DeafTourette
Perpetually Offended
So you see no reason to criticize Musk for his decisions (like restricting tweets that have substack links) or calling NPR government funded, as if it's like the state controlled crap from Russia or China?
No, I just find it all so ironic.So you see no reason to criticize Musk for his decisions (like restricting tweets that have substack links) or calling NPR government funded, as if it's like the state controlled crap from Russia or China?
In more ways than I can count, yes.so just checking, has he stepped down yet?
They all came back though.NPR leaving is huge. As is his insistence on publicly attacking them for doing so. This is the same entitled little tantrum he threw when advertisers were leaving as well and all that did was cause more advertisers to leave.
He never learns.
No they didn't. Some did, but many never have. You can tell based on the bizarre and random ads you get instead of what you regularly received before he bought the platform and drove everyone away. Musk has continued to complain about loss of advertising revenue and that's before he decided to try and extort companies by removing the legacy checkmarks here pretty soon.They all came back though.
But he said the company is finally breaking even, something they have never done.No they didn't. Some did, but many never have. You can tell based on the bizarre and random ads you get instead. Musk has continued to complain about loss of advertising revenue.
They are only breaking even because he has stopped paying various bills, mass layoffs, and massive budget cuts across the board. If he had just behaved like an adult, not publicly attacked concerned advertisers, not upended the blue checkmark system, and constantly put his bizarre and idiotic takes out there publicly they would be doing better. That's not even a debate. That's just a fact. He has been Twitter biggest problem since he got there. It will only get worse when his brilliant decision to remove the legacy checkmarks goes through.But he said the company is finally breaking even, something they have never done.
I am still seeing all the top advertisement brands.
So he was a good CEO in regards to restructuring the company and trimming out all of the dead weight and worthless fat, and are breaking even instead of loss leading forever?They are only breaking even because he has stopped paying various bills, mass layoffs, and massive budget cuts across the board. If he had just behaved like an adult, not publicly attacked concerned advertisers, not upended the blue checkmark system, and constantly put his bizarre and idiotic takes out there publicly they would be doing better. That's not even a debate. That's just a fact. He has been Twitter biggest problem since he got there. It will only get worse when his brilliant decision to remove the legacy checkmarks goes through.
Also "breaking even" doesn't mean anything when he has saddled the company with enormous debt thanks to his brilliant business acumen.
I wouldn't call stop paying your bills, vastly overpaying for a company, laying off some of your best people, and publicly embarrassing yourself and your company on a regular basis being a good CEO, but hey maybe thats just me.So he was a good CEO in regards to restructuring the company and trimming out all of the dead weight and worthless fat, and are breaking even instead of loss leading forever?
So he was a good CEO in regards to restructuring the company and trimming out all of the dead weight and worthless fat, and are breaking even instead of loss leading forever?
The delusion that he's succeeding is preventing correction. Hubris leading the parade to downfall.I wouldn't call stop paying your bills, vastly overpaying for a company, laying off some of your best people, and publicly embarrassing yourself and your company on a regular basis being a good CEO, but hey maybe thats just me.
If he's lying about the reporter he deserves criticism for lying. No doubt, but damned if I know the truth.Nothing he does will EVER get you to criticize him?
Ok.
They are only breaking even because he has stopped paying various bills, mass layoffs, and massive budget cuts across the board. If he had just behaved like an adult, not publicly attacked concerned advertisers, not upended the blue checkmark system, and constantly put his bizarre and idiotic takes out there publicly they would be doing better. That's not even a debate. That's just a fact. He has been Twitter biggest problem since he got there. It will only get worse when his brilliant decision to remove the legacy checkmarks goes through.
Also "breaking even" doesn't mean anything when he has saddled the company with enormous debt thanks to his brilliant business acumen.
Today's "journalists" in a nutshell. They don't think for themselves in order to uncover the truth, they just push the narratives they're told to and try to present them as the truth.Elon piledriving that BBC journalist is just excellent content.
After all these months of abuse, finally he's able to confront someone one on one. Someone who is clearly regurgitating "sentiments" and is CLEARLY not prepared for an actual dialogue or debate. What the fuck was this guy thinking anyway? How can you bring up such topics without literally any facts to back them up?
What a loser.
Paying out ~$600 million in interest for the Twitter loans in the next 3.5 months may be fun to watch...until another ~$300mil 3 months later.The only source that Twitter is supposedly breaking even and that advertisers returned is Musk. They lost most of their large advertisers, tons overall, and last reports were a loss of revenue 40% Y-O-Y. He could have laid every single employee off and stopped paying every single last bill and the company would still be losing money just going by the known figures prior to the buyout.
He's lying as usual. Only a fool would believe him.
He just called the guy who has spent months publicly attacking his advertisers, publicly attacking journalists for accurate reporting, posted Pro-Russia BS, pushed random conspiracies, has purposely stopped paying certain bills, and changed his name to "Hairy Balls" as a "joke" a good CEO.Nothing he does will EVER get you to criticize him?
Ok.
That would have been a good point for the reporter to make, especially with a specific example tweet. Even just going with a "free speech, but not at the expense of the shareholders" type of libertarian perspective, Spencer is an example of someone who probably should not be appearing anywhere near advertising.I got tweets from Richard Spencer on my For You Page. Cool that Elon found a gotcha moment with a reporter, but as a platform everything is much worse now.
Oh I've criticized him plenty in the past. But I do know the majority of this is now caught up in the culture war.Nothing he does will EVER get you to criticize him?
Ok.
I said he was good at breaking even for a company that always ran at a loss. You are every bit the example of the culture war vessel I mentioned, by your very post alone.He just called the guy who has spent months publicly attacking his advertisers, publicly attacking journalists for accurate reporting, posted Pro-Russia BS, pushed random conspiracies, has purposely stopped paying certain bills, and changed his name to "Hairy Balls" as a "joke" a good CEO.
That should tell you all you need to know.
I've had to stop using my "For You" page almost entirely. It's just a mess now. For every post that actually interests me I get 5 others that are just completely random it feels like and has nothing to do with my interests or follows.I got tweets from Richard Spencer on my For You Page. Cool that Elon found a gotcha moment with a reporter, but as a platform everything is much worse now.
It’s: End Wokeness, Fight Haven, Raw Egg Nationalist, Carnivore Aurelius, Shitpost Gateway, and a bunch of other crap. Any time I check that tab it’s some moron telling me that seed oils are the source of every problem in the modern world. I looked just now and some guy is asking for a fact check on an image of Barack Obama’s alleged British passport. Groan.I've had to stop using my "For You" page almost entirely. It's just a mess now. For every post that actually interests me I get 5 others that are just completely random it feels like and has nothing to do with my interests or follows.
Yeah I keep getting "verified" nutters pushing various COVID/political conspiracies or even sometimes getting "verified" people not so subtly pushing different products that I don't care about despite me mainly following stuff like Warhammer, artists, bands, Magic, etc etc. The entire site experience is just completely worse across the board top top to bottom.It’s: End Wokeness, Fight Haven, Raw Egg Nationalist, Carnivore Aurelius, Shitpost Gateway, and a bunch of other crap. Any time I check that tab it’s some moron telling me that seed oils are the source of every problem in the modern world. I looked just now and some guy is asking for a fact check on an image of Barack Obama’s alleged British passport. Groan.
My following page has zero in common with that. For You should be similar but with discovery potential.
Old algo signal boosted real blue checks. That had problems too but the noise ratio was much better.
Oh I've criticized him plenty in the past. But I do know the majority of this is now caught up in the culture war.
None of what I said had anything to do with a "culture war". They are facts.I said he was good at breaking even for a company that always ran at a loss. You are every bit the example of the culture war vessel I mentioned, by your very post alone.
Running a company well is Woke! Real businessmen take risks, risks that may not make sense, or work, but they're risks!It's just him sucking at running a company.
Running a company well is Woke! Real businessmen take risks, risks that may not make sense, or work, but they're risks!
I love x-files. So many classic episodes. What season are you on?I'm catching up on all the X-Files episodes.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/elon-m...rs-sleeps-on-couch-dog-is-ceo-floki-bbc-news/so just checking, has he stepped down yet?
The Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) has stopped tweeting from its primary Twitter account after it was given a “Government-funded Media” label. As of this writing the @PBS account hasn’t tweeted since April 8th, and the organization has since confirmed that it currently has “no plans” to resume posting to Twitter.
While PBS isn’t tweeting from its main account, it’s continued to put out content on affiliated accounts like @NewsHour, which have not had the “Government-funded” label applied.
"Pissing off advertisers and journalists" was/is literally over the culture war political lines in the sand. It's all it's mainly been about, a select subset of control and the fear of losing that.None of what I said had anything to do with a "culture war". They are facts.
Did he stop paying some of the bills on purpose? Yes.
Did he lay off some of his best people? Yes.
Did he publicly attack advertisers that stepped away? Yes.
Did he publicly attack journalists for accurate reporting? Yes.
Did he cause problems by overhauling the checkmark system? Yes.
Is the site objectively worse now from a service perspective than it was before he got there? Yes.
Is the company on a worse place financially than before he got there? Yes. Breaking even doesn't cover the mountain of debt he saddled the company with by ridiculously overpaying for it.
None of that has anything to do with a "culture war". It's just him sucking at running a company.
Advertisers leaving over widespread use of racial slurs, moderation concerns, impersonation concerns, and his pro-Russia comments is not a "culture war". That's basic common sense from a business perspective."Pissing off advertisers and journalists" was/is literally over the culture war political lines in the sand. It's all it's mainly been about, a select subset of control and the fear of losing that.
All I said is that he was good at finally getting the company to break even.
Most of that shit was like that before he even took overAdvertisers leaving over widespread use of racial slurs, moderation concerns, impersonation concerns, and his pro-Russia comments is not a "culture war". That's basic common sense from a business perspective.
Whatever you say manMost of that shit was like that before he even took over
Just ideological mental bubbles and all that gravy. The war shit is major hypocrisy with how China gets a free pass from the very same advertisers who are every bit balls deep (in China) which have been pro Putin and Iran.
All false virtue talking points.
I disagree. One is about potential influence, and the other is about guaranteed force. Your PBS example, which I agreed was a good point, has now come true. Instead of a general "We've made no secret about the fact that we're funded by tax payers, and we have a longstanding history of representing a wide range of topics and opinions. We believe the quality and variety of our programing speaks for itself" we instead get outrage but no real denial of the actual fact. Because it's true.Saying they're "government funded" is the same as saying they're government controlled like the "news" in China or Russia.
Season 6.I love x-files. So many classic episodes. What season are you on?
I disagree. One is about potential influence, and the other is about guaranteed force. Your PBS example, which I agreed was a good point, has now come true. Instead of a general "We've made no secret about the fact that we're funded by tax payers, and we have a longstanding history of representing a wide range of topics and opinions. We believe the quality and variety of our programing speaks for itself" we instead get outrage but no real denial of the actual fact. Because it's true.
What I'm not saying is that these labels were needed or even a good idea, but they are certainly accurate. At least to me, it seems a bit ridiculous to see the media refusing to admit that.
Most agree that money is power and that power has influence, until they don't.I disagree. One is about potential influence, and the other is about guaranteed force. Your PBS example, which I agreed was a good point, has now come true. Instead of a general "We've made no secret about the fact that we're funded by tax payers, and we have a longstanding history of representing a wide range of topics and opinions. We believe the quality and variety of our programing speaks for itself" we instead get outrage but no real denial of the actual fact. Because it's true.
Yep. And good on them for doing it. I hope more follow. The more major outlets that leave the less eyes they have. Meaning the less advertisers are willing to pay.It's about perception. That's my point... YOU are rational and understand the difference... Most people won't see that difference. To many, government funded means the same as government controlled.
I think PBS (the main account, not the individual shows' accounts) is showing solidarity AND understands that point about perception from the public.
If perception matters, I wonder if any news outlets will seriously reflect on the practice of misleading headlines. Or whether It’s fair to tarnish people for a period of time and then put retractions in Friday afternoon articles they know not many will see.It's about perception. That's my point... YOU are rational and understand the difference... Most people won't see that difference. To many, government funded means the same as government controlled.
I think PBS (the main account, not the individual shows' accounts) is showing solidarity AND understands that point about perception from the public.
NPR is gov fundedSo you see no reason to criticize Musk for his decisions (like restricting tweets that have substack links) or calling NPR government funded, as if it's like the state controlled crap from Russia or China?
NPR is gov funded