Twitter adopts 'poison pill' to prevent Elon Musk takeover

[CLAX1911]

don't post, if you don't want people to respond...or put the person on ignore.

He can respond to me all he wants. And if I wanted him on ignore I would put him on ignore it whenever I feel like it.

What difference doesn't make to you?

 

[reflechissez]

Twitter is a private company acting as a propaganda wing of the Democratic party.

You seem bright.

 

[Hatuey]

Still can't make an actual point, eh?

I just did, there is overlap, of the same goofballs that bat for him, batting for white nationalists. It seems you hit your head in the shallow end of my pool, and can't see it clearly, guy.

You gonna do anything about it? No? I didn't think so either.

 

[Hatuey]

Lol, one cant get my name out of their mouth, and the other talks about me from behind a wall. All cause I said Elon Musk is adored by white supremacists and their cucky friends.

Groypers simp for Musk, because Nick Diaz is only comfortable taking dick.

That's not controversial.

 

[trixare4kids]

I, for one, salute the new Musk Twitter Overlord. The answer to unwanted speech is more speech not less speech. Argue and persuade - not censor.

 

[CLAX1911]

You seem bright.

It's not a private company either.

 

[forn]

It's not a private company either.

Oops, you're right, it's publicly owned.

 

[LostinThought]

I don't use Twitter much, as I like the message board format better. However, they waited too long to ban Tweety. ToS is ToS for everyone.

Given how Twitter has been running, no. Because it's become clearly obvious that they like to make that decision on a primarily ideological basis.
They're not under any obligation to make sure that everyone abides by the ToS, nor are they even obligated to provide proof that someone actually breaks it. They tend to simply ban someone and only send a notification that it was their decision to do so.

 

[reflechissez]

Given how Twitter has been running, no. Because it's become clearly obvious that they like to make that decision on a primarily ideological basis.
They're not under any obligation to make sure that everyone abides by the ToS, nor are they even obligated to provide proof that someone actually breaks it. They tend to simply ban someone and only send a notification that it was their decision to do so.

And?

 

[forn]

Given how Twitter has been running, no. Because it's become clearly obvious that they like to make that decision on a primarily ideological basis.

It's nice to see a liberal admit that. Although I don't know how anyone could come to any other conclusion.

 

[LostinThought]

And?

And they deserve whatever punishment they receive.
Companies like Twitter and Facebook are the ones that lend too much of a hand to political tampering/misinformation. Yet they continually get a pass because the people that agree with them, hold far too much power.

 

[Fishking]

I just did, there is overlap, of the same goofballs that bat for him, batting for white nationalists. It seems you hit your head in the shallow end of my pool, and can't see it clearly, guy.

You gonna do anything about it? No? I didn't think so either.

No...you haven't made a point yet. Making words on a screen =/= a point and you still don't have a quote of me to back up you accusations. Why is that? Why are you running so? Is it cowardice?

 

[LostinThought]

It's nice to see a liberal admit that. Although I don't know how anyone could come to any other conclusion.

There was a professor who took the time to comb through direct CDC regulations and releases, based entirely on their work on Covid.
He was banned for posting Covid-misinformation, even though he was directly copying data from the CDC itself.

His is only one of such cases that kept transpiring. While our editor was banned from the platform, for her coverage of the riots in Portland.

 

[reflechissez]

And they deserve whatever punishment they receive.
Companies like Twitter and Facebook are the oink.nes that lend too much of a hand to political tampering/misinformation. Yet they continually get a pass because the people that agree with them, hold far too much power.

Your posts are just...boring. You repeatedly vomit out these right-wing platitudes, but you don't say anything.

 

[LostinThought]

Your posts are just...boring. You repeatedly vomit out these right-wing platitudes, but you don't say anything.

Then I suggest you learn how to actually formulate a proper argument.
Because I was stating something that was plainly obvious.

It's also not a right-wing platitude, seeing as more than just those on the right are experiencing such an issue.
Then again, your arguments are usually this weak. So I'm not surprised that you needed to sink to such a level in your approach.

It was a nice try though.. also. The irony of you calling my post boring, is not lost on me.

 

[reflechissez]

Then I suggest you learn how to actually formulate a proper argument.
Because I was stating something that was plainly obvious.

It's also not a right-wing platitude, seeing as more than just those on the right are experiencing such an issue.
Then again, your arguments are usually this weak. So I'm not surprised that you needed to sink to such a level in your approach.

It was a nice try though.. also. The irony of you calling my post boring, is not lost on me.

 

[What if...?]

The exchange of ideas even with those you disagree with.

What about when it’s a manufactured narrative designed to cause its audience to misapprehend a situation?

That’s what most of y’all’s “ideas” actually are.

It’s tedious as ****.

 

[LostinThought]

See, now you're simply stuck being boring.
Hiding behind emojis, because you lack the ability to converse properly on any given subject.

Either way, you're free to keep hiding under your rock.

 

[reflechissez]

See, now you're simply stuck being boring.
Hiding behind emojis, because you lack the ability to converse properly on any given subject.

Either way, you're free to keep hiding under your rock.

You betcha, li'l fella.

 

[CLAX1911]

What about when it’s a manufactured narrative designed to cause its audience to misapprehend a situation?

Seems to be perfectly acceptable on Twitter just as long as it fits the narrative.

That’s what most of y’all’s “ideas” actually are.

It’s tedious as ****.

Ironic.

 

[Logician Man]

Free speech for all simply doesn't exist.

First Amendment go bye-bye?

 

[Sven Karma]

You are not interested in debate on a site called debate politics? And you say it is others that are examples of the Dunning-Kruger effect?
Fascinating

There is your sign

Saying it is ego because someone asked for a source while trying to assert that isn’t having a discussion will only fly in conspiracy or religious / cult circles.

Texas is very business friendly state but he moved it to one of the most liberal cities in the entire state — the 14th most liberal area in the entire United States per the Economist — saving him $2.5B (like I have said, it’s all about the money). Texas as a state is also trending purple so I am not sure what point you are attempting and failing to make. Don’t worry, I won’t ask for sources as I know you don’t have any.

Also, it’s *your* not you’re.

Interestingly, Dunning-Kruger turns out to be Dunning-Kruger'ed in itself:

The Dunning-Kruger Effect is Autocorrelation – Economics from the Top Down

Do unskilled people actually underestimate their incompetence?

economicsfromthetopdown.com

 

[What if...?]

Seems to be perfectly acceptable on Twitter just as long as it fits the narrative.

Ironic.

There’s a major difference.

We have many narratives to appeal to many points of view.

Y’all have one point of view.

Exactly the same point of view.

 

[JasperL]

Here is one from the SCOTUS that says that the 1st Amendment didn’t apply to the nonprofit, which they considered a private entity.

Do you have a source that overrules this?

You misunderstood my point. I don't believe the 1A binds/restricts private entities, like Twitter - i.e. prohibits them from 'censoring' speech otherwise protected by the 1A. I was actually arguing the 1A protects the ability of Twitter et al. to censor/moderate/ban however they like, because for the government to limit their discretion is for the government to effectively compel speech, and that it cannot do. A Catholic website, whether part of the church or just owned by devout Catholics, for example, has no obligation to provide a platform to "pro-choice" voices. If they want to ban that speech, of course they can, thanks to the 1A. Otherwise, if compelled by government, the government is compelling them to provide a platform for ideas they find abhorrent, voices in favor of abortion.

All the discussion of Sec. 230 confirm this. The section allowing for moderation (c)(2) is effectively redundant because that activity - moderating as they see fit - is protected by the 1A. Lawsuits involving this section are all but non-existent, because if the person sues under something related to 230, such as being unfairly moderated, then the 1A kicks in and provides the same outcome. (c)(2) is broad - "otherwise objectionable" covers a lot of ground - but from all I've read that section cannot be narrowly defined because of the 1A, and that means DP could, if they want, ban all MAGAs, or all AOC fans, or all people from Tennessee like me, and look to 230(c)(2) or the 1A for their protection. 230 does a good thing by making this protection explicit, but I've read no legal expert claim it's actually necessary, at least in all but very fringe cases.

 

[JasperL]

actually, the law that Texas enacted on social media was enjoined, because private entities cannot be told how to monitor their speech and they cannot be punished for it. That ruling is because the government is dictating to a private entity what speech they can or cannot have...which violates the 1st amendment.

Clearly I wrote poorly because I agree 100% with your point. What I was trying to point out is that the 1A applies to social media companies, but protects their ability to do what the MAGAs claim they do, which is ban people for their "viewpoint." When Texas prohibited 'censorship' based on viewpoint, they stomped all over the 1A, because of course private entities can censor based on viewpoint. The idea the state can, for example, tell a Jewish website to host neo-Nazis is absurd, thanks to the 1A.