@
@
@growing_daniel
Guest
@
@elonmusk
Guest
@
@gunsnrosesgirl3
Guest
Stated Clearly
@
@elonmusk
Guest
@
@DavidSacks
Guest
THE FAILING COUNTEROFFENSIVE AND THE PEACE THAT COULD HAVE BEEN
With each passing day, it’s becoming clear that the Ukrainian counteroffensive is failing to achieve any of its originally stated objectives. Recall: the Biden administration’s bet was that the counteroffensive would roll back Russian territorial gains, cut the land bridge to Crimea, and force Russia to the negotiating table. That is almost certainly not going to happen. On the contrary, a stalemate is more likely, or even that Russia will take more territory and win the war, as Mearsheimer has predicted.
What are Biden’s options now? Either escalate or admit defeat. In preparation for NATO’s Vilnius Summit, Blinken has been floating a proposal to give “Israel status” to Ukraine. This means multi-year security guarantees including weapons, ammunition and money that would continue even if Biden loses the next election.
This is not what the American people signed up for. Many Americans supported the $100+ billion in appropriations for Ukraine believing it was a one-time deal to reverse Russian territorial gains. If they had been told that it was the basis for an annual appropriation in a new Forever War, they would have preferred an alternative, especially if they had known that one was available.
THE PEACE THAT COULD HAVE BEEN
New evidence is emerging that a peace deal was achievable at the beginning of the war. At a recent meeting with the African delegation, Putin showed the draft of an outline or preliminary agreement signed by the Ukrainian delegation at Istanbul in April 2022. It provided that Russia would pull back to pre-war lines if Ukraine would agree not to join NATO (but Ukraine could receive security guarantees from the West).
This document has not been publicly released yet, but no one seriously contests that it exists. The only dispute is over what happened subsequently; Ukraine (via reporting in Reuters) contends the deal fell apart. However, the availability of a deal based on Ukrainian Neutrality is consistent with previous comments from Naftali Bennett, who said a deal was attainable but rejected by the West.
Why would the West do this? Ukrainska Pravda (UP), a pro-Ukraine publication, reported in May 2022:
“As soon as the Ukrainian negotiators and Abramovich/Medinsky [the Russian negotiators], following the outcome of Istanbul, had agreed on the structure of a future possible agreement in general terms, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson appeared in Kyiv almost without warning. "Johnson brought two simple messages to Kyiv. The first is that Putin is a war criminal; he should be pressured, not negotiated with. And the second is that even if Ukraine is ready to sign some agreements on guarantees with Putin, they are not. We can sign (an agreement) with you (Ukraine), but not with him. Anyway, he will screw everyone over", is how one of Zelenskyy's close associates summed up the essence of Johnson's visit.”
www.pravda.com.ua
Johnson (who must have been speaking not just for himself but for the Western alliance) wanted to pressure Putin, not make peace, and promised new weapons systems if Ukraine would keep fighting.
At the time of UP’s article, Ukraine appeared to be doing well, so UP portrayed Zelensky’s decision to accept Johnson’s offer as a smart gamble. Now, in hindsight, it looks like a disaster.
AFGHANISTAN REDUX?
I know some of you may find it hard to believe that the realities on the ground are so at odds with the mainstream media's coverage. But it’s worth recalling that the American public was assured for two decades that we were winning in Afghanistan. All of that reporting was revealed as a pack of lies when the Afghan army that we were supposedly “standing up” collapsed within a matter of weeks. At that point, the media stopped reporting on Afghanistan, just like it had stopped reporting on Iraq, instead of holding anyone accountable.
Unfortunately, it looks like we're headed for a similar kind of outcome in Ukraine. The only question is when, and how long Biden will be able to perpetuate a proxy war of choice that could have easily been avoided.
With each passing day, it’s becoming clear that the Ukrainian counteroffensive is failing to achieve any of its originally stated objectives. Recall: the Biden administration’s bet was that the counteroffensive would roll back Russian territorial gains, cut the land bridge to Crimea, and force Russia to the negotiating table. That is almost certainly not going to happen. On the contrary, a stalemate is more likely, or even that Russia will take more territory and win the war, as Mearsheimer has predicted.
What are Biden’s options now? Either escalate or admit defeat. In preparation for NATO’s Vilnius Summit, Blinken has been floating a proposal to give “Israel status” to Ukraine. This means multi-year security guarantees including weapons, ammunition and money that would continue even if Biden loses the next election.
This is not what the American people signed up for. Many Americans supported the $100+ billion in appropriations for Ukraine believing it was a one-time deal to reverse Russian territorial gains. If they had been told that it was the basis for an annual appropriation in a new Forever War, they would have preferred an alternative, especially if they had known that one was available.
THE PEACE THAT COULD HAVE BEEN
New evidence is emerging that a peace deal was achievable at the beginning of the war. At a recent meeting with the African delegation, Putin showed the draft of an outline or preliminary agreement signed by the Ukrainian delegation at Istanbul in April 2022. It provided that Russia would pull back to pre-war lines if Ukraine would agree not to join NATO (but Ukraine could receive security guarantees from the West).
This document has not been publicly released yet, but no one seriously contests that it exists. The only dispute is over what happened subsequently; Ukraine (via reporting in Reuters) contends the deal fell apart. However, the availability of a deal based on Ukrainian Neutrality is consistent with previous comments from Naftali Bennett, who said a deal was attainable but rejected by the West.
Why would the West do this? Ukrainska Pravda (UP), a pro-Ukraine publication, reported in May 2022:
“As soon as the Ukrainian negotiators and Abramovich/Medinsky [the Russian negotiators], following the outcome of Istanbul, had agreed on the structure of a future possible agreement in general terms, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson appeared in Kyiv almost without warning. "Johnson brought two simple messages to Kyiv. The first is that Putin is a war criminal; he should be pressured, not negotiated with. And the second is that even if Ukraine is ready to sign some agreements on guarantees with Putin, they are not. We can sign (an agreement) with you (Ukraine), but not with him. Anyway, he will screw everyone over", is how one of Zelenskyy's close associates summed up the essence of Johnson's visit.”
From Zelenskyy’s “surrender” to Putin’s surrender: how the negotiations with Russia are going
The peace talks with Russia are the story of how Ukraine has gone from despair to realising its own strength and its circle of true allies over 70 days of full-scale war.
www.pravda.com.ua
Johnson (who must have been speaking not just for himself but for the Western alliance) wanted to pressure Putin, not make peace, and promised new weapons systems if Ukraine would keep fighting.
At the time of UP’s article, Ukraine appeared to be doing well, so UP portrayed Zelensky’s decision to accept Johnson’s offer as a smart gamble. Now, in hindsight, it looks like a disaster.
AFGHANISTAN REDUX?
I know some of you may find it hard to believe that the realities on the ground are so at odds with the mainstream media's coverage. But it’s worth recalling that the American public was assured for two decades that we were winning in Afghanistan. All of that reporting was revealed as a pack of lies when the Afghan army that we were supposedly “standing up” collapsed within a matter of weeks. At that point, the media stopped reporting on Afghanistan, just like it had stopped reporting on Iraq, instead of holding anyone accountable.
Unfortunately, it looks like we're headed for a similar kind of outcome in Ukraine. The only question is when, and how long Biden will be able to perpetuate a proxy war of choice that could have easily been avoided.
@
@elonmusk
Guest
@
@elonmusk
Guest
@
@Travis_in_Flint
Guest
SHOCKING: the Midwest and Plains Equity Assistance center (MAP), which is funded by the Department of Education, was caught on a zoom meeting talking about ways to help children transition and keep it from their parents!
The Live video reported by DailyMail had teachers from the Midwest talking about how they’ll subvert “Republican” laws aimed at protecting children.
One administrator form Royal Oak, MI said she has secret screens with the kids “nickname” that the parents can’t see.
All of this is being funded by the Biden administration
The Live video reported by DailyMail had teachers from the Midwest talking about how they’ll subvert “Republican” laws aimed at protecting children.
One administrator form Royal Oak, MI said she has secret screens with the kids “nickname” that the parents can’t see.
All of this is being funded by the Biden administration
@
@mcuban
Guest
I'm sorry I didn't see you enter the discussion @elonmusk. The price we were able to get was much higher than other available sources.
We are trying to get a better price.
We do sell HCQ.
Our mission is to be the low cost provider of every med we are allowed to sell. You should have your employees use us. It will save them and @twitter a do ton of money.
Costplusdrugs.com
We are trying to get a better price.
We do sell HCQ.
Our mission is to be the low cost provider of every med we are allowed to sell. You should have your employees use us. It will save them and @twitter a do ton of money.
Homepage of Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drugs
Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug homepage. Provides safe, affordable medicine or medication with transparent low prices.
@
@elonmusk
Guest
@
@Tesmanian_com
Guest
The Republic of Rwanda Government provides SpaceX Starlink Internet to first 50 Schools out of 500
www.tesmanian.com
The Republic of Rwanda Government provides SpaceX Starlink Internet to first 50 Schools out of 500
The Tony Blair Institute for Global Change non-profit organization announced that it worked with the Republic of Rwanda government to provide SpaceX Starlink internet to 50 schools situated in rural communities. “The Tomorrow Partnership’s work with the government of Rwanda is bringing...
www.tesmanian.com
@
@elonmusk
Guest
@
@dvorahfr
Guest
I translated @elonmusk 's (EM) interview with French journalist Anne Sophie Lapix (AS L), broadcast on a French public channel.
The first 11 minutes are essentially devoted to the presentation and politeness, I did not write the word for word.
But from 11 minutes 20, the tone changes and I tried, to the extent of my skills , to remain faithful to the dialogue.
Presentation :
AS L : What makes you commit to a business?
EM : My motivation: To advance human civilization and protect it
-Tesla: Sustainable energy
-Space X: Extending Human Life and Civilization by Going Beyond Space. It's a vision of the future
-Twitter: A platform that allows interaction with many different points of view in order to promote better understanding.
Twitter must be a force for progress and we are going in this direction, in the direction of civilization.
AS L: Do you want to have a determining role on civilization?
EM: Yes, civilization is much more fragile than we imagine. It started with the writing about 5000 years ago. Earth dates from 4 Billion years ago this means that the civilization 1/1000000 of Earth time. It's a little spark. A small candle in the dark and everything must be done to prevent it from going out.
AS L: Gigafactory in France?
EM: It is probable, even very probable that Tesla will do something very important in France in the years to come. What I can tell you is that President Macron cares about the future of France. In any case he does everything he can for this country. I’m fan of the president.
I like President Macron and what he does for his country. He’s smart man.
AS L : there is another argument in favor of france For some time, your cars have benefited from the bonus of 5000€.
isn't the €5,000 bonus thanks to the drop in Tesla prices a way of forcing you to settle in France?
EM: In any case, we have to promote local production, it's better for the environment anyway. And the EVs must work without the premium. The bonus helps to start sales.
Ask: Is your involvement in Tesla out of genuine conviction or opportunism?
EM: There must be a small part of opportunism, but we started Tesla because there was no manufacturer that made EVs. I thought to myself, if we don't do it, nobody will. So we got started and we had a 1 in 10 chance of succeeding and we were optimistic. We came close to bankruptcy more than once. It's not an easy way to make money.
AS L: Space X consumes a lot of fuel, however, is what the boss of Space X has the same convictions as the boss of Tesla
EM: With SpaceX, you can't have an electric rocket, but you create 80% liquid oxygen and liquid methane fuel using electricity. We intend to manufacture renewable propellant over the long term.
AS L: Space X is a success, you allowed NASA to send men back to the SSI.
your target :Moon 2025, Mars 2030. Will you go to Mars?
EM : I would love to go to Mars but that's not the most important thing. The most important thing is to allow Humanity to become multiplanetary. What is important is to have enough people and material to ensure life on Mars. You have to have a goal that motivates you in the morning when you get up.
AS L: April 20 the Mega Rocket exploded, debris fell on sensitive areas is what you consider collateral damage.
EM: The zones are not that fragile. These are salt ponds. No real life in these spaces.
AS L: so if there is a lawsuit you will win.
EM: yes, you just have to see these areas to understand. There was no impact on the environment
AS L: Another subject: AI subject, you have requested a break. We were surprised you asked?
EM: Very powerful techno, certainly more powerful than nuclear energy. If we use nuclear technology for civilians, it's perfect, but for military use, I'm against it. It's the same on the AI.
There are risks of people using AI for bad purposes. For example to manipulate public opinion. Each country has its own approach to the use of AI. The example that comes to mind is manipulation to make the public believe in implausible things. Clever AI can start a war with fake accounts by inciting anger. AI could create enough anger to start a war.
AS L: you understand that Europe wants to regulate ,you who do not like regulations in general
EM: I am not against regulation on principle. Regulations must be in the interest of people, to protect and serve them, not to constrain them. I agree with 99% of the regulations.
AS L: You say , you have to take a break but you still created a start-up on AI X-AI, the purpose of your Truth GPT software will be to seek the truth. How do we find reality?
E.M: it's still embryonic, however when I added my name to the list, I didn't think people would be so interested. I put my name on the list to slow down not stop. Of course nothing was stopped. So there are two possibilities, either being an observer and doing nothing or being a participant. And I prefer to be a participant.
[From here I tried to translate exactly word for word.]
AS L: You talk about seeking the truth, it's not really your priority on Twitter.
You fired about 80% of the staff, including the famous moderators who had to monitor the networks to avoid racist messages, calls for violence, hatred. Do you not regret the relatively radical choice, when you know how much can proliferate on a social network.
EM: We haven't reduced the moderation activity per se. Moderation is carried out by about 4000 collaborators and the work has remained the same. Anything hate speech is down 20-40% since the acquisition. So it's less and not more.
AS L: This is not what the various studies say
105% increase in anti-Semitic messages (images on screen)
EM: I don't know what stat you're talking about.
AS L: There are various studies that have been carried out, in particular American
(on Screen: 200% increase in racial slurs) including your interaction with extremists that you could effectively encourage on the network the return of accounts that had been deleted. It is all this observation that has made advertisers leave.
EM: Listen to me, I saw a very rigorous study which measured hate messages and which had decreased, I believe by 30%. We should look at the data. Without the data, we cannot prove anything, advance anything.
AS L: we can do study against study. Haven't you noticed these increasingly hateful speeches yourself?
EM: No, no, I persist in saying that there are fewer. Unless you have a very broad definition of the hate message. But we must avoid having too broad a definition because if everything becomes a message of hate, obviously we can no longer judge anything or else we must censor everything, but that completely blocks freedom of expression.
AS L: I was thinking of a concrete example a few days ago there was a shipwreck of migrants in the Mediterranean.
There were messages, they are still there, three days later. (on screen the message “It was all-you-can-eat buffet for the fish”. )
AS L: Things like that which are extremely violent because there are hundreds of deaths, desperate people. That remains, is that normal?
EM: What we find in bad taste or unpleasant, should it be censored? We are not going to censor it even if it is something that we strongly dislike. Because where else do we stop? If you don't like something and you censor it, sooner or later you will be the one to be censored.
AS L: The message I told you about is extremely violent, we are talking about eating the bodies of migrants. It's still a rather special humor.
EM: Obviously it's in very bad taste, I agree with you on this and obviously we're not going to promote anything on it. Again, it's a balance where you place the cursor. What is in good and bad taste, acceptable or not acceptable. What should be censored or not. So obviously if there is something illegal, we react immediately but if we are asked to go beyond what the law prescribes and we are asked to censor any form of expression, then I will say no . It would be a mistake. So on the other hand if a law is promulgated. Because the law in a democracy represents the will of the people. If the law represents the will of the people, then it must be respected. Now if we want to enact certain laws, we will have to respect them. On the other hand, to tell ourselves that we are going to put ourselves above the law and do more than the law. I think that's not good.
AS L: Precisely Europe has a new DSA regulation which will be applied from August 25th which aims precisely to ensure that what we find on twitter is prohibited when it is prohibited in real life. You don't intend to apply it?
EM: Twitter will obey the law, respect the law. If a law is enacted, I repeat, Twitter is committed to respecting it.
AS L: it is a European regulation so you will comply with this European regulation. Because anyway otherwise you will pay fines, it could be 300 million dollars at first and you could even be banned from Europe. You will do everything not to be banned from Europe.
E.M: yes, I have already said it, Twitter will respect the regulations. This is the fourth time I've said it, or the third.
AS L: It's good that we hear it, some time ago french Minister doubted it and threatened to banish you from France and Europe. You heard that message there too?
Em: You know, for the nth time, Twitter is not going to break the law. Twitter will comply with the regulations. We are not going to be more royalist than the king and be so zealous that we go beyond the legal provisions. If there are provisions that we want enacted, they will be enacted and we will respect them. But we, a private company, do not want to go beyond the will of the people and do more.
AS L: I was saying that you had lost advertisers since your arrival, in fact, they say, half of the advertisers. Today, this company that you bought for 44 billion, is it worth half? Did you cause this company to lose value in the end?
EM: It doesn't bother me, it doesn't worry me too much. I don't care about money
AS L: Are you not interested in the health of your business?
EM: The main thing is not to make a loss. And there we do not make a loss.
So it's true the advertisers have left us but there are many who come back.
AS L: A lot but 50% had left you, how many have come back?
EM: I think almost all the advertisers came back or said they would come back.
ASL: All? Coke, Nike?
EM: I'm not saying every advertiser, I think it's fine.
AS L: You asked the question "should I run Twitter", by poll on your network, it was quite brave, 17.5 million people voted and said no to you at 57.5%. Did it hurt you. Did it annoy you?
EM: no
AS L: Did you expect this response?
EM: Yes
AS L: In fact, you wanted to leave?
EM: But I didn't expect to be the CEO either.
AS L: your place at the head of several strategic companies and social networks gives you a particular role, a particular importance. You are received as a head of state, including by the Chinese president. Would you like to become President of the Republic of the USA one day?
EM: no, no, I don't want to. You know, people sometimes imagine that the President of the United States is in a very powerful position. So yes in a way, of course, but the American Constitution is such that the office of President is in a very limited position, in fact.
President is like being in the cabin of a very large boat with a very small oar or a small rudder.
You are accused of everything and there is nothing you can do.
AS L: Are you telling me that you are more powerful than the President of the USA?
EM: So let's say I can't declare war.
AS L: For the moment, you have explained how it can be done on Twitter with fake news.
EM: We will ensure that the war does not come because of social networks. What I can tell you is that the freedom of action of a President of the United States is extremely limited. I just told you. And it's done on purpose. It was designed for that. And so if I were president I could not, for example, send rockets to the Moon or to Mars. Send people to live there, create sustainable electric vehicles. I won't be able to do all of this and I won't want to give up on all of this.
AS L: Thank you very much EM for accepting this interview. And enjoy Paris, it's a very beautiful city
EM: Thank you very much. Merci beaucoup
The first 11 minutes are essentially devoted to the presentation and politeness, I did not write the word for word.
But from 11 minutes 20, the tone changes and I tried, to the extent of my skills , to remain faithful to the dialogue.
Presentation :
AS L : What makes you commit to a business?
EM : My motivation: To advance human civilization and protect it
-Tesla: Sustainable energy
-Space X: Extending Human Life and Civilization by Going Beyond Space. It's a vision of the future
-Twitter: A platform that allows interaction with many different points of view in order to promote better understanding.
Twitter must be a force for progress and we are going in this direction, in the direction of civilization.
AS L: Do you want to have a determining role on civilization?
EM: Yes, civilization is much more fragile than we imagine. It started with the writing about 5000 years ago. Earth dates from 4 Billion years ago this means that the civilization 1/1000000 of Earth time. It's a little spark. A small candle in the dark and everything must be done to prevent it from going out.
AS L: Gigafactory in France?
EM: It is probable, even very probable that Tesla will do something very important in France in the years to come. What I can tell you is that President Macron cares about the future of France. In any case he does everything he can for this country. I’m fan of the president.
I like President Macron and what he does for his country. He’s smart man.
AS L : there is another argument in favor of france For some time, your cars have benefited from the bonus of 5000€.
isn't the €5,000 bonus thanks to the drop in Tesla prices a way of forcing you to settle in France?
EM: In any case, we have to promote local production, it's better for the environment anyway. And the EVs must work without the premium. The bonus helps to start sales.
Ask: Is your involvement in Tesla out of genuine conviction or opportunism?
EM: There must be a small part of opportunism, but we started Tesla because there was no manufacturer that made EVs. I thought to myself, if we don't do it, nobody will. So we got started and we had a 1 in 10 chance of succeeding and we were optimistic. We came close to bankruptcy more than once. It's not an easy way to make money.
AS L: Space X consumes a lot of fuel, however, is what the boss of Space X has the same convictions as the boss of Tesla
EM: With SpaceX, you can't have an electric rocket, but you create 80% liquid oxygen and liquid methane fuel using electricity. We intend to manufacture renewable propellant over the long term.
AS L: Space X is a success, you allowed NASA to send men back to the SSI.
your target :Moon 2025, Mars 2030. Will you go to Mars?
EM : I would love to go to Mars but that's not the most important thing. The most important thing is to allow Humanity to become multiplanetary. What is important is to have enough people and material to ensure life on Mars. You have to have a goal that motivates you in the morning when you get up.
AS L: April 20 the Mega Rocket exploded, debris fell on sensitive areas is what you consider collateral damage.
EM: The zones are not that fragile. These are salt ponds. No real life in these spaces.
AS L: so if there is a lawsuit you will win.
EM: yes, you just have to see these areas to understand. There was no impact on the environment
AS L: Another subject: AI subject, you have requested a break. We were surprised you asked?
EM: Very powerful techno, certainly more powerful than nuclear energy. If we use nuclear technology for civilians, it's perfect, but for military use, I'm against it. It's the same on the AI.
There are risks of people using AI for bad purposes. For example to manipulate public opinion. Each country has its own approach to the use of AI. The example that comes to mind is manipulation to make the public believe in implausible things. Clever AI can start a war with fake accounts by inciting anger. AI could create enough anger to start a war.
AS L: you understand that Europe wants to regulate ,you who do not like regulations in general
EM: I am not against regulation on principle. Regulations must be in the interest of people, to protect and serve them, not to constrain them. I agree with 99% of the regulations.
AS L: You say , you have to take a break but you still created a start-up on AI X-AI, the purpose of your Truth GPT software will be to seek the truth. How do we find reality?
E.M: it's still embryonic, however when I added my name to the list, I didn't think people would be so interested. I put my name on the list to slow down not stop. Of course nothing was stopped. So there are two possibilities, either being an observer and doing nothing or being a participant. And I prefer to be a participant.
[From here I tried to translate exactly word for word.]
AS L: You talk about seeking the truth, it's not really your priority on Twitter.
You fired about 80% of the staff, including the famous moderators who had to monitor the networks to avoid racist messages, calls for violence, hatred. Do you not regret the relatively radical choice, when you know how much can proliferate on a social network.
EM: We haven't reduced the moderation activity per se. Moderation is carried out by about 4000 collaborators and the work has remained the same. Anything hate speech is down 20-40% since the acquisition. So it's less and not more.
AS L: This is not what the various studies say
105% increase in anti-Semitic messages (images on screen)
EM: I don't know what stat you're talking about.
AS L: There are various studies that have been carried out, in particular American
(on Screen: 200% increase in racial slurs) including your interaction with extremists that you could effectively encourage on the network the return of accounts that had been deleted. It is all this observation that has made advertisers leave.
EM: Listen to me, I saw a very rigorous study which measured hate messages and which had decreased, I believe by 30%. We should look at the data. Without the data, we cannot prove anything, advance anything.
AS L: we can do study against study. Haven't you noticed these increasingly hateful speeches yourself?
EM: No, no, I persist in saying that there are fewer. Unless you have a very broad definition of the hate message. But we must avoid having too broad a definition because if everything becomes a message of hate, obviously we can no longer judge anything or else we must censor everything, but that completely blocks freedom of expression.
AS L: I was thinking of a concrete example a few days ago there was a shipwreck of migrants in the Mediterranean.
There were messages, they are still there, three days later. (on screen the message “It was all-you-can-eat buffet for the fish”. )
AS L: Things like that which are extremely violent because there are hundreds of deaths, desperate people. That remains, is that normal?
EM: What we find in bad taste or unpleasant, should it be censored? We are not going to censor it even if it is something that we strongly dislike. Because where else do we stop? If you don't like something and you censor it, sooner or later you will be the one to be censored.
AS L: The message I told you about is extremely violent, we are talking about eating the bodies of migrants. It's still a rather special humor.
EM: Obviously it's in very bad taste, I agree with you on this and obviously we're not going to promote anything on it. Again, it's a balance where you place the cursor. What is in good and bad taste, acceptable or not acceptable. What should be censored or not. So obviously if there is something illegal, we react immediately but if we are asked to go beyond what the law prescribes and we are asked to censor any form of expression, then I will say no . It would be a mistake. So on the other hand if a law is promulgated. Because the law in a democracy represents the will of the people. If the law represents the will of the people, then it must be respected. Now if we want to enact certain laws, we will have to respect them. On the other hand, to tell ourselves that we are going to put ourselves above the law and do more than the law. I think that's not good.
AS L: Precisely Europe has a new DSA regulation which will be applied from August 25th which aims precisely to ensure that what we find on twitter is prohibited when it is prohibited in real life. You don't intend to apply it?
EM: Twitter will obey the law, respect the law. If a law is enacted, I repeat, Twitter is committed to respecting it.
AS L: it is a European regulation so you will comply with this European regulation. Because anyway otherwise you will pay fines, it could be 300 million dollars at first and you could even be banned from Europe. You will do everything not to be banned from Europe.
E.M: yes, I have already said it, Twitter will respect the regulations. This is the fourth time I've said it, or the third.
AS L: It's good that we hear it, some time ago french Minister doubted it and threatened to banish you from France and Europe. You heard that message there too?
Em: You know, for the nth time, Twitter is not going to break the law. Twitter will comply with the regulations. We are not going to be more royalist than the king and be so zealous that we go beyond the legal provisions. If there are provisions that we want enacted, they will be enacted and we will respect them. But we, a private company, do not want to go beyond the will of the people and do more.
AS L: I was saying that you had lost advertisers since your arrival, in fact, they say, half of the advertisers. Today, this company that you bought for 44 billion, is it worth half? Did you cause this company to lose value in the end?
EM: It doesn't bother me, it doesn't worry me too much. I don't care about money
AS L: Are you not interested in the health of your business?
EM: The main thing is not to make a loss. And there we do not make a loss.
So it's true the advertisers have left us but there are many who come back.
AS L: A lot but 50% had left you, how many have come back?
EM: I think almost all the advertisers came back or said they would come back.
ASL: All? Coke, Nike?
EM: I'm not saying every advertiser, I think it's fine.
AS L: You asked the question "should I run Twitter", by poll on your network, it was quite brave, 17.5 million people voted and said no to you at 57.5%. Did it hurt you. Did it annoy you?
EM: no
AS L: Did you expect this response?
EM: Yes
AS L: In fact, you wanted to leave?
EM: But I didn't expect to be the CEO either.
AS L: your place at the head of several strategic companies and social networks gives you a particular role, a particular importance. You are received as a head of state, including by the Chinese president. Would you like to become President of the Republic of the USA one day?
EM: no, no, I don't want to. You know, people sometimes imagine that the President of the United States is in a very powerful position. So yes in a way, of course, but the American Constitution is such that the office of President is in a very limited position, in fact.
President is like being in the cabin of a very large boat with a very small oar or a small rudder.
You are accused of everything and there is nothing you can do.
AS L: Are you telling me that you are more powerful than the President of the USA?
EM: So let's say I can't declare war.
AS L: For the moment, you have explained how it can be done on Twitter with fake news.
EM: We will ensure that the war does not come because of social networks. What I can tell you is that the freedom of action of a President of the United States is extremely limited. I just told you. And it's done on purpose. It was designed for that. And so if I were president I could not, for example, send rockets to the Moon or to Mars. Send people to live there, create sustainable electric vehicles. I won't be able to do all of this and I won't want to give up on all of this.
AS L: Thank you very much EM for accepting this interview. And enjoy Paris, it's a very beautiful city
EM: Thank you very much. Merci beaucoup
@
@elonmusk
Guest
@
@tegmark
Guest
It's disgraceful that US & EU policymakers prefer getting advice on how to regulate AI from AI company leaders instead of academic experts like Bengio, Hinton & Russell who lack conflicts of interest: Exclusive: OpenAI Lobbied E.U. to Water Down AI Regulation
@
@elonmusk
Guest
@
@eldsjal
Guest
@
@elonmusk
Guest
@