Musk bought Twitter

[Mock Turtle]

With all due respect...but don't you think you are normalizing double standards with this reasoning?

If I understood correctly, you accuse Putin of denying his own citizens a Western-like freedom of speech.
(Which is undeniable...he does.)

At the same time you don't want Twitter to guarantee everyone unlimited freedon of speech.

I mean...did I understand correctly?

Because if I did... that is doublestandardism at its best, with all due respect.

If you think denying freedom of speech is bad, it should be valid in any context.

Two sides of the same coin - as in controlling information. Putin as in only allowing his message to get through to his own population, and the wealthy perhaps doing so, when and where it suits them, as to those who will see such but might not recognise it as being biased. Given that money can buy a lot of voices so often.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

Questions for those who want unrestricted absolute freedom of speech…..

1. Is it OK to scream “Fire!!”, or “He’s got a gun!”, in a crowded theater?

2. Is it OK for a lame duck president of the USA to blatantly lie and say that he won the election? Even if this leads to an armed insurrection to try to stop the freedom of democracy in the USA?

3. Is it OK for prominent political leaders to go onto public radio or TV and declare that a deadly virus is in fact nothing anyone needs to worry about? Or that the treatment for that virus is something everyone should fear and avoid?


Yes, I’m being serious. Please answer so.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

To have one person controlling multiple International companies as Musk do, qre not good for the marked. When He has control like he do now it is a bad thing.

imho

That is some flawed logic.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Gorgeous Elon did it. bravo

Thank God - now watch the leftists and Dems implode.

 

[Stevicus]

Questions for those who want unrestricted absolute freedom of speech…..

I don't say that I believe in unrestricted, absolute freedom of speech, but I'll take a stab at these:

1. Is it OK to scream “Fire!!”, or “He’s got a gun!”, in a crowded theater?

Yes, if there is a fire or if someone truly has a gun.

2. Is it OK for a lame duck president of the USA to blatantly lie and say that he won the election? Even if this leads to an armed insurrection to try to stop the freedom of democracy in the USA?

I would defer to the "clear and present danger" standard and try to determine whether the words led directly to the actions. I guess it's a matter of whether the Constitutional standard for "fighting words" or inciting insurrection is strong and rigid enough. I think if there's any doubt or gray area, we should err on the side of free speech.

As for whether it's okay to lie, that's a bit tricky. Obviously, perjury, false advertising, fraud - those are forms of lying which are not okay and not protected by the First Amendment. Libel and slander are also not okay.

Regarding the case against Trump, his cohorts, and that motley crew that stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, I guess that's still working its way through the legal processes.

3. Is it OK for prominent political leaders to go onto public radio or TV and declare that a deadly virus is in fact nothing anyone needs to worry about? Or that the treatment for that virus is something everyone should fear and avoid?

As long as there's free speech for all, then ideally, there would be other more responsible leaders and other public figures who can also go on radio or TV and declare otherwise. The central idea is that people can be exposed to different points of view, different ideas, and make up their own minds.

I firmly believe that in a democratic society, the people are the ones who rule, and that being the case, the people need to have access to as much information as possible. Just like the ruler of a country would listen to their advisors and ministers - even if they disagree and argue vehemently. Such arguments might still be of value to a ruler in helping to make a decision. As one of over 300 million "rulers" of this nation, I want access to information, and nothing should be withheld or concealed. I'll decide whether it's faulty or not, as any wise ruler should do.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

I don't say that I believe in unrestricted, absolute freedom of speech, but I'll take a stab at these:

So, what restrictions would you like?

Yes, if there is a fire or if someone truly has a gun.

Funny. Not.

I would defer to the "clear and present danger" standard and try to determine whether the words led directly to the actions. I guess it's a matter of whether the Constitutional standard for "fighting words" or inciting insurrection is strong and rigid enough. I think if there's any doubt or gray area, we should err on the side of free speech.

As for whether it's okay to lie, that's a bit tricky. Obviously, perjury, false advertising, fraud - those are forms of lying which are not okay and not protected by the First Amendment. Libel and slander are also not okay.

Regarding the case against Trump, his cohorts, and that motley crew that stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, I guess that's still working its way through the legal processes.

Then a coup would be OK with you. Got it. Remember, such events don’t require 151,000,000 believers of the lies. Just enough to storm the Capital and lynch the VP and a couple others.

As long as there's free speech for all, then ideally, there would be other more responsible leaders and other public figures who can also go on radio or TV and declare otherwise. The central idea is that people can be exposed to different points of view, different ideas, and make up their own minds.

I firmly believe that in a democratic society, the people are the ones who rule, and that being the case, the people need to have access to as much information as possible. Just like the ruler of a country would listen to their advisors and ministers - even if they disagree and argue vehemently. Such arguments might still be of value to a ruler in helping to make a decision. As one of over 300 million "rulers" of this nation, I want access to information, and nothing should be withheld or concealed. I'll decide whether it's faulty or not, as any wise ruler should do.

…And that’s the problem. Almost 100% of those 300+ million rulers (including you and me) don’t have the time or the capacity to sort through all the lies, and distinguish which statements are blatant falsehoods, and which are real, backed by research/facts/science. Too much is coming at them all at once. And the liars talk with smooth voices, pleasant smiles, jovial attitudes, and a dose of dreadful doom for those who fail to heed their words. The researchers are always responding belatedly with facts to smash last months lies, since it’s always faster and easier to lie.
No I’m not patronizing them. It’s too much. Period. We all have to choose our news sources. And some, like Fox watchers, are content to be lied to on a regular basis. But if there are not enough checks and balances, then the populace will be led around by their nose rings. Sometimes that even includes you, and it even includes me.

Just consider that Millions of US citizens have chosen to risk sickness and death for themselves and their own children out of fear of the oh so horrible side-effects of the covid vaccine. Hundreds of thousands have already died, (and/or watched their own family members die) for no other reason than the liars were more convincing in a free speech open forum.
You’re fine with this? I’m not.
I have always been for free speech. Everyone should be able to voice their opinions without fear of violence or incarceration. But people who make up their own “alternative facts” cannot be allowed to smooth-talk others into their private insanity.

Everyone can have their own opinion. But everyone gets only the ONE set of facts.​

Anything else, and people WILL be fooled, and people will suffer unnecessarily, and usually unjustly. And still the fooled (even if personally harmed) will be absolutely convinced that they chose wisely.

 

[Estro Felino]

@Daemon Sophic

This matter has juridical implications.

The freedom of thought is absolute and unlimited, in my country, if it expressed on a social platform.

It is the context itself that makes it unlimited. Pay attention to the term: social media.
It means people write messages to be social.

Twitter is not an university. It is not a parliament.
So you cannot be responsible for the things you say within that context.

I can link you several rulings of the Court of Cassation, our SC. That clarifies that.

I hope this is is clear to you, @Daemon Sophic

The difference between a social media and a university, or a school...or a parliament.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

@Daemon Sophic

This matter has juridical implications.

The freedom of thought is absolute and unlimited, in my country, if it expressed on a social platform.

It is the context itself that makes it unlimited. Pay attention to the term: social media.
It means people write messages to be social.

Twitter is not an university. It is not a parliament.
So you cannot be responsible for the things you say within that context.

I can link you several rulings of the Court of Cassation, our SC. That clarifies that.

I hope this is is clear to you, @Daemon Sophic

The difference between a social media and a university, or a school...or a parliament.

You’ve missed the point(s).

1. People Do in fact use social media, like Twitter, as their news source.

2. Very significant parties (imagine your parliamentary members, or professors from a religious college) all use social media as a venue to spread their blatant lies to the public, because they do recognize the fact that large portions of the public use social media as news.

New Research Shows that 71% of Americans Now Get News Content via Social Platforms

Are you getting the picture now @Estro Felino ? They ARE being tricked. They DO NOT have the capacity to discern lies from reality. They are NOT checking social media statements against validated research on any subject, and especially not on politically active subjects….not all, but millions upon millions are forming their opinions based solely upon lies that they felt were reality. This is the undeniable truth.

A democracy cannot survive without a well-educated public. (That means a public Not fed on lies).

 

[Spirit of Light]

That is some flawed logic.

Why? Monopoly is not good in business

 

[Stevicus]

So, what restrictions would you like?

Restrict anything that presents a clear and present danger.

Funny. Not.

I wasn't really intending to be funny. It was an honest answer to the question.

Then a coup would be OK with you. Got it.

Nope, I never said that, and I resent this kind of flippant BS response.

I thought you said you were being serious. Since you're obviously not, I'm not going to waste time responding to the rest of this.

 

[Fallen Prophet]

Why? Monopoly is not good in business

What "monopoly" are you talking about?

Did you feel this way when Bezos bought the Washington Post?

 

[Revoltingest]

In the news....
MUSK PULLS OUT!

Given that he has 9+ children,
he should learn to pull out sooner.

 

[Estro Felino]

Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal Fired As Elon Musk Takes Over Company: Reports


This is a very bad day for all those people who love to silence people.
A bad day for all those who love to plug the mouth of people until they stop breathing.
Long live Freedom of Speech.

Thank God there Elon Musk. Gorgeous, handsome, intelligent.

 

[Estro Felino]

Given that he has 9+ children,
he should learn to pull out sooner.

He should move to Italy. We have a serious problem of low birth rates.
Besides he is smart and gorgeous...good genes.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal Fired As Elon Musk Takes Over Company: Reports


This is a very bad day for all those people who love to silence people.
A bad day for all those cultures who love to plug the mouth of people until they stop breathing.
Certain cultures have dogmas which are incompatible with the Western Idea of Freedom of Speech.

Thank God there is someone like Musk. Gorgeous, handsome, intelligent.

Labelled himself as Chief Twit, but I'm sure many of us would regard him as Chief Tw...

 

[Revoltingest]

He should move to Italy. We have a serious problem of low birth rates.
Besides he is smart and gorgeous...good genes.

But does he love Putin, & hate Soros?
The Italian Immigration Department requires both.

 

[Estro Felino]

But does he love Putin, & hate Soros?
The Italian Immigration Department requires both.

Yes, he passed the test.
Fiona Hill: ‘Elon Musk Is Transmitting a Message for Putin’

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, he passed the test.
Fiona Hill: ‘Elon Musk Is Transmitting a Message for Putin’

I hereby grant you full ownership of Elon Musk.

 

[Mock Turtle]

https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/us-celebrity-news/elon-musks-wildest-tweets-wanting-28342772

In an astonishing ran, Musk hit back in a series of tweets, writing: "Sorry pedo guy, you really did ask for it." He deleted the insult but faced a backlash from the public, along with threats of a lawsuit from the volunteer diver. In December 2019, a federal court in California heard Mr Unsworth was left feeling "humiliated, ashamed, dirtied," by the tweet from the billionaire, but Musk's laywers argued it was no more than a playground insult and did not represent an allegation of paedophilia. A jury agreed with Musk, who was found not liable in the defamation case, and he told reporters outside the court: "My faith in humanity is restored."

One useless jury in my view, and where I doubt a British one would have come to the same conclusion, so perhaps the trial should have been tried in a neutral country?

In one of his most bizarre moves, Musk set up a Twitter poll to let his followers vote on how Russia's war with Ukraine should end. Perhaps thinking he could end the war, the billionaire thought it would be sensible to put forward a number of suggestions, including redoing elections of annexed regions under UN supervision.

With the Russians of course leaving the region so as not to have any influence.

In June this year, his transgender daughter filed a request with the Los Angeles County Superior Court to change her name to reflect her new gender identity. The 18-year-old expressed a desire to legally become Vivan Jenna Wilson - adopting her mother's surname - who was Musk's first wife and mum to seven of his kids. The teen stated: "I no longer live with or wish to be related to my biological father in any way, shape or form."

Me neither (as to Musk).

It will probably come as no surprise that Musk started engaging in Covid-19 conspiracy theories. The tin-foil hat wearer began questioning testing and claimed he managed to get different results from four tests on the same day under the same conditions. In November 2020, he tweeted: "Something extremely bogus is going on. Was tested for covid four times today. Two tests came back negative, two came back positive. Same machine, same test, same nurse. Rapid antigen test from BD." Musk was widely criticised for the controversial tweet, but he continued to spread misinformation about the disease. He claimed the "coronavirus panic is dumb" and that the pandemic would be "comparable to other forms of influenza", before clarifying he meant other forms of "the cold".

Yeah, just so dumb that so many have died from this virus. And his tweeting history hardly bodes well for the future.

Carry on as usual though.