Maximilian

Elon Musk and ūĚēŹ

89 posts in this topic

6 hours ago, Dauntment said:

1. I would confidently attest that X/Twitter is better headed into the direction of "Truth"/useful information and being less memetic or misc. content that doesn't "serve anyone".

2. "Execute on it" in the context on what they believe (putting action behind it, getting skin in the game, etc.). Isn't ironic how all these individual comments appear to "know what's best for the business" and "how it should be ran" (as if they had major experience running a similar company, or decades of specific knowledge in that domain, etc.)  lmao, isn't that a bit suspicious? 

3. Thus the status quo: MANY people will "talk" and "give their opinions" etc., in vain because they lack the leverage/capital/influence to do anything about it. Pareto Principle. (Also, not even beginning to mention the mechanicalness of main, particularly with "Talk" & "Reacting")

1, Somewhat subjective I guess. I can demonstrate that what you consider useful information causes social unrest, when its highlighted and given support by the founder itself, or normalized over a large communications platform, but ultimately it would hinge on you conceding such speech over a large group can have a social impact. - Which to be honest you seem too individualist to be willing to do, unless it relates to an individual's practical actions.

2 and 3 I'll put it in simple terms. 

This is impossible.

Its not practical nor feasible that everyone can run a large communications network, Nor the 50 other things in life they can see errors within. There is not enough time in the day, nor point to 200 more twitters being created, let alone 2 million. You've got to not only think of personal resources like time, focus, money, skillset, ability to organize, and energy, but also the scale of what you are suggesting. But that's my point, only a few people are suited for this and Musk isn't one of them - That does not mean someone can't observe obvious problems in the running of it, if they are obvious to that person.

Perhaps I was too charitable and soft above.

Elon musk is not average at communication. He's bad at it and it's blatantly obvious to me personally.

So what, I should now martial the resources to create Twitter, why because I see an obvious problem in front of me? No thanks, even if I wanted that job and could outbid or outperform everyone else now attempting the same to replace twitter, running millions of users communicating their perspectives, and dealing with the inherent free speech vs advertisers' preference sounds like an unending nightmare.

Edited by BlueOak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Elon Musk is for Free speech. Not free speech absolutism. It's pretty straightforward. 

That "absolutism" is your baggage. It's not like Elon gives you the right to call N word at everyone. Such a things never happened and if it did you will be banned in no time. You are making up stereotypical shit so that it's easy for you to cook up simplistic arguments and talking points. 

In a time when leftists would try to get you fired from your job for giving political opinions on social media, Elon Musk have offered to fight litigation battles against those who fired you for posting your opinions on that site. 

This is free speech. Not absolutism. This should have been a basic right. 

You are having a conversation about free speech only because Elon Made the idea popular in the main stream. Else every other site would only had upper class liberal propaganda funded by multi billion corporates. 

The default is WEF propaganda.

Alternative is Free Speech.

Most leftists were banned from social media like youtube or facebook 10 years ago. You are talking liberal centrists for the most part who don't like bad words. Then when actual leftists started to come back they were easily suppressed by the algorithm, there are still few leftist voices speaking, they exist now again but its not common. If it was, the socialist perspective wouldn't be completely absent from your perception of life, you'd at the minimum have a counterargument to it rather than a purely individualist take.

I am talking about things that cause social unrest. I am talking about the anarchy at the mercy of nothing but Elon musks whims, vs the bureaucracy that stops demagogues imposing their worldview over millions of people, or might makes right. You just said you were glad the bureaucracy is gone, because it now allows your preferred worldviews to flourish, and the damn the observed consequences in the social breakdown I am witnessing. You dismissing this observed event taking place in front of my eyes, as stereotypical shit because it doesn't align with your preferred worldview, is the only way you can support or process this. Anarcho-Capitalism trends are not stereotypical shit, they have not happened in my lifetime till now.

Argentina is now a corporate Anarcho-Capitalism state. Trump wants to move toward corporatist anarchy. I see it in other countries as well, even other large blocks of countries forming. This is happening right now, and its cause (and effect) is playing out on communication mediums like twitter. If Elon Musk doesn't like what you say its banned or suppressed. If he likes what you say he highlights it. 

Elon is a multi-billion corporate businessman. He's just your preferred corporate businessman.

Edited by BlueOak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

They have more than enough resources to clone it. But they can't clone the user base. They are essentially paying for the user base, not the tech.

That why Facebook acquired WhatsApp and Instagram when they were loss making companies. And Microsoft acquired GitHub.

That's a fair point. However if that was the idea it seems strange to then make lots of rapid decisions that will alienate the original user base.

To be fair, I thought Twitter had lost more users than it really has. It seems officially it's down 13% since Musk's takeover which is not really toooo bad. I've spoken to a fair few people who have stopped using it though so anecdotally 13% seems too low to me. I guess the people I know are not representative of Twitter's entire user base and are probably more left leaning i.e. more likely to abandon it than others.

I do wonder if they collect user stats 'creatively' to inflate that number though. For example they now force you to have an account to do almost anything. The most annoying one is making you log in to see a user's most recent tweets instead of most popular. I've done that occasionally, which might result in me being considered an active user even though I don't use twitter more than once a month for less than 5 minutes to look at one account's tweets.

2 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

He thinks of himself as the the CEO of a rugged corporation X which is ruling the dystopian post apocalyptic world headed in San Francisco. 

Yea, the recent interview he did wearing the bomber jacket aligns with that analysis xD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

This should have been a basic right. 

Was it not before? What did you want to say that you couldn't tweet before 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@StarStruck

On 2023-11-30 at 1:33 PM, StarStruck said:

@something_else if Elon had a small mind like you he would never made any mistakes in life and he would not get the riches and success he has. Success and failure are the same thing but you need a certain intellectual and spiritual ripeness to understand that. 

   If you're going to insult people's minds by size, then I wouldn't have a profile pic of a brain, it's saying.

   Also, not many people relate to Elon Musk as he's a multi billionaire himself, even conservatives can't quite relate to his whole handling of Twitter. Don't see how a foolish narcissist is that relatable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/30/2023 at 6:04 AM, Bobby_2021 said:

It was unprofitable and would ban you for petty stuff . The only way they would keep running was if they took funding from wealthy donor and did what they said word by word. 

Not that the current one is any better, but in terms of user experience it has considerably improved. 

I've been banned from twitter 4 times since that guy took over, and one of those bans was because I criticized him. It's literally gotten worse! More draconian, though people would deny that; but it's undeniably less profitable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Dauntment said:

I think: Many people will have "opinions about him", but in ACTUALITY will mean almost nothing considering no single individual would achieve a fraction of a decimal of a percent of the success he has achieved (accumulated capital). Same people calling him immature/wrong/foolish/etc. are simply taking from the sidelines, zero skin in the game.  Think you know better? Go execute on it. :) 

This only makes sense if you worship money. And obviously non-billionaires need to hold billionaires accountable. This is just absurd. The daunt.

11 hours ago, Dauntment said:

Where we our in society: Those with the most leverage/capital are NOT the ones (nor closely advised by) the highest quality thinkers/philosophers.

We need more Conscious Leadership/Capitalism.

Ah, okay, I flagrantly misinterpreted you.

6 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Freedumb!!!

Freedumb would be if you stopped banning me for no reason. Just check out my high quality post history. Reality is Infinity, God, Nothingness, Neither-Nor, Both-And, Either-Or, Energy, Consciousness and Intent.

Reality is Consciousness connected by Intent, which is why your intention itself affects reality itself. It’s why we should have good, helpful, useful, cooperative intents.

Its also why retrocausality and bilocation are possible if you intend them with enough energy. I could teach you about that.

Also you should watch documentaries about Hurricane Dorian in the Bahamas. Hundreds of Haitians on the island Abaco got streamrolled by flooded wind-pushed shipping containers in ‚ÄúThe Mud‚ÄĚ shanty town. For your geography challenge.

Reality can easily create island nightmares like that, which are more interesting and teach you more about Consciousness and the atmosphere of it than some grotesquely rich guy messing up a website and causing a mass exodus.

6 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Organically growing the user base is a challenge. There have been many clones of twitter none of which really took off. 

Blue Sky probably will take off. Really high end.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Phoebe

3 hours ago, Phoebe said:

I've been banned from twitter 4 times since that guy took over, and one of those bans was because I criticized him. It's literally gotten worse! More draconian, though people would deny that; but it's undeniably less profitable.

   Could you tell us how you worded your critic of Elon Musk?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 30/11/2023 at 7:36 PM, Schizophonia said:

Yes, I was talking about that, this idea didn't come from me but from a video from a bodybuilding YouTuber that I saw a while ago, maybe moreplatesmoredates? I do not know anymore.
This is a trend among many billionaires and it is a possibility when we notice the evolution of Musk's physique and behavior.
I'm not giving it up just to troll, I already used testosterone cream for a few weeks to try until I found myself constantly over 5000ng/dl with DHT through the roof, same for E2. Then I also experimented a little later with large doses of clomid.
I also have in mind the experience of many people I have spoken to on meso rx and other forums.

Large doses of testosterone will quickly transform you into a hysterical libertarian with little respect for authority and any form of self-limiting concepts linked to said authority, such as ethics, morality, etc. For example, you may very quickly find yourself wanting to scam/use people, doing illegal things and getting angry if someone tries to limit your scope of action.
But above all it makes you delusional, for example if you receive a death threat from the mafia, with a normal hormonal profile you will just submit or at least manage to save your family, BUT if you are under too high levels of androgens (and e2) or even worse even more powerful steroids, you can for example get it in your head that you are going to take a gun and destroy the mafia all by yourself while listening to 2pac, even if it is completely irrational lol.
The same goes for any other subject in life (women, business, etc.)

This has got to be the top 10 dumbest things I've ever read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 30/11/2023 at 5:49 PM, Leo Gura said:

But maybe it's just good ole fashioned ego.

Identifying narcissism is difficult relative to natural arrogance and boldness of NiTe users. He probably believes impolite communications with advertisers is creative, rather than manipulative, and that narcissism only arises in hall-of-mirrors Fe exploitation. However, he seems to have an anecdotal history of piggybacking success (stealing business ideas & disproportionate self-attribution), of becoming irritated by presumably insufficient recognition, and of being deceptive about timelines, in addition to low risk aversion typical in narcissism R R. I am not sure if his cognitive loops are blinded by financial success, allegedly meaningful attachement to short-sighted idealism | ethics, desired contrarian status, or neither.

Nevertheless, there are potential reasons to support his approach to management, communications, and individualization. Advertisement-based social and financial dynamics have shadow sides that he might find difficult to support. Civilization is immature, self-awareness is difficult when surroundings are uniformly bleak.

Edited by nuwu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, nuwu said:

Identifying narcissism is difficult relative to natural arrogance and boldness of NiTe users. He probably believes impolite communications with advertisers is creative, rather than manipulative, and that narcissism only arises in hall-of-mirrors Fe exploitation. However, he seems to have an anecdotal history of piggybacking success (stealing business ideas & disproportionate self-attribution), of becoming irritated by presumably insufficient recognition, and of being deceptive about timelines, in addition to low risk aversion typical in narcissism R R. I am not sure if his cognitive loops are blinded by financial success, meaningfully attached to short-sighted idealism | ethics, or if this is possibly the contrarian status he desires.

Nevertheless, there are potential reasons to support his approach to management, communications, and individualization. Advertisement-based social and financial dynamics have shadow sides that he might find difficult to support. Civilization is immature, self-awareness is difficult when surroundings are uniformly bleak.

Well put. I would add that not becoming a multi-planetary species, not having regulations and oversight of AI development, not transitioning to sustainable energy sources, and not combating the crumbling of democracy be it from capitalistic forces or other ... are all extremely risky decisions.

True narcissists would stay home and jerk off after seeking attention and validation through shitposting ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, MuadDib said:

True narcissists would stay home and jerk off after seeking attention and validation through shitposting ...

1) Many people in positions of power and great wealth are genuine narcissists and some even sociopaths.

2) Elon does plenty of shitposting.

Edited by Leo Gura

You are God. You are Truth. You are Love. You are Infinity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FYI, narcissists are not monsters. I had a girlfriend who was a narcissist and she was still a sweet and loving person.

Edited by Leo Gura

You are God. You are Truth. You are Love. You are Infinity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, BlueOak said:

Most leftists were banned from social media like youtube or facebook 10 years ago.

I don't know about it. If that happened, that's clearly wrong and I would have spoken against it. Because I know the tides would turn against me one day sooner than later.

Do you agree with it? And that's a justification for banned any side now? What do you mean?

23 hours ago, BlueOak said:

Then when actual leftists started to come back they were easily suppressed by the algorithm, there are still few leftist voices speaking, they exist now again but its not common.

The leftist movement has been hijacked by the corporates, lobbyists and the WEF. Now they are masquerade as leftists and leftist voices. Do what you want with that.

They don't care about "actual" leftism. They are corporate goons. If you care about actual leftism, and few leftists around, then you should argue for free speech. Not against it. 

23 hours ago, BlueOak said:

If it was, the socialist perspective wouldn't be completely absent from your perception of life, you'd at the minimum have a counterargument to it rather than a purely individualist take.

Again, corporates have taken over leftism and they are the new masters.

What are you going to do about it?

If you are pro censorship, then you are allowing the anti corporates(the actual leftists) to be censored. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, BlueOak said:

talking about things that cause social unrest

BLM, Jan 6 all happened in less than a year under the previous management. Twitter was used by both sides to urge for destruction and violence of public property and lives.

Where is the responsibility from the previous management?

Imagine if Elon Musk was the head at these times. The media would blame him for everything and anything that happened at the time. 

Also if you want to take about social unrest fuelled by hate in social media, then you should advocate for privacy.

The targeted ad campaign by Facebook has caused the biggest polarization of all time and played a role in the subsequent riots and civil unrest in society.

Is that a professionally run social media as opposed to Musks Twitter? 

Threads were literally banned in the EU due to privacy concerns. 

But naah Elon Musk being immature on social media is more important to you. Yeah granted he is immature and ego centric. But that isn't of any significance. It's his personality.

You should be criticising systemic problems. NOT INDIVIDUALS.

Individuals are rarely the problem. 

Meta is far more of a threat to society than Elon Musk. But that doesn't fit your agenda. Zuck has he/him in bio and musk don't. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/1/2023 at 8:02 AM, Dauntment said:

We need more Conscious Leadership/Capitalism.

What's conscious capitalism supposed to mean? And who is going to take charge to implement it.

I say we must change the system itself and advocate for systemic changes that are clear and transparent which could be inspired by consciousness or whatever. But usually throwing the word consciousness into capitalism with no clarity on the specifics is usually a bunch of crap. 

It's a way for crony capitalists to advocate for even more power and money from the government in an effort to shift to "conscious" decisions. In reality they want more power to continue their degeneracy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

FYI, narcissists are not monsters. I had a girlfriend who was a narcissist and she was still a sweet and loving person.

I m baffled, how can someone measure any of this.
litteraly we invented the metrics ?

why no one contemplate how much this is pure non sense that is grounded in a pure void.

We better off thinking in terms of physical forces.. if that also means anything, probably closer than the monopoly game of social yugiyo.

Edited by AerisVahnEphelia

nowhere in the bio  @VahnAeris 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

I don't know about it. If that happened, that's clearly wrong and I would have spoken against it. Because I know the tides would turn against me one day sooner than later.

Do you agree with it? And that's a justification for banned any side now? What do you mean?

The leftist movement has been hijacked by the corporates, lobbyists and the WEF. Now they are masquerade as leftists and leftist voices. Do what you want with that.

They don't care about "actual" leftism. They are corporate goons. If you care about actual leftism, and few leftists around, then you should argue for free speech. Not against it. 

Again, corporates have taken over leftism and they are the new masters.

What are you going to do about it?

If you are pro censorship, then you are allowing the anti corporates(the actual leftists) to be censored. 

We do agree the current corporate center is not a leftist-aligned movement, the other half of that is most of the right is largely pro-corporate still also. In some ways its just corporation vs corporation with people trying to find a voice somewhere. Still, the right in elections would probably get more votes if they made that realisation. Suddenly they wouldn't be pushing away a large potential voting block.

In recent years, yes for example the corporate center has further alienated populist sentiment, to the point populism almost polar shifted righwing, or certainly independent and not voting. We are at the point where populism is ascendent on the right now. Unions are making a small comeback, which is a leftwing socialist example. Authoritarian elements or 'authority' is seen as the villain now on the right as well, because corporations are replacing that authority (and because the government is devalued in the public's image), a large global corporation can outspend a small country, think about that power dynamic. So there is resistance from people who dislike corporations and resistance from people who still value things like local government. Oddly also people like traditional conservatives and socialists who both value certain (but different) institutions. 

It's not free speech. Its Elon Musk-regulated speech. Again corporations pick and choose what can be said. There is no great difference here, just someone who is slightly more ham-fisted at communications, better at the technical aspects, worse at balancing advertisers' preferences, and has a different viewpoint as to what is allowed/disallowed. I would not argue for something that suppresses alternative viewpoints, just because it is an alternative, I doubt I'd be allowed to post what I am posting now on twitter either for long.

All four points of the political compass balance each other, when one or worse two are removed things don't function smoothly, or in this case at all to have an inclusive communications platform. Socialism, Liberalism, Capitalism and Authoritarianism, as they all represent different aspects that society and individuals require to function effectively, and not have things like social unrest, stagnation, deficit, or anarchy respectively

Do I agree with it? I'm not pro or anti-censorship. I've been censored plenty. I still understand the necessity of the more radical elements of society needing some censorship. When its done through a liberal filter the censorship is based on how civil the language is, rather than the meaning behind it. Which is helpful for personal feelings or communicating, but practically useless. It's too much focused on the image or how it makes someone look/feel, rather than the message. This was infuriating 5 years ago trying to speak about China as an example, (its a lot better now) the language was so sanitized I felt like a character in a period drama reaching for upper-class English vocabulary.

What am I going to do about it? Discussion helps, and raising awareness helps. This discussion is already more nuanced in detail. Subtle changes are made when enough people see it. Hopefully, in this discourse, the perspectives gained some understanding in us and others reading. I've started supporting alternative communication platforms but that's just splintering the value of a central one. If I felt there was a way to practically achieve any level of change, other than discussion when and where I come across it, I'd probably be doing it. If I had to predict the future here, it's uncertain but I think Twitter will just splinter into clones and echo chambers. At least advertisers will have an easier time targeting their products I guess.

The problem with Musk's approach is:

1) We don't have the power here, even Musk as one rich man, honestly has little power in global communications, it's one of the most fiercely contested and controlled aspects of life because it influences anything and everything else.
2) We will not have a successful global communications network without liberal capitalists running it, or being heavily involved, as it's their forte, and they are the ones most likely to use it often and productively.
3) tl;dr People are pulling it in different directions, like the planet as a whole, dividing it up. So maybe this is the natural conclusion anyway, more division to reflect the current world climate.

People are leaving X, the ones left will be the voices it allows or benefits. Other people will go elsewhere and if Musk continually raises his middle finger to advertisers, most of them as well. Thankfully I can still come here and talk to you, gaining the benefit of a completely different viewpoint.

Edited by BlueOak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bobby_2021 said:

BLM, Jan 6 all happened in less than a year under the previous management. Twitter was used by both sides to urge for destruction and violence of public property and lives.

Where is the responsibility from the previous management?

Imagine if Elon Musk was the head at these times. The media would blame him for everything and anything that happened at the time. 

Also if you want to take about social unrest fuelled by hate in social media, then you should advocate for privacy.

The targeted ad campaign by Facebook has caused the biggest polarization of all time and played a role in the subsequent riots and civil unrest in society.

Is that a professionally run social media as opposed to Musks Twitter? 

Threads were literally banned in the EU due to privacy concerns. 

But naah Elon Musk being immature on social media is more important to you. Yeah granted he is immature and ego centric. But that isn't of any significance. It's his personality.

You should be criticising systemic problems. NOT INDIVIDUALS.

Individuals are rarely the problem. 

Meta is far more of a threat to society than Elon Musk. But that doesn't fit your agenda. Zuck has he/him in bio and musk don't. 

Elon musks maturity level, or level of 'civility' is your and the liberal-bias interest not mine. I think I've repeatedly said it but that's more blunt. I understand if you want to resist what other people consider important, good luck with trying to change what people care or don't about. Save yourself a headache and just don't bother, it'd save Musk a headache as well, but a good communicator would already understand that before they spoke a word, and balance their message as a result for a large group of differing perspectives.

He'd rightly be blamed if his platform allowed people planning insurrection or riots to flourish. So yeah fair point and names should be dropped to better define it or for fairness's sake.

I do and have advocated for privacy. I think people sharing the fine details of their life on facebook is dumb. I still, to this day, dislike CCTV cameras everywhere but have accepted grudgingly they do more good than harm. I think the level of data collection generally going on is already a dystopian reality, because of the way it's used to manipulate populations, often against their interests. Microchips are pretty close to being used now if people can master biotech integration with the body.

You'd need to tell me what the targeted ad campaign was so I can look into it, I don't use facebook.

Systems are individuals. Every time I criticically analyze a perspective it's because its part of a system. If we were islands as individualist-bias believes no action or inaction would affect another. Perhaps I do spend too much time looking at the individual's method of reasoning though, I will take that into consideration. Also, if you were to have presented the system more in your posts, we'd be talking about that more, not our own perceptional biases.

Edited by BlueOak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now