Anonymous wrote:Explain the poison pill action taken by the Twitter board.

For one, they are not allowing the board to vote

Explain the poison pill action taken by the Twitter board.

There will be lawsuits, but Elon’s little game is pretty much over. No way Twitter did this without consulting other large shareholders.

Anonymous wrote:Was there any outrage on here when Bezos bought the Post? I vividly recall mainstream media and media personalities spun it as awesome "investment" into journalism.

Journalism is held accountable.

What about Musk’s uncensored platform?

Was there any outrage on here when Bezos bought the Post? I vividly recall mainstream media and media personalities spun it as awesome "investment" into journalism.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TWITTER IS A PRIVATE COMPANY AND CAN DECIDE WHO AND WHAT APPEARS ON ITS PLATFORM.
THAT IS NOT AN INFRINGEMENT ON FREE SPEECH.

The first amendment only protects you from government suppression of speech.

Is that clear?

This falls down when private companies like bakeries are told they cannot express free speech. If their customer wants something on a cake they don’t support, the government has told them too bad.

Womp womp.

Anonymous wrote:The response by Van Gard and others to push back Musk was exactly what he was going for. He’s forcing leftists out into the open. The last thing they want is Musk uncovering what’s been going on at Twitter.

Yeah, and Barr and Durham are going to drop a real load on the Democrats, too! Donald Trump is the most dedicated American servant ever because he served with highest distinction in WWII and he personally won the Korean War and because of him, there was no Vietnam. Elon Musk is performing a valuable public servant that in no way has to do with him manipulating stock prices to personally profit because he’s in this for the little guy! /s

The wealthy already have outsized speech and rights. How much more does this head case need?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is online censorship different from book banning? They are two sides of the same coin. Both suppress speech and and are used to manipulate people and ideas. Anyone who supports one and not the other is a hypocrite. Tolerance for things like gay (just one example) marriage grew with free speech.

Again, it’s the difference between government and business.

You are missing the point. I’m talking about the concepts. And at this point one can argue that large Internet companies are running the government more than the other way around. They’re almost the American equivalent of Russian oligarchs. The so-called Internet super highway should be classed as a utility.

+10000

At this point it’s only a matter of time.

Anonymous wrote:TWITTER IS A PRIVATE COMPANY AND CAN DECIDE WHO AND WHAT APPEARS ON ITS PLATFORM.
THAT IS NOT AN INFRINGEMENT ON FREE SPEECH.

The first amendment only protects you from government suppression of speech.

Is that clear?

This falls down when private companies like bakeries are told they cannot express free speech. If their customer wants something on a cake they don’t support, the government has told them too bad.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How is online censorship different from book banning? They are two sides of the same coin. Both suppress speech and and are used to manipulate people and ideas. Anyone who supports one and not the other is a hypocrite. Tolerance for things like gay (just one example) marriage grew with free speech.

Again, it’s the difference between government and business.

You are missing the point. I’m talking about the concepts. And at this point one can argue that large Internet companies are running the government more than the other way around. They’re almost the American equivalent of Russian oligarchs. The so-called Internet super highway should be classed as a utility.

The response by Van Gard and others to push back Musk was exactly what he was going for. He’s forcing leftists out into the open. The last thing they want is Musk uncovering what’s been going on at Twitter.

Anonymous wrote:He’s obviously doing this to inflate the stock value before he sells. Similar stunts are why he is in trouble with the SEC.

This man needs to face the full force of US securities laws. I tire of his games. What a f**king punk.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TWITTER IS A PRIVATE COMPANY AND CAN DECIDE WHO AND WHAT APPEARS ON ITS PLATFORM.
THAT IS NOT AN INFRINGEMENT ON FREE SPEECH.

The first amendment only protects you from government suppression of speech.

Is that clear?

So the first amendment is the only instantiation of the principle of free speech. Got it!

You got nothing

No, you don't understand the difference between a principle and a right.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TWITTER IS A PRIVATE COMPANY AND CAN DECIDE WHO AND WHAT APPEARS ON ITS PLATFORM.
THAT IS NOT AN INFRINGEMENT ON FREE SPEECH.

The first amendment only protects you from government suppression of speech.

Is that clear?

So the first amendment is the only instantiation of the principle of free speech. Got it!

You got nothing

Anonymous wrote:TWITTER IS A PRIVATE COMPANY AND CAN DECIDE WHO AND WHAT APPEARS ON ITS PLATFORM.
THAT IS NOT AN INFRINGEMENT ON FREE SPEECH.

The first amendment only protects you from government suppression of speech.

Is that clear?

So the first amendment is the only instantiation of the principle of free speech. Got it!