RIP Twitter

#4,627
#4,627
DC_Vol said:
Let’s assume it is option B. How has the public have been manipulated by his Twitter polls?
Click to expand...

Dude, it's not that big of a deal. Musk makes a company decision and shows a poll to support it, and says "the people have spoken" when he probably knows bots had a lot to do with the results. In no way am I saying he has hurt the public. All I find interesting is that the guy who was so concerned about bots is fine pumping bot results when they suit him. That's it.
 
#4,630
#4,630
happy-go_vol said:
Yeah, when gov tells private companies to block speech, we no longer have a free country
Click to expand...

It stopped being a free country about the time my Grandpa was born. It's all a matter of opinion, but it started being a free country when we stopped owning people, and then it stopped being a free country shortly thereafter when the government started telling us what we could buy and sell to put into our bodies, by threat of imprisonment. What more fundamental right is there than choosing what we eat, drink, and consume?

Edit: of course, gays couldn't marry during any of that time, so I guess not so free.
 
Last edited:
#4,631
#4,631
n_huffhines said:
It stopped being a free country about the time my Grandpa was born. It's all a matter of opinion, but it started being a free country when we stopped owning people, and then it stopped being a free country shortly thereafter when the government started telling us what we could buy and sell to put into our bodies, by threat of imprisonment. What more fundamental right is there than choosing what we eat, drink, and consume?
Click to expand...

The proposition that substance abuse - legal or illegal - only has the user as victim is false, a grand lie.
So long as non-abusive society is asked to care for, treat, facilitate drug use, or incarcerate the criminal among them, we get a say which we do through governance.

So, either we help the abusers and the adjunct lives they harm, or we step over them in the street, let them starve and die of attendant malady, and do nothing. Or we control substances. In any event, we - our government - gets to say because we, the sober society, are who the burden falls upon.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: allvol123
#4,632
#4,632
n_huffhines said:
Dude, it's not that big of a deal. Musk makes a company decision and shows a poll to support it, and says "the people have spoken" when he probably knows bots had a lot to do with the results. In no way am I saying he has hurt the public. All I find interesting is that the guy who was so concerned about bots is fine pumping bot results when they suit him. That's it.
Click to expand...

How do you know it’s bot results?
 
#4,634
#4,634
n_huffhines said:
The point to me is that Elon champions these manipulated polls while either (a) knowing how faulty they are or (b) being too ignorant to know how faulty they are, (if we can take the criticism at face value...I have not seen proof of how manipulated the polls are).
Click to expand...

i was referring to the words of someone else you posted - it suggests Musk is "all-but-counting on" polls to justify big decisions and that shows he's a hypocrite and doesn't understand Twitter.

seems to me he understands it just fine and is using the tools to drive traffic and conversation. I'm highly skeptical he is making decisions based on Twitter polls

now if we want to call him a hypocrite for using a tool that is bot-problematic I guess that's something but it's such a minor point to criticize in his larger Twitter activity.

I just find the tone of what you quoted to be really reaching to find something to get Musk on
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88 and NCFisher
#4,636
#4,636
volinbham said:
i was referring to the words of someone else you posted - it suggests Musk is "all-but-counting on" polls to justify big decisions and that shows he's a hypocrite and doesn't understand Twitter.

seems to me he understands it just fine and is using the tools to drive traffic and conversation. I'm highly skeptical he is making decisions based on Twitter polls

now if we want to call him a hypocrite for using a tool that is bot-problematic I guess that's something but it's such a minor point to criticize in his larger Twitter activity.

I just find the tone of what you quoted to be really reaching to find something to get Musk on
Click to expand...

Yeah, and I am with you that I think this guy has it wrong that Musk doesn't understand Twitter (in this regard). But if he understands it, then he is kind of a hypocrite and at the very least, he knows he's selling the public using bad data.

Did anybody say he was using the polls to drive decisions? I think we're all just saying he was using them to sell decisions, but maybe I need to re-read the quote.

Edit: I interpreted "justify" to mean it's just an explanation, not a driver, but the final paragraph does imply the former employee was saying it is a decision-driver.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: volinbham
#4,637
#4,637
n_huffhines said:
Dude, it's not that big of a deal. Musk makes a company decision and shows a poll to support it, and says "the people have spoken" when he probably knows bots had a lot to do with the results. In no way am I saying he has hurt the public. All I find interesting is that the guy who was so concerned about bots is fine pumping bot results when they suit him. That's it.
Click to expand...

🤣 Dude, I’m not making a big deal about it. I’m just responding to the original news excerpt you shared in this thread. You remember the one that used terms like “scientific and rigorous” and “manipulation”?

Since you posted it without comment it’s safe to assume you endorsed the message or wanted a discussion about it, especially given you assigned some of the same terms in the discussion.

You could have just said you found this interesting with your original share and we could all just marvel at anyone believing a Twitter poll is an accurate measurement of anything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: W.TN.Orange Blood
#4,638
#4,638
n_huffhines said:
Yeah, and I am with you that I think this guy has it wrong that Musk doesn't understand Twitter (in this regard). But if he understands it, then he is kind of a hypocrite and at the very least, he knows he's selling the public using bad data.

Did anybody say he was using the polls to drive decisions? I think we're all just saying he was using them to sell decisions, but maybe I need to re-read the quote.
Click to expand...

Lol. You assume it’s “bad” data but really don’t have a clue.
 
#4,640
#4,640
'His explanation was unconvincing': Elon FIRES Twitter's general counsel James Baker for his 'possible role in suppression of Hunter Biden laptop scandal' - ex-FBI lawyer was James Comey's deputy and involved in Russian collusion investigation

Chief Twit Elon Musk has fired Twitter's general counsel James A. Baker, citing his alleged involvement in the company's suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop scandal.

Musk added that Baker's explanation of the events surrounding the laptop saga were 'unconvincing.'

Also on Tuesday, Rep. James Comer, a Kentucky Republican, sent Baker a letter requesting his appearance before the House Oversight Committee next year, when the GOP is set to take control of the House.

Before joining Twitter, Baker was former FBI general counsel under Director James Comey, and played a key role in the saga surrounding the Bureau's controversial probe into possible collusion between Russia and Donald Trump's 2016 campaign.

Elon fires Twitter's general counsel James Baker | Daily Mail Online
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider
#4,641
#4,641
NCFisher said:
The proposition that substance abuse - legal or illegal - only has the user as victim is false, a grand lie.
So long as non-abusive society is asked to care for, treat, facilitate drug use, or incarcerate the criminal among them, we get a say which we do through governance.

So, either we help the abusers and the adjunct lives they harm, or we step over them in the street, let them starve and die of attendant malady, and do nothing. Or we control substances. In any event, we - our government - gets to say because we, the sober society, are who the burden falls upon.
Click to expand...

Why not tax it and use the money for drug education and addiction treatment? Make the financial penalties large for possession of untaxed drugs.

Back in the 90's California passed much higher tobacco taxes but the legislation required the taxes be used for aggressive anti-smoking campaigns. Within 2 years teen smoking dropped by 40%. Then Governor Pete Wilson wanted to get re-elected but wouldn't raise taxes to balance the budget so he got the law changed and took the money for the general budget. Within a year teen smoking rates were back where they originally started.
 
#4,642
#4,642
WBO said:
Why not tax it and use the money for drug education and addiction treatment? Make the financial penalties large for possession of untaxed drugs.

Back in the 90's California passed much higher tobacco taxes but the legislation required the taxes be used for aggressive anti-smoking campaigns. Within 2 years teen smoking dropped by 40%. Then Governor Pete Wilson wanted to get re-elected but wouldn't raise taxes to balance the budget so he got the law changed and took the money for the general budget. Within a year teen smoking rates were back where they originally started.
Click to expand...

CA also taxed legal weed to the point it was more expensive than the illegal product causing a boom in illegal trade.
 
#4,644
#4,644
WBO said:
Why not tax it and use the money for drug education and addiction treatment? Make the financial penalties large for possession of untaxed drugs.

Back in the 90's California passed much higher tobacco taxes but the legislation required the taxes be used for aggressive anti-smoking campaigns. Within 2 years teen smoking dropped by 40%. Then Governor Pete Wilson wanted to get re-elected but wouldn't raise taxes to balance the budget so he got the law changed and took the money for the general budget. Within a year teen smoking rates were back where they originally started.
Click to expand...

Who would be in charge of these funds?

The government would out spend the tax revenue from legal drug sales. It would be a cluster f$ck just like everything else the government gets their hands on.

Why not just remove the criminal aspect of possession and empty out prisons of nonviolent drug users.
 
#4,645
#4,645
Baker was behind a lot of the subpoenas for Russiagate, was fired from the FBI for leaking docs, and worked with Vijaya to censor tweets as council for Twitter. Then tried to delete emails so Musk couldn't release it. Including the laptop from hell.


Nope, no smoking gun here.
 
#4,649
#4,649
hog88 said:
CA also taxed legal weed to the point it was more expensive than the illegal product causing a boom in illegal trade.
Click to expand...

I will agree that CA has royally screwed up their cannabis regulatory structure. It's my understanding that they are changing it to something more commercially competitive.

But it is a great thing to be able to buy it legally for those of us who deal with the effects of multiple surgeries (sports injuries) so we're able to get a decent night's sleep. During a trip to Napa, went to a dispensary in Vallejo. There were 8 guys there and every one, other than me, were Vietnam Wounded Vets. (There is a large VA hospital about 20 miles away.) The real crime is that the VA won't help the Vets get medical marijuana. If a VA doc advises a Vet to try medical weed, the doc will be terminated. My own civilian doc is who suggested I use it.
 
#4,650
#4,650
MOOOOONEY said:
Who would be in charge of these funds?

The government would out spend the tax revenue from legal drug sales. It would be a cluster f$ck just like everything else the government gets their hands on.

Why not just remove the criminal aspect of possession and empty out prisons of nonviolent drug users.
Click to expand...

Come on, you're not going to get anything passed without the treatment element because of what the poster said about homeless junkies roaming the streets.

It is estimated that if you legalized drugs and regulated them, you would save $2 billion a year just from the reduction in criminal justice (courts, etc) and incarceration costs.

But that's a lot of money supporting a lot of people. Just think of the private prisons. They would pretty much go under without the drug offense portion of the prison population. Then you have the DEA, a big chuck of other federal, state and local law enforcement, and the coast guard with drug interdiction going away. Those people vote, make political contributions, etc. They're not going to sit back and let it all go away.

Good grief, look at how hard it is to close a military base.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top