Twitter engineering boss Foad Dabiri quits day after DeSantis launch glitches(bbc.com)
bbc.com
Twitter engineering boss Foad Dabiri quits day after DeSantis launch glitches
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-65717731
142 comments
It’s a real thing. I left a place recently for completely unrelated reasons, and figuring out how to tell everyone was weirdly challenging. The timing was also such that it seemed directly related to the company.
Sometimes people just want to change up their career. It happens. There’s no particular reason.
And yeah, sure, he could’ve been let go for the technical glitches. But it’s hardly his fault if his heart isn’t in it anymore. People change. The trick is to depart before it becomes a problem, which (as I’ve discovered) is indeed tricky. Your instinct is to stay simply because it’s the default, it’s good money, and it’s no effort to change the status quo. Plus you worked hard to get there. All of those are difficult forces to overcome when you just want to do something, anything, else.
Sometimes people just want to change up their career. It happens. There’s no particular reason.
And yeah, sure, he could’ve been let go for the technical glitches. But it’s hardly his fault if his heart isn’t in it anymore. People change. The trick is to depart before it becomes a problem, which (as I’ve discovered) is indeed tricky. Your instinct is to stay simply because it’s the default, it’s good money, and it’s no effort to change the status quo. Plus you worked hard to get there. All of those are difficult forces to overcome when you just want to do something, anything, else.
The rate at which drama happens at Twitter probably makes it especially tricky to time an exit to avoid it looking like the reason.
I think in the absence of evidence we just take the man at his word.
I think in the absence of evidence we just take the man at his word.
> Second point is that evidently twitter didn’t pay its bills (hosting maybe?) for Spaces.
This is Musk’s #1 play in his playbook. Stop paying people and see who is willing to fight for it legally. Then negotiate down.
He did the same thing with Solar Roof customers when he doubled their price and asked them to sign a new contract even if they had a signed contract. My friend was one of those and he simply refused to sign anything because he knew better but I wonder how many signed the new contract. Eventually they relented and honored the original price but it was disgusting to even have to deal with that.
This is Musk’s #1 play in his playbook. Stop paying people and see who is willing to fight for it legally. Then negotiate down.
He did the same thing with Solar Roof customers when he doubled their price and asked them to sign a new contract even if they had a signed contract. My friend was one of those and he simply refused to sign anything because he knew better but I wonder how many signed the new contract. Eventually they relented and honored the original price but it was disgusting to even have to deal with that.
Musk is as much a dirtbag industrialist as the rest – Jobs, Gates, Sergey/Brin, Bezos, Waltons, Sacklers, Rockefeller, JP Morgan.
We admire them for their successes, which they use to camouflage their misdeeds. Worth studying but never becoming.
We admire them for their successes, which they use to camouflage their misdeeds. Worth studying but never becoming.
Do they use it to camouflage their misdeeds, or are the misdeeds how they achieve such success?
> 2. Second point is that evidently twitter didn’t pay its bills (hosting maybe?) for Spaces. Source: https://www.theinformation.com/articles/twitter-cut-key-soft...
you could have some fun here if you were a creditor who Musk was refusing to pay
leave the service running, and cut it off at the point it does as much political damage as possible to Musk
you could have some fun here if you were a creditor who Musk was refusing to pay
leave the service running, and cut it off at the point it does as much political damage as possible to Musk
We won't know the truth until he is well clear of Musk's grasp.
Remember Musk clawed-back severance and bonuses on many people who already left.
Would you put someone on a two-week notice in charge of a nationwide critical launch?
In any case, hard to care no matter what the truth is, one more stupid twitter thing where it's a death by 1000 self-inflicted cuts.
I still don't get why there isn't an alternative, it's just a brand name, the service could have be replicated.
Remember Musk clawed-back severance and bonuses on many people who already left.
Would you put someone on a two-week notice in charge of a nationwide critical launch?
In any case, hard to care no matter what the truth is, one more stupid twitter thing where it's a death by 1000 self-inflicted cuts.
I still don't get why there isn't an alternative, it's just a brand name, the service could have be replicated.
“Remember Musk clawed-back severance and bonuses on many people who already left.”
How does that work?
How does that work?
> clickbaiting.
Perhaps, but the reasoning seems to basically boil down to "Journalists should take everything as gospel unless explicitly proven otherwise"
Perhaps, but the reasoning seems to basically boil down to "Journalists should take everything as gospel unless explicitly proven otherwise"
Journalists should take everything as heresy and then do the job they're supposed to do, which is prove or disprove it.
Everyone went against me on HN when I said it's dangerous of BBC to associate the Desantis event with Dabiri without evidence: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36082410#36082475
There’s a huge influx of new HN users. Like, a massive spike over the last few months. I don’t think it’s worth worrying about voting patterns until they’ve had time to steep in HN’s culture. I’ve noticed similar fluctuations in pretty much anything remotely controversial I’ve posted.
The more alarming aspect was the shrillness of replies, which seem to generally go unchallenged. I don’t like the idea that people think HN is for loudness. But thankfully that seems to be a minor fluctuation.
The sibling reply from Freedom2 is right too — your comment (other than the downvote complaints, which I know is hard to resist) generated some good discussion.
The more alarming aspect was the shrillness of replies, which seem to generally go unchallenged. I don’t like the idea that people think HN is for loudness. But thankfully that seems to be a minor fluctuation.
The sibling reply from Freedom2 is right too — your comment (other than the downvote complaints, which I know is hard to resist) generated some good discussion.
Is there some place where I can see the data that backs up this influx of users? I ask because I believe you because I’ve felt that way too recently, but I’d love to verify it.
Sure is: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34110321 Hacker News Insight.
I hope it’s a measurement error, because the spike is literally a J.
I hope it’s a measurement error, because the spike is literally a J.
Dunno. It does feel as if discourse on HN has become less thoughtful and more angry/Reddit-esque…
Well, there's a whole HN subreddit that exists solely to post HN threads and encourage redditors to visit HN for more discussion.
It's still somewhat nascent, but with more high profile articles posted, you'll see more people coming over.
Fortunately, the UI here is not good enough to probably hold redditor interest in the long term.
It's still somewhat nascent, but with more high profile articles posted, you'll see more people coming over.
Fortunately, the UI here is not good enough to probably hold redditor interest in the long term.
Use the HN API and just pull all the users, it's got created date, then feed to your favorite BI tool.
How many are bots being crafted into sockpuppet accounts to silence damaging information.
I regularly pull HN data from the API. Any idea what kind of pattern I should look for? Like? Old+low karma? Maybe I could use GPT to analyze someone comment history?
You can’t downvote until 500 karma so it doesn’t matter. HN has voting ring detection as well.
Does HN not still require a certain level of upvotes to get access to voting?
I’ve always only been able to upvote; I’m guessing that lurking means I’ve never gained enough upvotes to access anything else.
Yeah the FAQ seems like you can upvote but not downvote until you have a certain amount of karma. I don't remember when I unlocked the downvote.
I think what's most important is that "curious" discussion was generated out of your comment! Despite what you may think, I believe the discussion spawned out of it was a resounding success.
shusaku(1)
> Working with @elonmusk has been highly educational, and it was enlightening to see how his principles and vision are shaping the future of this company.
Enlightening and educational indeed, I suppose.
Enlightening and educational indeed, I suppose.
This guy's a pro. He said all he needed to say with that.
He left out the wonderful journey.
We'll see. I'd buy stock in Twitter today if I could. I bet Musk gets it profitable - the previous management never did.
Sounds like someone doesn't know much about how Twitter is capitalized.
I know it's privately held and can't buy stock in it.
I realise that this is the premise of the Musk takeover. How does that work in practice? Twitter was a public company, with plenty of current and former employees having shares due to compensation.
Were these people forced to accept money over their legitimately held shares? If not, is it now illegal for them to sell their shares?
In other words: I can see that it is no longer traded at the stock exchange, but I don't know enough about stock to understand how the genie is forced back into the bottle.
Were these people forced to accept money over their legitimately held shares? If not, is it now illegal for them to sell their shares?
In other words: I can see that it is no longer traded at the stock exchange, but I don't know enough about stock to understand how the genie is forced back into the bottle.
I owned Tiffany stock when it was taken private. I received cash for the shares.
This is definitely what happened for vested shares. You'll get whatever price Elon promised to pay. No idea on unvested.
I am not sure how it works in the US, but in the UK, an entity that buys at least 90% of a company can force the minority shareholders to sell at the same price.
There are no shares for them to sell because it is a private entity.
Their RSUs/equity would have either been deleted, converted to private equity that you can maybe sell on the secondary markets at best, or converted to cash bonuses.
I think 1/3 are pretty unlikely and 2 would have those RSUs in the gutter as well.
Maybe a disgruntled Twitter employee could comment.
Their RSUs/equity would have either been deleted, converted to private equity that you can maybe sell on the secondary markets at best, or converted to cash bonuses.
I think 1/3 are pretty unlikely and 2 would have those RSUs in the gutter as well.
Maybe a disgruntled Twitter employee could comment.
That sounds like some weapons grade spin. It’s like the corporate-speak version of “oh you sweet summer child” or “bless your heart”
“Hey ChatGPT, tell me how to say I’ve never seen a man stupider, period, but you know,”
It’s not too far off the actual response:
“I must admit, I have rarely come across someone with a more unique perspective on things. It’s truly intriguing to witness such different ways of thinking.”
“I must admit, I have rarely come across someone with a more unique perspective on things. It’s truly intriguing to witness such different ways of thinking.”
Damning with faint praise
"Bless Elon's Heart"
It's a random engineering director in the growth dept, likely not on the hook for Spaces. Feels pretty likely to be unrelated.
The media is hellbent on pushing the narrative that Musk is destroying Twitter. It’s actually kind of wild. You see it on here too.
I think Musk’s product vision is noble and clear: to make Twitter as neutral and transparent a speech platform as possible. No soft censoring, algorithmic manipulation, etc. You can imagine why certain groups would be against that. And rooting out “extremism” is not it, despite what they say.
I think Musk’s product vision is noble and clear: to make Twitter as neutral and transparent a speech platform as possible. No soft censoring, algorithmic manipulation, etc. You can imagine why certain groups would be against that. And rooting out “extremism” is not it, despite what they say.
N = 1 and all that but the change to elevate blue check accounts actually organically made me stop using Twitter. I respect their right to monetize however they feel is best, but it elevated the most ignorant and illiberal and downright hateful and toxic tweets from the dullest and most ignorant and generally worst people the platform has to offer. It simply made the platform unpleasant to use in the way its UX had previously encouraged me to use it, so I stopped.
Maybe I'm alone in not wanting to see (real example off the top of my head) apologia for a mass shooter's neo-nazi tattoos pushed to the top of my feed in the interest of "neutral and transparent free speech". But I don't think so.
Maybe I'm alone in not wanting to see (real example off the top of my head) apologia for a mass shooter's neo-nazi tattoos pushed to the top of my feed in the interest of "neutral and transparent free speech". But I don't think so.
GP probably thinks it's important that anti-mask, anti-vaccine, pro-violence rhetoric makes its way to the top of the replies in the name of "free speech".
Meanwhile: https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2023/5/2/twitter-fulfillin...
> The social media giant fully or partially complied with 98.8 percent of takedown requests it received from October 27, the date of Musk’s takeover, to April 13, including hundreds of requests from Turkey and India, which have faced criticism for silencing critics.
> Twitter fully complied with 440, or 50 percent, of requests and partially complied with 377, or 42 percent, during the 12-month period before Musk’s takeover.
> The social media giant fully or partially complied with 98.8 percent of takedown requests it received from October 27, the date of Musk’s takeover, to April 13, including hundreds of requests from Turkey and India, which have faced criticism for silencing critics.
> Twitter fully complied with 440, or 50 percent, of requests and partially complied with 377, or 42 percent, during the 12-month period before Musk’s takeover.
Meanwhile, legitimate newspapers like "Kyiv Independent" is getting deprioritized right now. Because its become obvious that Elon is anti-Ukrainian with a huge number of his actions.
He’s been paying for the Starlink connection that the Ukrainian army has been using in the field. Tell me again how he’s anti-Ukrainian?
1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/08/us-quietl...
Those come from the Pentagon's budget, not Elon Musk.
2. Musk turned off Starlink in Crimea.
3. Musk believes Crimea belongs to Russia. Following, and loudly proclaiming, Russian propaganda.
----------
Given all the issues Starlink has been having, all it has proven is that SpaceX is an unreliable partner. In the future, its clear that unless your politics line up with Musk, you shouldn't trust that internet service.
Those come from the Pentagon's budget, not Elon Musk.
2. Musk turned off Starlink in Crimea.
3. Musk believes Crimea belongs to Russia. Following, and loudly proclaiming, Russian propaganda.
----------
Given all the issues Starlink has been having, all it has proven is that SpaceX is an unreliable partner. In the future, its clear that unless your politics line up with Musk, you shouldn't trust that internet service.
That article was dated April 8th 2022 over a year ago. A more recent article says that the U.S. stopped paying for them in September and SpaceX picked up the costs. Then in December they got funding from European countries. If Musk were “anti-Ukraine” he would have simply stopped the service. SpaceX is the sole internet provider for a vast part of Ukraine.
A Ukrainian official said:
"Musk assured us he will continue to support Ukraine. When we had a powerful blackout, I messaged him on that day and he momentarily reacted and has already delivered some steps. He understands the situation."
Boy, that doesn’t sound very anti-Ukrainian to me.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/12/starlink-will-se...
Crimea belongs to Russia. Russia invaded in 2014 and no one, including Obama, did anything about it. The entire world stepped back and let it happen. No one lifted a finger. You can’t go back and retroactively show your disapproval over something almost 10 years later and say “hey that shouldn’t have happened!”. The outcome of war determines who owns land, regardless of what people may want to see. People may say what they want about Israel’s right to occupy the Holy Land but I dare them to try to take it away through war. Israel owns the land that it occupies.
A Ukrainian official said:
"Musk assured us he will continue to support Ukraine. When we had a powerful blackout, I messaged him on that day and he momentarily reacted and has already delivered some steps. He understands the situation."
Boy, that doesn’t sound very anti-Ukrainian to me.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/12/starlink-will-se...
Crimea belongs to Russia. Russia invaded in 2014 and no one, including Obama, did anything about it. The entire world stepped back and let it happen. No one lifted a finger. You can’t go back and retroactively show your disapproval over something almost 10 years later and say “hey that shouldn’t have happened!”. The outcome of war determines who owns land, regardless of what people may want to see. People may say what they want about Israel’s right to occupy the Holy Land but I dare them to try to take it away through war. Israel owns the land that it occupies.
> but I dare them to try to take it away through war.
Why don't you apply the same logic to the opposite side?
> You can’t go back and retroactively show your disapproval
"Might is right" is extremely bad principle for doing politics. It is actually an absence of principles at all.
Why don't you apply the same logic to the opposite side?
> You can’t go back and retroactively show your disapproval
"Might is right" is extremely bad principle for doing politics. It is actually an absence of principles at all.
> "Might is right" is extremely bad principle for doing politics. It is actually an absence of principles at all.
I mean, it's sort of true, but it's very weird to (as GP did) espouse might-makes-right as a determinant of moral ownership and then turn around and say "Russia owns Crimea" when there is literally a war happening in Ukraine right now and the Western war machine is straining at its leash to utterly annihilate the Russian presence in what it considers Ukrainian territory, held back only by Russia's semi-credible threat of nuclear escalation.
I mean, it's sort of true, but it's very weird to (as GP did) espouse might-makes-right as a determinant of moral ownership and then turn around and say "Russia owns Crimea" when there is literally a war happening in Ukraine right now and the Western war machine is straining at its leash to utterly annihilate the Russian presence in what it considers Ukrainian territory, held back only by Russia's semi-credible threat of nuclear escalation.
No, not moral ownership. De facto ownership. I never talked anything about morality. The fact is Russia took Crimea by force and is physically occupying it. The only way to get it back is by force. Until they Russia unquestionably owns Crimea. Saying “it’s not fair!” will not change the fact that Russia is currently owning Crimea.
You don't need to "talk anything about morality" to make a statement about it. In fact you flatly dismissed any concept of ownership except the one in which I am the strongest and I own a thing because I took it by force and hold on to it by the same means, so that is your concept of a moral basis for ownership, whatever you want to call it.
If you would like to clarify your position, feel free to do so. But I'm afraid doing so may undermine the point you were trying to make.
If you would like to clarify your position, feel free to do so. But I'm afraid doing so may undermine the point you were trying to make.
> Saying “it’s not fair!”
What the hell?
I'm saying that Ukraine deserves Starlink access in Crimea. And you go off on tangents about irrelevant details. The only person who matters in this discussion is Elon Musk, who is refusing to enable Starlink access in Crimea.
But as I said in other posts: even if Mr. Musk enabled Starlink in Crimea, I don't know if the Ukrainian Commandos could trust it. We need to simply choose an entirely different satellite system to provide them... because Mr. Musk is seemingly compromised here. (And if Mr. Musk turns it off at a bad time, it could be even worse than his current inaction)
What the hell?
I'm saying that Ukraine deserves Starlink access in Crimea. And you go off on tangents about irrelevant details. The only person who matters in this discussion is Elon Musk, who is refusing to enable Starlink access in Crimea.
But as I said in other posts: even if Mr. Musk enabled Starlink in Crimea, I don't know if the Ukrainian Commandos could trust it. We need to simply choose an entirely different satellite system to provide them... because Mr. Musk is seemingly compromised here. (And if Mr. Musk turns it off at a bad time, it could be even worse than his current inaction)
> You can’t go back and retroactively show your disapproval over something almost 10 years later and say “hey that shouldn’t have happened!”.
Of course you can; it happens all the time. See the GOP's recent dismantling of Roe v. Wade as an unfortunate recent example.
Crimea's ownership is disputed within the international community and its ultimate disposition is far from settled.
Of course you can; it happens all the time. See the GOP's recent dismantling of Roe v. Wade as an unfortunate recent example.
Crimea's ownership is disputed within the international community and its ultimate disposition is far from settled.
You can’t go back and retroactively show your disapproval over something almost 10 years later and say “hey that shouldn’t have happened!”.
Actually you can and it happens all the time.
Crimea belongs to Russia.
Just as your car now belongs to me, every since I saw you left the keys in it and decided to take it out for a joy ride.
Actually you can and it happens all the time.
Crimea belongs to Russia.
Just as your car now belongs to me, every since I saw you left the keys in it and decided to take it out for a joy ride.
dragontamer(1)
> I think Musk’s product vision is noble and clear: to make Twitter as neutral and transparent a speech platform as possible. No soft censoring, algorithmic manipulation, etc.
You should look up (or speak to ex twitter employees) about how pro censorship and pro-algorithmic manipulation he has been. The difference is when the topic is related to him or his companies.
You should look up (or speak to ex twitter employees) about how pro censorship and pro-algorithmic manipulation he has been. The difference is when the topic is related to him or his companies.
[deleted]
I find it incredibly strange that The Atlantic, a publication I used to have tremendous amounts of respect for, put out an article the other day saying that Twitter has become some alt-right bastion equivalent to Truth Social and Parler[1].
And, of course, this article was boosted from The Atlantic's Verified Organization Twitter account[2].
Seems like they see the value in paying $1000/mo for the gold check on Twitter, even though it's now a "far right social network". I'd like to believe that they just want to make sure they have a presence on every social network to spread awareness and diversity of opinion, but I can't seem to find them on Truth Social[3].
So, has Twitter truly "evolved into a platform that is indistinguishable from the wastelands of alternative social-media sites such as Truth Social" if The Atlantic still finds it valuable to have a presence on Twitter?
It's beyond transparent what legacy media is doing here, and it's quite sad to see.
[1]: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2023/05/elon-...
[2]: https://twitter.com/theatlantic/status/1661113356277653507?s...
[3]: https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Atruthsocial.com+%22Th...
And, of course, this article was boosted from The Atlantic's Verified Organization Twitter account[2].
Seems like they see the value in paying $1000/mo for the gold check on Twitter, even though it's now a "far right social network". I'd like to believe that they just want to make sure they have a presence on every social network to spread awareness and diversity of opinion, but I can't seem to find them on Truth Social[3].
So, has Twitter truly "evolved into a platform that is indistinguishable from the wastelands of alternative social-media sites such as Truth Social" if The Atlantic still finds it valuable to have a presence on Twitter?
It's beyond transparent what legacy media is doing here, and it's quite sad to see.
[1]: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2023/05/elon-...
[2]: https://twitter.com/theatlantic/status/1661113356277653507?s...
[3]: https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Atruthsocial.com+%22Th...
Your argument is manipulative and fallacious. I doubt you have ever subscribed to the Atlantic.
1. Authors of articles do not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of the owners of a publication, except for articles clearly listed as editorial and representing the authors.
2. It is possible to believe that Twitter had become a racist alt-right hellsite (hint, it has) and yet want to connect with readers or potential readers. This is a commercial decision.
3. I’m curious what you think legacy media is doing since you provide no details and the rest of your post suggests you share some disturbing opinions on “MSM.”
1. Authors of articles do not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of the owners of a publication, except for articles clearly listed as editorial and representing the authors.
2. It is possible to believe that Twitter had become a racist alt-right hellsite (hint, it has) and yet want to connect with readers or potential readers. This is a commercial decision.
3. I’m curious what you think legacy media is doing since you provide no details and the rest of your post suggests you share some disturbing opinions on “MSM.”
This is an amazing Gish gallop. Sprinkling in speculation, "read the terms and conditions", claims without sources, and ad hominem.
No he dressed down why your post is dishonest, and you responded with ad hominem.
> I doubt you have ever subscribed to the Atlantic.
> the rest of your post suggests you share some disturbing opinions on “MSM.”
Is this ad hominem? If not, why?
> It is possible to believe that Twitter had become a racist alt-right hellsite (hint, it has)
Is this speculation? If not, why?
> he dressed down why your post is dishonest
Where? Is it this part ("Your argument is manipulative and fallacious"), where a conclusion is drawn without evidence? If so, why? And if not, where?
> the rest of your post suggests you share some disturbing opinions on “MSM.”
Is this ad hominem? If not, why?
> It is possible to believe that Twitter had become a racist alt-right hellsite (hint, it has)
Is this speculation? If not, why?
> he dressed down why your post is dishonest
Where? Is it this part ("Your argument is manipulative and fallacious"), where a conclusion is drawn without evidence? If so, why? And if not, where?
Elon gave out a bunch of blue/gold checks for free in a sort of whimsical way so it’s impossible to know if anyone paid for it
I remember blue checks were being given out for free mostly to celebrities, do you have a source on him doing so for gold ones?
As an aside I'm not a big fan of the lack of diligence in verifying orgs for the gold check, it's enabling a lot of bad actors who are willing to pay the thousand dollars for a quick crypto scam.
As an aside I'm not a big fan of the lack of diligence in verifying orgs for the gold check, it's enabling a lot of bad actors who are willing to pay the thousand dollars for a quick crypto scam.
Here’s one example: https://twitter.com/arictoler/status/1656712316669378568?s=4...
Thanks, that's eye opening.
Here’s a source for the free-gold-check thing: https://www.theverge.com/2023/3/31/23664923/twitter-verifica...
They're completely right if you're paying any attention
Of course The Atlantic is trash.
Try reading one of the CCP's mouthpieces for a week and it will be such a revelation of how bad US news is that you are more informed about the world by a CCP mouthpiece than the US trash news.
In the US, we basically have competing factions of the National Enquirer vs Weekly World News reporting on a constant food fight for clicks. A person is not more informed by reading what side threw a sandwich across the table first.
They are all such complete and utter shit.
Try reading one of the CCP's mouthpieces for a week and it will be such a revelation of how bad US news is that you are more informed about the world by a CCP mouthpiece than the US trash news.
In the US, we basically have competing factions of the National Enquirer vs Weekly World News reporting on a constant food fight for clicks. A person is not more informed by reading what side threw a sandwich across the table first.
They are all such complete and utter shit.
> I think Musk’s product vision is noble and clear: to make Twitter as neutral and transparent a speech platform as possible.
I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about. One of the most obvious changes is sorting the responses of people who pay for Twitter to the top of every reply thread.
I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about. One of the most obvious changes is sorting the responses of people who pay for Twitter to the top of every reply thread.
While you’re right the media is desperate (as always) to unseat their favorite foes – tech bros – Elon has been anything but consistent in how he applies neutrality and transparency.
I hate purity tests, but when it comes to censorship you can’t flip-flop on it.
I hate purity tests, but when it comes to censorship you can’t flip-flop on it.
In addition to the points made by sibling replies I’ll also point out that the crashed Twitter Space was one where Musk helped a Republican presidential candidate launch his campaign. No matter which party is involved, that’s not something a neutral speech platform would ever involve itself in.
You think he wouldn’t do the same for a Democrat?
Not the point. The CEO being the interviewer is an automatic failure in neutrality. Which questions he chooses to ask, the tone in which he asks them, the statements he lets go unquestioned, etc etc etc, these are all subjective choices that are anything but neutral.
Not to mention, step outside the two party lens for a second. If he does this for democrats and republicans then surely he needs to do it for absolutely anyone that declares a presidential candidacy? To do otherwise would be to endorse the two party political establishment, also not a neutral statement.
A truly neutral Twitter would have no problem hosting a Space where a person announces their candidacy. But it would have no further involvement.
Not to mention, step outside the two party lens for a second. If he does this for democrats and republicans then surely he needs to do it for absolutely anyone that declares a presidential candidacy? To do otherwise would be to endorse the two party political establishment, also not a neutral statement.
A truly neutral Twitter would have no problem hosting a Space where a person announces their candidacy. But it would have no further involvement.
> Which questions he chooses to ask, the tone in which he asks them, the > statements he lets go unquestioned, etc etc etc, these are all subjective choices that are anything but neutral.
Have you ever watched "60 Minutes" interview a candidate?
I recently watched Leslie Stahl interview MTG. I didn't know anything about MTG, and still don't, as all Stahl did was try to embarrass her with various rhetorical traps.
Have you ever watched "60 Minutes" interview a candidate?
I recently watched Leslie Stahl interview MTG. I didn't know anything about MTG, and still don't, as all Stahl did was try to embarrass her with various rhetorical traps.
It amazes me these people still think Elon is a champion for the idealized notion of free speech and neutrality when every single day he is doing things in public that show his clear contempt for that. Very much shades of Trump saying he could shoot someone on 5th avenue and it wouldn't matter.
So to you, interviewing someone makes you not neutral?
I wonder how you feel about media then?
I wonder how you feel about media then?
I don’t know why you’d think my feelings about the media is some sort of gotcha question, it’s precisely the point.
The criticisms I’m laying out here (including the fact that, yes, interviewers have bias) are exactly the criticisms I and many others would level at corporate media. Despite his claims Musk is emulating them, not proving some radical alternative.
The criticisms I’m laying out here (including the fact that, yes, interviewers have bias) are exactly the criticisms I and many others would level at corporate media. Despite his claims Musk is emulating them, not proving some radical alternative.
Most people deny the clear and obvious bias (left / democrat) in corporate media. Just like most people denied the clear and obvious left bias in pre-elon twitter.
This then manifests in charging Post-Elon twitter with Right wing Bias because if Pre-Elon Twitter was "neutral" (it was not), Elon moving twitter slightly to the right means it now Right wing ...
Personally I think Elon is centrist, agreeing with some Right wing policies, and some left wing policies, but clearly has a personal bias which is reflected in the policy choices of twitter, too much so IMO.
That said most often when I engage on this subject I am faced with people that have the position that CNN, MSNBC, and NY Times, Washington Post, and other corp media are not organizationally biased, and that Pre-Elon Twitter was a neutral platform, so the hypocrisy of that position is what I challenge.
This then manifests in charging Post-Elon twitter with Right wing Bias because if Pre-Elon Twitter was "neutral" (it was not), Elon moving twitter slightly to the right means it now Right wing ...
Personally I think Elon is centrist, agreeing with some Right wing policies, and some left wing policies, but clearly has a personal bias which is reflected in the policy choices of twitter, too much so IMO.
That said most often when I engage on this subject I am faced with people that have the position that CNN, MSNBC, and NY Times, Washington Post, and other corp media are not organizationally biased, and that Pre-Elon Twitter was a neutral platform, so the hypocrisy of that position is what I challenge.
> Personally I think Elon is centrist, agreeing with some Right wing policies, and some left wing policies, but clearly has a personal bias which is reflected in the policy choices of twitter, too much so IMO.
He spends his entire day reply-guying to right-wing loons on everything from COVID crankery to RaHoWa wannabes and throws around canned-ass Germany-in-the-thirties anti-Jewish bullshit because a guy sold some stock. Where his bread is buttered is simply not difficult to suss out.
Now go on and tell me that anti-Semitism (no, not anti-Zionism, do not give me that dodge) is "centrist".
He spends his entire day reply-guying to right-wing loons on everything from COVID crankery to RaHoWa wannabes and throws around canned-ass Germany-in-the-thirties anti-Jewish bullshit because a guy sold some stock. Where his bread is buttered is simply not difficult to suss out.
Now go on and tell me that anti-Semitism (no, not anti-Zionism, do not give me that dodge) is "centrist".
Yes?
[deleted]
so what would you say when he interviews democratic candidate RFKennedy in next couple months?
That he can be neutral or support the candidates he likes, but not both?
hes stated that every single candidate is welcome. No one is being censored or prevented from coming on a space with him. I think its obvious no one will be truly neutral , as when it comes down to the ballot, you can only vote for one person. The platform however, is not censoring any one side's candidates.
> In addition to the points made by sibling replies I’ll also point out that the crashed Twitter Space was one where Musk helped a Republican presidential candidate launch his campaign. No matter which party is involved, that’s not something a neutral speech platform would ever involve itself in.
A neutral platform is _the best_ choice for all candidates to present their platform on. Its a common discussion space where both sides have an un-censored dialogue.
When candidates can tweet to one another, and community notes fact checks in real time, that will be great. One reason I think trump is hesitant to come back on.
> In addition to the points made by sibling replies I’ll also point out that the crashed Twitter Space was one where Musk helped a Republican presidential candidate launch his campaign. No matter which party is involved, that’s not something a neutral speech platform would ever involve itself in.
A neutral platform is _the best_ choice for all candidates to present their platform on. Its a common discussion space where both sides have an un-censored dialogue.
When candidates can tweet to one another, and community notes fact checks in real time, that will be great. One reason I think trump is hesitant to come back on.
He says a lot of things but when you look at his actions the pattern is pretty clear. For example, giving RFK free publicity would be consistent with all of the other things he’s done to boost Republicans (Bannon has been trying to get RFK to run as a spoiler in 2024, along BBC with his general antivax utility).
It instead has hard censoring, since he's fired all the lawyers and personally owns other businesses in Turkey, China and India, and therefore has stopped resisting anytime they demand posts be taken down. Twitter was previously the company that fought such requests the hardest and often won.
And he's turned up all the algorithms 4x as hard, it defaults to a "for you" page that's full of viral accounts posting fight videos.
And he's turned up all the algorithms 4x as hard, it defaults to a "for you" page that's full of viral accounts posting fight videos.
…funny followup here, my main account got permabanned just now for "evading account suspensions" (which I've never done.)
I mean, it's probably just a bug and they'll fix it on appeal but you never know…
I mean, it's probably just a bug and they'll fix it on appeal but you never know…
There's literally an algorithm that ranks up paid blue tick messages above others. How is that neutral?
The blue tick vitriol at the top of any thread has really turned me off reading any comments at all.
The blue tick vitriol at the top of any thread has really turned me off reading any comments at all.
I believe it's always been like that.
Remember when musk banned the guy reporting public flight information with a fake rule he made up that isn't actually enforced except when it is in musks favor.
He's also changed site policy 2-3 times purely to annoy NPR and spends his free time trying to suck up to an right wing account named "catturd2" run by a Florida retiree.
> No soft censoring
Of course. Only the hardcore and literal censoring from Turkey.
Of course. Only the hardcore and literal censoring from Turkey.
I don’t believe the the US government ever threatened to take Twitter down if it didn’t comply with their censor requests. It’s just that those requests happened to align politically with those running Twitter Trust & Safety.
My understanding is that Erdojan threatened to throttle the site for the entire country - a cost that maybe you or I may not have incurred if we were in that position.
At the very least, Twitter was transparent about the content restriction, which is certainly better than how the previous team operated.
My understanding is that Erdojan threatened to throttle the site for the entire country - a cost that maybe you or I may not have incurred if we were in that position.
At the very least, Twitter was transparent about the content restriction, which is certainly better than how the previous team operated.
https://restofworld.org/2023/elon-musk-twitter-government-or...
Twitter used to reject more censorship requests. Now they're accepting more of them after Mr. Musk has become the owner.
I'm comparing Twitter pre-Musk vs Twitter post-Musk.
> Most alarmingly, Twitter's self-reports do not show a single request in which the company refused to comply, as it had done several times before the Musk takeover.
Twitter used to reject more censorship requests. Now they're accepting more of them after Mr. Musk has become the owner.
I'm comparing Twitter pre-Musk vs Twitter post-Musk.
> Most alarmingly, Twitter's self-reports do not show a single request in which the company refused to comply, as it had done several times before the Musk takeover.
> My understanding is that Erdojan threatened to throttle the site for the entire country
now we know what it takes to shut up a free speech absolutist
now we know what it takes to shut up a free speech absolutist
> I think Musk’s product vision is noble and clear: to make Twitter as neutral and transparent a speech platform as possible. No soft censoring, algorithmic manipulation, etc. You can imagine why certain groups would be against that.
My account was deleted around the same time many reporters who reported on elonjet in the past had. Maybe because I had retweeted elonjet in the past and posted. I do not know-I was never notified in email about it.
Claiming he wants to create a "neutral and transparent a speech platform as possible" when Elon Musk does things like this after taking over Twitter is ridiculous!
https://people.com/human-interest/twitter-accounts-belonging...
My account was deleted around the same time many reporters who reported on elonjet in the past had. Maybe because I had retweeted elonjet in the past and posted. I do not know-I was never notified in email about it.
Claiming he wants to create a "neutral and transparent a speech platform as possible" when Elon Musk does things like this after taking over Twitter is ridiculous!
https://people.com/human-interest/twitter-accounts-belonging...
Twitter was a shit hole before, and it is now still a shit hole. Of course, I think the hole has gotten deeper since Musk took over and I don't find his goals noble or at all altruistic.. but we can have different opinions in this dystopian world where Musk is viewed to embrace free speech.
That sounds like some first-class apologizing and rewriting of fact.
Certain groups include everybody that would like some relief from slander, yellow journalism and plain wholesale fabrication. Especially when the slant benefits Himself.
Hard censoring I guess; crushing his opponents any anybody who dares speak against him.
Certain groups include everybody that would like some relief from slander, yellow journalism and plain wholesale fabrication. Especially when the slant benefits Himself.
Hard censoring I guess; crushing his opponents any anybody who dares speak against him.
His product vision is to make it into a one stop application with all media and e-commerce - something he calls X. The whole free speech platform thing is a distraction. There’s no money in free speech. It’s just a way to lure maximum number of people to the platform.
It seems like if you were trying to do that, you wouldn’t personally co-host the announcement of any Presidential candidate.
Elon stated vision and his actions don't seem to match up.
I have an account that is still active, and I get an email from twitter with some tweets every day. And every single day, the first tweet is from right-wing nutjob named Lara Logan. I do not follow her. I looked at her stream once (which was enough). I honestly do not understand why Mr Neutrality has HER as the first tweet every single day.
Krisjohn(1)
There are a lot of replies beneath you attacking Musk and his vision/execution on Twitter. They mostly address the second half of your post, but most people are ignoring the first half.
A prominent media outlet is running what amounts to nothing more than a smear article against Musk/Twitter. Why? If this were an isolated occurrence, I’d write it off as strange and move on, but it isn’t. Dozens of media outlets are pushing similar content. And every time the subject comes up, the replies are filled with terse and snarky comments along the lines of “Musk bad because <reason I gleaned from smear campaign against Musk>”.
I haven’t used Twitter in years, so I can’t comment on the UX. I haven’t stayed incredibly up-to-date on all the goings-on, so I can’t provide citations or rebuttals. Maybe the site is truly that bad, that it is worth the entire Internet hammering home every single day now. It seems more likely to me that it is the other way around and the Internet decided Twitter was going to be bad once Musk purchased it.
I say the above because, how many outsiders would have noticed any changes based on their usage of Twitter? Would users have known about the mass layoffs? Has the site experience degraded as a result of that, or was Musk right that most people were doing nothing? Would users have known about changes in the content recommendation algorithm, or were they hyper-alert to changes on their feed because it was widely reported? These are half-honest questions because I really don’t know as a non-user, but also somewhat rhetorical because I suspect the answer is no.
A prominent media outlet is running what amounts to nothing more than a smear article against Musk/Twitter. Why? If this were an isolated occurrence, I’d write it off as strange and move on, but it isn’t. Dozens of media outlets are pushing similar content. And every time the subject comes up, the replies are filled with terse and snarky comments along the lines of “Musk bad because <reason I gleaned from smear campaign against Musk>”.
I haven’t used Twitter in years, so I can’t comment on the UX. I haven’t stayed incredibly up-to-date on all the goings-on, so I can’t provide citations or rebuttals. Maybe the site is truly that bad, that it is worth the entire Internet hammering home every single day now. It seems more likely to me that it is the other way around and the Internet decided Twitter was going to be bad once Musk purchased it.
I say the above because, how many outsiders would have noticed any changes based on their usage of Twitter? Would users have known about the mass layoffs? Has the site experience degraded as a result of that, or was Musk right that most people were doing nothing? Would users have known about changes in the content recommendation algorithm, or were they hyper-alert to changes on their feed because it was widely reported? These are half-honest questions because I really don’t know as a non-user, but also somewhat rhetorical because I suspect the answer is no.
From his Twitter thread:
> And since some have asked, my decision and the timing of it are independent of any recent events.
> And since some have asked, my decision and the timing of it are independent of any recent events.
What is it with using the word "boss" in headlines recently? It comes across to me as negative, perhaps because it makes me think of "crime boss". Is that the intent or am I off base?
I feel like every live streaming event always makes me feel like I’m stuck in a work zoom meeting. There’s just something about the ambiance. Technical glitches aside, I feel like spaces wasn’t the right venue for this, it’s like a meeting with middle management.
It was a venue where one expects something more casual, but it was just reading a script and reading questions which were also likely scripted. Did not fit the tone of the site at all. It seems like DeSantis wanted to make some sort of statement, whatever that may be, by using twitter but acted the same way one would on television. Love him or hate him, Trump's team has had a better handling of social media over the years.
[deleted]
> "After almost four incredible years at Twitter, I decided to leave the nest yesterday."
Recently I teased PR for how their announcements never sound human. But this is what you get when people without PR experience give announcements. It’s always the same format and usually includes a weird idiom.
Recently I teased PR for how their announcements never sound human. But this is what you get when people without PR experience give announcements. It’s always the same format and usually includes a weird idiom.
It's a bird joke.
Yeah but birds don’t live in nests. They hatch babies there. So is the metaphor that Foad is a momma bird, or that he’s all grown up and has flown the nest?
It’s Saturday evening and I want to be pedantic, dammit!
It’s Saturday evening and I want to be pedantic, dammit!
So did this ex-Twitter employee. Hatched products there and lived in their house. Basically it meant they are done laying eggs there.
This works?
This works?
Sure. It’s just always a weird format with some cute metaphor. “after X ADJECTIVE years I’ve decided to move on to greener pastures or whatnot.”
I guess maybe I’m just not attached to jobs the way some are so it comes off as phoney to me. The kind of thing you say when hiring managers are watching.
I guess maybe I’m just not attached to jobs the way some are so it comes off as phoney to me. The kind of thing you say when hiring managers are watching.
Neither they are. That's why they just want to get done with it while not burning any bridges, or possibly closing any doors. Whenever I see copy pasta/regular resignations messages which involves praise or good feelings I assume this person was unhappy there.
Does not matter much
1. Dabiri mentioned in a tweet (left out of the BBC article ofc) that his departure didn’t have to do with recent events. That might be face-saving on his part but it is clickbaiting on the BBC’s part. Source: https://twitter.com/foaddabiri/status/1662110369140310023?s=...
2. Second point is that evidently twitter didn’t pay its bills (hosting maybe?) for Spaces. Source: https://www.theinformation.com/articles/twitter-cut-key-soft...
Both are obviously RUMINT but, there ya go…