As someone who does this kind of stuff for a living, the amount of wrong-ness in his statement literally made my brain hurt. Like, no joke, it's actually really hard to string together that much wrong-ness, inaccuracy, and error into a single statement ... and yet, here we are, and he's probably not even the most wrong GQPer today!
Am I the only one who keeps seeing this stuff and thinking "X.com, why is everyone talking about porn?" Ohh, right ... world's dumbest re-brand
"Yes, your honor, I did defame the plaintiffs in the past, and I would like to continue defaming them in the future." That's a bold strategy, Cotton!
Just so I understand this: when I read tweets, Twitter makes money from ads ... but Twitter wants me to read LESS tweets (rate limits) ... so clearly Twitter wants to make LESS money?!?! That seems like an, umm, "odd" business decision for a company that recently announced a 50% loss in revenue.
I'm not a huge CNET fan, but would occasionally go there for product reviews, etc. and this just seems like they're alienating a large part of your customer base. If CNET is using AI -- without explicitly noting it -- then I have to assume that their product reviews are just re-treads of the manufacturer's bullshit. And if I wanted to read the manufacturer's bullshit, why would I bother to go to CNET?
Wait, you're telling me FBoy Island is an actual show that someone allowed to be filmed and published?!?! I assumed it was a 30 Rock joke, like MILF Island ... wait, that one WAS a joke, right? please tell me it was a joke!
Quoted in that PsychToday article: "These four researchers, all of whom have history of neutrality, if not outright support of the concepts of porn addiction, have conducted a meta-analysis of research on pornography and concluded that porn use does not predict problems with porn, but that religiosity does."
Elon DID promise to make advertising only half of Twitter's revenue ... so ... this is progress towards that goal, I guess?
Good seed of an idea, but HORRIBLE execution
As others have noted, making people stop before they share a link might have some positive benefits (at least slowing down the spread of misinformation). But this is about the worst possible implementation of it I can think of. This is just gifting the hackers and phishers a golden opportunity -- you literally cannot tell if it's a legitimate link or phishing, it's just an image.