Musk buying Twitter
-
Never said anything against free speech (plus we're talking about a private platform)... But I'm convinced most of you don't even read posts on here from people you think you'll disagree with
Almost like there's more to it than just "musk good" or "musk bad", but I know that's as far as most of you think about things
Never said anything against free speech (plus we're talking about a private platform)...
I agree with Musk in his definition of Twitter being the de facto town square. When some San Francisco intern gets carte blanche to remove posts that they consider misleading or apply a label to them, without any transparency, you're okay with it? But when it's a right-leaning billionaire, who might get control of that, now these people have a problem with that? Sorry, but this is a consequence of the "it's a private company, they can do what they want." No one should have that kind of influence. Would Musk make that a reality for Twitter if he were to purchase it? Who knows? I'd love it, but I'd also love for him to run the toxic product into the ground.
Regardless, Musk's offer was more than fair considering their fiscal statement last year. I really did not give much consideration to social programming, but after seeing:
1 - People with no medical expertise chastising medical experts who dare question the methods being used to contain COVID. Then, watching them hand wave away all the harm they've done as "the lesser evil" once the omicron wave was over.
2- People who could not point out Ukraine on a map transform into zombies parroting talking points about how Ukraine represents the entire Western world.I now think there is something to the social programming angle. The offer was not accepted because it's not about money and it's about control. The board voted unanimously to decline the offer. Now, the board has opted to use a poison pill, which has allowed Vanguard and Blackrock, the wealthiest organizations in the country, to scoop up shares at lower prices, much to the chagrin of shareholders, in an effort to block Musk from attaining a majority ownership. We are approaching peak oligarchy, boys. Buckle up.
-
It goes back to what I've said in the past - and it twitter, etc, are not "private platforms" when they
are protected by the federal gov. Eventually, this should catch up with them.
Right now, the censorship invalidates Section 230 protection. But our gov is controlled by the left, so
the leftwing censorship of the social media entities is supported/ignored because it is politically advantageous.
If the shoe were on the other foot, all leftwing hell would be raged.
Similar to russia "media" and communist china "media".
-
Never said anything against free speech (plus we're talking about a private platform)...
I agree with Musk in his definition of Twitter being the de facto town square. When some San Francisco intern gets carte blanche to remove posts that they consider misleading or apply a label to them, without any transparency, you're okay with it? But when it's a right-leaning billionaire, who might get control of that, now these people have a problem with that? Sorry, but this is a consequence of the "it's a private company, they can do what they want." No one should have that kind of influence. Would Musk make that a reality for Twitter if he were to purchase it? Who knows? I'd love it, but I'd also love for him to run the toxic product into the ground.
Regardless, Musk's offer was more than fair considering their fiscal statement last year. I really did not give much consideration to social programming, but after seeing:
1 - People with no medical expertise chastising medical experts who dare question the methods being used to contain COVID. Then, watching them hand wave away all the harm they've done as "the lesser evil" once the omicron wave was over.
2- People who could not point out Ukraine on a map transform into zombies parroting talking points about how Ukraine represents the entire Western world.I now think there is something to the social programming angle. The offer was not accepted because it's not about money and it's about control. The board voted unanimously to decline the offer. Now, the board has opted to use a poison pill, which has allowed Vanguard and Blackrock, the wealthiest organizations in the country, to scoop up shares at lower prices, much to the chagrin of shareholders, in an effort to block Musk from attaining a majority ownership. We are approaching peak oligarchy, boys. Buckle up.
I agree with Musk in his definition of Twitter being the de facto town square. When some San Francisco intern gets carte blanche to remove posts that they consider misleading or apply a label to them, without any transparency, you're okay with it? But when it's a right-leaning billionaire, who might get control of that, now these people have a problem with that? Sorry, but this is a consequence of the "it's a private company, they can do what they want." No one should have that kind of influence. Would Musk make that a reality for Twitter if he were to purchase it? Who knows? I'd love it, but I'd also love for him to run the toxic product into the ground.
Regardless, Musk's offer was more than fair considering their fiscal statement last year. I really did not give much consideration to social programming, but after seeing:
1 - People with no medical expertise chastising medical experts who dare question the methods being used to contain COVID. Then, watching them hand wave away all the harm they've done as "the lesser evil" once the omicron wave was over.
2- People who could not point out Ukraine on a map transform into zombies parroting talking points about how Ukraine represents the entire Western world.I now think there is something to the social programming angle. The offer was not accepted because it's not about money and it's about control. The board voted unanimously to decline the offer. Now, the board has opted to use a poison pill, which has allowed Vanguard and Blackrock, the wealthiest organizations in the country, to scoop up shares at lower prices, much to the chagrin of shareholders, in an effort to block Musk from attaining a majority ownership. We are approaching peak oligarchy, boys. Buckle up.
First of all I'm not convinced this isn't just a pump and dump scheme by Musk
Why is Twitter the "town square" and what implications do you think that has?
It is a private company either way. I have no problem with how Parlor restricts things or how Twitter does. It is a private platform. As long as it literally isn't illegal then it is within their terms of service.
If Twitter is the town square what would that mean if Musk ran it into the ground? Is everything in the internet just destined to become toxic as it grows?
1. I can't speak directly to the situations you're referring to, but I imagine those people were taking the side of other medical professionals, usually experts in that field. I know more about how a bridge works than someone who isn't an engineer but I'm damn sure not an expert.
2. Yeah and now people are basically over Ukraine. Welcome to the internet. We also have a group of people that didn't care at all about Ukraine now pointing out all of its bio labs that are making secret bio weapons that Putin is trying to take out to save us from the Nazis with a war that isn't even real. I know which group I think is more harmful. Not to mention the whole aspect of the coverage where we care more now that the people involved in the war look like us and believe the things we believe in, but that's separate convo.
Social programming on the site that was a huge positive influence on how Trump got elected? A site that still has plenty of right wing influencers? Idk man... I'm not seeing some grand leftist thought control takeover here.
We've also already had only a handful of massive companies owning most of the media. Anything going on with Twitter is just part for the course. Is it good? No. But it's not unprecedented.
Just support independent journalism I guess.
I just don't see any of the news here as some grand mind control reconning or whatever. Again, I think I'm still leaning Musk pump and dump scheme.
-
I agree with Musk in his definition of Twitter being the de facto town square. When some San Francisco intern gets carte blanche to remove posts that they consider misleading or apply a label to them, without any transparency, you're okay with it? But when it's a right-leaning billionaire, who might get control of that, now these people have a problem with that? Sorry, but this is a consequence of the "it's a private company, they can do what they want." No one should have that kind of influence. Would Musk make that a reality for Twitter if he were to purchase it? Who knows? I'd love it, but I'd also love for him to run the toxic product into the ground.
Regardless, Musk's offer was more than fair considering their fiscal statement last year. I really did not give much consideration to social programming, but after seeing:
1 - People with no medical expertise chastising medical experts who dare question the methods being used to contain COVID. Then, watching them hand wave away all the harm they've done as "the lesser evil" once the omicron wave was over.
2- People who could not point out Ukraine on a map transform into zombies parroting talking points about how Ukraine represents the entire Western world.I now think there is something to the social programming angle. The offer was not accepted because it's not about money and it's about control. The board voted unanimously to decline the offer. Now, the board has opted to use a poison pill, which has allowed Vanguard and Blackrock, the wealthiest organizations in the country, to scoop up shares at lower prices, much to the chagrin of shareholders, in an effort to block Musk from attaining a majority ownership. We are approaching peak oligarchy, boys. Buckle up.
First of all I'm not convinced this isn't just a pump and dump scheme by Musk
Why is Twitter the "town square" and what implications do you think that has?
It is a private company either way. I have no problem with how Parlor restricts things or how Twitter does. It is a private platform. As long as it literally isn't illegal then it is within their terms of service.
If Twitter is the town square what would that mean if Musk ran it into the ground? Is everything in the internet just destined to become toxic as it grows?
1. I can't speak directly to the situations you're referring to, but I imagine those people were taking the side of other medical professionals, usually experts in that field. I know more about how a bridge works than someone who isn't an engineer but I'm damn sure not an expert.
2. Yeah and now people are basically over Ukraine. Welcome to the internet. We also have a group of people that didn't care at all about Ukraine now pointing out all of its bio labs that are making secret bio weapons that Putin is trying to take out to save us from the Nazis with a war that isn't even real. I know which group I think is more harmful. Not to mention the whole aspect of the coverage where we care more now that the people involved in the war look like us and believe the things we believe in, but that's separate convo.
Social programming on the site that was a huge positive influence on how Trump got elected? A site that still has plenty of right wing influencers? Idk man... I'm not seeing some grand leftist thought control takeover here.
We've also already had only a handful of massive companies owning most of the media. Anything going on with Twitter is just part for the course. Is it good? No. But it's not unprecedented.
Just support independent journalism I guess.
I just don't see any of the news here as some grand mind control reconning or whatever. Again, I think I'm still leaning Musk pump and dump scheme.
First of all I'm not convinced this isn't just a pump and dump scheme by Musk
Why is Twitter the "town square" and what implications do you think that has?
Twitter is the town square simply because it was the first and most successful website of its kind. Pump and dump is a possibility, but I also believe that if he made the changes he'd talked about in his TED talk this month, that there really is untapped potential within the platform. Unfortunately, it's been marred by the opaque moderation by the current people in charge, as I've mentioned.
It is a private company either way. I have no problem with how Parlor restricts things or how Twitter does. It is a private platform. As long as it literally isn't illegal then it is within their terms of service.
If Twitter is the town square what would that mean if Musk ran it into the ground? Is everything in the internet just destined to become toxic as it grows?
If that's what you believe, then I respect that. The problem is that the people running Twitter are gigantic hypocrites with double standards based on political beliefs. They literally had emergency meetings and authored a bunch of articles warning about the dangers of Nazism and hate speech if Elon bought the company and unbanned Trump. For your second question, I'd be thrilled if everyone at Twitter HQ quit, and the site traffic dwindled to nothing.
1. I can't speak directly to the situations you're referring to, but I imagine those people were taking the side of other medical professionals, usually experts in that field. I know more about how a bridge works than someone who isn't an engineer but I'm damn sure not an expert.
2. Yeah and now people are basically over Ukraine. Welcome to the internet. We also have a group of people that didn't care at all about Ukraine now pointing out all of its bio labs that are making secret bio weapons that Putin is trying to take out to save us from the Nazis with a war that isn't even real. I know which group I think is more harmful. Not to mention the whole aspect of the coverage where we care more now that the people involved in the war look like us and believe the things we believe in, but that's separate convo.
Sorry, this is an aside, but I feel the need to go into it. The bio-weapons chatter is deserved. Here are facts: Victoria Nuland is an undersecretary for the State Department and was also involved with the region during the Euromaidan uprising in 2014 (which was followed by the Russian annexation of Crimea). She stated, under oath, that she was concerned that content from biological research labs may fall into Russian hands (direct source below from c-span).
Source: https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5005520/senator-rubio-questions-undersecretary-nuland-biolabs-ukraine
Draw whatever conclusions that you may from that.As for the Nazi stuff, here's an article from 2018, in the midst of Trump and neo-Nazi white supremacy hysteria. When the 2018 Omnibus bill was signed into law, here's what Rep. Ro Khanna had to say about it. “White supremacy and neo-Nazism are unacceptable and have no place in our world, I am very pleased that the recently passed omnibus prevents the U.S. from providing arms and training assistance to the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion fighting in Ukraine.”
Source: https://thehill.com/policy/defense/380483-congress-bans-arms-to-controversial-ukrainian-militia-linked-to-neo-nazis/Here is a tweet from our friends at the ADL (the humorless idiots who helped cement 4chan memes into new white supremacy signals). Let's see what they had to say about Azov in 2019.
Here is what they are saying about these people now that Trump was out of the picture.
Source: https://www.adl.org/blog/why-is-putin-calling-the-ukrainian-government-a-bunch-of-nazis
And as demonstrated above, they go right back to getting people frothing at the mouth over the neo-Nazi threat, once someone right of center, like Musk comes along. There is more truth to it than the exaggerated conspiracy theories the MSM likes to focus on.Social programming on the site that was a huge positive influence on how Trump got elected? A site that still has plenty of right wing influencers? Idk man... I'm not seeing some grand leftist thought control takeover here.
...
I just don't see any of the news here as some grand mind control reconning or whatever. Again, I think I'm still leaning Musk pump and dump scheme.Yeah, Trump used the piece of shit site to bypass piece of shit lobbying and SuperPACs. This took everyone by surprise, so they changed the rules. For the 2016 election, I recall Trump's sons' ties to shady Russian oligarchs being used in attacks on Trump. For the 2020 election, when Biden's son was implicated in similar, shady dealings with Ukrainian oligarchs, the MSM, Twitter, Facebook, NPR all changed the rules by outright saying that they weren't going to discuss it. On social media, anyone who posted it on Zuckbook or Twitter got it labelled as misleading. The Hunter Biden-Burisma connection was something that even the NYT was investigating in 2015 before it became clear that Biden was the only one who could beat Trump in 2020. Sorry man, but if you're not seeing a clear case of bias here, then you're willfully ignoring it.
Just support independent journalism I guess.
Amen to that. Substack has been my go-to source, lately.
-
-
-
and now, for those who are interested in liberal bass-ackwards-land viewpoints:
MSNBC Warns That Free Speech On Twitter Would Be a 'Danger' to Free Speech — and It Perfectly Captures Where We Are
-
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login