My point was that it's a very different thing, not the same as gov't censorship. A business does have the right to censor its content, and therefore it's not a violation of anyone's freedom of speech rights. That's what I mean and you are warping my words into something else.
yes: if you ONLY frame the issue as one of the "rights" of a private business to do what it wants, then YES, the business has that legal right. That still does not make what the business does morally RIGHT in an ethical sense. Similarly, if you ONLY frame the free speech issue for the censored individual on the receiving end as a VIOLATION or NOT A VIOLATION of "freedom of speech rights," YES, no one's First Amendment speech RIGHTS have been violated. But that person's speech has still been CENSORED, perhaps WRONGLY so, and one's FREEDOM has still been infringed and WELFARE negatively impacted by having something important withheld from them. related reading:
You can't force private corporations to give people a platform to express themselves. That's the bottom line. As crazy as it is, Musk can ban anyone from Twitter for any reason. He's showing us that he can. He can ban people for being liberal if he wants on a whim. No one on Twitter has any rights outside of what they agreed to in the TOS when they created their account. If you are banned on Twitter, your freedom isn't infringed upon no more than if a bar kicks you out for being an Astros fan. The right can cry about having misinformation "censored" and celebrate liberal journalists being banned whether temporarily or not. At the end of the day, Twitter is a business. But it is interesting to watch how hypocritical Musk is.
It's undoubtedly a difficult task to disseminate virally harmful speech with just "negative" speech, let alone what is deemed offensive or what is parody vs what is blatantly untruthful for a greater bottom line. Elon is easy to pick at because he put a target on his back but when things got a little inconvenient for him, he took the easy way out by banning folks who referenced elonjet and hurting his credibility. It's still his house but it's damn fun to throw some stones even if I have some respect for what he's done with the Twitter files. Honestly I think he'll have to tap out soon and play nice if his real opponents continue hitting him at his bottom line.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/19/business/elon-musk-quit-twitter.html Elon Musk Keeps Silent After Twitter Users Say He Should Quit as Boss Mr. Musk had surveyed Twitter about whether he should remain in charge, and had said he would abide by the result. Maybe with crypto and fintech being down in the dumps, it's time to bring back @Jack?
I don't think he'd have run the poll if he didn't already know what the outcome would be. He uses smokescreens to manufacture excuses so he can ultimately do what he wants. BUT - he seemed surprised to be booed at the Chapelle show. So... maybe he IS delusional.
Hopefully his mean and vengeful streak doesn't turn on the ungrateful plebs. Then again, ungrateful and ignorant pipl are why he wants to fly off to Mars.
that reminds me, it's almost that time of year for all of us to renew our Gold Supporting Memberships https://bbs.clutchfans.net/threads/...mbers-its-time-to-renew.296043/#post-12197028 Sham, you obviously don't need to renew but if you'd like to upgrade your ClutchFans experience, here's the link: https://bbs.clutchfans.net/account/upgrades if you find anything confusing about it, I'm sure @tinman would be happy to coach you through the process
This was also posted in the train derailment thread. It is not surprising and was an expected outcome due to Musk's deverification, amplification of paid subscribers, and devaluation of product safety processes and employees. Pro-Moscow voices tried to steer Ohio train disaster debate | AP News Soon after a train derailed and spilled toxic chemicals in Ohio last month, anonymous pro-Russian accounts started spreading misleading claims and anti-American propaganda about it on Twitter, using Elon Musk’s new verification system to expand their reach while creating the illusion of credibility. The accounts, which parroted Kremlin talking points on myriad topics, claimed without evidence that authorities in Ohio were lying about the true impact of the chemical spill. The accounts spread fearmongering posts that preyed on legitimate concerns about pollution and health effects and compared the response to the derailment with America’s support for Ukraine following its invasion by Russia. Some of the claims pushed by the pro-Russian accounts were verifiably false, such as the suggestion that the news media had covered up the disaster or that environmental scientists traveling to the site had been killed in a plane crash. But most were more speculative, seemingly designed to stoke fear or distrust. Examples include unverified maps showing widespread pollution, posts predicting an increase in fatal cancers and others about unconfirmed mass animal die-offs. ... Regularly spewing anti-US propaganda, the accounts show how easily authoritarian states and Americans willing to spread their propaganda can exploitsocial mediaplatforms like Twitter in an effort to steer domestic discourse. The accounts were identified by Reset, a London-based nonprofit that studies social media’s impact on democracy, and shared with The Associated Press. Felix Kartte, a senior advisor at Reset, said the report’s findings indicate Twitter is allowing Russia to use its platform like a bullhorn. “With no one at home in Twitter’s product safety department, Russia will continue to meddle in US elections and in democracies around the world,” Kartte said. ... At first, the derailment received little attention online but mentions grew steadily, peaking two weeks after the incident, Zignal found, a time lag that gave pro-Russia voices time to try to shape the conversation. The accounts identified by Reset's researchers received an extra boost from Twitter itself, in the form of a blue check mark. Before Musk purchased Twitter last year, it's check marks denoted accounts run by verified users, often public figures, celebrities or journalists. It was seen as a mark of authenticity on a platform known for bots and spam accounts. Musk ended that system and replaced it with Twitter Blue, which is given to users who pay $8 per month and supply a phone number. Twitter Blue users agree not to engage in deception and are required to post a profile picture and name. But there's no rule that they use their own. Under the program, Twitter Blue users can write and send longer tweets and videos. Their replies are also given higher priority on other posts.
