Elon vs Twitter update: Elon helped America win , Tesla stock through the roof

I still think the end game is Twitter as an e-commerce platform. Every time crypto is traded there or links to a site where a transaction takes place Twitter will take a fee. That's not happening unless all accounts are verified. Let's not forget his OG co was Paypal.

 

Your ignorance once again shows if you actually think spam bots have a right to or are protected as free speech.

That's such a dumb question.

 

I was wondering about this. Is this not sort of analogous to someone programming a robot in a public area to audibly blare out a scripted message whenever anyone passes by? That robot becomes your spam bot, effectively. I guess that would be a form of protected free speech (not for the robot, obviously, but for the person who placed the robot there).

 

Well it isn't free speech to spam robots on someone's private property. Like you can't pile up robots on my front lawn....


Oh wait.

 

The biggest complaints are the bots trying to defraud people.

I dont think elon cares about the bots that program people who are too stupid to think for themselves.

 

authoritarians always bemoan that there is too much speech

 

What are your thoughts on a hypothetical situation where Obama lost the election to Romney?

Do you think he would convince 30-40% of the country that he actually won and that the vote count is off by millions of votes? I mean if he's authoritarian, in assuming that's what he would do.

 

Served his two terms and went away.

For an authoritarian he sure has an odd way of showing it

 

Do Twitters users get defrauded by bots? Never heard of that. Or, are you talking about commercials on the platform

The biggest issue with Twitter is falsehood spread by bots everywhere. He's going after all of that and more. The only bots he will keep in place are the ones he pushes onto the platform. Bots fighting bots. Bots collecting information. Bots moderating the square, keeping it shiny and clean.. omg.

 

Unsolicited commercial are effectively paid spam bots. Protected speech unless it has falsehood. The gov has done very little to regulate it except in some cases (such as smoking ads, some unsolicited calls, falsehood).

Unsolicited non-commercials (spam) are protected speech.

It's been up to the private sector to deal with it.

 

ACLU argues against anti-spam legislation on the 1st Amendment (free speech) ground. Virginia Supreme Court ruled that their anti-spam law was not constitutional. AFAIK, the only anti-spam cases that the US Court has allowed are those that are Commercials with falsehood. Spam by anyone else that is not a Commercial are still protected speech.

 

ACLU are mostly dumbasses.

 

What about the US Courts positions on spam? Your statement was wrong about spam.

 

No it was not. You make the argument to me why automated spam should be free speech, protected by the constitution. I know that there are random idiots among lawyers who will say anything, but you try to explain it to me.

 

You ignored this part of my post? "Virginia Supreme Court ruled that their anti-spam law was not constitutional."

Virginia anti-spam law ruled unconstitutional — spammer’s conviction thrown out - Lexology

The Virginia Supreme Court recently ruled that Virginia’s anti-spam law violates the free speech protections in the First Amendment to the US Constitution, and overturned the 2004 conviction of spammer Jeremy Jaynes. Jaynes, who had sent over 10,000 unsolicited e-mails in a 24-hour period on three occasions, was convicted of three counts of violating Virginia’s anti-spam law and was sentenced to nine years in prison.

 

If you are against automated spam (most of us are), then it’s not hard to see why Twitter itself is not an ideal platform for communication. Its design relies on algorithms to automate how messages proliferate out to users. The retweet button is particularly insidious, and akin to sending out spam. Whether the tweet originates from a bot account or a person who is paid to spam garbage on Twitter, retweets by people who unthinkingly propagate content without bothering to evaluate it are doing the work of a spam bot.

You are choosing to draw the line restricting use of bot accounts, but you are evidently not doing so on free speech grounds. You think the “free speech” argument for allowing it just happens to be very weak in this case, and other concerns that people should not be mislead about the content they are receiving should take precedence. Fair enough. People can draw the line elsewhere with the same reasoning.

 

I'm still neutral whether Musk takes over Twitter. From my own personal self interests I'm not happy if he leverages his Tesla stock to do so.

 

The biggest complaints I've heard about are people scraping prominent names and all their account information and impersonating them followed up with scam attempts. Which is what the blue check marks are for.

Facebook had the same issue awhile back. Fake accounts were driving a large portion of the traffic, giving the platform an appearance of a bigger network affect than it really had. Now Facebook is trash.

Twitter has a lot of untapped protentional beyond political trash and gossip.