31:
466:
naturally some caveats (including uncertainty about what would happen in a null hypothesis where Musk's takeover hasn't dramatically changed user base), and APIs that allow researchers access to site metrics are now apparently locked down behind a fairly massive fee. Yet there are still some reports tackling these questions, including:
470:
This mentions a study of environmentalists, with a baseline in 2020 compared to users after the takeover. Additionally, another study found a substantial number of accounts quit a few months after the takeover (linked in that article). There also are quite a few media reports attempting to catalogue
147:
btw) it also seems there was some objection based on it solely being from an interview with the CEO. The
Washington Post article doesn't rely on that interview though. Nor does the follow-on source about Musk's ex-wife's communication. So it would appear, at first blush, that this edit would be
465:
I believe this is still an ongoing story, as Elon Musk continues to make changes to the site and intervene in its moderation. For example, "Twitter" is now "X." Just as importantly, there have been some efforts to compare user engagement on the site before the Musk takeover with today. There are
183:
This is my thought as well. We shouldn't take Seth Dillon at his word (at least in this article) for why Musk acted, but it seems WaPo pieced together more of this story that would be worth including. I think the question is more whether we should wikivoice or attribute to WaPo.
139:
Sorry all, I didn't go back and look through the archives in talk. I do think this inclusion is different. While the interview with the CEO was in the
Washington Times, this inclusion references the Washington Post, so I'm not sure a RS objection would apply in the same
471:
some of the high-profile accounts that have vehemently disagreed with the site's direction and vowed to leave. Finally, there is also the noteworthy incidence of Elon Musk intervening to unban users who have posted apparently illegal content, such as
148:
notable and RS as far as I can see. I'm open to a language change if it read as being too causal in language, but the WAPO source does reference it as a sort of decisive point, so I'm not sure we can insert our own reading of the timeline above that.
198:
I'm not against including this material, but given the previous discussion we would need new consensus on the talk page before we can do so. I also agree we can use the WaPo article, but probably not the ex-wife thing.
430:
correspond to each of the above section, hence the duplicate titles. I would think having different titles would make it even more confusing, unless you have an alternate proposal for the article's structure?
406:
As is, a person looking for a specific section in the article in the contents can be forgiven for clicking on the wrong thing with the exact same label. Recommend we adjust section labels to make this more
447:
85:
64:
59:
475:, and the latest story which may receive press attention is Musk's interest in boosting accounts against the Anti-Defamation League and the memory of lynching victim
355:
298:
174:
47:
17:
219:
I'm not sure if this addressed
Bakkster's second concern, but I didn't want to strip out the WAPO attribution given that we only have one source.
165:
First thoughts: I support restoring some content about the Bee, cited to WaPo. I don't think we need to include the ex-wife NY Post content.
263:
had prompted Musk to begin the acquisition. Once Musk assumed ownership, he immediately prioritized the reinstatement of accounts like the
117:
427:
423:
103:
451:
351:
294:
170:
472:
38:
507:
488:
467:
455:
440:
416:
387:
373:
359:
341:
302:
243:
228:
208:
193:
178:
160:
133:
347:
290:
166:
283:
had prompted Musk to begin the acquisition. After acquisition, Musk made reinstatement of accounts like the
503:
495:
484:
436:
337:
204:
111:
383:
239:
189:
369:
224:
156:
129:
97:
312:
499:
480:
432:
408:
333:
200:
107:
379:
235:
185:
412:
365:
318:
276:
253:
220:
152:
144:
125:
93:
473:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/07/27/twitter-csam-dom-lucre-elon-musk/
279:
revealed that issues with censorship, including the banning of accounts such as the
280:
259:
121:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
468:
https://www.sciencefocus.com/environmentalists-are-leaving-x-formerly-twitter
86:
Talk:Acquisition_of_Twitter_by_Elon_Musk/Archive_1#Removing_Babylon_Bee_story
476:
257:
reported in April 2023 that the banning of accounts such as the
25:
120:). We certainly didnt reach consensus to ban mention of the
332:
unbanning is already noted further down in the article.
217:
89:
84:We did discuss Babylon Bee content in the past
322:had prompted Musk to initiate the acquisition.
308:
273:
249:
8:
18:Talk:Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk
272:For easy comparison, here's Squatch's:
234:I think it's a reasonable stab at it.
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
461:Continuing fallout of the acquisition
143:Looking back on that link (thank you
7:
316:, the banning of accounts such as
88:but it doesnt seem to be the same
24:
275:In an April 4, 2022 article, the
448:2001:D08:1A00:6F05:1:0:6972:230A
29:
1:
508:00:12, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
489:22:46, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
248:I think my version would be
524:
456:07:53, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
441:17:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
417:13:02, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
388:13:49, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
374:13:45, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
360:04:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
342:00:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
303:23:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
244:20:20, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
229:19:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
216:Something more like this?
209:15:59, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
194:15:33, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
179:14:58, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
161:12:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
134:09:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
378:I agree as well, thanks.
402:Confusing article layout
496:Twitter under Elon Musk
307:I would reduce that to
324:
289:
287:an immediate priority.
269:
407:casual-user-friendly.
42:of past discussions.
364:Me as well, added.
428:Ā§Ā Critical analysis
422:The sections under
348:Firefangledfeathers
313:The Washington Post
291:Firefangledfeathers
167:Firefangledfeathers
106:) and removed by
77:
76:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
515:
331:
73:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
523:
522:
518:
517:
516:
514:
513:
512:
463:
404:
329:
319:The Babylon Bee
277:Washington Post
254:Washington Post
82:
69:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
521:
519:
511:
510:
462:
459:
444:
443:
403:
400:
399:
398:
397:
396:
395:
394:
393:
392:
391:
390:
362:
346:Works for me.
270:
214:
213:
212:
211:
196:
163:
149:
141:
81:
78:
75:
74:
67:
62:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
520:
509:
505:
501:
500:InfiniteNexus
497:
493:
492:
491:
490:
486:
482:
481:Edwin Herdman
478:
474:
469:
460:
458:
457:
453:
449:
442:
438:
434:
433:InfiniteNexus
429:
425:
421:
420:
419:
418:
414:
410:
401:
389:
385:
381:
377:
376:
375:
371:
367:
363:
361:
357:
353:
349:
345:
344:
343:
339:
335:
334:InfiniteNexus
328:
323:
321:
320:
315:
314:
310:According to
306:
305:
304:
300:
296:
292:
288:
286:
282:
278:
271:
268:
266:
262:
261:
256:
255:
247:
246:
245:
241:
237:
233:
232:
231:
230:
226:
222:
218:
210:
206:
202:
201:InfiniteNexus
197:
195:
191:
187:
182:
181:
180:
176:
172:
168:
164:
162:
158:
154:
150:
146:
142:
138:
137:
136:
135:
131:
127:
123:
119:
116:
113:
109:
108:InfiniteNexus
105:
102:
99:
95:
91:
87:
79:
72:
68:
66:
63:
61:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
464:
445:
405:
380:Bakkster Man
326:
317:
311:
309:
284:
274:
264:
258:
252:
250:
236:Bakkster Man
215:
186:Bakkster Man
114:
100:
83:
70:
43:
37:
424:Ā§Ā Reactions
281:Babylon Bee
260:Babylon Bee
122:Babylon Bee
90:new content
36:This is an
366:Squatch347
221:Squatch347
153:Squatch347
151:Thoughts?
145:Jtbobwaysf
126:Jtbobwaysf
94:Squatch347
477:Leo Frank
92:added by
80:Bee again
71:ArchiveĀ 3
65:ArchiveĀ 2
60:ArchiveĀ 1
356:contribs
299:contribs
175:contribs
118:contribs
104:contribs
446:Copied
39:archive
409:Oathed
16:<
504:talk
494:See
485:talk
452:talk
437:talk
426:and
413:talk
384:talk
370:talk
352:talk
338:talk
325:The
295:talk
251:The
240:talk
225:talk
205:talk
190:talk
171:talk
157:talk
140:way.
130:talk
112:talk
98:talk
327:Bee
285:Bee
265:Bee
506:)
498:.
487:)
479:--
454:)
439:)
415:)
386:)
372:)
358:)
354:/
340:)
330:'s
301:)
297:/
242:)
227:)
207:)
192:)
177:)
173:/
159:)
132:)
124:.
502:(
483:(
450:(
435:(
411:(
382:(
368:(
350:(
336:(
293:(
267:.
238:(
223:(
203:(
188:(
169:(
155:(
128:(
115:Ā·
110:(
101:Ā·
96:(
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.