Elon Musk takes over Twitter

[Rockstar]

Considering that $70,099,115.00 U.S. dollars was donated to U.S. political parties and individuals in 2022 by now jailed crook, Ponzi Scheme artist embezzler, and thief Samuel Benjamin Bankman-Fried. I’m kind of thinking the Twitter drama is a distraction while those politicians and party officials are busy working overtime regifting the stolen money they received from SBF.

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/ftx...?id=D000073694

[August]

Originally Posted by Ostfriese

So, demanding "free speech" does not include everyone? Thanks for making clear what everyone already knew about the "conservative" mindset.

You're like the guy watching someone get beat up who then accuses him of being a bully for giving his tormentors a taste of their own medicine. You never had anything to say during the initial beating but now you want to pass judgement when standards are applied fairly.

[Skybird]

This is a good summay for those of us who did not care to follow "Twittergate" en detail, it sounds balanced to me. The Neue Zürcher Zeitung writes:
-------------------------
Donald Trump is blocked, Ayatollah Khamenei is allowed to continue tweeting - political arbitrariness reigns on the short message service

With the help of selected journalists, Elon Musk wants to prove the influence that politicians and ideologues have exerted on Twitter. The content of the "Twitter files" should give not only liberals and conservatives food for thought.

Matt Taibbi is one of the best-known journalists in the U.S., but his popularity just dropped precipitously. At least in left-wing Democratic media and political circles. Taibbi, they say, is a fraud, a fallen star who sold his soul to the "richest white nationalist on earth. At least that's how "New York Times" writer Wajahat Ali puts it, to lament the "sad, undignified descent" of a man who once did good work.

Indeed, Taibbi has won awards in his 30-year journalism career, exposing Wall Street's entanglements with American politics. If anything, he was considered a leftist. That this has changed is related to Taibbi's views on freedom of expression. He also sees it threatened by leftists - and now Elon Musk, currently the world's second richest man, who sells electric cars, wants to colonize space and recently bought the short message service Twitter, has also hired him.

Against the "Nazis" in the White House

Together with journalist Bari Weiss and author Michael Shellenberger, Taibbi has been tasked with evaluating the so-called "Twitter files." Because Elon Musk is convinced that Twitter has manipulated and censored public discourse in recent years - in favor of the Democrats. The former darling of the left-wing middle class has become alienated from them, in part because of the Covid policy and "wokeism" that Democrats have perverted. The dislike is mutual, especially since Musk took over at Twitter.

What Taibbi, Bari Weiss and Michael Shellenberger have presented to the public after sifting through thousands of documents - on Twitter, of course, as requested by Elon Musk - is not all new. But it is more than a "nothingburger," a hamburger without meat, as left-wing commentators sneer. It's well known that Twitter executives indirectly helped Democrats in the 2020 election campaign by suppressing a New York Post article about problematic foreign dealings by Joe Biden's son Hunter Biden. This was done with the specious argument that the article was possibly based on hacked data.

According to Matt Taibbi, both Democrats and Republicans intervened on Twitter during the election campaign to delete unpopular statements. That the Democrats were generally more successful in doing so is not yet clear from the "Twitter files". Taibbi points only to the fact that 96 to 99 percent of campaign donations from Twitter employees in recent years have gone to the Democratic Party. In addition, a high-ranking Twitter employee declared in 2017 that "Nazis" ruled the White House.

The person in question was Donald Trump - and Twitter fought him even after Joe Biden won the election. Trump famously claimed the election was rigged and stolen. After his supporters stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, Democrats like Michelle Obama called for Trump's permanent suspension on Twitter, even though the ex-president had at least not explicitly called for violence. "Be there, will be wild!" he wrote on Jan. 6, but urged protesters to remain peaceful.

"Kill millions of French"

As the "Twitter Files" show, Trump's ban was controversial even on Twitter. Inciting violence would be difficult to prove, employees wrote in internal messages. At the same time, 300 Twitter employees signed an open letter to then-Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey calling for Trump's ban. On January 8, Twitter leadership relented - and suspended Trump's account. The decision seems all the more arbitrary because statements glorifying violence on Twitter often go without consequence, as Bari Weiss demonstrates with numerous examples.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi was allowed to keep his Twitter account, despite threatening to have hundreds of Twitter employees arrested in India. The former Malaysian prime minister was allowed to stay on Twitter despite declaring that Muslims had the right to "kill millions of French people" after the murder of Samuel Paty. Iranian dictator Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is allowed to tweet to this day, even though he executes his citizens and even though in 2018 he called Israel a cancer that should be destroyed.

With around 400 million users, Twitter is a rather small social network, but since media, scientists, politicians and heads of state use it, its influence should not be underestimated. Bari Weiss, who was bullied out of the "New York Times" for her political views, speaks of the "power of a handful of people" on Twitter. These would "influence public discourse and democracy."

That may sound conspiracy theorist. But the influence of Twitter's management is considerable. The latter has officially always denied restricting the reach and visibility of unpopular accounts without informing users. "Fact checkers" in Europe adopted this corporate wording by placing such accusations in the vicinity of conspiracy theories. This was presumably because they came primarily from right-wing and conservative sources.

Lively exchange with state authorities

Now, however, it turns out that "shadow banning" was a tool that was by no means only used against trolls and agitators. According to the "Twitter files," one of those affected was Stanford professor Jay Bhattacharya. He presumably aroused the displeasure of the Twitter watchdogs because he criticized Corona lockdowns and school closures. Also affected by "shadow banning" was conservative activist Charlie Kirk.

Here again is the question of arbitrariness, no matter what one thinks of those affected politically. Matt Taibbi said in a podcast that the extent of the control over each individual account shocked him and his colleagues: Twitter shares vast amounts of data with government agencies like the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), he said. The latter would annotate the data and send it back. Internal Twitter reports then say that the FBI has flagged this and that, and they are discussing whether an account should be blocked or shadow-banned. Every social network has such an arrangement with the state, "but we don't know exactly how it works yet.

This realization should actually cause concern across ideological (party) lines. Elon Musk has announced that he wants to make Twitter a haven for freedom of expression again. At the same time, he has left-wing and extreme left-wing accounts reported to him so that they can be blocked. He is politically elusive and prone to erratic decisions. The Tesla owner initially tolerated an account that published the location data of Musk's private jet, then had it blocked because its security was at risk. On Thursday, Twitter blocked several accounts of several American journalists who reported on the private jet account. So leftists are right to be concerned.

But the fact that they are only now says a lot, too.
--------------------

[u crank]

Originally Posted by August

You're like the guy watching someone get beat up who then accuses him of being a bully for giving his tormentors a taste of their own medicine. You never had anything to say during the initial beating but now you want to pass judgement when standards are applied fairly.

It is remarkable and somewhat ironic.

I learned that very often the most intolerant and narrow-minded people are the ones who congratulate themselves on their tolerance and open-mindedness.

Christopher Hitchens

[Onkel Neal]

Yeah, Twitter sucked before musk, sucks now as well. Explain to me why the Subsim Twitter account was suspended permanently since earlier this year?



No specific reason or information about why. And after several "appeals" sent, nothing.

I never liked twitter and only used it a few times a year. I think Twitter and Musk deserve each other.

[Skybird]

Maybe Generla Topics helped in that suspension?

[Onkel Neal]

I think it has more to do with my staff tracking his private submarine.

[August]

Has it been reinstated?

[Buddahaid]

I don't use, or abuse, Twitter and didn't know Subsim had an account.

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by Onkel Neal

I think it has more to do with my staff tracking his private submarine.

lol
or like this escort thing back then with Google ..

[Subnuts]

Originally Posted by Onkel Neal

Yeah, Twitter sucked before musk, sucks now as well. Explain to me why the Subsim Twitter account was suspended permanently since earlier this year?



No specific reason or information about why. And after several "appeals" sent, nothing.

I never liked twitter and only used it a few times a year. I think Twitter and Musk deserve each other.

I told you not to post so many pictures of long, hard, seaman filled objects.

[Ostfriese]

Originally Posted by August

You're like the guy watching someone get beat up who then accuses him of being a bully for giving his tormentors a taste of their own medicine. You never had anything to say during the initial beating but now you want to pass judgement when standards are applied fairly.

Good effort.

No points for content, though, as you missed the point completely.


Unlike certain others I understand that the concept of "free speech" is

a) granted by the government to the people, not by the webmaster to the troll and

b) free speech is not just my right to say what I want, but everyone's right.


What those crying like wee children want when they mean "free speech" is exactly what I posted above: a free pass for themselves to say whatever they want without having to face consequences, and everybody else to shut the f* up. That's not "applied fairly" (if fairness truly was what you wanted). That's as onesided as it gets.

[August]

Originally Posted by Ostfriese

Good effort.

I'm glad that you agree.

[Ostfriese]

Originally Posted by August

I'm glad that you agree.

Read again, including the addendum. I give you another try at understanding.

[MaDef]

Originally Posted by Ostfriese

So, demanding "free speech" does not include everyone? Thanks for making clear what everyone already knew about the "conservative" mindset.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, Twitter is now a private owned company, so the owner of the company gets to make the rules correct?

FYI: I consider twitter to be the modern day equivalent of the supermarket tabloids of the 70's.

Originally Posted by Ostfriese

Good effort.

Unlike certain others I understand that the concept of "free speech" is

a) granted by the government to the people, not by the webmaster to the troll and

b) free speech is not just my right to say what I want, but everyone's right.

a) you are misunderstanding the purpose of the Constitution in general, and the first amendment in particular then. Please note that "Congress" is prohibited from "abridging" free speech That right is reserved to the citizens themselves.

the following is posted for your edification:
"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."

b) While you have the "right" to say what you want, you should also understand that if you utter something someone else finds egregious or offensive, there will be consequences headed your way ranging from censure to incarceration, depending on the nature of the speech.