Social Media Discussion

[Holman]

I have always found the Cult of Elon embarrassing, but I had no idea that he was this level of ludicrous irresponsible man-child.

He's been shitposting at critics all day. Isn't he supposed to be CEO of something?

[Zaxxon]

Boy, it just gets more and more embarrassing.

https://twitter.com/ZoeSchiffer/status/ ... x-97HLT4Zw

[Isgrimnur]

[Max Peck]

Elmo -- world's wealthiest man and tech support guy to the stars. On call 24/7.



https://twitter.com/DojaCat/status/1590592859853684736

i don’t wanna be christmas forever @elonmusk please help i’ve made a mistake
(1:31 AM · Nov 10, 2022)

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1590595619969970178

Working on it!
(1:42 AM · Nov 10, 2022)

An 11 minute turn-around time on acknowledging a support ticket is not too shabby.

[Max Peck]

Boy, it just gets more and more embarrassing.

https://twitter.com/ZoeSchiffer/status/ ... x-97HLT4Zw

To be fair, the people actually responsible for handling layoffs were laid off.

[Sudy]

[Jaymann]

[Max Peck]

If Twitter Blue doesn't win an Emmie for Best Sitcom of 2022, there is no justice in this world.

[malchior]

Shareholder lawsuit incoming.

https://mobile.twitter.com/unusual_whal ... 6922454016

[Daehawk]

Is there a dead pool for Twitter yet? Ill take 8 months. And remember I time travel.

[pr0ner]

Elon Musk is a petulant twatnozzle.

https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/ ... ATb6w&s=19

[Blackhawk]

When Dumb met Dumber.

[Alefroth]

Shareholder lawsuit incoming.

https://mobile.twitter.com/unusual_whal ... 6922454016

I've been waiting for Tesla to make a $1B ad buy.

[LawBeefaroni]

Elon Musk is a petulant twatnozzle.

https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/ ... ATb6w&s=19

"He's Fired." Hmm, since Trump trademarked "You're Fired" guess this is Elon's version.

[stessier]

Elon Musk is a petulant twatnozzle.

https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/ ... ATb6w&s=19

Elon is, but that Tweet would get most people fired from most jobs.

[LawBeefaroni]

Elon Musk is a petulant twatnozzle.

https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/ ... ATb6w&s=19

Elon is, but that Tweet would get most people fired from most jobs.

Most CEOs (or whatever Musk is) wouldn't bait employees publicly like that.

[stessier]

Elon Musk is a petulant twatnozzle.

Elon is, but that Tweet would get most people fired from most jobs.

Most CEOs (or whatever Musk is) wouldn't bait employees publicly like that.

Fair - but if my CEO said something in public I knew to be false, I'd still likely be fired if I corrected them via Tweet for disclosing proprietary information, not being designated to speak for the company in public, etc.

[gilraen]

I doubt this developer would have any problems finding another job.

[Isgrimnur]

The more I hear about big tech jobs, the more I'm glad I never had one.

[Blackhawk]

His posts have every indication of a voluntary firing - he knew what he was doing calling out Musk in public like that.

In other news, A fake tweet sparked panic at Eli Lilly and may have cost Twitter millions. I wonder if extreme negligence puts Musk beyond Section 230 protections. Negligence hasn't in the past, but this was foreseeable, forewarned, and then left in place for a very long time after it was reported, plus it involved public health on a global scale.

Oh, and Eli Lilly has more money than Musk. And probably better lawyers. And hasn't been spending the last few weeks baiting congress.

[LordMortis]

As much as Musk can pretty much do no right in my book, you don't correct the CEO on a public platform. Do it privately. Quit and then correct him if you must. Whatever. But if you value your job (and it's possible guy didn't) you don't air your you grievance in public, much less in a response.

[stessier]

His posts have every indication of a voluntary firing - he knew what he was doing calling out Musk in public like that.

In other news, A fake tweet sparked panic at Eli Lilly and may have cost Twitter millions. I wonder if extreme negligence puts Musk beyond Section 230 protections. Negligence hasn't in the past, but this was foreseeable, forewarned, and then left in place for a very long time after it was reported, plus it involved public health on a global scale.

Oh, and Eli Lilly has more money than Musk. And probably better lawyers. And hasn't been spending the last few weeks baiting congress.

It shouldn't - and we better hope that it doesn't. If websites are ever responsible for what others post on them, we can kiss OO goodbye.

[LawBeefaroni]

As much as Musk can pretty much do no right in my book, you don't correct the CEO on a public platform. Do it privately. Quit and then correct him if you must. Whatever. But if you value your job (and it's possible guy didn't) you don't air your you grievance in public, much less in a response.

Other factors:

He's the new owner so he probably doesn't know what he's talking about.

The "public platform" he's using to call the engineers out on is the very one they work for and the one that he's complaining about.


It's like if the Delta CEO boards a flight and stands up and says, "we're delayed because the pilots are slow." And the pilot gets on the PA and says, "we're actually delayed because of a baggage handler walkout...". Grounds for firing? Sure.

[Blackhawk]

There are already limits to Section 230. Sex trafficking, IP/copyright violations, choosing to post content (as opposed to passively allowing it to be posted), etc.

The fact that Musk enacted a policy, after being warned about the dangers, that would allow anyone with eight bucks to represent themselves as a real entity verified by Twitter may be one of those things that exceeds the protections. At least, it's enough of an outlier to justify a court addressing the issue.

[stessier]

There are already limits to Section 230. Sex trafficking, IP/copyright violations, choosing to post content (as opposed to passively allowing it to be posted), etc.

The fact that Musk enacted a policy, after being warned about the dangers, that would allow anyone with eight bucks to represent themselves as a real entity verified by Twitter may be one of those things that exceeds the protections. At least, it's enough of an outlier to justify a court addressing the issue.

I disagree. A rudimentary check on the account would show that it wasn't the real account having just been created. Additionally, the problem you note of any entity suddenly getting verified was well publicized and known, thus everyone should have been extra on guard and trusted all checkmarks even less. A "reasonable person" would easily conclude that it was fake based on that and what it was posting. It's a waste of the courts time and resources.

[LawBeefaroni]

The "blue checkmark" was marketed as a way to avoid having to do rudimentary background checks on posters. It was essentially a shortcut to determine the veracity of and identity. Expecting someone to do further research is the exact opposite of its purpose. And I don't think it would be considered common knowledge for all reasonable persons that the checkmark was suddenly useless.

[stessier]

The "blue checkmark" was marketed as a way to avoid having to do rudimentary background checks on posters. It was essentially a shortcut to determine the veracity of and identity. Expecting someone to do further research is the exact opposite of its purpose. And I don't think it would be considered common knowledge for all reasonable persons that the checkmark was suddenly useless.

It was marketed that way before Elon took over (kinda sorta - the true meaning of it was kind of a mystery given which accounts got it and which didn't). Users of the platform would have had to have been blind not to have seen the system was changing - it was all over the site itself as well as segments on CNN, FOX, NBC, ABC, and CBS. And once the new policy went into effect, every other post was people telling others to watch out.

Beyond that, you could make the case that the fake account was a parody of the true Eli Lilly account and it quickly brought great attention to the fact that insulin prices make no sense. Parody is very strongly protected.

[Blackhawk]

I haven't used Twitter more than half a dozen times, and have never really paid attention to what's under the hood. And yet, I see tweets every day, embedded here, embedded in the news, clipped and posted elsewhere. Prior to the fake accounts starting to appear, I'd have associated the blue mark and the names legitimacy. I didn't have any idea that the name could be changed, or that the names not matching meant anything, or exactly what it was that Musk was selling for eight bucks, or when it was going into effect. And it didn't come from a fake-sounding account, it came from @EliLillyandCo. And the real Eli Lilly's Twitter handle? @LillyPad. Which one sounds more legitimate?

Why would this being fake not be obvious to me? Because I use Twitter every single day, but only passively by seeing linked posts. I had no interest in what I consider to be an absurd platform, so I didn't bother learning the ins and outs. I'm not knowledgeable about how it works anymore than I am about how Instagram, or WhatsApp, or Truth Social works - because I don't use them.

Would I have suspected it based on the content? Sure, but I'm a skeptical person by nature experienced in vetting questionable sources. Would the average ('reasonable') person have suspected it? I don't think so - the average American doesn't think that way. And the elderly population certainly doesn't.

[gilraen]

In other news, A fake tweet sparked panic at Eli Lilly and may have cost Twitter millions. I wonder if extreme negligence puts Musk beyond Section 230 protections. Negligence hasn't in the past, but this was foreseeable, forewarned, and then left in place for a very long time after it was reported, plus it involved public health on a global scale.

There's precedent (one of the earliest Section 230 cases) where content providers are treated as publishers and cannot be held liable for failure to remove 3rd-party content. But any good corporate lawyer would be able to tweak the claim into, say, breach of contract instead, where Section 230 wouldn't even apply anymore.

[Blackhawk]

Parody is very strongly protected.

Yes, and it should be. This wasn't social commentary, or humor, or even satire. This was straight up Twitter-verified identity theft.

[Blackhawk]

It's important to note (as I wordily said above) that Twitter users are only a fraction of Twitter's customer base. I'd be willing to be that far more people use it passively (like I do, by seeing linked twits) than even have accounts, and thus most aren't really going to be well versed in Twitter's functionality.

In other news, A fake tweet sparked panic at Eli Lilly and may have cost Twitter millions. I wonder if extreme negligence puts Musk beyond Section 230 protections. Negligence hasn't in the past, but this was foreseeable, forewarned, and then left in place for a very long time after it was reported, plus it involved public health on a global scale.

There's precedent (one of the earliest Section 230 cases) where content providers are treated as publishers and cannot be held liable for failure to remove 3rd-party content. But any good corporate lawyer would be able to tweak the claim into, say, breach of contract instead, where Section 230 wouldn't even apply anymore.

It's the other way around - they are specifically not treated as publishers, but as distributors. They're not the ones writing the book, they're the ones who own the warehouse that ships it out. One of the limits of section 230 is that if they act as publishers (choosing content to include), they're not protected. And this comes close to that - it could be argued that Twitter 'verified' (to a reasonable person) that this account, and therefore this content, was real. That's more than passively distributing it.

[gilraen]

Right, I got the terminology backwards.

[Blackhawk]

Parody is very strongly protected.

Yes, and it should be. This wasn't social commentary, or humor, or even satire. This was straight up Twitter-verified identity theft.

A clarification - it could be argued that it was social commentary about Twitter and Musk to 'teach him a lesson.' If so, it still wouldn't be parody, it would be satire, which is not covered by fair use. If he'd tweeted as Elon Musk declaring that Twitter Blue was now free, that would be parody.

[stessier]

Parody is very strongly protected.

Yes, and it should be. This wasn't social commentary, or humor, or even satire. This was straight up Twitter-verified identity theft.

No it wasn't. Before it was taken down, it kept changing the price of the insulin and pointing out that it was simply because it could. The more people questioned, the higher the price went.

As for a "reasonable person", in this context it is one who is familiar with the platform in question, knows how it is used and the general tenor of engagement - not just someone who reads the occasional linked post.

Beyond that, where is the harm in the Eli Lilly situation? I'm not sure a temporary drop in stock price qualifies given that it's already half way back to where it was before the tweet. Individual investors may have some case against the Tweeter (although I doubt it - who trades based on a tweet without further verification???), but not against Twitter.

[Zaxxon]

As for a "reasonable person"

Part of the issue is that we're running dangerously short on reasonable people.

Personally I think the updated blue check 'verification' was a dumb idea from the start. I can kind of see the rationale--simply charging $8/mo will hugely reduce the bot/spam account issue by putting a concrete price out there, but it is verifying 'I have $8 and passed a Google/Apple billing account test;' no more, no less. People are going to conflate this with the old system, where a very similar blue check signified 'this account has passed some level of verification by Twitter that they are who they say they are.

The rug, as it were, was pulled on what those checks meant. I agree with stessier that reasonable people wouldn't be fooled by this (to the extent people are selling Lilly stock based on an impersonator's tweet, what's that saying about fools and money?). But it certainly was confusing to people just casually using Twitter.

[LawBeefaroni]

Parody is very strongly protected.

Funny enough, not by Twitter.

“Going forward, any Twitter handles engaging in impersonation without clearly specifying ‘parody’ will be permanently suspended,” Musk tweeted Sunday [Nov 6] evening.

The Eli Lily tweets didn't indicate "parody".

[Rumpy]

Can't wait until Must integrates Twitter into their cars, to have the cars make roadrage style tweets towards other drivers. Yeah, that'll end well.

[Blackhawk]

As for a "reasonable person", in this context it is one who is familiar with the platform in question, knows how it is used and the general tenor of engagement - not just someone who reads the occasional linked post.

No, it is not. It's not about Twitter's registered users, it's about Eli Lilly's business. It is anyone who is a customer or potential customer of Eli Lilly who came into contact with deliberate misinformation that Twitter's policies could have had them believing were real as a result of what happened. In other words, the general public.

Part of the issue is that we're running dangerously short on reasonable people.

Yes, we are. And that's part of the problem - who a 'reasonable person' is is surprisingly complex and variable. Does taking reasonable care including keeping up on Twitter's changelog? Researching every confirmed account they see on every service just in case something has changed since last time? Or having enough knowledge of medical issues to know what an outlandish statement this is?

There are a ton of variables here, and IANAL. Does being a reasonable person in this case require expertise that most people don't have? Was Twitter, in effectively endorsing the false identity acting as a publisher? I'll be moving on here in a second since we're going in circles, but that was my entire point in bringing this up in the first place. I'm not saying he will be dragged into court, or even that he should be. I'm pondering whether his extreme incompetence and negligence might justify having the courts poke into it, wondering whether he's blindly blundering into places that could cost him even more money (and squander what influence Twitter has left.)

The internet and social media are still a legal labyrinth inside of a legal morass, and Elon Musk is in the midst of it baiting all of the bears. I'm just curious to see which one takes a bite out of him first, and to see how law/precedent evolve to deal with this going forward.

[Max Peck]

Another Twitter dev tells Elmo to kiss her ass. Literally.

https://twitter.com/sachee/status/1591857120768843776

you did not just layoff almost all of infra and then make some sassy remark about how we do batching

like did you bother to even learn how graphql works

you don’t get to shit on our infra if you don’t know what the fuck it does while you’re also scrambling to rehire folks you laid off

https://twitter.com/sachee/status/1592308273071681536

lol just got fired for shitposting

i said it before and i'll say it again

kiss my ass elon

to all my former teammates

we built some dope shit together and i am so fucking proud of our team and everything we did

just because some dipshit doesn't understand what we built doesn't make it (or us) any less awesome

[LordMortis]

And here he liked to shitpost on why more people at Twitter didn't post on Twitter, being the town square of the world and all. Still, you don't do it if you want to keep your job. I'm guessing at this point enough people don't want to keep their jobs any more.

I have no idea what it takes to keep a social media company afloat but having your "tech leads" jumping ship after firing nearly half your workforce doesn't sound good.

I wonder what is out there (aside from Parler and Truth) vying to unseat Twitter and how long it would take. So I google "alternatives to" and it fills in Twitter for me as the number 1 result. Mastodon seems to be everyone's number one choice but Mastadon seems to still be a free for all... Sort of... As it is not a singular existence.