• TWeaK@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    The logic is to destabilise public forums ahead of upcoming elections, so the wealthy can consolidate more power.

    • rockprada@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I hate that this take seems like the conspiracy take but also is totally plausible. Just look to the example of the Arab spring and how instrumental social media was for organizing. By fragmenting all social media it’s a lot less likely you see a massive resistance if shit goes sideways.

      • jarfil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        This might be the top-down view, but the bottom-up is Telegram forums, Mastodon, Lemmy, and similar distributed hard to close down spaces.

        “Divide and conquer” is a valid strategy when one can conquer each part separately, “guerrilla warfare” is the aftermath of failing to conquer the divided parts.

      • regedit@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        If this is the case, I guess it makes sense why these bad, seemingly “money-losing” changes aren’t going to be felt by the company or CEO. Soon as they go public, the elite that pushed these changes will buy up the amount they promised, spez will take his payout, and they will have “union-busted” another prominent social media platform used for progressive ideas and discussion.

        • TWeaK@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Fun fact, most of the money Musk spent on Twitter was underwritten by stocks in Tesla, which have drastically shrunk in value since the purchase.