Elon's Antics
- Thread starter Danoff
- 1,500 comments
- 105,239 views
- 29,619
- Bratvegas
- GTP_Liquid
I would have happily paid a quid to keep my Twitter account a few years ago when I was using it regularly and the site ran smoothly but now, when it has far less stability as well as horrible metrics and displays? I don't see why someone would pay for something that is worse than when it was free.
Running this business into the ground is surely the goal of this idiot.
Running this business into the ground is surely the goal of this idiot.
- 599
- United States
- Boston77Bruins
I am in no way shape or form a fan of E-toad Musk.
Never had twitter, will never own a Tesla, no use for a huge hole in the ground or visiting Mars.
However, since moving to a very rural area that does not provide cable or internet service, I had no option but to try out Starlink.
I am impressed. Kit came in the mail and set up was as simple as pointing my phone at the sky. The Square dish did all the rest. Calibrated itself and ready to go. The kids are gaming. I’m streaming, wife’s watching a cooking show. No issues or lag.
I gotta thank the freakin’ weirdo for this one.
Never had twitter, will never own a Tesla, no use for a huge hole in the ground or visiting Mars.
However, since moving to a very rural area that does not provide cable or internet service, I had no option but to try out Starlink.
I am impressed. Kit came in the mail and set up was as simple as pointing my phone at the sky. The Square dish did all the rest. Calibrated itself and ready to go. The kids are gaming. I’m streaming, wife’s watching a cooking show. No issues or lag.
I gotta thank the freakin’ weirdo for this one.
Last edited:
- 17,061
- United Kingdom
- 13,844
- Adelaide
- Neomone
- 2,893
- Columbus, Ohio
- 29,661
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
DSA is terrible, though. It places a significant and largely unworkable burden on providers, and rats (connie, leftist, and "moderate" rats all accounted for) actually want similar legislation to be passed in the US.
Sure, There’s Disinfo On ExTwitter, But The EU Should Not Be Demanding Censorship
Some of us have been warning about the dangers of the Digital Services Act (DSA) in the EU for quite some time, and pointed out that Elon Musk was effectively endorsing censorship in May of 2022 (a…
www.techdirt.com
It's just a shame the bitch caved to the Turkish government when the it demanded Twitter censor dissenters and insisted the law must be followed.
Last edited:
- 2,098
- Malinas
- scaffie78
I don't entirely agree with your comment @TexRex.
Hatespeech and disinformation is a big problem in today's society. Here in Europe the political discourse used by some people strongly resembles that of the NSDP back in the 30's.
Instead of going forward as a society, i feel we're going backward and social media plays has a big factor in this.
Fake news has never been a problem as it is now. And with platforms like social media, it's easy to get those views across. A lot of people are fooled, and tend to go along with those.
While I agree that enforcing might be a bit strong, i still find that there has to be acting against it.
I'm sure Elon is smart enough to find ways to do that without to much hassle even, not wanting to do it, and just plain quitting X in Europe, is just lame.
Hatespeech and disinformation is a big problem in today's society. Here in Europe the political discourse used by some people strongly resembles that of the NSDP back in the 30's.
Instead of going forward as a society, i feel we're going backward and social media plays has a big factor in this.
Fake news has never been a problem as it is now. And with platforms like social media, it's easy to get those views across. A lot of people are fooled, and tend to go along with those.
While I agree that enforcing might be a bit strong, i still find that there has to be acting against it.
I'm sure Elon is smart enough to find ways to do that without to much hassle even, not wanting to do it, and just plain quitting X in Europe, is just lame.
- 29,661
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
Hatespeech is speech which offends and offense isn't harm. It's subjective. That which is subject to individual interpretation can't truly be harmful.
And no government is fit to be arbiter of the truth. At best, governments are as fallible as any individual--just look at how even governments reacted to the story about a Gaza hospital being blown up. At worst, governments lie. Governments actually lie constantly. They have taken it upon themselves to maintain order and lying to the public makes that easier.
Criminalizing "hatespeech" and "disinformation" allows government to prosecute individuals who say things which government doesn't like. You think that's all well and good when you think government is on your side, and I think that's shortsighted. I'd prefer there be safeguards against government violating individual rights, and expressive rights are fundamental. Sure, if a government is keen to violate rights, it's going to do so, but maybe don't be so enthusiastic while inviting it to do so?
- 17,061
- United Kingdom
TexRex's real identity has finally been uncovered!
- 40,733
Who determines "hate speech"? Who determines "disinformation"? This is a particularly apt time for people to ask this question with Israel trying to change Palestine's seed into a Superflat biome and a particularly bad time for the EU to try to exert its own version of China's Great Firewall over the rest of the world; and the main issue with Musk's stance on this sort of matter is that he's the thinnest skinned man alive who has always only held the principles he espouses so long as it's convenient for him (see: Turkey vs Twitter after it was bought by the "free speech absolutionist" compared to before he bought it) or doesn't personally annoy him.
There's a reason that plenty of Democrats very much want Section 230 gone in the US (including the current President of the United States); and if it wasn't for Republicans (most notably the previous President of the United States and the people with their heads permanently up his ass) being laughably transparent for why they want it gone (meaning the same reasons as Democrats but just particularly bad at covering them up) those Democrats would be a lot louder about it.
Last edited:
- 29,661
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
- 86,623
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Musk continues his ongoing, one-sided feud with Wikipedia for...
«checks notes»
... asking for donations to keep the enormous, free, crowd-sourced, ad-free information resource online.
www.nme.com
"Hilariously" calling the site "Wokepedia" and then saying he'll give it $1bn to change its name to "Dickpedia".
Presumbly this will come from the same fund used to promise $6bn to the UN if it could come up with a plan to fight world hunger, which he didn't even though it did.
NME is slightly wrong here; Musk has been going after Wikipedia since at least 2019.
«checks notes»
... asking for donations to keep the enormous, free, crowd-sourced, ad-free information resource online.
Elon Musk says he will give $1billion to Wikipedia to change their name to 'Dickipedia'
Elon Musk has said he will give $1billion to Wikipedia to change their name to 'Dickipedia', calling it a "stiff & firm offer"
www.nme.com
"Hilariously" calling the site "Wokepedia" and then saying he'll give it $1bn to change its name to "Dickpedia".
Presumbly this will come from the same fund used to promise $6bn to the UN if it could come up with a plan to fight world hunger, which he didn't even though it did.
NME is slightly wrong here; Musk has been going after Wikipedia since at least 2019.
Danoff
Premium
- 33,928
- Mile High City
Going after wikipedia is like hating rainbows.Musk continues his ongoing, one-sided feud with Wikipedia for...
«checks notes»
... asking for donations to keep the enormous, free, crowd-sourced, ad-free information resource online.
Elon Musk says he will give $1billion to Wikipedia to change their name to 'Dickipedia'
Elon Musk has said he will give $1billion to Wikipedia to change their name to 'Dickipedia', calling it a "stiff & firm offer"
"Hilariously" calling the site "Wokepedia" and then saying he'll give it $1bn to change its name to "Dickpedia".
Presumbly this will come from the same fund used to promise $6bn to the UN if it could come up with a plan to fight world hunger, which he didn't even though it did.
NME is slightly wrong here; Musk has been going after Wikipedia since at least 2019.
- 23,887
- It/It
- GTP_TheCracker
I bet most billionaires hate Wikipedia. They can't use their $$$ to control the narrative surrounding them.
UKMikey
Premium
- 17,994
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
Which is the entire point of their funding model unless I'm mistaken.
Last edited:
- 17,386
- Corneria City
- Orbital_Goat
I'm sure the term "non profit" is one that most of them can't wrap their heads around as well.
