GOODNIGHT, FUCKERS #915: SQUITTER BOYCOTT

 I saw news the other day of Elon Musk suing a group of advertisers for boycotting Squitter, and I couldn't help but laugh. How pathetic can this loser get? I'm fairly certain that, much to my chagrin, advertising falls under the First Amendment, and companies can do whatever they want with their First Amendment rights. Musk has a habit of filing wasteful lawsuits, and I figured some court would put him in his place forthwith.

But then I dug a little and discovered that he might actually have a case, as crazy as that sounds. He filed the suit against the Global Alliance for Responsible Media. Their name pretty much says it all, and by getting these advertisers together to boycott Squitter they violated an antitrust law. I know that sounds batshit crazy, but it's true. When most courts hear these cases they consider the defendant "per se" guilty. Just doing it makes it a crime. The reasons why don't matter.

I'm a huge fan of Elon Musk losing money. He doesn't lose nearly enough of it in my opinion. I'm very glad that these advertisers cost him billions of dollars in ad revenue (according to him, so take that "billions" with a grain of salt the size of New York City). But this tactic is usually used when trying to bully or destroy a company, driving them out of business.

With that in mind Musk actually has a good chance of coming out on top of this one, and that irks me. I have a ton of reasons why, but while doing my research tonight I found this blog, and the author does a much better job of explaining the whole situation than I ever could. (Although he doesn't curse as much as me. And I would twist the knife in Musk as often as I possibly could.)

There is some good news. The courts might not consider the reasons relevant in the case of this crime, but the blogger mentions that if the Global Alliance, etc., can make the argument that their actions were pro-competitive, there might be a way to tell Musk to fuck himself. If they were trying to drive Squitter out of business to make the internet a safer place with an actual set of standards, then they might be able to pull it off. He cites examples, too! He practically wrote my GF column for me tonight.

On that note, goodnight, you glorious fuckers.

I was about to post this when I got angry all over again. This antitrust law exists to prevent competitors from putting their differences aside and working together to drive a third competitor out of business. This law is important to have. To see it perverted by this dickbag to use it against people who are trying to make the world a better place is appalling. Fighting the lawsuit this far already caused the Global Alliance to disband. Musk also has a seemingly limitless supply of money, which means he can outlast anyone in court no matter how noble their arguments might be. He's a living, breathing, walking white collar felony and is the ultimate evidence that our society is bassackwards. In a just society we would have already clapped him in irons and thrown him from the nearest pier.

GOODNIGHT, FUCKERS #763: ONE BUCK NET FUCK

 First of all, that's the first time I've seen the "formerly known as" thing in the actual headline.

Secondly . . .

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

What a fucking loser.

Yes, I did read the article. It's not for existing users. It's for new users. And it's not for all new users. Musk is only rolling it out to New Zealand and the Philippines. His reasoning?

"It’s the only way to fight bots without blocking real users," Musk wrote. "This won’t stop bots completely, but it will be 1000X harder to manipulate the platform."

I'm tempted to post another block of laughter here, but that might be overkill. You know it's overkill when *I* am showing restraint. If you want to read further about his ridiculous Not-a-Bot bullshit, you can look at this.

But let's face facts. I have received more bot friend requests from the site currently known as Ex now than I received back when it was merely known as Twitter. I'm pretty sure Ex would collapse without the bots, they are that ubiquitous. If he killed all the bots, his advertising revenue would completely dry up, and right now he can't afford that. But we have two options. Either Musk is being disingenuous about his motives, or he's a complete fucking idiot. I have seen enough evidence to support both theories.

Sure, a buck a year doesn't sound like much. It isn't. Does he think for a single fucking second that bots would cease to exist simply because he's charging this fee? How many people paid eight bucks for the verification who were *not* the people they claimed to be? The argument could be made that bots aren't people, but the impetus for the bots' existence has to come from somewhere. I'm sure the people who create the bots would be OK with a lowly investment in order to fleece other users for much larger sums.

This is such an obvious thing that I can't believe that Musk is being serious with this fuckin' thing. He's the world's richest dumbbell, but is he that stupid?

Are you familiar with Cory Doctorow? He's got a theory about why large social media platforms die. First you treat the users really well, and once they're locked in, you treat them like shit and treat the advertisers really well. The last stage is when you treat them like shit, too, and suck all the value out of the platform for yourself with whatever innovations you plan on unleashing on your captive audience. Like, perhaps, making Ex our "everything app." Doctorow calls it "enshittification." A good name, I think.

If you read that NYT article, you'll see that a lot of American tech entrepreneurs have tried to create an everything app, and they've all failed, possibly because of cultural differences between us and the countries in which it *does* work. And this clown thinks he can crack this particular nut?

Even if we cast all of that aside, the real reason so many people are addicted to social media is because it's free. I can think of no better way to torpedo Ex than to charge even a single American dollar for a year's worth of use. I think Ex is a shitty site, but I hang on because there are a lot of people I like interacting with there. If, however, this one buck net fuck plan gets rolled out to the rest of us, I will leave that site on principle.

Which isn't a bad idea. Social media being awful is a story for another day, but I've been pulling back on all of it. It would probably be better to not be on Ex and just have my Facebook and let that be it. I'm not going to run around to all these other social media sites that will be gone by the end of the year anyway. But I've rambled enough for now. Goodnight, fuckers.

GOODNIGHT, FUCKERS #757: THE PLATFORM FORMERLY KNOWN AS TWITTER

 I read a lot of news articles, and I've noticed an irritating trend that must stop immediately. In all honesty, perhaps what people say on social media platforms should not be news unless it's someone like a politician or a celebrity. It never ceases to disgust me when I see articles quoting regular people. How is that news? If I wanted to find out all the important details of, say, Israel vs. Hamas, should I just go down to the local Hobby Lobby and ask Chuck, the custodian? But then again, we know my feelings on the death of journalism, and this is yet another symptom.

But what I'm really talking about is X in particular. I've personally taken to calling it Ex, which makes a lot of sense to me, but every single news desk in the world (if we still have news desks, I have my doubts) seems insistent on doing this one fucking thing that bugs the shit out of me.

If a "journalist" is going to quote someone on Ex, it must be one of the Golden Rules of Journalism (up there with Who, What, Where, When, Why and Cover Your Ass, thank you Dr. Wiginton) is that they must refer to it as "X, the platform formerly known as Twitter." There is sometimes a variation, like, "X, formerly Twitter," but this is getting out of hand.

I get it. I don't really want to call it X either because it's stupid. It's the idiocy of a middle-aged rich white dude who thinks he's cool and edgy. Explore your midlife crisis someplace where we can't see it, please. But for fuck's sake, how long are we going to continue doing this? Is there anyone with an internet connection who *doesn't* know that Twitter is now X? If you were writing a story about Elon Musk, would you mention every time he fucking takes a breath? Fuck no, you wouldn't. So why are we doing this?

You know I'm frustrated when I ask that question. And you'll never know how deeply that frustration runs because I'm never going to get an answer that makes sense. Because a lot of what we do doesn't make sense, but we're not going to stop it because fuck it. Why would we?

All right. I'm going to bed. If I can get through tomorrow without reading about how X was formerly Twitter, that would be grand. But I'm not going to hold my breath.