My sides
Please
If this dude had any experience running an online site he would know how many stolen credit cards are out there.
X is a fly-coated chum bucket.
This seems like further confirmation of that theory that I saw posted on here that the Saudi oil barons funded Elon’s purchase of Twitter for the sole purpose of destroying it. They want to silence online discussions of climate change and other left wing topics.
Combined with Reddit being owned by Tencent, Facebook being eternally evil, and TikTok being unconducive to any form of coherent dialogue, there are not many places for left wing discourse on the internet anymore.
“climate change and other left wing topics”… I know that’s basically how it works in some countries, but it’s insane to consider certain scientific facts left wing, and we really shouldn’t support such statements.
Thanks for pointing that out. It’s just so normal to think that way here that they’ve even corrupted me into framing climate change that way. It’s not a left wing topic; it’s a reality.
I just hope young people who are thinking of voting conservative here keep in mind that those assholes literally don’t believe in climate change and by extension science and facts. That alone should automatically disqualify conservatives from anyone’s consideration.
Yes, in Europe, most political parties, both left and right, have their own climate change mitigation policies, because if they don’t, they risk just not being elected.
Also no mainstream political party in Europe dares to touch Universal Healthcare.
The reason it’s overwhelmingly called “climate change” instead of global warming now is because of language change pushed by billionaire foundations. The Koch network specifically focus grouped and created the term change. Whether we want it considered left wing or not, the billionaire backed right has made such statements left wing.
The reason it’s overwhelmingly called “climate change” instead of global warming now is because of language change pushed by billionaire foundations.
I do think “global warming” struggles to convince some more simple people anyway, unfortunately. Because while the average temperature of the globe is increasing and causing the changes in climate that we’re seeing, I’ve come across far too many comments from people saying things like “global warming must be a myth because it snows more than it used to” and things themselves smarter than all climate scientists combined for that observation.
Of course, those same people probably think global warming is good because they like their summer holidays so perhaps their opinions shouldn’t matter much either way!
Is this really true?
Idiots would walk around on cold days saying “see - this global warming stuff is bullshit”.
Climate change describes the danger much more aptly.
I’ve had the same theory for a while. They saw the Arab Spring and other populist movements. With their vast oil wealth, tanking Twitter was a small price to pay to re-fracture descent and silence the left. The concentration of wealth has given insane power to wealthy who skew overwhelmingly on the side of themselves. The rise of the right is a direct result of billionaires funding across numerous avenues. The right aligns best with their self interest. They played the long game because they only have to pay people and let them do it for them. Regular folks have to stay engaged in the battle after working to support themselves. Billionaires are the matastasized cancer of capitalism.
The purchase itself was a leveraged buyout, they didn’t pay the entire $44bn as Twitter took out a loan to cover $13bn. Like all leveraged buyouts (eg Toys R Us) the purchase itself is meant to kill the business. Even before Musk started screwing the revenue there was little hope Twitter could pay the interest, let along the principle. Now, Twitter is worth less than the debt, by some estimates.
This seems like further confirmation of that theory that I saw posted on here that the Saudi oil barons funded Elon’s purchase of Twitter for the sole purpose of destroying it.
Then why did Twitter needed to sue him to get him to abide by the deal? Musk often promotes stuff in a pump and dump scheme. One of the many examples is when he briefly promoted bitcoin. He made loads of money off that.
I’m guessing he thought he could make a lot of money quickly in some way. But then interest rates rose quickly and whatever he was planning fell through.
Twitter is really big there. It’s basically the most used social media by a vast majority compared to other ones. It’s way more plausible that some ‘too much rich to know what to do with all the money’ Saudi princes decided something like a few percent of their wealth to own the biggest social media on their country for bragging rights and admin privilege to be worth it. Plus, they probably thought Twitter was too big to fail and die, They didn’t expect Elon would fuck it up so bad. I don’t think anybody expected Elon to fuck it up so bad.
This seems like further confirmation of that theory that I saw posted on here that the Saudi oil barons funded Elon’s purchase of Twitter for the sole purpose of destroying it.
Then why does it still exist? Musk took Twitter private, they could’ve just pulled the plug if they wanted to.
Why would they spend billions for this when they could (and still can) just block the website? It’s not like you can sue the King in Saudi Arabia (lest you think you have too many heads)
It’s completely absurd that he’s saying this as an anti-bot measure. The bots exist because they generate revenue for the scumbags behind them, a small fee is just going to be part of doing business for them. He’s not trying to stop bots, he’s trying to monetize them and use them as an excuse to charge everyone. “The bot problem” will never be fixed and will be used as an excuse for every anti-user measure they put forward.
Meanwhile, everyone will bitch about the absurdity of this and how shitty Musk and his followers are, then continue to use the platform daily as though it’s an essential service. Anyone who hasn’t jumped ship my now is either complacent or wholly supportive.
What’s the alternative for one-to-many communication? I don’t use the platform anymore, but I miss a massive amount of news related to most of my hobbies due to it, normally relying on Reddit users to repost them. It’s incredibly annoying to have to search through 10+ social media pages to check for updates about a race team during a race or an ongoing gaming event.
Mastodon doesn’t have anywhere near the adoption necessary, bluesky still hasn’t taken off.
That’s the rub, every social media service with any uptake is bad from a privacy perspective because the only real way to make them profitable is to sell ads.
So, what are you looking to get out of it? RSS is still a thing, services like lemmy are decent at aggregating links (post the content you want, and hopefully others will help), and bookmarks work well if you just need a dozen or so sites.
I honestly never use Twitter, Facebook, etc, and I feel like I’m about to keep tabs on things reasonably well.
I’m looking for live updates from race teams during endurance events, gaming news from specific creators, local traffic notifications and real time updates from sports teams leading up to games.
These things don’t typically have articles to link to, so aggregators don’t work well, and are often behind the curve. RSS has no adoption anymore and doesn’t quite work anyways.
There’s no need for an alternative. Twitter is simply not a necessity of any kind in reality.
But use whatever you want, freedom is yours to exercise as you see fit.
Personally I’ve never wanted to use Twitter, it just made me go “Yuck!” from day 1 of its existence.
There is absolutely a need for an alternative. Just because you don’t think something is important doesn’t mean that others don’t. People aren’t just going to give up features that they expect because “they’re not a necessity” - it doesn’t matter if it’s a necessity. It’s the reason people still use the platform, and until something replaces it people will continue to use it.
People hate FOSS because the people around it are fully ready to condemn you for using anything but, and when you ask for alternatives they tell you that you don’t need an alternative cause your use-case is “not a necessity”
No, stop, please, don’t kill your platform, no, stop. Eh, nevermind.
Part of me really buys into the idea that Musk is pulling an evil mastermind move with his other billionaire pals, destroying one of the biggest social media sites to keep users fractured. End goal keeping any community small and unable to organize at scale. Then the voice of reason tells me this just another egotistical nepo baby trying to staunch the hemorrhaging of money from his last bad investment.
