I don't understand the mentality that this young person should watch themselves in their interactions with the rich and famous. The world today is very different than it was even a few years ago. Startup tech companies are going to like this guy's balls and he'll fit great with their culture. Which is generally like UCFs culture. He's making a little bit of a gamble but it will pay off.
All you need is the number on tail of plane and you can track it. It isn’t hard to do.
Because people care I guess. People tracked Nebraska planes to Philly when they had Frost sign contract. People have time on hands and that’s how they fill it.
Yeah but this kid doesn’t waste anytime tracking the jet. He has a bot do it. Sounds like a smart kid to me
I heard that but sounds like bs. He spent 20% of his net worth for a cause? And what's wrong with freedom fo speech on twitter?
How’s EM trying to pay the kid to stop tweeting either misinformation or hate speech?
Because spending 20% of his net worth to keep some kid from spreading public information on one social media provider makes so much more sense. Do you really believe this?
I'm not super informed on this issue but I do remember seeing a lot of taliban tweets...I think back when the US pulled out.
Isis doesn’t have a megaphone on Twitter
Fine. I’ll give all the moderation you want as long as I’m the one that gets to decide what is censored and what isn’t.
so you don’t want a red line to temporarily mute tweets or suspend an account ? even if they spew hate speech or threaten violence? any online community that becomes too toxic in the long term will fail bc people will get exhausted by it . Again he may not let it get that far despite getting cheerleaded by some of those characters right now
People get banned for content they post. Not for their controversial alleged identity. The vast majority of Twitter users tweet without any identity verification anyway.
Yes that would be a plus too. Charging people to talk sports is archaic.
If all forms of moderated online social interaction went away we could finally have free speech again.
She’s entitled to her opinion even if it’s incorrect.
The free society answer to your problem is as simple as a persuasive argument convincing her of the absurdity of her position. The answer is not to have some government or corporate committee (or amalgamation thereof) decide what is right for people to hear and what is not right. Similarly, the answer to rhetoric that radicalizes is transparency of the lies of that rhetoric and doing things that embrace freedom and opportunity.
I think you're grossly over estimating the general publics ability to understand logic and apply reason. I know of a few studies that found people refuse to believe the truth even when presented overwhelming evidence.
