this post was submitted on 03 Dec 2024
101 points (93.9% liked)

politics

19168 readers
4028 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

What an absolute knob.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Twitter wasn't bought for its economic value but as a propaganda machine and it turned out it was very effective.

[–] kryptonianCodeMonkey 32 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Let's not pretend the that was his original intention or that any real forethought was put into it at all. It certainly worked out that way, but that doesn't discount the extreme stupidity, bravado and ineptitude that went into the Twitter purchase. It became a useful propaganda machine because of Elon, but that is different than crediting him for doing so intentionally.

[–] shalafi 18 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Nailed it! Also, didn't the SEC basically force him to buy it after running his mouth off?

[–] kryptonianCodeMonkey 13 points 1 day ago

Yes. He tried to backpedal his offer.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 day ago

It may not have been his plan, but given who funded him it’s not exactly a wild conspiracy.

[–] NJSpradlin 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I personally believe, especially due to the buyer and the backers of the purchase, that the entire intent behind the purchase was to destroy it so that the global elite could better control the narrative. The purchase of Twitter, and the going public of Reddit, both occurred when online networking and support for global protest was in full swing. A lot of those protests have been squashed since, with some help from not being able to easily coordinate and share globally as easily anymore. It worked, now that you’ve caught the car you were chasing, what do you do next? The very next step is to subvert it.

So, yeah. I do believe this was the next step after destroying the ability of the common person to network, protest, and allow progressive ideals to grow.

[–] kryptonianCodeMonkey 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I believe he just wanted to take control of a popular public forum that had been recently banning (largely) conservative voices for things like dangerous covid misinformation, harassment, violent rhetoric/threats, etc. and he both didn't want to become the next victim of the ban hammer and wanted to return those far right voices and conspiracy theorists back to the forefront. He also clearly wanted to control the narrative about himself too.