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

[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.

The difference is that the WaPo can be sued for publishing things that aren’t true. And this happens.

Twitter and Facebook have federal government protection against being sued because they claim that they aren’t the real publishers of the information, they’re just passing along what the public publishes and so can’t be held responsible for what is written.

But clearly Twitter and Facebook have been acting like publishers when it suits them, censoring things that they don’t like. A utility company can’t do that.

[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.

The difference is that the WaPo can be sued for publishing things that aren’t true. And this happens.

Twitter and Facebook have federal government protection against being sued because they claim that they aren’t the real publishers of the information, they’re just passing along what the public publishes and so can’t be held responsible for what is written.

But clearly Twitter and Facebook have been acting like publishers when it suits them, censoring things that they don’t like. A utility company can’t do that.

A utility company never publishes anything but a bill.

[Anonymous]

Can someone explains what this means? I realize what he's the largest shareholder means, but does 9.2% give him the ability to change anything? They still have a board of directors and CEO that make the decisions, so what does this do for him exactly?

[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.

The difference is that the WaPo can be sued for publishing things that aren’t true. And this happens.

Twitter and Facebook have federal government protection against being sued because they claim that they aren’t the real publishers of the information, they’re just passing along what the public publishes and so can’t be held responsible for what is written.

But clearly Twitter and Facebook have been acting like publishers when it suits them, censoring things that they don’t like. A utility company can’t do that.

Rather than a utility company, a better analogy is a porn studio. Twitter et al are entertainment. If people find you offensive/violate the rules of behavior or you hurt the bottom line, you get kicked out. The government gives you free speech but they don’t require a private company to publish you. It’s capitalism and private companies hold the power, not gov.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explains what this means? I realize what he's the largest shareholder means, but does 9.2% give him the ability to change anything? They still have a board of directors and CEO that make the decisions, so what does this do for him exactly?

He will get the ability to appoint board seats. But not enough to control the board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explains what this means? I realize what he's the largest shareholder means, but does 9.2% give him the ability to change anything? They still have a board of directors and CEO that make the decisions, so what does this do for him exactly?

He will get the ability to appoint board seats. But not enough to control the board.

Thanks! Would that mean if someone leaves, or he can actually get rid of all of them and get a whole new crew?

[Anonymous]

What an idiot - his actions just sent undermined his legal strategy in other cases he has pending with the SEC
https://www.wsj.com/articles/elon-musks-twitt...red-flag-11649114327

Also, his regulatory filings indicate that he intends to be a passive shareholder.

People keep falling for his bluster over and over again.

[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?

I need popcorn. This is gonna get good! Considering Dorsey’s last tweet, something’s coming down the pike.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What an idiot - his actions just sent undermined his legal strategy in other cases he has pending with the SEC
https://www.wsj.com/articles/elon-musks-twitt...red-flag-11649114327

Also, his regulatory filings indicate that he intends to be a passive shareholder.

People keep falling for his bluster over and over again.

This is the narrative, I know. Given Musk and his interviews, etc, I would not expect passive from him.

[Anonymous]

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?

I need popcorn. This is gonna get good! Considering Dorsey’s last tweet, something’s coming down the pike.

Yeah Dorsey has hinted about regretting the decision to boot Trump in a few different ways. But I’m not sure if he has the gumption or ability to do anything about it now.

[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?

I need popcorn. This is gonna get good! Considering Dorsey’s last tweet, something’s coming down the pike.

Yeah Dorsey has hinted about regretting the decision to boot Trump in a few different ways. But I’m not sure if he has the gumption or ability to do anything about it now.

He’s now gone further than that:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/twitter-co-founder...orsey-184238106.html

[Anonymous]

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?

Doxxing your/your family & posting your address online - is that OK?

Advocating for genocide of a class or group of people - is that OK?

Public harassment - is that OK?

[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?

I need popcorn. This is gonna get good! Considering Dorsey’s last tweet, something’s coming down the pike.

Yeah Dorsey has hinted about regretting the decision to boot Trump in a few different ways. But I’m not sure if he has the gumption or ability to do anything about it now.

It’s been 2 years since Trump was banned and Elon Musk had to pay *billions* of dollars for 9%. Clearly a horrible business decision and Twitter is reeling. Even the Twitter haters on this thread agree that Twitter is now so big and powerful that it is basically equivalent to natural monopoly like a utility company.

[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?

I need popcorn. This is gonna get good! Considering Dorsey’s last tweet, something’s coming down the pike.

Yeah Dorsey has hinted about regretting the decision to boot Trump in a few different ways. But I’m not sure if he has the gumption or ability to do anything about it now.

It’s been 2 years since Trump was banned and Elon Musk had to pay *billions* of dollars for 9%. Clearly a horrible business decision and Twitter is reeling. Even the Twitter haters on this thread agree that Twitter is now so big and powerful that it is basically equivalent to natural monopoly like a utility company.

You can't designate Twitter as a utility without designating Facebook, Google, Reddit, and a slew of other social media entities. Also, massive 1st Amendment issues with regulating speech.

For an analogous example, look at what happened with the FSOC and its ability to designate certain financial sector companies as "systemically important." The FSOC was essentially defanged by the courts.

I don't think these tech companies will ever be designated as "utilities." It seems like an end-around to Congress doing it's damn job and just passing straight forward legislation to regulate tech.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

Youd have to actually prove that Twitter is a monopoly and the only way discourse occurs. I dont even have a Twitter nor do most of my friends. I dont rely on Twitter for services.