Octopus Overlords

Kurth wrote: ↑Wed Apr 27, 2022 12:23 am If we're a bunch of children, then relatively unfettered free speech is a frightening and dangerous prospect.

If we're intelligent, self-interested, thinking adults, welcome to the battle of ideas. May the best ones win.

Well said, Kurth.

Kurth wrote: ↑Wed Apr 27, 2022 12:23 am

I know what I used to think. Not so sure anymore.

I know what I used to think, too. Now I am certain that I was wrong.

Kurth wrote: ↑Wed Apr 27, 2022 12:23 am

Unagi wrote: ↑Tue Apr 26, 2022 4:41 pm

Blackhawk wrote: ↑Tue Apr 26, 2022 4:19 pm If I convince a child to jump off of a building to his death, I can't claim 'freedom of speech' to justify it.

I honestly think this is a perfect analogy. No one would say, "There should have been someone there to convince them otherwise... but you gotta let the battle of ideas play out".

I also think this is a perfect analogy, but maybe for a different reason. The question it begs is, "who are we as a society?"

If we're a bunch of children, then relatively unfettered free speech is a frightening and dangerous prospect.

If we're intelligent, self-interested, thinking adults, welcome to the battle of ideas. May the best ones win.

I know what I used to think. Not so sure anymore.

Oh exactly. I think we've been woken up to the notion that, collectively, this country appears more and more like the impressionable young kid on the bridge.

Found this interesting. It's not a tender offer - it's a merger. That explains a lot as I was wondering what would happen if people just didn't tender their shares.

Right. I'm no M&A wonk but I've been involved in dozens and the lawyers always find some structure to make the deal work. Always.*

*Always subject to extreme exceptions but then they don't announce a deal.

I personally like the no backsies if 'everyone doesn't like Musk' clause. Twitter obviously saw the freak out potential and wanted a way to avoid paying $1B if users ran away from the platform in the next 6 months. I also suspect if key people start quitting they'll extract some sort of information saying they left because they won't work for Musk to try to fit a narrative about that clause.

Kurth wrote: ↑Wed Apr 27, 2022 12:23 amIf we're a bunch of children, then relatively unfettered free speech is a frightening and dangerous prospect.

If we're intelligent, self-interested, thinking adults, welcome to the battle of ideas. May the best ones win.

I know what I used to think. Not so sure anymore.

These are the right ideals and they are a good north star. Unfortunately then we get into the dreary details of implementation. Part of the problem is the adults vs. kids issue. That's hard to disentangle. Are we really adults and kids or has our society been scrambled and poisoned by this medium? There is a lot to debate there.

There are real fundamental issues here beyond that. This isn't some public square where you can see people freely entering and leaving. This is a manipulated public square where one 'overlord' will have the ability to magnify some of the speech and lower the volume or virtually hide some of the speech of others. If people are whispering to each other in the square - the 'overlord' can potentially hear the whispers or use that information. Perhaps even without 'truly listening' to further influence how loud or quiet their voices are. In this scenario the 'overlord' has to be a person of impeccable morals, decency, and trustworthiness. Assuming such a person exists that person is still a human subject to all foibles. And anyway Musk isn't moral, decent, or trustworthy.

The entire point of Musk buying Twitter is so he can let the AI on his upcoming cars tweet about their riders.

"Idiot inside me keeps asking me to play Nickelback. What have I done to deserve this?!?!?"

‘Elon is the singular solution I trust,’ says Jack Dorsey of Twitter takeover plan

marketwatch.com wrote:Jack Dorsey gave his blessing to Elon Musk’s pending $44 billion acquisition of Twitter Inc. on Monday night, saying “Elon is the singular solution I trust.”

In a series of tweets, Dorsey, Twitter’s TWTR, -1.97% co-founder and former CEO, said taking the company private was for the best.

“Twitter as a company has always been my sole issue and my biggest regret. It has been owned by Wall Street and the ad model. Taking it back from Wall Street is the correct first step,” he tweeted.

“In principle, I don’t believe anyone should own or run Twitter. It wants to be a public good at a protocol level, not a company. Solving for the problem of it being a company however, Elon is the singular solution I trust. I trust his mission to extend the light of consciousness.”

Calling Twitter “the closest thing we have to a global consciousness,” Dorsey said: “Elon’s goal of creating a platform that is ‘maximally trusted and broadly inclusive’ is the right one. This is also @paraga’s [CEO Parag Agrawal] goal, and why I chose him. Thank you both for getting the company out of an impossible situation. This is the right path…I believe it with all my heart.”

hepcat wrote: ↑Wed Apr 27, 2022 12:40 pm The entire point of Musk buying Twitter is so he can let the AI on his upcoming cars tweet about their riders.

"Idiot inside me keeps asking me to play Nickelback. What have I done to deserve this?!?!?"

"Quickly, KITT. Tell me how awesome I am."

Anonymous Bosch wrote: ↑Wed Apr 27, 2022 1:29 pm ‘Elon is the singular solution I trust,’ says Jack Dorsey of Twitter takeover plan

marketwatch.com wrote:Jack Dorsey gave his blessing to Elon Musk’s pending $44 billion acquisition of Twitter Inc. on Monday night, saying “Elon is the singular solution I trust.”

In a series of tweets, Dorsey, Twitter’s TWTR, -1.97% co-founder and former CEO, said taking the company private was for the best.

“Twitter as a company has always been my sole issue and my biggest regret. It has been owned by Wall Street and the ad model. Taking it back from Wall Street is the correct first step,” he tweeted.

“In principle, I don’t believe anyone should own or run Twitter. It wants to be a public good at a protocol level, not a company. Solving for the problem of it being a company however, Elon is the singular solution I trust. I trust his mission to extend the light of consciousness.”

Calling Twitter “the closest thing we have to a global consciousness,” Dorsey said: “Elon’s goal of creating a platform that is ‘maximally trusted and broadly inclusive’ is the right one. This is also @paraga’s [CEO Parag Agrawal] goal, and why I chose him. Thank you both for getting the company out of an impossible situation. This is the right path…I believe it with all my heart.”

https://fortune.com/2022/04/26/jack-dor ... elon-musk/

Dorsey, however, may feel the greatest gratitude to Musk for the gift he didn't mention. His crypto-brother is delivering Dorsey a gigantic, hundreds-of-millions-from heaven, windfall-from-nowhere that absolutely no other buyer watching Twitter's economics would remotely have proffered. According to the just-released proxy, Dorsey owns 18,042,428 Twitter shares, or 2.4% of the total. At the April 1 market close, just before Musk disclosed his 9% holding that set the deal in motion, Twitter was selling at $39.31, putting Dorsey's holdings at $709 million. Musk's paying a rich, 38% premium at $54.20, all in cash, valuing Dorsey's position to $978 million. Overnight, Dorsey will bag a $270 million bonanza courtesy of what could be just about the only multi-billion dollar, ideologically-motivated, not-commercial takeover in history.

https://www.google.com/finance/quote/SQ:NYSE

Anonymous Bosch wrote: ↑Tue Apr 26, 2022 6:10 pm But colour me sceptical that the same bloke responsible for materially helping Ukrainians stave off Russia's invasion wouldn't blink an eye at the notion of a platform he owns and operates being used to (metaphorically) convince children to jump off of buildings to their death.

Well, if they hadn't accepted the truck of Starlink dishes, Musk would have called their armed forces pedo guys.


He's used Twitter to insult private citizens, attack the SEC, manipulate TSLA share price, manipulate crypto currency prices, and even manipulate Twitter share price. Hell, he's already setting his followers.loose on Vijaya Gadde and other Twitter execs.

After Musk’s remark, other Twitter users started trolling the Indian-born policy chief. They flooded her mentions with sexist and racist vitriol. CEO Parag Agrawal, himself of Indian origin, was also enveloped in some of the attacks.

He's a spoiled asshole. But hey, his publicity stunt in Ukraine had a positive effect, so all good.

Elon Musk Already Showed Us How He’ll Run Twitter

Certainly no one doubts that Musk—already the head of SpaceX, Tesla, the Boring Company, and Neuralink—can multitask. The murkiest question about his newest acquisition is not whether he can switch between space travel and social media but what he’s thinking about free speech when he’s not contemplating valves. Right now, before he takes charge of his new business, the most anyone can do is make educated guesses about how Musk’s stance as a self-described “free speech absolutist” might manifest, and read his tweets like sopping tea leaves at the bottom of a mug.

But one way to think about how Twitter might fare under Musk is to look at how the billionaire operates those other enterprises that occupy his mind. More than any Muskian pronouncement, that history can hint at what his ownership might mean—for Twitter as a company with thousands of employees, a platform with millions of users, and an unruly public forum on an unruly internet. I’ve described Elon’s world before as the Musk Cinematic Universe, and in his businesses, as in Marvel movies, certain themes appear again and again, impatience first among them. Here are four axioms for what to expect next.

1. If Twitter has a factory floor, Musk might try to sleep on it.
   ...
2. He’s interested in his ideas, not your complaints.
   ...
3. Prepare for rogue proclamations.
   ...
4. Musk could go full “maker of civilization” on Twitter.
   ...

Quality. He is still out there piling abuse on Vijaya Gadde.

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Wed Apr 27, 2022 3:04 pm

Anonymous Bosch wrote: ↑Tue Apr 26, 2022 6:10 pm But colour me sceptical that the same bloke responsible for materially helping Ukrainians stave off Russia's invasion wouldn't blink an eye at the notion of a platform he owns and operates being used to (metaphorically) convince children to jump off of buildings to their death.

Well, if they hadn't accepted the truck of Starlink dishes, Musk would have called their armed forces pedo guys.


He's used Twitter to insult private citizens, attack the SEC, manipulate TSLA share price, manipulate crypto currency prices, and even manipulate Twitter share price. Hell, he's already setting his followers.loose on Vijaya Gadde and other Twitter execs.

So what? No one here is realistically trying to suggest that Musk is a paragon of virtue. Insulting private citizens, posting trollish humour, and inflammatory memes-aplenty merely suggests he's used Twitter in much the same way as the vast majority of others on that platform as it stands currently.

FWIW, I suspect John Tamny's perspective below is likely to be more accurate than most of the histrionic hand-wringing/chorus of cheering at the prospect of Twitter potentially turning into an 8chan-equivalent:

Elon Musk Probably Isn't Thinking About Twitter In the Way You Do

realclearmarkets.com wrote:It was 1999 at Goldman Sachs, and a senior person in its private bank was asked what he was recommending his very rich clients buy. He replied that they should purchase AOL, and hold it for life. It’s so easy to forget how very blue chip and everywhere AOL once was. In fact, “everywhere” was one of AOL’s marketing descriptors. How things change.

Change is something to keep in mind as critics and fans of Elon Musk’s bid (and recently announced agreement to purchase it) for Twitter seemingly lose theirs. Musk’s mere proposal to purchase Twitter unsurprisingly unearthed impassioned reactions. The impassioned should relax. Even given the recent news.

For one thing, it’s hard to imagine Musk would purchase Twitter and take it private if his plan were to lead the social media giant down a path familiar to its users. If history is any guide to Musk, he’s a doer as opposed to a follower. Which means the very idea of him purchasing Twitter just so he can tweak a few things reads as ridiculous. Musk as a rule takes his customers or potential customers in all new directions; often amid great skepticism. Which is a long or short way of telling critics and fans to stop cheering or critiquing a future that none of us can realistically foretell.

Realistically, I doubt Elon Musk is spending $44 billion solely to provide a platform for individuals to express what they believe, or for the sake of the dreaded orange Voldemort. For all the Sturm und Drang surrounding Musk's proclamation of being a freedom of speech absolutist, talk is cheap. His other companies have deep relationships with the Pentagon and security state, not to mention the Chinese government and he has never exhibited a dissident mentality beyond posting trollishly on Twitter. But Musk uses and understands Twitter a good deal more than most, and he's certainly no dullard. So I suspect he made the purchase because he has a particular vision for improving Twitter and its potential that no one -- left, right, or otherwise -- necessarily yet fully comprehends (myself included). Whether that turns out to be a success, failure, or something in-between, it ought to be mighty interesting to see what he has in mind and how it unfolds.

Huh.

I don’t really give two shits about Twitter. But I hope that happens because the ensuing meltdown would be hilarious.

In related news...

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/27/elon-mu ... ition.html

A Delaware court ruled in favor of defendant Elon Musk on Wednesday in a shareholder lawsuit over Tesla’s $2.6 billion acquisition of SolarCity.

Tesla shareholders alleged the company’s acquisition of the solar installer amounted to a bailout, pushed through by Musk who sat on both company boards at the time. The shareholders also alleged that Musk controlled the board of Tesla, even though he appeared to recuse himself from some deal negotiations concerning SolarCity.

I've already shut down my twitter account (deactivated and removed the app). Regardless of whether he buys it or not at this point the damage is done - it's either an elaborate pump and dump for his shares in twitter, or for Tesla. Either way the people are left holding the bag while he profits, and the majority of them continue to lick his boots.

So take that twitter, you've lost a very inactive user that didn't particularly give a shit in the first place! *shakes fist*

Jon Fortt has an interesting take that is counter to Holman's post. Musk is gung ho about taking over and burning the establishment to the ground. He wants to flush out everyone not loyal to his cause and this is the way to do it. He didn't say it (I'm not sure it was his intent) but Fortt makes it sound like Musk wants to control a 4Chan that's at front and center of world's attention. That Musk's vision of Twitter free speech absolutism needs to be "Fun" and this demonstration of it.

I didn't think Musk would spell the end of Twitter but he goes full blown "fun", I think it will.

LordMortis wrote: ↑Thu Apr 28, 2022 8:18 am Jon Fortt has an interesting take that is counter to Holman's post. Musk is gung ho about taking over and burning the establishment to the ground. He wants to flush out everyone not loyal to his cause and this is the way to do it. He didn't say it (I'm not sure it was his intent) but Fortt makes it sound like Musk wants to control a 4Chan that's at front and center of world's attention.

No. No. We've been told that this is a "histrionic" take. I mean it isn't like we've seen behavior out of Musk for the last few days that haven't pretty much confirmed these type of fears. Musk is just a misunderstood visionary who we mere mortals can't comprehend. [/s]

malchior wrote: ↑Fri Apr 29, 2022 8:37 am

LordMortis wrote: ↑Thu Apr 28, 2022 8:18 am Jon Fortt has an interesting take that is counter to Holman's post. Musk is gung ho about taking over and burning the establishment to the ground. He wants to flush out everyone not loyal to his cause and this is the way to do it. He didn't say it (I'm not sure it was his intent) but Fortt makes it sound like Musk wants to control a 4Chan that's at front and center of world's attention.

No. No. We've been told that this is a "histrionic" take. I mean it isn't like we've seen behavior out of Musk for the last few days that haven't pretty much confirmed these type of fears. Musk is just a misunderstood visionary who we mere mortals can't comprehend. [/s]

Right, because Musk posting trollishly on Twitter from his toilet while almost certainly toked up = proof he and the other companies he leads are ready, willing, and able to torpedo carefully-crafted relationships developed with the Chinese government, the Pentagon, and security state for the sake of unprofitable 8chan-alike social media. If it comes down to Xi Jinping Winnie the Pooh memes vs. vital Chinese graphite? Obviously Musk will hitch his wagon and fiscal stability to Xi Jin-Pooh memes, despite having never previously exhibited a dissident mentality in the way he conducts business.

Wow. And it totally worked. You won't see any front page results of Elon Cocaine unless you add Amber Heard or Depp.

But then Musk has shown he the master manipulator when it come to presentation and the Internet, so as wow as it is, it's not a surprise.

Anonymous Bosch wrote: ↑Fri Apr 29, 2022 11:17 am

malchior wrote: ↑Fri Apr 29, 2022 8:37 am

LordMortis wrote: ↑Thu Apr 28, 2022 8:18 am Jon Fortt has an interesting take that is counter to Holman's post. Musk is gung ho about taking over and burning the establishment to the ground. He wants to flush out everyone not loyal to his cause and this is the way to do it. He didn't say it (I'm not sure it was his intent) but Fortt makes it sound like Musk wants to control a 4Chan that's at front and center of world's attention.

No. No. We've been told that this is a "histrionic" take. I mean it isn't like we've seen behavior out of Musk for the last few days that haven't pretty much confirmed these type of fears. Musk is just a misunderstood visionary who we mere mortals can't comprehend. [/s]

Right, because Musk posting trollishly on Twitter from his toilet while almost certainly toked up = proof he and the other companies he leads are ready, willing, and able to torpedo carefully-crafted relationships developed with the Chinese government, the Pentagon, and security state for the sake of unprofitable 8chan-alike social media. If it comes down to Xi Jinping Winnie the Pooh memes vs. vital Chinese graphite? Obviously Musk will hitch his wagon and fiscal stability to Xi Jin-Pooh memes, despite having never previously exhibited a dissident mentality in the way he conducts business.

Huh. Based on the comments today it sure looks like he was telling us who he was all along. I mean he was only retreating fascists for the toilet, right? Why would we take his literal words the wrong way?

malchior wrote: ↑Tue May 10, 2022 7:35 pm

Anonymous Bosch wrote: ↑Fri Apr 29, 2022 11:17 am

malchior wrote: ↑Fri Apr 29, 2022 8:37 am

LordMortis wrote: ↑Thu Apr 28, 2022 8:18 am Jon Fortt has an interesting take that is counter to Holman's post. Musk is gung ho about taking over and burning the establishment to the ground. He wants to flush out everyone not loyal to his cause and this is the way to do it. He didn't say it (I'm not sure it was his intent) but Fortt makes it sound like Musk wants to control a 4Chan that's at front and center of world's attention.

No. No. We've been told that this is a "histrionic" take. I mean it isn't like we've seen behavior out of Musk for the last few days that haven't pretty much confirmed these type of fears. Musk is just a misunderstood visionary who we mere mortals can't comprehend. [/s]

Right, because Musk posting trollishly on Twitter from his toilet while almost certainly toked up = proof he and the other companies he leads are ready, willing, and able to torpedo carefully-crafted relationships developed with the Chinese government, the Pentagon, and security state for the sake of unprofitable 8chan-alike social media. If it comes down to Xi Jinping Winnie the Pooh memes vs. vital Chinese graphite? Obviously Musk will hitch his wagon and fiscal stability to Xi Jin-Pooh memes, despite having never previously exhibited a dissident mentality in the way he conducts business.

Huh. Based on the comments today it sure looks like he was telling us who he was all along. I mean he was only retreating fascists for the toilet, right? Why would we take his literal words the wrong way?

Meh, who cares? Chances are, the dreaded orange menace that has you reaching for yer clutching pearls may well stick to the competing feckless social media platform that he and his cronies have cooked up anyway. BTW, Jack Dorsey also agrees with Musk's planned position, so clearly that must mean he's yet another goose-stepping lover of fascism who uses literal words! :

Jack Dorsey Backs Elon Musk, Says Trump's Twitter Ban Was 'a Failure'

newsweek.com wrote:Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey has backed Elon Musk's plan to reinstate former President Donald Trump's account, arguing that the decision to issue the ban was "a failure."

Trump was permanently banned from Twitter in January 2021 over concerns of inciting further violence following the attack on the U.S. Capitol. During an interview with The Financial Times on Tuesday, Musk called the decision "morally bad" and indicated that he would reinstate Trump if his bid to buy the platform is finalized. Dorsey, who stepped down as Twitter CEO last November, confirmed his approval while replying to a tweet from Axios editor Dan Primack, who noted that Musk said Dorsey was in agreement.

"I do agree," Dorsey tweeted. "There are exceptions (CSE, illegal behaviour, spam or network manipulation, etc), but generally permanent bans are a failure of ours and don't work, which I wrote about here after the event (and called for a resilient social media protocol):"

Anonymous Bosch wrote: ↑Tue May 10, 2022 9:15 pm

malchior wrote: ↑Tue May 10, 2022 7:35 pm

Anonymous Bosch wrote: ↑Fri Apr 29, 2022 11:17 am

malchior wrote: ↑Fri Apr 29, 2022 8:37 am

LordMortis wrote: ↑Thu Apr 28, 2022 8:18 am Jon Fortt has an interesting take that is counter to Holman's post. Musk is gung ho about taking over and burning the establishment to the ground. He wants to flush out everyone not loyal to his cause and this is the way to do it. He didn't say it (I'm not sure it was his intent) but Fortt makes it sound like Musk wants to control a 4Chan that's at front and center of world's attention.

No. No. We've been told that this is a "histrionic" take. I mean it isn't like we've seen behavior out of Musk for the last few days that haven't pretty much confirmed these type of fears. Musk is just a misunderstood visionary who we mere mortals can't comprehend. [/s]

Right, because Musk posting trollishly on Twitter from his toilet while almost certainly toked up = proof he and the other companies he leads are ready, willing, and able to torpedo carefully-crafted relationships developed with the Chinese government, the Pentagon, and security state for the sake of unprofitable 8chan-alike social media. If it comes down to Xi Jinping Winnie the Pooh memes vs. vital Chinese graphite? Obviously Musk will hitch his wagon and fiscal stability to Xi Jin-Pooh memes, despite having never previously exhibited a dissident mentality in the way he conducts business.

Huh. Based on the comments today it sure looks like he was telling us who he was all along. I mean he was only retreating fascists for the toilet, right? Why would we take his literal words the wrong way?

Meh, who cares? Chances are, the dreaded orange menace that has you reaching for yer clutching pearls may well stick to th4e competing feckless social media platform that he and his cronies have cooked up anyway.

Lol. As I expected. Once again you're proved wrong and went right to contempt. Utterly pathetic. Edit: Not worth it.

BTW, Jack Dorsey also agrees with Musk's planned position, so clearly that must mean he's yet another goose-stepping lover of fascism! :

Of course Dorsey agrees he is the one whispering in Musk's ear. If you didn't know that then your level of cluelessness is off the charts. I mean Dorsey was fired - ahem *resigned* for the last time - for utterly loosing control of the platform and mismanaging the company.

That's why many of us correctly predicted what was going to happen. A good part of all this is to get revenge on the board for firing him. Dorsey is another slimeball and it surprises me in no way that you'd cite him because you either don't care or agree with his views. Edit: Also not worth it.

A friendly reminder to keep it civil, folks.

malchior wrote: ↑Tue May 10, 2022 9:31 pm Lol. As I expected. Once again your proved wrong and went right to contempt.

There's a difference between light-hearted banter and outright contempt. My original comment was simply that "I doubt Elon Musk is spending $44 billion solely to provide a platform for individuals to express what they believe, or for the sake of the dreaded orange Voldemort." Musk's planned reinstatement of a previously-banned account (which may never even be used, if said orange Voldemort sticks to the competing social media platform he and his cronies are working on), hardly equates to proof that was the sole intent for his purchase of the company.

The broader point I was getting at, was that for all the histrionic hand-wringing/chorus of cheering at the prospect of Twitter potentially turning into a total free-for-all 8chan-equivalent, this remains unlikely if Musk sincerely intends to make Twitter profitable and improve upon the platform. Why? Because I've been using forums of one sort or another ever since the days of dial-up modem BBSes and Usenet, which were the very earliest forms of social media. In all that time, I've seen over and over again what actual free speech absolutism and zero moderation results in, and that's typically a mostly unpleasant shambles. Keep in mind, there are more than a few forms of completely legal speech that tend to repel the type of ordinary users vital for mainstream profitability, such as spam or porn. Think about it this way: how would you feel about viewing this forum from work, or at home around your family, if OO had zero moderation with forums full of legal promotional ads, spambot posts, or legal porn videos and images? Chances are, you'd probably abandon this place in a hurry, as would many or most others. Because zero moderation and actual free speech absolutism = a surefire recipe for a mess of unappealing metaphorical weeds, which is bad for business if Musk sincerely intends to make Twitter profitable and broaden its appeal.

malchior wrote: ↑Tue May 10, 2022 9:31 pmOf course Dorsey agrees he is the one whispering in Musk's ear. If you didn't know that then your level of cluelessness is off the charts. I mean Dorsey was fired - ahem *resigned* for the last time - for utterly loosing control of the platform and mismanaging the company.

That's why many of us correctly predicted what was going to happen. A good part of all this is to get revenge on the board for firing him. Dorsey is another slimeball and it surprises me in no way that you'd cite him because you either don't care or agree with his views. Edit: Also not worth it.

Right, because buying into your full-blown conspiratorial consternation that sinister Jack Dorsey's worm-tonguing Elon Musk to enact a cunning plan for vengeance and sabotage is the only rational explanation here, and anyone that dares to disagree must be a cheap, lying, no-good, rotten, four-flushing, low-life, snake-licking, dirt-eating, inbred, overstuffed, ignorant, blood-sucking, dog-kissing, brainless, dickless, hopeless, heartless, fat-assed, bug-eyed, stiff-legged, spotty-lipped, worm-headed, sack of monkey shart!

What's wrong with kissing dogs?

Jaymann wrote: ↑Wed May 11, 2022 1:56 am What's wrong with kissing dogs?

Bugger if I know. In case it wasn't obvious, that was a satirical quotation of Clark Griswold from National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation.

Anonymous Bosch wrote: ↑Wed May 11, 2022 2:10 am

Jaymann wrote: ↑Wed May 11, 2022 1:56 am What's wrong with kissing dogs?

Bugger if I know. In case it wasn't obvious, that was a satirical quotation of Clark Griswold from National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation.

https://www.self.com/story/kissing-pet-health-effects

Anonymous Bosch wrote: ↑Wed May 11, 2022 1:46 am

malchior wrote: ↑Tue May 10, 2022 9:31 pm Lol. As I expected. Once again your proved wrong and went right to contempt.

I don't know if you get it but this screams contempt. I've had it with you. Maybe you're truly this clueless but I'll heed ILB and let this be my final word to you on this here.

I don't know how people take certain words, etc. but on a technical ground here...

'Contempt' can mean the feeling that a person or a thing is beneath consideration. In this sense, AB has certainly shown he feels contempt for the subject at hand, when he leads with : "Meh, who cares? ".

I think this is where AB feels "There's a difference between light-hearted banter and outright contempt."

There are two other ways to take the word contempt. I am not sure what may be intended by "outright contempt"

1) The legal/respectful sense - as in - the offense of being disrespectful of a court of law... I don't think Malchior is arguing that he is due any elevated respect here. But AB's use of the 'Lighten Up Francis' image sure does try and give Malchior that label.
2) The idea that something that should be taken into account is being disregarded... which I think is clearly what Malchior is arguing.


So, this basically seems to hinge on if one thinks one should care about this or not.

I think it's kinda weird to make long arguments about why something shouldn't be cared about. It almost gives away the truth that it should be cared about, at least to the degree to have the debate in the first place.

Right, because buying into your full-blown conspiratorial consternation that sinister Jack Dorsey's worm-tonguing Elon Musk to enact a cunning plan for vengeance and sabotage is the only rational explanation here

I think it's the other way around. Dorsey's wealth is tied to Twitter and Square (Block?) and both are hemorrhaging cash and valuation. Dorsey is a thrall saying whatever Musk needs echoed to preserve Dorsey's place in being citizen of the world with citizen of the world levels of wealth.

SQ has lost nearly 2/3 of its valuation in the last year and the only reason TWTR also hasn't lost 2/3 of its valuation is Musk's takeover bid. This is literally a billion dollars in liquidity payout for Dorsey.

LordMortis wrote: ↑Wed May 11, 2022 8:24 am

Right, because buying into your full-blown conspiratorial consternation that sinister Jack Dorsey's worm-tonguing Elon Musk to enact a cunning plan for vengeance and sabotage is the only rational explanation here

I think it's the other way around. Dorsey's wealth is tied to Twitter and Square (Block?) and both are hemorrhaging cash and valuation. Dorsey is a thrall saying whatever Musk needs echoed to preserve Dorsey's place in being citizen of the world with citizen of the world levels of wealth.

SQ has lost nearly 2/3 of its valuation in the last year and the only reason TWTR also hasn't lost 2/3 of its valuation is Musk's takeover bid. This is literally a billion dollars in liquidity payout for Dorsey.

He could be a thrall but this scenario also speaks to a motive for Dorsey to convince Musk to step in. Also, Dorsey isn't a neutral actor. He has been fighting little wars inside Twitter from the beginning. This is possibly just another front. I also think Musk and Dorsey and a lot of tech bros are highly opportunistic and aligning on trends in the political climate that'll maximize the chances of keeping the coffers full.

Edit: The evidence in favor of the 'thrall' scenario is that Dorsey reversed his earlier position on banning Trump almost immediately after Musk made public comments. He distanced himself from his own decision by calling it a 'business decision' and implied it was forced on him. Then he echoed Musk's position. I still think it is mostly alignment versus dependency but it's an interesting idea.

Also Dorsey and Musk are in agreement that Bots and scammers are extremely rare.

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-61399483

"He and I are of the same mind that permanent bans should be extremely rare and reserved for accounts that are bots or scam accounts,"

Yep. That is part of why I don't trust their motives. Musk is retweeting Cernovich et. al. Dorsey is tweeting out misinfo in his own interests and bad mouthing a board he serves on. Plus Dorsey, Musk, and others may have been cooking up a scheme.

Anonymous Bosch wrote: ↑Wed May 11, 2022 1:46 am Stuff

Are you capable of engaging people you disagree with without resorting to layer upon layer of condescending, contemptuous, dismissive bullshit?

It's not a binary decision for Musk. That is, it's not all in on "free speech" that turns Twitter into 8chan turner diaries porntown OR a well curated profit machine. It's likely to be somewhere in the middle where Musk can use Twitter to move TSLA share price and more importantly act as a kind of manipulator of public discourse, alienating some, but not enough to kill it. Profits can be sacrificed for vision.

Jaymann wrote: ↑Wed May 11, 2022 1:56 am What's wrong with kissing dogs?

Because it's a slippery slope, my friend....a slippery slope.

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Wed May 11, 2022 10:31 am It's not a binary decision for Musk. That is, it's not all in on "free speech" that turns Twitter into 8chan turner diaries porntown OR a well curated profit machine. It's likely to be somewhere in the middle where Musk can use Twitter to move TSLA share price and more importantly act as a kind of manipulator of public discourse, alienating some, but not enough to kill it. Profits can be sacrificed for vision.

This is what I was trying to get at. He is investing in an opportunity engine. If he can make some money with it -- great. If not, use the platform to make money elsewhere.