Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

The Unofficial "Elon Musk trying to "Save Everyone" from Themselves (except his Step-Sister)" Thread...


Renegade7
 Share

Recommended Posts

Purchase isn't official yet...

 

NEW YORK, April 25 (Reuters) - Twitter Inc (TWTR.N) is poised to agree a sale to Elon Musk for around $43 billion in cash, the price the CEO of Tesla has called his "best and final" offer for the social media company, people familiar with the matter said.

 

Twitter may announce the $54.20-per-share deal later on Monday once its board has met to recommend the transaction to Twitter shareholders, the sources said, adding it was still possible the deal could collapse at the last minute.

 

https://www.reuters.com/technology/exclusive-twitter-set-accept-musks-best-final-offer-sources-2022-04-25/

 

 

Edit:  I do have a specific beef with this issue, but leaving door open for "All Things Elon Musk" including this issue.

 

Leaving poll and door open for expanded debate, please keep it civil. 

 

Double Edit:  saving results of poll here and taking it down along with thread title change, more "All things Musk" them this dosy-doe he's doing with Twitter...

 

 

SmartSelect_20220715-233124_Chrome.jpg

Edited by Renegade7
  • Thumb down 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Renegade7 changed the title to (Rueters) Twitter set to accept Musk's $43 billion offer...

I cant get behind the government punishing political speech, like what Desantis is doing in florida.  Going against Musks companies for letting Rumpledstiltskin back on twitter feels similar to me. Feels authoritarian and makes me uncomfortable.  
 

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Spaceman Spiff from my understanding, he has not said he'll officially unban him.

 

A lot of this is coming from his supposed reasoning for buying Twitter and free-speech absolutist takes:

 

Quote

His main concern appears to be with Twitter’s moderation policies. In March he tweeted a poll asking users whether the site adhered to the principle of free speech. “Given that Twitter serves as the de facto public town square, failing to adhere to free speech principles fundamentally undermines democracy,” he said. “What should be done?” He has declared himself a “free speech absolutist” and, in that context, the Twitter-banned former US president Donald Trump must be hoping Musk’s bid succeeds.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/technology/2022/apr/14/how-free-speech-absolutist-elon-musk-would-transform-twitter

 

Having said that, it doesn't appear Musk really likes Trump, quite the opposite, and Trump is saying he wouldn't come back if unbanned.

 

I'm not buying Trump wouldn't come back, or whatever is stopping Musk from over turning the ban will stop him in the long run, nor am I fully buying he intends to unban him specificly.

 

It really is a wait and see game, but with huge ramifications if he does.

Edited by Renegade7
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Destino said:

I cant get behind the government punishing political speech, like what Desantis is doing in florida.  Going against Musks companies for letting Rumpledstiltskin back on twitter feels similar to me. Feels authoritarian and makes me uncomfortable.  
 

 

 

 

Yeah, this is where I'm at.  But people will make great leaps to justify why it's a good thing.  

 

It's my hope that if this deal goes through, Musk still holds Twitter to some sort of TOS and that if Trump doesn't adhere to it, he's gone again.  Short leash, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Renegade7 said:

@Spaceman Spiff from my understanding, he has not said he'll officially unban him.

 

A lot of this is coming from his supposed reasoning for buying Twitter and free-speech absolutist takes:

 

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/technology/2022/apr/14/how-free-speech-absolutist-elon-musk-would-transform-twitter

 

Having said that, it doesn't appear Musk really likes Trump, quite the opposite, and Trump is saying he wouldn't come back if unmanned.

 

I'm not buying Trump wouldn't come back, or whatever is stopping Musk from over turning the ban will stop him in the long run, nor am I fully buying he intends to unban him specificly.

 

It really is a wait and see game, but with huge ramifications if he does.

 

I think we're all in favor of free speech, but what Musk fails to realize here is that there's a TOS in place.  And Trump didn't adhere to it.  IIRC, I mean, twitter gave that dude more than enough rope to hang himself and he took every opportunity to do so.  

 

It's the same argument, you can't yell FIRE in a crowded theatre.  Yes, free speech exists but in certain areas there are ramifications for doing so.  Yes, the KKK can say whatever they want.  No, they don't deserve to be on every/all platforms in order to spread their message.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Captain Wiggles said:

The government should end the subsidies not because Musk bought Twitter but because he's one of the richest men on the planet. That money should go to programs that actually help people in need. 🤷‍♂️

So why don’t we end all subsidies? Rich people are the who benefit from subsidies the most. 
 

Btw, those SpaceX subsidies made space flight cheaper for the United States. pretty good ROI on that.

Edited by CousinsCowgirl84
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Destino said:

I cant get behind the government punishing political speech, like what Desantis is doing in florida.  Going against Musks companies for letting Rumpledstiltskin back on twitter feels similar to me. Feels authoritarian and makes me uncomfortable.  

 

Yea, know, this sounds good in theory, but the only reason we are talking about this being political speech is because Trump was a politician.

 

In the context of the number of people using Twitter that aren't politicians and Trump now being a private citizen, I don't agree with this being off the table even if it possibly sets a precedent.

 

We should end subsidies for oil companies, if "because they are using that money for political ads, efforts to undermine regulating them, and climate change disinformation campaigns" makes you uncomfortable, then we got a larger elephant in the room that also needs to be addressed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

The government shouldn’t punish a private company for banning or unbanning a citizen of its country, full stop.

 

While in the context of this citizen and cronies being under investigation for Insurrection efforts against said government, some of which done via this company's platform?

 

I don't agree with "black or white" ing this issue, despite the concerns brought forth here.  This clearly deserves the conversation of an "exception" for the greater good of the country.

Edited by Renegade7
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

You should only end subsides if think the subsides aren’t effective in what you are trying to achieve and the money could be better spend elsewhere.  Not because you are mad that someone let your political opponent back on Twitter.

 

8abe8af6-079f-4b6d-b8c2-eed7e7ff79ac_tex

 

You talk just to hear your own voice? 🤣

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

You should only end subsides if think the subsides aren’t effective in what you are trying to achieve and the money could be better spend elsewhere.  Not because you are mad that someone let your political opponent back on Twitter.

 

That's turning a blind eye to other **** they could be doing and shouldnt be (such as breaking the law in this or other countries), that's too black or white a policy to adhere to. 

 

Sounds good in theory, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

While in the context of this citizen and cronies being under investigation for Insurrection efforts against said government, some of which done via this companies platform?

 

I don't agree with "black or white" ing this issue, despite the concerns brought forth here.  This clearly deserves the conversation of an "exception" for the greater good of the country.

If the government wants to punish the guilty, they should indict them. Not rely on provide companies to the hard work for them.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

If the government wants to punish the guilty, they should indict them. Not rely on provide companies to the hard work for them.

 

Congress is taking too long to bring charges on Trump, need to chew gum and walk at same time on this one. 

 

And yes, this thread will eventually turn into a Section 230 conversation.  It's not about "relying on them to do work for them" its about holding them accountable for doing little to nothing about violating the governments laws via their platform under the guise of free speech.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Congress is taking too long to bring charges on Trump, need to chew gum and walk at same time on this one. 
 

 

that is congresses job. Not Twitters.

 

1 minute ago, Renegade7 said:

 

And yes, this thread will eventually turn into a Section 230 conversation.  It's not about "relying on them to do work for them" its about holding them accountable for doing little to nothing about violating the governments laws via their platform under the guise of free speech.


If the company is violating laws convict them for breaking laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

that is congresses job. Not Twitters.

 

This is horse**** in the context of the roles social media is playing in the disinformation era.  This isn't about Twitter bringing charges, but doing nothing if a citizen is breaking laws because it's not their job to enforce the laws is BS.

 

1 minute ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:


If the company is violating laws convict them for breaking laws.

 

That's why Section 230 needs to be addressed, because Internet companies are acting as conduits for illegal activity and there are too many "protections" for this:

 

Quote

Section 230 says that "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" (47 U.S.C. § 230). In other words, online intermediaries that host or republish speech are protected against a range of laws that might otherwise be used to hold them legally responsible for what others say and do. The protected intermediaries include not only regular Internet Service Providers (ISPs), but also a range of "interactive computer service providers," including basically any online service that publishes third-party content.

 

https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230

  • Thumb up 1
  • Super Duper Ain't No Party Pooper Two Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

While in the context of this citizen and cronies being under investigation for Insurrection efforts against said government, some of which done via this companies platform?

 

I don't agree with "black or white" ing this issue, despite the concerns brought forth here.  This clearly deserves the conversation of an "exception" for the greater good of the country.


A continued ban from twitter doesn’t change anything in regards to the insurrection.  The government needs to find the courage to hold the powerful accountable, but they increasingly refuse to do that.  We saw the Holder doctrine make it policy to accept fines in lieu of holding individual corporate leaders accountable.  Now we’re seeing the government blink at holding other elected leaders accountable.  
 

Who is allowed to **** post on twitter is an entirely separate matter, and one of significantly less importance.  It’s not like Trump stopped lying during his hiatus.  
 

I’d also add that it’s my firm belief that creating more echo chambers makes radicalizing people easier.  There’s a reason cults seek to isolate people.  There’s a reason republican no longer want presidential debates. 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Destino said:


A continued ban from twitter doesn’t change anything in regards to the insurrection.  The government needs to find the courage to hold the powerful accountable, but they increasingly refuse to do that.  We saw the Holder doctrine make it policy to accept fines in lieu of holding individual corporate leaders accountable.  Now we’re seeing the government blink at holding other elected leaders accountable.  
 

Who is allowed to **** post on twitter is an entirely separate matter, and one of significantly less importance.  It’s not like Trump stopped lying during his hiatus.  
 

I’d also add that it’s my firm belief that creating more echo chambers makes radicalizing people easier.  There’s a reason cults seek to isolate people.  There’s a reason republican no longer want presidential debates. 

 

 

So I take it you support holding Hillary accountable for the Russia facade that proved to be a nothing-burger?

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Destino said:


A continued ban from twitter doesn’t change anything in regards to the insurrection.  The government needs to find the courage to hold the powerful accountable, but they increasingly refuse to do that.  We saw the Holder doctrine make it policy to accept fines in lieu of holding individual corporate leaders accountable.  Now we’re seeing the government blink at holding other elected leaders accountable.  
 

 

I hear what you saying here. It's jus not good enough with respect to the impact of Trump coming back to Twitter and him using it as a Big Lie megaphone. 

 

Because it clearly played a role in the Insurrection attempt, Twitter even accepted partial responsibility for being one of his conduits for that attempt as part of banning him, and no telling what Trump would use Twitter to help do in the future.

 

It's not worth it (unbanning him) to find out in the context of what's already happened, imo.

 

17 minutes ago, Destino said:

Who is allowed to **** post on twitter is an entirely separate matter, and one of significantly less importance.  It’s not like Trump stopped lying during his hiatus.  

 

Fair, which is why I brought Section 230 into this thread.

 

17 minutes ago, Destino said:

I’d also add that it’s my firm belief that creating more echo chambers makes radicalizing people easier.  There’s a reason cults seek to isolate people.  There’s a reason republican no longer want presidential debates. 

 

It's a catch 22, as I don't agree with "being okay" with one large echo chamber that's incapable of moderating itself (and may even go backwards with this takeover), or like those smaller echo chambers will go away or stop popping up by there being a giant one.

Edited by Renegade7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Renegade7 changed the title to The Unofficial "Elon Musk trying to "Save Everyone" from Themselves (except his Step-Sister)" Thread...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...