The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules
document is now in effect.
It Has Been A Long Year The Last Month In [Social Media]
Posts
His transgender child also disowned him, though his response was a fucked up thing like “can’t win them all”
Of our age, at least.
Henry VIII may still have him beat.
I have lost track of his children
I think it's only the keys to the internal communications, but, a lot of those internal communications will be things like
Leyla - "Hey Twitter staff, someone is threatening to kill me for being a trans rights activist and has exposed my home address in this tweet. Can you ban them?"
Twitter Support - " Sorry Leyla, but until they actually kill you they are a valued customer"
So, while your communications to like Blizzard about how much Diablo sucks are safe, your messages to their HQ just got given to a third party known for harassing LGBTQ+ people.
And when asked directly about that, Elon says those DMs "should be encrypted" - which is not an answer, and also not really possible.
That's okay, pretty sure he has, too.
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
That's OK for you they aren't your relatives. For him it's another matter.
What I described is most certainly not done properly, espescially by EU standards. What I'm telling.you is what is worth worrying about and what isn't.
If Elon just gave everyone's private messages to this lady then he's liable for literally all the money that ever existed or will exist in the EU.
As well as his trans daughter telling him to fuck off and never return.
Nah, Henry only divorced twice. he is just regulat divorced aristocrat. He would absolutely be "Elon, man, a little chill, please?"
Yeah but he also invented divorce to do so, that's big points on the board.
The problem is I'm sure there are a ton of people belonging to marginalized groups that are still on there because they aren't too plugged into the shit going on with Twitter and are completely unaware of the vile and dangerous bigots that Musk is giving access too.
Also would probably help if we could corral business to start leaving.
On the subject at hand, I briefly wondered whether it would be beneficial to have a government-run general-purpose social media site to provide at least one place that didn't have corporate influence. Then I remembered that China already does that and realized why it might not be the greatest idea. Also, free speech rights would actually apply on such a site, so hate speech would be an even bigger problem. It was a nice thought while it lasted...
I'll be fine, just give me a minute, a man's got a limit, I can't get a life if my heart's not in it.
I don't think that he realizes the next time he gets sued for defamation, they'll be hiring a competent lawyer.
Sen. Mark Warner (D) has expressed that he has concerns regarding Musk. Noting specifically, that Musk's financial ties to Beijing might make him a security threat. Also pointed out that it's interesting how willing Musk is to bend the knee before Chinese authorities, but shows absolute contempt for both US and European regulators.
Also since this is the social media thread, Warner had thoughts about TikTok. Expressing his two main concerns with it are that it's collecting a fuck ton of data and without saying it directly doesn't somewhat get the point through it's collecting data it doesn't need, which is being given to Chinese. The other issue is that since TikTok is a Chinese company and by extension controlled by the Chinese government, it's a bit problematic that they are running a platform that can decide what information people get served and that the CCP could easily use that to push their narrative to the it's users to undermine what is really going on.
Hard to say where any of this will go with the GOP supposedly taking over the US House next year. I'll admit I haven't looked into what authority and how far the Biden administration and US regulators could go. It does look like TikTok is probably going to get banned and the increasing friction between Beijing and Washington might result in Musk getting smeared in the crossfire. The little shit is getting all the wrong attention and since at least one Democratic Senator is eyeing his ties to Beijing, the GOP may not come to the fuckers rescue if that is what the Biden administration goes after him on.
Granted, Warner is run about Musk being a bring guy. Musk is a fucking idiot tyrant and people need to stop assigning intelligence the the dumb fuck/
It's supposed to be infuriating. That's their entire goal.
NYT and CNN have been clearly pushing narratives rightward for decades now. WAPO I'm not sure about, but they're happy to host right wing nutter editorials.
This is while he's making a whole dog and pony show out of leaking their confidential information to alt-right propogandists.
Rules for thee, not for me. Transparency only for when it serves my agenda.
WaPo is wholly owned by Jeff Bezos', so...
Yep, this is what we see happening with all the local TV stations being bought by Sinclair. The low level people might want to do a good job, but pretty much get stopped by the piece of shit authoritarian that owns their station, who wants to push a narrative.
I'd argue with both social media and regular news media. We probably should push for a model that makes them both nonprofits and governed by a board instead of for profit outfits that are run by fiat by a single out of touch asshole. Granted, it would require some changes to labor law and the rules governing non-profits. I'll list some of the bigger changes that I think would help.
-For nonprofits, have a cap on salaries. It's not a for profit and we should discourage assholes from popping into this sector to get lots of money, If they want a million dollar income from a single job, then they can go into the for profit sector. I suspect this would help because it might keep some of the worst assholes from even applying to be on the board for social media platform new news platform because they want to get a fuck ton of money; especially, since this would remove a really shitty tax loophole with nonprofits, where they donate a few million to the nonprofit they own and it just happens to pay their spouse, friend, sibling or anyone else close to them with a salary of a few million dollars. Also probably results in the right having a smaller pool of assholes that can come across as credible and that might make all the difference in keeping their shit from getting mainstream acceptance.
-The board is to remove a setup where a single person is running the show and that probably results in some of the assholes not even get involved because it's enough of cut to their potential power that they stay away. I'd even go further and set the board positions to having set terms, requiring that they are staggered. That people can only serve on a limited number of boards and mean limited, like maybe no more than three. Hell, that part should be for all industries, none of this shit where you got some jackass rich fucker that's some how on nearly all the boards for all the major companies. This would be where we do the labor reform where at will employment by bosses gets nuked. You want to fire someone, you either have to wait for their contract to end if they have one or you have to present documentation to justify firing them. The idea is to prevent some rich fucker from running a nonprofit from the shadows. The board has to vote to approve all the major shit and there is no way for them to get rid of people that decide not do what they want on a whim. The staggering also makes it harder for them to bid their time and replace the entire board with puppets; especially, if you do something like make the terms six years with only a third being up for replacement. Also ups the chances that someone on the board or their staff may catch onto the nonprofit's founder or current CEO with no power trying to illegally influence the board, since they are going to have to wait almost half a decade to replace the whole board with sycophants and their is no guarantee that some of those sycophants don't go rogue, when they realize that the head honcho can't fire them on a whim until their contract ends, so as long as their actions are within the law and not something legal that would still be cause for termination at the company.
-Full transparency on just about everything. If they take donations, the donor names are known. The amounts the donors have given are known, along with when and how often those donations are made. They are also forbidden from taking donation, if an entity can act as a go between then allows for anonymity. In the case of social media and news companies, they cannot donate to political campaigns. Also if they offer advertising for political stuff, they have to offer equal time. AKA if they decide to interview someone, they have to offer to do the same length interview opportunity to the other side. If they don't want to do that, then maybe they shouldn't be doing the first interview in the first place because they are likely trying to give an unfair advantage to one side. After all both sides aren't required to take the platform up on the offer for an interview and the platform shouldn't be playing softball with either side anyways. As for ads, if they have them, campaigns for actual candidates should get to buy air time at a quarter of the market rate because these are nonprofits and to balance things out a little PACs and SuperPACs have to pay triple the rate, also equal air time applies and for fairness and simplification all ads supporting a candidate will be clumped together. AKA if a republican candidate puts out 10 ads, while supporting PACs and SuperPACs aired 20 ads, then the democratic or any other eligible candidate running against that republican, get 30 ads aired and this can be any combination of ads from the campaign, PACs or SuperPACs. Yes, the goal is very much to fuck over PACs and SuperPACs, while also make it rather undesirable for social media platforms and well really any media platform to run constant political ads; especially, in a way that advantages a one side, even more so if that side only has money, while being filled to the bring with terrible ideas. (Hell, for the record, if I had my way, I'd kill CU. If I can't get that, which probably means not being able to kill funding an infinity number of candidates. I'd figure out what is a reasonable amount of money for the average citizen to donate in a year to campaign currently, make a law that states that amount, which will adjust with inflation, will incur no taxes, but any cent above that is going to get taxed at a million percent, maybe even higher than that).
Would this solve everything? No, I'm going to pretend it would because the issues were dealing are pretty complex and if they were easy to solve, we wouldn't be in this mess. I do think getting much of the money and ability to have power over others out of social media and well regular news media, would have an positive impact on the current state of affairs. Seems like access power and wealth attract the worst fucking people and a lack of both of those things tends to result in many of the worst fuckers going else where because many of them are about behavioral efficiency. Even if social media and news media could be leveraged to undo shit that has moved money and power out of them, many of the worst fuckers often don't want to work if they have other options available that require less work to get bigger payouts or more power.
I don't mean to be overly harsh on some comic highlighting how full of shit Musk is. It seems a fine comic, and we should want more like it.
The problem is the sentiment is kind of a bit redundant for me, at this point. And it's no replacement for effective action.
On Ark Fleet Ship B
What the fuck is Elon doing?
Edit: Who the fuck is even calling for a lockdown?? Did we ever actually even HAVE a FIRST lockdown in the US??? I feel like I'm going insane here!
I'm sure someone tweeted this to him, because the man's never seen an original idea he couldn't claim for his own.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state_and_local_government_responses_to_the_COVID-19_pandemic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._federal_government_response_to_the_COVID-19_pandemic
Like, I was alive two and a half years ago during the Trump administration, Elon. There was never a federally-mandated lockdown; states and counties patchworked their own rules for that which largely evaporated by the time Biden was sworn in. And Biden was always about shots in arms, not lockdowns. Biden is WILDLY opposed to suggesting anything be other than hunky-dory back-to-normal wrt the pandemic.
Just...what even is this horseshit?
We did in March 2020 for the most part. Not fully, and a lot of those "essential" jobs that were allowed to ignore public health orders included things like Starbucks and McDonald's. But yeah, at this point there are functionally zero COVID protocols mandated by the Feds. I think the last vestige is at the border and will end this month. Just places doing their own thing on their own property.