Why or why not, are you Excited about Twitter being freed?


Emmanuel Goldstein
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Godless
43 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Beyond that, if he caves to advertisers then he's simply letting advertisers dictate the country's freedom of speech. That's not freedom. That dictatorship by corporation (which is the entire battle being fought in this matter). It's either free speech or it isn't.

I never thought that you and I would be in agreement that capitalism is a freedom-killer, but here we are. 😉

43 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Moreover, I don't believe there are no advertisers willing to allow free speech. Bring people onto the site, and advertisers will follow. Twitter usage is way up, apparently.

Sure, there was massive surge on Thursday because people thought the entire platform was about to implode.

43 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I agree. But not nearly as stringent is still too stringent if it doesn't allow, per Elon's own proclamations, free speech. We absolutely have to get to a place where these social media platforms are free. We cannot be suppressing ideas in the forum of ideas. Yes, the limited reach idea is EXTREMELY concerning. Shadow-banning is as good as banning. And who gets to decide what is and is not hateful?

I believe I mentioned Gab earlier in this thread as an example of what Twitter shouldn't become. To my knowledge, Gab is the closest a platform has come to the free speech utopia you want, and it's truly an ugly place filled with conspicuous antisemites and white supremacists, literal swastika-brandishing Nazis, and 1/6 apologists, all under the banner of Christian values. I don't want any prominent social media platform to turn into that, and I would hope that any true follower of Christ wouldn't either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Elon is in a race against time.  He has to implement a new system before he runs out of money. 

  • If he can do it in time, the platform will be preserved and become a bastion of free speech. 
  • If not, he will have just wasted $55B.  And other platforms will vie for who will be the new Twitter.

The fastest way to the goal is:

  • Be sure to have access to all the computer systems and security protocols.  Then fire nearly everyone.
  • Hire some wiz who can program in the language used by the previous employees -- but can also program in a completely different language.
  • Minimize the entire company
    • Have small business level of employees.
    • Outsource most of their hardware needs.
  • Change the business end of it into a sales and marketing group.

If he doesn't do something that is either substantially similar to this or will substantially accomplish the same ends as this plan, he will fail.  And we can say goodbye to it.

 

I thought he only paid 44 Billion, not 55 Billion.

My daughter says that one of the languages needed is Scala, and while there are those who know it, it is harder to find those who are really familiar with it.  Firing those with the experience of the framework (or laying them off or them just quitting) means that the likelihood of them losing vital information to keep the framework going is extremely high.

Of course, if they want a "twitter 2.0" which uses a completely different framework, then that something that could be done with an entirely different group of employees after firing the old ones.  Of course, then it is banking on the name recognition and name brand rather than the product, and that's a very risky endeavor to go as it is literally something else under the same name.

Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

I'm not sure anyone knows what Musk is planning...Musk included at this point.

PS: One other thing to add, burning it to the ground and replacing it with another program is even riskier according to her because it takes time to program something.  It isn't just like snapping your fingers or putting together a model.  It can take months (though more likely years) to get a successful program working for something as big as twitter is now.  If done extremely quickly you'd still be looking at weeks down the road in which time they could lose most of the customer base if the original stops working. 

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Godless said:

I would hope that any true follower of Christ wouldn't either

No way. I can’t imagine 99% of free speech advocates being cool with the speech you are describing, especially LDS. We (free speechers) accept it as a disgusting by product of freedom. It’s allowed because the alternative (restricting speech) is worse. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Godless
3 hours ago, Godless said:

Personally, I have a hard time believing that moderation will be nearly as stringent as it was pre-Elon, especially since it's becoming increasing likely that Trump will be allowed back in the platform.

Trump's account has been reinstated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Godless said:

I believe I mentioned Gab earlier in this thread as an example of what Twitter shouldn't become. To my knowledge, Gab is the closest a platform has come to the free speech utopia you want, and it's truly an ugly place filled with conspicuous antisemites and white supremacists, literal swastika-brandishing Nazis, and 1/6 apologists, all under the banner of Christian values. I don't want any prominent social media platform to turn into that, and I would hope that any true follower of Christ wouldn't either.

I think there's bit of a disconnect here. I don't want people to be Nazis. But if they actually are Nazis, I defend their right to be so, and to say so, and to express their views (that are legal). Of course I don't want Nazis everywhere. But restricting freedom of speech is not the means of curbing that.

Don't misunderstand me. I see what you're getting at. It's a problem. I'm not sure of the solution. But what I do believe is that restricting free speech by declaring views you dislike as "hate" speech is too easily abused.

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Godless said:

I don't want any prominent social media platform to turn into that, and I would hope that any true follower of Christ wouldn't either.

It’s a day for surprises.  You never thought you’d agree with @The Folk Prophet about being suspicious of corporations; and I never thought you’d agree with me about the desirability of a form of Christian nationalism gaining political hegemony in the USA. ;)

But on your first point:  I think progressives and conservatives/libertarians actually agree that it’s right to be suspicious of corporations.  Adam Smith even wrote:

People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices….

The difference is, progressives tend to want to empower government to push back against this trend via regulation; whereas free-marketers generally believe such efforts are destined to be largely futile because corporate interests will simply hijack the regulatory apparatus in order to feather their own nests while squelching competition.  Thus, Smith continued, 

But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies, much less to render them necessary.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/1/2022 at 8:37 PM, LDSGator said:

Chapek is hated by many AP’s (not me) for taking away Minnie Vans, the disastrous roll out of Genie+, the park reservation system, and several other choices. The man is hated by everyone, it seems. 
 

We (AP’s) are a bunch of entitled jerks though. He could give us 50$ whenever we entered the park and well, haters gonna hate. 

Well, Disney haters/and fans will have to find someone else to whine about. Reports breaking late Sunday state that Chapek was fired. 
 

Still developing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, LDSGator said:

Well, Disney haters/and fans will have to find someone else to whine about. Reports breaking late Sunday state that Chapek was fired. 
 

Still developing. 

Information is confused, but it seems that Bob Iger has been invited to come back as his replacement. 

Ultimately though, it's all a mess it seems. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

The irony here is that people complained about Iger too when he was in charge, but that's understandable. Sadly, a small but loud minority of people just genuinely enjoy complaining and will never be happy. 

That is true. But...the discontent has, legitimately, grown beyond the haters-gonna-hate, "toxic fans" crowd, and Disney has been losing money like mad. Hence, the firing -- which makes sense. If you are CEO of a company and under your reign the company starts bleeding money and you don't turn that around, the likelihood is that you're going to get fired. No surprises there.

The problem with Iger is not the people who complained about Iger back in the heyday of Disney success under him. There were still haters that hated, sure. But the massive failures Disney's had in recent years are, according to all rumors I've heard, Iger's doing. Chapek's failure was being a coward. He caved to the woke employees that Iger, purposefully, hired. Iger turned Disney woke, not Chapek. Chapek's failure, and people complaining about him, was in not being strong willed enough to get that garbage out of Disney.

So, yeah...makes sense Chapek was fired. But then the board brings in the guy who actually caused the problems? It speaks to how clueless the board actually is as to what the problems are.

That being said...it is possible (though I don't hold out much hope) that Iger, despite his leftist leanings, is a stronger-willed business-man first who understands that he has to put his personal ideology aside and do what's right for the company's profit. He could also come from a "no more woke" stance from a business perspective instead of an ideology one. "I love the woke, but we have to make the right business choices." Whereas Chapek, being known as a more conservative (registered Republican) couldn't make the same claim. So you never know. Iger might do that. But I think it's HIGHLY doubtful.

This is one case where it's not just complaining by extremists. It's legitimately hurting Disney. Parents DO NOT WANT gay kisses in their children's shows. It's the simplest equation in the world. Get that garbage out and Disney will recover pretty quickly, despite all the lefty-twitterfied complaints. Keep going with it and parents will continue to veer away.

Righting the ship is a hard, if not impossible, task though. I will not subscribe to Disney+ because it has Lightyear and other materials like that. Even if Disney stopped making material with that stuff in it, I won't subscribe unless they removed all that stuff. And they won't ever do that. I know a lot of people who feel the same. A LOT of people. Disney is just dead to an awful lot of folks.

But if they started making good, non-woke movies again, I'll go see them. If I can trust that I won't have my children subjected to trans-princesses at their parks, I'll visit their parks. There's a path forward for Disney. But they, apparently, don't have a clue what that path is.

Iger's likely path will be to double down on the woke, purchase more IPs and companies hoping to profit off people's nostalgia. It won't work. The biggest way to turn people off nostalgia bait now-a-days is to have Disney purchase the IP. That's a sure sign the property will be ruined.

R.I.P. Star Wars

R.I.P. Indiana Jones

R.I.P. Marvel

R.I.P. Pixar

A moment of silence.....

 

....and let's all go watch Top Gun: Maverick again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

This is one case where it's not just complaining by extremists. It's legitimately hurting Disney. Parents DO NOT WANT gay kisses in their children's shows. It's the simplest equation in the world. Get that garbage out and Disney will recover pretty quickly, despite all the lefty-twitterfied complaints. Keep going with it and parents will continue to veer away.

We don’t disagree that some parents dislike the “woke” Disney turn. No argument there. We also agree that haters gonna hate.  
 

Where we differ is their size and influence. As someone who goes to Disney 40+ times a year I remain convinced that there are many, many families who swallow a bitter pill and still enjoy Disney, regardless of political/social disagreements they have with the company. The families who have “boycotted” Disney are largely the same who have “boycotted” Nike, the NFL, etc. They mean well, are overwhelmingly decent people, but have no idea how small their influence really is. They are not the mouse that roared, pun intended. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Where we differ is their size and influence. As someone who goes to Disney 40+ times a year I remain convinced that there are many, many families who swallow a bitter pill and still enjoy Disney, regardless of political/social disagreements they have with the company. The families who have “boycotted” Disney are largely the same who have “boycotted” Nike, the NFL, etc. They mean well, are overwhelmingly decent people, but have no idea how small their influence really is. They are not the mouse that roared, pun intended. 

I'm curious how you explain the drop in revenue, stock, and the firing of Chapek then.

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I'm curious how you explain the drop in revenue, stock, and the firing of Chapek then.

Economic downturns that have little or no influence with the small minority of people who are boycotting.
 

Inflation is up all around, I expect more CEO firings to happen. Just because these things happened at the same time doesn’t mean they are connected. 
 

There’s an interesting thing going on too. On one hand, people fear the “woke corporations”, but if they were truly woke, wouldn’t they just ignore the worried parents and keep Chapek in? 

Edited by LDSGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’d ask what the “Disney boycotters” (for lack of a better word) want. Disney can’t go back in time to when the LGBT community was ignored or dismissed by mainstream culture. 
 

I can’t help but think the people mad at Disney are more mad at a changing culture and are taking it out on Disney. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Economic downturns that have little or no influence with the small minority of people who are boycotting.
 

Inflation is up all around, I expect more CEO firings to happen. Just because these things happened at the same time doesn’t mean they are connected. 
 

There’s an interesting thing going on too. On one hand, people fear the “woke corporations”, but if they were truly woke, wouldn’t they just ignore the worried parents and keep Chapek in? 

This is exactly what Disney's board, apparently, believes, which is why they brought Iger back in.

I think there's a clear reality to what you're suggesting. There's obviously more than just "woke" going on in Disney's problems. My contention is that getting rid of the woke is key, however.

You say people swallow the bitter pill to take in Disney...but that doesn't explain disastrous performances such as Lightyear. It's hard to say anything as fact, because we don't know for sure. The argument could be made that not using Tim Allen was the issue. Or just the nature of the story they told. They missed the boat on many issues, obviously. But... I would have checked it out despite those things. A lot of people would. But put a gay kiss in and...sorry. Not gonna pay for that.

Sure, you have things like Doctor Strange and the Two-mom's Multiverse that perform pretty well despite that silly addition. Well, it's not a kid's show. So there's a difference in that regard. But, yeah, to an extent people will ignore certain things if they like the rest of what's happening there. And maybe if Lightyear was perfect and awesome in all other regards but still had the gay kiss it would have performed well. It's impossible to know.

I think you've long had a blind eye to the realities of alienating one's core audience. You consistently disregard the potential that "boycotts"  have any effect. And I mostly agree with you. But there's a difference between a straight up boycott and half of your core audience being organically turned off by what you're producing. I don't think what's happened to Disney is a boycott. If ones customers love chocolate and buys a product because it's got chocolate and then the company stops selling chocolate the customers stop buying. It's not a boycott. I'm just going to get my chocolate elsewhere because Disney gave me the bird.

I think you severely underestimate what Disney actually is, as a product, to SO many people. Sure there are other customers. They are popular with a variety of sorts. But the primary product has ALWAYS been family friendly. And now they stopped selling family friendly. There's going to be be consequences. Yes, they'll still sell. Obviously. They're a juggernaut. But when they expect to make 20 billion and they only make 10 billion they freak out. They alienated half their core customer base. They can keep on doing that. They'll still make the 10 billion. But if they hadn't done so they could have made 20 billion.

But maybe not. It's all speculative. The only thing I know for sure.... I'm don't with Disney. They can kiss my grits. I have no interest in their woke garbage. I'll go elsewhere for my entertainment. I'm not boycotting. I just don't care. I don't like what they're serving any longer. They changed their menu so I'll go out to eat somewhere else. And a lot of people, I believe, feel the same. Maybe I overestimate how many. Maybe you underestimate. The only thing I can say for sure is what I'll pay for and what I won't. And what others I know have told me.

Time will tell.

And just so we're clear as to the "argument" I'm making. I suspect you may actually be completely right. It saddens me. But I worry most people don't actually care a whit if there's gay kisses in their kid's shows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Why can't it be both?

I guess it can be, but in the end it’s more damaging to yourself to fight a battle you have little chance of winning, which you fear has already happened. Wouldn’t having all that anger eventually turn inward? 

Edited by LDSGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

I guess it can be, but in the end it’s more damaging to yourself to fight a battle you have little chance of winning, which you fear has already happened. Wouldn’t having all that anger eventually turn inward? 

Hmm. I think there's a disconnect here of some sort.

Anger isn't de-facto wrong or evil. If it were, God would never be angry. I'd post a bunch of scripture speaking of God's anger, but I suspect you are well aware.

I consider my anger at certain things to be valiant and righteous. Inward or outward, I am angry because I am on God's side.

So, no, I don' think it's damaging to be angry at evil, even when the evil's bound to win in the short term.

I get your point though. It could be harmful if one were to let it turn to bitterness in a negative way. I suppose. If I felt that were the case I'd have some concern.

But it feels like you're suggesting that because the hordes of savage barbarians are streaming over the crest to kill my outnumbered friends and family that it would be better if I just resigned myself to it and surrendered. Inward, outward, healthy, destructive...that all gets put aside. My family is in danger. I'll fight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Hmm. I think there's a disconnect here of some sort.

Anger isn't de-facto wrong or evil. If it were, God would never be angry. I'd post a bunch of scripture speaking of God's anger, but I suspect you are well aware.

I consider my anger at certain things to be valiant and righteous. Inward or outward, I am angry because I am on God's side.

So, no, I don' think it's damaging to be angry at evil, even when the evil's bound to win in the short term.

I get your point though. It could be harmful if one were to let it turn to bitterness in a negative way. I suppose. If I felt that were the case I'd have some concern.

But it feels like you're suggesting that because the hordes of savage barbarians are streaming over the crest to kill my outnumbered friends and family that it would be better if I just resigned myself to it and surrendered. Inward, outward, healthy, destructive...that all gets put aside. My family is in danger. I'll fight.

Ahh. Okay, I do understand now, and yes, there was a disconnect here. I get it now though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have little to day about Disney other than 

1). I recently saw some graphs of Disneyland/Disney World ride wait times and relative down times.  The figures for the last two years—and the underlying trend—were not pretty.

2). Disney Cruise Line recently unveiled its fifth ship, and made much of the primarily-female design team.  The result is a departure from much of the tradition and style of the earlier ships, and reviews have been . . . ambiguous.

I did want to respond to this, though:

10 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

 

....and let's all go watch Top Gun: Maverick again.

I agree with the overall tenor, but remarks like this make me wonder how far we’ve already gone.  What would Moses, or Nephi, or Brigham Young or Spencer Kimball think about a story of boozy potty-mouthed solders cockily practicing to kill others, where the hero is a serial fornicator who is caught in the act (yet again!) by the teenaged daughter of the object of his seduction?  Is a ten-second cameo of the two mothers of an animated hero really THAT much worse than what we’ve already acclimated ourselves to?  (I’m not saying this by way of excusing the rise of LGBTQ tolerance; I’m saying that a) we (myself included) probably haven’t locked our homes down nearly tightly enough; and b) we are already pretty well acclimated to what previously would have been considered a horrifying degree of sociological moral rot.)

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share