No one takes X seriously.
No, that was absolutely that. Do you not think he gained a massive amount of control with that?
SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
Credibly_Human@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Is that why most politicians, musicians, comedians etc, still treat it as their main platforms to get info out? Because they don’t take it seriously?
The big problem is actually that they do. That social inertia works so slowly that they didn’t.
That some random crypto company making Bluesky was the closest to a solution, and it looks like it will also have some power crazed person leading it.
NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I still think there’s a difference.
When people talk about wielding money like power, its more along the lines of
For Twitter he actually used his wealth as actual money to buy something you would buy with money.
He did get power from it yes, but I still think there’s a distinction when talking about wiedling it as power.
Credibly_Human@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Gotta say this difference seems very arbitrary. He bought a company, and platform. Both direct how people spend their time. A platform is obvious but a company, he directs what the people who work there work on. Its definitely a match to somewhere far past where money buys you things.
MangoCats@feddit.it 3 weeks ago
There’s all kinds of power and influence of people through the press is a very traditional kind of indirect power for people to wield. When I talk about money as power it definitely includes the power to influence how people think and vote and act without putting an actual gun to their heads. Twitter is the new TV and TV was the new radio and the radio was the new newspaper… All kinds of wealthy and powerful people in the past sought control of the press, not only for their own desires, but also as a bargaining chip with other people with power: “do this for me and I’ll make you look good on my platform…”