I think you underestimate how hard the problem is or you don’t fully understand how it works. The scale at which Twitter operates makes it near impossible to take down spam in real time. You don’t think Twitter is working on it, but they are. What you see is a much smaller percentage of the actual spam generated, and the reason you see it is because users are creative on circumventing all the preventive actions they take.

If all Google and Facebook couldn't solve it, why could a Tesla engineer of all people...

That's not to say there aren't overlapping skill sets, but the AI tech involved is quite distinct (although there is overlap, I believe some of the latest perception research is trying to adapt transformers from NLP to replace CNNs). Many of my colleagues are AI/ML engineers working on the self driving problems (perception, prediction, planning) and they're all super smart, but they'd still take a while to get up to speed in another area.

I have no idea why a serious business would hire a non-NLP specialised engineer to solve content moderation (they'd maybe hire someone who was interested in changing sub-field, but not to build out the backbone of their teams).

Heck, you could even just limit the number of hashtags in a single tweet (say, 2) and fix 95% of Twitter's spam problem without harming legitimate users in any way

2) I am not an ML engineer, but still a software engineer and in my opinion the problem of self driving cars is at least two orders of magnitude harder than the problem of Internet spam. Maybe even three orders of magnitude.

3) We actually know that the problem of spam is successfuly solved by Google. When was the last time you saw a spam message in Gmail? I am seeing them in my inbox approximately once a month. There are about 8 messages in my spam folder per day, so it is about 0.4% false negatives. This is a great result.

4) Social networks are not interested in fighting spam. It just will make their metrics worse. All they need is to keep it at moderately acceptable level, so users won't flee in bunches.

Also, you're really understating how good Tesla self-drive is. It's not full self-drive but it's a real achievement.

I never claimed Tesla self-driving wasn't an achievement, but clearly they underestimated how hard that would be themselves, so I wouldn't be surprised if they'd do the same for content moderation.

If you spend 5 seconds on YouTube and Facebook and compare that to Twitter, you'll see a massive difference.

The spam bots on Twitter are incredibly unsophisticated. It's literally bots with the same profile picture and name as the person they're trying to spam.

On the other hand, YouTube spam bots are actually incredibly sophisticated. They're using GPT-3 or some language model to generate text and reply to each other. Like, sometimes I'll read a comment and not be sure if it was a spam bot or not.

Twitter is leagues behind w/ their spam filters.

How good is it?

I know there was one instance when an engineer using an internal build got fired for vlogging it (which is not at all unusual, Apple would also fire you for showing off an internal build).

I do long road trips and feel less exhausted than I would otherwise.

Quantity != Quality. Just because McDonalds serves billions of people doesn't magically make it good food.

Something tells me Elon would have different goals that should be less of a moving target and easier to accomplish. Less subjective target like "hate speech" and more objective target like true threats of violence, illegal activity, actual bot detection not "people who disagree are bots", etc

Spam is a dramatically easier problem, and has many more mechanism to suppress it both legally and technologically.

Because the guy who invited me sort of sprung the talk on me I had no slides or anything, so it became a collection of vague thoughts + discussions with their team (vague because I didn't want to discuss any trade secrets). One thing that became very clear was that they weren't thinking about bots a whole lot compared to the Google abuse teams, because they'd been re-tasked at some point to consider abuse as primarily meaning "humans being mean to each other". A significant amount of their effort was going on this instead, although there is really little overlap in technologies or skills needed between problems.

This was pre-2016 so the whole Russian-social-bots-gave-us-trump hysteria hadn't started yet, instead Twitter was being declared toxic just due to the behaviour of its users. Thus the term bot still meant actual spam bots. Since then various groups, primarily in academia but activist employees too, realized that because deleting bot accounts was uncontroversial they could try and delete their political enemies by re-classifying them as "bots". For example this Twitter developer in 2019:

https://reclaimthenet.org/project-veritas-twitter-hidden-cam...

“Just go to a random Trump tweet, and just look at the followers. They’ll all be like guns, God, Murica, and with the American flag and, like, the cross. Like, who says that? Who talks like that? It’s for sure a bot.”

Clearly any abuse team that uses a definition of bot like that won't be able to focus on the work of actually detecting and fighting spam bots. If Musk bought Twitter and re-focused their abuse teams on classical spam fighting work it'd almost certainly help, given that Twitter didn't seem to be keeping the ever-shifting overloads of the "abuse" clear in their org structure.

Incidentally, trying to find the above quote on Google is a waste of time. Search "project veritas twitter for sure they are bots" on Google and the links are almost all irrelevant. DuckDuckGo/Bing gets it right on the first result, no surprise. I don't believe for one second that's a result of incompetence on the part of the Google web search teams.

Hahah wow this is so out of touch. Communities each have their own way of speaking (famously /r/wallstreetbets has its own grammar, emoji, and lingo, but this applies to every community).

Sidenote this is why minorities speaking with each other sometimes get misclassified (even by humans!) as spam.

What’s the false positive rate, and is that why people complain they’re being banned or shadow banned?

(Definitions of shadow ban vary: https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2018/Setting-t...)

It's been tweeted by multiple security people at various Twitter engineers already and raised in lots of ways. They know and don't care. Meantime, real people lose their money - otherwise nobody would waste their time to post the scam.

You offer users a list of filters they can choose to activate, so they only see content according to the filters they enabled.

There would be filters against spam, filters against opinions other than your own, etc.

It wouldn't require _Machine Learning_, the kind of filtering approach you've just described would absolutely constitute AI.

It's almost never the case that spam issues on popular social networks can be alleviated with some easy fixes, because obviously if they could they would already have done that. Twitter is a very weird exception.

Yet people talking about hunter biden’s laptop in October 2020 had their accounts deleted immediately.

Twitter is very good at content moderation when it threatens the manufactured narrative of the global elite which they serve. And then completely incompetent otherwise.

I don’t buy the line that the problem is too complex because I see selective competence.

The problem would be more surmountable at that point

It's hard to take any of the rest of this seriously after that "detail".

https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1487022342630957062?s=21&t=...

https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1496549841912094733?s=21&t=...

https://twitter.com/paulg/status/1485588476057825290?s=21&t=...

and

https://twitter.com/id_aa_carmack/status/1473752736537657349...

https://twitter.com/id_aa_carmack/status/1399028630190239746...

I know how hard it is to deploy features at scale, especially at a world-class company like Twitter. But if Twitter were to retain me as a consultant, I’d happily bet you any sum of your choosing that I’d make a pretty big dent in the crypto spam within a few months of full-time effort.

"Either (a) Twitter is terribly bad at detecting spam or (b) there's something about Twitter that makes detecting spam difficult or (c) they don't care.

Based on my experience detecting spam, I'd guess (c)."

"Twitter engineering: If you're going to do such a bad job of catching spam, how about at least giving us a one-click way to report a tweet as spam and block the account, like email providers do? It may even help you get better at filtering, since more reports = more signal."

I appreciate your gesture, but I don’t mind the downvotes. Bold claims warrant skepticism. And talking about votes makes the conversation less interesting for the audience.

But you’re right to point out that the problem isn’t nearly as intractable as it seems. There are many ways to deter crypto spammers.

Think of it this way: suppose Twitter’s stock price was inversely proportional to the amount of crypto spam (without accidentally removing genuine tweets). Does anyone believe the stock price would go down?

It’s why I suspect Twitter simply hasn’t made it a priority.

Also see reddit, with most small Reddits being spam/porn. These are in many ways Potemkin websites. The emperor is naked.

Twitter, on the other hand, is pretty sensitive to false positives, and the vernacular is so unique that naive Bayesian filtering would destroy a lot of communities with their own vocabularies and languages. If messages start arbitrarily dropping on it, its users won't stick around.

Sure, you could absolutely knock out spam. It wouldn't be that hard. Because fighting spam isn't the hard part. It's dodging the problem of firing on innocent people that the spam is using as body shields that's the hard part.

They already get incredible volumes of criticism for what little false positives they already have. Imagine if it was normal to be put in a time-out box by a Bayesian filter that wasn't tailored for your community!

Combating spam is something that has very few possible upsides for twitter, and a catastrophic failure case. Right now, spam mostly tends to effect larger accounts, who are going to stay on the platform anyway, because it's where the people are. What little spam small accounts see is manageable, and they won't leave because of it because it's so insignificant. If suddenly they couldn't send messages to others at random and without warning? Why would they stick around, then?

Where people will go doesn't really matter, because there are a billion places they can, and there's not always a clear migration path. Sometimes, a social platform just dies, and its communities form a diaspora on different platforms, without any "clear" successor (like what happened to Orkut), or just stop doing the whole social media thing (many Google+ contributors no longer post online anywhere).

Instead, I'll mention two platforms some of my friends like, to avoid taking the cost of a ruined platform myself:

sqwok.im: This one is the most microblog-like of the two, but it's also the least conventional. The quality varies; the front page only looks good every once in a while.

tildes.net: This one is invite-only, which helps mitigate the masses jumping in somewhat, and is run by a former reddit administrator. The existing community isn't great, but it's good. Friendly enough people.

Could you do that while also making sure no false positives happen? Elon is making claims that he wants to make Twitter a platform where people are truly free to say what they want, so any spam that gets removed that isn't spam would be seen in a very poor light.

Eliminating spam when you're happy to have a few other things end up in the spam folder by mistake is relatively simple. Likewise, eliminating most of the spam but letting some through because it looks real is also quite easy. Eliminating only spam and nothing else is significantly harder.

I doubt any of them can speak with much weight on AI. That hardly means they can't make serious points about censorship, or corporate finance.

The fact that they specified it being an AI Tesla engineer is super cringe Tesla-bro stuff and the fact that the commenter would say something like that hurts their credibility in making the other fairly extreme claims.

Isn't this Gell-Mann Amnesia in full effect?

"Sure, they are speaking nonsense about AI, but I bet they have great ideas about corporate finance!"

If they're obviously talking out of their arse on one point then it definitely suggests they're talking out of their arse on the rest of it.

It feels a little silly to act like the guy trying to spend billions of dollars to get his way represents anything more than an intra-elite conflict.

Either way, with billions involved, i have no say in whatever happens (because I don't have billions), but musk gives me higher hope than disney.

Basically, I have nothing to lose, only to gain.

At this point we can say these are mission focused moves. This is about free speech in the public square.

Pushing for less censorship isn't "his way" -

- I see you've edited to "intra-elite" conflict. So is basically every problem in society then given that governance is handled by few. Not sure what the point is here, just feels like a hollow dismissal.

I'm still confused about what "less censorship" could mean, he seems pretty clear on it.

And what governance happens public or private that "we" all agree on?

Right now "we" don't agree on how Twitter operates currently. A couple dozen people do. I'm not understanding your point here.

Beyond that, the idea of a totally unfettered Twitter is not really desirable. Such forums fill up with porn, gore, racism, and various other forms of shock content nobody actually wants on their feeds.

For instance, if you decide that you want a Twitter feed that excludes porn, gore, racism, and other objectionable content, then you absolutely should be able to exclude those (I'd reckon that that'd be a very sensible default). If I want to go observe the crazy bigoted things that fringe groups are spewing, or if I want to use Twitter just as an endless feed of porn, then that doesn't affect your ability to not see those things.

Likewise, I've not heard Musk propose banning any of his critics or opposing viewpoints (though I don't really follow his actions, so it's possible I've just missed them).

What an embarrassingly dishonest characterization of the problem. Nobody sane is arguing that "criticism is censorship".

The problem with Twitter is that they are censoring popular narratives critical of the ruling elite. If you can't distinguish between the concept of banning accounts and posts vs not doing so, and allowing criticism, you are simply too misinformed or low IQ to have any worthwhile input.

(Though I defend to the death your right to babble incoherently)

Is that so? Why do the same people who claim they’re all about free speech get all wound up about “cancel culture” then? There are clearly rules in their head about who should actually have the right to say whatever they want. I quite confident that I am not “low-IQ.”

"Cancel culture" very clearly had crowds of people demanding someone lose money/access to a job/platform.

Perhaps we're just in different bubbles that don't overlap.

Cancel culture is NEET busybodies making it their day job to hunt for le problematique like bounty hunters (paid in retweets) organizing mobs to campaign to ruin people's lives (for great justice!) Yes, it's free speech! Yes, it's free association! Yes, it has precedents, you savvy insightful geniuses! Most things do, we call that history, and it's full of terrible things we should probably stop doing.

But this modern manifestation of a thing that has precedents and conservatives do too sometimes also has interesting features that are probably worth talking about on their own terms. I repeat: Cancel culture is NEET busybodies making it their day job to hunt for le problematique like bounty hunters, organizing mobs to campaign to ruin people's lives. It's legal, they have every right, and it's shitty, shitty behavior. Please stop denying it's a thing, or alternately trying to whatabout it to death.

On the cancel culture front, I don't agree. It actually refers to an incredibly broad segment of actions which almost nobody actually has much of a consistent line on. Often simply criticizing or refusing to patronize someone's business is called "canceling." Even if we narrowly refer to people losing their jobs, nobody actually believes there are NO circumstances whatsoever where losing your job might be an appropriate response to something you said. If you're a special ed teacher and post on Facebook that people with intellectual disabilities are less than human, one could reasonably doubt that you have any business having charge of special ed kids. If you want a more conservative flavored example, you could probably find conservatives endorsing cops losing their job if they bragged about not enforcing immigration laws. Or if you want an extremely uncontroversial example, you must at least believe it's appropriate not to VOTE for someone because you didn't like what they said. I don't think it's an accident. I think this term is so slippery and amorphous precisely because it obscures the hypocrisy at work.

They don't have L4 self-driving they just made a contrived railway system for their cars. The second the car is out of the hardcoded route it's not a self driving car anymore.

So what you're saying is that at least the car is self-driving sometimes, whereas the Teslas never are. That's your pro-Tesla argument?

You can get in and drive around in a Waymo taxi with no driver and yet Tesla fans are still claiming it's not self-driving, while Tesla is. Hilarious.

There are also reasons beyond capability for the cars being limited to an area. One is legislative, they literally are not allowed to offer service outside a given area. Another is maintenance, the cars need to be within range for their team in case of emergencies or accident. The cars have been tested in many cities outside those two cities, but offering a user-facing service has a lot more barriers.

At which point in history could any person blurt out a brainfart and have thousands of people around the globe hear it and react instantly again?

When the printing press was invented ther was a backlash against it, because free speech was endangering existing power structures.

Nowadays we have it the other way around, powerful players use the accelerated chaos of social media to avoid any real discourse from forming — it is just very easy to manipulate just enough into your direction to hide behind "differing opinions" if you have a ton of resources — just like boulevard media has been for the past decades. Censorship and media control is one strategy to reduce the chaos by decelerating the spread of the most outrageous unfounded claims. Of course there can be such a thing as too much censorship (e.g. look to China and Russia), but this would be state censorship.

A billionaire does not want to buy a social media plattform because he cares about free speech — if that was the case he would have nothing about his workers discussing unions, post youtube videos he does not like or journalist writing negative things about him and still being able to buy a Tesla car.

I am not sure there is much wisdom in assuming we can have a world wide instant public microblogging platform without any moderation at all. Anyone who ever operated any public web platform knows the quality of the discourse falls drasticly if there is not at least some level of content moderation.

> One AI engineer from Tesla could solve Twitter's bot and spam problem.

You are heavily overexpecting what the technology can do. Differenciating satire from a threat with sufficient accuracy is not something machine learning ("AI") could do right now.

Usenet, for several decades already. Good NNTP servers had nearly perfect spam filtering and the trolls were handled individually by each user in killfiles.

If Google had kept the simple original web interface from around 2004 we might not have had all these issues. GPT-3 spam is hard to detect, but can be handled by killfiles.

Of course the real goal of Twitter is to do user profiles and possibly log private messages, for which Usenet isn't suitable. I wonder who on earth would send a sensitive "private" message on Twitter.

Most modern problems with social media started emerging when the general public started using it.

Specialist communities like IRC channels, Hacker News, certain subreddits or webforums still work quite well, because let's face it: It is not the general public there.

And even in specialist communities there is a certain degree of moderation needed in order to keep it in order.

In the offline worlds individuals for which (reasonable) moderation is needed are kept in check by society (either through social pressure or physical force).

Very seldom they are the beginning of societal changes but usually they are just unpleasant (e.g. "I hope you and your loved ones get murdered because...") people which most others avoid if they can.

I'm very sure I would leave any platform where their kind is allowed to run wild and so would many of my family and friends.

Facebook is a very good example: Most people are boring and nice enough. Those who are not (ranging from annoying to vile) spoil the fun for everybody else.

People leave (in part) because they don't want constant conflict and not every opinion is worth to be heard.

Sadly you don't really elaborate on how my comment reveals the authotarian position you do falsly assume I hold.

There is a position between no censorship and full authotarian style censorship and it is a common rethoric vehicle to first talk about the extremes to show that the reasonable area is somewhere inbetween (and then we can talk about trade offs and priorities).

My main point as someone who studied media science is that we cannot treat modern social media with the exact same rules we treated other speech with, because ultimatly it is a different place to speak in. The social distance is lower than anything we ever had in history, the audience bigger than ever in history, it feels private but you are in the spotlight at the same time (and people tend to act like this). It is a place where a rural person communicating a rural opinion will be directly next to a city person communicating a city opinion. Before social media you had natural borders of which people could actually hear (and/or react to) each other. So it is fundamentally different place than anything we ever had before it.

And different places have different rules. Someone who speaks loudly in a library will be thrown out (because the place has a certain function and them speaking loudly interferes with that function). Someone who repeatedly and loudly farts in a restaurant might be thrown out. Someone who listens to music in church might be thrown out. A bare-breasted women in a mall might get thrown out etc. Different places, different rules.

The question now is: what kind of place is something like twitter? What behaviour shall be accepted or restrict there and with what goals?

If our goal is the equivalent of a verbal bar brawl where people can let out their innermost emotions we might end up with different rules than if our goal is rational and fact-oriented discourse with the goal of moving discourse forward (these places have typically stricter rules of which speech is acceptable, as can be seen for example here on HN).

With twitter a lot of the emerging behavior that can be observed is a direct result of or a direct reacrion to the systemic structure of the place. If this shall be seriously changed you have to either establish a new culture how one has to behave in such a place (hard) or you change the systemic variables itself (easier).

But one point I want to stress is: by allowing most speech one might involuntarily prevent other, more nuanced speech from ever emerging.

Anyway, you also acknowledge that some moderation is both appropriate and necessary. So, now we know your opinion of a private company’s moderation is different from the parent commenters, but you both believe moderation is necessary — and then you call them an authoritarian fascist.

Your comment is incredibly inappropriate.

Moderating bot accounts and frivolous antagonists (by virtue of repeated defamation/inflammatory speech) is appropriate. Those are not in the same vein as restricting speech. If a bot account is openly listed as such with links to show it is not a human agent, then it can be openly suppressed.

This isn't a similar argument nor a difference in degree of the same position.

But I don't take your statement with any credulity based on your handle

Yes. Gaslighting crystalized. We are now to believe free speech is bad. Authoritarians know auguring against logic is hard.

If Twitter is a monopoly, apply anti-trust laws to it and break it up. If Twitter isn't a monopoly, then they should every right to decide what their service does, as long as it's within the law. If you don't like the current laws, change them.

I am totally, 100% opposed to privately owned companies being forced to carry speech that they don't want to carry. That itself is a violation of the free speech of people that operate businesses.

Not every speech is equal. If you are living in a Weimar-Republic scenario, yes, free speech can be repressive and I can see why people will call for censorship. Personally, I think censorship and speech taboos just keep a lid on certain problems instead of solving them.

The problem with this is that it always ends up as “censorship is ok, as long as it’s for opinions I disagree with”.

And with your Weimar-republic scenario, if the implied claim is that more censorship would have stopped either the radicalisation or rise of Adolf Hitler, I think that’s very simplistic and highly suspect.

Put down the Elon kool-aid , it has poisoned your mind.

Setting all the discussion of what free speech should be, aside, I don't see people making the point that Twitter's huge success as a social media platform may actually relate to their moderation policies. Twitter was found to be more resistant to fake news than other social media sites. I don't know whether this relates to the public nature of tweets or their moderation.

Twitter's moderation policy may exactly be the reason the platform has done so well, and rather than clamouring for Twitter to change, I'd suggest that we allow the free market to allow another platform with different a moderation approach to compete.

Fascists and authoritarians took advantage of freedom of speech to gain power, the censorship came after they seized power. Hitler promoted himself through his right to speak at his trials, and through his book Mein Kampf, things the Weimer Republic could have absolutely chosen to censor. Karl Popper made a rather infamous observation of the "Paradox of tolerance" where tolerating the intolerant could result in more intolerance, if the intolerant happened to be Hitler in Nazi Germany.

I find the biggest objection to this entire line of thought is that censors always consider themselves to be the ones resisting the next Nazi Germany rather than being Nazi Germany themselves. Anybody who openly censors others is more likely than the general person in the population to be some sort of totalitarian authoritarian, so trusting them with power so they can stop some sort of Nazi uprising is foolish. It's the same kind of issue as "Bombing for peace", pretty much 100% of the people who have ever bombed people have said they were doing it for the sake of peace.

This all being said, I don't think giving Musk 100% of twitter and the effective absolute power to censor others on the platform is a good idea.

Problem? KPIs are through the roof!

This a comment written by someone who is clearly not an engineer dealing with high-scale backends, and is definitely not an AI engineer.

I don't know why people think is the problem.

They regularly ban bot and spam accounts. This is not an issue.

The issue is malicious/ignorant human actors and malicious state level actors.

Tesla AI engineers can't even get past L3. There's no chance they would be able to create an AI solution that can fight state level resources or massive amounts of humans gossiping and spread misinformation.

Translation: "AI is a magic spell! I can take someone who's been working on vision recognition, and they alone could wish all our bots and spams away, with the magic of AI."

> The elites

Oh, god, here comes the libertarian spiel...

> but instead believe free speech, free discourse, and free thought are the instruments of repression.

Translation: "I want the right to tell any lie I please without consequences. I want the right to be able to scream at people on the Internet and keep my account. If I can't call someone racist names on the Internet, it's because you're all Fascists and authoritarians!"

Quick takeaways:

- The frequent pejorative use of the term 'elites' as a catchall for literally anyone they disagree with is hilarious. Their explanation of Musk being the iconoclastic 'anti-elite elite' sounds like Ayn Rand fan-fic written by a 14 year old who just read the Wikipedia plot summary for Atlas Shrugged. - What does 'inverting history' even mean? It seems to be another example from Glenn Greenwald's vast and vitriolic argot. (I'm sure Glenn Greenwald is another commendable 'anti-elite elite'). - Paraphrasing: "journalists 20 years ago would have been defending the first amendment!" -> this is not about the first amendment. The first amendment protects your ability to speak freely from government imposed restriction or suppression. Ironically, twenty years ago the press/journalists and even government officials were experiencing one George Bush's sweeping censorship efforts (https://www.americanprogress.org/article/think-again-the-bus...).

Anyway, the hosts wistfully allude to the past, with references to society's 'public square' and people having the ability to say whatever they wanted with no repercussions. This is nonsense. Broadly, you can absolutely say whatever you want online — it's easier than ever.

That doesn't mean:

1) Twitter is required to provide a platform for you to abuse and harass people, or spout opinions they deem to be offensive, damaging, or misleading. That's their choice. 2) Free speech has never been consequence-free. To quote Michael Hobbes: "Voicing your opinion in public has always carried the risk of being shamed or shunned."

Finally, I will concede that twitter has suffered from poor growth, and a change in leadership could be a good thing for the company. But the board also has a responsibility to protect minority shareholders from people exactly like Elon. Their resistance to his efforts may have nothing to do with the vague, insulting and unsubstantiated allegations you and the podcast hosts make (It's a 'country club', board members are only acting against musk to protect their 'status', etc). Rather, they may quite reasonably believe that a vainglorious egomaniac who has been repeatedly sanctioned by the SEC may, in fact, not be the ideal owner of a social media company.

Ps.

> 4. One AI engineer from Tesla could solve Twitter's bot and spam problem.

Do you really, seriously think this is true? It comes across as deliberately inflammatory, and you and I both know it's not true.

This is an argument in favour of a more liberal model is it not? Just not a centralized system that takes a dictatorial role in socially isolating people for having bad ideas. The analogy would make more sense if there was a benevolent gatekeeper blocking you from coming back into the public square (or even all big public squares) because you said something controversial.

Otherwise cultural free speech people want ideas to be openly challenged, not efficiently silenced by the system.

Harassing people is something I think most people agree crosses a line, in the same ways it’s a criminal act. But even here Twitter does a poor job at that by taking a very broad interpretation, for example it punishes people for publicly disagreeing with someone while also being popular, because their fans decided to brigade a person, then banning the parent for ‘causing it’ (without ever directly encouraging or supporting such a thing).

There’s a hundred ways to do this better than Twitter/Facebook/Reddit without throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Trying to accuse every person who wants a very limited scope for wanting Ayn Rand style anarchy is disingenuous.

Otherwise I’m not a fan of “All in” pod’s analysis.

This was covered towards the beginning of the podcast. Legally, the role[1] of the board in this situation is to get the best stock price, and not about the future fate of the business.

1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revlon,_Inc._v._MacAndrews_%....

(HN is truncating the final . in the link)