Elon is honeydicking Twitter....

[Jasmina]

No. People know Elon is positing that he WONT allow censorship and no one (of reasonable logical mind) wants that chaos. Censorship being a keyword here. It is being misused grossly. When you sign up to ANY member based wbsite you agree to terms of service. You agreed to them here too. This privately owned website has put forth general rules you agree to follow in order to keep your account, on their private servers.

You aren't being thought policed, you just can't be a dick without facing consequences. It's really that simple. In the case of privately owned forums that consequence is losing your account.

Interesting. It's a little funny that the people saying Twitter, as a private company, has the right to censor opinions on their platform they don't agree with, are the same people screaming in fear that Musk may buy Twitter and do the exact same thing. So what makes Musk more evil than the current board?

Regardless, I don't think Musk would actually censor opinions like that. His whole stance is that he doesn't like how Twitter is censoring certain opinions. Not talking hate speech, but things like the hypothesis that COVID sprang from the Wuhan lab and not from the live animal market.

 

[poker]

No. People know Elon is positing that he WONT allow censorship and no one (of reasonable logical mind) wants that chaos. Censorship being a keyword here. It is being misused grossly. When you sign up to ANY member bases wbsite you agree to terms of service. You agreed to them here too. This privately owned website has put forth general rules you agree to follow in order to keep your account, on their private servers.

You aren't being thought policed, you just can't be a dick without facing consequences. It's really that simple. In the case of privately owned forums that consequence is losing your account.

Agreed…. There is a big difference between “that is the dumbest thing I have ever heard” vs “you are the dumbest person on this forum”.

Attacking ideas vs attacking people.

 

[rhuarc29]

No. People know Elon is positing that he WONT allow censorship and no one (of reasonable logical mind) wants that chaos. Censorship being a keyword here. It is being misused grossly. When you sign up to ANY member bases wbsite you agree to terms of service. You agreed to them here too. This privately owned website has put forth general rules you agree to follow in order to keep your account, on their private servers.

You aren't being thought policed, you just can't be a dick without facing consequences. It's really that simple. In the case of privately owned forums that consequence is losing your account.

I gave an example in my post that already has numerous examples of being censored on Twitter, and it's not an example of being a dick. Aka, opinion policing is occurring on Twitter. Twitter didn't clamp down on that opinion because it was some form of hate or verbal attack, but because it was an unpopular opinion that they labelled misinformation. Of course, now, more people consider it a viable hypothesis, which highlights why such opinions, even if unpopular, should be allowed to see the light of day. An unpopular opinion doesn't make it wrong. Just makes it inconvenient for the majority of people.

People seem to think Musk wants to allow verbal attacks and hatred. I've seen no reason to believe that's the case. All I've ever heard him advocate for is the free expression of opinions on Twitter.
Of course, you never really know the motivations of someone you don't know personally, so there's a good chance he's just making a power move.

 

[Jasmina]

You gave one example of posing a theory that is actually very harmful. Without evidence, it is literal propaganda. Don't feed the tin foil hats.

I gave an example in my post that already has numerous examples of being censored on Twitter, and it's not an example of being a dick. Aka, opinion policing is occurring on Twitter. Twitter didn't clamp down on that opinion because it was some form of hate or verbal attack, but because it was an unpopular opinion that they labelled misinformation. Of course, now, more people consider it a viable hypothesis, which highlights why such opinions, even if unpopular, should be allowed to see the light of day. An unpopular opinion doesn't make it wrong. Just makes it inconvenient for the majority of people.

People seem to think Musk wants to allow verbal attacks and hatred. I've seen no reason to believe that's the case. All I've ever heard him advocate for is the free expression of opinions on Twitter.
Of course, you never really know the motivations of someone you don't know personally, so there's a good chance he's just making a power move.

 

[rhuarc29]

You gave one example of posing a theory that is actually very harmful. Without evidence, it is literal propaganda. Don't feed the tin foil hats.

Again, I'm saying opinions are being policed. You said they weren't. What are you saying now? That any theory that's deemed as harmful should be policed? Who decides what's harmful?
Besides which, although dismissed as conspiracy theory early on, multiple studies, including those conducted by the World Health Organization, say the lab leak is plausible. Not that it was likely, but that it was plausible, and had been prematurely dismissed. Perhaps because it was deemed "harmful" or inconvenient. I also have no idea why such a hypothesis would be any more harmful than the zoological theory to begin with....

 

[Mr.Know-It-All]

You gave one example of posing a theory that is actually very harmful. Without evidence, it is literal propaganda. Don't feed the tin foil hats.

You're the reason why twitter censorship should end. All that you do is regurgitate nonsense you've been told to believe while dismissing valid opinions (and theories).

 

[poker]

You're the reason why twitter censorship should end. All that you do is regurgitate nonsense you've been told to believe while dismissing valid opinions (and theories).

Pot… kettle

 

[Jasmina]

When all else fails, resort to personal attacks - it's all he's got.

Pot… kettle

 

[Jasmina]

Positing that an outbreak was man made with no evidence is not an "opinion". It is, as I already stated, literal propaganda.

Put the tin foil away. Maybe take an evolutionary biology course.

Again, I'm saying opinions are being policed. You said they weren't. What are you saying now? That any theory that's deemed as harmful should be policed? Who decides what's harmful?
Besides which, although dismissed as conspiracy theory early on, multiple studies, including those conducted by the World Health Organization, say the lab leak is plausible. Not that it was likely, but that it was plausible, and had been prematurely dismissed. Perhaps because it was deemed "harmful" or inconvenient. I also have no idea why such a hypothesis would be any more harmful than the zoological theory to begin with....

 

[Mr.Know-It-All]

Pot… kettle

Pro censorship is not the same as anti-censorship. Your analogy makes no sense.

 

[Mr.Know-It-All]

When all else fails, resort to personal attacks - it's all he's got.

It's not an attack. It's an observation.

 

[Mr.Know-It-All]

Positing that an outbreak was man made with no evidence is not an "opinion". It is, as I already stated, literal propaganda.

Put the tin foil away. Maybe take an evolutionary biology course.

Why do you insist on not reading what other people post? Your "no evidence" claim is clearly false. Read what the previous poster wrote and understand it before replying.

Moreover, in law there is something called circumstantial evidence. See if you can apply it here alongside what is known about covid's origins.

Also why are you putting yourself on a high horse claiming to know anything about evolutionary biology?

 

[rhuarc29]

Positing that an outbreak was man made with no evidence is not an "opinion". It is, as I already stated, literal propaganda.

Put the tin foil away. Maybe take an evolutionary biology course.

I can't tell if you're not reading my posts fully through, or just disregarding the parts you don't like. As I said, WHO scientists are positing that the manmade theory is plausible. And maybe you don't realize this, but there's no hard "evidence" of it being zoological in nature either. It's the prevailing theory, but they have no solid proof of it. China's reluctance to let international bodies investigate means we'll likely never find that proof.

I don't even lean one way or the other on this issue! It's besides the point. My point was that Twitter was censoring the one theory because it went against the majority opinion. Your claim was that Twitter only censors people when they act like dicks. It's not true.

I am curious though. If the manmade theory is "literal propaganda", what objective does that propaganda have? Are you sure it's not just a hatred of Trump and the rightwing that is leading you to call it propaganda? Heck, I detest Trump myself, and think he's an egotistical asshat, but I don't let that sway my opinions on anything but the man himself.

 

[poker]

Pro censorship is not the same as anti-censorship. Your analogy makes no sense.

I was referring to your regurgitation of what others tell you to believe. You did accuse her of that…

 

[Jasmina]

Funny, my comment addressed all of that. I guess you just can't comprehend

I can't tell if you're not reading my posts fully through, or just disregarding the parts you don't like. As I said, WHO scientists are positing that the manmade theory is plausible. And maybe you don't realize this, but there's no hard "evidence" of it being zoological in nature either. It's the prevailing theory, but they have no solid proof of it. China's reluctance to let international bodies investigate means we'll likely never find that proof.

I don't even lean one way or the other on this issue! It's besides the point. My point was that Twitter was censoring the one theory because it went against the majority opinion. Your claim was that Twitter only censors people when they act like dicks. It's not true.

I am curious though. If the manmade theory is "literal propaganda", what objective does that propaganda have? Are you sure it's not just a hatred of Trump and the rightwing that is leading you to call it propaganda? Heck, I detest Trump myself, and think he's an egotistical asshat, but I don't let that sway my opinions on anything but the man himself.

 

[Jasmina]

Sure, kid. *hard eye roll*

We both know you cannot counter my points that member based websites have terms of service and that it is those terms of service the general tin foil hat dudes (like yourself) are claiming are a violation of "free speech". They aren't. They are a generally accepted set of rules that we all agree to on any of these platforms. Even this one.

But have you even read the thread or did you just feel the need to come insert/assert your "dominance" on the one lady with balls enough to post an opinion that doesn't flow with the normies?

It's not an attack. It's an observation.

 

[Valcazar]

You aren't being thought policed, you just can't be a dick without facing consequences. It's really that simple. In the case of privately owned forums that consequence is losing your account.

It's not even that, really.
Elon is fine with people facing consequences for being a dick, it is just who gets to decide what being a dick is and who gets to dictate consequences.
Elon thinks the wrong people are facing consequences for "being a dick".

 

[Charlemagne]

World’s richest man Elon Musk says he’s homeless and ‘rotates’ among friends’ houses

Elon Musk says he doesn’t ‘own a place right now’ and ‘rotates’ among friends’ houses

Tesla and Space X founder has an estimated net worth of $251bn

www.independent.co.uk

 

[silentkisser]

You act like a psychic like you know exactly what Elon will do with Twitter when it reality you have no idea what he intends on doing with free speech and open sourcing and are just acting like an echo chamber to other billionaires who own the media and tell you what to think and say. Like Mark Zuckerberg and friends…
View attachment 138294

I think we can safely say that Bezos doesn't fuck around with the WaPo, considering they slam him for stuff he and Amazon do. But here's a shocker for: Many of the largest media groups are owned by or controlled by a wealth person. I mean, Rupert Murdoch owns Fox and a slew of newspapers like the NY Post, Wall Street Journal and many, many others. You aren't suggesting HE would manipulate his outlets to spew out his view point to convince people of things????

The difference between Twitter and these media moguls -- Twitter allows free expression as long as it does not violate their rules. And the media faces rules as well. They cannot publish whatever they want. They must be cautious about libel, they need to respect court rulings on things like publication bans or convicting someone before trial (that's why you see "alleged" all the time), and when they allow comment sections, they moderate them.

But, once again, right-wingers don't understand what free speech and freedom of the press is. They scream bloody murder about cancel culture, then ban fucking math books because they claim the are indoctrinating kids some how. Like, enough with they hypocrisy.

 

[silentkisser]

I find it amusing that Elon blocked Robert Reich…. But here are Roberts thoughts.


In case you missed it, Elon Musk made an offer to buy Twitter outright at $54.20 a share, valuing the social media company at about $43 billion. $54.20 a share is nearly 40 percent higher than Twitter’s stock price in January, when Musk first began buying up shares.

So, to recap: Musk made about $156 million by violating securities law when he filed a disclosure form late. He was then rewarded with a seat on Twitter’s board as its largest shareholder, with a stake of 9.2 percent. The deal to become a board member meant Musk would have to uphold fiduciary responsibility to the company (which entails acting in the best interests of the company and its shareholders, i.e. not publicly criticizing it on a whim) and wouldn’t be allowed to buy more than 14.9 percent of Twitter’s stock. Musk then declined the offer to become a board member, and now here we are: the world’s richest man wants to fully take over a social media company used by millions.

Is anyone else concerned that the second-richest man in the world owns the Washington Post, and the richest man wants to own Twitter? Apparently, it’s not enough for oligarchs to wield the power in both our economy and our democracy. Now they want to pull the strings in the media and on the Internet, too. Let’s be clear: billionaires controlling speech and expression sets us on a dangerous path.

What do you think?

I think it's horrible. Look at Italy, where Berlusconi was PM for a long time. He used his media channels to promote himself and his party, which isn't good. As I posted in this thread, many media groups are owned or controlled by the wealth. The Thompson Family (owners of Thompson-Reuters) or Conrad Black (use to own Harrbinger Group, which owned the National Post and bunch of other papers) made fortunes in the news business. Rupert Murdoch owns a global collection of papers and broadcasters, and manipulates coverage. Look at the scandals his organizations have been involved in, or the disinformation Fox spreads.