Elon Musk: Always A Douche

[crazy canuck]

I enjoy it quite a bit. I don't see much of what most people complain about because I follow academics, and journalists who were commenting on the local BC and Canadian scene.

Speaking of comments by Canadians, the sentence that came to me when I was dealing with Twitter was "the medium is the message." There was just something about how the medium of Twitter worked that seemed to make whatever group I would associate with become more toxic over time. And it wasn't Twitter's rules or whatever it was the very structure how it worked. The limits on characters, the ability to retweet and put people on blast, the whole like and whatever deal. It just seemed to encourage cult-like formation of of in-groups and shunning of out-groups and it all got really nasty. People love to form little cult groups and toxically performatively shun people anyway, those are unfortunately very nasty human things humans like to do. Twitter just really empowered that. When I realized that, back in 2014, I left never to return. The whole Gamergate thing playing out at the time didn't help.

But I do realize you can have positive experiences with Twitter, I certainly did at times during my time there.

Elon Musk is welcome to it though.

That probably says more about how it is generally used.

The academics I follow talk about their work.  Not that toxic.

[PJL]

The main issue with Twitter is that the format is really a written variant of the quick soundbite & clickbait that we all see, but also that the MSM picks up on tweets by famous people and amplifies its message. It's the amplification that's the most problematic. You could argue that the MSM shouldn't be doing it, but then why not deal with the issue at source? That's where the concern now lies with Musk taking it over.

[Valmy]

That probably says more about how it is generally used.

I am not sure what this means. I observed that healthy groups tended to go nuts on twitter where they didn't seem to on other platforms. And considering those other platforms and the issues with those that was pretty damning.

The academics I follow talk about their work.  Not that toxic.

I am not sure what sort of academics can be summed up in a few characters. How can you have long form discussions on important academic topics in that format? I mean unless they are just linking to stuff off site.

But anyway it doesn't matter. If you and these academics are having a great experience on twitter than good for you. I didn't have such a great time.

[Valmy]

The main issue with Twitter is that the format is really a written variant of the quick soundbite & clickbait that we all see, but also that the MSM picks up on tweets by famous people and amplifies its message. It's the amplification that's the most problematic. You could argue that the MSM shouldn't be doing it, but then why not deal with the issue at source? That's where the concern now lies with Musk taking it over.

If famous people are going to be making public statements then the media will cover it. I don't think the media only covers twitter though right?

[Josquius]

The fundamental problem with Twitter is you can't do any nuance in 288 characters, so everything is just absolutist hot takes.

Yes. You cannot have real discussions in the medium provided. That is what I was getting at. The medium creates cultish tribalism and shunning behaviors.

More than the character limit what is particularly dodgy is the system of likes. Triggers black and white thinking.

I wonder whether something like twitter could work where you indyead give a more nuanced score... Though if uber and the like is any indication less than 5/5 means somebody has pissed on your mother.

[The Larch]

I am not sure what sort of academics can be summed up in a few characters. How can you have long form discussions on important academic topics in that format? I mean unless they are just linking to stuff off site.

While covering the war in Ukraine, I've seen reporters and analysts doing 30+ tweet threads. If there's a will, there's a way.

[Barrister]

I am not sure what sort of academics can be summed up in a few characters. How can you have long form discussions on important academic topics in that format? I mean unless they are just linking to stuff off site.

While covering the war in Ukraine, I've seen reporters and analysts doing 30+ tweet threads. If there's a will, there's a way.

I've seen lengthy tweet threads too.  But when you think about it a 30 tweet thread is probably what - a 1500 word article?  Still pretty short to express complicated ideas.

[The Larch]

I am not sure what sort of academics can be summed up in a few characters. How can you have long form discussions on important academic topics in that format? I mean unless they are just linking to stuff off site.

While covering the war in Ukraine, I've seen reporters and analysts doing 30+ tweet threads. If there's a will, there's a way.

I've seen lengthy tweet threads too.  But when you think about it a 30 tweet thread is probably what - a 1500 word article?  Still pretty short to express complicated ideas.

Then you link out of Twitter.

[crazy canuck]

That probably says more about how it is generally used.

I am not sure what this means. I observed that healthy groups tended to go nuts on twitter where they didn't seem to on other platforms. And considering those other platforms and the issues with those that was pretty damning.

The academics I follow talk about their work.  Not that toxic.

I am not sure what sort of academics can be summed up in a few characters. How can you have long form discussions on important academic topics in that format? I mean unless they are just linking to stuff off site.

But anyway it doesn't matter. If you and these academics are having a great experience on twitter than good for you. I didn't have such a great time.

I am not sure what sort of academics can be summed up in a few characters. How can you have long form discussions on important academic topics in that format? I mean unless they are just linking to stuff off site.

But anyway it doesn't matter. If you and these academics are having a great experience on twitter than good for you. I didn't have such a great time.

If you're not sure, the hell are you arguing with me? And by the way have you known encountered Twitter discussions in which there is something called a thread in which people develop a fairly interesting argument in multiple posts and then people discuss it?

[Jacob]

Interesting Twitter thread on how Elon Musk may have fucked himself by buying Twitter: https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/1586070566221402113

[DGuller]

Interesting Twitter thread on how Elon Musk may have fucked himself by buying Twitter: https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/1586070566221402113

Problem is that it can go both ways.  Musk may actually get more sweet deals from authoritarian governments if he lets them use Twitter for their own purposes.

[Iormlund]

Elon's purchase of Twitter reminds me of Trump running for office after that Correspondent's dinner.

[HVC]

Interesting Twitter thread on how Elon Musk may have fucked himself by buying Twitter: https://twitter.com/alexstamos/status/1586070566221402113

Another step closer to Bond Villain

[Sheilbh]

Problem is that it can go both ways.  Musk may actually get more sweet deals from authoritarian governments if he lets them use Twitter for their own purposes.

Yeah - I feel like the billionaire with massive economic interests in China buying a social media company is a bigger risk than the edgelord side of things.

Having said that I think Trump and the importance of Twitter for journalists doing their job has overstated the importance of what is a comparatively niche social media company that largely seems to be plateauing. Facebook (plus WhatsApp, Insta etc) deserves vastly more attention but doesn't get it because it's not where journalists do their job - and in terms of use and misuse of personal information Google also deserves a huge amount more attention.

[OttoVonBismarck]

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/29/technology/twitter-layoffs-musk-jobs.html?unlocked_article_code=3JlLN9MKkAcYQoCfYtRPGfcKqIhoNEAAUlMn4a15yLHTY7jnIzz_zDBOw4o_Lk9NJ89LQOiCECKcG5wqi_feif4FcznStixWSRagqyywB1hODHPMjxu8hI-S1h-5FLzWnDXsrg5AABXxPNGxX_sIHMT3wHTwoUiJQx8L0gE14nCPvdNTDRNRhCKQ6qTk5-64lUoyzTjc38UbNsSwv3MCHjLhzpDpjRpz6yprq-1MI9tXfNWcZ9TFvbTMWD-fnWtiQvA8duaXCkH7_sbzgYE8Ol6fHfZp12_UIVG4JIj5sRJ2HLQmaIcJ9AyCrutUl0RoeiRYYILsWYazhsIitC9khpCAjI9NRA&smid=share-url

Apparently the Times is reporting Musk is doing a few things:

1. Preparing to layoff 50% of Twitter's staff prior to 11/1, specifically to screw those employees out of a 11/1 vesting date for restricted stock awards.

2. Fired the executive team "for cause" which voids their golden parachute deals (most of them still made tens of millions from the simple fact of their shares outstanding being converted at $52.40, so this does not beggar any of them--Agrawal had the smallest holding of vested shares of the executive team fired because he had been on the job the shortest period of time.)

I am highly skeptical of the business wisdom or legal prospects of either move--both of which are in violation of the signed merger agreement. He bought a company headquartered in California, not Texas. That is going to mean that shenanigans around firings for cause, and layoffs, are going to involve a lot more employee friendly legal regulations. Which I think he would know considering Tesla was headquarted in California and employs thousands of people there. I find it extremely unlikely he will prevail in a California court on either of these efforts.

A bigger deal is I frankly cannot fathom any large software company laying off 50% of its workforce--with the people chosen for reduction literally picked over a couple of days, not crippling the company. None of this is confirmed reporting, but just from a business perspective I don't fully understand how Musk, or his minority investors (whom he owes a fiduciary duty to legally), are protecting their investment with these moves. That's why I'm a little skeptical.