Musk's Twitter ambitions receive first reality check, courtesy of the EU

[scavengerspc]

FIFY

I'm curious. Do you hate right-wing agendas as much as the left ones?

 

[AlaskaGuy]

I'm curious. Do you hate right-wing agendas as much as the left ones?

No

 

[NumberSix]

Well this certainly reads like a lesson in peace and harmony amongst mankind.

 

[captaincranky]

Well this certainly reads like a lesson in peace and harmony amongst mankind.

Well, I'm politically a centrist. Unfortunately, since both the far right and far left are so radicalized, the only solution for me is to hate them both. How's that for irony?

 

[Reinette Tineker]

I hope Twitter's entire ideological department is fired in disgrace and their data is made public: that's who set up and maintained the censorship.

Human Rights Watch has explicitly stated that freedom of speech is not absolute. Musk is obliged, in their opinion, to respect "human rights" on Twitter by restricting the rights to freedom of speech and expression - to "safeguard" users from politically incorrect content.
Abolish the rights of some to protect the rights of others; the standard "all animals are equal, but some are more equal".

 

[Beerfloat]

Human Rights Watch has explicitly stated that freedom of speech is not absolute.

Well, that's just stating the obvious. I mean, the Supreme Court has literally affirmed that multiple times.

Musk is obliged, in their opinion, to respect "human rights" on Twitter by restricting the rights to freedom of speech and expression - to "safeguard" users from politically incorrect content.
Abolish the rights of some to protect the rights of others; the standard "all animals are equal, but some are more equal".

Who said anyone has a right to an absence of content moderation on a platform like Twitter?

 

[Reinette Tineker]

Who said?

MSNBC said: Musk can block the accounts of politicians he does not like by interfering in elections. This can and should be done with Trump, because he is not a good person....
Twitter has a toxicity and health department, which was kind of like a political department there. They've already been warned that everyone will be fired within a few months. And that's a good thing.

 

[Beerfloat]

MSNBC said: Musk can block the accounts of politicians he does not like by interfering in elections. This can and should be done with Trump, because he is not a good person....
Twitter has a toxicity and health department, which was kind of like a political department there. They've already been warned that everyone will be fired within a few months. And that's a good thing.

Is more toxicity really in Twitter and most people's best interest?

 

[Ohnooze]

I don't feel the goal of that effort by Twitter's moderators was anti science as much as anti rudeness, but I agree Elon will almost certainly aim to do away with that. Because he personally has no need to be polite to anyone and lacks the empathy to understand what benefit that might bring.

I don't agree with being rude to anyone but where do you draw that line? From what I see in current society everything is offensive. Calling different view points "hate speech" is nothing but a tactic to remove unwanted opinions. You can't expect everyone to think like you or be on board with every current trend that the world is embracing. If you find that offensive then you should grow a thinker skin or avoid those places that hurt your feelings.

The only way to have a equal playing field imo is to let everyone have the same opportunity to speak their mind.

 

[scavengerspc]

No

Like I said, I was just curious. So you don't care about "agendas" so long as you approve of them. I hope you work in right wing media.

 

[Michiel]

You had me interested right up until you gave an example, without an example.
What would you say about gender and sexuality that would get scrubbed?

No, the reason Musk is doing this is for more exposure. This is pure egomania at work.

He has to say something as to why, he can't help himself. Buying Twitter gives him unfettered access to self promotion, which is something he does better than anyone living today.

Here's something both progressives and conservatives can be completely assured of, he's going to kick back and watch you go at one another for his own personal amusement, period. (**)

Of course this will be interspersed with his perennial tweeting about how smart he is, how great the Cyber truck is, how he can keep the ISS up, ad naseum.

(**) Most likely while he's smoking a joint and fondling his new girlfriend

He could already do all those things without buying Twitter. I'm sure he started Tesla and SpaceX just for "exposure". It's so funny people trying to hate on Musk as if there's not actual hugely succesful companies he's built and hugely succesful, groundbreaking products he's created (yes, yes, he does not personally do every single thing obviously).
It really sounds like you're jealous tbh. Which is fair enough, I'm kinda jealous of him too. But I don't really want to work the ungodly hours he does.

 

[Ohnooze]

You know it’s just damn weird to me that free speech has become a debatable topic and is demonized by so many now. Why would anyone want to control what others say? I honestly do not understand it. I heard Joy Reid (the race baiting, whack job, racist, radical turd of a human on MSNBC) talk about how Elon must miss Apartheid because he believes in free speech….now how do you even get to that point of twisted in the head? She went on to talk about how bigoted it was and so on…..huh? I seriously just sit in wonder at the amount of dumb $hit and hate that comes from that station. BUT….no matter how much hate and feces she spews from her devilish mouth I would never want to silence her. I don’t want to control what she says even when she makes the most radical statements. She’s free to say whatever crazy she wants….and how ironic that she is on TV speaking total nonsense and at the same time complaining about free speech. Baffling….

 

[Fox God Records]

Twitter has ads?

Who knew?

 

[Beerfloat]

I don't agree with being rude to anyone but where do you draw that line? From what I see in current society everything is offensive. Calling different view points "hate speech" is nothing but a tactic to remove unwanted opinions. You can't expect everyone to think like you or be on board with every current trend that the world is embracing. If you find that offensive then you should grow a thinker skin or avoid those places that hurt your feelings.

Ok, but think like a business for a second. You're Twitter and you want to make money.

Do you think Twitter wants people avoiding their platform because it is perceived to be something of a cesspool, with a percentage of its population mostly trolling or otherwise trying to be offensive?

Do you think advertisers want to support such a place? Or alternatively, do you think people would want to pay for a subscription to a service if it lets them be targeted, humiliated, stalked?

I don't think it works from a business perspective. That's not an agenda. That's just common sense. I mean, there's somethingawful and 4chan etc for that. And those places do not become Twitter.

It might actually be a different proposition if Twitter does not need to generate income and is entirely subsidized by Tesla sales. But eh, conglomerates have a tendency to break apart quickly as soon as times get a little tigther.

The only way to have a equal playing field imo is to let everyone have the same opportunity to speak their mind.

 

[Fox God Records]

When did he say he would allow clearly illegal things on Twitter?

The most I've heard is that he doesn't want people kicked off for an opinion, while giving no insight as to why (transparency)...

"It is my heavily considered opinion that the world would be best served if all of the black people living in the white, Western World were rounded up and sent back to Africa. The same for Muslims. And the Jews. Send them all back to their ancestral lands. Get them out of decent society and let them kill each other inside their own shithole countries."

So, am I allowed to spread this message worldwide, unfettered, every hour - on the hour? You okay with that, bro?

 

[m4a4]

"It is my heavily considered opinion that the world would be best served if all of the black people living in the white, Western World were rounded up and sent back to Africa. The same for Muslims. And the Jews. Send them all back to their ancestral lands. Get them out of decent society and let them kill each other inside their own shithole countries."

So, am I allowed to spread this message worldwide, unfettered, every hour - on the hour? You okay with that, bro?

I couldn't care less if you say stupid, easily ignored stuff.

Your point?

 

[scavengerspc]

You know it’s just damn weird to me that free speech has become a debatable topic and is demonized by so many now. Why would anyone want to control what others say?

Because the right is confused between honest free speech, and lies that could not only hurt someone personally but get companies like twitter sued, lies that could get people sick, lies that could get people hurt, and lies that could get people killed.

And their lack of compression of that simple basic rule is what is so damn pitiful to me.

 

[Fox God Records]

I couldn't care less if you say stupid, easily ignored stuff.

Your point?

Should I be given worldwide access to millions of people? Should I be able to rabble-rouse on the world stage? If people from the US' Deep South start forming posses and rounding people up -- and say it's because of my truth-telling -- and forcibly removing them from their homes, should I be allowed to continue?

YOU can ignore me, certainly. But just because YOU can't see it. . .

 

[AlaskaGuy]

Ok, but think like a business for a second. You're Twitter and you want to make money.

Do you think Twitter wants people avoiding their platform because it is perceived to be something of a cesspool, with a percentage of its population mostly trolling or otherwise trying to be offensive?

Do you think advertisers want to support such a place? Or alternatively, do you think people would want to pay for a subscription to a service if it lets them be targeted, humiliated, stalked?

I don't think it works from a business perspective. That's not an agenda. That's just common sense. I mean, there's somethingawful and 4chan etc for that. And those places do not become Twitter.

It might actually be a different proposition if Twitter does not need to generate income and is entirely subsidized by Tesla sales. But eh, conglomerates have a tendency to break apart quickly as soon as times get a little tigther.

98.7% of Twitter employees donated to Democrat candidates so let's stop with the excuses.

 

[Ohnooze]

Because the right is confused between honest free speech, and lies that could not only hurt someone personally but get companies like twitter sued, lies that could get people sick, lies that could get people hurt, and lies that could get people killed.

And their lack of compression of that simple basic rule is what is so damn pitiful to me.

And that is something he will have to figure out. I'm not sure that's a "right" thing exclusively either.

 

[m4a4]

Should I be given worldwide access to millions of people? Should I be able to rabble-rouse on the world stage? If people from the US' Deep South start forming posses and rounding people up -- and say it's because of my truth-telling -- and forcibly removing them from their homes, should I be allowed to continue?

YOU can ignore me, certainly. But just because YOU can't see it. . .

And you can't see that it works both ways. Access to people doesn't mean access to only people that will agree with you. I would rather that such stupidity be publicly available to be judged than forced into a private corner to fester.

So, all I see here is rhetoric from someone that is scared to have their fragile opinions questioned without the guarantee that you can silence people you don't like. Seems to be a theme from the left these days...

And no, making threats, harassing people, or anything else illegal will still be, well, illegal. It sounds like hurt feelings will no longer will get you banned lol

 

[Beerfloat]

98.7% of Twitter employees donated to Democrat candidates so let's stop with the excuses.

There is no way 98.7% of Twitter employees donated to political candidates, Democratic or otherwise.

 

[scavengerspc]

98.7% of Twitter employees donated to Democrat candidates so let's stop with the excuses.

And what % of Fox news donates to the Qpublicans?
Your points always get lost in your rhetoric.

Of course if you have any examples of censuring of honest, helpful, non-threatening and timely factual posts then do it.

 

[AlaskaGuy]

There is no way 98.7% of Twitter employees donated to political candidates, Democratic or otherwise.

Fixed: *98.7 of Twitter employees political donations went to Democrat candidates.

 

[Dd663]

And what % of Fox news donates to the Qpublicans?
Your points always get lost in your rhetoric.

You're equating a news organization to a social media platform. Bad comparison.

Moreover, Fox News makes no pretense of being politically unbiased that I'm aware of. If you want news with right-wing flavoring, you go to Fox News. If you don't, you don't.

Of course if you have any examples of censuring of honest, helpful, non-threatening and factual post then do it.

You always ask for this, but if any examples were provided, you would immediately label them as dishonest, unhelpful, threatening, and nonfactual, so there's little point to it.

Any disagreement with trans ideology is censored, that's what immediately comes to mind.