He has a documented history (charitably) overly-optimistic claims and (accurately) lies. On multiple occasions, he (or an unnamed disgruntled employee who happens to share his exact views) has manipulated the output of his own chatbot to push particular political positions.
He's very unlikely to actually do this, and if he did, it would not do what he describes.
rbanffy•1h ago
He has, in fact, negative credibility, if such a thing can even exist.
The incentives are completely backwards in his case, and his history shows a blatant disregard for accuracy or responsible use of information.
jqpabc123•1h ago
He's very unlikely to actually do this
All he would be doing is documenting the fact that right wing propaganda is poorly rooted in facts.
But then again, a lot if what Musk does is the same. FSD is not really "full self driving". And he has filed a motion in federal court to keep crash data away from the public.
So he may try to do this but he won't do it in the straightforward way you would expect. For example, he may combine this with using legal means to impede wikipedia.
latexr•56m ago
> All he would be doing is documenting the fact that right wing propaganda is poorly rooted in facts.
Sadly, it has become abundantly clear that facts don’t matter when forming opinions.
jqpabc123•44m ago
In other words, mushrooms live on BS.
billy99k•1h ago
How is this any different than platforms like Blue Sky? I've noticed that when the censorship happens silently from the left, most people either don't know it's happening or completely ignore it.
I've compared the bias from X and other platforms and you generally get both sides of the argument. Blue sky bans anything not left-leaning. This is evident by first-hand accounts and the fact that you never see both sides of an argument.
latexr•46m ago
> I've compared the bias from X and other platforms
Mind sharing your methodology? I doubt a single person could accurately determine this without a very well laid out process.
Every study I’m finding, even when specifically searching for left biases, concludes Twitter is very right leaning. Which makes sense: Its owner is very openly right-wing, repeatedly posts right-wing-leaning fabrications, has shown to be thin-skinned and actively amplifies his own account and those who spout right-wing views, so it’s no wonder most who remain are those who agree.
bediger4000•1h ago
This sort of thing has been tried before. The "conservapedia" exists, and is pretty obviously biased and rigged.
bell-cot•1h ago
Sadly, I'm seeing a business model here. Anyone who doesn't like Wikipedia can subscribe to their own private "AI-Corrected Bubblepedia". (Maybe there's a "free, with advertising" version?) The AI "works for you, 24x7x365", to make sure you only see the <cough> real truth <cough/>. If you notice any biases or errors (or change your mind, or mood, or intoxication level), "your private AI" will immediately "fix" your entire personalized Bubblepedia, to fully reflect your suggestions and corrections.
Really, why would any right-minded person want to settle for Wikipedia?
billy99k•1h ago
At this point, I'm not sure anyone sees Wikipedia as accurate. It's controlled by a handful of (usually activist) moderators that block any updates that oppose their personal beliefs, even if true.
Peritract•1h ago
He has a documented history (charitably) overly-optimistic claims and (accurately) lies. On multiple occasions, he (or an unnamed disgruntled employee who happens to share his exact views) has manipulated the output of his own chatbot to push particular political positions.
He's very unlikely to actually do this, and if he did, it would not do what he describes.
rbanffy•1h ago
The incentives are completely backwards in his case, and his history shows a blatant disregard for accuracy or responsible use of information.
jqpabc123•1h ago
All he would be doing is documenting the fact that right wing propaganda is poorly rooted in facts.
But then again, a lot if what Musk does is the same. FSD is not really "full self driving". And he has filed a motion in federal court to keep crash data away from the public.
So he may try to do this but he won't do it in the straightforward way you would expect. For example, he may combine this with using legal means to impede wikipedia.
latexr•56m ago
Sadly, it has become abundantly clear that facts don’t matter when forming opinions.
jqpabc123•44m ago
billy99k•1h ago
I've compared the bias from X and other platforms and you generally get both sides of the argument. Blue sky bans anything not left-leaning. This is evident by first-hand accounts and the fact that you never see both sides of an argument.
latexr•46m ago
Mind sharing your methodology? I doubt a single person could accurately determine this without a very well laid out process.
Every study I’m finding, even when specifically searching for left biases, concludes Twitter is very right leaning. Which makes sense: Its owner is very openly right-wing, repeatedly posts right-wing-leaning fabrications, has shown to be thin-skinned and actively amplifies his own account and those who spout right-wing views, so it’s no wonder most who remain are those who agree.