garbagetime

Seems weak. Poorly written and based on plainly false assumptions. I agree with IV that no one should be prosecuted under law for impersonation as long as nothing actually fraudulent has occurred.

I'm staunchly in favour of freedom of speech and I do not have a problem with Twitter's current position on parody accounts.

I'm in favour of freedom of speech because I believe it is important that ideas must be shared and debated freely and that no one should be beyond criticism. Being allowed to impersonate others simply doesn't seem to be an important part of that.

Twitter's TOS[0]: "To avoid confusing others about an account’s affiliation, parody, commentary, and fan accounts must distinguish themselves in BOTH their account name and bio."

Ethan Klein's account wasn't noted as a parody in its name. Its name was Elon Musk.

Klein's account had Elon's account's profile picture and name, and had a verification badge. I think its totally sensible that the account got banned.

[0]https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/parody-accoun...

I'm sad that you took my comment that way. In fact I'm simply trying to suggest that many people's views in this thread on Elon's management of Twitter are severely underdetermined by the evidence.

How many prominent users have left the platform?

What will advertising revenue look like going forward?

How many employees have been asked to return, how needed are they, and was it mismanagement or just an expected outcome of necessary, decisive decision making?

How has he mismanaged it?

Yep, it's never been toxic for me, and certainly isn't useless.

I have like four accounts each of which I use at least occasionally

I agree that the shareholders would never actually all sell in unison without there being some motivating force for that to happen. But that doesn't seem relevant to the question at hand - whether the $650 billion was "literally lost".

What if there are well-funded buyers who think the stock is priced fairly?

> If it's high but not "too high" then the price they all get will be significantly less than what they expected.

My question is: how do you know that?

How do you know that?

I'm not sure how much it matters that people aren't interested in the metaverse now. The question is whether it will be adopted once it is ready.

If a user wishes to underscore that a comment he is replying to is wrong, then he should do just that. There is no need for the user to attack the person making the comment.

Your comment would be equally or more effective without this sentence:

>You seem to be completely unfamiliar with the research in the field.

I believe the point is to try to get people to engage in long-term thinking.

I can imagine a perfectly just society with no laws.

> it really cannot be understood outside the context of law

What do you mean by that?

For a person to have an opinion about what constitutes justice is for them to demonstrate an understanding of the concept of justice (assuming their opinion is cogent). So, if people are disagreeing about what precisely justice is, it actually means that they do understand the concept of justice.

They make money off of us anyhow, by way of advertisement.

They won't make this money if we don't use their service.

So, they may try to encourage us to use their service, even if that encouragement itself is costly in isolation from its effect. In this way they can ensure they continue to make money off of us by way of advertisement.

I think it is simply an act of calling into question double standards. "Are you sure propaganda is actually an evil thing? or are you simply attacking your enemy because he is your enemy?" is a good question to ask.

Providing a good service -> People using the service -> Increased revenue

This article was written a couple years back. I'm not sure OnlyFans was as big then as it is now.

You're meant to live through a lot of "once in a life time events" every decade or less. There are many different "once in a life time events", and they are spread out throughout your entire life.

I've never once thought to myself "I'm happy that the people I follow are only allowed to express some views" or any similar thought. If someone is too rude, I block the person. If I don't enjoy reading a person's Tweets, I unfollow him.

Prove it

If you don't like money more than freedom and honour

I don't think that's a fallacy fallacy. Fallacy fallacy is when there really is a fallacy in a person's argument, and that fact is used to reason that the argument's conclusion is false.

That question (i.e. exactly what ought we value) isn't difficult to answer. It is impossible to answer. So I don't let it get in my way.

I disagree with your second paragraph. Each person has some idea of what he values, and some idea of whether things have improved with respect to those values, a comprehensive survey of people on this matter would be somewhat accurate IMO.

Hah! It's actually my 23rd birthday today. I've talked to a quite a few people about this and most seem to think we've been going downhill since at least the early 1990's. Some would point back as far as the 60's.

I picked 1999 since I don't think I've ever talked to someone who chose a later date than that.

Of course, people from 2nd world and 3rd world countries likely have different views.