[ExI] what would any of us have done differently?

John Klos john at ziaspace.com
Fri Dec 16 04:23:33 UTC 2022

> We are seeing a dramatic transition play out at Twitter.  It has now 
> become my primary news source, surpassing Reason and Slashdot.  Now I 
> would put it in first place for finding information.

This is just ridiculous. If you get your news from social media, you get 
what you deserve, but your opinions about journalism will likely be 
treated as suspect.

> Then we would either have no Twitter or a version of it with no 
> moderation at all, which would likely devolve into the chaotic hellscape 
> were told it would be now but isn't.

Based on what? Based on the last decade of the history of Twitter, or 
based on the ramblings of a manchild who makes stuff up when he wants to? 
There is no history whatsoever that points to this. Please provide 
examples of this history, if you assert it exists.

> > From Twitter.  That was easy.  If Twitter goes out of business, we 
> > know the information I got from Twitter was wrong.  If it stays in 
> > business, then Twitter was right and Elon saved Twitter.

Seriously? That's not how anything works. This is just childish and 
stupid. Please don't treat us like idiots.

> Ja, of course it has everything to do with them running out of money.
> Companies pay for their expenses.  Twitter was so deep in the red, it

I really don't understand you, Spike. The actual history in the real 
world, not in Elon's imaginary world, is that Twitter was paying its 
employees and paying its rent, yet you came here and told us they weren't 
even paying their rent as an example of why Elon had to save it? I am 
completely puzzled about why you would make such blatantly wrong 
assertions. Do you not check any of the sources of the information you 
share here?

> John, without profit, there is no progress because there is no company. 
> Profit drives all progress.

That's not the point made at all. You're jumping around wildly. Try again: 
"when profit becomes more important" doesn't mean that we have a binary 
decision between progress or profit and can't have both. Elon is using 
profit as an excuse to do all sorts of things, and they're shitty, and 
it's a good thing he's not more involved in day-to-day operations at 
SpaceX, else we'd be seeing him wandering around and firing people left 
and right, and refusing to pay contractors.

Elon decided to stop paying rent. Period. If you want to suggest 
otherwise, provide a reference.

Speaking of not paying rent: who else is extremely well known for stiffing 

> I care not what kind of person he is.  I care about openness.  I also 
> wanted to see Twitter saved, because none of the alternatives appear to 
> be suitable.  Rumbl?  Truth Social?  Jack was about to drive Twitter 
> into the ground.  Losing 4 million bucks a day, well how long can that 
> be sustained? With their cash reserves, not very long.

"Openness"? How open is a platform where a manchild decides on a whim 
what's acceptable and what isn't? How is that somehow better than trying 
to have a set of guidelines that everyone knows and are applied 
evenhandedly, and not selectively?

Twitter wasn't going out of business. Again, your assertions are just 
plainly, flatly wrong. If you disagree, please provide even a modicum of 
data that doesn't come from Elon.

Also, there are plenty of alternatives. The fediverse is really taking 
off, thanks to Elon.

> John you questioned my assertion that Twitter couldn't pay its rent. 
> Well, it couldn't.  It couldn't even pay its own employees without 
> dipping into its cash reserves.  If they are drawing those down at that 
> rate, they can't afford what they are trying to do.

Data, please. Again, a wholly wrong assertion with no actual data. Show me 
ANY source that substantiates the suggestion that Twitter either couldn't 
or wasn't paying its rent and/or its employees pre-Musk.

> > ... wants to platform white supremacists, anti-Semitics, people with a 
> > history of hateful behavior and more. He does so by claiming it's in 
> > the interest of "free speech"...
> I didn't see anything in there which suggested anything of the kind.

Sigh. We have an implicit agreement when we write that the context would 
either be clear, or we'd clarify. "in there" refers to what? To my 
message? To Twitter?

There are MANY examples of Elon platforming right wingers, anti-Semites, 
white supremacists. Would you like some references, or do you simply not 
believe things because you haven't seen it mentioned on Twitter?

> > ...An important point was brought up: a Twitter account that tracked 
> > his plane was terminated. He said, quite literally, that he wouldn't 
> > do that...
> What I heard is that he said he wouldn't terminate accounts secretly. 
> He was open about that, and I would do the same thing if some creep was 
> tracking my movements.  That is a scaled-up version of stalking.  You 
> and I would do the same thing.

Ad hominem attacks are par for the course with Elon, what with him making 
stuff up about people being pedophiles and about, for instance, Paul 
Pelosi's attacker being a secret gay lover.

So this kid who took PUBLIC information and tweeted PUBLIC information is 
a creep now?

Speaking of this, Elon has a very weird, disturbing fixation about 

Anyhow, the point was that Elon lied. He lied, and the blatant lie was 
right in that thread. Now he's claiming that his kid was stalked / 
harassed because of the plane tracking account? It's entirely possible 
that the harassment thing happened. It's also entirely possible that the 
stalker / harasser got information about the arrival of Elon's plane from 
the plane Twitter account. But does one necessarily lead to the other? 
How'd the harasser know which of the many exits from the private part of 
the airport the car would use? Could the harasser have gotten the 
information directly from the FAA's web site? Absolutely. It's an excuse, 
not a real reason to cancel the account.

But I'm glad it happened, because Elon is on record (not that it really 
matters much, but perhaps it'll be relevant in court) saying that 
real-time tracking of personal information is banned. This would be a 
WONDERFUL thing because Twitter has long had a problem of people doxxing 
others. We'll see if this does go in to practice other than selectively.

> > ...The fact that Elon is an asshole and therefore we expect him to 
> > behave like one has nothing to do with Jack Dorsey...
> I care not what kind of people either of these guys are.
> I advocate openness on the part of Twitter.  Jack did not.  Elon does.

I didn't ask if you cared. I simply pointed out the fact that he is an 
asshole, and as an asshole, he can't be trusted to not do asshole things. 
If you don't care, fine, but unless you have reasons for us to consider 
him to not be an asshole, it's somewhat hard for you to suggest that he 
won't partake in asshole behavior.

So you advocate for the openness of Twitter? Then explain this:


You see, I can: he's an asshole and a manchild and will do whatever he 
wants, and he can't be trusted to be an adult and either do the right 
thing or to even be true to his word.

But go on and tell us how banning dozens of journalists is a path to 

If I sound angry, it's because you're treating us like children. Please 
consider not doing that.


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list