While fraud and deception is probably on the rise, it's very important to recognize that the "evil" they are referring to comes from people (not companies) and that it's always been this way. We all have the potential to violate our own ethical standards and the temptation rise and fall with circumstances beyond our control. Keep a cool head, expand your understanding of the relationship between your job and the supposed evil, and do your best to expose it without hurting your reputation. The idea that one can job hop their way to promised land is not helping the situation.
Most of the negative attitude about this article seems to come from people who weren't raised to appreciate art. It's obvious from all the rebuttals that focus on petty semantics over substance.
But hallmarks of authoritarianism are censorship, centralized power, collusion of private and public sectors.
If by authoritarian you mean he is mean to crybabies in his own company, you might read up on how actual authoritarians have gained power throughout history (hint: they get the crybabies on their side)
Clearly, Musk got into the Twitter business to reduce authoritarian tendencies exhibited by former staff.
The 14th Amendment may be more applicable. Despite what 1A states, censorship is unconstitutional, and nobody believes this baloney that the accused is innocent as long as they aren't "in the government"
No, its not. Because Twitter also isn’t a state government, and the only thing the 14th Amendment has to do with free speech is that it is held to incorporate the same protections that the 1A provides against the federal government against the state governments.
> Despite what 1A states, censorship is unconstitutional
Private censorship is not only constitutional, it is constitutionally protected against federal and state action by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
In fact, the whole point of Constitutional freedom of expression is to protect private parties right to decide for themselves on what expression to make or relay.
(2) it used to be a “public comoany” in the sense of “has shares traded on open stock markets rather than exclusively in individual off-market trades”, but that sense of “public” is still not a government actor covered by tbe restriction on the federal government in 1A or that on state governments in 14A. That is simply a different sense of the words “public” and “private” then is relevant here.
> I do believe public vs. private is relevant in terms of legal responsibility
The kind of “public vs. private” by which Twitter was once public is relevant in terms of whether or not they are subject to, say, certain SEC regulations, which are a form of “legal responsibility”, but it is not relevant to whether or not they are legally considered to be federal or state government entities under the 1st and 14th Amendments, such that they would be restricted from the kind of content-based restrictions the government is prohibited from imposing.
Citizen’s United is irrelevant. This isn't an issue of whether or not Twitter is a person protected by the 14th Amendment, but whether it is the federal or state government, and thuse restricted by the 1st and/or 14th amendments. And–as I would think would be obvious–Twitter is neither the federal government nor a state government. (And, if you wanted to make the argument that it was an agency of state government because corporations are created by states through law, that would be more interesting, but then the "private company" vs. "public company" issue would still be moot, because that would apply to all corporations regardless of whether their stock was publicly traded.)
> I can’t wrap my head around this notion that an agent of $40B public company constitutes “private censorship” do some research.
I have an undergraduate degree and some professional study (abandoned midway for an IT career) in this field. What you are doing is called “equivocation”; making an argument that attaches the import of one meaning of a word to a circumstance in which a different meaning applies. A “public company” in the sense that Twitter used to be one is a short way of saying “A private corporation with stock traded on a public stock exchange”.
It is not the same thing as a government entity subject to the 1st (federal) or 14th (state, and consequently subdivisions thereof) amendments to the US Constitution.
They just removed 7 tweets or do you mean removed the story about a presidential candidate's ties to shady business deals in China and Ukraine, while in office as VP? What was and is "all so stupid" is this perception that it's all about Hunter, you know, your everyday broken down drug addict.
There's no evidence that Twitter removing stories about Hunter Biden (as opposed to the dick pics) was something that was either requested by the Biden campaign or even preferred. If anything, the only Democratic politician that shows up in his story told Twitter that he doesn't like the way Twitter decided to handle the story. It seems clear that the general political pressure was in the opposite direction as is claimed - Twitter had internally decided that these are against their own policy, but legislators on both sides (though for different reasons) thought Twitter should not done this.
> removed the story about a presidential candidate's ties to shady business deals in China and Ukraine, while in office as VP
It’s been years since the “Hunter Biden laptop” non story, and the vague unsubstantiated accusations are still flying. Zero work seems to have been done since then to substantiate any of the claims, which says a lot about how much those making them care that what they’re saying is true or accurate. The vague claims and conspiracy theories do the job just as well it seems.
You’re right after all; the only reason anyone cares about the Hunter Biden laptop is because they think it will take down a different Biden.
The problem is it actually doesn’t. Despite your innuendo, the shadiest thing that can be pointed out is vague notions of influence peddling, which has been effectively normalized after the last administration’s blatant and gratuitous influence peddling. It’s hard to get people fired up about something you’ve been claiming is totally cool and legal for the past 6 years. So no surprise that no one cares to hear about influence peddling and shady deals from the team that brought us Jared Kushner’s $2billion Saudi fund and Trump’s first impeachment.
The laptop story is a dud. Republicans will spend years investigating it and find nothing. Maybe they’ll find something like an affair or a violation of IT policy and try to make it into a huge scandal, but after living through Whitewater and Benghazi, we all know the drill. They most recently tried it with Durham and that failed miserably. It’s a long tradition in Republican politics.
The faster you get over and move past the laptop, the better (for you that is… the longer Republicans cry about this non issue, the better it is for Democrats politically, because only the most rabid partisan Republicans care about this at all).
Funny how popular this story is despite your "non story" assertion.
You can argue it is minor in comparison to, say, impeachment proceedings re: Burisma, but did Twitter do the right thing in suppressing the laptop story? Probably not. I don't think most people want private citizens like Gadde tampering with elections in the future.
I see mostly Dem and Dem-leaning celebrities been talking up crypto, and a conservative side more educated and knowledgeable about dysfunction in the financial sector as a whole. So even without any stats on the donations, it seems fairly logical to suggest party favoritism is at play.
Genuinely ludicrous to say that cryptocurrency has historically been talked up by Democrats; similarly, Republicans have historically been vastly more trusting of the financial industry
I mean ludicrous that since 2009 it's Democratic thinking to bail out the banks, sweep inflation concerns under the rug, spend more money, funding unprofitable tech companies etc. I never said Republicans aren't in on the deal, just that it's obvious one side leading the charge on those things.
It's an opinion about democratic thinking, and a general assessment in correlating level of education in finance/econ to party bases. I have no idea what "facts" you are referring to. Just wow.
The bank bailout was 2008, proposed and lobbied for by the Bush administration. It passed the House with support from 45% of Republicans and the Senate with support from 69% of Republicans. Generally considered bipartisan, it almost certainly saved the financial industry. It's not clear what you mean by "a general assessment in correlating level of education in finance/econ to party bases".
Yep, and so began the golden age of fraud we now experience, and the backdrop for this SBF story. 100% agree that the bailout was bi-partisan and necessary though.
> I mean ludicrous that since 2009 it's Democratic thinking to bail out the banks, sweep inflation concerns under the rug,
Again, more ludicrous tribalism. The Great Recession bailout was all orchestrated under Bush. Trump famously was hounding Powell to lower rates before the pandemic, which would have had even more disastrous inflation consequences, just to make the stock market go up.
I think your mistake is to look at bought-and-paid-for politicians, I'm talking about the general public. My guess is you don't know many republican voters and therefore unqualified to to make the comparison. Most democrats I know think the bailout "paid for itself" lol
You’re trying to apply logic to articles you’ve read on the internet. This isn’t like you read a cake recipe on the internet and then tried it out in your kitchen. Or read an article about some web framework and tried it out by making a blog. Or read about mathematical topology and tried it out on some problem you’ve been working on.
Maybe, if only maybe, you should make political donations illegal. That would pretty much solve it for the legal part of business. But money is free speech whatever that may mean (I know what it means legally, you can still ban it).
If you get paid well and have a unique talent that further incentivizes you to step up and do extra on occasion, what's the big deal? Engineering salaries have never in the history of technology been geared toward clock-watcher/union-boss mindset.
