Elon Musk buys Twitter to bring back Free Speech

[Theresa Tennyson]

13 minutes ago, Lindal Kidd said:

Please don't go changing the situations being used as examples. My point about cancellation being bad is that it is disproportionate. It's real economic harm in retaliation for words. Even, sometimes, words that were spoken decades before.

It is also a sort of mob rule. Social media has made it very easy to drum up an angry crowd of peasants with torches and pitchforks screaming "Kill the monster!" and the poor monster is forced to flee for his life. Sure, some monsters deserve to be burned, but who decides? Shall we simply concede that power to those with the largest followings, or with the most strident voice?

A "sexist boss who treats women badly" is engaging in more than words, and the response should be proportionate: a lawsuit, perhaps, or an appeal to a higher level manager.

Please give us concrete examples we can discuss. As I've said before, I find the whole "cancellation" kerfuffle to be highly exaggerated. Ultimately, consumers and employers are free to decide who to give their money to. And if you're getting paid to speak, well, that means that it isn't "free" anymore, is it?

[Jackson Redstar]

the News from the WH should calm people's fears about Musk operating Twitter. The WH will be creating a new Ministry of Truth that will inform all us plebes what is true and what is not true.  We need not research anything on our own, the Ministry of Truth will have all the right answers, Trust them. They are the government!

[Love Zhaoying]

6 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

Please give us concrete examples we can discuss. As I've said before, I find the whole "cancellation" kerfuffle to be highly exaggerated. Ultimately, consumers and employers are free to decide who to give their money to. And if you're getting paid to speak, well, that means that it isn't "free" anymore, is it?

I like that some are calling it "accountability" instead of "cancel".  

Don't like how a company operates, or how their CEO behaves? Don't buy their stuff!

Don't like how Disney relates to stuff you disagree with? Don't go to Disney!

Don't like how your politician treats Disney?  Don't vote for them!

Don't like Twitter? Don't go on Twitter!

Don't like how people treat you on the Forums? Don't go on the Forums!

 

Edited April 29, 2022 by Love Zhaoying

[Scylla Rhiadra]

7 hours ago, Akane Nacht said:

Elon's purchase could bankrupt him and he has to sleep in his tesla.

I'd be totally good with that.

[Love Zhaoying]

6 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

7 hours ago, Akane Nacht said:

Elon's purchase could bankrupt him and he has to sleep in his tesla.

I'd be totally good with that.

Just heard a news byte that he has to "borrow" US $40B for this. Guess I missed that part until now.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

2 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Musk isn't in the right political camp and is therefore watched like a hawk from that perspective. Unlike Soros, Bezos, Google etc.

I hear this sometimes. It always makes me snort (in a ladylike way, of course).

Where on earth you get the idea that the Left (as opposed to Democrats, who are barely centrists) admire Soros, Bezos, or Google, I have no idea.

Bezos is pond scum.

Soros is at least an actual philanthropist, but the point is that this kind of massive inequity of wealth is an obscenity, regardless of the political affiliations of the billionaire involved.

Again, the issue isn't "would it be better if Soros owned Twitter than Musk." NO ONE PERSON should have full access to that much power. Democracies shouldn't depend upon the generosity of the obscenely rich to enforce human rights, or to provide the basic necessities of life for the poor.

Edited April 29, 2022 by Scylla Rhiadra

[Luna Bliss]

15 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

8 hours ago, Akane Nacht said:

Elon's purchase could bankrupt him and he has to sleep in his tesla.

I'd be totally good with that.

Me too, along with the car video screen blasting day and night, running an endless loop of his former girlfriend running off with the transgender women.

[Ayashe Ninetails]

He plans to make money through the monetization of tweets and cutting executive pay.

Seriously wondering if any current users are willing to pay for Twitter quotes/embeds and how that will influence posting behavior on the platform itself.

[Love Zhaoying]

2 minutes ago, Ayashe Ninetails said:

He plans to make money through the monetization of tweets and cutting executive pay.

Seriously wondering if any current users are willing to pay for Twitter quotes/embeds and how that will influence posting behavior on the platform itself.

Guess we'll have to get an OnlyFans to pay for our Twitter.

[Ayashe Ninetails]

2 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Guess we'll have to get an OnlyFans to pay for our Twitter.

Lol, well the "exact" plan (term used loosely as it appears he's just throwing random ideas out there) is to charge third-parties money for embedding viral tweets and tweets from verified users into their websites. Makes me wonder if people are going to start going ham trying to make their tweets trend even more than they do now (not that they'd see a dime of that money, but for the lols - Look guys! TMZ paid for my tweet!).

https://www.reuters.com/business/musk-told-banks-he-will-rein-twitter-pay-make-money-tweets-sources-2022-04-29/

[Silent Mistwalker]

1 hour ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Remember the good old days? I don't, but wish this would come back.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine

I do on both counts. It really should be re-instated.

[Silent Mistwalker]

1 hour ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Don't like how people treat you on the Forums? Don't go on the Forums!

We're all just gluttons for punishment. 🤭

[Arielle Popstar]

1 hour ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

 

A research study found that social media isn't biased against conservatives:

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5b6df958f8370af3217d4178/t/60187b5f45762e708708c8e9/1612217185240/NYU+False+Accusation_2.pdf

You are, of course, free to say the researchers have their own bias; however, at least they have done work and said specifically what that work was. Meanwhile, here's what you've said are your qualifications:

Well right away from that study you can see either confirmation bias or at the very least that their conclusions are erroneous simply because unlike the right, they had no examples of the left where there were bans, demonetizations and cancellations like there have been plenty of on the right and centrists. 

I might not utilize Twitter very much but most of the people I do follow have mentioned they either had their accounts closed there or were severely restricted from being able to bring out information that conflicted with what the social media companies term mis and disinformation in spite of it being no more then rebuttals to various narratives the media companies are pushing because of their bias.

1 hour ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

Please give us concrete examples we can discuss. As I've said before, I find the whole "cancellation" kerfuffle to be highly exaggerated. Ultimately, consumers and employers are free to decide who to give their money to. And if you're getting paid to speak, well, that means that it isn't "free" anymore, is it?

Then perhaps you aren't looking very hard as a ready made example trending yesterday was Chris Pratt,  and those wanting him cancelled for attending a church at some point that was accused of being homophobic. It has been determined since he was never a member there but had simply attended a few services but of course certain cancellation culturists can admit no wrong and want him cancelled anyway. One thing to not like an actor although there really is no reason not to, but another to push companies to actually do so and in effect blackmail the companies into obeying the mob rule through various threats.

[Love Zhaoying]

10 minutes ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

We're all just gluttons for punishment. 🤭

Between puns and dad jokes, it's worth it to me!

[Love Zhaoying]

3 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Well right away from that study you can see either confirmation bias or at the very least that their conclusions are erroneous simply because unlike the right, they had no examples of the left where there were bans, demonetizations and cancellations like there have been plenty of on the right and centrists. 

That makes sense, an absence of proof! Omg that means God exists!

[Arielle Popstar]

1 hour ago, Innula Zenovka said:

Has he?  The Guardian reported yesterday that

The article confirms what I already said that he is looking to do this for the right and left. Fair speech. What is the problem with that? Me as a Left of center Libertarian, find that to be commendable.

[Love Zhaoying]

6 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

he was never a member there but had simply attended a few services but of course certain cancellation culturists can admit no wrong and want him cancelled anyway.

He's Chris Pratt, should have known better!

*Edit* Would be hilarious if it turned out to be the infamous Fred Phelps' church (they protest at all gay pride events, and blame gays for military deaths). Hilarious because, literally everyone knows who follows news.

Edited April 29, 2022 by Love Zhaoying

[Arielle Popstar]

12 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

That makes sense, an absence of proof! Omg that means God exists!

It simply mean that though we politely dance around it, it is proof that social and mainstream media's have Tos's and rules that heavily favour one side of the aisle.

Edited April 29, 2022 by Arielle Popstar

[Arielle Popstar]

1 hour ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Again, the issue isn't "would it be better if Soros owned Twitter than Musk." NO ONE PERSON should have full access to that much power. Democracies shouldn't depend upon the generosity of the obscenely rich to enforce human rights, or to provide the basic necessities of life for the poor.

Who should then? The party in power? We seeing how that goes already with the new Ministry of Truth announced for the US and with Canada close behind. If these rich moguls were able to actually provide the basic necessities of life, how much more so should that expectation be on the governments in power as they just print up money at will?

[Love Zhaoying]

6 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

It simply mean that though we politely dance around it, it is proof that social and central media's have Tos's and rules that heavily favour one side of the aisle.

No it does not. The article - from its title through its details - is only about the claim against conservatives. The fact they don't detail claims against liberals is irrelevant to the very title and topic of the article.

[Theresa Tennyson]

20 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

 

Then perhaps you aren't looking very hard as a ready made example trending yesterday was Chris Pratt,  and those wanting him cancelled for attending a church at some point that was accused of being homophobic. It has been determined since he was never a member there but had simply attended a few services but of course certain cancellation culturists can admit no wrong and want him cancelled anyway. One thing to not like an actor although there really is no reason not to, but another to push companies to actually do so and in effect blackmail the companies into obeying the mob rule through various threats.

 

[Silent Mistwalker]

If I were the Christian god, I'd wipe humanity from the face of the planet and be done with it.

[Arielle Popstar]

9 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

No it does not. The article - from its title through its details - is only about the claim against conservatives. The fact they don't detail claims against liberals is irrelevant to the very title and topic of the article.

[Love Zhaoying]

2 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Since you just want to argue, with no supporting logic or information, I'm not going to reply further. 

[Rowan Amore]

8 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

 

Guess the blackmail didn't work?  Can't wait to see this!