Twitter Is Protecting Its Source Code From Disgruntled Employees, Reports Say (techcrunch.com) 273
An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: Twitter locked down its source code to prevent unauthorized changes, sources familiar with the matter told Bloomberg. The reports say that this change was made to prevent employees from "going rogue" and sabotaging the platform after Elon Musk's $44 billion purchase of the company. Currently, a vice president must approve any changes. After the company announced it would accept Musk's offer to buy the publicly traded platform, it wasn't immediately clear to Twitter's 7,000 employees how their day-to-day would change. Even after a company all-hands, where CEO Parag Agrawal reassured the team that no layoffs were planned "at this time," employees were still left with questions about how they would fare in Musk's takeover. [...] For now, Musk's takeover bid for Twitter remains subject to shareholder and regulatory approval. But if it goes through as expected, we may witness major personnel shifts, resignations and more. A similar shake-up took place when Twitter was listed on the New York Stock Exchange for the first time. By the time the company went public, there were already 90 startups being built by former Twitter employees.
Hiring Political Activists (Score:4, Insightful)
They're admitting to hiring activists, not good employees.
By all means quit if you don't like the company direction, no matter which, but for the bosses to fear sabotaging the product indicates that they hired people who are only there to push an agenda, not to do work for the company.
And nobody is surprised.
Re:Hiring Political Activists (Score:5, Insightful)
Certain employees fear retribution, or wrong politics, or censoring their opinions instead of their enemies'. because that's exactly what they were engaged in doing.
Why be "Shocked! Shocked!" at this? Even if it is 70% your imagination.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
In a past election, a Republican won, and the left went insane, writing columns and buzzing on the Internet with, "What if they turn our tactics against us!?!?!!"
I must have missed the 60+ failed lawsuits, the Liberal Storming of the Capital in 2017 and all the Clinton rallies whining about a "stolen" election continuing over a year later. Oh, wait... that was Republicans literally trying to steal an election in 2020.
Re: (Score:2)
What do you think the baseless Russia investigation was all about?
About this, presumably? [twitter.com] They want to help Trump again, just like the last time, and they're not shy about it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No. The electoral system prevents people like me, who have chosen to live in a rural area so that I can enjoy clean air, sunshine, no traffic noise, and possibly farm or raise livestock from people who live in highly urbanized areas.
Urban political goals do not map to rural lifestyles. There should be a means to prevent the majority from inflicting their lifestyle demands on those who are not like them.
Oh right, it exists. It's called the electoral college.
There are plenty of historical examples when the ur
Re:Hiring Political Activists (Score:4, Interesting)
The exact kind of rural areas you're describing are completely and utterly meaningless to basically any presidential candidate you'd want to vote for unless they're in OH, PA, TX, FL, et al (excepting the states that split votes like Nebraska and Colorado(?)). The winner take all approach to the EC actually ensures it's that way.
Re: (Score:2)
Many nations use the same general principle in electing people
To my knowledge, the closest that most developed countries with indirect presidential elections come to the US system is that the MPs elect the president. In the EU, maybe something like a quarter of countries does this. That's not a lot. And the MPs don't re-weigh the votes of citizens, so any similarity with US-style gerrymandering is actually wildly superficial. In *none* of those EU countries, regardless of direct or indirect elections, would have Trump "won by a larger margin".
and many more have specific rules to enhance the influence of rural areas over legislative relative to urban, because urban tends to be over represented in money circles already
Yeah, here's the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
And let's be honest here, the conservatives were so butthurt over the last election that they decided to try and overthrow the government.
"were"? Did they get over/past it and I missed it?
Re: (Score:2)
I think there's truth to that - the core of the generational shift isn't just whether companies ought to be left or right, but whether it's OK for individuals to check their humanity at the door and rent out their bodies and minds to do whatever is dictated by the flow of capital for most of their waking hours. (There's even a series
Re: (Score:2)
I'm old enough to be pretty uncomfortable with breaking down the personal/work divide ("just quit!") The problem is this has lead us to such extreme economic inequality that we are knocking on the doors of societal unrest. Land ownership is becoming the exclusive province of the upper class, like in the version of Europe some of our ancestors fled. And it's very unclear what to do about it.
I question your thesis. I don't believe the problem is corporations acting in their own interests or expecting their employees to act in the corporate interest at least while on the job or go work somewhere else has lead to inequality. I think rather the biggest source of inequity is the lack of mobility. More specifically DOWNWARD mobility. The big failure of has been allowing to-big-to-fail to be a thing, and individual organizations to have relationships with government that are two strategic to change.
When did they admit to that? (Score:2)
This isn't news. Every company does this following a major buyout because layoffs are coming and everyone knows it. This is less about sabotage and more about lazy mistakes being made or people taking secrets to other companies as they exit.
Christ, it's like nobody on this forum's ever been through a buyout.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Oh I think they definitely ARE hiring wokesters, but let's remember that this sort of shit was normalized during the Trump admin (but growing in currency since Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden tbh).
Sure, there was the normal inter-presidency shittery - iirc, the departing Clintonian staff removed some "W's" from the keyboards (to make it harder for Geo W Bush typists, I guess).
The Obama admin was so aggressive about chasing leakers, even journalists started squeaking about it (https://www.outsidethebeltwa
If I worked there.... (Score:5, Insightful)
it wasn't immediately clear to Twitter's 7,000 employees how their day-to-day would change
If I worked there I'd be nervous, although Twitter doesn't really do much so perhaps it'll be different. But at other Musk companies, they are pervaded by crazy deadlines, terrible work-life balance, and a shoot-from-the-hip-and-expect-the-employees-to-hit-the-target leader.
Of course you'd be nervous (Score:2)
This isn't news, it's BAU following a buyout.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
That and being racist.
https://www.npr.org/2022/04/14... [npr.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Algorithms are already being 'fixed' (Score:4, Interesting)
The numbers for 2022-04-26 [twitter.com] imply Twitter was monkeying with their users.
Maybe this is why they had to do a lockdown
https://twitter.com/HillelNeue... [twitter.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Musk is at least months away from owning and having any control over the company. Why would Twitter decide to suddenly change their algorithm?
You think maybe the news of the purchase, which ahs been widely covered by media all around, and especially lauded by right wing media figures (like the ones in this thread) might have brought an uptick of new users to the platform?
You only have to go on the other /. thread about this to see people already talking about how they would make accounts or return to accou
Why didn't this exist to start with? (Score:2)
Why didn't they have change control like this to start with? Do places just allow all of their developers to commit willy-nilly to whatever repository they want?
Re: (Score:3)
90 startups being built by former Twitter employee (Score:5, Informative)
I would be really interested in seeing a list of these 90 start-ups and a summary of how it is working out for them.
Everyone thinks they are the next Elon Musk - until they are all alone and running a company. Then reality hits. Tech companies are especially hard.
Re: (Score:2)
> tech companies are especially hard
Wiring harnesses from some entity in China I only have email contact with. Steel sheet metal fab across the country that likely needs months to get my order in. Surprise tariffs on my embedded boards due to Trump's trade war on China. Failures on some of these boards that leave the HDMI displaying, but frozen, and even a serial connection stops responding, so I have no way to diagnose it and suddenly a bunch of support incidents where the box needs to be shipped bac
What were they doing before now?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter website is something I could make in a couple months of 10 hour days.
Exactly this. And you could make it in a week if you just made a wordpress or other CRM plugin instead of writing the whole platform. I've never understood why it takes Twitter so long to make the simplest changes and why they have so many developers on staff. I mean WTF do they do all day?
Re: (Score:3)
That says a lot (Score:4, Insightful)
The fact that Twitter questions the professionalism of its employees that much is rather telling, and nothing of what it says about Twitter is good.
7000 employees?? (Score:3)
What on earth? I mean, I know there's always a lot of overhead positions and supporting roles and all that but... 7000 employees?? Wow.
Maybe the real reason why many employees are unhappy about the purchase is that they know Twitter could be the same hot mess with only a couple hundred people.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Musk is buying the user base (Score:3)
Most "at this time" ever (Score:2, Funny)
I was skimming through the company call just to get the gist of how they were communicating, I happened to be listening when he said "no layoffs at this time"....
If you listen to the audio, it's the most "at this time"iest thing ever said, with "no layoffs", dramatic pause, then "at this time" said rapidly and softly.
Doesn't take a genius to see the whole army of woke-mind virus enforcers are in peril unless the fly right, and they are mentally incapable of changing how they are.
Re: (Score:2)
Musk will purge the romper room that is Twitter. If half the staff were fired tomorrow no one would notice.
Re: (Score:2)
Well that would be about right because nobody's actually done anything yet.
Re:Why is it needed? (Score:5, Insightful)
So 2 cases out of millions is a "rash" now? (Score:2)
Anyway no, there's no rash of "source code activism". Nothing has happened in the corporate space. A couple of open source projects that got huge had the guy who made them get pissed off that everybody was using their work and not giving them any credit (in the form of job offers) and made a mess of things. Both programmers are going to be blackballed by the industry or a while now meaning no more of these shenanigans.
The point of
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Eh? There's been a few more than that now. There's three incidents in 2022 alone.
Collectively the good will of open source and its trustworthiness has taken a significant reputation hit the last couple years, due to the "rash" of incidents.
And yes, I think 'rash' is a fair metaphor, after all you get small rash somewhere and you don't dismiss it by saying 'well look at all the millions of other skin cells that are just fine'.
Re:Why is it needed? (Score:4, Insightful)
> Gee - things must be pretty bad if common citizens feel the need to become criminals. Sorta makes you wonder, doesn't it?
> Then again, maybe not. Low IQ types don't tend to become curious about things.
It's impossible to convey how amusing it is to watch you comment on the IQ's of others. This is one of those delicious ironies that life serves up from time to time as a cautionary tale about the dangers of hubris.
One of the reasons why common citizens become criminals is to feed their family. Crime - as is well known - is committed by an underclass. In many ways it could be considered an evolutionary response to poverty and lack of opportunity. It occurs under pressure.
Common citizens don't become criminals because reality hurts their little feelings. Mentally unbalanced nutcases do that because they've contracted a mind virus which inhibits the ability of their frontal lobes to engage in the executive function. A little forethought would reveal that sabotaging an open source project you maintain not only opens you up to criminal penalties but completely totals your career as nobody well ever trust your code again.
That's not "feeling the need" to become a criminal, it's having your rationality so compromised, you can no longer act in your own self-interest - let alone that of somebody else. That's the sign of someone who is mentally ill.
I'm sure you and they see eye to eye on such things for fairly obvious reasons, so be a good lad and take your medication before posting on Slashdot.
Good boy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
One of the reasons why common citizens become criminals is to feed their family. Crime - as is well known - is committed by an underclass. In many ways it could be considered an evolutionary response to poverty and lack of opportunity. It occurs under pressure.
The crime we are talking about is Twitter employees sabotaging the source code. They are not an underclass, and the sabotage is not a response to poverty nor lack of opportunity.
Re:Why is it needed? (Score:4, Informative)
Honestly it's this immature attitude which pervades the far left that conservatives rightly complain about. The Libs of TikTok account shows this prominently.
Well the new Twitter leadership have suddenly made the right start drooling over themselves with glee about the awfulness of the left simply by making a press release about something that might happen, while making themselves look appealing to the right.
In other words, I'll say their marketing arm is doing a very good job and you fell for it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Because the right wing totally wouldn't ever be be petty and petulant, such as take out a Times Square billboard because they got mad someone did a story about a Twitter account [twitter.com]
Re:Why is it needed? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
A reporter knocking on your door to ask questions about a story is not "harassment".
If they've contacted the person ahead of time to schedule a meeting then its not, but if its an unannounced and unsolicited visit to a private residence then YES THE FUCK IT IS harassment.
Re:Why is it needed? (Score:5, Informative)
whats even worse is she literally fake cried shortly before this about doxxing and how wrong it was. then she had the audacity to lie and claim she didnt dox anyone
in short, it looks like people on the left are against doxxing, unless its them doing the doxxing then its "fighting nazis" or whatever boogieman of the week
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
> The women in question, Taylor Lorenz ran a story [wikipedia.org] about a Twitter thread called "The Libs of Tiktok" that focused on pro-LGBTQ+ teachers and quote mined them to make them look like pedophiles.
"Quote mined"? LoTT is a Twitter account (not a "thread") that simply reposts what people post on Tiktok. They don't edit the videos, they just repost what people already put out there and all of us who have been reading it for the past few years know this already. So the fact that you don't know
So they picked videos out of context (Score:2)
And again the person doing the quote mining put their name out there. There was no attempt to anonymize their identity. They were in effect a public figure at that point. This is nothing more than a journalist reporting on a public figure.
Like I said they got a taste of their own medicine and didn't like it.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL - when simply re-post their posts without modification or editing them down its a real stretch to call that mining.
These a massages these people consciously decided to put out in public for effect. These are message people posted either with their name attached or in video where they did not obscure their person or surroundings. That is NOT the same doxing someone who had clearly chosen not to public identify themselves - like the paper did and this "journalist" did.
Lets face it these people put
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? The person running "LibsofTiktok" did not have their name and address publicly available. It was given to Taylor Lorenz by an activist organization, which is funded by a German company. So it was leaked to Taylor Lorenz and nobody knows how the activist got that information. Where are you getting your information?
The name and address that the Washington Post linked to was not actually affiliated with LibsofTikTok. That's why they removed the address after they were called out.
Re: (Score:2)
Right wing? Tim Pool isn't even a republican you nut. And he even said himself that the billboard wasn't about posting a story. He said that WaPo have a right to publish it. So why are you lying?
Taylor Lorenz is telling everyone that she did not link to LibsOfTikTok's personal address in her Washington Post article. In actuality, she in fact did, and then removed the link after complaints. However, Taylor Lorenz is going to interviews and lying about that, and saying that she never linked to that personal a
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why is it needed? (Score:5, Insightful)
As someone who is right wing (or at least today - 20 years ago I would have been considered a very mildly right leaning centrist) and very interested in science, it does get on my nerves that many on the right reject a ton of scientific ideas. Global warming, evolution, age of the planet, vaccination, etc.
On the other hand, regardless of what I feel is correct, its not other people's jobs to determine what they can believe or what viewpoints they can hold - even if they are almost certainly wrong. I recognize this situation because I know that 200 years ago evolution would have been squashed as non-sense. 100 years ago relativity would have been in the same situation. Even if the science is right 95% of the time, you need to be able to disagree at will to find those other times when something in the science ISN'T quite right, and our understanding as a whole progresses.
Re: (Score:2)
As someone who is right wing (or at least today - 20 years ago I would have been considered a very mildly right leaning centrist) and very interested in science, it does get on my nerves that many on the right reject a ton of scientific ideas. Global warming, evolution, age of the planet, vaccination, etc.
So honest question - what do we do? I am watching my parents fall for conspiracy theories that they themselves have debunked in the past, that were once championed by people on the opposite side of the political spectrum. They seem to have no interest in actual reality any more. I feel like Winston Smith in 1984 who looks around and wonders if he is the only one who possesses memory.
Re: (Score:3)
In 1984 -- since you brought it up -- there are at least two mechanisms by which the Party controls information: the memory hole, and forcing people to say things that are not true (e.g. 2 + 2 = 5) until they
Only 2 of the 4 'scientific ideas' matter (Score:2)
Global Warming and Vaccination matter to some degree, but who cares what someone thinks about evolution or the age of the planet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Arguable Twitter's leadership IS acting professionally by proactively responding to an apparent risk.
I agree with your general sentiment but I also doubt very much there isnt plenty of history of 'conservative saboteurs' if the other side goes looking. Its not like nobody every saw change they did not like and 'made sure the new policy would fail' etc. People in glass houses and what not.
I think the real issue is that modern illiberal left see's 'fighting the man' as some implicitly noble act. It does not
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: Why is it needed? (Score:4, Funny)
Definitely a dumb idea, like spending four years engaged in inane conspiracies to overturn an election. Substantially less damage and fewer deaths than the summer of love and the brief secession in Seattle.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
or were easy to quote out of context
How exactly do you quote someone out of context by linking to their video?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
> Y'know, when the neo-con alt-right have finished polarizing the country,
Are you intellectually disabled? It's not possible to miss the Left's ludicrous viewpoint that "Everyone who doesn't have our values is a Nazi" and you're accusing the Right of polarizing the country?
You shouldn't be anywhere near a keyboard. You have no idea how to use it properly.
> I'll bet there are more of us than there are of them,
No, the extreme left nutcases are very much in
Re: (Score:2)
Y'know, when the neo-con alt-right have finished polarizing the country, I'll bet there are more of us than there are of them, I'll bet we'll be better armed than they will, and I'll bet guys on our side won't wet their pants and run away like the insurrectionists did on January 6. There are still brown and yellow stains all over the capital grounds from that.
Lmao, pressing x to doubt
Re:Its nice to not care about how this plays out (Score:5, Insightful)
A billionaire just forked over $44 billion for that "garbage". Not just any billionaire either. A billionaire who would have and does do a lot of useful things with his money.
Pretty bad sitting here wondering if Elon spent that kind of money because he wanted to, or felt he had to.
Point here is it no longer matters what you or I think about social media. "Garbage" represents a fart in high wind worth of shared sentiment on it. You clearly have to invest a hell of a lot more than an opinion, to effect real change.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Note the footnote about Elon Musk arguably being the richest human on the fucking planet. Not many get to play that game.
To that point, we're sitting here debating his financing when that little factoid is clearly clickbait. This is like worrying if Bill Gates can afford to buy a computer running Windows. Stop falling for it already. He shared the financing because his financial advisor told him to spread the risk. It's certainly not because he is barely scraping by.
Re: (Score:2)
The same billionaire who threw a hissy fit and cancelled a customer's order when that customer posted what Musk considered to be a "rude" post in a blog [digitaltrends.com].
So much for free speech, right? Or will Musk claim that because he's running a private company, he can pick and choose who he sells his vehicles to? Like Twitter being a private company and prohibiting certain people from posting.
We'll have to wait and see how the pedo guy flips and
Re: (Score:3)
It's bad in the fact that Freedom in the United States of America, clearly comes with a Capitalist price tag. "What In The Holy Fuck" would be the Founding Fathers response to that, especially considering the Patriots who died fighting for those same Freedoms. As much as the hypocrites would like to dismiss a 44-billion dollar spend, some are investing to protect FAR more than fucking tweets at the end of the day.
Maybe you're not aware that while Twitter was a public company much of the shareholders were foreign investors, including a Saudi prince. Stop barking. Start thinking.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't give a flying fuck about former investors any more than Elon does. He felt compelled to spend 44 billion dollars, and it sure as hell wasn't because of "Saudi prince".
Stop selling, because I'm not in the market for Grade-A Bullshit. Neither is anyone else with a brain.
Re: (Score:2)
What exactly are you not free to do now that a billionaire has purchased a social media company? The founding fathers would probably tell you to go out and create a new platform to compete with Twitter or build something different which you are entirely free to do. Want to speak your mind? Please, do so. Nobody lost any freedom in this deal and nobody is going to lose any freedom in this. What people think they're entitled to under "freedom" and what freedom actually consists of are two different things.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You clearly have to invest a hell of a lot more than an opinion, to effect real change.
Do you? Did Musk buy Twatter or did the autistic mimetic mind viruses which infested his mind drive him to do it? Wake up sheeple, the spergs are the shadow government.
Drive him to to it? Did other billionaires "drive" him to sell all of his property too? Treat his C-Corp as if it were his own child? Of all the humans who have been manipulated by the masses, Elon has proven countless times he's not like you, and Elon hasn't exactly made his recent purchase justifications, a secret.
Perhaps it is you that needs to wake up, Sheepy McSheeperson.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I've never used Twitter and I doubt I ever will. Still, the fireworks over the last 48 hours have been greatly entertaining!
I'm glad their management had the foresight to protect their assets. I wouldn't trust their developers, either.
Re: (Score:3)
Tesla stock down a lot, possibly enough to scuttle the deal. This wasn't Musk's own money he's spending, he's relying upon loans and value from his stock, and the loans are based upon collateral in Tesla. He has a lot of his own money too, but it's less than half of the offering and it's also unclear how he raises that cash. Billionaires don't keep money in cash, it's in assets that can't be sold quickly or in bulk. As for the loans, it's likely that their payments could cost more than expected revenue.
Re: (Score:2)
It's interesting though. Musk describes himself as a free speech absolutist. An actual free speech absolutist allows that kind of vandalism as a form of free expression, because free speech absolutism is a utopian ideal. In reality, whatever kind of idealist you are, you can't typically be a true absolutist for that ideal because you run into real world limitations. Chief among those real world limitations are spoilers, people who, when they find out that you claim to hold some ideal, will immediately put y
Re:Fragile snowflakes (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Fragile snowflakes (Score:5, Informative)
"The extreme antibody reaction from those who fear free speech says it all. By “free speech”, I simply mean that which matches the law,. I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law. If people want less free speech, they will ask government to pass laws to that effect. Therefore, going beyond the law is contrary to the will of the people.”
- - Elon Musk
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but here's where he calls himself an absolutist on Twitter [twitter.com]. It comes off a bit holier than thou, as if he's the only one who cares about free speech. Now, admittedly he's probably quite sick of government pressure of one kind or another and I think that's what compelled him there. This whole thing where he's acting like Twitter has some major free speech problem and he's going to fix things seems a bit ridiculous. It's highly likely there are no sweeping changes that he can make that will significantl
Re:Fragile snowflakes (Score:4, Interesting)
He's not an absolutist.
I know he's not a free speech absolutist I'm just saying that he's described himself as one: See here [twitter.com] I realize that, in reality, he's quite restrictive of free speech. He's definitely blocked people on various platforms, had his employees sign NDAs, etc. Those clearly are not the acts of a free speech absolutist. He still seems to be approaching Twitter (at least publicly) as if it is this evil, censorious, cancelling organization, and he's a paragon of free speech who is going to save it. It does seem entirely possible that he actually believes that, but I don't think he's ever had to manage a forum or an e-mail filter, etc. before.
I'm not sure why you seem to be implying that I'm opposed to freedom and liberty. What I'm saying is that actually applying any principle to an absolute is extraordinarily hard, or just plain impossible. Richard Stallman was, and is, heavily devoted to the principles of freedom and openness. So much so that he didn't use passwords. We're deep into the Eternal September now, however, and that's basically an impossible way to compute in this day and age.
More broadly though, whatever big changes Musk wants to make to Twitter, he's going to discover a few things like that you can't please all of the people all of the time, and that even the speech allowed by law can cause you huge problems. Especially since the speech allowed by law is a slippery devil. Whatever balance point that Twitter has found so far has been mostly working for them. Musk can try to tweak, but he's unlikely to make any vast improvement and more likely to make things worse.
Re: (Score:2)
in reality, he's quite restrictive of free speech. He's definitely blocked people on various platforms, had his employees sign NDAs, etc. Those clearly are not the acts of a free speech absolutist.
Those actions have nothing to do with free speech at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Those actions have nothing to do with free speech at all.
If those kinds of actions have nothing to do with free speech at all (at least as Musk defines it) then why did he buy Twitter? How is, for example, banning someone from Twitter qualitatively different from blocking someone (in the context where "blocking" means that they can't post to your public conversation, not just that they're filtered so that you can't see them).
Re: (Score:2)
Musk, if he truly believes himself a free speech absolutist, is quickly going to discover that it's basically impossible to do that and care about anything else at all.
The open question with respect to twitter is - do you have to care about anything else at all in that context. If so why.
Its twitter is not even really in the top 10 actively used social media platforms. Why does it matter if people harass someone on twitter - as long as it stays on twitter and does not spill over into meatspace - they can just delete their account, or give it right back to whoever is after them.
but but people will express racism and hate or ... right they will and 99% of the population wi
Re: (Score:2)
The open question with respect to twitter is - do you have to care about anything else at all in that context. If so why.
Its twitter is not even really in the top 10 actively used social media platforms. Why does it matter if people harass someone on twitter - as long as it stays on twitter and does not spill over into meatspace - they can just delete their account, or give it right back to whoever is after them.
You certainly don't have to care about anything else. However, although Musk is fabulously rich, he still sank nearly $50 billion dollars into this. Apparently, it's quite possible that he was literally high when he did this. Chances are that, if Twitter tanks completely, he's going to care. After all, why did he buy Twitter instead of say, 4chan (or whatever it's called now). There's the free speech ideal he's looking for. He could have bought 4chan, and spent billions on trying to promote it into a replac
Re: (Score:2)
It's interesting though. Musk describes himself as a free speech absolutist. An actual free speech absolutist allows that kind of vandalism
The concept of free speech is the communication of thoughts and ideas without reprisal. Simply destroying shit you don't like or using speech as a vehicle to achieve an objective has nothing to do with free speech.
Musk, if he truly believes himself a free speech absolutist, is quickly going to discover that it's basically impossible to do that and care about anything else at all.
The problem with social media is not the speech. It's handing everyone a megaphone and rewarding them for using it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
What I can't stand about lefties is how assured they are of their moral authority.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter literally has to lock its fucking source code.
My question is: Why wasn't the source code locked in the first place?
Re:Fragile snowflakes (Score:4, Insightful)
We're talking about Musk here, not Trump. Try to keep up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Fragile snowflakes (Score:4, Funny)
The left's infatuation with Trump will persist long after the man's death.
It's not an "infatuation", and their "interest" will persist until they are certain that his influence in ending democracy in the US is greatly diminished.
Re: (Score:2)
You work for a place without any source control?
Re:Elon is a pro-free speech man (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
"if they blocked the hunter biden story, how do people know about it?" - Thankfully there are other media outlets that are not afraid to report the truth.
"if twitter is canceling free speech, how are you able to come here and say things?" - Twitter was cancelling free speech on their platform. They have no authority over what people say on /.
Twitter has gotten away from what Jack Dorsey had founded. It got taken over by a bunch of woke snowflakes that have decided that, rather than debate issues they will s