Elon Musk Buys Twitter

[Tangler]

Have a good night.
Times. NYT admitted laptop was his.
I am going to sleep. We won’t agree.
We are different dudes.
Have a good night.
https://nypost.com/2022/04/01/new-yo...joe-biden/amp/

[AR]

Have a good night.
Times. NYT admitted laptop was his.
I am going to sleep. We won’t agree.
We are different dudes.
Have a good night.
https://nypost.com/2022/04/01/new-yo...joe-biden/amp/

I'm happy to take this to PMs if you want to continue and you fear banning. Your two sentence characterization of what happened there is incredibly incomplete and misleading and I still am not sure exactly what you're trying to say. I'm happy to explain it to you if you desire. Might take a few days though. It's kind of tough if you steadfastly refuse to read the evidence (i.e. the relevant tweets on twitter).

[Tangler]

You don’t like to let things go do you?

You seem to enjoy being antagonistic and baiting people.

We should agree to disagree, and move on.

Elon bought part of twitter.(large shareholder)

Some people think it is because he wanted to decrease twitter’s censorship.

Some think it was for his own personal agenda / messaging.

Both are likely correct.

Go ahead and get in the last word and explain why i am somehow wrong and foolish.

I am moving on.

[CordMcNally]

Zero need for profanity or nudity in a forum.

Easy now. Let’s be reasonable and not say things we don’t mean.

[xraygoggles]

Avoiding all the political gibberish and going back to free speech on private platforms, which is much more interesting discussion: there is a concept called Popper's paradox or 'paradox of intolerance', which basically says that if society at large tolerates the intolerant (whether it's intolerant people or ideas), eventually the latter will overtake the former, resulting in negative consequences. Ergo: society should be intolerant of intolerance, if that makes sense.

How this relates to policing 'free speech' on private platforms (which is nonsensical, since Twitter is not the govt, but let's go with it): having TOS/restrictions is a requisite part of maintaining an open platform. Whenever there have been new platforms which have sprung up to tolerate "true free speech", it inevitably devolves into the most vile people with the loudest voices - racists, Nazi-adjacent types, pedos - taking over. This in turn turns away most normal people, making those alternative platforms much less desirable.

Go check out some of the alternative free speech Twitter-like platforms: you will very easily see the difference in quality and content, when there are fewer/no restrictions in place.

[AR]

Avoiding all the political gibberish and going back to free speech on private platforms, which is much more interesting discussion: there is a concept called Popper's paradox or 'paradox of intolerance', which basically says that if society at large tolerates the intolerant (whether it's intolerant people or ideas), eventually the latter will overtake the former, resulting in negative consequences. Ergo: society should be intolerant of intolerance, if that makes sense.

How this relates to policing 'free speech' on private platforms (which is nonsensical, since Twitter is not the govt, but let's go with it): having TOS/restrictions is a requisite part of maintaining an open platform. Whenever there have been new platforms which have sprung up to tolerate "true free speech", it inevitably devolves into the most vile people with the loudest voices - racists, Nazi-adjacent types, pedos - taking over. This in turn turns away most normal people, making those alternative platforms much less desirable.

Go check out some of the alternative free speech Twitter-like platforms: you will very easily see the difference in quality and content, when there are fewer/no restrictions in place.

While this is certainly true, I generally don't invoke this reason because someone comes along with some sort of argument like "Maybe, you're right, but 'free speech' is more important...". So I generally stick with the initial argument you alluded to "'free speech' on private platforms (which is nonsensical, since Twitter is not the govt...".

One funny thing is that everyone posting here seems to intuitively understand this as they post here, which by any reasonable measure is far more restrictive than twitter as far as what mods will allow. Yet, their delicate 'free speech' sensibilities aren't offended by it it enough for them to leave.

Of course, they'll tell you twitter is bigger, so that is different. That might make a difference as far as the law is concerned, but it shouldn't change their personal behavior. If they are so personally disgusted by 'free speech' violations, it makes no sense they would participate in a smaller space which has them. So it's clear the problem they have is not some sort of deeply held conviction relating to 'free speech' (as they put), it's just that they are OK with the rules here, but not on twitter (or elsewhere).

The other funny thing is that if you actually spent time on twitter, pretty much every conservative opinion under the sun is represented there. Yes, there are examples of certain very specific terms that have been violated or things that people are prohibited from posting, but by and large the opinions themselves are on twitter. But it is hard to convince someone of that if they think they know all about twitter without ever looking at it.

[jacoavlu]

I don't understand someone having a pro free speech stance but also a pro vaccine mandate stance

[Random1]

Part of the problem I see with Twitter, is that they want to be a private company and want to dictate all their own rules, but they also want protection from the government in regards legal cases arising from liability from defamation law suits. If you want legal protection granted by being a public utility of free speech , then you should have to follow the rules and not make your own

[AR]

Part of the problem I see with Twitter, is that they want to be a private company and want to dictate all their own rules, but they also want protection from the government in regards legal cases arising from liability from defamation law suits. If you want legal protection granted by being a public utility of free speech , then you should have to follow the rules and not make your own

Would you say that WCI wants the exact same thing? Certainly he doesn't want to be held liable for stuff others post on his forums. Nevertheless he would like to have rules in place about what can be posted. Is it wrong of him to act this way?

Also interested in the bolded, when you say "follow the rules", which rules are you talking about specifically? Everything you describe is legal, so they are, in fact, following the rules.

[xraygoggles]

Part of the problem I see with Twitter, is that they want to be a private company and want to dictate all their own rules, but they also want protection from the government in regards legal cases arising from liability from defamation law suits. If you want legal protection granted by being a public utility of free speech , then you should have to follow the rules and not make your own

Well, if Twitter is truly a 'digital public square' or whatever, then it should become a public utility, and treated as such, including govt oversight & regulations. However, last I checked something like 25% of Americans use Twitter in some measure, so not sure if that's even a fair argument. Facebook is more a public square than Twitter.

[xraygoggles]

I don't understand someone having a pro free speech stance but also a pro vaccine mandate stance

???

If you live in the US, you don't need to be pro-free speech - it's literally embedded in the laws of the nation. You have no choice - it exists for every citizen.

Pro vaccine mandate sounds very conspiratorial - I could also word it as Anti spreading deadly pathogens.

[VentAlarm]

???

If you live in the US, you don't need to be pro-free speech - it's literally embedded in the laws of the nation. You have no choice - it exists for every citizen.

Pro vaccine mandate sounds very conspiratorial - I could also word it as Anti spreading deadly pathogens.

I think your last comment is disingenuous. Saying that someone being pro-mandate is simply anti-spreading virus is obviously very different.

As to the pro-free speech comment he or she made, I think it bears stating that we have many people who advocate for silencing opposition. There are even many people who find the constitution offensive - you don’t have to look much further than academia to see that.

[jacoavlu]

???

If you live in the US, you don't need to be pro-free speech - it's literally embedded in the laws of the nation. You have no choice - it exists for every citizen.

Pro vaccine mandate sounds very conspiratorial - I could also word it as Anti spreading deadly pathogens.

what one does with their body is a form of speech, in my view. maybe the ultimate form of speech. so I don't really understand someone that would say they oppose restrictions on speech whether left or right or center, but then would also be in favor of mandating those same people take a vaccine

[AR]

what one does with their body is a form of speech, in my view. maybe the ultimate form of speech. so I don't really understand someone that would say they oppose restrictions on speech whether left or right or center, but then would also be in favor of mandating those same people take a vaccine

It probably has something to do with the contagious and deadly nature of a virus that is absent in speech.

Although I'm not personally interested in this discussion, since people are throwing around terms pretty loosely, it might be helpful to your cause if you defined 'free speech' and 'vaccine mandates'. Is it real 'free speech' or this twitter business which everyone seems to be conflating with 'free speech'? Also, vaccine mandate can be interpreted as anything ranging from 'throwing someone in jail if they don't get a vaccine' to 'requiring a vaccine to participate in X activity'.

[Random1]

Twitter decided that the Hunter Biden story was "not factual and Russian disinformation" which was incorrect. Their actions may or may not have affected how someone may have voted. Since their actions were incorrect , at least factually , then the injured party, Washington Post may have a case against them. Because their business and profits were affected by this decision. But Twitter hides, behind a shield of Section 230 law. So yes twitter should have to follow the rules as outlined in the law and not reject free speech according to a proprietary algorithm. They want the legal protection of a public utility but do not act like one.