Elon Musk buys $3 billion stake (9.2%) in Twitter and is now the platform's largest shareholder

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Good on Elon, a real life super hero.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shouldn't all Americans be free speech absolutists?

You already know free speech has limits. Why feign stupidity?

Tell us, oh Wise One - how do you define those limits?

Let me guess: “anything and everything I disagree with”, right?

Actually, the supreme court has been quite clear about those limits over the years. The current policies in place by the vast majority of tech companies grossly exceed the limits defined by the supreme court.

Because tech companies are not the government and have freedom themselves.

No one never said they were the government or they didn’t have freedoms. I was responding to the previous comment about how limits of free speech are defined. Please at least make an attempt to stay on topic.

People calling what Twitter does “censorship” and calling Twitter “the de facto public square” definitely don’t think these companies have their own freedoms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shouldn't all Americans be free speech absolutists?

You already know free speech has limits. Why feign stupidity?

Tell us, oh Wise One - how do you define those limits?

Let me guess: “anything and everything I disagree with”, right?

Actually, the supreme court has been quite clear about those limits over the years. The current policies in place by the vast majority of tech companies grossly exceed the limits defined by the supreme court.

Because tech companies are not the government and have freedom themselves.

There is a very compelling argument to be made that these tech companies are utilities, or at the very least, common carriers. And neither of those are allowed to practice the kind of subjective discrimination in their delivery of services or power that many tech companies currently do with regard to free speech that does not meet the USSC thresholds for obscenity, libel or incitement.

Through their censorship and ideological standards for speech, these lefty tech oligarchs are setting themselves up to have their platforms taken away from their control and being operated as a public utility. Which would be hysterically funny, BTW.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Protecting voting rights is essential to a functioning democracy. I wish Elon Musk would put his money toward that cause.

[Anonymous]

Thank heavens. Twitter bans anyone who says a man is a man, but found that a video depicting JK Rowling’s murder doesn’t violate its rules. That’s all one needs to know about the misogynistic deviants running Twitter.

I say complete free speech on Twitter. Any snowflakes who can’t handle the truth can log off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shouldn't all Americans be free speech absolutists?

You already know free speech has limits. Why feign stupidity?

Tell us, oh Wise One - how do you define those limits?

Let me guess: “anything and everything I disagree with”, right?

Actually, the supreme court has been quite clear about those limits over the years. The current policies in place by the vast majority of tech companies grossly exceed the limits defined by the supreme court.

Because tech companies are not the government and have freedom themselves.

Make sure you remember that tech companies have freedom when Elon Musk successfully lobbies to change Twitter’s moderation rules and your little safe space gets a dose of truth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shouldn't all Americans be free speech absolutists?

You already know free speech has limits. Why feign stupidity?

Tell us, oh Wise One - how do you define those limits?

Let me guess: “anything and everything I disagree with”, right?

Actually, the supreme court has been quite clear about those limits over the years. The current policies in place by the vast majority of tech companies grossly exceed the limits defined by the supreme court.

Because tech companies are not the government and have freedom themselves.

Make sure you remember that tech companies have freedom when Elon Musk successfully lobbies to change Twitter’s moderation rules and your little safe space gets a dose of truth.

Stating facts gets me accused of needing a “little safe space”? OK, weirdo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shouldn't all Americans be free speech absolutists?

You already know free speech has limits. Why feign stupidity?

Tell us, oh Wise One - how do you define those limits?

Let me guess: “anything and everything I disagree with”, right?

Actually, the supreme court has been quite clear about those limits over the years. The current policies in place by the vast majority of tech companies grossly exceed the limits defined by the supreme court.

Because tech companies are not the government and have freedom themselves.

There is a very compelling argument to be made that these tech companies are utilities, or at the very least, common carriers. And neither of those are allowed to practice the kind of subjective discrimination in their delivery of services or power that many tech companies currently do with regard to free speech that does not meet the USSC thresholds for obscenity, libel or incitement.

Through their censorship and ideological standards for speech, these lefty tech oligarchs are setting themselves up to have their platforms taken away from their control and being operated as a public utility. Which would be hysterically funny, BTW.

If I send an Op-Ed to the Washington Post or the New York Times, they’re not obligated to publish it in their pages. And no one would argue that my free speech rights have been infringed. What’s the difference?

Freedom of speech only means that the government can’t arrest you for saying something. It doesn’t mean that private companies are required by law to allow you to use their platforms. If it makes good business sense to exclude certain people because of their actions, then private businesses should have the right to do that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shouldn't all Americans be free speech absolutists?

You already know free speech has limits. Why feign stupidity?

Tell us, oh Wise One - how do you define those limits?

Let me guess: “anything and everything I disagree with”, right?

Actually, the supreme court has been quite clear about those limits over the years. The current policies in place by the vast majority of tech companies grossly exceed the limits defined by the supreme court.

Because tech companies are not the government and have freedom themselves.

No one never said they were the government or they didn’t have freedoms. I was responding to the previous comment about how limits of free speech are defined. Please at least make an attempt to stay on topic.

People calling what Twitter does “censorship” and calling Twitter “the de facto public square” definitely don’t think these companies have their own freedoms.

Look at it a different way:

What if I owned a company that essentially had a monopoly on production and distribution of electrical power in your area? And I refused to sell electricity to people I didn’t like based on their politics? People like you, for example. You certainly have the freedom to stick a bunch of solar panels in your yard and make your own electricity. Or install a generator. Or you could just move somewhere else. You have lots of options, right? Why should I be forced to sell you electricity if I don’t like you? Get your own electricity!

Or let’s say I own FedEx or UPS. I won’t ship packages to your house because I don’t like the way you vote. That’d be ok, right? Isn’t that my freedom as a company? You have other options, you know. You can drive to the facility or port where the item you ordered was made, and pick it up yourself, can’t you?

Or maybe I have the only restaurant in your small town. And I refuse to serve you because you’re a leftist. You can go to some other restaurant in some other town. But that’s my freedom as a restauranteur, right ? And you’d support that, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shouldn't all Americans be free speech absolutists?

You already know free speech has limits. Why feign stupidity?

Tell us, oh Wise One - how do you define those limits?

Let me guess: “anything and everything I disagree with”, right?

Actually, the supreme court has been quite clear about those limits over the years. The current policies in place by the vast majority of tech companies grossly exceed the limits defined by the supreme court.

Because tech companies are not the government and have freedom themselves.

Make sure you remember that tech companies have freedom when Elon Musk successfully lobbies to change Twitter’s moderation rules and your little safe space gets a dose of truth.

Stating facts gets me accused of needing a “little safe space”? OK, weirdo.

DP

No. Suppressing facts to maintain your safe space is the issue here.


Be nice. No one has called you any names here. You should apologize to that poster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shouldn't all Americans be free speech absolutists?

You already know free speech has limits. Why feign stupidity?

Tell us, oh Wise One - how do you define those limits?

Let me guess: “anything and everything I disagree with”, right?

Actually, the supreme court has been quite clear about those limits over the years. The current policies in place by the vast majority of tech companies grossly exceed the limits defined by the supreme court.

Because tech companies are not the government and have freedom themselves.

There is a very compelling argument to be made that these tech companies are utilities, or at the very least, common carriers. And neither of those are allowed to practice the kind of subjective discrimination in their delivery of services or power that many tech companies currently do with regard to free speech that does not meet the USSC thresholds for obscenity, libel or incitement.

Through their censorship and ideological standards for speech, these lefty tech oligarchs are setting themselves up to have their platforms taken away from their control and being operated as a public utility. Which would be hysterically funny, BTW.

If I send an Op-Ed to the Washington Post or the New York Times, they’re not obligated to publish it in their pages. And no one would argue that my free speech rights have been infringed. What’s the difference?

Freedom of speech only means that the government can’t arrest you for saying something. It doesn’t mean that private companies are required by law to allow you to use their platforms. If it makes good business sense to exclude certain people because of their actions, then private businesses should have the right to do that.

So you also therefore think 7-11 should be able to exclude groups of young black people from their stores because of the actions of flash mobs of other young black people stealing merchandise from other 7-11 stores?

You’d agree with that then, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Protecting voting rights is essential to a functioning democracy. I wish Elon Musk would put his money toward that cause.

People already have the right to vote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shouldn't all Americans be free speech absolutists?

You already know free speech has limits. Why feign stupidity?

Tell us, oh Wise One - how do you define those limits?

Let me guess: “anything and everything I disagree with”, right?

Actually, the supreme court has been quite clear about those limits over the years. The current policies in place by the vast majority of tech companies grossly exceed the limits defined by the supreme court.

Because tech companies are not the government and have freedom themselves.

No one never said they were the government or they didn’t have freedoms. I was responding to the previous comment about how limits of free speech are defined. Please at least make an attempt to stay on topic.

People calling what Twitter does “censorship” and calling Twitter “the de facto public square” definitely don’t think these companies have their own freedoms.

Look at it a different way:

What if I owned a company that essentially had a monopoly on production and distribution of electrical power in your area? And I refused to sell electricity to people I didn’t like based on their politics? People like you, for example. You certainly have the freedom to stick a bunch of solar panels in your yard and make your own electricity. Or install a generator. Or you could just move somewhere else. You have lots of options, right? Why should I be forced to sell you electricity if I don’t like you? Get your own electricity!

Or let’s say I own FedEx or UPS. I won’t ship packages to your house because I don’t like the way you vote. That’d be ok, right? Isn’t that my freedom as a company? You have other options, you know. You can drive to the facility or port where the item you ordered was made, and pick it up yourself, can’t you?

Or maybe I have the only restaurant in your small town. And I refuse to serve you because you’re a leftist. You can go to some other restaurant in some other town. But that’s my freedom as a restauranteur, right ? And you’d support that, right?

+1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Shouldn't all Americans be free speech absolutists?

You already know free speech has limits. Why feign stupidity?

Tell us, oh Wise One - how do you define those limits?

Let me guess: “anything and everything I disagree with”, right?

Actually, the supreme court has been quite clear about those limits over the years. The current policies in place by the vast majority of tech companies grossly exceed the limits defined by the supreme court.

Because tech companies are not the government and have freedom themselves.

There is a very compelling argument to be made that these tech companies are utilities, or at the very least, common carriers. And neither of those are allowed to practice the kind of subjective discrimination in their delivery of services or power that many tech companies currently do with regard to free speech that does not meet the USSC thresholds for obscenity, libel or incitement.

Through their censorship and ideological standards for speech, these lefty tech oligarchs are setting themselves up to have their platforms taken away from their control and being operated as a public utility. Which would be hysterically funny, BTW.

If I send an Op-Ed to the Washington Post or the New York Times, they’re not obligated to publish it in their pages. And no one would argue that my free speech rights have been infringed. What’s the difference?

Freedom of speech only means that the government can’t arrest you for saying something. It doesn’t mean that private companies are required by law to allow you to use their platforms. If it makes good business sense to exclude certain people because of their actions, then private businesses should have the right to do that.

So you also therefore think 7-11 should be able to exclude groups of young black people from their stores because of the actions of flash mobs of other young black people stealing merchandise from other 7-11 stores?

You’d agree with that then, right?

Businesses often refuse specific customers based on prior bad behavior. Are you saying that Twitter is banning all registered Republicans? Last I checked there are many many conservatives with active Twitter accounts.