Yeah and I deleted my comment as I realise this Musk interviewing Trump and tbf watching a presidential candidate’s interview is important to remain informed even if the said candidate is a grade A wanker and the interviewer even more so.
Elon Musk | Owner of X and right wing man-child
- Thread starter Pogue Mahone
- Start date
Reporting a ddos attack on twitter that was still up is hilarious. Bro doesn't know what a ddos attack does 
It was just a tonne of traffic that Twitter couldn’t handle because he’s running it lean and presumably doesn’t have the infra scaling in place.Reporting a ddos attack on twitter that was still up is hilarious. Bro doesn't know what a ddos attack does
He probably barked at someone “why is it down?” and got a reply of “too many connections, it might as well be a DDOS attack” and so he repeated that because it sounds better than Twitter being a pile of shit that can’t handle traffic.
You can have someone attempting a DDoS and it not be successful, in fairness.Reporting a ddos attack on twitter that was still up is hilarious. Bro doesn't know what a ddos attack does
Haha, yeah.
Yeah, but it still wouldn't just take spaces down as a lot of people were using it successfully.
No and yes. And I feel the same way about road accident rubber neckers as I do about people who hate Musk watching his output (or using his website)
The Musk-Trump conversation should be alarming everyone across the board. It is a fact-checker free propaganda message on the largest platform in the world. It bypasses all journalistic standards, spreads lies, hate, and misinformation to a whole new target audience. Twitter pre-Musk would have flagged it and taken it down with disclaimers. This was Musk's endgame, in a way.
Countries should be drafting up laws to legally prevent this reoccurring ASAP.
Countries should be drafting up laws to legally prevent this reoccurring ASAP.
In some ways (certain?) social media should be publicly owned services or have outside watchdogs heavily regulating them. I'm no government control absolutionist but with the rise of things like AI and everything it can do as well we risk setting the advancements of our society back by decades IMHO. In some ways we re already there.
Aren't you Indian? Did you support the Broadcast bill that was just withdrawn?
https://indianexpress.com/article/e...eech-code-of-ethics-it-act-violation-9510443/
I'm Indian, yes.
I disagree with that bill because it demands prior registration/intimation (which can be denied by the ruling party) and adherence to 'ethical code' laws (which can clearly be govt influenced - I would have liked if the CECs were allowed to be truly independent, but they won't be if the executive continues to have power over these codes). That's basically the ruling party being able to curtail free speech any way it likes.
I understand balancing free speech vs regulating hate speech and misinformation is not an easy task. For instance, the UK seems to be considering changes to its Online Safety Act in the wake of the recent riots but they are struggling with the implementation - the way the Tories approached it was clearly different than the way Labour would like to - the UK posters may know better. Of course you don't want to lean too much towards regulation and control (China, North Korea, Singapore, Saudi Arabia), but simply letting all conversation go unchecked is not the solution either. The US clearly loves the First Amendment very fiercely, and Fox News and Sinclair have clearly enjoyed their freedom while destroying the country in recent years. "All animals are equal , but some are more equal than the others."
What I would like is the equivalent of European Hate Speech laws - where hate-motivated speech is illegal by law and enforced by the European Commission. What India is trying to implement enables the incumbent government (executive) to legalize their interpretation of what is hate speech, the latter lets an independent body (or the judiciary in non-EU states) make the call. Unless I'm wrong, Musk could not have sat down and broadcast hate speech against Macron by Le Pen, or vice-versa.
EDIT: Or the Digitial Services Act mentioned in the tweet just above ^.
I understand that in India, the judiciary is currently in the pocket of the BJP anyways, so hopes of achieving the EU commission equivalent are limited. But there has to be a step one - even in the US. There has to be some means of stopping Musk from sitting down with Trump again and encouraging election-denier claims to the whole country while hate mongering against Democrats if Harris ends up winning. Otherwise, this not only continues to erode trust in democracy in the US, but also becomes a template for wannabes to copy in other countries - just like election denialism spread like wildfire across the world after Jan 6 (guess which billionaire social media owner was enabling it in Brazil?).
I can speak to laws regulating AI content, a little. The EU is leading the way in terms of understanding the risks associated with the new wave of AI models that can generate large quanities of synthetic content - ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini - and drafting laws that reflect this technical understanding of the models and their risks. The US understands these risks, too, and Biden passed an Executive Order on Safe AI recently. But a comparison of one against the other clearly shows that while the intent of both EU and US laws are the same, the US EO is merely a set of guidelines with no clear instruction on how to enforce them ("now be a good boy and follow these rules, will ya?") versus the concrete frameworks that the EU has put in place ("if you don't do things this way, this is how you will be punished").
But yes, free speech cannot mean that there is no regulation or repercussion to privately owned social media companies to do whatever they please. Heck, the US let Meta and Snapchat get away with a simple theatrical "do better" talking-to with clear evidence of child abuse on those platforms. It's the equivalent of the gun violence - love for 'freedom' no matter the cost.
Edit: Was going through the Senate hearing I posted above, and it was funny to see a quote from Lindsey Graham after I made the gun violence comparison.
US hypocrisy is something else, as the standing applause for Bibi clearly showed.
Last edited:
Rogan is still clearly traumatized by the CNN ivermectin episode.
Colbert was joking though
Probably. But that still supports Rogan's point (which Musk is ripping off in his tweet) It's kind of mad that even a liberal audience find the idea that CNN is not biased to be genuinely laughable. I don't follow US media but was that always the case? Fox news has been a joke for a very long time but I'm sure CNN used to be fairly credible?
What does an unbiased media organisation mean to Rogan, if he wants anyone to treat that point with even basic seriousness?
I don't find it strange at all that CNN is seen as biased and I've always thought that, but maybe I have a slightly different outlook to most people
but the context here... it's a comedy show where the audience are encouraged to laugh, and Colbert delivers a joke with his typical comedic timing and expression whereby the audience are basically being invited to laugh - the fact they in-fact do laugh when they're expected to is close to meaningless in my view
that said, Trump and others (Musk etc..) rhetoric of attacking the mainstream media over recent years has obviously had an impact
Pre 2016 CNN was as close to unbiased as anything not called C-Span (in my opinion). Since then it's not been the same. They certainly weren't very critical of the republicans in the 2000's.
Last edited:
I have no idea. I can’t read his mind. But I do know that much less biased media organisations than CNN exist. Based on what little I’ve seen of it anyway. The whole Fox vs CNN thing is just weird to anyone who lives in a country that have state funded (relatively) impartial media.
The sheer irony of Joe Rogan claiming that a media organization has ruined their business, because people think they are full of shit
Get your popcorn....
I feel like, comparably to Trump's humor, I just don't understand the appeal of Joe Rogan. If it were satire and he was a normal person just cosplaying a meathead dude bro it would be sort of good. But he is making a serious podcast right? Broheim? Kabrosky? Brosephine?
I admit not getting the appeal does make me feel superior. So there's that. I'm very intellectual.
Nah mate, you're just normal.
He just released a new stand-up special, and it’s not good. Nothing original about it.
His comedy/stand-up is absolutely terrible. He also seems to have appalling taste in stand-up. Finding other deeply unfunny comedians hilarious. So Lord only knows how he still clings to a career as a comedian.
His podcast popularity is not quite so inexplicable though. His was one of the first really long form interview podcasts. And before he went down the right wing grift rabbit hole he had a wide range of fairly interesting guests and was actually quite good at interviewing i.e. knowing when to shut up and let interesting people talk (although dunno how much of that is down to his skill vs the skill of the edit) This all resulted in a fair bit of decent content. So the massive audience he built up was arguably earned on merit.
The world would be a better place if both him and Trump got Epstein'd
I agree with Steward
If Musk donned the garb of being unbiased and pushed his agenda that would have been worse, he’s so public about his extremist views, the impact is kinda softened
yeah he’d be the Pied Piper to the right wing crowd but he isn’t pulling in new recruits.
I think there is bias and BIAS in the raving mad Fox News way. CNN is clearly biased towards the Democratic/liberal side... however, reality/facts rarely do have conservative bias
I certainly find CNN pretty credible - even if I know they are rooting for the Dems. That's just common sense. Probably time for Elon to consider selling and bring Jack back.