media matters

[a fan]

I was originally responding to the single line item that what Musk is doing is different than what Dorsey, Zuck, and Google were doing.

You're not refuting my point: do you care about the owner of twitter working to directly install Trump into power?

What does a private citizen supporting a candidate have to do with the argument you were originally making, that X is now the same as Twitter under Dorsey, just different party?

How do you not understand this?

When twitter was owned by Dorsey, you LOST IT when you thought the government was involved in influencing their operations.

Now that Musk owns it, YouthA no longer cares that the government (Trump in a few months) is involved in influencing their operations.

You're being a hypocrite, and you know it. Want me to pull up your past posts? Remember when you claimed twitter was " a town square"?

Now you don't care.

Same company, different owner, yet you demand that the old owner, Dorsey have nothing to do with the government....yet now here in 2024, you've forgotten your past outrage, and no longer care if twitter and the government are in bed together.

Pretty simple stuff, YA. You telling us that you wouldn't have flipped out if Dorsey and Zuck had shown up on stage with Biden?? Come on.
----------------


The part you are confused by, I think........ is that I'm fine with both Dorsey and Musk doing whatever the F they want with their company. Listen to the .gov.......don't listen to the .gov.....take your pick, I don't care. They can do whatever the F they want, this is America.

And to add insult to injury, when people were making those claims "that the the So now you are defining tinfoilhatnonsense as proven email correspondence from Federal employees to Social Media owners, and Zuck openly admitting he followed their requests. Cmon man.

Dude. Zuck CHOSE to do that. It's HIS CHOICE, no matter how much you whine about it.

The government can ask you to slap your wife. Are you telling me that you don't understand that you don't, in fact, have to slap your wife if government asks you to slap her?

Why is this SO hard for you and, in this case, FoxNation to understand? The .gov can ask you to do ANYTHING. in what f'ing world do you think this is the same thing as FORCING you????? Come on. You're WAY too smart for this.

The .gov warned about Russian interference for the 2016 election. One result? The WaPo refused-----refused-----to run the Steele Dossier because, like Giuliani's nonsense laptop claim, they couldn't confirm the facts in the Dossier.

Did you and your buds get mad at the Obama Admin. for warning the press about Russian disinformation, and then seeing the WaPo refuse to print the contents of the Steele Dossier?

F no!!! Not only did you not complain about the government asking the press to pay the F attention to unverifiable stories, you didn't even freaking notice? Now why is that?

For the same reason you always "forget to complain".....it was because Hillary wasn't your guy. So you didn't complain when the WaPo killed a story that could have helped her win the election.

[youthathletics]

I was originally responding to the single line item that what Musk is doing is different than what Dorsey, Zuck, and Google were doing.

You're not refuting my point: do you care about the owner of twitter working to directly install Trump into power?

What does a private citizen supporting a candidate have to do with the argument you were originally making, that X is now the same as Twitter under Dorsey, just different party?

How do you not understand this?

When twitter was owned by Dorsey, you LOST IT when you thought the government was involved in influencing their operations.

Now that Musk owns it, YouthA no longer cares that the government (Trump in a few months) is involved in influencing their operations.

You're being a hypocrite, and you know it. Want me to pull up your past posts? Remember when you claimed twitter was " a town square"?

Now you don't care.

Same company, different owner, yet you demand that the old owner, Dorsey have nothing to do with the government....yet now here in 2024, you've forgotten your past outrage, and no longer care if twitter and the government are in bed together.

Pretty simple stuff, YA. You telling us that you wouldn't have flipped out if Dorsey and Zuck had shown up on stage with Biden?? Come on.
----------------


The part you are confused by, I think........ is that I'm fine with both Dorsey and Musk doing whatever the F they want with their company. Listen to the .gov.......don't listen to the .gov.....take your pick, I don't care. They can do whatever the F they want, this is America.

It's kinda hard to comprehend your pretzel logic, when we were first discussing issues that actually took place, then you insert afan's version of Nostradamus future facts, as a comparison. In what world is anyone going to NOT be completely confused.

Your last part is precisely the entire premise of my original rebuttal, and you are precisely correct they can do whatever they want, but then you originally implied it was a foregone fact that if Trump wins, Musk will suppress partisan news and events that are in favor or the party in office. Until that happens, you can not argue and state that as fact......you know that, and refuse to admit that is exactly what you did.

LOL...and you somehow think Zuck and Dorsey were not going to oblige, what a load or poo-pee cockka.

[NattyBohChamps04]

One of the big issues (among many) with Musk is that he talked big about free speech and neutrality before the purchase and right after. Of course it was all a complete sham and he's been in the bag for Trump and conservatives for a while. And he's been putting his thumb on the Twitter scale to hide certain narratives and stories and show others.

There's a reason hypocrites are in Circle 8.



https://x.com/elonmusk/status/151941567 ... 25?lang=en

Gotta love his new profile pic with the MAGA hat juxtaposed against that tweet.

[MDlaxfan76]

One of the big issues (among many) with Musk is that he talked big about free speech and neutrality before the purchase and right after. Of course it was all a complete sham and he's been in the bag for Trump and conservatives for a while. And he's been putting his thumb on the Twitter scale to hide certain narratives and stories and show others.

There's a reason hypocrites are in Circle 8.



https://x.com/elonmusk/status/151941567 ... 25?lang=en

Gotta love his new profile pic with the MAGA hat juxtaposed against that tweet.

Neutral.

We pointed out when he acquired the platform that there wasn’t a snow ball’s chance in hell he’d actually promote neutrality. A fan took the position that he had every legal right to do whatever he damn pleased. No surprise as he’d already been actively doing as he pleased…gross at times and even illegally with stock price manipulation.

Let’s be clear. Musk has many, many billions riding on the outcome of the election. Not simply like any billionaire who doesn’t want to pay taxes, multiple of his companies are hugely dependent upon or benefit from government contracts and subsidies. A Trump administration could deliver him even more…and, more importantly, feed his massive ego.

It might even be fair to argue that he’s lost more money in businesses with out contracts or subsidies than he would have made in the businesses with such, absent that support. Would be an interesting analysis.

However, even the business in which he has lost the most value, TwitterX, the business benefits from a massively important federal protection from liability claims. That too is a “subsidy”.

So, spending $40 million a month as he promised is really chicken feed. Of much larger importance is his direct hand in spreading disinformation to the benefit of Trump. Propaganda.

[NattyBohChamps04]

Neutral.

We pointed out when he acquired the platform that there wasn’t a snow ball’s chance in hell he’d actually promote neutrality. A fan took the position that he had every legal right to do whatever he damn pleased. No surprise as he’d already been actively doing as he pleased…gross at times and even illegally with stock price manipulation.

Let’s be clear. Musk has many, many billions riding on the outcome of the election. Not simply like any billionaire who doesn’t want to pay taxes, multiple of his companies are hugely dependent upon or benefit from government contracts and subsidies. A Trump administration could deliver him even more…and, more importantly, feed his massive ego.

It might even be fair to argue that he’s lost more money in businesses with out contracts or subsidies than he would have made in the businesses with such, absent that support. Would be an interesting analysis.

However, even the business in which he has lost the most value, TwitterX, the business benefits from a massively important federal protection from liability claims. That too is a “subsidy”.

So, spending $40 million a month as he promised is really chicken feed. Of much larger importance is his direct hand in spreading disinformation to the benefit of Trump. Propaganda.

The other alarming thing is that MAGA says this favortism and censorship is now OK because they think Twitter and Facebook and others were heavily biased before and certain CEOs and founders preferred certain candidates.

The reality is the platforms were not particularly biased, nor were they censoring legit discourse. They had community guidelines well before Trump came along. And they tried to remove hate speech, lies and actual fake news and more.

But when your political movement relies on fake stories going viral on the main stream media and social media, simply getting fact checked is seen as an attack on you.

We didn't really have this issue prior to 2015. Funny how that works.

[a fan]

It's kinda hard to comprehend your pretzel logic, when we were first discussing issues that actually took place, then you insert afan's version of Nostradamus future facts, as a comparison. In what world is anyone going to NOT be completely confused.

The reason you're confused (same thing happens to your fellow partisans), is that we keep finding out that for issue after issue, you cats are gaslighting, and don't REALLY believe what you write on the forum. So you're confused because you can't remember what your past positions were on these issues, and your 'views' change depending on which political party we're discussing.

I'll help you, and number the points in parallel so you know who thinks what. In other words compare view #1 with view #1 so you can see the difference and keep things straight:

Youth's View:
1. you told us you think Twitter is a neutral town square. And got mad because you thought they were "censoring" your team.

2. you got upset when you found out that twitter/facebook/others refused to print Giuliani's BS on Hunter that he "revealed" just three weeks before the election, after having been warned by US intel to watch out for Russian disinformation....and you intentionally ignored that no one had access to Hunter's laptop to verify Giuliani's claims. Again: no one could verify Giuliani's claims, so they refused to do Giuliain's political bidding.

a. when twitter/facebook refused to run Giuliani's BS? You insisted that this violated the model that you think twitter operates on---your town square. And you insisted the Deep State was colluding with what you thought was your enemy in the Dems to try and hide things and win elections.


A Fan's View:
1. I laughed at the notion of a "town square', or that a private company MUST do what outsiders want them to do. This is inherently silly, and told you that this is like me telling you that FoxNews MUST run an OpEd of "a fan's" choice daily...and if they don't, that's censorship. Which is absurd.

2. I told you when they refused to run Giuliani's BS in 2020, that you had conveniently "forgotten" that the WaPo and other were warned about Russian disinformation in 2016, and as a result, WaPo and others REFUSED to run the Dem's Steele Dossier. Remember that? And I told you that no one had Hunter's laptop, and so it was REASONABLE to choose not to run the story.

a. when 2020 Facebook and Twitter refuses to run Giuliani's BS without having access to Hunter's laptop to see if he was telling the truth....i cheered them. Not only did it make sense that they didn't want to run what was 100% unverifiable, it's their freaking company, and they are under zero obligation to help Trump get elected.

------------------------

See the difference? You were livid because you thought twitter and facebook were helping the Dems in 2020. And you COMPLETELY ignored that in 2016, WaPo and others did the EXACT SAME THING...and refused to run the Steele Dossier. No collusion, just a smart, independent choice.

What's the difference between 2016 and 2020? Oh, that's simple. You didn't care about 2016 and the WaPo CHOOSING not to run the Steele Dossier because not running the Steele Dossier helped Trump. So you didn't notice that it even happened. No complaints, no TinFoil. 2020 comes along, and you're on here trying to tell us twitter and facebook were helping the Dems. It's stupid, and it's beneath you.

Get it? Can we move to 2024 now?

Great....now that we established that you demanded that twitter HAD to run stories your former party wanted, and couldn't do what they wanted....we're now in 2024.

And as your fellow posters are pointing out....here comes your hypocrisy. Now that twitter is owned by Musk, you no longer have claims about town squares, you no longer care about perceived conflicts of interest with political parties, and you've literally forgotten alllllll these complaints you made when the shoe was on the other foot.

Clear enough? You only care about what twitter does when you think your side's ox is getting gored. Now that twitter appears to be on the side of Trump, and is literally campaigning with him? Your complaints about town squares are gone, and so are the complaints from TeamTinFoil and the Republican voters.

Are you trying to tell us you're done doing this, and are going back to calling balls and strikes instead of getting mad when you think R's are harmed, and not caring when the same thing harms Dems? Great news. Let's move on.








Your last part is precisely the entire premise of my original rebuttal, and you are precisely correct they can do whatever they want, but then you originally implied it was a foregone fact that if Trump wins, Musk will suppress partisan news and events that are in favor or the party in office. Until that happens, you can not argue and state that as fact......you know that, and refuse to admit that is exactly what you did.

LOL...and you somehow think Zuck and Dorsey were not going to oblige, what a load or poo-pee cockka.
[/quote]

[a fan]

Neutral.

We pointed out when he acquired the platform that there wasn’t a snow ball’s chance in hell he’d actually promote neutrality. A fan took the position that he had every legal right to do whatever he damn pleased. No surprise as he’d already been actively doing as he pleased…gross at times and even illegally with stock price manipulation.

Let’s be clear. Musk has many, many billions riding on the outcome of the election. Not simply like any billionaire who doesn’t want to pay taxes, multiple of his companies are hugely dependent upon or benefit from government contracts and subsidies. A Trump administration could deliver him even more…and, more importantly, feed his massive ego.

It might even be fair to argue that he’s lost more money in businesses with out contracts or subsidies than he would have made in the businesses with such, absent that support. Would be an interesting analysis.

However, even the business in which he has lost the most value, TwitterX, the business benefits from a massively important federal protection from liability claims. That too is a “subsidy”.

So, spending $40 million a month as he promised is really chicken feed. Of much larger importance is his direct hand in spreading disinformation to the benefit of Trump. Propaganda.

The other alarming thing is that MAGA says this favortism and censorship is now OK because they think Twitter and Facebook and others were heavily biased before and certain CEOs and founders preferred certain candidates.

The reality is the platforms were not particularly biased, nor were they censoring legit discourse. They had community guidelines well before Trump came along. And they tried to remove hate speech, lies and actual fake news and more.

But when your political movement relies on fake stories going viral on the main stream media and social media, simply getting fact checked is seen as an attack on you.

We didn't really have this issue prior to 2015. Funny how that works.

That's odd, YouthA, these boys get EXACTLY what I'm mocking with no difficulty whatsoever.

Next time, youth? You now know not to whine and complain when a Media company does what it wants. No conspiracies. No tinfoil. Just an independent company doing what it d*mn well pleases. Something you understand with no trouble whatsoever now that Musk is running twitter, naturally.

[youthathletics]

It's kinda hard to comprehend your pretzel logic, when we were first discussing issues that actually took place, then you insert afan's version of Nostradamus future facts, as a comparison. In what world is anyone going to NOT be completely confused.

The reason you're confused (same thing happens to your fellow partisans), is that we keep finding out that for issue after issue, you cats are gaslighting, and don't REALLY believe what you write on the forum. So you're confused because you can't remember what your past positions were on these issues, and your 'views' change depending on which political party we're discussing.

I'll help you, and number the points in parallel so you know who thinks what. In other words compare view #1 with view #1 so you can see the difference and keep things straight:

Youth's View:
1. you told us you think Twitter is a neutral town square. And got mad because you thought they were "censoring" your team.

2. you got upset when you found out that twitter/facebook/others refused to print Giuliani's BS on Hunter that he "revealed" just three weeks before the election, after having been warned by US intel to watch out for Russian disinformation....and you intentionally ignored that no one had access to Hunter's laptop to verify Giuliani's claims. Again: no one could verify Giuliani's claims, so they refused to do Giuliain's political bidding.

a. when twitter/facebook refused to run Giuliani's BS? You insisted that this violated the model that you think twitter operates on---your town square. And you insisted the Deep State was colluding with what you thought was your enemy in the Dems to try and hide things and win elections.


A Fan's View:
1. I laughed at the notion of a "town square', or that a private company MUST do what outsiders want them to do. This is inherently silly, and told you that this is like me telling you that FoxNews MUST run an OpEd of "a fan's" choice daily...and if they don't, that's censorship. Which is absurd.

2. I told you when they refused to run Giuliani's BS in 2020, that you had conveniently "forgotten" that the WaPo and other were warned about Russian disinformation in 2016, and as a result, WaPo and others REFUSED to run the Dem's Steele Dossier. Remember that? And I told you that no one had Hunter's laptop, and so it was REASONABLE to choose not to run the story.

a. when 2020 Facebook and Twitter refuses to run Giuliani's BS without having access to Hunter's laptop to see if he was telling the truth....i cheered them. Not only did it make sense that they didn't want to run what was 100% unverifiable, it's their freaking company, and they are under zero obligation to help Trump get elected.

------------------------

See the difference? You were livid because you thought twitter and facebook were helping the Dems in 2020. And you COMPLETELY ignored that in 2016, WaPo and others did the EXACT SAME THING...and refused to run the Steele Dossier. No collusion, just a smart, independent choice.

What's the difference between 2016 and 2020? Oh, that's simple. You didn't care about 2016 and the WaPo CHOOSING not to run the Steele Dossier because not running the Steele Dossier helped Trump. So you didn't notice that it even happened. No complaints, no TinFoil. 2020 comes along, and you're on here trying to tell us twitter and facebook were helping the Dems. It's stupid, and it's beneath you.

Get it? Can we move to 2024 now?

Great....now that we established that you demanded that twitter HAD to run stories your former party wanted, and couldn't do what they wanted....we're now in 2024.

And as your fellow posters are pointing out....here comes your hypocrisy. Now that twitter is owned by Musk, you no longer have claims about town squares, you no longer care about perceived conflicts of interest with political parties, and you've literally forgotten alllllll these complaints you made when the shoe was on the other foot.

Clear enough? You only care about what twitter does when you think your side's ox is getting gored. Now that twitter appears to be on the side of Trump, and is literally campaigning with him? Your complaints about town squares are gone, and so are the complaints from TeamTinFoil and the Republican voters.

Are you trying to tell us you're done doing this, and are going back to calling balls and strikes instead of getting mad when you think R's are harmed, and not caring when the same thing harms Dems? Great news. Let's move on.

Your last part is precisely the entire premise of my original rebuttal, and you are precisely correct they can do whatever they want, but then you originally implied it was a foregone fact that if Trump wins, Musk will suppress partisan news and events that are in favor or the party in office. Until that happens, you can not argue and state that as fact......you know that, and refuse to admit that is exactly what you did.

LOL...and you somehow think Zuck and Dorsey were not going to oblige, what a load or poo-pee cockka.

What a crock of sh(t, and pure make-believe. And you still refuse to even acknowledge you were wrong in your post yesterday, telling us how X will be when Trump wins. THAT IS THE ONLY THING I WAS DISCUSSING and you've yet to acknowledge. Yet, here you go, again, making up things trying to set up some partisan divide....why I view everything as partisan is beyond me.

Your bullet point 1 is just a bold faced mistruth. I made the town square comment when MUSK took over (2022), not when Dorsey had it, and was censoring on his own AND by input from the Fed, and the Biden laptop issue which was 2020. Catch up!

That's now two times you were wrong in 24 hours. Everything else is just you blowing smoke and making things up.

[MDlaxfan76]

It's kinda hard to comprehend your pretzel logic, when we were first discussing issues that actually took place, then you insert afan's version of Nostradamus future facts, as a comparison. In what world is anyone going to NOT be completely confused.

The reason you're confused (same thing happens to your fellow partisans), is that we keep finding out that for issue after issue, you cats are gaslighting, and don't REALLY believe what you write on the forum. So you're confused because you can't remember what your past positions were on these issues, and your 'views' change depending on which political party we're discussing.

I'll help you, and number the points in parallel so you know who thinks what. In other words compare view #1 with view #1 so you can see the difference and keep things straight:

Youth's View:
1. you told us you think Twitter is a neutral town square. And got mad because you thought they were "censoring" your team.

2. you got upset when you found out that twitter/facebook/others refused to print Giuliani's BS on Hunter that he "revealed" just three weeks before the election, after having been warned by US intel to watch out for Russian disinformation....and you intentionally ignored that no one had access to Hunter's laptop to verify Giuliani's claims. Again: no one could verify Giuliani's claims, so they refused to do Giuliain's political bidding.

a. when twitter/facebook refused to run Giuliani's BS? You insisted that this violated the model that you think twitter operates on---your town square. And you insisted the Deep State was colluding with what you thought was your enemy in the Dems to try and hide things and win elections.


A Fan's View:
1. I laughed at the notion of a "town square', or that a private company MUST do what outsiders want them to do. This is inherently silly, and told you that this is like me telling you that FoxNews MUST run an OpEd of "a fan's" choice daily...and if they don't, that's censorship. Which is absurd.

2. I told you when they refused to run Giuliani's BS in 2020, that you had conveniently "forgotten" that the WaPo and other were warned about Russian disinformation in 2016, and as a result, WaPo and others REFUSED to run the Dem's Steele Dossier. Remember that? And I told you that no one had Hunter's laptop, and so it was REASONABLE to choose not to run the story.

a. when 2020 Facebook and Twitter refuses to run Giuliani's BS without having access to Hunter's laptop to see if he was telling the truth....i cheered them. Not only did it make sense that they didn't want to run what was 100% unverifiable, it's their freaking company, and they are under zero obligation to help Trump get elected.

------------------------

See the difference? You were livid because you thought twitter and facebook were helping the Dems in 2020. And you COMPLETELY ignored that in 2016, WaPo and others did the EXACT SAME THING...and refused to run the Steele Dossier. No collusion, just a smart, independent choice.

What's the difference between 2016 and 2020? Oh, that's simple. You didn't care about 2016 and the WaPo CHOOSING not to run the Steele Dossier because not running the Steele Dossier helped Trump. So you didn't notice that it even happened. No complaints, no TinFoil. 2020 comes along, and you're on here trying to tell us twitter and facebook were helping the Dems. It's stupid, and it's beneath you.

Get it? Can we move to 2024 now?

Great....now that we established that you demanded that twitter HAD to run stories your former party wanted, and couldn't do what they wanted....we're now in 2024.

And as your fellow posters are pointing out....here comes your hypocrisy. Now that twitter is owned by Musk, you no longer have claims about town squares, you no longer care about perceived conflicts of interest with political parties, and you've literally forgotten alllllll these complaints you made when the shoe was on the other foot.

Clear enough? You only care about what twitter does when you think your side's ox is getting gored. Now that twitter appears to be on the side of Trump, and is literally campaigning with him? Your complaints about town squares are gone, and so are the complaints from TeamTinFoil and the Republican voters.

Are you trying to tell us you're done doing this, and are going back to calling balls and strikes instead of getting mad when you think R's are harmed, and not caring when the same thing harms Dems? Great news. Let's move on.

Your last part is precisely the entire premise of my original rebuttal, and you are precisely correct they can do whatever they want, but then you originally implied it was a foregone fact that if Trump wins, Musk will suppress partisan news and events that are in favor or the party in office. Until that happens, you can not argue and state that as fact......you know that, and refuse to admit that is exactly what you did.

LOL...and you somehow think Zuck and Dorsey were not going to oblige, what a load or poo-pee cockka.

What a crock of sh(t, and pure make-believe. And you still refuse to even acknowledge you were wrong in your post yesterday, telling us how X will be when Trump wins. THAT IS THE ONLY THING I WAS DISCUSSING and you've yet to acknowledge. Yet, here you go, again, making up things trying to set up some partisan divide....why I view everything as partisan is beyond me.

Your bullet point 1 is just a bold faced mistruth. I made the town square comment when MUSK took over (2022), not when Dorsey had it, and was censoring on his own AND by input from the Fed, and the Biden laptop issue which was 2020. Catch up!

That's now two times you were wrong in 24 hours. Everything else is just you blowing smoke and making things up.

Hang on, X is already a cesspool of disinformation. And Musk personally promotes right wing such garbage. Are you saying he’s going to clean that up and stop actively supporting Trump post election?

Yes, I think it was mostly our gator troll who was screaming about the efforts in social media to reduce the harm they do, and then chortling with glee about Musk’s purchase. You did defend Musk when I and some others predicted massive financial losses and destruction of equity value…you talked about the value of the data he’d be gathering from Tesla, Twitter, etc…which may well be even more scary…

And no, removal of disinformation is not “censoring”, it’s editorial freedom.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5y3rnl5qv3o

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/misinforma ... rcna165599

https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-char ... -run-wild/

https://www.reuters.com/technology/elon ... 023-11-06/

YA, Tech and people like them have no problem with any of this… other than Brazil banning Leon.

[Kismet]

Leon was online today trying to explain why nobody is interested in assassinating Kamala Harris.

Buffoon. Moron. Idiot. Dangerous

[a fan]

What a crock of sh(t, and pure make-believe.

Fine. Let's roll the tape back, since you seem to think this never happened.....

Here you are, DEMANDING that it be run as a town square. And then getting mad when Twitter does whatever it wants.

Then, hilariously, tell us that Musk "the new owner" is going to "run it as originally intented"....which I rightfully laugh at.

Please, tell us this didn't happen, and that this "doesn't count" as something you wrote......

And please, tell me which one of us is right that contrary to your claim here, Musk runs twitter the same way the old owners did?

And best of all, after telling us here that Twitter is "supposed to be a town square"....just this week, Twitter's owner stumps for Trump, getting rid of your absurd idea that Twitter is a neutral happy town square, how does YouthA react?

(Drumroll.....YouthA doesn't care).

So....how is it you're not being a partisan hypocrite, again?

Why Twitter 'failed', past tense. What happens when a private company tries to rule and control: https://www.instagram.com/p/Cc_jGiLlsoN/

I find it utterly hilarious that Americans HONESTLY think that twitter (or facebook, snapchat, instagram...for that matter) is supposed to be a benign, happy-rainbows, non-profit company that's there for the good of mankind.

For me? My question is: how did we get so dumb as a country that we'd think that? Twitter isn't a town square, fellas. It's a FOR PROFIT CORPORATION that could give two *hits about anything other than money.

Know how I know this? They sold to the highest bidder without hesitation. Scoreboard. Seems 'sticking it to conservatives" didn't matter to them anymore, and they sold. Immediately.

So Maher and everyone else are holding twitter to an entirely made up, imaginary, mythical standard that has NEVER existed. Fairness? They don't care about fairness, FFS. They care about share price. That's it.

And again---this applies to Facebook and the rest of them. Twitter sells their users to advertisers. That's it. That's the model.

And that won't change with Musk in charge.

You are the only one bringing up the financial side of this....why?, no one else did nor did Bill in that very short clip. The entire argument HAS ALWAYS BEEN, that they promote themselves as a "town square", and then silence you if they disagree...you know, like good libs like to do. Then when the new buyer says he wants it to be as originally intended, "a town square of free speech", you bust his balls, then claim it was only about money for twitter, yet, why would they intentionally slit the throat of 50% of their market if they truly cared only about money.....yea, you know why, b/c what they where doing worked, until it no longer did.

And in the same breath, you preach "if you don't like it go start your own twitter", and now that someone buys them, you spin it back to being solely about money for twitter.

Sometimes I think you just like to challenge yourself to see if you can get others twisted up in solving your mind pretzel presentation; it is fun, sometimes.

[youthathletics]

What a crock of sh(t, and pure make-believe.

Fine. Let's roll the tape back, since you seem to think this never happened.....

Here you are, DEMANDING that it be run as a town square. And then getting mad when Twitter does whatever it wants.

Then, hilariously, tell us that Musk "the new owner" is going to "run it as originally intented"....which I rightfully laugh at.

Please, tell us this didn't happen, and that this "doesn't count" as something you wrote......

And please, tell me which one of us is right that contrary to your claim here, Musk runs twitter the same way the old owners did?

And best of all, after telling us here that Twitter is "supposed to be a town square"....just this week, Twitter's owner stumps for Trump, getting rid of your absurd idea that Twitter is a neutral happy town square, how does YouthA react?

(Drumroll.....YouthA doesn't care).

So....how is it you're not being a partisan hypocrite, again?

Why Twitter 'failed', past tense. What happens when a private company tries to rule and control: https://www.instagram.com/p/Cc_jGiLlsoN/

I find it utterly hilarious that Americans HONESTLY think that twitter (or facebook, snapchat, instagram...for that matter) is supposed to be a benign, happy-rainbows, non-profit company that's there for the good of mankind.

For me? My question is: how did we get so dumb as a country that we'd think that? Twitter isn't a town square, fellas. It's a FOR PROFIT CORPORATION that could give two *hits about anything other than money.

Know how I know this? They sold to the highest bidder without hesitation. Scoreboard. Seems 'sticking it to conservatives" didn't matter to them anymore, and they sold. Immediately.

So Maher and everyone else are holding twitter to an entirely made up, imaginary, mythical standard that has NEVER existed. Fairness? They don't care about fairness, FFS. They care about share price. That's it.

And again---this applies to Facebook and the rest of them. Twitter sells their users to advertisers. That's it. That's the model.

And that won't change with Musk in charge.

You are the only one bringing up the financial side of this....why?, no one else did nor did Bill in that very short clip. The entire argument HAS ALWAYS BEEN, that they promote themselves as a "town square", and then silence you if they disagree...you know, like good libs like to do. Then when the new buyer says he wants it to be as originally intended, "a town square of free speech", you bust his balls, then claim it was only about money for twitter, yet, why would they intentionally slit the throat of 50% of their market if they truly cared only about money.....yea, you know why, b/c what they where doing worked, until it no longer did.

And in the same breath, you preach "if you don't like it go start your own twitter", and now that someone buys them, you spin it back to being solely about money for twitter.

Sometimes I think you just like to challenge yourself to see if you can get others twisted up in solving your mind pretzel presentation; it is fun, sometimes.

Thank you for proving that you were wrong, then and now about my stance....I'll take that as you admitting fault, its about as close as we are going to get.

My messaging has not changed one bit about how each has run Twitter and now X. And nothing has changed....notice the dates of the post, just like I recalled it earlier this afternoon. No that that is straight.....I'd be happy to talk about 2024, so you can misrepresent me in 2026.

[a fan]

Thank you for proving that you were wrong, then and now about my stance....I'll take that as you admitting fault, its about as close as we are going to get.

My messaging has not changed one bit about how each has run Twitter and now X. And nothing has changed....notice the dates of the post, just like I recalled it earlier this afternoon. No that that is straight.....I'd be happy to talk about 2024, so you can misrepresent me in 2026.

I'll keep doing this all day, you can lie all you want. You're caught, again, being a hypocrite...and letting the magic R tell you whether or not you like something.


You want Twitter to be neutral when you think a Dem is running it. And flipped out when they didn't run stories you wanted them to run.

Yet when an Trumpster is running it? Oh, suddenly you don't care about town squares and neutrality. Suddenly you don''t care if Musk bans journalists and other people he doesn't like.

You can play dumb all you want. Everyone else here sees your game, YA.

Want to go over it again? Happy to do it! I can keep pulling up what you said in the past, and how you're singing a new tune now that Musk is running twitter.

Tell us again how Dorsey colluded with the Dems, and how mad that made you.

[youthathletics]

Thank you for proving that you were wrong, then and now about my stance....I'll take that as you admitting fault, its about as close as we are going to get.

My messaging has not changed one bit about how each has run Twitter and now X. And nothing has changed....notice the dates of the post, just like I recalled it earlier this afternoon. No that that is straight.....I'd be happy to talk about 2024, so you can misrepresent me in 2026.

I'll keep doing this all day, you can lie all you want. You're caught, again, being a hypocrite...and letting the magic R tell you whether or not you like something.


You want Twitter to be neutral when you think a Dem is running it. And flipped out when they didn't run stories you wanted them to run.

Yet when an Trumpster is running it? Oh, suddenly you don't care about town squares and neutrality. Suddenly you don''t care if Musk bans journalists and other people he doesn't like.

You can play dumb all you want. Everyone else here sees your game, YA.

Want to go over it again? Happy to do it! I can keep pulling up what you said in the past, and how you're singing a new tune now that Musk is running twitter.

Tell us again how Dorsey colluded with the Dems, and how mad that made you.

I know what I said, and why I said it. I believe in free speech, as should you. However, when the gov't is strong arming, journalist and media sites what they can and can not run, (which is not Classified in nature)....that is no longer free speech; more like China.

[Kismet]

Thank you for proving that you were wrong, then and now about my stance....I'll take that as you admitting fault, its about as close as we are going to get.

My messaging has not changed one bit about how each has run Twitter and now X. And nothing has changed....notice the dates of the post, just like I recalled it earlier this afternoon. No that that is straight.....I'd be happy to talk about 2024, so you can misrepresent me in 2026.

I'll keep doing this all day, you can lie all you want. You're caught, again, being a hypocrite...and letting the magic R tell you whether or not you like something.


You want Twitter to be neutral when you think a Dem is running it. And flipped out when they didn't run stories you wanted them to run.

Yet when an Trumpster is running it? Oh, suddenly you don't care about town squares and neutrality. Suddenly you don''t care if Musk bans journalists and other people he doesn't like.

You can play dumb all you want. Everyone else here sees your game, YA.

Want to go over it again? Happy to do it! I can keep pulling up what you said in the past, and how you're singing a new tune now that Musk is running twitter.

Tell us again how Dorsey colluded with the Dems, and how mad that made you.

I know what I said, and why I said it. I believe in free speech, as should you. However, when the gov't is strong arming, journalist and media sites what they can and can not run, (which is not Classified in nature)....that is no longer free speech; more like China.

So you have no problem with the owner of Twitter wondering online about the reasons why assassinating a candidate for POTUS in the middle of an election isn't of interest to any potential assassins?

[MDlaxfan76]

Thank you for proving that you were wrong, then and now about my stance....I'll take that as you admitting fault, its about as close as we are going to get.

My messaging has not changed one bit about how each has run Twitter and now X. And nothing has changed....notice the dates of the post, just like I recalled it earlier this afternoon. No that that is straight.....I'd be happy to talk about 2024, so you can misrepresent me in 2026.

I'll keep doing this all day, you can lie all you want. You're caught, again, being a hypocrite...and letting the magic R tell you whether or not you like something.


You want Twitter to be neutral when you think a Dem is running it. And flipped out when they didn't run stories you wanted them to run.

Yet when an Trumpster is running it? Oh, suddenly you don't care about town squares and neutrality. Suddenly you don''t care if Musk bans journalists and other people he doesn't like.

You can play dumb all you want. Everyone else here sees your game, YA.

Want to go over it again? Happy to do it! I can keep pulling up what you said in the past, and how you're singing a new tune now that Musk is running twitter.

Tell us again how Dorsey colluded with the Dems, and how mad that made you.

I know what I said, and why I said it. I believe in free speech, as should you. However, when the gov't is strong arming, journalist and media sites what they can and can not run, (which is not Classified in nature)....that is no longer free speech; more like China.

So, you are admitting that you claimed you wanted a neutral town square in which all speech is “free”?

By “strong arming” do you mean informing them that a site is totally phony, created by agents of a foreign government/adversary as part of a disinformation campaign designed to make Americans angry at one another?

What punishment did the feds threaten? And more importantly, how have the Feds actually punished Musk for his actions since acquiring Twitter and purposely and personally spreading disinformation? Surely he’s given them ample cause to come down hard on him if they actually intended to federally censor speech.

But ohh, maybe that was never their intention? Maybe they just wanted to share what they knew so that the media companies protected by federal law from liability could at least make informed decisions? Ohh the horror.

They should ALL lose that immunity protection. Let them defend themselves in court.

[youthathletics]

Thank you for proving that you were wrong, then and now about my stance....I'll take that as you admitting fault, its about as close as we are going to get.

My messaging has not changed one bit about how each has run Twitter and now X. And nothing has changed....notice the dates of the post, just like I recalled it earlier this afternoon. No that that is straight.....I'd be happy to talk about 2024, so you can misrepresent me in 2026.

I'll keep doing this all day, you can lie all you want. You're caught, again, being a hypocrite...and letting the magic R tell you whether or not you like something.


You want Twitter to be neutral when you think a Dem is running it. And flipped out when they didn't run stories you wanted them to run.

Yet when an Trumpster is running it? Oh, suddenly you don't care about town squares and neutrality. Suddenly you don''t care if Musk bans journalists and other people he doesn't like.

You can play dumb all you want. Everyone else here sees your game, YA.

Want to go over it again? Happy to do it! I can keep pulling up what you said in the past, and how you're singing a new tune now that Musk is running twitter.

Tell us again how Dorsey colluded with the Dems, and how mad that made you.

I know what I said, and why I said it. I believe in free speech, as should you. However, when the gov't is strong arming, journalist and media sites what they can and can not run, (which is not Classified in nature)....that is no longer free speech; more like China.

So, you are admitting that you claimed you wanted a neutral town square in which all speech is “free”?

By “strong arming” do you mean informing them that a site is totally phony, created by agents of a foreign government/adversary as part of a disinformation campaign designed to make Americans angry at one another?

What punishment did the feds threaten? And more importantly, how have the Feds actually punished Musk for his actions since acquiring Twitter and purposely and personally spreading disinformation? Surely he’s given them ample cause to come down hard on him if they actually intended to federally censor speech.

But ohh, maybe that was never their intention? Maybe they just wanted to share what they knew so that the media companies protected by federal law from liability could at least make informed decisions? Ohh the horror.

They should ALL lose that immunity protection. Let them defend themselves in court.

In bold, yes. Let them fall on their own sword and die on the hill they claim.

Your comments are the next logical point of discussion, once one gets past partisan barb throwing. These types of questions are the premise of talks across the country as we navigate further and further into social media growth, data, and AI....not to mention how most every country has their own social media propaganda agents. And sadly, some can be used against our own people with no way to say it us doing it, while blaming Russian or Iran, or yxz.

It's likely going to get worse before it gets better.

[a fan]

I know what I said, and why I said it. I believe in free speech, as should you. However, when the gov't is strong arming, journalist and media sites what they can and can not run, (which is not Classified in nature)....that is no longer free speech; more like China.

So after all that? We're right back to my original question that you dodged completely:

If "government strong arming of media sites" is such a concern to you and your former Republican voters?

You're back to explaining why none of you noticed, cared, or complained when you saw this....

[a fan]

Maybe they just wanted to share what they knew so that the media companies protected by federal law from liability could at least make informed decisions?

This. Because duh, OF COURSE this is what US intel was doing.

I told both YA and Old Salt this before:

In 2016, US intel warned US media and US citizens about Russian Disinformation hitting our elections.

One result? WaPo saw the unsubstantiated Steel Dossier as a bunch of (at the time) uncorroborated rubbish, and not only did the WaPo refuse to run it, they ran an OpEd mocking Vox for printing the Steel Dossier.

You know: US intel did their freaking jobs, and WaPo made THEIR OWN CHOICE to not run it.

Did YA, OS, or any of the other Deep Staters here complain back in 2016 when the WaPo made this choice after being prompted by US Intel to watch for sh9t infomation?

F no!! And why? Because not running the Steele Dossier helped their guy get elected.

That's all any of these complaints are about: they're going to move their fake values and concerns around until they match up with the election outcome they want.

So if the owner of twitter campaigns with a future President? Suddenly this whole 'I want a neutral media" big, fat, lie.....exits as fast as YouthA can make it disappear.