That Musk is fearful of he or his family being put at risk because of someone's free speech (i.e., nefarious response, use of information unfiltered by miscreants who are just looking to do harm) seems to provide the best case for soft, objective, equally applied "regulations" for this platform and for other ones like Facebook or Truth S…
That Musk is fearful of he or his family being put at risk because of someone's free speech (i.e., nefarious response, use of information unfiltered by miscreants who are just looking to do harm) seems to provide the best case for soft, objective, equally applied "regulations" for this platform and for other ones like Facebook or Truth Social, etc. I don't like what some people say (about me) or put my family at risk or I know you are wrong are not reasons to drop a customer. Those are personal reactions, not a corporate or social policy. Regulating is filled with problems, ethical and fair, the design shouldn't start with lashing out by the owner. These platforms, if they are to promote civil and free speech, need tall leaders, not small minds of frightened narcissists. A learning opportunity, here, for Musk.
In order to learn from one's mistakes, one must admit error. The narcissist just blows past the mistake and on to the next one. The negative reactions of others plays no role.
Learning from mistakes is part of humility. Another feature absent from Muck's cruel and selfish personality.
Have no idea that I "Reported" your comment. Thought I was responding. Sorry. Besides my response disappeared,
I am in agreement with your point. Further, that given that Musk may not learn from this opportunity, we might want to revisit whether a public good like Twitter should be owned privately. I think a narcissist should neither be leader of a public good nor government.
Fred and Jeri - you are on to something. Perhaps there should be a BBC version of social media that functions as Twitter was originally designed. But there we go..."taxing and spending". I'll say it now, I trust the government more than I trust any private company or sprawling corporation run by a privileged wing nut. I can vote out the government, but I can;t vote out Koch or Mercer, etc.
There's a $100 trillion in the hands of a few people like Muck. Tax the Hell out of them!
you're absolutely right, except for the fact that your last sentence implies that you take an actual interest in this asshole's opportunities for self-improvement. or were you just making a rhetorical point?
Oh, I am an optomist. Especially, as Musk owns Twitter and will for a long time. He has an ego the size of ... whatever. And he does love to make money. The battle to turn these Public Goods away from being potentially the lair nest of evil disguised as something with a potential is going to outlive me.
That Musk is fearful of he or his family being put at risk because of someone's free speech (i.e., nefarious response, use of information unfiltered by miscreants who are just looking to do harm) seems to provide the best case for soft, objective, equally applied "regulations" for this platform and for other ones like Facebook or Truth Social, etc. I don't like what some people say (about me) or put my family at risk or I know you are wrong are not reasons to drop a customer. Those are personal reactions, not a corporate or social policy. Regulating is filled with problems, ethical and fair, the design shouldn't start with lashing out by the owner. These platforms, if they are to promote civil and free speech, need tall leaders, not small minds of frightened narcissists. A learning opportunity, here, for Musk.
In order to learn from one's mistakes, one must admit error. The narcissist just blows past the mistake and on to the next one. The negative reactions of others plays no role.
Learning from mistakes is part of humility. Another feature absent from Muck's cruel and selfish personality.
Have no idea that I "Reported" your comment. Thought I was responding. Sorry. Besides my response disappeared,
I am in agreement with your point. Further, that given that Musk may not learn from this opportunity, we might want to revisit whether a public good like Twitter should be owned privately. I think a narcissist should neither be leader of a public good nor government.
Fred and Jeri - you are on to something. Perhaps there should be a BBC version of social media that functions as Twitter was originally designed. But there we go..."taxing and spending". I'll say it now, I trust the government more than I trust any private company or sprawling corporation run by a privileged wing nut. I can vote out the government, but I can;t vote out Koch or Mercer, etc.
There's a $100 trillion in the hands of a few people like Muck. Tax the Hell out of them!
Amen
It had sort of become a public utility, needs to become just that
Learn, of what you speak
you're absolutely right, except for the fact that your last sentence implies that you take an actual interest in this asshole's opportunities for self-improvement. or were you just making a rhetorical point?
Oh, I am an optomist. Especially, as Musk owns Twitter and will for a long time. He has an ego the size of ... whatever. And he does love to make money. The battle to turn these Public Goods away from being potentially the lair nest of evil disguised as something with a potential is going to outlive me.
You're also a realist.
As I read this I also thought of the cast from Bloom County, but couldn't decide whether Musk would be Bill the Cat, Opus, or Steve Dallas. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwj1s7O77oP8AhUzlIkEHaSgB30QFnoECBAQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.gocomics.com%2Fbloomcounty&usg=AOvVaw2k03Z69sPbyGP2LrWXsqMu
Steve Dallas.