finspeech

11 ms·

1.
by finspeech 4y ago
No need to rephrase. That was indeed my question. Fact of the matter is, you need money to participate in society at large. I don’t see why it’s bad that Twitter’s not any different. I’m not here to defend Elon’s principles, but if charging
2.
by finspeech 4y ago
I think a case could be made for it. Or something like only taxpayers get to vote since they are effectively deciding how to spend their collective dollars. This is how companies operate with shareholders and that seems to work and people d
3.
by finspeech 4y ago
And those that made bad choices that the market doesn’t agree with are punished accordingly, by losing their money and thus influence in future decisions
4.
by finspeech 4y ago
But is that actually bad? Don’t we want the people making decisions to have skin in the game? People use money everyday to express their preferences, why shouldn’t we use it here?
5.
by finspeech 4y ago
This is the way it should be. People need to have skin in the game and this is in line with my suggestion on how Twitter can solve both its revenue problem and its content moderation problem all at once. The idea is to auction off the right
6.
by finspeech 4y ago
> Isn’t every product margin an opportunity for competition? Yes. Which is why marginal revenue does trend towards marginal cost, contrary to what you’re claiming. High margins are a signal to the market that more supply is needed > T
7.
by finspeech 4y ago
Yes that is true, but under the assumption that prices are only raising due to corporations increasing them, then my original post comes into play where for everyone that is worse off, there is someone necessarily better off. Thus the consu
8.
by finspeech 4y ago
Yeah, but there are plenty of people who do own assets. It’s not just the 1% that owns all the assets. Plus, the market, and peoples’ places in it are not static. Many lower income people are lower income due to the fact that they are young
9.
by finspeech 4y ago
Increased profit margins can be entirely explained by an increase in the money supply (remember those pandemic stimulus checks). Supply of goods stayed the same, or even decreased as people stopped working and producing, and the supply of m
10.
by finspeech 4y ago
> Real wages have been flat for median workers since the 70s Real wages for workers in what context? The US? The industrialized nations? Perhaps the better explanation for this (assuming it’s true) is that the median worker in industrial
11.
by finspeech 4y ago
I’ll grant this, but no matter what it’s called, ultimately no group (consumer vs. business) is better or worse off. In such a spiral it’s just the nominal numbers that are changing and not the ‘real’ numbers What keeps this from happening,
12.
by finspeech 4y ago
> It doesn’t have to be collision It does have to be collusion, otherwise competition to keep prices low > don’t deny it is a possibility while witnessing it as a reality I’m not denying that profit margins (of some companies) are hig
13.
by finspeech 4y ago
Setting aside the almost impossible feat that every business could collude to arbitrarily double their profit margins, even if your assumption is granted, it would ultimately have no effect on consumers as a whole. So, assuming businesses a
14.
by finspeech 4y ago
1. Yeah I agree, it is, albeit a bit more indirect. By making it more direct and explicit then content moderation can be more granular and have a tighter feedback loop and ultimately controlled by users—which I think is a win 2. If there’s
15.
by finspeech 4y ago
Level 21: Financialize speech. Give the power of content moderation directly to the people by harnessing markets. Want to ban/allow Ye or Trump? Highest bidder gets to decide. Gives another revenue stream to Twitter and takes the conte
16.
by finspeech 4y ago
I’m just making the implicit, explicit. At least this way it’s not done in back rooms by power brokers, but out in the open in which everyone can participate. Also, the People have money too. They can organize. I just want to give them a ch
17.
by finspeech 4y ago
Agree with everything you said. Especially that what is acceptable speech is dynamic and it’s hard to define. I view the boundaries of acceptable speech as a resource. And like other resources in which we need to allocate in society, we use
18.
by finspeech 4y ago
Yeah, excellent idea. Definitely have to delegate and decentralize the verification process if you want something that’ll scale. And if Musk doesn’t implement this users could perhaps do it themselves with a browser extension where each use