And I thought I was the only person I knew who wasn't a raving fan of his. I remember he once decided to remove the SpaceX page on Facebook because he was pissed off with Facebook and said he "just doesn't like Facebook". And a lot of people, including kids, really enjoyed the content on the SpaceX page.
What if he says tomorrow that he just doesn't like X company or Y person and that's why chose to block them on Twitter?
Interesting random set of comparisons :-) I don't know Elon Musk so I can't say I like or dislike him, but I respect the right of any individual to do as they please with their wealth, even if it offends my sensitivities.
The argument that his Twitter acquisition somehow changes free speech dynamics is pointless: the current owners have chosen to apply their content filter, and Mr. Musk may apply a different filter so there's no such thing as "transparency" in the absolute - it's only in the eye of the reader. As a critical, thinking human we should all be cognizant of that and factor it into our interpretation of anything that's published.
There are real problems with lack of transparency of who is controlling the narrative. While I think this twitter deal is a shame, at least we know who to blame when the DM's become public. And while old tweets cant be unsent, people have the choice to jump ship now if they dont like the direction of the platform moving forward. It is also a bit ridiculous that WE gave twitter this much power. Why does a social media platform have the power to affect elections or cancel the US president? Anyway, I have get back to watching the Johnny Depp trial...
And I thought I was the only person I knew who wasn't a raving fan of his. I remember he once decided to remove the SpaceX page on Facebook because he was pissed off with Facebook and said he "just doesn't like Facebook". And a lot of people, including kids, really enjoyed the content on the SpaceX page.
What if he says tomorrow that he just doesn't like X company or Y person and that's why chose to block them on Twitter?
Interesting random set of comparisons :-) I don't know Elon Musk so I can't say I like or dislike him, but I respect the right of any individual to do as they please with their wealth, even if it offends my sensitivities.
The argument that his Twitter acquisition somehow changes free speech dynamics is pointless: the current owners have chosen to apply their content filter, and Mr. Musk may apply a different filter so there's no such thing as "transparency" in the absolute - it's only in the eye of the reader. As a critical, thinking human we should all be cognizant of that and factor it into our interpretation of anything that's published.
Agree that no one person should be entrusted with that power.
However, I also dont think that 6 companies should own 90% of American media outlets either:
https://www.fool.com/investing/stock-market/market-sectors/communication/media-stocks/big-6/#:~:text=Some%20estimates%20claim%20as%20much,)%20(NASDAQ%3AFOX).
There are real problems with lack of transparency of who is controlling the narrative. While I think this twitter deal is a shame, at least we know who to blame when the DM's become public. And while old tweets cant be unsent, people have the choice to jump ship now if they dont like the direction of the platform moving forward. It is also a bit ridiculous that WE gave twitter this much power. Why does a social media platform have the power to affect elections or cancel the US president? Anyway, I have get back to watching the Johnny Depp trial...