Twitter's New "X" Logo Is Reminding Plenty Of People Around X.Org

[lyamc]

I suspect ihe twitmeister is also not on winner here.
Didn't know the blighter was an asparagus but would explain a lot but never excuse the shame his "pedoguy" slander... ever.

He was a what?

[Crocodilus]

I,for one , am always glad when one of these “social media” apps or platforms gets annihilated . They became just like TV : mass manipulation and propaganda mediums .

Also they are a more subtle way to distance people, a camuflated meaning of surveillance , and a power ledger for the big boys . So long Twittie ! ( next in line ,Facebook and Instagram )

[Weasel]

Lol, guess the Weasel got triggered here. Fun fact: while I have decades across the industry in various startups and mid and big sizes companies, I have never worked at Twitter, or any other social media "company", as even before Musk ran it into the ground I still thought it was trash. Try harder next time, though, maybe senpai Elon will notice you.

Good for you. Doesn't change the fact about the SJW clowns who worked at twitter and infested it with their crap.

You know, the original thing you (or whoever) quoted. The topic?

[karolherbst]

karolherbst

Tell me you don't understand economics without telling me you don't understand economics.

ehhhhh.. that the more money the poor folks have (and that means the actual distribution of money, relatively to the rich folks) is driving economic growth is state of the art economics... so no idea what you mean here... the neo-liberal trickle-down effect was disproved multiple times. It does not work and actually hurts the economy. It also hurts democracy, because the disparity between the rich and poor folks drives social unrest and riots along the lines. "hardcore liberals" then advocate for "laws have to be honored, riots are not okay" and then the entire society collapses down the line including its democracy.

That's how things unfold if you believe the lie of giving tax breaks to the rich or not taxing them properly. Nothing of that is new, just "neo liberal" ideologist rather believe their "obvious" truths like "public spending increases inflation", which are just wrong and there is literally no evidence for it...

a working society has to re-balance wealth for their own good, otherwise you slide into an autocratic neo liberal shit show as the US and many other countries are doing right now.

[lyamc]

So long Twittie ! ( next in line ,Facebook and Instagram )

If you change your name you don't suddenly die or disappear, but it will take some time for other people to start calling you your new name.

ehhhhh.. that the more money the poor folks have (and that means the actual distribution of money, relatively to the rich folks) is driving economic growth is state of the art economics...

First, I was referring to what happens if you just tax the crap out of the richest people. All that happens is everyone gets poorer

Second, if you give poor people money, it doesn't fix anything. It makes them less poor for a little bit.

so no idea what you mean here... the neo-liberal trickle-down effect was disproved multiple times. It does not work and actually hurts the economy.

So called trickle-down economics only works if the rich spend their money locally: investments, purchases, etc. With globalism they can just pay workers in 3rd world countries. Good for that country since the money is "trickling down" there. Bad for us.

It also hurts democracy, because the disparity between the rich and poor folks drives social unrest and riots along the lines. "hardcore liberals" then advocate for "laws have to be honored, riots are not okay" and then the entire society collapses down the line including its democracy.

You are correct that economic inequality is directly correlated with crime and violence. But that only happens if it is localized. If a rich person builds a glass building in a poor neighborhood for instance.

That's how things unfold if you believe the lie of giving tax breaks to the rich or not taxing them properly. Nothing of that is new, just "neo liberal" ideologist rather believe their "obvious" truths like "public spending increases inflation", which are just wrong and there is literally no evidence for it....

Printing money causes inflation. When you spend money you don't have (as the government) then you have to print the money.

The rich can afford thr loss of value, but the poor can't.

a working society has to re-balance wealth for their own good, otherwise you slide into an autocratic neo liberal shit show as the US and many other countries are doing right now.

I'd like some suggestions from you on how to handle this rebalancing because I don't disagree with you regarding the problem:

Wealth inequality
Corrupt government

Redistribution doesn't fix anything. People will take their money and spend it where they have been before and continue to make the rich, rich.

It also ignores a distribution law "Price's Law". The larger the market, thr greater the inequality.

Think of it like a game. If there's one way to play a game then you end up with a few people at the top. To properly balance it, you need to have multiple games that can be played so that the winners are distributed.

One of the only ways for people to have that is by starting their own businesses, but the same regulations that often protect the consumer, hurts the ability for the small business to get started or grow.

Taxes are something like nerfs. If you tax people who smoke, less people will smoke. Don't tax productivity.

The suggestion to tax the rich would be to tax the most productive (at generating wealth) which will quite literally discourage them from generating wealth where they are. You won't get your desired outcome.

[karolherbst]

First, I was referring to what happens if you just tax the crap out of the richest people. All that happens is everyone gets poorer

no? Rich people store that money somewhere and just let it pile up, while poor people have to spend it on things they need, driving local economical growth.

Second, if you give poor people money, it doesn't fix anything. It makes them less poor for a little bit.

neo-liberal nonsense. Poor people aren't poor because of bad decision making. They are poor because of bad luck (wrong place, wrong time, poor parents, etc...). You have to invest into poor people to get them out of poverty. Like states are doing through public funding (e.g. schools, infrastructure and other public goods).

So called trickle-down economics only works if the rich spend their money locally: investments, purchases, etc. With globalism they can just pay workers in 3rd world countries. Good for that country since the money is "trickling down" there. Bad for us.

no, it doesn't work anywhere. Studies show that none of that ideology actually works. Nowhere. They just pile up that money and don't reinvest it back as much as poorer folks would.

You are correct that economic inequality is directly correlated with crime and violence. But that only happens if it is localized. If a rich person builds a glass building in a poor neighborhood for instance.

ehh no, it's not that simple. Poor people get desperate trying to survive. If they can't fund their needs, they have to find for alternatives to survive as the other options would be to starve or run into debt (and all that implications that has for poor folks keeping them poor).

Printing money causes inflation. When you spend money you don't have (as the government) then you have to print the money.

neo-liberal nonsense. It doesn't. Unchecked printing might cause it, but in the end an economy is not limited by the supply of money, but limited but the supply of resources or labor. If the money outgrows the economical growth + resources available, _then_ you might run into hyperinflation. But printing money in itself doesn't. Also all money comes from the government. It handed it down to people to do useful things for it. If the state reduces the money supple it actually causes recession as it withdraws that money from the private sector, it's simple accounting. The debt of one are the assets of others. If the state stops printing, you run into hyper deflation as the money supply doesn't balance out economical activity which causes _huger_ issues than an healthy inflation would.

I'd like some suggestions from you on how to handle this rebalancing because I don't disagree with you regarding the problem:

taxing the rich properly. Taxes are a way to rebalance wealth distribution in a society. Rich people are wealthy because they got luck. A person wich rich parents can invest into 100 companies and get lucky a few times, poor folks are screwed if their single shot fails. "Success of rich people" is a myth.

Redistribution doesn't fix anything. People will take their money and spend it where they have been before and continue to make the rich, rich.

you answered yourself on why it helps. They _spend_ that money driving economical growth. You just have to keep a healthy wealth balancing system in place so everything stays nice.

It also ignores a distribution law "Price's Law". The larger the market, thr greater the inequality.

neo-liberal nonsense. The market doesn't follow any "laws". We define how that market works. There is no "magical" market with scientific laws in place. "Price's Law" in itself is valid, but trying to put mathematical models over economy and assume you are a big brain is just stupid, because it doesn't work like that.

Think of it like a game. If there's one way to play a game then you end up with a few people at the top. To properly balance it, you need to have multiple games that can be played so that the winners are distributed.

uhh? what are you talking about... Life isn't a game. And we have multiple things going on. So uhm..?

One of the only ways for people to have that is by starting their own businesses, but the same regulations that often protect the consumer, hurts the ability for the small business to get started or grow.

neo-liberal nonsense (again). Not everybody "can make it". Not everybody can become that rich person. It's a screwed system from the start. You'll have just accept that everything is sheer luck here and nobody is rich because of their abilities or hard work. The hardest working folks are generally also the poorest one. See wealth redistribution as a mean to balance this luck out. Lucky people can have all their success, but then they also have to provide for the unlucky ones. And if they don't want to, they have to be forced as it's pure luck they even became rich.

Taxes are something like nerfs. If you tax people who smoke, less people will smoke. Don't tax productivity.

neo-liberal nonsense. Don't compare things which aren't comparable. Taxes aren't there to just withdraw money, but to do something _useful_ with it. Funding public goods like streets, health care system, schools. Everything which business needs to thrive, leading to a better public infrastructure and productivity. Money piled up on bank accounts of rich folks isn't productive. Too much money at rich folks makes it possible they can bribe their way through life and influence politicians as money is power. They shouldn't have that money and they shouldn't have that power in the first place.

The suggestion to tax the rich would be to tax the most productive (at generating wealth) which will quite literally discourage them from generating wealth where they are. You won't get your desired outcome.

neo-liberal nonsense. They'll invest nonetheless. Lowering taxes doesn't correlate with move investments, so doesn't increasing taxes with reducing investments. We live in a world where we continue to reduce taxes for business, but the super rich just keep stockpiling all that money anyway.

Don't make up fake rules/laws without the evidence. The evidence actually shows the opposite.

[coder]

if you're talking about IQ then I suppose you would support an IQ test before one could vote, but I don't suppose you would support an IQ test to pay taxes.

I don't support restricting access to voting, because it can be used as a means of disenfranchisement. I think it'd be nice to test people for baseline knowledge of the political system and current affairs, but impractical to implement in a way that's guaranteed to be fair and impartial.

Elon is good at his job. He's done like 5 impossible things, one after the other.

And what are they?

He knows how to run successful businesses because he's done it over and over.

Competence isn't binary. Past performance does not necessarily predict future results.

4chan is completely anonymous. Not even the same thing.

It's virtually unmoderated, which was my point. Also, I haven't been on there in over a decade, but they did have an option for people to register a username, IIRC. In some boards, this practice was looked down upon.

Elon doesn't actually care about Twitter making a profit as much as he cares about the principle of free speech or else he wouldn't have even entertained the idea of making an offer to Twitter in the first place.

He can't afford for it to be a bottomless money pit, though. Also, it turns out he's not actually a free speech absolutist. He's been quite willing to censor people and views he doesn't like. He's only for free speech when he's the one being censored.

Advertisers go where the people are. If the people stay on Twitter then there's nothing for Elon to worry about anyways.

I think the ad revenue has dropped a lot faster than the active userbase, in which case that would be wrong.

Advertisers care about their image. They don't want their brand to be associated with a site or venue where a lot of trolling, abuse, or other bad behavior happens. For instance, I'd wager a lot of advertisers would never consider placing ads on a porn site, no matter how popular it is.

Same difference. If you put a price tag in front of something like that, it puts up a barrier to entry, so it becomes much harder to abuse and therefore easier to catch those who do abuse the system.

Not exactly. What it means is the ones abusing it will be those extremely motivated to do so. There are plenty of political, corporate-backed, or state-backed operatives more than willing to pay for the privilege of mining user data from Twitter or using it to troll and spread disinformation.

However, if the culture does not value truth, it doesn't matter what rules or enforcement will be put in place: If determined organically then people will pick their favourite lies, and if rules are in place, only the approved lies will be allowed.

People tend to care only about what feels true. The impulse to look skeptically even at what you want to believe is unnatural and something that most people must be trained to do. This results in a natural tendency towards supporting demagogues.

Humans are vulnerable to numerous logical fallacies, and many are skilled at exploiting these to mislead. If you're just relying on "the wisdom of the crowd" to find truth, then your quest is doomed.

You've made an excellent argument for Twitter since the bar for entry for communication is so low that people who otherwise wouldn't have time to engage with the culture are now able to.

Only if you're considering the communication to be mostly 1-way. Where this breaks down is that it doesn't scale up to 2-way interaction around controversial issues. One side (usually the one where the real expertise resides) will tend to be at an insurmountable disadvantage.

Besides that, if I take what you said to its logical conclusion, people shouldn't talk about anything because chances are you don't know anything.

That's not what I'm saying. I just think that not all views deserve to be amplified by a social media platform. There is such a thing as dangerous speech or ideas.

Just like with every other piece of technology, someone comes up with a way to abuse it and others have to come up with counter measures. I doubt you're advocating for the elimination of the concept of the internet despite it solving basically all of your complaints.

The internet is fine, and people can use it how they want, as long as it's not to commit crimes. However, a social media site is not the internet -- it's a private platform that the owner has a right to regulate (or not).

You aren't able to find out who those people are until they open their mouth. You also ignore the problem that listening to highly-educated specialists means that you'll often get an extremely biased perspective, something like "If all you have is a hammer, then everything looks like a nail.", and due to their niche they are more likely to have conflict of interest if the facts do not align with the goal of their financial provider.

If Twitter is, for all intents and purposes, a public square, then the right thing to do is to let people speak even if you don't like what they say.

I do support freedom of speech. Among other reasons, there is the very occasional instance of someone who revolutionizes an entire field by overturning the orthodoxy.

I don't support speech when it's definitively used to incite, harass, slander, or as part of criminal activities. I don't think ideas should be outlawed, but it's also not mandatory that someone provide you their platform to spread a given idea if they don't agree with it or consider it harmful. In a way, to force someone to use their platform to spread such ideas is effectively forcing them to speak, which the US Supreme Court has long held to be a violation of 1st Amendment rights.

Twitter is not a public square. If you want a government owned & run social media platform, then lobby your member of Congress to create such a thing.

[coder]

I'd like some suggestions from you on how to handle this rebalancing because I don't disagree with you regarding the problem

If you want to reduce inequality, the first thing to do is eliminate campaign donations. Make all elections publicly-funded. Once politicians don't have a reason to cater to the interests of the wealthy, they'll be more likely to support more equitable policies.

Taxes are something like nerfs. If you tax people who smoke, less people will smoke. Don't tax productivity.

The suggestion to tax the rich would be to tax the most productive (at generating wealth) which will quite literally discourage them from generating wealth where they are. You won't get your desired outcome.

The fallacy here is that income = productivity. Income can be gained by interest from government bonds used to fund tax breaks for the wealthy. Where's the productivity in that?

Income can also be gained by rent-seeking behaviors: cornering the market on a prescription drug that people don't have an option not to buy, or less a nefarious example of simply bidding up real estate prices.

Better tax policy could truly help, here. In general, I think capital gains should be taxed higher than wages. Of course, the wealthy tend to get most of their income from capital gains, which would make that a non-starter, politically.

[lyamc]

no? Rich people store that money somewhere and just let it pile up, while poor people have to spend it on things they need, driving local economical growth.

Rich people don't just store the money, because of inflation, so they invest it in their own businesses or in other businesses.

neo-liberal nonsense. Poor people aren't poor because of bad decision making. They are poor because of bad luck (wrong place, wrong time, poor parents, etc...). You have to invest into poor people to get them out of poverty. Like states are doing through public funding (e.g. schools, infrastructure and other public goods).

I think you misunderstood my point. If I am poor and I suddenly get $5,000, $20,000, etc, nothing about what led me to my situation has changed.
1. Say I'm renting, I'm still renting and the prices of owning a home are still out of reach.
2. Say I've been having trouble making ends meet. I can pay off some debts (to rich people) and then continue to spend money at Walmart
3. Say my phone has been busted for a while, suddenly I can buy a new one. Guess where that money goes?

There's plenty of people who have bad luck and end up poor, but most end up poor because everything is rigged against them like joining a game that everyone else has been playing for years:
1. They cannot afford legal battles
2. They cannot afford to start a business so they continue to work for others
3. They are competing against a global workforce. If you don't meet the exact requirements we can just bring in foreign workers or just set up workers in another country
4. If they set up their own business they have to work 12 hours a day, every day, just to stay afloat

There's a lot of causes to all of the above, but it gets worse when you look at single-parent households and the effect that has on economic outlook.

no, it doesn't work anywhere. Studies show that none of that ideology actually works. Nowhere. They just pile up that money and don't reinvest it back as much as poorer folks would.

Uh, it sure does (just not in a way I want), and yes they do, but I don't really consider what they do to be "work", they're spending $1 to make $1.1, but in the millions or billions.

ehh no, it's not that simple. Poor people get desperate trying to survive. If they can't fund their needs, they have to find for alternatives to survive as the other options would be to starve or run into debt (and all that implications that has for poor folks keeping them poor).

No, it is that simple. Crime is directly proportional to local income inequality. A poor town where everyone is poor doesn't really have that much crime, but if half the city is rich and half is poor then there is more crime.

neo-liberal nonsense. It doesn't. Unchecked printing might cause it, but in the end an economy is not limited by the supply of money, but limited but the supply of resources or labor. If the money outgrows the economical growth + resources available

That's called printing. They're printing money. Inflation is increasing the money supply and the only way to do that is to create more money.

You go on to talk about the purchasing power or valuation of the money but that's not what I was talking about.

taxing the rich properly. Taxes are a way to rebalance wealth distribution in a society. Rich people are wealthy because they got luck. A person wich rich parents can invest into 100 companies and get lucky a few times, poor folks are screwed if their single shot fails. "Success of rich people" is a myth.

Mostly wrong but partly true. Rich people weren't just lucky. When an idiot is lucky, they don't end up a billionaire. Elon, for instance, doesn't just get lucky multiple times. However, it is true that once someone "gets lucky" once, they can have more spins, but if someone tries and fails the first time, they usually can't try again because that was all they had.

you answered yourself on why it helps. They _spend_ that money driving economical growth. You just have to keep a healthy wealth balancing system in place so everything stays nice.

You can't do that without removing the global market from the equation, because you can do whatever you want locally and it's not going to mean a thing.

neo-liberal nonsense. The market doesn't follow any "laws". We define how that market works. There is no "magical" market with scientific laws in place. "Price's Law" in itself is valid, but trying to put mathematical models over economy and assume you are a big brain is just stupid, because it doesn't work like that.

You contradicted yourself twice in this so I'm just going to leave that there.

uhh? what are you talking about... Life isn't a game. And we have multiple things going on. So uhm..?

It's called an analogy. You agree on the rules: "Whoever gets me the best value in food for my $10 gets the money". Play that game enough times and the people who get you the best value end up at the top.

The problem is that this game requires money to play, so the real game is something like this:

Everyone gets $1 and challenges someone else to a coin toss. Lose the coin toss and you have to give the other person your dollar. Eventually one person will end up with all the money, so there either has to be other games that can be played, or everyone has to take from that person.

neo-liberal nonsense (again). Not everybody "can make it". Not everybody can become that rich person. It's a screwed system from the start. You'll have just accept that everything is sheer luck here and nobody is rich because of their abilities or hard work. The hardest working folks are generally also the poorest one. See wealth redistribution as a mean to balance this luck out. Lucky people can have all their success, but then they also have to provide for the unlucky ones. And if they don't want to, they have to be forced as it's pure luck they even became rich.

Never said everyone can make it. There's 12% of the population that are too low iq for the military. That's a lot of people.

neo-liberal nonsense. Don't compare things which aren't comparable. Taxes aren't there to just withdraw money, but to do something _useful_ with it. Funding public goods like streets, health care system, schools. Everything which business needs to thrive, leading to a better public infrastructure and productivity. Money piled up on bank accounts of rich folks isn't productive. Too much money at rich folks makes it possible they can bribe their way through life and influence politicians as money is power. They shouldn't have that money and they shouldn't have that power in the first place.

Taxes have a chilling effect on whatever they are applied to. If I said "every comment anyone makes requires you to give me $1", then the result is that people will make less comments. The problem in the market is that there are things you have to spend money on and therefore, you have to pay taxes on.

Public spending is almost always deficit spending because there is little incentive to save. Why save up only to have a future opponent promise to spend that money?

neo-liberal nonsense. They'll invest nonetheless. Lowering taxes doesn't correlate with move investments, so doesn't increasing taxes with reducing investments. We live in a world where we continue to reduce taxes for business, but the super rich just keep stockpiling all that money anyway.

They'll invest, just somewhere else. Bringing it back to the game analogy. Say you're a rich person and you're playing a game called "make more money"

Are you going to play it in the USA, or in China?

Don't make up fake rules/laws without the evidence. The evidence actually shows the opposite.

You yourself said they are true and valid so not sure what you're talking about.

[tildearrow]

Because it looks like the X.Org logo and X.Org is "popular" on this forum?

Furthermore wasn't the X.Org domain in a crisis?