I’m sure you’re never wrong about anything. Maybe you should start a podcast.

At times like early covid there wasn’t much facts and evidence available. Back then masks didn’t stop the spread of the virus but vaccines were supposed to. Who decides what the facts are in times like that?

Yeah, but the question was; who decides what is disinformation? If it was some truly competent and unbiased AI system then I perhaps wouldn’t be as concerned about it, though I can see issues with that too, but humans are flawed and I see this as a potenttial slippery slope towards tyranny and censorship.

Who decides what the facts are?

…and? We can’t have people having public conversations online then because some might take it too seriously? I don’t see how this is a criticism towards Joe.

He has never claimed to be a legitimate journalist. He has said repeatedly that you shouldn’t take him too seriously - he’s a cage fight commentator after all.

To be fair; that was 22 years ago. People change. He’s even different now than he was like 5 years ago when I started listening to the show. Way less confrontational for example. I’ve heard many people talk about him on other podcasts and say that he’s exactly the same person in real life than he’s on the show.

I don’t personally have any issue with algorithms - they work quite well for me, though it does require some active management. For example, if I watch one or two 30-second videos on YouTube, it quickly starts recommending more, which quickly floods my feed. However, when I start ignoring those recommendations, despite the temptation to click, the algorithm eventually stops pushing them and shifts back to suggesting accurately tailored, long-form content that genuinely interests me. The same goes for using the “not interested” button. This aligns with my experience on platforms like Twitter and Instagram as well, though the latter I no longer use.

Algorithms obviously don’t care whether the content they show you makes you glad that you saw it. They simply serve what captures your attention. If it’s outrage, then that’s exactly what you’ll get. The algorithm knows plenty of other users engage with that kind of content, so it rationally assumes the same will apply to you.

Simply having the same or similar features alone doesn’t make it a viable replacement. I switched from Instagram to Pixelfed and went from hardly anyone seeing my photography to literally no one seeing it.

His statement is almost guranteed to be correct. It’s the timeline that’s a mystery here.

I don’t even need to read to comments to be able to predict it’s 100% cynicism and snide jokes. That’s how predictable this platform is.

I’m so glad I can escape all the politics to Lemmy

Before even reading the comments I predict it’s all negative and cynical because what ever Musk does needs to be opposed.

Maybe the people here feel personally threatened because negativity is all you have to offer.

All it really says is it can’t definitively say either way.

No it doesn’t. It clearly says there that the original claim made in the book, which is the same claim you’re making here, is false yet you keep spreading it.

Your claim: he shut down Starlink to stop a Ukrainian assault

Truth: the Ukrainians THOUGHT coverage was enabled all the way to Crimea, but it was not

Elon didn’t disable anything. It was never enabled in the first place. Your claim is simply just false.

After the fact? After what? After the thing you’re claiming didn’t happen?

Do you see what you’re doing here? You’re using an article whose sole purpose is to debunk the claim you’re trying to make. You’re emotionally invested in this - you don’t like Elon, so you want this to be true. When someone points out that it’s not true, with evidence, you start making things up to avoid acknowledging you were wrong. This is cognitive dissonance. The reason you have this false belief to begin with is because Walter Isaacson wrote about it in his book. Now the exact same person has admitted that this didn’t happen yet you still keep harping on about it. You’re literally spreading misonformation.

Just read the article.

Your claim is that they disabled it. They didn’t. It was never enabled in the first place.

I believe that it was off not because of SpaxeX’s decision but due to U.S. sanctions. Enabling it there would’ve literally been illegal.

Musk has also added that had he been contacted by U.S. officials and told to turn it on he would have, but they didn’t.

Maybe you should read the article you linked.

To clarify on the Starlink issue: the Ukrainians THOUGHT coverage was enabled all the way to Crimea, but it was not. They asked Musk to enable it for their drone sub attack on the Russian fleet. Musk did not enable it, because he thought, probably correctly, that would cause a major war.

Starlink is not enabled in Russia or the occupied territories because it would be against U.S. sanctions and enabling it there would be literally illegal.

Musk has even said that had he been contacted by U.S. officials and told to enable it he would have but they didn’t.

Care to elaborate on why not?

Track record of what? Helping Ukraine rather than Russia? Even this article is about helping Ukraine, not Russia. Pretty much every Ukraine related action SpaceX has taken goes against this pro-Russia narrative yet the narrative sticks.