|
https://mobile.twitter.com/lxeagle17/status/1577103423362605056?s=46&t=UJN-R9XnPtpkbdKdhWXkWg Strong "They're not sending their best" energy
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2022 17:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 09:34 |
|
|
As much as I want to believe it's all falling apart for the GOP, inflation and bad economic sentiment are playing into their hands very well. I get ugly 2016 vibes every time people get smug about their stumbles. Then again, life is short and one should try to get joy where they can get it. I might just be a miserable dude.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2022 17:16
|
|
|
I should begin by saying that this news, as reported does not make legal sense. Musk does not need to "propose" surrendering and buying Twitter at 54.20 (he is contractually obligated to buy, and Twitter is contractually obligated, and very much wants, to sell). He can just drop his counterclaims and defenses to Twitter's lawsuit and write the check. If he is "proposing" something, there's a catch of some sort involved - but the market seems to believe it's not much of one (it is very odd for him to not even demand like a dollar reduction in the price, since he could get it). https://twitter.com/kaileyleinz/status/1577329226486882304 edit: full bloomberg report: quote:Elon Musk is proposing to buy Twitter Inc. for the original offer price of $54.20 a share, Bloomberg News reports. there must be some terms in the letter that are not being reported but they are likely nuisance-value fig leafs. alternatively, they're poison pills - but I am not really sure what the value of a poison pill settlement offer would be. evilweasel fucked around with this message at 17:33 on Oct 4, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2022 17:19
|
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:As much as I want to believe it's all falling apart for the GOP, inflation and bad economic sentiment are playing into their hands very well. I get ugly 2016 vibes every time people get smug about their stumbles. I mean, I hope the Dems can get Ohio and NC in to play and maybe the Senate is secure. I think the tough part, to your point, is that the economy is in this weird it's bad? or is it?! state. It's not 2008 and 2020 but it just feels weird out there. I will say, this won't be 2010 in terms of a tea party wave.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2022 17:21
|
|
|
ColdPie posted:No it isn't. There are ten hundred billion guitar institutional videos out there. 98% of them are trash. They use algorithms to sort out the good ones from the bad. Bad actors abuse that same algorithm to put crazy videos in front of people. Sorting out how to get the good (high quality content) from the bad (crazy poo poo) is a really hard problem. There's a further problem that both avenues are profitable for the platforms so they're not really incentived to fix it. Throwing it all in the trash and just returning all videos that have “guitar instruction” in the user submitted keywords isn't a solution, it's the death of that platform. There's a problem here, but “banning algorithms” isn't the solution. You're making a big assumption here: you're assuming that the death of these platforms is a bad thing. You're right in that these platforms, with their massive feed of completely unfiltered data, would be largely unusable without feeding everything through algorithms that analyze the entire userbase's data to present the content that gets the most engagement while hiding the content a user is unlikely to enjoy. After all, that's the core of the social media business model: let everyone on the planet provide as much content as they want for free with no filtering or oversight, use that to grow a massive userbase, then use a system that analyzes user response to everything they see in order to determine what they should see. It's a "quantity over quality" model that relies solely on reading the behavior of a massive userbase to make an overwhelming flood of data usable for literally anyone. But in my opinion, that exact business model is exactly why social media sucks so much. The entire model the whole thing is built on is inherently impossible for humans to effectively moderate, but current tech is nowhere near being capable of effective automatic moderation of content. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the social media business model originally assumed that content moderation would be almost unnecessary, because (in theory) the algorithm would naturally stop showing a user any content that user personally found objectionable. Social media platforms have since learned that running stuff like that is wildly insufficient in a variety of ways, and they've worked to awkwardly retrofit a wider array of moderation tools and options onto their original systems, but the reason they've struggled so much with it is because the model is fundamentally unmoderatable and they know it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2022 17:38
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:I should begin by saying that this news, as reported does not make legal sense. Musk does not need to "propose" surrendering and buying Twitter at 54.20 (he is contractually obligated to buy, and Twitter is contractually obligated, and very much wants, to sell). He can just drop his counterclaims and defenses to Twitter's lawsuit and write the check. If he is "proposing" something, there's a catch of some sort involved - but the market seems to believe it's not much of one (it is very odd for him to not even demand like a dollar reduction in the price, since he could get it). To goose the price and sell his current position. He is doubling down on not having to buy Twitter.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2022 17:52
|
|
|
He's proposing to buy something he already has a signed contract to buy?? I don't get it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2022 18:00
|
|
|
Boot and Rally posted:To goose the price and sell his current position. He is doubling down on not having to buy Twitter. Do you have more details on how this would work?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2022 18:02
|
|
|
davecrazy posted:He's proposing to buy something he already has a signed contract to buy?? It is Musk after all. https://twitter.com/sarahjeong/status/1577337931261362177?s=20&t=H8R11CtevxWwD9xwqyVEeg
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2022 18:03
|
|
|
davecrazy posted:He's proposing to buy something he already has a signed contract to buy?? Don't feel bad, I'm not convinced he understands either.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2022 18:04
|
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:Do you have more details on how this would work? musk owns like 9% of twitter (that he bought before making his offer to buy the rest) announce he is going to actually follow through, price spikes, sell off all his 9% into the spike however this is blatant securities fraud and the SEC already personally hates musk, so this would be even stupider than usual
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2022 18:06
|
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:Do you have more details on how this would work? I can't find the excel spreadsheet someone put together on what he paid in total, but for example, the 9.2% stake was at a valuation of ($2,900,000,000/73,500,000 = $39.46). The stock price is currently $47.93, up $5.39 from before the leak. The $5.39 means he can now get $400 million more dollars for those shares. We already know Musk will do things just to run up stock prices. E: To EW point that it is stupider than usual: I am guessing the mechanism of "offer twitter won't take along with strategic leak for deniability" is going to be harder to pin than a tweet. Boot and Rally fucked around with this message at 18:16 on Oct 4, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2022 18:13
|
|
|
The central question really comes down to editorial liability right? Youtube/FB and other UGC platforms try to exist in the framework of a search engine while using the carve out of advertisements as an excuse to allow recommendations to manipulate search results. ML is just editorializing with extra steps allowed to perform in a black box. If a user's experience is Nazi bullshit with the box and without the box no Nazi poo poo then it sure seems like the black box might be the problem. Who designs the blackbox? Oh the platform hosting all the content? Well maybe they shouldn't be allowed to do that. If I want my content filtered through the Nazi box, well that could be my choice, but it shouldn't be made for me. Then we are looking at an antitrust situation as the hosting platform goes, "Well its my content I can do what I want with it. You signed away that right when you uploaded it." The platforms hold the keys at this point, anyone who remembers self hosted content knows the deal with the devil UGC signed with Youtube. It's been quick to forget the fights over Net Neutrality, when the same company runs the search engine, advertisements, and platform. It's complicated as hell with the way hosting has evolved over the years. The interaction between Platform, Advertisement, and Search Engine has been so blurred. Till those can be separated I don't think there is much of an argument anyone can really make. Saying all that, I think the desicion will actually be some sort of chimera that bridges the gap between Masterpiece Cake Shop and Citizen United, allowing private platforms to funnel as much Nazi poo poo as they want while they stifle whatever content they choose, effectively cementing the end of the public commons.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2022 18:18
|
|
|
My guess is he just figured out something that's going to end up coming out in discovery of the lawsuit that he wants to get around. or he's dumb enough to think this would be a  if they deny it and claim that Twitter never really had an intention to sell.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2022 18:18
|
|
|
Boot and Rally posted:I can't find the excel spreadsheet someone put together on what he paid in total, but for example, the 9.2% stake was at a valuation of ($2,900,000,000/73,500,000 = $39.46). The stock price is currently $47.93, up $5.39 from before the leak. The $5.39 means he can now get $400 million more dollars for those shares. it would not be very hard to connect those dots for the SEC, and remember, they personally hate him. he would not get the rich people treatment, because they personally hate him (for doing things like pressuring law firms to fire people who came from the SEC). also, all the money musk makes here increases the damages if he loses and buys twitter. it would be an amazingly stupid, self-destructive thing for him to do - which does not rule it out, but it is far less credible than he realized he's going to lose, but is currently mad about getting dunked on twitter so he wants control today and not in a month. Robviously posted:My guess is he just figured out something that's going to end up coming out in discovery of the lawsuit that he wants to get around. or he's dumb enough to think this would be a his deposition is in a few days/a week.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2022 18:30
|
|
|
Tayter Swift posted:It is Musk after all. With how thin skinned he is I can absolutely see him going all in just so he can ban the Ukrainian ambassador.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2022 18:37
|
|
|
Robviously posted:My guess is he just figured out something that's going to end up coming out in discovery of the lawsuit that he wants to get around. or he's dumb enough to think this would be a This was my first guess.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2022 18:48
|
|
|
I would posit a more nuanced position on recommendation programs: Certainly Facebook and I assume Google likely does the same, base large portions of their time and money focusing on 'engagment'; the length of time viewers watch their videos and the likelihood of commenting or reading comments at all, or liking or disliking the video. I think weaponizing negative engagement will be the "cigarettes cause cancer" of the internet age. We will learn they do this on purpose, either deliberately, by prioritizing angry emojis in the case of Facebook, or through negligence, as is the case with YouTube recommendations. "It's hard to sort data" can't really be a valid excuse when the result seems to be the wide scale manipulation of our people.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2022 18:57
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:I would posit a more nuanced position on recommendation programs: yeah, I would also say that "this poorly thought out product design causes measurable harm" is the essence of products liability, and there's not really a good reason it shouldn't apply to the recommendation algorithms.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2022 19:01
|
|
|
Robviously posted:My guess is he just figured out something that's going to end up coming out in discovery of the lawsuit that he wants to get around. or he's dumb enough to think this would be a Discovery has been going very badly for Musk, with a lot of sketchy stuff coming to light. There were a lot of missing messages, evidence that Musk used platforms with auto-deleting messages despite claiming that he didn't, evidence that Musk may have communicated with Twitter insiders via "alternate secure means", evidence that Musk's own data scientists weren't backing his claims, and so on.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2022 19:26
|
|
|
quote:On October 3, 2022, the Reporting Person’s advisors sent a letter to Twitter (on the Reporting Person’s behalf) notifying Twitter that the Reporting Person intends to proceed to closing of the transaction contemplated by the April 25, 2022 Merger Agreement, on the terms and subject to the conditions set forth therein and pending receipt of the proceeds of the debt financing contemplated thereby, provided that the Delaware Chancery Court enter an immediate stay of the action, Twitter vs. Musk, et al. (C.A. No. 202-0613-KSJM), and adjourn the trial and all other proceedings related thereto pending such closing or further order of the court. The foregoing description of the letter is qualified in its entirety by reference to the full text of the letter, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit S and incorporated herein by reference. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1418091/000110465922105787/tm2227435d1_sc13da.htm (the "Reporting Person" is Elon Musk) musk is utterly surrendering, not even trying to get a ransom for it. i am still wondering if there's a trapdoor in the "eh fine i'll close...changed my mind!" but that would be a tremendously bad idea.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2022 20:26
|
|
|
Tremendously bad ideas haven't stopped the big-brain-haver from making a kiddy submarine then screaming about the people saving lives actually being pedophiles.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2022 20:36
|
|
|
Tayter Swift posted:It is Musk after all. wrap it up muskailures
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2022 20:37
|
|
|
bird food bathtub posted:Tremendously bad ideas haven't stopped the big-brain-haver from making a kiddy submarine then screaming about the people saving lives actually being pedophiles. Don't forget that he ended up winning the ensuing libel lawsuit, which was probably a big contributor to his later megalomania
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2022 20:38
|
|
|
bird food bathtub posted:Tremendously bad ideas haven't stopped the big-brain-haver from making a kiddy submarine then screaming about the people saving lives actually being pedophiles. i say it would be a tremendously bad idea not because i believe musk to be incapable of bad ideas (lol he got high and bought twitter at double its value) but because if he tried that he would wind up in an even worse place than he is now so it would be funny
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2022 20:45
|
|
|
Guess we’ll find out soon just how hosed things are. https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1577383941824290816?s=46&t=1ZfJlmkuqJghJZ3waPnWCg
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2022 20:59
|
|
|
FizFashizzle posted:Guess we’ll find out soon just how hosed things are. He can't do this his crony judge hosed it up for him and amended her court order after the appeal so it can't go to the supreme court I believe. Just more bullshit. Edit: Comedy option she amends the order again so he can? I don't even know if that is possible or has ever happened in the history of the country but you know haha. Vire fucked around with this message at 21:08 on Oct 4, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2022 21:04
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1418091/000110465922105787/tm2227435d1_sc13da.htm (the "Reporting Person" is Elon Musk) So Musk.avi?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2022 21:09
|
|
|
I'm a little surprised there hasn't been more reaction to Musk's pro-Russia statements. His business is fundamentally defense contracting, imagine those sentiments from a Lockheed-Martin corporate account.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2022 21:13
|
|
|
slurm posted:I'm a little surprised there hasn't been more reaction to Musk's pro-Russia statements. His business is fundamentally defense contracting, imagine those sentiments from a Lockheed-Martin corporate account. His business falls under ITARS but AFAIK he hasn't had many DOD payloads to loft into orbit. So it's not like he's supplying munitions or equipment. Still, yeah, his pro-russia stance is more than a little concerning considering the future of the twitter platform.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2022 21:16
|
|
|
Vire posted:He can't do this his crony judge hosed it up for him and amended her court order after the appeal so it can't go to the supreme court I believe. Just more bullshit. The comedy option is that if SCOTUS accepts the case anyway, who's going to yank it out of their hands?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2022 21:17
|
|
|
slurm posted:I'm a little surprised there hasn't been more reaction to Musk's pro-Russia statements. His business is fundamentally defense contracting, imagine those sentiments from a Lockheed-Martin corporate account. Everyone knows he is an reactionary idiot. He got ratioed to hell and arguing with him just gets a bunch of crazy musk followers to brigade you. Doesn't seem to be much upside to it. I could see some one trying to have a serious conversation with him privately and then Elon starts poo poo posting about the next thing never really apologizing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2022 21:18
|
|
|
haveblue posted:The comedy option is that if SCOTUS accepts the case anyway, who's going to yank it out of their hands? No one would have to yank it because even if they over rule the 11th's apeal the ruling would be moot because the court order no longer exists which is why Cannon would have to amend her order again. Vire fucked around with this message at 21:45 on Oct 4, 2022 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2022 21:20
|
|
|
Riptor posted:This would be an absolutely nonsensical site. You'd be constantly suggested absolute random poo poo that has nothing to do with one another, and the system would immediately be gamed by people naming things AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA or constantly reuploading That's all fair, but what I'm suggesting is that the reason for the lax moderation is because those videos are effective at generating engagement with the algorithms they have, so there's a conflict of interest when it comes to moderating the content. Perhaps sites that host user content should be required to retain independent moderators, like they hire independent accounting firms. It's not immune to corruption but it would be another hoop that makes hosting hate speech more difficult. But ideas like this and anti-trust all seem beyond America's ability. Paracaidas posted:Of course. They wouldn't be getting sued for all user content. Just the content anyone feels like suing over. What is this middle ground, though? I'd love an actual proposal to discuss and don't particularly feel like strawmanning you to get to that discussion Oof, I dunno. I think proper moderation is the easiest solution, but I'm ignoring that because the companies don't want it and no one's going to make them do it. All parties seem like they would rather just burn it all to the ground rather than put any effort into a workable solution. So accepting that handicap, what options do the platforms have besides serving content randomly or getting sued? I just think back to early internet days. Maybe it's just simple sorting and filters. Add to that some sort of tagging system to help connect people deliberately searching for something to that content. Perhaps in this environment, it becomes more important for the content creators to advertise themselves and their content off of the platform (like through their own website or radio/tv/magazine ads). You could also still have channels. Now, the platform might not be able to make new content or other creators as discoverable to you through recommendations, but if you are a content creator and you want more viewers, you would engage with already established content creators and plug yourself, rather than trying to game a recommendation system. I'm not saying any of this is good but it should get the platform off the hook for "editorializing" and it would still provide users with a (horribly lovely... or maybe just old-fashioned) way to access content. It would completely change the entire ecosystem and the business model of the platform and content creators. The internet ad market would lose a huge revenue channel. But it's an option that achieves the goals and probably still leaves society better off. There are better options but those lie in the realm of moderation and content curation, which the platforms are already capable of and are (intentionally) failing at
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2022 21:28
|
|
|
OAquinas posted:His business falls under ITARS but AFAIK he hasn't had many DOD payloads to loft into orbit. So it's not like he's supplying munitions or equipment. He got the contract for Rocket Cargo which is the surface-to-surface Starship. That would be a pretty big logistical capability for Russia in somewhere like Kherson where they've been having trouble with bridges or conventional air logistics.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2022 21:32
|
|
|
haveblue posted:The comedy option is that if SCOTUS accepts the case anyway, who's going to yank it out of their hands? If nothing else, this should have every single responsible member of Congress immediately calling for legislation requiring recusal standards for SCOTUS when a case is brought that includes significant and public conflict of interest.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2022 21:35
|
|
|
cgeq posted:I just think back to early internet days. Maybe it's just simple sorting and filters. Add to that some sort of tagging system to help connect people deliberately searching for something to that content. Congratulations you just invented cable TV while not actually doing anything to prevent the kind of content people are worried about
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2022 21:37
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:If nothing else, this should have every single responsible member of Congress immediately calling for legislation requiring recusal standards for SCOTUS when a case is brought that includes significant and public conflict of interest. There's no reason to think Congress could limit SCOTUS in that manner
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2022 21:42
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:If nothing else, this should have every single responsible member of Congress immediately calling for legislation requiring recusal standards for SCOTUS when a case is brought that includes significant and public conflict of interest. what conflict what financial or personal interest does any member of the court have in a case against Donald Trump for stealing secrets this isn't Jan 6 stuff where if I squint really, really hard, I can construct a rationale for Thomas needing to recuse, because it's a potential threat to his wife
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2022 21:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 09:34 |
|
|
Riptor posted:Congratulations you just invented cable TV while not actually doing anything to prevent the kind of content people are worried about Are you sure? Cable TV seems much better than Youtube. I mean, maybe it doesn't prevent the creation, but it should hobble its ability to spread and snowball and thus make it easier to moderate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2022 21:50
|
|