Elon Musk threatens everyone with buying Twitter
Finally answering the question: How could one possibly make the social media platform any worse?
Aux Features Elon Musk
After weeks of uncomfortable flirting, professional Wario cosplayer Elon Musk finally made his intentions loud and clear to Twitter this morning: He sees through its awkward, dorky trappings and thinks that with some contact lenses and a hostile takeover, he can make it as sexy and financially lucrative as Tesla The Boring Company Neuralink SpaceX.
“I made an offer,” Musk tweeted earlier today alongside a link to his official, batshit SEC filing in which he promises to fork over $41 billion in exchange for a 100-percent stake in Twitter. “Twitter has extraordinary potential. I will unlock it,” his letter to chairman of the board concludes, like some half-assed Bond villain right before they press a Big Red Button to begin laser-drilling into the Moon.
In this case, “extraordinary potential” apparently means taking the company private and more rigorously adhering to Musk’s nebulous “free speech absolutist” position he avowed a couple weeks back—a philosophical concept he mostly chooses to exercise by making references to having sex in the “69" position and copy-pasting memes about transphobia and the assassination of John Lennon.
Musk’s other bandied changes include an “Edit” button and making Twitter’s algorithm open-source—yet another incredibly reductive and unclear goal in keeping with the world’s wealthiest man’s habit of overpromising and underdelivering on products that end up making everyone a little less safe than they were before Musk showed up.
Elon’s offered price for Twitter will likely be hard for investors to decline, although it’s very possible the Securities and Exchange Commission will not take kindly to his painfully obvious market fuckery, which included brazenly ignoring a federal deadline to inform investors of his initial massive buy of company stock last month.
While we would prefer not to care about this latest development, Musk’s brand of pseudo-intelligent edgelord behavior implies that, were he to actually acquire Twitter, he would almost certainly let a certain someone return to the platform—and that alone is cause for genuine concern.
Send Great Job, Internet tips to [email protected]
193 Comments
Good. I can’t think of a faster way to drive that cesspool in to the ground.
he he bought it and shut it down, the whole world would owe him a bj.
Imagine having $41 billion and this is what you choose to do with it.
Imagine having $41 billion and this is what you choose to do with it.Hmm, I could make sure the people in Flint Michigan clean drinking water or I can buy a platform that highlights and disseminates the worst of people’s id…sorry Flint!
No way he totally already solved that**according to his own statements and disputed by everyone who lives there
Flint has safe and clean water. Has had for about 3 years now. It’s why the university water research team went home. And why there isn’t news of lawsuits about any ongoing problems.
No.
lol fair.
Imagine having $41 billion and this is what you choose to do with it. Well, one thing money gives you is leisure time, so me? I’d go into the Dollar Store and buy something. 41 billion days in a row.
Would you close your eyes and just pick randomly, or would you have a plan? Since you’ll die before the end of 41 billion days, will you leave it to someone in your will with the express requirement that they carry on the daily dollar store visit, and their heirs carry on the visit, until the end of the days? I need to know more about all of this.
Ah.Only way I’d be for this is if he were to immediately shutter it.
People are high if they think Musk would buy Twitter to delete it. He would buy it to make Twitter the State TV of corporate fascism.
People are high if they think Musk would buy Twitter to delete it. Let’s be clear: I do not expect that to happen. I just really, REALLY fucking hate Twitter and want it to die.
The reasons you hate Twitter would increase tenfold if it was solely owned by Elon Musk.
Hence why I’m not in favor of him purchasing it, as he wouldn’t do what I’d like him to do with it.Like…I get it, man. I get that this is not ideal.
Infinity times ten is still infinity, so…
Nah, it would just shrivel up. There are already 100% right-wing twitter clones like Parler —hardly anyone uses them — not even the right-wingers themselves. They don’t want to talk to each other, they want to outrage leftists. If the leftists leave in a huff if Musk buys it, then it isn’t fun for the rightists.
Ok.
People have brain damage if they think ANYONE thinks Musk would buy twitter to delete it.The only thing stupider is to actually admit publicly that it’s what you think.Jesus. I mean…..JESUS.
You guys, I’m starting to think the guy might be a tad bit narcissistic maybe.
I read this in Norm Macdonald’s voice.
I was thinking more along the lines of Gregg Turkington, but Norm totally works!
Me too! It sounded like this:“________________________“
I did too, then I read it again in Gilbert Gottfried’s voice just for fun.
Some say it’s because he was bullied as a child, but I’m beginning to think he wasn’t bullied enough.
That’s nonsense and you know it. Lots of people are bullied and grow up to be perfectly polite and humble adults who are quite capable of self-reflection.
On the other hand, this notion of any amount of bullying being somehow necessary or useful is an absolutely terrible and wrong take and frankly I’m tired of hearing it.
That’s nonsense and you know it. Lots of people are bullied and grow up to be perfectly polite and humble adults who are quite capable of self-reflection. Correct. On the other hand, this notion of any amount of bullying being somehow necessary or useful is an absolutely terrible and wrong take and frankly I’m tired of hearing it. If you’ve never met an asshole who just would not be backed down any other way, I truly envy you, and wish you luck in avoiding such in the future.In my experience? Sometimes you’re dealing with a bully who is causing overt harm, and you need to lay that fucker low. At LEAST verbally.
We might have slightly different definitions of “bullying”.What you’re describing sounds to me like the act of defending yourself against a bully, not actual bullying.I used to get bullied in middle school, quite incessantly and mercilessly, sometimes by a mob. What I’m saying is that the act of constant, targeted abuse against one person or a small group of people is neither necessary nor useful.It is not, as some people would have you believe, character building, it doesn’t make you stronger (in fact it often creates lifelong trauma) and it doesn’t prevent anyone from becoming an asshole, no matter the amount.It is of course often a reality and must be dealt with. But these infuriating myths about it being somehow a good thing should really be put to rest.
Ah, gotcha. I was also bullied, which basically spurred me into my “fuck bullies, they get what they get” ethos.I agree with all of that. I came out pretty strong on the other side of bullying, but to credit bullying for strengthening me would assume that that’s the *only* way I could’ve found strength.
Yeah, me, I’m still kinda damaged to this day because of those experiences. The bits of strength I gained were a pretty lousy bargain, considering the cost. I think I can definitely take the credit for those, no need to give it to anyone who ever made my life hell for fun.
I’m not refer to “lots of people”. I’m referring to L. Ron Musk.
cALL ME WHEN YOU DO SOMETHING MASSIVE TO MAKE THE WORLD A BETTER PLACE?
I hate this keyboard
“Don’t yell at me, I have Asperger’s!”
What’s hamburgers?
aspie, too
Elon Musk is why you should never, ever give weird nerds power and money.
I prefer Musk’s abuse of power more than, say, the Sacklers or Kochs… At least weird nerds do their damage out in the open. (Which, yeah, I agree is like saying I’d prefer not having the blindfold in front of the firing squad but stick with me a second longer…)
Moreso, he is why you should never, ever give -anyone- that much power and money…
I think people often underestimate the damage done by powerful people who don’t crave the spotlight.
I prefer Musk’s abuse of power more than, say, the Sacklers or Kochs…Okay so you don’t actually oppose “abuse of power” if it’s in your favor. Got it.
I prefer Musk’s abuse of power more than, say, the Sacklers or KochsI didn’t say I supported the Sacklers or the Kochs, which is what you’re implying.You can fix ‘em all, you know.
Weird nerds are not a monolith, jocko
Meh, it’s not worth making that distinction.
The problem is Musk was never given money, he was born into money.
It’s not that simple. He was certainly from a wealthy family, but it wasn’t like his companies were based on his family’s money — he still had to go to venture capitalists like anybody else to get enough money to found them. Contrary to popular belief the rich don’t have money pools like Scrooge McDuck but rather their wealth is tied up in assets that are hard to liquify.
Yeah but it’s a lot easier when you are rich to get other rich people to give you money to make everyone richer.
Because they might revolutionise space travel with it?
It’s interesting to note that the Oliver Wendell Holmes metaphor of yelling fire in the theater was leveled against people protesting the draft and war in general, not people directly endangering others (by, say, inciting mobs of people to racially motivated vigilantism, which happened all the time). It’s so weird to me that much of the left is now pro-war and actively seems to hate the notion of free speech, but I am basically a free speech absolutist for a lot of reasons, even after much consideration. I’m also someone who thinks that Elon Musk having 100% ownership of it will accomplish the opposite. Twitter will face just as much pressure to ban people and speech that people don’t like, and he’ll cave when it suits him and won’t when it doesn’t.
How high are you right now?Number one, the left, unlike the majority of the GOP (note: a majority. There is a split, but a small one), is far from a monolith. There are factions within factions within factions on the left. Some do want to go into Ukraine. Their neighbor is engaging in war crimes. War crimes can be prevented. We should prevent war crimes. Thus, we should go fight in Ukraine. Will we? Doubtful.As for pro-censorship, there are two active forms of censorship, one used by each party for different reasons. First is the mainstream Democratic form of censorship, which wants to compel companies that host user-generated content to not become a haven for dangerous amounts of misinformation. Ivermectin kills Covid, bleach in your veins should kill Covid. UV light inside your body should kill Covid. Pissing on an electric fence will prevent rickets. Urinating on Ivermectin will draw crickets.You know, fake bullshit, with some of it actually dangerous. Where people congregate, in large groups, mainstream Democrats think that those who host them have a responsibility to prevent their being misled by what I would charitably describe as “liars and charlatans,” and uncharitably describe as “like Rush Limbaugh if he lost his marbles twenty years ago and suffered a blow to the head leaving him in a permanently concussed state.”Whereas the modern GOP has requested more book bans than any other time in recorded history. Apparently they’re really worried about students getting the gay from books.
Your mistake here was presenting a nuanced argument to someone who was only aping nuance. Anyone who says “I am basically a free speech absolutist” is really saying “I HAVE THE RIGHT TO SAY THE N WORD AND ANY CONSEQUENCES FOR ME SAYING IT ARE WRONG. TWITTER HAS TO LET ME SAY IT. IN FACT TWITTER SHOULD PAY ME TO SAY IT.”
My point is actually that the opprobrium of my peers is the punishment I deserve (were I to actually be the person you’re supposing I am). We don’t gain anything by silencing people, and they and we have a lot to gain by changing their minds.
The very idea that you think the left is doing anything equal to what the right actually shows you have fallen for the right’s propaganda. It isn’t the left who is passing Don’t Say Gay Bills, it isn’t the left who is getting on school boards and banning books, etc.
Also its the corporations that are regulating hate speech not the left because they want people to use their platforms and people won’t use their platforms if they are harassed. This is market dictating policy, this is capitalism.
I don’t understand leftists who defend the rights of corporations over people. I also explicitly said at the end of the original post that Elon Musk wouldn’t preserve freedom of expression on Twitter. You’re having a conversation with somebody, but it’s not me.
I don’t understand leftists who defend the rights of corporations over people. It’s simple.1. Private entities have terms of service, employment, etc. These are codified, legal rights.2. No one needs or has a right to a twitter account. You can “speak” in no fewer than a dozen other ways, ranging from other forums to other social media accounts to standing on a street corner handing out pamphlets.
The left: gets a little too snippy about the way people use words, especially those related to identityThe right: literally tries to ban gay people from existingThey’re exactly the same!
It’s staggering to me how much bullshit some people will accept from the right, just because they…what? Ran into a particularly annoying undergrad leftie one time? Got chewed out by a Chapo stan?Swear to God, some folks just grew up hating “the left,” and they cannot give you a single valid reason as to why.
Somewhere on the internet, a conservative has just written a mirror image version of your post, something along the lines of:The right: Wants to make sure that parents actually get the chance to raise their own kids as they see fit.The left: Throwing a crymad shitfit because groomer teachers can’t tell second graders about pegging during math class.Both posts are equally honest.
It’s hilarious that even your example of what the right says about the left doesn’t paint the left as anything more than whining about a very narrow issue and is in fact totally inaccurate (nobody is advocating for teaching second-graders about pegging). Meanwhile, the right is in actual fact trying to change the laws so that gay people are punished for being gay, and given free rein would reinstitute slavery, get rid of women’s rights, and literally murder anyone they don’t like.But yeah, they’re exactly the same.
“Meanwhile, the right is in actual fact trying to change the laws so that gay people are punished for being gay, and given free rein would reinstitute slavery, get rid of women’s rights, and literally murder anyone they don’t like.”I’ll give you the women’s rights thing. But punishing gay people for being gay? Bullshit. Reinstating slavery? Bullshit. Literally murder anyone they don’t like? Bullshit, with a side serving of horseshit and garnished with a sprig what the actual fuck? You’re an idiot.Also, it’s not the right who are taking kids to Pride to meet ball-gagged leather slaves. That’s the left. https://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/6kadpe/gay_pride_parades_are_not_for_children_i_support/It’s not the right who are putting on Drag Queen story hours in public libraries. That’s the left, too. https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/03/03/drag-queen-story-time-is-not-okay/amp/It’s not the right who are up in arms because they can’t soliloquise about how amazing it is to be trans to rooms of first graders who don’t know what gender is. That, again, is the left.You’ve got some real fucking deviants in your tent. Do something about it.
Nice try. Go back to Breitbart, you coward, and see if you can figure out why there’s so much hatred and fear in your heart.
Haha! You’ve got nothing and you know it. Go fuck a cactus.
Yeah, the Nazi screaming about deviants is the one we should listen to. Okay.
Yes, let’s have frank, honest debates with people directly calling for murder, I’m sure we’ll change their minds while also preserving some ridiculous notion of “free speech.” You know what we should also do? Restrict companies from policing what happens on their platforms, AND hold them accountable for what happens on their platforms!
Anyone who says “Anyone who says ‘I am basically a free speech absolutist’ is really saying ‘I HAVE THE RIGHT TO SAY THE N WORD…’” is really a pedophile and a horse thief.
LOL @ the limpdick in the greys calling me a pedophile.
Thank you! It’s so important that people realize how dangerous the “freedom of spreading lies” is. Twitter and similar social hubs choose to take a moral and ethical standard against lies, not speech.
Why do so many goddamn grown adults not understand that being banned for violating a company’s terms of service isn’t in any way a threat to your freedom of speech?
Ehhh, there’s an argument to be made that as communication platforms grow in size and power, they start having the power to substantially influence public discourse, the exact kind of thing First Amendment-style free speech protections are intended to protect. The debate of course is over exactly how big they have to be and what kinds of (great) responsibility goes along with that (great) power.I’d still err on the side of being extremely cautious with trying to regulate that kind of thing, but I don’t think it’s reasonable to say that private actors should enjoy unlimited power to influence public speech, no matter how big and powerful they are.
Right— if we’re going to argue that the internet at this point is essentially a public utility and one of it’s most useful aspects is fostering communication, there’s going to be issues with the only folks in control of the ability to communicate being unregulated private corporations. We’re already reaching a point where corporations are as powerful as sovereign governments and it seems a bit disingenuous to say that they are private entities that can ignore certain rights while at the same time getting angry at them for violating, other, different rights.I don’t know what the solution or right balance is because blatant hate speech and misinformation seems amplified because it’s easily accessible nowadays, but if the only access for one of the most useful tools of the internet is through private entities that can do whatever they’d like, it seems like we’re a short walk away from WhatsApp messages being deleted for daring to insult the integrity of the Metaverse or sending an SMS about how much T-Mobile sucks leading to a service ban or whatever.Maybe some sort of public social media platform… ugh, how gross would that be though? I don’t know, I can’t figure this shit out. IT’S A REAL MESS!
tl; dr— it is weird to be celebrating corporations doing the right thing, when the only reason they’re doing what’s morally just is “how much money do we stand to lose or gain from doing this?”
it seems like we’re a short walk away from WhatsApp messages being
deleted for daring to insult the integrity of the Metaverse or sending
an SMS about how much T-Mobile sucks leading to a service ban or
whatever.A platform censoring anti-that-platform speech is entirely their prerogative: I don’t have to tolerate anti-me comments on my tiny blog and Facebook doesn’t have to tolerate anti-Facebook comments on their platform.Except that Facebook is so large and alternatives are so relatively non-viable that people with anti-Facebook views lose most of their ability to express those views. Obviously they can use other platforms or go out on a street corner (as if the latter has anywhere near the potential impact of posting on a platform that a billion people might potentially see) but someone who can’t post an idea on Facebook is at a significant disadvantage over someone who can.The flipside as you mentioned is that if Facebook is somehow forced to host my anti-Facebook views, what’s the logical difference between that and hosting Nazi views? Yeah, obviously we all agree here that Nazi rhetoric is bad and should be deplatformed, while anti-Facebook rhetoric isn’t bad and shouldn’t be deplatformed, but having laws that draw the line without inadvertently drawing in other things is nigh-impossible.So the other solution is prevent Facebook from being as large at it is.The aforementioned problem is only a problem because Facebook is so large. Nobody cares if my tiny blog censors something (except maybe the tiny handful of people who get censored), but there will never be widespread public support for preventing me from censoring people on my tiny blog. It’s only when scale is reached that it becomes a problem.Not that limiting the size of a platform is easy, either. Consider the idea of a law prohibiting social networks from having more than some number of members, say, 1 million. Now the problem is that when that limit is hit, the membership won’t change much, and so if I make new friends or contacts, well, they can’t join my network, so I have to talk to some people on one platform and some on another. It becomes a lot less usable.
Another approach would be to mandate the limits of influence and institute some kind of collective member ability to censor, rather than the platform. Imagine if on Facebook you could only have 150 friends (about Dunbar’s number). The platform prevents you from seeing posts by anyone not in your sphere (although there’d be no way to prevent someone from copy-pasting something and re-sharing it as themselves—but for my purposes here, that’s fine).The platform itself would not be allowed to influence what you see more or less of. If someone in your sphere starts posting objectionable nonsense, you could simply block them. People’s profiles would indicate how many times they’ve been blocked.This would allow individuals to join and connect with family and friends they know, and because those connections are scarce and therefore individually more valuable, people might be less likely to connect with randos they don’t really know (or, say, Russian bots).Anyway, this is all just spitballing, and I know how unlikely and problematic some of these ideas are, but hey, it’s Friday and I don’t want to work.
I’m with you here, it’s really hard to think of a perfect solution to work around all this. And I’m especially with you on the not wanting to work on Friday thing.
Ehhh, there’s an argument to be made that as communication platforms grow in size and power, they start having the power to substantially influence public discourse, the exact kind of thing First Amendment-style free speech protections are intended to protect. The debate of course is over exactly how big they have to be and what kinds of (great) responsibility goes along with that (great) power.I’d still err on the side of being extremely cautious with trying to regulate that kind of thing, but I don’t think it’s reasonable to say that private actors should enjoy unlimited power to influence public speech, no matter how big and powerful they are.I don’t want to throw you under the bus with me, but this is exactly what I’m saying. I only used the phrase “free speech absolutist” because it’s a term that’s currently in use a lot (mostly in a pejorative sense, apparently) and because I find it odd that people find it so controversial. I used the word basically not as a weasel word but to indicate that I think that a willingness to tolerate nonviolent expression that we don’t like is a core virtue that we should all try to cultivate. The First Amendment won’t always be there if people don’t have that core ethic. Anyway, I think the point’s been made, however poorly. Just wanted to let you know that I agree with you and have agreed with you in the past on similar points. I’m not really sure how this would have gone even if I’d not used a triggering phrase, though, because people who see this point are increasingly in the minority. I don’t want “the right” to be the only people who still understand this when “the left” has just as much interest in not being silenced on private platforms (especially since “the left” and the people it’s interested in defending are the people who laissez-faire capitalism really hurts, in the end).
I only used the phrase “free speech absolutist” because it’s a term that’s currently in use a lot (mostly in a pejorative sense, apparently) and because I find it odd that people find it so controversial. Because most of the people who categorize themselves that way (at least online) tend to ignore the “responsibility” aspect of that particular freedom, and seem to think it means “I can say anything I want and you have to respect it.”
Every social media platform that touts itself as being “free speech absolutist” finds out very quickly that without moderation, your platform quickly devolves into the place where the absolute worst people take over and flood the platform with disgusting views that turn your average user away. Nobody wants to be “the Nazi social network”. Moderation is inherent in a social media platform.The idea of “Free Speech” never meant that you had to be PROVIDED a forum to communicate your ideas. No matter how much the public discourse is “influenced” by Twitter or Facebook, that doesn’t stop someone from writing their message on a sign and yelling at cars on a street corner. The type of moderation free, absolute free speech mecca that right wingers envision on their social media platform is not practical, and every platform from Parler to Gettr to Frank Speech to Truth Social knows it.
Because they don’t believe in freedom they believe in never having any consequences or ever hearing any criticism.
Why do you not understand that the First Amendment and freedom of speech are different things?
………………….
Why do you not understand that the First Amendment and freedom of speech are different things? Yeah, not really though. Freedom of speech in this country is codified in 1A.What “freedom of speech” are you talking about?
You’re a fucking idiot.
The one where he can call people whatever he wants with no consequences
Why do you not understand that the First Amendment and freedom of speech are different things? Because legally, they’re not.
This seems incredibly US-centric, especially when we’re talking about a company with a global presence.
This seems incredibly US-centric, especially when we’re talking about a company with a global presence.
The First Amendment is an American law.
This thread about the philosophy behind the concept free expression, not the legal limits of the First Amendment. Keep up.
Swear to God, more adults could stand to crack the spine on literally any fucking book. Baby steps.
Because the denizens of the self-serving balls-to-the-wall dumbfuckery of platforms like Twitter keep telling them otherwise.
It is certainly a threat to your free speech. It’s just not constitutionally protected. But when both political parties start dictating what social media can (or should) do, it becomes a bit dire.
If cancel culture was an actual thing Musk, Trump, and a number of other habitual jackfucks would have been silenced long ago.
Why do so many goddamn grown adults not understand that the philosophical discussion around free speech is bigger than the First fucking Amendment? And why do they not understand that a company’s terms of service could absolutely be a threat to your free speech?Imagine if your gas company, your mortgage provider, or whoever you buy your insulin from had ‘Don’t criticise us on Social Media’ clauses in their T&Cs. Don’t you think that might slightly impact your ability to speak freely about them?
Imagine if your gas company, your mortgage provider, or whoever you buy your insulin from had ‘Don’t criticise us on Social Media’ clauses in their T&Cs. Don’t you think that might slightly impact your ability to speak freely about them? While we’re at it, imagine if the Snow Queen breached the borders of Narnia and invaded NYC?Sorry, I thought we were laying out scenarios that only a moron would find plausible.HINT: Those things you listed? Vital services. What is categorically *not* a vital service? Fucking Twitter.I’m thinking your biggest problem isn’t “wokeism” (whatever the fuck that is), it’s an inability to think critically. Your “slippery slope” somehow became a funhouse slide.
Firstly, whether or not Twitter is a vital service depends entirely on how you use it. For some people, it’s essential to their businesses which, in turn, means it’s essential to keeping a roof over their heads. Secondly, I was making a broad, general, philosophical point about what can – either in theory or in practice – constitute a threat to free speech.Read the post I was responding to. The moron who wrote it explicitly said:“Why do so many goddamn grown adults not understand that being banned for violating a company’s terms of service isn’t in any way a threat to your freedom of speech?”Depending on the situation, a private company’s terms of service can absolutely constitute a threat to your freedom of speech.Thirdly, if a private company that did provide a vital service added a ‘Don’t criticise us’ clause or a ‘No Hate Speech’ clause to their terms of service, on what grounds would you – a person who’s admitted that they believe “Freedom of speech in this country is codified in 1A.” – criticise them? Be specific.Fourthly, the notion that it’s somehow ridiculous to imagine vital private companies enacting such terms is, itself, ridiculous. If there’s enough public demand for them to add speech clauses to their terms of service then they’ll do it.
Firstly, whether or not Twitter is a vital service depends entirely on how you use it. For some people, it’s essential to their businesses which, in turn, means it’s essential to keeping a roof over their heads. It’s just a popular advertising mechanism, not even close to an essential (or even optimal) one. Sure, the yellow pages aren’t really viable anymore, but there’s also Yelp, GrubHub, Angie’s List, Facebook, Instagram (FB), etc.They all, however, have terms of service that one must abide by. And no, those terms of service are not a threat to “free speech.” One does not have an unfettered right to, say, spam competitors with bad (fake) reviews, malign certain demographics, or spread outright disinformation on one of these platforms. Thirdly, if a private company that did provide a vital service added a ‘Don’t criticise us’ clause or a ‘No Hate Speech’ clause to their terms of service, on what grounds would you – a person who’s admitted that they believe “Freedom of speech in this country is codified in 1A.” – criticise them? Be specific. Cool. You tell me how we’d take down the Snow Queen. Be specific.To actually answer it…well, can’t really, because it’s a ludicrous premise.No essential (i.e., utilities, food, mortgage brokers, etc.) company would ever even try to do that. The “woke” culture you seem to be so shook by would take care of that, long before the government would have to intervene. It would be titanically fucking dumb for such a company to draw that sort of target on their back. Not going to happen. Absolute non-starter.If, in some fantasyland, like AT&T decided to put a “no customers can speak ill of AT&T lest they lose service” clause, I wouldn’t criticize them. I’d pop my popcorn and munch it as the public, customer base, and federal government team up to eat AT&T alive. Which absolutely would happen. Fourthly, the notion that it’s somehow ridiculous to imagine vital private companies enacting such terms is, itself, ridiculous. If there’s enough public demand for them to add speech clauses to their terms of service then they’ll do it. Imagine? Sure. But…again, the very “woke” culture you seem to hate prevents that very thing from happening. The country/government/media will not sit by if, say, Perdue decides to only sell chicken to states that embrace Christianity. Or if, say, National Grid requires customers to affirm their commitment to LGBTQIA+ issues in order to keep their lights on.Like…it isn’t going to happen. Might be tried, but it isn’t going to happen.Is that your actual fear? Or is it something else?
It sounds like you just want to be able to call people awful shit with no consequences
I am basically a free speech absolutistThe weasel word “basically” is not compatible with “absolutist.” Also, I’m assuming you’re still okay with the law regulating certain kinds of speech like libel, slander, copyright, national security secrets, fraud, perjury, and incitement to riot. So what do you mean by “absolutist”?
You’re right, of course, and you seem to have found the offending phrase that caused everyone to ignore everything else. Basically, I mean what Rosa Luxemburg meant when she said that “freedom is always the freedom of dissenters.” It means nothing to defend the freedom of people to use speech that we like, and it means everything to defend the nonviolent expression of those we disagree with.
Go back to 4Chan, Ivan.
Exactly.
It’s so weird to me that much of the left is now pro-war and actively seems to hate the notion of free speech Yeah, I’ma need even a little backup here.
It’s so weird to me that much of the left is now pro-war and actively seems to hate the notion of free speechNeither of these things are true. Hence why “the left” opposes any direct military action in Ukraine while supporting sanctions.Meanwhile, someone preaching a bunch of lies about vaccines and election fraud while also calling critics “pedophiles” is not a “protest.”
such a freedom of speech absolutist that government compelling a private business to change their policies is apparently kosher.
I’m not saying that government should compel them to do anything. I’m saying that we as customers should demand it.
It’s so weird to me that much of the left is now pro-war and actively seems to hate the notion of free speech
Citation needed.
I am basically a free speech absolutist for a lot of reasons
You’re a free speech absolutist, but you don’t understand that private companies are under no obligation to recognize free speech.
I absolutely do understand that point, and it’s only interesting to repeat if someone truly doesn’t understand that distinction. I’m not saying that Twitter can’t ban people for whatever they want. I’m saying that private corporations are as potentially dangerous as governments, and it’s just a weird state of affairs for people on the left to be ardently making this particular point all the time.
I’m saying that private corporations are as potentially dangerous as governments
No.
And you think you’re on the left?
She’s never heard of the East India Company.
There have been quite a few past examples of such. The opinion is valid, despite you not knowing why.
Feel free to dismiss the comment now for disagreeing with you.
The left only hates free speech when it’s constructed of lies and I see nothing wrong with hating lies.
“It’s so weird to me that much of the left is now pro-war and actively seems to hate the notion of free speech, but I am basically a free speech absolutist for a lot of reasons, even after much consideration.”…this fuckin’ guy…
Jesus fucking Christ you’re a god damned idiot.
Free speech covers broadcast companies too. Meaning they have the freedom to choose what they do, or do not, broadcast.Trump being banned from Twitter did not infringe on his freedom of speech. It’s the opposite. Removing him is an exercise of Twitter’s freedom of speech. No person or company may be forced to amplify another person’s message against their will. If the government forced Twitter to re-broadcast the leader of a political party, it would easily be the largest violation of the 1st Amendment in US history.Now if Elon Musk buys Twitter, he’s free to turn into an even larger shit hole than it already is, and letting Trump back on would be voluntary.But let’s not pretend that liberals are against Freedom of Speech by believing that a non-governmental social media company has the right to moderate their own damn website and app.
I don’t think Trump being banned from Twitter was a violation of his freedom of speech and never said that Twitter shouldn’t be able to exercise their right to freedom of expression. I just think that people should have the attitude of tolerating speech they don’t like because it leads to less violence and more constructive solutions. I just don’t see how so many people can’t see that this can and has gone in the other direction, like private businesses refusing to bake cakes for gay couples or not wanting to serve minorities in their establishments.
I just think that people should have the attitude of tolerating speech
they don’t like because it leads to less violence and more constructive
solutions.
Tolerating Nazis leads to more violence, not less, because tolerating Nazis just emboldens them. There is no constructive dialogue to be had with white supremacists.
Every single social media platform that touts itself as being a home for “free speech absolutists” learns very quickly that it becomes nothing but a haven of Nazis and racists (or worse) and it turns out people who aren’t Nazis and racists don’t want to share social media platforms where that type of content is welomed with open arms. This is why your 4chan/8kuns have always been niche, and only entered the mainstream by way of people reposting the “important” stuff like Q drops on other aggregate sites where middle aged moms could get their fix. Show those people the actual 4chan/8kun content and they’d be disgusted and want nothing to do with it.Every right wing social network that comes out to compete with Twitter under the guise of being a free speech alternative starts implementing moderation VERY quickly when they discover in less than two seconds how easily “free speech absolutist” becomes “the land of Nazis, racists, anti-semites, death threats and kiddie porn”. Nobody ACTUALLY wants that, in practice. Also, your idea that “the left is pro war and anti free speech” …. citation needed. That just seems like something you made up from nowhere.
I take your point, but I would add that when these social media platforms came out, their stance was that they weren’t publishers but merely providing a forum for people to publish their opinions. That was the correct stance, I’d argue, but freedom of expression has never been easy for people to swallow. That’s why we need to defend it even when it’s uncomfortable to do so, similar to how we acknowledge that even people who are very likely to be guilty are considered innocent until proven guilty. (This is a very unpopular opinion, too, of late, and perhaps always has been.)I don’t have a citation for my observation, but here’s one of many discussions out there that are being held by liberals of my ilk where they talk about both of the fears that I’ve expressed.
The idea that Twitter, Facebook et al were just providing a space for people to discuss their views was solely to protect them from being responsible for the content users created. But even that has a limit, based on the things I said. Nobody wants to see beheading videos on their Facebook feed, nobody wants to see Nazis and white supremacists having their voices amplified on Twitter. The First Amendment (like it or not, the basic for how free speech is codified into US law) doesn’t provide for open forums or platforms to discuss your views without limitation. It merely says that you can discuss them without fear of retribution from the government. Regardless of how much people use twitter for “public discourse” I don’t think that means they are obligated at all to host views that they think are not in their best interests.Nevermind that free speech absolutists like Musk are absolutely not free speech absolutists in practice (Musk famously whined about a guy who made an Italian Musk parody account and it was banned). And guys like Matt Taibbi and Glenn Greenwald no longer really speak for liberals or leftists. They’ve become enveloped in the media vacuum and align more with right wing ideas of online speech and anti-”woke” culture these days. They’ve lost the thread.
I think all of that’s fair and nicely illustrates the problems that arise, but I just don’t see how Greenwald and Taibbi are right wing at all just because they’re challenging some of the thinking on the left. What are your thoughts on Noam Chomsky? I admit that I have a libertarian streak, though never of the right-wing variety, so maybe I’ve always been out of step with many segments of the left.
Take a look at literally anything Glenn Greenwald has published in the last year or two. Just recently he shared an article (written by someone else) which asked the question (repeated by Greenwald in his sharing) “ARE ANTI WOKE UNION LEADERS TURNING PEOPLE AWAY FROM THE LABOR MOVEMENT?!” while subsequent tweets sheepishly acknowledged that support for unions is higher than ever among workers (BUT STILL, he claimed, PEOPLE DON’T LIKE THE WOKE STUFF). The article itself largely ignored the larger labor movement and asked specific people with right wing ties about being turned off by the “wokeness” of labor union leaders. Taibbi recently said that it would be better to have the government restricting speech than to have social media platforms doing it, because at least LAWS CAN BE CHANGED, twisting himself into such a free speech pretzel that he ended up advocating FOR government censorship, without a shred of irony.Both of these former bastions of liberal thought are now deeply embedded up their own asses, and not truly taken seriously by most on the left.
Taibbi recently said that it would be better to have the government restricting speech than to have social media platforms doing it, because at least LAWS CAN BE CHANGED, And if those were the only two options he’d be right. Laws can be changed. Private companies have no such obligation.
Yes, exactly. But his argument was that he would RATHER see the government impose censorious restrictions on speech THAN have private social media platforms govern their own speech through moderation.His galaxy brain take was that somehow, twitter censorship was WORSE than government restrictions on free speech, based on the idea that “laws can be changed”. Basically that the 1st Amendment should apply MORE to companies like twitter than to …. the actual law, because someone could eventually change the law….but somehow nothing can ever change at twitter??It was pure unadulterated poster-brain stuff that only serially online reactionarily “anti-wokes” like Taibbi and Greenwald could possibly justify through the most twisted logic imaginable.
but somehow nothing can ever change at twitter?? If there’s no oversight or impetus, if there’s no, let’s say, incentive, then change would be unlikely at twitter. Hell I’d quite like to see them broken up before we reach the point where Taibbi doesn’t seem so silly anymore. Or Elizabeth Warren.
I just don’t see how Greenwald and Taibbi are right wing at all
Then you need to actually read what they write & listen to what they say.
I admit that I have a libertarian streak, though never of the right-wing variety
I take your point No, you really don’t. I would add that when these social media platforms came out, their stance was that they weren’t publishers but merely providing a forum for people to publish their opinions. That’s still the case now. These social media platforms had terms of service when they debuted years ago. From day 1, there have been rules, with the penalty of being booted if you violate those rules. For example, no nudity on Facebook. It’s just like going to Chuck E. Cheese. Your kid isn’t allowed to just do whatever they want. There are rules to follow or you get thrown out. I don’t have a citation for my observation, but here’s one of many discussions out there that are being held by liberals of my ilk Matt Taibbi is not a liberal, and neither are you.
I should be opposed to this, but on the other, Twitter has way too much power, and I love the idea of that ass clown running the platform straight into the ground.
After four years of Trump, fuck that juvenile bullshit.
It’s wishful thinking that would happen. The platform feeds everyone’s narcissism, and with the biggest narcissists (famous, rich, and powerful people) deriving instant gratification from it. So even its death spiral could take 20-30 years to complete.
Yeah people are like “ugh Twitter should just go away” but that same bunch of people have their own Twitters just to post about how toxic it is or post memes about how bad Musk and his ilk are. It caters to the narcissist in all of us to get likes and validate our takes/tell us how cool and pretty we are. Twitter will not ever die until some new (inevitably more horrible) site comes along to replace it. Or a meteor hits the servers, whichever comes first.
That’s good lateral thinking right there. +1
I’m sort of immune to Twitter. It rarely holds my interest for any length of time. The people who engage with it on a regular basis seem to take it much more seriously than the average user. I mostly follow comedians for the laughs. Social/political messaging rarely makes sense via Tweets.
If Musk were to gain full control of Twitter it would instantly become the State TV of the Republican Fascist-Corporate Bootlicker alliance and we would be in full blown dystopia.
This is why Twitter and Facebook need to be turned into a public utilities like the telephone company. We shouldn’t have these platforms at the whims of billionaires – whether you like the billionaire in question or not.My guess is Musk isn’t serious about buying the platform and this is him, yet again, goosing to stock prices with a public stunt.
The SEC just needs to outfit the yarpie prick with a shock colour that, whenever he does shit like this, hits him with 50,000 volts.And 90 amps.
“My guess is Musk isn’t serious about buying the platform and this is him, yet again, goosing to stock prices with a public stunt.”I think he actually is serious. He got banned for like 12 hours recently, and that likely set him off. He has more money than God and could make a huge change on a network that influences the entire planet. The question to ask is, why wouldn’t he do it?
I was unaware of the banning. I’m not on Twitter or FB, so I’m only looking at it from the outside. Perhaps I am wrong about my assessment. I was basing it on things he had done in the past like that weird dog coin thing.
On one hand I get the temptation, but on the other hand the thought of social media as state media is absolutely terrifying
If it were made public, then you truly couldn’t regulate hate speech or covid misinformation. Now when twitter bans them, it’s a private company making a decision based on its terms of service and not – despite what right-wingers and weirdos like Musk say – a free speech violation. But if the government ran it, it would be an actual free speech violation. I agree that being at the whims of billionaires suck though.
Well, OK, but at the very least, these platforms need to be broken up into smaller companies so that they no longer have a monopoly. Every time a competing platform comes out, one of the big 3 gobbles them up and absorbs them.
This is all true.
Well, OK, but at the very least, these platforms need to be broken up into smaller companies so that they no longer have a monopoly.
The only real monopoly is Facebook, which owns Instagram and WhatsApp. All three of those should be completely separate companies.Twitter is just Twitter, and it’s nowhere near as big or as widely used as Facebook.
Twitter is just Twitter, and it’s nowhere near as big or as widely used as Facebook.Didn’t Twitter acquire a bunch of companies to gut them though?
Didn’t Twitter acquire a bunch of companies to gut them though?
Like who? They bought third-party Twitter apps.
Like who? They bought third-party Twitter apps.Didn’t Twitter buy Periscope and Vine?
Didn’t Twitter buy Periscope and Vine?
I don’t know, did they? This is your argument. Go Google it & find out. Back up your claims. Not my job to make your point for you.Even if they did, there’s no monopoly. There are plenty of apps that will let you make short videos.
I thought it was a dialogue, not an argument, but OK. Periscope and Vine were the two examples that came to mind first because once their popularity rose, they were acquired by Twitter and no longer a threat as far as competition once acquired. It’s a lot like what happened to companies like Zappos and Diapers.com when they were bought out by Amazon. Now Amazon pretty much runs the show when it comes to online sales on just about everything. Sure there are still online merchants, but it is very difficult for them to compete against a Goliath like Amazon. Same goes for social media platforms. You could say that is an apples to oranges comparison, but most
businesses now have to have presence on Facebook and Twitter now.That was my overall point. .
Periscope and Vine were the two examples that came to mind first because once their popularity rose, they were acquired by Twitter and no longer a threat as far as competition once acquired.
They weren’t competitors to Twitter though. Vine & Periscope were for videos. Twitter bought them because Twitter wanted to add video functionality.
Now Amazon pretty much runs the show
And Twitter doesn’t. There’s the difference.
it is very difficult for them to compete against a Goliath like Amazon. Same goes for social media platforms.Twitter isn’t analogous to Amazon, though. That would be Facebook/Instagram/WhatsApp.
You could say that is an apples to oranges comparison
Because it is.
but most businesses now have to have presence on Facebook and Twitter now.
Most businesses do not have a Twitter presence, and sending potential customers to a Facebook page is stupid. You’re a business. You have a website that you paid to have built. You pay annually for the domain. Why the fuck would you then go & send people to a Facebook page that you may or may not have any control over, that Facebook can delete at any time, for any reason?
That was my overall point.
Your overall point was that Facebook & Twitter should be regulated like utilities, which is fucking stupid. It was literally the very first thing that you said.
This is like a “whoever wins, we lose” situation, either free rein to post the most insane, harmful shit that anybody can access easily or risk being banned because you dared suggest that the billionaire CEO isn’t a great person and should have their taxes raised.There’s gotta be some sort of balance between the two.
“This is why Twitter and Facebook need to be turned into a public utilities like the telephone company. We shouldn’t have these platforms at the whims of billionaires – whether you like the billionaire in question or not.” – 100%
Nah.
CORRECT.
This is why Twitter and Facebook need to be turned into a public utilities like the telephone company.
This is stupid, and so are you for proposing it.
Freedom of speech only exists between you and the government. There is no freedom of speech between you and an individual or private corporation. If someone doesn’t like what you say, they have every right to kick you out of their house. If a corporation doesn’t like how you behave in their establishment, they have every right to throw you out of it. Facebook and Twitter do not qualify as public utilities. A case could be made that the wires and airwaves which deliver the internet to your device should be treated as public utilities, but not anything that happens on it. If you are kicked off Twitter, there is nothing stopping you from starting your own website to get your speech out which has the same theoretical reach as any other website, although it’s doubtful as Twitter has been incredibly successful. But success and ubiquity doesn’t make something a public utility. Otherwise McDonald’s would be a public utility.
What? God no! Just ignore Twitter. It’s awful. But Jesus christ don’t make it an official part of the of the country.
will always laugh at people who harp on about Twitter Having Too Much Power and then voluntarily make Twitter their main form of communication. start a blog if you want to control the rules, dipshits. though i do think it’s funny that people like trump had to pretend they had no other way to post 24/7 without twitter, because otherwise it would undermine their “we’re being censored” mantra.
You’re not my real dad!
All these Twitter alternatives fail because they become echo chambers that ultimately realize the necessity of moderation, so they never take off. Because Twitter lets them do the one thing they really want to do on social media – trigger the libs.There will never be a mass exodus to Gab or Parler or Gettr, because people don’t want to leave Twitter, they want Twitter to bend to their whims so they can yell at people who don’t agree with them. Nobody wants to preach to the choir, they just want to piss people off.I’d argue that one thing that COULD trigger a mass exodus away from Twitter is a Musk takeover, as there are lots of non-right-wing-weirdos who would want nothing to do with a platform where he’s in charge.
also a big thing that keeps right-wing alternative sites from taking off is that they’re centered around american politics. that makes up only like 10% of twitter or reddit or youtube or whatever, but pundits and people who spend their days yelling at libs are so isolated they think that’s what those sites are for. the people posting about taylor swift or BTS or the NBA or whatever have no reason to leave. the alt sites are niche by design but the users don’t seem to realize that.
I was never a FB guy so I really feel like I dodged a bullet in ever having to pry myself away from it. Twitter does have me in its grasp and I realize and accept its a sewer and I should have left a long time ago. This boob buying it and opening the door for TFG to come back is the landmine explosion I need to get off of the goddamn thing. LESS social media in my life is a good thing, and I know that intellectually. Emotionally, I enjoy it. So, yes, I hope the Master Idiot buys it and forces my hand.
good twitter should be destroyed
I hope the Twitter board called “no backsies” because this seems in line with Musk’s ordinary late-night, pot-baked shit posting. I’m waiting for the “just kidding” Tweet. He’s pretty much impervious to the SEC, which is nauseating. The SEC has spent its experience with Musk helping prove that money in America really can buy criminal invincibility. If it does go down, that tangerine tinted tart will almost certainly return. But if Musk commits to free speech absolution, that means thousands, perhaps millions of banned trolls and truly horrific human beings will be coming back too. Its current moderation methods have kept the platform only barely tolerable. When it turns into 8chan, it’ll get whittled down to an echo chamber for 8chan cretins. Parler and Truth Social are doing just swimmingly. Like all megalomanics, Musk enjoys playing the victim of social accountability, so it’ll be fun to watch the fireworks when his laissez faire approach to online speech gets Twitter booted from the app stores. I’m sure Bezos’s khakis are getting tight thinking about pulling Amazon’s hosting services.
“He’s pretty much impervious to the SEC, which is nauseating. The SEC has spent its experience with Musk helping prove that money in America really can buy criminal invincibility.”Its not even “money” because people like Donald Trump don’t actually have a lot of money and still get away with just about anything.
“If it does go down, that tangerine tinted tart will almost certainly return. But if Musk commits to free speech absolution, that means thousands, perhaps millions of banned trolls and truly horrific human beings will be coming back too.”Twitter is already away with groomers, pedophiles, anti-Semites, Islamic extremists, and apologists for the CCP. But yeah, you just keep worrying about Trump coming back and shitposting about ‘Sleepy Joe’ or whatever.
The board won’t sell to the same guy they just last week told to go fuck off, right? Right?
Apropos of nothing: if you haven’t already, I highly recommend watching “Succession.”
They offered him a spot on the board and he said no. It wasn’t because of background checks like everyone was laughing on about, it was because if you’re on the board you can’t buy more of the company.
If he cares so much about free speech, he should stop blocking people on Twitter for speaking freely to him.
The minute Musk buys Twitter is the minute I delete my account.
If he was really financially savvy, he’d just buy Truth Social for $41.00…
Musk just want to be the one in control of the “this is disinformation” button so that he can claim a colony on Mars in 2025 with no one to naysay him, because he knows the media basically gets its stories from Twitter now anyway.
I barely use twitter but I sold my Tesla stock upon the unveiling of the cybertruck and I’ll delete twitter if Musk takes over. I think he’s a buffoon.
Have zero stakes in this, so I’m kind of hoping it happens. I’ll be in the corner with popcorn enjoying the shit posting and freakouts.
Please just give up Twitter and stop reporting on it. I have said this in other comments but 92% of Tweets come from the top 10% of users, 75% of tweets come from outside the US. It isn’t even in the top ten of most popular social media platforms worldwide.
Nothing that happens on there is representative of American people (or most the world) yet what happens on their gets to widely reported you’d think that it’s the most popular site in the US. Elon Musk knows this and that’s why he wants it, to have control over a platform that can influence the media, he isn’t doing this for financial reasons because that platform should be dead if capitalism existed for companies like that.
It’s because media types are all obsessed with Twitter (which is why journalism is so shit)
Yes but Twitter is incredibly effective at generating really cheap “news” stories. Why should any media outlet do expensive investigative journalism when you can simply shit out 500 words about what Trump or Elon Musk or Billie Eilish tweeted? And get 10x the clicks.Make no mistake, it ain’t users that made Twitter successful. It was media hacks and bloggers.
Is this just to get back at the guy tracking his jet?
Eat the rich
We really just need to eat the billionaires to make the world markedly better. We don’t even have to eat Larry David.
I would eat Larry David though. I like me some kosher beef.
I would eat Larry David though. I like me some kosher beef.I have no way of knowing for sure, but if I was to guess, I would assume that Larry David would not taste very good. First of all, not that much meat on the bone and I would think the meat that was there would be tough and gamey…and now I have publicly shared my thoughts on eating an old comedian.
He’d be tough and stringy.
This site is SO in lockstep with any and all leftwing talking points it’s nauseating. I miss the times when all perspectives (even wrong ones) were allowed to be out in the open on the internet and not righteously censored. Keep pushing conservative thought out of view. I’m sure it won’t create another Trump..
Twitter is the public square in 2022. The issue many have with Twitter is not that they allow accounts for malevolent dictators, terrorists, or political groups inciting domestic riots—but with many who engage in good faith skepticism with mainstream narrative X. It’s hard to deny that certain voices asking certain questions, even if they’re funny and intentionally satirical, are censored. Twitter is not a private bakery refusing to sell a cake with a swastika on it. They are, in function, a public forum. Sure you can make the distinction that they aren’t owned by the government, but in substance this is where public discourse occurs in our society. Musk realizes that and wants to change it. Yes he’s a dink with hair plugs, but straw manning him as some sort of one dimensional power hungry goof ball is missing the point.
I’m not an Elon Musk fan, but holy fuck, there are people on Twitter legitimately freaking out about this. Like, one guy compared it to Germany right before the Nazis took over, another penned a breakup letter intending to be sent to the current CEO, a different guy literally said “Elon Musk buying Twitter would be the end of the world.”
Truth be told, if Musk buys Twitter, it will remain largely the same. Like, Musk’s narcissism will increase, sure, but some of these worst-case scenarios just will not come to pass.
“Truth be told, if Musk buys Twitter, it will remain largely the same.”And you know this how?
My conspiracy theory on this is that Trump wants back on Twitter. He knows it the only platform that people actually saw his crazy rants on. All the right wing replacements have been failures and the fact is Trump doesn’t want to be on a right wing echo chamber he wants to “own the libs” on Twitter.So my theory is Trump wants back on, and his people believe that him being on Twitter actually helps his 2024 campaign. So they go to Musk and say “Listen, we know you have not publicly said you loved Trump but we know you love money and you love fishy side dealings. So lets do that. You get Trump back on Twitter and when he takes office he will make sure that Tesla or Space-X or your stupid tunnel building company get some nice juicy government contracts. Also you know with our team in power you will never have to worry about taxes being raised on the rich.”
I doubt that anyone aside from maybe Trump himself thinks that being back on Twitter would help his campaign. He’d be much better off for voters to have a fuzzy memory of the Trump years as a time when at least we weren’t getting slammed by inflation, rather than be reminded with every insane tweet that it was actually a time when a ranting lunatic was the leader of the free world.
The greatest trick the right ever pulled was convincing idiots that free speech means never having to say you’re sorry someone was offended by what you said.
There should not be billionaires.
“Twitter has extraordinary potential. I will unlock it.”It would require a purchase of extraordinary magnitude.You honor us.
As a “free speech absolutist” you’d think he would recognize that freedom of speech for a broadcaster means they should not be forced to broadcast something, or someone, they don’t want to.Funny how many free speech “advocates” don’t seem to understand that mandating that Twitter re-broadcast Donald Trump’s speech is the same thing as mandating that AOC gets a time slot on Fox News.
Just ONCE I want our government to punish a billionaire.Is that too much to ask?
They got Epstein, what more do you want?
Elon Musk said in an interview that problem is that Democrats have become extremist. If he wants to say that, fine, but where is the person challenging him on that opinion? The problem with interviews today is there’s no counterpoint. They let the person speak and speak and the interviewer agrees with the person, rather than challenging them. For example, okay you think the Liberals are now extreme? Let’s talk about the Republicans. What about the Tea Party movement? What about the Birther (Racist) movement? What about the attempted January 6th insurrection? Banning books. WTF happened to the conservative party?