OT: Twitter in Absolute Shambles

[KAB Cats]

GFY, liar

Sounds good

 

[Bill Cosby]

have you talked or interacted with Musk before? I have.

Very curious about this.

 

[d2atTech]

Very curious about this.

+ @IdaCat l could share some of the interatctions, probably better over a beer that I'm happy to treat you and IdaCat to. One thing I will say is, a lot of these interactions with rich/influential people have given me examples for how I should and how I shouldn't carry myself.

I will leave out the rest of the details, but when I first met him, I didn't know how accomplished he was, and he treated me with respect.

 

[Cold Stout Beer]

Thank the good Lord for Musk and X. 100% saved America. I am sure millions are feeling pretty stupid for listening to and believing MSM.

 

[Kaizer Sosay]

As of 2024, the rate of banned accounts has tripled since Elon Musk took the reigns:

Account suspensions on X have tripled since Elon Musk took over

Social media site releases its first transparency report in over a year

fortune.com

Well, this may have something to do with it…

“Last year (2023), X suspended 12.4 million accounts for violating our CSE policies. This is up from the 2.3 million accounts removed by Twitter in 2022.”

That’s a quintupling…more than 5-1/2 times as many banned accounts…year over year. So are you suggesting that X doing a much better job than Twitter of identifying, exposing & banning accounts that promote child sexual exploitation is a bad thing?

Please elaborate.

 

[catlanta33]

As of 2024, the rate of banned accounts has tripled since Elon Musk took the reigns:

Account suspensions on X have tripled since Elon Musk took over

Social media site releases its first transparency report in over a year

fortune.com

You want the pedos to have a platform on X?

 

[bigblueinsanity]

If this force was so coercive, how did Elon Musk opt out of this force? How is Mark Zuckerberg allowed to say that at all?

It's indicated the US Government forced censorship of social media. That's incorrect. The companies willfully obliged & wanted that involvement...because they are tech titans and government can be their friend.

Good god man it's all out there in plain view in the Twitter files. The government was absolutely using social media as an agent to suppress speech and propel their own message. The former is a violation of the first amendment and should see people jailed. The latter is just as morally bad.

Its one of the most egregious violations of the Constitution in a very long time, maybe ever

 

[bigblueinsanity]

Seems to me he just simply stopped censoring as much and allowed multiple viewpoints, which unfortunately seems almost the exception and not the norm anymore.

I believe there was proof of government vetting and censorship of information, especially pertaining to public health, which imo is very problematic. So I’m happy that seems to have been ended.

Exactly. What we see now is organic trends, etc. We got here because elon removed the insane weighted algorithm that promoted items pushed by the government or some political puppet masters.

 

[JumperJack]

This thread is hopefully an ironic precursor to what is getting ready to happen to the federal government.

 

[Ron Mehico]

I mean, I studied journalism in college. At one point I wanted to go into print journalism but opted into a tech route in my life (bullet dodged). Humans having bias is pretty much Journalism 101. I really agree with the founders as it pertains to free speech. The key is diversity of sources. Twitter is a source that encapsulates many, but there are thousands upon thousands of sources and humans can opt out of any of them.

Immediately going back to the country's founding, we had politicians of high notoriety releasing newsletters under pseudonyms. Not that much has changed if you think about it.

My undergraduate degree was genetic engineering with an emphasis on molecular and cellular biology. If I needed to research something or find a study I would go on pubmed and have multiple articles and studies at my disposal that I knew were non biased. Certain publications (like Nature for example) had a higher score or rating meaning it was more difficult to get published in so you knew studies in those publications were typically of higher quality. This made it generally easy to find good information on certain subject with minimal effort. The fact that you, a journalism major, feel that basic news to the public should consist of one biased source vs another biased source that the general public should then be able to filter on their own after lots of time and effort saddens me. It’s also unrealistic to expect that, and just leads to an uninformed populace. This allows corruption and other negatives in society. I just fundamentally disagree with you. I think there should be a source like pubmed for basic news where you can go and have easy and quick access to non twisted and biased news.