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


Emmanuel Goldstein
 Share

Recommended Posts

In other winds-of-social-change news, I'm seeing more and more folks take calm reasoned stances against trans women athletes competing and winning against women and girls.  And they're getting banned/cancelled/deplatformed/death threats in lower rates than last year.  So that's nice.

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

In other winds-of-social-change news, I'm seeing more and more folks take calm reasoned stances against trans women athletes competing and winning against women and girls.  And they're getting banned/cancelled/deplatformed/death threats in lower rates than last year.  So that's nice.

The democrats foolishly misread the public on this one. This and Coivd lockdowns might seal the deal for the GOP. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/1/2022 at 9:04 PM, Carborendum said:
On 10/31/2022 at 4:23 PM, Godless said:

Cynical as always, Carb.

Meh.  We'll see.

Well, we just heard something that so far doesn't mean much.  We have no definitions or any real background.

Apparently Twitter employees had "moderation tools" that were shut off... somehow.  I wonder why people aren't asking about that.  Musk agreed to turn them back on.  I have no idea what this means.  But people online are getting emotional about it.

We don't know exactly what those tools were or what power it gave the moderators or how much it has helped or abused users in the past.  So far everyone seems upset by this.  But we have virtually zero explanation on what it actually means.

I guess that's the 24 hr news cycle at work.  We're all getting worked up about something that we have no details on what the issue really is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/1/2022 at 5:52 PM, LDSGator said:

Flops? Disney opened up a Star Wars world down here that’s been hugely popular with wait times over 80 minutes, even several years after it opened. They are, easily, the most sought after rides down here for Genie+.  Baby Yoda toys sold out there in minutes. You have to be on a waiting list to make a lightsaber. Oga’s Cantina (a really cool experience, btw) has a waiting list as well though to be fair, it’s cooled down substantially. The other wait times have not. 
 

Their Star Wars hotel is a bust but it’s not because it’s “woke”. It’s because it’s incredibly expensive. 

 

Very off-topic...

But, went to Disney World with some of my Kids and Grand Kids recently.

The Rise of the Resistance Ride had 115 minute wait one day, and a 4 hour wait the next (that's right, 4 hours...part of that was because it broke down for half of the day though).

Smuggler's Run I think had a 70 to 80 minute wait time.

I did not go to the Lightsaber shop, but there was a waiting line there just like for a ride.  I'm not sure why there was such a long line.

That Star Wars Land was quite popular.  I need an amusement park with more shows and other items I think.  The grand kids loved it though, even with the wait.

I was annoyed that you have to schedule your meals with the restaurants these days via an app on your phone. 

I did not know their Star Wars Hotel was a Bust.  I was told it was sold out.

Disney World is terribly expensive all around.  To take the kids and Grand Kids there cost me almost 12K in total.  That was an expensive trip. 

When my kids were young it was a LOT cheaper. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/1/2022 at 8:19 PM, LDSGator said:

And, there’s another reason why the Star Wars movies are disliked by my generation:  You get to a certain age and you just stop liking new things. Then, you get to an age where you stop liking things at all. It’s all true of course, and seeing my generation fall into that cliche is so depressing. It’s why so many good new bands and authors out there fail 😞. Why read a Ronald Malfi book when you can read the same Stephen King novel for the 5000th time? Why listen to Visigoth (From Utah everyone!) when I can listen to Rust in Peace? And why enjoy Rise of Skywalker when I can watch ROTJ and read my EU books? 
 

If we were all decades younger I’m assuring you we’d think totally differently about the Disney Star Wars movies. 

 

I don't know if it's just the older generations.

As for me, I dislike most of the new Disney items, but my family over rides all of my desires.  I would kill our Disney+ subscription and opt for some other Amusement Park (perhaps one that is cheaper and has more Shows that appeal to older people like me, ones where I can sit down for an hour or two an watch instead of trying to stand in line).  My family LOVE Disney still, though.  I don't see eye to eye with them on this. 

With that stated, not many of my grandkids actually like the new Star Wars Trilogy of films.  They found them...not so great.

They DO seem to like the Mandalorian and other new Stars Wars stuff on Disney+ though.  I've heard that the new series Andor has some very questionable items though and have a few items that are trying to push a pro Gay narrative.  Their parents seem to let them all watch it though.

If it were not for my family, I'd cut Disney+ though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

If it were not for my family, I'd cut Disney+ though. 

I wavered on posting this for a bit, but decided what the heck. You seem to be level-headed, but I still hope it doesn't offend.

This is not meant to be an attack or accusation in any way, but if it is pushing the gay narrative (and we all know that disney does that that), then keeping it for your family doesn't seem like the proper or logical choice when viewed through a gospel lens. You made a post awhile back on a different thread talking about the waning faith of some of your grandchildren. Could it be that your soft stance on issues such as this throughout their lives, and your children's, have played a part in leading to this behavior? Your comments just make this all sound as if you have no control over the matter. Yes, they choose for themselves, but you have influence. And, when it comes to your own home you have all the power.

Your family overrides your desires? I get that we often need to pick our battles, and this may be one you have chosen not to fight for whatever reason, but in my home, I do not allow filth to be around my children, at all. Nothing that normalizes the acceptance of gay behavior is here; nor is anything that promotes the other vulgar, gruesome, and disgusting practices normalized in our day, period. If I ever see or hear anything in the coming years as my children grow, it will be gone, period...and they know this. My stance will not change, so it will not be a surprise to them when they are older and have children of their own come over.

I do not know you or your family, and how things have happened in your home over the years, so my remarks could very well be off base, or perhaps even preaching the choir. At the very least, you must make your stance on issues known to your family...and then back it up with actions that demonstrate your faith. Could that turn away some of your family...possibly, but they will remember you standing for what is right. You know them and what they are in need of better than me, but be the patriarch of your home, and truly set that example. Let it be a place that the spirit can dwell so that your grandchildren can feel it what they are there; they need it to be a refuge from the storm outside, not just another building full of holes that lets the storm blow right through as it pleases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, scottyg said:

I wavered on posting this for a bit, but decided what the heck. You seem to be level-headed, but I still hope it doesn't offend.

This is not meant to be an attack or accusation in any way, but if it is pushing the gay narrative (and we all know that disney does that that), then keeping it for your family doesn't seem like the proper or logical choice when viewed through a gospel lens. You made a post awhile back on a different thread talking about the waning faith of some of your grandchildren. Could it be that your soft stance on issues such as this throughout their lives, and your children's, have played a part in leading to this behavior? Your comments just make this all sound as if you have no control over the matter. Yes, they choose for themselves, but you have influence. And, when it comes to your own home you have all the power.

My wife and I had previously decided that we're not going to give any more money to Disney.  So, we refused to get a subscription.  But a friend has allowed us to share his Disney+ account.   I thought it might be an advantage since we can now see the remaining Marvel movies that we hadn't seen yet. And that was about the only thing I was missing.

But...

Once we started watching them, I realized that they weren't really worth watching.  The highlights eventually find their way to Youtube.  And those are really the only parts worth watching.  Everything else has gotten boring.  And the one movie I wanted to watch isn't on there.

So, I started browsing through other offerings on Disney+.  Maybe it is just personal taste, but NONE of it looked like anything I wanted to watch.

My son recently mentioned how the recent live action Cinderella (the Branagh version) was about the only live-action remake of classic animated films that people actually liked* (I posit that it is because it is not woke).  But that was the one movie that is not available.  Well, one problem with that mentality is that Beauty and the Beast was even more popular.  But it is available.

I still have access.  But I haven't used it in over a month.

 

*From a budget of less than $100million, it had a worldwide box office gross of over $500million. It enjoys a 6.5 rating on IMDB, and an 83%/78% rating on Rotten Tomatoes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Carborendum said:

My wife and I had previously decided that we're not going to give any more money to Disney.  So, we refused to get a subscription.  But a friend has allowed us to share his Disney+ account.   I thought it might be an advantage since we can now see the remaining Marvel movies that we hadn't seen yet. And that was about the only thing I was missing.

But...

Once we started watching them, I realized that they weren't really worth watching.  The highlights eventually find their way to Youtube.  And those are really the only parts worth watching.  Everything else has gotten boring.  And the one movie I wanted to watch isn't on there.

So, I started browsing through other offerings on Disney+.  Maybe it is just personal taste, but NONE of it looked like anything I wanted to watch.

My son recently mentioned how the recent live action Cinderella (the Branagh version) was about the only live-action remake of classic animated films that people actually liked* (I posit that it is because it is not woke).  But that was the one movie that is not available.  Well, one problem with that mentality is that Beauty and the Beast was even more popular.  But it is available.

I still have access.  But I haven't used it in over a month.

 

*From a budget of less than $100million, it had a worldwide box office gross of over $500million. It enjoys a 6.5 rating on IMDB, and an 83%/78% rating on Rotten Tomatoes.

 

It's not a battle I wish to fight in our house, I did make my desires known.  Then again, we also have several Xboxes and Playstation 4s and Switches for the grandkids to enjoy when they are over.

There ARE things I enjoy on Disney, their older animation and older movies that came out decades ago.  However, there is a LOT of trash on Disney+ these days, much of it the newer stuff they have made which I have no desire to support.  I do not understand how my children do not see this (they are adults and should realize this).  At least I can set limits on what they watch in my home (some of the movies I have requested they not watch unless they get approval from my wife, which she has not given for those specific movies thus far). 

The older animated movies are good.  I think if Walt was alive today he would be very upset with how Disney is going about things today (Disney was a pretty hardcore conservative).  I think Roy was a bastion against this type of political messaging (though they occasionally snuck a thing through, especially as he got older) that is with Disney today, and wanted to keep things relatively focused on families and family values. 

With both of them gone I think Corporate Disney has started moving in directions they would have been solidly against if they were still alive. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

think if Walt was alive today he would be very upset with how Disney is going about things today

He would, because like you mentioned he was pretty conservative personally. 
 

He would not, because he was also a futurist who had incredible faith in science and technology and had great faith in the future of humankind. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/31/2022 at 4:23 PM, Godless said:

Cynical as always, Carb. But I don't think you're being cynical enough in this instance. Do you really think a company like Target cares if one or two stores (which are probably insured) out of 1,900+ gets trashed by rioters? No one in corporate America is scared of the so-called "woke mob". They don't care about black lives, trans lives, MAGA lives, or blue lives. They care about money and power, and generally speaking, the conservative GOP is more in line with that specific interest. Companies will roll out the black squares and rainbow flags as needed, but look at where their political contributions are going. A lot of them are still lining conservative pockets because they're the ones that will keep the corporate tax burden at a minimum...

Well, Musk just announced that he was actually TRYING to appease the left by agreeing to "some" moderation and censorship that he would not have been willing to do on his own.  But even with some concessions, a whole bunch of sponsors have just said they are leaving the platform. 

Quote

TWITTER HAS HAD A MASSIVE DROP IN REVENUE, DUE TO ACTIVIST GROUPS PRESSURING ADVERTISERS, EVEN THOUGH NOTHING HAS CHANGED WITH CONTENT MODERATION AND WE DID EVERYTHING WE COULD TO APPEASE THE ACTIVISTS. EXTREMELY MESSED UP! THEY'RE TRYING TO DESTROY FREE SPEECH IN AMERICA.

— ELON MUSK (@ELON MUSK) 

This was enough to take Twitter from a profit-making company to one that loses $4Million/day.  Big corporations are all in bed with conservatives, are they?

Among those who left:  General Motors, General Mills, Pfizer, and Volkswagen

I don't know about Volkswagen.  But the others are companies that depend heavily on government subsidies (or other funding that amounts to the same).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Well, Musk just announced that he was actually TRYING to appease the left by agreeing to "some" moderation and censorship that he would not have been willing to do on his own.  But even with some concessions, a whole bunch of sponsors have just said they are leaving the platform. 

This was enough to take Twitter from a profit-making company to one that loses $4Million/day.  Big corporations are all in bed with conservatives, are they?

I could be wrong, but my understanding was that Twitter was already losing $4M/day before Musk took over and that Musk's massive layoffs were meant to slow/stop the bleeding.

25 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I don't know about Volkswagen.  But the others are companies that depend heavily on government subsidies (or other funding that amounts to the same).

Why does that matter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Well, Musk just announced that he was actually TRYING to appease the left by agreeing to "some" moderation and censorship that he would not have been willing to do on his own.  But even with some concessions, a whole bunch of sponsors have just said they are leaving the platform. 

This was enough to take Twitter from a profit-making company to one that loses $4Million/day.  Big corporations are all in bed with conservatives, are they?

Among those who left:  General Motors, General Mills, Pfizer, and Volkswagen

I don't know about Volkswagen.  But the others are companies that depend heavily on government subsidies (or other funding that amounts to the same).

 

I don't know why Musk is doing what he is doing, though word is that even prior to Musk taking over Twitter was losing 200 M a year.  It could be Musk is trying to see if there is any way to turn a profit OR going crazy because he's bought a sinking ship and can only see it sinking fast or slow.  He doesn't seem to be catering to anyone who he would need to cater to make it more successful currently.

The COO of a major advertising company responded on why he was hesitant (though he framed it as advertisers in general) to do advertisements on twitter currently.  They said they were uncertain of where twitter was going currently and thus it was an unreliable platform (currently, nothing he said was that it would not be, just that they were watching to see what happened) for their ads right now.  They normally like to have some moderation regarding their ads and appearance of ads.  It appeared to them that Musk had just gotten rid of 75% of the moderators.  That was very concerning to them.  They had drawn back to see it's effects and where this was going before committing more.

Musk blocked him (I think that's all, or it was he got kicked off twitter...).

That seems a rather foolish move to do to people you are trying to get to pay YOU to use your platform.

It's such a drastic move I am beginning to wonder if Musk is doing this on purpose.

I'm wondering at this point with some of Musks moves if he is doing this purposefully in order to get some tax write-offs.  Do it like Romney used to where they burn it to the ground and then sell of the remains.  It eventually leads to a profit but kills the company.  The only problem I see in that is Romney's tactics normally used companies with a lot more hard assetts so were able to leverage those to make money whereas twitter doesn't have that many hard assets.

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Godless said:

I could be wrong, but my understanding was that Twitter was already losing $4M/day before Musk took over and that Musk's massive layoffs were meant to slow/stop the bleeding.

Why does that matter?

That's what I understand as well.  Instead of catering to the people who advertise though, he seems to be targeting them on purpose to make them upset and angry at him.

I'm not sure what his angle is on this or why he is doing it, but from the outside it seems insane.

It's so insane I am starting to wonder if it is on purpose to destroy twitter for some financial reason that is still unclear. 

With his $8 a day idea he MIGHT be able to go the other way if he got 3 Million to pay, but he seems to be targeting and kicking off some of those key people who were commenting on the pay scheme already.

We'll know this week on how successful his idea is (perhaps).  IF we get information it could show whether twitter will die a financial calamity or have enough willing to pay a fee to survive...at least for the meantime. 

On the otherhand if we get no information but Musk goes into a further meltdown mode, it could indicate that it was unsuccessful and not enough subscribed when the program starts this week (I think it is supposed to start this week at least).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Godless said:
3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I don't know about Volkswagen.  But the others are companies that depend heavily on government subsidies (or other funding that amounts to the same).

Why does that matter?

Obviously, because it means those corporations are beholden to the government and dependent on remaining in its good graces.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

That's what I understand as well.  Instead of catering to the people who advertise though, he seems to be targeting them on purpose to make them upset and angry at him.

I'm not sure what his angle is on this or why he is doing it, but from the outside it seems insane.

He's trying to spin the advertising situation as a leftist assault on free speech. Last time I checked, however, we live in a free market economy where companies are free to give their money to whomever they please. I joined some other patriots in -ahem- explaining this concept to Mitch McConnell's former campaign manager after he suggested that what is happening amounts to extortion.

FB_IMG_1667691560560.thumb.jpg.7325840c1ea02a0586e36eb42bd9a282.jpg

17 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

It's so insane I am starting to wonder if it is on purpose to destroy twitter for some financial reason that is still unclear. 

Maybe. He tried to back out of the deal and legally couldn't. So I wouldn't be surprised if he's just trying to burn it to the ground now that he's spent $44B on a company that was hemorrhaging money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

I don't know why Musk is doing what he is doing, though word is that even prior to Musk taking over Twitter was losing 200 M a year.  It could be Musk is trying to see if there is any way to turn a profit OR going crazy because he's bought a sinking ship and can only see it sinking fast or slow.  He doesn't seem to be catering to anyone who he would need to cater to make it more successful currently.

Or it could be that Musk saw a real danger to free speech in America and decided to use his billions to act in a manner to preserve free speech. But Musk himself said that, so it's probably false. He's a billionaire, after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Vort said:

Or it could be that Musk saw a real danger to free speech in America and decided to use his billions to act in a manner to preserve free speech. But Musk himself said that, so it's probably false. He's a billionaire, after all.

 

The irony is that he is personally censoring a LOT of people on twitter if they say anything that isn't inline with whatever his current agenda is, or so it seems. 

No Free speech there!

The COO didn't even say anything offensive, simply stated why they weren't putting as many ads on Twitter at the moment and he gets kicked!  That's not free speech, that's a say what I like or I'll ban you type thing!

So the COO said something that wasn't all happy cheering for Musk and was a little critical of the situation in order to explain their concerns.  Rather than address the concerns at all...Musk just tries to give them a black eye.  I may only be a History Professor, but I don't think that's how business is supposed to work when you are trying to get people to give you money.  I don't even think that's how you promote free speech!

His actions are saying the exact opposite of what he may think he is saying otherwise. 

The advertisers are not avoiding it because they feel that there is little moderation and very little control in a downward spiraling situation.  It could be flushing money down the drain depending on Musk's mood rather than being stable and reliable at the moment.  Rather than listen to their concerns and address them...

Musk does another kick...

Where in the world of free speech, of even sensible common sense of listening to the guys you want money from, does this match up?

Edit:  From the viewpoint that Musk is trying to run a business to make money, it literally makes no sense to me what he is doing right now.  It seems he is going to try to run twitter to the ground rather than build it up.  A dead twitter doesn't help promote free speech either, but could be used as an icon of the dangers of trying what Musk is doing. 

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Vort said:

Obviously, because it means those corporations are beholden to the government and dependent on remaining in its good graces.

Now THAT sounds like extortion. BTW, Biden just gave out a bunch of money to farmers, so I'm sure we'll see the farming community rally around the Dems, right?

Even if what you're saying is true, of the prominent social media platforms, Twitter has proven to be the best for government entities to use for clear, widespread public messaging. If I was the government, I'd want that propaganda machine to keep running. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Godless said:

BTW, Biden just gave out a bunch of money to farmers, so I'm sure we'll see the farming community rally around the Dems, right?

How do you suppose Jimmy Carter beat Gerald Ford? Carter was pretty far left for 1980, but he had the farm vote—not because the conservative farmers agreed with his politics, but because Carter guaranteed farm subsidies and traded on the fact that he had ownership in a peanut farm. Biden's farm payoffs almost certainly won't be enough to bribe the farmers to support him, because today no one will challenge the ruinous farm subsidies, so they don't believe for a second that Trump or any other Republican since Eisenhower would be willing to cut access to the government teat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Vort said:

so they don't believe for a second that Trump or any other Republican since Eisenhower would be willing to cut access to the government teat.

This part is important. How can a company that receives government subsidies feel compelled to do the government's bidding when the reins change hands every few years? Generally speaking, the entity of the government is pragmatic and rarely vindictive. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For what it's worth, Ezra Taft Benson was against government subsidies to farmers. He especially hated the large conglomorates that knew better than to overproduce, but purposly did it anyway knowing that the government would pay them for that "lost revenue". If no one is eating the food, the farmers need to sell it to other countries, or grow something different; not plan in advance to plow under your crops and get paid by your government to do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Allegations are starting to surface that individual Twitter employees were soliciting and receiving bribes to give the blue checkmarks to individuals who didn't otherwise meet the previous requirements, and an investigation is purportedly ongoing.

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