M Magda Aviles

@mrodavi.bsky.social

980 Followers 3129 Following

“Freedom is not just an absence of evil but a presence of good.” Timothy Snyder, “On Freedom” Let’s be the good together.

American Kings, A Biography of the Quarterback, Seth Wickersham
CONGRESSWOMAN| JEN KIGGANS VIRGINIA'S SECOND DISTRICT About v Issues News The letter was cosigned by Congressmen Jack Bergman (MI-01), Mike Garcia (CA-27), Sam Graves (MO-06), Mark Green (TN-07), Clay Higgins (LA-03), Ronny Jackson (TX-13), Nick LaLota (NY-01), Barry Loudermilk (GA-11), Rich McCormick (GA-06), Cory Mills (FL-07), August Pfluger (TX-11), Guy Reschenthaler (PA-14), Derrick Van Orden (WI-03), Michael Waltz (FL-06), Brad Wenstrup (OH-02), and Brandon Williams (NY-22).
"The government is a complicated organization," he said. "You can't just lop off programs at will. It would be like taking out random body parts and hoping people can just live with it."
I am willing to support the consensus of the team and keep
Images from Character Limit, Kate Conger and Ryan Mac
Quote from Agrawal trying to explain the methods for filtering bots: "Let's talk about spam. And let’s do so with the benefit of data, facts, and context…” The spam problem, he said, was complex and dynamic, an ever-evolving problem that led the company to suspend half a million accounts a day. Us. ing sophisticated techniques and data science, Twitter estimated that spam accounts were less than 5 percent of daily active users. And because of that, it was impossible for any outside party to accurately assess the bot problem, because they couldn't access the full wealth of Twitter's data. Musk didn't care. He responded initially with a single emoji: “poop” emoji. a troll move that garnered 51,000 likes, three times more than Agrawal's lead tweet in the thread. It was childish, but effective-a grade-schooler winning an argument against a PhD student by calling them a playground insult.
The firehose was a peculiar piece of Twitter technology. The raw, unfiltered information was public, at least in theory, but no user followed every account on Twitter as it would make their experience of the site unusable. Twitter allowed news organizations to access a version of the firehose so they could detect breaking news before it landed on their reporters' desks, and some media outlets paid to receive alerts as topics bubbled up on Twit-er. Researchers could also gain access to the firehose and to study the platform and its handling of hate speech, misinformation, and other hot-button issues. But the company also protected the firehose as proprietary, and it did keep some portions of the dataset a secret. After Dorsey became enmeshed in the protests surrounding the police killing of Michael Brown, Jr., Twitter cut off the CIA and other intelligence agencies from accessing the firehose in 2016. The company believed that its data could be easily turned against activists and other users, and that intelligence agencies shouldn't be allowed to take advantage. The nuances about who was allowed to access the firehose, and how much data they could collect, made it the perfect wedge for Musk and Twitter to battle over. The billionaire had no respect for Twitter's deliberative and meandering governance.
Jack @jack I love Twitter. Twitter is the closest thing we have to a global consciousness. 10:03 PM Apr 25, 2022 Jack @jack The idea and service is all that matters to me, and I will do whatever it takes to protect both. Twitter as a company has always been my sole issue and my biggest regret. It has been owned by Wall Street and the ad model. Taking it back from Wall Street is the correct first step. Jack @jack In principle, I don't believe anyone should own or run Twitter. It wants to be a public good at a protocol level, not a company. Solving for the problem of it being a company however, Elon is the singular solution I trust. I trust his mission to extend the light of consciousness.
"I think this is the craziest thing I've ever done," Musk said to Pandjai- tan. "I'm going to regret this for the rest of my life."
“But Dorsey's potential involvement in a new Twitter wouldn't change the price that Musk paid. Several board members were livid with him and considered him a snake. After years of backing his leadership, they thought he had bad-mouthed them and gone behind their backs.”
The staff reduction, Project Prism, was the ace up Agrawal's sleeve. If he and the board could woo investors with his plan and show they had a way of creating more shareholder value than what was presented by Musk, they could reject the $44 billion offer. "No one thinks Elon credible... yet," Durban texted Segal on Easter Sunday, trying to comfort him as he and Agrawal drew up the cuts. While he didn't know it, the investor's language hewed closely to the private texts between Musk and Calacanis. Both sides focused on deep cuts and saw the workers as cannon fodder. "You and Parag will bring the cattle," Durban added, a crude rancher's reference that compared the layoff plan to livestock being sent to slaughter. Segal responded by proposing a whopping $1 billion in cuts over the coming year, with $700 million of that savings coming from the workforce reduction. "Winner winner chicken dinner," Durban cheered. The Silver Lake partner was pleased. "We just drew three of a kind and have a chance for a full house," he said. "Elon has a pair right now." If all the numbers kept lining up right, Twitter would hold the winning hand. Selling the rest of the board-and Twitter's biggest shareholders- would be another matter, Durban cautioned. The layoffs and strategy for earning more revenue would need to be airtight. "You're going to be an old school great company," Durban texted. "I'm learning," Segal replied. "Parag been great. I've done this before but not at this pace under duress."
Agrawal tried to rally them, telling them he believed "everything would work out as it should." His workers pressed him to say more about the deal and asked why he hadn't been more transparent with them when Musk first started buying up stock in the company. "This provides all of us with this moment where we feel distracted, where we feel a loss of control," Agrawal told employees. "I am personally going to spend my time focusing on things I can control, and I believe it will matter." One employee said Musk had placed them in a hostage situation, essen- tially cornering the company's management into selling Twitter. "I don't believe we are being held hostage," Agrawal said to them all. The comment didn't instill confidence. Twitter's staff wanted leader-ship. Some wondered why Agrawal didn't use his Twitter account to fight back while Musk bashed them. It was the kind of thing they could have counted on Dorsey to do. Trying to encourage calm, Agrawal seemed rigid and his answers rehearsed, as if he was reading off a script. "I believe Twitter stands for way more than one human, any human, me or anyone else, and their values. Twitter stands for open, public conversation," Agrawal said. "It is best defined by everyone who uses the service." Given his answers, some employees thought Agrawal was already resigned to the outcome. He told them to ignore the noise Musk was making and focus on their jobs, since that was the only thing within their control, and that he would do the same. What did he just say? Employees frantically messaged each other. Was their chief executive really just going to bury his head in the sand while the richest man in the world lambasted them on Twitter? It wasn't Agrawal's first testy all-hands with employees, but it left many wanting more. Dorsey, for all his faults, projected stability and knew how to wield his influence. Agrawal seemed unprepared for the battle ahead.
"I'm excited to share that we're appointing Elon Musk to our board!" Agrawal tweeted the next morning. "Through conversations with Elon in recent weeks, it became clear to me that he would bring great value to our Board. Why? Above all else, he's both a passionate believer and intense cirri of the service which is exactly what we need on Twitter, and in the Boardroom, to make us stronger int he long-term. Welcome Elon!"
Image of lone tree amidst rows of headstones of US service members, Normandy.
TRANSPARENCY OF INVESTMENTS AND BIDS Since he acquired Twitter in 2022, Elon Musk has attracted a nona sinide ceaseless stream of press attention-both critical and complimen-tary. Musk certainly loves the limelight: in the summer of 2023 he changed Twitter's name to X and planted a gigantic glowing sign of the letter on top of the company's headquarters. * Despite all of the buzz surrounding X and Musk, journalists have paid little attention to the second largest investor in the platform: Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal of Saudi Arabia, who leads the Kingdom Holding Company. 3 This is remarkable backing from the state fund of a repressive coun try that restricts freedom of expression, and one that should raise significant concerns in a company and country that purport to champion free speech. In 2014 and 2015, Saudi spies were caught infiltrating the company as employees, with the aim of accessing the personal data of dissidents who had accounts on the platform.4 Given this earlier behavior, David Kaye, former UN special rapporteur on freedom of expression, has noted that he thinks "it's worth asking questions about what Saudi investment means for the security of Saudi dissidents and debate around Saudi issues. Will requests for actions against users be filtered through Alwaleed? Requests for user data or for the promotion of some networks?"45 And Musk is far from alone in courting investments from the Saudi government. The nation's blatant human rights violations have not discouraged a number of Silicon Valley venture capitalists and tech companies from taking Saudi investments. Though some, like the venture capital giant Andreessen Horowitz, would have preferred to be circumspect about it, 46
Musk's love for Twitter was simple, relatable, and even humanizing. He had spent hours every day scrolling the site-reading posts, laughing at memes, and firing off stream-of-consciousness thoughts-like any regular user. He became intoxicated by the engagement offered to him, and like with so many other hardcore tweeters, the platform became his addiction. The difference between him and the other diehards chasing the constant dopamine rush of Twitter, however, was that he had the means to capture his addiction and the desire to remake it in his own image.
rules, dl Election day, August 8, 2017, was marked by long lines of incredibly patient Kenyans keen to cast their votes. Almost twenty million people registered to vote, with five million of them voting for the first time. At 6:00 a.m., squares in front of schools that served as polling stations were packed. I shook the hands of hundreds of voters lined up, old and young Kenyans, wealthy and poor. I had observed elections in Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, and Nigeria before. Elections are always remarkable experiences, but the Kenyan voters-particularly the scores of young people, acutely aware of their democratic rights and duties— especially resonated with me. One woman carrying a child on her back told me she had walked for two days to vote despite her husband's wishes against it. Classrooms and children's school tables were occupied by election volunteers. The atmosphere felt like that of a church: solemn and dignified, and despite the large number of people present, there was only a quiet hum throughout the school. Kenyans were, however, conscious of the exploitative tactics that politicians used to gain last-minute sup-port. Some shared an old adage with me, "We eat at election time," a reference to candidates sudden distribution of food and cash handouts as they tried to hustle voters.
Name: Ilse Silten Date of Birth: February 23, 1909 Place of Birth: Berlin, Germany Ilse, born Ilse Teppich, was the eldest of two daughters born to a Jewish family in the German capital of Berlin. Her father owned a dry cleaning business in the city. When Ilse finished secondary school, she was sent to a finishing school in Switzerland where she studied to be a photographer. In 1931 she married Fritz Silten•
The strategic intent of a 4GW attack, as Boyd explained, is "to dissolve [an enemy's] moral fiber, disorient his mental images, disrupt his operations, and overload his system, as well as subvert, shatter, seize or otherwise subdue those moral-mental-physical bastions, connections, or activities that he depends upon, in order to destroy internal harmony, produce paralysis, and collapse adversary's will to resist."50 Any effective counter-strategy to efforts of the Trump administration and its Christian Right supporters must begin by understanding that when they attack, their objective is to undermine opponents' legitimacy, since under 4GW, legitimacy is the coin of the realm. But fact-checking and debunking conspiracism is only a partial solution. It must be accompanied by defending the legitimacy of institutions, democratic norms, legal procedures, and social groups singled out for attack. In a 4GW scenario, the better narrative wins." Thus, any counter-strategy must include a robust narrative of what is being defended and why, as well as the tools to counteract the menace, uncertainty, and mistrust engendered by 4GW attacks. These tools—a corresponding set to those in Boyd's plan of epistemological warfare-provide individuals and groups with moral strength. Or in Boyd's words, a "triumph of courage, confidence, and esprit (de corps) over [the] fear, anxiety, and alienation" of our modern, domestic, psychological war.
The strategic intent of a 4GW attack, as Boyd explained, is "to dissolve [an enemy's] moral fiber, disorient his mental images, disrupt his operations, and overload his system, as well as subvert, shatter, seize or otherwise subdue those moral-mental-physical bastions, connections, or activities that he depends upon, in order to destroy internal harmony, produce paralysis, and collapse adversary's will to resist."50 Any effective counter-strategy to efforts of the Trump administration and its Christian Right supporters must begin by understanding that when they attack, their objective is to undermine opponents' legitimacy, since under 4GW, legitimacy is the coin of the realm. But fact-checking and debunking conspiracism is only a partial solution. It must be accompanied by defending the legitimacy of institutions, democratic norms, legal procedures, and social groups singled out for attack. In a 4GW scenario, the better narrative wins." Thus, any counter-strategy must include a robust narrative of what is being defended and why, as well as the tools to counteract the menace, uncertainty, and mistrust engendered by 4GW attacks. These tools—a corresponding set to those in Boyd's plan of epistemological warfare-provide individuals and groups with moral strength. Or in Boyd's words, a "triumph of courage, confidence, and esprit (de corps) over [the] fear, anxiety, and alienation" of our modern, domestic, psychological war.
The strategic intent of a 4GW attack, as Boyd explained, is "to dissolve [an enemy's] moral fiber, disorient his mental images, disrupt his operations, and overload his system, as well as subvert, shatter, seize or otherwise subdue those moral-mental-physical bastions, connections, or activities that he depends upon, in order to destroy internal harmony, produce paralysis, and collapse adversary's will to resist."50 Any effective counter-strategy to efforts of the Trump administration and its Christian Right supporters must begin by understanding that when they attack, their objective is to undermine opponents' legitimacy, since under 4GW, legitimacy is the coin of the realm. But fact-checking and debunking conspiracism is only a partial solution. It must be accompanied by defending the legitimacy of institutions, democratic norms, legal procedures, and social groups singled out for attack. In a 4GW scenario, the better narrative wins." Thus, any counter-strategy must include a robust narrative of what is being defended and why, as well as the tools to counteract the menace, uncertainty, and mistrust engendered by 4GW attacks. These tools—a corresponding set to those in Boyd's plan of epistemological warfare-provide individuals and groups with moral strength. Or in Boyd's words, a "triumph of courage, confidence, and esprit (de corps) over [the] fear, anxiety, and alienation" of our modern, domestic, psychological war.
The strategic intent of a 4GW attack, as Boyd explained, is "to dissolve [an enemy's] moral fiber, disorient his mental images, disrupt his operations, and overload his system, as well as subvert, shatter, seize or otherwise subdue those moral-mental-physical bastions, connections, or activities that he depends upon, in order to destroy internal harmony, produce paralysis, and collapse adversary's will to resist."50 Any effective counter-strategy to efforts of the Trump administration and its Christian Right supporters must begin by understanding that when they attack, their objective is to undermine opponents' legitimacy, since under 4GW, legitimacy is the coin of the realm. But fact-checking and debunking conspiracism is only a partial solution. It must be accompanied by defending the legitimacy of institutions, democratic norms, legal procedures, and social groups singled out for attack. In a 4GW scenario, the better narrative wins." Thus, any counter-strategy must include a robust narrative of what is being defended and why, as well as the tools to counteract the menace, uncertainty, and mistrust engendered by 4GW attacks. These tools—a corresponding set to those in Boyd's plan of epistemological warfare-provide individuals and groups with moral strength. Or in Boyd's words, a "triumph of courage, confidence, and esprit (de corps) over [the] fear, anxiety, and alienation" of our modern, domestic, psychological war.
The strategic intent of a 4GW attack, as Boyd explained, is "to dissolve [an enemy's] moral fiber, disorient his mental images, disrupt his operations, and overload his system, as well as subvert, shatter, seize or otherwise subdue those moral-mental-physical bastions, connections, or activities that he depends upon, in order to destroy internal harmony, produce paralysis, and collapse adversary's will to resist."50 Any effective counter-strategy to efforts of the Trump administration and its Christian Right supporters must begin by understanding that when they attack, their objective is to undermine opponents' legitimacy, since under 4GW, legitimacy is the coin of the realm. But fact-checking and debunking conspiracism is only a partial solution. It must be accompanied by defending the legitimacy of institutions, democratic norms, legal procedures, and social groups singled out for attack. In a 4GW scenario, the better narrative wins. Thus, any counter-strategy must include a robust narrative of what is being defended and why, as well as the tools to counteract the menace, uncertainty, and mistrust engendered by 4GW attacks. These tools—a corresponding set to those in Boyd's plan of epistemological warfare—provide individuals and groups with moral strength. Or in Boyd's words, a "triumph of courage, confidence, and esprit (de corps) over [the] fear, anxiety, and alienation" of our modern, domestic, psychological war.