Elon Musk buys Twitter to bring back Free Speech

[AnthonyJoanne]

3 hours ago, Arielle Popstar said:

I disagree. I related to what he pointed out as my politics haven't changed from being a liberal but most here see me as conservative and have even been accused of being Q-anon.

 

3 hours ago, Lindal Kidd said:

How odd. A lot of folks on the right would say the exact opposite.

 

What's ironic is that, like Musk, before the massive leftward shift I was demonstrably a left leaning centrist.

I still am.

I could detail a long list of my positions on a whole range of issues, but some of  it would take me into hot button topics and would be almost guaranteed to derail the thread.

More significantly I could list a whole range of issues which were formerly considered "radical" or even "extreme" which are now a part of the 'mainstream left' agenda. But each and every one of those IS a hot button topic.

And the question that you all need to ask yourself is this: Why are there SO many hot button topics now?

That brings us back to the actual topic ... twitter and it's ownership.

Let's acknowledge an unchallengeable series of facts. I realise that it was a hot button issue, but we don't have an option:

Twitter banned the New York Post when they reported on the Hunter Biden Laptop story. Just weeks before the Presidential Election in 2020.

Twitter banned numerous users who referenced that story.

The vast majority of the 'mainstream media' actively avoided reporting the story.

Joe Biden dismissed it as a "smear campaign."

That story was confirmed to be true by the New York Times in 2022.

While the Hunter Biden Laptop story was demonstrably a HUGE story ... it became a hot button topic because twitter enabled the outright suppression of the story and enabled the narrative that it was all a right wing conspiracy theory. In other words twitter took action which made it possible for the left to denigrate anyone who raised the existence of the laptop in discussion.

And yet we've seen what are supposed to be reputable news sources claim that twitter is right wing.

The same news sources who reported, as fact, numerous stories which were then found to be utter fabrications with no supporting evidence whatsoever. The same news sources who have NOT been banned from twitter for that disinformation.

At this point I wrote on a particular topic to illustrate just how far the Overton Window has been forced to the left. But it would absolutely derail the topic, and I'm really trying hard to do the right thing so as not to make the moderators jobs harder.

Suffice to say that because of the domination of twitter and the majority of the media by groups who subscribe to a particular set of political narratives,  a number of issues which are fully supported by demonstrable fact became 'hot button issues' because those facts were suppressed and/or labeled misinformation or conspiracy theories.

Those facts persist in emerging ... and are being ignored by the media. And are being suppressed on social media. But the domination of social media is now threatened ... and suddenly we're seeing governments rush laws to establish what can only be described as Ministries of Truth.

I'm sure some people here will poo-poo me referring to them as Ministries of Truth. I won't see it because my block list is working overtime in this thread 😀 ... but I'll address it anyway:

If you don't think these organisations are a bad idea ... are you going to have the same opinion when the pendulum continues to swing and control of those Ministries end up in the hands of religious extremists who believe that homosexuality is a sin and should be treated by chemical castration or outright execution? Ministries that enforce the mandate that anyone who claims otherwise is spreading disinformation and should be blocked from posting, and charged with a crime. Because people are already being charged with crimes for expressing opinions on the net ... hell, people have been convicted of crimes for quoting song lyrics.

Because those Ministries won't always be under the control of people you approve of.

[Istelathis]

17 minutes ago, AnthonyJoanne said:

 

 

What's ironic is that, like Musk, before the massive leftward shift I was demonstrably a left leaning centrist.

I still am.

I could detail a long list of my positions on a whole range of issues, but some of  it would take me into hot button topics and would be almost guaranteed to derail the thread.

More significantly I could list a whole range of issues which were formerly considered "radical" or even "extreme" which are now a part of the 'mainstream left' agenda. But each and every one of those IS a hot button topic.

And the question that you all need to ask yourself is this: Why are there SO many hot button topics now?

That brings us back to the actual topic ... twitter and it's ownership.

Let's acknowledge an unchallengeable series of facts. I realise that it was a hot button issue, but we don't have an option:

Twitter banned the New York Post when they reported on the Hunter Biden Laptop story. Just weeks before the Presidential Election in 2020.

Twitter banned numerous users who referenced that story.

The vast majority of the 'mainstream media' actively avoided reporting the story.

Joe Biden dismissed it as a "smear campaign."

That story was confirmed to be true by the New York Times in 2022.

While the Hunter Biden Laptop story was demonstrably a HUGE story ... it became a hot button topic because twitter enabled the outright suppression of the story and enabled the narrative that it was all a right wing conspiracy theory. In other words twitter took action which made it possible for the left to denigrate anyone who raised the existence of the laptop in discussion.

And yet we've seen what are supposed to be reputable news sources claim that twitter is right wing.

The same news sources who reported, as fact, numerous stories which were then found to be utter fabrications with no supporting evidence whatsoever. The same news sources who have NOT been banned from twitter for that disinformation.

At this point I wrote on a particular topic to illustrate just how far the Overton Window has been forced to the left. But it would absolutely derail the topic, and I'm really trying hard to do the right thing so as not to make the moderators jobs harder.

Suffice to say that because of the domination of twitter and the majority of the media by groups who subscribe to a particular set of political narratives,  a number of issues which are fully supported by demonstrable fact became 'hot button issues' because those facts were suppressed and/or labeled misinformation or conspiracy theories.

Those facts persist in emerging ... and are being ignored by the media. And are being suppressed on social media. But the domination of social media is now threatened ... and suddenly we're seeing governments rush laws to establish what can only be described as Ministries of Truth.

I'm sure some people here will poo-poo me referring to them as Ministries of Truth. I won't see it because my block list is working overtime in this thread 😀 ... but I'll address it anyway:

If you don't think these organisations are a bad idea ... are you going to have the same opinion when the pendulum continues to swing and control of those Ministries end up in the hands of religious extremists who believe that homosexuality is a sin and should be treated by chemical castration or outright execution? Ministries that enforce the mandate that anyone who claims otherwise is spreading disinformation and should be blocked from posting, and charged with a crime. Because people are already being charged with crimes for expressing opinions on the net ... hell, people have been convicted of crimes for quoting song lyrics.

Because those Ministries won't always be under the control of people you approve of.

 

I say we take off and nuke the entire site form orbit, it is the only way to be sure.

 

[Blaise Glendevon]

43 minutes ago, AnthonyJoanne said:

Those facts persist in emerging ... and are being ignored by the media. And are being suppressed on social media. But the domination of social media is now threatened ... and suddenly we're seeing governments rush laws to establish what can only be described as Ministries of Truth.

Tell me you've never read 1984 without saying you've never read 1984.

[Extrude Ragu]

1 hour ago, Blaise Glendevon said:

The problem is that Elon Musk's idea of "free speech" is coddling neo-Nazis and transphobic bigots and insurrectionists while stroking his own ego and *****posting like a 4chan reject.

And I suppose you think that giving the worst labels your pea brain can imagine to the people who disagree with you is likely to get people to sympathize with you?

Have you ever thought to look from eyes that aren't yours? Like, can you imagine what it's actually like being someone who disagrees with you and being tarred with those kinds of brushes? I'll tell you what it's like, it's patronizing.

Who the hell are you to talk about other people like that? What prey tell exactly have you achieved in your life? Do your parents consider you a success? Are you a successful parent? What redeeming quality about you makes you think you can ride that high horse around?

I'd suggest you dismount and return back to planet earth.

[Blaise Glendevon]

48 minutes ago, Extrude Ragu said:

And I suppose you think that giving the worst labels your pea brain can imagine to the people who disagree with you is likely to get people to sympathize with you?

Have you ever thought to look from eyes that aren't yours? Like, can you imagine what it's actually like being someone who disagrees with you and being tarred with those kinds of brushes? I'll tell you what it's like, it's patronizing.

Who the hell are you to talk about other people like that? What prey tell exactly have you achieved in your life? Do your parents consider you a success? Are you a successful parent? What redeeming quality about you makes you think you can ride that high horse around?

I'd suggest you dismount and return back to planet earth.

If the shoe fits. Obviously I touched a nerve here. But objectively, those things are evil. Cultivating them and giving them a space with which to mobilize is evil.

[Love Zhaoying]

1 hour ago, Extrude Ragu said:

And I suppose you think that giving the worst labels your pea brain can imagine to the people who disagree with you is likely to get people to sympathize with you?

Have you ever thought to look from eyes that aren't yours? Like, can you imagine what it's actually like being someone who disagrees with you and being tarred with those kinds of brushes? I'll tell you what it's like, it's patronizing.

Who the hell are you to talk about other people like that? What prey tell exactly have you achieved in your life? Do your parents consider you a success? Are you a successful parent? What redeeming quality about you makes you think you can ride that high horse around?

I'd suggest you dismount and return back to planet earth.

Are we allowed to disagree politely, nicely? I don't disagree with your response. But gee, wrathful much?

*Edit* My mother was a pea brain, so I find your post personally offensive.  One can only hope that more pea brains are elected to high office, in support of pea brains everywhere. 

Edited April 30, 2022 by Love Zhaoying

[Love Zhaoying]

2 hours ago, AnthonyJoanne said:

Let's acknowledge an unchallengeable series of facts.

How much do you want to bet there won't be agreement on "facts"? That's how "bad" it is.

[Love Zhaoying]

2 hours ago, Blaise Glendevon said:

Tell me you've never read 1984 without saying you've never read 1984.

I thought their post meant they HAVE read 1984. Missing from the novel is the backstory of how the Ministries started. 

[Love Zhaoying]

4 hours ago, Coffee Pancake said:

Our entire society is built around modern serfs toiling to keep the lord in his manner.

*manor

[Rat Luv]

9 hours ago, Silent Mistwalker said:

What film is that? 🙂

[Love Zhaoying]

10 hours ago, Eirynne Sieyes said:

Is vitriol the vibe we want for this thread? I wonder what this thread would look like if the contempt was missing.

The OP has a tendency to post baiting things so..perhaps if not intended to draw conflict, the thread wouldn't exist at all. Alternatively, if the original post were to have been phrased more carefully, perhaps by someone either who were open-minded (you'd think, given their "don't use or know Twitter" statements), or with a well-thought-out opening for the post, there'd be less vitriol. Or, if they didn't inject politics into it. Basically, it was irresponsible.

[Arduenn Schwartzman]

I blocked the OP months ago for anti-vax bs and for peddling ivermectin, among other highly volatile things. This thread sure seems to turn into a political sh*t storm too.

[Jackson Redstar]

16 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

How Congress Can Prevent Elon Musk from Turning Twitter Back Into an Unfettered Disinformation Machine

by putting the onus on social-media companies to monitor and remove harmful content, and hit them with big fines if they don’t.

and who defines "harmful content"? The Ministry of Truth?

[Luna Bliss]

7 hours ago, AnthonyJoanne said:

What's ironic is that, like Musk, before the massive leftward shift I was demonstrably a left leaning centrist.

I still am.

I could detail a long list of my positions on a whole range of issues, but some of  it would take me into hot button topics and would be almost guaranteed to derail the thread.

More significantly I could list a whole range of issues which were formerly considered "radical" or even "extreme" which are now a part of the 'mainstream left' agenda.

There has been no "massive leftward shift" -- various oppressed groups and their allies have simply become more vocal, more outwardly active regarding  making their unfair treatment known and demanding that society change to end their oppression. 

So the "massive leftward shift" is actually the various marginalized groups and their allies attempting to do something about the oppression they were experiencing (Blacks marched to draw attention to their plight, women & others began confronting abusers in record numbers through various movements (the #metoo movement for sexual survivors, various groups calling attention to sexism, women making visible their unequal pay, the LGBTQ+ initiatives, and more).

It would be more accurate for you to simply say you don't believe in activism, protests, and confrontation as a way to change society.

I remember a prior conversation with you in which you were adamant that structural racism did not even exist!! You denied the results from very good tests which proved otherwise. You also expressed hatred of the gay movement making all that noise or something.

Again, it's more accurate to say you don't believe in protest and we could discuss why you think it does no good (there are pros and cons, after all), but it's not accurate to say the left has shifted "massively" to the left when for the most part they are simply claiming the positions they always had yet many are now more forcefully attempting to change society in ways you disapprove of.

Edited April 30, 2022 by Luna Bliss

[Luna Bliss]

55 minutes ago, Jackson Redstar said:

17 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

How Congress Can Prevent Elon Musk from Turning Twitter Back Into an Unfettered Disinformation Machine

by putting the onus on social-media companies to monitor and remove harmful content, and hit them with big fines if they don’t.

and who defines "harmful content"? The Ministry of Truth?

People coming together and deliberating over it, as they did in the EU. It's not perfect, but many minds working on a problem has more of a chance to catch and remove bias, as opposed to trusting only one man. 

[Luna Bliss]

11 hours ago, Lindal Kidd said:

17 hours ago, Luna Bliss said:

The world is moving to the far right.  We need to do something.

How odd. A lot of folks on the right would say the exact opposite.

Me, I see both the extremists on both sides continuing to move as far to the left, and to the right, as possible, while disparaging those of us who are trying to remain somewhere close to the center.

I think you need to read a few scholars who study autocracy, like Anne Applebaum (a conservative) or Timothy Snyder (not sure of his political leanings). They support my position, that the world (and especially the US at this time) is moving to the right.

V-Dem, an organization with comprehensive studies, pointed out by Aethelwine earlier, specializes in evaluating the characteristics which indicate whether a society is more democratic or autocratic. They have detailed studies and charts that also support my assertion.

If we're only talking about culture wars, take a look at what's happening at the state level with LGBTQ+ rights and the rights of POC. It's horrific. They are attempting to remove a good portion of the civil rights we fought so hard for in times past.

Edited April 30, 2022 by Luna Bliss

[Theresa Tennyson]

7 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

People coming together and deliberating over it, as they did in the EU. It's not perfect, but many minds working on a problem has more of a chance to catch and remove bias, as opposed to trusting only one man. 

It wouldn't be "trusting only one man." It's "trusting only one man for one company, which is one of many that are in competition with others for attention and money."

I'm far from being a knee-jerk "the market is always right" person, but I also think it's a problem if only one organization, be that a private firm or a government entity, has too much control because ultimately, no matter how noble that organization is, it's going to start acting in its own interest if it knows there is no alternative. Need I remind you that "people coming together and deliberating" is also a description of the Florida state government?

[Luna Bliss]

3 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

19 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

People coming together and deliberating over it, as they did in the EU. It's not perfect, but many minds working on a problem has more of a chance to catch and remove bias, as opposed to trusting only one man. 

It wouldn't be "trusting only one man." It's "trusting only one man for one company, which is one of many that are in competition with others for attention and money."

I'm far from being a knee-jerk "the market is always right" person, but I also think it's a problem if only one organization, be that a private firm or a government entity, has too much control because ultimately, no matter how noble that organization is, it's going to start acting in its own interest if it knows there is no alternative. Need I remind you that "people coming together and deliberating" is also a description of the Florida state government?

Point taken.

[Innula Zenovka]

4 hours ago, Love Zhaoying said:

I thought their post meant they HAVE read 1984. Missing from the novel is the backstory of how the Ministries started. 

There's some account of the backstory, as I recall, in the chapters of "the book" (The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism by Emmanuel Goldstein) that Winston reads immediately before his arrest and which are reproduced in full in the text (part 2, chapter 9, of the novel). 

[Innula Zenovka]

Some more from The Guardian on the pitfalls Musk needs to negotiate before consummating the deal:

The price of free speech: why Elon Musk’s $44bn vision for Twitter could fall apart

[Luna Bliss]

This says it all...

[Love Zhaoying]

16 minutes ago, Innula Zenovka said:

There's some account of the backstory, as I recall, in the chapters of "the book" (The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism by Emmanuel Goldstein) that Winston reads immediately before his arrest and which are reproduced in full in the text (part 2, chapter 9, of the novel). 

Thanks! Like most old people, I hadn't read it since school, and then with a different eye than I would today. Then, I read it as if through Winston's eyes with more attention to his lot, than "why".

[Ayashe Ninetails]

3 minutes ago, Innula Zenovka said:

Some more from The Guardian on the pitfalls Musk needs to negotiate before consummating the deal:

The price of free speech: why Elon Musk’s $44bn vision for Twitter could fall apart

Thanks! I'll read that after I'm caffeinated. 😂

Btw, did you see the article in Reuters yesterday about the Twitter meeting that didn't quite go so well? Not the part about employees worrying about job security (normal in any acquisition I'd imagine), but the part where they're worried about not having a plan in case of advertiser pullout and having to face them at a big advertising event in NYC next week.

https://www.reuters.com/technology/twitter-ceo-faces-employee-anger-over-musk-attacks-company-wide-meeting-2022-04-29/

[Love Zhaoying]

1 hour ago, Jackson Redstar said:

and who defines "harmful content"? The Ministry of Truth?

You have curious ideas. The US at least, has no such "Ministry". Invoking such would usually mean to me, that there is a bias against "facts". 

What's "harmful"? Can you give an example?

[Love Zhaoying]

11 minutes ago, Innula Zenovka said:

Some more from The Guardian on the pitfalls Musk needs to negotiate before consummating the deal:

The price of free speech: why Elon Musk’s $44bn vision for Twitter could fall apart

Interesting how this thread, started almost a week ago, is titled with the assumption it's a "done deal". Tabloid style!