|
Should I step down as head of twitter This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes |
|
420 | 4.43% |
| No |
|
69 | 0.73% |
| Goku |
|
9001 | 94.85% |
| Total: | 9490 votes | ||
|
I bet 75% of people who paid for a check just did it this one time to dunk on musk like the townsfolk lining up to fling a tomato at the Town fool in the pillory and won't re-up in a month
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2022 00:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 22:32 |
|
|
Unperson_47 posted:I bet 75% of people who paid for a check just did it this one time to dunk on musk like the townsfolk lining up to fling a tomato at the Town fool in the pillory and won't re-up in a month
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2022 00:18
|
|
|
pixaal posted:there's also taxes and charge backs you gotta make a profit to pay tax, and I've got some bad news about Twitter... confused posted:I wouldn't be surprised if in an act of desperation in the next week or two he just says "gently caress it!" and only allows people who have paid for the blue check mark to post at all. I hope he does that because it would instantly crater any value the platform has for advertisers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2022 00:18
|
|
|
RDM posted:Well they gave Twitter a credit card and I bet the engineer responsible for making sure cancelling works got fired. Good point lol
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2022 00:19
|
|
|
If they got suspended before a month is up they can just charge it back, credit card companies won't take twitter's side on that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2022 00:26
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/rafaelshimunov/status/1591133819918114816
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2022 00:30
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:I'm always ready for a legalese filled post So the basic rub is that you can sue someone on Twitter for saying mean things about you. You, however, cannot do so to Twitter because of section 230 of the CDA. So Twitter's liability is usually negligible in these cases, and Twitter has won multiple largely frivolous suits because §230 protects it. But here's the thing; it doesn't protect Twitter against Twitter's own speech/conduct. Me, a random rear end in a top hat, saying Eli Lilly should make insulin free: clearly protected by §230, even if I put on a mustache and claimed to be Eli Lilly's CEO under my handle @totallyEliLillyCEO. Twitter was basically the cork board to which I pinned my potentially felonious message. Whether Twitter eventually takes it down or not, by law you can't sue Twitter for the fact it was there; it's not a "publisher" for the purposes of defamation or false light or whichever tort you want to use. (This is to correct a legal precedent where a court ruled that Compuserve(?) was liable for a message someone wrote on a BBS on their network...which makes sense only in a very narrow sense of what "publisher" means in defamation law and no sense in any other context including if you zoom out a tiny bit and think about it.) But, what happens if I got the certificate that Twitter itself says I'm Eli Lilly? That's very different because Twitter is vouching for me in a way that goes beyond simply being the bulletin board to which any rear end in a top hat can post a message; Twitter is effectively promoting my fraudulent speech above simply being a service to all who create an account. There were questions about this too, even before Musk showed up. What if the checkmark verification program got fooled? What if there are two people with the same name? It would have been hard to defeat the §230 shield if Twitter said "okay, here's our process, and we were fraudulently misled too. Also it's not really an endorsement of their content, only that the person speaking is who they say they are." It is, of course, much easier to get around that (maybe) if you gutted your department, rewrote what it means to be "verified" and let literally any idiot become who they say they are. This plus the explicit statements by Musk that he envisioned a world where "verified" people get elevated and the hoi polloi are left to sit in the darkness, tweeting into the void, means that this is an editorial judgment that makes it more like Twitter is effectively selectively amplifying certain messages, which makes it implicitly Twitter's speech in part. Is that actually viable as a way to make Twitter liable? Who the gently caress knows! When Dominion Voting sued Fox News, it's because Fox didn't just have people sitting around discussing Trump's claims of voting fraud; they had people come on and discuss it in detail, "asking questions" and essentially slanting the coverage so it was more than "and this is what that idiot POTUS said today." But is it the same as algorithmically boosting someone who you very lightly vetted to be someone else? That's a legal question there are no answers for...yet. Okay, so that's what Eli Lilly might try to do because some idiot tanked their stock for a few hours by paying $8 to Twitter. Let's say you're an investor and you had a stop loss in place to sell stock if it dipped below a certain value. It triggered because someone caused a panic that the "official" account might have decided to throw away a hugely profitable revenue stream. You sold for a loss, and the stock pops right back up, because, whew, Eli Lilly is still being run by sociopaths who place profit over human lives. That's...well, that's security fraud (because everything is security fraud) but can you get a civil action against Twitter? Because you sure as gently caress aren't getting any recovery from the giggling teenager who apparently registered the fake account. To recover anything in the US, you have to show that you're owed a duty. Maybe this duty is explicit, like a right to not be physically violated -- I can't run up and punch you, and doing so is a crime and a tort. Maybe it's implicit, like the duty to keep my car maintained so the wheels don't fall off and I plow into a pedestrian. So what duty does Twitter owe the general public? That's a tougher question to answer. Maybe they owe nothing to anyone who isn't actually specifically contracted to them, either as a user, an advertiser, an equity owner, or an employee. It's entirely possible a court can rule that Twitter owes the typical investor nothing because even if its process was shady that would open up unlimited liability for things people might say or do, which would definitely not be in the spirit of §230. Twitter didn't actually say "sell $ELI it's gonna crash!!!". Someone posted something that the market got fooled for a moment and reacted accordingly, but lots of people say things all the time on various platforms. poo poo happens! But let's consider some out of the box ideas. What if Twitter owed a basic duty to not put a product out into commerce that wasn't defective and terrible? This is strict product liability; the product was a checkmark against which people can be assured that whoever holds it is who they say they are. The product was clearly defective; they let any rear end in a top hat claim to be whoever. That rear end in a top hat abused the product in a way that was obviously foreseeable to anyone with a brain. Then the obvious happened and a loss was incurred. Would that fly in a court? Again, I dunno! These are novel questions that end up going up to final courts of appeals and getting long decisions written about it that gets quoted in law school classes. Can a software platform be liable because their product enabled a harm through their implied negligence? Novel territory. And this doesn't even begin to scratch the actual self-inflicted legal traumas that regulators are now getting their asses in gear. Mass layoffs without notice? No good in many jurisdictions! Asking workers to come into the office? Violations of work contracts and work conditions! Self-certifying that you're totally not violating a consent decree with the FTC? The remaining lawyers in legal either are in the process of resigning or about to find out that a law license is a lot more fragile than they think. GDPR? gently caress the Euros apparently! The remaining days of Twitter will be a massive vortex of fascinating new avenues where Twitter gets its rear end handed back to them in a court, if there's enough money to keep the lights on to get to that point.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2022 00:31
|
|
|
WilWheaton posted:obviously just replace twitters backend with xenforo , problem solved Waaaait a minute. How can we be sure you're the real Will Wheaton?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2022 00:31
|
|
|
A photoshop of Elon as Disaster Girl would be on point.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2022 00:33
|
|
|
How much do you want to bet that the reason the 8$/month crowd is getting 50% ads instead of no ads is that no-one left at Twitter is capable of programming ad-free. I'm betting everyone's getting the same (rapidly declining) amount of ads and Elon simply hopes that the people who've paid for 50% less won't notice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2022 00:37
|
|
|
*pissing and making GBS threads on myself* im fine.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2022 00:38
|
|
|
kw0134 posted:Alrighty then. Wait, let me make a nice cup o' tea and then settle in by the fire to read this post!
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2022 00:40
|
|
|
RDM posted:Well they gave Twitter a credit card and I bet the engineer responsible for making sure cancelling works got fired. There was a screenshot earlier in the thread. The $8 charge was non-recurring. You had to manually renew it every month.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2022 00:41
|
|
|
Zugzwang posted:A photoshop of Elon as Disaster Girl would be on point. https://twitter.com/likaluca/status/1590865301553676291
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2022 00:42
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/litcapital/status/1591172069965713409
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2022 00:44
|
|
|
So even assuming Twitter gets all the money from Blue subs, and that the number remains steady, it is generating enough money to pay back 0.01% of the interest the new loans accumulate per year. Big brain genius plan there, maybe his VC pals are all goofing on him getting him into this mess with bad advice. No, they are just idiots, too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2022 00:45
|
|
|
More terrifying than I ever would have imagined.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2022 00:45
|
|
|
Ah good, Elon's gonna piss off the MIC. AKA the People Who Pay Him Money for Rockets. That will end well for him, especially given how much the legacy corps hate SpaceX for horning in on their business in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2022 00:50
|
|
|
Offler posted:How much do you want to bet that the reason the 8$/month crowd is getting 50% ads instead of no ads is that no-one left at Twitter is capable of programming ad-free. I'm betting everyone's getting the same (rapidly declining) amount of ads and Elon simply hopes that the people who've paid for 50% less won't notice. It’s because Elon made it up on the spot. Everyone is still getting full ads, because there’s no one there to implement 50% ads
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2022 00:50
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1591206480338116608
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2022 00:51
|
|
|
flubber nuts posted:*pissing and making GBS threads on myself* im fine. yeah u are 
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2022 00:53
|
|
|
What the gently caress? Flowers for QAnon posted:It’s because Elon made it up on the spot. Everyone is still getting full ads, because there’s no one there to implement 50% ads Yeah it had a big "COMING SOON" next to it, the only thing current subscribers get is a tick. Maybe not any more though since it's been pulled
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2022 00:55
|
|
|
The funniest thing about the 50% less ads thing is that browser-users who care that much about ads already have extensions to filter out all Twitter ads from their timelines. I guess there's value for it on the app, but it's still a nice lol that they have to pay to get an inferior adblocker ^^^ also go gently caress yourself, Musk
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2022 00:55
|
|
|
Man gently caress this rear end in a top hat
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2022 00:55
|
|
|
boy Elon Musk sure can't shut the gently caress up for one goddamn second can he
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2022 00:57
|
|
|
He doesn't seem to understand the difference between inventing a thing and selling the patent.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2022 00:57
|
|
|
I really hate this guy
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2022 00:58
|
|
|
He... didn't say anything about when it was discovered. He said when the patent was sold. Still of course not stopping idiots in the comments from saying he was fact checked because they, like Elon, can't read.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2022 00:59
|
|
|
MrQwerty posted:boy Elon Musk sure can't shut the gently caress up for one goddamn second can he cocaine is a terrible drug
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2022 01:00
|
|
|
frumpykvetchbot posted:people just haven't realized what a great deal they're missing out on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2022 01:03
|
|
|
fuctifino posted:cocaine is a terrible drug yeah terribly good
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2022 01:04
|
|
|
goatface posted:He doesn't seem to understand the difference between inventing a thing and selling the patent. He tried to act like king poo poo and correct Bernie in a smug way and was just wrong.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2022 01:04
|
|
|
Regrettable posted:He... didn't say anything about when it was discovered. He said when the patent was sold. Still of course not stopping idiots in the comments from saying he was fact checked because they, like Elon, can't read. Sounds like you just need to read up on facts better, dum dum
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2022 01:05
|
|
|
Also 25$ a dose ? Is a lot of money
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2022 01:07
|
|
|
I think we have to accept the very real possibility that Elon intends to repair his relationships with his advertisers by personally mounting misguided defences of them in the Twitter replies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2022 01:08
|
|
|
He should be banished to the netherrealms for a basic failure of intellectual property comprehension.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2022 01:09
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1590755506112823296?s=20 "🤣🤣🤣"
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2022 01:09
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Also 25$ a dose ? Is a lot of money To give him some credit, he probably means a vial. Still a 90% markup, but such is pharma.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2022 01:10
|
|
|
Esplanade posted:Waaaait a minute. How can we be sure you're the real Will Wheaton? Just check his virginity is still intact
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2022 01:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 22:32 |
|
|
Offler posted:How much do you want to bet that the reason the 8$/month crowd is getting 50% ads instead of no ads is that no-one left at Twitter is capable of programming ad-free. I'm betting everyone's getting the same (rapidly declining) amount of ads and Elon simply hopes that the people who've paid for 50% less won't notice. I'm assuming he's going to try to upsell the blue checkmark people as an ad target with more disposable income. It's the eternal struggle of pay-for ad-removal that you remove your most valuable marketing targets, and he's cynical enough to try to have his cake and eat it too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2022 01:11
|
|
