>Significantly less misinformation

Considering day 1 the new head of Twitter posted false information about the Pelosi attack from a site known to publish fake news, I'm going to guess this probably won't be the case.

And on day two the Biden white house was "fact checked" so brutally on a tweet that they ended up deleting it. That would never have happened under the previous regime. A republican white house - sure, but not to Biden.

Biden’s statement wasn’t wrong. The fact check just provided a statement stating that the reason social security payments were the highest they’ve ever been is because they are automatically tied to CPI.

It’s weird to editorialize fact checks. If Biden said the payments were the highest ever, but the payments were actually lower, then sure add a fact check and provide the real number.

It’s honestly an example of how much of a mess Elon is stepping in with this venture.

>Biden’s statement wasn’t wrong.

Bullshit. ". . . through President Biden’s leadership" is objectively false. It's through the CPI adjustment he had nothing to do with. Even if you leave that out it is intentionally misleading.

It's the sort of lie the media (rightfully) wouldn't let Trump get away with.

This is my issue too. Politicians have seemed to abandoned reality. Why not though, its what they get rewarded for.

Politician X makes a claim that would be torn to shreds in a setting where people are at least trying to be honest. Politician X then gets thousands of supporters blindly agreeing or having meta discussions about almost anything besides what matters.

Until we as a people stop rewarding this behavior, it will only continue.

> Bullshit. ". . . through President Biden’s leadership" is objectively false.

Unless you want to take the position that it was "biden's leadership" that caused the high inflation, then you could say it was objectively true but uhhh... not something they should be bragging about.

The "fact check" specifically said it was providing context: https://twitter.com/cwt_news/status/1587863492077330432/phot... it was written in a very neutral and factual style. I think it was well placed.

If it were the Trump whitehouse though people would probably be asking if the administration broke the law by removing the tweet and thereby causing the removal of the 1A protected 'fact check'.

Except he did get away with it. My wife works in Medicare compliance for a large insurer and under Trump, every single communication they received from Medicare about an initiative literally included the language "Through the leadership of President Trump, ..."

It's good that both sides are held to account. I just hope this is being applied evenly.

He has already added 1b in annual expenses.. More than Twitters' annual profits.

%50 headcount reduction will be more than 1b in savings.

Your math doesn't add up here.

I think he will try to make it more "facebook like" in terms of moderation line, which is generally considered to be too rightwing by the MSM , and they will attack him viciously, like they attack FB. He either will sell it or it will be the new Yahoo, my bet is the former.

1 possibly we'll see, but 2-4 with less people and no obvious plan to get there I really I don't see it.

His "free speech" views seem likely to result in more misinformation, more noise, and especially more harassment and annoying Firstname Bunchofnumbers making people's mentions even more unusable.

I can't see a path to profitability. In particular, "cutting to profitability" never works in momentum driven tech companies. I think he's underestimated how many people love their twitter community but hate twitter as a platform steward.

Sure. Bankrupt.