Elon Musk buys Twitter to bring back Free Speech

[Silent Mistwalker]

11 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Correct me if I am wrong but jury selection is in a large part done by the lawyers on both sides and according to the article I read:

I'd have to wonder why the lawyers for Vernon allowed the inclusion of the proud owner if it would have affected the outcome. Being predominantly women and college educated the aspersions that they might have been bribed or blackmailed seems a little over the top and a grasping at straws. Being that this was in LA and California being left leaning and therefore the jurors likely fitting that mold, it really is a bit surprising that they did reject the claim but since they did, it was a resounding defeat for Vernon.

 

What part of "wonder which jurors Musk bribed/blackmailed" did you not understand? Are you going to try to tell me no one has ever tried to bribe or blackmail jurors in Canada? 

Jury tampering in the US is a felony.

jury tampering | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)

[Ayashe Ninetails]

20 minutes ago, Istelathis said:

If free speech generated enough revenue to sustain a major social media platform, there would be more social media platforms that allowed it.  Musk is not a savior of free speech, he is an entrepreneur, his entire spiel is to generate as much money as possible - and that is not done through free speech.  For twitter it currently is done through advertisements.  The advertisers that support twitter, the only ones that can pay the bills have a very large demographic of different people and would rather not be associated with hate, as that would drive off consumers. 

This is my take on things, too. I seriously doubt much will change on the platform if the deal is successful (and I'm not fully convinced it will be). Big brands and advertisers are all over the place, and I really don't think they want to be associated with a platform that takes a full "yolo" approach to moderation.

[Arielle Popstar]

7 minutes ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

 

What part of "wonder which jurors Musk bribed/blackmailed" did you not understand? Are you going to try to tell me no one has ever tried to bribe or blackmail jurors in Canada? 

The part where you linked a source or provided any particularly legitimate proofs where that might be considered as anything other then a grasping of straws.

[Nalates Urriah]

18 hours ago, Robin Kiyori said:

I'm not American so American friends correct me if I'm wrong.

But doesn't Free speech only protect you from the government, not  random twitter users?

Or am I right and this is just another example of rules for thee but not for me?

Technically that "protect from" is correct. The US Constitution is about restraint on government. However, no one is allowed to deprive any American citizen of their Constitutionally Protected rights. The confusing part comes when I demand to exercise my rights on your property... or try to require you to do something to further my rights. The "You have to let me talk on your privately owned radio/TV station" is a case of forcing another to support your speech. The Constitution does not impose that Socialist idea on US Citizens.

Things easily get confused. Propagandists have pushed the notion for years that one cannot legally yell fire in a theater. But of course any one can and the Constitution protects their right to do so. BUT... you are also held responsible for that speech. So, if there is no fire and people are harmed by the speech the speaker is the one held liable. So while one is free to say whatever, those harmed by that person's speech are entitled to recover damages.

The US has all sorts of laws for liable, slander, and other harmful speech. It isn't that you can't say those things, its that you are responsible for what you say and who you harm. These laws do NOT limit the speech. They do impose penalties for liable, slander, and other speech is found to be false and harmful.

The notion that their MUST BE limits on speech is how government authoritarians take over and limit public speech to what THEY approve. Lots of people have yet to figure that out. Lots of fuzzy thinking.

[Silent Mistwalker]

5 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

The part where you linked a source or provided any particularly legitimate proofs where that might be considered as anything other then a grasping of straws.

Do I have to spell everything out for you? I linked the article I quoted from. DUH! Talk about grasping at straws. 🙄

Edited April 27, 2022 by Silent Mistwalker

[Arielle Popstar]

8 minutes ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

Do I have to spell everything out for you? I linked the article I quoted from. DUH! Talk about grasping at straws. 🙄

Yes, I am not particularly bright so I would appreciate it if you could spell out what leads you to suspect that Elon bribed or blackmailed the Jurors in returning a verdict favourable to him. Throwing some link around about how it is illegal to do so, does not do anything to legitimize a case for it happening here.

[Rowan Amore]

1 hour ago, Arielle Popstar said:

get into a fight with a lion to placate one's ego

Placate one's ego?  Are you saying if you have enough money/power you can say whatever the hell you want?  I'm not sure ego would have anything whatsoever to do with fighting back against someone calling you a pedo.  

 

46 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

I'd have to wonder why the lawyers for Vernon allowed the inclusion of the proud owner if it would have affected the outcome.

Lawyers on both sides are only allowed a certain amount of exclusions during voir dire.  Once you've used those up, you need to show just cause for excluding a juror which then can also be challenged by the opposing lawyer.  Perhaps they had already used up their allotted amount.

[Rowan Amore]

1 hour ago, Luna Bliss said:

Where is Rowan's big HUH emoticon.  That's all I can say.

[Silent Mistwalker]

14 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Yes, I am not particularly bright so I would appreciate it if you could spell out what leads you to suspect that Elon bribed or blackmailed the Jurors in returning a verdict favourable to him. Throwing some link around about how it is illegal to do so, does not do anything to legitimize a case for it happening here.

You obviously did not even look at the webpage the link goes to. That is not what the article was about.

The question was asked why people don't like Musk. I gave some of the answers in a quote from a linked article. Then you go off the deep end when I pointed out that one of the jurors owned Teslas that made me WONDER if Musk hadn't bribed or even blackmailed other jurors. And you took that as me stating it as fact and object to my having posted a link to Cornell defining what jury tampering is. BTW, since you didn't bother to read either of the links I posted:

Quote

Jury tampering refers to improper communications with a juror with the purpose of influencing the juror’s deliberative process via private communication or contact regarding matters directly related to the case being tried. Examples of jury tampering may include providing outside information to a juror and bribing, threating or intimidating a juror to influence the verdict. Both lawyers and jurors themselves can be involved in jury tampering.

Jury tampering is not only an ethical infraction, but a criminal offense. 

jury tampering | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)

 

Blackmail is considered intimidation and can be threatening.

 

[Arielle Popstar]

21 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

Placate one's ego?  Are you saying if you have enough money/power you can say whatever the hell you want?  I'm not sure ego would have anything whatsoever to do with fighting back against someone calling you a pedo.  

2 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said:

I feel for Mr.Unsworth being on the hook for all the legal costs but at the end of the day, one needs to recognize that if one chooses to get into a fight with a lion to placate one's ego, the chances of coming out unscathed are slim.

 

Ok my bad, maybe I didn't explain very well where I was coming from on the ego remark. I was referring to Vernon's ego that prompted him to disparage Musk's efforts up to and including where Musk should stick his minisub. That seemed an entirely unprovoked and unwarranted remark when the focus was supposed to be on a concerted effort to save those children. Maybe there were words between him and Musk earlier but no article I have seen on it mentions it, so it comes down to Vernon threw the first verbal punch. Musk then responded in kind and unfortunately Vernon was not so good in handling the pushback but instead of calling it quits adds insult to injury by launching a defamation lawsuit against Musk. Again, ego driven. He should have quit while he was ahead.

[Luna Bliss]

47 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Elon bribed or blackmailed the Jurors

In deciding Musk's character the main issue here isn't whether jurors were bought off somehow, or whether the law was able to determine what occurred met the terms of defamation.

What is disgusting here is that Musk hired a private investigator to try and dig up dirt on someone with little power in society who merely insulted him --  Musk paid a private investigator 52,000 dollars in an attempt to paint his opponent as a pedo.

Imagine, Arielle, that I was some famous and wealthy person, you toss an insult at me, and in response I use major resources to make you seem like a pedophile. Do you see the abuse of power here, the vindictiveness and 'unfair fighting' that shows Musk should not wield any power -- he abuses power.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/oct/08/elon-musk-diver-vernon-unsworth-pedo-idiot

[Arielle Popstar]

42 minutes ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

You obviously did not even look at the webpage the link goes to. That is not what the article was about.

 Then you go off the deep end when I pointed out that one of the jurors owned Teslas that made me WONDER if Musk hadn't bribed or even blackmailed other jurors. And you took that as me stating it as fact and object to my having posted a link to Cornell defining what jury tampering is. BTW, since you didn't bother to read either of the links I posted:

Ok see, well i misunderstood from how you structured the sentence then. The way I read it you wondered which jurors were blackmailed, not wondered if they were. I'll try to be more careful in my reading your posts in future.

Quote

One of the jurors owns 2, not 1, but TWO Tesla cars. Makes me wonder which jurors Musk bribed/blackmailed, if not all of them.

[Silent Mistwalker]

2 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Ok see, well i misunderstood from how you structured the sentence then. The way I read it you wondered which jurors were blackmailed, not wondered if they were. I'll try to be more careful in my reading your posts in future.

Read it again. 

It is not a statement of fact. You took it as a statement of fact by your own choice when it was obvious it was not a statement of fact, instead it was something meant to make people think for themselves. You chose to make an issue of a nonissue. That is not on me. So don't even try blaming me for your choices.

[Rowan Amore]

44 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Ok my bad, maybe I didn't explain very well where I was coming from on the ego remark. I was referring to Vernon's ego that prompted him to disparage Musk's efforts up to and including where Musk should stick his minisub. That seemed an entirely unprovoked and unwarranted remark when the focus was supposed to be on a concerted effort to save those children. Maybe there were words between him and Musk earlier but no article I have seen on it mentions it, so it comes down to Vernon threw the first verbal punch. Musk then responded in kind and unfortunately Vernon was not so good in handling the pushback but instead of calling it quits adds insult to injury by launching a defamation lawsuit against Musk. Again, ego driven. He should have quit while he was ahead.

Bolding mine...

Granted, Vernon started the confrontation.   However, "sticking a submarine where the sun don't shine"  does not even come close to be as damaging as calling someone a pedo.   I call someone a nitwit, they call me a dipsh*t.   I call someone a nitwit, they call me a child molester, is NOT tit or tat.  It's a personal attack on my character and not silly name calling.  

Does anyone really doubt that if the tables were turned, Elon wouldn't have won a defamation suit if someone called him a pedo?

Money buys influence.  

[Theresa Tennyson]

Hi everybody!

Just dropping by to say hi, chilling out and refraining from making comments that would be of an interpersonal dispute nature.*

Y'all have a great day, okay?

_______________________________

* Because let me tell you, some of the ones running through my mind right now are doozies.

Edited April 27, 2022 by Theresa Tennyson

[StarlanderGoods]

I heard Elon is going to replace all the bots, with actual, real, tesla robots.

[Lindal Kidd]

4 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

But how are you defining the term "cancellation"?

According to the Urban Dictionary (I agree with this definition, but they said it better than I could):

"To cancel someone (usually a celebrity or other well-known figure) means to stop giving support to that person. The act of canceling could entail boycotting an actor's movies or no longer reading or promoting a writer's works."

In the example we're discussing, there's an employer-employee relationship. That doesn't exist in this definition.  I guess I would say it's a third party, or parties, causing economic harm to someone they only know on social media for saying something that offends them, and encouraging others to do the same.

Edited April 27, 2022 by Lindal Kidd

[Ayashe Ninetails]

3 minutes ago, StarlanderGoods said:

I heard Elon is going to replace all the bots, with actual, real, tesla robots.

This reminded me of his pledge to authenticate all users. That's an interesting proposal. I can't wait to see how that turns out.

 

[Aethelwine]

7 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Even just from the awoken BBC article on the incident, it didn't sound to be an overly big deal and that the word pedo is often used to refer to a "creepy old man" rather then a direct accusation of engaging in the act. I have heard/read the term used that way myself by younger liberal people, so seems much ado about nothing which the courts  agreed with.

awoken? what does that mean? Have they been sleeping?

I read the BBC article as saying Musks defence said in South Africa "pedo" is often used to refer to a "creepy old man". I can't speak to that as I don't know how it is used in South Africa. But it is hardly surprising the defence would try to diminish the meaning of what was said.

In the UK once people have grown beyond the indiscriminate use of vulgarities as part of teenage growing up and trying to be adult, I have not heard or experienced it used indiscriminately, or without some evidence. It is probably the most offensive thing you can call someone because of the meaning. Not something I would expect from an adult, and certainly not someone in a position of authority. 

Edited April 27, 2022 by Aethelwine

[Innula Zenovka]

2 hours ago, Ayashe Ninetails said:

This reminded me of his pledge to authenticate all users. That's an interesting proposal. I can't wait to see how that turns out.

And he wants to move away from being supported primarily by advertising revenue to a subscription model (paying for blue check marks).    It'll be interesting to see how that works out.

Reducing reliance on advertisers would help, I suppose, with the free speech absolutist position, since there's less need to worry about advertisers not wanting to promote their products in a site known for neo-Nazis, white supremacists and porn, but I'm not sure how good a business model he'll find it, particularly since the EU and the UK (and other jurisdictions?) are in the process of introducing  strict controls, backed by heavy fines, on social media (up to 10% of worldwide revenue, in the case of the UK, and I think the EU planning 6%).  These will include, at least in the UK, prohibitions on disseminating "harmful disinformation" and racist content:

Quote

Platforms will need to have appropriate systems and processes in place to stop criminals using their services to spread hate, and will need to respond quickly if someone posts racist content, whether words, images, emojis or videos. Companies which fail in this duty of care could face huge fines - up to 10% global turnover, which for the major social media platforms will be billions of pounds.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/online-safety-bill-supporting-documents/online-safety-bill-factsheet#what-the-bill-says-about-protections-for-democracy

Failure promptly to deal with targeted harassment and threats, particularly gender-related, will attract similarly severe penalties.  And, as I said, the EU is introducing similar regulations.

It'll be very interesting to see how Musk manages to square this with free-speech absolutism, because I think most of Twitter's users, whatever they do use the platform for, aren't there for the kind of material that governments on my side of the Atlantic seek to ban.   So I suspect that a free-speech absolutist model for Twitter is going to work only if he shrinks the platform, both in terms of geographic reach and paying members, quite dramatically.

We shall see, but I don't think it's going to develop in quite the way some people (including Elon Musk) seem to hope, fear or expect.

 

 

Edited April 27, 2022 by Innula Zenovka

[Scylla Rhiadra]

11 minutes ago, Aethelwine said:

awoken? what does that mean? Have they been sleeping?

I'm rather curious to know what @Arielle Popstar finds "awoke" about this article, as well. It sounds pretty dispassionate and free of bias to me.

I also loved this:

Quote

"I did not intend to accuse Mr Unsworth of engaging in acts of pedophilia," he added. "In response to his insults in the CNN interview, I meant to insult him back by expressing my opinion that he seemed like a creepy old man."

in combination with this:

Quote

Mr Musk also said in his court filings that his aide hired a private investigator who "reported that Mr Unsworth associated with Europeans who engage in improper sexual conduct in Thailand".

In other words, "I didn't intend to accuse him of being a "pedo," but if I had, I had good reason to, having had him investigated for this thing that I was not accusing him of."

Ultimately, none of this is really particular relevant to the actual issue at hand of course. That Mr. Musk is a hypocritical, abusive, slandering narcissist doesn't mean that he can't or won't do a good job of running Twitter, or even "protecting" free speech (which presumably means the right to call someone a "pedo" without cause or proof if you want).

I do think, assuming he succeeds in pulling this off, however, that he's going to have a very difficult time balancing his apparent desire to enable certain kinds of discourse, and his need to keep the platform viable and profitable. Most of us don't want to post in places that permit the kinds of accusation Musk made here, nor, as Innula and others have noted, will a great many governments tolerate that kind of behaviour, whatever the state of civil jurisprudence in the US.

[Innula Zenovka]

Reuters are already suggesting he might be getting cold feet.

https://www.reuters.com/breakingviews/elon-musk-probably-wont-buy-twitter-2022-04-27/

[Ayashe Ninetails]

2 minutes ago, Innula Zenovka said:

And he wants to move away from being supported primarily by advertising revenue to a subscription model (paying for blue check marks).    It'll be interesting to see how that works out.

Reducing reliance on advertisers would help, I suppose, with the free speech absolutist position, since there's less need to worry about advertisers not wanting to promote their products in a site known for neo-Nazis, white supremacists and porn, but I'm not sure how good a business model he'll find it, particularly since the EU and the UK (and other jurisdictions?) are in the process of introducing  strict controls, backed by heavy fines, on social media (up to 10% of worldwide revenue, in the case of the UK, and I think the EU planning 6%).  These will include, at least in the UK, prohibitions on disseminating "harmful disinformation" and racist content:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/online-safety-bill-supporting-documents/online-safety-bill-factsheet#what-the-bill-says-about-protections-for-democracy

Failure promptly to deal with targeted harassment and threats, particularly gender-related, will attract similarly severe penalties.  And, as I said, the EU is introducing similar regulations.

It'll be very interesting to see how Musk manages to square this with free-speech absolutism, because I think most of Twitters' users, whatever they do use the platform for, aren't there for the kind of material that governments on my side of the Atlantic seek to ban.   So I suspect that a free-speech absolutist model for Twitter is going to work only if he shrinks the platform, both in terms of geographic reach and paying members, quite dramatically.

We shall see, but I don't think it's going to develop in quite the way some people  including Elon Musk) seem to hope, fear or expect.

I love everything about this comment. You've really hit the nail on the head as to why I feel this entire thing is going absolutely nowhere. I mean, perhaps he'll buy it for real if the deal's given the green light - we'll see. I don't expect a whole lot of changes to come if he does, though. Like you point out, there are new international laws and regulations at play, so going completely hands-off is just not going to work if he wants Twitter to remain accessible in those regions. It's all a lot more complicated than his tweets suggest.

And to get rid of advertisers in favor of a paid subscription model for verified accounts? I just don't see that working out over the long term. Some people are already packing their things and exiting in search of something new. Convincing verified users to stay AND pay? Yeah, I don't know about that. I would imagine companies wouldn't find losing out on ad opportunities very attractive, either.

I do find myself wondering why he didn't just purchase one of the smaller platforms to play with - Gab, Gettr (I can't even say that without laughing omg), Truth Social, Parler, etc.

[Luna Bliss]

Phew I am feeling pounds lighter from these last several posts bringing in new information!
Just knowing there are officials somewhere in the world who don't equate freedom with freedom to hate and do harm to others. And that the Twitter disaster might not come to pass.
There has been a kind of celebration over here by some factions of late, as if they thought they won some kind of war for "freedom".

[Arielle Popstar]

4 hours ago, Rowan Amore said:

Bolding mine...

Granted, Vernon started the confrontation.   However, "sticking a submarine where the sun don't shine"  does not even come close to be as damaging as calling someone a pedo.   I call someone a nitwit, they call me a dipsh*t.   I call someone a nitwit, they call me a child molester, is NOT tit or tat.  It's a personal attack on my character and not silly name calling.  

Does anyone really doubt that if the tables were turned, Elon wouldn't have won a defamation suit if someone called him a pedo?

Money buys influence.  

 

1 hour ago, Aethelwine said:

awoken? what does that mean? Have they been sleeping?

I read the BBC article as saying Musks defence said in South Africa "pedo" is often used to refer to a "creepy old man". I can't speak to that as I don't know how it is used in South Africa. But it is hardly surprising the defence would try to diminish the meaning of what was said.

In the UK once people have grown beyond the indiscriminate use of vulgarities as part of teenage growing up and trying to be adult, I have not heard or experienced it used indiscriminately, or without some evidence. It is probably the most offensive thing you can call someone because of the meaning. Not something I would expect from an adult, and certainly not someone in a position of authority. 

The fact that Musk used the word pedo rather than pedophile already points out he was using a slang term that was likely not a direct accusation and whether mature or not, we have a case of a 64 year old going on public record with an unprovoked attack on Musk and his ability to come up with a technological solution to save those kids. I would daresay that a man like Musk who takes pride in coming up with technological solutions for problems plaguing our current world, it very well could have been just as much a slight on his character as what the pedo accusation was to Vernon. When I looked up the word Pedo on the Urban Dictionary  it becomes fairly obvious that it is term used by various people as an insult while not being with the intent of accusing another of pedophelia. But yeah, if one is bound and determined to look for the worst in another human being, then it is an easy way to score points.