Elon Musk buying Twitter

[Emelee]

Good or bad or do not care?

I think it can potentially turn bad. I don't really trust his agenda. I don't believe in unfiltered free speech for absolutely everyone. The original owners thought it could be done. They were proven wrong and were forced to add rules and restrictions for democratic reasons.

Even a tiny compared to Twitter community like Telly Talk needs rules and restrictions so that members can't write & share absolutely anything they please.

Second, I trust no one who names their child X Æ A-12. A principle I have.

 

[Frank Underwood]

There's a difference between censoring hate speech and censoring ideas that challenge the mainstream establishment. Unfortunately, the latter has been happening regularly to both the left and the right. I'm not a fan of greedy billionaires like Elon Musk, but I consider it a win if he actually ends the censorship and brings transparency to Twitter.

IMO, an alarming amount of people support random tech billionaires acting as the arbiters of "acceptable" and "informative" speech. People have been banned for spreading "conspiracy theories" and "misinformation" that was later found to be true. Liberals predominantly support these actions, which has exposed their own authoritarian side.

When Jeff Bezos bought The Washington Post in 2013, I don't recall hearing complaints about a billionaire buying a paper of influence. As it turned out, The Washington Post has run countless articles smearing progressive candidates and causes. If Musk uses Twitter to pursue his own agenda and squash dissenting voices, I will have a problem with that. If he simply makes the algorithm transparent and allows people to speak freely, I'm all for it. I don't have to like the guy personally to agree with his (purported) vision.

 

[Emelee]

I don't like the free speech argument. Possibly because I'm a teacher? I hear verbal bullying every single day. I don't think that's ok, so I can't stand by 100% free speech. We like to tell our pupils that it's okay to think anything you want to think, but it's not okay to actually say all these things.

This isn't just for the below 18 population. They learn what they say from family, friends and media. We can make sure not to air adult material before late in the day, but it's difficult to shut people up, and certainly in real time.

So they learn early on and take after and now we have a situation where 10 year olds are saying really nasty things to each other.

I'm not kidding when I say that about 40% of our pupils have mental health issues and should probably be having weekly conversations with a school counselor. Not a week go by where we don't have to call or write to a parent because of verbal or physical violation between pupils.

Their "free speech" argument annoys me to no end. And grown ups aren't any better.

 

[Jock Ewing Fan]

I don't like the free speech argument. Possibly because I'm a teacher? I hear verbal bullying every single day. I don't think that's ok, so I can't stand by 100% free speech. We like to tell our pupils that it's okay to think anything you want to think, but it's not okay to actually say all these things.

This isn't just for the below 18 population. They learn what they say from family, friends and media. We can make sure not to air adult material before late in the day, but it's difficult to shut people up, and certainly in real time.

So they learn early on and take after and now we have a situation where 10 year olds are saying really nasty things to each other.

I'm not kidding when I say that about 40% of our pupils have mental health issues and should probably be having weekly conversations with a school counselor. Not a week go by where we don't have to call or write to a parent because of verbal or physical violation between pupils.

Their "free speech" argument annoys me to no end. And grown ups aren't any better.

I think you make some good points.
Where I digress comes down to who makes the decision about what is acceptable and not acceptable.
I do not trust any authority to make that decision, since it is subjective by nature.
The United States of America would not have been established with a King making such choices.

Yes, the First amendment, in theory protects controversial speech, but again, who should be trusted to police It?

Also, isn't it better to identify the purveyors of such controversial speech, rather than repress it, and
risk drastic actions on their part?

 

[Frank Underwood]

I believe there are laws against extreme forms of cyber bullying and harassment. I would think this is especially true when threats of violence are involved. Libel is also a crime.

Being on the side of free speech comes with the knowledge that it isn't consequence free. In the case of social media, insulted people have the ability to write a scathing rebuttal of their own. If they disagree with the information someone's promoting, they have the ability to provide a counter argument. And if they don't wish to engage with someone at all, they have the right to mute or block them. I have blocked several people on Twitter that I find abhorrent, but I still wouldn't ban them from the site completely.

As for TellyTalk restricting what members can write, there's a post on the Dallas forum from 2020 calling me a moron, an idiot, and a racist. At least I was allowed to respond back. If people want to expose their bad behavior in the public square, let them do it and face whatever comes with it. It helps to have thick skin, although it isn't always easy.

 

[Angela Channing]

I agree with @Emelee and free speech isn't the same as freedom to say anything, including hate speech or aiding and abetting to overthrow a democratic process.

What Elon Musk has said is that he wants to make Twitter realise its full commercial potential and make it less reliant on advertising for revenue as it's currently its only source of income. This suggests he might adopt some kind of subscription model with different levels of access to features depending on how much you pay. Twitter is currently an egalitarian community and a tiered subscription model will favour the rich at the expense of those who have less disposable cash which I don't think is a good idea.

I like Mr Musk's intention to do something about spam bots although I am less enthusiastic about him wanting to authenticate all humans. Although it might sound like a good idea, in practice will it mean everyone having to prove their identity to use the platform. What of people in countries where they don't have documentation or they need to be anonymous for reasons of their own safety?

 

[Frank Underwood]

If Twitter starts charging its users a fee or requires identification, I agree that will be a huge problem. We'll just have to wait and see.

As for "aiding and abetting to overthrow a democratic process," I assume that's directed at Trump and the January 6 incident. I've heard this charge leveled at Trump many times, but I don't recall hearing how he aided and abetted the insurrection. Did he actually organize and encourage his supporters to do that, or was it something more vague? I know he continuously pushed the lie that the election was stolen from him, but people are entitled to their delusions IMO. Just as people are responsible for their own actions.

 

[Angela Channing]

I don't know what the law is in the USA but here in the UK it is illegal to incite others to commit a crime. Many people, including Trump but not just him, tweeted stuff that encouraged people to stage the Capitol Hill insurrection. With hindsight, was it responsible for those tweets to be allowed? If in the future anti-government groups tweeted plans to storm Congress and overthrow the government, should those tweets be permitted? Does the right to free speech supersede the right to stop a violent crime?

 

[Rove]

Also, isn't it better to identify the purveyors of such controversial speech, rather than repress it

Agreed. There is a marked difference between debating a subject and/or deliberately inciting violence, calling someone names based on their appearance, sexuality, religious beliefs etc. Generally a bully will back down when you call them out on such behavior, others are so blinded by their beliefs no amount of rational conversation can persuade them...that's when you walk away.

 

[Frank Underwood]

Outside of using figurative phrases like "we have to fight", "never concede", and "it will be wild", I never heard Trump explicitly tell his supporters to storm the capitol. He did encourage his supporters to walk to the capitol in protest. Although that protest was obviously predicated on a lie, Trump actually encouraged his supporters to be peaceful.

Before the insurrection, Trump spoke at a rally and said "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." He tweeted “I am asking for everyone at the U.S. capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, we are the party of law & order – respect the law and our great men and women in blue. Thank you!" Trump also tweeted "Please support our capitol police and law enforcement. They are truly on the side of our country. Stay peaceful!” Lastly, Trump tweeted "The demonstrators who infiltrated the capitol have defiled the seat of American democracy." So where's the calls for a violent insurrection?

There are obviously legal limits to free speech. For example, you can't scream "fire" in a movie theater. However, I fail to see how calls for a peaceful protest break the law.

 

[Jock Ewing Fan]

Outside of using figurative phrases like "we have to fight", "never concede", and "it will be wild", I never heard Trump explicitly told his supporters to storm the capitol. He did encourage his supporters to walk to the capitol in protest. Although that protest was obviously predicated on a lie, Trump actually encouraged his supporters to be peaceful.

Before the insurrection, Trump spoke at a rally and said "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." He tweeted “I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!" Trump also tweeted "Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!” Lastly, Trump tweeted "The demonstrators who infiltrated the Capitol have defiled the seat of American democracy." So where's the calls for a violent insurrection?

There are obviously legal limits to free speech. For example, you can't scream "fire" in a movie theater. However, I fail to see how calls for a peaceful protest break the law.

Thank You for a common sense approach, with some facts to support it.
As I recall, protests about other events did erupt into lawlessness, and I didn't see much accountability for their 'Leaders"

Let me be clear. Anyone who broke the law should be held accountable.
In this case, I don't know all the facts, and I don't trust any inquiries to be objective.

Without being specific about any one event, the mainstream media seems to have a highly selective criteria
about who the protesters are, and their so-called motives
I have nothing else to say on the subject, I will not participate in unpleasant exchanges

 

[Jock Ewing Fan]

I do need to clarify.

By protesters, I am not referring to one specific event.
I am referring to the multiple protests about a number of events where the behavior of
the "protesters" was destructive to say the least.
My point is that the mainstream media chooses to selectively praise some "protesters"
and not others.

 

[tommie]

I'm ambivalent to it because it doesn't really change the key problem, which is that you have a concentration of very few owners of things that are increasingly becoming a part of our public structure and thus having a worrying amount of power.

 

[Frank Underwood]

I'm ambivalent to it because it doesn't really change the key problem, which is that you have a concentration of very few owners of things that are increasingly becoming a part of our public structure and thus having a worrying amount of power.

True. Journalist Max Blumenthal said "We live in an oligarchy if we're depending on a billionaire to come save us and save our speech and save our public commons. And, so, it's really dangerous to view him as a kind of superhero. I do think there is a underlying financial interest or business objective. That this isn't purely political or altruistic for Musk."

It is a sad state of affairs that free speech advocates have to rely on the word of an unscrupulous billionaire to undue censorship policies of other unscrupulous billionaires. On the other hand, it is revealing watching neoliberals feign outrage over a billionaire purchasing Twitter when they were fine with their former tech billionaire overlords. The hyperbolic stories and segments they've done on the "dangers" of free speech show what they're really worried about. They just want their narratives to remain unchallenged.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

If Twitter starts charging its users a fee or requires identification, I agree that will be a huge problem. We'll just have to wait and see.

As for "aiding and abetting to overthrow a democratic process," I assume that's directed at Trump and the January 6 incident. I've heard this charge leveled at Trump many times, but I don't recall hearing how he aided and abetted the insurrection. Did he actually organize and encourage his supporters to do that, or was it something more vague? I know he continuously pushed the lie that the election was stolen from him, but people are entitled to their delusions IMO. Just as people are responsible for their own actions.

I agree with nearly all you've said, but I think Trump's complicity in the January 6th insurrection is solid. (Although the pseudo-left media keeps pretending it happened yesterday). His "stolen election" claims are silly, while his assertions about Russiagate being a hoax are probably right.

All the platforms are censoring all over the place, if you're on the right or the uncomfortably-legitimate left.

Saddest of all, the ACLU, which used to be depended on the defend all speech -- whether progressive left or nazi-esque right -- has gone all woke its own now-very-bad self.

So, yeah, there's a real problem.

 

[Frank Underwood]

I agree with nearly all you've said, but I think Trump's complicity in the January 6th insurrection is solid. (Although the pseudo-left media keeps pretending it happened yesterday). His "stolen election" claims are silly, while his assertions about Russiagate being a hoax are probably right.

Fair enough. Trump encouraged his supporters to go to the capitol and used provocative language, but I don't think his tweets warranted his removal from Twitter. He didn't explicitly tell his supporters to storm the capitol. In fact, he told them several times to be peaceful. I'm sure he said that to cover his ass considering how much he whipped them into a frenzy, but I also think it works. He didn't unequivocally tell his supporters to violently storm the capitol, which would have strengthened the case for his removal IMO.

His stolen election claims are indeed silly, but as you mentioned Russiagate, neoliberals have their silly conspiracies too. IMO, both sides are entitled to their delusions.

All the platforms are censoring all over the place, if you're on the right or the uncomfortably-legitimate left.

Saddest of all, the ACLU, which used to be depended on the defend all speech -- whether progressive left or nazi-esque right -- has gone all woke its own now-very-bad self.

So, yeah, there's a real problem.

It's sad, but accurate. The woketivists have infiltrated just about every institution. They corrupted some (like the ACLU,) while others were already corrupt (like the CIA.)

 

[Matthew Blaisdel]

I never used Twitter and don't have plans for that in future. So i basically don't care who owns it or what's going on with that platform.
Just heard from some friends that used it, that it's highly nerve wrecking and toxic, so why would i subscribe to something like that?
But i also never used facebook nor instagram or that tiktok app as well, and i don't feel like i'm missing out on anything important.
Still happily stuck in the good old nerd forum days of the internets.

 

[darkshadows38]

thank you for having me not be the only one who refuses to use Social Media yeah i think it's a bad idea him buying it i dunno why i just have a bad feeling about it, i don't think he needs to own it either. but it's also a platform i will never use either so i'm not losing sleep over it either

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

I'm not a social media person at all (does tellytalk qualify??) and Twitter seems to be celebrities anyway. The faux-left doesn't want Trump back on to spew his spew.

Musk apparently said in the last few days that if he dies soon mysterious "it's been nice knowing you."

 

[Jock Ewing Fan]

I am not a social media person. I do not belong to Twitter. I tried Facebook briefly, and I was disgusted by people trying to shove their
disgusting far left ideologies on me.
I have concluded that since all the voices that object to EM are far left ideologues or elitist competitors, it must be a good thing for EM
to take charge.
I didn't hear these same voices when Jeff Bezos took over the Washington Post, or when George Soros funded campaigns for candidates
that many Americans found to be objectionable.
It is an old story. The left supports free expression until someone disagrees with them. For example, isn't it interesting that college campuses, which are supposed to
be THE place for all points of view only have demonstrations and cancel speakers when that speaker is a conservative.
I can name many, many more examples, but there is not enough time and space available.