Page 37 of 60
Re: Facegram & Instabook
Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2022 8:48 pm
by cradleandshoot
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 12:02 pm
youthathletics wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 11:14 am
Elon Musk makes offer to purchase Twitter.
His offer is likely to have to be accepted, given the premium, though it may get pushed higher.
He'll need to fund it, but it's likely that banks will lend him the dough...but he'll need to pledge his other securities in order to do so....and it's not that likely that Twitter's cash flow will be able to support the debt payments.
It's a false presumption that it will increase revenue to allow Alex Jones and Donald Trump and Vlad Putin or whoever on the platform, in a "free speech" excuse, any false propaganda or false advertising goes, regardless of how harmful, nothing to be banned....nope, not gonna increase revenue.(or even usage)
All that will do is force governments all over the world to step in to regulate. It's not as if Twitter will be allowed to operate entirely freely in Russia, China, Iran...and the EU and US will be forced to follow suit as well...meaning that, here in the US, Section 230 will be over. Meaning that the major platforms will now be directly liable for the harm their user's posts create. Huge liabilities, endless liabilities.
He
could drastically cut expenses, but that could well mean the company's death spiral.
My own hunch is that he'll ultimately balk...but it's sure to be interesting.
Maybe Elon will ask you to float him some bling bling.
Re: Facegram & Instabook
Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2022 8:44 am
by Peter Brown
a fan wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 8:40 pm
Peter Brown wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 8:06 pm
What a day. I’ve told all of you that Democrats hate free speech. Today, they’ve proved it over and over. Go Elon!!!!!!
I'm surprised that your band of toddlers can use a keyboard.
Here's what Musk said today:
“I don't know if I have all the answers here, but I do think that we want to be just very reluctant to delete things and just be very cautious with permanent bans,” Musk said during an on-stage interview at the TED conference on Thursday, April 14. “Time-outs, I think, are better than permanent bans.”
So if he's in charge, he's STILL going to delete posts, ban users, and hand out user suspensions for posts.... just as they always have.
Your band of toddlers are just utter morons, Pete.
Got any more breaking news for us today, Pete?
Sell that BS to someone else; the overwhelming majority of permanently suspended accounts on Twitter have been conservatives. We know the political games the Oberlin safety team at Twitter play.
Sounds like folks would get back their right to speak in the ‘town square’. I love that! You?
Re: Facegram & Instabook
Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2022 9:03 am
by youthathletics
Re: Facegram & Instabook
Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2022 9:44 am
by MDlaxfan76
yes, people with whom we disagree can speak = free speech.
And yet, not all speech is "free", as there are substantial costs for harmful speech.
That's clearly recognized in law.
The question is not whether a speaker
can speak, but rather whether the owner of the megaphone provided to the speaker has
any responsibility for what the speaker says, including the harm created by that speech.
And if the megaphone owner does have a responsibility from having amplified such speech, then may the megaphone owner decide who to provide their megaphone to and who not to?
And should they?
After all, if a speaker wishes to speak, they are free to do so without the benefit of someone else's megaphone. They can, instead, get their own box to stand on and shout from.
That's free speech too.
Musk is making the argument that a private company has, de facto, become a public square, rather than a privately owned and operated "megaphone". He's arguing that he, a mega billionaire, should not only not have to pay for access to the megaphone nor be bound to any harm he creates, rather the megaphone owner should eat that risk.
Musk has run afoul of the SEC for his usage of Twitter; he's being sued now for his failure to properly report his purchases of Twitter shares. He's a guy who believes he's above the law...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technolo ... weets-sec/
But hey, he has Aspergers, so we shouldn't think he's a jerk for writing his workers to be "thick-skinned" if they are bullied or harassed racially or otherwise discriminated against...and requiring workers agree to mandatory non-public arbitration to resolve any such complaints. How's that for "free speech"?
https://money.cnn.com/2017/11/15/techno ... index.html
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... on-lawsuit
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/05/tesla-m ... acism.html
But man, they
do make wonderful cars, brilliant tech vision.
Re: Facegram & Instabook
Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2022 9:50 am
by JoeMauer89
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 15, 2022 9:44 am
yes, people with whom we disagree can speak = free speech.
And yet, not all speech is "free", as there are substantial costs for harmful speech.
That's clearly recognized in law.
The question is not whether a speaker
can speak, but rather whether the owner of the megaphone provided to the speaker has
any responsibility for what the speaker says, including the harm created by that speech.
And if the megaphone owner does have a responsibility from having amplified such speech, then may the megaphone owner decide who to provide their megaphone to and who not to?
And should they?
After all, if a speaker wishes to speak, they are free to do so without the benefit of someone else's megaphone. They can, instead, get their own box to stand on and shout from.
That's free speech too.
Musk is making the argument that a private company has, de facto, become a public square, rather than a privately owned and operated "megaphone". He's arguing that he, a mega billionaire, should not only not have to pay for access to the megaphone nor be bound to any harm he creates, rather the megaphone owner should eat that risk.
Musk has run afoul of the SEC for his usage of Twitter; he's being sued now for his failure to properly report his purchases of Twitter shares. He's a guy who believes he's above the law...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technolo ... weets-sec/
But hey, he has Aspergers, so we shouldn't think he's a jerk for writing his workers to be "thick-skinned" if they are bullied or harassed racially or otherwise discriminated against...and requiring workers agree to mandatory non-public arbitration to resolve any such complaints. How's that for "free speech"?
https://money.cnn.com/2017/11/15/techno ... index.html
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... on-lawsuit
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/05/tesla-m ... acism.html
But man, they
do make wonderful cars, brilliant tech vision.
I'm beyond confused, this is a bunch of doublespeak. You realize that you don't have to chime into every subject when you have nothing to add.
Joe
Re: Facegram & Instabook
Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2022 9:55 am
by MDlaxfan76
JoeMauer89 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 15, 2022 9:50 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 15, 2022 9:44 am
yes, people with whom we disagree can speak = free speech.
And yet, not all speech is "free", as there are substantial costs for harmful speech.
That's clearly recognized in law.
The question is not whether a speaker
can speak, but rather whether the owner of the megaphone provided to the speaker has
any responsibility for what the speaker says, including the harm created by that speech.
And if the megaphone owner does have a responsibility from having amplified such speech, then may the megaphone owner decide who to provide their megaphone to and who not to?
And should they?
After all, if a speaker wishes to speak, they are free to do so without the benefit of someone else's megaphone. They can, instead, get their own box to stand on and shout from.
That's free speech too.
Musk is making the argument that a private company has, de facto, become a public square, rather than a privately owned and operated "megaphone". He's arguing that he, a mega billionaire, should not only not have to pay for access to the megaphone nor be bound to any harm he creates, rather the megaphone owner should eat that risk.
Musk has run afoul of the SEC for his usage of Twitter; he's being sued now for his failure to properly report his purchases of Twitter shares. He's a guy who believes he's above the law...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technolo ... weets-sec/
But hey, he has Aspergers, so we shouldn't think he's a jerk for writing his workers to be "thick-skinned" if they are bullied or harassed racially or otherwise discriminated against...and requiring workers agree to mandatory non-public arbitration to resolve any such complaints. How's that for "free speech"?
https://money.cnn.com/2017/11/15/techno ... index.html
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... on-lawsuit
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/05/tesla-m ... acism.html
But man, they
do make wonderful cars, brilliant tech vision.
I'm beyond confused, this is a bunch of doublespeak. You realize that you don't have to chime into every subject when you have nothing to add.
Joe
I'm not surprised that you are "confused", Joe.
You've had zero to contribute to the conversation that others have been having, so you 'chiming' in now, "confused", is par for you.
Please stop tracking my posts and trying to insult me, without ever adding anything to others' discussion beyond the insult. It's childish.
Re: Facegram & Instabook
Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2022 9:56 am
by youthathletics
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 15, 2022 9:44 am
yes, people with whom we disagree can speak = free speech.
And yet, not all speech is "free", as there are substantial costs for harmful speech.
That's clearly recognized in law.
The question is not whether a speaker
can speak, but rather whether the owner of the megaphone provided to the speaker has
any responsibility for what the speaker says, including the harm created by that speech.
And if the megaphone owner does have a responsibility from having amplified such speech, then may the megaphone owner decide who to provide their megaphone to and who not to?
And should they?
After all, if a speaker wishes to speak, they are free to do so without the benefit of someone else's megaphone. They can, instead, get their own box to stand on and shout from.
That's free speech too.
Musk is making the argument that a private company has, de facto, become a public square, rather than a privately owned and operated "megaphone". He's arguing that he, a mega billionaire, should not only not have to pay for access to the megaphone nor be bound to any harm he creates, rather the megaphone owner should eat that risk.
Musk has run afoul of the SEC for his usage of Twitter; he's being sued now for his failure to properly report his purchases of Twitter shares. He's a guy who believes he's above the law...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technolo ... weets-sec/
But hey, he has Aspergers, so we shouldn't think he's a jerk for writing his workers to be "thick-skinned" if they are bullied or harassed racially or otherwise discriminated against...and requiring workers agree to mandatory non-public arbitration to resolve any such complaints. How's that for "free speech"?
https://money.cnn.com/2017/11/15/techno ... index.html
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... on-lawsuit
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/05/tesla-m ... acism.html
But man, they
do make wonderful cars, brilliant tech vision.
Someone sounds jealous and and has thin skin.
Re: Facegram & Instabook
Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2022 9:58 am
by MDlaxfan76
youthathletics wrote: ↑Fri Apr 15, 2022 9:56 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 15, 2022 9:44 am
yes, people with whom we disagree can speak = free speech.
And yet, not all speech is "free", as there are substantial costs for harmful speech.
That's clearly recognized in law.
The question is not whether a speaker
can speak, but rather whether the owner of the megaphone provided to the speaker has
any responsibility for what the speaker says, including the harm created by that speech.
And if the megaphone owner does have a responsibility from having amplified such speech, then may the megaphone owner decide who to provide their megaphone to and who not to?
And should they?
After all, if a speaker wishes to speak, they are free to do so without the benefit of someone else's megaphone. They can, instead, get their own box to stand on and shout from.
That's free speech too.
Musk is making the argument that a private company has, de facto, become a public square, rather than a privately owned and operated "megaphone". He's arguing that he, a mega billionaire, should not only not have to pay for access to the megaphone nor be bound to any harm he creates, rather the megaphone owner should eat that risk.
Musk has run afoul of the SEC for his usage of Twitter; he's being sued now for his failure to properly report his purchases of Twitter shares. He's a guy who believes he's above the law...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technolo ... weets-sec/
But hey, he has Aspergers, so we shouldn't think he's a jerk for writing his workers to be "thick-skinned" if they are bullied or harassed racially or otherwise discriminated against...and requiring workers agree to mandatory non-public arbitration to resolve any such complaints. How's that for "free speech"?
https://money.cnn.com/2017/11/15/techno ... index.html
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... on-lawsuit
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/05/tesla-m ... acism.html
But man, they
do make wonderful cars, brilliant tech vision.
Someone sounds jealous and and has thin skin.
ohhh, I'm definitely envious of his brilliance!
Seriously, they have a brilliant strategy, much to be admired in what they have accomplished and are likely to accomplish going forward.
thin skin, I dunno, but I am fed up with the trolling behavior.
Re: Facegram & Instabook
Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2022 10:47 am
by Peter Brown
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 15, 2022 9:58 am
youthathletics wrote: ↑Fri Apr 15, 2022 9:56 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 15, 2022 9:44 am
yes, people with whom we disagree can speak = free speech.
And yet, not all speech is "free", as there are substantial costs for harmful speech.
That's clearly recognized in law.
The question is not whether a speaker
can speak, but rather whether the owner of the megaphone provided to the speaker has
any responsibility for what the speaker says, including the harm created by that speech.
And if the megaphone owner does have a responsibility from having amplified such speech, then may the megaphone owner decide who to provide their megaphone to and who not to?
And should they?
After all, if a speaker wishes to speak, they are free to do so without the benefit of someone else's megaphone. They can, instead, get their own box to stand on and shout from.
That's free speech too.
Musk is making the argument that a private company has, de facto, become a public square, rather than a privately owned and operated "megaphone". He's arguing that he, a mega billionaire, should not only not have to pay for access to the megaphone nor be bound to any harm he creates, rather the megaphone owner should eat that risk.
Musk has run afoul of the SEC for his usage of Twitter; he's being sued now for his failure to properly report his purchases of Twitter shares. He's a guy who believes he's above the law...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technolo ... weets-sec/
But hey, he has Aspergers, so we shouldn't think he's a jerk for writing his workers to be "thick-skinned" if they are bullied or harassed racially or otherwise discriminated against...and requiring workers agree to mandatory non-public arbitration to resolve any such complaints. How's that for "free speech"?
https://money.cnn.com/2017/11/15/techno ... index.html
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... on-lawsuit
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/05/tesla-m ... acism.html
But man, they
do make wonderful cars, brilliant tech vision.
Someone sounds jealous and and has thin skin.
ohhh, I'm definitely envious of his brilliance!
Seriously, they have a brilliant strategy, much to be admired in what they have accomplished and are likely to accomplish going forward.
thin skin, I dunno, but I am fed up with the trolling behavior.
Elon Musk runs four companies and is trying to take over Twitter as a fifth, since the fix to reassert free speech is so simple (gonna need to fire all the speech-suppressing loon libs who keep suspending conservative accounts, but no one will miss them; they can go back to their moms basement).
It’s really something seeing all the libs irate at a guy who simply wants more not less speech. I used to think most Americans were good with free speech…I guess that cover is blown.
Re: Facegram & Instabook
Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2022 11:19 am
by a fan
Peter Brown wrote: ↑Fri Apr 15, 2022 8:44 am
a fan wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 8:40 pm
Peter Brown wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 8:06 pm
What a day. I’ve told all of you that Democrats hate free speech. Today, they’ve proved it over and over. Go Elon!!!!!!
I'm surprised that your band of toddlers can use a keyboard.
Here's what Musk said today:
“I don't know if I have all the answers here, but I do think that we want to be just very reluctant to delete things and just be very cautious with permanent bans,” Musk said during an on-stage interview at the TED conference on Thursday, April 14. “Time-outs, I think, are better than permanent bans.”
So if he's in charge, he's STILL going to delete posts, ban users, and hand out user suspensions for posts.... just as they always have.
Your band of toddlers are just utter morons, Pete.
Got any more breaking news for us today, Pete?
Sell that BS to someone else;
Sell Musk's own words on what he will do if he can manage to buy twitter?
So you and your toddlers don't believe what Musk is telling you?
Neat-0.
Five seconds ago, you were claiming that there would be zero censorship, and Musk would allow a free for all.
Now he tells you nope, I'll ban and suspend users, and delete posts when I damn well please, just like Twitter has always done.......and you don't want to hear it.
Toddlers. A bunch of toddlers.
Re: Facegram & Instabook
Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2022 11:24 am
by jhu72
Re: Facegram & Instabook
Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2022 11:27 am
by jhu72
Re: Facegram & Instabook
Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2022 11:27 am
by a fan
Yeah, except that ain't what he said yesterday.
I hope he buys it, so everyone can learn a lesson. Well...that's not true. TeamPete STILL won't get it.
I'll take wagers from any of you that Musk's team will delete posts and freeze out posters, business as usual.
The one positive thing out of this? Right wing nutjobs suddenly LOVE electric cars, and the man who is bringing them to America. Hilarious.
Re: Facegram & Instabook
Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2022 12:02 pm
by Peter Brown
a fan wrote: ↑Fri Apr 15, 2022 11:27 am
Yeah, except that ain't what he said yesterday.
I hope he buys it, so everyone can learn a lesson. Well...that's not true. TeamPete STILL won't get it.
I'll take wagers from any of you that Musk's team will delete posts and freeze out posters, business as usual.
The one positive thing out of this? Right wing nutjobs suddenly LOVE electric cars, and the man who is bringing them to America. Hilarious.
There’s zero chance you’re not purposely this obtuse.
Musk, AND ANY OWNER, would certainly ‘freeze out’ accounts that were purposely malicious or dangerous. If you ceaselessly harass someone, gone. If you threaten the life of someone, gone. If you engage in criminal acts over Twitter, gone.
THATS WHAT MUSK WAS REFERRING TO: danger, criminal, harassment.
What he’s simultaneously bemoaning is the blatant politicization of the Twitter ‘town square’ by the unaccountable uber-lefty ‘safety’ team there, folks you no doubt cheer on, as they purposely suspend conservative political voices SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THEIR POLITICS. Not dangerous, not criminal, not harassing. Just conservative.
And Democrats love that; pure speech suppression. Not realizing that the worm always turns.
Please tell me you’re just seeing if you can yet again pull one over the Fanlax FLP eyes with your post.
Re: Facegram & Instabook
Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2022 12:20 pm
by jhu72
Musk doesn't give a sh*t about free speech, outside of his own. He is trying to buy a personal platform is all that is going on. Trying to do it on the cheap.
Re: Facegram & Instabook
Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2022 12:25 pm
by MDlaxfan76
Peter Brown wrote: ↑Fri Apr 15, 2022 12:02 pm
a fan wrote: ↑Fri Apr 15, 2022 11:27 am
Yeah, except that ain't what he said yesterday.
I hope he buys it, so everyone can learn a lesson. Well...that's not true. TeamPete STILL won't get it.
I'll take wagers from any of you that Musk's team will delete posts and freeze out posters, business as usual.
The one positive thing out of this? Right wing nutjobs suddenly LOVE electric cars, and the man who is bringing them to America. Hilarious.
There’s zero chance you’re not purposely this obtuse.
Musk, AND ANY OWNER, would certainly ‘freeze out’ accounts that were purposely malicious or dangerous. If you ceaselessly harass someone, gone. If you threaten the life of someone, gone. If you engage in criminal acts over Twitter, gone.
THATS WHAT MUSK WAS REFERRING TO: danger, criminal, harassment.
What he’s simultaneously bemoaning is the blatant politicization of the Twitter ‘town square’ by the unaccountable uber-lefty ‘safety’ team there, folks you no doubt cheer on, as they purposely suspend conservative political voices SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THEIR POLITICS. Not dangerous, not criminal, not harassing. Just conservative.
And Democrats love that; pure speech suppression. Not realizing that the worm always turns.
Please tell me you’re just seeing if you can yet again pull one over the Fanlax FLP eyes with your post.
Serious question, Alex Jones and Infowars...just "conservative" ...or "dangerous, malicious, harassment, or criminal"?
Re: Facegram & Instabook
Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2022 12:27 pm
by jhu72
Peter Brown wrote: ↑Fri Apr 15, 2022 12:02 pm
a fan wrote: ↑Fri Apr 15, 2022 11:27 am
Yeah, except that ain't what he said yesterday.
I hope he buys it, so everyone can learn a lesson. Well...that's not true. TeamPete STILL won't get it.
I'll take wagers from any of you that Musk's team will delete posts and freeze out posters, business as usual.
The one positive thing out of this? Right wing nutjobs suddenly LOVE electric cars, and the man who is bringing them to America. Hilarious.
There’s zero chance you’re not purposely this obtuse.
Musk, AND ANY OWNER, would certainly ‘freeze out’ accounts that were purposely malicious or dangerous. If you ceaselessly harass someone, gone. If you threaten the life of someone, gone. If you engage in criminal acts over Twitter, gone.
THATS WHAT MUSK WAS REFERRING TO: danger, criminal, harassment.
What he’s simultaneously bemoaning is the
blatant politicization of the Twitter ‘town square’ by the unaccountable uber-lefty ‘safety’ team there, folks you no doubt cheer on, as they purposely suspend conservative political voices SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THEIR POLITICS. Not dangerous, not criminal, not harassing. Just conservative.
And Democrats love that; pure speech suppression. Not realizing that the worm always turns.
Please tell me you’re just seeing if you can yet again pull one over the Fanlax FLP eyes with your post.
... these are your words, your worldview, not Musks. He has not used these words. Once again your are lying Kellyanne!
Re: Facegram & Instabook
Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2022 12:36 pm
by Peter Brown
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 15, 2022 12:25 pm
Peter Brown wrote: ↑Fri Apr 15, 2022 12:02 pm
a fan wrote: ↑Fri Apr 15, 2022 11:27 am
Yeah, except that ain't what he said yesterday.
I hope he buys it, so everyone can learn a lesson. Well...that's not true. TeamPete STILL won't get it.
I'll take wagers from any of you that Musk's team will delete posts and freeze out posters, business as usual.
The one positive thing out of this? Right wing nutjobs suddenly LOVE electric cars, and the man who is bringing them to America. Hilarious.
There’s zero chance you’re not purposely this obtuse.
Musk, AND ANY OWNER, would certainly ‘freeze out’ accounts that were purposely malicious or dangerous. If you ceaselessly harass someone, gone. If you threaten the life of someone, gone. If you engage in criminal acts over Twitter, gone.
THATS WHAT MUSK WAS REFERRING TO: danger, criminal, harassment.
What he’s simultaneously bemoaning is the blatant politicization of the Twitter ‘town square’ by the unaccountable uber-lefty ‘safety’ team there, folks you no doubt cheer on, as they purposely suspend conservative political voices SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THEIR POLITICS. Not dangerous, not criminal, not harassing. Just conservative.
And Democrats love that; pure speech suppression. Not realizing that the worm always turns.
Please tell me you’re just seeing if you can yet again pull one over the Fanlax FLP eyes with your post.
Serious question, Alex Jones and Infowars...just "conservative" ...or "dangerous, malicious, harassment, or criminal"?
Don’t follow him to have an informed opinion. He’s likely very very borderline.
Trump was not borderline. Nor is Alex Berenson. Tommy Robinson. Lara Logan. David Horowitz. Stefan Molyneux. Michael Flynn. Bill Mitchell. Jim Hoft. MTG. and so on.
You might find them insane, some are, but they weren’t any more dangerous than the Ayatollah Khameini of Iran, who’s still quite active on the bird, calling for the deaths of Jews and Israel every two days.
Re: Facegram & Instabook
Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2022 12:56 pm
by a fan
Peter Brown wrote: ↑Fri Apr 15, 2022 12:02 pm
There’s zero chance you’re not purposely this obtuse.
And there's zero chance you're this stupid.
Peter Brown wrote: ↑Fri Apr 15, 2022 12:02 pm
What he’s simultaneously bemoaning is the blatant politicization of the Twitter ‘town square’ by the unaccountable uber-lefty ‘safety’ team there, folks you no doubt cheer on, as they purposely suspend conservative political voices SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THEIR POLITICS. Not dangerous, not criminal, not harassing. Just conservative.
Easiest thing in the world to disprove. Tell you what, I"m going to head on over to twitter. And for every conservative political post I find, you donate $100 to a charity of my choice.
Deal? Get Daddy's money out, Pete. You're gonna need it.
And how about this headline, Twitter taking down far left accounts.....
Twitter has purged left-wing accounts with no explanation
Dozens of activists linked to the Occupy movement are up in arms after their accounts were suspended by Twitter
Of course, you don't care, because, well, you have toddler-ideas when it comes to this stuff.
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/twitter ... -elections
And yep, I absolutely cheer on twitter doing whatever the F they want with their business, so long as they follow all applicable laws. Conservatives used to do that, too. Not anymore. You're a bunch of not-so-closeted libs, who think that they get to tell businesses what they can and can't publish.
Stop. using. twitter. Yet another fake problem solved. Musk won't save you.
Re: Facegram & Instabook
Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2022 1:11 pm
by dislaxxic
Elon Musk, Baloney King
You can call Elon Musk a lot of things. Agent of chaos. Savvy investor. Obsessive workaholic. But the tech-industry analyst Benedict Evans has a different suggestion. He calls Musk a “bullshitter who delivers.” I’d go even further: Musk exemplifies a new kind of bullshitter, one we haven’t really seen before. Call it the “bullionaire,” maybe: an unusual purveyor of infantile jackassery, whose unfathomable wealth makes it possible, and even likely, that he’ll carry out even the most ridiculous plan.
"Bullionaire"
Good one, right? Like trump, the ersatz bullionaire...
The philosopher Harry Frankfurt wrote a famous article about nonsense in the 1980s, which became a bestselling 2005 book called On nonsense. Both bullshitters and liars are trying to get away with something. But unlike the liar, who demonstrates an awareness of and concern for the truth in order to evade it, Frankfurt argues that bullshitters just don’t care about truth at all. Instead, a bullshitter strives to achieve their goals, whatever those goals are. For some of them, that amounts to hearing themselves talk. For others, it involves deception or even fraud.
At first blush, the Muskian variety looks very different. He doesn’t seem like a man who is indifferent to the truth so much as one who is passionately devoted to the act of blowing raspberries. He named the models of Tesla S, 3, X, and Y, a leetspeak rendition of sexy. He made a pot joke about taking the company private. He joked (maybe?) about renaming Twitter as “Titter”—you know, like breasts?
But his raspberries serve another function: They fill up a flotilla of trial balloons that, bound together by his wealth, can lift a house into the sky. Money talks, and nonsense floats. That’s how Musk turned a dumb pot gag into a government investigation into a hundred-billion-dollar payday. It’s how he got all of Twitter’s power users to accept that he was their new overlord this morning. Musk is indifferent to the truth because he has dominion over it.
trump has brought us the "post-truth era" in American politics...guys like Musk pick that up and RUN with it.
Push back: mandatory.
..
