A search for Threads content on Twitter currently brings up zero results, despite plenty of links to Meta’s microblogging rival being posted on the platform.

  • Drewfro66@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Elon Musk runs the whole of Twitter like the jealous, power-drunk moderator of a small 5,000-member Discord server.

    • IHeartBadCode@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yes. Twitter was at one point tagging links to Mastodon as “potentially harmful” and removing them.

      But the one thing that’s been shown consistent about Mr. Musk’s ownership of Twitter is that it is consistently self-contradicting. So as Twitter positions itself as “free speech absolutist” one can rest assured that the reality will be “self-contradicting”.

      Let us not forget that time that Musk said that “Elon Jet Tracker” would not be banned WHILE it was indeed banned. Literally tweeting verifiably false information and then subsequently being called out on it, only for Musk to do the traditional “ignore and move on”.

  • IHeartBadCode@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Ah yes. The exact kind of action I would expect from someone who has measured responses like “Zuck is a cuck”.

    Use a platform ran by a five year-old, expect five year-old behavior.

  • Anomander@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    And no one is surprised.

    Elon made it clear shortly after taking over that “free speech” was speech he happened to agree with, and he had no intentions of ethical consistency on ‘free speech’ when it came to speech that was critical of him or his platform. Twitter already went nuclear on links to Mastadon and similar alternative platforms earlier this year while their dumpster fire was raging.

        • TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          I don’t like when people use their boosted presence to say that minorities are a threat and ought to be exterminated, yeah.

          What’s with people pretending we are talking about pineapple on pizza whenever hate speech is mentioned?

          • ram@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            What’s with people pretending we are talking about pineapple on pizza whenever hate speech is mentioned?

            Because some people (and reddit users in particular) use the strategy of putting everything in the same bag to silence dissent. All it takes is the majority calling ‘pineapple on pizza’ hate speech and now nobody can talk about it in fear of being called a hater.

            • Rom@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              All it takes is the majority calling ‘pineapple on pizza’ hate speech and now nobody can talk about it in fear of being called a hater.

              Do you have a single example to back this up or are you ready to admit you’re just talking out of your ass?

              • ram@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                Do you have a single example to back this up or are you ready to admit you’re just talking out of your ass?

                I do. Discussing whether trans women should be allowed to compete in women sports will get you branded as a transphobic right wing nazi in 99% of Reddit’s subs, and probably banned too. Once you are labeled your arguments are moot, because you are a hater.

                • TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  You’ll find no lack of people with very good arguments about this matter, as well as many who are tired to rehash it over and over again when it has become very clear that many are not satisfied simply with setting rules for women’s sports. There are people being radicalized through a minor issue into generalized hate. For an example, what is happening in US Florida is not about women’s sports.

                  But I wasn’t even talking about women’s sports, I was referring to how there are people literally referring to minorities as subhuman and calling for them to be wiped out. Is that not hate enough for you?

                  For someone so concerned that your arguments might be mischaracterized, you sure are quick to make sweeping assumptions about people you don’t know.

    • Bilb!@lem.monster
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, I think what he said was that anything allowed by law would be permitted, whatever that means. But then when they started impeding links to mastodon he was like “we don’t have to let you advertise our competition >>>:(.” Elon/Twitter has gotten so tedious to hear about.

      • Anomander@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The thing there is that like … it’s not about consistency or values. The fact that he lied is meaningless to him, throwing it in his face is wasted effort. Communication is a tool to get what he wants, not a goal unto itself.

  • DarkGamer@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Although it won’t absolve one of crimes, affluenza seems to be a real thing. The social isolation and deference that money brings seems to have a host of well-documented psychological issues that accompany it. Musk, like Trump, seems to believe that he can do whatever he wants without meaningful consequences, because he exists in a bubble of sycophants and wealth, where rules for the plebs do not apply. Normal people can’t burn this much good will and go on with their lives unhindered. Normal people would be permanently financially ruined if they lost that much doing stupid and illegal business moves.

    • Syrc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I just looked up the word, but isn’t this “affluenza” something rooted in guilt and which leads to near-conscious self-destructive actions? I don’t think it applies, Elon probably doesn’t even know what guilt feels like.

      • DarkGamer@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        isn’t this “affluenza” something rooted in guilt and which leads to near-conscious self-destructive actions?

        Not exactly. “Affluenza,” is loosely defined, and definitions vary, but was popularized as a defense presented at Ethan Couch’s trial with the premise that his killings were due to psychological effects of being wealthy and the lack of boundaries it afforded. Nowadays it’s generally used to mean a behavioral illness caused by wealth/affluence.

        • Syrc@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Though Wikipedia itself says that:

          The word is thought to have been first used in 1954, but was popularised in 1997 with a PBS documentary of the same name and the subsequent book Affluenza: The All-Consuming Epidemic (2001, revised in 2005, 2014).These works define affluenza as “a painful, contagious, socially transmitted condition of overload, debt, anxiety, and waste resulting from the dogged pursuit of more”. A more informal definition of the term would describe it as “a quasi-illness caused by guilt for one’s own socio-economic superiority”.

          The term “affluenza” has also been used to refer to an inability to understand the consequences of one’s actions because of financial privilege.

          So the first “popularization” seems to frame it more as a negative thing even for the self, while other definitions fit the case of Ethan Couch/Musk. Seems like the two definitions are pretty much opposites that use the same word, it’s kinda confusing honestly lol