Twitter announces that it's being acquired by Musk for 44 billion

psteav (Forum Supporter) said:

Boost_Crazy said:

In reply to GameboyRMH :

There have been genocides that probably wouldn't have happened if not for social media amplifying hate speech, a resurgence of conspiratorial nonsense thinking including anti-vaccine beliefs just to name one particularly damaging one, and to avoid being too political, a massive rise in the popularity of politicians and political parties who simply don't care for the truth one bit, especially in the first world.

I'd argue that silencing speech that you disagree with is even more dangerous, even if you are right. But time and time again, Twitter has been shown to silence truth, and perpetuate lies. It's not their job to find truth. I sure hope not, because the suck at it. It's their job to let voices be heard, it's our individual responsibility to decide the truth. And we may suck at it, but at least it's out there in the open, we aren't just a bunch of puppets on strings. The dangerous people aren't the ones with contrary ideas. The dangerous people are the ones who what to shut down contrary ideas. 

Nope.  It's not Twitter's job to let voices be heard.  Not Elon's either.  They don't owe anyone a conduit.  No one does.

Once more, for those in the back:  Free speech protects you from government retribution for something you said.  That's it.

And as much as this is painted in certain quarters as a "victory" for free speech...I'm pretty certain based on Musk's prior megalomaniacal doings that there will be plenty of bans for people saying things he doesn't like.

Exactly. There is no constitutional amendment or law that allows you to say anything you want on a web site that belongs to somebody else.

In reply to psteav (Forum Supporter) :

Just because the Constitution doesn't protect it explicitly doesn't mean it's a good idea to have a censored social media website that hosts millions of people and public institutions.  

Robbie (Forum Supporter) said:

Let me grab my cup of joe here and start a real discussion:

Musk will be president of the USA in under 10 years. 

Change my mind.

Not unless they remove the citizenship restriction from the constitution in the next 10 years

Turbo_Rev said:

In reply to psteav (Forum Supporter) :

Just because the Constitution doesn't protect it explicitly doesn't mean it's a good idea to have a censored social media website that hosts millions of people and public institutions.  

Of course, social media is terrible and almost definitely a net negative for society. And yet, people still willingly flock to it. Facebook is still successful and exists, even after the Cambridge Analytica scandal that probably should have ended it.

There is really not a whole lot the government can do to keep a corporation that offers a 100% voluntary, opt-in, "free" service, with terms of service that the users agree to when they sign up, from doing what it wants with that data. If you think the government should be able to make those calls, you need to use that same lens to look at all sorts of other things that the government would then be able to do with that same power, and by doing that it's pretty clear why it doesn't happen.

I will leave it at that to stay out of flounder territory.

JThw8 said:

Robbie (Forum Supporter) said:

Let me grab my cup of joe here and start a real discussion:

Musk will be president of the USA in under 10 years. 

Change my mind.

Not unless they remove the citizenship restriction from the constitution in the next 10 years

Well, like any other rule it can be amended. 

Also, we do have language that says if you are an American and you have children physically outside of America, the children can still be considered natural born. 

Wikipedia says Elon's grandfather was born in America...

Boost_Crazy said:

I'd argue that silencing speech that you disagree with is even more dangerous, even if you are right...The dangerous people are the ones who what to shut down contrary ideas. 

So you're ok with child porn being exchanged on twitter? What about death threats directed towards you or your family? How about Russia or China using it as information warfare to interfere with our election? Are you OK with it being used by billionaires to manipulate the stock market that underpins retirement plans of the working class? 

No? Oh.

There is no guarantee of "free speech" on private platforms. It's a fantasy. If you don't like what is being said on the platform, or what isn't allowed to be said, you can leave. Simple.

yupididit said:

In reply to GameboyRMH :

You just sound like you dislike the guy therefore you can't say anything positive about him without your negative feelings getting in the way. I don't have an opinion on him myself as he doesn't seem like a bad or good person in particular. I did meet him once in early 2020, and had the opportunity to sit and chat for about 15 minutes.

I can't really like him after getting to know about his management style and his views on a lot of subjects (including work-related ones like unionization and workplace safety), but he's not even one of the worse executives out there. I don't dislike him to the point that I can't say anything good about him. I do like that he's willing to bet huge money on unconventional to downright wacky ideas for example. I thought tailsitting rocket landings were one of the silliest things from '50s sci-fi until SpaceX made them work, and although Tesla has no business being worth more than any of the existing auto manufacturing megacorps, I think they get way too much hate and pooh-poohing as a company.

When you have that kind of money, “lulz” may be all that’s worth having. 

No judgment from me. With that kind of money I would build a sculpture visible from space of my hootous. 

We hold ourselves broadly to the standard of being decent people and neighbors, and hope for the same from those around us. I don't get it when the reaction to someone being massively wealthy is that "well of course they can afford to behave any way they damn well please..." as if lack of funds was all that was making the rest of us behave.

You know gilded age 2.0 is in full swing.   Buuut. I saw a billboard on the way to the gym today that was advertising for a union.  Never seen that before. Said something like " organize your workplace and get a 30% raise. 
 

I bring this up because it will be the downfall of this gilded age.   
 

I've never used twitter so I don't care.  Too many people freedumb grandstanding about this.  

CrustyRedXpress said:

Boost_Crazy said:

I'd argue that silencing speech that you disagree with is even more dangerous, even if you are right...The dangerous people are the ones who what to shut down contrary ideas. 

So you're ok with child porn being exchanged on twitter? What about death threats directed towards you or your family? How about Russia or China using it as information warfare to interfere with our election? Are you OK with it being used by billionaires to manipulate the stock market that underpins retirement plans of the working class? 

No? Oh.

There is no guarantee of "free speech" on private platforms. It's a fantasy. If you don't like what is being said on the platform, or what isn't allowed to be said, you can leave. Simple.

I'm not ok with companies that own energy, military, or pharmaceutical companies also owning for profit "news" outlets, so that takes care of every single "news" channel on tv. I'm particularly displeased that an extreme minority of Twitter users have been effectively controlling international policies and decisions and policing speech while attempting to police thought as well, with no regards to anything or anyone but their own 180 character opinion, even going after themselves for not adapting to opinion change fast enough or having an ages old thought that now goes against what's "right".

But I'm also confused as to why someone can call for white genocide and have no problems yet actually be celebrated on the platform for doing so, while bringing up the uigher genocide in China or pretty much anything negative the US has done publicly in the last 20 years of war can make your account disappear.

I am downright disgusted that there is an entire segment of Twitter that call themselves MAPs for "minor attracted person" and instead of doxxing, imprisoning, and executing them the current board at Twitter actively protected them by shutting down accounts that harassed or attacked them. 

If you're going to have a set of rules regarding speech, and to some degree thought, you have to enforce it evenly. Picking and choosing who has to follow what rule, or ignoring your own rules and putting your political cult at the forefront while burying, smearing, and attempting to criminalize the opposition are pretty berkeleyed up things to do. We've bombed countries for less, yet we celebrate companies that do it on a global scale and call it "their right as a private business". 

It has been absolutely hilarious the past week on Twitter seeing people call for censorship in the name of free speech, and (not)realize how enormous of hypocrites they really are now that they won't be able to use bullying to push a narrative. Correction, at the fear that an Elon Musk ownership would mean they can no longer bully opposition into silence. 

It really would be better for the world as a whole to just pull the plug on social media entirely. It will never happen because it is fantastic tool to keep citizens misinformed, distracted, and fighting amongst themselves, and that is the real crux of the issue. 

In reply to GameboyRMH :

wow dude, you need to spend less time on the internet

Steve_Jones said:

I love how allowing ALL speech on a platform is somehow bad for free speech. I also don't remember being forced to read anything on Twitter, did they miss making me?

Yeah, but, GENOCIDE

CrustyRedXpress said:

Boost_Crazy said:

I'd argue that silencing speech that you disagree with is even more dangerous, even if you are right...The dangerous people are the ones who what to shut down contrary ideas. 

So you're ok with child porn being exchanged on twitter? What about death threats directed towards you or your family? How about Russia or China using it as information warfare to interfere with our election? Are you OK with it being used by billionaires to manipulate the stock market that underpins retirement plans of the working class? 

No? Oh.

There is no guarantee of "free speech" on private platforms. It's a fantasy. If you don't like what is being said on the platform, or what isn't allowed to be said, you can leave. Simple.

All your examples are illegal in real life, you know that, right?  Just because it happens on the internet, does not magically make it legal, despite the anonymity.

When they control the content, they become responsible  for the content, just like any other publisher.  Only problem is that is not how it has been working, because they are constantly given a pass by the powers that be.

I must say, the "news" media has everyone confused about what the real issues are, on practically every single subject

In reply to RevRico :

Thanks for being better with words than I am. Did you see that clip from one of the big news networks with a team of anchors decrying Musk for supposedly trying to influence thought and policy, then following it up immediately with "That's our job."

I don't have a dog in this fight. I own no shares and I've never used Twitter.

JThw8 said:

Agreed, Im not on twitter but in general I'd rather see all social media platforms unfiltered and let people use their own thought processes to decide what they want to see.  Provide the end user tools to filter as they see fit but dont restrict speech.  Or go the other way and shut it all down.  Honestly social media is great in that it has given everyone a voice, and its been terrible in that its given everyone a voice.   

Nah, I disagree - we tried that and it ends up being all Nazis, all the time. Nazis deserve to be punched and not provided a platform, so some form of moderation is required.

Research shows that providing a platform boosts a message. I have no problem with Twitter / etc filtering what they allow on their platform, just like this platform filters what's allowed.

@RevRico: I highly doubt most of what you're describing as being on Twitter is actually on Twitter and "celebrated." Seems like a "pretty women don't get speeding tickets" kind of claim. Meaning, made up and pushed on you by someone with an agenda.

You'll have to excuse me for having a chuckle at the notion that some people are upset about Musk acquiring Twitter because he intends to remove censorship and allow free speech.  Hello?  Are we still in the United States of America?  Surely Musk's Twitter will be an improvement over the tightly censored propaganda machine that it is now.

Information that you disagree with is not "misinformation."  It's called a "dissenting point of view."

Say I own $1.7m in Twitter stock and Elon takes Twitter private. Did I just make an involuntary stock sale? Sounds taxable. 

In reply to OHSCrifle :

Yes you did. The board that you helped elect (as a stock holder) just voted for you to sell your shares at $x. 

Sounds like a pure ego move to me. While i am on other social media, I have never had a Twitter account (and this will guarantee I never do), nor do I have stock in anything Elon owns, or Twitter. So frankly, I guess it doesn't matter to me anyhow.

I won't say anything about Musk, though, on the chance that he buys out GRM and turns this into a Tesla-only forum :)

Edit: our rally team does have a Twitter account. I think we posted on it twice before deciding it was dumb. 

In reply to GameboyRMH :

Examples of Twitter silencing truth? I know they perpetuate lies just by existing as an open discussion platform people are largely free to lie on, but I can't think of when they've done that through any moderation action.
 

You are kidding right? Right? 

1988RedT2 said:

Surely Musk's Twitter will be an improvement over the tightly censored propaganda machine that it is now.

Logical fallacy is logical fallacy. 
 

appeal to popularity. https://study.com/academy/lesson/appeal-to-popularity-fallacy-definition-examples.html

pedantry aside. I think the bigger question should be why have we let billionaires rule our daily lives so effectively. They don't have our best interests at heart. They have theirs.  This is how they became billionaires. 

In reply to Toebra :

All your examples are illegal in real life, you know that, right?  Just because it happens on the internet, does not magically make it legal, despite the anonymity.

When they control the content, they become responsible  for the content, just like any other publisher.  Only problem is that is not how it has been working, because they are constantly given a pass by the powers that be.

I must say, the "news" media has everyone confused about what the real issues are, on practically every single subject

Well said. That pretty much covers it. When laws were originally discussed regarding speech on the internet, it was decided that the open flow of ideas was preferred rather than the traditional methods of editing, which would be extremely cumbersome and harmful to internet publishers. That is why publishers on the internet don't need to meet the same requirements as traditional publishers. But it also means that they are not supposed to edit their content- because then they would be subject to the same rules as a traditional publisher. Twitter, and many others, are trying to have it both ways. 

In reply to dculberson 

Nah, I disagree - we tried that and it ends up being all Nazis, all the time. Nazis deserve to be punched and not provided a platform, so some form of moderation is required.

So, who gets to decide who the Nazis are? Wouldn't you just be able to call someone you disagree with a Nazi if you have trouble rebutting their argument, and get them banned? Yea, you "win." No, that would never happen, thank God Twitter saved us from all of the Nazis.

Fueled by Caffeine said:

pedantry aside. I think the bigger question should be why have we let billionaires rule our daily lives so effectively. They don't have our best interests at heart. They have theirs.  This is how they became billionaires. 

Choosing which billionaire's online fiefdom to join is one of an e-serf's most important decisions!

In reply to psteav (Forum Supporter) :

Nope.  It's not Twitter's job to let voices be heard.  Not Elon's either.  They don't owe anyone a conduit.  No one does.

Once more, for those in the back:  Free speech protects you from government retribution for something you said.  That's it.

And as much as this is painted in certain quarters as a "victory" for free speech...I'm pretty certain based on Musk's prior megalomaniacal doings that there will be plenty of bans for people saying things he doesn't like.

See the post above. That is what they are providing, a conduit- that is their product. Other than your information. They get to either allow the free exchange of ideas, or they get to edit the ideas that they publish, accepting the consequences of what they publish. They cannot have it both ways, and that was going to change with or without Elon Musk. If they want to become a publisher, they can block whatever they want, but they could also be sued for content that they do publish. Not a deal I would take if I were Twitter. 

In reply to dculberson 

Nah, I disagree - we tried that and it ends up being all Nazis, all the time. Nazis deserve to be punched and not provided a platform, so some form of moderation is required.

I think I know what you are referring to, and yes, it was pretty bad, but.....

...I think that was the format (more like a board like this) and the fact they had been kicked off of everything else.  I am not super familiar with how twitter works, or how Elon would change it but I believe you have a fair amount of control of what you see, and...

If a bunch of Nazi's want to yell into an empty field, I am fine with that.  If someone wants to stand in that field, I say shame on them.