Big changes for Twitter

[jakee 1,563]

12 minutes ago, airdvr said:

I get that for capitalism.  This is political and it's aimed to sway opinion and divide.

You don't get it. This is capitalism. This is the way they engage people more, and their money is generated from engagement.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

18 minutes ago, airdvr said:

I get that for capitalism.  This is political and it's aimed to sway opinion and divide.

No it isn't. That is just a side effect. The AI is designed to keep you engaged with the platform. Getting you riled up about politics is an affective way to keep you engaged on a platform. It is pure capitalism.

[jakee 1,563]

41 minutes ago, airdvr said:

I get that for capitalism.  This is political and it's aimed to sway opinion and divide.

Just thinking about this some more - if that's what their aim is, why is that their aim? What is their endgame? 

If it's not about money, why in your opinion does Google want to make right wing people more right wing and left wing people more left wing as a standalone policy goal for the company? 

[airdvr 210]

1 minute ago, jakee said:

Just thinking about this some more - if that's what their aim is, why is that their aim? What is their endgame? 

If it's not about money, why in your opinion does Google want to make right wing people more right wing and left wing people more left wing as a standalone policy goal for the company? 

I'm not really sure.  With all of the bullshit I've seen lately I wonder if it's not to keep us arguing amongst ourselves so we aren't paying as much attention to them.

[billvon 3,073]

25 minutes ago, airdvr said:

I'm not really sure. 

It's a way to make money.  They don't have an endgame other than that, and any other side effects (like polarization of society) is an unintentional emergent property of that drive for profit. 

Quote

I wonder if it's not to keep us arguing amongst ourselves so we aren't paying as much attention to them.

Nope, nothing so intentional.  Whenever you want to figure out why an organization like that is doing something - follow the money.

[jakee 1,563]

31 minutes ago, airdvr said:

I'm not really sure.  With all of the bullshit I've seen lately I wonder if it's not to keep us arguing amongst ourselves so we aren't paying as much attention to them.

And if we aren’t paying too much attention to them they can do what? Continue doing the thing that you think they’re doing but (if we refuse to accept the obvious profit motive) don’t know why?

[gowlerk 2,250]

3 hours ago, billvon said:

Convince someone that they will be unpopular unless you buy their product. 

Aluminum chlorohydrate, you put it on your body for just this reason. 

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

3 hours ago, airdvr said:

I'm not really sure.  With all of the bullshit I've seen lately I wonder if it's not to keep us arguing amongst ourselves so we aren't paying as much attention to them.

Please define "them". 

Which 'them' is this particular 'them' that is trying to not be paid attention to?

Google? Nope. They want you to keep using their stuff. So they can make money.

YouTube? Nope. They just want you to keep watching (anything). So they can make money.

Gym Jordan (or any of the other YouTube 'creators)? Nope. He wants you watching his shit. So he can make money.

The advertisers (on YouTube, Google, here, everywhere)? Nope. They want you paying attention to their shit. So they can sell you stuff. And make money.

This sort of 'them' and the idea that they are nefariously 'pulling the strings' in the background is pretty silly. I'd expect it from a few folks on here (Rhys/100th Monkey is probably the worst at it but there are others).

I thought you were smarter than that.

[airdvr 210]

 

2 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

I thought you were smarter than that.

I said I wasn't sure.  So the polarization is just a byproduct of the quest for money.  Got it.

[wmw999 2,541]

6 hours ago, airdvr said:

 

I said I wasn't sure.  So the polarization is just a byproduct of the quest for money.  Got it.

That’s part of it. Part of it is the playing of natural human instincts (some people are more tribal by nature), and some of it is the quest for power (do some reading on Newt Gingrich’s vision for the Republican Party, kind of like Boss Tweed in the 19th century, only not as affable)

Wendy P. 

[Phil1111 1,149]

7 hours ago, airdvr said:

 

I said I wasn't sure.  So the polarization is just a byproduct of the quest for money.  Got it.

 

1 hour ago, wmw999 said:

That’s part of it. Part of it is the playing of natural human instincts (some people are more tribal by nature), and some of it is the quest for power (do some reading on Newt Gingrich’s vision for the Republican Party, kind of like Boss Tweed in the 19th century, only not as affable)

Wendy P. 

Don't forget the idea that "the people" are fighting the elites. The elite political, the elite rich and their politically connected friends are the enemy. Only our "group/tribe" can fight this cabal of elites.

[Stumpy 284]

22 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

 

Don't forget the idea that "the people" are fighting the elites. The elite political, the elite rich and their politically connected friends are the enemy. Only our "group/tribe" can fight this cabal of elites.

The bit I don't get is how the GOP have managed to market themselves as the party of the blue collar, traditional, working man American while simultaneously legislating against, ridiculing and mocking people who actually are (or were - AOC as an example).
I get why they attract support from all of the worst bigoted groups, that bit is apparent.

[Phil1111 1,149]

16 minutes ago, Stumpy said:

The bit I don't get is how the GOP have managed to market themselves as the party of the blue collar, traditional, working man American while simultaneously legislating against, ridiculing and mocking people who actually are (or were - AOC as an example).
I get why they attract support from all of the worst bigoted groups, that bit is apparent.

That is the uniquely American phenomenon. Whereby the less off working classes have been sold a bill of goods associated with the protestant work ethic. If you're poor its because you just don't work hard enough. The rich don't get rich because of playing the system. Its work and competitive market systems working as they should.

Woke ideas, woke legislation, are designed by elites to hurt average hard working, church going, white rule abiders. Just stay in your lane. Vote republican. Go to church. Work harder and success will be yours. Because its the American way.

Just my take on it.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

15 hours ago, airdvr said:

I'm not really sure.  With all of the bullshit I've seen lately I wonder if it's not to keep us arguing amongst ourselves so we aren't paying as much attention to them.

 

9 hours ago, airdvr said:

 

I said I wasn't sure.  So the polarization is just a byproduct of the quest for money.  Got it.

One more time - 

Who are the 'them'?

[gowlerk 2,250]

9 hours ago, airdvr said:

 

I said I wasn't sure.  So the polarization is just a byproduct of the quest for money.  Got it.

Only in the context of how social media and search websites decide what to feed you to keep you engaged with them so that you see the ads they are serving and they make more money. The underlying source is still people making divisive content for the purposes of advancing their ideas and growing more and more righteous anger. It's still your choice what to believe.

[kallend 2,106]

2 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

 

One more time - 

Who are the 'them'?

[ryoder 1,590]

2 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

 

One more time - 

Who are the 'them'?

Us and them ♪
And after all ♪
We're only ordinary men ♪

[gowlerk 2,250]

3 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Who are the 'them'?

You know,....them. The ones who won't just say what they mean. They like to imply things but won't say them out loud because they know they will be called out. Them, otherwise known as cowards.

[JerryBaumchen 1,441]

5 hours ago, Stumpy said:

The bit I don't get is how the GOP have managed to market themselves as the party of the blue collar, traditional, working man American while simultaneously legislating against, ridiculing and mocking people who actually are (or were - AOC as an example).
I get why they attract support from all of the worst bigoted groups, that bit is apparent.

Hi Stumpy,

I also cannot understand this type of thinking.  It is right up there with 'shitting in your own nest.'

Jerry Baumchen

[kallend 2,106]

16 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Stumpy,

I also cannot understand this type of thinking.  It is right up there with 'shitting in your own nest.'

Jerry Baumchen

Your mistake is to believe that thinking is involved.

[gowlerk 2,250]

Elon had an interview and shared some of his Twitter pain yesterday. 

 

https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/12/tech/elon-musk-bbc-interview-twitter-intl-hnk/index.html

[gowlerk 2,250]

Today Twitter removed the blue check marks from those accounts who won't pay up. It will be interesting to see who is willing to pay for social media cred.

[headoverheels 333]

4 hours ago, gowlerk said:

Today Twitter removed the blue check marks from those accounts who won't pay up. It will be interesting to see who is willing to pay for social media cred.

I don't have a Twitter account, but there are a couple of people there that I regularly read what they write and link.  They have already set up substack.com accounts, and are already posting there -- ready to make the change over.

[gowlerk 2,250]

And now that most twitter accounts that used to be verified no longer have blue check marks there is a new problem. Some blue marks remain and people are crying foul over them because it is now a mark of shame. It makes them looks like they paid Musk's new fee.  

[jakee 1,563]

Gotta love this one. Twitter under Musk is now suing the law firm that Twitter used to force Musk to buy Twitter, for overcharging. Because... Musk says his legal arguments at that time were so bad that it was incredibly easy for any set of Twitter lawyers to beat him, therefore there was no reason to charge a premium rate fee. Got that? No, I'm not sure I do either ;p 

He's also claiming that Twitter acted dishonestly by failing to follow an instruction by him not to pay the lawyers... when both the instruction and the payment happened before he became the legal owner of Twitter and before he had any say in the matter.

Do any of our resident fanboys still think this is part of the master plan?