Elon Musk (yet another authoritarian)

[Kismet]

The answer to your question is the Lincoln quote: You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.

You can't seriously think this guy is a "con artist". No one ever conned themselves to such success over such an extended period of time.

The hyperbole of your comment is what's dangerous to me. Wouldn't it be far easier to simply say that you do not care for Musk's personal foibles (which is fair), rather than make a patently dubious comment like "he's a con artist"?

Maybe start by getting the quote correct - Lincoln actually said (during his unsuccessful campaign for Senate)

“Judge Douglas cannot fool the people: you may fool people for a time; you can fool a part of the people all the time; but you can’t fool all the people all the time.”

Subtle but significant difference in meaning. You're welcome.

[get it to x]

I won't post in too many threads here at Fanlax, but this thread on Musk intrigues me for obvious reasons.

I find it extraordinary that folks come calling for Musk's head when its obvious they don't really know his story (other than what perhaps their favored media organs grind out for them day to day). Someone said he is a sociopath. Really?

Before anyone accuses me of having zero self-awareness of Musk's faults, believe me I can just as easily tell you his frailties (which we all have) as well as his accomplishments.

I note for the Musk haters a lesson. And this is a relatively recent phenomenon, which I think should inform you how history will similarly remember Elon Musk: that's the story of Steve Jobs. Jobs was significantly less popular inside his company than Musk has ever been...many Apple employees literally hated Jobs. The same cannot be said about Musk. The vast majority of Tesla, Boring, and Space-X employees swear by Elon Musk.

And like Jobs, Musk is casually accused (in a snarky way) by his enemies of not being responsible for his company's products: HE'S NOT AN ENGINEER, they say. Does that point (to the extent it's even accurate...it's not, in both men's cases) even matter at all? These companies are changing the world, with one man's vision steering the way.

Today, ten years or so after his death, Steve Jobs is recalled as a benevolent genius, responsible for changing the entire trajectory of technology. His wife carries on a legacy of philanthropy in his name. His personal legacy grows brighter every day he is dead.

The Musk hatred is undeserved, uninformed, and unwise. He likes free speech; is that really an issue with folks?

... back with the bullsh*t hey KellyAnne. He is another con artist, and clearly has you fooled. He is in it for himself pure and simple. He has seen what your boy Trump got away with and he is trying his hand at it. He figures he is smarter than Orange Duce, and he is, so playing Trump's fools should be easy for him, or so he thinks. Initial evidence seems like he has made a good bet.

The collective value of all of Musk's companies, past and present, is over $1 Trillion. There are well over a million shareholders. There are dozens of banks. There are over 200,000 employees. There are hundreds of bondholders.

Musk is not a con artist.

What a lazy and dangerous comment.

... the truth is only dangerous to your narrative.

And free speech is only dangerous to yours.

... more bullsh*t. You clowns have no claim to owning free speech, like it is something special to you. Your constant whine that tech companies and liberals, etc. are limiting your free speech is laughable. I see almost no limit on what you guys say, how loud you say it, how offensive you can be. YOU ARE CRYBABIES, that is all!

Really? Many Biden voters were surveyed, and a fair number (1 in 6) said if they had known about the Hunter Biden laptop contents they would have either voted for Trump or sat out the election. 81,000,000 x.167 = 13,500,000. The NY Post story was embargoed from social media, where most people get their news.

https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/202 ... en-voters/

[jhu72]

I won't post in too many threads here at Fanlax, but this thread on Musk intrigues me for obvious reasons.

I find it extraordinary that folks come calling for Musk's head when its obvious they don't really know his story (other than what perhaps their favored media organs grind out for them day to day). Someone said he is a sociopath. Really?

Before anyone accuses me of having zero self-awareness of Musk's faults, believe me I can just as easily tell you his frailties (which we all have) as well as his accomplishments.

I note for the Musk haters a lesson. And this is a relatively recent phenomenon, which I think should inform you how history will similarly remember Elon Musk: that's the story of Steve Jobs. Jobs was significantly less popular inside his company than Musk has ever been...many Apple employees literally hated Jobs. The same cannot be said about Musk. The vast majority of Tesla, Boring, and Space-X employees swear by Elon Musk.

And like Jobs, Musk is casually accused (in a snarky way) by his enemies of not being responsible for his company's products: HE'S NOT AN ENGINEER, they say. Does that point (to the extent it's even accurate...it's not, in both men's cases) even matter at all? These companies are changing the world, with one man's vision steering the way.

Today, ten years or so after his death, Steve Jobs is recalled as a benevolent genius, responsible for changing the entire trajectory of technology. His wife carries on a legacy of philanthropy in his name. His personal legacy grows brighter every day he is dead.

The Musk hatred is undeserved, uninformed, and unwise. He likes free speech; is that really an issue with folks?

... back with the bullsh*t hey KellyAnne. He is another con artist, and clearly has you fooled. He is in it for himself pure and simple. He has seen what your boy Trump got away with and he is trying his hand at it. He figures he is smarter than Orange Duce, and he is, so playing Trump's fools should be easy for him, or so he thinks. Initial evidence seems like he has made a good bet.

The collective value of all of Musk's companies, past and present, is over $1 Trillion. There are well over a million shareholders. There are dozens of banks. There are over 200,000 employees. There are hundreds of bondholders.

Musk is not a con artist.

What a lazy and dangerous comment.

mmm, "free speech".

What specifically makes this comment "dangerous"?

What difference does it make how much money his companies are valued at, etc, etc, in the question of whether he is a 'con artist'...cannot someone be an incredibly successful 'con artist'...heck, one achieved the Presidency...pretty darn 'successful'...but a grifter nevertheless.

Personally, I think Musk has proven to be a quite successful entrepreneur and indeed his various enterprises have delivered substantial innovations to the public good. Doesn't mean that he's not got some grift in him (but, hey, sometimes an entrepreneur needs to push the envelope in getting the resources necessary to take risk) but I see his issues much more as a matter of huge ego potentially vulnerable to huge hubris.

The answer to your question is the Lincoln quote: You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.

You can't seriously think this guy is a "con artist". No one ever conned themselves to such success over such an extended period of time.

The hyperbole of your comment is what's dangerous to me. Wouldn't it be far easier to simply say that you do not care for Musk's personal foibles (which is fair), rather than make a patently dubious comment like "he's a con artist"?

... he is a con man, the same way P. T. Barnum was a con man. Making money doesn't preclude one from being a con man. Being successful or perceived as such doesn't preclude one from being a con man. Musk subscribes to the philosophy "there is a sucker born every minute", just like your boy Trump. Anything he can say to gain advantage is fine by him. He is most certainly lying about is political philosophy and his intent for Twitter. He has identified his marks, the same way Trump did.

You actually have it backwards: No one ever found such success over such an extended period of time, without being a bit of a con man!

[MDlaxfan76]

I won't post in too many threads here at Fanlax, but this thread on Musk intrigues me for obvious reasons.

I find it extraordinary that folks come calling for Musk's head when its obvious they don't really know his story (other than what perhaps their favored media organs grind out for them day to day). Someone said he is a sociopath. Really?

Before anyone accuses me of having zero self-awareness of Musk's faults, believe me I can just as easily tell you his frailties (which we all have) as well as his accomplishments.

I note for the Musk haters a lesson. And this is a relatively recent phenomenon, which I think should inform you how history will similarly remember Elon Musk: that's the story of Steve Jobs. Jobs was significantly less popular inside his company than Musk has ever been...many Apple employees literally hated Jobs. The same cannot be said about Musk. The vast majority of Tesla, Boring, and Space-X employees swear by Elon Musk.

And like Jobs, Musk is casually accused (in a snarky way) by his enemies of not being responsible for his company's products: HE'S NOT AN ENGINEER, they say. Does that point (to the extent it's even accurate...it's not, in both men's cases) even matter at all? These companies are changing the world, with one man's vision steering the way.

Today, ten years or so after his death, Steve Jobs is recalled as a benevolent genius, responsible for changing the entire trajectory of technology. His wife carries on a legacy of philanthropy in his name. His personal legacy grows brighter every day he is dead.

The Musk hatred is undeserved, uninformed, and unwise. He likes free speech; is that really an issue with folks?

An article was posted by one of those (former) employees who knew Musk well...I read it and in response to someone asking what it said, I used the word the writer had used: sociopath.

What does being a sociopath mean?
Overview. Antisocial personality disorder, sometimes called sociopathy, is a mental disorder in which a person consistently shows no regard for right and wrong and ignores the rights and feelings of others.

We know that Musk has Asperger's (which is now reclassified as autism spectrum disorder), which has some features in the difficulties of perceiving the feelings of others. To be clear, this doesn't mean that those with this challenge are sociopaths or psychopaths. They may or may not, just like everyone else.

What is alarming about Musk in particular is his at least seeming disregard for the feelings of others, the damage one can do others by saying things hurtful or damaging...and seemingly little regard for truth...indeed, a seeming predilection for damaging conspiracy theories...under the guise of "free speech". There's way, way too much history of his doing so to be not taken seriously as such.

IF he indeed has little or no regard for the feelings of others or the truth, and now has the power through this huge social media platform to increase the spread of hurtful misinformation, the only important response we (the USA) should be having is to how to restrict that spread through regulation. Consequences need to be clear, because reliance on his goodwill will not suffice.

Musk clearly understands the benefits of marketing 'social goods' as such and enjoys the rewards for doing so, and so he needs to also understand the consequences of marketing 'social harm'. He needs to not be rewarded for the harm, in the guise of a 'social good' (he and the gullible attempt) of "free speech".

I don't think is is actually a "Musk problem", rather, the 'social harm' is endemic industry-wide when unregulated. These are externalities that need to be regulated in a capitalist society in order for that capitalist society to be at its most productive.

That's a very dangerous thing to say, and I don't think you quite understand the effects.

Just yesterday we saw an incredible story in The Intercept detailing exactly how the federal government's DHS and its Orwellian "Disinformation Governance Board", without any legal authority whatsoever, sought to control social media information.

https://theintercept.com/2022/10/31/soc ... ation-dhs/

This is simply a stunning betrayal of American rights and Democrats should pay at the ballot box as a result.

Everyone on the Internet assumes they know best what's fact and what's fiction, what's information and what's misinformation, when really the only thing ever that clarifies truth is freedom of expression, even when you hate it. To the extent you think otherwise, you reveal yourself as having zero trust in your fellow Americans and the very basic laws and evolution of both truth and science.

You should really think twice before posting something like you did; it's a slippery slope indeed to far worse outcomes, unless I am mistaking what you intended to say.

We entirely disagree.

I want social media companies as well as whoever utilizes them to spread misinformation to be financially (and in some instances criminally) responsible for the consequences of their misinformation.

Ala slander or false advertising of drugs, etc one should be liable for untrue statements that hurt others.

There are people, companies, etc who are profiting enormously by the spread of provably false information. Indeed, they know it to be false or are negligent in their disregard for the truth.

Does it need to be proved as such in court...yes.
Can people/companies defend themselves in court...sure.

But liable.

Same as pollution.

Very dangerous assumptions built into your moral stance here. When a 'Trump-like' figure re-appears on scene, do you want to be the target of HIS 'Disinformation Board'? I don't.

Just because you dislike a guy like Musk today does not entitle you to run roughshod over a few hundred years of fundamental American rights of speech. It simply doesn't.

Did you bother to read my post...are you Petey?
He ignored the substance of what I wrote the same way.

Liability...in court.
Not some centralized power.

No loss of "free speech", just provably false and damaging speech...unless, you're saying that false advertising and slander should be "free" of liability.

I believe in consequences.
I also believe that our capitalist system is most productive when there are organized protections agains theft and assault, "fences" that are enforced. That includes making sure that the costs of externalities are appropriately distributed.

But then I'm an actual 'conservative'.

[jhu72]

I won't post in too many threads here at Fanlax, but this thread on Musk intrigues me for obvious reasons.

I find it extraordinary that folks come calling for Musk's head when its obvious they don't really know his story (other than what perhaps their favored media organs grind out for them day to day). Someone said he is a sociopath. Really?

Before anyone accuses me of having zero self-awareness of Musk's faults, believe me I can just as easily tell you his frailties (which we all have) as well as his accomplishments.

I note for the Musk haters a lesson. And this is a relatively recent phenomenon, which I think should inform you how history will similarly remember Elon Musk: that's the story of Steve Jobs. Jobs was significantly less popular inside his company than Musk has ever been...many Apple employees literally hated Jobs. The same cannot be said about Musk. The vast majority of Tesla, Boring, and Space-X employees swear by Elon Musk.

And like Jobs, Musk is casually accused (in a snarky way) by his enemies of not being responsible for his company's products: HE'S NOT AN ENGINEER, they say. Does that point (to the extent it's even accurate...it's not, in both men's cases) even matter at all? These companies are changing the world, with one man's vision steering the way.

Today, ten years or so after his death, Steve Jobs is recalled as a benevolent genius, responsible for changing the entire trajectory of technology. His wife carries on a legacy of philanthropy in his name. His personal legacy grows brighter every day he is dead.

The Musk hatred is undeserved, uninformed, and unwise. He likes free speech; is that really an issue with folks?

... back with the bullsh*t hey KellyAnne. He is another con artist, and clearly has you fooled. He is in it for himself pure and simple. He has seen what your boy Trump got away with and he is trying his hand at it. He figures he is smarter than Orange Duce, and he is, so playing Trump's fools should be easy for him, or so he thinks. Initial evidence seems like he has made a good bet.

The collective value of all of Musk's companies, past and present, is over $1 Trillion. There are well over a million shareholders. There are dozens of banks. There are over 200,000 employees. There are hundreds of bondholders.

Musk is not a con artist.

What a lazy and dangerous comment.

... the truth is only dangerous to your narrative.

And free speech is only dangerous to yours.

... more bullsh*t. You clowns have no claim to owning free speech, like it is something special to you. Your constant whine that tech companies and liberals, etc. are limiting your free speech is laughable. I see almost no limit on what you guys say, how loud you say it, how offensive you can be. YOU ARE CRYBABIES, that is all!

Really? Many Biden voters were surveyed, and a fair number (1 in 6) said if they had known about the Hunter Biden laptop contents they would have either voted for Trump or sat out the election. 81,000,000 x.167 = 13,500,000. The NY Post story was embargoed from social media, where most people get their news.

https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/202 ... en-voters/

Social media was not then and is not now the only way to get your news. The laptop story was out there, the story widely available pre-election. What, people couldn't read the NY Post or the 100s of other right wing blogs and papers available on the internet?? The social media companies identified it as something that smelled bogus, fake, political dirty trick, a right wing conspiracy theory and responsibly in my opinion refused to spread the story. It still has not been proven and comes off as speculation.

Just tell the truth, what you want is the ability to lie as much as you want and not be held liable! That is not free speech.

[get it to x]

I won't post in too many threads here at Fanlax, but this thread on Musk intrigues me for obvious reasons.

I find it extraordinary that folks come calling for Musk's head when its obvious they don't really know his story (other than what perhaps their favored media organs grind out for them day to day). Someone said he is a sociopath. Really?

Before anyone accuses me of having zero self-awareness of Musk's faults, believe me I can just as easily tell you his frailties (which we all have) as well as his accomplishments.

I note for the Musk haters a lesson. And this is a relatively recent phenomenon, which I think should inform you how history will similarly remember Elon Musk: that's the story of Steve Jobs. Jobs was significantly less popular inside his company than Musk has ever been...many Apple employees literally hated Jobs. The same cannot be said about Musk. The vast majority of Tesla, Boring, and Space-X employees swear by Elon Musk.

And like Jobs, Musk is casually accused (in a snarky way) by his enemies of not being responsible for his company's products: HE'S NOT AN ENGINEER, they say. Does that point (to the extent it's even accurate...it's not, in both men's cases) even matter at all? These companies are changing the world, with one man's vision steering the way.

Today, ten years or so after his death, Steve Jobs is recalled as a benevolent genius, responsible for changing the entire trajectory of technology. His wife carries on a legacy of philanthropy in his name. His personal legacy grows brighter every day he is dead.

The Musk hatred is undeserved, uninformed, and unwise. He likes free speech; is that really an issue with folks?

... back with the bullsh*t hey KellyAnne. He is another con artist, and clearly has you fooled. He is in it for himself pure and simple. He has seen what your boy Trump got away with and he is trying his hand at it. He figures he is smarter than Orange Duce, and he is, so playing Trump's fools should be easy for him, or so he thinks. Initial evidence seems like he has made a good bet.

The collective value of all of Musk's companies, past and present, is over $1 Trillion. There are well over a million shareholders. There are dozens of banks. There are over 200,000 employees. There are hundreds of bondholders.

Musk is not a con artist.

What a lazy and dangerous comment.

... the truth is only dangerous to your narrative.

And free speech is only dangerous to yours.

... more bullsh*t. You clowns have no claim to owning free speech, like it is something special to you. Your constant whine that tech companies and liberals, etc. are limiting your free speech is laughable. I see almost no limit on what you guys say, how loud you say it, how offensive you can be. YOU ARE CRYBABIES, that is all!

Really? Many Biden voters were surveyed, and a fair number (1 in 6) said if they had known about the Hunter Biden laptop contents they would have either voted for Trump or sat out the election. 81,000,000 x.167 = 13,500,000. The NY Post story was embargoed from social media, where most people get their news.

https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/202 ... en-voters/

Social media was not then and is not now the only way to get your news. The laptop story was out there, the story widely available pre-election. What, people couldn't read the NY Post or the 100s of other right wing blogs and papers available on the internet?? The social media companies identified it as something that smelled bogus, fake, political dirty trick, a right wing conspiracy theory and responsibly in my opinion refused to spread the story. It still has not been proven and comes off as speculation.

Just tell the truth, what you want is the ability to lie as much as you want and not be held liable! That is not free speech.

Your willful blindness doesn't serve you well. Maybe you can tell us where you get your news, as the WaPo and NYT both verified the authenticity of the contents of the laptop, including those related to the CEFC China Energy and Burisma deals. "There are none so blind as those that will not see."

https://nypost.com/2022/03/30/washingto ... p-is-real/

[jhu72]

Musk declares open season on the LGBTQ.

[jhu72]

I won't post in too many threads here at Fanlax, but this thread on Musk intrigues me for obvious reasons.

I find it extraordinary that folks come calling for Musk's head when its obvious they don't really know his story (other than what perhaps their favored media organs grind out for them day to day). Someone said he is a sociopath. Really?

Before anyone accuses me of having zero self-awareness of Musk's faults, believe me I can just as easily tell you his frailties (which we all have) as well as his accomplishments.

I note for the Musk haters a lesson. And this is a relatively recent phenomenon, which I think should inform you how history will similarly remember Elon Musk: that's the story of Steve Jobs. Jobs was significantly less popular inside his company than Musk has ever been...many Apple employees literally hated Jobs. The same cannot be said about Musk. The vast majority of Tesla, Boring, and Space-X employees swear by Elon Musk.

And like Jobs, Musk is casually accused (in a snarky way) by his enemies of not being responsible for his company's products: HE'S NOT AN ENGINEER, they say. Does that point (to the extent it's even accurate...it's not, in both men's cases) even matter at all? These companies are changing the world, with one man's vision steering the way.

Today, ten years or so after his death, Steve Jobs is recalled as a benevolent genius, responsible for changing the entire trajectory of technology. His wife carries on a legacy of philanthropy in his name. His personal legacy grows brighter every day he is dead.

The Musk hatred is undeserved, uninformed, and unwise. He likes free speech; is that really an issue with folks?

... back with the bullsh*t hey KellyAnne. He is another con artist, and clearly has you fooled. He is in it for himself pure and simple. He has seen what your boy Trump got away with and he is trying his hand at it. He figures he is smarter than Orange Duce, and he is, so playing Trump's fools should be easy for him, or so he thinks. Initial evidence seems like he has made a good bet.

The collective value of all of Musk's companies, past and present, is over $1 Trillion. There are well over a million shareholders. There are dozens of banks. There are over 200,000 employees. There are hundreds of bondholders.

Musk is not a con artist.

What a lazy and dangerous comment.

... the truth is only dangerous to your narrative.

And free speech is only dangerous to yours.

... more bullsh*t. You clowns have no claim to owning free speech, like it is something special to you. Your constant whine that tech companies and liberals, etc. are limiting your free speech is laughable. I see almost no limit on what you guys say, how loud you say it, how offensive you can be. YOU ARE CRYBABIES, that is all!

Really? Many Biden voters were surveyed, and a fair number (1 in 6) said if they had known about the Hunter Biden laptop contents they would have either voted for Trump or sat out the election. 81,000,000 x.167 = 13,500,000. The NY Post story was embargoed from social media, where most people get their news.

https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/202 ... en-voters/

Social media was not then and is not now the only way to get your news. The laptop story was out there, the story widely available pre-election. What, people couldn't read the NY Post or the 100s of other right wing blogs and papers available on the internet?? The social media companies identified it as something that smelled bogus, fake, political dirty trick, a right wing conspiracy theory and responsibly in my opinion refused to spread the story. It still has not been proven and comes off as speculation.

Just tell the truth, what you want is the ability to lie as much as you want and not be held liable! That is not free speech.

Your willful blindness doesn't serve you well. Maybe you can tell us where you get your news, as the WaPo and NYT both verified the authenticity of the contents of the laptop, including those related to the CEFC China Energy and Burisma deals. "There are none so blind as those that will not see."

https://nypost.com/2022/03/30/washingto ... p-is-real/

So what, he had files on his laptop? Then comes your speculation. It has been known since the beginning he had business dealings, he had admitted to. He has admitted to not properly paying taxes on income. Is there a punch line?

[PizzaSnake]

I won't post in too many threads here at Fanlax, but this thread on Musk intrigues me for obvious reasons.

I find it extraordinary that folks come calling for Musk's head when its obvious they don't really know his story (other than what perhaps their favored media organs grind out for them day to day). Someone said he is a sociopath. Really?

Before anyone accuses me of having zero self-awareness of Musk's faults, believe me I can just as easily tell you his frailties (which we all have) as well as his accomplishments.

I note for the Musk haters a lesson. And this is a relatively recent phenomenon, which I think should inform you how history will similarly remember Elon Musk: that's the story of Steve Jobs. Jobs was significantly less popular inside his company than Musk has ever been...many Apple employees literally hated Jobs. The same cannot be said about Musk. The vast majority of Tesla, Boring, and Space-X employees swear by Elon Musk.

And like Jobs, Musk is casually accused (in a snarky way) by his enemies of not being responsible for his company's products: HE'S NOT AN ENGINEER, they say. Does that point (to the extent it's even accurate...it's not, in both men's cases) even matter at all? These companies are changing the world, with one man's vision steering the way.

Today, ten years or so after his death, Steve Jobs is recalled as a benevolent genius, responsible for changing the entire trajectory of technology. His wife carries on a legacy of philanthropy in his name. His personal legacy grows brighter every day he is dead.

The Musk hatred is undeserved, uninformed, and unwise. He likes free speech; is that really an issue with folks?

An article was posted by one of those (former) employees who knew Musk well...I read it and in response to someone asking what it said, I used the word the writer had used: sociopath.

What does being a sociopath mean?
Overview. Antisocial personality disorder, sometimes called sociopathy, is a mental disorder in which a person consistently shows no regard for right and wrong and ignores the rights and feelings of others.

We know that Musk has Asperger's (which is now reclassified as autism spectrum disorder), which has some features in the difficulties of perceiving the feelings of others. To be clear, this doesn't mean that those with this challenge are sociopaths or psychopaths. They may or may not, just like everyone else.

What is alarming about Musk in particular is his at least seeming disregard for the feelings of others, the damage one can do others by saying things hurtful or damaging...and seemingly little regard for truth...indeed, a seeming predilection for damaging conspiracy theories...under the guise of "free speech". There's way, way too much history of his doing so to be not taken seriously as such.

IF he indeed has little or no regard for the feelings of others or the truth, and now has the power through this huge social media platform to increase the spread of hurtful misinformation, the only important response we (the USA) should be having is to how to restrict that spread through regulation. Consequences need to be clear, because reliance on his goodwill will not suffice.

Musk clearly understands the benefits of marketing 'social goods' as such and enjoys the rewards for doing so, and so he needs to also understand the consequences of marketing 'social harm'. He needs to not be rewarded for the harm, in the guise of a 'social good' (he and the gullible attempt) of "free speech".

I don't think is is actually a "Musk problem", rather, the 'social harm' is endemic industry-wide when unregulated. These are externalities that need to be regulated in a capitalist society in order for that capitalist society to be at its most productive.

That's a very dangerous thing to say, and I don't think you quite understand the effects.

Just yesterday we saw an incredible story in The Intercept detailing exactly how the federal government's DHS and its Orwellian "Disinformation Governance Board", without any legal authority whatsoever, sought to control social media information.

https://theintercept.com/2022/10/31/soc ... ation-dhs/

This is simply a stunning betrayal of American rights and Democrats should pay at the ballot box as a result.

Everyone on the Internet assumes they know best what's fact and what's fiction, what's information and what's misinformation, when really the only thing ever that clarifies truth is freedom of expression, even when you hate it. To the extent you think otherwise, you reveal yourself as having zero trust in your fellow Americans and the very basic laws and evolution of both truth and science.

You should really think twice before posting something like you did; it's a slippery slope indeed to far worse outcomes, unless I am mistaking what you intended to say.

We entirely disagree.

I want social media companies as well as whoever utilizes them to spread misinformation to be financially (and in some instances criminally) responsible for the consequences of their misinformation.

Ala slander or false advertising of drugs, etc one should be liable for untrue statements that hurt others.

There are people, companies, etc who are profiting enormously by the spread of provably false information. Indeed, they know it to be false or are negligent in their disregard for the truth.

Does it need to be proved as such in court...yes.
Can people/companies defend themselves in court...sure.

But liable.

Same as pollution.

Very dangerous assumptions built into your moral stance here. When a 'Trump-like' figure re-appears on scene, do you want to be the target of HIS 'Disinformation Board'? I don't.

Just because you dislike a guy like Musk today does not entitle you to run roughshod over a few hundred years of fundamental American rights of speech. It simply doesn't.

I'm not sure you understand what the 1st amendment says.

"Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

What law has Congress made that "abridges" the freedom of speech? What does that have to do with private entities restricting speech which they do not like?

However, the "right" of free speech in public venues is not without restriction. The SC has ruled on this. Or do you think those restrictions are unreasonable? Or are you waiting for the current "Supremes" to weigh in on the matter of social media (a fairly recent phenomenon)? Then bring a case that demonstrates standing and worj your way through the system.

Or do you wish to complain and assert non-existent truths?

[elonmuskrockefeller]

I won't post in too many threads here at Fanlax, but this thread on Musk intrigues me for obvious reasons.

I find it extraordinary that folks come calling for Musk's head when its obvious they don't really know his story (other than what perhaps their favored media organs grind out for them day to day). Someone said he is a sociopath. Really?

Before anyone accuses me of having zero self-awareness of Musk's faults, believe me I can just as easily tell you his frailties (which we all have) as well as his accomplishments.

I note for the Musk haters a lesson. And this is a relatively recent phenomenon, which I think should inform you how history will similarly remember Elon Musk: that's the story of Steve Jobs. Jobs was significantly less popular inside his company than Musk has ever been...many Apple employees literally hated Jobs. The same cannot be said about Musk. The vast majority of Tesla, Boring, and Space-X employees swear by Elon Musk.

And like Jobs, Musk is casually accused (in a snarky way) by his enemies of not being responsible for his company's products: HE'S NOT AN ENGINEER, they say. Does that point (to the extent it's even accurate...it's not, in both men's cases) even matter at all? These companies are changing the world, with one man's vision steering the way.

Today, ten years or so after his death, Steve Jobs is recalled as a benevolent genius, responsible for changing the entire trajectory of technology. His wife carries on a legacy of philanthropy in his name. His personal legacy grows brighter every day he is dead.

The Musk hatred is undeserved, uninformed, and unwise. He likes free speech; is that really an issue with folks?

An article was posted by one of those (former) employees who knew Musk well...I read it and in response to someone asking what it said, I used the word the writer had used: sociopath.

What does being a sociopath mean?
Overview. Antisocial personality disorder, sometimes called sociopathy, is a mental disorder in which a person consistently shows no regard for right and wrong and ignores the rights and feelings of others.

We know that Musk has Asperger's (which is now reclassified as autism spectrum disorder), which has some features in the difficulties of perceiving the feelings of others. To be clear, this doesn't mean that those with this challenge are sociopaths or psychopaths. They may or may not, just like everyone else.

What is alarming about Musk in particular is his at least seeming disregard for the feelings of others, the damage one can do others by saying things hurtful or damaging...and seemingly little regard for truth...indeed, a seeming predilection for damaging conspiracy theories...under the guise of "free speech". There's way, way too much history of his doing so to be not taken seriously as such.

IF he indeed has little or no regard for the feelings of others or the truth, and now has the power through this huge social media platform to increase the spread of hurtful misinformation, the only important response we (the USA) should be having is to how to restrict that spread through regulation. Consequences need to be clear, because reliance on his goodwill will not suffice.

Musk clearly understands the benefits of marketing 'social goods' as such and enjoys the rewards for doing so, and so he needs to also understand the consequences of marketing 'social harm'. He needs to not be rewarded for the harm, in the guise of a 'social good' (he and the gullible attempt) of "free speech".

I don't think is is actually a "Musk problem", rather, the 'social harm' is endemic industry-wide when unregulated. These are externalities that need to be regulated in a capitalist society in order for that capitalist society to be at its most productive.

That's a very dangerous thing to say, and I don't think you quite understand the effects.

Just yesterday we saw an incredible story in The Intercept detailing exactly how the federal government's DHS and its Orwellian "Disinformation Governance Board", without any legal authority whatsoever, sought to control social media information.

https://theintercept.com/2022/10/31/soc ... ation-dhs/

This is simply a stunning betrayal of American rights and Democrats should pay at the ballot box as a result.

Everyone on the Internet assumes they know best what's fact and what's fiction, what's information and what's misinformation, when really the only thing ever that clarifies truth is freedom of expression, even when you hate it. To the extent you think otherwise, you reveal yourself as having zero trust in your fellow Americans and the very basic laws and evolution of both truth and science.

You should really think twice before posting something like you did; it's a slippery slope indeed to far worse outcomes, unless I am mistaking what you intended to say.

We entirely disagree.

I want social media companies as well as whoever utilizes them to spread misinformation to be financially (and in some instances criminally) responsible for the consequences of their misinformation.

Ala slander or false advertising of drugs, etc one should be liable for untrue statements that hurt others.

There are people, companies, etc who are profiting enormously by the spread of provably false information. Indeed, they know it to be false or are negligent in their disregard for the truth.

Does it need to be proved as such in court...yes.
Can people/companies defend themselves in court...sure.

But liable.

Same as pollution.

Very dangerous assumptions built into your moral stance here. When a 'Trump-like' figure re-appears on scene, do you want to be the target of HIS 'Disinformation Board'? I don't.

Just because you dislike a guy like Musk today does not entitle you to run roughshod over a few hundred years of fundamental American rights of speech. It simply doesn't.

Did you bother to read my post...are you Petey?
He ignored the substance of what I wrote the same way.

Liability...in court.
Not some centralized power.

No loss of "free speech", just provably false and damaging speech...unless, you're saying that false advertising and slander should be "free" of liability.

I believe in consequences.
I also believe that our capitalist system is most productive when there are organized protections agains theft and assault, "fences" that are enforced. That includes making sure that the costs of externalities are appropriately distributed.

But then I'm an actual 'conservative'.

Of course I read your post, where you make one good common sense point (ie: slander is actionable in a court of law), but the rest is hyperbole and uninformed.

Your previous post even to that one specifically calls for targeted enforcement and financial penalties of vague speech crimes, directed against Elon Musk (for violations to come, I gather?). He might "hurt" someone with speech, so he should be charged with a crime?

IF he indeed has little or no regard for the feelings of others or the truth... You do add the qualifier, the IF, but then you proceed to make charges against him such as your beliefs are information rather than belief.

seemingly little regard for truth If Elon has such seemingly LITTLE regard for the truth, could you point out when and what he said which is untruthful? Presumably there are hundreds of examples if not thousands if he has such seemingly little regard for the truth. If you say 'he said Paul Pelosi was in a lover''s quarrel, all he said in one tweet was 'perhaps we should not jump to conclusions before the facts are known' (a case where we still don't know the facts). Isn't that a perfectly rational position to take, to wait for the facts to be known? Is it your contention, assuming that one example is your one and only example of his untruthfulness, that Musk be charged with a crime, for simply asking that people wait for the facts of a case before determining the case? If so, wow.

[elonmuskrockefeller]

I won't post in too many threads here at Fanlax, but this thread on Musk intrigues me for obvious reasons.

I find it extraordinary that folks come calling for Musk's head when its obvious they don't really know his story (other than what perhaps their favored media organs grind out for them day to day). Someone said he is a sociopath. Really?

Before anyone accuses me of having zero self-awareness of Musk's faults, believe me I can just as easily tell you his frailties (which we all have) as well as his accomplishments.

I note for the Musk haters a lesson. And this is a relatively recent phenomenon, which I think should inform you how history will similarly remember Elon Musk: that's the story of Steve Jobs. Jobs was significantly less popular inside his company than Musk has ever been...many Apple employees literally hated Jobs. The same cannot be said about Musk. The vast majority of Tesla, Boring, and Space-X employees swear by Elon Musk.

And like Jobs, Musk is casually accused (in a snarky way) by his enemies of not being responsible for his company's products: HE'S NOT AN ENGINEER, they say. Does that point (to the extent it's even accurate...it's not, in both men's cases) even matter at all? These companies are changing the world, with one man's vision steering the way.

Today, ten years or so after his death, Steve Jobs is recalled as a benevolent genius, responsible for changing the entire trajectory of technology. His wife carries on a legacy of philanthropy in his name. His personal legacy grows brighter every day he is dead.

The Musk hatred is undeserved, uninformed, and unwise. He likes free speech; is that really an issue with folks?

An article was posted by one of those (former) employees who knew Musk well...I read it and in response to someone asking what it said, I used the word the writer had used: sociopath.

What does being a sociopath mean?
Overview. Antisocial personality disorder, sometimes called sociopathy, is a mental disorder in which a person consistently shows no regard for right and wrong and ignores the rights and feelings of others.

We know that Musk has Asperger's (which is now reclassified as autism spectrum disorder), which has some features in the difficulties of perceiving the feelings of others. To be clear, this doesn't mean that those with this challenge are sociopaths or psychopaths. They may or may not, just like everyone else.

What is alarming about Musk in particular is his at least seeming disregard for the feelings of others, the damage one can do others by saying things hurtful or damaging...and seemingly little regard for truth...indeed, a seeming predilection for damaging conspiracy theories...under the guise of "free speech". There's way, way too much history of his doing so to be not taken seriously as such.

IF he indeed has little or no regard for the feelings of others or the truth, and now has the power through this huge social media platform to increase the spread of hurtful misinformation, the only important response we (the USA) should be having is to how to restrict that spread through regulation. Consequences need to be clear, because reliance on his goodwill will not suffice.

Musk clearly understands the benefits of marketing 'social goods' as such and enjoys the rewards for doing so, and so he needs to also understand the consequences of marketing 'social harm'. He needs to not be rewarded for the harm, in the guise of a 'social good' (he and the gullible attempt) of "free speech".

I don't think is is actually a "Musk problem", rather, the 'social harm' is endemic industry-wide when unregulated. These are externalities that need to be regulated in a capitalist society in order for that capitalist society to be at its most productive.

That's a very dangerous thing to say, and I don't think you quite understand the effects.

Just yesterday we saw an incredible story in The Intercept detailing exactly how the federal government's DHS and its Orwellian "Disinformation Governance Board", without any legal authority whatsoever, sought to control social media information.

https://theintercept.com/2022/10/31/soc ... ation-dhs/

This is simply a stunning betrayal of American rights and Democrats should pay at the ballot box as a result.

Everyone on the Internet assumes they know best what's fact and what's fiction, what's information and what's misinformation, when really the only thing ever that clarifies truth is freedom of expression, even when you hate it. To the extent you think otherwise, you reveal yourself as having zero trust in your fellow Americans and the very basic laws and evolution of both truth and science.

You should really think twice before posting something like you did; it's a slippery slope indeed to far worse outcomes, unless I am mistaking what you intended to say.

We entirely disagree.

I want social media companies as well as whoever utilizes them to spread misinformation to be financially (and in some instances criminally) responsible for the consequences of their misinformation.

Ala slander or false advertising of drugs, etc one should be liable for untrue statements that hurt others.

There are people, companies, etc who are profiting enormously by the spread of provably false information. Indeed, they know it to be false or are negligent in their disregard for the truth.

Does it need to be proved as such in court...yes.
Can people/companies defend themselves in court...sure.

But liable.

Same as pollution.

Very dangerous assumptions built into your moral stance here. When a 'Trump-like' figure re-appears on scene, do you want to be the target of HIS 'Disinformation Board'? I don't.

Just because you dislike a guy like Musk today does not entitle you to run roughshod over a few hundred years of fundamental American rights of speech. It simply doesn't.

I'm not sure you understand what the 1st amendment says.

"Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

What law has Congress made that "abridges" the freedom of speech? What does that have to do with private entities restricting speech which they do not like?

However, the "right" of free speech in public venues is not without restriction. The SC has ruled on this. Or do you think those restrictions are unreasonable? Or are you waiting for the current "Supremes" to weigh in on the matter of social media (a fairly recent phenomenon)? Then bring a case that demonstrates standing and worj your way through the system.

Or do you wish to complain and assert non-existent truths?

Let's use a more appropriate term: CENSORSHIP.

How does one party, the Democratic Party, justify using the Department of Homeland Security to massage social media information? That agency somehow evolved from countering foreign terror groups to targeting American citizens sharing memes. Twitter's Vijaya Gadde (who was just fired) met once a month with DHS to discuss censorship plans.

I don't know how this doesn't concern you. One day, it won't be a Democratic administration.

[RedFromMI]

Actually the government effort to connect with social media companies was open and aboveboard, and most of what the Intercept published was available by searching websites.

The government was not trying to "control" social media companies - it was trying to get those companies (who had to agree to cooperate) to better keep junk information off those sites.

But the stupid reporter from the Intercept tried to make this one look like a nefarious effort, when in fact it was not.

[get it to x]

I won't post in too many threads here at Fanlax, but this thread on Musk intrigues me for obvious reasons.

I find it extraordinary that folks come calling for Musk's head when its obvious they don't really know his story (other than what perhaps their favored media organs grind out for them day to day). Someone said he is a sociopath. Really?

Before anyone accuses me of having zero self-awareness of Musk's faults, believe me I can just as easily tell you his frailties (which we all have) as well as his accomplishments.

I note for the Musk haters a lesson. And this is a relatively recent phenomenon, which I think should inform you how history will similarly remember Elon Musk: that's the story of Steve Jobs. Jobs was significantly less popular inside his company than Musk has ever been...many Apple employees literally hated Jobs. The same cannot be said about Musk. The vast majority of Tesla, Boring, and Space-X employees swear by Elon Musk.

And like Jobs, Musk is casually accused (in a snarky way) by his enemies of not being responsible for his company's products: HE'S NOT AN ENGINEER, they say. Does that point (to the extent it's even accurate...it's not, in both men's cases) even matter at all? These companies are changing the world, with one man's vision steering the way.

Today, ten years or so after his death, Steve Jobs is recalled as a benevolent genius, responsible for changing the entire trajectory of technology. His wife carries on a legacy of philanthropy in his name. His personal legacy grows brighter every day he is dead.

The Musk hatred is undeserved, uninformed, and unwise. He likes free speech; is that really an issue with folks?

... back with the bullsh*t hey KellyAnne. He is another con artist, and clearly has you fooled. He is in it for himself pure and simple. He has seen what your boy Trump got away with and he is trying his hand at it. He figures he is smarter than Orange Duce, and he is, so playing Trump's fools should be easy for him, or so he thinks. Initial evidence seems like he has made a good bet.

The collective value of all of Musk's companies, past and present, is over $1 Trillion. There are well over a million shareholders. There are dozens of banks. There are over 200,000 employees. There are hundreds of bondholders.

Musk is not a con artist.

What a lazy and dangerous comment.

... the truth is only dangerous to your narrative.

And free speech is only dangerous to yours.

... more bullsh*t. You clowns have no claim to owning free speech, like it is something special to you. Your constant whine that tech companies and liberals, etc. are limiting your free speech is laughable. I see almost no limit on what you guys say, how loud you say it, how offensive you can be. YOU ARE CRYBABIES, that is all!

Really? Many Biden voters were surveyed, and a fair number (1 in 6) said if they had known about the Hunter Biden laptop contents they would have either voted for Trump or sat out the election. 81,000,000 x.167 = 13,500,000. The NY Post story was embargoed from social media, where most people get their news.

https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/202 ... en-voters/

Social media was not then and is not now the only way to get your news. The laptop story was out there, the story widely available pre-election. What, people couldn't read the NY Post or the 100s of other right wing blogs and papers available on the internet?? The social media companies identified it as something that smelled bogus, fake, political dirty trick, a right wing conspiracy theory and responsibly in my opinion refused to spread the story. It still has not been proven and comes off as speculation.

Just tell the truth, what you want is the ability to lie as much as you want and not be held liable! That is not free speech.

Your willful blindness doesn't serve you well. Maybe you can tell us where you get your news, as the WaPo and NYT both verified the authenticity of the contents of the laptop, including those related to the CEFC China Energy and Burisma deals. "There are none so blind as those that will not see."

https://nypost.com/2022/03/30/washingto ... p-is-real/

So what, he had files on his laptop? Then comes your speculation. It has been known since the beginning he had business dealings, he had admitted to. He has admitted to not properly paying taxes on income. Is there a punch line?

Biden withholding foreign aid to have a prosecutor fired who happened to be looking into Burisma is fact, not speculation. Biden admitted it on tape. If you can't connect those dots how the hell did you get into JHU?

[PizzaSnake]

I won't post in too many threads here at Fanlax, but this thread on Musk intrigues me for obvious reasons.

I find it extraordinary that folks come calling for Musk's head when its obvious they don't really know his story (other than what perhaps their favored media organs grind out for them day to day). Someone said he is a sociopath. Really?

Before anyone accuses me of having zero self-awareness of Musk's faults, believe me I can just as easily tell you his frailties (which we all have) as well as his accomplishments.

I note for the Musk haters a lesson. And this is a relatively recent phenomenon, which I think should inform you how history will similarly remember Elon Musk: that's the story of Steve Jobs. Jobs was significantly less popular inside his company than Musk has ever been...many Apple employees literally hated Jobs. The same cannot be said about Musk. The vast majority of Tesla, Boring, and Space-X employees swear by Elon Musk.

And like Jobs, Musk is casually accused (in a snarky way) by his enemies of not being responsible for his company's products: HE'S NOT AN ENGINEER, they say. Does that point (to the extent it's even accurate...it's not, in both men's cases) even matter at all? These companies are changing the world, with one man's vision steering the way.

Today, ten years or so after his death, Steve Jobs is recalled as a benevolent genius, responsible for changing the entire trajectory of technology. His wife carries on a legacy of philanthropy in his name. His personal legacy grows brighter every day he is dead.

The Musk hatred is undeserved, uninformed, and unwise. He likes free speech; is that really an issue with folks?

An article was posted by one of those (former) employees who knew Musk well...I read it and in response to someone asking what it said, I used the word the writer had used: sociopath.

What does being a sociopath mean?
Overview. Antisocial personality disorder, sometimes called sociopathy, is a mental disorder in which a person consistently shows no regard for right and wrong and ignores the rights and feelings of others.

We know that Musk has Asperger's (which is now reclassified as autism spectrum disorder), which has some features in the difficulties of perceiving the feelings of others. To be clear, this doesn't mean that those with this challenge are sociopaths or psychopaths. They may or may not, just like everyone else.

What is alarming about Musk in particular is his at least seeming disregard for the feelings of others, the damage one can do others by saying things hurtful or damaging...and seemingly little regard for truth...indeed, a seeming predilection for damaging conspiracy theories...under the guise of "free speech". There's way, way too much history of his doing so to be not taken seriously as such.

IF he indeed has little or no regard for the feelings of others or the truth, and now has the power through this huge social media platform to increase the spread of hurtful misinformation, the only important response we (the USA) should be having is to how to restrict that spread through regulation. Consequences need to be clear, because reliance on his goodwill will not suffice.

Musk clearly understands the benefits of marketing 'social goods' as such and enjoys the rewards for doing so, and so he needs to also understand the consequences of marketing 'social harm'. He needs to not be rewarded for the harm, in the guise of a 'social good' (he and the gullible attempt) of "free speech".

I don't think is is actually a "Musk problem", rather, the 'social harm' is endemic industry-wide when unregulated. These are externalities that need to be regulated in a capitalist society in order for that capitalist society to be at its most productive.

That's a very dangerous thing to say, and I don't think you quite understand the effects.

Just yesterday we saw an incredible story in The Intercept detailing exactly how the federal government's DHS and its Orwellian "Disinformation Governance Board", without any legal authority whatsoever, sought to control social media information.

https://theintercept.com/2022/10/31/soc ... ation-dhs/

This is simply a stunning betrayal of American rights and Democrats should pay at the ballot box as a result.

Everyone on the Internet assumes they know best what's fact and what's fiction, what's information and what's misinformation, when really the only thing ever that clarifies truth is freedom of expression, even when you hate it. To the extent you think otherwise, you reveal yourself as having zero trust in your fellow Americans and the very basic laws and evolution of both truth and science.

You should really think twice before posting something like you did; it's a slippery slope indeed to far worse outcomes, unless I am mistaking what you intended to say.

We entirely disagree.

I want social media companies as well as whoever utilizes them to spread misinformation to be financially (and in some instances criminally) responsible for the consequences of their misinformation.

Ala slander or false advertising of drugs, etc one should be liable for untrue statements that hurt others.

There are people, companies, etc who are profiting enormously by the spread of provably false information. Indeed, they know it to be false or are negligent in their disregard for the truth.

Does it need to be proved as such in court...yes.
Can people/companies defend themselves in court...sure.

But liable.

Same as pollution.

Very dangerous assumptions built into your moral stance here. When a 'Trump-like' figure re-appears on scene, do you want to be the target of HIS 'Disinformation Board'? I don't.

Just because you dislike a guy like Musk today does not entitle you to run roughshod over a few hundred years of fundamental American rights of speech. It simply doesn't.

I'm not sure you understand what the 1st amendment says.

"Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

What law has Congress made that "abridges" the freedom of speech? What does that have to do with private entities restricting speech which they do not like?

However, the "right" of free speech in public venues is not without restriction. The SC has ruled on this. Or do you think those restrictions are unreasonable? Or are you waiting for the current "Supremes" to weigh in on the matter of social media (a fairly recent phenomenon)? Then bring a case that demonstrates standing and worj your way through the system.

Or do you wish to complain and assert non-existent truths?

Let's use a more appropriate term: CENSORSHIP.

How does one party, the Democratic Party, justify using the Department of Homeland Security to massage social media information? That agency somehow evolved from countering foreign terror groups to targeting American citizens sharing memes. Twitter's Vijaya Gadde (who was just fired) met once a month with DHS to discuss censorship plans.

I don't know how this doesn't concern you. One day, it won't be a Democratic administration.

Are you familiar with the idea of separation of powers? You are taking exception to actions of the executive branch, not the legislative. 1st amendment addresses actions of the legislative branch, not the executive.

Now, if you wish to argue that the US system of governance is a little sloppy and is overly reliant upon restraint and "fair-play," I'll not demur. But that is a different discussion than "hundred years of fundamental American rights of speech."

[jhu72]

Conservatives (not real ones) worry Musk may be the Anti-Christ. Thinking he is a conman, and a sociopath is dangerous, I've been told. What is thinking he is the Anti-Christ??

[jhu72]

I won't post in too many threads here at Fanlax, but this thread on Musk intrigues me for obvious reasons.

I find it extraordinary that folks come calling for Musk's head when its obvious they don't really know his story (other than what perhaps their favored media organs grind out for them day to day). Someone said he is a sociopath. Really?

Before anyone accuses me of having zero self-awareness of Musk's faults, believe me I can just as easily tell you his frailties (which we all have) as well as his accomplishments.

I note for the Musk haters a lesson. And this is a relatively recent phenomenon, which I think should inform you how history will similarly remember Elon Musk: that's the story of Steve Jobs. Jobs was significantly less popular inside his company than Musk has ever been...many Apple employees literally hated Jobs. The same cannot be said about Musk. The vast majority of Tesla, Boring, and Space-X employees swear by Elon Musk.

And like Jobs, Musk is casually accused (in a snarky way) by his enemies of not being responsible for his company's products: HE'S NOT AN ENGINEER, they say. Does that point (to the extent it's even accurate...it's not, in both men's cases) even matter at all? These companies are changing the world, with one man's vision steering the way.

Today, ten years or so after his death, Steve Jobs is recalled as a benevolent genius, responsible for changing the entire trajectory of technology. His wife carries on a legacy of philanthropy in his name. His personal legacy grows brighter every day he is dead.

The Musk hatred is undeserved, uninformed, and unwise. He likes free speech; is that really an issue with folks?

... back with the bullsh*t hey KellyAnne. He is another con artist, and clearly has you fooled. He is in it for himself pure and simple. He has seen what your boy Trump got away with and he is trying his hand at it. He figures he is smarter than Orange Duce, and he is, so playing Trump's fools should be easy for him, or so he thinks. Initial evidence seems like he has made a good bet.

The collective value of all of Musk's companies, past and present, is over $1 Trillion. There are well over a million shareholders. There are dozens of banks. There are over 200,000 employees. There are hundreds of bondholders.

Musk is not a con artist.

What a lazy and dangerous comment.

... the truth is only dangerous to your narrative.

And free speech is only dangerous to yours.

... more bullsh*t. You clowns have no claim to owning free speech, like it is something special to you. Your constant whine that tech companies and liberals, etc. are limiting your free speech is laughable. I see almost no limit on what you guys say, how loud you say it, how offensive you can be. YOU ARE CRYBABIES, that is all!

Really? Many Biden voters were surveyed, and a fair number (1 in 6) said if they had known about the Hunter Biden laptop contents they would have either voted for Trump or sat out the election. 81,000,000 x.167 = 13,500,000. The NY Post story was embargoed from social media, where most people get their news.

https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/202 ... en-voters/

Social media was not then and is not now the only way to get your news. The laptop story was out there, the story widely available pre-election. What, people couldn't read the NY Post or the 100s of other right wing blogs and papers available on the internet?? The social media companies identified it as something that smelled bogus, fake, political dirty trick, a right wing conspiracy theory and responsibly in my opinion refused to spread the story. It still has not been proven and comes off as speculation.

Just tell the truth, what you want is the ability to lie as much as you want and not be held liable! That is not free speech.

Your willful blindness doesn't serve you well. Maybe you can tell us where you get your news, as the WaPo and NYT both verified the authenticity of the contents of the laptop, including those related to the CEFC China Energy and Burisma deals. "There are none so blind as those that will not see."

https://nypost.com/2022/03/30/washingto ... p-is-real/

So what, he had files on his laptop? Then comes your speculation. It has been known since the beginning he had business dealings, he had admitted to. He has admitted to not properly paying taxes on income. Is there a punch line?

Biden withholding foreign aid to have a prosecutor fired who happened to be looking into Burisma is fact, not speculation. Biden admitted it on tape. If you can't connect those dots how the hell did you get into JHU?

... no it is not fact! The firing had nothing to do with the Ukrainian prosecutor looking into Burisma, it had to do with the prosecutor being generally corrupt. Just one more bullsh*t right wing conspiracy.

[a fan]

Your willful blindness doesn't serve you well. Maybe you can tell us where you get your news, as the WaPo and NYT both verified the authenticity of the contents of the laptop,

Yes, they did.

When? When did the WaPo and NYtimes verify this. Before the election? Or waaaaay after. Giuliani gets a laptop that has no obvious crimes on it just weeks before the election...just a few embarrassing details of Hunter's life? That doesn't sound like BS to you?

But let's set that aside: you're now telling us that this is bad. You're telling me that it's not ok for companies to choose what they can and cannot publish.

You really don't realize how absurd this is? We don't get to tell media companies (any company) what they MUST publish.

You know I can list stories that FoxNation REFUSE to run until the cows come home, right? Same for MSNBC.

So....given your stance on free speech....why are you complaining about a company's refusal to run a story?

[MDlaxfan76]

I won't post in too many threads here at Fanlax, but this thread on Musk intrigues me for obvious reasons.

I find it extraordinary that folks come calling for Musk's head when its obvious they don't really know his story (other than what perhaps their favored media organs grind out for them day to day). Someone said he is a sociopath. Really?

Before anyone accuses me of having zero self-awareness of Musk's faults, believe me I can just as easily tell you his frailties (which we all have) as well as his accomplishments.

I note for the Musk haters a lesson. And this is a relatively recent phenomenon, which I think should inform you how history will similarly remember Elon Musk: that's the story of Steve Jobs. Jobs was significantly less popular inside his company than Musk has ever been...many Apple employees literally hated Jobs. The same cannot be said about Musk. The vast majority of Tesla, Boring, and Space-X employees swear by Elon Musk.

And like Jobs, Musk is casually accused (in a snarky way) by his enemies of not being responsible for his company's products: HE'S NOT AN ENGINEER, they say. Does that point (to the extent it's even accurate...it's not, in both men's cases) even matter at all? These companies are changing the world, with one man's vision steering the way.

Today, ten years or so after his death, Steve Jobs is recalled as a benevolent genius, responsible for changing the entire trajectory of technology. His wife carries on a legacy of philanthropy in his name. His personal legacy grows brighter every day he is dead.

The Musk hatred is undeserved, uninformed, and unwise. He likes free speech; is that really an issue with folks?

... back with the bullsh*t hey KellyAnne. He is another con artist, and clearly has you fooled. He is in it for himself pure and simple. He has seen what your boy Trump got away with and he is trying his hand at it. He figures he is smarter than Orange Duce, and he is, so playing Trump's fools should be easy for him, or so he thinks. Initial evidence seems like he has made a good bet.

The collective value of all of Musk's companies, past and present, is over $1 Trillion. There are well over a million shareholders. There are dozens of banks. There are over 200,000 employees. There are hundreds of bondholders.

Musk is not a con artist.

What a lazy and dangerous comment.

... the truth is only dangerous to your narrative.

And free speech is only dangerous to yours.

... more bullsh*t. You clowns have no claim to owning free speech, like it is something special to you. Your constant whine that tech companies and liberals, etc. are limiting your free speech is laughable. I see almost no limit on what you guys say, how loud you say it, how offensive you can be. YOU ARE CRYBABIES, that is all!

Really? Many Biden voters were surveyed, and a fair number (1 in 6) said if they had known about the Hunter Biden laptop contents they would have either voted for Trump or sat out the election. 81,000,000 x.167 = 13,500,000. The NY Post story was embargoed from social media, where most people get their news.

https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/202 ... en-voters/

Social media was not then and is not now the only way to get your news. The laptop story was out there, the story widely available pre-election. What, people couldn't read the NY Post or the 100s of other right wing blogs and papers available on the internet?? The social media companies identified it as something that smelled bogus, fake, political dirty trick, a right wing conspiracy theory and responsibly in my opinion refused to spread the story. It still has not been proven and comes off as speculation.

Just tell the truth, what you want is the ability to lie as much as you want and not be held liable! That is not free speech.

Your willful blindness doesn't serve you well. Maybe you can tell us where you get your news, as the WaPo and NYT both verified the authenticity of the contents of the laptop, including those related to the CEFC China Energy and Burisma deals. "There are none so blind as those that will not see."

https://nypost.com/2022/03/30/washingto ... p-is-real/

Please provide the NYT and Washington Post stories...my understanding that they verified 22,000 emails, but could not verify another 107,000 emails. Indeed, "the vast majority of the data" could not be verified. What emails were added and what emails were removed by those 'handling' the laptop? And be verified, they confirmed only that those 22k emails had been indeed sent, but were their actual contents changed?

What did they actually "prove"???
Don't give us the New York Post as the authority, citing NYT and WAPO; show us what NYT and WaPo said...more importantly, show us what they proved in court...

Was anything illegal?
Hunter has confessed that he did not file accurate tax returns...anything else?

[MDlaxfan76]

I won't post in too many threads here at Fanlax, but this thread on Musk intrigues me for obvious reasons.

I find it extraordinary that folks come calling for Musk's head when its obvious they don't really know his story (other than what perhaps their favored media organs grind out for them day to day). Someone said he is a sociopath. Really?

Before anyone accuses me of having zero self-awareness of Musk's faults, believe me I can just as easily tell you his frailties (which we all have) as well as his accomplishments.

I note for the Musk haters a lesson. And this is a relatively recent phenomenon, which I think should inform you how history will similarly remember Elon Musk: that's the story of Steve Jobs. Jobs was significantly less popular inside his company than Musk has ever been...many Apple employees literally hated Jobs. The same cannot be said about Musk. The vast majority of Tesla, Boring, and Space-X employees swear by Elon Musk.

And like Jobs, Musk is casually accused (in a snarky way) by his enemies of not being responsible for his company's products: HE'S NOT AN ENGINEER, they say. Does that point (to the extent it's even accurate...it's not, in both men's cases) even matter at all? These companies are changing the world, with one man's vision steering the way.

Today, ten years or so after his death, Steve Jobs is recalled as a benevolent genius, responsible for changing the entire trajectory of technology. His wife carries on a legacy of philanthropy in his name. His personal legacy grows brighter every day he is dead.

The Musk hatred is undeserved, uninformed, and unwise. He likes free speech; is that really an issue with folks?

An article was posted by one of those (former) employees who knew Musk well...I read it and in response to someone asking what it said, I used the word the writer had used: sociopath.

What does being a sociopath mean?
Overview. Antisocial personality disorder, sometimes called sociopathy, is a mental disorder in which a person consistently shows no regard for right and wrong and ignores the rights and feelings of others.

We know that Musk has Asperger's (which is now reclassified as autism spectrum disorder), which has some features in the difficulties of perceiving the feelings of others. To be clear, this doesn't mean that those with this challenge are sociopaths or psychopaths. They may or may not, just like everyone else.

What is alarming about Musk in particular is his at least seeming disregard for the feelings of others, the damage one can do others by saying things hurtful or damaging...and seemingly little regard for truth...indeed, a seeming predilection for damaging conspiracy theories...under the guise of "free speech". There's way, way too much history of his doing so to be not taken seriously as such.

IF he indeed has little or no regard for the feelings of others or the truth, and now has the power through this huge social media platform to increase the spread of hurtful misinformation, the only important response we (the USA) should be having is to how to restrict that spread through regulation. Consequences need to be clear, because reliance on his goodwill will not suffice.

Musk clearly understands the benefits of marketing 'social goods' as such and enjoys the rewards for doing so, and so he needs to also understand the consequences of marketing 'social harm'. He needs to not be rewarded for the harm, in the guise of a 'social good' (he and the gullible attempt) of "free speech".

I don't think is is actually a "Musk problem", rather, the 'social harm' is endemic industry-wide when unregulated. These are externalities that need to be regulated in a capitalist society in order for that capitalist society to be at its most productive.

That's a very dangerous thing to say, and I don't think you quite understand the effects.

Just yesterday we saw an incredible story in The Intercept detailing exactly how the federal government's DHS and its Orwellian "Disinformation Governance Board", without any legal authority whatsoever, sought to control social media information.

https://theintercept.com/2022/10/31/soc ... ation-dhs/

This is simply a stunning betrayal of American rights and Democrats should pay at the ballot box as a result.

Everyone on the Internet assumes they know best what's fact and what's fiction, what's information and what's misinformation, when really the only thing ever that clarifies truth is freedom of expression, even when you hate it. To the extent you think otherwise, you reveal yourself as having zero trust in your fellow Americans and the very basic laws and evolution of both truth and science.

You should really think twice before posting something like you did; it's a slippery slope indeed to far worse outcomes, unless I am mistaking what you intended to say.

We entirely disagree.

I want social media companies as well as whoever utilizes them to spread misinformation to be financially (and in some instances criminally) responsible for the consequences of their misinformation.

Ala slander or false advertising of drugs, etc one should be liable for untrue statements that hurt others.

There are people, companies, etc who are profiting enormously by the spread of provably false information. Indeed, they know it to be false or are negligent in their disregard for the truth.

Does it need to be proved as such in court...yes.
Can people/companies defend themselves in court...sure.

But liable.

Same as pollution.

Very dangerous assumptions built into your moral stance here. When a 'Trump-like' figure re-appears on scene, do you want to be the target of HIS 'Disinformation Board'? I don't.

Just because you dislike a guy like Musk today does not entitle you to run roughshod over a few hundred years of fundamental American rights of speech. It simply doesn't.

Did you bother to read my post...are you Petey?
He ignored the substance of what I wrote the same way.

Liability...in court.
Not some centralized power.

No loss of "free speech", just provably false and damaging speech...unless, you're saying that false advertising and slander should be "free" of liability.

I believe in consequences.
I also believe that our capitalist system is most productive when there are organized protections agains theft and assault, "fences" that are enforced. That includes making sure that the costs of externalities are appropriately distributed.

But then I'm an actual 'conservative'.

Of course I read your post, where you make one good common sense point (ie: slander is actionable in a court of law), but the rest is hyperbole and uninformed.

Your previous post even to that one specifically calls for targeted enforcement and financial penalties of vague speech crimes, directed against Elon Musk (for violations to come, I gather?). He might "hurt" someone with speech, so he should be charged with a crime?

IF he indeed has little or no regard for the feelings of others or the truth... You do add the qualifier, the IF, but then you proceed to make charges against him such as your beliefs are information rather than belief.

seemingly little regard for truth If Elon has such seemingly LITTLE regard for the truth, could you point out when and what he said which is untruthful? Presumably there are hundreds of examples if not thousands if he has such seemingly little regard for the truth. If you say 'he said Paul Pelosi was in a lover''s quarrel, all he said in one tweet was 'perhaps we should not jump to conclusions before the facts are known' (a case where we still don't know the facts). Isn't that a perfectly rational position to take, to wait for the facts to be known? Is it your contention, assuming that one example is your one and only example of his untruthfulness, that Musk be charged with a crime, for simply asking that people wait for the facts of a case before determining the case? If so, wow.

"of course"???
Petey, we know that you ignore what others say.

I did not just say slander. I also said false advertising.
Both civil and criminal liability.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/false_advertising

These forms of "speech" are addressed in the law, as they should be. They are harmful to others and there is a powerful public interest that we all share in not having these sorts of harm be free from liability.

You can also go to jail of be fined for the proverbial, "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater".

I believe that we should extend such liability consequences. Both civil and criminal.

But gotta prove it in court.

I also made clear that I don't think this problem is specific to Musk, he's merely an obvious example of someone with the power to enable massive harm, should he choose to do so...and such harm should have liability consequences, if so.

[jhu72]

Right wingnuts turn on Musk as they come to see he is a conman.