Well this covers that question... Twitter engineering chief reveals exit hours after DeSantis ‘fiasco’ Departure follows embarrassing tech failure that hampered the Florida governor’s conversation with Elon Musk https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-n...-engineering-quits-after-ron-desantis-spaces/ Twitter engineering chief leaves abruptly one day after DeSantis disaster https://www.rawstory.com/twitter/
And the actual underlying cause of DeSantis' disastrous launch... Musk Firings Blamed for DeSantis Presidential Launch Fiasco https://www.thedailybeast.com/elon-musk-firings-blamed-for-ron-desantis-presidential-launch-fiasco Since taking over Twitter, Musk has cut the Spaces team from around 100 employees to just three; Spaces relies on servers from Amazon Web Services that are “insanely underprovisioned”; and Twitter engineers were simply not ready for hundreds of thousands of people to join the stream simultaneously. Platformer quoted a user on the pseudonymous employee forum Blind who said: "Musk will blame one (or more) of us and fire. That’s his MO.”
Elon continues to move out those who are not up to the demands of the new Twitter/X. The fellow leaving has been there four years, is the chief engineer. Most likely he did not have a satisfactory answer when Elon walked him through a checklist of the various stress tests that should have been undertaken. Also Twitter has been rinky-dink and not faced the large number of single event users. This will not work, as Twitter grows the enterprise and starts having YUGE townhalls. Keep moving out those who will not serve the long term goals, however painful it is. The new CEO will play a major role in this. She will not be able to accomplish her mission with the same set of dudheads left over from the previous regime. Great time for some to be joining Twitter- and a great time for some to be leaving. So be it. Twitter engineering boss Foad Dabiri quits day after DeSantis launch glitches https://www.bbc.com/news/business-65717731
So in summary, Musk allows blue check subscribers to load videos up to two hours long. Twitter needs to pay for storage space for these videos. A number of paid users start loading up long videos simply to abuse the system and make Musk pay -- far more than their monthly subscription fee. Fine business idea there, Elon. FAIL. Not to mention all the DCMA take down notices you are getting from movie studios you are basically ignoring because you fired the staff which processes them. Don't you want these movie studios to come back and advertise on Twitter? So much for that dream. Elon Musk's Latest Twitter Update Goes Horribly Wrong https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/tec...witter-update-goes-horribly-wrong/ar-AA1bpQqq
https://www.rollingstone.com/politi...musk-spacex-spaceflight-liability-1234742632/ DeSantis signed into law CS/SB 1318 – Spaceflight Entity Liability along with 27 other bills. The law exempts “spaceflight entity from liability for injury to or death of a crew resulting from spaceflight activities under certain circumstances.” The measure also requires “a spaceflight entity to have a crew sign a specified warning statement.” Florida is a known launching point for SpaceX aircrafts, and the new law could potentially shield Musk and other space flight companies from being sued for accidents that injure or kill crew members.
freeze peach!! https://english.elpais.com/internat...ip-requests-by-authoritarian-governments.html Since Elon Musk acquired Twitter in a tumultuous $44 billion deal completed last October, the social network has turned down very few requests for content restriction or censorship from countries like Turkey and India, which have recently passed laws limiting freedom of speech and the press. Although the billionaire owner of SpaceX and Tesla presents himself as a free speech absolutist, the social network he controls has bowed to hundreds of government orders during his first six months at the helm, according to data provided by the company to a public audit that tracks pressure from governments or judges on online platforms. The most recent example was the blocking of accounts critical of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, two days before the elections held in Turkey last Sunday. In India, which is immersed in an autocratic drift that for months has been choking the media, journalists and critical voices, Twitter has also seconded government bans. To justify the consent, Musk said: “The rules in India for what can appear on social media are quite strict, and we can’t go beyond the laws of a country,” and in doing so put his staff at risk, he added. “If we have a choice of either our people going to prison or us complying with the laws, we will comply with the laws.” This justification came after Twitter removed content related to a BBC documentary that was highly critical of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, which was blocked in January by the Indian government. Musk said that he was unaware “what exactly happened” over the content situation in India, but it seems certain that New Delhi ordered Twitter to remove all publications that included images or links to the video of the documentary, which questioned the leadership of the Hindu nationalist Modi during the Gujarat riots of 2002, when he was chief minister of that state, and in which at least 1,000 Muslims lost their lives (a figure activists put at 2,500). Among the content removed by Twitter were comments by a local parliamentarian. According to the NGO Reporters Without Borders, press freedom in India has declined drastically, falling eight points over the past year to place the country 150th in the international ranking. This has led to incidents such as the search of two local BBC offices after the documentary was blocked in a raid by tax authorities. In Turkey, most of the national media is controlled by the government and the opposition has accused the Erdogan administration of attempting to rein in social networks, the last stronghold of critical voices. Twitter’s acquiescence to autocratic or non-liberal regimes is not an exaggeration by critics of the social network. The data, which the public audit receives automatically, speaks for itself. Since Musk’s takeover, the company has received 971 requests from governments (compared to only 338 in the six-month period from October 2021 to April 2022), fully acceding to 808 of them and partially acceding to 154. In the year prior to Musk taking control, Twitter agreed to 50% of such requests, in line with the compliance rate indicated in the company’s last transparency report (none have been published since October 2022). Following the change of ownership, that figure has risen to 83%, according to the analysis of the data by the technology information portal Rest of World. “By ‘free speech,’ I simply mean that which matches the law. I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law. If people want less free speech, they will ask government to pass laws to that effect. Therefore, going beyond the law is contrary to the will of the people,” Musk wrote on Twitter in April 2022. The tycoon’s syllogism in denouncing censorship beyond the law — taking those established for granted — could be considered to run against any logical reasoning, but, thus far, it is the most complex formulation on the matter. Musk has also said that it is better to censor a few than to close Twitter for all, reserving the role of arbitrator in the manner of a Roman emperor, with a thumbs-up or thumbs-down gesture. Or, in his own words: “New Twitter policy is freedom of speech, but not freedom of reach.” On May 12, two days before Turkey’s elections, Twitter’s global governance account announced that, “in response to legal process and to ensure Twitter remains available to the people of Turkey, we have taken action to restrict access to some content in Turkey today” in the country, which nonetheless remained visible to the rest of the world. The statement did not specify which accounts would be blocked or for what reason. According to critics, the measure affected profiles denouncing corruption in Erdogan’s and his party’s entourage, some pro-Kurdish accounts and others making critical comments about the 2016 coup. In moves similar to those in Russia against NGOs, or in Hungary with public universities, Ankara has urged state agencies to fight foreign influence in the media. In February, following the devastating earthquake that struck the southeast of the country and neighboring Syria, access to Twitter was briefly cut off. In the past, Wikipedia has been banned, although the government later reversed its decision. “The day before a critical election in Turkey, Twitter appears to be acquiescing to the demands of the country’s autocratic ruler, Erdogan, and is censoring speech on the platform. Given Twitter’s total lack of transparency, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that Musk’s promises of free speech have again fallen away,” tweeted Democrat Adam B. Schiff, former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. For Musk, free speech seems to be a slogan rather than a principle, although his credentials are becoming increasingly clear: from initial and remotely Democratic positions, in November Musk called for Republican support in the midterm elections in the United States. Two women try to connect to Twitter in a cafe in Istanbul in March 2014. Two women try to connect to Twitter in a cafe in Istanbul in March 2014. TOLGA BOZOGLU (EFE) The Facebook precedent and hate speech Twitter is entering the slimy role of the networks in distorting public opinion and acting as vectors of disinformation, something that the cutback of moderation and control mechanisms on Musk’s network, for the sake of austerity, may contribute to fostering. Facebook, overshadowed today by Meta’s multiverse bet, has barely recovered from the revelation that, for the sole purpose of growth, it had tolerated hate messages that inflamed conflicts and even extermination campaigns against minorities such as the Rohingya in Myanmar. Facebook is a dark precedent of what a Twitter in freefall could look like, a platform without moderation mechanisms and owned by an iteration of Musk who is increasingly in thrall to the Republicans and their deregulatory policies, in a global scenario marked by the war in Ukraine and the upcoming U.S. presidential elections. The fact that negative and hateful messages multiplied after Musk took control of Twitter is an indicator of storm clouds. Modi, like Erdogan in Turkey, is seeking to revalidate his mandate for a third time in next year’s elections: the common denominator of autocrats. Jair Bolsonaro — another world leader who supposedly benefited from Twitter — also tried to do for a second time but failed. According to the data, Brazil is the fourth most-favored country in terms of Twitter’s acquiescence, behind Germany, which is a surprise inclusion on the list but whose presence is related to a law passed in 2017 to limit the online dissemination of hate speech. For months, Musk has maintained that his platform would not “censor” on behalf of the U.S. government, something that, he claimed without providing any details, he had done in the past. In November, he promised that Twitter would not “censor truthful information about anything.” That same month, he called for a “revolution against online censorship in America.” In December, he inquired whether Schiff had approved “hidden state censorship in direct violation of the Constitution of the United States.” In April, he tweeted as a parable: “Do not censor, lest you be censored.” This months-long crusade culminated in the release of the so-called Twitter archives, a set of leaked internal documents that Musk and conservative critics of social media claimed constituted proof that the U.S. government intended to suppress free speech on the Internet. Musk claimed they showed that “[The] government paid Twitter millions of dollars to censor info from the public,” a claim that experts say is unsubstantiated and serves to fuel the conspiracy theories of many Republicans. Erdogan’s reelection on May 28 seems beyond doubt, with or without the help of Twitter, but the platform’s nod to Modi in India does not seem to have yielded much, at least in the short-term. The state of Karnataka, the only bastion in the south of the country in the hands of Modi’s party, voted for the embattled opposition in a local election held last weekend, a snub that only portends more censure, with or without Twitter’s intervention.
Yeah... Elon obeys the laws within the borders of the countries in question... and that's wrong?!! Where was Adam Schiff when all this was going on with FB? Yeah, free speech, at the cost of 10's of thousands of murders in the name of ethnic cleansing? You guys are too stupid to see that you're being played by media with agendas that only take one side. This: “In 2017, the Rohingya were killed, tortured, raped, and displaced in the thousands as part of the Myanmar security forces’ campaign of ethnic cleansing. In the months and years leading up to the atrocities, Facebook’s algorithms were intensifying a storm of hatred against the Rohingya which contributed to real-world violence,” said Agnès Callamard, Amnesty International’s Secretary General. Ya'll need to get the f over Elon... the dude is not evil, he's not racist, he's not anti-semetic... he's not anything but a brilliant man who gets things done; and makes money along the way. The human race is better off with him here. Not vice-versa.
So I heard LinkedIn suspended Vivek Ramaswamy's account for a time being for something he wrote. Initially his people were informed he was "inciting violence" and spreading disinformation, etc. Ie... tough luck, you're banned. Then, after several Right-leaning media outlets got involved, they backed down and turned his account back on. I have not read any of the details so in a way this is second hand. But I suspect it's true. Now this guy is running a serious campaign to become President of the United States... and I'm gonna go out on a limb here based on what I have seen of him... he's anything but stupid. I find it hard to believe he wrote anything that in any way could be interpreted as "inciting violence". It sounds to me like this was just the opinion of a VERY FEW individuals that disagreed with what he said and had the power to revoke his account. And I guess the fact that they backed down reaffirms my assumption. That's scary. Who owns LinkedIn btw? This is the exact type of stuff that while you constantly hold Elon in contempt for rebuilding Twitter as best as he knows how.... you should also be throwing Laurel leaves at his feet for NOT stifling free-speech in the manner LinkedIn apparently attempted on a Presidential candidate last week. LinkedIn is a pretty powerful force in the career-seeking world... so what's really scary here is not only the above incident, but what it can mean to the average young professional if one reads between the lines. You play by their politics and their leanings... or you pretty much f any hopes of career advancement in your chosen field because they dominate the professional job-search market... or a big damn part of it. So before you cast any more stones at Elon... at least consider the above.