this post was submitted on 09 Dec 2024
511 points (80.6% liked)

People Twitter

5383 readers
568 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a tweet or similar
  4. No bullying or international politcs
  5. Be excellent to each other.
  6. Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 245 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (7 children)

Many people have reported this as a fake tweet. I don't have time to be the tweet police. What is everyone's thoughts about having a link to the actual tweet or other social media link?

Edit: Please stop reporting this. They may have re-posted this from somewhere else and didn't know or it might not be fake. I'm not going to x to find out. From now on, please provide an archived link to all politicians and major figures.

[–] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 81 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I'm for it. This is like the 15th fake Elon Musk tweet I've seen today

[–] Annoyed_Crabby@monyet.cc 60 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Yes, but an archived link so tweet cannot be deleted.

[–] pelespirit@sh.itjust.works 37 points 2 weeks ago

Good point, I'll change the sticky.

[–] sexy_peach 25 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 31 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

I'm not the mod you're talking to, but I assume they aren't deleting it because OP posted it before providing a link was a rule, and it might not be a fake tweet. I mean it is fake, but I can't prove that.

Personally I'm in favor of mods erring on the side of not removing content if there's any uncertainty, even if it's a bit annoying seeing this fake tweet

[–] sexy_peach 8 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It's misleading on the people Twitter sub. Fake Wikipedia articles hard to distinguish would be misleading on a Wikipedia sub

[–] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 weeks ago

It really feels like you didn't actually read what I wrote

[–] ByteJunk@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago

This is the way.

[–] TriflingToad@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week ago

well, was it true? I don't wanna go to xitter to find out :(

[–] EvilZ@thelemmy.club -3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

If this was true....Nd I wouldn't be surprised that he would sya such a thing as... Making profit for the share holders. Is justified even if ruthlessly done....

I remember watching a documentary, it may have been Robert Reich that was explaining how businesses in the 1970's made profits but the difference between the owner and the employee was high but still within a certain logic. Companies still had the philosophy that you should keep your employees for 30 years and treat them with a certain respect whereas today... A lot of big business are there for the shareholder and screw the employee. They are selfish anyway.... Wanting more than minimal salary 🙄

Then again, I love reading Robert Reich.... https://robertreich.substack.com/p/the-paid-what-youre-worth-myth

And yet another good article : https://robertreich.substack.com/p/if-bosses-are-raking-it-in-shouldnt

[–] topherclay@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

"This isn't true but it may as well be, because it feels true to me" is always such a disappointing thing to see commented under misinformation.

[–] EvilZ@thelemmy.club 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

What would be the misinformation? A typical working family in the 1970 could survive and feed their family. Today, a working family barely make enough money to pay for rent.

If CEO deserve their pay (hypothetically) then why would the employee not equally get higher salary increase?

Please explain how business have not, at least in the last 30 years, focused on gaining high profit for shareholders and care very little of the consumer or the workers.

A CEO goal is not to serve the board to the point of ripping a business apart. In that same breath, a Board should actually be held accountable to not pillage companies to simply increase their already big portfolio...

[–] topherclay@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

If this was true....Nd I wouldn't be surprised that he would sya such a thing as...

It wasn't true.