When billionaires take control of our communication systems

[Craig234]

So, there's no law saying you can't talk to your neighbor, or what you can't say to them as an opinion (barring things like threats). But that has very little power. Our society has powerful media that changes millions of opinions - including social media especially, facebook, twitter, youtube etc.,, and media companies.

Media companies have always had issues where their small ownership had oversized power. From Hearst claiming he could take the US to war, to Henry Luce, to the 'elite' media figures who were solicited to a relationship with Allen Dulles, as he gave them the privilege of state secrets as they gave him public stories he wanted.

It's one thing when Jeff Bezos - selfish guy extraordinaire - buys the nation's #2 newspaper, in our capitol, as a whim, IIRC for $250 million of his well over $100 billion. That threatens great harm to the country's political culture - but has gone well so far as he has taken a hands off approach to abusing his ownership as far as we can tell. But he could change that anytime.

Not nearly as harmless is billionaire Rupert Murdoch's owning Fox, which was originally and more correctly called "GOP TV", a top propaganda tool greatly affecting and harming our political culture.

Now, there's Twitter. It's had a surprisingly large effect - trump got huge mileage out of it before it was banned, tweets sometimes play an important role in public discussion, they've created scandals for companies, CEO's and politicians, and so on.

But Twitter has played a largely 'neutral' role, trying to limit some problems like violence and misinformation, finally leading it to ban trump - but now Elon Musk has said he'd like to buy it.

The biggest problem in my opinion for our country is how the business part of the country collectively decided to use its huge wealth to buy political influence since the 1970's, greatly undermining democracy; when billionaires decide to buy the country's systems for communication and political discussion, that is a further threat to our political culture.

We can allow it - and risk becoming more like China, where speech is controlled by the powerful; our constitution limits the government's restrictions on speech, but when speech is dominated by private company systems, it offers no protection. You have the constitutional right to stand on the corner and talk to passers by - pointless.

We could somehow protect systems from being bought up and controlled by these billionaires; or we could use taxation to reduce their ability to do so. But since we're not doing any of that, now Twitter is the next system at risk for a billionaire who likes to troll in politics to be able to stick his nose into the national political culture, having a lot of power who can say what. Helping great wealth risk becoming more and more a force of tyranny.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

We shouldn't have corporations as powerful as twitter or people powerful enough to unilaterally control them.

 

[Craig234]

We shouldn't have corporations as powerful as twitter or people powerful enough to unilaterally control them.

When our country was founded, with a FAR smaller population, there were thousands of independent newspapers across the country that represented media - it was much, much more democratic. The founding fathers would have been greatly opposed, I think, to the modern situation. We used to have laws requiring diversity of ownership; as their power grew, they got the laws repealed.

 

[HIP56948]

Excuse the simplicity> Looks and feels like the damn sharks not only purchased new teeth, they got them sharpened. All the better to eat the poor fish.

 

[Crovax]

ROFL 🤣

Dems had no issues with Twitter when it leaned democrat and was censoring mainly right wingers. The said oh its a private company. Now that a suspected right winger wants to buy it, there's a big fuss and it's a "media company" that can not do as it pleases.

 

[Craig234]

Excuse the simplicity> Looks and feels like the damn sharks not only purchased new teeth, they got them sharpened. All the better to eat the poor fish.

Excused, since you're right.

 

[AGENT J]

We could somehow protect systems from being bought up and controlled by these billionaires; or we could use taxation to reduce their ability to do so. But since we're not doing any of that, now Twitter is the next system at risk for a billionaire who likes to troll in politics to be able to stick his nose into the national political culture, having a lot of power who can say what. Helping great wealth risk becoming more and more a force of tyranny.

agreed but thats how freedom works, there's pros and cons to it
SOME types of regulation would be ok and may help but that's about it

education is simply the only way
people not being stupid enough to be flat earthers, birthers, 9/11 Truthers that think bush planned it, Inssuraction deniers, Big Lie believers, holocaust deniers etc etc . . . all the same type of sheep-like uneducated loons

how do we fix that, at least to a point where there are very little of them with little influence and need to be catered too and corruption is lesser

the other trick is when something like Twitter exists . . there's always gonna be millionaires and billionaires involved by default of its success

the real thing that needs to be done is an overhaul of rules with congress, but how do we do that since we need them to do it . . .

 

[Deuce]

ROFL 🤣

Dems had no issues with Twitter when it leaned democrat and was censoring mainly right wingers. The said oh its a private company. Now that a suspected right winger wants to buy it, there's a big fuss and it's a "media company" that can not do as it pleases.

Right wingers have been arguing against Twitter doing what it pleases for literally years now.

 

[Mycroft]

So, there's no law saying you can't talk to your neighbor, or what you can't say to them as an opinion (barring things like threats). But that has very little power. Our society has powerful media that changes millions of opinions - including social media especially, facebook, twitter, youtube etc.,, and media companies.

Media companies have always had issues where their small ownership had oversized power. From Hearst claiming he could take the US to war, to Henry Luce, to the 'elite' media figures who were solicited to a relationship with Allen Dulles, as he gave them the privilege of state secrets as they gave him public stories he wanted.

It's one thing when Jeff Bezos - selfish guy extraordinaire - buys the nation's #2 newspaper, in our capitol, as a whim, IIRC for $250 million of his well over $100 billion. That threatens great harm to the country's political culture - but has gone well so far as he has taken a hands off approach to abusing his ownership as far as we can tell. But he could change that anytime.

Not nearly as harmless is billionaire Rupert Murdoch's owning Fox, which was originally and more correctly called "GOP TV", a top propaganda tool greatly affecting and harming our political culture.

Now, there's Twitter. It's had a surprisingly large effect - trump got huge mileage out of it before it was banned, tweets sometimes play an important role in public discussion, they've created scandals for companies, CEO's and politicians, and so on.

But Twitter has played a largely 'neutral' role, trying to limit some problems like violence and misinformation, finally leading it to ban trump - but now Elon Musk has said he'd like to buy it.

The biggest problem in my opinion for our country is how the business part of the country collectively decided to use its huge wealth to buy political influence since the 1970's, greatly undermining democracy; when billionaires decide to buy the country's systems for communication and political discussion, that is a further threat to our political culture.

We can allow it - and risk becoming more like China, where speech is controlled by the powerful; our constitution limits the government's restrictions on speech, but when speech is dominated by private company systems, it offers no protection. You have the constitutional right to stand on the corner and talk to passers by - pointless.

We could somehow protect systems from being bought up and controlled by these billionaires; or we could use taxation to reduce their ability to do so. But since we're not doing any of that, now Twitter is the next system at risk for a billionaire who likes to troll in politics to be able to stick his nose into the national political culture, having a lot of power who can say what. Helping great wealth risk becoming more and more a force of tyranny.

The first part I highlighted is utter bullshit. It is so divorced from reality, I am dumbfounded that anyone could think this is true.

The second part I highlighted is the trumped up justification for supporting Twitter that is used by the Dems and Trump haters. There is no such thing as "misinformation". There is only information that one agrees with or doesn't agree with.

So...a totally bullshit version of reality and a trumped up justification is the basis for being worried that a platform that is controlled by those who are determined to drive public opinion in their desired direction might be derailed by the actions of Elon Musk.

Craig234, you worry about speech being controlled by the powerful. It ALREADY IS controlled by the powerful. And guess what...Jack Dorsey, who still has enormous control over Twitter...is a billionaire. You are getting your panties in a bunch because there is a threat that the controlling power might shift to someone you don't agree with.

Now me? From what little I've read, Musk has been on the receiving end of what you describe as "a largely neutral role". He knows what Twitter does. It sucks for Twitter that he has the power...and now the motivation...to do something about it.

I have no sympathy for Twitter.

 

[Hypothetical]

So, there's no law saying you can't talk to your neighbor, or what you can't say to them as an opinion (barring things like threats). But that has very little power. Our society has powerful media that changes millions of opinions - including social media especially, facebook, twitter, youtube etc.,, and media companies.

Media companies have always had issues where their small ownership had oversized power. From Hearst claiming he could take the US to war, to Henry Luce, to the 'elite' media figures who were solicited to a relationship with Allen Dulles, as he gave them the privilege of state secrets as they gave him public stories he wanted.

It's one thing when Jeff Bezos - selfish guy extraordinaire - buys the nation's #2 newspaper, in our capitol, as a whim, IIRC for $250 million of his well over $100 billion. That threatens great harm to the country's political culture - but has gone well so far as he has taken a hands off approach to abusing his ownership as far as we can tell. But he could change that anytime.

Not nearly as harmless is billionaire Rupert Murdoch's owning Fox, which was originally and more correctly called "GOP TV", a top propaganda tool greatly affecting and harming our political culture.

Now, there's Twitter. It's had a surprisingly large effect - trump got huge mileage out of it before it was banned, tweets sometimes play an important role in public discussion, they've created scandals for companies, CEO's and politicians, and so on.

But Twitter has played a largely 'neutral' role, trying to limit some problems like violence and misinformation, finally leading it to ban trump - but now Elon Musk has said he'd like to buy it.

The biggest problem in my opinion for our country is how the business part of the country collectively decided to use its huge wealth to buy political influence since the 1970's, greatly undermining democracy; when billionaires decide to buy the country's systems for communication and political discussion, that is a further threat to our political culture.

We can allow it - and risk becoming more like China, where speech is controlled by the powerful; our constitution limits the government's restrictions on speech, but when speech is dominated by private company systems, it offers no protection. You have the constitutional right to stand on the corner and talk to passers by - pointless.

We could somehow protect systems from being bought up and controlled by these billionaires; or we could use taxation to reduce their ability to do so. But since we're not doing any of that, now Twitter is the next system at risk for a billionaire who likes to troll in politics to be able to stick his nose into the national political culture, having a lot of power who can say what. Helping great wealth risk becoming more and more a force of tyranny.

oh NOW you want to stop twitter from being whatever the possible new owner thinks it should be... whoops.

 

[Lovebug]

Zuckerberg is rich, Musk is rich.

 

[lurchadams]

So, there's no law saying you can't talk to your neighbor, or what you can't say to them as an opinion (barring things like threats). But that has very little power. Our society has powerful media that changes millions of opinions - including social media especially, facebook, twitter, youtube etc.,, and media companies.

Media companies have always had issues where their small ownership had oversized power. From Hearst claiming he could take the US to war, to Henry Luce, to the 'elite' media figures who were solicited to a relationship with Allen Dulles, as he gave them the privilege of state secrets as they gave him public stories he wanted.

It's one thing when Jeff Bezos - selfish guy extraordinaire - buys the nation's #2 newspaper, in our capitol, as a whim, IIRC for $250 million of his well over $100 billion. That threatens great harm to the country's political culture - but has gone well so far as he has taken a hands off approach to abusing his ownership as far as we can tell. But he could change that anytime.

Not nearly as harmless is billionaire Rupert Murdoch's owning Fox, which was originally and more correctly called "GOP TV", a top propaganda tool greatly affecting and harming our political culture.

Now, there's Twitter. It's had a surprisingly large effect - trump got huge mileage out of it before it was banned, tweets sometimes play an important role in public discussion, they've created scandals for companies, CEO's and politicians, and so on.

But Twitter has played a largely 'neutral' role, trying to limit some problems like violence and misinformation, finally leading it to ban trump - but now Elon Musk has said he'd like to buy it.

The biggest problem in my opinion for our country is how the business part of the country collectively decided to use its huge wealth to buy political influence since the 1970's, greatly undermining democracy; when billionaires decide to buy the country's systems for communication and political discussion, that is a further threat to our political culture.

We can allow it - and risk becoming more like China, where speech is controlled by the powerful; our constitution limits the government's restrictions on speech, but when speech is dominated by private company systems, it offers no protection. You have the constitutional right to stand on the corner and talk to passers by - pointless.

We could somehow protect systems from being bought up and controlled by these billionaires; or we could use taxation to reduce their ability to do so. But since we're not doing any of that, now Twitter is the next system at risk for a billionaire who likes to troll in politics to be able to stick his nose into the national political culture, having a lot of power who can say what. Helping great wealth risk becoming more and more a force of tyranny.

Ok. I read your entire op. Have you ever heard of a VPN? There will never be a time from this point forward, where you can ban communications from anyone.

 

[Deuce]

oh NOW you want to stop twitter from being whatever the possible new owner thinks it should be... whoops.

I think conservatives have wildly misunderstood the liberal position on media conglomerates. They just see "twitter bad" and "liberals bad" therefore "liberals love twitter."

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

When our country was founded, with a FAR smaller population, there were thousands of independent newspapers across the country that represented media - it was much, much more democratic. The founding fathers would have been greatly opposed, I think, to the modern situation. We used to have laws requiring diversity of ownership; as their power grew, they got the laws repealed.

That was exactly the PURPOSE of it all...to GET those laws repealed. You're spot on.

 

[lurchadams]

When our country was founded, with a FAR smaller population, there were thousands of independent newspapers across the country that represented media - it was much, much more democratic. The founding fathers would have been greatly opposed, I think, to the modern situation. We used to have laws requiring diversity of ownership; as their power grew, they got the laws repealed.

Alright. So I read this one, too. Here's the deal. Back in the 60's and 70's journalists/reporters were working class people. They worked their asses off, like Woodward and Bernstein.

Fast-forward to today. They're all rich, elitists, out of touch with real society.

That's my opinion. Does anyone else agree?

 

[Hypothetical]

I think conservatives have wildly misunderstood the liberal position on media conglomerates. They just see "twitter bad" and "liberals bad" therefore "liberals love twitter."

when I am told by a liberal rubbing my nose in it that capitalism states that I should be fine with them banning opinions they do not agree with because its their right to do so, what else am I to think?

I am for open communications platforms not being able to do that lawfully. as a backup solution, i will back Musk's idea.

 

[Crovax]

Right wingers have been arguing against Twitter doing what it pleases for literally years now.

Yes that's true, I just find it amusing that it has flipped

 

[RealityNow]

People seem overly "Eager" for the Wealthy (Rich) to control everything, as long as the Rich are Leaning to support their Right Wing Ideology).

• (This has always been acceptable to historically groomed "Serfs")

_______________________________

It's time forThe Government to create Legislation for Regulatory Controls over Social Media Platforms) It must be Legislatitively Regulated as is any other business and organization.

 

[Grandpappy]

Censorship of Trump, but not crazy Iranian terrorists? Suppression of facts in support of getting a senile old place holder into the WH?
No, the current Twitter management are lying propagandists.
Free speech is important. Without it, we get morons like Joe and Kammy.

 

[RealityNow]

Censorship of Trump, but not crazy Iranian terrorists? Suppression of facts in support of getting a senile old place holder into the WH?
No, the current Twitter management are lying propagandists.
Free speech is important. Without it, we get morons like Joe and Kammy.

I think maybe you are upset that you are likely older than Biden, and Biden is more accomplished, and more educated and intellectually proficient than you are.

 

[Cope]

We shouldn't have corporations as powerful as twitter or people powerful enough to unilaterally control them.

Oh really?

Then maybe you all should have been screaming about monopoly busting instead of cheering for people that got banned?

 

[Deuce]

when I am told by a liberal rubbing my nose in it that capitalism states that I should be fine with them banning opinions they do not agree with because its their right to do so, what else am I to think?

First off, this is spin. It's not "banning opinions they do not agree with." People aren't banned from Twitter for being conservative. They're banned for spreading specific, dangerous misinformation.

I am for open communications platforms not being able to do that lawfully. as a backup solution, i will back Musk's idea.

And how strict do you want this anti-moderation law to be? Should DP be allowed to ban someone who spams porn here? Just posts racial slurs over and over?

The reality is that yes, actually, capitalism does state they are allowed to do this on a platform they own. You are not Twitter's customer, you have not given them money, but you are demanding the government force them to allow you to use their computers for free. Liberals are "rubbing your nose in it" because all of the "free market" rhetoric from the right just collapses in the face of the market doing something conservatives dislike. Now suddenly you want the government to tread on private property rights?

Even worse: conservatives will advocate for policies that cause the exact opposite of what they want. Conservatives have been talking about removing Section 230, under the mistaken idea that this would promote free speech. The opposite would occur. Twitter et al would have to massively increase the strictness of their moderation to avoid lawsuits. Imagine becoming financially liable for every random ass piece of slander that any one of billions of users might post? A platform like Twitter can't survive in that environment. How's your free speech work when these platforms don't exist anymore?

 

[Nomad4Ever]

Oh really?

Then maybe you all should have been screaming about monopoly busting instead of cheering for people that got banned?

Who is you? I'm literally a socialist. Pretty sure us socialists have be screaming about doing a little bit more than just busting up monopolies.

 

[Cope]

Who is you? I'm literally a socialist. Pretty sure us socialists have be screaming about doing a little bit more than just busting up monopolies.

You all is the derivative of all of you.
Everyone here, of course you can pull your posts decrying Twitter as being too big and needing to be broken up. I believe you.

 

[Grandpappy]

I think maybe you are upset that you are likely older than Biden, and Biden is more accomplished, and more educated and intellectually proficient than you are.

Joe is just slimy enough to stay in political office 40 years and not really accomplish much of anything.
Well, except giving his family a reason to extort money from foreign sources.