Some on here want Musk’s stated mission, to protect free speech from the open assault it is currently enduring, to fail because they don’t like Musk?
You realise that Musk -according to his claims- is spending his own money to bolster your voice on the internet and to reject the idea that only the powerful are allowed to have an opinion or declare what is allowable information in the public sphere?
Strange.
Musk, doesn't give a fuck about your or my free speech. However, many people see what he wants you to see....you are the perfect suckered in mouth piece.
Then why is he buying twitter?
He can already say anything he wants and it will be reported to the world.
And if he was driven by making more money, he would actually invest in something that will make money.
Ive watched a few interviews with him and he is very pro freedom of speech, he has put his money where his mouth is.
DudeSweetDudeSweetThursday, 28 Apr 2022 at 1:04pm
I’m a “suckered in mouth piece “ because I fervently hope that a powerful individual acts on his words and defends the human right to access information? A right which is currently being undermined and denied by elected officials and their corporate proxies?
Maybe you are right? Maybe we should burn Musk at the stake because he’s got hair plugs and just walk away from democracy and freedom of speech altogether.
Sorry , mate. I’m not really seeing the sense in your plan. Maybe that’s the suckered in mouth piece coming out in me though? Hard to say.
adam12Thursday, 28 Apr 2022 at 1:31pm
Dude, I saw he borrowed the $, deal didn't get confirmed until his financing was in place, so technically OPM. Also Reuters today reporting he's likely to withdraw the offer.
RoadkillThursday, 28 Apr 2022 at 1:38pm
DudeSweetDudeSweet wrote:
I’m a “suckered in mouth piece “ because I fervently hope that a powerful individual acts on his words and defends the human right to access information? A right which is currently being undermined and denied by elected officials and their corporate proxies?
Maybe you are right? Maybe we should burn Musk at the stake because he’s got hair plugs and just walk away from democracy and freedom of speech altogether.
Sorry , mate. I’m not really seeing the sense in your plan. Maybe that’s the suckered in mouth piece coming out in me though? Hard to say.
"I’m a “suckered in mouth piece “ because I fervently hope that a powerful individual acts on his words and defends the human right to access information?"
NO, that is not what I said. As usual you read and interpret how you want something to be.
You are a mouthpiece..because you are falling for the Musk PR bs..
RoadkillThursday, 28 Apr 2022 at 1:39pm
DudeSweetDudeSweet wrote:
I’m a “suckered in mouth piece “ because I fervently hope that a powerful individual acts on his words and defends the human right to access information? A right which is currently being undermined and denied by elected officials and their corporate proxies?
Maybe you are right? Maybe we should burn Musk at the stake because he’s got hair plugs and just walk away from democracy and freedom of speech altogether.
Sorry , mate. I’m not really seeing the sense in your plan. Maybe that’s the suckered in mouth piece coming out in me though? Hard to say.
"Maybe you are right? Maybe we should burn Musk at the stake because he’s got hair plugs and just walk away from democracy and freedom of speech altogether."
such a fucking drama queen, as usual.
DudeSweetDudeSweetThursday, 28 Apr 2022 at 1:55pm
So you think addressing the erosion of free speech and the concurrent diminishing of democracy is being overly dramatic?
I take it you are not aware of Twitter and other social media monopolies censoring factual information in order to affect the outcome of democracy? The US President race, perhaps the most important democratic institution on the planet, suffered from exactly this type of perversion of discourse and the malevolent mislabeling of factual information as being false. These acts by Twitter et al handicapped democracy. Twitter denied and hobbled free speech to affect the outcome of a presidential election.
It’s not hyperbolic to use this as context in the discussion about Elon Musk buying Twitter in order to bolster human rights of access to information and ability to share information without it being filtered through a partisan political lens.
RoadkillThursday, 28 Apr 2022 at 2:02pm
DudeSweetDudeSweet wrote:
So you think addressing the erosion of free speech and the concurrent diminishing of democracy is being overly dramatic?
I take it you are not aware of Twitter and other social media monopolies censoring factual information in order to affect the outcome of democracy? The US President race, perhaps the most important democratic institution on the planet, suffered from exactly this type of perversion of discourse and the malevolent mislabeling of factual information as being false. These acts by Twitter et al handicapped democracy. Twitter denied and hobbled free speech to affect the outcome of a presidential election.
It’s not hyperbolic to use this as context in the discussion about Elon Musk buying Twitter in order to bolster human rights of access to information and ability to share information without it being filtered through a partisan political lens.
yada yada yada
Musk is not the future for free speech...that is all I am saying, and you dramatise it and add your bias and bs. Musk is an ego driven individual. He does a lot of good..but don't rely on him to do all he says
thermalbenThursday, 28 Apr 2022 at 2:13pm
As someone smarter than me said, "Elon Musk is a bullshitter who delivers".
I think he's also very fond of the attention he gets.
Next I’m buying Coca-Cola to put the cocaine back in
Whatever else Musk does, it’s undeniable that he’s shifted the discussion beyond the denial of social media’s proclivity towards stifling the flow of information due to political imperative.
Whether he is the person who now takes it further or not cannot alter the fact that he has already performed a great service to democracy. The world cannot now return to the state of denial regarding the slow death of free speech and the return of censorship as a political weapon.
So, what if someone living in Australia posts something that breaks the law in the USA. Is that comment deleted? Or is the comment redacted (i.e. not displayed) in those countries where the law is broken, but still shown elsewhere?
Who builds the content moderation system to work this, and how is it done? How many moderators need to be employed?
Etc etc.
All supposedly from a company that lost US$220 million last year, and $1.4 billion the year before.
flolloThursday, 28 Apr 2022 at 7:27pm
thermalben wrote:
So, what is 'free speech'? Is it simply a free-for-all, where anyone can say anything, and there are no consequences?
So, what if someone living in Australia posts something that breaks the law in the USA. Is that comment deleted? Or is the comment redacted (i.e. not displayed) in those countries where the law is broken, but still shown elsewhere?
Who builds the content moderation system to work this, and how is it done? How many moderators need to be employed?
Etc etc.
All supposedly from a company that lost US$220 million last year, and $1.4 billion the year before.
Never made money mate, Dorsey was a terrible CEO with a share price not really doing anything since IPO while the rest of tech went through the exponential growth. They reckon he hardly spent any time at work due to his commitment as the CEO of Square. Before he finally left last year it was 10% of his time on Twitter and 90% on Square according to some sources. If anyone wonders who Square is it is the company that bought Australian darling and golden goose Afterpay.
thermalbenThursday, 28 Apr 2022 at 7:39pm
Twitter's loss-making has been discussed ad nauseum across the web over the years, but the relevance here is: Elon's desire to allow 'free speech' (in whatever guise he wants) will probably end up being another massive cost to a company that's already losing eye-watering sums of money. Can't see how it'd drive new revenue either.
batfinkThursday, 28 Apr 2022 at 8:33pm
DudeSweetDudeSweet wrote:
So you think addressing the erosion of free speech and the concurrent diminishing of democracy is being overly dramatic?
I take it you are not aware of Twitter and other social media monopolies censoring factual information in order to affect the outcome of democracy? The US President race, perhaps the most important democratic institution on the planet, suffered from exactly this type of perversion of discourse and the malevolent mislabeling of factual information as being false. These acts by Twitter et al handicapped democracy. Twitter denied and hobbled free speech to affect the outcome of a presidential election.
It’s not hyperbolic to use this as context in the discussion about Elon Musk buying Twitter in order to bolster human rights of access to information and ability to share information without it being filtered through a partisan political lens.
Hyperbolic. Think that describes this post.
All your fury about ‘woke’ dramas and pretending that the aim of the left is to get everyone to ‘admit to the possibility that Loretta could have a baby’. ‘Where’s it gonna gestate? In a box!”
99% of the population intersect not at all with ‘those who are infuriated by woke culture’. It’s a tiny group of maladroits, imagining that they are being stifled in debate by ‘political correctness’.
Outrage-a-thons are just a little overwrought. A little god-like, perhaps.
JQThursday, 28 Apr 2022 at 8:57pm
So was this Tesla suppressing peoples freedom of speech?
It certainly seems like it to me and some real corporate bastardry at that.
I think a lot of these breathless, red faced arguments about social media suppressing information are largely over-simplified and ignore huge swathes of information and nuance. For instance, it should be undeniable (for anyone capable of rational thinking) that lots of genuinely false, dangerous and violence inciting content was removed from social media. Sure they are going to make mistakes doing this, think about the data stream they are trying to curate in real time, it cannot be perfect.
Talk of this being a danger to democracy in the context of the US election is just laughable, especially when ignoring the insurrection incited by the incumbent president and the various pseudo legal schemes cooked up to alter the results of said election. Not to mention the real and present threats that the spread of dis/mis information poses to democracy.
No doubt censorship poses a threat to democracy, but in comparison to the other things afoot at the time it is microscopic. Also, worth noting is that the social media giants are private companies, they are not the government, they can only control what happens on their platforms. Being banned or removed or censored from a social media platform does not crush your 'freedom of speech' you're still free to say what ever you like, they're not kicking you off the internet.
If Elon does indeed buy twitter, I think it will largely take a circular path, if Elon removes all the filters and what not and allows open slather, it will turn into an even filthier cess pit than it already is and unless he wants to fund it out of his pocket, the restrictions will need to be reintroduced.
The best thing he could do, in my opinion, would be to fix the algorithms so that they are not so focused on engagement, as this focus has just driven the spread of hatred and anger and subsequently drastically increased social division, which is also a genuine threat to democracy.
JQThursday, 28 Apr 2022 at 8:59pm
batfink wrote:
DudeSweetDudeSweet wrote:
Snip
Hyperbolic. Think that describes this post.
All your fury about ‘woke’ dramas and pretending that the aim of the left is to get everyone to ‘admit to the possibility that Loretta could have a baby’. ‘Where’s it gonna gestate? In a box!”
99% of the population intersect not at all with ‘those who are infuriated by woke culture’. It’s a tiny group of maladroits, imagining that they are being stifled in debate by ‘political correctness’.
Outrage-a-thons are just a little overwrought. A little god-like, perhaps.
It's a bit like Andrew Bolt raging about being censored in his nationally syndicated newspaper columns or on his TV show.
indo-dreamingThursday, 28 Apr 2022 at 9:24pm
thermalben wrote:
So, what is 'free speech'? Is it simply a free-for-all, where anyone can say anything, and there are no consequences?
So, what if someone living in Australia posts something that breaks the law in the USA. Is that comment deleted? Or is the comment redacted (i.e. not displayed) in those countries where the law is broken, but still shown elsewhere?
Who builds the content moderation system to work this, and how is it done? How many moderators need to be employed?
Etc etc.
All supposedly from a company that lost US$220 million last year, and $1.4 billion the year before.
Twitter has a huge problem with cancelling people for very trivial and ridiculous reasons especially conservatives.
While Elon isn't a conservative he is pro free speech and anti wokeness. (he has made it clear in interviews)
A simple example:
Currently you could be banned on twitter for saying only biological Women can have babies, because it would be seen as some type of phobic and hate speech even if technically correct
While it's safe to assume under Musk you would be free to say.
1. Only biological Women can have babies
2. Only women can have babies
3. Men and women can have babies.
4. Birthing people can have babies
Personally i only believe biological Women can have babies, but i still believe anyone should be able to say 2, 3 & 4, thats free speech and expect how Elon would see it.
GuySmileyThursday, 28 Apr 2022 at 10:16pm
indo-dreaming wrote:
DudeSweetDudeSweet wrote:
Free speech is essential to civilisation. I think it’s an appropriate and admirable way to spend the money if it truly allows an equal voice to the population as Musk proposes.
The threat to freedom of speech is evidenced by the tech monopolies circling the wagons and claiming they’ll censor Twitter. Disgraceful state of affairs.
100%
100% fucking bullshit.
Free speech being eroded especially for “conservatives” FFS what planet do you live on precisely?
blackersFriday, 29 Apr 2022 at 9:42am
It is truly interesting what bothers some people. Clearly the right to make asinine comments is fundamental, while it is fine that people have to live in tents here because they cant afford to pay rent. Meanwhiles, another "free speech" warrior is in trouble, and trying to milk the system he so despises.
The US social media tech monopolies deliberately affected the outcome of the US Presidential election between Trump and Biden. The tech companies censored and suppressed information which would probably have altered the outcome of the election if the information had been available and not fraudulently labelled as false. The Hunter Biden laptop scandal has been revealed as a pivotal moment in the election with repeated polling showing that Biden would not have won the election had Twitter et al not denied freedom of speech.
If Biden had not won the election the Russians would not have been relentlessly goaded into invading Ukraine. Many people would still be alive if not for Twitter / Facebook/ Google not employing partisan censorship to affect democracy.
You are literally paying more for fuel for your car because Twitter suppressed free speech.
DudeSweetDudeSweetFriday, 29 Apr 2022 at 10:32am
GuySmiley wrote:
indo-dreaming wrote:
DudeSweetDudeSweet wrote:
Free speech is essential to civilisation. I think it’s an appropriate and admirable way to spend the money if it truly allows an equal voice to the population as Musk proposes.
The threat to freedom of speech is evidenced by the tech monopolies circling the wagons and claiming they’ll censor Twitter. Disgraceful state of affairs.
100%
100% fucking bullshit.
Free speech being eroded especially for “conservatives” FFS what planet do you live on precisely?
Whilst I appreciate the vehemence of your incorrect assertions, it’s impossible to ignore that they remain incorrect. It’s undeniable truth that the factual matter of the US Democratic President having his integrity being utterly compromised by information contained on his wayward son’s laptop was censored and suppressed.
This is not conjecture. It is established fact. No amount of emotion in your words will refute this truth.
Was it reported by the New York Post whereby all claims were proofread and factual evidence provided?
Yes
Was the New York Post article banned from Twitter and all trace of its content removed?
Yes
Is there any doubt that the censorship of the Hunter Biden Laptop story by Twitter was politically motivated so as to protect the Biden bid for the Presidency?
No
Does repeated polling since the truth of the Hunter Biden laptop scandal being revealed show a >15% swing amongst those who voted for Biden now confirming that the information would have affected their voting decision?
Yes
Would the win by Biden in the Presidential election have resulted in a different outcome, ie a loss, had the information censored and suppressed by Twitter etc been publicly available as should be the standard in a free and open democracy?
Yes
Would Twitter have censored and suppressed the Hunter Biden laptop story if they did not believe it would effect Biden’s chances of election?
No
Was Trump an impediment in the US neoconservative desire to promote a proxy war with Russia in Ukraine?
Yes
Did the Twitter censorship of the Hunter Biden laptop story directly contribute to the threat of war and the resultant deaths of many Ukrainian citizens?
Yes
Has the US promotion of an indentured proxy war with Russia created global instability which threatens lives and economies around the entire planet including Australia?
Yes
None of the above is contentious.
Trump threatened the warmongering. The US under Hillary Clinton would have provoked Russia into proxy conflict years ago .Relevant part starts at 1:15.
freeride76Friday, 29 Apr 2022 at 12:10pm
"None of the above is contentious."
?
Lots of those points seem highly contentious.
DudeSweetDudeSweetFriday, 29 Apr 2022 at 12:13pm
freeride76 wrote:
"None of the above is contentious."
?
Lots of those points seem highly contentious.
Break it down, James Brown.
indo-dreamingFriday, 29 Apr 2022 at 12:30pm
GuySmiley wrote:
indo-dreaming wrote:
DudeSweetDudeSweet wrote:
Free speech is essential to civilisation. I think it’s an appropriate and admirable way to spend the money if it truly allows an equal voice to the population as Musk proposes.
The threat to freedom of speech is evidenced by the tech monopolies circling the wagons and claiming they’ll censor Twitter. Disgraceful state of affairs.
100%
100% fucking bullshit.
Free speech being eroded especially for “conservatives” FFS what planet do you live on precisely?
While conservatives often have become victims of twitters inconsistent unclear and at times clearly political bias rulings.
It's not really about conservatives Elon Musk is not a conservative and it's an important issue to him, it's not about protecting free speech for any one group but about protecting free speech for all no matter political leanings.
saltyoneFriday, 29 Apr 2022 at 2:06pm
Marketing ploy.
Don’t trust any of those technocrats. Bunch of very greedy people in my opinion with sense of entitlement and severely distorted worldviews.
They have so much money that it’s fried their brains . Money control and power.
Space x//robots// virtual reality everything// gmo // tech everything .
Artificial world selling “improvement” . Ha
groundswellFriday, 29 Apr 2022 at 7:08pm
I can just see this free speach thing Elon has done with Muslim fundamentalists not taking humor to anti Islamic posts blowing up.
You’re going to the New York Post for your news Indo??
You could do better, they’re kinda, you know, low-brow.
GuySmileySunday, 1 May 2022 at 9:58am
“Twiter’s chief censor” (intended misspelling) ....... try to keep hydrated @info and perhaps reflect on your personal hygiene with bum splatter like that you clearly have the shits .... again.
soggydogSunday, 1 May 2022 at 10:28am
DudeSweetDudeSweet wrote:
No mate. It’s not censorship and it’s not restricting free speech if you choose to not sell a car to someone. There’s a million criticisms of Tesla online and Teslas are still being sold to the public.
Censorship is restricting public access to information not denying a customer access to product because they talked smack about the product. The customer is still free to publicly denigrate Tesla.
restricted access to a product or service for having voiced an opinion is not censorship? Of course it is.
indo-dreamingSunday, 1 May 2022 at 11:06am
AndyM wrote:
You’re going to the New York Post for your news Indo??
You could do better, they’re kinda, you know, low-brow.
I don't follow or go to any USA based media as such, it just came up in my FB feed as a sponsored post, i expect because I've been reading so many twitter/musk related stuff of late.
Out of interest, i had a look on bias media check to see how they compare to CNN.
They both receive the same factual reporting ranking MIXED
And CNN is ranked a few notches further left than New York post is ranked to the right.
For interest sake Fox news ranks a few notches further again to the right than CNN
Freeride - How you feeling about your comment these days? Any thoughts to add ?
DudeSweetDudeSweet FRIDAY, 29 APR 2022 at 11:38AM
Was the Hunter Biden laptop scandal factual?
Yes
Was it reported by the New York Post whereby all claims were proofread and factual evidence provided?
Yes
Was the New York Post article banned from Twitter and all trace of its content removed?
Yes
Is there any doubt that the censorship of the Hunter Biden Laptop story by Twitter was politically motivated so as to protect the Biden bid for the Presidency?
No
Does repeated polling since the truth of the Hunter Biden laptop scandal being revealed show a >15% swing amongst those who voted for Biden now confirming that the information would have affected their voting decision?
Yes
Would the win by Biden in the Presidential election have resulted in a different outcome, ie a loss, had the information censored and suppressed by Twitter etc been publicly available as should be the standard in a free and open democracy?
Yes
Would Twitter have censored and suppressed the Hunter Biden laptop story if they did not believe it would effect Biden’s chances of election?
No
Was Trump an impediment in the US neoconservative desire to promote a proxy war with Russia in Ukraine?
Yes
Did the Twitter censorship of the Hunter Biden laptop story directly contribute to the threat of war and the resultant deaths of many Ukrainian citizens?
Yes
Has the US promotion of an indentured proxy war with Russia created global instability which threatens lives and economies around the entire planet including Australia?
Yes
None of the above is contentious.
Trump threatened the warmongering. The US under Hillary Clinton would have provoked Russia into proxy conflict years ago .
Quote
freeride76's picture
freeride76 FRIDAY, 29 APR 2022 at 12:10PM
"None of the above is contentious."
?
Lots of those points seem highly contentious
freeride76Monday, 4 Mar 2024 at 12:13pm
Not really, a lot of those points still seem contentious/speculative.
Free Speech, comments and the recent High Court decision
Michael West has produced a great explainer of the recent High Court decision regarding free speech on Social Media platforms.
Michael and his team have done some incredible investigative journalism over the years, check out his site and please subscribe if you like his work.
https://www.michaelwest.com.au/
Then why is he buying twitter?
He can already say anything he wants and it will be reported to the world.
And if he was driven by making more money, he would actually invest in something that will make money.
Ive watched a few interviews with him and he is very pro freedom of speech, he has put his money where his mouth is.
I’m a “suckered in mouth piece “ because I fervently hope that a powerful individual acts on his words and defends the human right to access information? A right which is currently being undermined and denied by elected officials and their corporate proxies?
Maybe you are right? Maybe we should burn Musk at the stake because he’s got hair plugs and just walk away from democracy and freedom of speech altogether.
Sorry , mate. I’m not really seeing the sense in your plan. Maybe that’s the suckered in mouth piece coming out in me though? Hard to say.
Dude, I saw he borrowed the $, deal didn't get confirmed until his financing was in place, so technically OPM. Also Reuters today reporting he's likely to withdraw the offer.
"I’m a “suckered in mouth piece “ because I fervently hope that a powerful individual acts on his words and defends the human right to access information?"
NO, that is not what I said. As usual you read and interpret how you want something to be.
You are a mouthpiece..because you are falling for the Musk PR bs..
"Maybe you are right? Maybe we should burn Musk at the stake because he’s got hair plugs and just walk away from democracy and freedom of speech altogether."
such a fucking drama queen, as usual.
So you think addressing the erosion of free speech and the concurrent diminishing of democracy is being overly dramatic?
I take it you are not aware of Twitter and other social media monopolies censoring factual information in order to affect the outcome of democracy? The US President race, perhaps the most important democratic institution on the planet, suffered from exactly this type of perversion of discourse and the malevolent mislabeling of factual information as being false. These acts by Twitter et al handicapped democracy. Twitter denied and hobbled free speech to affect the outcome of a presidential election.
It’s not hyperbolic to use this as context in the discussion about Elon Musk buying Twitter in order to bolster human rights of access to information and ability to share information without it being filtered through a partisan political lens.
yada yada yada
Musk is not the future for free speech...that is all I am saying, and you dramatise it and add your bias and bs. Musk is an ego driven individual. He does a lot of good..but don't rely on him to do all he says
As someone smarter than me said, "Elon Musk is a bullshitter who delivers".
I think he's also very fond of the attention he gets.
Whatever else Musk does, it’s undeniable that he’s shifted the discussion beyond the denial of social media’s proclivity towards stifling the flow of information due to political imperative.
Whether he is the person who now takes it further or not cannot alter the fact that he has already performed a great service to democracy. The world cannot now return to the state of denial regarding the slow death of free speech and the return of censorship as a political weapon.
Musk has an Interesting take on free speech. Talks one way, walks the other. It’s all about the money.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/25/elon-musk-and-free-speech-track-record-n...
So, what is 'free speech'? Is it simply a free-for-all, where anyone can say anything, and there are no consequences?
In Elon's own words:
But.. each country has different laws.
So, what if someone living in Australia posts something that breaks the law in the USA. Is that comment deleted? Or is the comment redacted (i.e. not displayed) in those countries where the law is broken, but still shown elsewhere?
Who builds the content moderation system to work this, and how is it done? How many moderators need to be employed?
Etc etc.
All supposedly from a company that lost US$220 million last year, and $1.4 billion the year before.
Never made money mate, Dorsey was a terrible CEO with a share price not really doing anything since IPO while the rest of tech went through the exponential growth. They reckon he hardly spent any time at work due to his commitment as the CEO of Square. Before he finally left last year it was 10% of his time on Twitter and 90% on Square according to some sources. If anyone wonders who Square is it is the company that bought Australian darling and golden goose Afterpay.
Twitter's loss-making has been discussed ad nauseum across the web over the years, but the relevance here is: Elon's desire to allow 'free speech' (in whatever guise he wants) will probably end up being another massive cost to a company that's already losing eye-watering sums of money. Can't see how it'd drive new revenue either.
Hyperbolic. Think that describes this post.
All your fury about ‘woke’ dramas and pretending that the aim of the left is to get everyone to ‘admit to the possibility that Loretta could have a baby’. ‘Where’s it gonna gestate? In a box!”
99% of the population intersect not at all with ‘those who are infuriated by woke culture’. It’s a tiny group of maladroits, imagining that they are being stifled in debate by ‘political correctness’.
Outrage-a-thons are just a little overwrought. A little god-like, perhaps.
So was this Tesla suppressing peoples freedom of speech?
https://www.inverse.com/article/16830-tesla-s-non-disclosure-agreements-...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/tesla-revises-customer-nondisclosure-agreem...
https://fortune.com/2016/06/10/tesla-clarify-customer-disclose-problems/
It certainly seems like it to me and some real corporate bastardry at that.
I think a lot of these breathless, red faced arguments about social media suppressing information are largely over-simplified and ignore huge swathes of information and nuance. For instance, it should be undeniable (for anyone capable of rational thinking) that lots of genuinely false, dangerous and violence inciting content was removed from social media. Sure they are going to make mistakes doing this, think about the data stream they are trying to curate in real time, it cannot be perfect.
Talk of this being a danger to democracy in the context of the US election is just laughable, especially when ignoring the insurrection incited by the incumbent president and the various pseudo legal schemes cooked up to alter the results of said election. Not to mention the real and present threats that the spread of dis/mis information poses to democracy.
No doubt censorship poses a threat to democracy, but in comparison to the other things afoot at the time it is microscopic. Also, worth noting is that the social media giants are private companies, they are not the government, they can only control what happens on their platforms. Being banned or removed or censored from a social media platform does not crush your 'freedom of speech' you're still free to say what ever you like, they're not kicking you off the internet.
If Elon does indeed buy twitter, I think it will largely take a circular path, if Elon removes all the filters and what not and allows open slather, it will turn into an even filthier cess pit than it already is and unless he wants to fund it out of his pocket, the restrictions will need to be reintroduced.
The best thing he could do, in my opinion, would be to fix the algorithms so that they are not so focused on engagement, as this focus has just driven the spread of hatred and anger and subsequently drastically increased social division, which is also a genuine threat to democracy.
It's a bit like Andrew Bolt raging about being censored in his nationally syndicated newspaper columns or on his TV show.
Twitter has a huge problem with cancelling people for very trivial and ridiculous reasons especially conservatives.
While Elon isn't a conservative he is pro free speech and anti wokeness. (he has made it clear in interviews)
A simple example:
Currently you could be banned on twitter for saying only biological Women can have babies, because it would be seen as some type of phobic and hate speech even if technically correct
While it's safe to assume under Musk you would be free to say.
1. Only biological Women can have babies
2. Only women can have babies
3. Men and women can have babies.
4. Birthing people can have babies
Personally i only believe biological Women can have babies, but i still believe anyone should be able to say 2, 3 & 4, thats free speech and expect how Elon would see it.
100% fucking bullshit.
Free speech being eroded especially for “conservatives” FFS what planet do you live on precisely?
It is truly interesting what bothers some people. Clearly the right to make asinine comments is fundamental, while it is fine that people have to live in tents here because they cant afford to pay rent. Meanwhiles, another "free speech" warrior is in trouble, and trying to milk the system he so despises.
https://www.theage.com.au/world/north-america/facing-judgment-alex-jones...
It is truly interesting what eludes some people.
The US social media tech monopolies deliberately affected the outcome of the US Presidential election between Trump and Biden. The tech companies censored and suppressed information which would probably have altered the outcome of the election if the information had been available and not fraudulently labelled as false. The Hunter Biden laptop scandal has been revealed as a pivotal moment in the election with repeated polling showing that Biden would not have won the election had Twitter et al not denied freedom of speech.
If Biden had not won the election the Russians would not have been relentlessly goaded into invading Ukraine. Many people would still be alive if not for Twitter / Facebook/ Google not employing partisan censorship to affect democracy.
You are literally paying more for fuel for your car because Twitter suppressed free speech.
Whilst I appreciate the vehemence of your incorrect assertions, it’s impossible to ignore that they remain incorrect. It’s undeniable truth that the factual matter of the US Democratic President having his integrity being utterly compromised by information contained on his wayward son’s laptop was censored and suppressed.
This is not conjecture. It is established fact. No amount of emotion in your words will refute this truth.
https://www.politico.eu/article/us-senators-praise-ukrainian-marines-sla...
Was the Hunter Biden laptop scandal factual?
Yes
Was it reported by the New York Post whereby all claims were proofread and factual evidence provided?
Yes
Was the New York Post article banned from Twitter and all trace of its content removed?
Yes
Is there any doubt that the censorship of the Hunter Biden Laptop story by Twitter was politically motivated so as to protect the Biden bid for the Presidency?
No
Does repeated polling since the truth of the Hunter Biden laptop scandal being revealed show a >15% swing amongst those who voted for Biden now confirming that the information would have affected their voting decision?
Yes
Would the win by Biden in the Presidential election have resulted in a different outcome, ie a loss, had the information censored and suppressed by Twitter etc been publicly available as should be the standard in a free and open democracy?
Yes
Would Twitter have censored and suppressed the Hunter Biden laptop story if they did not believe it would effect Biden’s chances of election?
No
Was Trump an impediment in the US neoconservative desire to promote a proxy war with Russia in Ukraine?
Yes
Did the Twitter censorship of the Hunter Biden laptop story directly contribute to the threat of war and the resultant deaths of many Ukrainian citizens?
Yes
Has the US promotion of an indentured proxy war with Russia created global instability which threatens lives and economies around the entire planet including Australia?
Yes
None of the above is contentious.
Trump threatened the warmongering. The US under Hillary Clinton would have provoked Russia into proxy conflict years ago .Relevant part starts at 1:15.
"None of the above is contentious."
?
Lots of those points seem highly contentious.
Break it down, James Brown.
While conservatives often have become victims of twitters inconsistent unclear and at times clearly political bias rulings.
It's not really about conservatives Elon Musk is not a conservative and it's an important issue to him, it's not about protecting free speech for any one group but about protecting free speech for all no matter political leanings.
Marketing ploy.
Don’t trust any of those technocrats. Bunch of very greedy people in my opinion with sense of entitlement and severely distorted worldviews.
They have so much money that it’s fried their brains . Money control and power.
Space x//robots// virtual reality everything// gmo // tech everything .
Artificial world selling “improvement” . Ha
I can just see this free speach thing Elon has done with Muslim fundamentalists not taking humor to anti Islamic posts blowing up.
"Twitter’s ‘chief censor’ making $17M per year could be fired by Elon Musk"https://nypost.com/2022/04/29/twitters-chief-censor-making-17m-per-year-...
Needs to be he first to go.
You’re going to the New York Post for your news Indo??
You could do better, they’re kinda, you know, low-brow.
“Twiter’s chief censor” (intended misspelling) ....... try to keep hydrated @info and perhaps reflect on your personal hygiene with bum splatter like that you clearly have the shits .... again.
restricted access to a product or service for having voiced an opinion is not censorship? Of course it is.
I don't follow or go to any USA based media as such, it just came up in my FB feed as a sponsored post, i expect because I've been reading so many twitter/musk related stuff of late.
Out of interest, i had a look on bias media check to see how they compare to CNN.
They both receive the same factual reporting ranking MIXED
And CNN is ranked a few notches further left than New York post is ranked to the right.
For interest sake Fox news ranks a few notches further again to the right than CNN
"Elon Musk wants to 'authenticate all real humans' on Twitter. Here's what that could mean"
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/04/28/tech/elon-musk-authenticate-all-real-...
Never been into Twitter but this could be problematic for you Constance.
You might only be able to get one of you half a dozen accounts with obscure handle's verified.
Constance B. Gibson and the Obscure Handles is great band name. First hit - 'Verify This!' followed up with 'The Origins of Emerald Perfume'.
Blumpkin…
Elon musk wants to set up starlink in the Amazon and discover hidden tribes.
Just FUCK OFF !!
Elon musk wants to set up starlink in the Amazon and discover hidden tribes.
Just FUCK OFF !!
Musk needs to have the entire Starlink fleet roughly inserted into his anus.
Ha! Yep!
He’d probably love it then force us to observe his sphincter landing on Mars !
"The heart of publishing lies in taking risks, not avoiding them."
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/24/opinion/book-banning-censorship.html
Freeride - How you feeling about your comment these days? Any thoughts to add ?
DudeSweetDudeSweet FRIDAY, 29 APR 2022 at 11:38AM
Was the Hunter Biden laptop scandal factual?
Yes
Was it reported by the New York Post whereby all claims were proofread and factual evidence provided?
Yes
Was the New York Post article banned from Twitter and all trace of its content removed?
Yes
Is there any doubt that the censorship of the Hunter Biden Laptop story by Twitter was politically motivated so as to protect the Biden bid for the Presidency?
No
Does repeated polling since the truth of the Hunter Biden laptop scandal being revealed show a >15% swing amongst those who voted for Biden now confirming that the information would have affected their voting decision?
Yes
Would the win by Biden in the Presidential election have resulted in a different outcome, ie a loss, had the information censored and suppressed by Twitter etc been publicly available as should be the standard in a free and open democracy?
Yes
Would Twitter have censored and suppressed the Hunter Biden laptop story if they did not believe it would effect Biden’s chances of election?
No
Was Trump an impediment in the US neoconservative desire to promote a proxy war with Russia in Ukraine?
Yes
Did the Twitter censorship of the Hunter Biden laptop story directly contribute to the threat of war and the resultant deaths of many Ukrainian citizens?
Yes
Has the US promotion of an indentured proxy war with Russia created global instability which threatens lives and economies around the entire planet including Australia?
Yes
None of the above is contentious.
Trump threatened the warmongering. The US under Hillary Clinton would have provoked Russia into proxy conflict years ago .
Quote
freeride76's picture
freeride76 FRIDAY, 29 APR 2022 at 12:10PM
"None of the above is contentious."
?
Lots of those points seem highly contentious
Not really, a lot of those points still seem contentious/speculative.
;)
https://m.