Lawsuit protection and the pairing of tweet data with internal demographics data? There's no telling what Twitter knows about its users from being installed on their phones(geocoding, network analyzation, etc.) to analyzing their advertisement engagement to sentiment analysis of word choice and it goes on and on.

As stupid simple as the tweeting/re-tweeting mechanisms are, that doesn't mean they don't have serious targeted marketing algorithms and other high end data analysis tools behind the scenes. It would be silly if they didn't.

I don't know, I think he was trying to get the price down because why pay more than you have to?

Also, I think a decade's-worth of notable human discourse in discreet packets of n-characters in an already hierarchical organization paired with deep demographic metadata could be seriously valuable.

Maybe... I'm sure terms of service involve owning tweets and safety from the same sort of lawsuits you're seeing against Midjourney for training on other people's intellectual property.

He's kicking into x.ai. There are good reasons to think that he bought Twitter to use its massive data-set of human language to train an ai - NOT because he gave/gives a shit about Twitter as a profitable company.

If it becomes a paid competitor to OpenAI, it solves its profitability issues without enhancing "Twitter" as a social media site. Anything he said about improving Twitter was likely a lie designed to prolong usage of the platform and enhance the dataset.

Exactly. I need you for one purpose: Teach my child . If my child sets fire to a car, it's my ass on the line. If my child gets hurt, it's me at the hospital. If my child has an issue, hiding it from me is less than useful, it's negligent.

Until a kid is 18, they're -legally- 100% my responsibility and how they're raised is my call.

Yeah, I was going to say they just left a default alphabetical sort to their global droplist component and called it a day. Probably works fine in most contexts, but this one - not so much.

When you make 60% of your headlines and magazine articles about the latest, brave, beautiful drag queen in (I believe) an effort to monetize resent-viewing on one side and hate-viewing on the other, you make a miniscule "community" famous. The famous have always been equal parts adored and hated, even killed sometimes.

I don't think they asked to be the center of attention, but the other fights were so close to won that they weren't driving enough engagement anymore, so further down the alphabet we go. Gay marriage was the last flash in the pan and now most Republicans support it. They didn't lose. They weren't forced. They came around. It took a while, but they did.

Which leads me to the moral panic of the other direction and that's anything to do with religion, men's issues, systemic racism... All blown to epic, apocalyptic proportions. The Proud Boys don't run Hollywood or Disney or hospitals or social media platforms. They're a handful of rednecks... In fact they're not anything anymore, would be my guess.

The progressive, activist Left appears (to me) to be moral panic personified. Just another "join or die," authoritarian ideology. Once upon a time, being gay might get you fired. Being a woman might prevent that promotion. Big business used to be afraid of the wrath of the Christian Right, but it's swung in the other direction now and the progressive Left wields that power no more gracefully than the Bible-clutching WASPs did before them.

I think the joke, if it was one, was that you can't say "transgenderism is a danger to society," much of anywhere - Not on most of Reddit certainly, at least that's my impression, not usually going around saying that kind of thing.

And I agree that trans people aren't a threat, in and of themselves. It's everyone that's using them as a rainbow political cudgel to whip up a moral panic that's playing with fire.

Then, with respect, you miss the point. It is possible that transgenderism is a net danger to society. It also might not be. It might be that there's some space between wholesale admiration and reluctant tolerance that's more appropriate for the population at large. Maybe not.

Point is, if no one is talking about it, then this stuff never gets hashed out and you get fracturing, underground movements, resentment, distrust, and radicalization.

Your post could be, not trying to strawman, like saying you only talk to people that agree with you. You should talk to people you perceive to be bigots, misogynists, racists, and so on because they're the only ones unconvinced.

Presumably, you aren't going to "catch it" from them unless they change your mind or your convictions weren't that solid in the first place.

Comparison is the thief of joy.

I didn't download this, but if I had, it would be because:

1. People already have cars and already need infrastructure, which is (in most cases) already in place, but requiring maintenance for safety reasons
2. It's only zero-sum if you can't afford both
3. Public transportation has a bad reputation in the US around safety, hygiene, etc. Not everywhere, some cities do a great job. Unclear where this meme is taking place.
4. I can cross state lines in my car, but not with a tram, making it less versatile - I can go anywhere I want, in fact.
5. I control the heating, air, music, occupancy, etc. of my car - Not so on public transportation.
6. I control my car's schedule to the minute. No interstitial travel to get to it, no waiting for it to arrive.
7. Some people use a car as a form of self expression. I don't, but there's plenty who do.
8. You may have to share a seat with someone. Plenty of folks don't want to do that.

An argument that, at 6.5mo of gestation, is well outside the moral limits of the vast majority.