I have never seen the need to have a Twitter account, so pretty much all I've seen of it are repostings from Bill and others. I'll just continue to watch from afar.
I have never been more proud to be a US Air Force veteran than right now. I just wish they could have done some sky writing next to it that read: Suck it Putin Suck it hard.
Amen. No offense taken. As a 13-year USAF vet, Putin can KMA. Speaking of that anatomic body part, we need to go back to our pre-WTO posture with Communist Red China, eliminate our buddy buddy trading partnership supply chain dependency on them, plug the loopholes in our security due to our dependency on Red China fof IT components are sourcing raw materials, and, in general, isolate them as a pariah state and quit kissing its hindparts.
Unsure how to manage what you reference re China given we are in a global economy, not to mention how big business goes wherever they deem prices are the most favorable.
We did fine for about 50 years without Red China until 1998 when Clinton allowed them WTO. We can return to self sufficiency with our democratic global partners in trade. And Congress can prohibit big business from enjoying profits from exploitive slave labor in Red China (along with tariffs if needed).
That was then prior to globalism. Clinton went with the flow of the times, probably at the behest of big business. Moreover, since big business owns members of congress, congress will also be unlikely to intervene.
Musk can do whatever he wants with Twitter. His money, not mine. Besides, I never owned Twitter stock. Better yet, I don't even Tweet - never have, never will.
I’m sure Twitter is important for some. I do not participate, in part because I spend enough time just reading two newspapers, understandably, and a couple other newsletters. I simply don’t see the value of sorting through every Tom Dick and Harry’s personal musings to run across a nugget.
It is weird how a supposedly smart guy spends/borrows a fortune - and leverages the company he bought - just to make a mess of things as soon as he took over. I noticed he also likes to blame everything else on his troubles but takes no personal responsibility.
Looking forward to you joining the #twittermigration over to Mastodon, Bill. It's creaking under the extra load but folks are adding servers like mad.
It's a bit like the early days of Twitter, complete with the occasional "fail whale" server stutter, but it's ad- free, not owned by billionaires and largely hate-speech free still due to the decentralized and federated nature of the servers.
My sole social media platform is this and a few other newsletters. (I know, that not SM but you get my point) Not even LinkedIn anymore now that I’m retired.
Everything costs something. Twitter worked because advertisers “paid” for the space. I don’t use twitter because I feel people are cowards and it’s easy to shout people down when you don’t look them in the eyes and “feel” the moment. That’s not a way to encourage conversation.
We are a more divided country thanks to Twitter and Facebook. You find your tribe and forget we live in a country of many opinions. Since when is it bad to be different.
Never been on Twitter and now certainly do not want to be. What a crock! Unfortunately this will not drag Musk down - he will just flourish in the yellow glow of Trump and his minions until he doesn't, then he'll bounce to something else and get richer. I don't watch Tik-Tok either. Did you see where the Chinese version doesn't include all of the perversion that the rest of the world gets with Tik-Tok? It's controlled in China (as is everything else) and has limited content, especially among young people, and is filled with education and good old Mao sayings. I am not saying that we should require propaganda (what are we getting now if it's not propaganda?), but shouldn't there be some limitation and guidance to content in the rest of the world? Sometimes, and I can't believe I am actually saying this, but too much "free speech" actually may not be a good thing, especially to save our democracy? Gee, where am I getting all of my information without Twitter and other social media? There are still reliable sources for factual information that may soon fade away under the pressure of profit and greed (it is already seriously fading away). Damn, and I am an optimist. Tough to be one these days.
I deactivated my Twitter account, because I don’t want to stick around to find out how Elon Musk might destroy the site I had been on since 2009 and in which I had interacted with my 11.6K followers in the writing and reading communities. I will admit, I was sad to leave Twitter after all these years on there but now that I have let go, my inner peace will remain. I had a toxic 18 year relationship with my ex so I stay away from toxicity of any kind these days. However, I did enjoy reading your take on Twitter and Elon Musk!
Bill, you know I’m one of your best fans so I don’t read only you but others who use Substack as well. Because you wrote about Twitter today, I’m going to include a link to Heather Cox Richard’s Nov 4 column. This is particularly chock full of non-Twitter information that definitely should be read but she saved her Twitter comments until the end and finished with a video clip that might put a gray hair or two in your brown curls(?). It pertains to the midterms and how once useful information might now be useless because of Elon’s less than thoughtful moves.
Now, as I can only do one thing at a time, this is the end so I can move on to your 7 Other Things.
Let me start by saying I have never been on Twitter, and don't plan to be. But I find it rather comical that people who require us to pay for their services, whether it be to see a movie with them in it, or subscribe to their app or other services, are balking at the $8/month blue check requirement. If you don't want a blue check, don't pay. Simple as that. You can still subscribe to twitter.
People like AOC, who think the world owes her everything for free, are calling out Musk, who purchased Twitter as a "for profit" entity. It's greedy of him to ask for people to subscribe, not greedy of her to demand that it be given to her for free? Please.
As for the layoffs; those are the same people who wrote Musk an open letter demanding, among other things, freedom from political persecution. If my short memory serves me correctly, they did exactly that while Jack Dorsey was in charge. "Do as I say, not as I do" is no longer the mantra at Twitter. Everyone is supposed to have an equal voice now (if they will remains to be seen). It's a foreign concept to those who have worked there for years, and are now finding themselves looking for a job. I have no pity for you. It was fun to deny people with opposing views a platform. It was great knowing that you could keep information from seeing the light of day just because you didn't agree with it. You called it "disinformation" because you didn't like it, yet Jeffrey Epstein was allowed to keep his account active. Now you're scared that your sword will be turned against you. A better concern for anyone now finding themselves without a job at Twitter is, with that on your resume, can you find another job? Are you now untouchable because you engaged in suppression of information from those with opposing viewpoints? Do other companies want to deal with the cancel culture mentality of those who worked at a company that encouraged it?
What goes around comes around. Karma is a powerful thing.
@Darrell, Generally I would usually agree with, "When you call out someone from one political party your intentions are transparent." In this case however I have a hard time not seeing more fault with one side more than the other. I've heard that some (or maybe all) of the Fox News folks have outright said they will not pay $8/month either; but according to the source (work acquaintance), the context was they they just don't see the need to stay verified if it isn't free. The general feeling I get when I see/hear liberal celebrities commentary on the subject is that they are upset that another rich person is trying to take $96/year from them to get something they feel entitled to for free.
I'm not trying to be argumentative; I do understand your sentiment; I just wanted to share what I think is an alternative view that (I think) applies in this limited/specific circumstance.
I understand you having your view. However, the facts remain, and OAC is a member of a political party, it a celebrity. We don’t need politics on the site as it takes away from the free flowing sharing of thoughts and information and can quickly become combative.
Darrell, I definitely appreciate your perspective. Growing up I always found the concept that we should avoid talking about politics and religion frustrating. To me it just seems like blocking these subjects off from rational discussion creates excuses for people to be intolerant. If these are the things people feel the most passionate about, doesn't that make it all the more important that we figure out ways to discuss them with civility in order to develop more understanding on the various perspectives that diversity of thought and culture bring? While I know that may be asking way too much of people I think the simple act of avoiding these topics leaves people to stew in their own echo chambers and get reinforcement of what they already think.
Maybe Understandably isn't the place for that; but I've noticed that you tend to be the enforcer (maybe not the best word) of this unwritten rule. While I don't 100% agree that we can't or shouldn't be able to talk about politics/politicians with civility, I do appreciate the way you approach the topic in a non-escalatory manner. I hope my responses to you are received as constructive, as my intent is not to argue but to explore.
Bruno - I hear what you are saying. It would be incredible if we could actually have rational discussions around politics or religion.
Re politics, there was a time when we could have a semblance of rational discussion based on facts. Sadly, the customization of media has given people places to enjoy other birds of a feather where facts are now “alternative facts” and with a “you are with me or against me” mindset. Politics is now more often based on charisma rather than character.
Growing up in a paternal religious home, I developed a keen understanding of a similar mindset: “my interpretation of my bible or the notion of my god is more accurate than yours.” That’s why there are so many religions with so many subgroups within each. If wars have been fought over politics many more have been fought over religion.
There are plenty of places for people to chat it up about their own beliefs. Understandably is one of the few places where people can talk about things - other than politics or religion - without escalation into a fight or being trolled. Bill does a wonderful job offering up helpful, interesting, but also neutral topics. It is a welcome respite from the world of politics and religion that surrounds us every day. I truly hope it remains so.
Plato sums up the subject quite well:
“The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions.”
Darrell, I agree. Probably the most enlightening thing I take from this discussion is that what I (and maybe you) would like to see isn't something that is going to happen online. Online it is too easy to mute or ignore uncomfortable thoughts and go find the opinions that help maintain ones comfort in their predetermined positions. Thanks for the dialogue on this.
I have never seen the need to have a Twitter account, so pretty much all I've seen of it are repostings from Bill and others. I'll just continue to watch from afar.
I have never been more proud to be a US Air Force veteran than right now. I just wish they could have done some sky writing next to it that read: Suck it Putin Suck it hard.
My apologies to any of those I offended.
Amen. No offense taken. As a 13-year USAF vet, Putin can KMA. Speaking of that anatomic body part, we need to go back to our pre-WTO posture with Communist Red China, eliminate our buddy buddy trading partnership supply chain dependency on them, plug the loopholes in our security due to our dependency on Red China fof IT components are sourcing raw materials, and, in general, isolate them as a pariah state and quit kissing its hindparts.
Unsure how to manage what you reference re China given we are in a global economy, not to mention how big business goes wherever they deem prices are the most favorable.
We did fine for about 50 years without Red China until 1998 when Clinton allowed them WTO. We can return to self sufficiency with our democratic global partners in trade. And Congress can prohibit big business from enjoying profits from exploitive slave labor in Red China (along with tariffs if needed).
That was then prior to globalism. Clinton went with the flow of the times, probably at the behest of big business. Moreover, since big business owns members of congress, congress will also be unlikely to intervene.
That could change after election day this week :)
How? Doesn’t matter which party is in office, they all operate the same.
Musk can do whatever he wants with Twitter. His money, not mine. Besides, I never owned Twitter stock. Better yet, I don't even Tweet - never have, never will.
I’m sure Twitter is important for some. I do not participate, in part because I spend enough time just reading two newspapers, understandably, and a couple other newsletters. I simply don’t see the value of sorting through every Tom Dick and Harry’s personal musings to run across a nugget.
It is weird how a supposedly smart guy spends/borrows a fortune - and leverages the company he bought - just to make a mess of things as soon as he took over. I noticed he also likes to blame everything else on his troubles but takes no personal responsibility.
Looking forward to you joining the #twittermigration over to Mastodon, Bill. It's creaking under the extra load but folks are adding servers like mad.
It's a bit like the early days of Twitter, complete with the occasional "fail whale" server stutter, but it's ad- free, not owned by billionaires and largely hate-speech free still due to the decentralized and federated nature of the servers.
Come.. It's nice 😀
You are funny, sir. Thank you for the laugh while I sit waiting to see my doc. Love always...❤️
With my seldom used Twitter accounts and followed by few people, I said bye to Musk Twitter. I think that the Twitter takeover is a very visible symbol of the investor cash grab mentality that is such a sad part of our economy. Here’s a link to a story about cash grab and why Albertsons and Kroger “need” to merge: https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/investors-will-reap-billions-kroger-takes-albertsons-workers-shoppers-rcna55597.
Richard Russo’s Empire Falls is a fictional way to enter the reality of the impact of investor mandated cash grab.
My sole social media platform I engage in is Facebook (I guess it’s Meta now) strictly to keep up with Friends and family.
My husband was on Twitter for a while, but finally gave it up maybe a couple of years ago - I’m glad he did. It tended to inflame his cynical side.
Like Bonnie said earlier, I’ll just watch from afar.
My sole social media platform is this and a few other newsletters. (I know, that not SM but you get my point) Not even LinkedIn anymore now that I’m retired.
I don't use Twitter but the more I hear about it, I'm convinced it's just a playground for elementary school minds.
You made me laugh - out loud!
Everything costs something. Twitter worked because advertisers “paid” for the space. I don’t use twitter because I feel people are cowards and it’s easy to shout people down when you don’t look them in the eyes and “feel” the moment. That’s not a way to encourage conversation.
We are a more divided country thanks to Twitter and Facebook. You find your tribe and forget we live in a country of many opinions. Since when is it bad to be different.
Twitter? Hard pass. Social Media is neither.
Never been on Twitter and now certainly do not want to be. What a crock! Unfortunately this will not drag Musk down - he will just flourish in the yellow glow of Trump and his minions until he doesn't, then he'll bounce to something else and get richer. I don't watch Tik-Tok either. Did you see where the Chinese version doesn't include all of the perversion that the rest of the world gets with Tik-Tok? It's controlled in China (as is everything else) and has limited content, especially among young people, and is filled with education and good old Mao sayings. I am not saying that we should require propaganda (what are we getting now if it's not propaganda?), but shouldn't there be some limitation and guidance to content in the rest of the world? Sometimes, and I can't believe I am actually saying this, but too much "free speech" actually may not be a good thing, especially to save our democracy? Gee, where am I getting all of my information without Twitter and other social media? There are still reliable sources for factual information that may soon fade away under the pressure of profit and greed (it is already seriously fading away). Damn, and I am an optimist. Tough to be one these days.
“I'm tired just writing this.”
You said it all there Bill. 😊
I deactivated my Twitter account, because I don’t want to stick around to find out how Elon Musk might destroy the site I had been on since 2009 and in which I had interacted with my 11.6K followers in the writing and reading communities. I will admit, I was sad to leave Twitter after all these years on there but now that I have let go, my inner peace will remain. I had a toxic 18 year relationship with my ex so I stay away from toxicity of any kind these days. However, I did enjoy reading your take on Twitter and Elon Musk!
Bill, you know I’m one of your best fans so I don’t read only you but others who use Substack as well. Because you wrote about Twitter today, I’m going to include a link to Heather Cox Richard’s Nov 4 column. This is particularly chock full of non-Twitter information that definitely should be read but she saved her Twitter comments until the end and finished with a video clip that might put a gray hair or two in your brown curls(?). It pertains to the midterms and how once useful information might now be useless because of Elon’s less than thoughtful moves.
Now, as I can only do one thing at a time, this is the end so I can move on to your 7 Other Things.
Where’s the link??? You have me hooked!
Let me start by saying I have never been on Twitter, and don't plan to be. But I find it rather comical that people who require us to pay for their services, whether it be to see a movie with them in it, or subscribe to their app or other services, are balking at the $8/month blue check requirement. If you don't want a blue check, don't pay. Simple as that. You can still subscribe to twitter.
People like AOC, who think the world owes her everything for free, are calling out Musk, who purchased Twitter as a "for profit" entity. It's greedy of him to ask for people to subscribe, not greedy of her to demand that it be given to her for free? Please.
As for the layoffs; those are the same people who wrote Musk an open letter demanding, among other things, freedom from political persecution. If my short memory serves me correctly, they did exactly that while Jack Dorsey was in charge. "Do as I say, not as I do" is no longer the mantra at Twitter. Everyone is supposed to have an equal voice now (if they will remains to be seen). It's a foreign concept to those who have worked there for years, and are now finding themselves looking for a job. I have no pity for you. It was fun to deny people with opposing views a platform. It was great knowing that you could keep information from seeing the light of day just because you didn't agree with it. You called it "disinformation" because you didn't like it, yet Jeffrey Epstein was allowed to keep his account active. Now you're scared that your sword will be turned against you. A better concern for anyone now finding themselves without a job at Twitter is, with that on your resume, can you find another job? Are you now untouchable because you engaged in suppression of information from those with opposing viewpoints? Do other companies want to deal with the cancel culture mentality of those who worked at a company that encouraged it?
What goes around comes around. Karma is a powerful thing.
So much to unpack here but I will step away. When you call out someone from one political party your intentions are transparent.
@Darrell, Generally I would usually agree with, "When you call out someone from one political party your intentions are transparent." In this case however I have a hard time not seeing more fault with one side more than the other. I've heard that some (or maybe all) of the Fox News folks have outright said they will not pay $8/month either; but according to the source (work acquaintance), the context was they they just don't see the need to stay verified if it isn't free. The general feeling I get when I see/hear liberal celebrities commentary on the subject is that they are upset that another rich person is trying to take $96/year from them to get something they feel entitled to for free.
I'm not trying to be argumentative; I do understand your sentiment; I just wanted to share what I think is an alternative view that (I think) applies in this limited/specific circumstance.
I understand you having your view. However, the facts remain, and OAC is a member of a political party, it a celebrity. We don’t need politics on the site as it takes away from the free flowing sharing of thoughts and information and can quickly become combative.
Darrell, I definitely appreciate your perspective. Growing up I always found the concept that we should avoid talking about politics and religion frustrating. To me it just seems like blocking these subjects off from rational discussion creates excuses for people to be intolerant. If these are the things people feel the most passionate about, doesn't that make it all the more important that we figure out ways to discuss them with civility in order to develop more understanding on the various perspectives that diversity of thought and culture bring? While I know that may be asking way too much of people I think the simple act of avoiding these topics leaves people to stew in their own echo chambers and get reinforcement of what they already think.
Maybe Understandably isn't the place for that; but I've noticed that you tend to be the enforcer (maybe not the best word) of this unwritten rule. While I don't 100% agree that we can't or shouldn't be able to talk about politics/politicians with civility, I do appreciate the way you approach the topic in a non-escalatory manner. I hope my responses to you are received as constructive, as my intent is not to argue but to explore.
Bruno - I hear what you are saying. It would be incredible if we could actually have rational discussions around politics or religion.
Re politics, there was a time when we could have a semblance of rational discussion based on facts. Sadly, the customization of media has given people places to enjoy other birds of a feather where facts are now “alternative facts” and with a “you are with me or against me” mindset. Politics is now more often based on charisma rather than character.
Growing up in a paternal religious home, I developed a keen understanding of a similar mindset: “my interpretation of my bible or the notion of my god is more accurate than yours.” That’s why there are so many religions with so many subgroups within each. If wars have been fought over politics many more have been fought over religion.
There are plenty of places for people to chat it up about their own beliefs. Understandably is one of the few places where people can talk about things - other than politics or religion - without escalation into a fight or being trolled. Bill does a wonderful job offering up helpful, interesting, but also neutral topics. It is a welcome respite from the world of politics and religion that surrounds us every day. I truly hope it remains so.
Plato sums up the subject quite well:
“The partisan, when he is engaged in a dispute, cares nothing about the rights of the question, but is anxious only to convince his hearers of his own assertions.”
Darrell, I agree. Probably the most enlightening thing I take from this discussion is that what I (and maybe you) would like to see isn't something that is going to happen online. Online it is too easy to mute or ignore uncomfortable thoughts and go find the opinions that help maintain ones comfort in their predetermined positions. Thanks for the dialogue on this.