The madness at Twitter since Elon Musk took control

caLLous

I am a FH squatter
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
18,420
The limit was never 120 - it was 140 but has been 280 for ages. About context, on Twitter itself you see tweets from accounts you follow or that accounts you follow have re-tweeted (and some suggestions based on accounts you follow) so the context should be obvious. If it's some random post on a site outside Twitter and it's worth posting on its own, there'll be a link to context embedded in the tweet otherwise it'll be a thread or whatever. If not then it's not worth posting unless the target audience will understand/appreciate it.

What @Wij posted above is perfectly understandable and the context is right there. Musk has been on some ultimately pretty dull and uninteresting crusade to "own the libs" with "The Twitter Files" ("both political parties were at it but REEEE HERE ARE ALL OF THE DEM LIES IN METICULOUS DETAIL") and the tweet above is a response to that, highlighting that the "journalist" has questionable background/motives (as do the "journalists" of all the other Twitter Files).
 

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
35,906
The limit was never 120 - it was 140 but has been 280 for ages
Meh. It's alleged to be a forum for debate which restricts debate. I stand by my point about it being a rage-chamber.

If it wasn't then nobody would use it. It's rage-inducing by design and not helpful to the planet. It's not people "twitter-ing" (although from pretty much most of what I've seen, generally is at that level) - it's more "angry people shout-er".

When you get intelligent people trying to make intelligent points they usually take the form of multiple tweets with links to places you can actually read about things in a format that enlightens. Twitter is "dumb by design"(tm).



Oi @Deebs. Where's superscript? :)
 

Deebs

Chief Arsewipe
Staff member
Moderator
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 11, 1997
Messages
9,076,885
Meh. It's alleged to be a forum for debate which restricts debate. I stand by my point about it being a rage-chamber.

If it wasn't then nobody would use it. It's rage-inducing by design and not helpful to the planet. It's not people "twitter-ing" (although from pretty much most of what I've seen, generally is at that level) - it's more "angry people shout-er".

When you get intelligent people trying to make intelligent points they usually take the form of multiple tweets with links to places you can actually read about things in a format that enlightens. Twitter is "dumb by design"(tm).



Oi @Deebs. Where's superscript? :)
Isn't it some form of text formatting? Raises the text up a little. Why do you ask?
 

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
35,906
Because it's not available in the reply thingy m8, and I'm pretty sure it used to be?

Edit: Wanted the "TM" to be up above Dumb By Design :)
 

DaGaffer

Down With That Sorta Thing
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
18,380
The limit was never 120 - it was 140 but has been 280 for ages. About context, on Twitter itself you see tweets from accounts you follow or that accounts you follow have re-tweeted (and some suggestions based on accounts you follow) so the context should be obvious. If it's some random post on a site outside Twitter and it's worth posting on its own, there'll be a link to context embedded in the tweet otherwise it'll be a thread or whatever. If not then it's not worth posting unless the target audience will understand/appreciate it.

What @Wij posted above is perfectly understandable and the context is right there. Musk has been on some ultimately pretty dull and uninteresting crusade to "own the libs" with "The Twitter Files" ("both political parties were at it but REEEE HERE ARE ALL OF THE DEM LIES IN METICULOUS DETAIL") and the tweet above is a response to that, highlighting that the "journalist" has questionable background/motives (as do the "journalists" of all the other Twitter Files).

Nah. If I have to go back to Twitter and backtrack through god knows how much crap to get to the point, that's not context, that's fucking data mining. If you're a Twitter user, sure it's followable if you bother to invest time in Twitter, if it's posted outside, unless it's a standalone (like the invisible McDonalds one @Wij posted earlier) it's always a pita to decipher, usually because the people involved are in-platform "personalities" (it's like remembering the YouTubers or Tik-Tokers my kids follow, except for bad politics).
 

Deebs

Chief Arsewipe
Staff member
Moderator
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 11, 1997
Messages
9,076,885
Because it's not available in the reply thingy m8, and I'm pretty sure it used to be?

Edit: Wanted the "TM" to be up above Dumb By Design :)
Ah not sure when it got removed by XF but I've added some bbcode to do the same thingTM
 

Wij

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
18,158
The limit was never 120 - it was 140 but has been 280 for ages. About context, on Twitter itself you see tweets from accounts you follow or that accounts you follow have re-tweeted (and some suggestions based on accounts you follow) so the context should be obvious. If it's some random post on a site outside Twitter and it's worth posting on its own, there'll be a link to context embedded in the tweet otherwise it'll be a thread or whatever. If not then it's not worth posting unless the target audience will understand/appreciate it.

What @Wij posted above is perfectly understandable and the context is right there. Musk has been on some ultimately pretty dull and uninteresting crusade to "own the libs" with "The Twitter Files" ("both political parties were at it but REEEE HERE ARE ALL OF THE DEM LIES IN METICULOUS DETAIL") and the tweet above is a response to that, highlighting that the "journalist" has questionable background/motives (as do the "journalists" of all the other Twitter Files).
Yes, basically. The context was earlier posts. Musk is handing internal Twitter communications to a series of conspiracy minded hacks to make ordinary stuff sound super scary. What’s he hope to gain by trashing his own company like this?
 

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
35,906
Yes, basically. The context was earlier posts.
Which if you're not a twitter user is a massive ballache to even try to bother following and I know people don't bother following links to web pages and videos that much, so asking them to decipher twitter probably gets less engagement tbh.

Maybe we should go back to typing more? :)
 

Deebs

Chief Arsewipe
Staff member
Moderator
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 11, 1997
Messages
9,076,885
Maybe we should go back to typing more? :)
My handwriting is so fucking terrible now die to using a keyboard for everything. Even a doctor's note looks better than mine.
 

Syri

FH is my second home
Joined
Jan 4, 2004
Messages
1,016
I've been using a keyboard since I had a Commodore 64 when I was about 6 or 7ish. Somehow I've managed to keep my handwriting decent, even more impressive as I'm a left hander.
 

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
35,906
Reading that what is clear is something fishy is probably going on - if not what Musk is saying.

Why is the FBI spending public money monitoring a private company's output and flagging to that company when the FBI thinks it's users may be violating that company's private (not legally mandated) terms of service?

Is the FBI doing that to all large communications platforms? Is it spending money saying to facebook: "one of your users said this and it's against your ToS. Yes, I know it's not against your users First Amendment rights, but you as a private company say you don't allow this so we, the government, think you should be enforcing your ToS more strongly. And yes, we know that's up to you, and shouldn't be anything to do with us because it's a bit creepy that the US government is not only wholesale monitoring US citizens' speech but flagging to you that you might want to stop them saying things that you (not us) don't like them saying.

But there you go. We're definitely not interfereing and it's all up to you what you do with this info! And no, we won't feed back to upwards that you're being 'uncooperative' with our 'suggestions' if you don't comply. We're happy to spend all this taxpayer money and time monitoring posts and telling you about it, only for us to be told to fuck off."


... Maybe Musk is playing a game? Maybe ge's lying about the FBI "paying" for twitter censorship because he wants the government to feel some heat for this sort of behaviour?

Just because things aren't true doesn't mean they can't have utility.

Regardless. He may be lying his face off, but what the fuck is the FBI doing??!
 

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
35,906
Oh. Btw - thanks for posting an actual article @Wij - I read the whole thing ;)
 

Wij

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
18,158
Reading that what is clear is something fishy is probably going on - if not what Musk is saying.

Why is the FBI spending public money monitoring a private company's output and flagging to that company when the FBI thinks it's users may be violating that company's private (not legally mandated) terms of service?

Is the FBI doing that to all large communications platforms? Is it spending money saying to facebook: "one of your users said this and it's against your ToS. Yes, I know it's not against your users First Amendment rights, but you as a private company say you don't allow this so we, the government, think you should be enforcing your ToS more strongly. And yes, we know that's up to you, and shouldn't be anything to do with us because it's a bit creepy that the US government is not only wholesale monitoring US citizens' speech but flagging to you that you might want to stop them saying things that you (not us) don't like them saying.

But there you go. We're definitely not interfereing and it's all up to you what you do with this info! And no, we won't feed back to upwards that you're being 'uncooperative' with our 'suggestions' if you don't comply. We're happy to spend all this taxpayer money and time monitoring posts and telling you about it, only for us to be told to fuck off."


... Maybe Musk is playing a game? Maybe ge's lying about the FBI "paying" for twitter censorship because he wants the government to feel some heat for this sort of behaviour?

Just because things aren't true doesn't mean they can't have utility.

Regardless. He may be lying his face off, but what the fuck is the FBI doing??!
There could be any number of reasons why they would be monitoring certain communications and then flagging them to Twitter. For example if they are investigating criminal scammers and then ask Twitter (and other platforms) to remove links to the scam. Or it could be foreign influence networks who they worry are trying to corrupt public officials. I would imagine the majority would be coming across in the course of criminal investigations.

The people who are crying about the "Twitter Files" don't share the same concerns as you about what the FBI is doing anyway. They are convinced they are trying to swing elections for Democrats. IMO if your conspiracy theory of choice requires you to believe that the FBI is a hotbed of far-left political activism then you need a good dose of anti-psychotics.
 

Wij

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
18,158
Or they could have been related to investigating mega misuse of data:

 

Zarjazz

Identifies as a horologist.
Joined
Dec 11, 2003
Messages
2,379
Sucking up to Republicans seems to be working out well:

Symbolic is the right word, useless is another. 70% of Wyoming voted for trump in 2020, and the legislature is something like 90% republicans. A large portion of Wyoming's state revenue comes from oil and gas but rather than diversify they would rather stick their heads in the sand and keep focusing solely on fossil fuel. Also no car manufacturers are doing R&D on petrol engines anymore so good luck buying anything but an EV in 2035, there will be no alternative in the dealerships except tractors.
 

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
35,906
I'm not sure. This type of intransigence is why we've already (clearly) blown 1.5. 2 degrees also looks way out of sight if you look at the graphs.

The fact that humans are like this is why we turn our planet into a pea-souper. Expect, in our lifetimes, the green-light for "geo engineering". And the unforseen consequences of that could potentially even be worse than those of rapid global heating.
 

Zarjazz

Identifies as a horologist.
Joined
Dec 11, 2003
Messages
2,379
I'm not sure. This type of intransigence is why we've already (clearly) blown 1.5. 2 degrees also looks way out of sight if you look at the graphs.

The fact that humans are like this is why we turn our planet into a pea-souper. Expect, in our lifetimes, the green-light for "geo engineering". And the unforseen consequences of that could potentially even be worse than those of rapid global heating.
What Wyoming thinks or does is meaningless compared to the rest of the US. Except for land area it's tiny, only 0.18% the population. Los Angeles alone is 6 times larger. Now if California had voted for the same policy you'd have a point.
 

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
35,906
What Wyoming thinks or does is meaningless compared to the rest of the US. Except for land area it's tiny, only 0.18% the population. Los Angeles alone is 6 times larger. Now if California had voted for the same policy you'd have a point.
I agree that 0.18% of the population is tiny. But I said "this type" of intransigence is why we've blown it / will blow it.

It's not limited to asshats in Wyoming. There's all sorts of obstacles to change and it becomes death by a thousand cuts - and stops us doing necessary stuff quickly. We've known about this since the 50's. We've been getting proper alarms about it since the 80's. The IPCC was put together in the 90's - when we already knew we had to act - and as far as I'm concerned was the beginning of the "show us the science" intransigence when they'd been shown the science and it would have been much cheaper and much easier to act back then.

Now're we're missing "last chance saloon" after last chance saloon. But we kind of blew it ages ago.

And it's really down to even if we agree on 90% of stuff, the 10% is stopping us getting our shit together properly and doing what is necessary. That means failure when rapid change is required - and required 30 years ago.

We can't even agree on the totality of the problems that are facing the planet - we're focussing on carbon emissions alone. We've already lost 70% of all animals. That's failure on a criminal scale. Climate change is (a big) part of that. But it's not all of it. And we're struggling on this narrow issue.
 

DaGaffer

Down With That Sorta Thing
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
18,380
What Wyoming thinks or does is meaningless compared to the rest of the US. Except for land area it's tiny, only 0.18% the population. Los Angeles alone is 6 times larger. Now if California had voted for the same policy you'd have a point.

The only danger is if there is contagion to other redneckery states. This is the kind of "owning the libs" bullshit that seems to get traction in the midwest and south. While Wyoming and Montana don't matter, somewhere like Texas does. Create a market that's big enough to serve (and the car manufacturers haven't entirely stopped ICE development, they're still expecting to sell ICE cars in places like central Asia and Africa for a long time) and car companies will fill it.
 

Tom

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
17,154
Sucking up to Republicans seems to be working out well:


Wyoming: "Hey Ford, will you please spend billions of dollars developing a new ICE car just for us, so a small percentage of our 578,803 residents don't have to drive EVs?"

Ford: "No".
 

Scouse

Giant Thundercunt
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
35,906

Bigmac

Part of the furniture
Joined
Mar 14, 2011
Messages
830
Seems third party apps don't work for Twitter any more so now you have to use their own app which is dog shit in comparison. :sick:
 

caLLous

I am a FH squatter
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
18,420
Seems third party apps don't work for Twitter any more so now you have to use their own app which is dog shit in comparison. :sick:
Apps that have worked for years suddenly stopped working, Twitter said they were just enforcing their existing API policies, the apps' creators said "what policies? we'll change whatever we need to to make our apps work again" and... silence.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom