All good. Have a great weekend and BTHO Florida!

Here's a good and recent interview with Elon where he discusses his plans for Twitter (among other things)

Starting at 30:41 it starts with Elon saying "I tried to get out of the deal", and then does an impression of Al Pacino LOL



For now at least, his workload went up from 80 hrs/week to 120 hrs/week because of Twitter. Insane...
But he says it should be more manageable in the future.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/joe-biden-takes-elon-musk-twitters-new-content-moderation-spews-lies-all-across-world

Quote:

---

"Elon Musk goes out and buys an outlet that sends that spews lies all across the world," Biden remarked. "There are no editors anymore in America. There are no editors."

The president seemed to suggest there was no longer any moderation on Twitter, a claim echoed by several others on the platform who are also critical of Musk.

"How do we expect kids to be able to understand what is at stake? What is at stake? So there's a lot going on, a lot going on. But we have an enormous opportunity, enormous opportunity," Biden added.

---

Pushing all the right buttons… just more evidence of Elon making the right moves.

HeardAboutPerio said:

---

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/joe-biden-takes-elon-musk-twitters-new-content-moderation-spews-lies-all-across-world

Quote:

---

"Elon Musk goes out and buys an outlet that sends that spews lies all across the world," Biden remarked. "There are no editors anymore in America. There are no editors."

The president seemed to suggest there was no longer any moderation on Twitter, a claim echoed by several others on the platform who are also critical of Musk.

"How do we expect kids to be able to understand what is at stake? What is at stake? So there's a lot going on, a lot going on. But we have an enormous opportunity, enormous opportunity," Biden added.

---

Pushing all the right buttons… just more evidence of Elon making the right moves.

---

It was already a steaming pile of dog doo when he bought it. It seems to me he can only make it better.

Bobaloo said:

---

Now we aren't sure what a woman is.

---

We?

Exactly, this is why it's so fun to cheer other folks on when they are using their own money. All that can happen is an evil propagandist group of loser commies lose their jobs and the company goes away...or he succeeds and it becomes a platform that conservatives can actually joke/comment on.

Either way, I'm happy.

Also, maybe TA did the right thing leaving that vine thing up here so we can link to it. Supposedly they are going to bring that back at his direction.

Incredible

Irish 2.0 said:

---

You can literally get 3:1 Indian:American for IT work in India. It's a no brainer for any true capitalist

---

Someone kind of beat me to it but you will get the inverse in quality if you do this. I know because I've lived it.

In other news, Elon announced they are going to start mass producing the cybertruck in 2023.

More lib tears

This wrecks twitter. In his own words caught on camera “you won’t really see’ what your friends are posting - even in your own replies - if they don’t pay for it.

His genius idea is shadowbanning free users?? 😹

— Aaron Stewart-Ahn (@somebadideas) November 5, 2022

And finally here he is bugging out awkwardly waiting for applause when he makes the fucking absurd claim that humanoid robots will create a limitless economy (don’t know where all of us who will be put out of work fit in that math!) pic.twitter.com/RbdL0yKwxL

— Aaron Stewart-Ahn (@somebadideas) November 5, 2022

Not seeing what your friends post sounds like how Facebook worked before I quit that several years ago.

YouBet said:

---

Not seeing what your friends post sounds like how Facebook worked before I quit that several years ago.

---

Facebook is a place to follow friends and Twitter seems like a place to follow national or global interests, not just your buddy from down the street. IMHO of course. I dknt use either.

Oh, wow.

captkirk said:

---

---

That person fundamentally misunderstands what the verification was supposed to be for.

It was never intended to be used to verify everyone and their buddies as real people. The whole point was to verify people who were a public figure, government official, celebrity, government entity, or who stood to have their identity stolen or duped on Twitter in order to take advantage of others. It was supposed to help combat fraud and misinformation. I don't know that @wsbchairman fits that bill.

Aside from that people still craved that blue checkmark as a status symbol (see wsbchairman). So there were people that sold blue checkmarks under the table. That was/is wrong because it undermines the entire point of the feature. It was never intended to be for everyone.

To actually be verified you have to submit your name, address, and a copy of a government photo I'd to Twitter so they could actually verify who you were.


But that's all gone out the window. The new Twitter Blue provides the blue checkmark without actually needing verification that a person is who they actually claim to be.

All this does is make blue checks irrelevant. It doesn't stop bots, trolls, or misinformation from being spread. It will probably boost revenues in the short term but it isn't going to do anything to address the current concerns being raised by advertisers.

Calling out companies in a "name and shame" campaign doesn't seem like a winning strategy to attract more advertisers either.

nai06 said:

---

All this does is make blue checks irrelevant. It doesn't stop bots, trolls, or misinformation from being spread. It will probably boost revenues in the short term but it isn't going to do anything to address the current concerns being raised by advertisers.

---

You think bots are going to pay money and post at the same scale they do for free now? The point of blue is that your content will be promoted and seen more, and the free users will be de-emphasized. It's a holy grail or anything and we'll see how it actually plays out, but on the surface it seems to be a clever idea.

But even if it's not I don't really care if it flops because Elon has made it clear he wants to be more transparent and to add new features that folks actually want. He ain't perfect but he is accessible to a degree that basically no other multi-billionaire on the planet is and seems to be actually trying to do something to improve the product and financial viability of the company.

nai06 said:

---

captkirk said:

---

---

To actually be verified you have to submit your name, address, and a copy of a government photo I'd to Twitter so they could actually verify who you were.

---

This sounds incredibly racist.

/s

captkirk said:

---

---

Dude doesn't have a blue checkmark. How can I know if this is true?

nai06 said:

---

captkirk said:

---

---

That person fundamentally misunderstands what the verification was supposed to be for.

It was never intended to be used to verify everyone and their buddies as real people. The whole point was to verify people who were a public figure, government official, celebrity, government entity, or who stood to have their identity stolen or duped on Twitter in order to take advantage of others. It was supposed to help combat fraud and misinformation. I don't know that @wsbchairman fits that bill.

Aside from that people still craved that blue checkmark as a status symbol (see wsbchairman). So there were people that sold blue checkmarks under the table. That was/is wrong because it undermines the entire point of the feature. It was never intended to be for everyone.

To actually be verified you have to submit your name, address, and a copy of a government photo I'd to Twitter so they could actually verify who you were.


But that's all gone out the window. The new Twitter Blue provides the blue checkmark without actually needing verification that a person is who they actually claim to be.

All this does is make blue checks irrelevant. It doesn't stop bots, trolls, or misinformation from being spread. It will probably boost revenues in the short term but it isn't going to do anything to address the current concerns being raised by advertisers.

Calling out companies in a "name and shame" campaign doesn't seem like a winning strategy to attract more advertisers either.

---

I think it's a good bet that he's both monetizing the icon and addressing bots and trolls with a multi-layered approach.

AustinAg2K said:

---

captkirk said:

---

---

Dude doesn't have a blue checkmark. How can I know if this is true?

---

In a The Atlantic article from 2012:

Quote:

---

While verified accounts aren't officially for sale, Twitter advertisers who spend a minimum of $15,000 over three months can get one, according to a media publisher who has been trying to get his magazine's account verified ... When he asked a Twitter sales rep who had been in contact with him how to go about it, she replied that the only paths to verification are if an account has had impersonation issues or is an advertiser who's spent at least $15,000 over three months.

---

The Atlantic: Twitter Verification Has a Price Tag (Jan. 10, 2012)

sanangelo said:

---

AustinAg2K said:

---

captkirk said:

---

---

Dude doesn't have a blue checkmark. How can I know if this is true?

---

In a The Atlantic article from 2012:

Quote:

---

While verified accounts aren't officially for sale, Twitter advertisers who spend a minimum of $15,000 over three months can get one, according to a media publisher who has been trying to get his magazine's account verified ... When he asked a Twitter sales rep who had been in contact with him how to go about it, she replied that the only paths to verification are if an account has had impersonation issues or is an advertiser who's spent at least $15,000 over three months.

---

The Atlantic: Twitter Verification Has a Price Tag (Jan. 10, 2012)

---

I doubt I'll get an answer. But it only costs $8 to try:

.@elonmusk is this why San Angelo LIVE! could never be verified? This article is from January 10, 2012. All of my corporate media competitors were quickly verified, but we were always denied. Corruption if true. https://t.co/WTbg8WKEhy

— San Angelo Live (@SanAngeloLIVE) November 6, 2022

Well, well, well. Guess all that faux outrage by the left was just that. What a shock.

nai06 said:

---

That person fundamentally misunderstands what the verification was supposed to be for.

It was never intended to be used to verify everyone and their buddies as real people. The whole point was to verify people who were a public figure, government official, celebrity, government entity, or who stood to have their identity stolen or duped on Twitter in order to take advantage of others. It was supposed to help combat fraud and misinformation. I don't know that @wsbchairman fits that bill.

To actually be verified you have to submit your name, address, and a copy of a government photo I'd to Twitter so they could actually verify who you were.

But that's all gone out the window. The new Twitter Blue provides the blue checkmark without actually needing verification that a person is who they actually claim to be.

---

So what changed?

Making someone pay a recurring charge is actually a great way to verify someone. Bots do not sign up for recurring charges. Scammers don't shell out $8/mo across platforms as the scamming only works when executed broadly and through multiple accounts.

Obvious impersonations will meet a perma ban. That means a new credit card in someone else's name or similar to get your checkmark back.

To ensure it is who they say they are, credit card must match name on twitter account. If a conflict is brought up, have real person provide verification details as they do now.

Screaming this makes twitter less reliable is a turnkey DNC / left elitist talking point - that as usual defies logics and ignores facts.

fka ftc said:

---

nai06 said:

---

That person fundamentally misunderstands what the verification was supposed to be for.

It was never intended to be used to verify everyone and their buddies as real people. The whole point was to verify people who were a public figure, government official, celebrity, government entity, or who stood to have their identity stolen or duped on Twitter in order to take advantage of others. It was supposed to help combat fraud and misinformation. I don't know that @wsbchairman fits that bill.

To actually be verified you have to submit your name, address, and a copy of a government photo I'd to Twitter so they could actually verify who you were.

But that's all gone out the window. The new Twitter Blue provides the blue checkmark without actually needing verification that a person is who they actually claim to be.

---

So what changed?

Making someone pay a recurring charge is actually a great way to verify someone. Bots do not sign up for recurring charges. Scammers don't shell out $8/mo across platforms as the scamming only works when executed broadly and through multiple accounts.

Obvious impersonations will meet a perma ban. That means a new credit card in someone else's name or similar to get your checkmark back.

To ensure it is who they say they are, credit card must match name on twitter account. If a conflict is brought up, have real person provide verification details as they do now.

Screaming this makes twitter less reliable is a turnkey DNC / left elitist talking point - that as usual defies logics and ignores facts.

---

It's also humorous to me that the left is crying about this when almost our entire economic system of services and products is evolving to a subscription model.

The left themselves are pushing this new world order with their "you will own nothing and be happier for it", but for some reason this lone service where you might have to pay an optional $8 for a Twitter tag is verboten.

Again, Elon entered their inner sanctum and blew it up and their hypocrisy and double standards are now visible for all to see. And there have been multiple examples of it from this single event, unsurprisingly, since the left's entire existence is a double standard.

fka ftc said:

---

nai06 said:

---

That person fundamentally misunderstands what the verification was supposed to be for.

It was never intended to be used to verify everyone and their buddies as real people. The whole point was to verify people who were a public figure, government official, celebrity, government entity, or who stood to have their identity stolen or duped on Twitter in order to take advantage of others. It was supposed to help combat fraud and misinformation. I don't know that @wsbchairman fits that bill.

To actually be verified you have to submit your name, address, and a copy of a government photo I'd to Twitter so they could actually verify who you were.

But that's all gone out the window. The new Twitter Blue provides the blue checkmark without actually needing verification that a person is who they actually claim to be.

---

So what changed?

Making someone pay a recurring charge is actually a great way to verify someone. Bots do not sign up for recurring charges. Scammers don't shell out $8/mo across platforms as the scamming only works when executed broadly and through multiple accounts.

Obvious impersonations will meet a perma ban. That means a new credit card in someone else's name or similar to get your checkmark back.

To ensure it is who they say they are, credit card must match name on twitter account. If a conflict is brought up, have real person provide verification details as they do now.

Screaming this makes twitter less reliable is a turnkey DNC / left elitist talking point - that as usual defies logics and ignores facts.

---

Verifying someones identity via a credit card is a terrible idea.


If my wife and I were to pay to keep her verification (we aren't), we would use our business card. It's assigned to the name of our company and not her specifically. That's not going to do anything to verify who she actually is.

Aside from that, anyone can buy a prepaid visa debit card and use whatever name they like.


This doesn't remove bots either. Unless they restrict actually being able to tweet unless you pay, bots still exist. Bots will still reply to other people. When you click on a blue account, those bots will still be there in the replies mixed in with regular users.

Obvious impersonations don't meet the permaban now because there are so many. That's why verification exists. Easier to verify one person that to try and stop multiple fake accounts. This doesn't stop that.


Scammers will still exist because no matter how much Elon wants people to sign up for his service, the vast majority will still be free users. He can certainly prioritize Twitter Blue accounts, but the content those will provide has a limit. And that really one area he seems to be in the dark in. A lot of the content people come to Twitter for isn't from verified users. Content creators and average people interact regularly without blue checks. His experience with Twitter is probably very different. I imagine his personal feed is mostly verified users. So prioritizing Twitter Blue accounts will undoubtedly make his experience better but the same won't be true for many if not most users.

Ultimately he bought something he doesn't fully understand and is making changes to it because he can. He hasn't fully considered the effect those changes will have in the long run. If his goal is to allow people to say whatever they want on Twitter, he certainly can. But that will almost certainly drive a lot of people away from the content such a platform produces.

Merchants can filter prepaid credit cards. They have an electronic identifier marker.

Teslag said:

---

I also like how a school teacher is claiming that Elon ****ing Musk doesn't understand a $44 billion purchase

---

He's certainly acting like he doesn't understand how Twitter works. They've already had to ask some of the people they have laid off come back to work.

A some point this country will learn that being rich doesn't make you smart or incapable of a bad business deal.

Look at all of the people that invested in Theranos