Unrelated. But what makes you guys trust sources like Guardian so much? Ever since they spread toxic misinformation,or at the very best, guided peasimistic truth without context about Pewdiepie back in 2017 they pretty much just lost me.
I feel like I have had a significant amount of experiences that has seen most of these more well established news outlets dealing in misinformation.
They were probably the truth back in the day. But I don’t feel that any more.
Concerta is at least making me do the dishes some times, unlike any of the other meds. Might help you.
Thank you for sharing.
Hm, in the first link, the journalist seems to have contributed to the incentivization of giving people the power to find and try to harm/kill Elon. I personally feel that directly incentivizing and feeding information for possible murder of an individual is one of the few things I would agree with keeping away from the app myself.
As for the second link it reads like a red flag for me. The reasoning to the ban is not there. And any estimates of why fall short with obscurity. At least within’ the article. Generally when something is obscure I assume the worst. But part of me wonders if details were left out from the article. I’d need to do more research. Looks bad for Elon though.
Do you have sources that show he intentionally censored voices? He would be a huge hypocrite depending on how that was done.
What makes you think he is deliberately spreading disinformation?
He says what he feels. It is a responsibility for the people to not take everything he says as fact. Its like talking to a friend who says some wild shit to get it off their chest. Doesn’t mean you need to change your opinion because of it.
I see the theoretical idea of him intentionally trying to shape the opinion of his sheep enough to do what he wants for him. But I don’t personally buy it. Albeit it is good to be aware of the possibility.
If in this case the power allows democracy to function better through clearer and less muted digital freedom of speech, thats a better power than anything else. If thats what it takes to make the averages of society think a more unified, less biased and obscured thought again and regain its control over the real power that is greedy money to the few, then fuck it so be it.
If X perpetuates a lie and doesn’t have the facilitation to allow a variety of perspectives and opinions to hold the lie accountable, that is an echo chamber and I’d agree it would be a huge problem. Elon said every person should be allowed to speak for the most part on X. If that saying holds any merit, I assume X lives up to that eventually. If it doesn’t I’m on you guys’ side about X.
I feel if Elon Musk said covid was a lie and people took only his word for it, that is on them. Its another story entirely if there was no other trustworthy source of information or data. USA seems to struggle with that these days, so I understand how it went so wrong with Covid in some places. But yeah, a person in this case would win the game of natural selection by not only going off of what one dude/source says (probably in a casual, low effort manner at that).
So you are basically saying to mute the opposition to the agenda of power?
Wait, you’re saying its not possible for people to call him out for being wrong on X?
Truth in this case, comes from the ability to be proven wrong. If they removed it, the truth wouldn’t have a chance to be relevant and challenge the wrong statement. I assume that is what Elon has in mind when he considers his site to be more truthful. Much on the common internet these days gets shut down and removed before even being able to be challenged. Like on Reddit. Which ironically leads to less truth, since less people have their opinions challenged.
He says what he feels and its not always factually correct. Sounds like a human to me. If people believe everything he says thats on them.
“quit trying to be cute” as if a powertripping mod should be allowed to have anything to say or do about people seeing your messages or not…
Sharing of information. However, there’s not many easy places for that nowadays without the risk of too much censorship. I just want to see all opinions, even the bad ones. I don’t want somebody else to decide what the bad ones are for me.
(I was banned from r/relationships for asking why women always think you’re hitting on them when you’re actually recruiting a team of elite female assassins. > This is exactly the thing. The moderation and deleting/banning stuff that deserves to not be removed. Just censorship like this. Idc if posts actually are bad I just want to be able to see them and decide for myself.
Reddit wouldn’t always let me say what I wanted. They would block/shadowban/mute me. Which I realized is inherently wrong in a society that intends to be a democracy.
So I hope Lenny is better in that regard. If I say something I don’t want it taken away. I want it to have a chance to be challenged for what it is.
Once I realized this, I considered how many other probably healthy opinions that never got seen because mods, rules, restrictions and probably also financial and political biases ruined their chances of being challenged and seen in the first place. If only specific opinions are allowed, the whole site is inherently biased. I don’t like that. I bet that would explain the dumb stuff I’ve seen there. Because if nobody can challenge an opinion it will never grow.
I appreciate your elaboration.
As for a source, here is one I had in mind: Guardian link
My reasoning is that I feel they took it out of context and made it so that to new eyes it could seem like he possibly actually supported antisemitism. While in reality, anybody watching the original context with a head on their shoulders would know he made the people write the worst thing that came to mind on the spot for a joke. Funny or not not doesn’t really matter, as they made him seem like there was a possibility he was the exact opposite of what he really is.