Twitter executive responsible for content safety resigns after Elon Musk criticism

Everyone see where this is heading. See this what happens when Musk actually tries to run a company instead of simply attaching himself to more capable individuals and make himself the face of the company.

Twitter Is Now Worth a Third of What Musk Paid for It, Fidelity Says

https://www.wsj.com/articles/twitter-is-now-worth-a-third-of-what-musk-paid-for-it-fidelity-says-e66f61db

Is that $15 billion? Thus, with this failure, the space launch failure and Tesla losing money. We see Musk trying to flood the media with incomplete promises if neurolink, the Tesla truck and praising countries like China, his financial overlords. Without China, his other businesses will continue to tank. China is leveraging Musk as a backdoor to more US state secrets and technology by exploiting his US contracts.

“This was a mistake by many people at Twitter. It is definitely allowed," Musk tweeted back. “Whether or not you agree with using someone’s preferred pronouns, not doing so is at most rude and certainly breaks no laws.”

So does this mean ya can constantly call Elon "she" and not be banned? Or is that considered bullying and not allowed?

Doesn't bode well that even one of Musk's most trusted executives resigned under him, after another

Elon Musk loses two Twitter safety executives in one week amid questions over harmful content, advertiser relations

Ella Irwin, the Twitter executive in charge of content moderation and policy, has resigned, she said in an email. So did AJ Brown, according to a person familiar with the matter. He was head of advertising quality and “brand safety” — which refers to ensuring content is appropriate to run alongside advertisers’ promotional campaigns.

Irwin is the second head of Trust and Safety to resign since Musk took over. The first, Yoel Roth, left in November after just two weeks.

Current and former employees have said Irwin was one of Musk’s most trusted executives, willing to carry out and defend his decisions on content as the team’s efforts became strained with layoffs and firings. While that work improved her standing at Twitter, it also alienated advertisers and users who felt the platform had become more hospitable to hateful content.

Since October, Twitter’s advertising revenue has declined by 50%, Musk said in March.

Ella Irwin, Twitter's head of trust and safety, confirmed her resignation in a pair of tweets late Friday. She did not say in the message why she was leaving

By this point it is clear that several departments on Twitter can only work by contradicting the direction Musk wants for the company. There are only two choices for the people in charge of them, either quit or do their jobs as badly as possible.

If I can choose my own pronouns (and in some places people are legally required to use them), can I choose my own adjectives? I’m not especially tall, but if I “identify” as tall, and having other people describe me as tall makes me feel better about myself, shouldn’t others be legally required to describe me as tall? And if I were to identify as “rich,” because people would respect me more if they thought I was rich, and this would make me fee better about myself, can’t I require other people to describe me as rich? As a white male in 2023, I don’t have as many opportunities as white males did in previous generations. I would find more opportunities if I identified as black, Asian, or Hispanic. Can’t people legally be required to describe me as black, Asian, or Hispanic if I identify as such? How far down the rabbit hole of insanity do we have to go?

As a white male in 2023, I don’t have as many opportunities as white males did in previous generations.

Only because white males in previous generations have a disproportionately greater opportunities in expense of other groups

Don't look at that past history as some sort of ideal

Safety and content moderator at Twitter? 'Ardest job in the world, as Archie would say.

I quite like the idea of tech companies refusing to censor and running with the original concept of simply being conduits. They are almost all American, and the US does have a first amendment on free speech. There is no reason why that shouldn't operate on the internet too. They could choose moderation if they wished, under their own terms (as most currently do), but they should not be punished for running with the constitution and not doing so. Most countries have their own rules on what is illegal - incitement to violence or racial hatred etc. In democracies, it is healthy to have prosecutions after the fact, not censorship 'just in case'. So block nothing, but prosecute everyone who breaks the law.

It would make more sense for users to self-censor what they do not wish to see, blocking anything (or anyone) they didn't want to appear on their feed. For everyone this would be different, so no censorship regime is ever going to satisfy everyone anyway, and the rules shouldn't be decided by the activists that shout the loudest. It seems fairer for each of us to be allowed to block what we want and read what we want. The law should step in only when someone actually breaks it.

I quite like the idea of tech companies refusing to censor and running with the original concept of simply being conduits.

The problem is that we have fake news ruining our elections. You may not care about what happens to the democracies of the world but some of us do.

I quite like the idea of tech companies refusing to censor and running with the original concept of simply being conduits. They are almost all American, and the US does have a first amendment on free speech. There is no reason why that shouldn't operate on the internet too. 

Content moderation is driven by revenue, not the 1st Amendment. These firms have to balance "free speech" on a privately held platform against possibly losing customers and advertisers if content becomes too violent or extreme. On one side you have an old saying in business that the customer is always right, but what happens when half your customers have a strong dislike of the other half of your customer base and want no part of them? No easy answers to that question. Now ad a layer of advertiser opposition to posts of a certain nature because their customers object to them advertising on a platform that hosts views they find abhorrent. The customer is always right, but the customers themselves can't get along.

Musk is trying to position himself as the next Julian Assange who works with Putin to throw another election in Putin's favor.