Twitter is a Private Company

ridski said:

I'd love to know what's "improved" as I've noticed no difference at all. Well, apart from the sudden appearance and disappearance of someone called Andrew Tate.

For one thing, Elon completely trashed the "verified" designation. It wasn't perfect, of course, but it provided some useful information for a reader. Now any dumbass can pay to get a "blue check" showing he's "verified".

Smedley said:

nohero said:

Smedley said:

I readily admit this is a trivial discussion and your Twitter usage is not material to the company's performance. This discussion could have easily ended after like 3 posts maybe with a "yeah whatever, I guess I'm funding Elon's yacht lol" or something similarly commensurate with the triviality of my first post. It only continued because I felt I had to engage with the usual MOL hellfire, ie IT'S NOT IRONIC WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT YOU HAVE THREE HEADS etc etc.  

If you enjoy annoying random people by repeating inane and nonsensical arguments, you should consider spending more time on the Twitter. 

Clever editing in removing my clear-as-day explanation of how you support Twitter and by extension Twitter CEO Elon Musk. If that really is "nonsensical" to you, then as the great drummerboy would say: I can't help you.  

Please don't start with the inane Surovellian complaints about your quoted post being "edited". I posted your complete thought, including the part where you wrote "your Twitter usage is not material to the company's performance."

I posted this:

"You may not be supporting Twitter Inc with direct monetary payments but you are supporting the company with your own usage and sharing tweets that presumably others will click on, with all adds up to traffic, DAUs and whatever other metrics advertisers pay the company for. Hence the "irony".

I readily admit this is a trivial discussion and your Twitter usage is not material to the company's performance. This discussion could have easily ended after like 3 posts maybe with a "yeah whatever, I guess I'm funding Elon's yacht lol" or something similarly commensurate with the triviality of my first post. It only continued because I felt I had to engage with the usual MOL hellfire, ie IT'S NOT IRONIC WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT YOU HAVE THREE HEADS etc etc."

You quoted this:

"I readily admit this is a trivial discussion and your Twitter usage is not material to the company's performance. This discussion could have easily ended after like 3 posts maybe with a "yeah whatever, I guess I'm funding Elon's yacht lol" or something similarly commensurate with the triviality of my first post. It only continued because I felt I had to engage with the usual MOL hellfire, ie IT'S NOT IRONIC WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT YOU HAVE THREE HEADS etc etc." 

Removing a paragraph is an edit. Not an inane complaint, just a fact. 

Smedley said:

Removing a paragraph is an edit. Not an inane complaint, just a fact. 

It depends on whether the paragraph is a complete thought, or part of a larger thought, which is being responded to.

In my humble opinion.

meh.
For almost any media consumed, WE are the product. It's been that way as long as there has been advertising. When you watch TV, do you think you're the customer? Of course not. You're the product that Disney, or Paramount or NBC-Uni is selling to its media agency and advertiser partners.

I think Rupert Murdoch has been a destructive force through his media holdings throughout the world. And yet, I still watch baseball and football on Fox Sports. 

isn't it ironic...

I agree that with Twitter and most any other media, we are the product being sold to advertisers. With Twitter specifically, the key metric seems to be monetizable daily active users. Advertisers want a robust  mDAU number, which is a product of more users, more engagement, more sharing content across other platforms (such as MOL), etc. 

Which... kinda all comes back to the individual-level activity we're debating on this forum.   

PVW said:

paulsurovell said:

See what I mean, I make a point about Elon Musk's enormous contributions to the fight against climate change, and you feel compelled to "rebut," so you divert to Twitter.

You got me. On a thread about twitter, I "diverted" to twitter. I plead no contest.

Sorry, I thought you were replying to my post. My bad.

nohero said:

Smedley said:

nohero said:

Smedley said:

I readily admit this is a trivial discussion and your Twitter usage is not material to the company's performance. This discussion could have easily ended after like 3 posts maybe with a "yeah whatever, I guess I'm funding Elon's yacht lol" or something similarly commensurate with the triviality of my first post. It only continued because I felt I had to engage with the usual MOL hellfire, ie IT'S NOT IRONIC WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT YOU HAVE THREE HEADS etc etc.  

If you enjoy annoying random people by repeating inane and nonsensical arguments, you should consider spending more time on the Twitter. 

Clever editing in removing my clear-as-day explanation of how you support Twitter and by extension Twitter CEO Elon Musk. If that really is "nonsensical" to you, then as the great drummerboy would say: I can't help you.  

Please don't start with the inane Surovellian complaints about your quoted post being "edited". I posted your complete thought, including the part where you wrote "your Twitter usage is not material to the company's performance."

Wow, "Surovellian"!

Do I have permission to use your real name to categorize language?

Edited to add: "real"

ridski said:

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

As a Twitter user I've noticed some improvements, some available to all, some available to subscribers, and no downsides. And the laid-off workers don't seem to be making a claim that Twitter has been diminished because of their layoffs.

As for the workers claims, it's a case about their employment agreement, so there's nothing relevant in your perception that "the laid-off workers don't seem to be making a claim that Twitter has been diminished because of their layoffs". That wouldn't be part of the case.

As for the "improvements" - what are they?

Please note that I am not diverting since sir, this is a Twitter thread.

I'd love to know what's "improved" as I've noticed no difference at all. Well, apart from the sudden appearance and disappearance of someone called Andrew Tate.

Since you pledged not to read my posts, I assume you're hoping that someone else will answer this question. And I'll respect that.

Edited to add: "And I'll respect that".

Smedley said:

I agree that with Twitter and most any other media, we are the product being sold to advertisers. With Twitter specifically, the key metric seems to be monetizable daily active users. Advertisers want a robust  mDAU number, which is a product of more users, more engagement, more sharing content across other platforms (such as MOL), etc. 

Which... kinda all comes back to the individual-level activity we're debating on this forum.   

Elon likes -- and is amused by -- his haters who love his business and contribute to its attraction for advertisers, even if its only one person. He especially likes haters like @nohero, who could easily have described his dilemma in the words of Molly Jong-Fast:

nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

For @nohero and his tribe, nothing positive can be said about Glenn Greenwald, not even about his crucial role in saving democracy in Brazil, the current epicenter of democracy-under-attack. The same cancel-mentality that prohibits anything positive to be said about Elon Musk, not even his crucial role in the fight against climate change, an existential threat to humanity.

What I expected from you (not what you should do).

I didn't comment about what President Lula said about what Greenwald did. I didn't even comment about your claim about what you claim Greenwald did. I commented on a pageant on the Twitter where some guys who think a lot of themselves are attacking anyone who suggests that we should take measures to protect against the spread of Covid.

I don't think I have to repeat why I have such a low opinion of people who do that.

The language -- "what President Lula said about what Greenwald did" and "what you claim Greenwald did" is suggestive that (a) you question Lula's high praise for Glenn and (b) you question whether Lula's release from prison enabled the restoration of democracy in Brazil.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

For reference:

paulsurovell said:

The language -- "what President Lula said about what Greenwald did" and "what you claim Greenwald did" is suggestive that (a) you question Lula's high praise for Glenn and (b) you question whether Lula's release from prison enabled the restoration of democracy in Brazil.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

For reference:

Okay, you’re wrong. 

I don't know why anyone finds it weird, or amusing that some of Musk's biggest critics still use Twitter. It's essentially a monopoly within its category of social media.

it's why I watch Fox Sports even though I think the Murdochs are terrible people. They have a monopoly most weeks on NY Giants games. I could certainly boycott the games that Fox broadcasts, and not contribute to the audience numbers their games deliver to advertisers.  But that would be kind of stupid wouldn't it, if I still enjoy watching the Giants?

This is a good piece that captures the dilemma (or lack thereof) of musk-hating Twitter users.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2017/10/20/opinion/sunday/amazon-boycott.amp.html

Smedley said:

This is a good piece that captures the dilemma (or lack thereof) of musk-hating Twitter users.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2017/10/20/opinion/sunday/amazon-boycott.amp.html

That’s another “Surovellian” analogy. 
As in, no it’s not the same at all. 

Smedley said:

This is a good piece that captures the dilemma (or lack thereof) of musk-hating Twitter users.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2017/10/20/opinion/sunday/amazon-boycott.amp.html

Making sound analogies is an important part of critical thinking.

This is unsound. Unsound.

ml1 said:

I don't know why anyone finds it weird, or amusing that some of Musk's biggest critics still use Twitter. It's essentially a monopoly within its category of social media.

...

Because they think they've found a way to own the libs.

I think it's so analogous that if the column were written today, Twitter and Elon Musk would probably be the first company mentioned.

But, I'll play along. Please explain why it's "not the same at all". Clearly and directly, with no obfuscation, deflection, waving off, etc.   

You can do it. Or if you can't, perhaps your alter ego can. 

drummerboy said:

Smedley said:

This is a good piece that captures the dilemma (or lack thereof) of musk-hating Twitter users.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2017/10/20/opinion/sunday/amazon-boycott.amp.html

Making sound analogies is an important part of critical thinking.

This is unsound. Unsound.

uh, we're gonna need a little more than that. Mmmkay?

nohero said:

Smedley said:

This is a good piece that captures the dilemma (or lack thereof) of musk-hating Twitter users.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2017/10/20/opinion/sunday/amazon-boycott.amp.html

That’s another “Surovellian” analogy. 
As in, no it’s not the same at all. 

Do I have permission to use your real name to categorize language in posts? You know, as in Fair Play?

paulsurovell said:

Do I have permission to use your real name to categorize language in posts? You know, as in Fair Play?

There’s nothing fair about putting someone on the spot about self-identification on an anonymous discussion board just because he plays with the real name you chose on your own to use. Take it from me — South Mountaineer.

Smedley said:

drummerboy said:

Smedley said:

This is a good piece that captures the dilemma (or lack thereof) of musk-hating Twitter users.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2017/10/20/opinion/sunday/amazon-boycott.amp.html

Making sound analogies is an important part of critical thinking.

This is unsound. Unsound.

uh, we're gonna need a little more than that. Mmmkay?

I have to take @drummerboy's side here. This is one of his most profound rebuttals. He actually said "unsound" twice. Do you really want him to say "unsound" three times? This could go on forever . . .

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

Do I have permission to use your real name to categorize language in posts? You know, as in Fair Play?

There’s nothing fair about putting someone on the spot about self-identification on an anonymous discussion board just because he plays with the real name you chose on your own to use. Take it from me — South Mountaineer.

Or . . . you could resume your "fairness" persona and suggest that @nohero try to characterize language in a less nasty way.

paulsurovell said:

I have to take @drummerboy's side here. This is one of his most profound rebuttals. He actually said "unsound" twice. Do you really want him to say "unsound" three times? This could go on forever . . .

I like it better when DB categorizes “unsound” ideas as just plain DUMB 

paulsurovell said:

Or . . . you could resume your "fairness" persona and suggest that @nohero try to characterize language in a less nasty way.

It wasn’t nasty, it was an analogy. 

paulsurovell said:

Or . . . you could resume your "fairness" persona and suggest that @nohero try to characterize language in a less nasty way.

I’m biased.

DaveSchmidt said:

1. Belabor. Go on about. Refuse to let go. Surowellize.

Smedley said:

I think it's so analogous that if the column were written today, Twitter and Elon Musk would probably be the first company mentioned.

The column is about the difficulty of boycotting things we like. Twitter is about the difficulty of boycotting a service we think we need to inform or to be informed.

DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

Or . . . you could resume your "fairness" persona and suggest that @nohero try to characterize language in a less nasty way.

I’m biased.

DaveSchmidt said:

1. Belabor. Go on about. Refuse to let go. Surowellize.

The downfall of Mr. Fairness.

DaveSchmidt said:

Smedley said:

I think it's so analogous that if the column were written today, Twitter and Elon Musk would probably be the first company mentioned.

The column is about the difficulty of boycotting things we like. Twitter is about the difficulty of boycotting a service we think we need to inform or to be informed.

We use Amazon because we like it?

paulsurovell said:

We use Amazon because we like it?

From the column: And yet I shop at Amazon. My lame excuse is that it’s now a 25-minute drive to the nearest independent bookstore, it’s convenient to have a book turn up at my door, and the price looks right.

Later, the author paraphrases and then quotes Julie Irwin, a professor at the McCombs School of Business at the University of Texas. We do better, Ms. Irwin says, when our ethical issues happen to line up with things we don’t actually like. “Then we can say, ‘Oh, I never eat liver,’” she said.

But why am I telling you? You already read all that.