08 Dec 2022, 11:44 pm
Pepe wrote:
ToughDiamond wrote:
Once or twice I toyed with the idea of leaving Facebook (because of how crap it is) and using Twitter instead, but it didn't look any better so I didn't bother. When I heard what the new owner was doing to staff contracts recently,
My best guess is that he wanted to remove the hard-left culture of Twitter.
Start afresh with fewer partisan ppl.
Just speculation on my part.
No it was this kind of thing:
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-63648505
19 Dec 2022, 1:06 pm
20 Dec 2022, 1:32 am
ToughDiamond wrote:
Pepe wrote:
ToughDiamond wrote:
Once or twice I toyed with the idea of leaving Facebook (because of how crap it is) and using Twitter instead, but it didn't look any better so I didn't bother. When I heard what the new owner was doing to staff contracts recently,
My best guess is that he wanted to remove the hard-left culture of Twitter.
Start afresh with fewer partisan ppl.
Just speculation on my part.
No it was this kind of thing:
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-63648505
It was both, imo.
20 Dec 2022, 1:33 am
ToughDiamond wrote:
What on earth was he thinking?
20 Dec 2022, 1:55 am
Pepe wrote:
ToughDiamond wrote:
Pepe wrote:
ToughDiamond wrote:
Once or twice I toyed with the idea of leaving Facebook (because of how crap it is) and using Twitter instead, but it didn't look any better so I didn't bother. When I heard what the new owner was doing to staff contracts recently, that put the icing on the cake, and I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole now.
My best guess is that he wanted to remove the hard-left culture of Twitter.
Start afresh with fewer partisan ppl.
Just speculation on my part.
No it was this kind of thing:
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-63648505
It was both, imo.
He certainly removed some people, though the said icing was put on the cake before that was brought to my attention. I've yet to see any objective information about who he removed and why.
20 Dec 2022, 2:01 am
ToughDiamond wrote:
Pepe wrote:
ToughDiamond wrote:
Pepe wrote:
ToughDiamond wrote:
Once or twice I toyed with the idea of leaving Facebook (because of how crap it is) and using Twitter instead, but it didn't look any better so I didn't bother. When I heard what the new owner was doing to staff contracts recently, that put the icing on the cake, and I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole now.
My best guess is that he wanted to remove the hard-left culture of Twitter.
Start afresh with fewer partisan ppl.
Just speculation on my part.
No it was this kind of thing:
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-63648505
It was both, imo.
He certainly removed some people, though the said icing was put on the cake before that was brought to my attention. I've yet to see any objective information about who he removed and why.
Based on what I have read, most of the moderators and probably most of the staff were left-wing leaning.
According to a source, they also had an attitude of entitlement.
Assuming this to be true, which I do:
I can see why the Muskrat "encouraged' them to leave.
20 Dec 2022, 3:36 am
Pepe wrote:
Based on what I have read, most of the moderators and probably most of the staff were left-wing leaning.
According to a source, they also had an attitude of entitlement.
Assuming this to be true, which I do:
I can see why the Muskrat "encouraged' them to leave.
According to a source, they also had an attitude of entitlement.
Assuming this to be true, which I do:
I can see why the Muskrat "encouraged' them to leave.
Odd way of going about it though, unilaterally extending everybody's working hours and threatening to sack anybody who wouldn't agree to that. Seems much more plausible to me that he was just trying to cut costs at the expense of the workforce, which is common practice for business owners especially when they've just bought a loss-making company, being all about money and not employee behaviour beyond how hard and long they work. His financial backers would expect returns on their investment.
As for whether or not Twitter was ever left-leaning, there are no doubt claims that it was which are very hard to prove, and it seems rather a contradiction in terms for very rich owners to let that happen in the first place. It would be like Murdoch supporting Corbyn.
Facebook, also run by a very rich man, has a reputation for moderating by what appears to be a broken robot that suspends ordinary users for very odd reasons. It wouldn't even let me send a link via private message about a website dedicated to sunflowers, on the grounds that the site transgressed its "community standards." I've never yet heard of anybody getting a coherent explanation when they've asked Facebook why they've done something absurd like that, and they're lucky if they ever get a reply at all. The problem seems to be one of accountability and transparency. Users complain into a black hole most of the time. But it seems that when it's a public figure, they do things manually and they explain quite well:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-face ... two-years/
Seems fair enough to me what they did there, though the man himself reckoned it was very unfair of them. I suppose Twitter handled him in much the same way.
20 Dec 2022, 6:26 am
ToughDiamond wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Based on what I have read, most of the moderators and probably most of the staff were left-wing leaning.
According to a source, they also had an attitude of entitlement.
Assuming this to be true, which I do:
I can see why the Muskrat "encouraged' them to leave.
According to a source, they also had an attitude of entitlement.
Assuming this to be true, which I do:
I can see why the Muskrat "encouraged' them to leave.
Odd way of going about it though, unilaterally extending everybody's working hours and threatening to sack anybody who wouldn't agree to that. Seems much more plausible to me that he was just trying to cut costs at the expense of the workforce, which is common practice for business owners especially when they've just bought a loss-making company, being all about money and not employee behaviour beyond how hard and long they work. His financial backers would expect returns on their investment.
As for whether or not Twitter was ever left-leaning, there are no doubt claims that it was which are very hard to prove, and it seems rather a contradiction in terms for very rich owners to let that happen in the first place. It would be like Murdoch supporting Corbyn.
Facebook, also run by a very rich man, has a reputation for moderating by what appears to be a broken robot that suspends ordinary users for very odd reasons. It wouldn't even let me send a link via private message about a website dedicated to sunflowers, on the grounds that the site transgressed its "community standards." I've never yet heard of anybody getting a coherent explanation when they've asked Facebook why they've done something absurd like that, and they're lucky if they ever get a reply at all. The problem seems to be one of accountability and transparency. Users complain into a black hole most of the time. But it seems that when it's a public figure, they do things manually and they explain quite well:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-face ... two-years/
Seems fair enough to me what they did there, though the man himself reckoned it was very unfair of them. I suppose Twitter handled him in much the same way.
Apparently, Tesla shares have crashed, and there is speculation that many shareholders want him out of Twitter so he can focus on Tesla again.
Perhaps he wanted a way out, also.
Take that as you will.
20 Dec 2022, 11:02 am
Pepe wrote:
Apparently, Tesla shares have crashed, and there is speculation that many shareholders want him out of Twitter so he can focus on Tesla again.
Perhaps he wanted a way out, also.
Take that as you will.
Perhaps he wanted a way out, also.
Take that as you will.
Could be, though if so I don't know why he didn't just obey his backers and quit. Maybe he thought the vote would give him the moral high ground if it went his way. There's a lot of "maybes" in the Twitter saga.
21 Dec 2022, 2:18 am
ToughDiamond wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Apparently, Tesla shares have crashed, and there is speculation that many shareholders want him out of Twitter so he can focus on Tesla again.
Perhaps he wanted a way out, also.
Take that as you will.
Perhaps he wanted a way out, also.
Take that as you will.
Could be, though if so I don't know why he didn't just obey his backers and quit. Maybe he thought the vote would give him the moral high ground if it went his way. There's a lot of "maybes" in the Twitter saga.
He has quit as CEO.
Quote:
Elon Musk will resign as Twitter CEO
The billionaire is now looking for ‘someone foolish enough to take the job’ at the social media platform, as shares in his other company Tesla plummet.
The billionaire is now looking for ‘someone foolish enough to take the job’ at the social media platform, as shares in his other company Tesla plummet.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/subscr ... 0Wednesday.
21 Dec 2022, 2:38 am
27 Dec 2022, 11:30 am
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| What exercise have you done today? |
Today, 11:17 am |
| Had to fire another therapist today |
16 Feb 2025, 9:52 am |
