You bring up a lot of good thoughts. It does feel like things are at a crossroads. It will be interesting to see how it unfolds.
It’s done. Musk forced to buy Twitter
- Thread starter TheSweatshirt
- Start date
I care if Musk bans all religious discussion. Freedom of Speech is freedom of speech. I hope he adheres to his promise that all speech, that is legal, will be permitted.
Twitter wasn't a private company, it was a public corporation. It will, however, be a private company after Musk buys it.
It is going to be very interesting to see how this all pans out. I am confident that Free Speech is the best path forward.
I agree with you on your analogy to Ma Bell. What if they regulated the speech on your phone calls? I don't think anyone would agree that would be ok. So why should twitter be able to regulate your speech on their platform? Lots of interesting questions to be pondered. But im glad that twitter will be in the hands of Musk, who at least pretends to want free speech.
Don't confuse private/public sector with private/public companies. Public companies are still private sector.
We will see on Free Speech. I agree with the view that moderation went too far and negated the ability to challenge what was believed to be a "fact" (ie, the lab leak theory).
But I wouldn't necessary use telephones as an analogy. Perhaps cable TV is better, even public access channels. No one can air porn or vulgarity on non-cable TV. No one could buy time on public access and run a show called "The Jihad Hour" where you actively encourage suicide bombings. There are standards regulated by the government. Social Media is something that the government is still trying to decide how much regulation is needed, and I assume they will figure that out around year 2060.
Last edited:
They can regulate your speech because the government lets them run their business how they please and they lobby to keep that right.
Its a weird response, you said Twitter policies won't change, remember? Musk clearly is texting to the contrary. You finally addressed it, I think. So you think he will decide not to then. I think its far fetched though to JUST address certain hate groups.
Sounds like a deflection, could be posts addressing men dressed as women teaching children. Or maybe the latest of teaching 8th graders about anal sex? I wouldn't use the terminology you have there, but if I don't like teaching that to children I should indeed be allowed to voice it without being tagged as a hater.
Twitter has been censuring people based on political affiliation calling it misinformation. Champions of anti-misinformation? More like destroyers of free speech.
It is very interesting going back and reading the takes in this thread.
I wonder if libs think Twitter is worth $44B now?
$44B gave them the ability to censor speech. I bet almost every lib on the board would take twitter back for $44B (it’s not for sale losers)
They may never win another election (without pivoting their policies) now that they have to fight on an even playing field.
I wonder if libs think Twitter is worth $44B now?
$44B gave them the ability to censor speech. I bet almost every lib on the board would take twitter back for $44B (it’s not for sale losers)
They may never win another election (without pivoting their policies) now that they have to fight on an even playing field.
Thanks for bringing this thread back to life, but you won't get any real truthful commentary from the other side.
Heck, most of these handles gave up long ago
Yall aren't petty and defensive, nope. Since I don't spend hours on twitter being brain washed by catturd, I have no context clues for why you all are gloating. Since Twitter is a privately held company, you have no information on the business' balance sheet. So who told you Twitter was great and doing great? It was someone from twitter wasnt' it?
The price is irrelevant. Elong wouldn't sell it to you for $250B or probably even a $1 Trillion because free speech is priceless.
Ideas should be debated on an even playing field. Shame on the Democrats for breeching that. Voters will hold them accountable.
I don't know how many times I've stated this on this board. But this is a dumb and not smart argument. Twitter, again is a private business. Free speech, and that constitutionally protected right, is not something that a private business has to provide to its users. The right of free speech is to protect us against the government from curbing it.
You either avoid this understanding, or you can't come to understand this fact. So the blaming of democrats for the terms of service of private for profit companies, is just the dumbest conclusion you can come to. Yet here we are. The manufactured grievance machine has you totally twisted into a knot.
You mean the internal documents showing twitter making decisions on content they will ban? Like saying the n word? on their website that they sell advertising to fund? Those twitter files?
So are you telling me you are incapable of understanding what the first amendment actually guarantees you in the context of the government vs a private companies user terms and conditions? Just tell us more about your misunderstanding.
The issue is that they ran a database of both republican and democrat reps asking them to take down things. And they honored both.
The issue people will point to, correctly, is the work forced was left leaning and so their bias did show up in actual implementation. However, this isn't a consipiracy, its a data point which supports biased people do biased things.
This isn't a democrat op, its just people doing people things.
But anyway Musk has lost 84% of his revenue, but he's a salesman. Right now he's selling the idea that if he fails, its not his fault. Its the evil lefties. Because in a free market, when you fail, its someone else's fault.
Im specifically talking about the twitter files revealing Jim Baker, "Ex"-FBI and Twitter counsel at the time, censoring posts at the direction of the Biden administration.
Are you aware this happened?
ChatGpT
The Twitter Files, released through a series of publications by journalists such as Matt Taibbi, Bari Weiss, and others, provided insights into the internal workings of Twitter, particularly around content moderation, its relationship with government entities, and how decisions were made regarding high-profile accounts and controversial content. Here's a summary based on the information available up to October 2024:
The Twitter Files, released through a series of publications by journalists such as Matt Taibbi, Bari Weiss, and others, provided insights into the internal workings of Twitter, particularly around content moderation, its relationship with government entities, and how decisions were made regarding high-profile accounts and controversial content. Here's a summary based on the information available up to October 2024:
- Content Moderation and Political Bias: The files revealed how Twitter's content moderation often involved subjective decisions, sometimes influenced by political considerations. For instance, discussions about how to handle content from then-President Donald Trump, especially around the January 6 Capitol riot, showed internal debates on applying or interpreting Twitter's rules, suggesting a complexity in managing political speech on the platform.
- Suppression of Information: There were notable instances where Twitter suppressed information or limited the visibility of certain content. An example includes the Hunter Biden laptop story, where Twitter initially blocked the spread of the story citing its "hacked materials" policy, a decision that was later criticized for potentially influencing public opinion during an election.
- Government Influence: The Twitter Files highlighted interactions between Twitter and government agencies like the FBI. This included the platform's compliance with government requests to moderate content, which some interpreted as an overreach of government into private sector content moderation, raising concerns about free speech.
Yes I am, are you aware of all the republican requests to do similar? You are aware that they were requesting nudes not be posted of hunter biden? I think that was the crux of the issue. Are you saying the government cannot request private corporations to remove content? Are you aware that the private company in question is not a journalistic org and is not protected by the same regulations from government influence?
Are you aware that you are getting upset about how the world works and that nothing nefarious is going on? Everything you are complaining about is legal and that you and millions of morons have confused what free speech and journalism are and that censoring of content on a private business operation is at the companies' discretion?
IF you cannot understand these simple concepts, you are fundamentally lost on the topic.
none of this is unexpected or surprising. none of this is a scandal. You are manufacturing grievances around an issue you fail to grasp.
it's worth about half of what he paid for it, but sure. to the moon with X
It is absolutely a scandal that the government violated the first amendment. Wake up
I can't decide if this is hilarious or just sad. Again, you don't understand the things you are speaking on. I would have suggested you might want to stop speaking because you are just exposing your ignorance. But maybe you can do your research and report back on 1st amendment case law.
It's good when the communist expose themselves. You are who we are voting out. Good riddance.
You don't even know how this countries constitution works. You don't even have a 3rd grade level of civics. You don't even know the meaning of the words you use. Be better you social media gutter rat.
Similar threads
