Elon Musk: Always A Douche

[Sheilbh]

Surely that depends on how much of the media is alt right.

That's always a risk unless we ban them as a matter of law. They are incredibly small in the scheme of things though - I think the bigger issue is Fox and the mainstream media. I think CNN going live to all Trump's rallies and playing them in full in 2016 is more important to him winning than, say Newsmax (the alt right outlet with probably the highest viewership).

Also as I say I think commenting on social media trends - including the alt right - boost them and is also cheap content for most mainstream news providers. Again I think if they had a bigger budget editorially they would not need to focus so much on that. My general view is that this is a supply issue and it's difficult for the good to drive out the bad when most media companies are really struggling - especially for the higher cost, long-term commitment types of journalism that have the most impact. I think getting the distribution networks to pay a fair price is a better solution than getting them to assume a quasi-regulatory role.

Practically it's slightly more complicated than a tax. It's a law makes bargaining mandatory between news media in Australia and the big platforms. The idea is that it provides incentives for them to reach a deal on licensing where the news publisher gets paid for the content. That would not help the alt-right/alternative media because normally their content is rated as less valuable (one, fair, criticism of the Aussie law was that it massively favours the established media - in Australia, particularly, News Corp ove small media companies). The parties can negotiate a deal and if they fail then there's a mandatory, binding, non-appealable arbitration process. But there are also entities that are not really subject to the mandatory barganing process - Google reports lots of lifestyle publications and city guides trying to do deals who are out of scope. It's a broad definition but not inexaustible so some alternative media might fall out of scope - I think the definition was worked up by the Aussie regulators. And the overall policy goal which is what the regulators have reported (positively) on is to "sustain public interest journalism in Australia" - so it does prioritise journalism over comment which may impact the alternative media.

There's gaps/issues with it. It's not doing well in covering radio networks and, as Jos says, it absolutely favours the established media (because their content is a "higher-quality" click and they have vastly higher readership) - although I'd dispute that any of them are "big money" that's part of the problem. It had a lot of negative international coverage - but I know of deals and they are absolutely transformative for newsrooms. At the point of this review, the Guardian Australia has grown by over 40 journalists including 10 FTE (not all directly because of this), there's ABC up there, Nine Entertainment has also reported being able to hire new journalists, SBS (which aims to deliver content reflecting multi-cultural Australia) has said its allowed them to increase full time staff particularly for telling First Nations' stories.

It will expand to other smaller publishers. This is the first year but Google and Meta are still engaged in these negotiations with lots of other publishers. Meta's deals are all for 3 years so it'll be really interesting to see how they try to wriggle out of renewals in a couple of years, Google's are for 5.

I keep reading proposals and ideas on how to get money into local reporting or, say, media in Africa and it seems to me that making the platforms pay fair value to producers for the commercial benefit they get from distributing content would be a really good way of doing it. It would give a stable income stream, allow re-investment and, possibly, a move away from the insane levels of disruptive ads (see any Reach publication in the UK like the Liverpool Echo which is borderline unreadable). But it also wouldn't give platforms more power by making them quasi-regulators or rely on their discretion like all of the proposals about them funding trusts for local journalism which also just entrenches their power.

[Admiral Yi]

The point I was trying to make is that some of that licensing money will go to disseminators of misinformation.  And we know Facebook's algorithm pushes angry click bait.  I know I get enough of it on my youtube feed.

[Sheilbh]

The point I was trying to make is that some of that licensing money will go to disseminators of misinformation.  And we know Facebook's algorithm pushes angry click bait.  I know I get enough of it on my youtube feed.

Yeah. My view is they're not the issue and if there's a problem with content then it should be banned and addressed by regulators - not private actors like Meta who already have a lot of institutional power. The alternative media is genuinely tiny in terms of actual page views etc. They won't get much because they're smaller and their clicks tend to be lower value. But generally in my view alternative media is not special and should be regulated by, but also able to benefit from, the exact same laws that apply to the mainstream, established media.

In fact we had a case just yesterday in the UK of aggravated damages (basically to the amount he'd crowdfunded) against a Corbynite alternative journalist for libel. It was all to do anti-semitism issues in Labour.

Although one of the other requirements in Australia is transparency on algorithms and how they impact publishers as well as advance notice of any changes.

Not sure how it works with YouTube. I'd asume they're part of the Google deals

[garbon]

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/dec/01/elon-musk-resolves-apple-row-over-removal-of-twitter-from-iphone-store

Elon Musk 'resolves' Apple row over 'removal of Twitter from iPhone store'

After chat with Tim Cook the tycoon admits misunderstanding and Apple had 'never considered removing platform'

Elon Musk has said he has "resolved" a misunderstanding with Apple over his claim that Twitter was being threatened with removal from the iPhone maker's app store.

The new Twitter owner tweeted on Wednesday that he had had a "good conversation" with Apple CEO Tim Cook and that Apple had "never considered" removing the social media platform from its app store.

On Monday, Musk used his Twitter account to claim that Apple had broached removing Twitter for unspecified reasons. The Tesla CEO then indicated it was related to moderation standards at Twitter, while he launched a series of tweets criticising Apple including its policy of taking a cut of up to 30% from app sales.

Now he can resolve matters that weren't even real. What can't he do?

[Valmy]

I am kind of impressed he lied and then admitted the lied the very next day and somehow comes out of it looking like some kind of peace maker.

This is the kind of bullshit circus ringmaster shit he is a master of. It is amazing. He should run for political office.

[garbon]

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2022/dec/02/kanye-west-suspended-from-twitter-after-posting-swastika-inside-the-star-of-david

Kanye West suspended from Twitter after posting swastika inside Star of David

Ye, the rapper formerly known as Kanye West, has been suspended from Twitter after he tweeted an image of a swastika blended with a star of David, less than two weeks after he returned to the platform.

The suspension took place hours after Ye praised Adolf Hitler and the Nazis in an interview on InfoWars, a show hosted by the rightwing conspiracy theorist Alex Jones.

Ye was one of several high-profile Twitter users whose accounts were banned or restricted on the site who then had them reinstated after Elon Musk took over as owner.

Ye's account was unlocked on 21 November, having previously been restricted for tweeting an antisemitic message.

Musk tweeted: "I tried my best. Despite that, he again violated our rule against incitement to violence. Account will be suspended."

Musk has previously described his approach to content moderation as: "If in doubt, let the speech exist." As well as reinstating Trump's account, Musk has declared a "general amnesty" for previously suspended accounts. Musk did not clarify whether Ye's suspension would be permanent.

On Thursday night, Ye shared the image of the swastika over the Star of David, a symbol of Judaism. The tweet was swiftly deleted. Also on Thursday, it was announced that Ye was no longer buying Parler, the rightwing social media network. Parler said the decision was made "in the interest of both parties".

"Let's always remember this as my final tweet," Ye wrote, posting an unflattering image of Musk half-naked on a yacht.

"That is fine," Musk replied. "This is not," he wrote on the deleted swastika tweet.

...

Guess this is what happens when hyperbolic free speech rhetoric meets reality.

[Admiral Yi]

The man is at least capable of learning from his mistakes.

[The Brain]

Will Trump be banned again if he attempts another coup?

[Admiral Yi]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrhSIDu4_Zw

Here's the Elon we all used to love.  Semi rollout.

[Darth Wagtaros]

Will Trump be banned again if he attempts another coup?

Nothing happened. Patriots were brutalized by rogue police.

[Valmy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrhSIDu4_Zw

Here's the Elon we all used to love.  Semi rollout.

Thanks. That did my heart good.

More of that, less social media bullshit.

[alfred russel]

Will Trump be banned again if he attempts another coup?

As with most things of this nature, I guess it depends on whether the coup is successful?

[The Larch]

Musk says 'possible' that Twitter gave preference to leftists during Brazil election

 Twitter owner Elon Musk said on Saturday he thought it was "possible" that personnel at the social media firm gave preference to left-wing candidates during Brazil's election this year, without providing evidence.

Musk completed his acquisition of Twitter on Oct. 27, just days before Brazil's presidential second round runoff vote, when far-right incumbent Jair Bolsonaro was defeated by leftist Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.

I don't think this is a thing you can happily say in this time and age without providing evidence for it. Otherwise it's just going to, at best, fuel conspiracy theories, and at worst might ignite civil disorder.

[Darth Wagtaros]

Musk says 'possible' that Twitter gave preference to leftists during Brazil election

 Twitter owner Elon Musk said on Saturday he thought it was "possible" that personnel at the social media firm gave preference to left-wing candidates during Brazil's election this year, without providing evidence.

Musk completed his acquisition of Twitter on Oct. 27, just days before Brazil's presidential second round runoff vote, when far-right incumbent Jair Bolsonaro was defeated by leftist Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.

I don't think this is a thing you can happily say in this time and age without providing evidence for it. Otherwise it's just going to, at best, fuel conspiracy theories, and at worst might ignite civil disorder.

So? He's not doing anything the other ultra libertarian/Q types have been doing.  FOr that matter, its the same thing History Channel et al does with their Ancient Aliens shit.

Is it possible that the pilgrims were alien leftists? Could the Pyramids hold the key to destroying Marxism?

[viper37]

Musk says 'possible' that Twitter gave preference to leftists during Brazil election

 Twitter owner Elon Musk said on Saturday he thought it was "possible" that personnel at the social media firm gave preference to left-wing candidates during Brazil's election this year, without providing evidence.

Musk completed his acquisition of Twitter on Oct. 27, just days before Brazil's presidential second round runoff vote, when far-right incumbent Jair Bolsonaro was defeated by leftist Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.

I don't think this is a thing you can happily say in this time and age without providing evidence for it. Otherwise it's just going to, at best, fuel conspiracy theories, and at worst might ignite civil disorder.

I don't think he cares.