Twitter to X - the (interesting) Musk backstory...

I renew my objection: c'mon!

First, if you are interested in opinions and conversations about the relative importance of humanity, surely you should know that Twitter/X would not be a useful platform to consult.

Secondly, there is nothing remotely absurd about original poster, who embedded the tweet, commenting on the irony of Musk's advice re: the NYT. It is astounding, even by his own, degraded standards.

Finally, Musk has been associated with numerous, dubious takes (or "theories"), and on a variety of topics. One would have to be squinting awfully hard to arrive at your conclusion on @ErichPryde's take, and especially given that he used the plural (i.e. "theories").

This is a thread about Twitter and Musk...it and he are the point here. If you find it sad or inappropriate that these are the chosen topics, you can always start a thread about genocides, but my guess is that it won't last long.

Of course people on twitter express opinions on serious topics, but that misses the point. I was referring to your focus, and in the context of this thread. You criticized the person who embedded the tweet, and those who responded to it, for focusing on an aspect which you find to be trivial. And that strikes me as, at best, a tangent that threatens to derail the topic at hand.


lol! What a bunch on nonsense. Because people choose to discuss something that you feel is trivial, the man who has now repeatedly pointed out that no one is clairvoyant, has arrived at the conclusion that the topic is "the only thing" that they care about?

Please.


Contrarian? You are the one passing value judgments, not I. And no one involved in the discussion ever suggested that a humanitarian issue isn't worth fighting for, etc. Critically discussing another element of his tweet doesn't necessarily imply that those who do so are somehow insensitive.

I heard the egomaniac just bought this company, and is changing the name to “Y.”

I agree. Any particular reason, @eugeneandresson , that you didn't start here, as opposed to leaping straight to a highly inflammatory statement that frames the post in question as a literal black-and-white? Not to mention acting as if the post occurred in a vacuum in the absence of an entire thread?

Effectively, the type of post you made serves to put the receiver on extreme defense as most reasonable people don't support genocide and would hardly want to be seen that way. Call it deflection if you like, it definitely can have the result of taking the emphasis off of the thread topic. I don't see it as much different as bringing up a noted politician as opposed to addressing statements other members made.

ANYWAY... I'm not foolish enough to frame Musk in black-and-white. If you'd started with the comment I quoted above it would have made for constructive conversation.

Some beautiful views included to take it down a notch.

Eugene:

Is it necessary for me to explain why it is poor form to use the quote function and alter the content?

I see no point in commenting on the remainder of your strained efforts to defend your position, beyond pointing out that they are littered with distortions, and straw man arguments.

Finally, had you originally posted something in support of Musk drawing attention to a humanitarian cause, rather than dubiously criticizing a few who didn't overtly do so, no one would likely have objected.

Agreed. And again, this entire approach is hardly an attempt at constructive conversation.

As a side note and regarding the direct message you sent me: it's really hard for me to take your "I was just seeking clarification" comment seriously given the posts you're making. If I have to actively explain to someone why starting with a statement like "so you also support genocide?" might be outrageous and they still can't acknowledge it might be outrageous, well... that's not the kind of person I'm interested in having a conversation with. No offense intended at all.


That said:

I don't know though, maybe you're the kind of person doing more than just passing judgements on conversation topics on a forum dedicated to really expensive luxury watches. Maybe you're the kind of person selling all their Omegas to help combat genocide. If so, my hat is off to you, your indignation would clearly not be aimed at conflict, but very genuine.

Thanks for chiming in. As you are not an X/Twitter user, you did miss something important. The original NY Times article tweet, sent by Musk, was embedded in a separate tweet generated by a used by the name of coloradotravis. And if you read his terse editorial comments, you will see that the content of the Times article was completely ignored, while the focus was solely on Musk's decision to expressly condone a work-around (with a link!) to enable readers to circumvent the NYT paywall. This was notable because Musk had recently paid a fortune for Twitter, which, of course, also works on an ad revenue model, and so to publicly encourage users to undermine a similar model could be viewed as interesting, or odd, or bizarre, etc.

So, when I posted, I assumed that readers would focus on the content of the latter tweet, and not the article published in the NY Times. As you point out, it is debatable (at best) whether Musk was even correct to proclaim the NY Times was promoting genocide, but that was not my focus. I can certainly see, though, why it may have been confusing, and have no problem with a further discussion about the article, and Musk's reaction to it.

At the very least, what can be perceived as incredibly annoying is when figures successful in entertainment, sports, or business delude themselves into thinking that anyone gives a shit about what they have to say other than what specifically pertains to their area of expertise.

Elon, if there’s a next pandemic: nobody give a fυck about your medical opinions.

Can we leave the political debate wall of text stuff on Facebook, I don’t even want to read through this argument as it’s too much text.

@eugeneandresson because someone reached out to me and suggested this could be a misunderstanding, some clarification:
I don't support genocide. I don't support calls for genocide. I don't believe that any of the issues of race happening in Africa are a conspiracy theory. Elon has a known history of sharing conspiracy theories on twitter and elsewhere, and he has publicly stated support of sharing conspiracy theories because some of them have turned out to be true. Maybe you didn't know this or weren't aware- but the history is there.

Also- I also don't like the NYT and haven't paid for their articles in well over a decade.

I don't like how the conversation with you started or unfolded. You acknowledge that neither calls for genocide nor support of calls for genocide are good, a point on which we wholly agree. Because of that agreement, I very much hope you see why I don't like how you worded your original statement/question.

I acknowledge, however, that I added to the original misunderstanding by not being very clear. For clarification's sake, my original intent was to avoid totally the topic of genocide, because there's no way a conversation about it is going to go smoothly. It's not because of a lack of humanity. In retrospect, I shouldn't have responded to the post if my goal was to avoid something inflammatory.

Hopefully this clears our misunderstanding up. I've already stated I don't want to continue this line of conversation and I meant it. Perhaps another time, another thread, we can have a better experience.

So, back on the topic of Musk and Twitter/X here's MY following of the twitter/X/Elon fiasco as it unfolded.


-Musk stated on a fairly absolute basis that Twitter was GREATER than 20% bots
-Twitter responded that the number was closer to 5%.
-Musk said that wasn't possible and said he would buy Twitter to "fix it"
-Musk hired TWO firms to verify how many bots Twitter had: CounterAction, which estimated 5.3% bots, and Cyabra, which estimated possibly 11%.
-Musk sent a letter to Twitter attempting to terminate his buyout of Twitter because the bot accounts were "much higher" than they stated.
-Twitter countered with (essentially) "your own research doesn't support your claim"
-Musk was forced to buy Twitter, and because he didn't want to, he used a Leveraged Buyout.


This is just the latest in Elon's antics of going to extreme lengths to not have to admit he's wrong. Sometimes this has worked out for him, but it didn't in this case. He was forced to buy a company he didn't actually want to buy. So instead of trying to make Twitter better, he's trying to completely rebuild it into something else.

I was, previously, a big supporter of Elon Musk, Primarily because I felt Tesla needed a personality much like his to get attention.

I can't say for certain if this conversion to "X" will work out for him in the end, but I ABSOLUTELY agree with the statement that it's the equivalent of drunk DMing his high school girlfriend.