| ▲ | toyg 4 days ago |
| Trump is critical of big tech that doesn't help him - I'm happy to bet he will oppose breaking up X as long as Musk is in his cabinet. Trying to describe Trump on a coherent ideological level is a fool's errand, like most strongmen he's just an opportunist. |
|
| ▲ | wil421 4 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| Why would X be broken up? When I think of Big Tech I certainly don’t think of companies like Twitter or Snapchat. |
| |
| ▲ | kelseyfrog 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | The defining feature of the privilege is that it's arbitrary. If it was governed by a set of consistent rules, then it would be less effective at making him feel like he had power - the system, rather, would have power instead. | | |
| ▲ | Jensson 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Twitter is very small compared to the likes of Google though, so not very big. It doesn't make sense to break up such a small company that basically just does one thing. |
| |
| ▲ | Workaccount2 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | The point is that even if X was a dominating monopoly, it would be fine because Elon is on Trumps nice list. Trump is a typical power whore who praises and protects those that kiss his feet, and admonishes and punishes those who don't. This is the same game that all these self-interested power hungry people play. |
|
|
| ▲ | llamaimperative 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| More informatively: Trump was in favor of eliminating Section 230 protections for Twitter after they fact-checked one of his lies about election security. Presumably he will now want to revoke Section 230 for non-Twitter companies. |
|
| ▲ | robertlagrant 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Why would you break up X? |
| |
| ▲ | dmd 4 days ago | parent [-] | | To get two fabulous new companies, > and <. Or maybe ^ and v ? Or / and \ ? | | |
| ▲ | robertlagrant 4 days ago | parent [-] | | I'm much more on board with this plan now. I want to see how many stock exchanges crash when I buy shares in < |
|
|
