Elon buys this platform and his mantra is "freedom of speech," but instead of doing that, he's actually silencing a lot of people. His business model is trying to cater to his own brain farts, and he's losing $4 million a day (per his own admission). A smart person would change models. Twitter was making 90% of it's revenue from advertising and had more than $2 billion in cash and less than $600 million in debt. Musk paid for Twitter by taking on $13B in debt, paying for the rest with equity. Twitter is in the red and Musk still has no viable plan. The ship is sinking.

Elon Musk is facing EU sanctions because of the new Twitter policy. This was announced by the Vice President of the European Commission for Values and Transparency Věra Jourová.

News about arbitrary suspension of journalists on Twitter is worrying. EU’s Digital Services Act requires respect of media freedom and fundamental rights. This is reinforced under our #MediaFreedomAct. @elonmusk should be aware of that. There are red lines. And sanctions, soon. https://twitter.com/VeraJourova/stat...89440710369281

I guess that's correct, but in which way is that change relevant? Previously twitter was a civilian company that had given out stocks, so effectively it was privately owned (opposed to "owned in parts or in total by the government").

Of course Twitter was and is allowed to restrict whatever they want, it's got nothing to do with August's "beating someone up".

That's basically just a different wording for what I wrote. Yes, if this was a court and everyone around here was a lawyer I'd see your point, but this is still subsim, isn't it?
(before you drag me into fine-print legal talk please keep in mind that English is not my native language, and I already hate fine-print legal talk in German.)

That's exactly my point. Now keep in mind that since Musk has taken over the amount of racist, sexist and anti-semitic content (as well as any other hate speech) has dramatically increased - because people on the right believe that "free speech" means that they can make those comments WITHOUT having to fear the consequences you just mentioned.

I have a twitter account-I am however silence meaning I do not post own twitter issues. Now and then I give a like(heart)mostly to twitter about animals and sometimes to twitter about the war in Ukraine.

I rarely post a comment to an another twitter issue.

Same with FB

Markus

Big claim you're making there. Can you point to the research which details any of the specifics you just mentioned? The only source I can find that major media outlets appear to be quoting and that people are regurgitating here is from something called the Center for Countering Digital Hate. And according to them all social media sites are guilty of morally heinous hate crimes against humanity. I find it hard to argue for or against something based on hearsay.

In this case the difference between a private co. and a publicly traded one is before, twitter was profit driven (the board of directors answered to the stockholder) ie: the main focus was increasing stock value & market share.
now, twitter is owned by a finite group of likeminded investors (you have to be invited to invest), nor do they have to file financial disclosure documents with the SEC. (could very well be Elon Musk is looking to use twitter as a tax shelter).

The way I see it, the brouhaha over free speech (who gets banned & why) on twitter is nothing more than a tempest in a teacup. Consider this, of the top 20 rated social media platforms (rated by number of users), twitter comes in at #16 w/ 346 million users. the top 3, Facebook, YouTube & WhatsApp have 2.9B, 2.5B, 2B (respectively). The real question that needs to be answered is how cozy were politicians and social media were with each other.

Not to belabor the point, but it is not the same thing, Here in the U.S., it is the people who decide what is free speech and what is not.

For example: Expressing antisemitism in Germany can get you a jail sentence. In the U.S., it will get you ostracized but no jail unless you take it further.

It may seem the same, but there is definitely a difference.

Tesla just got to a new two-year low today of $150.80 the high was $414 a 274% drop in value Elon will be forced to sell SpaceX to some government for a bailout all for playing god on Twitter. They’re all circling like sharks for that.

What I find most surprising is that there are people who don't understanding that Musk is a self-serving, self-promoting, lying jerk.

Oh I think they (whoever that is) understand perfectly and find those characteristics laudable.

It's actually just a drop of about 63.5% ;) I agree it's still a lot of money. Tesla stock was and is insanely overpriced.



Musk, however, has by now sold so many Tesla shares at outrageously high prices that he won't have to suffer much. SpaceX will eventually ruin itself, as they really don't deliver much of anything once you look behind the curtains (they are only good at wasting resources).

In other words he's just human like the rest of us right? What makes him any worse than all the others in his position?

It appears like the previous owner may have lied to Congress.

That Elon is not like the rest of us, he is of the class that think they can do everything he could have saved like 39.999 billion dollars if he just went to therapy instead of buying twitter. This week he attack the main thing Twitter is used for getting news there is a whole business model created by twitter for that news organizations are now considering a range of options to respond pulling coverage from Twitter, stop its advertising on the platform or dropping out of the Amplify program, in which they post videos to twitter and share in the revenue, or simply asking their staffers to stop contributing to the service. Elon thinks it is a smart idea to replace that with a kind of social credit score, like in China.

Social credit scores like China? Hmmm wonder what opened the door for that too happen? It’s a perfect addition to lock downs, forced vaccination of children with experimental drugs, and making 2nd opinions contrary to the party officials illegal. Just like in China. :har:

And some people think Elon is the crazy one. :har:

We recognize that many of our users are active on other social media platforms. However, we will no longer allow free promotion of certain social media platforms on Twitter. Specifically, we will remove accounts created solely for the purpose of promoting other social platforms and content that contains links or usernames for the following platforms: Facebook, Instagram, Mastodon, Truth Social, Tribel, Nostr and Post. We still allow cross-posting content from any social media platform. Posting links or usernames to social media platforms not listed above are also not in violation of this policy. https://twitter.com/TwitterSupport/s...31261791522817

This goes against Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act the EU also states that this will mean sanctions against Twitter.

Really? Europeans mandate that media companies must allow competitors to advertise on their platforms for free? Interesting.

Eh, we are talking about users posting and using the links, that's not advertising by another company.

There are -at least- two serious problems for Twitter with this new rule:

1) It contains a clause ("We recognize that certain social media platforms provide alternative experiences to Twitter, and allow users to post content to Twitter from these platforms. In general, any type of cross-posting to our platform is not in violation of this policy, even from the prohibited sites listed above.") that basically nullifies the "rule". This basically makes Twitter decide whether things are according to the law or not - not the judicative/executive.
It's like "Welcome to my house, once you are here I will decide whether you are a guest or a burglar.", and your behaviour has little, if any, influence on the decision.

2) Removing links to other webpages (as long as no laws are violated) would make Twitter an editorial media and no longer a social media platform - which would in turn mean that Twitter becomes liable for any illegal content.

August, to give you a chance of reconsidering your previous posting: the Communication Decency Act and it's Section 230, mentioned by Dargo, are actually US laws (47 U.S.C. §230), not European laws.

Well gee whiz thanks for the chance but my question stands. Point to where in either set of laws it mandates that a business has to allow competitors to advertise on their property.

As this isn't a relevant point the question is moot. Posting a link isn't advertising.

I think the elephant in the room is the determination of "solely for the purpose of promoting other social platforms and content". How is that measured? If the user posts pictures of a vacation once and everything else says go to XXXX it can no longer be defined as solely.