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

[Anonymous]

No bank is going to loan Elon the cash he needs to do this. He could start liquidating billions in TSLA shares, but that will spark a massive self off as TSLA shares flood the market. Elon is already leveraged out his butt with existing TSLA shares backing personal loans to fund his lifestyle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No bank is going to loan Elon the cash he needs to do this. He could start liquidating billions in TSLA shares, but that will spark a massive self off as TSLA shares flood the market. Elon is already leveraged out his butt with existing TSLA shares backing personal loans to fund his lifestyle.

No you are wrong. He has the fund in a trust

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Republicans and conservatives should not be allowed to spread their views all over Twitter.

Same w Dems and Libs. No politics. And I’d agree wholeheartedly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No bank is going to loan Elon the cash he needs to do this. He could start liquidating billions in TSLA shares, but that will spark a massive self off as TSLA shares flood the market. Elon is already leveraged out his butt with existing TSLA shares backing personal loans to fund his lifestyle.

No you are wrong. He has the fund in a trust

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Great, so you should have no issue with Elon buying it and shaping it according to his vision.

This his “vision” at Tesla. Does this behavior support the concept of free speech?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Republicans and conservatives should not be allowed to spread their views all over Twitter.

Same w Dems and Libs. No politics. And I’d agree wholeheartedly.

DP. I don't have a problem with politics. I love political discussions and have learned a lot from them. What I have a problem with is dangerous lies that cause destruction and get people killed, like "tHE eLEcTiON wUz SToLEn!" that led to the J6 attack on the Capitol, or all of the anti-mask, anti-vax stupidity that resulted in hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths. Anyone who thinks destructive lies like that are an important part of politics or necessary to free speech is sick and twisted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Republicans and conservatives should not be allowed to spread their views all over Twitter.

Same w Dems and Libs. No politics. And I’d agree wholeheartedly.

DP. I don't have a problem with politics. I love political discussions and have learned a lot from them. What I have a problem with is dangerous lies that cause destruction and get people killed, like "tHE eLEcTiON wUz SToLEn!" that led to the J6 attack on the Capitol, or all of the anti-mask, anti-vax stupidity that resulted in hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths. Anyone who thinks destructive lies like that are an important part of politics or necessary to free speech is sick and twisted.

+1 and that’s exactly the problem at Twitter (and Facebook) according to a study by this MIT professor.

[Anonymous]

The issue is, who decides what "mis information" is? It’s a slippery slope.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The issue is, who decides what "mis information" is? It’s a slippery slope.

"Mis" information is factually incorrect. How is this hard?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The issue is, who decides what "mis information" is? It’s a slippery slope.

"Mis" information is factually incorrect. How is this hard?

Like Hunter's laptop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The issue is, who decides what "mis information" is? It’s a slippery slope.

"Mis" information is factually incorrect. How is this hard?

Like Hunter's laptop.

Keep running with that.

After Javanka, I'm not worrying about stuff like that. Now if Hunter get's hired in...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The issue is, who decides what "mis information" is? It’s a slippery slope.

"Mis" information is factually incorrect. How is this hard?

Like Hunter's laptop.

Keep running with that.

After Javanka, I'm not worrying about stuff like that. Now if Hunter get's hired in...

The laptop was considered fake new and disallowed by Twitter. It’s a perfect example

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The issue is, who decides what "mis information" is? It’s a slippery slope.

"Mis" information is factually incorrect. How is this hard?

How do you handle something like the Steele dossier which has a number of unverified and verified "facts?" Please don't tell me that because some of it is true, all of it must be true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The issue is, who decides what "mis information" is? It’s a slippery slope.

Facts decide.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The issue is, who decides what "mis information" is? It’s a slippery slope.

"Mis" information is factually incorrect. How is this hard?

How do you handle something like the Steele dossier which has a number of unverified and verified "facts?" Please don't tell me that because some of it is true, all of it must be true.

The facts were that people had compiled a dossier on Trump that contained some information that was verified and some that wasn’t.

As opposed to you all out there sharing “NaNcY pElOsI bOuGht a hOuSe in fLoRiDa!!!1!1!” which was just completely made up.