Twitter adopts 'poison pill' to prevent Elon Musk takeover

[JasperL]

How is it unconstitutional to not protect a publisher from responsibility?

It's not. What's unconstitutional is conditioning that protection based on speech Twitter does or doesn't allow on its platform....

Sure it does. It doesn't however have the right to 230 protection, especially if it acts as an editor

First of all, being "an editor" in this case just means they moderate their platform. Every website on the planet big enough for us to recognize, and millions more, moderates their platform, deletes posts, bans people, etc. This place does that, as you know, so they too are "editors" and protected by 230, and should be.

Certainly Congress could repeal 230 and remove the protections for every website, but they can't target Twitter or any place else because Congress believes they are inappropriately "censoring" speech. Twitter have a 1A right to censor however they see fit, be as biased as they want, and government cannot act against that real or perceived bias, and removing a benefit would be exactly that.

My goodness, we want this to be the case. Fox News has no "right" to a broadcast license - it's a privilege. Imagine if Pres. AOC said - Hey, Fox, either allow liberals a prime time slot or else we'll pull your license! You're being too mean to me! It's not FAIR that you always criticize liberals!! Fox News doesn't believe in FREE SPEECH because they don't have liberals in that time slot!!

 

[JasperL]

It's a public company. It's not a one owner corporation.

Yeah it means it's a public company. I never mentioned property.

OK, it's irrelevant. If e.g. Musk buys all the outstanding shares and takes it "private" nothing changes, except that instead of having many shareholders and the shares traded on an exchange, there is now only 1, Musk, and it's not traded. I am still not sure why this matters to anything we're discussing.

It should also be accountable to laws. And it shouldn't be protected from them.

It's accountable to the same laws and protected "from them" same as DP, and every other website in this country that accepts third party comments.

Disagree it is the public square.

OK, but the law, courts, reality don't agree with you. It's private property until the government seizes the company and retires all the shares whether those shares are at the time owned by Musk or millions of shareholders.

I'm not talking about property.

What the shareholders in the "public company" own is private property.

 

[JasperL]

Yes, thanks for stating the obvious. What's next? You going to argue that chickens are birds, or that tomatoes are edible?


No I didn't. That's your strawman argument I mentioned earlier.


Never mentioned Texas. Never suggested anything about Texas. Could care less about what Texas did.


The world is ROUND Jasper. R O U N D. When will you get it???

You're right, and I apologize for mixing you up with someone else arguing those points....

 

[CLAX1911]

It's not. What's unconstitutional is conditioning that protection based on speech Twitter does or doesn't allow on its platform....

That's not what 230 is about. 2:30 protects them from liability for the things they allow on their website.

Since they've taken an editorial hand they should be responsible for it.

If they can ban Donald Trump why don't they ban the isis members and the child pornographers and the illicit porn they host?

First of all, being "an editor" in this case just means they moderate their platform.

No it doesn't they don't moderate it they edit it. At that point it seems to be a platform and became a publisher because they have an editor that curates content.

This is what 230 is all about

Every website on the planet big enough for us to recognize, and millions more, moderates their platform, deletes posts, bans people, etc. This place does that, as you know, so they too are "editors" and protected by 230, and should be.

They aren't moderating though they're editing based on opinion. My double speaking dishonestly and saying they're not editing. All it would take is just a mirror threatened to remove 230 protections from them, and it stopped that in a heartbeat otherwise they don't go to jail.

Certainly Congress could repeal 230 and remove the protections for every website, but they can't target Twitter or any place else because Congress believes they are inappropriately "censoring" speech. Twitter have a 1A right to censor however they see fit, be as biased as they want, and government cannot act against that real or perceived bias, and removing a benefit would be exactly that.

They don't need to do that from every website just ones that act like a publisher and edit and create content like Twitter does. That protection isn't for a site like Twitter.

My goodness, we want this to be the case. Fox News has no "right" to a broadcast license - it's a privilege. Imagine if Pres. AOC said - Hey, Fox, either allow liberals a prime time slot or else we'll pull your license! You're being too mean to me! It's not FAIR that you always criticize liberals!! Fox News doesn't believe in FREE SPEECH because they don't have liberals in that time slot!!

The difference between Fox News and Twitter is Fox News is responsible for the content that curate through some technicalities and some dishonest bribing most likely Twitter is immune even though they're the same sort of thing.

 

[CLAX1911]

OK, it's irrelevant. If e.g. Musk buys all the outstanding shares and takes it "private" nothing changes, except that instead of having many shareholders and the shares traded on an exchange, there is now only 1, Musk, and it's not traded. I am still not sure why this matters to anything we're discussing.

It would change the company from being public to private. When you say a company's private that means it's not public Twitter is public

It's accountable to the same laws and protected "from them" same as DP, and every other website in this country that accepts third party comments.

Yeah I don't DP hosts child pornographers and isis members and I doubt they would have immunity if they did. So it's not like this website this is a rule for the but not for me sort of thing.

OK, but the law, courts, reality don't agree with you.

Actually the law does agree with me and so does reality just because the courts don't doesn't mean that they are arbiters of reality.

Twitter is an editorial website that's what they do they curate content. And they remove people over their opinion I don't care what to us nonsense they hide behind they are acting like a publisher.

It's private property until the government seizes the company and retires all the shares whether those shares are at the time owned by Musk or millions of shareholders.

I'm still not talking about property.

What the shareholders in the "public company" own is private property.

So what? The company is still public.

 

[JasperL]

That's not what 230 is about. 2:30 protects them from liability for the things they allow on their website.

???? Me: What's unconstitutional is conditioning that protection based on speech Twitter does or doesn't allow on its platform...

Since they've taken an editorial hand they should be responsible for it.

If they can ban Donald Trump why don't they ban the isis members and the child pornographers and the illicit porn they host?

They can ban "isis members" and porn, you, me, Pelosi, Trump, AOC, my wife, whoever they want for any reason they want.... They can do what they want with regard to speech they allow or don't. Thanks 1A.

No it doesn't they don't moderate it they edit it. At that point it seems to be a platform and became a publisher because they have an editor that curates content.

This is what 230 is all about

If you want to cite the law or a case, that would be good. I know that the words "platform" and "publisher" appear nowhere in the law.

They aren't moderating though they're editing based on opinion.

Yes, of course they are, and this place edits based on opinion. You know this - you see the racists get ban hammered. If a Catholic website bans pro-abortion trolls, they are "editing based on opinion." If a Jewish website bans someone with the avatar "6MWE" (6 million wasn't enough) that's based on political opinion and it's fine! They don't have to platform neo-Nazi scum, no matter how polite their discourse! We can do that on our private property in this free country, thanks to the 1A. It's a wonderful thing!

My double speaking dishonestly and saying they're not editing. All it would take is just a mirror threatened to remove 230 protections from them, and it stopped that in a heartbeat otherwise they don't go to jail.

They don't need to do that from every website just ones that act like a publisher and edit and create content like Twitter does. That protection isn't for a site like Twitter.

The difference between Fox News and Twitter is Fox News is responsible for the content that curate through some technicalities and some dishonest bribing most likely Twitter is immune even though they're the same sort of thing.

Goodness, this is tiring. It's not about "curating" it's about who created the content. If Fox creates the content, they are liable. They are not liable for comments in their comment sections created and uploaded by people like you and me. Same for Twitter. If Twitter creates content they are liable. If I post a tweet, or you post a tweet, etc. they are not liable. And both Fox and Twitter can ban who they want, censor how they want. If Hannity wants to ban all liberals from his forum, that's his call. Etc....................

 

[JasperL]

Yeah I don't DP hosts child pornographers and isis members and I doubt they would have immunity if they did. So it's not like this website this is a rule for the but not for me sort of thing.

DP edits based on opinion.... They have the same "immunity" for hosting child porn or terrorist activity as Twitter.

Actually the law does agree with me and so does reality just because the courts don't doesn't mean that they are arbiters of reality.

What law? When does private property become the "public square?" What law defines this so we all know when it happens? Cite it.

Twitter is an editorial website that's what they do they curate content. And they remove people over their opinion I don't care what to us nonsense they hide behind they are acting like a publisher.

Of course they remove people over their opinion. Every website does this. Lots of opinions are abhorrent. No one need host neo-Nazis or racist scum, or those who denigrate women, etc...... Again, we can do this on private property because of the 1A. Imagine if government said - you must allow pro-Biden speech, or else!! Why should Hannity have to allow Biden fan boys on his forum? Fact is he doesn't. Why should a Jewish website be required to platform neo-Nazis? They do not have to do that and can and will ban them over their anti-Semitic "opinion." That is a GOOD THING!!

And just to be clear, when the consequence is "merely" losing an incredibly valuable protection against liability and it's conditioned on hosting speech Big Brother says you must, that is government compelling speech, requiring that Jewish website to host neo-Nazis or else face liability for all posts, including those by neo-Nazis, on their site. It just cannot be done under the 1A.

 

[CLAX1911]

DP edits based on opinion.... They have the same "immunity" for hosting child porn or terrorist activity as Twitter.

What law? When does private property become the "public square?" What law defines this so we all know when it happens? Cite it.

Of course they remove people over their opinion. Every website does this. Lots of opinions are abhorrent. No one need host neo-Nazis or racist scum, or those who denigrate women, etc...... Again, we can do this on private property because of the 1A. Imagine if government said - you must allow pro-Biden speech, or else!! Why should Hannity have to allow Biden fan boys on his forum? Fact is he doesn't. Why should a Jewish website be required to platform neo-Nazis? They do not have to do that and can and will ban them over their anti-Semitic "opinion." That is a GOOD THING!!

No need to rehash all of this. My previous post still stands

 

[CharloTexan]

The exchange of ideas even with those you disagree with.

I am not required to listen to your ideas. Once it comes to my attention that your ideas are contrary to good sense and my own beliefs, I may choose to not further entertain your ideas. You can call me close minded if you want. The First Amendment does not require me to be open minded. Bring a sound and reasonable argument to the table, then let's talk. BTW, Trump didn't do that when he was promoting violence and insurrection at the Capitol on 1/6. Hence ....

 

[JasperL]

No need to rehash all of this. My previous post still stands

It doesn't actually 'stand' until you can cite the law that determined Twitter is the "public square." If it's not the public square, the government simply cannot involve itself into Twitter's "editorial" policies, who they ban, who they don't, what Tweets they delete, or what opinions they allow or do not. We do not want government making that call - leaving that up to US, individuals, companies, on private property, is what the 1A does. The 1A is there to prevent government from sticking its nose into those decisions.

That ability to promote or discourage opinions contrary to what government wants them to promote or discourage is what being a free country is all about. When you can no longer take a position contrary to your government, you are no longer in a free country. When e.g. banning the speech of POTUS or his party or fan boys is cause for penalties, punishing you by removing benefits otherwise entitled to you under the law, you are not free.

 

[lurchadams]

OH Noes, a big sad for at least a year!

Twitter adopts 'poison pill' to prevent Elon Musk takeover

Twitter's board of directors has unanimously adopted a limited duration shareholder rights plan following Tesla CEO Elon Musk's $54.20 per share offer to take the social media giant private.

www.foxbusiness.com

The plan, which will expire on April 14, 2023, does not prevent Twitter's board from engaging with parties or accepting an acquisition proposal if they believe it is in the best interest of the company and its shareholders.

@American

I don't understand what all the hand-wringing is about. Even as majority owner, the board would have to approve any major changes, like changes to their TOS. Musk can't be as big of an influence as Republicans wish he was. Also, I'm pretty much being majority owner doesn't make you CEO - it's the CEO who steers the ship. And again, the board votes in or out a CEO.

Republicans don't understand how life works.

 

[lurchadams]

Twitter has become censored for the sake of liberal politics and social order. Free speech for all simply doesn't exist. Conservatives who are serious about their political beliefs should all stop using it.
They kick an ex President off but allow dictators to remain on. That's arbitrary and capricious as they say, and BS as the rest of us say.

So why don't conservatives start their own platform and quit bitching about Twitter? If you don't like it, get out and quit whining.

 

[CLAX1911]

It doesn't actually 'stand' until you can cite the law that determined Twitter is the "public square."

Yes it does. You're just repeating yourself in not going to bother you can just reread it the first time I said it.

My post as far as I'm concerned has not been successfully argued.

 

[lurchadams]

What is sad is that dictators and war criminals have more self control than the leader of the Republican Party. Twitter has a TOS which — if violated — causes one to be ejected from the platform.

Should rules, if applied equality, not apply to Republicans?

No. Republicans feel rules should apply to those not slimy or criminal or rich enough to get away with it.

I'm actually being serious. Look at the last 5 years. What more proof is needed?

 

[lurchadams]

LOL the libs running twitter are panicking. Thats a good thing.

I'm NOT panicking. Why do you say stuff like that? I could give a shit about Twitter, Facebook, etc. I don't understand why Republicans' panties are all in a bunch. If you don't like Twitter, get out and start your own platform. Geez man. What a bunch of ****in' baby whiners the Republicans have become.

 

[lurchadams]

Explain what TOS rules Trump violated that's stated here.

X Terms of Service

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

twitter.com

NO. She doesn't have to and Twitter doesn't have to. They're a private company. You're all about free speech and free market until it works against you. So pathetic.

 

[CLAX1911]

No. Republicans feel rules should apply to those not slimy or criminal or rich enough to get away with it.

That seems to be pretty standard for any wealthy party. The laws are spiderwebs they catch flies not wasps it doesn't matter what color the wasp is

 

[lurchadams]

Wonder what Musk's next move is.

He's going to build a penis rocket twice the size of Jeff's.

 

[lurchadams]

Twitter is private. This is about a private company saying that you cannot say certain things on their platform. It was absolutely implied that Twitter currently does not abide by free speech. They do, within their guidelines, as a private company. Those guidelines may change, but it would still be within free speech, as it is their company.

It was implied by the first post I responded to that "free speech" is only for "liberals". Since this thread is about Twitter, that implies also that the comment was in reference to Twitter. If it wasn't, then it is a dishonest irrelevant post.

Yep, this.

 

[lurchadams]

The Hunter Biden laptop story, Wuhan lab leak and numerous other stories have been suppressed for no other reason than to hurt conservatives.


Maybe you can explain why Twitter just suspended libsoftiktok for simply quoting liberals?

LOLOLOL.. your propaganda is banned and you are pissed. LOLOL.

 

[Hypothetical]

I'm NOT panicking. Why do you say stuff like that? I could give a shit about Twitter, Facebook, etc. I don't understand why Republicans' panties are all in a bunch. If you don't like Twitter, get out and start your own platform. Geez man. What a bunch of ****in' baby whiners the Republicans have become.

OR, we could just back musk buying the damn thing and making it work properly.

that's actually a great solution.

but you won't see us calling for reasonable liberal posts to be banned, even if he does.

 

[JasperL]

I don't understand what all the hand-wringing is about. Even as majority owner, the board would have to approve any major changes, like changes to their TOS. Musk can't be as big of an influence as Republicans wish he was.

Republicans don't understand how life works.

Just as a point of order, if he does own a majority, he can effectively appoint every member of that board. The board have a fiduciary duty to the company, and any minority shareholders, but in reality he'd appoint people who agreed with his overall philosophy.

 

[JasperL]

Yes it does. You're just repeating yourself in not going to bother you can just reread it the first time I said it.

My post as far as I'm concerned has not been successfully argued.

So, cite the law......

Then read the 1A and you'll see why the government cannot do what you want it to do.

 

[lurchadams]

Just as a point of order, if he does own a majority, he can effectively appoint every member of that board. The board have a fiduciary duty to the company, and any minority shareholders, but in reality he'd appoint people who agreed with his overall philosophy.

Well, I know there have been situations where the board has expelled a CEO. So if all board members are always the "CEO's buddy", how could that ever happen? No. I don't think Musk can be that big of an influence.

 

[CLAX1911]

So, cite the law......

To what end?