Merged Musk buys Twitter!/ Elon Musk puts Twitter deal on hold....

[theprestige]

Random person would be at least likely to ask "Who does what here?" before firing half+ the staff.

Presumably the senior managers all have org charts and slide decks spelling out what their department does and the role of each of their teams.

 

[angrysoba]

No Bob, I do understand that. That is why I said this change more aligns the business with the Constitution. Of course the private business normally has a much different model, and standard.

There is a lot of censorship on social media, and outlets such as YouTube. It is entirely legal, but a different standard of freedom.

Well, sure, and also here on ISF.

The point is that Terms of Service or operations of some kind (Musk's proposed "deboosting" of hate speech) might be at odds with freedom of expression but they are often somewhat necessary to prevent a site becoming a sewer which chases off informative or interesting good faith posters and advertisers.

It often means picking your poison.

I have been, from the beginning, a bit skeptical, to say the least that Elon Musk can get the balance right without ending up pretty much where Twitter was when he took over.

As for Peterson, he wasn't banned, but he was told to delete a post deadnaming Elliot Page. He refused so it was a de facto suspension even though he was able to post whenever he deleted the post.

I have a feeling that there will be a limit to harassment that even Elon Musk will tolerate, and we will probably be back to the whole "Twitter doesn't respect free speech" debate before long.

Shadow bans will not sit well with some of the alt-right type figures.

In my humble opinion, if Elon Musk brings out the policy he says he will, it won't be so bad. I think the platform should continue in some way and he shouldn't kill it with incompetence or spite.

 

[catsmate]

And you can see from his comment that he's also an absolute idiot who has no idea what he's talking about.

You can assume that about most Twitter comments.

 

[catsmate]

Sounds like he's turning more and more into Mr. Rumbold by the minute. Not just disaster, but bungled disaster. Can't even let the disaster alone to disast itself, he has to keep helping it get worse!

Hey now, Cuthbert did a pretty good job all things considered.

 

[tyr_13]

No Bob, I do understand that. That is why I said this change more aligns the business with the Constitution. Of course the private business normally has a much different model, and standard.

There is a lot of censorship on social media, and outlets such as YouTube. It is entirely legal, but a different standard of freedom.

This is just straight up wrong.

Others using their freedoms other than freedom of speech in absolutely no way means they aren't aligned with the Constitution. It doesn't become more aligned when they stop exercising their other rights. That goes for businesses as well.

This isn't some small distinction or nit picking. Using ones freedom of association doesn't take one out of line with any other freedom.

 

[Warp12]

This isn't some small distinction or nit picking.

Yes, it actually is. Because I am pretty sure that most understand my point regarding the reference to freedom of speech as applied to government being now somewhat mirrored by Twitter, under Musk.

But I'm not interested in debating it with you any further.

 

[tyr_13]

Yes, it actually is. Because I am pretty sure that most understand my point regarding the reference to freedom of speech as applied to government being now somewhat mirrored by Twitter, under Musk.

But I'm not interested in debating it with you any further.

'Corporations are people, until I want them to be like governments, then they're like governments.' - Conservatives

Doesn't really matter what your interests are, that change doesn't bring them more in line with the Constitution, it brings them more in line with being a government entity or public good.

Nationalize Twitter?

 

[JoeMorgue]

So... libraries should put all the books conservatives want banned on Twitter.

You people are aware you can see you making the exact opposite arguments in other threads right?

 

[Warp12]

So... libraries should put all the books conservatives want banned on Twitter.

You people are aware you can see you making the exact opposite arguments in other threads right?

It isn't an "opposite argument". Parental controls on Twitter would be a different topic than this, as are age-appropriate books, obviously. Musk letting Peterson and others back is a good thing.

 

[Bob001]

No Bob, I do understand that. That is why I said this change more aligns the business with the Constitution. Of course the private business normally has a much different model, and standard.
....

I'm not sure you do. The Constitution restricts what the government can do to us. It doesn't prevent us from suing others for defamation or libel or slander. It doesn't prevent criminal prosecution for fraud or threats or incitement. The Constitution was never intended to allow anybody to say anything about anybody or anything without limits. And freedom includes freedom from harassment and abuse by anybody who can reach a keyboard.

Again, Twitter doesn't have to post anything it doesn't want to.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

It takes WAY more moderation to police for Tweets to deboost&defund than just to ban them.
This is going to be nothing but completely arbitrary, which is exactly what is not allowed under current laws.
Twitter is doomed.

 

[Warp12]

Again, Twitter doesn't have to post anything it doesn't want to.

Yeah, exactly. I never said it did.

But I am glad they are going to stop being so heavy-handed with some of this censorship...or so it seems.

 

[Warp12]

Twitter is doomed.

If so, that might be Musk's greatest gift to society.

See, I hear plenty of people bitch and moan about Twitter all of the time. It seems that now that Musk owns it, everyone is suddenly concerned about its future. Because of his politics, no doubt.

It amuses me, tbh. And it isn't just on this forum, for sure.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

Well, sure, and also here on ISF.

The point is that Terms of Service or operations of some kind (Musk's proposed "deboosting" of hate speech) might be at odds with freedom of expression but they are often somewhat necessary to prevent a site becoming a sewer which chases off informative or interesting good faith posters and advertisers.

It often means picking your poison.

I have been, from the beginning, a bit skeptical, to say the least that Elon Musk can get the balance right without ending up pretty much where Twitter was when he took over.

As for Peterson, he wasn't banned, but he was told to delete a post deadnaming Elliot Page. He refused so it was a de facto suspension even though he was able to post whenever he deleted the post.

I have a feeling that there will be a limit to harassment that even Elon Musk will tolerate, and we will probably be back to the whole "Twitter doesn't respect free speech" debate before long.

Shadow bans will not sit well with some of the alt-right type figures.

In my humble opinion, if Elon Musk brings out the policy he says he will, it won't be so bad. I think the platform should continue in some way and he shouldn't kill it with incompetence or spite.

We know Musk's limit, whenever anybody posts anything milldy critical of him or his bros, corrects anything he says which is wrong, posts a parody of him or does anything else to even mildly discomfort his ego gets instantly and permanently banned.

Anybody who's not him nor his "friends" is fair game and there are no limits.

 

[Darat]

We know Musk's limit, whenever anybody posts anything milldy critical of him or his bros, corrects anything he says which is wrong, posts a parody of him or does anything else to even mildly discomfort his ego gets instantly and permanently banned.



Anybody who's not him nor his "friends" is fair game and there are no limits.

He presumably thinks "the algorithms" or " AI" can do the moderating for him without having to pay for humans to do the work. I wonder how he will react the next time he calls someone who literally risked their life over and over again to rescue kids trapped in a cave a "paedo" and he is shadow banned?

 

[angrysoba]

We know Musk's limit, whenever anybody posts anything milldy critical of him or his bros, corrects anything he says which is wrong, posts a parody of him or does anything else to even mildly discomfort his ego gets instantly and permanently banned.

Anybody who's not him nor his "friends" is fair game and there are no limits.

I am always scrupulously fair, and...no laughing at the back!... Elon Musk did reinstate Kathy Griffin (I think? I don't really know her) who he initially banned for impersonating him.

 

[Bob001]

If so, that might be Musk's greatest gift to society.

See, I hear plenty of people bitch and moan about Twitter all of the time. It seems that now that Musk owns it, everyone is suddenly concerned about its future. Because of his politics, no doubt.
.....

For better or worse, Twitter has become a primary mechanism for instant communication. It could be reformed without being destroyed. For starters, it could require all posters to be verified. The most offensive posts are generally anonymous. But the posts that most people want to read are from identified celebrities and other sources, sometimes even local governments warning about emergencies. Eliminate anonymity.

 

[Darat]

If so, that might be Musk's greatest gift to society.

See, I hear plenty of people bitch and moan about Twitter all of the time. It seems that now that Musk owns it, everyone is suddenly concerned about its future. Because of his politics, no doubt.
It amuses me, tbh. And it isn't just on this forum, for sure.

Strange not seen that at all.

 

[angrysoba]

For better or worse, Twitter has become a primary mechanism for instant communication. It could be reformed without being destroyed. For starters, it could require all posters to be verified. The most offensive posts are generally anonymous. But the posts that most people want to read are from identified celebrities and other sources, sometimes even local governments warning about emergencies. Eliminate anonymity.

I don't know about that.

While certainly a lot of anonymous people like upyourswokemoralists5, gibberingloony, and angrysoba are obnoxious and offensive, vile, cowardly blackguards, puerile melon farmers and unspeakably cretinous morons, there are plenty of people who post ****** things in their own names, because they are famous and trade off their reputation for being nasty *****. People like Milo, Alex Jones, Carl Benjamin, etc...

But some of those who oppose powerful big names, may need to post anonymously to protect themselves, because they may end up getting into trouble with the very people who they might be exposing. Similarly, protesters in Hong Kong, Iran, Russia, China etc... will hardly be safe posting under their own names. Anonymity has its virtues and should be protected in my view.

There may be some ways to safeguard anonymous verification, but at this rate it would anyone trust those now in charge with handing over information that could get them identified?

 

[jimbob]

For better or worse, Twitter has become a primary mechanism for instant communication. It could be reformed without being destroyed. For starters, it could require all posters to be verified. The most offensive posts are generally anonymous. But the posts that most people want to read are from identified celebrities and other sources, sometimes even local governments warning about emergencies. Eliminate anonymity.

I don't know about that.

While certainly a lot of anonymous people like upyourswokemoralists5, gibberingloony, and angrysoba are obnoxious and offensive, vile, cowardly blackguards, puerile melon farmers and unspeakably cretinous morons, there are plenty of people who post ****** things in their own names, because they are famous and trade off their reputation for being nasty *****. People like Milo, Alex Jones, Carl Benjamin, etc...

But some of those who oppose powerful big names, may need to post anonymously to protect themselves, because they may end up getting into trouble with the very people who they might be exposing. Similarly, protesters in Hong Kong, Iran, Russia, China etc... will hardly be safe posting under their own names. Anonymity has its virtues and should be protected in my view.

There may be some ways to safeguard anonymous verification, but at this rate it would anyone trust those now in charge with handing over information that could get them identified?

Also those who have used Twitter to post evidence of crimes against humanity say in occupied Ukraine or Syria