Elon buys Twitter

[JacksBratt]

Fantastic.. This is great news. Elon, a true believer in the 1st Amendment, has controling shares in Twitter. He has been appointed to the board.
This, IMO, is great news for all. Let's see where it goes.

 

[Ligurian]

Fantastic.. This is great news. Elon, a true believer in the 1st Amendment, has controling shares in Twitter. He has been appointed to the board.
This, IMO, is great news for all. Let's see where it goes.

I'm waiting for the other shoe to fall. The stock market is evil.

 

[JosephZ]

Fantastic.. This is great news. Elon, a true believer in the 1st Amendment, has controling shares in Twitter. He has been appointed to the board.
This, IMO, is great news for all. Let's see where it goes.

Elon Musk currently holds a 9.2 percent stake in the company which is just short of holding a controlling interest.

Controlling Interest means: (1) an ownership interest or participating interest in a business entity by virtue of units, percentage, shares, stock, or otherwise that exceeds 10 percent; (2) membership on the board of directors or other governing body of a business entity of which the board or other governing body is composed of not more than 10 members; or (3) service as an officer of a business entity that has four or fewer officers, or service as one of the four officers most highly compensated by a business entity that has more than four officers.

Twitter says no plans to reinstate Trump as Elon Musk takes a seat on board

There are no plans to reinstate former President Donald Trump's Twitter account, the company insisted as Tesla CEO Elon Musk earned a seat on the board a day after he became the largest stakeholder.

"Twitter is committed to impartiality in the development and enforcement of its policies and rules," the social media giant told the Daily Mail on Tuesday. "Our policy decisions are not determined by the Board or shareholders, and we have no plans to reverse any policy decisions... As always our Board plays an important advisory and feedback role across the entirety of our service. Our day to day operations and decisions are made by Twitter management and employees,"

 

[chevyontheriver]

Fantastic.. This is great news. Elon, a true believer in the 1st Amendment, has controling shares in Twitter. He has been appointed to the board.
This, IMO, is great news for all. Let's see where it goes.

This being so close to April 1st I am a little suspicious.

 

[JacksBratt]

Elon Musk currently holds a 9.2 percent stake in the company which is just short of holding a controlling interest.

Controlling Interest means: (1) an ownership interest or participating interest in a business entity by virtue of units, percentage, shares, stock, or otherwise that exceeds 10 percent; (2) membership on the board of directors or other governing body of a business entity of which the board or other governing body is composed of not more than 10 members; or (3) service as an officer of a business entity that has four or fewer officers, or service as one of the four officers most highly compensated by a business entity that has more than four officers.

Twitter says no plans to reinstate Trump as Elon Musk takes a seat on board

There are no plans to reinstate former President Donald Trump's Twitter account, the company insisted as Tesla CEO Elon Musk earned a seat on the board a day after he became the largest stakeholder.

"Twitter is committed to impartiality in the development and enforcement of its policies and rules," the social media giant told the Daily Mail on Tuesday. "Our policy decisions are not determined by the Board or shareholders, and we have no plans to reverse any policy decisions... As always our Board plays an important advisory and feedback role across the entirety of our service. Our day to day operations and decisions are made by Twitter management and employees,"

He holds the majority of shares. He has made all of the share holders a lot of money since he bought in... If you don't call it "controling interest" which it may not technically be... He still has power to change things.

 

[joymercy]

Oh gee, do you think he will get Trumps account back for him?

 

[Sparagmos]

Fantastic.. This is great news. Elon, a true believer in the 1st Amendment, has controling shares in Twitter. He has been appointed to the board.
This, IMO, is great news for all. Let's see where it goes.

First Amendment? What is the relevance?

 

[Aussie Pete]

First Amendment? What is the relevance?

Twitter is the enemy of free speech. That's the relevance. Musk wants to restore balance to Twitter.

 

[JacksBratt]

First Amendment? What is the relevance?

It is well proven that Twitter blocks tweets and accounts of those that that are right leaning, contradict the left opinions or are tweeting things that they just don't want society to hear.

I mean really... one group of people thought that it was OK to block the voice of the leader of the free world.

I don't care if you talk and I don't agree with you.. The first amendment reserves everyone the right to speak.

Twitter does this censoring... meanwhile allows terrorist groups to continue to have accounts and tweet very hateful things about other groups.

Their target of censorship is aimed at certain groups.. it is not exclusive.

The new CEO stated that he did not agree that they should hold to the freedom of speech. They are not, in his view, bound by the first amendment.

Elon... may just end that.. and allow all to be heard.

It is a dangerous time when a certain group of people can silence one particular view.

IMO, everyone should be able to be heard. Say what they want... Long as they are not commanding people to harm others.

I don't care what others say.. I can agree or disagree... nobody gets to tell you what to think... believe.... or what view to have.

I would love it if Trump got his Twitter account back... The left... would dread it.

 

[Sparagmos]

Twitter is the enemy of free speech. That's the relevance. Musk wants to restore balance to Twitter.

The first amendment doesn’t apply to Twitter though.

 

[Sparagmos]

The new CEO stated that he did not agree that they should hold to the freedom of speech. They are not, in his view, bound by the first amendment

They aren’t, in any legal scholar’s view, bound by the first amendment. That’s absurd,

 

[Aussie Pete]

The first amendment doesn’t apply to Twitter though.

It will now!

 

[bekkilyn]

It is well proven that Twitter blocks tweets and accounts of those that that are right leaning, contradict the left opinions or are tweeting things that they just don't want society to hear.

I mean really... one group of people thought that it was OK to block the voice of the leader of the free world.

I don't care if you talk and I don't agree with you.. The first amendment reserves everyone the right to speak.

Twitter does this censoring... meanwhile allows terrorist groups to continue to have accounts and tweet very hateful things about other groups.

Their target of censorship is aimed at certain groups.. it is not exclusive.

The new CEO stated that he did not agree that they should hold to the freedom of speech. They are not, in his view, bound by the first amendment.

Elon... may just end that.. and allow all to be heard.

It is a dangerous time when a certain group of people can silence one particular view.

IMO, everyone should be able to be heard. Say what they want... Long as they are not commanding people to harm others.

I don't care what others say.. I can agree or disagree... nobody gets to tell you what to think... believe.... or what view to have.

I would love it if Trump got his Twitter account back... The left... would dread it.

One of the conservative arguments I've heard is that although they detest the behavior of Twitter, Facebook, etc. when it comes to censorship, it's that they are a private company and can do what they want. While I largely agree that private companies are not bound by free speech, these major social media companies have set themselves up as "public squares" and act as mouthpieces for the government. The government is using these companies to get around the first amendment and therefore would need to be treated as government entities when it comes to speech.

We can't allow the radicals on the left to use that argument to persuade conservatives not to fight back in order to continue radical leftist suppression of free speech. We need to remember that these particular people on the left reject the first amendment and don't believe in American values. I've even heard one public figure on MSN call the Constitution "trash".

I hope Elon Musk makes a difference in Twitter, but I don't know how much influence he has or what his motives truly are.

Saw this quote from Glen Beck pop up in my YouTube feed (another site that needs a lot of housecleaning when it comes to free speech)...

"The role of media is to protect the Democrats. That's it. Now they're going further: openly saying anything that disagrees with them is disinformation and a threat to Democracy. That should scare the h*** out of you."

The Democratic party needs a lot of housecleaning as well. When the radicals in the Democratic party use the word "Democracy" they basically mean Marxist ideals of equal outcome rather than actual liberal ideals. Classic liberal Democrats (if there are any still left in the party) who don't believe in these things need to get the radicals out of the party, but between "Third Way" and wokism, it may too late.

I've read somewhere not too long ago that the largest "political party" is the group of people who no longer have a party.

In any case, I'd love to see Twitter (and other social media sites) make a big turnaround and become true servants of the people when it comes to free expression and exchange of ideas. It's what the internet in general was supposed to be about before it got bought out by all of these big corporations. Sometimes I miss the days when Usenet was the thing.

 

[JacksBratt]

The first amendment doesn’t apply to Twitter though.

Why is that?
They are not editors. There is a statute that they live under that states that they are not responsible for what people say and cannot be held accountable for lies, falsehoods and such... For this reason, they do not have the right to censor or judge what they want to be heard and not want to be heard.

If they want to begin such actions, then, they must give up their protection. Then, be held accountable for anything that is slanderous.. just like a news media that has editors for this purpose.

I believe that due to this position, also, they do not get taxed the same. If they become editors then their taxes would drastically increase. Anyone know if this is the case?

 

[JacksBratt]

They aren’t, in any legal scholar’s view, bound by the first amendment. That’s absurd,

It's absurd to believe that they have the right to block what someone has to say.. just because they don't agree with it. Meanwhile, they allow the Taliban to post hateful antisemitic posts.

 

[Sparagmos]

Why is that?
They are not editors. There is a statute that they live under that states that they are not responsible for what people say and cannot be held accountable for lies, falsehoods and such... For this reason, they do not have the right to censor or judge what they want to be heard and not want to be heard.

If they want to begin such actions, then, they must give up their protection. Then, be held accountable for anything that is slanderous.. just like a news media that has editors for this purpose.

I believe that due to this position, also, they do not get taxed the same. If they become editors then their taxes would drastically increase. Anyone know if this is the case?

Because they aren’t the government. If Twitter was actually violating the first amendment, where are the conservative lawyers taking the cases up? Why didn’t the Trump administration go after them?

Do you think the conservative platforms like Parler, gab, and truth social are/were violating the first amendment too? And CF?

 

[JacksBratt]

One of the conservative arguments I've heard is that although they detest the behavior of Twitter, Facebook, etc. when it comes to censorship, it's that they are a private company and can do what they want. While I largely agree that private companies are not bound by free speech, these major social media companies have set themselves up as "public squares" and act as mouthpieces for the government. The government is using these companies to get around the first amendment and therefore would need to be treated as government entities when it comes to speech.

We can't allow the radicals on the left to use that argument to persuade conservatives not to fight back in order to continue radical leftist suppression of free speech. We need to remember that these particular people on the left reject the first amendment and don't believe in American values. I've even heard one public figure on MSN call the Constitution "trash".

I hope Elon Musk makes a difference in Twitter, but I don't know how much influence he has or what his motives truly are.

Saw this quote from Glen Beck pop up in my YouTube feed (another site that needs a lot of housecleaning when it comes to free speech)...

"The role of media is to protect the Democrats. That's it. Now they're going further: openly saying anything that disagrees with them is disinformation and a threat to Democracy. That should scare the h*** out of you."

The Democratic party needs a lot of housecleaning as well. When the radicals in the Democratic party use the word "Democracy" they basically mean Marxist ideals of equal outcome rather than actual liberal ideals. Classic liberal Democrats (if there are any still left in the party) who don't believe in these things need to get the radicals out of the party, but between "Third Way" and wokism, it may too late.

I've read somewhere not too long ago that the largest "political party" is the group of people who no longer have a party.

In any case, I'd love to see Twitter (and other social media sites) make a big turnaround and become true servants of the people when it comes to free expression and exchange of ideas. It's what the internet in general was supposed to be about before it got bought out by all of these big corporations. Sometimes I miss the days when Usenet was the thing.

Excellent post.

This is most evident these last few weeks as the mainstream media has had to back peddal on many of the things that they out right lied about in the past four years.

1/ Hillary and the Clinton campaign plead guilty to funding the Steele dossier and had to pay $113.000
2/ Hunters laptop is now confirmed to be real and not "Russian dissinformation"

Is CNN waking up? A CNN executive, John Malone, has called Brian Steltar a "cancer".

There used to be unbiased news sources that had to support what they say. Today, it's all opinion pieces by left leaning talking heads.

 

[Sparagmos]

It's absurd to believe that they have the right to block what someone has to say.. just because they don't agree with it. Meanwhile, they allow the Taliban to post hateful antisemitic posts.

They aren’t blocking anyone from saying anything, just not providing a platform to do so on their private platform. They are a private entity, just like CF they have the right to have rules and control what their private platform is used for.

 

[Sparagmos]

One of the conservative arguments I've heard is that although they detest the behavior of Twitter, Facebook, etc. when it comes to censorship, it's that they are a private company and can do what they want. While I largely agree that private companies are not bound by free speech, these major social media companies have set themselves up as "public squares" and act as mouthpieces for the government. The government is using these companies to get around the first amendment and therefore would need to be treated as government entities when it comes to speech.

We can't allow the radicals on the left to use that argument to persuade conservatives not to fight back in order to continue radical leftist suppression of free speech. We need to remember that these particular people on the left reject the first amendment and don't believe in American values. I've even heard one public figure on MSN call the Constitution "trash".

I hope Elon Musk makes a difference in Twitter, but I don't know how much influence he has or what his motives truly are.

Saw this quote from Glen Beck pop up in my YouTube feed (another site that needs a lot of housecleaning when it comes to free speech)...

"The role of media is to protect the Democrats. That's it. Now they're going further: openly saying anything that disagrees with them is disinformation and a threat to Democracy. That should scare the h*** out of you."

The Democratic party needs a lot of housecleaning as well. When the radicals in the Democratic party use the word "Democracy" they basically mean Marxist ideals of equal outcome rather than actual liberal ideals. Classic liberal Democrats (if there are any still left in the party) who don't believe in these things need to get the radicals out of the party, but between "Third Way" and wokism, it may too late.

I've read somewhere not too long ago that the largest "political party" is the group of people who no longer have a party.

In any case, I'd love to see Twitter (and other social media sites) make a big turnaround and become true servants of the people when it comes to free expression and exchange of ideas. It's what the internet in general was supposed to be about before it got bought out by all of these big corporations. Sometimes I miss the days when Usenet was the thing.

Do you think 4chan is a good thing?

 

[JacksBratt]

Because they aren’t the government. If Twitter was actually violating the first amendment, where are the conservative lawyers taking the cases up? Why didn’t the Trump administration go after them?

Do you think the conservative platforms like Parler, gab, and truth social are/were violating the first amendment too? And CF?

I have said things, here on CF, that were my opinion and got reprimanded for doing so. However, others, stating their views can also be reprimanded for similar contravention of the rules here.

CF does not reprimand one person and not another.. as twitter does.

Answering your point about other platforms... Many right based channels must flee YouTube and Twitter in order to state well know facts without being gagged and muzzled.

Thing is.. when Gab, Rumble, Parler.. started coming out.. the left lost their minds, took them off of the Apple Store and android Play store. Gab even had the banks refuse to allow them on line monetary support...

Talk about persecution of the right.

The left will do anything they can to keep anyone from presenting the truth to a society that they want to keep in the dark... tell them what to think... tell them what is "right" and what is "normal" and conceal the fact that there are opposite and equally valid opinions the should be allowed to be heard.

When you are as big as Twitter.. you must understand the very real ability that you have to totally control what the world hears, believes or accepts as truth.

With this power comes the responsibility to allow anyone to speak their mind.

If I want to stand on the street corner in Toronto and go on and on shouting that the moon is made of cheese... so be it... That's my right.

These platforms are now soap box type places for people to talk. It is unethical to muzzle anything that one small group of powerful people don't agree with.

You can do that at the kitchen table in your house.. but not at a public park or street.