Man are you going to be pissed when you hear about this greenman guy.
Man are you going to be pissed when you hear about this greenman guy.There is actually something to be said for that idea. Why should social media have to employ an army of fact checkers? How do they verify that the fact checkers don't have an agenda? Who watches the watchers?
Why not turn it around and put the burden of proof on the people posting? One lie posted and you're banned from all social media forever?
The answer is simple - the users don't like being in cesspools of Nazism and misinformation. Twitter didn't employ moderation and fact checking because they cared about them as independent virtues, they did it because it made the product more appealing. Basic capitalism.There is actually something to be said for that idea. Why should social media have to employ an army of fact checkers? How do they verify that the fact checkers don't have an agenda? Who watches the watchers?
Why not turn it around and put the burden of proof on the people posting? One lie posted and you're banned from all social media forever?
I think with Musk he values the propaganda more given how he keeps falling further and further down that rabbit hole.The answer is simple - the users don't like being in cesspools of Nazism and misinformation. Twitter didn't employ moderation and fact checking because they cared about them as independent virtues, they did it because it made the product more appealing. Basic capitalism.
While Twitter was never very economically successful it was doing far better before Musk bought it than after. Simply put, they understood the market better than Musk does. (that or Musk values right wing propaganda more than a successful business)
Who determines when a lie is posted? Perhaps people could be appointed to check the actual facts behind the post and dig into the sources. Could maybe call them "Truth Investigators" or something like that.There is actually something to be said for that idea. Why should social media have to employ an army of fact checkers? How do they verify that the fact checkers don't have an agenda? Who watches the watchers?
Why not turn it around and put the burden of proof on the people posting? One lie posted and you're banned from all social media forever?
Twitter was a money pit before Musk bought it. I have no idea how it's doing now, but cutting 80% of the staff and pulling the plug on 2 or 3 server farms had to reduce the overhead by a fair bit.The answer is simple - the users don't like being in cesspools of Nazism and misinformation. Twitter didn't employ moderation and fact checking because they cared about them as independent virtues, they did it because it made the product more appealing. Basic capitalism.
While Twitter was never very economically successful it was doing far better before Musk bought it than after. Simply put, they understood the market better than Musk does. (that or Musk values right wing propaganda more than a successful business)
Twitter was inconsistently profitable in the years before Musk bought it, but early on it was a universal loser, yes. (that's not uncommon for startups though)Twitter was a money pit before Musk bought it. I have no idea how it's doing now, but cutting 80% of the staff and pulling the plug on 2 or 3 server farms had to reduce the overhead by a fair bit.
Clearly Musk was a nitwit for buying it, but it's his toy now and if he want's it to be a cesspool or an echo chamber that's his choice, anyone that doesn't like that is welcome to not visit the site.
Well it's doing poorly enough that Musk is suing the advertisers who used to spend money on twitter. Pre purchase it had just under $5B a year in ad revenue, that appears to have tanked far below that level since Musk took over and saddled the company with significant debt it has to service.Twitter was a money pit before Musk bought it. I have no idea how it's doing now, but cutting 80% of the staff and pulling the plug on 2 or 3 server farms had to reduce the overhead by a fair bit.
Clearly Musk was a nitwit for buying it, but it's his toy now and if he want's it to be a cesspool or an echo chamber that's his choice, anyone that doesn't like that is welcome to not visit the site.
I think with Musk he values the propaganda more given how he keeps falling further and further down that rabbit hole.
There is actually something to be said for that idea. Why should social media have to employ an army of fact checkers? How do they verify that the fact checkers don't have an agenda? Who watches the watchers?
Why not turn it around and put the burden of proof on the people posting? One lie posted and you're banned from all social media forever?
That depends on the price tag on project2025 though.Twitter was inconsistently profitable in the years before Musk bought it, but early on it was a universal loser, yes. (that's not uncommon for startups though)
Yes though, as I've said many times when conservatives complain about social media banning them or whatever it's their property and their choice. I'm not saying Musk doesn't have the right to make Twitter into a cesspool of Nazis, just that it's a dumb business decision because the users and advertisers don't like it. There's a reason he keeps talking about Twitter going bankrupt - he ruined the business!
Basic capitalism. He either is so dumb he doesn't get it or he doesn't care if the business succeeds and thinks right wing and Nazi propaganda is more important.
It is unnecessary to call Greenman a shithead. This is your one sanction free warning.Pretty soon you guys are going to not only force the shithead @Greenman to vote for Trump, but write-in Musk for his VP. Poor victim.
Sorry and NMIt is unnecessary to call Greenman a shithead. This is your one sanction free warning.
Perknose
Forum Director
Elmo's brother basically outs him as a psychopath here
"I have to spell it out for him but I can expect him to feel it..."