accountable to public elections. Megalomanic billionaires are held accountable to no-one.
Also, no-one is requiring Twitter advertise their competitors. They would not be being made to publish anything. But they don't claim to be a publisher, they claim to be a platform, and platforms should be required to be neutral to all.
You can't link to Facebook or Vimeo from YouTube.
But you can instagram...lots of these sites seem to have inconsistent and random rules in terms of links elsewhere.
Inconsistent and random if you don’t know the ownership of the sites/apps
For example - you can’t buy kindle books (Amazon) on the iPhone App for Amazon. Ever wonder why?
Because Apple would take 30%.
And Musk is right to criticize the Apple tax.
It's the core of the issue.
They don't want to be squeezed until the pips squeal. That has no a peel to Amazon.
It'll be interesting to see if this applies to historic posts (i.e. those that contained links in the past). Will they suddenly be removed or made invisible?
in fact, it'd be interesting to know how long a twitter post remains 'current' (i.e. how long after a twitter post is made before it is rarely seen). I'm guessing a couple of days for most posts, and shorter if someone regularly tweets.
Funny who is and isn’t included. Discord, TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, Tumblr and OnlyFans all fine.
The banned list is of all the social media sites which might be a rival to Twitter by replicating at least some of its main model. YouTube and OnlyFans do not do that
Question is whether Elon Musk ran it past the legal department (assuming he's not sacked it) regarding (a) monopoly and (b) publisher versus platform.
*If* Twitter is the big boy in this particular social media space, then it does seem anticompetitive - other sites can feed into Twitter, but Twitter will not allow links to smaller potential rivals, allowing them to grow. Although as Facebook and Instagram are on the list, that might not be the case. But are FB and Instagram in the *same* space?
Will Facebook and Instagram respond in kind?
It'll be interesting to see how this works out, both legally and business-wise. But on a personal level, I quite like the Internet being as open as possible. If other companies do the same, we'll go further down the road of content walled gardens. And I think that's a bad thing.
Other sites already do this. You can't put URLs into an Insta post, for instance. You can't link through to other sites. Vastly frustrating and of course deliberate
World governments need to start regulating this stuff properly. Either you are a publisher or you are a platform. Platforms should have to be neutral and, over a certain size, should face regulation like a utility, ensuring they are treating people fairly. America won't do it, as their system is owned by corporate interest, but the EU and UK should step up.
What is very sad is how much HMG bows to the interests of a handful of monopolists even though they don't benefit that much from political donations. It's a pure subservience mentality.
Being neutral does not mean you have to allow people to advertise your competitors. And frankly world governements have to regulate this stuff? Really I wouldnt trust any governement to regulate the internet thats when we get the shit we do like the uk's online safety bill, the us KOSA act, the EU copyright and DSA acts and the austrailians declaring the law of mathematics does not trump the laws of australia
All of those are better than the world's information flows being distorted by the whims of the Elon Musks of the world. Democratic governments are held accountable to public elections. Megalomanic billionaires are held accountable to no-one.
Also, no-one is requiring Twitter advertise their competitors. They would not be being made to publish anything. But they don't claim to be a publisher, they claim to be a platform, and platforms should be required to be neutral to all.
Instagram doesn't allow accounts that link to TikTok.
Which should also be regulated. These companies need to pick: either they are publishers with editorial control, and they are held liable for content on their websites, or they are platforms and have a responsibility for neutrality to users.
You are seriously arguing that these sites should have to allow posting anti vaxx stuff....how ivermectin is a cure for covid because that is what you are asking for by saying they cant moderate.
In the old days when we just had publishers most of us had no voice beyond the bar room. Now we have sites like this and can send our voice out far further. Personally I see that a good thing despite there being some downsides. Sites like twitter or youtube cant be held to be publishers without cutting down the amount of content down to 1% hell even PB would struggle if it had to read every post first before allowing it to appear.
Frankly what you are asking for is bollocks and the only way to achieve it is to turn the web from a many to many publishing system to the bad old days where only approved voices were allowed
It'll be interesting to see if this applies to historic posts (i.e. those that contained links in the past). Will they suddenly be removed or made invisible?
in fact, it'd be interesting to know how long a twitter post remains 'current' (i.e. how long after a twitter post is made before it is rarely seen). I'm guessing a couple of days for most posts, and shorter if someone regularly tweets.
Funny who is and isn’t included. Discord, TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, Tumblr and OnlyFans all fine.
The banned list is of all the social media sites which might be a rival to Twitter by replicating at least some of its main model. YouTube and OnlyFans do not do that
Question is whether Elon Musk ran it past the legal department (assuming he's not sacked it) regarding (a) monopoly and (b) publisher versus platform.
*If* Twitter is the big boy in this particular social media space, then it does seem anticompetitive - other sites can feed into Twitter, but Twitter will not allow links to smaller potential rivals, allowing them to grow. Although as Facebook and Instagram are on the list, that might not be the case. But are FB and Instagram in the *same* space?
Will Facebook and Instagram respond in kind?
It'll be interesting to see how this works out, both legally and business-wise. But on a personal level, I quite like the Internet being as open as possible. If other companies do the same, we'll go further down the road of content walled gardens. And I think that's a bad thing.
Other sites already do this. You can't put URLs into an Insta post, for instance. You can't link through to other sites. Vastly frustrating and of course deliberate
World governments need to start regulating this stuff properly. Either you are a publisher or you are a platform. Platforms should have to be neutral and, over a certain size, should face regulation like a utility, ensuring they are treating people fairly. America won't do it, as their system is owned by corporate interest, but the EU and UK should step up.
What is very sad is how much HMG bows to the interests of a handful of monopolists even though they don't benefit that much from political donations. It's a pure subservience mentality.
Being neutral does not mean you have to allow people to advertise your competitors. And frankly world governements have to regulate this stuff? Really I wouldnt trust any governement to regulate the internet thats when we get the shit we do like the uk's online safety bill, the us KOSA act, the EU copyright and DSA acts and the austrailians declaring the law of mathematics does not trump the laws of australia
All of those are better than the world's information flows being distorted by the whims of the Elon Musks of the world. Democratic governments are held accountable to public elections. Megalomanic billionaires are held accountable to no-one.
Also, no-one is requiring Twitter advertise their competitors. They would not be being made to publish anything. But they don't claim to be a publisher, they claim to be a platform, and platforms should be required to be neutral to all.
You can't link to Facebook or Vimeo from YouTube.
But you can instagram...lots of these sites seem to have inconsistent and random rules in terms of links elsewhere.
Inconsistent and random if you don’t know the ownership of the sites/apps
For example - you can’t buy kindle books (Amazon) on the iPhone App for Amazon. Ever wonder why?
It'll be interesting to see if this applies to historic posts (i.e. those that contained links in the past). Will they suddenly be removed or made invisible?
in fact, it'd be interesting to know how long a twitter post remains 'current' (i.e. how long after a twitter post is made before it is rarely seen). I'm guessing a couple of days for most posts, and shorter if someone regularly tweets.
Funny who is and isn’t included. Discord, TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, Tumblr and OnlyFans all fine.
The banned list is of all the social media sites which might be a rival to Twitter by replicating at least some of its main model. YouTube and OnlyFans do not do that
Question is whether Elon Musk ran it past the legal department (assuming he's not sacked it) regarding (a) monopoly and (b) publisher versus platform.
*If* Twitter is the big boy in this particular social media space, then it does seem anticompetitive - other sites can feed into Twitter, but Twitter will not allow links to smaller potential rivals, allowing them to grow. Although as Facebook and Instagram are on the list, that might not be the case. But are FB and Instagram in the *same* space?
Will Facebook and Instagram respond in kind?
It'll be interesting to see how this works out, both legally and business-wise. But on a personal level, I quite like the Internet being as open as possible. If other companies do the same, we'll go further down the road of content walled gardens. And I think that's a bad thing.
Other sites already do this. You can't put URLs into an Insta post, for instance. You can't link through to other sites. Vastly frustrating and of course deliberate
World governments need to start regulating this stuff properly. Either you are a publisher or you are a platform. Platforms should have to be neutral and, over a certain size, should face regulation like a utility, ensuring they are treating people fairly. America won't do it, as their system is owned by corporate interest, but the EU and UK should step up.
What is very sad is how much HMG bows to the interests of a handful of monopolists even though they don't benefit that much from political donations. It's a pure subservience mentality.
Being neutral does not mean you have to allow people to advertise your competitors. And frankly world governements have to regulate this stuff? Really I wouldnt trust any governement to regulate the internet thats when we get the shit we do like the uk's online safety bill, the us KOSA act, the EU copyright and DSA acts and the austrailians declaring the law of mathematics does not trump the laws of australia
All of those are better than the world's information flows being distorted by the whims of the Elon Musks of the world. Democratic governments are held accountable to public elections. Megalomanic billionaires are held accountable to no-one.
Also, no-one is requiring Twitter advertise their competitors. They would not be being made to publish anything. But they don't claim to be a publisher, they claim to be a platform, and platforms should be required to be neutral to all.
You can't link to Facebook or Vimeo from YouTube.
But you can instagram...lots of these sites seem to have inconsistent and random rules in terms of links elsewhere.
Inconsistent and random if you don’t know the ownership of the sites/apps
For example - you can’t buy kindle books (Amazon) on the iPhone App for Amazon. Ever wonder why?
Because Apple would take 30%.
And Musk is right to criticize the Apple tax.
It's the core of the issue.
They don't want to be squeezed until the pips squeal. That has no a peel to Amazon.
It'll be interesting to see if this applies to historic posts (i.e. those that contained links in the past). Will they suddenly be removed or made invisible?
in fact, it'd be interesting to know how long a twitter post remains 'current' (i.e. how long after a twitter post is made before it is rarely seen). I'm guessing a couple of days for most posts, and shorter if someone regularly tweets.
Funny who is and isn’t included. Discord, TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, Tumblr and OnlyFans all fine.
The banned list is of all the social media sites which might be a rival to Twitter by replicating at least some of its main model. YouTube and OnlyFans do not do that
Question is whether Elon Musk ran it past the legal department (assuming he's not sacked it) regarding (a) monopoly and (b) publisher versus platform.
I don't see how this is monopolistic
Is the Guardian obliged to host adverts which say "don't read this lefty shit, come over to the Telegraph"?
No. Indeed the Guardian will censor any comments below the line which question the paper's probity, tax affairs, etc, and you will get banned for doing that
I do wonder what you would be saying if - post-Musk takeover - Facebook had banned linking to Twitter.
I think the ban is only on accounts that exist to promote content on other social media, Instagram does the same for TikTok. If it's a twitter user that links to an Instagram post they won't get a ban, if it's an account that just pushes out content primarily from Instagram they'll get banned.
That's not all they announced. They also have a blanket ban on linking to usernames on specified other platforms. These include Mastodon, Instagram, truth.social (lol) and Jack's new thing (lmao) but not Gab, Getter or Parler.
Yes, they want you to post the goats, just as Instagram want you to make the reel of your goats rather than link to the TikTok that has your goats on it. It's fair.
It'll be interesting to see if this applies to historic posts (i.e. those that contained links in the past). Will they suddenly be removed or made invisible?
in fact, it'd be interesting to know how long a twitter post remains 'current' (i.e. how long after a twitter post is made before it is rarely seen). I'm guessing a couple of days for most posts, and shorter if someone regularly tweets.
Funny who is and isn’t included. Discord, TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, Tumblr and OnlyFans all fine.
The banned list is of all the social media sites which might be a rival to Twitter by replicating at least some of its main model. YouTube and OnlyFans do not do that
Question is whether Elon Musk ran it past the legal department (assuming he's not sacked it) regarding (a) monopoly and (b) publisher versus platform.
*If* Twitter is the big boy in this particular social media space, then it does seem anticompetitive - other sites can feed into Twitter, but Twitter will not allow links to smaller potential rivals, allowing them to grow. Although as Facebook and Instagram are on the list, that might not be the case. But are FB and Instagram in the *same* space?
Will Facebook and Instagram respond in kind?
It'll be interesting to see how this works out, both legally and business-wise. But on a personal level, I quite like the Internet being as open as possible. If other companies do the same, we'll go further down the road of content walled gardens. And I think that's a bad thing.
Other sites already do this. You can't put URLs into an Insta post, for instance. You can't link through to other sites. Vastly frustrating and of course deliberate
World governments need to start regulating this stuff properly. Either you are a publisher or you are a platform. Platforms should have to be neutral and, over a certain size, should face regulation like a utility, ensuring they are treating people fairly. America won't do it, as their system is owned by corporate interest, but the EU and UK should step up.
What is very sad is how much HMG bows to the interests of a handful of monopolists even though they don't benefit that much from political donations. It's a pure subservience mentality.
Being neutral does not mean you have to allow people to advertise your competitors. And frankly world governements have to regulate this stuff? Really I wouldnt trust any governement to regulate the internet thats when we get the shit we do like the uk's online safety bill, the us KOSA act, the EU copyright and DSA acts and the austrailians declaring the law of mathematics does not trump the laws of australia
All of those are better than the world's information flows being distorted by the whims of the Elon Musks of the world. Democratic governments are held accountable to public elections. Megalomanic billionaires are held accountable to no-one.
Also, no-one is requiring Twitter advertise their competitors. They would not be being made to publish anything. But they don't claim to be a publisher, they claim to be a platform, and platforms should be required to be neutral to all.
You can't link to Facebook or Vimeo from YouTube.
But you can instagram...lots of these sites seem to have inconsistent and random rules in terms of links elsewhere.
Inconsistent and random if you don’t know the ownership of the sites/apps
For example - you can’t buy kindle books (Amazon) on the iPhone App for Amazon. Ever wonder why?
Because Apple would take 30%.
And Musk is right to criticize the Apple tax.
It's the core of the issue.
They don't want to be squeezed until the pips squeal. That has no a peel to Amazon.
It could harm the turnover.
I seem to have accidentally started a train of appalling Apple puns. Which is one of my worse Jobs.
It'll be interesting to see if this applies to historic posts (i.e. those that contained links in the past). Will they suddenly be removed or made invisible?
in fact, it'd be interesting to know how long a twitter post remains 'current' (i.e. how long after a twitter post is made before it is rarely seen). I'm guessing a couple of days for most posts, and shorter if someone regularly tweets.
Funny who is and isn’t included. Discord, TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, Tumblr and OnlyFans all fine.
The banned list is of all the social media sites which might be a rival to Twitter by replicating at least some of its main model. YouTube and OnlyFans do not do that
Question is whether Elon Musk ran it past the legal department (assuming he's not sacked it) regarding (a) monopoly and (b) publisher versus platform.
*If* Twitter is the big boy in this particular social media space, then it does seem anticompetitive - other sites can feed into Twitter, but Twitter will not allow links to smaller potential rivals, allowing them to grow. Although as Facebook and Instagram are on the list, that might not be the case. But are FB and Instagram in the *same* space?
Will Facebook and Instagram respond in kind?
It'll be interesting to see how this works out, both legally and business-wise. But on a personal level, I quite like the Internet being as open as possible. If other companies do the same, we'll go further down the road of content walled gardens. And I think that's a bad thing.
Other sites already do this. You can't put URLs into an Insta post, for instance. You can't link through to other sites. Vastly frustrating and of course deliberate
World governments need to start regulating this stuff properly. Either you are a publisher or you are a platform. Platforms should have to be neutral and, over a certain size, should face regulation like a utility, ensuring they are treating people fairly. America won't do it, as their system is owned by corporate interest, but the EU and UK should step up.
What is very sad is how much HMG bows to the interests of a handful of monopolists even though they don't benefit that much from political donations. It's a pure subservience mentality.
Being neutral does not mean you have to allow people to advertise your competitors. And frankly world governements have to regulate this stuff? Really I wouldnt trust any governement to regulate the internet thats when we get the shit we do like the uk's online safety bill, the us KOSA act, the EU copyright and DSA acts and the austrailians declaring the law of mathematics does not trump the laws of australia
All of those are better than the world's information flows being distorted by the whims of the Elon Musks of the world. Democratic governments are held accountable to public elections. Megalomanic billionaires are held accountable to no-one.
Also, no-one is requiring Twitter advertise their competitors. They would not be being made to publish anything. But they don't claim to be a publisher, they claim to be a platform, and platforms should be required to be neutral to all.
You can't link to Facebook or Vimeo from YouTube.
But you can instagram...lots of these sites seem to have inconsistent and random rules in terms of links elsewhere.
Inconsistent and random if you don’t know the ownership of the sites/apps
For example - you can’t buy kindle books (Amazon) on the iPhone App for Amazon. Ever wonder why?
Because Apple would take 30%.
And Musk is right to criticize the Apple tax.
It's the core of the issue.
They don't want to be squeezed until the pips squeal. That has no a peel to Amazon.
It could harm the turnover.
I seem to have accidentally started a train of appalling Apple puns. Which is one of my worse Jobs.
One problem with voluntary lockdown is what we saw time and again in the UK, given half an inch people were very quick to make full use of any relaxations, while always taking advantage of those until the very last second (remember all the people piling down the pubs on the night each night it was announced they would have to be closed).
Basically by the time people really got scared during each wave it was already too late and it was well spread...people reacted when their WhatsApp groups starting pinging that yet another member had COVID, which is too late because you probably now have it too.
After the initial lockdown, I think we need to have a set of rules that we just stuck with i.e. none of this moving between tiers / in and out of lockdowns.
Questions around schools I think are the really valid things. Yes kids will have spread it among themselves, but all that disruption for 2 years have caused so much damage.
We must never have any types of lockdowns ever again IMO. If vulnerable people want to isolate themselves, they can choose to do so.
Indeed. And we are only now just beginning to see the damage they have done. To everything. From mental health to cancer care to kids educations to public finances to city centres to public services - and on and on
I wonder what history will make of us, and this
Kids education is the only one that could possibly be considered a greater cost than an extra 100-200k+ dead, which would have happened with no lockdown.
Lockdown was the correct policy, though we should probably have not applied it to kids education.
As for all this mental health complaining, whatever happened to having a bit of grit? Mental health can recover. People can't come back from the dead.
And you're talking about grit in the same breath as cheerleading the state.
Your point doesn't make any sense at all.
They are slaves who fear to speak For the fallen and the weak; They are slaves who will not choose Hatred, scoffing , and abuse, Rather than in silence shrink From the truth they needs must think; They are slaves who dare not be In the right with two or three.
Going into abstract poetry because you can't make a logical argument.
That obedience doesn't imply bravery or "grit" is self-evident and doesn't require a logical argument, even if an entire raft of sealions say they want one.
What-if the Sea Lions are really controlled by ASBs?
£5 to the charity of the winners choice if they can work out the references in that sentence.
This discussion of Twitter is leaving me as baffled as a PB bod with no interest in cricket. Who cares? Youse lot deeply obviously. But the vast majority don't.
“Specifically, we will remove accounts created solely for the purpose of promoting other social platforms and content that contains links or usernames for the following platforms: Facebook, Instagram, Mastodon, Truth Social, Tribel, Nostr and Post.”
“We still allow cross-posting content from any social media platform. Posting links or usernames to social media platforms not listed above are also not in violation of this policy.“
Hard to see what there is to get worked up about from this
It'll be interesting to see if this applies to historic posts (i.e. those that contained links in the past). Will they suddenly be removed or made invisible?
in fact, it'd be interesting to know how long a twitter post remains 'current' (i.e. how long after a twitter post is made before it is rarely seen). I'm guessing a couple of days for most posts, and shorter if someone regularly tweets.
Funny who is and isn’t included. Discord, TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, Tumblr and OnlyFans all fine.
The banned list is of all the social media sites which might be a rival to Twitter by replicating at least some of its main model. YouTube and OnlyFans do not do that
Question is whether Elon Musk ran it past the legal department (assuming he's not sacked it) regarding (a) monopoly and (b) publisher versus platform.
*If* Twitter is the big boy in this particular social media space, then it does seem anticompetitive - other sites can feed into Twitter, but Twitter will not allow links to smaller potential rivals, allowing them to grow. Although as Facebook and Instagram are on the list, that might not be the case. But are FB and Instagram in the *same* space?
Will Facebook and Instagram respond in kind?
It'll be interesting to see how this works out, both legally and business-wise. But on a personal level, I quite like the Internet being as open as possible. If other companies do the same, we'll go further down the road of content walled gardens. And I think that's a bad thing.
Other sites already do this. You can't put URLs into an Insta post, for instance. You can't link through to other sites. Vastly frustrating and of course deliberate
World governments need to start regulating this stuff properly. Either you are a publisher or you are a platform. Platforms should have to be neutral and, over a certain size, should face regulation like a utility, ensuring they are treating people fairly. America won't do it, as their system is owned by corporate interest, but the EU and UK should step up.
What is very sad is how much HMG bows to the interests of a handful of monopolists even though they don't benefit that much from political donations. It's a pure subservience mentality.
Being neutral does not mean you have to allow people to advertise your competitors. And frankly world governements have to regulate this stuff? Really I wouldnt trust any governement to regulate the internet thats when we get the shit we do like the uk's online safety bill, the us KOSA act, the EU copyright and DSA acts and the austrailians declaring the law of mathematics does not trump the laws of australia
All of those are better than the world's information flows being distorted by the whims of the Elon Musks of the world. Democratic governments are held accountable to public elections. Megalomanic billionaires are held accountable to no-one.
Also, no-one is requiring Twitter advertise their competitors. They would not be being made to publish anything. But they don't claim to be a publisher, they claim to be a platform, and platforms should be required to be neutral to all.
Instagram doesn't allow accounts that link to TikTok.
Which should also be regulated. These companies need to pick: either they are publishers with editorial control, and they are held liable for content on their websites, or they are platforms and have a responsibility for neutrality to users.
That knotty issue has been sitting there for more than 25 years and it remains unresolved.
Just chip-implant everyone in the head, or otherwise ensure that the state or corpstate knows exactly who posts exactly what (increasingly in advance). Then impose penalties and rewards accordingly. Elon Musk's Neuralink will help. Xi Jinping will too.
Think different. Be like Alexander. Slice the Gordian knot. The issue won't stay there forever in its present form.
Did someone think the internet meant more freedom? Suckers!
“Specifically, we will remove accounts created solely for the purpose of promoting other social platforms and content that contains links or usernames for the following platforms: Facebook, Instagram, Mastodon, Truth Social, Tribel, Nostr and Post.”
“We still allow cross-posting content from any social media platform. Posting links or usernames to social media platforms not listed above are also not in violation of this policy.“
Hard to see what there is to get worked up about from this
Yes, I agree. Musk is a prat, but not everything he does or will do is malign. There’s some vague sense he wants/wanted Twitter to actually turn a profit, which this is in line with, and some people seem to dislike that more than anything else.
It'll be interesting to see if this applies to historic posts (i.e. those that contained links in the past). Will they suddenly be removed or made invisible?
in fact, it'd be interesting to know how long a twitter post remains 'current' (i.e. how long after a twitter post is made before it is rarely seen). I'm guessing a couple of days for most posts, and shorter if someone regularly tweets.
Funny who is and isn’t included. Discord, TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, Tumblr and OnlyFans all fine.
The banned list is of all the social media sites which might be a rival to Twitter by replicating at least some of its main model. YouTube and OnlyFans do not do that
Question is whether Elon Musk ran it past the legal department (assuming he's not sacked it) regarding (a) monopoly and (b) publisher versus platform.
*If* Twitter is the big boy in this particular social media space, then it does seem anticompetitive - other sites can feed into Twitter, but Twitter will not allow links to smaller potential rivals, allowing them to grow. Although as Facebook and Instagram are on the list, that might not be the case. But are FB and Instagram in the *same* space?
Will Facebook and Instagram respond in kind?
It'll be interesting to see how this works out, both legally and business-wise. But on a personal level, I quite like the Internet being as open as possible. If other companies do the same, we'll go further down the road of content walled gardens. And I think that's a bad thing.
Other sites already do this. You can't put URLs into an Insta post, for instance. You can't link through to other sites. Vastly frustrating and of course deliberate
World governments need to start regulating this stuff properly. Either you are a publisher or you are a platform. Platforms should have to be neutral and, over a certain size, should face regulation like a utility, ensuring they are treating people fairly. America won't do it, as their system is owned by corporate interest, but the EU and UK should step up.
What is very sad is how much HMG bows to the interests of a handful of monopolists even though they don't benefit that much from political donations. It's a pure subservience mentality.
Being neutral does not mean you have to allow people to advertise your competitors. And frankly world governements have to regulate this stuff? Really I wouldnt trust any governement to regulate the internet thats when we get the shit we do like the uk's online safety bill, the us KOSA act, the EU copyright and DSA acts and the austrailians declaring the law of mathematics does not trump the laws of australia
All of those are better than the world's information flows being distorted by the whims of the Elon Musks of the world. Democratic governments are held accountable to public elections. Megalomanic billionaires are held accountable to no-one.
Also, no-one is requiring Twitter advertise their competitors. They would not be being made to publish anything. But they don't claim to be a publisher, they claim to be a platform, and platforms should be required to be neutral to all.
Instagram doesn't allow accounts that link to TikTok.
Which should also be regulated. These companies need to pick: either they are publishers with editorial control, and they are held liable for content on their websites, or they are platforms and have a responsibility for neutrality to users.
That knotty issue has been sitting there for more than 25 years and it remains unresolved.
Just chip-implant everyone in the head, or otherwise ensure that the state or corpstate knows exactly who posts exactly what (increasingly in advance). Then impose penalties and rewards accordingly. Elon Musk's Neuralink will help. Xi Jinping will too.
Think different. Be like Alexander. Slice the Gordian knot. The issue won't stay there forever in its present form.
Did someone think the internet meant more freedom? Suckers!
“Specifically, we will remove accounts created solely for the purpose of promoting other social platforms and content that contains links or usernames for the following platforms: Facebook, Instagram, Mastodon, Truth Social, Tribel, Nostr and Post.”
“We still allow cross-posting content from any social media platform. Posting links or usernames to social media platforms not listed above are also not in violation of this policy.“
Hard to see what there is to get worked up about from this
Yes, I agree. Musk is a prat, but not everything he does or will do is malign. There’s some vague sense he wants/wanted Twitter to actually turn a profit, which this is in line with, and some people seem to dislike that more than anything else.
One entertainment in all this is the flipping of positions. The other days I and some others were discussing the Soyuz leak issue in a forum, when a long comes a contributor who insists that we *have* to discuss Musk….
And then regurgitates a mass of MAGA talking points about Musk from about 5 years ago.
And was incadesent with rage when told that that he was acting MAGA…
“Specifically, we will remove accounts created solely for the purpose of promoting other social platforms and content that contains links or usernames for the following platforms: Facebook, Instagram, Mastodon, Truth Social, Tribel, Nostr and Post.”
“We still allow cross-posting content from any social media platform. Posting links or usernames to social media platforms not listed above are also not in violation of this policy.“
Hard to see what there is to get worked up about from this
Yes, I agree. Musk is a prat, but not everything he does or will do is malign. There’s some vague sense he wants/wanted Twitter to actually turn a profit, which this is in line with, and some people seem to dislike that more than anything else.
Profitability is fine. But if you are editorializing content, you are a publisher and should be held accountable like one.
@elonmusk, as a Twitter user I see this as a highly arbitrary decision. You may say: you don't care how I see it. Fair enough. Unfortunately, arbitrary rule affects everyone's personal strategies. If you are subject to it, you can't realistically plan anything long-term
The people who make Twitter worthwhile are the smart folk who post interesting stuff for free. That is the core of Elon’s new toy, and he’s busy dismantling it.
“Specifically, we will remove accounts created solely for the purpose of promoting other social platforms and content that contains links or usernames for the following platforms: Facebook, Instagram, Mastodon, Truth Social, Tribel, Nostr and Post.”
“We still allow cross-posting content from any social media platform. Posting links or usernames to social media platforms not listed above are also not in violation of this policy.“
Hard to see what there is to get worked up about from this
Yes, I agree. Musk is a prat, but not everything he does or will do is malign. There’s some vague sense he wants/wanted Twitter to actually turn a profit, which this is in line with, and some people seem to dislike that more than anything else.
Profitability is fine. But if you are editorializing content, you are a publisher and should be held accountable like one.
That ship sailed, hit an iceberg, sank, was lost, found, raised, sunk by Nazis, raised again, sunk, raised, scraped and made into moderately amusing jewlery a long long time ago.
Unless you want to shit down all comments on the internet.
“Specifically, we will remove accounts created solely for the purpose of promoting other social platforms and content that contains links or usernames for the following platforms: Facebook, Instagram, Mastodon, Truth Social, Tribel, Nostr and Post.”
“We still allow cross-posting content from any social media platform. Posting links or usernames to social media platforms not listed above are also not in violation of this policy.“
Hard to see what there is to get worked up about from this
Yes, I agree. Musk is a prat, but not everything he does or will do is malign. There’s some vague sense he wants/wanted Twitter to actually turn a profit, which this is in line with, and some people seem to dislike that more than anything else.
Profitability is fine. But if you are editorializing content, you are a publisher and should be held accountable like one.
That ship sailed, hit an iceberg, sank, was lost, found, raised, sunk by Nazis, raised again, sunk, raised, scraped and made into moderately amusing jewlery a long long time ago.
Unless you want to shit down all comments on the internet.
It amuses me that, as with me, your autocorrect assumes “shit” is more likely than “shut”. Also “shitting down” comments rather sums up the internet.
“Specifically, we will remove accounts created solely for the purpose of promoting other social platforms and content that contains links or usernames for the following platforms: Facebook, Instagram, Mastodon, Truth Social, Tribel, Nostr and Post.”
“We still allow cross-posting content from any social media platform. Posting links or usernames to social media platforms not listed above are also not in violation of this policy.“
Hard to see what there is to get worked up about from this
Yes, I agree. Musk is a prat, but not everything he does or will do is malign. There’s some vague sense he wants/wanted Twitter to actually turn a profit, which this is in line with, and some people seem to dislike that more than anything else.
Profitability is fine. But if you are editorializing content, you are a publisher and should be held accountable like one.
That ship sailed, hit an iceberg, sank, was lost, found, raised, sunk by Nazis, raised again, sunk, raised, scraped and made into moderately amusing jewlery a long long time ago.
Unless you want to shit down all comments on the internet.
Comments on the internet sites like this one are regulated. That is why the moderators quickly ban people here for libelous claims. But Musk has fired the content team and claims to be a platform that takes no responsibility for its content. While also killing all content that Musk doesn't like.
“Specifically, we will remove accounts created solely for the purpose of promoting other social platforms and content that contains links or usernames for the following platforms: Facebook, Instagram, Mastodon, Truth Social, Tribel, Nostr and Post.”
“We still allow cross-posting content from any social media platform. Posting links or usernames to social media platforms not listed above are also not in violation of this policy.“
Hard to see what there is to get worked up about from this
Yes, I agree. Musk is a prat, but not everything he does or will do is malign. There’s some vague sense he wants/wanted Twitter to actually turn a profit, which this is in line with, and some people seem to dislike that more than anything else.
That’s simply not true, I think. Twitter actually made quite a lot of money for a couple of years, and could have done so again without anyone being bothered about it.
I for one couldn’t care less whether Musk makes money out of it. What bothers me is that he’s destroying something that had considerable utility for me, and a lot of other people.
In financial terms, the damaging thing he did was load the business with a billion a year debt interest payments. That made radical change necessary purely for financial reasons, and it’s not working out so far.
“Specifically, we will remove accounts created solely for the purpose of promoting other social platforms and content that contains links or usernames for the following platforms: Facebook, Instagram, Mastodon, Truth Social, Tribel, Nostr and Post.”
“We still allow cross-posting content from any social media platform. Posting links or usernames to social media platforms not listed above are also not in violation of this policy.“
Hard to see what there is to get worked up about from this
Yes, I agree. Musk is a prat, but not everything he does or will do is malign. There’s some vague sense he wants/wanted Twitter to actually turn a profit, which this is in line with, and some people seem to dislike that more than anything else.
Profitability is fine. But if you are editorializing content, you are a publisher and should be held accountable like one.
That ship sailed, hit an iceberg, sank, was lost, found, raised, sunk by Nazis, raised again, sunk, raised, scraped and made into moderately amusing jewlery a long long time ago.
Unless you want to shit down all comments on the internet.
Comments on the internet sites like this one are regulated. That is why the moderators quickly ban people here for libelous claims. But Musk has fired the content team and claims to be a platform that takes no responsibility for its content. While also killing all content that Musk doesn't like.
Twitter previously had arbitrary moderation policies so this is nothing new.
“Specifically, we will remove accounts created solely for the purpose of promoting other social platforms and content that contains links or usernames for the following platforms: Facebook, Instagram, Mastodon, Truth Social, Tribel, Nostr and Post.”
“We still allow cross-posting content from any social media platform. Posting links or usernames to social media platforms not listed above are also not in violation of this policy.“
Hard to see what there is to get worked up about from this
Yes, I agree. Musk is a prat, but not everything he does or will do is malign. There’s some vague sense he wants/wanted Twitter to actually turn a profit, which this is in line with, and some people seem to dislike that more than anything else.
Profitability is fine. But if you are editorializing content, you are a publisher and should be held accountable like one.
That ship sailed, hit an iceberg, sank, was lost, found, raised, sunk by Nazis, raised again, sunk, raised, scraped and made into moderately amusing jewlery a long long time ago.
Unless you want to shit down all comments on the internet.
Comments on the internet sites like this one are regulated. That is why the moderators quickly ban people here for libelous claims. But Musk has fired the content team and claims to be a platform that takes no responsibility for its content. While also killing all content that Musk doesn't like.
Twitter previously had arbitrary moderation policies so this is nothing new.
It did previously have arbitrary moderation, but this is definitely new. Musk is now using it to punish personal criticism of him and to prevent links to competitors.
“Specifically, we will remove accounts created solely for the purpose of promoting other social platforms and content that contains links or usernames for the following platforms: Facebook, Instagram, Mastodon, Truth Social, Tribel, Nostr and Post.”
“We still allow cross-posting content from any social media platform. Posting links or usernames to social media platforms not listed above are also not in violation of this policy.“
Hard to see what there is to get worked up about from this
Yes, I agree. Musk is a prat, but not everything he does or will do is malign. There’s some vague sense he wants/wanted Twitter to actually turn a profit, which this is in line with, and some people seem to dislike that more than anything else.
That’s simply not true, I think. Twitter actually made quite a lot of money for a couple of years, and could have done so again without anyone being bothered about it.
I for one couldn’t care less whether Musk makes money out of it. What bothers me is that he’s destroying something that had considerable utility for me, and a lot of other people.
In financial terms, the damaging thing he did was load the business with a billion a year debt interest payments. That made radical change necessary purely for financial reasons, and it’s not working out so far.
The 2 years twitter made money, it wasn't really through user or revenue growth, it was through big cost savings, also I seemed to remember there was some special "one off" accounting that really boostered the numbers. Trying to remember exactly what it was, I remember watching a really boring video about it.
During the pandemic twitter then doubled head count while revenue struggled.
“Specifically, we will remove accounts created solely for the purpose of promoting other social platforms and content that contains links or usernames for the following platforms: Facebook, Instagram, Mastodon, Truth Social, Tribel, Nostr and Post.”
“We still allow cross-posting content from any social media platform. Posting links or usernames to social media platforms not listed above are also not in violation of this policy.“
Hard to see what there is to get worked up about from this
Yes, I agree. Musk is a prat, but not everything he does or will do is malign. There’s some vague sense he wants/wanted Twitter to actually turn a profit, which this is in line with, and some people seem to dislike that more than anything else.
Profitability is fine. But if you are editorializing content, you are a publisher and should be held accountable like one.
That ship sailed, hit an iceberg, sank, was lost, found, raised, sunk by Nazis, raised again, sunk, raised, scraped and made into moderately amusing jewlery a long long time ago.
Unless you want to shit down all comments on the internet.
Comments on the internet sites like this one are regulated. That is why the moderators quickly ban people here for libelous claims. But Musk has fired the content team and claims to be a platform that takes no responsibility for its content. While also killing all content that Musk doesn't like.
Twitter previously had arbitrary moderation policies so this is nothing new.
Indeed - and it is the change in moderation, not it’s absence, that is upsetting people.
This discussion of Twitter is leaving me as baffled as a PB bod with no interest in cricket. Who cares? Youse lot deeply obviously. But the vast majority don't.
Given how often 'spat on Twitter' seems to form the basis of major news stories nowadays I have been astonished not to see very twist and turn splashed all over the BBC front page every day.
This discussion of Twitter is leaving me as baffled as a PB bod with no interest in cricket. Who cares? Youse lot deeply obviously. But the vast majority don't.
Given how often 'spat on Twitter' seems to form the basis of major news stories nowadays I have been astonished not to see very twist and turn splashed all over the BBC front page every day.
“Specifically, we will remove accounts created solely for the purpose of promoting other social platforms and content that contains links or usernames for the following platforms: Facebook, Instagram, Mastodon, Truth Social, Tribel, Nostr and Post.”
“We still allow cross-posting content from any social media platform. Posting links or usernames to social media platforms not listed above are also not in violation of this policy.“
Hard to see what there is to get worked up about from this
Yes, I agree. Musk is a prat, but not everything he does or will do is malign. There’s some vague sense he wants/wanted Twitter to actually turn a profit, which this is in line with, and some people seem to dislike that more than anything else.
Profitability is fine. But if you are editorializing content, you are a publisher and should be held accountable like one.
That ship sailed, hit an iceberg, sank, was lost, found, raised, sunk by Nazis, raised again, sunk, raised, scraped and made into moderately amusing jewlery a long long time ago.
Unless you want to shit down all comments on the internet.
Comments on the internet sites like this one are regulated. That is why the moderators quickly ban people here for libelous claims. But Musk has fired the content team and claims to be a platform that takes no responsibility for its content. While also killing all content that Musk doesn't like.
Twitter previously had arbitrary moderation policies so this is nothing new.
One of the things that the "Twitter Files" showed, though, was that the moderation team at Twitter agonized over whether the release of the Hunter Biden story contravened their rules on hacked information.
It'll be interesting to see if this applies to historic posts (i.e. those that contained links in the past). Will they suddenly be removed or made invisible?
in fact, it'd be interesting to know how long a twitter post remains 'current' (i.e. how long after a twitter post is made before it is rarely seen). I'm guessing a couple of days for most posts, and shorter if someone regularly tweets.
Funny who is and isn’t included. Discord, TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, Tumblr and OnlyFans all fine.
The banned list is of all the social media sites which might be a rival to Twitter by replicating at least some of its main model. YouTube and OnlyFans do not do that
Question is whether Elon Musk ran it past the legal department (assuming he's not sacked it) regarding (a) monopoly and (b) publisher versus platform.
*If* Twitter is the big boy in this particular social media space, then it does seem anticompetitive - other sites can feed into Twitter, but Twitter will not allow links to smaller potential rivals, allowing them to grow. Although as Facebook and Instagram are on the list, that might not be the case. But are FB and Instagram in the *same* space?
Will Facebook and Instagram respond in kind?
It'll be interesting to see how this works out, both legally and business-wise. But on a personal level, I quite like the Internet being as open as possible. If other companies do the same, we'll go further down the road of content walled gardens. And I think that's a bad thing.
Other sites already do this. You can't put URLs into an Insta post, for instance. You can't link through to other sites. Vastly frustrating and of course deliberate
World governments need to start regulating this stuff properly. Either you are a publisher or you are a platform. Platforms should have to be neutral and, over a certain size, should face regulation like a utility, ensuring they are treating people fairly. America won't do it, as their system is owned by corporate interest, but the EU and UK should step up.
What is very sad is how much HMG bows to the interests of a handful of monopolists even though they don't benefit that much from political donations. It's a pure subservience mentality.
Being neutral does not mean you have to allow people to advertise your competitors. And frankly world governements have to regulate this stuff? Really I wouldnt trust any governement to regulate the internet thats when we get the shit we do like the uk's online safety bill, the us KOSA act, the EU copyright and DSA acts and the austrailians declaring the law of mathematics does not trump the laws of australia
All of those are better than the world's information flows being distorted by the whims of the Elon Musks of the world. Democratic governments are held accountable to public elections. Megalomanic billionaires are held accountable to no-one.
Also, no-one is requiring Twitter advertise their competitors. They would not be being made to publish anything. But they don't claim to be a publisher, they claim to be a platform, and platforms should be required to be neutral to all.
Instagram doesn't allow accounts that link to TikTok.
Which should also be regulated. These companies need to pick: either they are publishers with editorial control, and they are held liable for content on their websites, or they are platforms and have a responsibility for neutrality to users.
That knotty issue has been sitting there for more than 25 years and it remains unresolved.
Just chip-implant everyone in the head, or otherwise ensure that the state or corpstate knows exactly who posts exactly what (increasingly in advance). Then impose penalties and rewards accordingly. Elon Musk's Neuralink will help. Xi Jinping will too.
Think different. Be like Alexander. Slice the Gordian knot. The issue won't stay there forever in its present form.
Did someone think the internet meant more freedom? Suckers!
Your comments are increasingly bizarre.
Oh come come.
@DJ41 is by far the best Russian paid poster we've ever had, so much better than any of the previous models, and I'd be loathe to lose him.
This discussion of Twitter is leaving me as baffled as a PB bod with no interest in cricket. Who cares? Youse lot deeply obviously. But the vast majority don't.
Given how often 'spat on Twitter' seems to form the basis of major news stories nowadays I have been astonished not to see very twist and turn splashed all over the BBC front page every day.
It'll be interesting to see if this applies to historic posts (i.e. those that contained links in the past). Will they suddenly be removed or made invisible?
in fact, it'd be interesting to know how long a twitter post remains 'current' (i.e. how long after a twitter post is made before it is rarely seen). I'm guessing a couple of days for most posts, and shorter if someone regularly tweets.
Funny who is and isn’t included. Discord, TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, Tumblr and OnlyFans all fine.
The banned list is of all the social media sites which might be a rival to Twitter by replicating at least some of its main model. YouTube and OnlyFans do not do that
Question is whether Elon Musk ran it past the legal department (assuming he's not sacked it) regarding (a) monopoly and (b) publisher versus platform.
*If* Twitter is the big boy in this particular social media space, then it does seem anticompetitive - other sites can feed into Twitter, but Twitter will not allow links to smaller potential rivals, allowing them to grow. Although as Facebook and Instagram are on the list, that might not be the case. But are FB and Instagram in the *same* space?
Will Facebook and Instagram respond in kind?
It'll be interesting to see how this works out, both legally and business-wise. But on a personal level, I quite like the Internet being as open as possible. If other companies do the same, we'll go further down the road of content walled gardens. And I think that's a bad thing.
Other sites already do this. You can't put URLs into an Insta post, for instance. You can't link through to other sites. Vastly frustrating and of course deliberate
World governments need to start regulating this stuff properly. Either you are a publisher or you are a platform. Platforms should have to be neutral and, over a certain size, should face regulation like a utility, ensuring they are treating people fairly. America won't do it, as their system is owned by corporate interest, but the EU and UK should step up.
What is very sad is how much HMG bows to the interests of a handful of monopolists even though they don't benefit that much from political donations. It's a pure subservience mentality.
Being neutral does not mean you have to allow people to advertise your competitors. And frankly world governements have to regulate this stuff? Really I wouldnt trust any governement to regulate the internet thats when we get the shit we do like the uk's online safety bill, the us KOSA act, the EU copyright and DSA acts and the austrailians declaring the law of mathematics does not trump the laws of australia
All of those are better than the world's information flows being distorted by the whims of the Elon Musks of the world. Democratic governments are held accountable to public elections. Megalomanic billionaires are held accountable to no-one.
Also, no-one is requiring Twitter advertise their competitors. They would not be being made to publish anything. But they don't claim to be a publisher, they claim to be a platform, and platforms should be required to be neutral to all.
Instagram doesn't allow accounts that link to TikTok.
Which should also be regulated. These companies need to pick: either they are publishers with editorial control, and they are held liable for content on their websites, or they are platforms and have a responsibility for neutrality to users.
That knotty issue has been sitting there for more than 25 years and it remains unresolved.
Just chip-implant everyone in the head, or otherwise ensure that the state or corpstate knows exactly who posts exactly what (increasingly in advance). Then impose penalties and rewards accordingly. Elon Musk's Neuralink will help. Xi Jinping will too.
Think different. Be like Alexander. Slice the Gordian knot. The issue won't stay there forever in its present form.
Did someone think the internet meant more freedom? Suckers!
Your comments are increasingly bizarre.
Oh come come.
@DJ41 is by far the best Russian paid poster we've ever had, so much better than any of the previous models, and I'd be loathe to lose him.
Please sir, can we have a better Russian troll for Christmas?
People who complain about Twitter but carry on using the platform are being a bit silly IMO. Like complaining about Ryanair's seating policies but continuing to use it because it's cheap.
“Specifically, we will remove accounts created solely for the purpose of promoting other social platforms and content that contains links or usernames for the following platforms: Facebook, Instagram, Mastodon, Truth Social, Tribel, Nostr and Post.”
“We still allow cross-posting content from any social media platform. Posting links or usernames to social media platforms not listed above are also not in violation of this policy.“
Hard to see what there is to get worked up about from this
Yes, I agree. Musk is a prat, but not everything he does or will do is malign. There’s some vague sense he wants/wanted Twitter to actually turn a profit, which this is in line with, and some people seem to dislike that more than anything else.
Profitability is fine. But if you are editorializing content, you are a publisher and should be held accountable like one.
That ship sailed, hit an iceberg, sank, was lost, found, raised, sunk by Nazis, raised again, sunk, raised, scraped and made into moderately amusing jewlery a long long time ago.
Unless you want to shit down all comments on the internet.
Comments on the internet sites like this one are regulated. That is why the moderators quickly ban people here for libelous claims. But Musk has fired the content team and claims to be a platform that takes no responsibility for its content. While also killing all content that Musk doesn't like.
Twitter previously had arbitrary moderation policies so this is nothing new.
One of the things that the "Twitter Files" showed, though, was that the moderation team at Twitter agonized over whether the release of the Hunter Biden story contravened their rules on hacked information.
Agonised over how they could claim that it did, anyway.
Interesting. Presumably quite inefficient but that might not matter too much unless someone else can use the electricity.
I hope the site is not too near the coast as Holderness is disappearing into the sea at quite a rate. There was a recent project at Withernsea involving shipping boulders from Norway but as usual this has just accelerated the problem south of the defended area, so yet another facility to defend won't help.
The big gas terminal at Easington is trouble enough...
It'll be interesting to see if this applies to historic posts (i.e. those that contained links in the past). Will they suddenly be removed or made invisible?
in fact, it'd be interesting to know how long a twitter post remains 'current' (i.e. how long after a twitter post is made before it is rarely seen). I'm guessing a couple of days for most posts, and shorter if someone regularly tweets.
Funny who is and isn’t included. Discord, TikTok, YouTube, Reddit, Tumblr and OnlyFans all fine.
The banned list is of all the social media sites which might be a rival to Twitter by replicating at least some of its main model. YouTube and OnlyFans do not do that
Question is whether Elon Musk ran it past the legal department (assuming he's not sacked it) regarding (a) monopoly and (b) publisher versus platform.
*If* Twitter is the big boy in this particular social media space, then it does seem anticompetitive - other sites can feed into Twitter, but Twitter will not allow links to smaller potential rivals, allowing them to grow. Although as Facebook and Instagram are on the list, that might not be the case. But are FB and Instagram in the *same* space?
Will Facebook and Instagram respond in kind?
It'll be interesting to see how this works out, both legally and business-wise. But on a personal level, I quite like the Internet being as open as possible. If other companies do the same, we'll go further down the road of content walled gardens. And I think that's a bad thing.
Other sites already do this. You can't put URLs into an Insta post, for instance. You can't link through to other sites. Vastly frustrating and of course deliberate
World governments need to start regulating this stuff properly. Either you are a publisher or you are a platform. Platforms should have to be neutral and, over a certain size, should face regulation like a utility, ensuring they are treating people fairly. America won't do it, as their system is owned by corporate interest, but the EU and UK should step up.
What is very sad is how much HMG bows to the interests of a handful of monopolists even though they don't benefit that much from political donations. It's a pure subservience mentality.
Being neutral does not mean you have to allow people to advertise your competitors. And frankly world governements have to regulate this stuff? Really I wouldnt trust any governement to regulate the internet thats when we get the shit we do like the uk's online safety bill, the us KOSA act, the EU copyright and DSA acts and the austrailians declaring the law of mathematics does not trump the laws of australia
All of those are better than the world's information flows being distorted by the whims of the Elon Musks of the world. Democratic governments are held accountable to public elections. Megalomanic billionaires are held accountable to no-one.
Also, no-one is requiring Twitter advertise their competitors. They would not be being made to publish anything. But they don't claim to be a publisher, they claim to be a platform, and platforms should be required to be neutral to all.
Instagram doesn't allow accounts that link to TikTok.
Which should also be regulated. These companies need to pick: either they are publishers with editorial control, and they are held liable for content on their websites, or they are platforms and have a responsibility for neutrality to users.
That knotty issue has been sitting there for more than 25 years and it remains unresolved.
Just chip-implant everyone in the head, or otherwise ensure that the state or corpstate knows exactly who posts exactly what (increasingly in advance). Then impose penalties and rewards accordingly. Elon Musk's Neuralink will help. Xi Jinping will too.
Think different. Be like Alexander. Slice the Gordian knot. The issue won't stay there forever in its present form.
Did someone think the internet meant more freedom? Suckers!
Your comments are increasingly bizarre.
Oh come come.
@DJ41 is by far the best Russian paid poster we've ever had, so much better than any of the previous models, and I'd be loathe to lose him.
Nice one Even funnier because three quarters of the readership will nod in agreement without realising your joke is at their expense!
Currently 57-43 "Yes" to should Musk stand down as head of Twitter. Votes so far 6.5m. Cf. 0.5m for the poll on whether to unsuspend accounts that according to him doxxed his location.
Look out for Musk polls on directly him-related stuff, not particularly closely tied to his ownership of Sh*tter. And carefully chosen.
Currently 57-43 "Yes" to should Musk stand down as head of Twitter. Votes so far 6.5m. Cf. 0.5m for the poll on whether to unsuspend accounts that according to him doxxed his location.
Look out for Musk polls on directly him-related stuff, not particularly closely tied to his ownership of Sh*tter. And carefully chosen.
6.9m now, in a poll that opened less than 2.5 hours ago.
“Specifically, we will remove accounts created solely for the purpose of promoting other social platforms and content that contains links or usernames for the following platforms: Facebook, Instagram, Mastodon, Truth Social, Tribel, Nostr and Post.”
“We still allow cross-posting content from any social media platform. Posting links or usernames to social media platforms not listed above are also not in violation of this policy.“
Hard to see what there is to get worked up about from this
Yes, I agree. Musk is a prat, but not everything he does or will do is malign. There’s some vague sense he wants/wanted Twitter to actually turn a profit, which this is in line with, and some people seem to dislike that more than anything else.
Profitability is fine. But if you are editorializing content, you are a publisher and should be held accountable like one.
That ship sailed, hit an iceberg, sank, was lost, found, raised, sunk by Nazis, raised again, sunk, raised, scraped and made into moderately amusing jewlery a long long time ago.
Unless you want to shit down all comments on the internet.
Comments on the internet sites like this one are regulated. That is why the moderators quickly ban people here for libelous claims. But Musk has fired the content team and claims to be a platform that takes no responsibility for its content. While also killing all content that Musk doesn't like.
Twitter previously had arbitrary moderation policies so this is nothing new.
One of the things that the "Twitter Files" showed, though, was that the moderation team at Twitter agonized over whether the release of the Hunter Biden story contravened their rules on hacked information.
Agonised over how they could claim that it did, anyway.
Over how they could claim they did in private emails that weren't released.
Interesting. Presumably quite inefficient but that might not matter too much unless someone else can use the electricity.
I hope the site is not too near the coast as Holderness is disappearing into the sea at quite a rate. There was a recent project at Withernsea involving shipping boulders from Norway but as usual this has just accelerated the problem south of the defended area, so yet another facility to defend won't help.
The big gas terminal at Easington is trouble enough...
I walked along that stretch of coast in October 2002. The rows of cuts corn stalks ended right at the edge of the cliffs, showing that a considerable distance (enough to turn a combine) of land had disappeared in the few months since harvest. It's quite amazing. Likewise, you can see radical change in the coast at Happisburgh year-on-year.
I bet some of the cliffs I walked along the coast are now five or ten metres out to sea.
Comments
And the speech to the team is pure wince
'The ECB can learn the basic economic truth that when you lend €160 billion to insolvent banks backed by an insolvent state, you are no longer a creditor: you are the owner.'
You can’t run a country or company by banning discussion of leaving, you have to just provide a better service. This will backfire.
https://twitter.com/realGeorgeHotz/status/1604598789691518976
His post saying nothing more than “you can find my new mastodon link on my personal website” had his account suspended.
https://mas.to/@paulg/109536542792559441
His snivelling deference to Musk I put down to sunk cost fallacy after he did his "Lol idiots, Musk makes rocket ships go zoom - how hard can running a social network be" posts.
For example - you can’t buy kindle books (Amazon) on the iPhone App for Amazon. Ever wonder why?
Mbappe looks like he wants to deck him as he walks away. Would have been epic if he had.
Straight up, “no you can’t sell your stuff on our platform.”
Otherwise Apple would have refused the Amazon App completely.
But it may do in the future.
* He's a centibillionaire, not a mere billionaire.
* Arguably he's an ultrad*ckhead on Sh*tter whereas Trump was a mere superd*ckhead.
* He'd probably find it easier to win votes from youngsters.
On other measures he's at par, lagging behind, or signally different.
* Both men have a record doing comedy stuff to large audiences.
* He is a liar but he's nowhere near at Trump's level.
* He's saner than Trump. That's an awfully low bar, but I think he meets it.
* AFAICT, he works hard. Trump's business is mainly his brand.
Musk has a short surname, though - a well-known advantage.
Kennedy 7
Johnson 7
Nixon 5
Ford 4
Carter 6
Reagan 6
Bush 4
Clinton 7
Obama 5
Trump 5
Biden 5
Only 10% of surnames in the US have 4 or fewer letters.
Only 28% have 5 or fewer.
Musk can run. But the only realistic way he could get himself accepted as eligible to become US president would be if the Supreme Court were to declare that the natural born citizen requirement has already been repealed implicitly and is therefore a dead letter. Unlikely.
Bayesians all know Cromwell's Law though.
In the old days when we just had publishers most of us had no voice beyond the bar room. Now we have sites like this and can send our voice out far further. Personally I see that a good thing despite there being some downsides. Sites like twitter or youtube cant be held to be publishers without cutting down the amount of content down to 1% hell even PB would struggle if it had to read every post first before allowing it to appear.
Frankly what you are asking for is bollocks and the only way to achieve it is to turn the web from a many to many publishing system to the bad old days where only approved voices were allowed
Yes I'm posting more tweets dunking on Elon than ever before but the quality of add I am seeing is the absolute pits.
Ah, my dressing gown.
Good night all.
Fastest speedrun of “free speech” ever
https://twitter.com/realGeorgeHotz/status/1604604888725364737
£5 to the charity of the winners choice if they can work out the references in that sentence.
Who cares?
Youse lot deeply obviously. But the vast majority don't.
“We still allow cross-posting content from any social media platform. Posting links or usernames to social media platforms not listed above are also not in violation of this policy.“
Hard to see what there is to get worked up about from this
Just chip-implant everyone in the head, or otherwise ensure that the state or corpstate knows exactly who posts exactly what (increasingly in advance). Then impose penalties and rewards accordingly. Elon Musk's Neuralink will help. Xi Jinping will too.
Think different. Be like Alexander. Slice the Gordian knot. The issue won't stay there forever in its present form.
Did someone think the internet meant more freedom? Suckers!
And then regurgitates a mass of MAGA talking points about Musk from about 5 years ago.
And was incadesent with rage when told that that he was acting MAGA…
This is on point.
https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1604610588084166656
Wow.
@elonmusk, as a Twitter user I see this as a highly arbitrary decision. You may say: you don't care how I see it. Fair enough. Unfortunately, arbitrary rule affects everyone's personal strategies. If you are subject to it, you can't realistically plan anything long-term
The people who make Twitter worthwhile are the smart folk who post interesting stuff for free. That is the core of Elon’s new toy, and he’s busy dismantling it.
Unless you want to shit down all comments on the internet.
Twitter actually made quite a lot of money for a couple of years, and could have done so again without anyone being bothered about it.
I for one couldn’t care less whether Musk makes money out of it. What bothers me is that he’s destroying something that had considerable utility for me, and a lot of other people.
In financial terms, the damaging thing he did was load the business with a billion a year debt interest payments. That made radical change necessary purely for financial reasons, and it’s not working out so far.
During the pandemic twitter then doubled head count while revenue struggled.
https://twitter.com/PopulismUpdates/status/1604614136767225856?t=ILznxy7aCeMIdZ4UDTHQlA&s=09
FFS.
W H O C A R E S?
Can I suggest a prolonged discussion about the effect of What3Words on Boris’ weight instead?
@DJ41 is by far the best Russian paid poster we've ever had, so much better than any of the previous models, and I'd be loathe to lose him.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1604617643973124097?t=YvYF6xKctq4OkYYEe1dAYw&s=09
It is entirely possible that Musk drives Twitter into the abyss. But for now, it's doing (user-wise) just fine.
Exclusive: Renewable energy will be kept in cathedral-sized cave for freezing, windless conditions
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/dec/18/sse-begins-work-on-hydrogen-storage-cavern-on-yorkshire-coast
I hope the site is not too near the coast as Holderness is disappearing into the sea at quite a rate. There was a recent project at Withernsea involving shipping boulders from Norway but as usual this has just accelerated the problem south of the defended area, so yet another facility to defend won't help.
The big gas terminal at Easington is trouble enough...
But loath not loathe.
Look out for Musk polls on directly him-related stuff, not particularly closely tied to his ownership of Sh*tter. And carefully chosen.
I bet some of the cliffs I walked along the coast are now five or ten metres out to sea.