bit odd that the twitter owner is begging people to sign up for the new service.
Elon Musk | Doer of things on X and sad little man
- Thread starter Pogue Mahone
- Start date
Really? AOC isn't one of the people who profits from Twitter by making advertisement posts. Yet if they go to another platform with their messages, people will go there to follow them. AOC doesn't need Twitter, but Twitter needs people like AOC.
Meanwhile Elon is being dismissive of free speech and seeming to preferring $8 to free speech. I thought it was one of his worst posts yet.
Do you mean infection as in "you have symptoms so we tested you and you're sick" or infections as in "you have no symptoms but we tested you and you have a certain amount of the virus"? Because the latter wasn't the definition of an infection before covid, after that the media started using the term in the latter sense.
Since the vaccine prevented you from getting symptoms, under the previous and standard medical definition of an infection, it prevented infection.
But if you mean it stopped the virus from getting inside your body, it doesn't.
Vaccines prevent infection
Seatbelts save lives
But not all of them
Seatbelts save lives
But not all of them
I also have to ask, where is Paul Pogba in all of this?
And where was Gondor when the Westfold fell?
What we really need to consider is how we all felt when Japp Stam was sold??
And where were you when they built the ladder to heaven?
You've literally just linked me an article where he says that you may be able to get covid whilst being vaccinated.
On the highway to hell.
I always thought the point of vaccinations helping stopping the spread of the disease was down to it lowering the R number. If you are less likely to get COVID you’re less likely to spread it.
I don’t remember anyone claiming that if you were vaccinated and contracted it you would be less likely to pass it on to someone else, that just sounds daft.
It seems like the latter was an assumption or misunderstanding which picked up traction and when it was confirmed not to be the case the antivaxxers are using it as a gotcha.
I don’t remember anyone claiming that if you were vaccinated and contracted it you would be less likely to pass it on to someone else, that just sounds daft.
It seems like the latter was an assumption or misunderstanding which picked up traction and when it was confirmed not to be the case the antivaxxers are using it as a gotcha.
Exactly and some still are using it that way it seems.
Anyway if Musk is serious about this subscription stuff twitter is going to die and a death and he'll lose a fortune so I really hope it's not an elaborate troll/marketing gimmick.
It's this whole thing of latching onto some comment that has an implicit understanding attached to it, in a singular example, and comparing it to a constant barrage of malicious, constructed lies, to try and claim that 'they're all the same'. Did Biden potentially phrase something badly, or state something thinking that people would be able to elaborate on his statement, based on the facts widely available at the time? Possibly. Did he have a consist, factually false narrative that he was pushing 24/7, with bad intentions? I certainly don't remember it that way, I would be pretty confident in saying no, he didn't.
Particularly enjoying getting a push notification for every single one of Musk’s tweets despite the fact I don’t follow him and never have.
This is why verification exists
Yet there are some absolutely insane Musk fans in the comments, who read that whole thread and decided “well if it’s so important, it’s just $8!” was a gotcha answer
I genuinely don’t think there are any grounp of people as wet brained as people who **** for Elon Musk.
Yet there are some absolutely insane Musk fans in the comments, who read that whole thread and decided “well if it’s so important, it’s just $8!” was a gotcha answer
I genuinely don’t think there are any grounp of people as wet brained as people who **** for Elon Musk.
Last edited:
BRO you need to pay for free speech get over it. It’s upsetting the right people that’s for sure. If the left and right are upset then it’s definitely doing something right. Both sides are as bad as each other. Does the brain know it exists? I am very smart. You can’t even define what a woman is.
I think that vaccinated people were less likely to pass it on because the length of time that they tested positive for covid shorted and they had a lower viral load.
This was my favourite reply, followed by the responses they give to the people pointing out their ignorance.
Twitter is the worst for people feeling like they’re knowledgeable enough to weigh in on a subject when they actually have no fecking clue. Probably followed by the Caf tbf.
There will always be models/actors/whatever who choose not to get verified and/or choose not to use Twitter. So there will always be opportunities for predators to pretend to be them online. Is he arguing that the $8 fee will mean less of them will choose to get verified? Hence more opportunities for impersonators? I guess that's a problem but not a huge one? Or am I missing something?
It’s a super common thing for famous people who don’t use social media to create accounts and make a single post “This is my official account, any other is an impersonation” so it’s obviously an issue. Why make those people pay $8 a month.
Anyway a better argument is that Musk has the likes of Taylor Swift, Beyoncé, David Beckham, Harry Styles, Kim Kardashian, Barack Obama etc etc creating content on his site for free and he thinks it’s a good idea to start charging them for the privilege. It’s beyond stupid.
The point is he shouldn’t have to pay for this protection. He says himself he doesn’t even want to use social media, he has these accounts pretty much just to demonstrate that these are actually him and others are not.
He shouldn’t have to pay $8 per month for the privilege of doing that.
Twitter has the obligation to make their site safe. This will actively make it less so.
Yes, he is. And even if it is ‘small’ problem, why needlessly make it bigger when the stakes are that high? Plus that essentially telling people that if they DONT want to be impersonated (for whatever reasons - even just something as harmless as someone posting dumb shit under their name) then they have to pay a company a fee (however small) is essentially the definition of an extortion racket.
I know you’re a curmudgeon who hates social media now, but this kind of contrarianism is beneath you (probably) He literally outlined what happened before verification.
Last edited:
I'm still not clear on what the proposed policy means. Either it means that there is still a verification process, it's just now going to include a monthly fee. If that's the case, then it doesn't change who can be verified, it's still reserved for celebrities, but it will lower the amount of people who choose to be verified because some portion of eligible candidates won't pay the fee. What is clear is that checkmarked people will start getting preferential treatment, which is what Musk says will combat bots and spam because bots and spammers won't be verified and thus be less visible. With this policy there'll still be the "lords vs peasants" thing, but the peasants will be less visible than before, thus it'll work in the exact opposite way of what Musk claims.
Alternatively, the verification process will drop all the stuff about notability and turn into just proof of identity plus cash. In that case it'll be easier for the non-Lords to gain verification, and it'll instead be pay to win. The richer you are the more likely you are to pay, so maybe a "win" for the middle class but hardly for the peasants.
Last option is that it's just cash, no proof of identity. Would be like above just messier.
Alternatively, the verification process will drop all the stuff about notability and turn into just proof of identity plus cash. In that case it'll be easier for the non-Lords to gain verification, and it'll instead be pay to win. The richer you are the more likely you are to pay, so maybe a "win" for the middle class but hardly for the peasants.
Last option is that it's just cash, no proof of identity. Would be like above just messier.
He's going to destroy twitter, all because he's a petty manchild who couldn't handle a small bunch of leftists being mean to him on there.
Yeah, it's a stupid idea. And I understand why it's pissed everyone off. It's the safety angle I wasn't so sure about. But maybe I'm underestimating the numbers of well known people on there currently who aren't verified. If we're potentially moving from a situation where every well known individual is verified to one where loads of them aren't then that's obviously makes Twitter a less safe place. I had assumed there were already more than enough non-verified "celebrities" for predators to be able to fool the vulnerable regardless.
I mean I’m sure there are but “hey, we already have lots of pedos, what’s a few more!?” Is hardly the best argument for… anything!
(Tho it’s probably pretty on brand for the internet in general?)
The last few sentences is my understanding of the beginning of an acid trip.
It’s the basis for most of the bookings for TOTP in the 70s.
What happens when Elon decides on a whim that the verification is suddenly worth $1000/m? Or $5000/m? Or a one-time payment of $1m for a for-life verification? Do you just expect people to pay up to protect themselves from impersonators?
It's also very on brand for the internet to vastly over-estimate the number of sexual predators seeking to entrap our children.
I'm going to use made up numbers to illustrate my point better. There are currently 2000 well known people using twitter in the Uk who never bothered to get verified. Plus another 1000 who don't use Twitter. There are currently 50 sexual predators hoping to entrap children online by pretending to be someone famous. If the pool of non-verified celebs using Twitter increases by 50%, to 3000, increasing the total number of accounts they could impersonate to 4000. Does that really make all that big a difference to the 50 nonces looking to impersonate a celebrity? Isn't 3000 potential identities to steal already more than enough to meet their needs?
Obviously, I have no fecking clue about any of these numbers. And you could probably add a zero or two to the end of each figure. But you get my point, right?
Last edited:
Ok forget sexual predators. What about financial scammers?
Did you just make up your own noncensus?
That word needs to enter the vernacular.I’ve no idea why you don’t like Twitter. You’d fit right in.
As @Rado_N said, the caf runs Twitter close in people shitting on with authority about stuff they don’t understand. So I can get my fill of that on here. No need for Twitter.
Plus Twitter is absolutely crammed with truly horrible people. For all their sins, caftards are a shining light of decency and humanity compared to the pond life on Twitter.
He already confirmed that there would be a tag for public figures, which will act as the current blue tick.
He's making it up as he goes along.
It definitely has the same vibe as any game I play with my 8 year old nephew.
"Agile Methodology"