Twitter likely to take idiots offer to buy them for $43 billion

[Politesse]

Musk is turning out to be an eccentric wack job on the order of Trump.

Who knows, maybe Musk may run for president.
.

Never thought I'd say this again after Schwarzenegger became irrelevant, but thank heavens for the natural born citizen clause of the Constitution (Musk being South African by birth).

 

[blastula]

L

Twitter is much more than pols and celebs. Many neat and non-political accounts. That's why it can't be replaced by a hyperpartisan alternative.

So then you are against Musk's takeover?

 

[steve_bank]

Or Rupert Murdoch and FOX.

'Id vote for Conan......who wouldn't?

 

[lpetrich]

Elon Musk appears to reconcile with Apple after Twitter tirade | Ars Technica

Elon Musk said he had a “good conversation” with Apple chief executive Tim Cook and “resolved the misunderstanding” about his claim that Twitter could be removed from the App Store, just days after the world’s richest man unleashed a tirade against the most valuable tech company.

In a tweet on Wednesday, Musk said that “Tim was clear that Apple never considered” potentially removing Twitter from the App Store, describing it as a “misunderstanding.”

Twitter Thrills Far-Right Trolls by Silencing Left-Wing Voices - "Elon Musk appears to have outsourced decisions about who to ban from Twitter to the platform’s right-wing extremists."

Several prominent antifascist organizers and journalists have had their accounts suspended in the past week, after right-wing operatives appealed directly to Musk to ban them and far-right internet trolls flooded Twitter’s complaints system with false reports about terms of service violations.

As the Los Angeles City Councilmember Mike Bonin noted on Twitter, the suspended users include Chad Loder, an antifascist researcher whose open-source investigation of the U.S. Capitol riot led to the identification and arrest of a masked Proud Boy who attacked police officers. The account of video journalist Vishal Pratap Singh, who reports on far-right protests in Southern California, has also been suspended.

Among the other prominent accounts suspended were the Elm Fork John Brown Gun Club, an antifascist group that provides armed security for LGBTQ+ events in North Texas, and CrimethInc, an anarchist collective that has published and distributed anarchist and anti-authoritarian zines, books, posters, and podcasts since the mid-1990s.

All four accounts had been singled out for criticism by Andy Ngo, a far-right writer whose conspiratorial, error-riddled reporting on left-wing protests and social movements fuels the mass delusion that a handful of small antifascist groups are part of an imaginary shadow army called “antifa.” In a public exchange on Twitter on Friday, Musk invited Ngo to report “Antifa accounts” that should be suspended directly to him.

 

[lpetrich]

Elon Musk berated advertisers for fleeing Twitter — and it badly backfired: report | Salon.com - "The Twitter owner has chased off half of the company's top 100 advertisers, according to the Financial Times"

The tech entrepreneur's first month as Twitter owner has chased off half of the company's top 100 advertisers, who have paused spending over concerns about content moderation and the firing of most of its ad sales team, and Musk has been unable to strong-arm them into returning, reported the Financial Times.

He seems to put off even those advertisers who wanted him to succeed," said one top advertising agency executive.

Twitter's ad business team has been cut so deeply that many agencies no longer have a point of contact at the company, and four industry insiders said they have received little or no communication in recent weeks, while others complain the ad systems aren't working properly since Musk took over.

So firing all those employees *has* impeded Twitter's functioning, by making the site have more difficulty in getting advertising.

Musk has tried to personally call the chief executives of some brands that have pulled advertising to berate them, according to one senior industry insider, but that has backfired as some companies have decided to cut spending to the bare minimum to avoid further confrontation.

What a big baby.

 

[marc]

 

[southernhybrid]

It sounds as if some people here don't even realize that it's against the law to make death threats towards anyone. A man who lives near my small city was just given a 3 year jail term for making several death threats. He threatened the president, some judges and some law enforcement people. It doesn't matter if they were idle threats. It requires law enforcement to take the time to investigate such threats. There are limits to free speech and I would have no problem if some types of hate speech was banned. It often inspires kooky people to commit acts of violence.

Weren't we all told in elementary school that free speech has limits. The common example was that you can't scream fire in a crowded room. Isn't screaming out hatred against a specific person or group similar to screaming fire, since it sometimes causes chaos or inspires hate crimes? I think it's time to clearly state what the limits of free speech are. We can all criticize our governmental policies and politicians as long as there isn't any violence implied. I don't equate limiting hate speech with authoritarian government. That's a stupid claim, as I see it.

Of course, any private entity can limit speech as much as it wants. That's always been the case, but some people don't seem to understand that either.

 

[crazyfingers]

The common example was that you can't scream fire in a crowded room. Isn't screaming out hatred against a specific person or group similar to screaming fire, since it sometimes causes chaos or inspires hate crimes?

It’s Time to Stop Using the ‘Fire in a Crowded Theater’ Quote

Oliver Wendell Holmes made the analogy during a controversial Supreme Court case that was overturned more than 40 years ago.

www.theatlantic.com

This is an interesting read. Yelling fire in a crowded theater was never actually law. It was merely dictum from a terrible supreme court decision, US vs Schenck, that expunge speech that criticized US entry into WWI. It was a time when civil liberties in the US were in extreme peril. Woodrow Wilson was a terrible, evil man who pretty much succeeded in jailing anyone who disagreed with him. It was just as bad as the McCarthy Era.

That case was ultimately overturned as terrible law. But, the case that overturned it:

In 1969, the Supreme Court's decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio effectively overturned Schenck and any authority the case still carried. There, the Court held that inflammatory speech--and even speech advocating violence by members of the Ku Klux Klan--is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action" .

There was no internet in 1969. Someone advocating violence had limited range and the speed of information travel was slow when compared to how quickly Twitter can reach 100 million people in an instant. So I do believe that it's reasonable that speech that advocates violence on Twitter might reasonably expect that some one of those millions would take imminent violent action. We have seen how Trump's speech has caused imminent threats of violence and Jan 6 was actual violence.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I recently sat on a jury where one of the charges was inciting riot, a felony as I recall. I don't remember much else or what the rules were for proving same.

 

[southernhybrid]

We already have laws against making death threats or inciting riots. Some of the most hateful speech that is found on social media is pretty similar. We may not be able to define every aspect of how to define free speech, but I would hope that we are smart enough to come up with some examples of hate speech that shouldn't fall under the protection of the 1st Amendment. We already have a few, so it really shouldn't be that hard. It's very sad that so many Americans feel the need to express their hatred so openly, in ways that threaten the safety of others.

The common example was that you can't scream fire in a crowded room. Isn't screaming out hatred against a specific person or group similar to screaming fire, since it sometimes causes chaos or inspires hate crimes?

It’s Time to Stop Using the ‘Fire in a Crowded Theater’ Quote

Oliver Wendell Holmes made the analogy during a controversial Supreme Court case that was overturned more than 40 years ago.

www.theatlantic.com

This is an interesting read. Yelling fire in a crowded theater was never actually law. It was merely dictum from a terrible supreme court decision, US vs Schenck, that expunge speech that criticized US entry into WWI. It was a time when civil liberties in the US were in extreme peril. Woodrow Wilson was a terrible, evil man who pretty much succeeded in jailing anyone who disagreed with him. It was just as bad as the McCarthy Era.

That case was ultimately overturned as terrible law. But, the case that overturned it:

In 1969, the Supreme Court's decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio effectively overturned Schenck and any authority the case still carried. There, the Court held that inflammatory speech--and even speech advocating violence by members of the Ku Klux Klan--is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action" .

There was no internet in 1969. Someone advocating violence had limited range and the speed of information travel was slow when compared to how quickly Twitter can reach 100 million people in an instant. So I do believe that it's reasonable that speech that advocates violence on Twitter might reasonably expect that some one of those millions would take imminent violent action. We have seen how Trump's speech has caused imminent threats of violence and Jan 6 was actual violence.

That's interesting. I never knew that phrase was based on an an actual law case. I just thought it was an example of the type of speech that would cause chaos and unnecessary harm if used inappropriately. I don't see anything wrong with banning certain types of hate speech, it would be hard to decide which elements might produce lawless action or violence. Since each defendant would get their date in court, it's not as if people would be locked up without a trial. It seemed as if we were making some progress, then along came Trump and Twitter etc.

 

[Metaphor]

View attachment 41307

Musk has already said Twitter obviously has to comply with government-enforced restrictions on speech in countries where it is used.

 

[marc]

 

[Metaphor]

View attachment 41324

This illustrator has talent but the idea that Twitter was somehow not a cesspit of endless vitriol before Musk bought is....not a reflection of reality.

 

[ZiprHead]

View attachment 41324

This illustrator has talent but the idea that Twitter was somehow not a cesspit of endless vitriol before Musk bought is....not a reflection of reality.

Racist epithets against minorities have more than tripled since Musk took over.

 

[Metaphor]

View attachment 41324

This illustrator has talent but the idea that Twitter was somehow not a cesspit of endless vitriol before Musk bought is....not a reflection of reality.

Racist epithets against minorities have more than tripled since Musk took over.

You know Twitter has a block function, right?

 

[Patooka]

View attachment 41324

This illustrator has talent but the idea that Twitter was somehow not a cesspit of endless vitriol before Musk bought is....not a reflection of reality.

Just to put it in context, the cartoonist is referring to this cartoon:

 

[ZiprHead]

View attachment 41324

This illustrator has talent but the idea that Twitter was somehow not a cesspit of endless vitriol before Musk bought is....not a reflection of reality.

Racist epithets against minorities have more than tripled since Musk took over.

You know Twitter has a block function, right?

What does that have to do with my post and the statement I was responding to?

 

[Patooka]

What does that have to do with my post and the statement I was responding to?

I think the person who can't stop talking about trans issues is suggesting you could simply ignore Twitter if it offends you.

 

[Metaphor]

View attachment 41324

This illustrator has talent but the idea that Twitter was somehow not a cesspit of endless vitriol before Musk bought is....not a reflection of reality.

Racist epithets against minorities have more than tripled since Musk took over.

You know Twitter has a block function, right?

What does that have to do with my post and the statement I was responding to?

That the rise in whatever you find offensive might actually somehow matter if people could not immediately block or mute what they find offensive.

 

[Metaphor]

What does that have to do with my post and the statement I was responding to?

I think the person who can't stop talking about trans issues is suggesting you could simply ignore Twitter if it offends you.

You don't even have to ignore Twitter. Just unfollow, block or mute anybody you want.