Elon Musk buying Twitter

[Frank Underwood]

I was hopeful that Musk would have thicker skin and let free speech thrive, but I'm not surprised to learn he's a bullshitter. Musk was repugnant to begin with. The problem I have with many of Musk's critics is they're upset over who he's targeting. Many of them support censoring right wingers or even progressives who challenge the establishment.

I also can't bring myself to feel sorry for Eli Lilly. Bernie Sanders tweeted "Let's be clear. Eli Lilly should apologize for increasing the price of insulin by over 1,200% since 1996 to $275 while it costs less than $10 to manufacture. The inventors of insulin sold their patents in 1923 for $1 to save lives, not to make Eli Lilly's CEO obscenely rich."

So yeah, I won't be shedding any tears if a fake tweet cut into their profits.

 

[tommie]

Right. Now people can acknowledge that social media like Twitter have become a part of our infrastructure and is a public service rather than just a private company.

Weird how Twitter actually went from public to private with the buy-out from Elon though.

Look, I think it's constructive that people can finally have this sort of realisation, but as someone who has been yelling very loudly that social media companies aren't just private companies but has creeped their way into becoming part of the infrastructure this is bittersweet. People finally acknowledge this, but they only do it because they hate Musk. It makes me roll my eyes.

 

[Jock Ewing Fan]

Let me see if I understand. CBS News left Twitter and then changed course and resumed?

Reminds me of "Just when I think I'm out, they pull me back in" LOL

CBS News Resumes Twitter Posting After Hiatus Over ‘Security Concerns’

CBS News resumed tweeting after halting activity on the Elon Musk-owned Twitter for around 40 hours because of "security concerns."

variety.com

 

[Jock Ewing Fan]

Right. Now people can acknowledge that social media like Twitter have become a part of our infrastructure and is a public service rather than just a private company.

Weird how Twitter actually went from public to private with the buy-out from Elon though.

Look, I think it's constructive that people can finally have this sort of realisation, but as someone who has been yelling very loudly that social media companies aren't just private companies but has creeped their way into becoming part of the infrastructure this is bittersweet. People finally acknowledge this, but they only do it because they hate Musk. It makes me roll my eyes.

It is complicated. Twitter seems to fit numerous categories.

 

[Angela Channing]

If you give terrible people the ability to say anything they like, you can’t be surprised when they say something terrible.

 

[Frank Underwood]

It's so strange to witness this political realignment where the left has become pro-war, anti-bodily autonomy, and anti-free speech.

 

[Frank Underwood]

If you give terrible people the ability to say anything they like, you can’t be surprised when they say something terrible.

As far as I can tell, nobody's making that argument. As someone who advocates for free speech, I do so knowing terrible people will say terrible things.

I always thought the point of free speech was so that all thoughts and ideas can be part of the public discourse where they are vigorously debated and challenged.

Besides, who gets to be the arbiter of terrible and acceptable speech? There's a reason free speech isn't reserved for people of pristine moral character, whatever that may be.

 

[Rove]

Here is an interesting article I thought you might find of interest @Frank Underwood

< https://www.news.com.au/technology/...s/news-story/18c99c03d564fd377ba757a4f0c89eae >

It speaks volumes how The White House is treating one company, Apple, differently to another, Twitter.

 

[Angela Channing]

As far as I can tell, nobody's making that argument. As someone who advocates for free speech, I do so knowing terrible people will say terrible things.

I always thought the point of free speech was so that all thoughts and ideas can be part of the public discourse where they are vigorously debated and challenged.

Besides, who gets to be the arbiter of terrible and acceptable speech? There's a reason free speech isn't reserved for people of pristine moral character, whatever that may be.

As Mr Musk is discovering, freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom of consequences. Having removed the ban on Ye, he swiftly decided to reimpose it after Ye posted material that many thought was antisemitic and inciting violence.

Total freedom to say whatever you want, whenever you want might be good in theory but there are too many bad people who will abuse that freedom which makes it necessary to have safeguards and guidelines.

 

[Frank Underwood]

As Mr Musk is discovering, freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom of consequences. Having removed the ban on Ye, he swiftly decided to reimpose it after Ye posted material that many thought was antisemitic and inciting violence.

Total freedom to say whatever you want, whenever you want might be good in theory but there are too many bad people who will abuse that freedom which makes it necessary to have safeguards and guidelines.

Yes, and I've basically said the same thing in prior posts. Libel and inciting violence are illegal, and therefore don't fall under free speech.

That said, speech that doesn't fall outside the law should be fair game IMO. If speech is truly abhorrent, I say let it be challenged and judged as such.

 

[tommie]

People often seem to have issues with differentiating between libel, slander and incitement and "speech I don't like".

Often they want to ban "speech I don't like" along with the former, never realising that one day they might find themselves on the other side of that particular fence. Like when a billionaire buys their favourite platform of choice. Ooopsy-daisy, time to defend free speech then!

 

[Angela Channing]

Yes, and I've basically said the same thing in prior posts. Libel and inciting violence are illegal, and therefore don't fall under free speech.

That said, speech that doesn't fall outside the law should be fair game IMO. If speech is truly abhorrent, I say let it be challenged and judged as such.

So it's a question of who is better to decide what is or is not allowed.

In the UK, crime can be prosecuted as a hate crime if the offender has shown hostility based on race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity so a lot of the abuse on Twitter is illegal but authorities do not take the necessary action because of limited resources. It's why our government are looking for ways to force social media companies to ensure they users stay within the law. I think these decisions are better taken by elected lawmakers than the whim of a billionaire right-wing capitalist.

 

[tommie]

So it's a question of who is better to decide what is or is not allowed.

In the UK, crime can be prosecuted as a hate crime if the offender has shown hostility based on race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity so a lot of the abuse on Twitter is illegal but authorities do not take the necessary action because of limited resources. It's why our government are looking for ways to force social media companies to ensure they users stay within the law. I think these decisions are better taken by elected lawmakers than the whim of a billionaire right-wing capitalist.

No one cares about the UK lol.

 

[Frank Underwood]

So it's a question of who is better to decide what is or is not allowed.

In the UK, crime can be prosecuted as a hate crime if the offender has shown hostility based on race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity so a lot of the abuse on Twitter is illegal but authorities do not take the necessary action because of limited resources. It's why our government are looking for ways to force social media companies to ensure they users stay within the law. I think these decisions are better taken by elected lawmakers than the whim of a billionaire right-wing capitalist.

I don't understand how a foreign government can dictate how a US social media company operates outside of banning access to it if it violates their laws.

I don't like that these decisions are made at the whim of billionaire capitalists, but that's who ran Twitter prior to Musk. Whether they lean left or right shouldn't be the issue.

I believed social media should be regulated as a public utility, but with the Biden Administration pushing censorship while "keeping an eye on Twitter," even that's concerning.

 

[Angela Channing]

I don't understand how a foreign government can dictate how a US social media company operates outside of banning access to it if it violates their laws.

Fine Twitter if they don't take down illegal material within 24 hours.

 

[tommie]

Fine Twitter if they don't take down illegal material within 24 hours.

This concerns you... suddenly.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

If even true, probably done by the woke mob to "prove" that Musk's reign is a disaster before it has time to actually become a disaster.

 

[Frank Underwood]

If even true, probably done by the woke mob to "prove" that Musk's reign is a disaster before it has time to actually become a disaster.

I was thinking about that too. I'm certainly interested to know how they arrived at those percentages and what kind of monitoring has taken place.

 

[Angela Channing]

This concerns you... suddenly.

no, it's a long time concern I've had with social media as I have personally received racist abuse on it.

If even true, probably done by the woke mob to "prove" that Musk's reign is a disaster before it has time to actually become a disaster.

I was thinking about that too. I'm certainly interested to know how they arrived at those percentages and what kind of monitoring has taken place.

The research was carried independently out by the Center for Countering Digital Hate, the Anti-Defamation League and other groups that study online platforms. They search for key words and phrases such as n*gg*r and f*gg*t and count the tweets they find.

Hate Speech’s Rise on Twitter Is Unprecedented, Researchers Find (Published 2022)

Problematic content and formerly barred accounts have increased sharply in the short time since Elon Musk took over, researchers said.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

no, it's a long time concern I've had with social media as I have personally received racist abuse on it.




The research was carried independently out by the Center for Countering Digital Hate, the Anti-Defamation League and other groups that study online platforms. They search for key words and phrases such as n*gg*r and f*gg*t and count the tweets they find.

Hate Speech’s Rise on Twitter Is Unprecedented, Researchers Find (Published 2022)

Problematic content and formerly barred accounts have increased sharply in the short time since Elon Musk took over, researchers said.

www.nytimes.com

Which doesn't rule out false flags -- which many of them probably are.