Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2022 12:13:52 GMT -5
Freaking out? Maybe the twitter workforce or investors, but the msm? Think I'd need to see a quote. Nothing has even happened yet.. except twitters board accepted his bid and its off to the shareholders for a vote. but Jack Dorsey has publically endorsed Elon's takeover bid, seems strange to me, but whatever. and Twitter is only a web address after all.. there are plenty of them to choose from, with new ones popping up as opportunities arise.. Twitter is perhaps best described as the online version of the "Associated Press". Needless to say that this is one example of the great "internet disruption": online entities shifted what were previously pre-internet businesses online, offered the same, similar or related services for "free" or greatly reduced cost, and opened-up and dis intermediated the flow of commerce. Specifically, in the past, the AP feed was only available for journalists to both contribute to and use and disseminate. Now, anyone can post content to twitter from their cell phone. What you can notice is that for viral vids there are often explicit and public requests from tv stations or news publications to those content providers for permission to re-use. My guess is that by the nature of this particular business there is only going to be one central clearing house. People who shoot vids are going to first post them to the places where they'll get the most eyeballs. By comparison, you might see Facebook's % of social media share decrease over time from those competitors you mention - and younger people already laugh on instagram and snapchat etc how FB is for "old people". Twitter is a different animal from that: FB's advantage was that it attracted the largest initial user base, so if you wanted to build a big social network you'd go to where there are the most potential connections. Twitter's advantage might seem similar, but for as long as it remained completely open there was less of a reason for people to go elsewhere, unlike with FB, where there are lots of reasons to go elsewhere, for example to sites with more specialized interests such as Linkedin or to avoid the invasion of privacy or to break from what was designed to be an addictive application. Facebook bought instagram for 1 billion. Google bought you tube for 1.5 billion. Facebook again bought whatsapp for 19 billion What I wonder here is what makes him to buy twitter for 44billion? Can he earn anything out of this app?
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Apr 30, 2022 12:24:05 GMT -5
What I wonder here is what makes him to buy twitter for 44billion? Can he earn anything out of this app? "When something is important enough, you do it even if the odds are not in your favor." - E. Musk Seems, perhaps, that in this case, free speech/truth is more important to him than profit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2022 12:27:09 GMT -5
Facebook bought instagram for 1 billion. Google bought you tube for 1.5 million. Facebook again bought whatsapp for 19 billion What I wonder here is what makes him to buy twitter for 44billion? Can he earn anything out of this app? Being able to control the conversation is priceless That's the value of this deal Plus he will shuffle off much of the financial risk to his fanboys But he is insisting about free speech. This means he is not going to control the way conversation gets unfolded .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2022 12:27:54 GMT -5
What I wonder here is what makes him to buy twitter for 44billion? Can he earn anything out of this app? "When something is important enough, you do it even if the odds are not in your favor." - E. Musk Seems, perhaps, that in this case, free speech/truth is more important to him than profit. That's what I get it too. But since he is a business man what is the benefit for him? Will he get anything ? Look like he is doing a kind of social service.
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Apr 30, 2022 12:29:47 GMT -5
"When something is important enough, you do it even if the odds are not in your favor." - E. Musk Seems, perhaps, that in this case, free speech/truth is more important to him than profit. That's what I get it too. But since he is a business man what is the benefit for him? Are you supposing that a business man can never be selfless in an action? Maybe, just maybe, doing the right thing is enough reward for him?
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Apr 30, 2022 15:25:43 GMT -5
Try saying something like the vaccines are poison on YouTube or Facebook and see how free you are to express your opinion. I wouldn't expect either of those sites to have to host such incendiary content But the point is that under the 1st amendment of the US Constitution you have the unalienable right to think it, and to say it, while you have the right to ignore it or to block it. Stifling the right of free speech is the crux of the censorship issue.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2022 17:22:08 GMT -5
I wouldn't expect either of those sites to have to host such incendiary content But the point is that under the 1st amendment of the US Constitution you have the unalienable right to think it, and to say it, while you have the right to ignore it or to block it. Stifling the right of free speech is the crux of the censorship issue. A website is private property, in a way, and that's why it gets weird and into a gray area. Imagine you had create a web forum like this one, about baking bread. And then some jerk comes in and lectures and rages about politics, spamming the forum with stuff you don't want. It would be your right, as the owner of the website, to kick them off. (At least that's how I'd like it to work.) Twitter is so big that it seems different. It becomes more like the "public square". But I still think they should be free to kick people off. People can use other web sites and communication systems. The fact that the lemming herd is too lazy to do that, is not Twitter's fault.
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Apr 30, 2022 18:40:04 GMT -5
A website is private property, in a way, and that's why it gets weird and into a gray area. Is Twitter really private property? What if Twitter was actually government supported? Would it then be the government suppressing free speech? Is that constitutional? The article below makes some interesting assertions/comments. The only way Twitter, with 217 million users, could exist as a viable platform is if they had access to tech systems of incredible scale and performance, and those systems were essentially free or very cheap. The only entity that could possibly provide that level of capacity and scale is the United States Government – combined with a bottomless bank account.
If my hunch is correct, Elon Musk is poised to expose the well-kept secret that most social media platforms are operating on U.S. government tech infrastructure and indirect subsidy. Let that sink in.
The U.S. technology system, the assembled massive system of connected databases and server networks, is the operating infrastructure that offsets the cost of Twitter to run their own servers and database. The backbone of Twitter is the United States government.
There is simply no way the Fourth Branch of Government, the U.S. intelligence system writ large, is going to permit that discovery.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2022 19:23:53 GMT -5
A website is private property, in a way, and that's why it gets weird and into a gray area. Is Twitter really private property? What if Twitter was actually government supported? Would it then be the government suppressing free speech? Is that constitutional? The article below makes some interesting assertions/comments. The only way Twitter, with 217 million users, could exist as a viable platform is if they had access to tech systems of incredible scale and performance, and those systems were essentially free or very cheap. The only entity that could possibly provide that level of capacity and scale is the United States Government – combined with a bottomless bank account.
If my hunch is correct, Elon Musk is poised to expose the well-kept secret that most social media platforms are operating on U.S. government tech infrastructure and indirect subsidy. Let that sink in.
The U.S. technology system, the assembled massive system of connected databases and server networks, is the operating infrastructure that offsets the cost of Twitter to run their own servers and database. The backbone of Twitter is the United States government.
There is simply no way the Fourth Branch of Government, the U.S. intelligence system writ large, is going to permit that discovery.
Twitter, like most tech companies with web software, runs on servers (computers) that sit in data centers in various places in the world. You can buy or rent these servers. Twitter is not running on US gov't hardware. I know this because I'm a software developer and I work on systems like this all the time. Twitter makes billions of USD per year. You can rent a web server from Amazon for about $5-10/month. Of course that's not enough to run Twitter. They probably spend $millions/per on their servers.
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Apr 30, 2022 19:37:11 GMT -5
Twitter is not running on US gov't hardware.. Interesting opinion. One you are free to express here, lol. But I wonder how you can be so certain? Anyway, I guess what I was really looking for was a counter opinion to the opinions expressed by the author in the article about how and why twitter likely is running on gov't hardware.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 30, 2022 20:12:27 GMT -5
Twitter is not running on US gov't hardware.. Interesting opinion. One you are free to express here, lol. But I wonder how you can be so certain? Anyway, I guess what I was really looking for was a counter opinion to the opinions expressed by the author in the article about how and why twitter likely is running on gov't hardware. Because the employees at Twitter are part of the general tech industry, changing positions constantly with other tech companies. We all talk to each other, and it's open knowledge how most companies operate. They do not have with any kind of secrecy about their basic server tech; it's like everybody else's. You wanted another viewpoint, and you got one.
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Apr 30, 2022 20:17:10 GMT -5
You wanted another viewpoint, and you got one. Yes, seems I did. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 1, 2022 7:48:07 GMT -5
Try saying something like the vaccines are poison on YouTube or Facebook and see how free you are to express your opinion. I wouldn't expect either of those sites to have to host such incendiary content heh heh .. the limits of free speech are the limits of the open mind.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 1, 2022 8:31:26 GMT -5
But the point is that under the 1st amendment of the US Constitution you have the unalienable right to think it, and to say it, while you have the right to ignore it or to block it. Stifling the right of free speech is the crux of the censorship issue. A website is private property, in a way, and that's why it gets weird and into a gray area. Imagine you had create a web forum like this one, about baking bread. And then some jerk comes in and lectures and rages about politics, spamming the forum with stuff you don't want. It would be your right, as the owner of the website, to kick them off. (At least that's how I'd like it to work.) Twitter is so big that it seems different. It becomes more like the "public square". But I still think they should be free to kick people off. People can use other web sites and communication systems. The fact that the lemming herd is too lazy to do that, is not Twitter's fault. There were reports in the last year of cooperation between google and facebook on what we might euphemistically term "coordinating moderation actions". There were also reports of what were essentially backchannels between the US State dept and other USGov entities and the groups in google and facebook who were engaged in that. Essentially, a government employee, appointee or elected official was the one who banned and deleted. Didn't read much past the headlines so I'm not sure if twitter was also involved, but the fate of the NYPost story about the laptop seems to indicate they were. Do you have any inside knowledge about that? I agree that a private company isn't bound by the 1A in these types of policies, but the blur between big government and big business (aka, one of the prominent elements of fascism) is currently such that this principal is no more absolute than that of free speech. To put it in terms of an analogy, what if John Mitchell had successfully suppressed the Woodward and Bernstein story back in '74?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 1, 2022 9:00:03 GMT -5
Twitter, like most tech companies with web software, runs on servers (computers) that sit in data centers in various places in the world. You can buy or rent these servers. Twitter is not running on US gov't hardware. I know this because I'm a software developer and I work on systems like this all the time. Twitter makes billions of USD per year. You can rent a web server from Amazon for about $5-10/month. Of course that's not enough to run Twitter. They probably spend $millions/per on their servers. heh heh ... tell that to Parler.
|
|