Anytime I hear of a high stakes political court battle, all I can think of is Emmett Sullivan v Michael Flynn. So the abject cynic in me fears the worst, no matter how slam-dunk a case Carlson's may turn out to be.
Mr Musk's tweet saying "no deal" had been signed with Mr Carlson is to me, no big deal.
The same tide raises all ships, and no doubt the two men understand each other in that regard.
More, Twitter Inc becomes X Inc o/a 18 May. X Inc will be rolling out new capabilities, and likely will need new capabilities to host a live 60+minute video show five days a week. This is where the collaboration between the two men occurs. Musk may have said something like, "Come to Twitter and I'll personally ensure you've got whatever you need technologically."
With one show (Carlson's) on the platform, likely others will follow. Sure would be great for Sharryl Atkinson to be more accessible, for instance.
Reading Musk's tweet feed is interesting. Yesterday, someone who has a car dealership podcast (who knew there was such a thing) said having that podcast on Twitter boosted listens by 400%. Now that might be from one listener to four, one hundred to four hundred, or another multiple. The car dealership guy asked for 10 sec rewind, 10 sec fast forward, and several other features to make his podcast more in conformation with currently available capabilities found elsewhere. Musk actually commented on this, strongly suggesting (to me at least) that he supported and would add those capabilities to the Twitter/X platform.
There have been intimations for some time that Musk wanted to turn Twitter into an "everything"platform, a combination of social media, online payment (a la PayPal) etc.
I'm looking forward to the day, which appears to be coming soon, when the business model of legacy "cable" electronic media completely blows up. The upside down, subscriber pays to watch programming that is about 1/2 Pfaudzer/pharma advertisements per hour ain't long for this world. Good riddance to Fox et al, I cancelled my satellite service in 2019, lately my TV watching consists of 30 minutes of local news daily.
"Elon is obviously a man on a mission. Whatever else you may say about him, he is clearly intent on taking down the Establishment that rules America and is driving it into the ground."
Whatever else? Whatever? Sure, I'll bite!
How about, Elon is a Young Global Leader with a track record of fronting for covert ops?
This move makes it harder for Elon to claim that Twitter is neutral, but nobody really believed that anyway. But it helps consolidates control for the emerging new narrative consensus on the right. So... yay?
How do you see these actions on the part of Musk impact his claim of neutrality? Isn't the entire issue about allowing free speech and truth to appear simultaneously?
I didn't get it at first. I was still thinking in terms of the TV-network business model, but of course Elon's running with a new line in his social-media business model. Tucker's just an "independent content creator" so Musk can save his appearance of neutrality. And Tucker can use any other distribution channels that he likes, too. But this way Twitter can provide him some legal cover.
Musk was acting steamed that he couldn't poach Matt Taibbi from Substack, after the brief "Twitter files" kerfuffle. (Remember that?)
It's just a classic limited hangout. Tells everybody what they already knew, rearranges the chairs a little, crimes admitted but nobody gets prosecuted (just so we all know it doesn't matter and there are no consequences!)... and resumes business as usual (more or less) under new ownership.
Just like every Tucker show. He tells you what you already think, repeats some selected evidence that was already public (never new disclosures!) frowns and looks concerned... and then nothing happens, and he does it all again the next time. You'd think people would catch on!
Tucker's job is narrative control on the right. That should be pretty uncontroversial. The remaining lefties were not watching Tucker. For them, I guess there's still CNN? Plenty of talking heads to go round. Plenty of stars in the sky. Just think, some people are still getting their narrative gatekeeping from the likes of Noam Chomsky.
Elon, by contrast, has so far been taking a neutral stance with Twitter, emphasizing fairness and balance, which are values that people expect from a platform like that. (It was never true, and still isn't, but that doesn't stop people!)
When I wrote that comment, I didn't yet understand the new relationship. Elon / Twitter isn't hiring Tucker. He's just an early adopter of their new content distribution platform. Like Substack, but video? He's an "independent creator" and thus Elon can keep his appearance of neutrality.
I see it more as part of the gradual controlled demolition of Fox (along with most of its old media peers) while simultaneously enabling Tucker to do his job more effectively, which again I believe to be narrative control for the Right.
Tucker will of course insinuate that he was suffering under editorial restrictions from Fox, which is probably true to some extent. But what he reports and when and how he reports it? That is pure control, and I wouldn't just blithely assume he wields these powers all on his own volition or for anything you might reasonably call the common good. He's a made man, and I think the evidence points to him being an IC agent or asset.
The people who run Tucker are not necessarily the people who run Fox or Dominon, and I don't doubt that there is real conflict there. I'm not claiming that the split was staged. But no matter who we're talking about, I don't believe "they" want him silenced. If they really want to silence a public figure, that person just has an accident.
No, I think he's there to be out in front of emerging public opinion that they can't otherwise control. To guide and divert, to highlight certain things and downplay others and ignore others altogether. To give people a false sense of security, as though their concerns are being heard and considered in the halls of power. And it may be that he can do that more effectively outside Fox.
As for Fox and its ilk... I always encourage people to stop thinking of these companies as profit centers for their owners, and think instead of the work that they do on their owners behalf. They already have all the money: this is what they have it for, to run the world.
OK, I'll bite. If all of that, or any of that, is the case, why are they running ops that expose to the public that they're being manipulated? Why not leave them in ignorance?
I think it's more like, given that the legacy vehicles have largely run themselves out of credibility, how to transition to new control structures? When the iron grip starts to slip... well, they need a new one. I have no doubt that plenty of backroom tabletop sessions get devoted to these scenarios.
But also, I think there are genuine differences and schisms within what we might call the Deep State. Musk and Carlson are probably aligned with a different faction than Dorsey and the Murdochs. Predators and ranchers compete over the herds.
I would encourage anyone to spend a little time digging into these and similar characters, verify basic facts for themselves where possible, and come to their own conclusions.
In terms of Zuckerberg, Mollie Hemingway was all over this story in her great book about 2020 called "Rigged." Today she and her hubby just released an update and big warning called "Unrigging Our Elections." The GOP needs to get off their bloated asses and get all over this TODAY! Trump and Desantis need to smoke the peace pipe and rally the troops for the battle ahead.
What was that about a major European power, also part of Asia, “interfering” in the 2020 election? And just imagine if these dole-outs had been for Trump????
I don’t know. I still don’t trust them. The deep dark state will never concede defeat and go quietly into the night. Good times ahead. Exciting time to be alive and witness to history.
Right. It may well have to do with avoiding a Fox claim that Twitter is interfering with a contract. Tucker's lawyers lead the way, Elon's can offer advice. Count on it--there have been talks between Elon and Tucker.
I think the excessive control of information has had the converse effect of causing more people to think critically and question everything. I remain optimistic that the more they try the more spectacularly they'll fail.
You and I are the spoils that oligarchs have always fought over. Good that they fight each other rather than collude endlessly, but don't mistake that inevitable and eternal conflict for genuine good intentions toward the common man.
Unless maybe you're all-in on one particular oligarch or another? Better hold on to those bonafides, in that case. Might well want some collateral.
Anytime I hear of a high stakes political court battle, all I can think of is Emmett Sullivan v Michael Flynn. So the abject cynic in me fears the worst, no matter how slam-dunk a case Carlson's may turn out to be.
Mr Musk's tweet saying "no deal" had been signed with Mr Carlson is to me, no big deal.
The same tide raises all ships, and no doubt the two men understand each other in that regard.
More, Twitter Inc becomes X Inc o/a 18 May. X Inc will be rolling out new capabilities, and likely will need new capabilities to host a live 60+minute video show five days a week. This is where the collaboration between the two men occurs. Musk may have said something like, "Come to Twitter and I'll personally ensure you've got whatever you need technologically."
With one show (Carlson's) on the platform, likely others will follow. Sure would be great for Sharryl Atkinson to be more accessible, for instance.
Reading Musk's tweet feed is interesting. Yesterday, someone who has a car dealership podcast (who knew there was such a thing) said having that podcast on Twitter boosted listens by 400%. Now that might be from one listener to four, one hundred to four hundred, or another multiple. The car dealership guy asked for 10 sec rewind, 10 sec fast forward, and several other features to make his podcast more in conformation with currently available capabilities found elsewhere. Musk actually commented on this, strongly suggesting (to me at least) that he supported and would add those capabilities to the Twitter/X platform.
There have been intimations for some time that Musk wanted to turn Twitter into an "everything"platform, a combination of social media, online payment (a la PayPal) etc.
Good points. I can't believe that this is just Tucker saying, well, if Fox won't have me I guess I'll just do Twitter.
I'm looking forward to the day, which appears to be coming soon, when the business model of legacy "cable" electronic media completely blows up. The upside down, subscriber pays to watch programming that is about 1/2 Pfaudzer/pharma advertisements per hour ain't long for this world. Good riddance to Fox et al, I cancelled my satellite service in 2019, lately my TV watching consists of 30 minutes of local news daily.
https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2023/05/09/elon-dishes-details-on-tucker-carlson-show-coming-to-twitter-n743405
"Elon is obviously a man on a mission. Whatever else you may say about him, he is clearly intent on taking down the Establishment that rules America and is driving it into the ground."
Whatever else? Whatever? Sure, I'll bite!
How about, Elon is a Young Global Leader with a track record of fronting for covert ops?
https://www.corbettreport.com/musk
Or maybe just, Elon is a front man for spooks, and his money all originally came from sketchy government contracts?
http://mileswmathis.com/musk.pdf
But then again, I suppose Tucker is too. They go great together.
http://mileswmathis.com/tucker2.pdf
This move makes it harder for Elon to claim that Twitter is neutral, but nobody really believed that anyway. But it helps consolidates control for the emerging new narrative consensus on the right. So... yay?
How do you see these actions on the part of Musk impact his claim of neutrality? Isn't the entire issue about allowing free speech and truth to appear simultaneously?
I didn't get it at first. I was still thinking in terms of the TV-network business model, but of course Elon's running with a new line in his social-media business model. Tucker's just an "independent content creator" so Musk can save his appearance of neutrality. And Tucker can use any other distribution channels that he likes, too. But this way Twitter can provide him some legal cover.
Musk was acting steamed that he couldn't poach Matt Taibbi from Substack, after the brief "Twitter files" kerfuffle. (Remember that?)
https://cjhopkins.substack.com/p/a-twitter-files-requiem
Stars attract climbers and wannabes. Good for business!
It's just a classic limited hangout. Tells everybody what they already knew, rearranges the chairs a little, crimes admitted but nobody gets prosecuted (just so we all know it doesn't matter and there are no consequences!)... and resumes business as usual (more or less) under new ownership.
Just like every Tucker show. He tells you what you already think, repeats some selected evidence that was already public (never new disclosures!) frowns and looks concerned... and then nothing happens, and he does it all again the next time. You'd think people would catch on!
"and then nothing happens"
Um, what do you expect to happen after a TV talking head speaks?
My own expectations are pretty low.
But I still seem to run into people who think that Congress or some brave AG will do something about all this bad stuff.
“Emerging new narrative consensus on the right”? Why so one-sided? Isn’t there room for others?
Tucker's job is narrative control on the right. That should be pretty uncontroversial. The remaining lefties were not watching Tucker. For them, I guess there's still CNN? Plenty of talking heads to go round. Plenty of stars in the sky. Just think, some people are still getting their narrative gatekeeping from the likes of Noam Chomsky.
Elon, by contrast, has so far been taking a neutral stance with Twitter, emphasizing fairness and balance, which are values that people expect from a platform like that. (It was never true, and still isn't, but that doesn't stop people!)
When I wrote that comment, I didn't yet understand the new relationship. Elon / Twitter isn't hiring Tucker. He's just an early adopter of their new content distribution platform. Like Substack, but video? He's an "independent creator" and thus Elon can keep his appearance of neutrality.
I see it more as part of the gradual controlled demolition of Fox (along with most of its old media peers) while simultaneously enabling Tucker to do his job more effectively, which again I believe to be narrative control for the Right.
Tucker will of course insinuate that he was suffering under editorial restrictions from Fox, which is probably true to some extent. But what he reports and when and how he reports it? That is pure control, and I wouldn't just blithely assume he wields these powers all on his own volition or for anything you might reasonably call the common good. He's a made man, and I think the evidence points to him being an IC agent or asset.
The people who run Tucker are not necessarily the people who run Fox or Dominon, and I don't doubt that there is real conflict there. I'm not claiming that the split was staged. But no matter who we're talking about, I don't believe "they" want him silenced. If they really want to silence a public figure, that person just has an accident.
No, I think he's there to be out in front of emerging public opinion that they can't otherwise control. To guide and divert, to highlight certain things and downplay others and ignore others altogether. To give people a false sense of security, as though their concerns are being heard and considered in the halls of power. And it may be that he can do that more effectively outside Fox.
As for Fox and its ilk... I always encourage people to stop thinking of these companies as profit centers for their owners, and think instead of the work that they do on their owners behalf. They already have all the money: this is what they have it for, to run the world.
OK, I'll bite. If all of that, or any of that, is the case, why are they running ops that expose to the public that they're being manipulated? Why not leave them in ignorance?
I think it's more like, given that the legacy vehicles have largely run themselves out of credibility, how to transition to new control structures? When the iron grip starts to slip... well, they need a new one. I have no doubt that plenty of backroom tabletop sessions get devoted to these scenarios.
But also, I think there are genuine differences and schisms within what we might call the Deep State. Musk and Carlson are probably aligned with a different faction than Dorsey and the Murdochs. Predators and ranchers compete over the herds.
I would encourage anyone to spend a little time digging into these and similar characters, verify basic facts for themselves where possible, and come to their own conclusions.
You assume these are people of high intelligence.
Lots of people. Many more dumb ones, sure, generally lower down the chain.
It's not a good habit, underestimating ones enemies.
In terms of Zuckerberg, Mollie Hemingway was all over this story in her great book about 2020 called "Rigged." Today she and her hubby just released an update and big warning called "Unrigging Our Elections." The GOP needs to get off their bloated asses and get all over this TODAY! Trump and Desantis need to smoke the peace pipe and rally the troops for the battle ahead.
https://americanmind.org/salvo/unrigging-our-elections/
Great comment. The gory details of “Zuck’s Buck” are here: https://nypost.com/2021/10/13/mark-zuckerberg-spent-419m-on-nonprofits-ahead-of-2020-election-and-got-out-the-dem-vote/
What was that about a major European power, also part of Asia, “interfering” in the 2020 election? And just imagine if these dole-outs had been for Trump????
I don’t know. I still don’t trust them. The deep dark state will never concede defeat and go quietly into the night. Good times ahead. Exciting time to be alive and witness to history.
And the Elon/Tucker news came out at exactly the same time as the Trump/Carroll verdict...that's funny
And the same time as the Joe Biden exposure in DC. I called my Dem Senator--they said she had no knowledge of "any news confernce about Joe....."
Popcorn time!
Oh yes! Just imagine Tucker's first show! I'm almost giddy!
I may have been on to something:
https://redstate.com/jenvanlaar/2023/05/09/new-tucker-carlson-accuses-fox-of-fraud-and-breach-of-contract-n743347
Tucker Carlson's Lawyers Send 'Aggressive' Letter Accusing Fox of Fraud, Breach of Contract
In other words… the Dominion settlement included canning Tucker. Hence $787M and Tucker gone vs $1.5B.
Great points. I never even thought about that - he could have his cake (Fox salary) and eat it, too (reach millions but without pay).
Unlike me, Carlson clearly has known this all along. I feel much more sanguine about the entire affair now.
And Tucker was in SF this weekend.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12068123/Tucker-Carlson-spoke-Fox-CEO-one-day-dramatic-Twitter-announcement.html
Right. It may well have to do with avoiding a Fox claim that Twitter is interfering with a contract. Tucker's lawyers lead the way, Elon's can offer advice. Count on it--there have been talks between Elon and Tucker.
I think the excessive control of information has had the converse effect of causing more people to think critically and question everything. I remain optimistic that the more they try the more spectacularly they'll fail.
You and I are the spoils that oligarchs have always fought over. Good that they fight each other rather than collude endlessly, but don't mistake that inevitable and eternal conflict for genuine good intentions toward the common man.
Unless maybe you're all-in on one particular oligarch or another? Better hold on to those bonafides, in that case. Might well want some collateral.