2 Burst results for "Bragg Agarwal"
The Ben Shapiro Show
"bragg agarwal" Discussed on The Ben Shapiro Show
"Roth wrote quote the hypothesis underlying much of what we've implemented is that if exposure to EG misinformation directly causes harm, we should use remediations that reduce exposure and limiting the spread variety of content is a good way to do that. Now, there are so many mush words in that particular sentence from y'all Roth. The hypothesis is that misinformation, we don't define misinformation. Misinformation can range from global warming is not going to end the earth to gender affirming healthcare is child abuse, right? Those particular saying that Ellen Page or formerly Ellen Page is in fact a woman. Is a form of misinformation, according to your Roth, and add on to that, directly causes harm, that phrase misinformation directly causes harm. You have not defined any of those words. You've not to find misinformation, which could just be anything I disagree with. You have not defined directly because again, misinformation does not directly cause harm. It always indirectly causes harm. If you're talking about physical harm, information or misinformation does not directly cause harm. Unless you're talking about like actual incitement to violence, it might indirectly cause harm because some of my take that information to use it in the wrong way or they may take the misinformation seriously and it may cause them to do bad things. Okay, but misinformation is not defined. Directly is not defined. Causes is not defined here because you don't exactly know the relationship between the misinformation and the harm and harm is not the fine because we don't know what kind of harm you're talking about. Are you talking about physical harm? Are you talking about emotional harm? I talk about financial. So nothing there is to find. That is a phrase that just is a. If I read that sentence again, the hypothesis underlying much of what we've implemented is that exposure to B so we should use remediations that reduce exposure. In other words, we don't like whatever this is, and we're going to use the rubric of harm that is being caused by directly by misinformation. And then we are going to shadow ban it. Roth adequate, we got Jack on board with implementing this for civic integrity in the near term. But we're going to need to make a more robust case to get this into our repertoire of policy remediations, especially for other policy domains. Harry says that there will be another installment of all of this in short order. Okay, so what do we know at this point? Well, we know, pretty clearly, is that again, Twitter became a mechanism by which purple haired interns, plus some of the heads of policy and safety, like your Roth, people like yes, Jack Dorsey, or Bragg agarwal, or Vijay Yeti, they were making decisions. On an ad hoc basis. There are things all algorithmic. They were saying that it wasn't easy. It wasn't happening. It wouldn't reply to you. They wouldn't get back to you, or it was all the algorithm. As the magic algorithm that was telling you that lives of TikTok had to be suspended. Well, it wasn't. There's a bunch of people in a back room somewhere who are literally deciding whether or not you should be able to see a Charlie Kirk tweet. There's a bunch of people in a back room, they'll presumably smoke. Deciding that Dan bongino should not be searchable. On Twitter. Again, I've been deeply suspicious of this for some time. This is not a great shock to me. I will repeat that since I currently have about 5.2 5.2 million followers on Twitter. When Elon Musk took over Twitter, which was like 5 weeks ago, 6 weeks ago, I had 4.3. I picked up almost a million Twitter followers in about 6 weeks. So what that suggests to me is that literally the minute the deal went through, a lot of the foot that was stomping on the face of particular accounts was removed. So none of this is a particular shot, but it is kind of shocking. That all of it has now been confirmed. This is precisely what the left would like, of course. This is one of the great dangers of the recentralization of power. This happens all the time, by the way. You have sort of trustless systems like the Internet, where there's a wide distribution of mechanisms of information. It all gets centralized in a place like a social media hangout like Facebook or Twitter. We're now TikTok, and then the people who are in charge of those giant social media centralization sites are able to siphon off or quash, particular forms of information. You see this financially too, by the way. In the entire FTX scandal was basically about a trustless form of currency, cryptocurrency, and people just leaving it in a centralized place that requires trust. And then the person essentially just embezzling money. So bottom line here is that thanks to Elon Musk, we now know all of this is happening. And what's amazing is that the left is still a Musk. Which makes sense, of course, because he has taken away their plaything. He is now allowed, forms of information to be disseminated. They don't particularly like, and he's showing what's in story's bastards they are in many cases. You know, you got people like Adam Schiff, who's suggesting, of course, as always, that it's Elon Musk, who is the problem. Adam Smith Adam Schiff is just an equitable congressperson. He is a liar extraordinaire. This is a person who spent four years suggesting that just around the corner, he'd seen the evidence just around the corner. Behind the curtain, there was the smoking Russian gun that was going to show that Donald Trump was actually a Russian agent. And of course that was all nonsense. It was all crap. Well now, Adam Schiff is out there saying that Elon Musk is a bigot for allowing speech to be disseminated because this is really what members of the left thing. Mainstream leftists very often members of the Democratic Party. They think that things like free speech are dangerous because people might say things that they don't like. Just like freedom of religion is dangerous. People might believe things. They don't like. Just like freedom of association is dangerous. People might hang out with people, they don't like. And not with people they do like. There is Adam Schiff going after Elon Musk.
The Ben Shapiro Show
"bragg agarwal" Discussed on The Ben Shapiro Show
"The worst financial market in years, hiring freeze everywhere, Q four is looking great. So first of all, I do love the reaction from people on the left Robert Reich did the same thing. Another billionaire is going to, okay, I would like for you to name a giant tech company that is not owned by a multi multi millionaire. Really, name a big tech company that is not owned by somebody who's with hundreds of millions of dollars. They do not exist. There's no Twitter app that is owned by the homeless guy at the end of the street on grand in Los Angeles. That's not how any of this works. Twitter employees heard news of the latest development in Musk's potential purchase while they were in a meeting, discussing the company's goals in 2023, according to Bloomberg. Roman Chad hurry, the Twitter director of machine learning ethics transparency and accountability tweeted quote living the plot of Succession is effing exhausting. Well, I think this person will not have a job for a particularly long. This is just my quick prediction. Again, director of machine learning ethics transparency and accountability means presumably the director of censorship over at Twitter. And of course, CNN's Daniel Sullivan then tweeted this Twitter employee sums up what I'm hearing from folks inside the company today. Yes, because as it turns out, Elon Musk has different ideas about censorship than you do. And this is why you are so upset. EJ Samson, who works in global business marketing to encourage every Twitter employee to go outside and take a walk. Twitter's head of global development on the Weinstein simply indicated what a roller coaster it has all been. Well, you know what? The good news is that Musk is actually creating a self cleansing mechanism here. It's what or by buying, presumably all these people either out themselves and be fired or quit. And it'll be great, because Twitter needs to be completely restaffed. There's a deep state over at Twitter. In the same way there was a deep state in the federal government, meaning an entrenched bureaucracy that has ideas of its own. And all of those people can simply go away. That would be wonderful. Kevin ruse, who's a longtime critic of open speech on the Internet. He's making some predictions over at The New York Times and what exactly is going to happen now that Elon Musk takes over. Presumably he's going to clean house starting with firing, Twitter's chief executive pira agarwal, according to roose juicy set of text messages between Musk and his friends and business associates emerged last week as part of the legal battle in them. Musk made clear he was unhappy current leadership in particular with Bragg agarwal, the chief executive who took over last year from Jack Dorsey, the text showed that AdWord had initially sought to work constructively with Musk, but the two men eventually clashed, admiral one point told must be a text message his habit of tweeting things like his Twitter dying was not helping me make a Twitter better. What did you get done this week? Musk shot back. This is a waste of time. Yeah, man. Well, good, good, because all these people need to go. Ruth says that the employees will revolt. Well, oh, oh no, so really, go