Deactivated Twitter account

i read about a lot of celebs saying the same thing. but then, there's thousands that aren't saying anything

 

What I used to love about Twitter is that if you reported hateful people for saying awful stuff they got shut down real quick. It didn't always work, but it sure was fun scrolling through paranoid angry dummy tweets to find stuff they said that could get them banned. No other social media would be as responsive about banning people.

But I downloaded my archive and shut down public view of my profile a week or so before Elon walked in and took over... These days all those trolls I used to like to get banned are now being featured and every bit of love I have for Tesla and SpaceX is fading away.

The most recent awful by Musk is that he's now harassing users by changing how Twitter represents them. NPR for example is now referred to as "State Affiliated Media" and is anyone surprised that NPR is no longer tweeting from their account anymore because of this BS graffiti Elon put on their profile?

It's truly tragic that we allow people to become so wealthy that it rots them out and they become an enemy of humanity rather than a helpful friend. I'd like to think that the era of the richest individuals ever is about to get a can of 8-billion-people whoop arse opened on them and severe limits on wealth will be essential moving forward.

 

Government funded media being offended by an accurate label???
Oh, the tragedy!

Does this mean that they're going to start bumming for money during morning drive time?
Doing Commercials?
Licensing their Sesame Street Characters?

Honestly, they have more income streams than some Presidents I can think of......

I'm not an EVangelist, I already have robust and dependable communications, I'm unlikely to be hitching a ride on a Falcon or a Starship, and my next tweet will be my first, SO.....I find myself without any rats to give.
It's amazing to me how quickly Mr Musk went from hero to zero, but that's what you get for trying to make humans a multi-planet species, democratizing BEVs, and providing global communications while eliminating last mile and latency issues.
---AND having enough free time afterwards to pull enough spare change out of the sofa cushions to defend the First Amendment.

As I've posted more than a few times before...I've never been a particular fan or for, but you have to admire Musk's chutzpah.
Despite having an outsized ego, and thinner skin than most, Elon does not appear to be spending a whole lot of his remaining free time worrying about what people think about him.

 

Twitter Help Center, April 4, from the Internet Archive Wayback Machine [emphasis added]:

"How state-affiliated media accounts are defined

State-affiliated media is defined as outlets where the state exercises control over editorial content through financial resources, direct or indirect political pressures, and/or control over production and distribution. Accounts belonging to state-affiliated media entities, their editors-in-chief, and/or their prominent staff may be labeled.

State-financed media organizations with editorial independence, like the BBC in the UK or NPR in the US for example, are not defined as state-affiliated media for the purposes of this policy."

Today:

"... State-financed media organizations with editorial independence, like the BBC in the UK for example, are not defined as state-affiliated media for the purposes of this policy."

So the BBC, 100% financed through their federal government through taxes, is not "sate-affiliated", but NPR, 1% federally financed, is?

The change to this definition page happened sometime between the highlighted timestamps here, 2:34 a.m. and 3:47 a.m. Wednesday morning, a day after Twitter actually slapped on that label:

 

Is the Doggie already gone?

 

@ NPR 1% federally financed:

I thought I remembered that government funded media was something like a $500,000,000.00 budgetary line item.
SO....if that's true AND it's only 1% of their finances.....then unlike many other institutions they can probably do without the money.

...A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.

 

"Government funded media" covers vastly more than just NPR. Are you confusing it with the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB)?

That $500B figure is for the CPB. Most of its funding goes directly to local TV and radio stations. This page is clear as mud: https://cpb.org/appropriation

I'm seeing NPR listed only under Radio | Radio Program Fund — $8.95 million, which is shared with other recipients too. NPR also appears to get some additional funds directly from some other federal agencies, but those are included in the 1% figure mentioned earlier. Additional federal money indirectly ends up at NPR, in the form of subscription or membership fees from radio stations, but that still appears to add up to just single-digit percent of its roughly $300M budget.

PBS gets more federal money than NPR, both directly and indirectly, but Musk has not put the "state-affiliated media account" on its Twitter feed:


This very old SCOTUS document may be a useful CPB FAQ: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/urls_cited/ot2008/07-582/cpb_faq.pdf
Besides PBS and NPR, CPB also contributes money to American Public Media, American Public Television, Independent Television Service, National Educational Telecommunications Association, Public Radio Exchange, Public Radio International, and The National Minority Consortia.

"About CPB":
https://cpb.org/aboutcpb

Here is the most recent NPR consolidated financial statement:
https://media.npr.org/documents/about/statements/fy2022/National%20Public%20Radio%20-%20Consolidated%20Financial%20Statements%20-%20S2221.pdf

 

Elon Musk says NPR's 'state-affiliated media' label might not have been accurate

... but hasn't removed the label yet. Examples of other outlets that carry this label include People's Daily and Xinhya in China, and Sputnik and RT in Russia, while the BBC, Voice of America, and Al Jazeera, don't.

A new day, and now the BBC has also been removed from that example page.

But Musk apparently hasn't yet found and scrubbed this page, stating that NPR is not state-affiliated, so his internal contradictions continue:

About government and state-affiliated media account labels on Twitter

"State-financed media organizations with editorial independence, like the BBC in the UK or NPR in the US for example, are not defined as state-affiliated media for the purposes of this policy."

 

What is this Tweeter thing u speak of

 

..."The lady doth protest too much, methinks"

 

Another day, more changes ...

Now, NPR's Twitter page is marked "Government Funded Media". The same for PBS, VOANews, and BBC.

But not at BBCNews, BBCWorld, BBCBreaking, or BBCWorldService.

Not at Al Jazeera either, meaning Musk is more comfortable with funding from the government of Qatar than from the U.S.

It is also missing from every one of my state's official government Twitter accounts in my Bookmarks file: state house, senate, legislative TV, governor, DOT, local police, fire, emergency management, ...

 

Is government-funded such a pejorative that government funded media need shy away from it?
Is it the new 'liberal?'

They OUGHT to put a lampshade on the nontroversary it by saying "You're %$#@! RIGHT we're government-funded! - AND listener supported, AND cooperate sponsored, AND TAX freekin deductible. We also license our merch. In fact, we have more income streams than some Presidential "foundations!"

Then what do the conservatives have to complain about?
NPR being lib....er(*) I mean "progressive?"

What's so unusual about THAT?