2032
Google decimates Twitter search results after Elon Musk imposes limits on reading tweets
(www.rawstory.com)
this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2023
2032 points (98.1% liked)
Technology
59581 readers
2890 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This sounds a lot like Hanlon's razor. "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
Do you really believe that people like spez, Zuckerberg, Musk behave like they do because they want to do favors for other billionaires? Isn't it much more likely that they're just ... disturbed? That they are narcissistic, megalomaniac, maybe idealistic in their own believe. And in being that, they make stupid decisions because they literally work differently than regular folks.
I'm picking at nits here.. but
Are you really suggesting that no action has ever been malicious that seems stupid? Copying people on the internet doesn't make ~~you~~their idea right lol. I personally believe that phrase is damaging and possibly propaganda in origin, same as "absolute power corrupts absolutely"
As for the other things you said, I think you can both be correct at the same time.
Well said. Razors are guides in developing theories, not evidence. To present them as evidence is a fallacy. The above conjecture isn't better explained by stupidity, thats the whole point.
Thank you. I think this is an important nit to pick in the context of this particular discussion.
Ignoring the evidence of Musk's Twitter nonsense benefiting the same people who helped fund his Twitter buy out is something you could attribute Hanlon's razor to.
Yeah, I also seriously doubt there's a big conspiracy happening where ultra rich people are helping each other. Have you looked at those people? Most don't give a fuck about anyone but themselves.
Musk bought Twitter around the time he was fighting with this guy that had the private jet tracker. I think it's more reasonable to believe that Musk bought Twitter just to shut that down and now it's a toy he can play with, where every time he merely touches it, media jumps on it, which feeds his ego massively. And once Twitter is dead, he'll discard it and move on to the next thing. Like a cat playing with its prey.
Normally I would tend to agree with you, but look where Musk got his "loans" to buy out Twitter. Saudi Arabia and Russia where big "lenders".
That's definitely true. I think it's also true that the people who financed it were doing so to take advantage of that to their own ends.
The only person in the world you can ever truly know is yourself.
So when I ask myself "If I were spez/zuck/musk why would I do this?"
The answer is usually "because someone gave me a lot of money"
I don't know about Spez but I don't think that's how Musk and Zuck are motivated. The money is a secondary effect of their goal of being "Great Men" in history. Seen through that lens, taking control of the main public square, changing the nature of discussion there (and taking as much credit for it as possible) is an end unto itself for Musk. Especially when you consider that, if he is able to both control and maintain Twitter as the main locus of online discussion, it allows him to try to reshape the wider narrative about the value and importance of his work in general.
I'm not so sure Musk is actually motivated by his own hype, I think that's part of his professional self branding that he relies on to juice the valuation of his companies. Seen through that lens, taking control of the main public square is a way to juice his rep further and make even more money.
I'm skeptical of ascribing immaterial motives to billionaires.
EDIT Oh! Also, I think the reason enshitification has accelerated so much recently is because of high interest rates. It's why Silicon Valley Bank imploded, after all. Companies are scrambling to be profitable after the free investor cash has dried up. It's not good enough to be maybe profitable in an undefined future, they need to be profitable now so they can justify investment. The bubble is deflating - though fortunately, it seems like it's going to be a soft landing instead of a pop.
While I don't think there is a specific conspiracy, I do believe that the upper classes enforce class interest and still have a strong sense of class solidarity, something they worked very hard (through their hegemonic control of the media) to excise from the societies they inhabit and predate upon.
Someone like Rupert Murdoch won't necessarily take action on behalf of specific individuals, but he will fight tooth and nail for the privileges of his fellow billionaires.