So "X" - nothing to see here. Elon's in control - Part XXX

scotchy

Tesla share price in freefall.

.

AllForIt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120060054#Comment_120060054

If bet if one was to see a similar drawing of Panti Bilss it would be flagged as a hateful attack on LGBT people by those hate content monitoring orgs, of which that yoke Caraballo is a part of.

.Donegal.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120062219#Comment_120062219

Why even bring sexuality in to it. The drawing of Elon has nothing to do with his sexuality and it has f all to do with Panti bliss. The free speech crusader and his fan girls are the biggest hypocritical snowflakes going. Such delicate flowers that grow in the soils of whataboutery

AllForIt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120062312#Comment_120062312

I didn't bring sexuality into it, I brought Panti Bliss into it, an activist of the Left who so happens to be a member of a minority demographic.

I was having a go at the independent entities that release percentage figures of levels of hate on Twitter, where I know they would flag tweets motivated by 'hate' for the most trivial of reasons,, like our own NGO's who have been doing same of late where they release the results of their 'surveys' to our state meida. But that's another story.

So I don't take your point.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120062219#Comment_120062219

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1507259709224632344

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1586104694421659648?lang=en

Daddy lied to you.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120062219#Comment_120062219

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120062457#Comment_120062457

Huh? Assuming the reaction, "It would be flagged as a hateful attack on LGBT people" is bringing sexuality into it. Maybe people would just see it as a bad sketch of a person in the public eye. In Musk's case, he happens to be a very vain man.

Beasty

.Donegal. threadbanned

He’s treating Twitter as his own personal playground and fiefdom and that’s really now how you’d expect any serious social media platform to be managed.

Everything is at the whim of the owner of the site. Effectively it isn’t Twitter anymore, it’s ElonWorld.

Mastodon is reminding me a lot of the early days of Twitter. Sure, it’s a bit new and people are finding their feet, it’s rough around the edges and has the odd preachy account, but it has that big wide open feel.

Twitter is feeling more and more like a private space pushing a very single minded world view. When it was in its hay day you’d no idea really who the CEO was. I mean if you googled you’d find out, but he certainly wasn’t trending and driving agendas on it.

To me Twitter just isn’t Twitter anymore.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120062504#Comment_120062504

It's also really weird to try and draw equivalence between "a shítty portrait of Elon Musk" with LGBTQ rights advocacy? Talk about reaching - and all because *checks notes* it might hurt the feelings of a billionaire. Snowflake.

I mean, it's technically right, in that if the circumstance was completely different it might play out differently? But that's real "if my auntie had balls..." territory of logic.

You just gotta laugh.

magicbastarder

yeah, that was pure whataboutery. musk is proclaiming himself as a leader of unfettered free speech, but is behaving like a little tinpot dictator.

clearly, what he meant was free speech, but for himself.

Gregor Samsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120062219#Comment_120062219

Here's Panti Bliss happily sharing a poorly drawn portrait on FB. Not a claim of hate content or attacks on the LGBT people in sight. You're fighting bogeymen in your head.

magicbastarder

to be fair, it's likely that musk did not see the offending portrait; either twitter's alogrithms need a little work, or it was an overzealous moderator (should any of those be left still working for the company)

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120063723#Comment_120063723

Ordinarily I'd agree but Musk spends an inordinate amount of time on Twitter and I find it hard to believe he didn't come across a tweet about him with over 200k likes and nearly 20k retweets. His sycophants send him everything.

Proceeds to ban the account.

AllForIt

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120063685#Comment_120063685

Here's Panti Bliss happily sharing a poorly drawn portrait on FB

I think they're rather good, and accurate :P

Royale with Cheese

The twitter app just crashes on load consistently for me today. Google Pixel 6 Pro, both the OS and app updated to the latest version. Has never happened before.

It begins?

pixelburp

Remembering that story from a few weeks ago about Twitter supposedly contemplating making the sharing of personal data the default? I wonder if there was any truth in that, and thus if those behind it have seen Facebook's wrist slap by the EU about this very issue?

https://www.thejournal.ie/facebook-meta-instagram-dpc-data-fined-5960900-Jan2023/

magicbastarder

when a fine like that is levied, who gets the money?

could be lucrative having those companies here from a data protection perspective...

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120069729#Comment_120069729

It's an EU wide fine so I'd assume it goes to the EU or possibly pro-rata distributed to the various EU countries where the company operates.

Ireland definitely don't get to keep it themselves (just like the Apple tax money)

I’m not seeing anywhere that those fines would be redistributed around the EU. Is there even a mechanism for that? The European Commission didn’t issue the fine, the Irish DPC did under EU regulations, but through domestic law.

One of the biggest issues is the overheads of regulating that kind of scale of social media are enormous. A lot of those fines would need to get ploughed back into running the DPC itself as some kind of fund.

Sand

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120062904#Comment_120062904

"Everything is at the whim of the owner of the site".

Isn't how Twitter always operated? Only the ownership has changed. People were perfectly fine with corporations and billionaires controlling the public square before. Why not now?

I mean the rules seem much the same, but even clearer: attack Musk and he'll have you warned/suspended. Simple.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120071865#Comment_120071865

No, because there was generally policies in place before and you knew where you stood.

AndrewJRenko

Sinking ship

https://twitter.com/caseynewton/status/1610463188100984833?s=46&t=V6P8dkj3UytrxL6klCjl5A

Sand

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120071880#Comment_120071880

I think that depends on your perspective. From what I see the policy about not provoking Musk is very clear. If people haven't figured it out by now, then that's on them surely?

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120071894#Comment_120071894

Wait, there's a "Musk policy" ?

bokale

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120071894#Comment_120071894

I think it's pretty obvious things are not clear.

He says X and does Y. One example is he said he wouldn't suspend that account tweeting about his private jet and then did.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120071894#Comment_120071894

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120071865#Comment_120071865

"Not provoking Musk" is the language you'd use about an obstreperous and temperamental toddler, not the CEO of one of the largest social media platforms on the globe. And it's somewhat nonsensical to have made loud noises about wanting Twitter to be a bastion of Free Speech - then turn around and "oh but don't take the píss out of me". Parking the question of private enterprise making its own rules, it's patently absurd & pathetic a man in his 50s, richer than anyone could ever achieve, is that insecure he seemingly intervenes to stop people saying mean things about him. Or posting bad portraits. It's akin to Xi Jinping & Winnie the Pooh; funny how powerful men can have the most brittle egos.

As to ownership: concerns have been that Musk's MO so far has been to simply shutter important moderation outlets, while unbanning noted toxic figures. While those arbitrary firings across the company have caused everything from court cases to technical issues. Pre-Musk, Twitter had never quite shaken the reputation as being an outlet that promotes or tolerates bullying, harassment and various degrees of prejudice. Nor is that isolated to Twitter: Big Tech has repeatedly had a problem, where it wants to be integrated into our lives - but shirks responsibility to deal with the inevitable toxicity that comes from allowing direct access to each other. So closing departments that were Lip Service towards that gatekeeping is a ... well it's a bold choice.

Which, again, is all well and good if you want to be a Free Speech Absolutist and just let rip - but it immediately falls flat on its face when the owner decides he's the exception here. Either make Twitter a Black Box, or don't. If you don't, then define the parameters of bad behaviour. Of course, the rubber has met the road and advertisers bristled at Twitter descending into 8chan adjacent chaos; and so we have this ongoing infinite loop where a company that had a fairly defined set of parameters already, now seems to be flying by the seat of its pants - and that ain't sustainable for a company in deep, deep debt thanks to the takeover. Getting it back to a dollars & cents issue.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120071894#Comment_120071894

Give us a list of these rules so, the definitive list of what will provoke him?

He's a petulant man child who lies about his vision for twitter and commitment to free speech. No telling what will provoke him.

To compare this to a situation where there was a published set of rules and a process is absolutely absurd and completely without basis.

Timberrrrrrrr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120071865#Comment_120071865

Previous owners weren't tweeting about "free speech", Musk says one thing and then totally flips and does the opposite, he's a thin skinned manchild who is upset because he isn't as universally loved as he thought he was.

Sand

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120072408#Comment_120072408

So the rules are clear, you just don't like them? Twitter is owned by Musk - he can make and change rules at a whim and there isn't anything that can be done about it. Seems clear to me. I see again and again people running into closed doors and wondering why the door hit them in the face. People were perfectly happy with private ownership of the public square before. Nothing has changed.

That said, a public square where you can freely discuss issues so long as you do not insult or harass the owner of the square seems a less worse option than what was previously on offer from Twitter. Relax though, because that wont happen either. Musk is all bark, but no bite.

magicbastarder

oh, he's got bite alright. he's biting himself and the shareholders of the companies he heads.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120073048#Comment_120073048

a public square where you can freely discuss issues so long as you do not insult or harass the owner of the square seems a less worse option than what was previously on offer from Twitter.

Not really, it's a town square according to the unstable whims of a petulant owner. Not too far removed from e.g. Trump being in charge of Twitter. Selective free speech fundamentalism wrapped up in petty revenge with a cult of self printed over every decision.

Sand

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120073166#Comment_120073166

All social media/public squares are subject to the unstable whims of their petulant owners.

An owner who permits free discussion so long as they themselves are not attacked is far better than the alternatives.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120073187#Comment_120073187

But you just said earlier he doesn't permit free discussion if you fall foul of one of his whims. So you have invalidated your own argument.

You really can't keep your story straight - because it is based on a falsehood.

Still waiting on this list. Apparently they are clear so should be easy for you to provide:

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120072487#Comment_120072487

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120073048#Comment_120073048

If you can show me where on the Terms of Service it says "don't insult Elon Musk", I'll defer to the rules being "clear"; but it sends bad messaging to the userbase, and commercial interests thereof, when the CEO can't offer consistent brand communication about what behaviour is acceptable. Nor am I sure why you say "nothing has changed" when clearly, things have changed, not least in aforementioned issues of harassment. There have been changes in perssonel, changes in policy and moderation.

I doubt people would care about Musk's fragile sense of self if the company's approach to harassment had at least stayed put - or indeed, improved upon what had been routinely criticised in the past. Instead. everyone else has to deal with potential harassment under the banner of "free speech", with potentially reduced courses of action available - but Musk gets shielded 'cos he's the boss? You don't have to agree with the man's politics to see that's some laughable double standards at work. And yeah, you say His House, His Rules - sure, lol okay: but with the debt Twitter has accumulated, Musk may wish to think carefully on that turning Twitter into 8chan. At some stage he'll want to make some money once he puts down his smartphone.

Either way. It's irrelevant if I like the rules or not: I don't have a Twitter account so this doesn't effect me either way; no running into doors apply here. Simply offering context about why there's broad frustration about this mercurial, helicopter management approach.

You don't see Mark Zuckerberg intervening when someone posts a mocking meme on Facebook. Though to be fair, Zuckerberg hasn't quite mastered the concept of human emotions yet.

Sand

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120073212#Comment_120073212

I said it would be better, but that it wasn't going to happen. That Musk was all bark and no bite.

Sand

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120073239#Comment_120073239

It says it everytime users decide they will try to provoke Musk and get shocked that they are held accountable. As far as I've seen, anytime a tweet has been warned it has been tied back to a breach of one of the Twitter policies that protect all users.

Lets face it - the very forum we are posting on has a nicely vague "Dont be a dick rule" that can be arbitrarily applied. Musk is simply doing the same thing on a larger scale.

He owns Twitter. He can do what he likes with it. Nothing has changed. I think its would be better if there was a written lese-majeste policy, but I guess the smarter ones will figure it out.

McFly85

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120073341#Comment_120073341

Can you show me where the ToS says users who provoke Musk will be banned?

I don’t know why you repeatedly say nothing has changed, either. Don’t recall Dorsey banning accounts and changing his mind on how Twitter should work on a daily basis.

He can do what he likes with Twitter, that’s true. But if the goal is to turn it into a profitable business, changing the rules based on how he’s personally offended on any given day is a pretty poor way to go about it, seeing as advertisers, Twitters primary source of revenue, really like things like predictability and stability on a platform. Musk has demonstrably made both of these things worse.

bokale

Just because you keep saying nothing has changed doesn't make it true.

Twitter has changed since Musk has taken over.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120073341#Comment_120073341

He owns Twitter. He can do what he likes with it. Nothing has changed. I think its would be better if there was a written lese-majeste policy, but I guess the smarter ones will figure it out.

CEOs don't generally "do what they like" 'cos they know better. Musk can indeed do what he likes, but if the purpose is to make money from Twitter - and you can be damn sure at the price he paid he'll want to - then there's a point the shítposting might have to stop. Or just stop getting uptight about it so he's not always in the news for being a petty 51 year old. Sauce for the goose.

And I don't know why you keep saying "nothing has changed", when there are demonstrable instances already mentioned. Be it at macro level like personnel changes, department cutbacks or ban rollbacks - or the micro such as the recent nonsense of "doxxing" & the spat between Musk and the fellow who shared public flight info. Not to mention the more intangible change of reputation.

Things have changed. This thread isn't on page 194 because it's all wailing & hysteria, despite some claims to the contrary.

Sand

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120073466#Comment_120073466

Dorsey proves my point. He himself says he gave up any hope of maintaining impartiality or free speech on Twitter when activist shareholders took over and demanded censorship. The same owners drove him out of Twitter. They owned Twitter, they could do what they liked. Now Musk owns Twitter. Nothing has changed.

And as for a profitable business - don't make me laugh. Twitter is not about profits - its been what, one year where they claimed a profit? What it represents is an effective monopoly on public debate. If Musk has any imagination he would be willing to run it at a loss to exploit that power, same as all the previous owners have done.

Sand

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120073546#Comment_120073546

As above, the value of Twitter is not monetary. It is influence. Though if he really wanted to make money, he could sell shitposting licences for a monthly fee. That could be a moneyspinner.

But sauce for the goose indeed. Twitter users who have been used to the arbitrary application of vague rules in their favour now have to accept they need to follow the same rules about abuse, doxxing or harassment as anyone else. They don't get a free pass from Twitter anymore. But nothing has changed - that was always at the whim of the owners of the site.

Outside of that point, I will accept at least one thing has changed - since Musk came in and swept out the so called "safety teams" he has been praised by campaigners against CSAM for nuking the hashtags used by paedophiles to share images of children on Twitter. Before Musk, according to this campaigner, Twitter was disinterested in addressing the problem. Now, I can't independently verify this but if correct that is a positive change.

Probably just a coincidence that the old head of Trust and Safety, who had an extremely dubious PhD thesis, departed from Twitter a few days prior to this crackdown on CSAM.

timetogo1

Good job Twitter isn't about the money 😁

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-12-30/elon-musk-becomes-first-person-ever-to-lose-200-billion

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120073972#Comment_120073972

As above, the value of Twitter is not monetary. It is influence. Though if he really wanted to make money, he could sell shitposting licences for a monthly fee. That could be a moneyspinner.

The debt Twitter inc. is now saddled with disagrees. Social Media has a longstanding question-mark hanging over its ability to actually make money to pay wages, bonuses or dividends - that's now going to be much harder for Twitter in particular. Musk has seen his value drop by $200 billion of late. The blue-tick subscription wasn't fast-tracked out of anything except a need to make bank. Or indeed, the slew of sackings that had cost the service its infrastructural stability at points - and apparent stock of toilet paper.

I've seen this applause about CSAM before and TBH, I'd like to see independent investigations before I apportion blame on Twitter or praise for Musk - especially given Twitter's prior ability to deal with even "trivial" toxicity has been suspect in the past. Banning hashtags won't stop the problem, and has presumably only resulted in perpetrators simply using other ones. No more than how piracy sites just bounce to another domain once the last one gets shuttered.

The question to ask is: with content moderators and teams now gone, or reduced past the point of efficacy: what capacity has Twitter to actually police this material now? Or more common taboos and repugnances like racism or personal abuse? Google has whole departments, an entire system dedicated to filtering and policing filth so that it doesn't escape into mainstream. Banning hashtags reads like a performative response for cheap applause. What's needed is strategy, not sackings.

Sand

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120074533#Comment_120074533

The question marks about social media's ability to turn a profit didn't suddenly emerge last November. It's been known for years. I'm not in a position to evaluate Twitter's finances, but cutting costs and finding new revenue streams seems necessary. Musk is doing both, but as I noted if he had some imagination he ought to be perfectly willing to run it at a loss so he can influence public discourse instead.

Regards the CSAM - as I said, I cant independently verify it. But the claim was made an independent campaigner against this material who as far as I know has no reason to lie. Nuking the hastags (and the accounts - they were nuked too) might not be a permanent solution but that isn't an argument for doing nothing. It should still be done as soon as they are identified. What is damning of the "Trust and Safety" era is that even with all their resources and staff they did not take even that small action.

So it isn't just about resources - it is about will. T&S Twitter didn't have that will or direction [no wonder given who led them] whereas Musk's Twitter made it a #1 priority.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120074689#Comment_120074689

Right, so we've gone from 'campaigners' to 'an independent campaigner against this material' in a couple of hours. I'm not sure that praise from one 'campaigner' whatever that actually means is a definitive confirmation that Musk is doing the right thing here. Have you looked at the views of 'campaigners' about the considerable number of racist, alt-right accounts that Musk has let back on his pet platform in recent weeks, or do those campaigners not count, for some reason?

Sand

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120074803#Comment_120074803

Yes, I've heard its a veritable 4th Reich on Twitter these days.

I think everyone should be more concerned about CSAM being curtailed than if Trump gets his account back.

VinLieger

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120074689#Comment_120074689

He cant run it at a loss, he borrowed extensively to buy it and loaded a company that already was in the red with 13 billion of extra debt. So far hes cut costs but hes also destroyed twitters existing revenue model while they are on the hook for an estimated 1 billion per annum of loan repayments. As regards new revenue models the maths for his twitter blue just dont work. He stated he wanted subscriptions to drive 80%+ of revenue going forward which would need at least 50 million annual subscribers but its probably closer to 60 if he cant get costs down further. Id be shocked if he ever managed to get even 1 million subscribers.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120075073#Comment_120075073

Most people don’t fall for the “shout paedo and hope it distracts people” these days, given the extent to which it has been overplayed . You’ll need to come up with some new tricks.

Sand

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120075281#Comment_120075281

As I said, I'm not in a position to argue the finances of Twitter. And I don't think either of us - or anyone apart from Musk, his fellow investors and his creditors - really care about them. I mean, do you? The real issue centers around Twitter's role in shaping public discourse.

Sand

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120075474#Comment_120075474

Yeah, the old Trust and Safety team seemed to have the same priorities. Musk does think combatting CSAM takes priority, so I see that as a positive even if I'm otherwise underwhelmed.