On 4/25/22 1:58 PM, RichA wrote:
> Musk apparently predicated this bid on responses he got when he asked in a poll if people thought Twitter was delivering uncensored and unbiased comments. A resounding 70% of the respondents said "no." That tipped it for Musk, he needed a strong consensus to proceed. Now, all he has to do is read the riot-act to the LEFT-WING moderators (or fire them all) and make the platform into one with unfettered opinions on both sides.
>
> https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/25/tech/elon-musk-twitter-sale-agreement/index.html
>

What use is it to buy Twitter? He could have started his own service for much
cheaper. Same comment to that other boring billionaire Bezos who bought The
Washington Post.
Is there some sort of unspoken limit on how many media companies there are
supposed to be, and existing companies must be bought instead of starting a new
company? Must actual competition be avoided, and is there any reason for this but
ideological reasons? His buying of Twitter comes across like an endorsement so I
certainly don't trust Musk because he seems to like Twitter's management and
engineering.
Someone who does not like Twitter would not buy Twitter.

On 4/27/22 6:21 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
> wearyflake@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> What use is it to buy Twitter? He could have started his own service for
>> much cheaper. Same comment to that other boring billionaire Bezos who
>> bought The Washington Post.
>
> You mean like when Rumble was created, only to be shut down when the
> leftists running their servers and the app stores refused to host them?

What is Rumble, let me guess, it is/was yet another "social media platform" that
forbids non-members to see the posts? That forbids real web browsers and instead
requires use of an app (usually a social media app is just a crippled web browser)?

I as a non-member of Twitter can see plenty of posts that others link to;
the phoney competitors like Parlor, Gab, and I suppose Rumble, etc., do not
allow that, so it does not actually compete with Twitter.

On 4/27/22 10:08 AM, weary flake wrote:
> On 4/27/22 6:21 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>> wearyflake@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> What use is it to buy Twitter? He could have started his own service for
>>> much cheaper. Same comment to that other boring billionaire Bezos who
>>> bought The Washington Post.
>>
>> You mean like when Rumble was created, only to be shut down when the
>> leftists running their servers and the app stores refused to host them?
>

"social media app" = crippled web browser. No "app" is required to read
a website that is serious about wanting to be read.

I don't know about servers, are there non-leftist servers available?
Will Google or Amazon black ball servers that are anti-leftist?

> What is Rumble, let me guess, it is/was yet another "social media platform" that
> forbids non-members to see the posts? That forbids real web browsers and instead
> requires use of an app (usually a social media app is just a crippled web browser)?
>
> I as a non-member of Twitter can see plenty of posts that others link to;
> the phoney competitors like Parlor, Gab, and I suppose Rumble, etc., do not
> allow that, so it does not actually compete with Twitter.
>

Last I checked Gab.com did not allow it, but it looks different. It's still not
clear to me what non-members are forbidden to read.

On 4/27/22 12:41 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
> wearyflake@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Will Google or Amazon black ball servers that are anti-leftist?
>
> They have, as a matter o fact!

Then Musk could be spending money on new servers that do not
depend on Amazon or Google. Musk could be competing with the
rogues, instead of buying into them. Buying into such as Twitter,
Amazon or Google in an effort to change them is a profligate waste.