https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/twitter-elon-musk-latest-news
Elon Musk bought Twitter for $44 billion. More importantly, Musk has made clear he is "not a fan of permanent bans", indicating he could reinstate Trump's Twitter account. Musk has also made it clear Twitter have less regulation as far content, meaning any conspiracy theory goes.
Has this move handed Trump 2024 on a silver platter? Given that Trump already leads Biden in polls, seems so.
@vivify saidAre you worried that Twitter won't silence the NY Post for posting true content that helps Republicans next time?
https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/twitter-elon-musk-latest-news
Elon Musk bought Twitter for $44 billion. More importantly, Musk has made clear he is "not a fan of permanent bans", indicating he could reinstate Trump's Twitter account. Musk has also made it clear Twitter have less regulation as far content, meaning any conspiracy theory goes.
Has this move handed Trump 2024 on a silver platter? Given that Trump already leads Biden in polls, seems so.
1 edit
@techsouth saidYawn.
Are you worried that Twitter won't silence the NY Post for posting true content that helps Republicans next time?
The party that supports Miss Jewish-Space-Lasers and President Cancer-Windmills is clearly not concerned with "true" content.
@techsouth saidBillionaire tax dodger buys social media platform so he can help fellow billionaire lower taxes for billionaires again, what could go wrong.
Are you worried that Twitter won't silence the NY Post for posting true content that helps Republicans next time?
Twitter will be left with trump base who don’t have to purchasing pennies to rub together, I predict the stoner will lose his 44 billion.
@vivify saidI kind of wish US entities would humor me and allow me to freely share ideas.
Yawn.
The party that supports Miss Jewish Space Lasers and President Cancer Windmills is clearly not posting any "true" content.
Sorry that your parties ability to censor may have lost a little of its grip. Now that you've found a few false things among a group of more than 50 million people, you ought to have the right to silence all 50 million of them without any more debate.
But you seem happy to support the party of the the "fine people hoax".
1 edit
@kevcvs57 saidYou are able to read Elon Musk's mind?
Billionaire tax dodger buys social media platform so he can help fellow billionaire lower taxes for billionaires again, what could go wrong.
Twitter will be left with trump base who don’t have to purchasing pennies to rub together, I predict the stoner will lose his 44 billion.
That power should be used to dictate public policy. I don't see what could possible go wrong.
@techsouth saidIt’s called speculation and why do you think conservatives views might be restricted online by platforms that restrict misinformation and hate speech?
You are able to read Elon Musk's mind?
That power should be used to dictate public policy. I don't see what could possible go wrong.
What are you trying to say about conservatives?
- Joined
- 27 Sep 06
- Moves
- 251103
@vivify saidSame old story, 'The Golden Rule,'
https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/twitter-elon-musk-latest-news
Elon Musk bought Twitter for $44 billion. More importantly, Musk has made clear he is "not a fan of permanent bans", indicating he could reinstate Trump's Twitter account. Musk has also made it clear Twitter have less regulation as far content, meaning any conspiracy theory goes.
Has this move handed Trump 2024 on a silver platter? Given that Trump already leads Biden in polls, seems so.
if ya' got the gold, ya make the rules.
Remember, when we were kids, and one player, who owned the ball,
when he didn't like a ruling, would take his ball and go home?
@techsouth said50 million people are silenced? Since when?
Sorry that your parties ability to censor may have lost a little of its grip. Now that you've found a few false things among a group of more than 50 million people, you ought to have the right to silence all 50 million of them without any more debate.
I guess it doesn't matter, you can now make up numbers with no shred of evidence on Twitter all you want.
@kevcvs57 saidSpeculate all you want. But don't use your speculation to rob a man of his freedom.
It’s called speculation and why do you think conservatives views might be restricted online by platforms that restrict misinformation and hate speech?
What are you trying to say about conservatives?
What excuses do you think China uses to censor dissent? What about Russia?
Powerful people have censored dissent through out history But not once have you ever heard a despot say "We just want to silence those who criticize us because it makes us look bad". There is always a pretext.
There are 330 million people in the US. There are always going to be some who are lying. Which means as long as there are gullible people willing to support them, despots will always have support silencing dissent. I'm sure through out the history of Russian Gulags there were plenty of people who approved of the crack downs because the Kremlin could always find real examples of dishonesty to hold up as the typical case. All they have to do is find someone who is really lying (or preaching hate) and claim that 100% of their censorship is about that.
The world has always had gullible people too. You seem to believe that 100% of big tech censorship is motivated by a dispassionate zeal for truth. You'd probably support them sending me to the gulag and believe whatever lie they concocted.
I'm a small fish, but I got slapped with a 24-hour lock out from Twitter. The accusation was laughable. There was no hate, no harassment, no incitement of violence. I'm pretty sure I've never even used a cuss word on the Internet. Yet my only recourse was to appeal to the same body that silenced me.
You're willingness to infer with confidence that there must be misinformation and hate speech when a person gets banned makes you a good candidate to be a supporter of gulags. You won't question the powerful even when they act with no accountability.
1 edit
@vivify saidI didn't say 50 million were silenced. And if what I wrote is an example to you of my making something up without evidence, consider this an example of why I'd oppose censorship.
50 million people are silenced? Since when?
I guess it doesn't matter, you can now make up numbers with no shred of evidence on Twitter all you want.
What I am claiming is that you believe we have enough examples of misinformation that you'd be happy to support silencing of all Republicans.
Here is what you said: The party that supports Miss Jewish-Space-Lasers and President Cancer-Windmills is clearly not concerned with "true" content.
Just like that, you have demonstrated that you have seen enough evidence that you're okay if all Republicans get banned. You already "know" that none of them care about "true" content. So why do we need to evaluate any of their claims or listen to any of their arguments.
Edit: I had just mentioned NY Post getting blocked on Twitter for sharing true content. But you are confident it must have been false because of a few other examples (none of which I've heard before) of Republicans making false claims.
Is that not what you're claiming? If not, please clarify.
- Joined
- 27 Sep 06
- Moves
- 251103
@techsouth saidYou're dead wrong dude,
Speculate all you want. But don't use your speculation to rob a man of his freedom.
What excuses do you think China uses to censor dissent? What about Russia?
Powerful people have censored dissent through out history But not once have you ever heard a despot say "We just want to silence those who criticize us because it makes us look bad". There is always a pretex ...[text shortened]... e a supporter of gulags. You won't question the powerful even when they act with no accountability.
only thing I believe in is 'TRUTH, and
being 'open minded' to new thoughts and ideas.'
I have no ill will towards you,
good men may disagree.
But, even you must admit,
TRUMP was not a truth teller.
Watch this short vid and explain;
https://republicanssuck.org/trump-biggest-liar-in-history/
BTW, I don't even use Twitter.
1 edit
@techsouth saidAnd that would be false. I don't "support silencing all Republicans". This is something you just made up and proves my point. Nowhere in my posting history have I ever supported such a measure.
What I am claiming is that you believe we have enough examples of misinformation that you'd be happy to support silencing of all Republicans.
I don't care what ideas Republicans spread, so long as they're not false and don't incite violence.
- Joined
- 27 Sep 06
- Moves
- 251103
@techsouth said'WHATABOUT'
Speculate all you want. But don't use your speculation to rob a man of his freedom.
What excuses do you think China uses to censor dissent? What about Russia?
Powerful people have censored dissent through out history But not once have you ever heard a despot say "We just want to silence those who criticize us because it makes us look bad". There is always a pretex ...[text shortened]... e a supporter of gulags. You won't question the powerful even when they act with no accountability.
'WHATABOUT'
'WHATABOUT.' Stalin?
'WHATABOUT,' Hitler?
Please, no what aboutisms.
@vivify saidBut when I posted about NY Post being silenced shortly before an election after they had shared something truthful that helped Republicans, you started your post with Yawn and then you brought up a few falsehoods you seem to have had ready in your back pocket.
And that would be false. I don't "support silencing all Republicans". This is something you just made up and proves my point. Nowhere in my posting history have I ever support such a measure.
I don't care what ideas Republicans spread, so long as they're not false and don't incite violence.
Can you tell me what your main point was?
I am only seeing one possible reading of your reply and that is that you have no problem with the fact that a right leaning entity was silenced and the reason you're okay with it is that other Republicans had lied. And since you're okay with one arbitrary right leaning entity being silenced, I see no reason you wouldn't support any of them being silenced. Can you also explain how that if you're okay with the NY Post being silenced before an election why you would care whether or not I would be silenced before an election?
If that is not a correct understanding of your thinking, what is? Don't just say "I didn't say that". Tell me what you were trying to say.