6 ms·

Duh. Twitter is obviously hurting for cash. Blue subscribers are paying them, almost literally for the privilege of doing whatever they want - no incentive to b

Duh. Twitter is obviously hurting for cash. Blue subscribers are paying them, almost literally for the privilege of doing whatever they want - no incentive to ban/suspend them. Also, there are no moderators anymore.

dylan604 3y ago
at $8/month, it's not like twitter banning these accounts is going to break the bank
bhaak 3y ago
> Twitter is obviously hurting for cash. Because it has to pay $15B of its own takeover price and Elon scared away advertisers. I hope somebody paid Elon handsomely for driving Twitter into the ground. Otherwise he doesn’t look very much like a good businessman.
- PM_me_your_math 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - cornercasechase 3y ago
    “Altruistic purposes”, what would those be? I’ve only seen him censor his opponents, spew bog standard far-right talking points and make poor product decisions. How is that “altruistic”?
    - antisthenes 3y ago
      There's part of me that considers driving the hate machine that is Twitter into the ground and general irrelevance an altruistic purpose. The world would be better off without Twitter, until they can figure out how to separate the hate machine from its useful purposes in a sustainable way.
      - xracy 3y ago
        While I appreciate this take as a funny consideration... I feel like it fails the altruism test by not being intentional.
    - rsynnott 3y ago
      Finally destroying the hellsite, for the benefit of all. (As someone who (a) used to enjoy Twitter a lot, (b) always suspected that Twitter was quite bad for society, I have mixed feeling about its current implosion.) (To be clear, he obviously is not destroying Twitter for altruistic purposes; the above is a joke. It should not be necessary to point this out, but one odd attribute of figures like Trump and Musk is that there are always people who insist that everything they do, no matter how obviously ridiculous, is actually intentional and ingenious, so Poe’s Law is in full effect here.)
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - thefz 3y ago
    > He's the most successful entrepreneur in the world, > doesn't care if he loses money, These two sentences contradict each other.
    - runarberg 3y ago
      Not really, only if we assume the market is rational. I think the fact that Elon Musk it the most successful entrepreneur in the world is a testament to the contrary. And that being a successful businessperson has nothing to do with merit or skill, but a lot more to do with happenstance, and former wealth. Our public policy on the global market has been neo-liberalism on full steam, the rich are getting richer, not because business people are getting smarter, but because government is deregulating exploitation as a matter of public policy. Somebody is bound to become extremely rich in this environment, and it just so happens that the people getting extremely rich are either the ones that exploit workers (i.e. Jeff Bezos) or the ones that fool rich investors (i.e. Elon Musk).
  - jsnell 3y ago
    He very clearly cares deeply about Twitter losing money. He was desperate to cut costs and increase revenue right from the start. He frequently whines about the cost of running Twitter. He has been stiffing a ton of Twitter's suppliers and not paying the bills. And there's a good reason for this. He is using a his own Tesla shares as collateral for some of the debt.
  - bhaak 3y ago
    Sucking up to autocratic rulers while claiming to be a free speech advocate is very altruistic (/s). Saying Twitter was already in the ground and then praising the guy that dug the hole a lot deeper, is also suggesting that your assessment of him is not based on his business acumen. Maybe you're hoping he's pumping your crypto bags? That's one of the things I consider him to be very good at.
jasmer 3y ago
Lack of moderation is 10x a worse problem for revenue that offending the blue icons. Moreover, it seems most of the activists don't want to contemplate that bigotry runs in all directions and saying things about 'men' or 'white people' probably should fall under the same auspices ... which is why even as irresponsible and inconsistent as Musk is, he leans a bit more 'loose' than not which is probably preferable than ideological forms of censorship. I also feel that as a society, we're going to get used to 'foul language' and that it just doesn't have the resonance it might have had. Someone spreading fake papers saying 'doctors are trying to kill you with vaccines', with a ton of followers, is actually more problematic than some random dirtbag's side-comment.
- runarberg 3y ago
  Anecdote to the contrary, I personally got banned from Twitter for answering the question “What do you think about them men?” with “#KillAllMen”. Now this is obviously not a real threat to use violence, but it got me banned nonetheless. To me it seems like Twitter is perfectly happy to moderate against the likes of feminists and LGBTQ+ activists.
  - jasmer 3y ago
    This example is not going to help your case. The statement 'kill all men' is literally a call to violence. Now of course (probably?) you didn't mean it as that, but it still falls well within purview of 'obviously moderated', probably immediately, by the automated mechanisms, and frankly, how could you expect anything otheriwse? The fact that you're willing to admit your bigotry and blatant hate speech on another forum, as though somehow you're a victim, is probably an exmaple of how we tolerate trolling dirtbag bigotry, so long as it 'targets the correct side'. My god man the lack of self awareness.
    - runarberg 3y ago
      Never claimed I shouldn’t have been banned (and frankly, I’m a little glad I was), just providing an anecdote that “saying things about 'men' or 'white people' does indeed fall under the same auspices” as bigots on the other political wing. Full disclosure though, I do believe moderation should not be applied equally across political the spectrum, when one extreme goes against a protected minority, but I won’t go into further details here on HN, as it would go against the guidelines of not engaging in political battles.

dylan604 3y ago

at $8/month, it's not like twitter banning these accounts is going to break the bank

bhaak 3y ago

> Twitter is obviously hurting for cash. Because it has to pay $15B of its own takeover price and Elon scared away advertisers. I hope somebody paid Elon handsomely for driving Twitter into the ground. Otherwise he doesn’t look very much like a good businessman.

PM_me_your_math 3y ago
[flagged]
- cornercasechase 3y ago
  “Altruistic purposes”, what would those be? I’ve only seen him censor his opponents, spew bog standard far-right talking points and make poor product decisions. How is that “altruistic”?
  - antisthenes 3y ago
    There's part of me that considers driving the hate machine that is Twitter into the ground and general irrelevance an altruistic purpose. The world would be better off without Twitter, until they can figure out how to separate the hate machine from its useful purposes in a sustainable way.
    - xracy 3y ago
      While I appreciate this take as a funny consideration... I feel like it fails the altruism test by not being intentional.
  - rsynnott 3y ago
    Finally destroying the hellsite, for the benefit of all. (As someone who (a) used to enjoy Twitter a lot, (b) always suspected that Twitter was quite bad for society, I have mixed feeling about its current implosion.) (To be clear, he obviously is not destroying Twitter for altruistic purposes; the above is a joke. It should not be necessary to point this out, but one odd attribute of figures like Trump and Musk is that there are always people who insist that everything they do, no matter how obviously ridiculous, is actually intentional and ingenious, so Poe’s Law is in full effect here.)
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- thefz 3y ago
  > He's the most successful entrepreneur in the world, > doesn't care if he loses money, These two sentences contradict each other.
  - runarberg 3y ago
    Not really, only if we assume the market is rational. I think the fact that Elon Musk it the most successful entrepreneur in the world is a testament to the contrary. And that being a successful businessperson has nothing to do with merit or skill, but a lot more to do with happenstance, and former wealth. Our public policy on the global market has been neo-liberalism on full steam, the rich are getting richer, not because business people are getting smarter, but because government is deregulating exploitation as a matter of public policy. Somebody is bound to become extremely rich in this environment, and it just so happens that the people getting extremely rich are either the ones that exploit workers (i.e. Jeff Bezos) or the ones that fool rich investors (i.e. Elon Musk).
- jsnell 3y ago
  He very clearly cares deeply about Twitter losing money. He was desperate to cut costs and increase revenue right from the start. He frequently whines about the cost of running Twitter. He has been stiffing a ton of Twitter's suppliers and not paying the bills. And there's a good reason for this. He is using a his own Tesla shares as collateral for some of the debt.
- bhaak 3y ago
  Sucking up to autocratic rulers while claiming to be a free speech advocate is very altruistic (/s). Saying Twitter was already in the ground and then praising the guy that dug the hole a lot deeper, is also suggesting that your assessment of him is not based on his business acumen. Maybe you're hoping he's pumping your crypto bags? That's one of the things I consider him to be very good at.

jasmer 3y ago

Lack of moderation is 10x a worse problem for revenue that offending the blue icons. Moreover, it seems most of the activists don't want to contemplate that bigotry runs in all directions and saying things about 'men' or 'white people' probably should fall under the same auspices ... which is why even as irresponsible and inconsistent as Musk is, he leans a bit more 'loose' than not which is probably preferable than ideological forms of censorship. I also feel that as a society, we're going to get used to 'foul language' and that it just doesn't have the resonance it might have had. Someone spreading fake papers saying 'doctors are trying to kill you with vaccines', with a ton of followers, is actually more problematic than some random dirtbag's side-comment.

runarberg 3y ago
Anecdote to the contrary, I personally got banned from Twitter for answering the question “What do you think about them men?” with “#KillAllMen”. Now this is obviously not a real threat to use violence, but it got me banned nonetheless. To me it seems like Twitter is perfectly happy to moderate against the likes of feminists and LGBTQ+ activists.
- jasmer 3y ago
  This example is not going to help your case. The statement 'kill all men' is literally a call to violence. Now of course (probably?) you didn't mean it as that, but it still falls well within purview of 'obviously moderated', probably immediately, by the automated mechanisms, and frankly, how could you expect anything otheriwse? The fact that you're willing to admit your bigotry and blatant hate speech on another forum, as though somehow you're a victim, is probably an exmaple of how we tolerate trolling dirtbag bigotry, so long as it 'targets the correct side'. My god man the lack of self awareness.
  - runarberg 3y ago
    Never claimed I shouldn’t have been banned (and frankly, I’m a little glad I was), just providing an anecdote that “saying things about 'men' or 'white people' does indeed fall under the same auspices” as bigots on the other political wing. Full disclosure though, I do believe moderation should not be applied equally across political the spectrum, when one extreme goes against a protected minority, but I won’t go into further details here on HN, as it would go against the guidelines of not engaging in political battles.