• Arun Shah™
    link
    fedilink
    English
    61 year ago

    Good news for X alternative Social Media, if pay to post for X I’m exit form X.

  • @hperrin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    441 year ago

    That’s not what free speech is, and there never has been free speech on Twitter, and that’s mostly a good thing. Jesus.

    • @jkrtn@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      81 year ago

      Elon and his sycophants have been the idiots talking about free speech on Twitter. It’s perfectly fine to use that talking point as criticism. If he’s not interested in free speech then what was he doing allowing banned Nazi accounts back on?

    • @ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      171 year ago

      Elon Musk said free speech like once and then immediately threw a bunch of journalists off the site. And apparently every news article for the rest of my life is going to be about how he was hypocritical instead of whether he wants power or influence or has power and influence or the meaning of giving him those things.

      Don’t trust every industrialist you meet even if they invested in one company where competent people make cool space ships. He’s clearly on Ket and some uppers. Grimes divorced him and her music isn’t even good. He’s not that complicated.

    • @TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      341 year ago

      That’s not what free speech is

      Well yeah, obviously. It’s just wordplay based on the two common definitions of free.

      Everybody knows what free speech means. It’s just a bit of wordplay that you’ve taken very literally.

      • @affiliate@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        91 year ago

        Everybody knows what free speech means.

        i really dont think so.

        free speech is a pretty complicated thing and i feel like many people dont have a solid grasp on it. i think a good number of people think they know what free speech means because they know “it only applies to what the government can do to you”, but there’s quite a bit more to it than that. like how to deal with hate speech, threats, misinformation, disinformation, etc.

        and this is directly related to the problems twitter is facing: elon musk started out by saying hes a “free speech absolutist”, but twitter has been slowly rediscovering why “free speech absolutism” doesnt work. and you can see those discoveries in real time with twitter reintroducing moderation policies (among other things)

        • @TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          4
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Ok then. People know enough about what it means to know it doesn’t refer to not having to pay a fee to open your mouth.

          It’s very clear that the headline is a little wordplay joke. It doesn’t literally convey that the journalist thought free speech means you don’t have to pay to make a twitter post. You’re taking it way too literally.

          elon musk started out by saying hes a “free speech absolutist”, but twitter has been slowly rediscovering why “free speech absolutism” doesnt work.

          I’m in agreement that it doesn’t work.

          But it should also be called to attention that Musk never tried free speech absolutism on his platform (not that I think he actually should). He has been willing to bend over backwards in assisting dictatorships in censoring content, and he culled a lot of left-leaning and anti-Musk accounts/comments on day one. It’s always been a lie to pander to the freeze peach crowd.

    • @Coreidan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -16
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You don’t know what free speech means.

      This is like claiming Blizzard is infringing on your free speech because they banned you from world of Warcraft for saying racist shit.

      Better yet. This is like claiming blizzard is infringing on your freedom of speech because they deactivated your account as a result of you not paying your subscription.

      Do better.

      • @Larry@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        81 year ago

        Corporations should be allowed to own vital services so they can ban people from them at will. This is a good thing somehow. I love monopolies that suppress activists and organizers because it would only be bad if the government is doing it.

        • @Coreidan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -31 year ago

          That’s the thing about private property and private services. They can terminate your involvement at will for any reason. It’s in the user agreement you consent to when you sign up.

          You’re not entitled to these services. They aren’t your god given right or any other bullshit you’re imagining.

          Comparing this to freedom of speech is laughable.

        • @kent_eh@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          31 year ago

          We could stop thinking of Twitter, Facebook, etc. as “essential services”.

          They can both fuck right off and most people’s lives will not be negatively impacted.

    • @Treczoks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      81 year ago

      Well, you can invest money to get rid of bots, or you can try to make money to get rid of bots. He tries the latter, and will kill the platform doing that.

  • @werefreeatlast@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -31 year ago

    They should do that for meeting people for dating…like a love tax or something… Pay some random so you can talk to people of your interested sex.

  • @vinyl@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    21 year ago

    OPs title is misleading, there’s a difference between free speech as in expressing your free speech and the one that OP is referring to is complaining about paying to express your free speech.

  • Resol van Lemmy
    link
    fedilink
    English
    131 year ago

    Free speech? More like free* speech

    *Only $4.99/month, yeah, definitely “free”

  • @soba@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    91 year ago

    “This is going to make so much easy money”, Musk thinks, delusionaly, as he further alienates the former core user base of the site he bought for literal billions of dollars and yet has never made any money. “They are going to be lining up to pay for this”, he imagines, forgetting that paid checkmarks was a huge ass failure and twitter still has never turned a profit.

    • r00ty
      link
      fedilink
      11 year ago

      This is, I think his train of thought. He thinks Twitter is a utility that people need. Meanwhile, many of us never had an account and moves like this will just move people away. Before twitter there was other social media, and before social media we also got on fine.

      There are literal alternatives to this service, I cannot believe people are still using it now. But surely this kills it?

  • Dr. Moose
    link
    fedilink
    English
    37
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I work in bot protection and it’s a sound idea but doesn’t really work in practice. As long as there’s more than 1$ of value to be gained it’s worth it for the bot makers.

    This also makes it so that botting is only accesible to select few actors that have the required resources i.e. russian troll farms or large bot networks from china, in turn this increases their value. This is very good for them.

    Reality is that the only way to stop bots is to constantly change up the detection system. This is called a “cat and mouse” sort of problem and it really is the only way to do it. The attacker always has to catch up and it can be trivial that takes them couple of hours to do but it also reveals behavior patterns for marking bot accounts. This actually works really well in practice but requires a lot of dev resources and many companies low-key like bots which is another thread entirely.

    • @psmgx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      31 year ago

      This also makes it so that botting is only accesible to select few actors that have the required resources i.e. russian troll farms or large bot networks from china, in turn this increases their value. This is very good for them.

      I’d bet that is explicitly part of the funding model. Pay to influence consensus, cuz this is a publicly traded stock and numbers need to go up, regardless of who is paying.

      • Dr. Moose
        link
        fedilink
        English
        01 year ago

        Never had to deal with attacks originating from US or Europe so thats kinda true actually :)

    • Flying Squid
      link
      fedilink
      English
      51 year ago

      As long as there’s more than 1$ of value to be gained it’s worth it for the bot makers.

      That’s what I was coming in here to suggest, so I’m glad someone in the field was able to back that idea up. I think it’s unlikely many bots that aren’t made for fun are being put on Twitter unless they are generating a lot more than $1 for whoever is putting them up.

      • Dr. Moose
        link
        fedilink
        English
        17
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        develop systems that can identify unwanted users like bots, spammers, people who abuse the product and break ToS etc. Most bad actors are very dumb but fighting this at scale is actually very interesting. Also most bots (like 90%) are just scrapers (data collectors) especially when it comes to Twitter which has absurd API pricings but cost almost nothing to scrape lol

          • Dr. Moose
            link
            fedilink
            English
            71 year ago

            Hey man it gets me employed and I even get to work on foss on work hours sometimes. Thanks! :)

        • @jeffw@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          111 year ago

          Oh my god I’m a fuckin idiot. Granted, I’ve had a couple drinks tonight but I thought you were protecting bots… not protecting against them lol

      • Dr. Moose
        link
        fedilink
        English
        9
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        As Kungen already answered - stats! You can sell bot traffic as real traffic which inflates your numbers.

        For stuff like social media, bots increase engagement too. Many new products and networks actually generate a lot of fake content to attract organic growth. I.e. if bot likes your comment you’re likely to engage more. If it likes your product review you’re likely to review more stuff etc.

        Tracking bots can also generate reverse analytics. For example if you know that your competitors are scraping fishing equipment data from your store it could mean they’re working on a competing fishing related product.

        Lastly, you can feed fake data to bots to manipulate competitors. This is somewhat illegal (no real legal precedent yet afaik though its a clear intent to harm other businesses) but it can really powerful in the wrong hands.

        Edit: worth nothing that a lot of bot traffic is good. Sometimes you want to be scraped as it is a form of organic engagement and increases the value of your data and often backlinks growth (e.g. indexers like Google etc)

      • @psmgx@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        31 year ago

        More eyeballs.

        Enough updoots or retweets and other algos pick up on it. Some random twitter discussion ends up on BuzzFeed, YTers start making influencer vids, and Reddit / Lemmy repost bots.

        Do this enough and it’ll gain traction. Now everyone is talking about your stupid fuckin Stanley mug, corporate rumor,or political talking point.

        And this can be automated end to end, 24/7, by market and keyword, will real time feedback as to how well it’s doing via upvotes, shares, likes, or even data mining emails and convos via Gmail or WhatsApp.