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

[John Klos]

> This source says Twitter still isn't generating enough revenue to cover its
> expenses.  Until it does, I would agree with this writer, who suggests that
> it risks bankruptcy:
>
> https://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/twitter-bankruptcy-possi
> ble-if-cash-burn-doesn-t-stop-musk-tells-employees-122111100134_1.html

Have you no understanding of cause and effect?

"While the buyout has removed Twitter from the scrutiny of public markets, 
Musk loaded the company with almost $13 billion of debt thats now in the 
hands of seven Wall Street banks that have been unable to offload it to 
investors."

Musk buys Twitter. Musk loads Twitter with $13 billion of debt. Musk says 
Twitter could go bankrupt. Yet you want to pretend that bankrupcy pre-Musk 
is somehow real.

Do you really want to die on the hill of assuming other people are stupid 
enough to believe this that you'll just keep spouting it? Or are you 
REALLY that much of a fanboi that you're happy to believe whatever Elon 
says, then you're happy to refuse to research anything else?


>> ...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?
>
> We have no objective way to determine if a person fits these descriptions.
> Can you give us a way or an equation with actual variables or some way
> software can determine if a person fits these categories?  Subjective
> judgment on these things are what led to Twitter in a power dive towards
> bankruptcy, which even now is not clear can be avoided.  Twitter was drawing
> on cash reserves just to make regular payroll and pay the rent, with no
> viable plan for recovery.  That isn't how businesses work.

First, you didn't answer the question.

Second, you're basically saying you're too dumb to understand that there's 
a spectrum between subjectivity and objectivity, or you think we're so 
dumb that we believe that it's all either subjective or objective, and 
nothing in between.

I'm losing respect for you because you're choosing to play dumb.

Furthermore, where's the tiniest inkling of data showing that Twitter was 
on its way to bankrupcy - and I can't believe I have to write this - THAT 
DOESN'T COME FROM ELON?


> There is no objective definition of "hateful behavior."  But it is clear
> enough to me that eventually content moderation will need objective
> measures, which can be coded into software.

You're making things up. There is no chance of anything objective coming 
out of a manchild who gets upset about something new every day. He's 
constantly making my point: blocking searches for telegram, marking links 
to Mastodon sites as "malicious", et cetera.

We have words that don't have specific, precise definitions. Pretending 
that the lack of definitions means that we can't possibly know what 
someone means is... well, again, playing dumb.


>> ...There are MANY examples of Elon platforming right wingers, anti-Semites,
> white supremacists...
>
> That is a perfect example of the problem John.  It makes it sound like you
> wish to equate right wingers with anti-Semites, white supremacists.  OK so
> what if... the right wing equates left wingers with all that?  Is that OK
> too?  Or is it OK for the one wing and not the other?

If we take you at your word, Spike, you're too naive to 1) have enough 
basic reading comprehension to know that when you make an inclusive list, 
that list doesn't suggest that all of the elements are equated, 2) that 
you'd rather play dumb and ask rhetorical questions than actually have a 
real discussion.

See? You're treating us like children. You're arguing completely in bad 
faith. I'm losing respect because you CONTINUE to do this. We're not 
children here, and we don't believe you when you try to play dumb and 
act like you don't know what we're talking about.


>> ...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...
>
> I see, and can you show us an equation or objective measure to determine if
> a person is an asshole?  If so, we can write software to determine if it is
> so, and we don't need to pay people to make that determination.  Where I am
> going with this is that we cannot trust subjective measures to do content
> moderation.  That is inherently unfair.

You're an adult, Spike. The fact that you CHOOSE to act like this and 
treat us like this really disappoints me.

Elon is an asshole. I could choose different words, just like I could 
qualify this each and every time. However, if one were to read everything 
I've written in this thread about Elon, one would know what I mean, yet 
you think you have a "gotcha" by playing dumb.

You keep bringing up moderation. You make these really silly, 
naive attempts to equate behaviors with moderation, yet you haven't ONCE 
addressed the whole point I'm making here:

Moderation on Twitter will never be fair, open, objective, consistent, 
whatever (pick one or more - I am not saying they're the same thing, or 
can you tell that here, but not earlier?) so long as a person who is an 
asshole and who gets butthurt about the tiniest things is running the show 
and is constantly screwing with things.

But instead you suggest that moderation will somehow be better on Twitter 
because of Elon, yet you haven't given the slightest, tiniest shred of 
evidence to support that, and you don't address the multitude of examples 
of behavior that show the precise opposite.


> I would consider calling someone an asshole an ad hominem attack, which is
> poor form indeed.  Perhaps you would like to rephrase it John?

No. Look up "ad hominem". I'm asserting that BECAUSE he's an asshole, 
Twitter has become and will continue to become worse. The "attack" is 100% 
relevant to the assertion, not tangential or unrelated.

After you look up "ad hominem", perhaps you would like to rephrase your 
statement?


>> ...So you advocate for the openness of Twitter? Then explain this:
> https://twitter.com/oneunderscore__/status/1603551884748460034
>
> Ben Collins explains that Rupar was tweeting links to Twitter's competitor.
> I don't think Twitter wants to advertise for its own competitors.  Do you?

So you want to assert that Twitter will become more open, yet you think 
that banning journalists because they mention a site that shares public 
information about private jets' whereabouts is perfectly fine.

But, better than that, because you didn't know this was about the jet 
tracking info, you think that it's fine to BAN journalists because they 
might've mentioned Twitter's competitors?

Do you even hear yourself, Spike? How can anyone take you seriously when 
you say you consider a site which bans journalists using rules nobody even 
knows to be a beacon of openness?

The cognitive dissonance is astounding.

I asked you nicely to stop treating us as children, yet you haven't. These 
discussions are, in my opinion, an excellent example of where things go 
wrong these days. You don't care about the negative impact of your idol 
because you are full-on fanboi, and you're willing to alienate people by 
playing dumb and pretending to not understand how discourse works. Somehow 
defending your idol with childish responses is more important than your 
respect for your peers. It's not a nice thing to see, Spike.

John