Elon Musk seeks to take Twitter Private

[Tokaji]

I find Elon Musk fascinating in many ways. The SpaceX work is what pulled my interest. Then I became interested in Tesla EVs. Naturally, I just started to following him in general and outside of his business successes, found him amusing. Part of that amusement is that I suspect (none of us know) that people misunderstand him.
I would see the left revere him. What appears to change that was his involvement with the third rail, Donald Trump. Say that name and reason does not always follow.
What seems true to Elon's ethos was that he left Trump's involvement when he broke away from the Paris accords.

My twitter usage has gone up during this drama for the entertainment. I'm seeing posters from the right and left assume that he is going to release Trump's account. This would probably be true to his free speech perspective, but he hasn't said anything about doing so. I don't know if Trump would return.

I personally agree with what I've heard Elon say. You shouldn't control speech if you are to have a free society. That means giving disinformation and even hate a voice. The way to combat that is with making them experience the consequences of what they are saying by combating with reason and truth.

Twitter was controlled privately. Facebook is controlled privately. They do not have to adhere to the same protections that a government grants people. I'm missing the point on how Elon is uniquely problematic, but other private owners are bad.

Speak out against social media controlling what is said on the platform and people with point to the TOS. We all click on these things without reading them. We click on them for Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Roku, Prime, Zoom, software, etc. Even if we pay for the usage. They are not amendable. I'd like to think there will be a landmark case in some country somewhere that will challenge this concept and abolish the unilateral TOS agreements we all click on. To further that, social media has the ability to topple governments and I would think that there would be greater controls put on these companies to ensure that power is not being misused.

If you've actually read all this, I apologize for my maundering. I'm optimistic.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status...ail&utm_campaign=Tuesday Email&utm_term=4ABCD
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status...ail&utm_campaign=Tuesday Email&utm_term=4ABCD
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status...ail&utm_campaign=Tuesday Email&utm_term=4ABCD

 

[xfire]

Speak out against social media controlling what is said on the platform and people with point to the TOS. We all click on these things without reading them. We click on them for Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Roku, Prime, Zoom, software, etc. Even if we pay for the usage. They are not amendable. I'd like to think there will be a landmark case in some country somewhere that will challenge this concept and abolish the unilateral TOS agreements we all click on. To further that, social media has the ability to topple governments and I would think that there would be greater controls put on these companies to ensure that power is not being misused.

"Free Speech" is only protected from government interference, and even that has limits.

 

[gmase]

I personally agree with what I've heard Elon say. You shouldn't control speech if you are to have a free society. That means giving disinformation and even hate a voice. The way to combat that is with making them experience the consequences of what they are saying by combating with reason and truth.


To further that, social media has the ability to topple governments and I would think that there would be greater controls put on these companies to ensure that power is not being misused.

Governments shouldn’t control speech or they should? You seem to imply supporting both. Control over social media entities would certainly restrict speech. Russia’s ban on Facebook would be an example. I am known to be slow, so please pardon me if I misunderstood.

Frankly, Musk would be no better or worse than any other ‘face’ leading the company. He could end up being a benevolent dictator.

 

[Mr. Daystar]

Governments shouldn’t control speech or they should? You seem to imply supporting both. Control over social media entities would certainly restrict speech. Russia’s ban on Facebook would be an example. I am known to be slow, so please pardon me if I misunderstood.

Frankly, Musk would be no better or worse than any other ‘face’ leading the company. He could end up being a benevolent dictator.

I do not do any social media, so I'm not aware how certain work. Now if someone makes, or posts things that are threatening to public, or people, I would FOOLISHLY assume, if it were a public media, they would be required to report that, or the powers that be, would intercept that post. Is it required that privately held companies do that, and if they were to ban, or delete a persons comments, would they still be accessible to Government agencies that could stop that violence. Many of these terrorists, or mass shooters flap there jaws on social media, and a lot of times, that ball gets dropped. Even as a proponent of #2, I don't like when that happens. I would guess U.S. agencies keep tabs on certain groups, and people of interest, but how much slips by? If you can follow any of that.

As far as America goes, in my opinion, a lot of freedom of speech is teetering on the brink of being questionable, and it shouldn't be, even if it's somewhat offensive. I just don't think it's right to expect people to suddenly not be able to use certain words, because this group is offended, or that word, because this little group over here finds it offensive Some already is. I think they(courts) have already said you do not have the right to go into a crowded theater and scream fire, which should be a crime, unless there is one. But if it's just because you used the word gay, instead of some other word, and now the homosexuals are mad, it's wrong to restrict that, life is full of things we don't like, you have to live with it sometimes. The one that gets me is, the "n" word. It's NEVER going to go away, until African Americans stop using it, and you can't claim a word is "yours". If that's the case then I claim the word "studmuffin", it might not be true, but it's mine, and no one else can use it, though most wouldn't.

Anyway, to me it seems like the government, ours that is, is on the verge of censoring speech, not all, but some, and I don't think it's a party issue, I think it's a pressure issue on the government from various groups, but unless it's a mater of the safety of, or for the general welfare of all the citizens, like not being aloud to yell fire in a crowded theater.

 

[xfire]

I do not do any social media, so I'm not aware how certain work. Now if someone makes, or posts things that are threatening to public, or people, I would FOOLISHLY assume, if it were a public media, they would be required to report that, or the powers that be, would intercept that post. Is it required that privately held companies do that, and if they were to ban, or delete a persons comments, would they still be accessible to Government agencies that could stop that violence. Many of these terrorists, or mass shooters flap there jaws on social media, and a lot of times, that ball gets dropped. Even as a proponent of #2, I don't like when that happens. I would guess U.S. agencies keep tabs on certain groups, and people of interest, but how much slips by? If you can follow any of that.

As far as America goes, in my opinion, a lot of freedom of speech is teetering on the brink of being questionable, and it shouldn't be, even if it's somewhat offensive. I just don't think it's right to expect people to suddenly not be able to use certain words, because this group is offended, or that word, because this little group over here finds it offensive Some already is. I think they(courts) have already said you do not have the right to go into a crowded theater and scream fire, which should be a crime, unless there is one. But if it's just because you used the word gay, instead of some other word, and now the homosexuals are mad, it's wrong to restrict that, life is full of things we don't like, you have to live with it sometimes. The one that gets me is, the "n" word. It's NEVER going to go away, until African Americans stop using it, and you can't claim a word is "yours". If that's the case then I claim the word "studmuffin", it might not be true, but it's mine, and no one else can use it, though most wouldn't.

Anyway, to me it seems like the government, ours that is, is on the verge of censoring speech, not all, but some, and I don't think it's a party issue, I think it's a pressure issue on the government from various groups, but unless it's a mater of the safety of, or for the general welfare of all the citizens, like not being aloud to yell fire in a crowded theater.

My point here is that Twitter isn't the government and aren't restricted by the 1st Amendment from censoring anyone.

 

[Tokaji]

Governments shouldn’t control speech or they should? You seem to imply supporting both. Control over social media entities would certainly restrict speech. Russia’s ban on Facebook would be an example. I am known to be slow, so please pardon me if I misunderstood.

Frankly, Musk would be no better or worse than any other ‘face’ leading the company. He could end up being a benevolent dictator.

Governments should guarantee free speech. Not control it. I've read some of your postings and you aren't slow. This was probably my communication.

"Frankly, Musk would be no better or worse than any other ‘face’ leading the company. He could end up being a benevolent dictator."
Agreed. Pick your company - Facebook, Ticktok, Twitter, etc - they would all meet what you describe.

There a couple of nuances.

1. When is free speech not just unhindered speech. Yelling Fire in a movie theater. Providing false Information? Bots? Spam? Prioritizing, de-prioritizing when speech and be seen? For social media platforms, the benevolent dictators are dictating how this is resolved. I'm sure they are all professing to do the right thing and support free speech.
2. For the most part governments are allowing social media to handle #1 as they wish under their TOS without too much restriction. My thought is that since these platforms are capable of changing elections (for example), that laws may need to be developed to create greater transparency and somehow include these platforms to allow and protect for free speech. I'm sure this would be met with disagreement, but it is my opinoin.

 

[Tokaji]

"Free Speech" is only protected from government interference, and even that has limits.

That is a simplistic statement. I do agree with it at that level.

There is greater responsibility of the government of a "free" society beyond that.

Protect citizens' right to free speech. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/free-speech-to-be-protected-at-university

Governments do control speech. They control national security, hate speech, disinformation. To me, this is the area of debate and I see people like to ignore it or write it off on social media as "You agreed to the TOS". I don't have a solution and haven't read one. I am a believer in less restricted speech and more transparency. Let the voices of truth control hate and disinformation. This is certainly debatable.

https://www.ukessays.com/essays/phi...-limit-freedom-of-speech-philosophy-essay.php

 

[Mr. Daystar]

My point here is that Twitter isn't the government and aren't restricted by the 1st Amendment from censoring anyone.

No, I got that, but IF they do, because it's threat based, are they required by law to inform the Feds? A lot of people talk shit about what kind of violent behavior, they plan to commit on social media, it sometimes slips through, it would be nice if it didn't.

 

[xfire]

No, I got that, but IF they do, because it's threat based, are they required by law to inform the Feds? A lot of people talk shit about what kind of violent behavior, they plan to commit on social media, it sometimes slips through, it would be nice if it didn't.

I would assume it would be a matter of determining how credible any given threat is before they took action. Seems awfully goverment-y, tho.

 

[xfire]

Interesting development- https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-...ack-into-an-unfettered-disinformation-machine

 

[xfire]

Right Wingnuts seem to think Elon Muskrat purchasing Twitter is somehow OwNiNg tH' LiBs, I think the majority of us that aren't insurrectionists would merely prefer that Musk not let Trump come back to Twitter, but really... And Facebook's Top 10 always favors cOnSeRvATiVeS.

https://mashable.com/article/twitter-study-algorithm-right-wing-parties-news-outlets

 

[xfire]

Off topic, but related... rut-roh. 😬

https://www.npr.org/2022/04/26/1094870412/tesla-shares-sink-twitter-elon-musk

 

[Tokaji]

Interesting reads on here today.
I haven't seen Elon profess to party affiliation. He has wanted to make the algorithms open source. If there is a bias towards the right, I would think this is good news and the exposure would help to adjust and remove bias. Those on the right that are declaring victory and those on the left that are crying foul are both wrong. We live in the imperfect world.
From what I've read Elon seems to want to police less rather than more. He clearly stated he will adhere to the government laws, so as they are passed to somehow fend off hate speech and disinformation they would give him some governmental guidelines to follow. Some noted previously that there are multiple governments passing different laws, which would seem to make it a challenge for all social platforms.
That is better than subjectively creating a "safe" space for people. Taking that approach may be a bad marketing decision. If you reduce the users of your platform, you are reducing the value. Elon Musk had said that wasn't his focus. We'll see how that plays out.
I don't know much about the stock markets. We'll see how Tesla plays out as well. Not a surprise. I'd be more concerned about the value that Musk brings to Tesla and having to divide that than a dip or bump. He was signing a deal for mineral rights yesterday. Seems like his focus on EV and Solar was in place yesterday during the volatility.

No sources from me in this post because it is all my opinion. My guilty pleasure on this is watching the drama. Makes me a bit of a cyber tosser

 

[D-rock]

At the end of the day I have a hard time believing some billionaire would spend 40 billion dollars of their money on something without a vast personal selfish benefit for themselves. That's as simple as I can express it in one sentence. No sane person should trust businesses at all with things like that. To be fair it's not like I trusted any of Twitter's previously owners and the powers that ran the place.

No, I don't think what Musk did is for altruistic reasons, or because he just loves free speech that much. I don't think he does anything he does as any sort of public service. He never has despite what a lot of his cult followers have believed, and sadly years ago even left leaning people were fooled by him. Musk has pretty much morphed into a slightly less assholish version of Steve Jobs, and he gets worse every year so he even has more than enough time to surpass even him. I trust somebody like him about as far as I can push my house. His fans out there need to get over the thought that he some genius type the likes of Tony Stark from Iron Man. He's not even a modern day Howard Hughes as that's giving him way too much credit. He's just a modern day marketer that has everybody else do things for him. The world helping things were PR, and over time he has shown more of his true colors.

I also wonder what will happen in the future when unions or his own employees want to bitch about him on twitter or expose wrongdoing his company has done. What happens when he has huge financial interest in countries like China and they tell him to restrict certain people or lose a gigantic portion of his other businesses? Will his professed love of free speech hold out? I didn't trust the people that run Twitter before, and I trust some singular rich asshole that has all the power over it even less.

 

[Tokaji]

At the end of the day I have a hard time believing some billionaire would spend 40 billion dollars of their money on something without a vast personal selfish benefit for themselves. That's as simple as I can express it in one sentence. No sane person should trust businesses at all with things like that. To be fair it's not like I trusted any of Twitter's previously owners and the powers that ran the place.

No, I don't think what Musk did is for altruistic reasons, or because he just loves free speech that much. I don't think he does anything he does as any sort of public service. He never has despite what a lot of his cult followers have believed, and sadly years ago even left leaning people were fooled by him. Musk has pretty much morphed into a slightly less assholish version of Steve Jobs, and he gets worse every year so he even has more than enough time to surpass even him. I trust somebody like him about as far as I can push my house. His fans out there need to get over the thought that he some genius type the likes of Tony Stark from Iron Man. He's not even a modern day Howard Hughes as that's giving him way too much credit. He's just a modern day marketer that has everybody else do things for him. The world helping things were PR, and over time he has shown more of his true colors.

I also wonder what will happen in the future when unions or his own employees want to bitch about him on twitter or expose wrongdoing his company has done. What happens when he has huge financial interest in countries like China and they tell him to restrict certain people or lose a gigantic portion of his other businesses? Will his professed love of free speech hold out? I didn't trust the people that run Twitter before, and I trust some singular rich asshole that has all the power over it even less.

This is a sane and lucid point of view. Realistic, recognizing human fallibility, and not screaming into the wind.

Musk certainly has "fanboys" out there that would disagree with you. I think they are one end that counter the "I'm closing my account" end.

There is no evidence that Musk, specifically, would be evil or partisan. Because it is such a big acquisition on what has been perceived to be an arbitrarily controlled platform he comes under scrutiny. It is warranted for anyone. The hypocritical comments that some have made about media "controlling" the message is accurate and is the issue, more so than Musk.

Michael Bloomberg - Bloomberg LP and Bloomberg Media
Rupert Murdoch - News Corp
Donald and Samuel Newhouse - Advance Publications
Cox Family - Atlanta Journal - Constitution
Jeff Bezos - The Washington Post
John Henry - The Boston Globe
Sheldon Adelson - The Vegas Review Journal
John Mansueto - Inc and Fast Company Magazines
Mortimer Zuckerman - US News and World Report, NY Daily News
Barbey Family - Village Voice
Stanley Hubbart - Hubbart Broadcasting
Patrick Soon - Siang - Tribune Publishing
Carlos Slim Helu - The New York Times
Warren Buffett - Regional Daily Newspapers
Victor Vekselberg - Gawker


These are media outlets and may come under more legal constraints because they are responsible for the content. Social Media outlets are not held to the same requirements for content because they are a platform, not the producer of the content. Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, TikTok, etc are all privately controlled and have more latitude to influence what is seen. I would also argue that they have more power to topple governments and foster violence as well.

The argument that I've heard that the Terms of Service are agreed to by the user, so they should just live with it is utter bollocks. Nobody reads it and you can't negotiate the TOS. It is the definition of unconscionable.

Regardless if Musk turns out to be good or bad or neither, I believe it was a good think to bring this to the forefront of discussion. It deserves it and if laws aren't updated to protect the citizenry, then it is a wasted opportunity. I'm happy to see some being discussed in Europe.

 

[Johan]

Big Twitter accounts on the left are losing followers and those on the right are gaining since the Musk buyout was sealed​

A day after Elon Musk sealed the $44 billion deal to buy Twitter, prominent users on the platform have been seeing wild swings in their follower counts.


One of the first users to report a loss in followers was Shannon Watts, the founder of Moms Demand Action, an organization advocating for stronger gun control. She tweeted “I’ve lost over 300 followers so far today.… Is Twitter finally cleaning up trolls?” Author Chuck Wendig responded, “I’ve lost about 1000 and I believe it’s people deleting accounts. That’s anecdotal though.”

Soon, a flood of other prominent, blue-ticked users came forward with the same complaint. Senior adviser and staff secretary to President Joe Biden Neera Tanden, gun control activist David Hogg, and Star Wars actor Mark Hamill all tweeted out that they had lost several thousand followers since the deal was announced.

However, largely missing from the list of users complaining about a loss of Twitter followers were conservative and right-wing accounts. In fact, a number of users in this group actually gained followers in the last 24 hours.

While users like Michelle Obama, Bernie Sanders, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez all lost more than 10,000 followers overnight, according to data from social media analytics tracker SocialBlade, conservatives like Ted Cruz, Newt Gingrich, and Laura Ingraham gained.

Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Georgia Congressman who had her personal Twitter account suspended after repeatedly spreading COVID-19 misinformation, saw her official government Twitter account gain 41,181 new followers last night.

It’s unclear whether the changes in follower count come from an exodus of Twitter users who are leaving the site due to the ownership change or if there has been a cleanup of bots overnight.

Prior to Musk's acquisition, many threatened to leave the platform, akin to similar threats of moving abroad—often to Canada—if an unwanted candidate wins a presidential election.

But on the other side of the spectrum, those on the right wing who have been booted from the platform by previous leadership—such as Rep. Taylor Greene—have been eagerly anticipating a return to a new and less restrictive Twitter, which Musk says will be like a “digital town square.”

Conservative political commentator and white nationalist Nick Fuentes wrote on Telegram after Musk’s Twitter purchase became official, “LETS F---ING GOOOOOOOOOOOOO.” The American far-right Proud Boys organization also celebrated Musk’s purchase of Twitter on its Telegram noting how it was going to make liberals “BIG mad today.”

But other big swings are harder to explain via a simple left/right axis. President Joe Biden saw a 26,000 increase in followers, while the Auschwitz Memorial claimed a loss of some 35,000 followers.

https://fortune.com/2022/04/26/twit...g-followers-right-gaining-musk-buyout-sealed/

And theres many other examples like these...

 

[xfire]

 

[D-rock]

View attachment 964873

It's even more hilarious when one considers that the US has been moving right since the 70s, and was pretty right even before that, and always has been. His diagram isn't even accurate, and shows a stunning lack of actual political understanding. Bernie Sanders of all people would barely be a centrist in almost any other Western first wold nation other than the US, and a few Asian ones to boot. People like Biden, Obama, and the Clintons are pretty far right all things considered, way right of center. At least as far as significant national politicians and political actors are concerned we didn't move left, because there is no meaningful "left" in the Untied States. A left wing party doesn't exist in the United States. That's just the reality.

Really, can anybody with actual knowledge of political theory with a strait face say that Clinton, Obama, or Biden are more left than Carter or Kennedy, or freaking FDR of all people?

The right on the other hand are way the fuck more right than they have been in a very long time. Eisenhower would pretty much be a virtual traitor to them, and if you could take of the nameplate off to make the hero worship of him go away they would call Reagan a RINO, and say we was too nice and compassionate as stupid as that seems to everybody else.

 

[xfire]

 

[xfire]