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: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?

Leftists HAVE doxxed my H on Twitter

Leftists HAVE advocated for the genocide of people like us on Twitter

We HAVE been publicly harassed by leftists on Twitter



Is all of that ok with you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Agree. Many on the previously liberal left have given up on it though. If you can’t win with arguments, you silence your opposition. Nothing new.

The number of Americans who do not understand free speech is truly astounding. So, maybe, don't post about it if you don't.

Twitter is a PRIVATE PLATFORM. They can regulate whatever they want. And frankly, they don't regulate much. Just absolute lies and misinformation. And that's a good thing.

[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?

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?

Leftists HAVE doxxed my H on Twitter

Leftists HAVE advocated for the genocide of people like us on Twitter

We HAVE been publicly harassed by leftists on Twitter



Is all of that ok with you?

Why aren't you suing?

And no, none of that is OK with me if it is true.

[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.

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.

But many, many of the "legacy" media you consume probably source from twitter and derive a good of their reporting and content therefrom. It is inescapable, really, and it would be foolish not to acknowledge it.

[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.

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.

But many, many of the "legacy" media you consume probably source from twitter and derive a good of their reporting and content therefrom. It is inescapable, really, and it would be foolish not to acknowledge it.

Lots of legacy media does its own original reporting, particularly when it comes to investigative reporting. For example, much of the Epstein news came from long-form investigative reports. And now any subsequent news comes from public court reporting. Twitter really isn't revelatory when it comes to new info about Epstein.

In fact, I would argue that you have the roles reversed: Twitter repackages original reporting by "legacy" media and hypes it to a wider audience. If legacy media is the voice, Twitter is the bullhorn. Another, more efficient bullhorn could easily replace Twitter at some point in the future.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Agree. Many on the previously liberal left have given up on it though. If you can’t win with arguments, you silence your opposition. Nothing new.

The number of Americans who do not understand free speech is truly astounding. So, maybe, don't post about it if you don't.

Twitter is a PRIVATE PLATFORM. They can regulate whatever they want. And frankly, they don't regulate much. Just absolute lies and misinformation. And that's a good thing.

Read about section 230. Twitter is not just a private platform.

[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.

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.

But many, many of the "legacy" media you consume probably source from twitter and derive a good of their reporting and content therefrom. It is inescapable, really, and it would be foolish not to acknowledge it.

Lots of legacy media does its own original reporting, particularly when it comes to investigative reporting. For example, much of the Epstein news came from long-form investigative reports. And now any subsequent news comes from public court reporting. Twitter really isn't revelatory when it comes to new info about Epstein.

In fact, I would argue that you have the roles reversed: Twitter repackages original reporting by "legacy" media and hypes it to a wider audience. If legacy media is the voice, Twitter is the bullhorn. Another, more efficient bullhorn could easily replace Twitter at some point in the future.

Information has to come from somewhere. Reporters get it from somewhere as well. Is that "not revelatory"?

Epstein is a weird example and nobody is denying that independent, investigative journalism does happen. But Twitter is literally a pubic chronicling of stances and positions many of our leaders, pubic officials, organizations and companies have taken on current events and items of the day. It is a channel of first instance in this regard. It is a market mover. It is the digital commons and public square. It is not entirely reflective of reality, but it tremendously colors reality. Similarly, social media has now become the disinformation channel of first instance with troll farms, content mills, etc.

Also the lines are getting mixed, because I would argue that a lot of legacy media has become incredibly lazy and reactionary with their reporting, in order try to compete with the Facebooks and Twitters of the world. They do this by scouring social media for content and repackaging and churning it out themselves. Journalistic standards and rigor have dropped precipitously. They are the one's reacting to twitter and the tone that it sets, not vice versa.

The very culture of many newsrooms themselves has changed, with an ever increasing tilt toward advocacy journalism. These changes are attributable, in part, the the attention economy and internet/social media culture that has seeped into many other facets of life.

So not only is legacy media sourcing from the Twitter's of the world, but they are adapting their standard and practices to maintain themselves in a milieu where new media predominates. This is veering towards monopolistic influence on the media landscape.

[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:

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.

But many, many of the "legacy" media you consume probably source from twitter and derive a good of their reporting and content therefrom. It is inescapable, really, and it would be foolish not to acknowledge it.

Lots of legacy media does its own original reporting, particularly when it comes to investigative reporting. For example, much of the Epstein news came from long-form investigative reports. And now any subsequent news comes from public court reporting. Twitter really isn't revelatory when it comes to new info about Epstein.

In fact, I would argue that you have the roles reversed: Twitter repackages original reporting by "legacy" media and hypes it to a wider audience. If legacy media is the voice, Twitter is the bullhorn. Another, more efficient bullhorn could easily replace Twitter at some point in the future.

Information has to come from somewhere. Reporters get it from somewhere as well. Is that "not revelatory"?

Epstein is a weird example and nobody is denying that independent, investigative journalism does happen. But Twitter is literally a pubic chronicling of stances and positions many of our leaders, pubic officials, organizations and companies have taken on current events and items of the day. It is a channel of first instance in this regard. It is a market mover. It is the digital commons and public square. It is not entirely reflective of reality, but it tremendously colors reality. Similarly, social media has now become the disinformation channel of first instance with troll farms, content mills, etc.

Also the lines are getting mixed, because I would argue that a lot of legacy media has become incredibly lazy and reactionary with their reporting, in order try to compete with the Facebooks and Twitters of the world. They do this by scouring social media for content and repackaging and churning it out themselves. Journalistic standards and rigor have dropped precipitously. They are the one's reacting to twitter and the tone that it sets, not vice versa.

The very culture of many newsrooms themselves has changed, with an ever increasing tilt toward advocacy journalism. These changes are attributable, in part, the the attention economy and internet/social media culture that has seeped into many other facets of life.

So not only is legacy media sourcing from the Twitter's of the world, but they are adapting their standard and practices to maintain themselves in a milieu where new media predominates. This is veering towards monopolistic influence on the media landscape.

If twitter is suddenly a monopoly then that sets a very interesting precedent for almost every corporation out there right now. It wont happen.

[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?

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?

Leftists HAVE doxxed my H on Twitter

Leftists HAVE advocated for the genocide of people like us on Twitter

We HAVE been publicly harassed by leftists on Twitter



Is all of that ok with you?

Why aren't you suing?

And no, none of that is OK with me if it is true.

It’s not ok with me, either. (Liberal NP here). Agree, you need to sue.

[Anonymous]

If Musk sells any stock, he can break so many at Twitter. He owns them now

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If Musk sells any stock, he can break so many at Twitter. He owns them now

Yep. This was an absolutely brilliant move on his part. Ironically, Musk may be the ONLY thing that could potentially save Twitter in the next couple years, too. All it would take is a House investigation into the 2020 Laptop saga to bring them down.

Musk may have just saved them without them even realizing it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Musk sells any stock, he can break so many at Twitter. He owns them now

Yep. This was an absolutely brilliant move on his part. Ironically, Musk may be the ONLY thing that could potentially save Twitter in the next couple years, too. All it would take is a House investigation into the 2020 Laptop saga to bring them down.

Musk may have just saved them without them even realizing it.

If Twitter is so weak, why did Musk have to pay out so much money for a 9% stake?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If Musk sells any stock, he can break so many at Twitter. He owns them now

What does "break so many at Twitter" mean? Are you talking about employees?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Musk sells any stock, he can break so many at Twitter. He owns them now

What does "break so many at Twitter" mean? Are you talking about employees?

They are talking about Musk engaging in price manipulation. Basically, Musk can threaten to dump his shares and that would cause fortunes among Twitter employees to plummet, unless Twitter does what he demands.

Essentially, Musk is betting that the SEC won't do anything to rein in his price manipulation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Musk sells any stock, he can break so many at Twitter. He owns them now

What does "break so many at Twitter" mean? Are you talking about employees?

They are talking about Musk engaging in price manipulation. Basically, Musk can threaten to dump his shares and that would cause fortunes among Twitter employees to plummet, unless Twitter does what he demands.

Essentially, Musk is betting that the SEC won't do anything to rein in his price manipulation.

I guess we will see how principled they are then...