Maybe it's more of a mockery of the social media paradigm and not taking shit so damned seriously like every self important twat on SM platforms do, more often than not.
The dude literally has an on the spectrum social disability.“Look how much I don’t care about you!!” says local man who keeps driving by his ex’s house waving a flag saying “I don’t care about you!”
Served with a side of “hello fellow kids” energy.
The only way to interpret it as graciously as what you’re saying so to completely remove the context of all his other pathetic attempts at appearing cool.
Ok, so it’s not really mockery of social media on a level we all don’t get, it’s just dumb nonsense as a result of a disability?The dude literally has an on the spectrum social disability.
You don't want to be an ableist now, do you friendo?Ok, so it’s not really mockery of social media on a level we all don’t get, it’s just dumb nonsense as a result of a disability?
As I said, it makes me sad.
Ok, so it’s not really mockery of social media on a level we all don’t get, it’s just dumb nonsense as a result of a disability?
As I said, it makes me sad.
Not being a purple hair person, and as someone who actually lives in reality, I don’t think someone with a disability when it comes to social interactions is necessarily the best person to have total control of a social media company, just like I don’t think a quadriplegic should be flying a plane full of passengers. It is what it is, and there’s nothing wrong with pointing out that what it is is a shit show.You don't want to be an ableist now, do you friendo?
One can argue radical ideologues that are brainwashed into cultist kow tows (the old SM/Twittard guard) is every bit a disability. But I can agree with that thinking.Not being a purple hair person, and as someone who actually lives in reality, I don’t think someone with a disability when it comes to social interactions is necessarily the best person to have total control of a social media company, just like I don’t think a quadriplegic should be flying a plane full of passengers. It is what it is, and there’s nothing wrong with pointing out that what it is is a shit show.
This is so disappointing. Elon either lies or is wrong about two of these three things, and the other thing isn't verifiable by anyone outside of twitter, so how am I supposed to trust that to be true? His "substack links were never blocked" statement has the EXACT same energy as the old guard with their "we never shadowbanned people" lie. You know exactly what you did.
Elon even got his ass hit with a community note of his own here: "Substack links have been throttled on Twitter and Substack’s Twitter account itself has been restricted. Matt Taibbi is not a Substack employee, he writes a newsletter there. Substack CEO says Taibbi has never been an employee."
As I was hoping for, I'm glad to see people who have been supporters of Musk are being critical of his actions. Now he needs to apologize to Taibbi, because Elon is 100 percent in the wrong here.
This is so disappointing. Elon either lies or is wrong about two of these three things, and the other thing isn't verifiable by anyone outside of twitter, so how am I supposed to trust that to be true? His "substack links were never blocked" statement has the EXACT same energy as the old guard with their "we never shadowbanned people" lie. You know exactly what you did.
Elon even got his ass hit with a community note of his own here: "Substack links have been throttled on Twitter and Substack’s Twitter account itself has been restricted. Matt Taibbi is not a Substack employee, he writes a newsletter there. Substack CEO says Taibbi has never been an employee."
As I was hoping for, I'm glad to see people who have been supporters of Musk are being critical of his actions. Now he needs to apologize to Taibbi, because Elon is 100 percent in the wrong here.
Point 1 is a consequence of Point 2. Are we sure they weren't trying to steal data? So Matt is a contractor then? Which could obviously affect his position.
Point 1 is a consequence of Point 2. Are we sure they weren't trying to steal data? So Matt is a contractor then? Which could obviously affect his position.
I read the words Harry Bolz in a Forbes article today.Times Now, Opoyi, and ABP Live are examples of news orgs that take themselves too seriously? Nice flotsam. It doesn't appear that it is the news orgs in this scenario who are desperate to make themselves appear seriously influential.
Journalistic standards should be taken seriously for reasons that can be extrapolated from this.
If that's what you were looking for, you found it. Thanks for sharing.I read the words Harry Bolz in a Forbes article today.
He has them just like he has you guys: talking about him.
It seems that Taibbi isn't the only journalist to do an interview lately without properly preparing:
It seems that Taibbi isn't the only journalist to do an interview lately without properly preparing:
I wasnt looking for it. It was a story about X and Twitter.If that's what you were looking for, you found it. Thanks for sharing.
Ignoring a problem doesn't make it go away.
X is getting off to hairy start, can see a connection the article might be making. The next interest payment of $300mil for the twitter purchase is due at the end of the month too.I wasnt looking for it. It was a story about X and Twitter.
NPR will no longer post fresh content to its 52 official Twitter feeds, becoming the first major news organization to go silent on the social media platform. In explaining its decision, NPR cited Twitter's decision to first label the network "state-affiliated media," the same term it uses for propaganda outlets in Russia, China and other autocratic countries.
Twitter then revised its label on NPR's account to "government-funded media." The news organization says that is inaccurate and misleading, given that NPR is a private, nonprofit company with editorial independence. It receives less than 1 percent of its $300 million annual budget from the federally funded Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
By going silent on Twitter, NPR's chief executive says the network is protecting its credibility and its ability to produce journalism without "a shadow of negativity."
"The downside, whatever the downside, doesn't change that fact," NPR CEO John Lansing said in an interview. "I would never have our content go anywhere that would risk our credibility."
"At this point I have lost my faith in the decision-making at Twitter," he says. "I would need some time to understand whether Twitter can be trusted again."
NPR is instituting a "two-week grace period" so the staff who run the Twitter accounts can revise their social-media strategies. Lansing says individual NPR journalists and staffers can decide for themselves whether to continue using Twitter.
In an email to staff explaining the decision, Lansing wrote, "It would be a disservice to the serious work you all do here to continue to share it on a platform that is associating the federal charter for public media with an abandoning of editorial independence or standards."
Twitter then revised its label on NPR's account to "government-funded media." The news organization says that is inaccurate and misleading, given that NPR is a private, nonprofit company with editorial independence. It receives less than 1 percent of its $300 million annual budget from the federally funded Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
All their financial reports are available for you to verify:Either this is bullshit, or they should stop taking the money if it's of such little consequence and doesn't impact their organization. So which is it?
Either this is bullshit, or they should stop taking the money if it's of such little consequence and doesn't impact their organization. So which is it?
I just hope Musk adds "state funded" to the Tesla and Space X logos soon.You're asking the wrong question
If it's of such little consequence, then why is musk labeling them the way he did?
Plenty of other independent nonprofits receive SOME government funding like PBS.
It seems that Taibbi isn't the only journalist to do an interview lately without properly preparing:
So they should stop taking the money? Seems like a sensible solution to me.All their financial reports are available for you to verify:
So they should stop taking the money? Seems like a sensible solution to me.
I don't really care what or how NPR operates so I don't have an answer to the question. Just pointing out that any non-profit has to disclose their financials because of the tax benefits. I think most businesses will take whatever revenue streams are available to them.So they should stop taking the money? Seems like a sensible solution to me.
But if they change funding they've received for 60 years then maybe Musk will respect them. And we all know he is the arbiter of integrity and is single-handedly in charge of judging media integrity totally fairly.Or they can dispute the wording of the claim. That's what they're doing.
You're asking the wrong question
If it's of such little consequence, then why is musk labeling them the way he did?
Plenty of other independent nonprofits receive SOME government funding like PBS.
If the amount is immaterial and they take issue with being labeled as government funded then I don't understand why they wouldn't just stop taking government funds either. But on the flip side, if they would rather leave twitter than reduce their revenue by 1% that really is not a big deal either. Either way, its just a business decision.Either this is bullshit, or they should stop taking the money if it's of such little consequence and doesn't impact their organization. So which is it?
Musk isn't suggesting it's of little consequence, NPR is.
Looks like there will be less misinformation on twitter then.Seems NPR is completely abandoning Twitter. Curious if other news org follow suit.
From the well that led you to think NPR is a source of misinformation?Looks like there will be less misinformation on twitter then.
Where will I get my news from Lake Wobegon then?
Looks like there will be less misinformation on twitter then.
Where will I get my news from Lake Wobegon then?
We all work to make the jokes.Trying way too hard.
It seems that Taibbi isn't the only journalist to do an interview lately without properly preparing: