82 Comments
User's avatar
⭠ Return to thread
Sheila Bryan's avatar

Mark is a businessman. It’s bottom line that drives him. I’m sure you could work a deal for autonomy if he’s making profit. Start discussions. Keep Musk away!

Expand full comment
Sal Teodoro's avatar

Absolutely, Musk definitely has to be kept away. And work out a deal with Mark that lets you run it and make it profitable for him, it’s a win win.

Expand full comment
Therese Tetzel's avatar

I love the idea but 100% autonomy.

Expand full comment
makerspace1919 Mack's avatar

Agree totally.

Expand full comment
Lights Seiferlein's avatar

Autonomy is 100% critical.

Expand full comment
Janine's avatar

KEEP MUSK OUT OF IT!!!

Expand full comment
Bill Riley's avatar

Yes! Cuban should buy MSNBC right now, before Musk can wrap his fascist fists around it. We can all talk about who should administer it later on.

Expand full comment
KRISTEN STAFFORD -HOWE's avatar

He wants to buy everybody out and own the US and us that's slave laborers picture that with a Kodak

Expand full comment
DevineFeminine's avatar

You’re not wrong. But he won’t be allowed to

Expand full comment
Victoria Druding's avatar

He doesn't need to make money all the time. Check out his Pharmacy. it's amazing.....and he surely isn't making money off that pharmacy. he does have a conscious and is concerned about people which is more than we can say about many others.

Expand full comment
Lee Rowan's avatar

CONSCIENCE. A sense of right/wrong is a CONSCIENCE.

"Conscious" means awake, opposite of unconscious.

Expand full comment
Fiona Gray's avatar

This person is entitled to have an opinion, even if it may differ from yours. It's incredibly rude of you to think that you are entitled to point out improper use of words in another person's post just because their opinion may not be one that you hold.

Expand full comment
Rock Bottom Nation's avatar

conscious and conscience are two very different words, so the fact that the wrong one was used and was politely corrected means you're basically finger wagging at someone who's making sure that the OP's meaning is understood.

There is no opinion on what these words mean, they're in the dictionary

Expand full comment
Fiona Gray's avatar

Well I think I would disagree with it being described as politely corrected. There was no explanation as to why he felt the need to point out the difference, just a blunt comment describing the meaning of the words, written using quite a curious mix of capitalisations.

"There is no opinion on what these words mean, they're in the dictionary" now you are either being ignorant or facetious.

Expand full comment
Rock Bottom Nation's avatar

It's self evident why there was a need to point out the difference, because different words have different meanings. If you can't see that using the correct word in a communication only via text is maybe important to the message that's trying to be sent, well that's on you.

We can agree to disagree if you're not convinced, because I'm not going to waste another second arguing about it. Your quote of mine is me highlighting that these are matters of fact and not opinion, there's no secret meaning behind it. Just as there didn't appear to be any secret meaning about that person's distinction between two words that mean very different things but sound alike, until you made it a thing. Was it even your post he corrected? Why do you care so much?

I don't really know or care what the answers to those questions are but maybe you wanna ask yourself why you're having such a visceral reaction to meaning that you assigned yourself - and seemingly no one else did so.

Good luck

Expand full comment
Jeff Potts's avatar

Lee was correcting Victoria's grammar, not saying her opinion was incorrect or different from his/hers.

Expand full comment
Fiona Gray's avatar

No, he wasn't correcting her grammar. Do you understand what grammar is?

Expand full comment
Jeff Potts's avatar

Do you? Grammar is using the correct words and/or phrases in a sentence. She didn't use the correct word. You tell me, was she trying to say that they didn't have a conscience or if they were conscious? She used "conscious". So that wasn't the correct word. Quit being so hateful. We need to unite against the MAGA agenda. Fighting amongst ourselves is just what they want.

Expand full comment
Lee Rowan's avatar

It was spelling, not grammar, and there seem to be so many people who DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE that I pointed it out.

Expand full comment
Fiona Gray's avatar

No, you weren't correcting her spelling.

She spelled the word correctly.

I suggest next time you feel the need to point out errors that you do it in a more positive and kind way , and not such a blunt and offensive way.

I doubt very much if Ben used a wrong word by accident that you would leave such a blunt comment.

Expand full comment
Lee Rowan's avatar

It's rather rude of you to correct me for letting someone know they were using the wrong word. I don't argue with her opinion. But there is no such thing as "a conscious." It may have been autofinish, and that can be reset. Please note I did not ridicule Ms Druding's opinion.

Expand full comment
Fiona Gray's avatar

It does not really matter how you choose to try to get out of the fact that you made the decision to bluntly point out someone's error. It says a lot about how riled you are by my pointing this out.

Expand full comment
Lisa Thalmann's avatar

Why did you feel the necessity of pointing out a misspelled word? We are in a fight to keep our democracy, not a spelling bee! Stay focused young MM! 🩷🩷

Expand full comment
Lee Rowan's avatar

I can walk and chew gum at the same time and when someone says "they have a conscious" they sound silly. Don't tell me what to focus on, Lisa. Why did YOU feel the necessity to tell me it was naughty to point out that someone used not a misspelled word, but the wrong word? Hmm?

Expand full comment
Rock Bottom Nation's avatar

you're in the right here and people are doing what they do on the internet (which imo is one of the huge problems of it) , misreading the situation and using their self appointed righteousness to scold others.

The correct response to your post was "oh, you're right, oops" - and then keep it movin.

Expand full comment
Fiona Gray's avatar

Sigh

Expand full comment
Lee Rowan's avatar

I once had an editor REWRITE a story I'd submitted without letting me see it before publishing. When I complained, she said every editor had that right (not true), and added, "My conscious is clear."

People don't read enough, don't learn to spell very well, and depend on spellcheck WAY too much. I make typos. If somebody points one out that screws up meaning, I fix it or say, "damn autofinish." Or maybe "whoops!"

Expand full comment
Rock Bottom Nation's avatar

This little microslice of 2024 life is a perfect caricature of what technology has done to our attitudes. Someone makes a well meaning post, uses the wrong word with a similar sounding word that has a vastly different meaning. Someone corrects it, maybe slightly annoyingly but not wrongly or in a way that denigrates original poster. People take sides, waste words judging each other on a matter that shouldn't have taken up more than 10 seconds of anyones day.

MAGA maybe full of morons and scumbags and assholes, but what boggles my mind are that the same people who call them out for it have their own very flawed version of themselves that they show to the world, thus talking out both sides of their mouth.

No one can convince me that my social theory about how asynchronous text only communications over the internet have taken up alot of time and energy on things that in a different world where people focused on more important things and had meaningful, real human connection, is flawed. I've been observing communication patterns (and also participating in them myself, I'm not perfect and I can admit that) for 5 years now and if there was one thing I could pick that no one typically thinks about when trying to figure out why things are on fire, it would be this reason. Just my take on why the culture seems so broken that I've almost self selected out of it.

Expand full comment
Fiona Gray's avatar

I can't believe you two are still banging on about this.

Lee is it because you actually realise that you very possibly, maybe just a tad, could have been just a teeny weeny little bit kinder in the way you pointed out that lady's mistake?

It's ok to admit things like that, and guess what, I'm also allowed to take umbrage at the way you said it.

I'll bid you both farewell now.

Expand full comment
Lee Rowan's avatar

And here you are banging on yourself. I don't think there is ANY WAY I could have been a 'teeny weeny little bit kinder.' Any correction is seen as flaming. It's a shame I can't block all you "kindly" people who seem determined to lecture me on etiquette. I hope you mean it when you bid farewell. But I doubt it.

Expand full comment
Rock Bottom Nation's avatar

Whoever thought social media was a good idea, I don't think they understood human interaction very well. Asynchronous, text only communication has probably produced more pointless arguments and misunderstandings than anything else.

What people like that don't realize is that they're actually revealing their own intentions and projecting them onto other people, which is just another form of cognitive dissonance.

Case in point : the "banging on" she referred to was about 3 out of my day that I would have forgotten about had I not checked my email today.

Expand full comment
Moon Cat's avatar

I've found that I can type the word I want and as I continue on spell check changes it. So now I stop and carefully review my text before hitting send. Even then things slip through.

Expand full comment
Susan G Unkert's avatar

Hell yeah, Mark Cuban would be great!

Expand full comment
Dave Cassenti's avatar

There’s probably a way to have someone invest in Meidas but remove them from any control. Jimmy Carter put his peanut farm into a blind trust when he was president; could something like this be done for anyone wanting to invest in Meidas?

Expand full comment
If I was a duck's avatar

This would be perfect, to keep is out of Muskrat's filthy paws!

Expand full comment
Lee Rowan's avatar

Of course there is. And you may not know that the blind trust Carter hired screwed up his investments something awful. Look it up if you don't believe me.

Expand full comment
Moon Cat's avatar

So sorry to hear that.

Expand full comment
Deeann Gibbs's avatar

Do you suppose Cuban could buy a Supreme Court Justice as well? Apparently they are for sale.a

Expand full comment
Gatekeeperken's avatar

It's a chess game for billionaires. We lost because we had no microphone. Repubs own all the media. It's simple math but big money.

Expand full comment
Dennis Ryan's avatar

I like the objective of "discussions". The idea(s) that come from doing so - good ones and not-so-good - can have significant benefits.

Expand full comment
Lana Clasen's avatar

...- I agree. 💯👍

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Nov 24
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
Lee Rowan's avatar

He's also a savvy businessman and if he invests in MSNBC he will expect to make a profit. It can be win-win. Giving away 100% ownership...? What if Musk attacks it and tries a takeover. Altruism is a fine thing but you should remember that the super-altruistic doctors who discovered insulin, Banting and Best, SOLD THE PATENT for $1 so nobody would ever die of diabetes again.

And then the corporate pharma cannibals got it. It's best not to give things away that may need to be protected.

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Nov 23
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
Deborah Martin Shorter's avatar

There's been reporting that Musk wants to buy MSNBC. Excuse me while I go throw up.

Expand full comment
Lynn Matsuoka's avatar

MEE TOO! DON'T LET HIM DO THAT!!!!! PLEASE CONTACT MARK ASAP!

Expand full comment
Diana Mauro's avatar

Why do we care? Haven't you already stopped watching TV media? They're the same exact thing as Fox. Except for our side.

Expand full comment
JJ Jimenez's avatar

Not everyone is going digital. I am very random online. I get newsletters from MTN, a few others but I watch t.v. A lot! And I like a lot of the shows on MSNBC, tho' they do irritate sometimes. And, yes...I am a boomer....

Expand full comment
Lights Seiferlein's avatar

That'll get you made fun of in some circles. Even though a lot of boomers voted for Harris--and a lot of younger people voted for Trump.. I'm a Boomer, too, BTW.

Expand full comment
Lynn Matsuoka's avatar

NO-we cannot stop watching or supporting.... WE MUST HAVE THE CORRECT, democratic, and TRUTHFUL commentary going out daily! Many times daily!

Expand full comment
Sheila S's avatar

That’s the thing, though.. if Elon buys up MSNBC, there will be no “us”😏.

Expand full comment
Rose Maly, MD, MSPH's avatar

Fuck Space Nazi Musk, aka “Elonia” (Melan-ia, get it?).

Expand full comment
Moi's avatar

Musk could easily enter the equation, and it would be a mistake to ignore him.

Expand full comment
Claude Hopkins's avatar

Some entities Need to be Ignored!!

Expand full comment
Lee Rowan's avatar

You don't ignore a rattlesnake under your bed, Claude.

Expand full comment
Moi's avatar

Not when they're a threat.

Expand full comment
Shame On ‘em's avatar

How would it be a mistake to ignore Musty? 🤔

Expand full comment
Moi's avatar

Seriously? The same way it would be a mistake to ignore the lion that's about to eat you.

Expand full comment
KRISTEN STAFFORD -HOWE's avatar

Has anybody learned any lessons yet about that

Expand full comment
Lights Seiferlein's avatar

Apparently not.

Expand full comment
TCinLA's avatar

He's talking about jumping into the equation is why.

Expand full comment
Steve Fredrick's avatar

I see him as desperate to be in Trump's orbit to the point of doing whatever Trump wants...a fluffer wannabe.

Expand full comment
Lee Rowan's avatar

No. Musk's the same sort of psychopath Rump is -- and he's younger, and has way more money. He wants to see Rump destroy the Constitution and then make himself dictator. With narcissists it is ALWAYS ABOUT POWER OVER OTHERS.

Expand full comment
Lynn Matsuoka's avatar

true, but their personalities are not compatible. I believe people who are saying Trump is going to get rid of him are correct. dt already has all the millions in his pocket, he doesn't need more right now. He can't have somebody speaking louder and faster than he is.

Expand full comment
Lights Seiferlein's avatar

We still need to see if Mark Cuban would be interested in something with MTN. Call it...anti-Elon insurance. We're not guaranteed that YouTube will always be there allowing all points of view. This way, MTN can get info out to so many others.

Expand full comment
Monique Ponsot's avatar

But they can't do it without the expertise of someone from the industry, like Keith Olbermann. Great and important as they are and have been, MTN needs experienced voices too. Enthusiasm is crucial & critical but time is short. This needs consideration, if serious, ASAP. IMO

Expand full comment
Gina's avatar

Wannabe? He already IS.

Expand full comment
Susan Weiss's avatar

Didn't nearly half the country vote for him to be vice president?

Expand full comment
Noah's avatar

Fucktard trump could not even get a majority...He is below 50% of the popular vote. So answer to your question is NEARLY doesnt count.

Expand full comment
Lynn Matsuoka's avatar

RIGHT! EAT IT, rump jr. DT has no mandate- he won by a hair.

Expand full comment
Susan Weiss's avatar

I didn't bother with the total count on his winning. I was looking at the group as a whole.

Expand full comment
MarieMeagan McLellan's avatar

MUSK is never to be underestimated ! In chess, to win is to know your opponent as well as yourself , and think ahead!

MUSK is omnipresent in all current means of communications- from satellites to his social media platform.

MTN intrigues a genius mind and Elon is a genius.

Expand full comment
Lee Rowan's avatar

Apartheid Clyde is a con artist -- not a genius. He's probably the only person who ever spent 44 billion$ on a company which he subsequently trashed. He's not good at ANYTHING but conning suckers.

Expand full comment
Lights Seiferlein's avatar

Doesn't he just take others' work and claim it...kind of like Edison?

Expand full comment
Lee Rowan's avatar

Yep. And like Edison, he has media access so credulous people tend to believe him.

Expand full comment
Lights Seiferlein's avatar

Yep. Sadly.

Expand full comment
Jaws's avatar

the amount of money Musk has to play around with is dazzling, & that's what passes for genius - he plays them as soon as he sees someone start to salivate at the thought of the power they'd have for a portion of his $$$ - so to be called a genius because Musk has so much to piss away that his dribbles reveal the crap characters among us, well, call it genius if you want

Expand full comment
Steve Doll's avatar

You don't have to be good or care about others to be rich. And you only have to be devious to succeed in getting other people's money away from them to the extent that Muck has.

Expand full comment
Kiwi4Kamala's avatar

Have u not heard??!

Expand full comment
SatanicMajesty's avatar

He is already very much in the equation, unfortunately.

Expand full comment
ErrorError