147
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Sep 2023
147 points (62.9% liked)
Technology
34987 readers
376 users here now
This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.
Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.
Rules:
1: All Lemmy rules apply
2: Do not post low effort posts
3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff
4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.
5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)
6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist
7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
This is revisionist, that sequence of events was what caused him to start to play footsie with the idea of buying Twitter, the SEC saying that’s a big no-no is what made him actually make the offer to buy it and then he was forced by a court to finish the deal after a long legal battle to not buy it
Don't forget the part where Dorsey literally conned him by playing to his ego. Jack cashed out almost a billion in cash to himself even though Twitter was close to bankruptcy. It was brilliant.
What cracks me up the most is that Jack already had a Twitter clone in the works, ready to be released once Musk burns down the old plattform and people wish for Twitter but without Musk back.
Bluesky isn't exactly a twitter clone, it's what Jack wanted Twitter to pivot to, but the board of directors refused to play ball.
So Jack spun up a separate entity and explicitly made it its own thing outside of twitter.
Genuine question: given that running a platform like that costs money, and that money must come from somewhere, what would you actually do if you were in charge of running it? You either take money from advertisers, or you charge users directly, and I'd hazard to guess that if you'd nuke your account upon seeing ads, you probably wouldn't pay actual money to use it.
So what do you do?
Not the person you were speaking to, but get nationalised or run on donations as a non-profit.
But I do pay more than my share for most fediverse instances that I use (which reminds me, I use this one enough - should probably make my donation regular)
Honestly, I would love to see a Wikipedia-style social media platform take off, but I really don't know if the finances could work out. Wikipedia already struggles, and it's obscenely useful. I don't think nationalization is really feasible for social media - at least in an American context - because it would be subject to the government's legal limitations on regulating free speech, which are extremely minimal. A federally run platform would not be able to remove literal unironic Nazism, which is probably going to be a bit of a turn-off to normal people.
Wait what, I thought the US had hate speech laws.
If Nazi gum flapping isn't that, then I don't know what is
Not really, no. Freedom of speech is very strongly ingrained in our Constitution. The only legal restrictions on it are essentially direct threats or incitement of violence.
"Go kill this Jew" - Absolutely illegal.
"Go kill the Jews" - Illegal
"The Jews should be killed" - Borderline based on circumstances
"The Jews deserve to die" - Borderline, but probably protected by the Constitution
"The Jews deserved the Holocaust" - Almost certainly protected by the Constitution
Thank you for the breakdown. I had some vague conception of American free speech protections being pretty intense, but this illustrates the individual distinctions well
Probably not the last time this trick works on ol' blockhead.
oh man that's my new insult for blockchain pushers
Damn, what a slick move.
I missed that part. Where can I read more about this con?