Elon Musk Buys Twitter

[jacoavlu]

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'.

I don't have a cause and I'm not all that interested either.

[AR]

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.

Man this Hunter Biden thing really has taken on a life of it's own. I guess that must be the topic in the chain emails these days.

Like Tangler, you've misrepresented and omitted a ton of facts and boiled the whole thing down to a couple of sentences that has little regard for the truth. Moreover, it was NY Post (not Washington Post). Also, as you may be aware (or maybe not), the whole thing was litigated in court and twitter has prevailed so far(appeal still possible). As I've offered to him, I'm happy to walk you through this if you want to PM me. It would take many posts to go through it here, and while I wouldn't mind doing, I'm quite sure the mods don't want this to become the Hunter Biden thread.

[AR]

I don't have a cause and I'm not all that interested either.

That's fine. Just realize that your initial statement is open to several massively different interpretations.

[Sampter]

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

No American is held down and vaccinated against their will. Everyone has the freedom to decline and seek other employment where the vaccine isn't mandated. I had multiple federal employees whine to me about the vaccine, I told them they could find another job if they didn't want it. They didn't like my response, but it's the truth.

[MPMD]

I'm quite sure the mods don't want this to become the Hunter Biden thread.

can confirm.

[AR]

To circle back to the original topic. Apparently Musk broke the law in the course of acquiring his Twitter stake:

That's because of a 50-year-old law that requires investors notify the Securities and Exchange Commission when they surpass a 5 percent stake in a company. Musk reached that benchmark on March 14, according to the filings. But he only made his public disclosure on Monday.

Source: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/elon-...231928231.html

[Tim]

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.

The reality is that FB and Twitter used "false flag" fact checkers to significantly influence the political election. Forget the names, things that were actual facts were actual true or at least worthy of discussion. Misinfomation, Russia ..... Intentionally, not an accident. Just not worth a mention. I can't prove it. I actually don't care to try. I viewed it as private companies having intentionally putting a blackout of relevant information under false pretenses. I would prefer terms and policies not based on political elections.

[AR]

The reality is that FB and Twitter used "false flag" fact checkers to significantly influence the political election. Forget the names, things that were actual facts were actual true or at least worthy of discussion. Misinfomation, Russia ..... Intentionally, not an accident. Just not worth a mention. I can't prove it. I actually don't care to try. I viewed it as private companies having intentionally putting a blackout of relevant information under false pretenses. I would prefer terms and policies not based on political elections.

Yeah, that's not the "The reality". The only way to get to the bottom of whether or not it is would be to try to prove it. I understand you are not interested in that.

[OUSOONERDOC]

Yeah, that's not the "The reality". The only way to get to the bottom of whether or not it is would be to try to prove it. I understand you are not interested in that.

Reading through this thread and your comments. It seems you are missing the point. Twitter and every other major news organizations dismissed, actively suppressed, and called the Hunter Biden story as Russian disinfo and not true. That is the issue here. The media and twitter did this for politics and not in good faith. If you deny that, then you aren't being honest in this particular discussion.

It's an interesting discussion about free speech and twitter.

[xraygoggles]

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

That's an interesting way to look at free speech, I guess, but not sure anyone else would agree, and it's certainly not codified into law.

[VentAlarm]

Yeah, that's not the "The reality". The only way to get to the bottom of whether or not it is would be to try to prove it. I understand you are not interested in that.

Dude. You’re really coming across as having an ax to grind. It’s pretty clear at this point that a lot of stuff that was previously called “misinformation” - intentionally or otherwise - is actually not.

[VentAlarm]

Particularly timely to the conversation: the NYT just called for a Twitter “reset” for its journalists in an attempt to have some separation from the platform.

[K82]

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.

You have boiled down the discussion to the pertinent point. As I understand it, section 230 has allowed the internet to work due to liability limits to companies acting as an unedited platform for content. Twitter, facebook etc are currently under this protection. There is an argument that since Twitter is actively censoring content based on political speech (obviously not all of it, but a significant amount such as the pre election Hunter Biden laptop, conservative views on Covid, Trump, etc. to the point that it is contended that the election was affected) therefore it is acting more as an editorial/newspaper type function which would then be liable for its content. Even under section 230 you can legally restrict content that it felt to be obscene or dangerous.

It will be interesting to see what Musk does with it. Hopefully it will edge more toward a platform for reasonable use rather than as a political tool.

[AR]

Dude. You’re really coming across as having an ax to grind. It’s pretty clear at this point that a lot of stuff that was previously called “misinformation” - intentionally or otherwise - is actually not.

Sorry you feel that way. I'm not the one who brought it up. Misinformation is what you're doing in this post.

I'm sure somebody somewhere called it misinformation, but that was not the reason it was temporarily banned by twitter.

[AR]

Reading through this thread and your comments. It seems you are missing the point. Twitter and every other major news organizations dismissed, actively suppressed, and called the Hunter Biden story as Russian disinfo and not true. That is the issue here. The media and twitter did this for politics and not in good faith. If you deny that, then you aren't being honest in this particular discussion.

It's an interesting discussion about free speech and twitter.

Like I've offered to everyone before you, if you are interested in having this discussion feel free to PM me and we can do it over PM. Debunking nonsense is very labor intensive and a mod has explicitly said that is not wanted here.

Not surprisingly, no one has taken me up on it. But if you're interested, let me know. I assure you it will be an honest discussion.