I mean, let's posit, for argument's sake, that Google is the worst, most evil company in the world. It still wouldn't make sense to respond to criticism of Musk by saying "hey, look at Google!"
If one disapproves of Musk's actions, that disapproval isn't contingent on what Google is doing. And if one approves of Musk's actions, well, I suppose trying to get people to talk about Google instead is a sensible, if logically fallacious, strategy.
Wait, weren’t you and DS recently citing a low % of layoffs at Google vs Twitter as evidence that Elon is a dick? Isn’t that the same strategy, just the opposite argument?
Or maybe Paul brought up Google first and others responded to it, IDK.
Btw did we see Zuck reinstated Trump on FB and Insta. I loathe Trump but I think it’s the right decision.
I mean, let's posit, for argument's sake, that Google is the worst, most evil company in the world. It still wouldn't make sense to respond to criticism of Musk by saying "hey, look at Google!"
If one disapproves of Musk's actions, that disapproval isn't contingent on what Google is doing. And if one approves of Musk's actions, well, I suppose trying to get people to talk about Google instead is a sensible, if logically fallacious, strategy.
Wait, weren’t you and DS recently citing a low % of layoffs at Google vs Twitter as evidence that Elon is a dick? Isn’t that the same strategy, just the opposite argument?
Or maybe Paul brought up Google first and others responded to it, IDK.
Btw did we see Zuck reinstated Trump on FB and Insta. I loathe Trump but I think it’s the right decision.
If that had been my argument, I don't understand your critique -- surely if one holds that 6% layoffs are evidence of being a dick, then 70 - 80% means one is in a category of awful far beyond that.
But, as it happens, that wasn't my argument. Paul is the one who brought it up, and I noted that the Google layoffs aren't the same type of thing as Musk taking over Twitter, to which you noted that a buyout taking a public company private is a much better comparison, which I agreed with.
But Paul keeps wanting to talk about Google, hence my most recent point that he seems very intent on avoiding talk about Musk.
It's kind of interesting because you and Paul are at opposite sides here -- Paul claiming Musk isn't in it for the money, you claiming Musk may be a shrewder business man than we give him credit for -- which I suppose makes the rest of us the sensible centrists here ;-)
When the workplace actions of a CEO are criticized -- and especially when they are being bashed -- it's helpful to understand the workplace conditions of other companies, especially those in the same sector.
The need for such a reality check became apparent when "journalists" accused Musk of depriving his employees of toilet paper and not providing enough musk to mask the terrible body odors in the Twitter workplace.
So help me out here, what are you claiming -- that reports of employees bringing in their own toilet paper are false? That they're true, but it's ok because Google laid people off? That one can only be critical of Google or Musk, but not both?
I assume that four Twitter employees told a reporter that they had to bring their own toilet paper to work. But that wouldn't be a media headline unless the purpose was to bash Musk, which along with Musk-hating has been promoted by the mainstream media ever since he expressed interest in buying Twitter. Positive media references to Musk have virtually disappeared and a cottage industry of Musk-hating has emerged.
I've posted several times about the inability of Musk-haters to even mention his contributions to the fight about climate change.
I mentioned Google, because the absence of media criticism of Google's CEO for labor infractions similar to Musk's, is a good illustration that the media isn't just reporting on Musk, but is campaigning against him.
So far we've seen a similar disparity in how the media is treating Mark Zuckerberg for Meta's decision to restore Trump's Facebook and Instagram accounts, compared with its treatment of Musk's amnesty for Trump. Let's see if that changes.
So Musk can pat himself on the back for reinstating the capital-letter Trump, and the likes of Nick Fuentes, but that won't help Twitter on the business side. Could advertisers like MyPillow and Black Rifle Coffee make up for P&G or AT&T? My Magic 8 Ball says "Outlook not so good."
The recently reinstated Twitter accounts of both Nick Fuentes and Ali Alexander—both of whom were central to the “Stop the Steal” movement that culminated in the January 6th attack on the Capitol—have been suspended again. pic.twitter.com/xHfR2G0zEX
If we were to compare them (which I don't think means anything here, as Google is completely different kind of company), I think it would be good to take a look at what their employees say about the two companies, which you can find at glassdoor.com. You need to log in to get this info, so I screen-grabbed some comparisons.
So Google's rating was 32% higher than Twitter's (4.5 vs 3.4). Closer than I would have expected.
So Musk can pat himself on the back for reinstating the capital-letter Trump, and the likes of Nick Fuentes, but that won't help Twitter on the business side. Could advertisers like MyPillow and Black Rifle Coffee make up for P&G or AT&T? My Magic 8 Ball says "Outlook not so good."
It's unlikely to inspire confidence in advertisers, who look at the overall policies under Musk.
When the workplace actions of a CEO are criticized -- and especially when they are being bashed -- it's helpful to understand the workplace conditions of other companies, especially those in the same sector.
The need for such a reality check became apparent when "journalists" accused Musk of depriving his employees of toilet paper and not providing enough musk to mask the terrible body odors in the Twitter workplace.
So help me out here, what are you claiming -- that reports of employees bringing in their own toilet paper are false? That they're true, but it's ok because Google laid people off? That one can only be critical of Google or Musk, but not both?
I assume that four Twitter employees told a reporter that they had to bring their own toilet paper to work. But that wouldn't be a media headline unless the purpose was to bash Musk, which along with Musk-hating has been promoted by the mainstream media ever since he expressed interest in buying Twitter. Positive media references to Musk have virtually disappeared and a cottage industry of Musk-hating has emerged.
I've posted several times about the inability of Musk-haters to even mention his contributions to the fight about climate change.
I mentioned Google, because the absence of media criticism of Google's CEO for labor infractions similar to Musk's, is a good illustration that the media isn't just reporting on Musk, but is campaigning against him.
So far we've seen a similar disparity in how the media is treating Mark Zuckerberg for Meta's decision to restore Trump's Facebook and Instagram accounts, compared with its treatment of Musk's amnesty for Trump. Let's see if that changes.
Let's assume that there was no media coverage of Musk. Musk would still be doing what he's doing. Assuming one has a consistent moral and ethical framework, those actions would remain either opprobrious or praiseworthy according to that framework. The only difference here is that we wouldn't know about Musk's actions.
So your complaint here is that you wish people didn't know what Musk was doing, and wish they wouldn't talk about it. Which, again, if someone supports Musk's actions but is unable to defend them, is a perfectly understandable but logically fallacious strategy.
If Paul really wants to talk about Google, he's welcome to start a thread. Heck, Google has been around for a while, and there's plenty one can criticize them for, and yet in all these years I'm not sure I've ever seen Paul previously offer any criticism, much less start a thread about it. Does he really want to talk about Google, or just want to not talk about Musk?
paulsurovell said:So far we've seen a similar disparity in how the media is treating Mark Zuckerberg for Meta's decision to restore Trump's Facebook and Instagram accounts, compared with its treatment of Musk's amnesty for Trump. Let's see if that changes.
Let's assume that there was no media coverage of Musk. Musk would still be doing what he's doing. Assuming one has a consistent moral and ethical framework, those actions would remain either opprobrious or praiseworthy according to that framework. The only difference here is that we wouldn't know about Musk's actions.
So your complaint here is that you wish people didn't know what Musk was doing, and wish they wouldn't talk about it. Which, again, if someone supports Musk's actions but is unable to defend them, is a perfectly understandable but logically fallacious strategy.
It's curious that Paul's solution to the "disparity" he perceives, would be less coverage and examination of Musk's actions.
Not to mention, the notion of a "disparity" is something Paul invented, since the Trump restoration only just happened. I heard a good review of the situation on NPR last night, and no doubt there will be more discussion of the implications going forward.
If we were to compare them (which I don't think means anything here, as Google is completely different kind of company), I think it would be good to take a look at what their employees say about the two companies, which you can find at glassdoor.com. You need to log in to get this info, so I screen-grabbed some comparisons.
So Google's rating was 32% higher than Twitter's (4.5 vs 3.4). Closer than I would have expected.
it's a scale. It doesn't make sense to report one scale point average as a percentage higher than another.
Wait, Paul said that the Google/Twitter ratings are "closer than I would have expected". So, he was expecting the Twitter ratings to be even worse than a 3.4 average??
Well, I guess he does recognize the reality that Twitter is below average for workers. But he's already admitted that he thinks Musk's green-ness makes the worker exploitation OK.
I've posted several times about the inability of Musk-haters to even mention his contributions to the fight about climate change.
Whatever Tesla's contribution to the fight against climate change is, it's irrelevant to the discussion of Musk's management of the Twitter.
It's relevant to appreciate that the discussion of Musk's management flows out of a Musk-hating mindset* that cannot utter anything positive about him, not even acknowledgement of his extraordinary contributions to the fight against climate change.
Wait, Paul said that the Google/Twitter ratings are "closer than I would have expected". So, he was expecting the Twitter ratings to be even worse than a 3.4 average??
I was expecting the Google results and Twitter results to be further apart.
Well, I guess he does recognize the reality that Twitter is below average for workers. But he's already admitted that he thinks Musk's green-ness makes the worker exploitation OK.
You're confused. Musk's contributions to the fight against climate change (words you won't say) are independent of the working conditions that made those contributions possible. That's an important distinction because climate change is an existential threat to humanity with time closing in. US policy recognizes the imperative to cooperate with China's clean energy industries, for instance.
I've met dozens of Tesla workers -- installers, technicians, customer service reps -- in the course of my 4-year-old installations of Tesla solar panels and power wall (they also installed a new roof), and I've never encountered a disgruntled employee. To the contrary, they've all been highly motivated and gone the extra mile to assure this demanding customer's satisfaction.
What you refer to as "the worker exploitation" is a phenomenon that takes place at all capitalist enterprises (read Capital Vol 1 if you're not sure) and I see no reason to think that it's worse at Tesla (where Musk's clean energy products are made) than at most other companies.
You know, the Catholic Church has done some amazing and objectively great work in promoting social justice and human rights. None of that is especially relevant in a discussion of, say, clergy sexual abuse scandals. Nor is the fact that other denominations have their own scandals relevant in such a discussion. But I'll admit I see plenty of people in such discussions adopt the same kind of whatabout tactics Paul's adopting here. There's a certain frame of mind that, confronted with the indefensible, will simply try as hard as possible to change the subject.
I was expecting the Google results and Twitter results to be further apart.
on a five point scale, in a survey of current and past employees, the difference between 4.5 and 3.4 is enormous. Here's how Glassdoor characterizes the average values:
5-Point Scale:
Our Company ratings and our Workplace Factor ratings are based on a 5-point scale:
0.00 - 1.50 Employees are "Very Dissatisfied" 1.51 - 2.50 Employees are "Dissatisfied" 2.51 - 3.50 Employees say it's "OK" 3.51 - 4.00 Employees are "Satisfied" 4.01 - 5.00 Employees are "Very Satisfied"
I've posted several times about the inability of Musk-haters to even mention his contributions to the fight about climate change.
Whatever Tesla's contribution to the fight against climate change is, it's irrelevant to the discussion of Musk's management of the Twitter.
It's relevant to appreciate that the discussion of Musk's management flows out of a Musk-hating mindset* that cannot utter anything positive about him, not even acknowledgement of his extraordinary contributions to the fight against climate change.
Edited to add: * (with limited exceptions here)
do we really need to go back through this thread and find all the comments from people you're arguing with, acknowledging Musk's contributions to clean energy?
I've posted several times about the inability of Musk-haters to even mention his contributions to the fight about climate change.
Whatever Tesla's contribution to the fight against climate change is, it's irrelevant to the discussion of Musk's management of the Twitter.
It's relevant to appreciate that the discussion of Musk's management flows out of a Musk-hating mindset* that cannot utter anything positive about him, not even acknowledgement of his extraordinary contributions to the fight against climate change.
Edited to add: * (with limited exceptions here)
do we really need to go back through this thread and find all the comments from people you're arguing with, acknowledging Musk's contributions to clean energy?
You are the only one I recall who made even a half-hearted acknowledgement.
I was expecting the Google results and Twitter results to be further apart.
on a five point scale, in a survey of current and past employees, the difference between 4.5 and 3.4 is enormous. Here's how Glassdoor characterizes the average values:
5-Point Scale:
Our Company ratings and our Workplace Factor ratings are based on a 5-point scale:
0.00 - 1.50 Employees are "Very Dissatisfied" 1.51 - 2.50 Employees are "Dissatisfied" 2.51 - 3.50 Employees say it's "OK" 3.51 - 4.00 Employees are "Satisfied" 4.01 - 5.00 Employees are "Very Satisfied"
On the cusp of "satisfied" versus in the mid-range of "very satisfied" doesn't seem like an "enormous difference".
I was expecting the Google results and Twitter results to be further apart.
on a five point scale, in a survey of current and past employees, the difference between 4.5 and 3.4 is enormous. Here's how Glassdoor characterizes the average values:
5-Point Scale:
Our Company ratings and our Workplace Factor ratings are based on a 5-point scale:
0.00 - 1.50 Employees are "Very Dissatisfied" 1.51 - 2.50 Employees are "Dissatisfied" 2.51 - 3.50 Employees say it's "OK" 3.51 - 4.00 Employees are "Satisfied" 4.01 - 5.00 Employees are "Very Satisfied"
On the cusp of "satisfied" versus in the mid-range of "very satisfied" doesn't seem like an "enormous difference".
OK, just don't become a psychometrician or marketing manager.
Actually... what strikes me as interesting is that it appears their scale allows for ratings of zero, which is unusual. Likert rating scales often start with 1.
Our time difference with you means that lately, when I get to this thread, there are over 50 posts to read and digest so any thoughts/contributions I might have are way overdue. I’m sorry for that. You’d think that living in your future I could manage my time better!!
Anyway, I just wanted to mention re the wondrous Star Link: it has awful (not aweful) implications for astronomers and meteorologists. There’s too much light/signalled info being generated for them to see clearly what they need to. These implications were discussed several months ago in a series of articles I read in New Scientist, BBC Science or Technology, and our ABC Science had a feature while discussing ‘space clutter’ and hazards for space navigation and research.
There’s a lot of dead parts floating around above us that should be brought back down (safely) before anything else goes up, but no-one talks about it or seems prepared to do anything about it. We’re going to regret not tidying up.
I was expecting the Google results and Twitter results to be further apart.
on a five point scale, in a survey of current and past employees, the difference between 4.5 and 3.4 is enormous. Here's how Glassdoor characterizes the average values:
5-Point Scale:
Our Company ratings and our Workplace Factor ratings are based on a 5-point scale:
0.00 - 1.50 Employees are "Very Dissatisfied" 1.51 - 2.50 Employees are "Dissatisfied" 2.51 - 3.50 Employees say it's "OK" 3.51 - 4.00 Employees are "Satisfied" 4.01 - 5.00 Employees are "Very Satisfied"
On the cusp of "satisfied" versus in the mid-range of "very satisfied" doesn't seem like an "enormous difference".
it is.
in these cases, with over 2000 responses, a difference of -0.1 isn't on the "cusp" of the next category.
Wait, Paul said that the Google/Twitter ratings are "closer than I would have expected". So, he was expecting the Twitter ratings to be even worse than a 3.4 average??
I was expecting the Google results and Twitter results to be further apart.
So... you were expecting the Google ratings to be better AND Twitter ratings worse?
Wait, Paul said that the Google/Twitter ratings are "closer than I would have expected". So, he was expecting the Twitter ratings to be even worse than a 3.4 average??
I was expecting the Google results and Twitter results to be further apart.
So... you were expecting the Google ratings to be better AND Twitter ratings worse?
those results are pretty poor considering they include a **** ton of responses from before Musk acquired the company. The 18% approval rating for Musk among Twitter employees is a lot more damning than the 3.4 overall average.
When it comes to the spread of cockamamie conspiracy theories, Twitter was a maximum viable product long before Elon Musk paid $44 billion for the keys. But as soon as he took the wheel, Musk removed many of the guardrails Twitter had put in place to keep the craziness in check. Anti-vaxxers used an athlete's collapse during a game to revive claims that COVID-19 vaccines kill people. (They don't.) Freelance journalists spun long threads purporting to show that Twitter secretly supported Democrats in 2020. (It didn't.) Musk himself insinuated that the attack on Nancy Pelosi's husband was carried out by a jealous boyfriend. (Nope.) Like a red thread connecting clippings on Twitter's giant whiteboard, conspiratorial ideation spread far and wide...
...Social scientists are closing in on some answers. The personality traits known as the "Dark Triad" — that's narcissism, psychopathy, and a tendency to see the world in black-or-white terms — play a part. So do political beliefs, particularly populism and a tolerance for political violence. Cognitive biases, like believing only evidence that confirms what you already think, also make people more vulnerable.
But according to new research, it isn't ignorance that makes people most likely to buy into conspiratorial thinking, or social isolation or mental illness. It's a far more prevalent and pesky personality quirk: overconfidence...
Wait, weren’t you and DS recently citing a low % of layoffs at Google vs Twitter as evidence that Elon is a dick? Isn’t that the same strategy, just the opposite argument?
Or maybe Paul brought up Google first and others responded to it, IDK.
Btw did we see Zuck reinstated Trump on FB and Insta. I loathe Trump but I think it’s the right decision.