In the first two paragraphs the author sounds far too biased and angry (read: emotionally unstable) to present any sort of coherent argument.
But mainly out of boredom I soldiered on and actually got to their point - "...social media was never designed for free speech anyway. It was designed for free amplification...". Pretty good observation, though I don't agree entirely. Honestly I think it was designed for speech/connection as phase 1 yet quickly morphed into a megaphone, usually one that is used to beat opponents over the head. However Elon might think he's still in phase 1, or at least that's where he wants to be. If it happens at all it will take time.
So far it seems Elon wants Twitter to be a maximalist free speech platform, the most accurate source of information (by far), profitable, and kind of like...a bank? So yeah, it will take time...probably heat-death-of-the-universe-esque time. My guess it that a few years from now, he'll accept what he will have created by that time, and simply rename it TwitterChan.
I get that people are angry at Elon for chaos monkey behavior, but how do articles like these move the conversation forward? I was hoping the author would at least include a few paragraphs on suggestions for improving Twitter.
Marques Brownlee has a great video on YouTube with his suggestions on improving Twitter. Mostly, he talks about new features to enhance the creator experience. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1qsF0WQy8c
Wow. Uncontrolled mass media is such a danger to civilization now; it's a wonder how we've come this far without destroying ourselves.
The horrors of unfettered speech are not so scary: this has all happened before. Usenet dramas had as much consternation for those involved, those people had more in their lives than just the one forum, however.
The fallacy is you're assuming 'destroying ourselves' means that everyone is dead (I guess?).
Take French Canada for a great counter-example. One could argue that the mailbox bombs and kidnappings of the 60s/70s were fine because Montreal is a very beautiful and livable city today.
However, it caused hundreds and thousands of people to flee their homes and caused Montreal to lose its place as Canada's leading city.
Don't confuse 'humans are adaptable' with 'anything goes and civil society is pointless.'
Could you imagine if the courts stopped taking into consideration people's mental conditions in child custody cases, or that the government didn't take into account mental conditions in armed services and classified positions? This isn't just some guy, he's got satellites in space and receives government subsidies. He also frequently talks about population growth and has like 10 kids. His dad also 2 children with his stepdaughter.
But mainly out of boredom I soldiered on and actually got to their point - "...social media was never designed for free speech anyway. It was designed for free amplification...". Pretty good observation, though I don't agree entirely. Honestly I think it was designed for speech/connection as phase 1 yet quickly morphed into a megaphone, usually one that is used to beat opponents over the head. However Elon might think he's still in phase 1, or at least that's where he wants to be. If it happens at all it will take time.