Official Twitter Thread (2 Viewers)

[massraider]

I never would have pegged Apple and IBM (and some Tesla shareholders) as anti-free speech soy boys drinking haterade.

as an fyi, freedom of speech is the right of a person to articulate opinions and ideas without interference or retaliation from the government. i am not seeing where the government is involved here at all. also, apple and ibm have brands to protect and i am pretty sure they don’t want any association with hitler, are you telling them tough luck?
i mean, i don’t see coca-cola advertising a lot with hitler holding a coke bottle while zig heiling. not picking on you here, but i just don’t think anyone really understands what free speech means.

I agree with you. I might have been a little sarcastic with that post.

 

[rockaction]

but i just don’t think anyone really understands what free speech means.

mass is being sarcastic.

 

[Mitchie]

C'mon. He's obviously trying to make money. That's the whole reason for the paid verification, etc. He realized that the company his big mouth had made him accidentally buy was going to be a burden financially and needed to find ways to make it make more money, hence all the push to try and get people to start paying to use it. Monetizing Twitter has always been a huge issue compared to other social media companies and with the short form quick scrolling, companies just haven't been willing to spend nearly as much on advertising there as they do on the likes of Facebook, which has much better conversion rates on their money. That's also probably the reason Twitter increased their character limit a while back. But it wasn't enough, and he's been trying to find another way to make money since the traditional advertising model just doesn't provide good returns in Twitter's format.

He's not trying to run off advertisers. He's just socially a moron with a loud mouth that is simultaneously trying to defend his popular-among-some position of being a champion of saying controversial stuff that is not popular with the "mainstream". Politically the support of those people is important for his other businesses right now.

He didn't MEAN to lose advertisers. And he feels like he can't back down from the position because that would be backing off of what has made him popular amongst his current cult. Personally I think he could back off and apologize and all those folks would get the "wink wink, we know you don't really mean it", but he hasn't figure that out yet. But I think we eventually do end up there eventually with a half-assed apology.

He said he wasn't buying it to make money, every action he's taken has supported that.

Elon Musk says Twitter offer not a way to ‘make money’

Elon Musk said his offer to buy Twitter is not a way to “make money,” but rather part of an effort to try to change the platform to be an “inclusive arena for free speech.” “I think it’…

thehill.com

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I never would have pegged Apple and IBM (and some Tesla shareholders) as anti-free speech soy boys drinking haterade.

as an fyi, freedom of speech is the right of a person to articulate opinions and ideas without interference or retaliation from the government. i am not seeing where the government is involved here at all. also, apple and ibm have brands to protect and i am pretty sure they don’t want any association with hitler, are you telling them tough luck?
i mean, i don’t see coca-cola advertising a lot with hitler holding a coke bottle while zig heiling. not picking on you here, but i just don’t think anyone really understands what free speech means.

Mass was being facetious there, I'm pretty sure.

You're obviously right, and Musk himself obviously understands this. But he's just playing to the overzealous political base he needs to be popular within right now to maximize his current businesses. The same way he pretended to be a liberal trans loving hippie back when his business desperately needed green EV credits to thrive.

 

[Ilov80s]

C'mon. He's obviously trying to make money. That's the whole reason for the paid verification, etc. He realized that the company his big mouth had made him accidentally buy was going to be a burden financially and needed to find ways to make it make more money, hence all the push to try and get people to start paying to use it. Monetizing Twitter has always been a huge issue compared to other social media companies and with the short form quick scrolling, companies just haven't been willing to spend nearly as much on advertising there as they do on the likes of Facebook, which has much better conversion rates on their money. That's also probably the reason Twitter increased their character limit a while back. But it wasn't enough, and he's been trying to find another way to make money since the traditional advertising model just doesn't provide good returns in Twitter's format.

He's not trying to run off advertisers. He's just socially a moron with a loud mouth that is simultaneously trying to defend his popular-among-some position of being a champion of saying controversial stuff that is not popular with the "mainstream". Politically the support of those people is important for his other businesses right now.

He didn't MEAN to lose advertisers. And he feels like he can't back down from the position because that would be backing off of what has made him popular amongst his current cult. Personally I think he could back off and apologize and all those folks would get the "wink wink, we know you don't really mean it", but he hasn't figure that out yet. But I think we eventually do end up there eventually with a half-assed apology.

He said he wasn't buying it to make money, every action he's taken has supported that.

Elon Musk says Twitter offer not a way to ‘make money’

Elon Musk said his offer to buy Twitter is not a way to “make money,” but rather part of an effort to try to change the platform to be an “inclusive arena for free speech.” “I think it’…

thehill.com

then why sell ads?

 

[belljr]

So Musk is not pro Israel? Extreme left or right lol lol

Sorry wasn't trying to be political, just humorous that "both extremes" have the same thing in common

 

[Mitchie]

C'mon. He's obviously trying to make money. That's the whole reason for the paid verification, etc. He realized that the company his big mouth had made him accidentally buy was going to be a burden financially and needed to find ways to make it make more money, hence all the push to try and get people to start paying to use it. Monetizing Twitter has always been a huge issue compared to other social media companies and with the short form quick scrolling, companies just haven't been willing to spend nearly as much on advertising there as they do on the likes of Facebook, which has much better conversion rates on their money. That's also probably the reason Twitter increased their character limit a while back. But it wasn't enough, and he's been trying to find another way to make money since the traditional advertising model just doesn't provide good returns in Twitter's format.

He's not trying to run off advertisers. He's just socially a moron with a loud mouth that is simultaneously trying to defend his popular-among-some position of being a champion of saying controversial stuff that is not popular with the "mainstream". Politically the support of those people is important for his other businesses right now.

He didn't MEAN to lose advertisers. And he feels like he can't back down from the position because that would be backing off of what has made him popular amongst his current cult. Personally I think he could back off and apologize and all those folks would get the "wink wink, we know you don't really mean it", but he hasn't figure that out yet. But I think we eventually do end up there eventually with a half-assed apology.

He said he wasn't buying it to make money, every action he's taken has supported that.

Elon Musk says Twitter offer not a way to ‘make money’

Elon Musk said his offer to buy Twitter is not a way to “make money,” but rather part of an effort to try to change the platform to be an “inclusive arena for free speech.” “I think it’…

thehill.com

then why sell ads?

company would cease to exist, (may do that anyway, at least as we know it.)

 

[GregR]

He said he wasn't buying it to make money

Then he's been wildly successful on that aspect.

 

[massraider]

company would cease to exist, (may do that anyway, at least as we know it.)

I think if everything goes wrong, his debtors (big banks and the Saudis) will just write off the debt.

I don't think anyone is ever going to foreclose or force bankruptcy on him. He might voluntarily seek bankruptcy himself, but no way do I see institutional investors going after him.

Too many people have interests in Tesla and SpaceX.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I rarely check my twitter/X feed now. I used to multiple times per day.

It's worse in every way than it was before he got control

Interesting. For me, it's better in several ways. The ability to post longer tweets was a huge plus for me.

I use Twitter pretty intentionally - for NFL information and for business growth discussion. For both those areas, the content I consistently see is better than ever. Especially some of the algorithmic suggestion features. I regularly see posts suggested that are exactly the kind of content I'm looking for.

But an important note is that I also don't hate Elon Musk. In my experience, that's usually the primary factor in whether someone finds Twitter useful or not. And that's as close to political as we'll get here.

 

[djmich]

I rarely check my twitter/X feed now. I used to multiple times per day.

It's worse in every way than it was before he got control

Interesting. For me, it's better in several ways. The ability to post longer tweets was a huge plus for me.

I use Twitter pretty intentionally - for NFL information and for business growth discussion. For both those areas, the content I consistently see is better than ever. Especially some of the algorithmic suggestion features. I regularly see posts suggested that are exactly the kind of content I'm looking for.

But an important note is that I also don't hate Elon Musk. In my experience, that's usually the primary factor in whether someone finds Twitter useful or not. And that's as close to political as we'll get here.

I found Twitter useful before Musk, I find it useful now. I'm not sure the quality of discourse is improved or worse, but it is certainly more diverse and so you get more garbage from the right whereas more of the garbage in the past was from the left. You get what you follow and you get more of what you click, its pretty simple. I think community notes is awesome. I actually follow it, feel like its a great way to be aware of some of the misinformation that's posted.

 

[Mitchie]

I rarely check my twitter/X feed now. I used to multiple times per day.

It's worse in every way than it was before he got control

Interesting. For me, it's better in several ways. The ability to post longer tweets was a huge plus for me.

I use Twitter pretty intentionally - for NFL information and for business growth discussion. For both those areas, the content I consistently see is better than ever. Especially some of the algorithmic suggestion features. I regularly see posts suggested that are exactly the kind of content I'm looking for.

But an important note is that I also don't hate Elon Musk. In my experience, that's usually the primary factor in whether someone finds Twitter useful or not. And that's as close to political as we'll get here.

As far as twitter goes i think you should give people a little more credit than that, I use twitter a lot and find it useful and also hate Elon Musk. At the same time in my opinion it is an inferior product compared to what was, a lot of repetitive tweets, a lot of tweets that appear to be supportive of his views, not seeing tweets from people i follow that I used to see.

I also believe that if you read up on Musk it would be clear to you that he doesn't support Christian values, now you don't have to hate him but it's very difficult to like the guy.

 

[AAABatteries]

But an important note is that I also don't hate Elon Musk. In my experience, that's usually the primary factor in whether someone finds Twitter useful or not. And that's as close to political as we'll get here.

I think you vastly overestimate the number of people who 1. care about politics and 2. have any idea what Elon thinks about anything. Most just know who he is.

 

[rockaction]

But an important note is that I also don't hate Elon Musk. In my experience, that's usually the primary factor in whether someone finds Twitter useful or not. And that's as close to political as we'll get here.

On a personal note, I have no problem with Musk. I don't like Twitter/X as it is now constructed. Maybe it's because a lot of the people I followed left when Musk took over or got dour about it and spit venom. That's certainly a possibility.

 

[Ilov80s]

But an important note is that I also don't hate Elon Musk. In my experience, that's usually the primary factor in whether someone finds Twitter useful or not. And that's as close to political as we'll get here.

On a personal note, I have no problem with Musk. I don't like Twitter/X as it is now constructed. Maybe it's because a lot of the people I followed left when Musk took over or got dour about it and spit venom. That's certainly a possibility.

A big part of it was definitely the loss of "talent" if you will. A lot of people I enjoyed left as well.

 

[djmich]

But an important note is that I also don't hate Elon Musk. In my experience, that's usually the primary factor in whether someone finds Twitter useful or not. And that's as close to political as we'll get here.

I think you vastly overestimate the number of people who 1. care about politics and 2. have any idea what Elon thinks about anything. Most just know who he is.

I'd be really surprised if the bulk of twitter users didnt care about politics and also weren't aware of Elon Musk beyond Teslas.

For the population that was on Twitter before Musk and then left soon after Musk took over I'd be really surprised if it wasn't because they didn't like the shift in politics (which they associated with Musk) and it was simply site format.

 

[AAABatteries]

But an important note is that I also don't hate Elon Musk. In my experience, that's usually the primary factor in whether someone finds Twitter useful or not. And that's as close to political as we'll get here.

I think you vastly overestimate the number of people who 1. care about politics and 2. have any idea what Elon thinks about anything. Most just know who he is.

I'd be really surprised if the bulk of twitter users didnt care about politics and also weren't aware of Elon Musk beyond Teslas.

For the population that was on Twitter before Musk and then left soon after Musk took over I'd be really surprised if it wasn't because they didn't like the shift in politics (which they associated with Musk) and it was simply site format.

I still think it’s vastly underestimating folks like my wife, SIL and many other people like them who simply don’t care about politics but use Twitter. I can’t even speak to Twitter being good, bad, etc. because I don’t even really use it.

 

[djmich]

I found Twitter useful before Musk, I find it useful now. I'm not sure the quality of discourse is improved or worse, but it is certainly more diverse and so you get more garbage from the right whereas more of the garbage in the past was from the left.

This is almost certainly confirmation bias unless it's just a factor of people who you followed on the left leaving the platform.

Right leaning posts on average empirically get far more reach on the Twitter/FB algorithm than left leaning posts. The further right, the further the reach. It's a cause and effect thing, not pro-right a bias thing. Those posts tend to be more controversial, which brings in more reactions (retweets, replies, etc) which is what maximizes reach in the algorithm. It's the reason Andrew Tate has 4x as many followers as Al Gore.

This is well known in the advertising space. If you want to quickly grow an account on Twitter/FB, you post right leaning content, because right leaning content gets the most reach in the algorithm, and it's been that way for many years.

The problem people claimed to have about bias was in regards to who was suspended from the platform, not how much reach they got when they were unsuspended. Even that to me is most likely mostly correlation, as posting more controversial content naturally leads to skirting a finer tightrope with breaking the ToS and doing something suspension worthy, but that is a whole separate argument.

But algorithmic reach has always been extremely right tilted, empirically enough that many advertisers who care nothing about politics and only about exposure and $$$ have based their entire approach around it.

When referencing having more diverse discourse it was less to quantity of posts and amount of boosting and to the fact that much more "right leaning" content was suppressed via deletions/bans/suspensions while not the case on opposing viewpoints. Now the suspensions are not as prevalent and community notes has replaced. As I noted, I think that results in more garbage but also more viewpoints that I don't want suppressed but to be exposed to and community noted where relevant.

Algo reach may have always been and will be right tilted for the reasons you mention.

What's been interesting to me recently is that I certainly fall on the pro Israel side of the current conflict (understanding that its also complicated), but I have a decent amount of pro Palestinian content in my feed.

 

[djmich]

But an important note is that I also don't hate Elon Musk. In my experience, that's usually the primary factor in whether someone finds Twitter useful or not. And that's as close to political as we'll get here.

I think you vastly overestimate the number of people who 1. care about politics and 2. have any idea what Elon thinks about anything. Most just know who he is.

I'd be really surprised if the bulk of twitter users didnt care about politics and also weren't aware of Elon Musk beyond Teslas.

For the population that was on Twitter before Musk and then left soon after Musk took over I'd be really surprised if it wasn't because they didn't like the shift in politics (which they associated with Musk) and it was simply site format.

I still think it’s vastly underestimating folks like my wife, SIL and many other people like them who simply don’t care about politics but use Twitter. I can’t even speak to Twitter being good, bad, etc. because I don’t even really use it.

Could be, I certainly use it for non political as well.

 

[AAABatteries]

But an important note is that I also don't hate Elon Musk. In my experience, that's usually the primary factor in whether someone finds Twitter useful or not. And that's as close to political as we'll get here.

I think you vastly overestimate the number of people who 1. care about politics and 2. have any idea what Elon thinks about anything. Most just know who he is.

I'd be really surprised if the bulk of twitter users didnt care about politics and also weren't aware of Elon Musk beyond Teslas.

For the population that was on Twitter before Musk and then left soon after Musk took over I'd be really surprised if it wasn't because they didn't like the shift in politics (which they associated with Musk) and it was simply site format.

I still think it’s vastly underestimating folks like my wife, SIL and many other people like them who simply don’t care about politics but use Twitter. I can’t even speak to Twitter being good, bad, etc. because I don’t even really use it.

Could be, I certainly use it for non political as well.

I think we all overestimate how much people care. I almost never hear political discussion in my daily life - the age, demographics and socioeconomics of our group here slants our thinking some (just my take though - could be wrong)

 

[belljr]

But an important note is that I also don't hate Elon Musk. In my experience, that's usually the primary factor in whether someone finds Twitter useful or not. And that's as close to political as we'll get here.

I think you vastly overestimate the number of people who 1. care about politics and 2. have any idea what Elon thinks about anything. Most just know who he is.

I'd be really surprised if the bulk of twitter users didnt care about politics and also weren't aware of Elon Musk beyond Teslas.

For the population that was on Twitter before Musk and then left soon after Musk took over I'd be really surprised if it wasn't because they didn't like the shift in politics (which they associated with Musk) and it was simply site format.

I still think it’s vastly underestimating folks like my wife, SIL and many other people like them who simply don’t care about politics but use Twitter. I can’t even speak to Twitter being good, bad, etc. because I don’t even really use it.

Could be, I certainly use it for non political as well.

I think we all overestimate how much people care. I almost never hear political discussion in my daily life - the age, demographics and socioeconomics of our group here slants our thinking some (just my take though - could be wrong)

In my everyday life if you are overly political in either direction, I usually steer clear

 

[Mitchie]

I found Twitter useful before Musk, I find it useful now. I'm not sure the quality of discourse is improved or worse, but it is certainly more diverse and so you get more garbage from the right whereas more of the garbage in the past was from the left.

This is almost certainly confirmation bias unless it's just a factor of people who you followed on the left leaving the platform.

Right leaning posts on average empirically get far more reach on the Twitter/FB algorithm than left leaning posts. The further right, the further the reach. It's a cause and effect thing, not pro-right a bias thing. Those posts tend to be more controversial, which brings in more reactions (retweets, replies, etc) which is what maximizes reach in the algorithm. It's the reason Andrew Tate has 4x as many followers as Al Gore.

This is well known in the advertising space. If you want to quickly grow an account on Twitter/FB, you post right leaning content, because right leaning content gets the most reach in the algorithm, and it's been that way for many years.

The problem people claimed to have about bias was in regards to who was suspended from the platform, not how much reach they got when they were unsuspended. Even that to me is most likely mostly correlation, as posting more controversial content naturally leads to skirting a finer tightrope with breaking the ToS and doing something suspension worthy, but that is a whole separate argument.

But algorithmic reach has always been extremely right tilted, empirically enough that many advertisers who care nothing about politics and only about exposure and $$$ have based their entire approach around it.

Interesting idea, but the counter argument to this is that Musk's strategy has been a failure at every level, Twitter is now worth less than half than it was, so if this strategy is so good why isn't it working?

 

[djmich]

I found Twitter useful before Musk, I find it useful now. I'm not sure the quality of discourse is improved or worse, but it is certainly more diverse and so you get more garbage from the right whereas more of the garbage in the past was from the left.

This is almost certainly confirmation bias unless it's just a factor of people who you followed on the left leaving the platform.

Right leaning posts on average empirically get far more reach on the Twitter/FB algorithm than left leaning posts. The further right, the further the reach. It's a cause and effect thing, not pro-right a bias thing. Those posts tend to be more controversial, which brings in more reactions (retweets, replies, etc) which is what maximizes reach in the algorithm. It's the reason Andrew Tate has 4x as many followers as Al Gore.

This is well known in the advertising space. If you want to quickly grow an account on Twitter/FB, you post right leaning content, because right leaning content gets the most reach in the algorithm, and it's been that way for many years.

The problem people claimed to have about bias was in regards to who was suspended from the platform, not how much reach they got when they were unsuspended. Even that to me is most likely mostly correlation, as posting more controversial content naturally leads to skirting a finer tightrope with breaking the ToS and doing something suspension worthy, but that is a whole separate argument.

But algorithmic reach has always been extremely right tilted, empirically enough that many advertisers who care nothing about politics and only about exposure and $$$ have based their entire approach around it.

Interesting idea, but the counter argument to this is that Musk's strategy has been a failure at every level, Twitter is now worth less than half than it was, so if this strategy is so good why isn't it working?

Do you think it’s not working according to what the owner wants? Feels like he’s implemented a pretty intentional strategy. I’m sure he’d like more eyeballs for longer but I don’t get the impression that was the sole objective.

 

[Mitchie]

I found Twitter useful before Musk, I find it useful now. I'm not sure the quality of discourse is improved or worse, but it is certainly more diverse and so you get more garbage from the right whereas more of the garbage in the past was from the left.

This is almost certainly confirmation bias unless it's just a factor of people who you followed on the left leaving the platform.

Right leaning posts on average empirically get far more reach on the Twitter/FB algorithm than left leaning posts. The further right, the further the reach. It's a cause and effect thing, not pro-right a bias thing. Those posts tend to be more controversial, which brings in more reactions (retweets, replies, etc) which is what maximizes reach in the algorithm. It's the reason Andrew Tate has 4x as many followers as Al Gore.

This is well known in the advertising space. If you want to quickly grow an account on Twitter/FB, you post right leaning content, because right leaning content gets the most reach in the algorithm, and it's been that way for many years.

The problem people claimed to have about bias was in regards to who was suspended from the platform, not how much reach they got when they were unsuspended. Even that to me is most likely mostly correlation, as posting more controversial content naturally leads to skirting a finer tightrope with breaking the ToS and doing something suspension worthy, but that is a whole separate argument.

But algorithmic reach has always been extremely right tilted, empirically enough that many advertisers who care nothing about politics and only about exposure and $$$ have based their entire approach around it.

Interesting idea, but the counter argument to this is that Musk's strategy has been a failure at every level, Twitter is now worth less than half than it was, so if this strategy is so good why isn't it working?

Do you think it’s not working according to what the owner wants? Feels like he’s implemented a pretty intentional strategy. I’m sure he’d like more eyeballs for longer but I don’t get the impression that was the sole objective.

well i posted earlier that he's not trying to make money that said i don't think anyone just wants to light 25 billion dollars on fire.

 

[GroveDiesel]

I didn’t really mind Elon at all before the Twitter takeover. Even respected/admired him a bit. He has become borderline irredeemable since just before the takeover basically.

Any respect I had for him ended when he smeared that guy calling him a pedophile during that cave rescue just because the expert said that Musk’s rescue idea wouldn’t work.

When the world’s richest man is punching down trying to stomp a, literally poor, innocent hero just because that person called out his stupid idea as stupid, that should have been everyone’s wake-up call.

 

[Joe Bryant]

But an important note is that I also don't hate Elon Musk. In my experience, that's usually the primary factor in whether someone finds Twitter useful or not. And that's as close to political as we'll get here.

I think you vastly overestimate the number of people who 1. care about politics and 2. have any idea what Elon thinks about anything. Most just know who he is.

No worries at all. We can disagree there.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Could be, I certainly use it for non political as well.

Same. I use it for pretty basic topics - NFL and Business Growth. And for those, it's better than ever with more great content than ever at least for my sample size of one.

 

[djmich]

Could be, I certainly use it for non political as well.

Same. I use it for pretty basic topics - NFL and Business Growth. And for those, it's better than ever with more great content than ever at least for my sample size of one.

I can vouch that the cats being funny little guys videos are still top notch.

 

[massraider]

well i posted earlier that he's not trying to make money that said i don't think anyone just wants to light 25 billion dollars on fire.

Because he screwed up. He didn't want to light 25 billion on fire (more actually, it's not worth 20 billion either). He made a mistake, and bought an $8 billion company for $44 billion.

He made a grandstand offer of $50 per share (actually 54.20 because marijuana is 4.20, and Elon is a funny guy), and Twitter very quickly was like, hey yeah, we'll do that, thanks a lot. He immediately tried to weasel out, and the Delaware courts spanked him, and sent him on his way with a brand spanking new company that did 800 mill the previous year, for $44 billion.

You buy an 8 billion dollar company with someone else's money for 44 billion, you don't need to 'not try and make money'. You are going to not make money whatever you do.

 

[Mitchie]

well i posted earlier that he's not trying to make money that said i don't think anyone just wants to light 25 billion dollars on fire.

Because he screwed up. He didn't want to light 25 billion on fire (more actually, it's not worth 20 billion either). He made a mistake, and bought an $8 billion company for $44 billion.

He made a grandstand offer of $50 per share (actually 54.20 because marijuana is 4.20, and Elon is a funny guy), and Twitter very quickly was like, hey yeah, we'll do that, thanks a lot. He immediately tried to weasel out, and the Delaware courts spanked him, and sent him on his way with a brand spanking new company that did 800 mill the previous year, for $44 billion.

You buy an 8 billion dollar company with someone else's money for 44 billion, you don't need to 'not try and make money'. You are going to not make money whatever you do.

not sure what you're disagreeing with, but also not sure where you're getting the 8 billion number from, it was a publicly traded stock prior to Musk buying it and the public was valuing it much higher than that, closer to 30 billion give or take with fluctuations.

 

[Terminalxylem]

But an important note is that I also don't hate Elon Musk. In my experience, that's usually the primary factor in whether someone finds Twitter useful or not. And that's as close to political as we'll get here.

I think you vastly overestimate the number of people who 1. care about politics and 2. have any idea what Elon thinks about anything. Most just know who he is.

I'd be really surprised if the bulk of twitter users didnt care about politics and also weren't aware of Elon Musk beyond Teslas.

For the population that was on Twitter before Musk and then left soon after Musk took over I'd be really surprised if it wasn't because they didn't like the shift in politics (which they associated with Musk) and it was simply site format.

I still think it’s vastly underestimating folks like my wife, SIL and many other people like them who simply don’t care about politics but use Twitter. I can’t even speak to Twitter being good, bad, etc. because I don’t even really use it.

Could be, I certainly use it for non political as well.

I think we all overestimate how much people care. I almost never hear political discussion in my daily life - the age, demographics and socioeconomics of our group here slants our thinking some (just my take though - could be wrong)

People care, but more about topics like celebrity romance than politics.

 

[The Commish]

Curious what has come onto the platform that you WEREN'T getting before.

Obviously, this is a question for those who think it's better now than before.

ETA: Yes, I realize I've asked this question before...many times, but figured I'd ask one more time to see if people answer this time.

 

[titusbramble]

Curious what has come onto the platform that you WEREN'T getting before.

Obviously, this is a question for those who think it's better now than before.

It is better as all views seem to be getting comparable amounts of visibility, which was demonstrably not the case pre takeover. I don't think there is anyone that thinks Twitter is worse than pre takeover, that either

a) Has an in built hatred of Elon because reasons, normally it is the case that said person doesn't use the platform anyway so who cares
b) Is the sort of person that is all for free speech, right up until the point where there is free speech they don't like as they cannot handle differing opinions

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Curious what has come onto the platform that you WEREN'T getting before.

Obviously, this is a question for those who think it's better now than before.

ETA: Yes, I realize I've asked this question before...many times, but figured I'd ask one more time to see if people answer this time.

Viewpoint diversity.

 

[timschochet]

I’ve never disliked Elon Musk. The guy is clearly a genius. I disagree with many of his views but hey I disagree with a ton of people that I like.

But his recent comments really bother me. I found them beyond the pale and very offensive. I think I will be forced to actively dislike him now.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Curious what has come onto the platform that you WEREN'T getting before.

Obviously, this is a question for those who think it's better now than before.

It is better as all views seem to be getting comparable amounts of visibility, which was demonstrably not the case pre takeover. I don't think there is anyone that thinks Twitter is worse than pre takeover, that either

a) Has an in built hatred of Elon because reasons, normally it is the case that said person doesn't use the platform anyway so who cares
b) Is the sort of person that is all for free speech, right up until the point where there is free speech they don't like as they cannot handle differing opinions

The algorithms have always demonstrably given right wing narratives far more reach and visibility (here is one of dozens of sources on this, and again, in marketing/advertising circles it is well known and exploited). So you're not seeing any different viewpoints there. It's always been extremely right leaning. Through causality, not bias, to be fair.

The only way you could possibly see any difference in your feed to left/right visibility is if your feed was made up of following people that were previously banned and now unbanned. But those mostly are more extremist sources that I doubt many here are following, who towed the line of the ToS until they eventually broke it and then tried to gather sympathy by claiming bias, like the 12 year olds in the engadget comment section that call Microsoft fanboys f***s and then claim the mods are Xbox biased when they get banned for it.

The notion that people are now getting "more balanced" feeds is fabricated by people looking to vindicate their invented narrative that these companies were pushing overwhelming left wing pressure into their feeds until their savior Elon stepped in and fixed it. A user's feed has always been primarily however they tailored it, and of the untailored content any user has always been more likely to be served with right leaning unsolicited content than the opposite, demonstrably.

And if you look back through my posting history on FBGs over the last 10 years you'll see that I am far from an Elon hater, and have many times rushed to defend him on these forums, have read multiple of his biographies, am heavily invested in Tesla, and am a somewhat early stage investor in SpaceX.

 

[The Commish]

Curious what has come onto the platform that you WEREN'T getting before.

Obviously, this is a question for those who think it's better now than before.

ETA: Yes, I realize I've asked this question before...many times, but figured I'd ask one more time to see if people answer this time.

Viewpoint diversity.

So you're saying, you now have accounts at your disposal you didn't have before? If I remember correctly, you are one of the ones who manage your timeline very carefully. Are you saying there were people you were following then that you couldn't see, but see now?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Curious what has come onto the platform that you WEREN'T getting before.

Obviously, this is a question for those who think it's better now than before.

ETA: Yes, I realize I've asked this question before...many times, but figured I'd ask one more time to see if people answer this time.

Viewpoint diversity.

So you're saying, you now have accounts at your disposal you didn't have before? If I remember correctly, you are one of the ones who manage your timeline very carefully. Are you saying there were people you were following then that you couldn't see, but see now?

I think so, yeah. I manage my follows fairly actively. Last month I added a small handful of anti-Israel accounts for balance on that issue, for example. I'll drop most of those at some point, buy they're useful right now.

More generally, my sense is that X currently allows much freer discussion of race and gender issues than before. That's very good IMO.

 

[The Commish]

Curious what has come onto the platform that you WEREN'T getting before.

Obviously, this is a question for those who think it's better now than before.

ETA: Yes, I realize I've asked this question before...many times, but figured I'd ask one more time to see if people answer this time.

Viewpoint diversity.

So you're saying, you now have accounts at your disposal you didn't have before? If I remember correctly, you are one of the ones who manage your timeline very carefully. Are you saying there were people you were following then that you couldn't see, but see now?

I think so, yeah. I manage my follows fairly actively. Last month I added a small handful of anti-Israel accounts for balance on that issue, for example. I'll drop most of those at some point, buy they're useful right now.

More generally, my sense is that X currently allows much freer discussion of race and gender issues than before. That's very good IMO.

I guess what I am asking for clarification on is two fold:

1. Is it that you had accounts you were following before that were blocked from you seeing them?

OR

2. You perceive more variety now than before?

I know that a ton of users/bots were unblocked, but I can't imagine you'd ever subscribe to that sort of thing in the first place as one who pays close attention to their timeline etc.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Curious what has come onto the platform that you WEREN'T getting before.

Obviously, this is a question for those who think it's better now than before.

ETA: Yes, I realize I've asked this question before...many times, but figured I'd ask one more time to see if people answer this time.

Viewpoint diversity.

So you're saying, you now have accounts at your disposal you didn't have before? If I remember correctly, you are one of the ones who manage your timeline very carefully. Are you saying there were people you were following then that you couldn't see, but see now?

I think so, yeah. I manage my follows fairly actively. Last month I added a small handful of anti-Israel accounts for balance on that issue, for example. I'll drop most of those at some point, buy they're useful right now.

More generally, my sense is that X currently allows much freer discussion of race and gender issues than before. That's very good IMO.

I guess what I am asking for clarification on is two fold:

1. Is it that you had accounts you were following before that were blocked from you seeing them?

OR

2. You perceive more variety now than before?

I know that a ton of users/bots were unblocked, but I can't imagine you'd ever subscribe to that sort of thing in the first place as one who pays close attention to their timeline etc.

I follow one account that I know was banned under the old regime, because the person who runs the account has mentioned it from time to time. It's a perfectly fine account that should never have been banned based on the content I've seen.

But mostly it's (2). I think a fair number of "my" follows (the ones I more or less agree with, not the ones I follow for balance) were talking a little elliptically around hot-button issues to avoid moderation, and they no longer have to do so now. Obviously I'm being a little elliptical to avoid politics, but there was never any good reason for banning people over this stuff. The dominant narrative on culture war issues is at least contestable by people of good will.

Also, it's a little weird to see grown adults fretting about whether somebody is following what they perceive as a naughty account. This is analogous to asking what books a person checks out from the library.

 

[Battersbox]

I think Musk can fire off tweets that are often insensitive. That is a worthy price to pay for the freer exchange of viewpoints available now than were available pre-Musk.

Regarding the current conflict in Israel/Gaza: there is a very strong chance what we've been able to see would have been curated far differently if the old regime were still in charge at Twitter, and I don't think it would have been kind to the Israelis. In short, the pushback they've received over their retaliation would be far greater than it is right now because few of us would have been able to believe the level of brutality which took place on October 7th.

It's far prom perfect, but it's definitely better.

 

[The Commish]

Curious what has come onto the platform that you WEREN'T getting before.

Obviously, this is a question for those who think it's better now than before.

ETA: Yes, I realize I've asked this question before...many times, but figured I'd ask one more time to see if people answer this time.

Viewpoint diversity.

So you're saying, you now have accounts at your disposal you didn't have before? If I remember correctly, you are one of the ones who manage your timeline very carefully. Are you saying there were people you were following then that you couldn't see, but see now?

I think so, yeah. I manage my follows fairly actively. Last month I added a small handful of anti-Israel accounts for balance on that issue, for example. I'll drop most of those at some point, buy they're useful right now.

More generally, my sense is that X currently allows much freer discussion of race and gender issues than before. That's very good IMO.

I guess what I am asking for clarification on is two fold:

1. Is it that you had accounts you were following before that were blocked from you seeing them?

OR

2. You perceive more variety now than before?

I know that a ton of users/bots were unblocked, but I can't imagine you'd ever subscribe to that sort of thing in the first place as one who pays close attention to their timeline etc.

I follow one account that I know was banned under the old regime, because the person who runs the account has mentioned it from time to time. It's a perfectly fine account that should never have been banned based on the content I've seen.

But mostly it's (2). I think a fair number of "my" follows (the ones I more or less agree with, not the ones I follow for balance) were talking a little elliptically around hot-button issues to avoid moderation, and they no longer have to do so now. Obviously I'm being a little elliptical to avoid politics, but there was never any good reason for banning people over this stuff. The dominant narrative on culture war issues is at least contestable by people of good will.

Also, it's a little weird to see grown adults fretting about whether somebody is following what they perceive as a naughty account. This is analogous to asking what books a person checks out from the library.

Thanks. Tough for me to understand the complaints/nuance people are talking about with "aggregator" kinds of sites like this, though that's not how this site is designed, but how some people use it. I continue to encourage people to get as close to the source as possible. For example, not a chance I'd use twitter for updates on Israel. I've just come to understand that with respect to Israel, we likely aren't ever getting an accurate picture of what's going on. I don't trust Israel's reporting nor do I trust Hamas' reporting.

 

[Joe Bryant]

More generally, my sense is that X currently allows much freer discussion of race and gender issues than before. That's very good IMO.

That's the predominant change I see when I get out of my normal NFL and Business Growth areas, which have only changed for the better with things like easier to post longer form content and such.

 

[massraider]

The algorithms have always demonstrably given right wing narratives far more reach and visibility (here is one of dozens of sources on this, and again, in marketing/advertising circles it is well known and exploited). So you're not seeing any different viewpoints there. It's always been extremely right leaning. Through causality, not bias, to be fair.

The only way you could possibly see any difference in your feed to left/right visibility is if your feed was made up of following people that were previously banned and now unbanned. But those mostly are more extremist sources that I doubt many here are following, who towed the line of the ToS until they eventually broke it and then tried to gather sympathy by claiming bias, like the 12 year olds in the engadget comment section that call Microsoft fanboys f***s and then claim the mods are Xbox biased when they get banned for it.

The notion that people are now getting "more balanced" feeds is fabricated by people looking to vindicate their invented narrative that these companies were pushing overwhelming left wing pressure into their feeds until their savior Elon stepped in and fixed it. A user's feed has always been primarily however they tailored it, and of the untailored content any user has always been more likely to be served with right leaning unsolicited content than the opposite, demonstrably.

And if you look back through my posting history on FBGs over the last 10 years you'll see that I am far from an Elon hater, and have many times rushed to defend him on these forums, have read multiple of his biographies, am heavily invested in Tesla, and am a somewhat early stage investor in SpaceX.

It's very discouraging that we only have Musk haters on here, and a bunch of completely objective observers, who really could not care either way, but check in to defend Musk, and let us know they really don't care either way. Fascinating and discouraging.

I admit I'm a hater. 1000%

What's to like? Promotes antisemitic views, skirts fair labor practices, made up some CRAP about the hyperloop, which only succeeded in shelving actual transit solutions, lied about his education, was used for racially segregating his factory floor, and right after he bought Twitter, one of the first things he did was push a homophobic conspiracy theory.

Least I am not a fanboy pretending to be objective.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Some of us are just trying to abide by the "no politics" rule.

 

[bigbottom]

Suggesting that people's conclusions about the utility of Twitter are motivated by either Musk hatred or Musk fandom probably wasn't the most productive approach to discussing the issue. I'm not much of a Twitter user, but it's obvious people use Twitter in different ways and it seems completely reasonable that their experience could be improved or worsened depending on how they interface with the platform.

 

[The Commish]

Suggesting that people's conclusions about the utility of Twitter are motivated by either Musk hatred or Musk fandom probably wasn't the most productive approach to discussing the issue. I'm not much of a Twitter user, but it's obvious people use Twitter in different ways and it seems completely reasonable that their experience could be improved or worsened depending on how they interface with the platform.

My feeling as well. That's why I asked the question(s) I did and I appreciate IK's explanations.

 

[McBokonon]

If Twitter would stop the mobile app from zipping back over to “For You” instead of the list I last left off from, Musk can post whatever he wants and I wouldn’t care. But until then, down with Musk.

 

[Mister CIA]

Curious what has come onto the platform that you WEREN'T getting before.

Obviously, this is a question for those who think it's better now than before.

ETA: Yes, I realize I've asked this question before...many times, but figured I'd ask one more time to see if people answer this time.

Viewpoint diversity.

So you're saying, you now have accounts at your disposal you didn't have before? If I remember correctly, you are one of the ones who manage your timeline very carefully. Are you saying there were people you were following then that you couldn't see, but see now?

I think so, yeah. I manage my follows fairly actively. Last month I added a small handful of anti-Israel accounts for balance on that issue, for example. I'll drop most of those at some point, buy they're useful right now.

More generally, my sense is that X currently allows much freer discussion of race and gender issues than before. That's very good IMO.

Discussions?! - said in Jim Mora voice.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Regarding the current conflict in Israel/Gaza: there is a very strong chance what we've been able to see would have been curated far differently if the old regime were still in charge at Twitter, and I don't think it would have been kind to the Israelis. In short, the pushback they've received over their retaliation would be far greater than it is right now because few of us would have been able to believe the level of brutality which took place on October 7th.

This is outrageous speculation, which we can note easily with the mere fact that this isn't happening on Facebook, which was lumped in with Twitter as one and the same in terms of perceived bias and, notably, was not purchased by Elon Musk.

Similar to IK's outrageous claim in the other thread about how the world likely would never have known about the Gaza hospital misreporting if it weren't for Elon Musk, even as the breaking coverage of new findings were as readily available on Zuckerberg's ultra left communist Facebook as they were on Musk's bastion of free speech Twitter.

The reality is that the straw man narrative on this has been beaten into people's heads by their curated "news" sources for so long that normally rational people have gone completely off the deep end. Pre-Musk twitter would not have been banning people just for posting pro Israel tweets amongst this conflict, and it's a ridiculous assertion, imo.