It’s One API, Michael. What Could It Cost? $42,000 Per Month?
from the you've-never-actually-set-foot-in-the-api-market,-have-you? dept
When Elon Musk moved to take over Twitter, Jack Dorsey, who endorsed the deal, talked to him about making the site more open, specifically turning it into a protocol that anyone could build on. This would have been a good plan. Indeed, it’s one that seems to now be gaining traction for basically every company not named Twitter. Elon Musk, however, went the other direction entirely.
Rather than opening up its systems to third party developers, Elon has pulled the API from many, told developers that no client apps were allowed, and revoked free access to the API. There has been a ton of speculation around the API pricing, which had been promised in early February, but kept getting pushed off. Musk had suggested a $100/month fee would make sense. However, it appears that the $100/month API will have very, very, very limited functionality.
Of course, academics, who have long relied on Twitter’s free API to do all sorts of useful research regarding the platform, were also quite concerned about what this would mean for them. And, it looks like they were right. Twitter is now pitching academics and enterprises on API access… that will run a mere $42,000 per month.
That’s for the cheapest tier.
Small package, indeed.
This seems, a bit, well, out of touch concerning how many users, especially academics, use the current API.
The cheapest, Small Package, gives access to 50 million tweets for $42,000 a month. Higher tiers give researchers or businesses access to larger volumes of tweets—100 million and 200 million tweets respectively—and cost $125,000 and $210,000 a month. WIRED confirmed the figures with other existing free API users, who have received emails saying that the new pricing plans will take effect within months.
“I don’t know if there’s an academic on the planet who could afford $42,000 a month for Twitter,” says Jeremy Blackburn, assistant professor at Binghamton University in New York and a member of the iDRAMA Lab, which analyzes hate speech on social media—including on Twitter.
It’s a choice. But it seems like a choice from someone who still doesn’t understand how third parties add much of the value to Twitter. Cutting them all off, and thinking that you’ll actually make revenue by massively overcharging for API access is, well, a choice. But seeing as the lack of API will do so much harm to users, it seems like it makes it even less valuable even for those who have the means to pay.
Once again, it seems to be decision making based on desperation for revenue, and not for any sort of strategic, long-term thinking on what would be best for the site and its users.
Comments on “It’s One API, Michael. What Could It Cost? $42,000 Per Month?”
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Cover the new censorship leaks released last week, you coward.
I don’t care much about Twitter’s API (I in fact came from a company years ago which paid for the twitter’s “full pipe”) and you have no evidence that academic’s would have to pay full price and I don’t care if if they did. (they have budgets and anyway, sociology is not a real science, real science is reproducible)
I care a great deal about government censorship by proxy, though. Several dozen proxies, apparently.
Re:
Yes, we must learn about what is being hidden. Look up “Twitter Kept Entire ‘Database’ of Republican Requests to Censor Posts” to learn more!
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
a little bit, and that’s bad too, but it was mostly federal agencies through intermediaries.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Yes, Masnick is ignoring evidence that directly shows he’s a liar.
Re: Re: Re:
[Projects facts contrary to evidence]
Re:
fuck off, mate
Re: Re:
Beautifully simple, yet meaningful
10/10 prose
Re:
I am morbidly curious. Is there a point buried in there somewhere, or are you just mumbling incoherently to yourself?
Re:
Yes, we should absolutely look into what conditions were placed by Saudi Arabia when it gave Elon Musk money to buy Twitter. Thanks for the insight, Matthew!
Re:
Then ignore the stories about it, you dumbass. Your post here is even more irrelevant than usual.
Re:
damn sorry to hear about your dick dude 🙁
Re:
Re:
I’m going to be honest, I actually read techdirt more cause of you.
Re: Re:
I’ve said that if he didn’t exist they’d have to build a right wing chatbot to encourage engagement here in the comments. He’s helping to create an engaging experience at Techdirt and he’s doing it for free while he froths that he hates us all.
Re: Re: Re:
“He’s helping to create an engaging experience at Techdirt”
He really isn’t 🙁
Re:
I’m pretty sure Mike’s perfectly content to continue with covering only things that factually happened, and leaving all the deranged gaslighting to you.
Re: Lol
You don’t know the value of interacting with twitter, either reading data or posting. Got it.
Except having been in academia, I know how razor-thin their budgets are for things. And $42k/month absent a healthy grant specifically for such a thing is about as common as unicorn teeth (and I’d love to see the proposal for said grant, specifically the expected outcome).
(cough) “academics”*
Being barely literate doesn’t lead much credence to your arguments about academia.
Said someone who obviously never took an introductory course in said subject.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
I didn’t take a course in phrenology, either. Probably has a better reproducibility rate than sociology.
Re: Re: Re:
It categorically does not. Your ignorance about sociology doesn’t prove it isn’t science.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Mr. Bar Weiss, I know quite a bit about sociology……including it’s reproducibility rate, which shows it’s not science.
Do you EVER learn something about a subject before commenting on it?
Re: Re: Re:3
Yeah, no idea who that is. Whatever, you mention stuff that I talked about, so I’ll respond anyways.
Yeah, suffice to say I don’t believe you when you say that any more than you believe me about… anything, really. Based on what you say, you don’t know anything about the reproducibility rate of sociology; you just don’t like it.
All the time. Including now. Took a course on the subject in college. Just because I disagree with you doesn’t mean I don’t know what I’m talking about. You have got to stop jumping to conclusions like that; it makes you look like an idiot.
Moreover, you have the burden of proof here. Technically, I don’t have to research your claim for you if you don’t provide evidence for it. Maybe provide some evidence, and if you do, I could provide mine to counter it.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
You dumb fuck. Ms Bari Wiess, formerly a NYT reporter? You kinda hilariously while ad hominening her thought she was a guy and a NYpost reporter, which according to you made her disreputable. It was hilarious BECAUSE not only were you dramatically wrong about her and reputation, you trash talked her based on things that absolutely were not true and would have been corrected by like 30 sec of googling. She’s pretty famous, actually, you should have at least known of her, but trash talking her (in order to discredit her reporting, it was blatant ad hominem) based on characteristics…you imagined, I guess? Assumed based on a very thin context of the thread in question?
And after all that you don’t even remember? Jesus fuck. It was epically dumb, and I will never take you seriously after it.
hahahahaha again, this is something you should know, but whatever, take the lesson and get the fuck out of my face.
https://www.wired.com/story/social-science-reproducibility/
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/11/psychologys-replication-crisis-real/576223/
https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/8/27/17761466/psychology-replication-crisis-nature-social-science
https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/phc3.12633
Re: Re: Re:5
Sigh That was a joke, you idiot. I was poking fun at your misspelling. You typed “Mr. Bar Weiss” instead of “Mr. Bari Weiss”. In case you haven’t noticed, I’ve been joking about every time you mention that name because you seriously can’t seem to let it go.
No, I didn’t ad hominem her. I was just noting what someone else was arguing, and asked you to address the argument that person was making. I never actually took a position on whether the claims made were true or false.
I made an incorrect assumption based on the name, though it was always tentative. It was never relevant to what I was doing, which was to ask you to address the actual arguments someone else was making.
That was me misreading what someone else said because there were two different reporters being discussed, one named but not associated with a specific paper, the other unnamed and working for the NY Post. Not realizing that these were two different people, I assumed that they were the same person. This was incorrect.
I suggested that, to the person you were arguing with, that could be sufficient to make her disreputable. Again, I never stated my opinion on whether she would be disreputable.
You greatly exaggerate. For one thing, nothing I said involved anything about her reputation to anyone other than the other people in the conversation. At all. Given that they clearly felt she was disreputable, I was clearly right in saying that they felt her reputation was poor.
The only things I got wrong were the gender (which was entirely irrelevant) and whether someone else said she worked for the NY Post (which was relevant to one of my arguments, but it was a minor one, and I immediately conceded that argument). Anything else was literally just me saying what the arguments made by someone else were and telling you to address them. I even offered advice.
I didn’t “trash-talk” her. All I did was point out the claims others were making about her and ask you to address them. That you think I assumed them to be true is just you jumping to conclusions as much as I did about Bari Weiss’s gender.
Also, I think I made it clear that I don’t research other people’s claims for them if they don’t provide evidence.
Not really. I pay no attention to the names of journalists I don’t read, and I’m bad at remembering names regardless. There also is little correlation between someone’s fame and whether I’ve heard of them.
Once again, anything about her reputation was literally just me telling you about the claims others made. None of it was reflective of my own opinion, which I was reserving judgment on. I was waiting for you to provide evidence of it.
In case it wasn’t obvious by now, I do remember. Quite clearly. Better than you, apparently, since you got a number of details wrong.
The thing is that you took an incredibly obvious joke seriously. It’s kinda amazing that you missed it, really. (And no, I don’t think it’s terribly funny. It’s vaguely entertaining, but nothing more than that. But then your jokes aren’t exactly funny, either, so it seems fair.)
You didn’t take me seriously before it, either. Heck, you probably still think I’m in my 20s or something. You’re a terrible judge of character.
Sorry, I don’t read pop science. Too much sensationalism. When it comes to the state of any science, I only pay attention to peer-reviewed journals. Come back with an actual study to prove your point.
No, I don’t think I will. You certainly won’t do that for anyone else.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
No, it was not. You continued for some time and were visibly confused and said something to the effect “how would I know who that was” after being confronted on it. (you should have known who that was)
So now I know not only that you are deeply uninformed and kinda dumb (I’m actually starting to suspect you have severed aspergers?) but that you’re willing to lie about it. It’s encouraging you have the sense to be embarrassed about it now, but also sad you’re willing to lie about it.
I absolutely do not believe you, especially in light of your comments at the time. And I will not let it go, because it’s my reminder not to interact with you.
Re: Re: Re:7
And yet… for some strange reason you’ve been going back and forth with them on the topic of your “reminder” and totally failing to “not interact” with them…
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:8
As in “not go through line by line and refute his ridiculous long posts” Still going to remind him of that really dumb thing he said and tell him to fuck off.
Re: Re: Re:9
Oh. I didn’t realize you were making up radically different definitions for words and expect all of us to know them.
I guess we can all just assume all your post say “Go Team! Rah Rah!” Or something, only- in moronise.
Re: Re: Re:9
And I’m going to continue to ignore your demands and make fun of your little “reminders”.
Also, that’s not what “interact” means.
Re: Re: Re:7
That’s not what I’m talking about. The joke is where I said things like this:
I have no idea why you thought I meant anything else. I explicitly said:
and:
How could that possibly be referring to the time I got the gender and employer wrong?
If by “visibly confused” you mean “immediately admitted I was wrong”, then yes, and by “continued for some time”, you mean “immediately admitted the error and apologized for it, then tried to move on, but you kept going on and on about it.”
As for “How would I know who that was?”, I meant “Why would you expect that I knew who that was?” Not once did I claim that I knew who Bari Weiss was. Everything I said about her other than gender was either based on a misunderstanding of what was said by others like yourself (specifically what publication she worked for) or me pointing out the claims of others.
No. You just have a hard time comprehending what I write.
That isn’t a thing. Asperger’s is (or, rather, was, as the term is no longer in use as a medical diagnosis or scientific term) the higher-functioning end of the spectrum of autism. “Severe Asperger’s” is a nonsensical term.
But, to answer your question, you are correct to say that I have Asperger’s (or, rather, high-functioning autism spectrum disorder to be more accurate, though I’m not at all bothered if you continue to say “Asperger’s” instead), but quite incorrect to say it is “severe” (even disregarding the fact that it doesn’t even make sense, but I’ll just take it to mean severe autism instead). Frankly, among others with high-functioning autism, I am actually closer to neurotypical than average. The fact you think that I’m a severe case suggests to me that you have had little interaction with autistic persons.
No, you just misunderstood what I was talking about.
Not really. Any embarrassment I might have felt initially faded due to your harping on about it. You greatly exaggerated the magnitude of the error and its repercussions.
I’m not, and I didn’t. What’s sad here is your reading comprehension skills. Aren’t you the least bit embarrassed about that?
Once again, I am joking about your calling me Bari Weiss, not the original error about her gender and her employer or my response to being “called out” for that error. Seriously, you really need to learn some reading comprehension.
A reminder which you never fail to ignore, as you still continue to interact with me. It’s also a really dumb thing to be hung up on. Hence why I make fun of each of your “reminders” and ignore your demands that I shut up.
But hey, you do you. I really don’t care. At least I get some amusement out of it.
Though, you know what the funny thing is? You’ve been acting as though I was referring to the original error when I said I was joking (which I obviously wasn’t), but then you ignore everything I did say about that. Maybe if you had paid attention to the rest of what I said, you’d have realized that the joke I was referring to is not what you think it is.
Re: Re: Re:5
New York Times Op ed columnist, not a journalist, not a reporter, her entire in was to write sh*tty takes on culture war issues because reality has a left wing bias and the NYT was trying to bring on ‘conservate voices’ and she was friends with the editor as they worked together at the WSJ, where again, she didn’t work as a journalist. She’s as much a reporter as all the dogcrap former Bush admin officials who’ve had the same gig, both at the NYT and on TV.
Re:
Hey Matthew,
Hi. How are you today? How’s the weather by you? Storms seem to be hitting everywhere. Hope you’re well.
I really appreciate you trying to take on the role of assignments editor at Techdirt, but I’m afraid we already have an assignments editor in place, and he seems a bit more… well… grounded.
As for the Twitter files last week, I have gone through them and saw… nothing worth commenting on. There were some more of the same: completely misread and misleading allegations by Taibbi (he really doesn’t get how most of the orgs he’s writing about operate). What I did see was that some outside orgs sent some data to Twitter, much of which Twitter was not impressed by. I saw nothing in there about gov’t censorship. Like most of the Twitter files, it was so empty of substance, it wasn’t even worth debunking.
Cool. Perhaps you can try to do what most people do when they see a story they’re not interested in, and not read it.
I mean, I do, in that the screenshot above was sent to me by an academic who received it directly from Twitter. But, you do your job, and let me do mine, okay? I don’t show up at your job and shit in your cubicle and tell you you’re doing it all wrong, do I?
Lol. You make some silly statements Matthew, which is why you’re kinda amusing to have around, but this one may be the most silly of all.
I mean, sure. What’s that got to do with anything, though?
Cool. Good for you. Maybe educate yourself on what that means, then, and stop looking so damn foolish all the time.
Thanks. Good chat.
Toodles.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Of course you don’t. They show you were lying.
He very clearly knows a lot more than you do.
Funny, what I see is the federal government spending millions of dollars (several hundred million? Many grants of $10M+ anyway) to get content censored, much of it by US citizens and based on the content.
Oh, except for the part where government paid proxies to make it happen? That part?
You’re a fucking liar.
No, I wanted to point out you’re a coward and a liar. K, thx.
I would, but you really suck at it. Did your academic friend ask for an academic rate? Did he talk to a salesperson or just get a download of a general price sheet? Who knows! You probably don’t. I’m not saying there IS a nonprofit/academic price, but there often is. I suspect you and your friend don’t care to find it if it makes Musk look bad tho.
Thanks Masnick, I feel pretty educated about it though. So much so that I want to educate others on what a total fucking liar you are on the subject.
The government didn’t spend hundreds of millions dollars to censor people because it had no effect and didn’t matter, did they?
Re: Re: Re:
This whole comment is just you say “nuh uh” over and over.
Very convincing, Matthew.
Facts matter. I wish you’d learn that.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
That’s funny, I think that’s Exactly what you do.
Bennett: “These documents show that the government was directing the censorship of US citizens”
Masnick: “Nuh uh, no they don’t”
But of course then I went through line by line and not only refuted but showed WHY…..and the response you have is childish taunts.
Again, your position is that the government spent hundreds of millions of dollars paying groups to NOT censor people. Despite all those lists of requests lobbying Twitter (and FB, and Youtube) on who to censor.
Re: Re: Re:3
Except, of course, as anyone can see, I did not just say “nun uh.” I explained exactly what they show: they show that independent NGOs, who receive some government funding, have created some programs focused on combating foreign influence operations. And, as a part of that, they sometimes release lists of those they believe (rightly or wrongly) are foreign operators. Twitter looks at those lists, and decides what to do with them based on its own policies and criteria.
I explained why that’s not gov’t censorship even in the slightest. For it to be gov’t censorship there needs to be demands, there needs to be coercion, and it cannot be “hey does this break your rules?” There also needs to be gov’t involvement.
So far, there is zero indication that any of the NGOs in question, some of which are well known, well respected, etc., were taking direction from the US government.
I literally explained everything, and the reasons for what I am saying is factual and accurate.
You just cursed everyone out and said “nuh uh.”
Which one do you think is more convincing?
Matthew, I recognize that you’re an angry, scared individual. But, I honestly think that if you took a deep breath every now and again, and looked at the facts, and realized that (perhaps) you’re a bit too quick to believe the spin of some very silly people, you might recognize that you made a mistake.
You keep seeming to double down, and each time you do, you get angrier and angrier. At the same time, you refuse to back up any of your claims (because that’s impossible) and therefore you look silly. And I assume you don’t want to look so silly.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
Except, you’re just saying “nuh uh”. That’s your fucking go to.
You mean just deny the evidence in front of you? OK.
Incorrect. Completely Incorrect. Actual constitutional scholars say you’re blowing smoke.
You are, in essence, saying that the federal government spent several hundred thousand dollars to NOT censor anybody. That all that go investiture in who could say what was completely harmless. Why? Cuz they didn’t say “or else”. Your logic is that it isn’t murder if they miss sometimes.
Get fucked. Your entire conception of how the law works is actual bullshit. Actual lawyers (which you are not) say so. This whole “it’s only censorship if the government tells you to ban these people, directly, no proxies, and there are threats, and 100% compliance rate” is completely fucking made up. That’s not how any of this works. You’re just fucking lying to partisan (oh so very partisan) effect.
Oh, that tickled me, you shitwad. I Love ** this evolution of language. Initially you said I was “lied to”, then backed off when I was like “I can fucking read it for myself” Now you’ve moved on to “Scared”. “Scared”? I am scared of the civil war this sorta Orwellian newspeak will beget, you absolute shithead. Do you want to try “cling to your guns and religion” next? **One of those is true.
The government is censoring opposing views, engaging in blatant propaganda, there’s a very clear and obvious two-tiered justice system, and you want to tell me I’m the victim of “spin”. Meanwhile you malign every conservative politician no matter how thin the excuse and justify every liberal politicians exceses no matter how unhinged.
Yeah man. I’m the one who’s scared.
Re: Re: Re:5
Explaining in detail why X doesn’t prove Y is not just saying “nuh uh”.
This is otherwording. It is a fallacy.
False.
Yeah, because that was never the goal. The goal was research to find potential foreign operatives. If you can’t understand why a government would pay several hundred thousand dollars to try to find foreign operatives, I don’t know what to tell you.
Seriously, the government does spend money on things that don’t censor people, y’know. Scientific research, law enforcement, courts, diplomacy, enforcing regulations, health care, public broadcast systems, infrastructure, the military, …. The list goes on.
That wasn’t what was being paid for. Those researchers simply did that on their own based on the research that was the actual intended end-product.
Yeah, coercion is a necessary part of it. The government can make recommendations if it wants to without running afoul of the 1A. It just can’t force or intimidate anyone to comply with such recommendations.
However, in this case, the government isn’t even directing the researchers to make the recommendations, so it’s even less of a potential violation.
That isn’t analogous. At all. It’s more like it isn’t murder if no shots are fired or even threatened or anything, just bullets being tossed in their general direction, though even that’s a poor analogy.
This characterization of Mike’s claims is what’s completely made up.
What world are you living in? Mike has criticized a number of liberal politicians (like Joe Biden and the current governor of NY (whose name escapes me)), and he has also praised a number of conservative politicians (like Chris Cox and that one conservative governor I can’t recall). This is a completely absurd claim that is incredibly easy to refute.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
Bari weiss, I don’t care
Re: Re: Re:7
It’s obvious that you do.
Re: Re: Re:7
If I ever happen to see her, I’ll be sure to let her know. Though I remain perplexed why you keep telling me this.
(And since this apparently needs to be spelled out for you, this is a joke. I am making fun of your little hang-up.)
Re: Re: Re:5
I never deny evidence. I require evidence. You have never provided any.
No. You found one person who claims otherwise. I could trot out a dozen who say you’re wrong. But, more importantly I can (and have, repeatedly!) pointed to the only Constitutional scholars that matter on this: the judges who have decided half a dozen cases on this very topic who have concluded, repeatedly, that there needs to be an element of coercion.
You can “nuh uh” over and over again, but the courts have always said you were wrong.
No, Matthew. That’s not what I’m saying at all. First off, the funding was never for “censorship,” anyway. From the grants that I’ve seen it’s always been about studying foreign influence. And, again, I do think that many of the groups were wrong and overreacted. But you are making multiple huge leaps, including (1) that the funding was for “censorship” (2) that the funding resulted in “ban” lists and (3) that these NGOs had some sway or power over what Twitter did and (4) that Twitter did not act of its own regard on all of these decisions.
All four of your assumptions are incorrect.
I’ve spent decades fighting government censorship from both political parties. Both of them are terrible and desire to censor speech they don’t want. I’m first in line to call out that kind of thing.
But one thing I won’t do is lie to support a position because I want it to be true.
I do, in all honesty, hope that you’re having a nice day, and that one day you learn how to defend points in an honest way.
I mean, the courts and nearly all scholars agree with me. You have one dude on your side, and he’s been widely recognized as a partisan joke for years.
By half a dozen courts? And you have none who support your view?
I mean, dude, it was just last week that I listed out a bunch of examples of me calling out Democrats attacking free speech. And I’m finishing up a post right now calling out Gavin Newsom’s attack on free speech.
The thing is, when you lie like that, I have the receipts to prove you wrong.
If you’re not scared, then you’re just a fool. I can’t decide which is worse.
Either way, I still hope that one day you learn how to debate honestly. It’s really too bad that you can’t.
Re: Re: Re:4
Evidence strongly indicates otherwise. I genuinely think it’s a fetish for him.
Re: Re: Re:5
I’m pretty sure there are people out there who would be happy to make them look silly/publicly humiliate them, or what ever it is that they think they want. I imagine that what ever gratification they get from experiencing that on Techdirt pales in comparison to having someone do it in real life.
Maybe Matt just needs to build the right kind of RL connections.
Re: Re: Re:6
If Matthew acts like this in front of us, I’d never trust him with anyone from the BDSM community.
There’s always the non-zero chance he might murder them.
Re: Re: Re:7
Murder? Nah, Matt’s the kind of weak-ass soy boy who looks at alt-girls and leather whips and harnesses and gag masks and pisses himself from the edge involved. Matt’s the sort of guy who thinks “danger” is driving his car through the black part of town with the windows drawn up.
Re: Re: Re:7
I have to point out that MMB’s recent comments remind one uncomfortably of the spewings of David Berkowitz, the ‘Son of Sam’ serial killer.
I would be less worried about him killing someone in a scene, than about him going postal and just offing people randomly in the street he might suspect of being liberal.
Or just female 🙁
Re: Re: Re:4
OMG… The feds give people money via tax returns!!!!
That means everyone who gets one is on the government payroll and everytime they flag a fuckwit its a 1st amendment violation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Or something…
Re: Re: Re:
If they did, that in itself would be something he would see that would be worth commenting on. You just proved yourself wrong.
No, that doesn’t appear to be the case.
If you do, then either it’s somewhere other than these Twitter Files, or you’re seeing things. That those outside organizations received government funding is not, without more, evidence that the government was involved in those organizations deciding to send such lists to Twitter. Without that second part, this cannot be evidence of the government directing censorship.
You mean the part that wasn’t even there? Because that’s not shown anywhere in the Twitter Files.
You can do that without reading stories you’re not interested in. Those two things aren’t contradictory. As such, you still haven’t explained why you’re commenting on a story you’re not interested in when most people would just not read it.
Then make your own site. This site isn’t yours; you don’t have any say in what gets reported on here.
There doesn’t appear to be one. Normally, that stuff would be mentioned in the stuff sent to, y’know, academic institutions. You don’t normally need to ask.
Irrelevant. Also, there isn’t normally a salesperson for stuff like this. That’s not how this works. You really don’t know anything about APIs for large online platforms, huh?
And often, there isn’t. And when there is, for something for general public offering like this, that would be mentioned in the material sent to everyone, especially sent to, y’know, academic institutions.
Seriously, stop talking about stuff you admit you don’t care about and which you clearly don’t know anything about.
That you feel educated about it is pretty much irrelevant, especially given the complete lack of understanding of the subject that you continually demonstrate, which suggests that you aren’t educated on it anywhere near as much as you think you are.
To use your own words, “you really suck at it.” You have done nothing to demonstrate that Mike is even wrong on the subject, and you haven’t even tried to demonstrate that Mike is not only wrong but a liar.
I mean, it doesn’t appear that they spent hundreds of millions of dollars to censor people to begin with based on the evidence presented, so the question doesn’t actually make sense. And even putting that aside, even if I accepted everything else you’ve said thus far, it would still appear to be the case that “it had no effect”, so if the government did spend all that money to censor people, the answer to your question would appear to be, “Yes, they did.”
Re: Re: Re:2
Can I suggest you just flag and ignore the brat since he isn’t here to have any kind of debate, he’s here to argue in bad faith, harass and troll. No matter what arguments you present he’ll ignore them, call you stupid or think its an attack on him and his warped world image.
He’s acting like a fanatic nutcase, there’s no reason to debate, argue or otherwise engage with him. The sooner people realize this, the sooner he will be gone because he thrives on the interaction.
Re: Re: Re:3
He IS a fanatic brownshirt.
Flagging will only minimize the pollution he’s gonna do.
Re: Re: Re:3
Eh, that’d be boring. As much as I’d like to have a more productive conversation (like I’ve had with Hyman or… I forget the name, but it’s the guy who thinks shame of the nude body in public should not exist), he says things that are wrong or undemonstrated, and it’s fun to find all the things he gets wrong or fails to demonstrate.
Also, even though it definitely got old, it’s amusing that he thinks calling me “Bari Weiss” is some sort of gotcha, and I like finding new ways to play along with it.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
Mr. Bar Weiss, you are in no way qualified to comment. (see above, since apparently you forgot you dumbass)
Re: Re: Re:5
I remember better than you, apparently. At least I remember it’s Bari, not Bar.
Also, there are no qualifications needed to comment. Otherwise, you probably couldn’t do so.
Re: Re: Re:6
Point of order: Nuh uh!
More seriously: the bar for commenting is being able to articulate to machine (usually via typing, but possibly via speech-to-text) your words. And then submitting the post.
Now I admit this is a really really low bar. Low enough that you probably have to dig for it. But I suspect some of our trolls are hunting for it… so they can get under it (and I guess spare us all from them).
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
You were legitimately confused, and it continued, hilariously, for a half dozen comments. A typo doesn’t get you out of it, sorry.
Re: Re: Re:7
If you are talking about the original error, that’s at least an understandable assumption even if not entirely correct.
If you mean in this comment section, I literally said I was joking in one of those comments. Additionally, earlier in this thread, I explicitly said that I was making fun of your continued insistence on calling me “Bari Weiss”.
Seriously, the one who appears legitimately confused here is you, not me. Heck, you probably still haven’t realized I never stopped responding to you. Maybe you’re projecting and are trying to hide your embarrassment at not realizing that I was joking (even though I said a long time ago that I would, and even though I explicitly said I was doing that twice in this thread before you ever said anything about me appearing to have forgotten who Bari Weiss is) by lying about what I said. I don’t believe that’s the case, but then I’m a lot more charitable when people make honest mistakes than you are. (I don’t consider that something to be particularly proud of; you have no tolerance for honest mistakes unless you make them, so most people would be more charitable than you.)
I never said it did. My pointing out the typo is yet another joke. Seriously, I know I’m not all that funny, but are you incapable of distinguishing between jokes and non-jokes? You should at least be able to tell that that wasn’t meant as a serious rebuttal.
Re: Re: Re:
If half of your nonsense here was true there’d be at least a dozen right wing billionaires more than happy to make it rain money to file lawsuits galore. Even if it was a legal long shot, they’d be filing just to harass the federal government and to get heil fives from fellow travellers. But they don’t want to look as loonie as Mike Lindell, they don’t want their efforts to become a punchline. No laws have been broken here because if there had been there’d be an army of right wing lawyers filing suits seeking remedy.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Daily reminder actual legal experts say you’re an asshat:
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/3883931-twitter-discloses-another-possible-government-censorship-effort/
That was about half a week before Taibbi released the actual receipts….we now have an idea how extensive the federal funding was.
“Toodles”, dumbass.
Re: Re: Re:
You do realize that ‘The Hill’ has gone over to the Dark Side in full measure, yes?
And it sure looks like they’ve sucked you along with them, right over the cliff and down into that bottomless abyss.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Oh cool, ad hominem! We never see that when people are presented with facts they don’t like!
Besides which The Hill is still quite lefty from my perspective. This is sorta like lefties pretending Bill Maher is right-wing now because he points out how crazy wokies are. No, he’s about the same, it’s just The Left has gotten crazier and crazier. Same with the Hill.
Which is all less important than that you’re just making a useless ad hominem.
Re: Re: Re:3
Ah, more abuse of the term ad hominem. Excellent!
Re: Re: Re:3
“Oh cool, ad hominem!”
Tsk, tsk. It’s not just ad hominem. It’s tu quoque*
With your limited opportunities, you can’t just toss away a chance to sound really smart.
*You know, like when you were casting aspersions on short, fat people with pink hair a few days ago. Speaking of “when people are presented with facts they don’t like!”
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
No, it’s just ad hominem. Doesn’t like the facts, attacks the messenger of the facts. Classic case, actually.
I get it, if you ALSO don’t like those facts, you might be inclined to make excuses for the ad hominem.
In direct response to you making emasculating BDSM references? Yes. And?
Re: Re: Re:5
Someone seems upset that their dom isn’t the one doing the emasculating… 🤔
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
Actually more upset about the hypocrisy of trying to insult someone based on physical characteristics, to be honest.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:7
Look, mate, Chozen’s not going to let you be the top. You’ll just have to settle with constantly being the little spoon. Suck it up and get over yourself.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:8
You dumb fucks keep thinking that making me sound like a deranged homosexual or white incel is supposed to be intelligent. It’s not. I never said anything about being straight. Once that womb donator shat out two offspring her value was completely exhausted. That gives me the chance to come here and show you useless basement dwellers how much of an alpha I actually am.
You think I’m owning you, wait until Chozen comes and tears you leftists a new asshole so big, I’d fall all the way to China in an attempt to actually fuck you.
Re: Re: Re:9
The bastion of true love and tolerance!
Re: Re: Re:9
It’s sad how misguided you are.
Re: Re: Re:9
“Once that womb donator shat out two offspring her value was completely exhausted.”
Masterful. Disgusting AND completely unintelligible.
But it does confirm that you have issues bigger than Mt Everest, and that you are a raging misogynist.
Not exactly characteristics to endear you to a person. But I doubt you’ve ever tried being endearing.
Re: Re: Re:9
LMAO. It’s dumb shit like this that makes people doubt if you actually have a wife. But in the off chance you do, it’s small wonder that you’d rather try to fuck with other people than fuck her if this is what you think.
Re: Re: Re:7
To be honest is such a big tell. To be honest, I believe you’re a decent person.
To be honest, I’m the least racist person in the world.
Re: Re: Re:5
“In direct response to you making emasculating BDSM references?”
It’s only you who thinks being into BDSM is emasculating. I suspect most of the people who get off on the kind of abuse you actively solicit, are in fact male.
Or do you perhaps think that BDSM is only practiced by gay people?
The thing is, you snotty, ignorant little bigot – people have tried being nice to you, and you respond with abuse. People have tried to offer you sincere advice, and you respond with abuse. They try to engage you in genuine conversation, and you respond with abuse.
So, really, there’s no point in being nice or kind or thoughtful in responding to the literally barking mad volume of your comments, or the drivel contained therein.
You have no actually useful points to make, and you can’t make your useless points without being disgusting. You have no respect for the qualifications or experience of the people who comment here, or indeed, who own the place. You are very obviously nasty and vile to Mike Masnick who is preternaturally patient in not banning you from his blog and allowing you to continue airing your ID for the world and his dog to laugh at. You’re so very obviously uninterested in the purpose of his blog, the actual facts he presents, or the views of his commentariat, and you are so very obviously not welcome as a presence because you be-dung the place.
Yet, you come back and back and back, with none-to-minimal grasp of the broadest reality and a shopping container’s worth of chips on your shoulder, preconceived ideas, conspiracy theories, and uninformed prejudice, and think that makes you someone to take seriously.
It just doesn’t, Matthew. It makes you a pain in the arse, and a very childish, unhealthy human being. (I’d have said ‘adult’, but you sound like you’re a bored fifteen-year-old, not a grown up.)
There is nothing left to do with you but to flag you, mock you, or abuse you. Because nothing else interests you, and everything you cop here, is brought on by your own disgusting and intellectually deficient behaviour.
Now, go ahead and make some ad hominem remark about me (about whom, you know fuck all). It will make as much impression as the snarling of some yappy little dog straining on its leash on the other side of the paddock. Behind a bloody big fence.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
That’s nice. Also completely incorrect. And, in fact, you wouldn’t have written such emasculating language if you did not think it would annoy me, which were I the “only one” you would have had no idea of knowing, right? (In fact I wasn’t terribly bothered, I just thought the hypocriticalness was horrific and remain of such opinion.)
I see you wrote quite a long post, I read no further. I imagine it consists of “I am going to emasculate you but insist that you are only one insulted by such language but also you absolutely should be insulted by that” Yeah, OK, that makes PERFECT sense.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:7
But it’s really hard for all of us to try and emasculate you when you insist on slamming that sad excuse for a cock in the door over and over….
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:8
See? This is sad.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:9
It’s sad because you don’t have a cock, right?
They should have said hand I suppose.
Re: Re: Re:10
I don’t know, I fully expect Matthew to be capable of slamming his vagina in the door.
Re: Re: Re:7
“I read no further”
Your mistake was in thinking I thought you would be able to read it at all.
I was setting out, for my own pleasure, just what a festering blob of smegma you are, and why no one should bother to listen to a word you lie.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
Taibbi and Greenwald were also often featured here on Techdirt back in the day, back before Maz developed TDS/EDS.
Re: Re: Re:4 While you’re here…
Yes or no, Koby: Do you believe the government should have the legal right to compel any privately owned interactive web service into hosting legally protected speech that the owners/operators of said service don’t want to host?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5
Well they tried to compel them (and often were successful) in trying to compel them NOT to host the legally protected speech.
Re: Re: Re:6
You still haven’t demonstrated that that was the case.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:7
Of course I have.
Bari Weiss, your ignorance is not an argument.
Re: Re: Re:8
You really need to stop replying to me with stuff meant for Bari Weiss.
Unless… Oh God! Do you think I’m Bari Weiss?
Well, goodness me! This is a huge misunderstanding! No, my name is not Bari Weiss! There is a hint as to my last name in my username. Hopefully that clears things up!
(Unfunny) Jokes aside, I already explained elsewhere the problems with your evidence as support for your claim when you stated it. Here, you didn’t even bother to provide that, which is fine, but then I see no reason to repeat my arguments if you didn’t. I didn’t argue from ignorance. I argued from the fact that you failed to prove your claim.
Your bald assertions aren’t arguments either, btw.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:9
I explained above. I can’t believe you forgot. Honestly I thought you stopped commenting out of embarrassment.
You trash talked “him” for working at the NYPost…when she (who is quite famous, actually) used to work at the NYT and not only should you have known who she is or googled her for 30 sec but you assumed all this shit based on nothing and it was just the most Dunning-Kruger thing I’ve ever seen on the internet. Amazing. (I hate people who cite “dunning kruger” but it fits too well here, better even than “sophomoric” which this was WAY dumber than))
Re: Re: Re:10
Because they keep mentioning it when talking about you? I could see that being annoying to you, since you’re obviously so much smarter than everyone else…
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:11
Really cuz it’s almost always ad hominem with extra steps.
But saying someone is dumb so they’re wrong is ad hominem.
Saying they’re wrong so they’re dumb is just a well deserved insult.
Statisically, yes.
Re: Re: Re:12
*Statistically.
Also no.
Re: Re: Re:12
That’s literally been your entire argument against me. You have continually claimed that I’m dumb, so I must be so obviously wrong that I’m not worth addressing.
And, as far as the Dunning-Kruger thing is concerned, it’s meant to be used as the conclusion, not a premise.
I dispute “well-deserved”. People can be wrong without being dumb. It’s called making a mistake. You yourself made a mistake in another discussion in asserting that CA lost the case in which it was arguing that bees are “fish”, which they actually won. Despite that, I don’t think that that makes you dumb. Also, smart people can say dumb things, and dumb people can say smart things.
But yeah, while you may have started with that regarding myself, since then, you have repeatedly done the former. That I was wrong—even woefully wrong—in a single instance doesn’t prove me wrong on every other topic, especially ones completely unrelated to the one I was mistaken on. However, you decided that just one instance on one narrow topic where I was (allegedly) woefully wrong meant that I was wrong on every topic every time and so not worth addressing beyond calling me dumb. That is an ad hominem.
An individual cannot be statistically smarter than everyone else. That’s not how statistics work. You could be statistically smarter than average, but not statistically smarter than everyone.
Also, this is the sort of thing that, if you were to be shown to be lacking in expertise, could be considered a real instance of the Dunning-Kruger effect. You are being quite boastful in your intelligence, especially compared to others, which is the first criteria.
Re: Re: Re:10
I didn’t. It’s called a joke. Much like how you calling me Bari Weiss in the first place is a joke.
I never actually stopped commenting, so I have no idea where you got that idea from.
As I stated, this is a mischaracterization of what I actually said. While I was incorrect in calling her a man and saying she worked at the NYP, I never actually gave my personal opinion or judgement based on the latter. I just noted that, for a number of people, working at the NYP could lead to them being determined to be disreputable.
And, really, when I was saying that she worked at the NYP, that was a misunderstanding of what someone else wrote. I believed that others were claiming she worked for the NYP in that discussion. I didn’t know, nor did I think I knew, whether those claims I thought were being made were true.
As I’ve stated, I couldn’t tell you the name of pretty much any famous journalist. I’m bad with names, and unless they’re on the list of particularly bad journalists that shouldn’t be trusted or something (and even then, only sometimes), I rarely care enough to overcome that and remember past whatever article of theirs I happen to be reading at the time, if any.
Yes, you’ve already told me that.
Her gender had absolutely no relevance to anything I said. Her employer was relevant to one (though certainly not all) argument I made, and that was based on a misunderstanding of what others claimed; when I mentioned her working for the NYP, I thought I was just stating what others claimed. The other stuff that you claim are wrong weren’t even my claims; they were just me stating what others were claiming in different words, not anything I necessarily believed.
Given all that, at the time, I had no reason to believe that there was any reason to do research because the only thing I was guessing on was unimportant to the point; everything else I was stuff that either I was stating as the opinion or claims of others or I thought was what others claimed, and for which I wasn’t stating my personal opinion. Sure, in hindsight, doing such research would have helped, but given my goal at the time, I had no reason to believe that it would.
Furthermore, as I have made clear numerous times, I am of the opinion that someone not making a claim of their own—which, to be clear, I wasn’t—doesn’t have to research someone else’s claims for them if they don’t. Once they provide research, then I may have to do research of my own, but until then, I leave it to the people actually making claims. (Again, to be clear, as far as facts about Bari Weiss were concerned, I wasn’t really making claims of my own; those were supposed to just be others’ claims with some explanation or something like that. One of them turned out to be a misunderstanding on my part. At any rate, I didn’t have any real stake in whether those claims were true or false. If you had evidence to the contrary, that would’ve been perfectly fine. Frankly, I kinda expected you to have some evidence to the contrary. I was trying to get the discussion on track, not to draw any conclusions on the facts at all until later.)
I made one singular assumption (about her gender) and one mistake (about what others were saying about her employer). Everything else about Bari Weiss was just me describing the claims and opinions others had in that discussion, not mine.
Given that I didn’t believe that I knew anything about Bari Weiss, let alone more than I actually did or even more than you did, nor did I claim to know more about her than you or anyone else in that discussion, Dunning-Kruger is inapt. Maybe you thought I was doing that, but that is just you making assumptions yet again.
Granted, my phrasing does tend to lead others to overestimate my confidence in my knowledge, claims, and guesses, so it may be a reasonable error, but it is still an error nevertheless.
Given the problems with that study, I can understand why.
It doesn’t. At all. I wasn’t trying to sound smart, nor was I trying to sound like I knew anything (certainly not more than you or anyone else) about Bari Weiss (that’s just how I tend to come across); I also didn’t believe I knew more about Bari Weiss than you or anyone else, nor that I knew anything that wasn’t stated in the comments explicitly.
Dunning-Kruger is all about a disparity between one’s confidence in one’s expertise in a subject and one’s actual expertise in that subject. Since I didn’t have any such confidence, that I turned out to be wrong about a guess and misunderstood what someone else said on one specific thing is not indicative that there was a disparity between my confidence level and my actual knowledge.
Again, that would imply a level of confidence in my expertise I simply did not have and did not claim to have.
Re: Re: Re:6
proof plz
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:7
OK
https://twitter.com/mtaibbi
Re: Re: Re:8
That’s not a link to the proof backing your claim—that’s you asking me to do your homework for you. Either do it yourself or say that you can’t.
Re: Re: Re:4
The only people with fucking Trump Derangement Syndrome are all the fucking idiots that think he was a good president… or even a good businessperson… or hell, even just a good person at all.
That people like Koby think Trump was worthy of two votes, goes to show how much of the kool-aid they have consumed, how big their tin-foil hat has become, and how far up Trumps ass they have their head located.
Complaining about how much damage one person was able to do to our country is not fucking TDS. TDS is still thinking about voting him back into office.
Re: Re: Re:4
Masnick doesn’t have either.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5
bahahahahhahaaha giggle….ok, whatever
Re: Re: Re:
Hi Matthew,
So, not interested in discussing the weather?
Reading comprehension is neither yours nor Turley’s specialty. DFRLab isn’t building censorship lists. And even that article notes that Twitter mocked and ignored the lists that were sent over.
That’s not censorship.
No, Taibbi released the fact that NGOs that receive some funding from the gov’t… receive some funding from the US gov’t, which was… always known? The fact that Taibbi (and people like Turley) couldn’t be bothered to pull a 990 says a lot more about their understanding of these things than anything else.
The government funds a ton of NGOs. That doesn’t make anything those orgs do “government directed censorship.”
I don’t see how any of that is… even remotely close to censorship by any definition.
That’s not very polite, Matthew. Didn’t you learn any manners as a child?
If you don’t like “toodles” how about ciao? Or is that too foreign for you?
Re: Re: Re:2
Mike, It is always refreshing (and, to be honest, amusing) watching trolls trip on to their swords (intellectually speaking) when someone civilly debunks their nonsense.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
He’s not civil, and he is conclusive disproven, actually. (but his shitty site tends to eat long winded replies for hours)
Re: Re: Re:4
Accusation, confession, etc.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5
Excuse me, where did I say I was civil?
Sometimes I rewrite a comment to put more swears in.
Fucktard.
Re: Re: Re:6
That you seem openly proud of being a disruptive asshole who voluntarily comes to a site he hates and comments on articles he hates reading so he can argue with people he hates even more than the articles is…well, it’s definitely a sign that maybe your particular form of self-harm has long since stopped being an effective coping mechanism for whatever is fucked up about your life. Please seek professional psychiatric help for your obvious mental illness.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:7
Liberals are hateful and you, personally, are no exception. Don’t go pretending you don’t say awful shit all the time.
Re: Re: Re:8
Calling yourself a liberal now are you?
Looking at these comments, you seem to be the only one that is being hateful.
Re: Re: Re:8
Where did he pretend otherwise?
Re: Re: Re:8
I wasn’t trying to be hateful, dude. I was pointing out that every time you come here, you seem adamant that posting the way you do—complaining about stories about Twitter and Elon Musk, being intentionally rude towards everyone here, refusing to have a good faith discussion and provide proof of your wild-ass claims—is some sort of obligation. It feels like you’re actively coming to a site you hate to read stories you hate and argue with people you hate because you think you have no other choice. But you do have a choice: Either stop self-harming yourself by thinking you’re obligated to read this site or seek professional psychiatric help for what seems to be a mental illness of some sort.
And yes, I can tell you from experience that hatereading (or any equivalent thereof) is a form of psychological self-harm. It doesn’t make you feel better. It doesn’t do anything positive. All it does is keep you angry—and being unreasonably angry all the time doesn’t do anyone, including you, any favors. If you’re going to troll this site to “own the libs”, maybe ask yourself why you have this compulsion and whether it’s actively serving the best interests of your mental health.
I’m fucked up in the head in more ways than one, and I’m trying hard not to sound like I’m making light of mental illness. I seriously believe you have some sort of issue that goes beyond a desire to “troll libs for Internet points”, and staying on this site is only exacerbating the issue. Please, dude, either leave the site for a while and see how much that helps you or seek some professional help—because your posting here long-term is a form of self-harm and I sincerely don’t want you to hurt yourself.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:9
Thank you for your concern. Get fucked.
Re: Re: Re:10
You are an angry little person, I’d say man but that has yet to be established.
Re: Re: Re:10
Well, don’t say I didn’t try to help…
Re: Re: Re:4
Matt, I pity you for having lead a life that leaves you incapable of recognizing the (in this world quite likely rare) occurrences of someone being willing to engage with you in sincerity and civility while still not agreeing with you.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5
I literally do not think I have seen that from Masnick in the last several years.
He is most definitely not sincere and where do you fucking get the idea “civility” rests on the use of actual swear words? That is some kindergarden thinking.
Re: Re: Re:4
…said nobody literate, ever.
Re: Re: Re:4
Where, exactly, is he not being civil here?
Not by you, that’s for sure.
As possibly the most long-winded commenter here, I can say that it does not tend to eat long-winded replies for hours.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5
Your reading comprehension doesn’t interest me.
Fuck you’re dumb. YOU POST FROM A REGISTERED ACCOUNT DUMBASS
Re: Re: Re:6
Yours is worse than mine.
So what? You never said anything about it being specific to unregistered users, and I haven’t observed any such differences when I (unintentionally) post without signing in.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:7
oh, wow, so I guess your anecdote means mine didn’t happen? I mean, it happened for several hours on this very post, actually, my initial reply to Masnick.
Fucking Bari Weiss, man.
Re: Re: Re:8
Not at all. Just saying it may just be a “you” problem rather than a problem with the site.
Perhaps. I never said it didn’t. You really need to stop jumping to conclusions. All I said was that it doesn’t happen to me, so it may not be a problem with the site per se. Beyond that, I couldn’t say.
Yeah, fuck that guy. Don’t know him, but screw him anyways!
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Well, Turley is paid to read and comprehend The Constitution and often cited for his ability to do so, so I would say point goes to him on this.
Of course it is. They also listened in many others. Just because they failed sometimes doesn’t make it not censorship. Attempted murder is still real bad, mmm kay?
No the funding was known (also often most or all their funding, not “some”, why you always lying?) what wasn’t known was how intimately involved those groups were in trying to censor US citizens.
Only when it’s censorship. Not when they’re trying to, I dunno, feed poor kids or something. But THESE NGOs were mostly doing the censorship.
A LOT sometimes ALL their funding. Usually government grants come with quite a bit of “direction” actually. The government does not just give people money and say “do whatever you think best”. It’s government censorship by proxy.
How deep are you trying to lie here? 1) There certainly WERE ban lists 2) There were “attempts (not always good ones) to determine who might be foreign influence operatives.” but a great deal else besides! Like Ban US citizens for “misinformation” (which absolutely is not an OK thing for the gov to be declaring), or suppress medical experts who were giving real medical info.
And legally that’s meaningless. A great deal of the time they were listened to. Yay, Twitter didn’t let the gov be as evil as it could’ve been? Yay?
You would if you were smarter.
I think you are lying fucktard covering up Orwellian bullshit by the government merely because it contradicts a narrative you picked at some point and you’re too cowardly to admit you were wrong. The government spent hundreds of millions of dollars trying to suppress dialogue they didn’t like (some of it by US ctizens, based on the content) through proxies and you want to be a fucking dumbass and say “nothing to see here”.
So politeness seems a little misplaced, doesn’t it?
Re: Re: Re:3
Maybe he should take that money and pay for a reading comprehension class on anything other than the Constitution, then.
You’re actually right—that doesn’t make it not-censorship. The fact that the government didn’t direct the organization to send over those lists “or else” is what makes it not-censorship.
Serious question, yes or no answer: Do you know for sure that the funding for those groups was/stilll is predicated on said groups doing the bidding of the federal government in re: “trying to censor US citizens”?
It’s not really censorship if they weren’t trying to stop someone from speaking out in general. Nobody has a legally guaranteed right to use Twitter, after all.
See my previous question about the funding for those groups.
I could make a “ban list” of my own and send it to Twitter. It’s under no obligation to listen, and even if it chose to listen to a pissant like me, doing so wouldn’t constitute censorship unless you believe in the “I have been silenced” fallacy.
No, it isn’t. You’re all but accusing Twitter of violating the First Amendment by carrying out censorship orders from the federal government. But Twitter has a pretty solid defense here: Not only did it regularly refuse to honor such requests from the federal government itself, it regularly refused to honor such requests from non-government groups, and the requests themselves were never once framed as a “do this or else the government is gonna fuck you up” directive.
Name one person—just one!—who was suspended or banned as a result of an unquestionably clear and direct order from the federal government to have that person banned from Twitter. For bonus points, post the actual text of both that order and (should it exist) Twitter’s response to it. I’ll wait.
How much is Florida spending to do the same?
It’s more than you deserve and less than you’ve earned, so yes, it does. But maybe if you stopped treating every criticism of Twitter, Elon Musk, and conservative propaganda as a directed-at-your-heart personal attack, you might actually earn being treated as something other than a whiny bitch.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
It was dumb when Masnick said it it’s dumb when you repeat it, too.
Yes? The very obvious answer is “yes”.
You appear to be using your warped definition of “censorship” but yes it definitely is. “Legally guaranteed” has nothing to do with it, either. It’s not just censorship when the government does it. But the problem is that government was directing it.
You are free to do so, precisely because you are not a government agency. It is also very unlikely Twitter would listen 40% of the time.
Well no, I’m not accusing Twitter of anything, legally. Is why you’re so confused? Twitter can’t violate the 1A, only the government can. And the government DID, by making the request in the first place. That’s WHY whether twitter listened is immaterial. Now I think Twitter did a lot wrong including listening sometimes and making clear they were open to listening (which is why I think it’s good that Musk bought them) but Twitter did not could not violate the 1A, the government did, by proxy.
Jayanta Bhattacharya. Also, btw, not just Twitter (Taibbi’s info dumb included several youtube channels). Technically just “Shadow banned” but in a lot of ways that’s worse, actually.
Paul Sperry was actually banned.
Are you being obtuse or purposefully constructing a strawman. Did the whole “by proxy” bit pass you by?
Zero, actually.
Re: Re: Re:5
I don’t see you refuting the conclusion, tho’.
Then you should be able to produce proof of that assertion.
No, it really isn’t.
It really has everything to do with it. The loss of a privilege is not the loss of a right…
…and losing the privilege of posting on Twitter is objectively not the same thing as losing the right to speak your mind anywhere else.
proof plz
That’s my whole point: You’re accusing Twitter of working in direct and knowing concert with the United States federal government to violate the First Amendment rights of U.S. citizens by banning them from Twitter over speech that the federal government doesn’t like. But you’ve offered no actual proof to back up that accusation other than the “Twitter Files”, which don’t actually say what you want them to say.
The government told Twitter, “Hey, these accounts might be violating your TOS, do what you want with that info (including nothing at all).” The government didn’t order Twitter to remove those accounts and it offered no threat of consequences for a failure to remove those accounts. If you have any proof to the contrary, now would be a great time to show it off.
Please provide proof that either or both of these people were banned, “shadowbanned”, or otherwise punished by any other interactive web service because of an order from the United States federal government. I’ll wait.
No, it didn’t. But if you’re going to claim that groups receiving government funding are doing the bidding of the government, you should be able to prove that said bidding includes “violating the First Amendment where the government can’t”. So go ahead and prove it. I’ll wait.
No, I think they’re spending a great deal of money to force schools into changing curriculums, keeping the tiny handful of trans athletes out of sports, yanking books that have queer people in them off library shelves, and otherwise waging war against “wokeness”. The problem there is that you’re unwilling or unable to grasp the idea that the Florida GOP is actively trying to censor speech. Or maybe you wholeheartedly approve of that censorship because you want to “own the libs” so hard that you’re willing to be a hypocrite about censorship (and that’s on top of all the self-harm you commit by coming here to whine). Either way, you’re not as clever as you think you are.
Re: Re: Re:3
I mean, reading the Constitution isn’t hard, and I find that there isn’t much correlation between being paid to read and comprehend The Constitution and actually being good at doing so, but fine. We aren’t talking about what the Constitution says, and reading comprehension is context-specific (especially in a case like this, where the kind of language used in the Constitution is very different from the sort used in the relevant context).
It actually does in the case where no legal action is taken or threatened against Twitter. Lack of actual or threatened consequences for failure to act is evidence against coercion.
There isn’t even evidence that this was meant to be coercive to begin with. The fact that Twitter failed to comply combined with the lack of repercussions suggests that it wasn’t supposed to be.
And nothing Taibbi said demonstrates that they were so involved, so I fail to see the relevance.
This has not been demonstrated.
Irrelevant. Also doubtful; that would likely mean that they are not, in fact, NGOs.
Unless you can prove that this direction was specifically to engage in censorship or that the NGOs in question only act if the government specifically tells them to, this is irrelevant. Moreover, you would have to demonstrate that these specific NGOs were given direction.
You calling them ban lists over and over again doesn’t make them ban lists. They still aren’t ban lists.
[citation needed]
Not under existing case law, it isn’t. Combined with the lack of consequences for Twitter (actual or threatened), and the fact that Twitter never said it was coerced here, this constitutes evidence against this being coercion, legally speaking.
40% is not exactly an impressive amount of cooperation. As far as can be determined from this evidence, Twitter made the decision of which ones to act on independently from the government, which means the action on some of these cases doesn’t prove coercion.
Your failure to provide sufficient evidence to support your claim is not Mike’s fault.
You haven’t demonstrated any such “Orwellian bullshit” to be covered up, nor any narrative that it would contradict.
Furthermore, Mike has called out actual censorship (or attempts at censorship) by the government (directly or by proxy) on numerous occasions in the past. He has also admitted to being wrong in the past, and changed his mind in the past. As such, it is unlikely that Mike would be as you characterize him to be.
This still has yet to be demonstrated.
Given the evidence, it doesn’t appear that there is nothing unconstitutional to see here. You have to provide sufficient evidence to prove otherwise.
I dunno. I can be polite to people who insult me directly. You are being impolite to someone who, at worst, is misguided on a particular issue and who is trying to be polite. (Even accepting everything else, you haven’t even tried to demonstrate that Mike is being deliberate here, so Hanlon’s Razor applies.)
So no, politeness doesn’t seem to be misplaced here.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
Oh, fuck, another one.
Dude, knowing you you probably think Jonathan Turley is an intern at the NYpost or something. Taiibi is a black lesbian who works at Breitbart, or something.
I can’t, I honestly just can’t.
Re: Re: Re:5
I don’t, actually. Nothing I said has anything to do with their employer, race, gender, or sexual orientation, either, so it wouldn’t matter if I did.
Do you have anything substantive to say?
Then don’t post off-topic comments making claims not backed up by the evidence on a site that allows comments.
I genuinely (no snark) don’t know why you’re so surprised. I respond to a lot of your comments, so there is nothing unusual going on here.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
Bari Weiss, just STFU. I cite that name (which you are apparently too dumb to even fucking remember) to remind you of the colossally stupid thing you said, so dumb I am never going to respond to you in good faith ever again.
And even if you’re too dumb to remember it (memory is a component of intelligence, after all) I’m still going to cite it. Cuz you’re an absolute dumbfuck, and EVERY reply from me will be a more or less elaborate “STFU, you dumb shit”. Seriously, I just don’t even feel obligated to deal with you.
Re: Re: Re:7
As if you ever respond to anyone in good faith anyway!
Re: Re: Re:7
And yet, despite the multiple personal anger issues even you admit to, you’ll be back, each and every day, to respond to people whose existence you loathe with the burning intensity of a thousand suns. Because you’re just that much of a glutton for punishment.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:8
Oh, no, just him specifically
Re: Re: Re:9
You:
Also you:
As usual, you just don’t know how to be consistent in your assertions.
Re: Re: Re:9
It really isn’t. Because you’re a sad wreck of a Pavlovian experiment who bites the bait every single time.
Re: Re: Re:7
I’ll be sure to tell them that if I see them.
I remember it fine, despite the fact that I’m actually terrible with names generally. No idea why you think I’ve forgotten, unless you took my incredibly obvious jokes seriously. (Seriously, I even labeled one of them as a joke in the next sentence, and the other is clearly me poking fun at the fact that you misspelled “Bari” as “Bar”.)
You exaggerate the stupidity of the rather minor, irrelevant error I made once.
You act as though you ever responded to anyone in good faith ever. Certainly never to me. Instead, you immediately assumed I was in my early-to-mid 20s and had no idea what I was talking about. You basically jumped on the first mistake I made and used it as an excuse to never take me seriously. That’s bad faith.
But yeah, I stopped caring awhile ago. This is more for my and others’ benefit to see where you’re wrong or lacking in evidence at this point. If you change your mind, I’m certainly willing to engage earnestly, and I will still keep my responses relatively in good faith even if you won’t reciprocate. It just makes you look like a stubborn ass. But hey, you do you.
I never forgot it. Maybe you forgot what I said when you started this: I’m going to play along every time you mention it, then continue responding regardless.
How mature.
And yet, every time you respond to me, you continue to do so.
Either way, that seems like more of a “you” problem. The fact that I annoy you without even trying to be annoying is kinda amusing, but I will continue to keep my comments civil and honest regardless of how you feel.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:8
“STFU, you dumb shit”.
Re: Re: Re:9
This is normal behavior for someone who doesn’t care.
You should leave your mom’s basement and get out in the world sometime, of course you are probably afraid of running into actual humans and not know how to act.
Re: Re: Re:9
I already said I won’t. Learn to read.
Re: Re: Re:2
I suggest ‘Adieu’ with its rather more final meaning, rather than any version of ‘Au revoir’ which suggests you might like to see the person again.
Re: Re:
“Hope you’re well”
It saddens that I can totally believe you are sincere in that, and that I will never be as nice a person as you are, Mike 🙂
I mean, you’re even nice enough to believe Matthew has a job of some kind!
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
Hey, get fucked.
Re: Re: Re:2
Not everyone here has the issues you seem to with being personally fulfilled.
Re: Re: Re:3
That’s because Musk hasn’t fulfilled him yet.
Re: Re: Re:
Bless your heart works too…
Re:
Which essentially means:
“I know nothing of Twitter’s API and in reality, I have no fucking clue of what an API is?
Oh, and add to that, I have no fucking clue about almost everything I say here, but if I say enough times, I might start believing myself.”
I think that about sums up Matty.
Re: No one cares
The comments section of an article is not the place to suggest an article for an unrelated topic you want to be covered. (Also, this is a terrible tone to take if you want to persuade them to cover what you want. I, for one, would not be convinced to change my mind because someone called me a coward. What are you, a child?)
This is an article on Twitter’s API. It is not an article about whatever it is you want covered. If you don’t care about Twitter’s API, fine, but then you don’t have to read this article if you don’t care about the subject it’s covering. And that this article covers a different subject than the one you want to be covered doesn’t prove that the subject you want covered will not be covered in some other, future article.
Irrelevant. If you don’t care about the topic of this article, then don’t read it or comment on it. No one cares that you don’t care about the topic. Plenty of others do care.
Look, I don’t care about everything that TechDirt covers. That’s why I don’t read every article it publishes, nor do I comment on every article I read on this site. If you don’t care about this, just move on to something else.
The presumption is that they would have to absent evidence to the contrary. You would have to present evidence that they wouldn’t.
Your opinion is noted, but it’s also irrelevant. I don’t care whether or not you care.
Not $42,000-a-month budgets.
Sociology is a real science, and it is reproducible. That you don’t understand that is not my problem.
[citation needed]
Also, it’s irrelevant. That this article doesn’t cover what you want to cover doesn’t mean this site doesn’t intend to cover it, and even if it doesn’t, so what? TechDirt isn’t a site dedicated to only providing content you care about, nor should it be. If you want to be in charge of what gets covered, start your own blog or something.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
I will call out Masnick’s bullshit as I wish, Mr. Bar Weiss, k, thx.
Your input is, as usual, disregarded.
Re: Re: Re:
Your funeral.
Elon.
Even Microsoft wouldn’t bite at those prices, and they used to do worse.
Who’s the one biting though? Russia? China? India? Iran?
Oh wait, I just answered my question. It’s THOSE countries that would love to have MORE legal access to American information!
Re:
There aren’t enough folks biting to make this a revenue stream worth the name, is who.
Of course, if Russia/China/Iran/etc were the ones filling twitter with vitriol, well, Mastodon awaits everyone else.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
I still don’t get it: why everyone is so obsessed with what Elon does to Twitter? How does that matter anything to anyone except for the Twitter stock owners?
Also, care for academics in this article resembles care for children in anti-encryption laws. Just saying.
Re:
Well, it matters to people who use Twitter, and it matters to academics who do research using Twitter’s API.
I don’t see the resemblance.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
“Research” implies science and if were science, it would be reproducible.
You would if you were smarter.
Re: Re: Re:
It actually doesn’t. Not all research is scientific. There are lots of fields of research besides science. History, literature, political science (which actually isn’t really science), journalism, etc. Those aren’t sciences, but they can involve research.
It (assuming you mean sociology) is reproducible. Anyone can reproduce the experiments and get similar results.
Though, again, nothing I said mentioned or implied science specifically, so this is kinda a moot point.
Maybe (though I’m doubtful), but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t explain anyways. I’m not a mind reader, so I don’t know what you’re thinking if you don’t say it.
I’m not saying there is no resemblance. I’m just saying it’s not apparent to me, so could you please explain the similarity that is so apparent to you? No need to insult me over it.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Ok Mr Bari Weiss. You didn’t even know about the reproducibility crisis affecting sociology (all soft sciences, really) I have wasted too much explaining stuff you’re not smart enough to grasp already.
Re: Re: Re:3
“Bari can’t come to the phone at the moment. Please leave a message after the beep. BEEEEEEEEEEEP”
There is no such crisis outside of your own imagination.
You spent zero time explaining anything. You just asserted stuff with no evidence and which had nothing to do with what I was asking you to explain to begin with.
And as for not being smart enough, you haven’t even tried, so you have no basis for such a claim.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
To Matthew, the reproducibility crisis is a code word for women realizing that they cannot have fulfilling relationships with straight men, because the only purpose for reproduction is to populate the Earth, which has outgrown its necessity and instead strains our planet beyond sustainability. We no longer have a reason to support straight men in their filthy, boorish desires, which is what unsettles Republicans like Matthew.
Re: Re: Re:5
Shut up, asshole.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
Homosexuality is a cure for overpopulation. Ignoring it doesn’t make it not true.
Re: Re: Re:7
Overpopulation has not been demonstrated in the first place.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
This is why I don’t believe you when you claim the Bari Weiss thing was a joke. (that and that it clearly wasn’t a joke)
https://www.news-medical.net/life-sciences/What-is-the-Replication-Crisis.aspx#:~:text=The%20replication%20crisis%2C%20also%20known,almost%20impossible%20to%20accurately%20reproduce.
Re: Re: Re:5
The “pretending I don’t know what you’re talking about” Bari Weiss thing? Yes, it clearly was a joke. In one case, I immediately followed up with a sentence that began with, “Jokes aside,” which should have made it crystal clear it was a joke. I also told someone else in this discussion that I was well aware of what you meant, even directly referencing it, and that I was going to play along with the joke. And in this case, I literally don’t know how you could think I was serious; what would that even mean if I wasn’t joking?
If you mean the thing that caused you to start calling me Bari Weiss in the first place, no, that wasn’t a joke, nor did I ever say I was.
This is why people think you have difficulties with reading comprehension, Matthew.
As for the link, did you even read it? That isn’t specific to sociology or even to social sciences in general. It doesn’t even specify sociology as being of particular concern. It specified psychology and medical science (which isn’t even a social science). Moreover, there are several causes for the crisis that have nothing to do with difficulties replicating the studies but a combination of a lack of people bothering to replicate them, a lack of journals eager to publish them, and a lack of attention being paid to them. And even regarding those difficulties, the issue is that they are relatively difficult and/or costly to try to replicate, not that they cannot be replicated (which is what you were claiming). This doesn’t support your case at all.
When I said there is no replication crisis, I meant one exclusive to social sciences or which disproportionately affected sociology, as you claimed, and which was of the kind where people were trying and failing to replicate the results, which you also claimed. This isn’t like that at all; it’s just a lack of attempts to replicate experiments combined with lesser publication of and attention toward the replications.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
They’re obsessed with Musk because they loved the censorship that the old management of Twitter provided for them, silencing viewpoints that went against woke ideology, and they hate that the new management is depriving them of that. So they just post article after article disparaging Musk. But it’s not going to bring the censorship back.
Re: Re:
Re: Re:
*Conservative: I have been censored for my conservative views
Me: Holy shit! You were censored for wanting lower taxes?
Con: LOL no…no not those views
Me: So…deregulation?
Con: Haha no not those views either
Me: Which views, exactly?
Con: Oh, you know the ones
(All credit to Twitter user @ndrew_lawrence.)
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
Not wanting men in women’s sports, prisons, shelters? That’s one.
Disagreeing with Dr Fauci (who has lied under oath mind you, and admitting to lying about masks) that’s another.
How about just pointing out real, actual medical information about covid? Even if you’re a doctor? Oh yeah, that’s a third.
Arguing that Kyle Rittenhouse acted in self-defense? That’s one. (that happened to me personally, though it was on FB, not Twitter)
Re: Re: Re:2
Transwomen are women, but you’re too much of a pussy to admit it because trans people existing threatens your cis straight white male toxic trash thoughts. GOOD. You are a TERRORIST and will be screamed at as such until you give up and go away.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
I’m too much of a “pussy” to admit a change in definition?!? (also note emasculating language)
Male could be inferred but everything else you attribute to me is in your imagination. And no, I’m, quite supportive of transgenders, just facts, are also facts. I.e. I am not willing to pretend I’m not pretending.
Fun fact: Everyone disagreeing with you is not a terrorist. mmmkay?
Re: Re: Re:4
Yes, you are a pussy. You are a pussy who thinks Trump is your lord and savior and there is no room in your world for women, non-binaries and people of color. You are a threat and a TERRORIST. We will remind you of how much of a TERRORIST you are.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5
Tbh, my favorite thing about Trump is that he pisses you off. That, and the economy.
Re: Re: Re:6
Tbh, my favorite thing about Trump is that he pisses you off.
Ahh yes, what the ‘intelligent’ person looks for in a leader.
Why don’t you send him some more money? I bet that’ll really piss some of us off?
Re: Re: Re:6
We will remind you of how much a TERRORIST you are. You won’t be able to stop us. Your country ruined MINE with your straight white Christianity bullshit and we will shout TERRORIST at you over and over again until you lose a contest with a pump-action shotgun.
Re: Re: Re:4
True.
I disagree with Mike regarding moderation of assholes like you but I don’t call Mike names simply because he’s not an abusive, belligerent ass like you.
And even I can moderate my responses despite knowing you don’t deserve civility, simply because the regulars here don’t like incivility.
And even then, I don’t go out of my way to call them hateful names.
Maybe the “terrorist” moniker is right for you and your ilk; after all, you seem to have no qualms admitting you’re here to harass us for the simple reason of being not on your side.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5
Speech is not violence, and if my refuting you and calling you names “terrorizes” you that’s sad really.
Re: Re: Re:6
You are obviously terrorized by Mike’s reporting on Elmo though by now hysterical you get when he posts anything about Twitter, which had another outage recently mentioned by several national news groups.
Re: Re: Re:7
Hell, Matt gets hysterical about it even when Techdirt isn’t posting about Twitter/Elon.
Re: Re: Re:8
Citation definitely needed.
Do you have any evidence that Matt has ever been non-hysterical? If not, then they can’t get hysterical at anything, because they already are.
Re: Re: Re:2
I hear talking heads claim saying these things will get you “censored” on social media but no one ever publishes the offending tweets. Do you have some? I’m absolutely serious here.
Some citation needed to say men are playing women’s sports, etc. The only evidence of men playing women’s sports, etc has to arise (um) from genital inspection. There’s no other way to prove it. I for one find the sheer number of folks willing to let the government grab their kids’ coochies hoping one of them has a pair rather disgusting, and I suspect everyone here feels the same about government-mandated statutory rape.
When did Fauci lie under oath? Are you thinking about mask guidance, when he answered to the best of his knowledge when we didn’t know how airborne this was and needed supplies in hospitals during the initial response, and where “admitting to lying” is really just him updating his priors in the face of new scientific findings? Scientists admit not knowing things and change their minds all the time (relative to politicians and internet commenters at least). He was very “not politician,” and it was very obvious.
Actual medical information like the nuance of the effectiveness of individual masking vs mask “mandates” when no one complied? Or like the divergence of death rates for Democrats vs Republicans down to the census tract (which is just another way of looking at how higher vaccination rates prevented more death and complications). Or do you have other medical information in mind here?
The last one you may have a point on, but again, what’s the actual post say? Given that Rittenhouse’s homicides of protesters were very public and violent, that fb (or any big website really) forbids glorifying violence, and that folks in opposition to protesters were cheering the homicides including praising the self-defense argument for allowing him to do so, I can see how fb would remove those posts as glorifying violence. Do they remove every post supporting self defense? Doubt it. What did yours say?
Re: Re: Re:2
Do you have evidence of that being “silenced”?
False. That never happened.
[citation needed]
I would need context, but that’s FB, not Twitter, so that’s kinda irrelevant, anyways.
Re: Re: Re:3
I’m a little confused, he said he was gonna disregard your posts, and he’s posting these long pages of diatribe flailing like an idiot responding to you.
Re: Re: Re:4
Yeah, well, inconsistency is about the only consistent thing about Matty.
So it’s true: billionaires don’t understand money and value.
Well. Less and less reasons all the time for most people to study twitter, unless they are doing osint or researching right wing necrobubbles
Health Insurance Pricing
Maybe it’s going to be like blood work when you have insurance in the US.
Cost: $2876.9
Discount: 99%
Your cost: $28.76
Oh yeah, I’m sure researchers will be tripping over themselves to shell out $42,000 per month at a minimum.
It’s amazing the levels of sheer stupidity desperation mixed with ego-driven idiocy can take you to.
yes mastadon is a good service, but twitter is easier to use for non tech experts, plus the network effect is important ,eg almost every celeb, journalist ,writer ,government department, company is on twitter.Twitter is not myspace it cannot be easily replaced by another social media app
Re:
… that’s strange, the ‘This is fine’ meme involving the person sitting in a room burning down around them suddenly popped into my head after reading the above, no idea where that could have come from.
Re:
Why do you have to be a tech expert (whatever that means) to use a Mastodon instance and application of your choosing?
That network effect works on Mastodon and other forms of communication, and it’s dying out just a teensy bit at Twitter. But let a million flower bloom – if you like Twitter, that’s great! No one is trying to pry it from your hands. Except maybe Elon.
No one tried to convince you to use Mastodon (or whatever) in the article. i don’t think anyone here cares if slightly less celebs and corps are on Mastodon. At least not in the positive sense.
Let’s not forget that academics and other researchers are not likely to be earning top dollar salaries either. I can just see a Request For Funds that included a shot at $42,000 a month, from an Assistant Professor that’s making less than $42,000 a year.
And how is Elmo going to prevent sharing of all that data, once the researchers pool together and pay for just one account?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
…..do you somehow think research expenses come out of their gross pay?!?
Re: Re:
Do you think such researcher projects get anything like 42k a month to begin with? LMAO
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
It varies wildly, but that wasn’t really the argument.
Re: Re: Re:2
Like you have ever had a research grant to even have the foggiest fucking clue of how much money a grant recipient would receive.
But of course anybody can say it varies wildly because so do the research projects themselves… vary wildly.
Christ, what a fucking idiot you are, thinking that saying shit like that makes you sound smart. People like me see right through and and realize what a fucking moron you are… every. time. you. post.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
I have, actually.
Are you trying to claim they don’t vary wildly? Fucking seriously?!?
Re: Re: Re:4
I guess you already have proven over and over and over again that you do not possess any reading comprehension skills.
Nowhere in that comment was any mention of grants not varying wildly, and to think that’s what you inferred shows just how fucking stupid you are.
Re: Re: Re:4
…you’re thinking of STEM grants, aren’t you? In social sciences, $5k is and almost-unheard-of amount of grant money for a project. At an R1. But you’re right, a science grant could be anywhere from one to three zeros more, which is a wide range.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:5
I am, actually! But seriously if you’re not STEM you’re just silly made up bullshit and your grants should be $0. I hope I’ve made myself clear.
Grants can have 7 or 8 zeroes, btw. Just not yours, apparently.
Did you miss the part where I made clear that the social sciences are not actually science?
Re: Re: Re:6
You’ve certainly made it clear that you don’t understand it.
Re: Re: Re:6
Saying that doesn’t make it so.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:7
But the replication rate does.
Re: Re: Re:8
You haven’t provided evidence that the replication rate for sociology is any lower than any other science, or that it is lower for social sciences than “hard” sciences.
Moreover, the replication rate being low only discredits an entire field as being science at all, rather than an idea in that field, if the replication rate is almost—if not actually—universally low across the entire field and the reason for the replication rate being low in each case is because it is either impossible (not just difficult) to replicate the experimental setup and run it or the results have consistently failed to be replicated when the experimental setup has been replicated and then run. Just having a low replication rate for many of its studies is not, by itself, enough to demonstrate that the entire field is not scientific.
The evidence you provided says that virtually all fields (most especially psychology and medical science, not sociology) have low replication rates, and the reasons for these low rates include difficulty (not impossibility) in setting up some experiments (again, particularly psychology and medical science), a lack of researchers willing to replicate studies, a tendency for peer-reviewed journals to prefer publishing completely new studies over replicated studies, and a lack of citations to replication studies. The reasons do not include impossibility in replicating experimental setups/runs or any failure to reproduce the results of the original experiment when attempts are made to replicate them. As such, the replication crisis does not support your assertion that sociology in particular or social sciences as a whole are not replicable and thus not science. (Note: “replicable” means “capable of being replicated”, not “relatively easy to replicate” or “having been replicated”.) Rejecting an entire field of science as unscientific based on this crisis is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
On top of that, you’re not really being consistent on this. As I said, this crisis is affecting pretty much every field of science to some extent, not just “soft” sciences like sociology, and one of the most affected (medical science) is a “hard” science. So yeah, given the multidisciplinary nature of the crisis, only using it against social sciences is illogical.
Re: Re:
I honestly have no idea where you got that from.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:
It would if you were smarter.
Here, what you do is read up the thread a little bit.
Re: Re: Re:2
Yeah, I don’t see the connection, unless you’re making assumptions. The point is that academics don’t get that kind of money. The salary is to put the amount into perspective. Grants for sociology or political research almost never get that high.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
You would if you were smarter.
Re: Re: Re:4
Just gonna ignore everything else, huh?
Re: Re: Re:3
Unless they support conservative positions.
Re: Re: Re:4
Nah. Based on what classmate I had who had to apply for such grants told me, they really don’t get that high for sociological studies, at least as far as public grants go. Private grants are an entirely different beast.
Re: Re:
No, but it happens that some folks think that a person’s personal interest just might rear its head when it comes to money. Like for instance, a requester just might think to himself “Hey, why am I asking for this insane amount that will ultimately line someone else’s pocket with a huge profit, and I’m asking for nothing for myself? Don’t I deserve a bit of compensation for the work I’m doing?”.
$42,000 a month
It is designed to keep academics out. Too many are concerned with how academic researchers are to continue their studies.
They are not.
That’s the point. Musk does not want Twitter studies out there because some of them may be critical of what Twitter does.
Qwitter will get into bed with more rightwingers and right-wing mainstream media.
Murdouche is itching to get his disinformation machinery into more homes, and Qwitter is a perfect medium.
Watch as advertisers trickle back in around June-July, and how Musk starts monetizing even more during the bonanza Elections 2024 are expected to be.
He fired 75% of the staff, and… Qwitter had a few outages. So what?
Never confuse a cruel narcissist with billions to be an idiot.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
Well that’s a hot take.
Trade for 100 joints?
420×100=42k 🙂
Re:
Holy shit, where do you live? I can easily roll 100 joints for as little as $420. $42K would be a life long supply.
Something about a banana stand…
They missed putting bolts into steering wheels on his watch AND NO ONE CAUGHT IT BEFORE THEY WERE SOLD.
Perhaps he isn’t a galaxy brain genius that “everyone” seems to think he is…
He whipped his dick out at random female & then bought her a horse to keep quiet… WHO DOES THAT?
Has he taken over a company and not immediately mounted a cute VP?
I can’t wait to see him try to dam the colorado river next to his company town.
Re:
Je didn’t even finish university, either.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Mike, when will you write an honest piece about how pre-Musk Twitter collaborated w/ the U.S. security state to suppress the free speech rights of our fellow Americans?
Re:
As soon as Mike takes a kilo of meth and falls head-first down at least three flights of stairs. Only then will he be at the level of brain damage necessary to believe auch a thing actually happened.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
See, that’s funny, cuz there’s emails and texts on record literally saying it happened.
It’s part of why Masnick claiming “nu uh, no it didn’t!” is so fucking funny.
Re: Re: Re:
clears throat
CITATION NEEDED.
If they were on the record you should have linked to them, unless you mean that imaginary record in your head.
Any fuckwit can claim there is evidence that supports their claims, but to move past being seen as a fuckwit you need to provide evidence rather than demand others do the work to prove or disprove your hallucinations.
So roll out this awesome evidence, maybe include notes about exactly how much meth you smoked to see the connections.
Also… Fuckwit.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
Citation provided, dumbass. Go to Matt Taibbi’s twitter. K, thx.
https://twitter.com/mtaibbi
So easy.
Re: Re: Re:3
Show us the exact tweet that backs up your claims.
Re: Re: Re:3
“fuckwit you need to provide evidence rather than demand others do the work to prove or disprove your hallucinations”
That is a shitty citation, citations are meant to be links to direct information… not some raging fuckwit saying read this whole twitter account to find the things I claim are there.
Umm fuck no.
That’s like saying ‘I can prove covid isn’t real!! just goto google.com’
You want people to believe you, you provide actual evidence.
Links to the tweets you claim prove the fantasy in your head.
I’m a bit of a stickler for this because I had to document, cite, & support every single claim I made about Prenda and the rest because honestly they thought I was fscking crazy when I brought it up.
No law firm would do this… they did.
No lawyer would so this… they did.
No way they would put the porn online themselves… they did.
No lawyer would show up at a targets home & try to talk them into a much worse deal… they did.
No lawyer would have a straw defendant to go after others, then fsck up and threaten the defendant after promising he would get a pass… they did.
I compiled a bunch of actual facts, so that others could verify what I was saying was true. It was never just go read everything on PACER with their name on it.
It’s cute when the fuckwit calls me a dumbass when he can’t even mange a single citation without screwing the pooch.
Try harder or here’s a crazy idea… consider perhaps you ARE a fuckwit and perhaps its time to stop proving how much of a fuckwit you are by babbling incoherently online about things you obviously have no grasp of… like reality.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
It’s a great citation.
When I put actual effort into it you dumbasses eityher don’t understand the math or attack the source.
Nonetheless all the info is there, you don’t even have a scroll very far.
Re: Re: Re:5
This is what happens when you post links to sources that lack credibility. Post links to sources with actual credibility beyond “they’re a conservative who is saying things that trigger the libs” and that won’t happen.
(Corollary: Posting links to evidence that doesn’t say what you claim it does also does you no favors.)
Re: Re: Re:5
Links to an entire account are terrible citations unless the only thing to be demonstrated is in the bio or something or someone is asking for an account or person rather than a specific source.
I… don’t recall math having even come up before, and we’ve certainly done more than attack the source. We’ve pointed out how your sources don’t support your claims, but that’s not the same as not understanding the math or attacking the source.
And yeah, if you use an unreliable source for your claim, attacking the source is fair game. (Would you accept a citation to the Maddie Show as a reliable source for a claim?) And if your source doesn’t include evidence that is sufficient to support your claim, that is going to be pointed out as well. That’s how it works.
That doesn’t tell us anything. There are a lot of Tweets you could be referencing even limiting ourselves to the first two or three “pages” of Tweets on that account and disregarding the first few Tweets. On top of that, we have no way of knowing whether or not that account has posted a lot of stuff between when you checked and when we check, so it’s not implausible for the Tweet you specify to be even further down the page.
Finally, we aren’t required to do your research for you. Trying to put the burden of finding which specific part of the source you’re referencing out of such a large and dynamic dataset is tantamount to shifting the burden of proof prematurely. This is especially the case if we don’t know what we’re looking for. If it’s not so hard, then why are you whining about having to put actual effort into it?
Re: Re: Re:6
Would they accept me citing TAC’s comment above as proof they are a ‘fuckwit’?
Re: Re: Re:3
So you admit you’re just deliberately lying as always and ever.
Re:
… When someone presents credible evidence that that actually happened?
Re:
Should evidence of that ever come out, I would write about it first thing.
To date, no such evidence has come out.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
It did, you just lied about it.
lying is not a media strategy. Your reputation sags more every day.
Is telling liberals what they want to hear how you envisioned your career? Cuz that’s what it is now, apparently.
Re: Re: Re:
Fox News begs to differ.
You’re conflating your personal opinion with his overall reputation again, sport.
That price is outrageous!
It should clearly be $42069/month.
Re:
nice
Damn Stupid Joke
Yet another juvenile marijuana joke a ten year old would find stupid somehow becoming a randomly determined price point for a product in the Muskyverse. Don’t all multi-billion corporations create their pricing based on childish impulses nobody can keep in check?
You know Elon is thinking he is living in his Marvel Cinematic Extended Universe when he’s not even cool enough to be the sidekick for a guest star on CW’s Supergirl.