Its Technical

News and events of the day
JoeMemphis

Re: Its Technical

Post by JoeMemphis »

ZoWie wrote: Thu Apr 21, 2022 11:37 am I come out of the shadows to note that I consider Elon Musk the most dangerous person in the world, and yes, that includes Putin.

Putin wishes he had the kind of power that Musk will have if he takes an active managerial role in twitter. He'll let drumpf back on, for sure, and in general it will become the platform for his rantings and his kingmaking. He can't be king (president), not born to it, as he comes from South Africa. He can certainly be the guy who picks who does get to be president. That's in his power if he gets a platform like twitter all to himself to spread lies, propaganda, and his daily rants the way drumpf did.

It's been said that the triumph of capitalism is that it found a socially acceptable use for greed and egomania. I can't be sure about that, but it definitely enables those who are worst afflicted by both to build empires. It comes down, then, to whether we want more of the same old shit, or actual change. A vote for anyone approved by Musk is a vote for the same supremely stupid BS-ocracy that drumpf seems to have prospered from. Rule by those who sling buzzwords best, and call their hit-man lawyers every time someone says something bad about them.

Most people using this board come from various classes that will have their butts kicked if they take the bait and vote for more idiots from Musk's and Trump's dark little corner of rule by the greedy and psychopathic. Of course, most likely those who think that wealth equals entitlement to be assholes will also like the experience, at least until the whole planet becomes like Ukraine and things aren't so good for them any more.
So if I follow your line of reasoning, aren’t the current board members of twitter also “king makers”? I’m not sure I am anymore comfortable with them. I’m not sure their judgement on what is or is not the truth is any better than the public.
User avatar
ZoWie
Posts: 5108
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:39 pm
Location: The blue parts of the map

Re: Its Technical

Post by ZoWie »

Jack Dorsey was too dumb to be dangerous. Just when one thought he might be a problem, he'd disappear to India to meditate. He was never a demagogue. He didn't get the demagogue gene.

Drumpf did. Musk, who secretly loves drumpf, did. He just can't be president though, and he can't change the constitution. What he can do is the same thing that Ray Gun's Wilshire Blvd elite did. Find the right talking head to rule in favor of more empire building, cronyism, and of course that all-conquering gospel of wealth.

Say, how did Ray Gun and drumpf work out for you guys? Seems from here like both of them made you feel a lot better but also screwed up the country for the successors to try and sort out. Both gave us the foundation for major wars, or at least the environment that permitted same. If you like wars, embargoes, sanctions, stock market collapses, commodity shortages, weather catastrophes, famines, terrorism, and riots in American streets, go right ahead and vote for more of the same.
"We must remember that we cannot abandon the truth and remain a free nation." --Liz Cheney, Republican, 7/21/22
User avatar
ProfX
Posts: 4087
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2021 3:15 pm
Location: Earth

Re: Its Technical

Post by ProfX »

I think a social media platform should have a set of rules (aka "ToS") for what is acceptable to post there, much like this message board does. (Example: "no call out threads" etc.) Now two issues come up at Twitter (as they do at Facebook, and also come up here and other MBs): the extent of those rules, and whether they are being properly enforced. (This board had rules; the new version doesn't so some folks reposted the ones from the last version; grand, but no moderator to enforce them.) Those rules prevent things like stalking and harassment. That's good.

All in all, I think having rules for a discussion forum/system are good, as is fairly enforcing them. Personally, I think the rules should apply to all users regardless of party, ideology, wealth, status, or fame. But I support a rule against disinformation and misinformation on social media. We will agree that requires arbitration on what it is. I bet we might not on what it is. :D

Twitter was infamous for being very slack on both rules and enforcement up until recently. Jack Dorsey wanted it to be very "wild west"; the new management has a bit more evolved perspective. I think the situation has gotten better. I do not see anything Musk has said so far that shows me there is anything he would do to improve it.

IMHO, Trump was not kicked off it for ideology or party or holding office or being a candidate. He was kicked off it for being an asshole to other users on the platform and breaking the ToS. Good.
"Don't believe every quote attributed to people on the Internet" -- Abraham Lincoln :D
User avatar
ZoWie
Posts: 5108
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:39 pm
Location: The blue parts of the map

Re: Its Technical

Post by ZoWie »

Don't worry, Musk's version will have ToS and it will ban the occasional user to look good when Congress does its annual C-SPANgenic investigation that talks a good game and leads to no legislation whatsoever.

It just won't hassle people who rabble rouse, as long as they rouse the same rabble that top management wants roused.
"We must remember that we cannot abandon the truth and remain a free nation." --Liz Cheney, Republican, 7/21/22
ap215
Posts: 6056
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 10:41 pm

Re: Its Technical

Post by ap215 »

Great. :problem:

Florida considers action as a Twitter stakeholder after Elon Musk’s takeover bid rejected, DeSantis says

THE VILLAGES, Fla. – After Twitter dropped a major roadblock in front of Elon Musk’s effort to take over the company, Gov. Ron DeSantis announced Tuesday that Florida -- an investor in Twitter through the state’s pension fund -- is looking into what action it can take against the board of directors.

DeSantis said the social media company’s choice to adopt a “poison pill” defense that makes it difficult for Musk or any other investor to buy Twitter without the board of directors’ approval amounted to a political decision and not a smart business move.

https://www.news4jax.com/news/florida/2 ... ntis-says/
User avatar
ProfX
Posts: 4087
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2021 3:15 pm
Location: Earth

Re: Its Technical

Post by ProfX »

I love conservatives who say they respect the free market, then suddenly interfere in a private corporation's board's decision to evade a hostile takeover.

After all, a governor interfering in a company's decision not to be bought out is clearly not a political decision either. :roll:

He is the governor of FL, it is up to Twitter to decide for themselves what are and are not "smart business moves," he ain't their financial advisor.

You can't force me to sell my house. You can bring me an offer, it can even be what I'd take for it as fair market value, but it doesn't mean I have to take it. A company also does not HAVE to sell itself to an unwanted 'hostile' party who wants to acquire it, either. They have every right to take steps to avoid a hostile acquisition.

What's next? If Spacely Sprocket Widgets takes steps to avoid a hostile acquisition by Joseph Blow (example fictitious :D ) is the governor of FL going to step in and interfere with that decision, also? He's already handing medals to losers in sports competitions, I guess that's next.
"Don't believe every quote attributed to people on the Internet" -- Abraham Lincoln :D
Bludogdem
Posts: 2054
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 5:16 pm

Re: Its Technical

Post by Bludogdem »

ProfX wrote: Wed Apr 20, 2022 8:27 pm Somebody slept through the "hostile takeovers" session of Corporate Law. :D
I know the hostile takeover quite well. Went through one in the early 80’s. Quite entertaining and quite lucrative too. Not so for the group doing the takeover. Turned into a first rate cluster fuck followed by bankruptcy. The company emerged from bankruptcy properly scaled and immediately successful. Unlike the stagnant company that was taken over.

With financing, musk is in a position to buy directly from the large stakeholders. It being a free market and all. And if the large stakeholders don’t want to sell, that’s fine too. What the board wants is often irrelevant in these situations. Shareholders and the market tend to decide. There’s no reverence for the board and they aren’t quite as powerful as some think.
Bludogdem
Posts: 2054
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 5:16 pm

Re: Its Technical

Post by Bludogdem »

ProfX wrote: Thu Apr 21, 2022 2:19 pm I love conservatives who say they respect the free market, then suddenly interfere in a private corporation's board's decision to evade a hostile takeover.
Disregarding the board is all part of the free market.
gounion
Posts: 17261
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: Its Technical

Post by gounion »

Bludogdem wrote: Thu Apr 21, 2022 3:14 pm I know the hostile takeover quite well. Went through one in the early 80’s. Quite entertaining and quite lucrative too. Not so for the group doing the takeover. Turned into a first rate cluster fuck followed by bankruptcy. The company emerged from bankruptcy properly scaled and immediately successful. Unlike the stagnant company that was taken over.

With financing, musk is in a position to buy directly from the large stakeholders. It being a free market and all. And if the large stakeholders don’t want to sell, that’s fine too. What the board wants is often irrelevant in these situations. Shareholders and the market tend to decide. There’s no reverence for the board and they aren’t quite as powerful as some think.
Ah yes, just one of your hundreds of careers. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
User avatar
ProfX
Posts: 4087
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2021 3:15 pm
Location: Earth

Re: Its Technical

Post by ProfX »

Bludogdem wrote: Thu Apr 21, 2022 3:16 pm Disregarding the board is all part of the free market.
Maybe, but my definition of political interference is a politician (governor) stepping into this process to affect the outcome. This is a place where government does not belong. Other than eminent domain, it's pretty rare where I think it's appropriate for a government (state or federal) pressuring a company to sell their business or property.

P.S. for those wondering what the "poison pill" defense is that Twitter's board is using, it's all explained here. I know BSD is the only person here who has a Lord's Gemstone in Corporate Law, but ...

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/h/ho ... keover.asp

Check the "news item" at the top. :D
"Don't believe every quote attributed to people on the Internet" -- Abraham Lincoln :D
JoeMemphis

Re: Its Technical

Post by JoeMemphis »

ProfX wrote: Thu Apr 21, 2022 12:13 pm I think a social media platform should have a set of rules (aka "ToS") for what is acceptable to post there, much like this message board does. (Example: "no call out threads" etc.) Now two issues come up at Twitter (as they do at Facebook, and also come up here and other MBs): the extent of those rules, and whether they are being properly enforced. (This board had rules; the new version doesn't so some folks reposted the ones from the last version; grand, but no moderator to enforce them.) Those rules prevent things like stalking and harassment. That's good.

All in all, I think having rules for a discussion forum/system are good, as is fairly enforcing them. Personally, I think the rules should apply to all users regardless of party, ideology, wealth, status, or fame. But I support a rule against disinformation and misinformation on social media. We will agree that requires arbitration on what it is. I bet we might not on what it is. :D

Twitter was infamous for being very slack on both rules and enforcement up until recently. Jack Dorsey wanted it to be very "wild west"; the new management has a bit more evolved perspective. I think the situation has gotten better. I do not see anything Musk has said so far that shows me there is anything he would do to improve it.

IMHO, Trump was not kicked off it for ideology or party or holding office or being a candidate. He was kicked off it for being an asshole to other users on the platform and breaking the ToS. Good.
The board rules here are not enforced. Haven’t been for a while. Call out threads happen all the time. And unless you enforce rules fairly and evenly, what’s the point? The same holds true with twitter. Biased enforcement of the rules is just censorship.
User avatar
ProfX
Posts: 4087
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2021 3:15 pm
Location: Earth

Re: Its Technical

Post by ProfX »

There is no moderator. There are no rules in effect. I don't dispute anyone pointing that out; it's true. Someone reposted the rules from the last board and I have no problem with those but they are not posted as the official rules for this one. I've already said I don't like the situation, I prefer boards with rules and moderators, but rules need to be officially posted, and there needs to be someone to do the job. I don't want it, and no one else seems to. All we've got is a 'site manager' and he doesn't want to moderate, but personally I will thank him for keeping all the spam-troll junk off the board and keeping the lights on.

Now, on to your next point, I see a claim, that Twitter selectively enforces its rules. I just have seen no evidence of that. Yes, I have seen conservatives claim they are treated unfairly both by it and Facebook. In general, when I look at a claim that a conservative was banned from Twitter, I find they were not banned for their ideology, but their behavior which violated rules. It's an interesting claim, can you prove it? I have seen no evidence Twitter selectively enforces its rules. That it has banned conservatives - and others - for violating those rules - is not proof of that.
Last edited by ProfX on Thu Apr 21, 2022 6:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Don't believe every quote attributed to people on the Internet" -- Abraham Lincoln :D
gounion
Posts: 17261
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: Its Technical

Post by gounion »

Joe seems to think that openly planning and executing an attempted overthrow of our government is perfectly acceptable and should be allowed.

Well, as long is it's DEMOCRATIC PARTY-led government, and it's their side attempting the revolt.
User avatar
Libertas
Posts: 6468
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 5:16 pm

Re: Its Technical

Post by Libertas »

gounion wrote: Thu Apr 21, 2022 6:46 pm Joe seems to think that openly planning and executing an attempted overthrow of our government is perfectly acceptable and should be allowed.

Well, as long is it's DEMOCRATIC PARTY-led government, and it's their side attempting the revolt.
Roger Stone aid recorded saying trump and them have no intention of allowing Biden to get in the WH, this was after the election. The tweet with the tape is here on the board somewhere.

This bothers board cons, more than one I see, NOT AT ALL. They do not care. When innocents are killed AGAIN by MAGA, they will again NOT CARE.

Fuck them to hell. One of these days we will have to actually deal with them attempting to imprison or kill us.
I sigh in your general direction.
Bludogdem
Posts: 2054
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 5:16 pm

Re: Its Technical

Post by Bludogdem »

ProfX wrote: Thu Apr 21, 2022 4:04 pm Maybe, but my definition of political interference is a politician (governor) stepping into this process to affect the outcome. This is a place where government does not belong. Other than eminent domain, it's pretty rare where I think it's appropriate for a government (state or federal) pressuring a company to sell their business or property.

P.S. for those wondering what the "poison pill" defense is that Twitter's board is using, it's all explained here. I know BSD is the only person here who has a Lord's Gemstone in Corporate Law, but ...

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/h/ho ... keover.asp

Check the "news item" at the top. :D
Florida government has a financial interest as a stockholder in the retirement funds.

For the poison pill to work you have to get shareholders to buy the watered down shares. That doesn’t alway happen. And it can have long term consequences.

Shareholders might have a different perspective given the gap between the current price vs the offer.

Again, all he needs is some big fund shareholders to sell directly to him.
Bludogdem
Posts: 2054
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 5:16 pm

Re: Its Technical

Post by Bludogdem »

gounion wrote: Thu Apr 21, 2022 3:40 pm Ah yes, just one of your hundreds of careers. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
One career. IT. Primarily integrated data base management systems with a focus on Enterprise Model Systems development. Retired at 54.
User avatar
ProfX
Posts: 4087
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2021 3:15 pm
Location: Earth

Re: Its Technical

Post by ProfX »

Sorry to keep bringing up these things called facts, but if ya gotta....

Musk says Twitter is biased against conservatives — facts say otherwise
https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/ ... otherwise/

[snip]

Now, researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Yale and the University of Exeter have released the first study that I’m aware of that takes an independent, empirical look at the bias claim. Twitter, they found, does tend to suspend Republican users far more frequently than Democrats. But that’s not necessarily because of partisan favoritism. Instead, it’s just as likely that Republicans were suspended because they tend to spread far more misinformation.

The researchers identified 9,000 politically engaged Twitter users in October 2020, half Democratic and half Republican. They tracked the sample for seven months after the November 2020 election. During that period, Twitter suspended 7.7 percent of the Democrats. In contrast, the platform suspended 35.6 percent of the Republicans — a more-than-fourfold difference.

Evidence that Twitter tilts against the right? Not so fast, the researchers said.

The study team scrutinized their subjects’ appetite for sharing misinformation, meaning provably false content such as phony COVID-19 cures or QAnon conspiracy theories. The researchers found that the Republican Twitter users shared “substantially more news from misinformation sites.” (Misinformation sites had been labeled as untrustworthy by either professional fact-checking organizations or surveys of politically balanced and demographically representative laypeople.)

“Critically,” the researchers said, “we found that users’ misinformation sharing was as predictive of suspension as was their political orientation. Thus, the observation that Republicans were more likely to be suspended than Democrats provides no support for the claim that Twitter showed political bias in its suspension practices. Instead, the observed asymmetry could be explained entirely by the tendency of Republicans to share more misinformation.”

In addition to tracking Twitter suspensions, the researchers surveyed 4,900 Americans on their attitude toward misinformation, finding “strong bipartisan support” for social media platforms taking action against provably false content. Nevertheless, on Twitter, Republicans are more prone to amplify misinformation. “As a result,” the researchers said, “our study shows that it is inappropriate to make inferences about political bias from asymmetries in suspension rates.”

Asymmetry is a key word when thinking about misleading and polarizing content online. Previous studies have determined that conservatives tend to share dramatically more content from low-quality “fake news” sites than liberals and were more prone to visit such sites. Research has also shown that Republican Twitter users are exposed to more misinformation from their political leaders than Democrats.

[snip][end]

They are not engaging in ideological censorship. Conservatives are not being censored for being conservative, but as I said, for violating rules against spreading misinformation.

Maybe you think the companies should not have rules against it. I think you might know I disagree. :D
"Don't believe every quote attributed to people on the Internet" -- Abraham Lincoln :D
User avatar
Libertas
Posts: 6468
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 5:16 pm

Re: Its Technical

Post by Libertas »

Musk has become an enemy of the human race.

He wants trump or desantis in the WH so he will have zero regulations to deal with.
I sigh in your general direction.
JoeMemphis

Re: Its Technical

Post by JoeMemphis »

gounion wrote: Thu Apr 21, 2022 6:46 pm Joe seems to think that openly planning and executing an attempted overthrow of our government is perfectly acceptable and should be allowed.

Well, as long is it's DEMOCRATIC PARTY-led government, and it's their side attempting the revolt.
GoU seems to think that which he pulls out of his ass is factual. In reality it’s just shit
JoeMemphis

Re: Its Technical

Post by JoeMemphis »

ProfX wrote: Thu Apr 21, 2022 6:42 pm There is no moderator. There are no rules in effect. I don't dispute anyone pointing that out; it's true. Someone reposted the rules from the last board and I have no problem with those but they are not posted as the official rules for this one. I've already said I don't like the situation, I prefer boards with rules and moderators, but rules need to be officially posted, and there needs to be someone to do the job. I don't want it, and no one else seems to. All we've got is a 'site manager' and he doesn't want to moderate, but personally I will thank him for keeping all the spam-troll junk off the board and keeping the lights on.

Now, on to your next point, I see a claim, that Twitter selectively enforces its rules. I just have seen no evidence of that. Yes, I have seen conservatives claim they are treated unfairly both by it and Facebook. In general, when I look at a claim that a conservative was banned from Twitter, I find they were not banned for their ideology, but their behavior which violated rules. It's an interesting claim, can you prove it? I have seen no evidence Twitter selectively enforces its rules. That it has banned conservatives - and others - for violating those rules - is not proof of that.
People tend to see what they choose to see. One man’s truth is fake news to the other. So twitter want it’s board to be the king maker to use Zowies terminology. They decide in their discretion what is or is not fit to print. I don’t see the difference between them and Musk other than point of view. I tend to let people decide whom to they chose to believe. I don’t think they need someone else to make that choice for them.
gounion
Posts: 17261
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: Its Technical

Post by gounion »

Bludogdem wrote: Thu Apr 21, 2022 7:40 pm One career. IT. Primarily integrated data base management systems with a focus on Enterprise Model Systems development. Retired at 54.
Prove it.
gounion
Posts: 17261
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: Its Technical

Post by gounion »

JoeMemphis wrote: Thu Apr 21, 2022 9:41 pm GoU seems to think that which he pulls out of his ass is factual. In reality it’s just shit
And you're fine with your side trying to overthrow our government. It's hilarious because you say you don't support Trump. But you obviously support what he did.
User avatar
ProfX
Posts: 4087
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2021 3:15 pm
Location: Earth

Re: Its Technical

Post by ProfX »

JoeMemphis wrote: Thu Apr 21, 2022 9:47 pm People tend to see what they choose to see. One man’s truth is fake news to the other.
You love your sophistry, Joe. I am a man from Missouri. All I want is, you make a claim, show me the evidence.

"Conservatives are being banned from Twitter for being conservative". Fine. Show me some examples? Proof?

I just posted a study showing this is not true. Now I know you may not want to believe it, but that does not convince me the study is flawed.
I don’t see the difference between them and Musk other than point of view.
Musk has said he doesn't like Twitter's policies. He has said how he will change them. I again put a simple task before anybody here. What is Musk going to do that will make those policies any better? I haven't seen anything, but if you know of something, let me know.

The current policy is that Twitter takes action against accounts spreading disinformation. Musk says he doesn't want it to do so. Why is that better for Twitter? Why would that be better for society and the world? Make your case.

BTW: they are very upfront about how they decide what is misinformation, and are entirely transparent about that process. It's not a whim, like 'this is misinformation because a bunch of libzzzz on the board say so'. If that were not the case, I would be against it, too.

Question Joe: if somebody on Twitter keeps repeatedly posting that the best cure for COVID-19 is to drink a gallon of bleach, is there no responsibility to do anything about it. "Let people decide for themselves?"
"Don't believe every quote attributed to people on the Internet" -- Abraham Lincoln :D
JoeMemphis

Re: Its Technical

Post by JoeMemphis »

ProfX wrote: Fri Apr 22, 2022 7:37 am You love your sophistry, Joe. I am a man from Missouri. All I want is, you make a claim, show me the evidence.

"Conservatives are being banned from Twitter for being conservative". Fine. Show me some examples? Proof?

I just posted a study showing this is not true. Now I know you may not want to believe it, but that does not convince me the study is flawed.



Musk has said he doesn't like Twitter's policies. He has said how he will change them. I again put a simple task before anybody here. What is Musk going to do that will make those policies any better? I haven't seen anything, but if you know of something, let me know.

The current policy is that Twitter takes action against accounts spreading disinformation. Musk says he doesn't want it to do so. Why is that better for Twitter? Why would that be better for society and the world? Make your case.

BTW: they are very upfront about how they decide what is misinformation, and are entirely transparent about that process. It's not a whim, like 'this is misinformation because a bunch of libzzzz on the board say so'. If that were not the case, I would be against it, too.

Question Joe: if somebody on Twitter keeps repeatedly posting that the best cure for COVID-19 is to drink a gallon of bleach, is there no responsibility to do anything about it. "Let people decide for themselves?"
I never stated that twitter was banning conservatives now did I. So you are asking me to defend a statement or prove a statement I never made. You make my point for me. You read into things what you want to read into them and then claim your assumptions are based on some kind of evidence.

My point here is fairly simple. Zowie said Musk would make himself a kingmaker if he took over twitter. (Did you ask him for evidence to prove his point? ). If I follow his logic that would make the current board a “king maker”. Why does anyone need to be a king maker. I thought we were okay with letting people decide for themselves. Who is to say one king maker is any more accurate and informed than another?
User avatar
ProfX
Posts: 4087
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2021 3:15 pm
Location: Earth

Re: Its Technical

Post by ProfX »

JoeMemphis wrote: Fri Apr 22, 2022 8:18 am I never stated that twitter was banning conservatives now did I. So you are asking me to defend a statement or prove a statement I never made.
Yes Joe, but Elon Musk made that statement. He claims this is a "problem" at Twitter that needs to be solved.

So - OK - you don't believe it, but you don't see any difference between Musk being in charge and the current board. Well, one is talking about a nonexistent problem. Hmmm? In general, I prefer people running things talking about real rather than nonexistent problems.

Sigh.
"Don't believe every quote attributed to people on the Internet" -- Abraham Lincoln :D
Post Reply