I had no idea this center exists and am so glad that Musk felt the need to put it in the spotlight. I've long wanted somewhere to point people to in order to get across just how awful it is to be...
I had no idea this center exists and am so glad that Musk felt the need to put it in the spotlight. I've long wanted somewhere to point people to in order to get across just how awful it is to be in some form of minority group - be it race or otherwise - on Twitter. Their moderation was always awful but ever since the acquisition I see more parallel between the kind of conversations I'd seen on /LGBT/ back in the day than any other social media.
Honestly I'm not shocked at all. I was pretty sure Musk really bought Twitter so he and other far right assholes could have a popular forum to spout their bullshit. This just is more evidence...
Honestly I'm not shocked at all. I was pretty sure Musk really bought Twitter so he and other far right assholes could have a popular forum to spout their bullshit. This just is more evidence already on teh pile of evidence that so far it's exactly what I expected.
Robert Reich has a broad summary and response: https://robertreich.substack.com/p/x-marks-the-hate I'm embarrassed that at first I saw Musk in a savior light, as someone trying to make a better...
I'm embarrassed that at first I saw Musk in a savior light, as someone trying to make a better world with solar energy, electric cars, etc. He's a disgusting creep, on the border of mad with too much power thanks to his obscene wealth.
I was recently given a really insightful thought. Philanthropy is actually a bad thing because it can only exist to fill a need that our society refuses to meet. Billionaire philanthropy is in...
I was recently given a really insightful thought. Philanthropy is actually a bad thing because it can only exist to fill a need that our society refuses to meet. Billionaire philanthropy is in some ways worse because all the money they spend on relief for those problems would could be better spent if they were used to lobby for actual solutions to those problems.
And in Musk's case, it wasn't even philanthropy to begin with.
It's never a good thing to idolize the rich for the good they do, as the things they have done to become rich have come at the cost of suffering for the masses.
Exactly! Philanthropy only exists to whitewash the reputations of the rich. Think of Carnegie Hall. Now think of what an awful person Andrew Carnegie was.
Exactly! Philanthropy only exists to whitewash the reputations of the rich. Think of Carnegie Hall. Now think of what an awful person Andrew Carnegie was.
The whole Musk and other terrible people specifics aside, "Philantropy is actually a bad thing" seems like a reductive perspective, depending on how you define philantropy. And lobbying, in this...
The whole Musk and other terrible people specifics aside, "Philantropy is actually a bad thing" seems like a reductive perspective, depending on how you define philantropy. And lobbying, in this case. Are we talking lobbying in a literal sense, as in with money, as a weird form of legalized corruption countries like the US are known for? I've used a similar argument in the past myself, as a reply to "why do people participate in different fundraising marathons instead of just choosing the most effective of all?"
But if I have a certain amount of money and power (hypothetically) that I want to use to improve people's lives, and interests that oppose permanent fixes to the problems I'd like to solve have a hundred times more money and power that they're willing to invest in that kind of lobbying, then wouldn't it be more effective for me to use my money and power to help people now, instead of wasting it by fruitlessly engaging in a disgusting practice that will line the pockets of those who don't need it and accomplish nothing in the end? Wouldn't that be a good use of philantropy?
I can agree if you tell me that philantropy shouldn't have to exist. But people can have made some amount of money and still have the best of intentions. Not all philantropists (by the traditional definition) are, well, Musk.
I consider that idea to be more of a thought experiment than a rule. In reality I think that it is a crime that rich people have the ability to affect society so strongly. If it were a rule then...
I consider that idea to be more of a thought experiment than a rule. In reality I think that it is a crime that rich people have the ability to affect society so strongly. If it were a rule then the Koch brothers and Soros would be my idols since they are living that ideal.
One of the big problems I have with the concept of effective altruism is that at the end of the day the metrics that defines “effectiveness” are arbitrary, and I think my idea demonstrates that concept quite nicely.
I agree. In a just and fair world, we would not need philanthropy because everyone would be paying their fair share of taxes (not just hiding their real wealth) and all the safety nets would be...
I agree. In a just and fair world, we would not need philanthropy because everyone would be paying their fair share of taxes (not just hiding their real wealth) and all the safety nets would be fully funded for every person.
I felt the same way about Musk, years ago. I really thought he could take capitalism and put it to good use helping humanity. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, I suppose.
I felt the same way about Musk, years ago. I really thought he could take capitalism and put it to good use helping humanity. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, I suppose.
That glosses over the fact that his start came from his father's emerald mine money from apartheid South Africa (which I also didn't realize initially). It seems likely the rot was there from the...
Absolute power corrupts absolutely, I suppose.
That glosses over the fact that his start came from his father's emerald mine money from apartheid South Africa (which I also didn't realize initially). It seems likely the rot was there from the start, just not so visible.
I believe that's mostly just a rumour. As far as I can tell, there was an emerald mine at some point that his father had a stake in, but it wasn't as lucrative as the rumour would make it seem....
I believe that's mostly just a rumour. As far as I can tell, there was an emerald mine at some point that his father had a stake in, but it wasn't as lucrative as the rumour would make it seem. Nor was it in South Africa during apartheid, but rather in Zambia (not that that's necessarily much better). Snopes seems to agree with me: https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/11/17/elon-musk-emerald-mine/
That's not to say Musk is a good person, though. He's been an asshole for a long time. I just don't think an emerald mine has anything to do with him being a disgusting person.
Fascinating. If this is to be believed (and I don't see any reason why not to), it's rather surprising how far this myth has propagated. I have seen it mentioned offhandedly on Reddit for years as...
Fascinating. If this is to be believed (and I don't see any reason why not to), it's rather surprising how far this myth has propagated. I have seen it mentioned offhandedly on Reddit for years as if it were gospel.
There's plenty of reason to hate Elon Musk without believing the was only successful because his wealth was handed to him from a source that perpetuated apartheid.
I'm kinda glad I mostly ignored him until he outed himself so I can say I didn't really see him as a really good guy. At best I saw him as misaligned (I swear there is a better word but I'm coming...
I'm kinda glad I mostly ignored him until he outed himself so I can say I didn't really see him as a really good guy. At best I saw him as misaligned (I swear there is a better word but I'm coming up blank right now) with his wanting to be able to send people to mars if we fucked up here (that was mostly what I knew about him). My opinions was that we should be trying to save earth and focus on that and do we really deserve to be able to abandon earth after we are the ones who fucked it up?
Wow, I could tell that the lawyer who wrote that knew that the claims were BS and that they have essentially no legal standing. CCDH also posted their lawyer’s response and they even called them...
Wow, I could tell that the lawyer who wrote that knew that the claims were BS and that they have essentially no legal standing.
CCDH also posted their lawyer’s response and they even called them out on it.
I love it. I'm not entirely sure why he thinks the whole "intimidation through lawsuits" tactic is going to work here (and elsewhere, as cited by this article), but I hope it burns him hard. If...
I love it.
I'm not entirely sure why he thinks the whole "intimidation through lawsuits" tactic is going to work here (and elsewhere, as cited by this article), but I hope it burns him hard.
If his goal is to silence his critics to maintain an image of stability and strength, it instead is only making him appear weaker and more desperate.
Oh yeah this sort of thing is much more about bullying people with the threat of an expensive lawsuit than about actually expressing a legal claim with proper merit.
Oh yeah this sort of thing is much more about bullying people with the threat of an expensive lawsuit than about actually expressing a legal claim with proper merit.
From the relevant Twitter/ X blog.... Is it projecting if it is a blatant lie?
X announced that it had filed a lawsuit against the Center for Countering Digital Hate for “actively working to prevent free expression.”
From the relevant Twitter/ X blog....
"the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) and its backers have been actively working to assert false and misleading claims"
Through the CCDH's scare campaign and its ongoing pressure on brands to prevent the public’s access to free expression, the CCDH is actively working to prevent public dialogue.
I had no idea this center exists and am so glad that Musk felt the need to put it in the spotlight. I've long wanted somewhere to point people to in order to get across just how awful it is to be in some form of minority group - be it race or otherwise - on Twitter. Their moderation was always awful but ever since the acquisition I see more parallel between the kind of conversations I'd seen on /LGBT/ back in the day than any other social media.
Honestly I'm not shocked at all. I was pretty sure Musk really bought Twitter so he and other far right assholes could have a popular forum to spout their bullshit. This just is more evidence already on teh pile of evidence that so far it's exactly what I expected.
Jesus, those examples given are brutal... Absolutely impossible to defend
Robert Reich has a broad summary and response: https://robertreich.substack.com/p/x-marks-the-hate
I'm embarrassed that at first I saw Musk in a savior light, as someone trying to make a better world with solar energy, electric cars, etc. He's a disgusting creep, on the border of mad with too much power thanks to his obscene wealth.
I was recently given a really insightful thought. Philanthropy is actually a bad thing because it can only exist to fill a need that our society refuses to meet. Billionaire philanthropy is in some ways worse because all the money they spend on relief for those problems would could be better spent if they were used to lobby for actual solutions to those problems.
And in Musk's case, it wasn't even philanthropy to begin with.
It's never a good thing to idolize the rich for the good they do, as the things they have done to become rich have come at the cost of suffering for the masses.
Exactly! Philanthropy only exists to whitewash the reputations of the rich. Think of Carnegie Hall. Now think of what an awful person Andrew Carnegie was.
The whole Musk and other terrible people specifics aside, "Philantropy is actually a bad thing" seems like a reductive perspective, depending on how you define philantropy. And lobbying, in this case. Are we talking lobbying in a literal sense, as in with money, as a weird form of legalized corruption countries like the US are known for? I've used a similar argument in the past myself, as a reply to "why do people participate in different fundraising marathons instead of just choosing the most effective of all?"
But if I have a certain amount of money and power (hypothetically) that I want to use to improve people's lives, and interests that oppose permanent fixes to the problems I'd like to solve have a hundred times more money and power that they're willing to invest in that kind of lobbying, then wouldn't it be more effective for me to use my money and power to help people now, instead of wasting it by fruitlessly engaging in a disgusting practice that will line the pockets of those who don't need it and accomplish nothing in the end? Wouldn't that be a good use of philantropy?
I can agree if you tell me that philantropy shouldn't have to exist. But people can have made some amount of money and still have the best of intentions. Not all philantropists (by the traditional definition) are, well, Musk.
I consider that idea to be more of a thought experiment than a rule. In reality I think that it is a crime that rich people have the ability to affect society so strongly. If it were a rule then the Koch brothers and Soros would be my idols since they are living that ideal.
One of the big problems I have with the concept of effective altruism is that at the end of the day the metrics that defines “effectiveness” are arbitrary, and I think my idea demonstrates that concept quite nicely.
I agree. In a just and fair world, we would not need philanthropy because everyone would be paying their fair share of taxes (not just hiding their real wealth) and all the safety nets would be fully funded for every person.
I felt the same way about Musk, years ago. I really thought he could take capitalism and put it to good use helping humanity. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, I suppose.
That glosses over the fact that his start came from his father's emerald mine money from apartheid South Africa (which I also didn't realize initially). It seems likely the rot was there from the start, just not so visible.
I believe that's mostly just a rumour. As far as I can tell, there was an emerald mine at some point that his father had a stake in, but it wasn't as lucrative as the rumour would make it seem. Nor was it in South Africa during apartheid, but rather in Zambia (not that that's necessarily much better). Snopes seems to agree with me: https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/11/17/elon-musk-emerald-mine/
That's not to say Musk is a good person, though. He's been an asshole for a long time. I just don't think an emerald mine has anything to do with him being a disgusting person.
Fascinating. If this is to be believed (and I don't see any reason why not to), it's rather surprising how far this myth has propagated. I have seen it mentioned offhandedly on Reddit for years as if it were gospel.
There's plenty of reason to hate Elon Musk without believing the was only successful because his wealth was handed to him from a source that perpetuated apartheid.
Excellent point, thank for correcting me!
I'm kinda glad I mostly ignored him until he outed himself so I can say I didn't really see him as a really good guy. At best I saw him as misaligned (I swear there is a better word but I'm coming up blank right now) with his wanting to be able to send people to mars if we fucked up here (that was mostly what I knew about him). My opinions was that we should be trying to save earth and focus on that and do we really deserve to be able to abandon earth after we are the ones who fucked it up?
Misguided?
Thank you, that was the word I wanted but wouldn’t come to mind.
Mirror for those hit by the paywall:
https://archive.is/E19fp
Is there a copy of this letter anywhere? I'm morbidly curious what actual claims X was making.
The CCDH's post on it has the letter embedded.
Wow, I could tell that the lawyer who wrote that knew that the claims were BS and that they have essentially no legal standing.
CCDH also posted their lawyer’s response and they even called them out on it.
I love it.
I'm not entirely sure why he thinks the whole "intimidation through lawsuits" tactic is going to work here (and elsewhere, as cited by this article), but I hope it burns him hard.
If his goal is to silence his critics to maintain an image of stability and strength, it instead is only making him appear weaker and more desperate.
Oh yeah this sort of thing is much more about bullying people with the threat of an expensive lawsuit than about actually expressing a legal claim with proper merit.
From the relevant Twitter/ X blog....
Is it projecting if it is a blatant lie?