That’s his decision to make. My point is he’s taken on a white knuckle level of risk here.
1 Like
Probably safer to take that risk with twitter then an oil refinery…
Yeah an argument that the yanks were not committing genocide in south east asia(me) vs your perspective.
I think your nuts!
1 Like
It’s still working though Twitter?
I mean what about the financials?
He sacked thousands of people within days of taking over. That’s not a considered cull of low performers, there’s mo way he or anyone could form an opinion on their competence in such a short time. That’s just cutting headcount because you came in with a preconceived view that cutting headcount was going to happen, and almost certainly that you don’t understand what jobs the sacked people were doing. Which means you don’t understand the company you’re trying to run.
8 Likes
I can think of some pretty ugly real world harm from the user data stored in Twitter getting out. Think of the fate of pro-democracy accounts operating in authoritarian countries. Plenty of other disasters could result.
Then there’s some pretty massive regulatory risks that could end in massive fines or potential jail terms.
A number of former Twitter employees have had to flee their homes and go into hiding fearing for their lives after Musk leaked their identities.
3 Likes
I think him firing the entire trust and safety team and then begging them to come back after he realised he actually needed some of them to run the company, kind of says it all
3 Likes
Sounds like that Twitter account that was pro dictator Dan? Whatever happened to him/her?
He sacked them again a couple of days ago. The guy acts like he’s just hoovering up coke right now, to be honest.
6 Likes
You can think I’m nuts.
I think a bomb every eight minutes against a country you’re not at war with and has no means to defend itself, let alone respond, is rather more than nuts.
So we’ll agree to disagree.
2 Likes
I haven’t looked into it much, but I think a manager in the moderation or safety team got thrown under the bus for doing their job. Became the latest target of the MAGA assassination machine.
He’s a guy who’s somewhere on the autistic spectrum operating the worlds “town hall”. Also commands 1 in 3 Twitter accounts as his followers.
What could go wrong?
(No offence given to Autistic folk hopefully none taken)
If you mean PRGuy, nothing at all happened because it turned out that despite Sky News/cooker assertions to the contrary, he was a regular joe blow and didn’t actually have any connection whatsoever to the ALP outside of a shared view that the current form of conservative politics in Australia is absolutely cooked
3 Likes
It’s a war not a murder trail on the county court. The intent of the action isn’t really relevant.
The US army knew what they were doing and the effects of it. The US defence forces in the 60’s was being run by Robert McNamara, the guy was a genius who went along way in inventing how to organise large operations through statistics. Helped win WW2 and then built Ford into the company it became through statistics, before becoming secretary of defense.
To think he didn’t know the direct, indirect and unintended consequences of the armies strategies is niave. Of course he and others knew, they had huge manpower collecting and analysing the data. Sure they weighed the outcomes against the strategic goals. But if your strategy is to do x and you know a million people are going to die you don’t get to cleanse your morality by claiming it wasn’t your intention. If you know the outcome and choose that course of action, it’s basically is your intention. The people making the decisions in war have to wear both the good and bad outcomes.
Still nothing like Nazis though.
2 Likes
Actually it’s all about intent.
That’s genocide and all I was making an argument against. The yanks were not committing it.
Lots of people died on all sides in the Vietnam war.
1 Like
Lots of people arguing around what your saying and missing the point, i dont think you can be any clearer.
My only point here is that the US, UK, Aus and all their friends have done very nasty things.
I’m not sure if I’m about to bring the wrath of Wim down on my back but here’s my two cents worth.
genocide
/ˈdʒɛnəsʌɪd/
noun
noun: genocide; plural noun: genocides
- the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group.
“a campaign of genocide”
The Nazis developed a deliberate campaign to exterminate the Jews who they blamed for many of Germany’s problems from WWI…the bolded bit fits pretty well with the dictionary definition of genocide listed above.
The Americans bombed a large area of Laos as part of Operation Barrel Roll with the aim of stopping the North Vietnamese using the “Ho Chi Minh Trail”
The bombing was in no way aimed at the Laotian people.
To call it a genocidal act is quite inaccurate when using the dictionary definition above.
3 Likes
I don’t think they committed genocide either so it’s probably a moot point. But I wouldn’t excuse their actions because their intent was to save democracy or something similar. That’s letting them off way to lightly.
1 Like
I would encourage everyone to read up on how cynically Henry Kissinger was selecting which targets to bomb.
“But Sniggles, Kissinger wasn’t involved in the military!”
Exactly.
There’s a special place in hell for him when he finally goes and Laos is just one of many reasons why.
7 Likes