Elon Musk offers to buy Twitter, take it private

[BlueTex]

Making a satirical joke based in reality isn't hateful. It's reality. Sorry that reality hurts your feelings.

The reality is that NOBODY is entitled to an account on a private business.

 

[Grim17]

No hate speech for one.

"Hate speech" is a very subjective term that we've watched be expanded beyond all reasonable proportions in recent years.

As far as I'm concerned, as long as there are no threats of violence involved, then there's nothing actionable.

.

 

[BlueTex]

Private property is not a public square.

Removing Section 230 protections results in more censorship, not less. Are you aware of this?

This myth comes from Packingham v. North Carolina where Justice Kennedy's one line, "With one broad stroke, North Carolina bars access to what for many are the principal sources for knowing current events, checking ads for employment, speaking and listening in the modern public square, and otherwise exploring the vast realms of human thought and knowledge.", became this imaginary declaration that all the internet was a "public square". If you actually read the case and understand the issue being resolved by the court, this was a case where the GOVERNMENT was imposing restrictions on the entire internet for convicted sex offenders.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1194_08l1.pdf

 

[BlueTex]

"Hate speech" is a very subjective term that we've watched be expanded beyond all reasonable proportions in recent years.

As far as I'm concerned, as long as there are no threats of violence involved, then there's nothing actionable.

.

That's nice.. Go start your own social media company with those standards... You have NO right to force your standards on a business that is not yours...

 

[jmotivator]

So conservative accounts are just free loaders and worthless to social media?

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!

So also... in your headm "free accounts" = "freeloaders"?

What is it you think a monetized account is, exactly?

 

[Khayembii Communique]

"Hate speech" is a very subjective term that we've watched be expanded beyond all reasonable proportions in recent years.

As far as I'm concerned, as long as there are no threats of violence involved, then there's nothing actionable.

.

What concerns you doesn't matter because you setting TOS for an imaginary social media company is about as relevant as what color you think unicorns crap.

 

[eohrnberger]

And what I've been trying to explain this whole time is that the dichotomy you have in your mind between platforms and publishers isn't real.

Sorry, but I call bullshit on that.

The terms you use have no legal meaning. "Platforms" don't get special protections - every site on the internet gets those protections. That's the whole point of Section 230.

While the point of section 230 is to protect 'interactive computing services' from what crap their users post, fair enough, it doesn't give those 'interactive computing services' free reign to suppress speech which they disagree with, which is exactly what they've been doing.

Further, it is hardly a surprise that speech which they disagree with, which they are more than willing to censor, doesn't apply to the hateful and death threatening Black Nationalist speech posted on social media from the most recent New York shooter.

Are we to take from those editorial decisions of the social media companies that conservative opinions are worthy of censorship while at the same time the same standards don't apply, just as long as they are in alignment of the hateful, life threatening speech which agrees with those social media companies political leans?

That's a total bullshit standard for the new public square, and I object, and I feel that I have both a right as well as a civic duty to object. Free speech limitations should not fall to political consensus.

In summary, the dichotomy isn't mine, it's yours, in that you appear to want to censor speech which you don't agree with, and are willing to lend Section 230 protection to those companies with who's editorial decision you agree with.

The conversation between you and I began when you claimed you wanted to "revise" Section 230 without "changing" it.

No, what I said was that it may need considered revision, that's not the same as demanding revision all to one political lean.

I admit that it's a difficult balance between free speech in the digital public square, the freedom to express it, and indeed not free from criticism of that which is expressed, but certainly free from censorship of expressing those opinions and ideas. But this is exactly what the social media companies actions, at a publication level of editorial decisions, entail and result in. So I'm sure that you can understand my fervent objections to such actions by the social media companies.

Taken another way, if social media companies don't wish to be subject to such scrutiny and requirements, they need not be, nor have, the monopolistic dominance that some of them have.

The rest of your TL;DR post seems a little upset. Maybe you should take a step back for a couple of minutes?

I stand by what I posted. It is not from an 'upset' perspective. Too bad that you consider it as TL;DR. Do opinions other than what you agree with often suffer from the same fate? I wonder.

 

[eohrnberger]

Tell us the characteristics of a common carrier...

Ignored due to the source. Try harder to engage in something more meaningful and thoughtful, if you can.

 

[Surrealistik]

More and more Musk is reminding me of Howard Hughes. Brillant but as time goes on, he's acting weirder and weirder.

He wants to gamble about 1/2 his wealth on F'ing Twitter??? lol What?

Musk isn't a genius; he just clumsily plays one on TV (and Twitter).

Any real investigation of his background quickly reveals him to be hopelessly inept at just about anything and everything save marketing and promotion; if there is one thing he might be called brilliant at, it's this (also taking credit for technologies and innovations he had nothing to do with save tossing lots of money at it). His one technical contribution to Paypal for example, was terrible quality spaghetti code he spent many restless nights working on that had to be tossed out wholesale by actually competent programmers (which he had a subsequent hissy fit about).

Remember, this is the guy that Peter Thiel got ejected from Paypal for being insufferably toxic, total dead weight and actively counterproductive; Musk got his first big score with Paypal that made all the others possible between the equity purchased with his daddy's blood emerald money and the actual talent and capabilities of Thiel and his team.

 

[trixare4kids]

We are a country of laws. You break the law you pay the price.....you don't get to hide behind free speech. Let's face it the right only likes the freedom of choice and freedom of speech when it aligns with their choices and their opinions.

Wow, just wow... Pure projection, Callen.
Freedom of speech with the exception of violent or illegal activity is to be applauded by anyone who values freedom Those who pretend it, freedom and liberty for all, isn't necessary are illiberals.

 

[CaughtInThe]

The Babylon Bee's Twitter Account Was Suspended, But That Made Its Story Go Viral

If Twitter's goal had been to remove the harmful content, it backfired spectacularly

www.forbes.com

 

[Grim17]

What concerns you doesn't matter because you setting TOS for an imaginary social media company is about as relevant as what color you think unicorns crap.

Just as you wanting hate speech to be against the TOS if Musk takes over doesn't matter.

Wake up McFly... I expressed an opinion so don't get your panties in a bunch.

.

 

[Overitall]

First of all, they don't advertise their platform as a place for "open discussion." They have TOS,

You mean TOS like this?

X Terms of Service

Read X's Terms of Service to understand the rules governing your access of all Twitter services.

twitter.com

Any use or reliance on any Content or materials posted via the Services or obtained by you through the Services is at your own risk. We do not endorse, support, represent or guarantee the completeness, truthfulness, accuracy, or reliability of any Content or communications posted via the Services or endorse any opinions expressed via the Services. You understand that by using the Services, you may be exposed to Content that might be offensive, harmful, inaccurate or otherwise inappropriate, or in some cases, postings that have been mislabeled or are otherwise deceptive. All Content is the sole responsibility of the person who originated such Content. We may not monitor or control the Content posted via the Services and, we cannot take responsibility for such Content.

Where does it say they have control over the content of your tweets?

and they can enforce them as they see fit. And when you have 100s of millions of users, billions of tweets, that's necessarily going to involve many judgment calls and whoever does it WILL get it wrong, a lot.

Point is all platforms/businesses/private entities, since the dawn of time, including your kitchen, have rules that everyone must follow or else they get booted. If I advertise my kitchen as a debate forum, and you come in and call my wife a C-word, you'll be booted. Or maybe you're just a contentious troll who won't let anyone else speak and attacks everyone who disagrees with you. I can boot you for that. Etc........

Twitter has no obligation to host ANYONE.

 

[BlueTex]

Ignored due to the source. Try harder to engage in something more meaningful and thoughtful, if you can.

LMAO... So you have no idea what a common carrier is? Is a shipping company a common carrier?

 

[Grim17]

Wow, just wow... Pure projection, Callen.
Freedom of speech with the exception of violent or illegal activity is to be applauded by anyone who values freedom Those who pretend it isn't necessary are illiberals.

You know just as well as I, that they will make any excuse necessary to justify their opposition to freedom of speech.

.

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

Musk isn't a genius; he just clumsily plays one on TV (and Twitter).

Any real investigation of his background quickly reveals him to be hopelessly inept at just about anything and everything save marketing and promotion; if there is one thing he might be called brilliant at, it's this (also taking credit for technologies and innovations he had nothing to do with save tossing lots of money at it). His one technical contribution to Paypal for example, was terrible quality spaghetti code he spent restlessly nights working on that had to be tossed out wholesale by actually competent programmers (which he had a subsequent hissy fit about).

Remember, this is the guy that Peter Thiel got ejected from Paypal for being insufferably toxic, total dead weight and actively counterproductive; Musk got his first big score with Paypal that made all the others possible between the equity purchased with his daddy's blood emerald money and the actual talent and capabilities of Thiel and his team.

I'm not going to call him inept.. But lately he has turned into an attention whore.. He swings which every way the wind blows..

For investors.. That's dangerous..

 

[Callen]

That's quite the strawman argument, Callen.
Who do you know from this forum on the right that believes calls for violence and illegal activities is free speech?

Many people have been banned for a shitload less on Twitter than for the above. TOS bans seems to be whatever some crazy illiberal person left in charge says it is...

I said nothing about people on this forum in that post......why do you feel it necessary to misrepresent what people post?

 

[trixare4kids]

Helluva statement to make after this week's social justice rampage in Brooklyn.

Oh but guns...

 

[jmotivator]

(By the way, this came from the Twitter account @DefiantLs, one of my follows that was banned for a while for posting tweets like the one above)

 

[trixare4kids]

I said nothing about people on this forum in that post......why do you feel it necessary to misrepresent what people post?

I never said you did say that. I asked you a question, so stop pretending there was something personally insulting in a simple question.. There wasn't.
As for what "other people" post, you go ahead and prove that I have misrepresented their words, or concede your dumb stupid argument.

 

[Callen]

I never said you did say that. I said it so stop pretending there was something personally insulting in my opinion. There wasn't.
As for what "other people" post, you go ahead and prove that I have misrepresented their words, or concede your dumb stupid argument.

K....

 

[BlueTex]

You know just as well as I, that they will make any excuse necessary to justify their opposition to freedom of speech.

.

Do you oppose "freedom of speech" on DP? Why can I not say some of the things I really want to say without being banned? CENSORSHIP!

 

[Deuce]

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!

So also... in your headm "free accounts" = "freeloaders"?

What is it you think a monetized account is, exactly?

You haven't paid Twitter any money but you appear to feel entitled to use their billion dollar computer network with no rules.

 

[Grim17]

Do you oppose "freedom of speech" on DP? Why can I not say some of the things I really want to say without being banned? CENSORSHIP!

If Twitter was moderated just as DP is, that would be a 10 fold improvement over how Twitter is currently being moderated.

.

 

[trixare4kids]

Maybe when he comes down from his drug-induced high and his lawyers have a chat he will understand the responsibility that comes with owning a powerful communications tool like Twitter......that is if he ever comes down from his high.

What proof do you have that Musk was in a drug-induced state while making one of the biggest business decisions of his life?

That's right. You have no proof. Just tossing it out to see if that stuff sticks.