Society/Culture Elon Musk - Takeover of Twitter?

[Gralin]

You really have an incredible ability to miss the big picture. This video means nothing, it's about the future of life under the rule of an all powerful unelected "e safety" commissioner

Or do you think once this case is over the E Safety commissioner is going to say "well mission is complete, time to retire now, goodbye friends"

Lol unelected all powerful.

You're rather amusing.

Musk is one of the richest men in the world, the majority of traditional and social media is owned by billionaires and the also put a lot of money into influencing politicians and you're worried about the esafety commisioner

 

[10571z]

You really have an incredible ability to miss the big picture. This video means nothing, it's about the future of life under the rule of an all powerful unelected "e safety" commissioner

Or do you think once this case is over the E Safety commissioner is going to say "well mission is complete, time to retire now, goodbye friends"

I find it amazing how happy people in this thread are to let the friendly government judge what they can and can’t see online.

End of the day you are allowing the government to dictate what’s ok online and what’s not. That’s a recipe for disaster.

 

[Cap]

I find it amazing how happy people in this thread are to let the friendly government judge what they can and can’t see online.

End of the day you are allowing the government to dictate what’s ok online and what’s not. That’s a recipe for disaster.

That's not what they are doing though.

They are saying, yeah I get why you'd want to take a video of a stabbing off an easily accessible social media platform.

The dooming is for all the posters like you.

 

[spinynorman]

That's not what they are doing though.

They are saying, yeah I get why you'd want to take a video of a stabbing off an easily accessible social media platform.

The dooming is for all the posters like you.

Which is a reasonable thing to request but different when it’s the government attempting to compel them to do something, particularly in having them do it for places outside the Australian jurisdiction.

 

[Gralin]

Which is a reasonable thing to request but different when it’s the government attempting to compel them to do something, particularly in having them do it for places outside the Australian jurisdiction.

They suggest have to compel them to take down a video of a violent crime

 

[Cap]

Which is a reasonable thing to request but different when it’s the government attempting to compel them to do something, particularly in having them do it for places outside the Australian jurisdiction.

Elon bans people who share photos of him pre hair plugs.

Its not a choice of censorship or non censorship.

 

[Satan]

Musk puts seat belts in cybertrucks. Now he must put them in cyberspace

What Elon Musk is doing is rogue even in an industry of rogues. He needs to be strapped in, or it will be maximum drama and maximum Musk.

www.theage.com.au

 

[pugsville]

I find it amazing how happy people in this thread are to let the friendly government judge what they can and can’t see online.

End of the day you are allowing the government to dictate what’s ok online and what’s not. That’s a recipe for disaster.

letting Billionaires dictate whats ok online and what's not isn't a recipe for disaster?

The Government is elected to Govern. They are accountable (sort of) to the electorate. Isn't making decisions like this the foundation of democracy?

 

[Captivating]

Censoring what is considered content that might harm is a real concern. Under this, they would have censored all discussions about the lunacy of lockdowns, masking and social distancing mandates under the guise of harm. Notwithstanding that after the event, these measures were shown to be ineffective.

Couple that with the government wanting to access encrypted messages, we are transitioning to a totalitarian state.

 

[Gralin]

I am still laughing at the idea that removing a video of a violent crime is the slippery slope into fascism

And that Elon Musk is the guy standing against fascism is even more laughable

Musk who boosts fascists on his platform, who censors anything that personally offends him

that encourages people to support far right politicians that actually want to enact fascist laws

you think he's the guy saving the world

lol

as mentioned in the age article above, social media platforms regularly remove videos of violent acts, because funnily enough their advertisers and users don't like having their news feed full of that stuff and these platforms largely exist to make money

they aren't bastions of truth or freedom, they're content machines that rely on people spending their time interacting

twitter is now a complete dumspter fire because Musk is running it

 

[Theseventhhamster]

I am still laughing at the idea that removing a video of a violent crime is the slippery slope into fascism

And that Elon Musk is the guy standing against fascism is even more laughable

Musk who boosts fascists on his platform, who censors anything that personally offends him

that encourages people to support far right politicians that actually want to enact fascist laws

you think he's the guy saving the world

lol

as mentioned in the age article above, social media platforms regularly remove videos of violent acts, because funnily enough their advertisers and users don't like having their news feed full of that stuff and these platforms largely exist to make money

they aren't bastions of truth or freedom, they're content machines that rely on people spending their time interacting

twitter is now a complete dumspter fire because Musk is running it

He also frequently censors it on demand for his favourite fashy governments around the world. His fans would have to the dumbest campaigners that ever campaignered.

 

[Gethelred]

Censoring what is considered content that might harm is a real concern. Under this, they would have censored all discussions about the lunacy of lockdowns, masking and social distancing mandates under the guise of harm. Notwithstanding that after the event, these measures were shown to be ineffective.

...

Let's not and say we did, hmm?

In any case, the response - if we had an e-safety commisioner at the time - might've been the complete opposite: downplaying the effects of Covid, as it gave Scott Morrison control over what information we have concerning Covid's affects and infection rates.

Morrison in control of this sort of power should scare most people, one would think.

Couple that with the government wanting to access encrypted messages, we are transitioning to a totalitarian state.

It certainly makes the internet less free, 'transitioning to a totalitarian state' is hyperbolous to a ludicrous degree.

 

[Cap]

These e-laws and commission stuff is really just terrorist recut for the internet

However in this case the terrorists are replaced by people who deliberately share bullshit.

no one wants these kinds of laws. But politicians keep getting given the social licence to create them.

I have to take my shoes off on an international plane because some ******* blew one up with his shoes, and now my internet is less free and private because a bunch of *******s couldn't accept their views were wrong and made up a heap of conspiracy theories.

rather than addressing real issues, like our data being harvested by Cheif for sale, they can aim for other stuff.

 

[Chief]

Our internet has been less free and private because of tech owners like Trump and Bezos and Page, and incompetent CEOs like Kelly Bayer Rosmarin - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Optus_data_breach

 

[Gethelred]

I mean, all of it is true: governments are more than happy to remove rights that their citizens don't protect because it gives them more power and more wherewithal to protect themselves (easier to see antigovernment stuff when you've got the metadata or to control the disposition of the public towards you when you can see precisely what is being said and by whom) and industry are more than happy to invade privacy on their own terms and push back against government overreach only when their own enterprises are threatened. It's like how journalists only ever seem to whinge against invasion of privacy when it's one of their own getting raided by the AFP.

Casual and base level employment are the most observed and recorded people on the planet, with check on systems attached to apps so that their employers can monitor their activities even to the point of knowing precisely how long they were on the toilet.

It's why this particular spate of 'invasion of privacy' rhetoric doesn't do much more than curl an ironic smile on my face: where were you lot when my boss decided to point more cameras at me than at his customers, including a camera directly over the till? Where were you lot when my government decided that collecting my metadata 'for my own protection' trumped my right to own my own information? Where were you lot when Google and Facebook started deep diving into social experiments by trying to use algorithms to predict voting patterns up to and including having a control group they only showed bad news to for six consecutive months to see whether they could have an effect on who that group voted for?

This is but a single battle, one already lost because the war for our privacy was lost a long, long time ago. Dunno why people are so happy Weekend at Bernies-ing its corpse, because it's dead.

You're responsible for what you do at all times, because you don't know who's watching. Your government decides and has decided what you can see unless you take measures to do something about it, and social media algorithms decide what you see and how you feel about events.

If you do not like this, perhaps change your behaviour to prevent it happening further? Vote differently? Behave differently?

Methinks the world needs another Anarchist's Cookbook.

 

[Cap]

Our internet has been less free and private because of tech owners like Trump and Bezos and Page, and incompetent CEOs like Kelly Bayer Rosmarin - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Optus_data_breach

Absolutely, but the Govt is not focusing on it.

Sure online bullying and spreading misinformation is bad and like we see with COVID and MAGA its dangerous

But the data harvesting, data theft etc is way way bigger issue that ought to be addressed.

 

[NSWCROW]

with his arm amputated at the wrist.

so you mean his hand ??

 

[Cap]

If you do not like this, perhaps change your behaviour to prevent it happening further? Vote differently? Behave differently?

it's interesting to ponder.

I like to look at politicians like Boris Johnson as the personification of whats gone wrong.

He got away with things because it was generally accepted that if people were caught doing what he did, they would resign.

Because that was the expectation no one had ever considered how to punish the behaviour because as a society we just expected good faith actors to do the right thing.

Now eventually the weight of his behaviour, despite support of people who defended his behaviour, caught up with him and he was forced to go. But ultimately the damage was done. The credibility in parliament and the role of PM is going to take generations to fix.

Now circle that back to the internet, the anonymity of the internet allows bad faith actors to do what Boris Johnson did on a massive scale but with absolutely no accountability.

So I'm not suggesting anonymity on the internet be removed, however what we see if bad faith actors can now simply hide behind it.

Edit - i dont want this misconstrued as wanting people who have a different opinion silenced, that not it at all.

how do we change that? Not sure.

I like getting a laugh at cookers and MAGAs and racists who use the anonymity of the internet to spread their hate, but that isn't going to change anything.

We need political leaders who aren't part of the problem and act in good faith and not laws that treat the symptoms and not the cause.

 

[Gethelred]

it's interesting to ponder.

I like to look at politicians like Boris Johnson as the personification of whats gone wrong.

He got away with things because it was generally accepted that if people were caught doing what he did, they would resign.

Because that was the expectation no one had ever considered how to punish the behaviour because as a society we just expected good faith actors to do the right thing.

Now eventually the weight of his behaviour, despite support of people who defended his behaviour, caught up with him and he was forced to go. But ultimately the damage was done. The credibility in parliament and the role of PM is going to take generations to fix.

Now circle that back to the internet, the anonymity of the internet allows bad faith actors to do what Boris Johnson did on a massive scale but with absolutely no accountability.

So I'm not suggesting anonymity on the internet be removed, however what we see if bad faith actors can now simply hide behind it.

Edit - i dont want this misconstrued as wanting people who have a different opinion silenced, that not it at all.

how do we change that? Not sure.

I like getting a laugh at cookers and MAGAs and racists who use the anonymity of the internet to spread their hate, but that isn't going to change anything.

We need political leaders who aren't part of the problem and act in good faith and not laws that treat the symptoms and not the cause.

I quite like the idea that anyone who becomes a member of parliament's assets are seized and provided monetary valuation on all of it (all of it, from their car to their welcome mat to their pillow sheets) once becoming elected and the degree to which the government succeeds or fails in terms of growth/GDP is reflected in their assets when they leave. That way, the only way to leave government is better off than when you entered.

You're still going to get idealists entering politics, but you're unlikely to get the kind of scheming pragmatists that infect our political landscape at present. You're also going to get leaders that want to do the right thing at all times, because if - say - a disaster that affects the government strikes they're going to want there to be low income protections and free healthcare because they personally are at risk.

 

[faible]

Censoring what is considered content that might harm is a real concern. Under this, they would have censored all discussions about the lunacy of lockdowns, masking and social distancing mandates under the guise of harm. Notwithstanding that after the event, these measures were shown to be ineffective.

Couple that with the government wanting to access encrypted messages, we are transitioning to a totalitarian state.

They’ve been quite clear that it’s just footage of the stabbing, not discussions of the stabbing, that they want removed.

 

[evolved2]

Is there anyone here who you could genuinely label an Elon fanboi? I don't think so.

I wouldn't trust him as far as I can throw him; yet I have a similar level of trust in the federal and state governments across Australia.

That to me is one of the core issues here. People have completely lost trust in the ability of our governments to competently lead the nation. Whether that be through covid, housing, other cost of living pressures, climate policy, lack of vision for the future, lack of credible opposition to government, or a combination, there's heavy scepticism in the abilities and motives of Australian governments.

Bigger picture thinking, we're good at digging things out of the ground and plugging holes in our economy through immigration. That's it.

Much of the public don't want the Australian government to tell us what we can and can't see online because we don't trust them.

 

[Number37]

Much of the public don't want the Australian government to tell us what we can and can't see online because we don't trust them.

How do you know that people don't trust the govt??

 

[burge13]

How do you know that people don't trust the govt??

Do you?

Further to that do you think they have your best interests at heart?

 

[faible]

How do you know that people don't trust the govt??

Rich people who control media and social media have spent decades telling us that.

 

[Cap]

Is there anyone here who you could genuinely label an Elon fanboi? I don't think so.

I don't think it's fanboi as such.

But similar to Trump, they recognise his abilities to condone their racist/bigot/conspiracy views.

So have become supportive

I wouldn't trust him as far as I can throw him; yet I have a similar level of trust in the federal and state governments across Australia.

I trust the Australian Govt over a billionaire like Musk or even the Meta owner.

That to me is one of the core issues here. People have completely lost trust in the ability of our governments to competently lead the nation. Whether that be through covid, housing, other cost of living pressures, climate policy, lack of vision for the future, lack of credible opposition to government, or a combination, there's heavy scepticism in the abilities and motives of Australian governments.

I don't disagree, the quality of politican and the basic standards we expect of them are a symptom though

Bigger picture thinking, we're good at digging things out of the ground and plugging holes in our economy through immigration. That's it.

Yep, we need to tax miners more

But try getting that through parliament when people who would benefit disagree the most

Much of the public don't want the Australian government to tell us what we can and can't see online because we don't trust them.

No, but we acknowledge minimum standards of human decency so don't have to jump to the slippery slope fallacy when they make what appears to be a reasonable request.