This is such a classic "just asking questions" move. You could save a lot of time in your day if you concern trolled a little less.

In any case, you sure did a lot of creative reading to avoid reading this sentence:

  The algorithm now artificially boosted Musk’s tweets by a factor of 1,000 – a constant score that ensured his tweets rank higher than anyone else’s in the feed.

But that doesn't matter, does it? You're just going to construct something out of precision-selected tidbits anyway as a rebuttal. Really, I think that if you have something to say, you should just say it out loud from the outset instead of leading people around by the nose and wasting everyone's time.

> This is such a classic "just asking questions" move. You could save a lot of time in your day if you concern trolled a little less.

If only I would go along with mindless gossip without asking questions.

  The artificial boosts applied to his account remain in place, although the factor is now lower than 1,000, we’re told. 

Alas.

Nevermind breathless verge articles the dude was literally tweeting about all of this as they were tinkering.

> Really, I think that if you have something to say, you should just say it out loud from the outset instead of leading people around by the nose and wasting everyone's time.

It is very obvious to me and most here that some people hate Musk now so much they are willing to do exactly what you accused me of - construct something out of precision-selected tidbits - and throw shade that he is some far-right type. To certain people anybody they don't like is "far right" and <insert bad term here>.

This is very lame behavior. Cancel culture is canceled my friend. The ends do not justify the means.

>Stands to reason that 90 percent of followers should see tweets for a person they chose to follow..

It's difficult to take this kind of response in good faith. You asked for any proof and the article puts it pretty directly that he pressed for changes to systematically prioritize his own tweets (including to non-followers) and then do a strawman argument against one statement to dismiss the whole thing.

Seems like a reading comprehension issue. Difficult as it may be, try to re-read in good faith with your programmer hat on.

To me the key part of the article is this bit:

> he seemed to suggest that the changes would be walked back, at least in part. “Please stay tuned while we make adjustments to the uh .… “algorithm,” he tweeted.

> Absurd as Musk’s antics are, they do highlight a tension familiar to almost anyone who has ever used a social network: why are some posts more popular than others? Why am I seeing this thing, and not that one?

I actually saw this unfold in real time as he was tweeting about all of this in the open as it was happening (not just the milk meme) -- a lot of people tweeted at him that the algorithm was b0rked and he was replying and saying they were tinkering until they arrived at a place where, according to the very article, 90 percent of his and other peoples followers actually started seeing tweets from people they followed. This simply makes sense, no?

I don't see a smoking gun where he over prioritized his own tweets maliciously. They even deboosted his magic number as part of the cowboy debugging session.

Recall the original claim I was replying to is:

> It is a megaphone to amplify his own voice and the voices that support his viewpoints.

I just don't buy this narrative, forgive my skepticism. You can go look at his reply timeline and see for yourself and draw your own conclusions no need for the verge editorializing.

I understand some people view him as a malicious actor but going out of your way to ascribe the least charitable interpretation to everything is just not convincing to people who aren't invested in the politics. You're even directing this attitude towards me for not automatically agreeing with this viewpoint.