Consider utilities - in the sense of infrastructure - such as public roads, water supply, energy, waste disposable.
Now consider a highly intelligent, super-rich, narcissistic man-child is in charge of one of them. That could go well, but it could also end badly.
So if (1) you agree with those that are considering online platforms to be utility-like, and (2) you agree that important infrastructure in democratic societies should be subject to checks and balances, accountability etc, and (3) you fear that Musk will undermine the degree to which Twitter has so far followed these directions, then you would be critical of the sale.
If, on the other hand, you are ok with things in society breaking (assuming that they also get better in some other places, which is totally possible), and/or you think online platforms are not very influential/relevant, and/or you think Musk is a better leader than others, then you probably don't care too much.
Say you want to move sentiment around some idea. If you can manipulate the volume and direction of sentiment around that idea, say by green lighting a targeted segment of known dummy traffic (sock puppets, whatever), promoting certain posts above others, etc, you could potentially achieve that goal.
I think twitter, like others in its genre, has potential as a interface for mass manipulation or enchantment, and anyone who would "own" it outright, in its current form, is likely dangerous.
you have the same blindspots about Musk character as voters have about their candidates…and for the exact same reasons: he made promises to bring relevance to the things you care about such as Mars, EV cars hyperloops and all the other techno-utopian concepts he touts
the general population isnt as fanatically fixated on these things and so they dont have such blindspot.
as much as SiliconValley/tech community prouds itself of being so much smarter than flyover America some things and phenomenons stay the same regardless of a person having an IQ of 50 or 150.
Also Musk is not very good at concealing the issues he has and the many flaws in his character.
So you get a situation in which right wingers are happy until he inevitably clahes with Trump's own business interests represented by the Truth Social, at that point they'd all dump Musk for Trump.
Left wingers are unhappy because of obvious reasons.
Tech enthusiasts, financiers and cryptobros with a blindspots are the only ones being happy long term about this deal because they dream to become billionaires themselves, further they dream to become the peculiar billionaire flavor that Musk represents.
EDIT: When I say tech enthusiasts I mean startuppers. Musk isn't very popular in academia, material science, virology, urban planning or really any field in which he shouted his opinion on the interwebz giving experts in such field an opportunity to look at what's under the hood. (Eg. the "Zero Covid cases by April 2020" tweet)
uniqueuid|3 years ago
Now consider a highly intelligent, super-rich, narcissistic man-child is in charge of one of them. That could go well, but it could also end badly.
So if (1) you agree with those that are considering online platforms to be utility-like, and (2) you agree that important infrastructure in democratic societies should be subject to checks and balances, accountability etc, and (3) you fear that Musk will undermine the degree to which Twitter has so far followed these directions, then you would be critical of the sale.
If, on the other hand, you are ok with things in society breaking (assuming that they also get better in some other places, which is totally possible), and/or you think online platforms are not very influential/relevant, and/or you think Musk is a better leader than others, then you probably don't care too much.
navjack27|3 years ago
This isn't government run so no, checks and balances don't apply. It's a traded business.
I don't fear that musk will ruin an investment for giggles or for self centered reasons, no.
Your third paragraph is one of them logical fallacy things isn't it.
guggleet|3 years ago
I think twitter, like others in its genre, has potential as a interface for mass manipulation or enchantment, and anyone who would "own" it outright, in its current form, is likely dangerous.
McLaren_Ferrari|3 years ago
you have the same blindspots about Musk character as voters have about their candidates…and for the exact same reasons: he made promises to bring relevance to the things you care about such as Mars, EV cars hyperloops and all the other techno-utopian concepts he touts
the general population isnt as fanatically fixated on these things and so they dont have such blindspot.
as much as SiliconValley/tech community prouds itself of being so much smarter than flyover America some things and phenomenons stay the same regardless of a person having an IQ of 50 or 150.
Also Musk is not very good at concealing the issues he has and the many flaws in his character.
So you get a situation in which right wingers are happy until he inevitably clahes with Trump's own business interests represented by the Truth Social, at that point they'd all dump Musk for Trump.
Left wingers are unhappy because of obvious reasons.
Tech enthusiasts, financiers and cryptobros with a blindspots are the only ones being happy long term about this deal because they dream to become billionaires themselves, further they dream to become the peculiar billionaire flavor that Musk represents.
EDIT: When I say tech enthusiasts I mean startuppers. Musk isn't very popular in academia, material science, virology, urban planning or really any field in which he shouted his opinion on the interwebz giving experts in such field an opportunity to look at what's under the hood. (Eg. the "Zero Covid cases by April 2020" tweet)
WaxedChewbacca|3 years ago
[deleted]