Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Do a Google search for "Twitter" and "employees." See how many stories you get about younger employees upset that Musk might allow more unbridled speech.
They can't be upset about their holdings. They just got a 38% premium.
|
I don't have to use Google to be familiar with Twitter employees. If the young ones are upset, it's because they're going to get a new CEO, and so there's going to be a lot of upheaval. If you try, just for a second, to think of Twitter as a business rather than some sort of playpen for the woke, you can maybe imagine this.
"Yeah, it's a great place to work" -- No one I knew at Tesla or Solar City
Also, they're employees, not day-traders. They could get a premium over what they could have gotten last week, but only if they're vested. And the stock was trading above 70 last year.
Quote:
|
I'm referring to the construct of moderation itself. And your defense admits its flaws. If the basis for preclusion of certain content is commercial, well then smart managers would preclude information that reflects poorly on advertisers.
|
Perhaps. Or on the company. Are you familiar with anything anyone has said about Google over the last 15 years? It's a bigger concern for a company with market power, which no one thinks Twitter has.
Quote:
|
A concern about Musk is he will knuckle to Chinese censors to protect Tesla's market there.
|
Yep.
You seem to think I am defending all the moderation that platforms do. Uh, no.
Quote:
|
The moderators inherently have several conflicts of interest. Some are political, some commercial. They couldn't be entirely neutral when Twitter was public, as that would be acting in a manner contrary to shareholders' interests.
|
I don't know what you think a "political conflict of interest" is, and I don't think you do either.
Quote:
|
And to the extent getting on board with fashionable political positions (wokeness, ESG, etc.) is currently viewed as a good population/govt manipulation tactic by many of Twitters advertisers, Twitter's moderation cannot be deemed neutral. They have to dance to the tune of those that pay them.
|
You can keep saying things like that, but the conclusion simply does not follow from the conclusion. As you have put it here, Twitter should be "deemed" biased towards "fashionable political positions" which some of its advertisers support. You would be laughed out of town with that kind of argument about just about any other company, but, well, it's Twitter, so there you go.
I understand that you are ideologically committed to the principle that Twitter is biased against you, will continue to believe it whatever the evidence, and will keep working to turn facts into proof of your beliefs. You've made that very clear. If you ever want to understand how the company works, that'll call for a different approach.
