The Fate of Twitter

[OldPhiKap]

It's moot anyway. Trump has a competing service. Why give Twitter free content? If DWAC knew how to run a proxy vote the point would be put to bed.

Also it's cringe using that quote. That's how you get Barabbas on the streets.

Is it Lent already?

[Wheat/"/"/"]

I am reading a lot of very intelligent, respected, well-educated DBR posters saying that you have no idea what you are talking about and are repeating unsubstantiated alternative viewpoints that confirm your skewed preconceived notions. And that this proves our point about the limits of free speech.

Though "I have no direct knowledge of anything" has to be one of the most accurate statements I have read in a while.

That's just what I am reading, so I'm believing it.

I just offered to readers on the board what I had read, and clarified I had no direct knowledge if it was true, or not.

I have faith in the people here to make their own decisions whether it’s plausible, or not.

No need to attack me, again.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

It's moot anyway. Trump has a competing service. Why give Twitter free content? If DWAC knew how to run a proxy vote the point would be put to bed.

Also it's cringe using that quote. That's how you get Barabbas on the streets.

That’s the next question to follow his reinstatement. Will he even come back to Twitter? And will people really care?

[OldPhiKap]

I just offered to readers on the board what I had read, and clarified I had no direct knowledge if it was true, or not.

I have faith in the people here to make their own decisions whether it’s plausible, or not.

Don’t we purport to have higher standards than that here?

[acdevil]

Don’t we purport to have higher standards than that here?

I would hope so.

Unfortunately, we probably all would have been better off of Wheat posted that disclaimer with a bulk of his crypto posts.

[OldPhiKap]

‘I read that Trump wants to bang his own daughter. Not sure it’s true, but I saw it somewhere.”

Is this what we accept on DBR? I sure hope not.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

‘I read that Trump wants to bang his own daughter. Not sure it’s true, but I saw it somewhere.”

Is this what we accept on DBR? I sure hope not.

That actually has more basis in truth than a lot of the stuff Wheat is quoting.

Mods, please report to aisle "Twitter thread." Thank you.

[OldPhiKap]

That actually has more basis in truth than a lot of the stuff Wheat is quoting.

Yup.

https://www.indy100.com/celebrities/...ate-2658649645

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/ne...common-941600/

https://www.salon.com/2018/03/23/don...nka-a-history/

At least I’m willing to post links. Wheat?

[Wheat/"/"/"]

Don’t we purport to have higher standards than that here?

You wrote…” It means “the bots I I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.ed about before being forced to buy the company have spoken.”

You are saying Bots influenced that poll? How is that a higher standard than my reply about musk potentially using the poll to attack the bots. You didn’t even place the caveat that you don’t really know if bots influenced that poll?

I read a thread, and I can’t find it at the moment on Twitter, where it said Musk knew that the Trump poll would get huge interaction so he had an algorithm written to help identify the bots that he knew would show up so Twitter could disable them.

Now, I don’t know if that’s true, or not, but it seems like something Musk would do.

Why is that conversation something that is beneath the standards of the board? You brought up the bots, I just replied with something I saw that I thought was interesting and I noted it was unverified because I have no way to verify it.

[OldPhiKap]

You wrote…” It means “the bots I I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.I'm a real wanker for saying this.ed about before being forced to buy the company have spoken.”

You are saying Bots influenced that poll? How is that a higher standard than my reply about musk potentially using the poll to attack the bots. You didn’t even place the caveat that you don’t really know if bots influenced that poll?

I read a thread, and I can’t find it at the moment on Twitter, where it said Musk knew that the Trump poll would get huge interaction so he had an algorithm written to help identify the bots that he knew would show up so Twitter could disable them.

Now, I don’t know if that’s true, or not, but it seems like something Musk would do.

Why is that conversation something that is beneath the standards of the board? You brought up the bots, I just replayed with something I saw that I thought was interesting and I noted it was unverified because I have no way to verify it.

Elon Musk brought up the bots. Until it was convenient not to do so. Prove me wrong.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

That actually has more basis in truth than a lot of the stuff Wheat is quoting.

Mods, please report to aisle "Twitter thread." Thank you.

Please point out where I have posted anything in this thread that is not truthful?

[CrazyNotCrazie]

Please point out where I have posted anything in this thread that is not truthful?

I quote you from above "I just offered to readers on the board what I had read, and clarified I had no direct knowledge if it was true, or not."

Posting random things you see on the internet and admitting you have no idea whether they are true is not how things are done around here. Or at least I hope it is not how things are done around here (still waiting to hear from a mod). It is actually kind of dangerous. It might be slightly less dangerous if you at least posted the link to this item.

I know that mods strongly discourage personal attacks and that is not what I or the many others speaking up here are doing. We are trying to speak up for decency, intelligent and informed discussion, and not spreading misinformation. I like to say that arguments should be those that would stand up in a classroom at Duke (or any other accredited school). Any professor I ever had would immediately fail someone who said "I'm just providing something but I have no idea if the source has any merit."

This truly is kind of scary and dangerous. I know that mods tread lightly about being biased and give a lot of leash to alternative viewpoints, but this is really beyond the scope of that. I'm sure you think we are being "sensitive snowflakes" "Ivory tower elitists" or are personally attacking you, but we really aren't. I am not without fault. I have made my share of overly emotional, ill-informed comments. But few if any of them approach this. We want our DBR back.

[OldPhiKap]

I quote you from above "I just offered to readers on the board what I had read, and clarified I had no direct knowledge if it was true, or not."

Posting random things you see on the internet and admitting you have no idea whether they are true is not how things are done around here. Or at least I hope it is not how things are done around here (still waiting to hear from a mod). It is actually kind of dangerous. It might be slightly less dangerous if you at least posted the link to this item.

I know that mods strongly discourage personal attacks and that is not what I or the many others speaking up here are doing. We are trying to speak up for decency, intelligent and informed discussion, and not spreading misinformation. I like to say that arguments should be those that would stand up in a classroom at Duke (or any other accredited school). Any professor I ever had would immediately fail someone who said "I'm just providing something but I have no idea if the source has any merit."

This truly is kind of scary and dangerous. I know that mods tread lightly about being biased and give a lot of leash to alternative viewpoints, but this is really beyond the scope of that. I'm sure you think we are being "sensitive snowflakes" "Ivory tower elitists" or are personally attacking you, but we really aren't. I am not without fault. I have made my share of overly emotional, ill-informed comments. But few if any of them approach this. We want our DBR back.

Well-stated.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

I quote you from above "I just offered to readers on the board what I had read, and clarified I had no direct knowledge if it was true, or not."

Posting random things you see on the internet and admitting you have no idea whether they are true is not how things are done around here. Or at least I hope it is not how things are done around here (still waiting to hear from a mod). It is actually kind of dangerous. It might be slightly less dangerous if you at least posted the link to this item.

I know that mods strongly discourage personal attacks and that is not what I or the many others speaking up here are doing. We are trying to speak up for decency, intelligent and informed discussion, and not spreading misinformation. I like to say that arguments should be those that would stand up in a classroom at Duke (or any other accredited school). Any professor I ever had would immediately fail someone who said "I'm just providing something but I have no idea if the source has any merit."

This truly is kind of scary and dangerous. I know that mods tread lightly about being biased and give a lot of leash to alternative viewpoints, but this is really beyond the scope of that. I'm sure you think we are being "sensitive snowflakes" "Ivory tower elitists" or are personally attacking you, but we really aren't. I am not without fault. I have made my share of overly emotional, ill-informed comments. But few if any of them approach this. We want our DBR back.

So much I could say about this post, but I’ll spare the board.

Still waiting for you to point out anywhere in any of my posts that was not truthful.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

I found this…from October 1st

“Elon Musk asked Twitter to use 'Trump' as a search term to help calculate the number of fake accounts, report says”

This doesn’t prove whether Musk wrote an algorithm to identify bots with the recent Trump poll, but would it surprise anyone?

I’m at a loss to explain why some want to attack me just for having this conversation.

[OldPhiKap]

I found this…from October 1st

“Elon Musk asked Twitter to use 'Trump' as a search term to help calculate the number of fake accounts, report says”

This doesn’t prove whether Musk wrote an algorithm to identify bots with the recent Trump poll, but would it surprise anyone?

I’m at a loss to explain why some want to attack me just for having this conversation.

Did you actually read that article?

1. twitter did not run the algorithm.

2. Musk claimed after that date, numerous times, that there were significant numbers of bots so he should not have to close the deal.

3. There is absolutely no evidence or even reference to the fact that he programmed and ran the test you suggest.

With all due respect, this is just unsubstantiated bull crap.

I certainly am not attacking you or anyone for having the conversation, I am questioning why we allow unsubstantiated speculation in lieu of factual discussion.

[Kdogg]

Is it Lent already?

What do you think the sink was for? To wash his hands in front of the multitude.

[OldPhiKap]

What do you think the sink was for? To wash his hands in front of the multitude.

This is top shelf. Cannot spork, sadly. In lieu, I’ll pull for ENG to advance from the group with USMNT.

[Bostondevil]

I found this…from October 1st

“Elon Musk asked Twitter to use 'Trump' as a search term to help calculate the number of fake accounts, report says”

This doesn’t prove whether Musk wrote an algorithm to identify bots with the recent Trump poll, but would it surprise anyone?

I’m at a loss to explain why some want to attack me just for having this conversation.

Say what? Elon Musk is writing algorithms now? I highly doubt that. If you want to claim that Twitter employees are writing these algorithms, c'mon, Musk fired them.

Would it surprise me that Musk actually has such an algorithm? Yes, it would.

[Skydog]

If I have no opinion about whether something is true or not I don’t post it. But that’s just me.