Musk Says He Would Reverse Twitter's Permanent Ban on Trump (bloomberg.com) 405
Twitter was "foolish in the extreme" in kicking former US President Donald Trump off its service, and permanent bans should be extremely rare, said Elon Musk, who has agreed to acquire the social media company. From a report: "I would reverse the permanent ban," Musk said Tuesday at a Financial Times conference. "Perma bans just fundamentally undermine trust in Twitter as a town square where everyone can voice their opinion." Booting the former president off the site "didn't end Trump's voice," Musk said. "It will amplify it among the right. This is why it is morally wrong and flat-out stupid. My opinion, and Jack Dorsey I want to be clear shares this opinion, is that we should not have permanent bans," Musk said, referring to the Twitter co-founder and former chief executive officer.
Lies (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Lies (Score:5, Insightful)
Trump was doing no better than the classic "yelling FIRE! inside a crowded movie theatre" and then whining about his free speech being violated. Not only was he deliberately misinforming people, he was inciting violence. And to top it off, he's got a large mob (and no, I'm not using a metaphore, an ACTUAL mob) of fanatical followers that he wields like a weapon.
And that's not even considering that Twitter isn't the government, and isn't bound by the laws that exclusively restrict government behavior. They're a private business, doing the right thing. Which is in might short supply lately with big businesses in America!
His actions are the poster-child of why freedom of speech has to have a few very specific practical exceptions. I support his ban 100%.
Re:Lies (Score:4, Informative)
It's a pretty huge mob considering the Capitol Police only has around 2300 officers and civilian employees, total. And it should be pretty obvious that all 2300 of those were not on duty, or do not have training and equipment to quell a violent riot.
So yeah, it's a pretty huge mob as far as mobs go.
Re: (Score:3)
Thanks, no. I'd rather not see the capital stormed again.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Look, I'm no fan of Trump as a person.
But I've yet to see him post "violent" stuff as you put it.
What were some of his past posts that you would have filed class action lawsuits about?
Re: (Score:3)
My only argument is that if trump was banned for what he said, she should be for what she said as well. seems reasonable to me
Re:Lies (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Trump actually gave a deposition saying that tomatos are dangerous weapons. Not to mention bananas and pineapples(not to mention I doubt you can throw large pineapples any decent distance, or hide in a pocket to bring it in)..
https://www.rollingstone.com/p... [rollingstone.com]
I will be really surprised if he is agreeable to people carrying guns to his rallies.
Re:Lies (Score:4, Informative)
“I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters.”
Or do you specifically mean promoting violence in others? Like:
....These THUGS are dishonoring the memory of George Floyd, and I won’t let that happen. Just spoke to Governor Tim Walz and told him that the Military is with him all the way. Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts. Thank you!
Re:Lies (Score:5, Informative)
Here's a few for you. [mashable.com]. Including: ... nobody wants to hurt each other anymore"
saying that he would "beat the crap out of" protesters,
saying that "part of the problem is
saying "the audience hit back. That's what we need a little bit more of"
saying he'd "like to punch him in the face" about a protester
telling people to "knock the crap out of them" if someone had the audacity to throw a tomato
wondering aloud if someone "should have been roughed up"
asking the Secretary of Defense if the United States armed forces could shoot protesters [npr.org]
That good enough for you, or should people keep digging? By the way, all of this can be found in about 3 seconds via Google.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
so your argument is that he says consistently to defend yourself when attacked by others?
Trump doesn't ask for violence the same way he didn't ask the Secretary of State in Georgia to change the election results the same way where he never explicitly asks for anything illegal. He just phrases the problem in a way where some kind of violent or illegal action is the obvious answer but forces the other person to make that final step. That way if the underling gets in trouble he can play dumb and truthfully say he never asked them to break the law.
The surprising thing when it comes to violence is t
Re:Lies (Score:5, Insightful)
Rather than stifle the speech, the goal should be to educate and raise critical thinking children that can reason and have the incentive to research things for themselves, you know?
Trump belongs to the same party which has destroyed education. Your basic premise is correct, but that is explicitly the opposite of the Republicans' goal. They willfully attack education because they "love low-information voters", literally.
Even if everyone on both sides of the aisle started making a good-faith effort to improve education tomorrow, it would take decades to unfuck what the conservatives have fucked. Education conflicts with everything they love, including winning elections, and they have gone hard against it for decades.
Re:Lies (Score:5, Insightful)
Did your other students look like you?
Did students bully you because the clothing you chose to wear didn't fit the gender norms that others assumed you should follow?
Did bullying of other students (and sometimes teachers) make you feel suicidal?
If you don't understand where these questions are coming from then you need to stop telling teachers what they can and can't say in the classroom.
Because bullying and suicidal thoughts are very common for LGBTQ students, and having a teacher support you or even be like you can save someone's life.
For LBGTQ students, this isn't some political game or way to win votes or get a few $$ donated to a campaign - it's just their lives.
Re: (Score:3)
You would have thought that the way nerds were treated at school would make them more sympathetic to these issues. Instead, many of them seem to want to become the bullies themselves.
Re:Lies (Score:5, Insightful)
> But...unless you are committing the crime of fraud, then lies are perfectly legal and free speech covered under the constitution.
Where do you get this shit? I find it amazing how many Americans don't even understand the laws in their own country. Hell, someone's even made it easy for you in Wikipedia, e.g. to name some (but not all):
- Perjury
- Libel/Slander
- Incitement to suicide
- Incitement to violence
- Copyright Infringement
- Genuine threats of violence
- Threatening the President
- Breaking an NDA
- False advertising
- Child porn
- Sedition
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
> Rather than stifle the speech, the goal should be to educate and raise critical thinking children that can reason and have the incentive to research things for themselves, you know?
Out of interest, when Islamists were being censored left and right you didn't speak out, this had a measurable impact on the ability of al Qaeda etc. to recruit in the West and reduced such terrorist attacks to pretty much zero from being a relatively common occurrence. This was legal because it falls under many of the limits on free speech above (i.e. incitement to violence), are you really saying this is wrong, and that it'd have been better to allow the terrorist attacks because if they happen, well, someone should've just argued better than al Qaeda (and who the fuck that person was that was supposed to argue that I've no idea)? If so you realise how childishly naive that is right?
The problem free speech absolutists like you have is that you essentially believe the right to free speech trumps the right to life when the two come into conflict, but that's a naive minority view. If someone is engaging in speech that's likely to get people killed, like, say, inciting a riot to try and cancel democracy in the US, then it's not too hard to see why that should be punished - no one's right to say what they want trumps a victim of that's right to life.
Re:Lies (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Bingo. You never are under onus to prove the negative. The person making a claim has to prove it true, otherwise we get into situations like "Can you prove you're NOT a child molester?!?!?!".
Re: (Score:3)
How do you provide proof that something doesn't exist?
There is evidence of collusion that exists. You could try to prove that it was fake, inconclusive, or otherwise irrelevant or misleading. That's what I would consider an attempt to present proof that something didn't happen. That doesn't necessarily make it proof, but it wouldn't stop people from trying to claim that it was.
For example, when the Mueller report came out there were a lot of headlines that appeared to claim that the Mueller report proved a lack of collusion with Russia. For example, NPR's "Mue
Re:Lies (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah, it's surreal that people are like "Russian collusion was bullshit" when one has obvious evidence like Paul Manafort literally going to prison and eventually having to be pardoned by President Trump. Like, clearly some people are not remembering actual things that happened when they say this. I mean I'm not sure what they're banking on here, maybe it's because Trump didn't get removed from office, but even then a lot of the Senate that voted to not remove Trump said that it was basically, "Trump's our party, we're not removing him for simple fact that he's in our party."
I mean don't get me wrong. That's literally the same reason Clinton wasn't removed. Not because Clinton was innocent but because Clinton was part of the party that was in the majority of the Senate.
The Russian collusion bullshit actually happened, but we didn't convict Trump because we made it political. But that's not the first time we didn't serve justice out for the simple reason that it just became too political. Nor do I think it'll be the last. Trump operated with Russia on a pretty basic level that was shown time and time again in the whole impeachment thing. But we just didn't do anything about it, that's just how our system of government works.
I think it's crazy that people are like "it was false", no it was "true" but clearly our government went through the DEFINED PROCESS outlined in our constitution and said, "well we don't care." So that's just that. And next Russian collusion or whoever collusion might actually get someone tossed out of the Oval office. Who knows?! That's just how our government works in the United States. Justice isn't a black and white thing and somethings that get super political, we just toss all logic and reason out the window. BUT, that's what our Constitution allows. I can't really be mad at anything because "we did the process as it was written". The Senate was just like "meh" to the Russian collusion, but it did in fact happen as anyone can read in the pages and pages of evidence that was submitted to public record from the first impeachment.
Four years of every major media network and social media outlet allowed that rubbish that turned out to be 100% verifiability false
And statements like this is over generalizing, because yeah, SOME outlets on social media was WAY WAY WAY WAY out in left field there. But others hit the nail on the head. So anytime I see a statement like that, it's like, "well yes but no." Yeah, there were some really crazy ass left wing shit out there, don't get me wrong it was pretty gross. But there were some that were actually reporting on the evidence being submitted to committees and the impeachment trail, and the stuff they showed in trail was pretty fucking damning. But you know what? You shouldn't buy my definition of "damning", because my definition per the Constitution isn't what dictates the outcome of an impeachment. I think everyone should read the evidence that was submitted and come to their own conclusion on how damning it is.
But it most absolutely DID happen. But what DID happen wasn't enough to convince the Senate that the President needed to be removed from office. Now some of what DID happen was absolutely embellished by some of the far left wing media, but to be honest if you're looking for a "SCALE" then one should just read the shit and decide for themselves. But if we're making this a binary state with no scale, this absolutely DID happen.
Re: (Score:3)
The charges had nothing to do with the "Russia Collusion" hoax.
Right, right. The charges had absolutely nothing to do with Manafort being a lobbyist for Russian Oligarchs and Putin's puppet in the Ukrainian government.
Trump pardoned him because the only reason they charged him to begin with was to try to squeeze him.
They charged him because he was corrupt as hell swamp creature who richly deserved far more prison time than he got. Trump pardoned him because he does not actually care one tiny little bit about "draining the swamp" and he considered his pardon power to be a commodity he could trade in exchange for loyalty.
Re: (Score:3)
Manafort was sent to prison for fraud
Wow. Did you even read the DOJ charge? [wsj.net]
The United States of America brings this action to collect outstanding civil penalties assessed against Defendant Paul J. Manafort for his willful failure to timely report his financial interest in foreign bank accounts
I mean if you're this willfully ignorant of the facts, there's not a convincing you of reality. Like, who the fuck was filling those foreign accounts and why was Manafort hiding it? The Irish and they were trying to fence the pots of gold they have? Huh? Like my man, what the literal hell? Like you cannot be this stupid, it literally has to be a willful thing.
Trump pardoned him because the only reason they charged him to begin with was to try to squeeze him
Dude, fucking read what you wrote again. I swear it's not the positive light that you think it is.
Like h
Re:Lies (Score:5, Insightful)
Why was I marked 'troll' for simply asking for information? I Googled on "evidence that russian collusion didn't happen" and didn't find anything. So I thought I would ask.
There is an apparent cadre of people who get modpoints who relentlessly moderate down the most Trump-critical comments in any thread. I have encountered them many, many times. I tend to assume they are the same people who moderate down any comments which are critical of any aspects of capitalism.
There are lots [nymag.com] and lots [justsecurity.org] of summaries of evidence of Trump's campaign colluding with Russia to win the election, often by means which would be considered underhanded even if they didn't involve collusion with a foreign power.
Yes, one of those references is a summary of evidence of collusion detailed in the Mueller report. Mueller explicitly said he wasn't trying to investigate collusion as that wasn't what he was asked to do, and then put a whole bunch of evidence of it that he found while doing what he was in the report so that it could be used against Trump by someone else — but nobody did. As attempts to save grace go that one is fairly limp, but I had low expectations for Mueller so I personally wasn't surprised.
Proof that people will vilify those who seek information.
The information you're seeking is inconvenient for those people, as it undermines the work they're trying to do here. Keep it up.
Re:Lies (Score:5, Informative)
34 individuals and 3 companies were indicted under the Mueller investigation directly related to Russian interference with the election. If that's a witch hunt there sure were a lot of witches. While Trump's role was not verified it was also not investigated at all so we can't really say one way or another. You can't prove a negative however so we have to presume innocent until proven guilty.
This right wing idea that nothing came of it is absurd however. A DOJ that wasn't wholly in Trump's control may have acted very differently in regards to additional indictments. We can only discuss what actually happened however.
Re:Lies (Score:4, Insightful)
the 2020 election was the most controversial election since Rutherford B Hayes.
I don't know, the 1912 election was pretty vociferous.
Arguably the 2020 election wasn't controversial, since the vast majority of Americans accept that Trump lost.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Stochastic terrorism is still terrorism
It's.. not though. Just because you find a concept and give it a name including the word "terrorism" doesn't make it terrorism. That's like saying "emotional terrorism is still terrorism". It's.. not though. You're just letting a clever phrase someone coined and managed to bring into the lexicon shape your view of reality.
Re:Lies (Score:5, Informative)
At most, put an automatic #RealTrumpTweet tag and let the reader decide whether it's trustworthy.
Given his track record, pretty sure that can be predetermined now. You're talking about a person who reportedly, as President, thought about firing [Patriot] missiles into Mexico to destroy drug labs and denying it was the U.S. From Trump Proposed Launching Missiles Into Mexico to ‘Destroy the Drug Labs,’ Esper Says [nytimes.com] (and others):
One such idea emerged from Mr. Trump, who was unhappy about the constant flow of drugs across the southern border, during the summer of 2020. Mr. Trump asked Mr. Esper at least twice if the military could “shoot missiles into Mexico to destroy the drug labs.”
“They don’t have control of their own country,” Mr. Esper recounts Mr. Trump saying.
When Mr. Esper raised various objections, Mr. Trump said that “we could just shoot some Patriot missiles and take out the labs, quietly,” adding that “no one would know it was us.” Mr. Trump said he would just say that the United States had not conducted the strike, Mr. Esper recounts, writing that he would have thought it was a joke had he not been staring Mr. Trump in the face.
Re:Lies (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think it's really that out of order to suggest that the head of state should recognize that firing lethal weapons beyond the territorial borders of sovereign countries without that country's express permission, or Congress authorizing the action, is a fucking stupid idea.
But go ahead and defend it - I'm sure that you would be the first to sign up in the second Mexican-American War, right?
Re: (Score:3)
How about "it's illegal under US and international law" for a start? Was he going to actually ask the Congress about authorizing the use of military force against our neighbor and ally, or just launch a bunch of deadly weapons and then try to deny it?
Did he even think 10 seconds past the launch order, which would have been recorded at several points in the chain of command? Was he looking for a third impeachment for committing acts of war without Congressional approval?
Re:Lies (Score:5, Interesting)
He's not well known for being a thinker. But he seems to love the think-out-of-the-box brain storming. He's not deep, and I don't think even his fans think he's deep. So yes, many of those really stupid ideas was just him thinking about things very shallowly and just randomly saying whatever thoughts floated up.
In so many ways, Trump was like a drunk guy at the bar who has all the answers to everything if only people would listen ("Drugs... we should just blow em up! Send in the seal team six! Ya, I'd watch that!"). He self proclaimed himself a genius, and in his own mind he was and so he just had to butt in because he knew he was smarter than all the experts that work on such things full time, just like that guy at the bar...
Re: (Score:3)
Really? Firing missiles uninvited into a neighboring sovereign state sounds like a good idea to you?
Seems like a good way to destroy any good will we have between our two nations to me.
Re:Lies (Score:5, Insightful)
Magic is gone (Score:5, Insightful)
Whatever the opinion on whether he should have been banned or not it's pretty clear even if he returns to Twitter a lot of people have moved on and he's got nothing new to bring.
It was one thing when he was a candidate and using Twitter in such a direct manner was new for a candidate, and then for President but now we are re-treading the same territory. His demeanor isn't going to change and even if he did come back it's a pretty high chance that it will be a large amount of griping over the 2020 election still and a large part of the electorate just doesn't care anymore. You can even see a number of politicians basically deeming the election fraud issue a liability in their races.
If he comes back a lot of the media (and yes the "liberal" media will love it, it's sensationalism) and some Twitter users will love it, some will hate it but it won't be the phenomenon that it was in 2015/16. I just don't think the man is capable of growing and adapting to that degree. His base will always enjoy it though.
Re:Magic is gone (Score:5, Insightful)
If he hadn't been a 'person of importance', he'd been temporarily banned so many times he'd effectively be permanently banned to begin with.
He can't keep to the rules as laid down by Twitter to begin with, so the whole thing is fairly irrelevant, except as an example that some people get preferential treatment for things someone else would be immediately banned for.
He got 74 million votes (Score:5, Informative)
With all due respect I think you're denying reality because like a lot of us you're afraid of the violence he's going to incite once he gets his platform back. And I honestly think you should be afraid of that. About 1/3 of the country seems ready to go on a violent revolution ending in a fascist dictatorship. We need to stop pretending it's all going to be okay.
I mean I literally just saw a Twitter thread of a woman who miscarried discussing how terrified she was when she realized a doctor was asking her questions to determine if she had had an abortion and potentially report her for having committed a homicide under the new laws that are coming. People don't realize how bad things are about to get.
Go look up some pictures of Afghanistan in the 1970s before the Taliban and right wing extremists took over there. And then go look up some pictures of the Taliban and the state of Afghanistan today. I'm not exaggerating when I say that's the direction about a third of the country wants to take us into.
The problem is what I'm saying sounds so crazy that everyone wants to reach for the mod button because it's really hard to face what's going on here unless you're one of the people who wants to make it happen.
As the saying goes, it can't happen here.
Re:He got 74 million votes (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not denying that but I think in reality the Trump base is smaller then it was in 16/20 but that just means the remaining group are louder than ever. I am not saying his base isn't any less active or out for blood than they were before, probably more so, but those independents and suburban voters are kinda over it and two years on bringing up the 2020 election as he is likely to do isn't going to bring them back.
Trump got 74 million but Biden got 81 and to be clear, Biden did not get 81 million so much as Trump energized that many to get out and vote against him. 2020 was absolutely contentious but I think just pure fatigue helped the result. Trump being President was exhausting and even so for many of his supporters even if they would never say it. I think most of his base is probably a bit more comfortable sitting back and bashing Biden and the Democrats from saefty than being out front having to defend every nutty trip he was on that week.
Trump is going to run on the 2020 fraud idea no matter what, he cannot let it go, and that's a losing position to defend for him and his supporters. It's nowhere near as compelling for the centrists as his 2016 issues. He has it easy now not being on Twitter, everyone can project themselves onto him, once he starts talking again it will be old hat and hnestly seeing his current rallies it's all a bit boring.
I am certainly not discounting the danger he represents, his base is crazed and a bit cornered but he still has what is likely a more grueling primary ahead of him than in 16, even if he will still be the nominee. Every other Republican is gong to make the case that you don't want to go back to that time, that they will do the things he said but not be so, Trumpy about it. Maybe it will sell, probably not but he is not the out of left field machine he was in 16, in my opinion.
Those voters didn't go away (Score:5, Insightful)
Go look into what Ron DeSantis is doing over in florida. He's preparing for a presidential run and he's not an idiot like Trump was. If Ron DeSantis had been there for January 6th we would all be calling him dear leader at this point.
The next time we put in authoritarian in the White House is the last election we're going to see in our lifetimes. We're right at the edge and if we let it happen again that's it for democracy. We are their face facts or we give up democracy. At this point it really is your call
There will be permanent bans (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:There will be permanent bans (Score:5, Informative)
Musk isn't unique in this, but he thinks rules are for others - not for him. This also extends to his views on free speech. While he describes himself as a "free speech absolutist", he also didn't see anything wrong with unilaterally cancelling a Tesla order [digitaltrends.com] when someone complained loudly, for instance.
This isn't unique to Elon, obviously.
So he still has a voice? (Score:2)
If banning Trump didn't mute his voice, why is Musk complaining about free speech being limited by social media content moderation? Because a lot of people wanted to hear what Trump had to say, his banning from some popular platforms didn't inhibit his ability to communicate to his audience.
Re:So he still has a voice? (Score:5, Insightful)
Musk is complaining because if Trump can't reach new people who were never interested in his bullshit then he loses, because people eventually figure out he's full of shit. And as a rich fuck, Musk stands to make out big if Trump gets reelected.
I disagree with Elon Musk's statement (Score:3)
I do not agree. Since Trump has been kicked out of Twitter he has lost much of his trolling power. And his political work is mostly trolling. I don't like bans and anti-free speech stuff but the guy used twitter to incite unlawful behaviour. That is outside the bounds of free speech.
Re: (Score:3)
If you keep yelling fire in a crowded theater, at a point, there comes a line that must be drawn...
Where that line is... that's hard to say.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
IMHO, "inciting violence" is a B.S. crime. If I post "Kill Voice of satan 1553177" and somebody does it, the only crime committed was the murder, not the speech. People are responsible for their own actions. By blaming the messenger, the violent masses not only get away unpunished, but with a feeling that it isn't their fault because they were victims of the crime of inciting violence. They can continue their violent behavior in another context.
P.S. Your user name works absolutely hilariously into my ex
Re: (Score:2)
What tweet(s) did he post that were meant to incite unlawful behavior?
Re: I disagree with Elon Musk's statement (Score:3)
Every tweet claiming the election was stolen without evidence was a DIRECT attack on the democratic process.
Re: (Score:3)
Saying it was stolen is legal and free speech no matter if you believe it or not.
It is not in fact legal speech if you're a participant in that election, you know it to be false, and you're trying to illegally alter the outcome of the election or if you're trying to incite a mob to violence, especially if the purpose is to get them to go down to the capitol building and alter the outcome of the election. Wrong again. That's every time today.
Re: (Score:2)
True but he provokes such a rejection he might lose again. I voted on only one presidential election and it was to oust Trump ! People who dislike Trump will be mobilized.
Re: (Score:3)
Trump was no anarchist. He's a statist like Biden, but at least argued for reduced regulations.
And anarchy is not equivalent to a violent overthrow of government. It's the limit where government coerced actions are reduced to zero. As those government functions are reduced, competing alternative organizations which are voluntary and private would emerge. The only question is whether such a patchwork of competition is sufficiently stable. If it slowly emerged, then it might be, IMO.
Right wing censors the most (Score:5, Insightful)
Trump sued, and lost, when he tried to block people from replying to his post. He tried to censor people. Good he got a taste of his own medicine. The right wing never allows dissent on their websites. Post any counterpoints on Alex Jones website and you get banned, while he allows Sandy Hook deniers on there under the banner of allowing free speech. Try getting past Hannityâ(TM)s call screeners to get on his FCC protected radio show. The right wing called for a government take over of Twitter calling it an essential service, while strongly opposing Net Neutrality. Fucking hypocrit bastards.
Re: (Score:3)
Censored, my ass, all Twitter users have the privilege of excluding users from their feed. I submit that's in a different category from having them deplatformed altogether.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's absolutely what Twitter is in the business of.
The business of censorship had them go broke and hostile taken over.
Re: (Score:2)
The business of censorship had them go broke
Who told you that? Twitter is profitable.
and hostile taken over.
That's what happens when you're public.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I did some superficial googling and it said the opposite of what you're saying now, google boiled down the financials.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Right wing censors the most (Score:5, Insightful)
Trump's numerous and well-documented failures
Willfully spreading disinformation is not a failure. It is a deliberate action.
do not justify Twitter's judgment failure in censoring a sitting president.
Trump was removed from Twitter for repeatedly willfully misusing the site, after many repeated clear violations of their ToS. His removal literally could not have been more justified.
Like or hate Trump, but what POTUS says has consequences
Letting Trump use Twitter to spread deliberate disinformation has negative consequences for democracy, and Twitter. You are not selling your story here, you are only justifying his removal. Thanks for that.
a communication platform should not be in business deciding which parts everyone gets to hear.
They aren't. They did not do ANYTHING to prevent Trump from spreading his disinformation propaganda by other means. The news services, even the ones that admit he's a liar (which they literally all know, some merely approve — we all know which ones) report on his press releases, so Twitter has done literally nothing which prevents Trump getting his lies out to the public, even now that he's no longer president, let alone when he was.
In short, everything you said in your comment was wrong at best, or a willful lie that you told because you, like Musk, want to promote Trump.
The people on this site are smart enough to see through your sophomoric lies. The only people who agree with them are other Q-head MAGA trolls like yourself. I don't know why you bother.
Re: (Score:3)
"Trump's numerous and well-documented failures do not justify Twitter's judgment failure in censoring a sitting president"
Putin's numerous and well-documented failures do not justify censoring a sitting president? What about Kim Jong Un? The former Pol Pot and Stalin?
Or maybe even Hitler, even though he wasn't actually president but basically a prime-minister instead.
Re: (Score:3)
it isn't censorship you dent-head
Do you like it when people insist that it's only racism if it's perpetrated against a minority group? Because that's exactly the kind of thinking you're engaging in when you say only government censorship is censorship.
The real question isn't whether all censorship should be called censorship, it's whether all censorship is the same. And it isn't. There's a reason why we ban government censorship, but explicitly allow web sites to self-censor, and ironically that reason is freedom.
Re: (Score:2)
Why is replying to a post something he tried ban? It is trying to prevent dissent and counterpoints from being read. It is an act motivated by fear that some other opinion might be followed or is correct.
So the ban didn't stop him (Score:2)
Elon mama so fat... (Score:2)
Musk was Anakin, now is Darth Vader (Score:4, Insightful)
Trump is Emperor Palpatine, we knew that. But what is surprising is that Elon Musk is transforming from Anakin Skywalker to Darth Vader. He’s forgotten how carbon credits, which were a gift from the left, got Tesla out of its darkest days. He won't recall that nowadays or even express any kind of appreciation. The traditional car makers didn't throw a big hissy fit like he threw when they recently got credits for using union labor. As did bailout money (which he paid back, but doesn’t change the fact he was given the money at the time he thought he needed it.) Nowadays he is so far gone to the right that he even seemingly pandered to climate change skeptics. He went from proclaiming himself a socialist as recently as 2016 to being a full-on right-wing extremist in 2022. Heck as recently as last year he even said he doesn’t want Trump back. But now he is in full right-wing appeasement mode. He claims he is center but if so, why isn’t he saying or doing things that anger the right wing? He is also displaying signs of paranoia common with right-wing nuts. I mean The Onion made one joke about him and he permanent-cancelled them. If this were truly about free speech, that would be cool. But realistically we know that right-wingers are the kings of censorship. I mean whenever I post comments on right winger websites like Alex Jones .. I get banned pretty quickly. Meanwhile he leaves whacko Sandy Hook denial comments on there saying he doesn't want to censor free speech, That's how Republicans operate. They want their own free speech, God forbid you try to counterpoint any of their misinformation. They claim counterpoints to their lies as "censorship" and remove those.They opposed net neutrality, but wanted twitter declared an essential service and taken over. Meanwhile healthcare, food, and housing are not essential to those fuckers. He can't control his anger towards the extreme left and the result is total abandonment of centrist/humanist/left values and strong pandering to the right-wing. The measure is the fact that they all heap tons of praise on him. Wouldn't be surprised if Elon shows up at a Trump rally in 2024.
Re:Musk was Anakin, now is Darth Vader (Score:5, Informative)
Note what I consider extreme-left:
Extreme left: You get canceled for using the wrong pronoun without malicious intent.
Left: Unintentional misgendering is OK. Acknowledge that gender is a spectrum. Which it is, btw, gender is controlled by hundreds of genes and variants of transcription factors such as SRY which may or may not always be on the Y-chromosome.
Extreme left: Tax unrealized gains of ownership in companies.
Left: Tax income. Tax high income at a large percent.
Extreme left: Immediately get rid of ALL fossil fuels and halt anything that has the word nuclear.
Left: Phase out fossil fuels, regulated nuclear power plants and nuclear fusion research is OK.
Extreme left: Cancel someone for unintentional bias.
Left: Educate people to eliminate their biases.
Extreme left: Do not use robots for anything, hire only union labor.
Left: Use robots, and improve worker conditions. Government should implement UBI based on taxation of corporate profits and robot usage.
Extreme left: Halt all space exploration activities because rockets are too loud and use fuel.
Left: Continue to explore space, and minimize environmental impact where possible.
Re: (Score:3)
Middle Common Sense: From the dawn of time until about 4 years ago, we did just fine with 2 sexes and 3 pronouns:He, She and It (for those that were confused or actually had extra chromosomes).
And no one got butthurt over it (no pun intended).
Until the modern era, and before the violence of the colonial period, numerous cultures had a varying number of genders and varying numbers of pronouns. Many of those cultures still do. Many have since the "dawn of time." Millions of people were murdered or enslaved in the last five centuries by people chanting "2 sexes, 3 pronouns," largely under banners have certainly not been around since the "dawn of time."
How do those competing systems fare under your "Dawn of Time Standard"? Or is this just about th
Re: (Score:3)
Do you have any examples?
Do you have access to google [google.com]?
None of those links describe cultures with a "varying number of genders and varying numbers of pronouns". There seem to be plenty of references to a rare third gender, that was neither male nor female, but that's it, and nothing about pronouns, and no references to cultures that maintain a tradition of more than two genders (though some mythologies contain creatures that are neither male nor female).
I'm not questioning glowimperial's claim, I'm just interested. But still waiting for examples. Yes, I could
Re: (Score:3)
Middle Common Sense: From the dawn of time until about 4 years ago, we did just fine with 2 sexes and 3 pronouns:He, She and It
nope [google.com]
Is there anything you do know about?
Re: (Score:3)
You know what *does* reduce those suicide rates? Family and community supp
Re: (Score:3)
If someone gets suicidal when they see the color blue, would you try to ban the color blue or treat their issue? If someone is suicidal over getting misgendered, they should be treated for that condition. It is not healthy to be suicidal over something like that, if you are .. you need to seek help ASAP. Getting misgendered happens all the time. When I was a child, whenever I would call some office or shop on the phone they would call me "ma'am." I may have felt a little gutted, but I didn't try to jump off
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're mistaking someone sharing some opinions with right-wing extremists with someone actually being a right-wing extremist. I could make a similar [bad] argument for people that share some ideas with the radical left. In both cases, sharing some opinions is not a sufficient reason to attack them as belonging to a particular group.
Free speech used to be a core component of democratic societies. It scares me to see people grouping anyone supporting actual free speech with extremists plotting insurre
Re: (Score:3)
The left has gone so far off the edge that it's really not worth even discussing things with them any more. They've gone completely insane.
The extremists on both sides have gone off the rails. The difference is that the right has their extremists in charge of the party.
Can you imagine if Republicans did things like picket at judge's houses? Can you imagine if Republicans started leaking court documents to try and force a political opinion?!
Do you really think that Republicans would not do the exact same thing if positions were reversed? If you do I have an NFT of a bridge to sell you.
Elon Musk isn't angering the right because the right is simply far more reasonable than the left.
Far more gullible is more like it.
The right took one look at Trump and decided that meant it was time to go all-out insane.
FTFY
Re: (Score:3)
The left has gone so far off the edge that it's really not worth even discussing things with them any more. They've gone completely insane.
Right, with their insane belief that their political enemies are all pedophiles or literal demons who drink the blood of children or make drugs out of their brains to consume. Also that JFK was/is going to come back to life to re-instate their political favorite to the presidency or that the election was stolen by a dead South American dictator or... Oh, wait, you said the left? Ummm, sure.
Can you imagine if Republicans did things like picket at judge's houses? Can you imagine if Republicans started leaking court documents to try and force a political opinion?!
Not sure about Judges, but have you heard of the so-called Freedom Convoy?
Re: Musk was Anakin, now is Darth Vader (Score:3)
Umm, no I went to 1985 to find an abortion related violence against judges because there werenâ(TM)t major anti-right rulings related to abortion since then.
There are plenty of recent examples of right wing violence. If you did not know that obvious you are too far gone. I guess you missed Jan. 6th 2021? And btw, the protests against the judges were peaceful.
I'm on board... (Score:3)
Musk in Bizarro-World (Score:3)
Bizzaro-world statements like this is why I can't respect Musk.
Trump is toxic, inciteful, and deliberately mal-informs for his own gain, on top of being a monumentally stupid puppet. He has his own platform now which is doing better than he deserves.
The right to free speech does not include the right to be heard. Not that this is a free speech issue because the First Amendment only prevents the government from silencing people.
Re: (Score:2)
This is my surprised face (Score:3, Interesting)
Point the first, Twitter is not a town square, unless that town is a company town. Anyone who ever thought it was is a dumbfuck.
Point the second, you can literally be banned from an actual town square if you abuse the privilege of being there enough times. For example in California they can place a three year "permanent" restraining order (odd definition of permanent, but anyway) for civil harassment, or five years for domestic abuse. That is not a permanent ban, but just try going back and doing what got the order placed against you the first time and see if it happens again — it will. Courts don't like it when you don't take them seriously.
Point the third, Twitter doesn't achieve several of its stated goals if it has Trump on the service. To wit:
Trump deliberately spread health disinformation, so he conflicts with the first of those things. Trump used Twitter to spread many other types of disinformation as well, so for both of those reasons he conflicts with the second thing. Straightforward, eh, what does that even mean? On the relevant page they say "Our product, our behavior, and our work habits should all be transparent and to the point." This is clearly bullshit, the algorithms are not transparent. This is the one and only place Musk's stated objectives would improve Twitter. The profit and purpose thing is allegedly about doing good; Trump uses social media to bolster his borderline fraudulent fundraising schemes (like where people who thought they were donating to help him achieve political goals were just paying down his debt) so he conflicts with that regardless. And most of us (literally, as polled) do not find Trump's attacks on democracy to fit into that either.
It seems obvious that Musk is interested in Twitter only to help Trump. It's obvious why a richie rich mofo like Musk would want to boost Trump, he is guaranteed to shit on the poor for the benefit of the wealthy. And it should also be obvious that nothing Musk says about Twitter should be taken at face value. Everything he says is contradictory to facts.
Re: (Score:2)
I rather think Musk is playing the useful idiot here. He hates Trump but thinks it would be fair to let him spit his nonsense. Musk has already stated that in his opinion the U.S.A needed more moderate politicians and Trump is not at all a moderate.
Re: (Score:2)
I rather think Musk is playing the useful idiot here. He hates Trump but thinks it would be fair to let him spit his nonsense.
What makes you think that? Are you new?
Musk has already stated that in his opinion the U.S.A needed more moderate politicians and Trump is not at all a moderate.
Your mistake, assuming you're not just being disingenuous, is believing literally anything Musk says. Why would you do that? Did you fall off the turnip truck last night?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen you on here a LONG time, and while we disagree on a lot, I've found some areas of common ground and generally think you are an intelligent individual.
But seriously, do you really believe all of this that you wrote, especially at the end there?
Re: (Score:3)
In much the same way that trolling is saying shit you don't believe in order to piss people off, disinformation is saying shit you know to be false in order to manipulate people. Trump is, always has been, and presumably always will be a con man. The proof is voluminous and readily available.
Re:This is my surprised face (Score:5, Insightful)
You're freaking out over nothing.
Saying I'm freaking out over nothing is a cheap tactic to try to discredit me. You're cheap.
Saying there shouldn't be a permanent ban isn't the same as saying someone shouldn't be suspended for running afoul of the rules
Straw man. Also cheap.
Plus Musk is clearly an idealist, whether you agree with his ideals or not
I do not, because his ideals are "more for me and fuck you"
One of his ideals is freedom of speech
That is horse shit [latimes.com] and the world becomes a stupider place every time someone says it, and even stupider than that [cnbc.com] every time someone believes it.
He and Musk clearly don't agree on their ideals, and Trump doesn't actually believe in freedom of speech unless it's his own speech
Trump and Musk agree on that one.
You, on the other hand, want twitter to silence the voices of a particular political party.
Sure, but not because they're members of that party. It just so happens that there's nobody in that party that isn't 100% full of shit. That only differentiates them slightly from the democraps in that they have a couple of people who are not at all full of shit, and a handful of people who are only mostly full of shit. I don't want a rule banning republicans from speaking. I want the rule to be that they can't state opinions as facts and get away with it, double especially when those opinions are on things where they're trying to manipulate public opinion, and triple especially when they are not opinions at all but known falsehoods.
You're not an idealist when it comes to freedom of speech. You have more in common with Trump than Musk on this point.
I'm not a pure idealist about anything because everything has to happen in the really real world, which is lumpy. I'd like to believe in completely free speech for all, but that only works if a large enough percentage of people is well-educated (or at least knows how to be skeptical) and only a small percentage of people are malicious. And that only happens when the majority of the needs of the majority of the people are being met, and that's not happening now. And that's why I believe in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, if no other parts. Even the people who wanted to regulate decency on the internet recognized that if they tightened their grasp too much, they would crush it.
I do not believe that it is hyperbole to say that America is currently at a fork in the river, not a crossroads where we can go ever on but a point at which we must make an actual choice and execute it in a timely fashion. And on one of those hands, the right hand shall we say, is not only continuing authoritarian rule by corporations (literal fascism) but actual theocratic dictatorship. I don't know what's down the other road, but frankly just about anything has to be better than that. What we are seeing happen in the American government today is not the culmination of a campaign by a minority to control the country which has been ongoing for decades, it is only a step along the way. They will not be content with repealing abortion ban bans, they will move on to banning abortion, and then birth control, and if you think this is a frothing slippery slope argument then I urge you in the strongest terms possible to consider the actual words and statements by the people involved — not perhaps when they were lying to congress during their confirmation hearings, but at any point prior to that. Or, you know, in the leaked opinion. This is just a step along the way towards a future literally directly out of a Margaret Atwood novel.
That you can be so complacent about all of this says everything about how we got here, and where we're going.
Twitter is not a public square (Score:4, Interesting)
And banning Trump from Twitter didn't silence him, but it did make things massively more peaceful. At least so far, I'm alright with him sticking to his little echo-chamber.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm open-minded about the possibility of creating a digital public square; meaning a medium that gives you the same rights as protected speech in a public park.
What does that have to do with this? Willful disinformation designed to harm people and threats of violence will both get you not only kicked out of the park (and maybe a restraining order against you prohibiting you returning for some years, especially if you engage in these activities repeatedly) but also potentially sued, jailed, etc. depending on the nature of the acts.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Reinstatement just adds an air of legitimacy to the lies and dissent he peddles for his own personal benefit. Are they going to exempt him from the TOS everybody else has to adhere to or will they ban him again if let back in?
Twitter Town Square? (Score:2)
Why would he say 'would' (Score:2)
Let him come back (Score:2)
I'm really hoping this to be another blow to end the privacy-violations and disregard for users from "social media" (aka "private corporations").
Let's them burn Facebook/Meta, Twitter and alike.
The Trumpeters (Score:2)
This is not about free speech. Everyone is free to walk into a park and shout their political views at the top of their lungs. The question is who gets the trillion-fold megaphone that th
Popper's paradox is a call for balance (Score:4, Interesting)
According to Popper free speech is not a linear function ("more is better"), it's a bell curve with an optimum ("not too much, not too little").
The real question I'd love to see Musk engage with is: where does that optimum lie? His absolutist stance might indeed amplify some voices, but is just as likely to hurt others. My worry is that Twitter might gain polarising loudmouths but lose the softspoken voices:
- I don't want to hear from politicians, I want to hear from the refugee who fears speaking out against the regime in his home country because doing so might hurt the family members who still live there.
- I don't want to hear celebrities, I want to hear from the single mom who fears speaking up about abortion because it might cost her a job opportunity.
You could argue that "the right wing white male who is afraid to voice his worries about immigration" is another soft voice that Twitter might amplify. I can only say that for me personally, as a European, I'm amazed how far the USA's Overton window has shifted to the right already. The notion that the right is somehow repressed seems strange to me, as American politics don't have a left to speak of. For example, Bernie Sanders would be considered much more middle of the window/road here.
Elon is plenty smart, so I really hope his mental model of how a free speech climate can be cultivated is a bit more complex than he's been leading on.
Paradox of Tolerance:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Overton Window:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:trump is a traitor (Score:5, Insightful)
Just for the record, Trump thought it was ok to shoot BLM protestors but not those on Jan 6th.
https://www.rollingstone.com/p... [rollingstone.com]
Also the same people who say protesting outside the homes of supreme court justices is uncalled for ruled that protesting outside the homes of abortion doctors is protected speech.
Re:trump is a traitor (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Here's a Fox link for you.
https://www.foxnews.com/politi... [foxnews.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Attacking the publisher rather than discussing the content published. It just doesn't get lazier than that.
Re: (Score:3)
>
Both sides have been equally shitty in their approach. People need to drop the 2 parties and vote Libertarian, Independant or Green party. I thought Jo Jorgenson was pretty moderate and voted for her. All 3 of the aforementioned parties seem to focus less on niche personal issues and more on national issues. Unfortunately everyone seems to vote for "What's in it for me" instead of "What's in it for us?"
Bullshit on your both sides. Here's a Harvard study showing BLM was by and large peaceful.
https://www.radcliffe.harvard.... [harvard.edu]
Re: (Score:2)