Twitter suspends high-profile accounts after introducing permabans for impersonations
- Thread starter midian182
- Start date
m3tavision
Posts: 1,733 +1,511
Perhaps, he wants to save Democracy and open up free speech to everyone, instead of those with power... who would ban anyone who didn't think like them...?
Twitter had zero appeal before Elon took over, because it wasn't a place for hard working adults, just rebreathers who parrot what Hollywood & Joy Reid want.... average Americans were just shadowbanned or silenced if they weren't woke. Leaving all these blue hair children to run the show into the ground...
Many are angry and call Elon Names because he is forcing them to have to articulate each of their posts with facts, instead of hiding behind fake news.
Twitter had zero appeal before Elon took over, because it wasn't a place for hard working adults, just rebreathers who parrot what Hollywood & Joy Reid want.... average Americans were just shadowbanned or silenced if they weren't woke. Leaving all these blue hair children to run the show into the ground...
Many are angry and call Elon Names because he is forcing them to have to articulate each of their posts with facts, instead of hiding behind fake news.
dualkelly
Posts: 306 +423
Haha you mean like how he post conspiracy theories all the time.
m3tavision
Posts: 1,733 +1,511
Understand, it's a new era, you can't say vacuous things like that, without explaining what you are talking about.
What conspiracies are you talking about...?
What conspiracies are you talking about...?
dualkelly
Posts: 306 +423
Musk posts baseless conspiracy theory about Paul Pelosi attack on Twitter
Post comes days after Musk takes over social media platform amid concern that hate speech will run rampant under his leadership
www.theguardian.com
AlaskaGuy
Posts: 868 +848
Feds refuse to release the 911 recordings after changing their story twice, they refuse to release the cop cam footage along with refusing to release the security camera footage.Musk posts baseless conspiracy theory about Paul Pelosi attack on Twitter
Post comes days after Musk takes over social media platform amid concern that hate speech will run rampant under his leadership
NBC Retracts Report That Exposed New Details in Pelosi-Attack Investigation | National Review
When police arrived, Pelosi ‘began walking several feet back towards the assailant and away from police,’ NBC reported in the since-deleted segment.
www.nationalreview.com
Last edited:
m3tavision
Posts: 1,733 +1,511
Everyone on the planet knows the Guardian is a euro trash tabloid rag that feeds off low IQ/information voters.
It is 2 weeks later and the District Attorney still has not given the public an actual timeline of events of that night. The story has officially changed 4 times... & being sued because they are withholding information from the public.
Elon Tweeted: “There is a tiny possibility there might be more to this story than meets the eye”
Which is NOT a conspiracy theory, but the truth....
The conspiracy here...is that Authorities are trying to cover up what happened and will not release anything to reporters. The 911 call alone will make anyone scratch their heads and wonder why his attacker was a Friend... and why when he greeted the police at the door, didn't run, but INSTEAD went back inside, etc..
It is 2 weeks later and the District Attorney still has not given the public an actual timeline of events of that night. The story has officially changed 4 times... & being sued because they are withholding information from the public.
Elon Tweeted: “There is a tiny possibility there might be more to this story than meets the eye”
Which is NOT a conspiracy theory, but the truth....
The conspiracy here...is that Authorities are trying to cover up what happened and will not release anything to reporters. The 911 call alone will make anyone scratch their heads and wonder why his attacker was a Friend... and why when he greeted the police at the door, didn't run, but INSTEAD went back inside, etc..
gamerk2
Posts: 1,303 +1,496
Hilarious statement given the majority of all political speech on social media are conservative leaning.
gamerk2
Posts: 1,303 +1,496
Which would be the most *****ic, shortsighted thing the GOP has ever done.Time to revoke Section 230.
What's in the law protecting internet companies - and can Trump change it?
U.S. President Donald Trump is expected to order a review of a federal law known as Section 230, which protects internet companies like Facebook, Twitter and Alphabet's Google from being responsible for the material posted by users.www.reuters.com
Repeal 230 and pretty much every interface that allows users to post content will shut down within a year due to the legal liabilities of suddenly being responsible for anything users post. Simple example: If I post below a link to a website that has available for download every Disney animated film, under current law I am legally responsible. Repeal 230, and Techspot does. Needless to say, that's a liability that Techspot simply can not afford, and the end result would be shutting down Techspots forums in order to protect the company.
Maybe next time stop echoing what you hear and actually think about what the consequences would be? Just a thought.
gamerk2
Posts: 1,303 +1,496
Except as parodies, and numerous banned accounts were as such. Which would be ilegial under the 1st Amendment, I might add.
gamerk2
Posts: 1,303 +1,496
That's the entire point of *having* a government. And that's why the Constitution (which exists sorely to define and limit it's power) exists. And why three individual (in theory) branches of government each have their own say on where that line gets drawn.
I also remind you the "Government" is just a reflection on the people who elect it; the general population is just as responsible for any act that is done by the Government as the Government itself is.
Way to dodge the point I made.
It has always been accepted that certain forms of speech are not protected. Anything directly inciteful against the Federal Government, speech that explicitly endangers the lives of people (yelling "Fire!" in a theatre), and so on.
In addition, just a few years ago the Supreme Court ruled that individuals are fully liable for the *result* of their speech. For example: If you tell your friend who is currently battling depression to commit suicide, you can be held legally liable should they do so. The speech itself is protected, but the result of that speech may not be.
Or put more simply: The 1st Amendment does not provide individuals the right to say whatever they want, wherever they want, without consequence.
Not shocking; the intelligence community is fully well aware of what basically everyone posts on the internet, and has a vested interest to keep track of individuals who could potentially act against the Federal Government, especially should idle talk start to transition to hard action.
And before you get all high and mighty, remember inciteful speech (and naturally plans for inciteful actions) are not Constitutionally protected.
Hassanabi
Posts: 7 +11
Was it clear, while looking at their tweets if it was from a parody account without accessing their profile?
I personally don't visit every person's profile when I look at tweets. So when an account with a checkmark called Elon Musk, with the same avatar he's using passes by in my feed saying whatever, I could think it's Elon himself if I don't look at the username.
If it requires you to visit their profile to read somewhere in their bio "Parody account" it's already too late for the majority of people that read the tweet. As they would believe it was Elon Musk himself sending these messages.
The first amendment doesn't protect you against fraudulent behavior.
Elon could easily screenshot the tweets and ask the judge/jury if they can immediately see if it's him or somebody else posting that message. If they can't, which is very likely it is a good enough case for impersonation fraud.
The only way to prevent that is that person calling himself Elon Musk (Parody). Then it's instantly clear that it's a Parody account no matter on what portion of the site you see the tweets on.
Example:
If you receive the second post in your feed you wouldn't be able to tell it is Elon Musk himself or not, unless you actually check the username and/or visit the profile.
Last edited:
gamerk2
Posts: 1,303 +1,496
Huh, it's almost as if paying to get verification status isn't the best way to actually verify users are who they claim to be? Maybe we need some sort of system to determine if the account is genuine before giving it a verification checkmark?
Counterpoint: The Onion.
The "reasonableness test" applies: If a "reasonable person" would know the account is a parody, then no other indication is required to obtain 1st Amendment protections. Thus, by banning those parody accounts, Elon Musk and Twitter are in gross violation of those individuals 1st Amendment protections.
See? I can do it too.
Hassanabi
Posts: 7 +11
Okay let me pose some questions and answer them straight away:
- Does The Onion post on Twitter using a check marked account named after a known person? No.
- Does The Onion come across as a reputable news site? No.
Subject A:
Bullied Loner Plans Office Shooting
www.theonion.com
Parents Attempt To Wean Ornery Toddler Off Cigarettes
PITTSBURGH—Hoping to break the habit the young child had clung to since infancy, local parents Maria and Robert Feinsod confirmed Monday they were attempting to wean their ornery toddler off cigarettes. “We’re just so used to lighting one up for him every time he gets fussy, but we think it’s...
www.theonion.com
- Do you immediately see the headlines and articles are plain absurdity? Yes, if not you probably believe the tooth fairy is real as well.
- Does The Onion make parody on something? Yes, based on happenings around the world.
--------------------
Regarding your other point, check the screenshot again, what is the first thing people(including reasonable one's) look at and notice?
- The Avatar
- The name of the user (in white)
- The checkmark
They then start reading the tweet.
What happens after? Relatively tech savvy people or Elon's followers may notice something is amiss, they look at the username and think "Hey that's not Elon's handle". But any average person, that doesn't know/follow Elon might be fooled by the Avatar, name and checkmark, thinking it's actually Elon typing that out.
Then there's people that might think: "Maybe this is Elon's second account."
People that don't look further, retweet it, start bashing "Elon" for making such statements and this spirals out of control where thousands of people not looking a second longer to notice something is amiss start blowing this up. This includes nutcase conspiracy theorists plus mentally unstable people and God knows what they might do.
But this is talking about somebody that many people around the globe know about, what if somebody makes an account like that and types something out in the name of the Emir of Qatar: Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani?
Do you follow him? Would you know his correct handle? Would you know you're dealing with somebody faking him? Because let me tell you I wouldn't if I hadn't just searched for it just a moment ago.
Aside from that:
False light is not protected by the First Amendment
Impersonating Someone On The Internet: Legal or Illegal? - RM Warner Law | Defamation Law, Internet Law, Business Law
Impersonating someone on the Internet: Is it perfectly legal to set up a Twitter or Facebook account using another person's name? Or, can doing so land you on
kellywarnerlaw.com
HyperPete
Posts: 131 +70
Anyone with ANY power of observation would see "@ChrisWarcraft" immediately following the username. Pretending not to see that is merely looking for a reason to argue.
Come on - this discussion is incredibly contrived. Saying that the FBI not releasing video of the Pelosi attack is "proof" that it's fake is no different from claiming the 2020 election was "stolen". It's just an excuse to act badly, and those, just like Musk's excuses for doing what he is doing on twitter, are really poor excuses at that.
There was a time when people of differing political affiliations could still have reasonable conversations and debates, but that all went out the window around 2016. Claims of "fake news", "fake science", etc are the result of one particularly fake person who STILL thinks he is relevant. He's not, and those who have been duped by him need to step back and breathe in a good dose of reality. Stop the contrived claims and arguments.
Last edited:
dualkelly
Posts: 306 +423
these are all the incels defending king twit... of course the fbi didn't release the video sometimes it takes months and months but eventually due to freedom of information acts they will have to.
gamerk2
Posts: 1,303 +1,496
The Avatar would be the first indication of a parody account. The content in said tweet would be the second.
As for the checkmark: That's what happens when you pay to get it instead of having a dedicated team of investigators confirm if the account is genuine. Turns out paying for verification status may not be the best option to verify status; who'd have predicted that?
I also find it more then ironic (and quite a bit sad) that after all that talk of "1st Amendment rights" you are immediately defending Twitter illegally revoking those rights from it's users engaging in protected forms of speech.
dualkelly
Posts: 306 +423
That's not even talking about the hypocrisy of king twit of banning said accounts while saying he would never ban any account and he was going to reinstate the orange twats account. Like he should be thanking these people for pointing out what a bad idea just buying a blue checkmark is. But you dare make fun of king twit its not protected speech its ban time.
Imma stop you right there. 1A protects parody. Amazing how free speech absolulists are quickly defining what are the limits of free speech now that their golden boy(Mr. I will never ban anyone) is shown to be a hypocrite.
someOtherGuy
Posts: 129 +88
Ohhh, sweet summer child! Tell me, which government in the world claims that it exists in spite of its people's wishes? Which tyrant? I guess they're all basically the same, right? btw, I'm pretty sure you'd be 100% with everything Trump did, or maybe with what Biden has done, after all, they're "just a reflection on the people who elect it".
Three branches that are all in the same club: the executive and legislative are 2 pieces of the same puzzle, the parties (Democrats and Republicans) will fight over the control of them an act as a whole. No Dem will ever vote against a Dem proposal, no matter what, and no Republican on theirs. Basically the 2 parties spend their time trying to get enough control to pass their agendas (to be shown after they're approved, in the Dems case). The judicial was supposed to be the ultimate safety measure but during the COVID era it showed that it would fold easily and followed whatever the other 2 branches said. So, can you explain again "how are we protected from the government"?
It's not illegal to yell "Fire!" in a theater, it's in fact encouraged to do so, if there's a fire. You'll probably be better off using the fire alarm pullers instead of your lungs but for each their own. What's "illegal" is to create a stampede by falsely claiming an emergency that doesn't exists. This is not only related to speech, it sometimes translates to actions (depending on the jurisdiction), like falsely activating the fire alarm.
I'm pretty sure that the 1st amendment says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." which doesn't have any "exception" on it. I understand that laws are as strong as the people that enforce them, they're basically words on paper and people are flawed. Those flawed people in their infinite wisdom "found" some extra content "in" the amendment without popular consent (by pure raw power) and that's why we have "exceptions".
Other than the "fake emergency stampede" and the "the immediate call to violence" (which I've heard a lot of people citing) do you know of another exception provided by our wise overlords? Are you claiming that "call to cessation" is another exception? Do you have a list of those around?
So, your point is that "the actions" are the illegal part, not necessarily the words. Then why do you push for a "victimless" standard? While nothing materializes words are just words. Someone might tell you to end your life, but you always have the option to ignore it. This is some flimsy "words are dangerous" case, the problem is the person that gets "convinced" by such words, I mean, you wouldn't survive a couple hours on a competitive online game with chat and that mindset.
Yep, you and some other people keep pushing it, because reasons, but that's not what the amendment says. If you want to make it official, pass a new amendment, otherwise is just a power game (you're on the "right side" on this one, according to you, careful when the coin flips).
Who are these people and why do you trust them? Where are their achievements so far?
Speech is right there on the 1st amendment, again, no exceptions. Actions are a completely different beast, that's why there's not a "single amendment" to "regulate" those but a vast collection of laws.
gamerk2
Posts: 1,303 +1,496
No, just pointing out that in any form of representative Democracy, the people are not blameless for the actions their government takes, since they are the ones who ultimately put them in power.
Actually, unlike Parliamentary systems the US has a pretty good track record of moderates killing (or at least watering down) their parties legislation. Good recent examples are the Affordable Care Act (which got watered down to the point where the public option got removed) and Biden's recent stimulus package (which was initially planned a $3 Trillion and got cut by over two-thirds).
That being said, these divisions are usually handed in the backroom to ensure support by the time bills hit the floor, but there's plenty of behind the scenes negotiation that goes on to ensure the necessary support exists.
That was implied, given the "Fire" case is the textbook example of speech that is not recognized as being protected by the 1st amendment.
Counter-point: Does the 1st Amendment protect giving false statements while under oath?
This is one where context is important: It's not "Freedom of Speech", it's "The Freedom of Speech". The use of the "The" indicates that the clause was intended to cover *only* the speech previously protected under Common Law (Freedom of Speech as it was then known) rather then *all* speech (in which case the "The" would be unnecessary and redundant).
Trying to extend the clause to cover what the founders did not intend it to cover would go against recent Supreme Court decisions that have overturned laws that they have determined go against the understanding of the law as it was during the time the law was passed.
Funny how that legal logic can be turned around when it's convenient, no?
Googling is fun:
United States free speech exceptions - Wikipedia
The case I was referring to specifically was this one:
Guilty Verdict for Young Woman Who Urged Friend to Kill Himself (Published 2017)
Michelle Carter, who pressed Conrad Roy III to kill himself, was convicted in a rare finding that a person’s words can directly cause someone else’s suicide.
Michelle Carter found guilty in landmark texting suicide case
TAUNTON — Michelle Carter, the Plainville woman who urged her high school boyfriend to kill himself through a series of texts and phone calls, was responsible for his death, according t…
www.bostonherald.com
See my response a few posts above. It's not "Freedom of Speech", but "The Freedom of Speech", the "The" indicating the Amendment was only meant to cover existing protections as they were understood under Common Law, rather then all forms of speech.
My favorite MCU film? Winter Soldier; had a very underappreciated plot. Thanks for asking.
See above.
So in conclusion, we have someone who has been told what something means rather then looking at the history and application of how it has been applied and understood. People are told over and over again they have "Freedom of Speech", but have little to no understanding what that actually means, much less what the Constitution says and has been understood to say.
Similar threads
- Locked
