Twitter reportedly nearing deal to sell itself to Elon Musk

[Ward Jr]

All platforms are protected by 230 - protected from the writings of others in their sites. But it’s just one platform. Trump has a new platform. Do you honestly think he’s going to permit people to go on there and trash him and spread easily disproven lies? Of course not. Those people will be banned. But who cares?

Again, I don’t really care who owns Twitter. Their decision to sell is a business decision. Personally I think they’ve maxed out what they can do on the site (revenue wise) and are going to cash in and move on. Perhaps Musk has something new for the site. There was a slight spike in users over the last year, but really user growth has been pretty stagnant for close to a decade.

Our current government protects them and then uses that "favor" to censor dissenting views. This was painfully evident with COVID.

The disparity of political donations by platform tells the story. These companies use open capitalism to grow the business and turn around and jump in bed with quasi-socialism to maintain that elite position, deflect legal quagmires and to abate the guilt of hording billions as they virtue signal/create conflict for profit.

 

[ToddFlanders]

The government protects them and then uses that "favor" to censor dissenting views. This was painfully evident with COVID.

The disparity political donations by platform tells the story. These companies use open capitalism to grow the business and turn around and jump in bed with quasi-socialism to maintain that elite position, deflect legal quagmires and to abate the guilt of hording billions as they virtue signal/create conflict for profit.

View embedded media

The “government” was controlled on all levels (all three branches) by Republicans when Covid started - and was for the few years prior to Covid as well. Why would the “government” do that to themselves?

 

[Boom4life]

The “government” was controlled on all levels (all three branches) by Republicans when Covid started - and was for the few years prior to Covid as well. Why would the “government” do that to themselves?

Government is not a good word. Political party is better. The party controlled

 

[Ward Jr]

The “government” was controlled on all levels (all three branches) by Republicans when Covid started - and was for the few years prior to Covid as well. Why would the “government” do that to themselves?

There was no vaccine rollout/salespitch or illegal mandates under the former admin.

 

[Ward Jr]

Who should have been kicked off Twitter for dangerous misinformation in the group below?

The first three are blatant lies and they knew it when they said it. Total corruption in plain view and not just the type of corruption where your wallet gets burned.

-------------------------

“When people get vaccinated, they can feel safe that they’re not gonna get infected.”
— Dr Anthony Fauci / Director of the NIH

“Vaccinated people do not carry the virus and don’t get sick.”
— CDC Director Walensky

“You’re not gonna get COVID if you have these vaccinations”
— Joe Biden, US President

"Don't think of it as a vaccine. Think of it - at best - as a therapeutic with a limited window of efficacy and an extensive side effect profile that must dosed in advance of illness."
— Alex Berenson, Former NYT writer

 

[Ward Jr]

 

[turncock]

COVID policy was the issue that pulled me in. The same with many of my friends. Too many lies with too many consequences. I hope these people one day face trial for what they've done. They've earned it.

 

[Ward Jr]

Biden now talking about making amendments to Section 230 post Twitter purchase.

These people are something else.

 

[ToddFlanders]

View embedded media

This is non-sensical. He understands technology. The law - not so much. Like, he may not even have a rudimentary understanding of the law, who it applies to, how you possibly change it (hint: you can’t just pass laws limiting free speech), etc.

 

[ToddFlanders]

Biden now talking about making amendments to Section 230 post Twitter purchase.

These people are something else.

View embedded media

Both sides want 230 gone (and both sides have gone after it for years) - because neither side can control the internet without it.

Which to me is pretty good evidence that we need to keep it.

 

[Ward Jr]

Both sides want 230 gone (and both sides have gone after it for years) - because neither side can control the internet without it.

Which to me is pretty good evidence that we need to keep it.

So it's suddenly on the immediate agenda now that the FB-IG-Google-Apple-Twitter censor loop has a hole in it?

 

[Ward Jr]

This is non-sensical. He understands technology. The law - not so much. Like, he may not even have a rudimentary understanding of the law, who it applies to, how you possibly change it (hint: you can’t just pass laws limiting free speech), etc.

The interpretation of free speech is another moving goal post issue. But let's be honest, if ANY President prior to Biden had made the statements he and his staff has since they took office, there would have been impeachment hearings. The lies are far too transparent and the implications are mind boggling.

 

[ToddFlanders]

So it's suddenly on the immediate agenda now that the FB-IG-Google-Apple-Twitter censor loop has a hole in it?

No. It was at the forefront in the years leading up to the election as well. The Democrats wanted to get rid of it to force the platforms to remove all the nutty Q-anon stuff (and quite frankly all easily disprovable lies); at the same time Republicans wanted it gone when anything was flagged (saying the platforms were then publishing themselves and thus liable for what they wrote).

Both sides just want to be able to control the internet - which quite frankly is like trying to fight a war on drugs. A pointless exercise.

 

[Ward Jr]

No. It was at the forefront in the years leading up to the election as well. The Democrats wanted to get rid of it to force the platforms to remove all the nutty Q-anon stuff (and quite frankly all easily disprovable lies); at the same time Republicans wanted it gone when anything was flagged (saying the platforms were then publishing themselves and thus liable for what they wrote).

Both sides just want to be able to control the internet - which quite frankly is like trying to fight a war on drugs. A pointless exercise.

Look where that's gotten us/them? The COVID example above says it all. Berenson was pitched as the nut job. Turns out he was correct and our officials were the ones doing the extreme lies.

Many of the people Twitter was censoring were people at the top of their field. Not the BOTs and extreme trash which still exist.

 

[hillstosea]

COVID policy was the issue that pulled me in. The same with many of my friends. Too many lies with too many consequences. I hope these people one day face trial for what they've done. They've earned it.

At the least, Fauci and the CDC could be honest enough to own their mistakes AND acknowledge that several who were silenced and/or canceled had good opinions. Also had the right and even the responsibility as scientists and medical professionals to be heard without punishment

 

[hillstosea]

Both sides want 230 gone (and both sides have gone after it for years) - because neither side can control the internet without it.

Which to me is pretty good evidence that we need to keep it.

Could you provide a link to ‘both sides’ wanting 230 gone. Thanks

 

[turncock]

Biden now talking about making amendments to Section 230 post Twitter purchase.

These people are something else.

View embedded media

So to walk it through:

+ Obama gives long-winded speech at Stanford last week w/ emphasis on need for increased censorship.
+ Elon Musk buys Twitter on Monday
+ Biden announces he is targeting Section 230 today.

You can't make this stuff up.

Bring back the moderate Democrats. These people are god awful and doing nothing but damage.

Pathetic.

 

[ToddFlanders]

Could you provide a link to ‘both sides’ wanting 230 gone. Thanks

There's literally hundred of links (across all media platforms). Here are some from the first page of google:

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/15/house-republicans-outline-principles-for-reforming-section-230.html

https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...own-on-section-230-repeal-after-gop-pushback/

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politic...big-tech-companies-of-section-230-protections

https://www.texastribune.org/2021/01/21/section-230-internet-social-media/

 

[Lurker123]

No. It was at the forefront in the years leading up to the election as well. The Democrats wanted to get rid of it to force the platforms to remove all the nutty Q-anon stuff (and quite frankly all easily disprovable lies); at the same time Republicans wanted it gone when anything was flagged (saying the platforms were then publishing themselves and thus liable for what they wrote).

Both sides just want to be able to control the internet - which quite frankly is like trying to fight a war on drugs. A pointless exercise.

This seems a bit too forgiving of the democrats motives. They did not only want to remove nutty "Q" stuff. They wanted anything and everything they disagreed with labeled as "hate speech", and removed.

Edit: From one of the above links:
"“Republicans and Democrats both want to repeal Section 230, but they want to replace it in diametrically opposed ways,” said Mark Lemley, a Stanford Law School professor. “Democrats want more content moderation targeting hate speech and misinformation. Republicans want to apply the First Amendment to social media sites even if they are private actors.”"


As I've said before on this topic, I would fall on the side of allowing too much info, even if false or offensive, rather than someone else determine what is "true" for public consumption.

 

[ToddFlanders]

This seems a bit too forgiving of the democrats motives. They did not only want to remove nutty "Q" stuff. They wanted anything and everything they disagreed with labeled as "hate speech", and removed.

Edit: From one of the above links:
"“Republicans and Democrats both want to repeal Section 230, but they want to replace it in diametrically opposed ways,” said Mark Lemley, a Stanford Law School professor. “Democrats want more content moderation targeting hate speech and misinformation. Republicans want to apply the First Amendment to social media sites even if they are private actors.”"


As I've said before on this topic, I would fall on the side of allowing too much info, even if false or offensive, rather than someone else determine what is "true" for public consumption.

I'm definitely in agreement - more information is better than less. That's why I would keep the government out of it altogether. The internet is infinite. If one source says "x," then another source can pop up tomorrow and say "y." Trying to control the source "du jour" is not only an exercise in futility, it shouldn't be in the government's hands ever. That's what is happening in Russia and China. Again, the fact that both sides want to remove 230 protections is all I need to know to understand that those protections are the only thing protecting Americans from those sides.

Twitter, Facebook, Truth Social - they are popular until they aren't anymore. And then there will be something else that politicians want to control because it ruins their ability to control the narrative. And in an infinite place like the internet - it's a stupid crusade (unless we give them the power to do what they want).

 

[Lurker123]

I'm definitely in agreement - more information is better than less. That's why I would keep the government out of it altogether. The internet is infinite. If one source says "x," then another source can pop up tomorrow and say "y." Trying to control the source "du jour" is not only an exercise in futility, it shouldn't be in the government's hands ever. That's what is happening in Russia and China. Again, the fact that both sides want to remove 230 protections is all I need to know to understand that those protections are the only thing protecting Americans from those sides.

Twitter, Facebook, Truth Social - they are popular until they aren't anymore. And then there will be something else that politicians want to control because it ruins their ability to control the narrative. And in an infinite place like the internet - it's a stupid crusade (unless we give them the power to do what they want).

Don't disagree. I spent the last 10 or so minutes reading the old thread on this from a year or so ago. The only thing I'll add is what I said back then. I don't want to get rid of 230 protections, but I wish there was a way to make a company legitimately earn it. I personally feel some were falling short of acting as good faith hosts.

 

[hillstosea]

There's literally hundred of links (across all media platforms). Here are some from the first page of google:

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/15/house-republicans-outline-principles-for-reforming-section-230.html

https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...own-on-section-230-repeal-after-gop-pushback/

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politic...big-tech-companies-of-section-230-protections

https://www.texastribune.org/2021/01/21/section-230-internet-social-media/

Thanks again

 

[Ward Jr]

Anyone who believes the Biden Administration is concerned about misinformation is living in an echo chamber.

They are concerned about controlling the message and outcome (COVID, Laptop, Inflation, etc.) to the detriment of the American people - as those messages are full of lies.

 

[cockofdawn]

Anyone who believes the Biden Administration is concerned about misinformation is living in an echo chamber.

They are concerned about controlling the message and outcome (COVID, Laptop, Inflation, etc.) to the detriment of the American people - as those messages are full of lies.

100% CORRECT!!

 

[Ward Jr]

Why is the responsibility of social media apps to filter “misinformation?”

Are people unable of doing their own research or coming to their own conclusion?

Common for things originally deemed “misinformation” to inevitably be accepted as common fact after a period of time.

“Misinformation” is a spectrum - from clearly and verifiably false propositions, to unverified theories and inconvenient truths.

When you’re in power of how content is filtered, it’s easy to selectively apply the rules around "misinformation."

There is not an objective line.

 

[turncock]

Why is the responsibility of social media apps to filter “misinformation?”

Are people unable of doing their own research or coming to their own conclusion?

Common for things originally deemed “misinformation” to inevitably be accepted as common fact after a period of time.

“Misinformation” is a spectrum - from clearly and verifiably false propositions, to unverified theories and inconvenient truths.

When you’re in power of how content is filtered, it’s easy to selectively apply the rules around "misinformation."

There is not an objective line.

Excellent post.

The number of people who have seen their followers surge since Musk took over is massive. Turns out they were shadow banning accounts just based on your political party.

 

[ToddFlanders]

Why is the responsibility of social media apps to filter “misinformation?”

Are people unable of doing their own research or coming to their own conclusion?

Common for things originally deemed “misinformation” to inevitably be accepted as common fact after a period of time.

“Misinformation” is a spectrum - from clearly and verifiably false propositions, to unverified theories and inconvenient truths.

When you’re in power of how content is filtered, it’s easy to selectively apply the rules around "misinformation."

There is not an objective line.

Short answer to one question: No, most people are not able to do their own research and draw their own conclusions.

They literally aren't. That's because people don't research anything - they merely search for any source that confirms their world view. It's why people go to the same news source over and over depending on their political affiliation. They aren't looking for knowledge, they're looking for validation.

It's also abundantly clear that people will fall for even the dumbest things and they catch on like wildfire - like Wayfair selling children, or Hilary running a child smuggling ring out of a pizza shop, or vaccines causing autism in children (literally, you can make up any lie about children being harmed and there will be a hashtag trending that day).

But to your first question, it's not a social media apps responsibility to filter any information - but they should if they want to. It's a business decision. Don't like their business - don't use their app. We have whole "news" channels that only show one-sided information - if an app (be it Twitter or Truth Social) wants to do the same, then who is the government to say they shouldn't?

 

[turncock]

Short answer to one question: No, most people are not able to do their own research and draw their own conclusions.

They literally aren't. That's because people don't research anything - they merely search for any source that confirms their world view. It's why people go to the same news source over and over depending on their political affiliation. They aren't looking for knowledge, they're looking for validation.

It's also abundantly clear that people will fall for even the dumbest things and they catch on like wildfire - like Wayfair selling children, or Hilary running a child smuggling ring out of a pizza shop, or vaccines causing autism in children (literally, you can make up any lie about children being harmed and there will be a hashtag trending that day).

But to your first question, it's not a social media apps responsibility to filter any information - but they should if they want to. It's a business decision. Don't like their business - don't use their app. We have whole "news" channels that only show one-sided information - if an app (be it Twitter or Truth Social) wants to do the same, then who is the government to say they shouldn't?

There's plenty of studies on PUBMED pointing to vaccines causing and/or contributing to autism? There are top researchers all over the world that believe this. It's unsettled science to say the least.

Doesn't this speak directly to the issue at hand? You're well educated and fully believe that none of the fillers in vaccines can breach the blood-brain barrier. This is why Pfizer fought tooth and nail not to allow the contents of the vaccine relelased.

 

[turncock]

 

[DeeDave]

Excellent post.

The number of people who have seen their followers surge since Musk took over is massive. Turns out they were shadow banning accounts just based on your political party.

He hasn't taken over Twitter yet. He's done nothing with Twitter yet.

Some conservative hosts that had posted some pretty awful tweets deleted their tweets in the last 2 days (Tucker Carlson and Charlie Kirk are two examples because people traced their offending tweets and can see they have suddenly deleted them) and their restrictions were lifted as they were told they would be when they first posted.

Some are just making up stuff. Some are purchasing followers (which has always been a thing) and saying they just so happened to get a lot of new followers.

 

[DeeDave]

View embedded media

Patently false- and has already been debunked. That's why it's dangerous to follow misinformation on social media,. One sign it's likely wrong is retweeting a 100% partisan ideologue (in this case- Schlapp)

there are some 890+ million acres of US farmland.

Gates owns less than 300,000 acres. It's like .03% of farmland.

The largest landholder in the country is John Malone. (He passed Ted Turner as the largest landowner in 2011). Malone owns over 2.2 million acres - much of it in New Mexico, Texas, Wyoming, and Colorado

 

[Boom4life]

Patently false- and has already been debunked. That's why it's dangerous to follow misinformation on social media,. One sign it's likely wrong is retweeting a 100% partisan ideologue (in this case- Schlapp)

there are some 890+ million acres of US farmland.

Gates owns less than 300,000 acres. It's like .03% of farmland.

The largest landholder in the country is John Malone. (He passed Ted Turner as the largest landowner in 2011). Malone owns over 2.2 million acres - much of it in New Mexico, Texas, Wyoming, and Colorado

Wrong once again, bill gates is the largest owner of FARMLAND. John Malone has nothing to do with that statistic, most of his land is not farmable.

2021 Land Report: Who owns the most land in the United States?

Want to join the club? You’ll need a minimum of 156,000 acres to qualify for the Land Report 100.

www.agriculture.com

Nice try on trying to make your bullshit work.

 

[cockofdawn]

Wrong once again, bill gates is the largest owner of FARMLAND. John Malone has nothing to do with that statistic, most of his land is not farmable.

2021 Land Report: Who owns the most land in the United States?

Want to join the club? You’ll need a minimum of 156,000 acres to qualify for the Land Report 100.

www.agriculture.com

Nice try on trying to make your bullshit work.

he keeps throwing BS against the wall, hoping one day it will stick!!

 

[Boom4life]

he keeps throwing BS against the wall, hoping one day it will stick!!

It’s really funny he seems in favor of social media censoring. Seems kinda counterintuitive to me. He would be screwed if they censored this sight for untruths.

 

[cockofdawn]

It’s really funny he seems in favor of social media censoring. Seems kinda counterintuitive to me. He would be screwed if they censored this sight for untruths.

He wants Censoring all right, only censoring what HE and his Socialist?left liberals disagree with..

 

[DeeDave]

Wrong once again, bill gates is the largest owner of FARMLAND. John Malone has nothing to do with that statistic, most of his land is not farmable.

2021 Land Report: Who owns the most land in the United States?

Want to join the club? You’ll need a minimum of 156,000 acres to qualify for the Land Report 100.

www.agriculture.com

Nice try on trying to make your bullshit work.

Bill Gates doesn't own the "majority of American farmland" as the tweet from liar Schlapp said.

He owns approx. .03% of farmland- making the tweet a lie.

.03% of farmland is not a majority.

I said nothing about John Malone owning farmland. I said he owned somewhere near 2.2 million acres - putting 300,000 acres into perspective.

You folks can't read- which has always been crystal clear.

 

[DeeDave]

It’s really funny he seems in favor of social media censoring. Seems kinda counterintuitive to me. He would be screwed if they censored this sight for untruths.

I am in favor of companies censoring anything they like as long as it's not the government - whereby the 1st amendment would apply. I don't need or want the government and politicians involved in what a company allows to be said on their website or platform.

Very consistent.

 

[Ward Jr]

This will end up being one of the most liked tweets of all-time.

Already closing in on a quarter million (250,000) within 45 minutes.

 

[Ward Jr]

Bill Gates doesn't own the "majority of American farmland" as the tweet from liar Schlapp said.

He owns approx. .03% of farmland- making the tweet a lie.

.03% of farmland is not a majority.

I said nothing about John Malone owning farmland. I said he owned somewhere near 2.2 million acres - putting 300,000 acres into perspective.

You folks can't read- which has always been crystal clear.

who owns the most farmland in the us - Google Search

www.google.com

"With almost 269,000 acres, Bill Gates retained his ranking as America’s largest private farmland owner."
https://www.agriculture.com/news/bu...t-who-owns-the-most-land-in-the-united-states

 

[Lurker123]

This will end up being one of the most liked tweets of all-time.

Already closing in on a quarter million (250,000) within 45 minutes.

View embedded media

Saw another one where he said that next he was going to buy Doritos and completely fill the bag. I laughed at that one a lot.