Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Aaron747 wrote:DIRECTFLT wrote:After Elon takes over, I predict some Twitter "heads are gonna roll..."
![]()
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJT-K8p8ufI
Conservative glee over that doesn't really make sense since their favorite Twitter target already left last year. And Jack Dorsey actually now says Musk is a key to the platform's survival. For all the flack Jack caught over the decisions to silence Trump's personal feed, he has never been a mainstreamer and openly laments that Twitter had to use the ad model and Wall Street money to scale up. Doesn't sound very establishment to me.
Avatar2go wrote:It pretty much comes down to whether false facts, that potentially do harm to society, are going to have a platform on Twitter. Those were the only accounts that were ever suspended or banned, and the pattern had to be pretty egregious for that to happen.
By “free speech”, I simply mean that which matches the law.
I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law.
If people want less free speech, they will ask government to pass laws to that effect.
Therefore, going beyond the law is contrary to the will of the people.
AirWorthy99 wrote:Elon just recently postedBy “free speech”, I simply mean that which matches the law.
I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law.
If people want less free speech, they will ask government to pass laws to that effect.
Therefore, going beyond the law is contrary to the will of the people.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/151 ... CF2pQqAAAA
Why would anyone be against this? simple. They want to control all information and opinion, so that only a group of powerful people are able to carry the narratives.
Twitter should just remove or ban content that is against the law.
That's the standard by which Twitter/FB and others should stick with. Not some made up as we go along and to who I don't like kind of standards. Hopefully this will be the future.
And if anyone doesn't like it, go build your own twitter.
Assuming he truly believes that, then Musk’s free speech absolutism is only aspirational.
But by controlling the social network, Musk can protect his ability to keep using Twitter to promote his companies, investments and himself, as he wants to be seen.
AirWorthy99 wrote:Twitter should just remove or ban content that is against the law.
That's the standard by which Twitter/FB and others should stick with. Not some made up as we go along and to who I don't like kind of standards. Hopefully this will be the future.
And if anyone doesn't like it, go build your own twitter.
SoCalPilot wrote:Is calling someone by the sex they were at birth a false fact? Should that be banned? If so, on what grounds, and where do you stop?
Twitter blocked the Hunter Biden laptop story and suspended accounts for it...only for it to be true.
Facebook blocked users from posting theories that covid could have leaked from a lab, only to reverse course and say it could be possible.
Is purposely blocking news bc you believe it to be false (when it could be true) good for society?
The thing is, a lot of what we believe to be factual today turns out to be false later.
SoCalPilot wrote:Avatar2go wrote:It pretty much comes down to whether false facts, that potentially do harm to society, are going to have a platform on Twitter. Those were the only accounts that were ever suspended or banned, and the pattern had to be pretty egregious for that to happen.
Is calling someone by the sex they were at birth a false fact? Should that be banned? If so, on what grounds, and where do you stop?
Twitter blocked the Hunter Biden laptop story and suspended accounts for it...only for it to be true.
Facebook blocked users from posting theories that covid could have leaked from a lab, only to reverse course and say it could be possible.
Is purposely blocking news bc you believe it to be false (when it could be true) good for society?
The thing is, a lot of what we believe to be factual today turns out to be false later.
AirWorthy99 wrote:That's the standard by which Twitter/FB and others should stick with. Not some made up as we go along and to who I don't like kind of standards. Hopefully this will be the future.
SoCalPilot wrote:Avatar2go wrote:It pretty much comes down to whether false facts, that potentially do harm to society, are going to have a platform on Twitter. Those were the only accounts that were ever suspended or banned, and the pattern had to be pretty egregious for that to happen.
Is calling someone by the sex they were at birth a false fact? Should that be banned? If so, on what grounds, and where do you stop?
Twitter blocked the Hunter Biden laptop story and suspended accounts for it...only for it to be true.
DIRECTFLT wrote:
Here's some discussion of who gets warnings and bans from someone who may be out of a job in the near future, Vijaya Gadde of Twitter... Taken from Joe Rogan Experience #1258 w/Jack Dorsey, Vijaya Gadde, and Tim Pool.
https://youtu.be/EbTXqrS9l5E
This 20 minute clip only got 45,000 Comments, so probably nothing much to see here...
Avatar2go wrote:SoCalPilot wrote:Is calling someone by the sex they were at birth a false fact? Should that be banned? If so, on what grounds, and where do you stop?
Twitter blocked the Hunter Biden laptop story and suspended accounts for it...only for it to be true.
Facebook blocked users from posting theories that covid could have leaked from a lab, only to reverse course and say it could be possible.
Is purposely blocking news bc you believe it to be false (when it could be true) good for society?
The thing is, a lot of what we believe to be factual today turns out to be false later.
This post is actually a good example of what I meant.
In truth, some gender identity posts were banned under the hate speech rules. The issue was not the person's birth sex, but rather referencing that in a derogatory way.
In truth, the Hunter Biden laptop story was banned as an election topic, because it did not (and still does not) involve Joe Biden. In the context of the election, it was misinformation, similar to the Hillary Clinton e-mail scandal, which came to nothing in the end, but impacted the 2016 election. The investigation of Hunter continues and we don't have a resolution of that yet. The focus is on his financial activities, and not anything related to the 2020 election.
In truth, the COVID lab leak theory began as a claim that COVID was a man-made virus, created in the Wuhan lab. The scientific consensus was (and remains) that it originated in the wild, based on genetic markers. Thus the topic was banned as misinformation, along with a host of other COVID and vaccine conspiracy theories. Later the theory was modified to a version where the virus was not made in the lab, but may have escaped from the lab. That was investigated by the WHO and by US intelligence services, with inconclusive results. We can neither prove nor disprove a relationship to the lab. So that discussion is not banned.
These were all attempts at applying editorial standards to Twitter, as I mentioned. They evolve with time and with further knowledge. And as I said, all such methods are by definition imperfect. You selected examples that favor your case of evolving knowledge making the ban less justified. There are others, such as election fraud, where the ban became increasingly justified with time and knowledge.
For that reason, I think the discussion should be on how the identification of misinformation occurs, and how it is administered on social media. That needs to be an open, transparent, and accountable process. I think we are capable of that as a society. I don't think the solution is for misinformation to be presented alongside information, with equal weight and the user left to decide. That's why editorial standards evolved in the first place, for other media.
The article I posted describes how misinformation (in the form of conspiracy theories) can be addictive for some people. With COVID, that meant death for some. For election fraud, that meant violence and arrests for some. Those things constitute real & significant damage. If we as a society can prevent those outcomes, by promoting truthful information, and demoting false information, then in my view we should, at least to the best of our imperfect ability to do so.
Avatar2go wrote:SoCalPilot wrote:Is calling someone by the sex they were at birth a false fact? Should that be banned? If so, on what grounds, and where do you stop?
Twitter blocked the Hunter Biden laptop story and suspended accounts for it...only for it to be true.
Facebook blocked users from posting theories that covid could have leaked from a lab, only to reverse course and say it could be possible.
Is purposely blocking news bc you believe it to be false (when it could be true) good for society?
The thing is, a lot of what we believe to be factual today turns out to be false later.
This post is actually a good example of what I meant.
In truth, some gender identity posts were banned under the hate speech rules. The issue was not the person's birth sex, but rather referencing that in a derogatory way.
In truth, the Hunter Biden laptop story was banned as an election topic, because it did not (and still does not) involve Joe Biden. In the context of the election, it was misinformation, similar to the Hillary Clinton e-mail scandal, which came to nothing in the end, but impacted the 2016 election. The investigation of Hunter continues and we don't have a resolution of that yet. The focus is on his financial activities, and not anything related to the 2020 election.
In truth, the COVID lab leak theory began as a claim that COVID was a man-made virus, created in the Wuhan lab. The scientific consensus was (and remains) that it originated in the wild, based on genetic markers. Thus the topic was banned as misinformation, along with a host of other COVID and vaccine conspiracy theories. Later the theory was modified to a version where the virus was not made in the lab, but may have escaped from the lab. That was investigated by the WHO and by US intelligence services, with inconclusive results. We can neither prove nor disprove a relationship to the lab. So that discussion is not banned.
These were all attempts at applying editorial standards to Twitter, as I mentioned. They evolve with time and with further knowledge. And as I said, all such methods are by definition imperfect. You selected examples that favor your case of evolving knowledge making the ban less justified. There are others, such as election fraud, where the ban became increasingly justified with time and knowledge.
For that reason, I think the discussion should be on how the identification of misinformation occurs, and how it is administered on social media. That needs to be an open, transparent, and accountable process. I think we are capable of that as a society. I don't think the solution is for misinformation to be presented alongside information, with equal weight and the user left to decide. That's why editorial standards evolved in the first place, for other media.
The article I posted describes how misinformation (in the form of conspiracy theories) can be addictive for some people. With COVID, that meant death for some. For election fraud, that meant violence and arrests for some. Those things constitute real & significant damage. If we as a society can prevent those outcomes, by promoting truthful information, and demoting false information, then in my view we should, at least to the best of our imperfect ability to do so.
AirWorthy99 wrote:Elon just recently postedBy “free speech”, I simply mean that which matches the law.
I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law.
If people want less free speech, they will ask government to pass laws to that effect.
Therefore, going beyond the law is contrary to the will of the people.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/151 ... CF2pQqAAAA
Why would anyone be against this? simple. They want to control all information and opinion, so that only a group of powerful people are able to carry the narratives.
Twitter should just remove or ban content that is against the law.
That's the standard by which Twitter/FB and others should stick with. Not some made up as we go along and to who I don't like kind of standards. Hopefully this will be the future.
And if anyone doesn't like it, go build your own twitter.
seb146 wrote:The right has been in control of media an content for the past few decades. We all keep hearing "I listen to both sides" just to make them sound like they actually do watch CNN or MSNBC but their opinions are all based on Fox and OANN and AM radio and NYPost and such. Then, they turn around and whine about "liberal media" and "woke mob" and so forth. We don't need yet another far right wing outlet.
DIRECTFLT wrote:So yes, there's FOX News.... a some streaming channels... But, by far, the "Liberal" message is dispensed day and night, 24/7 on almost every other outlet....
Aesma wrote:Will twitter now allow nudity in France, then ?
DIRECTFLT wrote:..
So, yes, MAGA Americans deserve a mainstream place to discuss ideas, away from the (virutal) echo chambers that dominate the rest of what's seen on TV...
flyingturtle wrote:I'm between worried and clueless about the whole project. Twitter has always struggled to turn in a profit. The interest payments Musk has to dole out are higher than Twitter's revenue.
And a "free speech" platform? Welp. Wake me up when Twitter allows:
- nudity
- pornography
- speech supportive of adult-child relationships, err, "pedophilia"
- calls for the destruction of the United States
- Hamas and Al Qaida propaganda
- and much more
Unfettered free speech means yanking out all the stops. With no regard for advertising revenue (which will inevitably evaporate). And if you ask people for an admission fee, then it's literally no free speech anymore. Even worse if you have to pay extra to reach more people. Then it's just a speech for the rich scheme. (Citizens United v. FEC, anyone?)
LCDFlight wrote:
If it is not permissible to SAY particular theories about the coronavirus, it actually lends credence to the conspiracy theories, because it becomes true that certain avenues are being actively censored. What a sad substantiation of what is most likely an incorrect theory.
Right-wing alternatives to Twitter have failed to take off because conservatives want to make liberals miserable, not build a community in which there are no libs left to own. If conservatives successfully drive their targets off Twitter, or if the network becomes an unusable cesspool, it will become similarly worthless, both financially and politically. Social media platforms’ attempts to deal with harassment and disinformation have less to do with liberal political influence than making their platforms useful to advertisers.
AirWorthy99 wrote:What ever the outcome of this endeavor, only one person is going to be responsible and should be worried and that's Elon Musk. The company is fully private, no one else has absolutely nothing to be concerned about.
DIRECTFLT wrote:Of course we need a Mainstream Media outlet for the MAGA people. There are millions of them. Yet most mainstream TV News and TV Talk and TV entertainment is slanted toward the Left by content, and how stories are framed, and what is not covered...
So yes, there's FOX News.... a some streaming channels... But, by far, the "Liberal" message is dispensed day and night, 24/7 on almost every other outlet....
seb146 wrote:The right has been in control of media an content for the past few decades.
Aaron747 wrote:AirWorthy99 wrote:What ever the outcome of this endeavor, only one person is going to be responsible and should be worried and that's Elon Musk. The company is fully private, no one else has absolutely nothing to be concerned about.
I already said that in a previous post, but you were all worried about consistency and type of content moderation, all the same. That's the hypocrisy also being discussed.
Tugger wrote:Aaron747 wrote:AirWorthy99 wrote:What ever the outcome of this endeavor, only one person is going to be responsible and should be worried and that's Elon Musk. The company is fully private, no one else has absolutely nothing to be concerned about.
I already said that in a previous post, but you were all worried about consistency and type of content moderation, all the same. That's the hypocrisy also being discussed.
I would like to point something that many people have missed: Twitter has not yet been sold/purchased by Mr. Musk (and just as important, his investing partners). It is still a public company that has agreed to the sale and is doing due diligence negotiating the sale to completion.
Mr. Musk may very well not complete the sale, for reasons of his own (the $!B penalty not an issue when there are billions more at stake. AKA Tesla and it's stock value).
And it will not be Twitter that cancels the sale. As I noted above this is perfect for them, they have been trying for years to get out of the "monetize" trap.
Tugg
One thing makes it easier for Musk to walk away before any of this becomes a problem: The market partly anticipates it already. Twitter’s stock is currently trading 11% below his offer price – a fairly wide spread for a deal with little antitrust pushback. Musk’s tweets criticizing some company actions – potentially flouting the merger agreement - already suggest he might be starting to lose interest
Tugger wrote:Aaron747 wrote:AirWorthy99 wrote:What ever the outcome of this endeavor, only one person is going to be responsible and should be worried and that's Elon Musk. The company is fully private, no one else has absolutely nothing to be concerned about.
I already said that in a previous post, but you were all worried about consistency and type of content moderation, all the same. That's the hypocrisy also being discussed.
I would like to point something that many people have missed: Twitter has not yet been sold/purchased by Mr. Musk (and just as important, his investing partners). It is still a public company that has agreed to the sale and is doing due diligence negotiating the sale to completion.
Mr. Musk may very well not complete the sale, for reasons of his own (the $!B penalty not an issue when there are billions more at stake. AKA Tesla and it's stock value).
And it will not be Twitter that cancels the sale. As I noted above this is perfect for them, they have been trying for years to get out of the "monetize" trap.
Tugg
NIKV69 wrote:seb146 wrote:The right has been in control of media an content for the past few decades.
This is patently false. The media is dominated by left leaning networks like NBC and CNN. Look at the WH press corps. What % of they are right wing?
alfa164 wrote:NIKV69 wrote:seb146 wrote:The right has been in control of media an content for the past few decades.
This is patently false. The media is dominated by left leaning networks like NBC and CNN. Look at the WH press corps. What % of they are right wing?
Your statement is "patently false". Fox News - despite its admission that it is really an entertainment network, not a reliable news source - remains the dominant network in America. Unfortunately, too many people actually believe their blather:
"TV is America's most popular medium. ABC, CBS and NBC led the pack for decades until the mass take-up of cable and satellite and the arrival of the Fox network. Fox News Channel is the dominant US cable news network."
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-16757497
AirWorthy99 wrote:flyingturtle wrote:I'm between worried and clueless about the whole project. Twitter has always struggled to turn in a profit. The interest payments Musk has to dole out are higher than Twitter's revenue.
And a "free speech" platform? Welp. Wake me up when Twitter allows:
- nudity
- pornography
- speech supportive of adult-child relationships, err, "pedophilia"
- calls for the destruction of the United States
- Hamas and Al Qaida propaganda
- and much more
Unfettered free speech means yanking out all the stops. With no regard for advertising revenue (which will inevitably evaporate). And if you ask people for an admission fee, then it's literally no free speech anymore. Even worse if you have to pay extra to reach more people. Then it's just a speech for the rich scheme. (Citizens United v. FEC, anyone?)
Don't understand. Many on the left already don't care about any of that. As a matter of fact many like all of that.
And as for advertising revenue, that's for the owner of Twitter to be concerned. As for admission fee. Don't see many people claiming the same when we have to pay a monthly fee to subscribe to new york times or Washington post or a monthly cable payment to watch MSNBC or CNN. For many in the world a subscription to those services are only affordable for a very small amount of people of earth's population. Very privileged indeed.
What ever the outcome of this endeavor, only one person is going to be responsible and should be worried and that's Elon Musk. The company is fully private, no one else has absolutely nothing to be concerned about.
Clutch101 wrote:AirWorthy99 wrote:Don't understand. Many on the left already don't care about any of that. As a matter of fact many like all of that.
And as for advertising revenue, that's for the owner of Twitter to be concerned. As for admission fee. Don't see many people claiming the same when we have to pay a monthly fee to subscribe to new york times or Washington post or a monthly cable payment to watch MSNBC or CNN. For many in the world a subscription to those services are only affordable for a very small amount of people of earth's population. Very privileged indeed.
What ever the outcome of this endeavor, only one person is going to be responsible and should be worried and that's Elon Musk. The company is fully private, no one else has absolutely nothing to be concerned about.
Did you seriously just lump people on the left with being pedophiles? Makes sense, seeing those on the right, including yourself, have an affinity for beastiality.
Tugger wrote:Clutch101 wrote:AirWorthy99 wrote:Don't understand. Many on the left already don't care about any of that. As a matter of fact many like all of that.
And as for advertising revenue, that's for the owner of Twitter to be concerned. As for admission fee. Don't see many people claiming the same when we have to pay a monthly fee to subscribe to new york times or Washington post or a monthly cable payment to watch MSNBC or CNN. For many in the world a subscription to those services are only affordable for a very small amount of people of earth's population. Very privileged indeed.
What ever the outcome of this endeavor, only one person is going to be responsible and should be worried and that's Elon Musk. The company is fully private, no one else has absolutely nothing to be concerned about.
Did you seriously just lump people on the left with being pedophiles? Makes sense, seeing those on the right, including yourself, have an affinity for beastiality.
He also doesn't understand that Twitter is in fact NOT "fully private".
We will have to wait and see if it does become so. Quite honestly I think this purchase may well fall through but I won't jump the gun and say one way or the other. Whatever happens I am fine with.
Tugg
seb146 wrote:Fox is broadcast at all the American military bases around the country. Fox is on in lobbies of hotels and even some fast food places around the country. Fox is everywhere. MSNBC? CNN? We can't have those on because they are "liberal" propaganda that indoctrinate people to become woke.
I think I got all the right wing talking points in there.
Turn on AM radio anywhere in the country. Who is on? Sports, God (the white, English speaking one), and right wing talk. But, the right continues to play victim saying they have no voice in the media.
Aaron747 wrote:Tugger wrote:Aaron747 wrote:
I already said that in a previous post, but you were all worried about consistency and type of content moderation, all the same. That's the hypocrisy also being discussed.
I would like to point something that many people have missed: Twitter has not yet been sold/purchased by Mr. Musk (and just as important, his investing partners). It is still a public company that has agreed to the sale and is doing due diligence negotiating the sale to completion.
Mr. Musk may very well not complete the sale, for reasons of his own (the $!B penalty not an issue when there are billions more at stake. AKA Tesla and it's stock value).
And it will not be Twitter that cancels the sale. As I noted above this is perfect for them, they have been trying for years to get out of the "monetize" trap.
Tugg
Also because Elon is being Elon, the deal may be problematic since he is already making disparaging public comments about current Twitter employees - and this seems to be against the terms of the deal according to some comments I have come across.
AirWorthy99 wrote:I highly doubt this deal will fail, just because a few snowflakes get hurt feelings. This is more than 44 Billion dollars. I am pretty sure it will take a bit more than that for it to fall through.
AirWorthy99 wrote:Aaron747 wrote:Tugger wrote:I would like to point something that many people have missed: Twitter has not yet been sold/purchased by Mr. Musk (and just as important, his investing partners). It is still a public company that has agreed to the sale and is doing due diligence negotiating the sale to completion.
Mr. Musk may very well not complete the sale, for reasons of his own (the $!B penalty not an issue when there are billions more at stake. AKA Tesla and it's stock value).
And it will not be Twitter that cancels the sale. As I noted above this is perfect for them, they have been trying for years to get out of the "monetize" trap.
Tugg
Also because Elon is being Elon, the deal may be problematic since he is already making disparaging public comments about current Twitter employees - and this seems to be against the terms of the deal according to some comments I have come across.
I highly doubt this deal will fail, just because a few snowflakes get hurt feelings. This is more than 44 Billion dollars. I am pretty sure it will take a bit more than that for it to fall through.
alfa164 wrote:Your statement is "patently false". Fox News - despite its admission that it is really an entertainment network, not a reliable news source - remains the dominant network in America. Unfortunately, too many people actually believe their blather:
AirWorthy99 wrote:Aaron747 wrote:Tugger wrote:I would like to point something that many people have missed: Twitter has not yet been sold/purchased by Mr. Musk (and just as important, his investing partners). It is still a public company that has agreed to the sale and is doing due diligence negotiating the sale to completion.
Mr. Musk may very well not complete the sale, for reasons of his own (the $!B penalty not an issue when there are billions more at stake. AKA Tesla and it's stock value).
And it will not be Twitter that cancels the sale. As I noted above this is perfect for them, they have been trying for years to get out of the "monetize" trap.
Tugg
Also because Elon is being Elon, the deal may be problematic since he is already making disparaging public comments about current Twitter employees - and this seems to be against the terms of the deal according to some comments I have come across.
I highly doubt this deal will fail, just because a few snowflakes get hurt feelings. This is more than 44 Billion dollars. I am pretty sure it will take a bit more than that for it to fall through.
TSS wrote:An interesting phenomenon has occurred since Mr. Musk's bid was accepted. If Twitter has nothing to hide and there was no intentional manipulation going on behind the scenes at Twitter, then what is the explanation for this? Disposing of evidence before the new boss takes over, perhaps?
Twitter Is PANICKING And May Be Purging Code That Hurt Conservatives, Creepy Conspiracy Unveiled-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGtYJ8keRQc
Aaron747 wrote:TSS wrote:An interesting phenomenon has occurred since Mr. Musk's bid was accepted. If Twitter has nothing to hide and there was no intentional manipulation going on behind the scenes at Twitter, then what is the explanation for this? Disposing of evidence before the new boss takes over, perhaps?
Twitter Is PANICKING And May Be Purging Code That Hurt Conservatives, Creepy Conspiracy Unveiled-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGtYJ8keRQc
The explanation is a bunch of unverified conjecture from a YT channel that obviously loves to trigger people as their revenue model. I don’t see any video titles in their channel listing that are not histrionic.
And even if there were ‘intentional manipulation’ happening within a private entity, is that illegal? Did the BOD know? Was policy in place and all PR/CTO/COO/CCO entities were aware? Much to be looked at before anything worth reacting to.
AirWorthy99 wrote:Aaron747 wrote:TSS wrote:An interesting phenomenon has occurred since Mr. Musk's bid was accepted. If Twitter has nothing to hide and there was no intentional manipulation going on behind the scenes at Twitter, then what is the explanation for this? Disposing of evidence before the new boss takes over, perhaps?
Twitter Is PANICKING And May Be Purging Code That Hurt Conservatives, Creepy Conspiracy Unveiled-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGtYJ8keRQc
The explanation is a bunch of unverified conjecture from a YT channel that obviously loves to trigger people as their revenue model. I don’t see any video titles in their channel listing that are not histrionic.
And even if there were ‘intentional manipulation’ happening within a private entity, is that illegal? Did the BOD know? Was policy in place and all PR/CTO/COO/CCO entities were aware? Much to be looked at before anything worth reacting to.
Something is really going on, considering many prominent conservatives have seen bumps of up to more than 100K followers. Don't see any reason to believe that other than Twitter was shadow banning conservatives.
TSS wrote:An interesting phenomenon has occurred since Mr. Musk's bid was accepted. If Twitter has nothing to hide and there was no intentional manipulation going on behind the scenes at Twitter, then what is the explanation for this? Disposing of evidence before the new boss takes over, perhaps?
Twitter Is PANICKING And May Be Purging Code That Hurt Conservatives, Creepy Conspiracy Unveiled-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGtYJ8keRQc