Assuming the 573 billion is a typo....
In another twist to the Twitter saga, Elon Musk could be returning the microblogging mainstay to public ownership in the not-too-distant future after agreeing to take it private as part of his $44 billion takeover. According to The Wall Street Journal, Musk has told potential investors that he's planning to refloat Twitter in …
I'm a bit liberal myself, but I don't consider myself a libtard. You know, one of those people who loves free speech, as long as people are saying the things that you agree with, but are happy to have things censored if they don't agree with it. These are the people that are having a meltdown about Elon taking over Twitter and are leaving the platform now. It's entertaining to watch, I've got my popcorn to hand.
There's no such thing as no moderation. Without moderation, Twitter would be an even deeper cesspit. Twiiter has to moderate it's content to operate in many countries. It will need to moderate for illegal content, to prevent civil liability, etc. People will still get banned. Do we need to get the XKCD out again?
It needs the right moderation.
Musk didn't get banned over his paedo comment. People and organisations did get banned for tweeting about Biden's abandoned laptop. Justification was that was 'Russian disinformation', yet turned out to be a real story. Then there was banning a sitting President.
I find myself strangely agreeing with Musk though. Censor stuff that's illegal, not just objectionable. If flat earthers want to tweet their theories, let them. Nobody is forced to follow or engage with them, unless they want a laugh. Don't like Biden or Trump, don't follow and ignore them. Twitter gives people the ability to follow who they want, and exist in their own echo chamber, if they want.
Yup, why not? Porn is mostly legal, give or take national obscenity laws. Spot of age verification, and pick your paraphilia. But given 240 char limits, would be a bit limited. Or be like the old days of usenet where people would patiently paste multi-part text messages to get their fix.
Or it'd be up to Twitter. Their house, their rules. Or it may already be happening if Twitter allows onlyfins 'celebrities' to tweet and promote themselves.
up to them, yes. I don't agree with that whole age verification thing, but let's not go down that rabbit hole.
But I would not pull out porn pictures down the pub or any public place (like the chamber of the house of commons) for what should be obvious reasons. Porn is not free speech, even though it's legal.
There's plenty of porn on Twatter already. Consenting adult stuff (mostly "advertising their wares", which is perfectly legal in most parts of the world, despite prudes - it's not spam inasmuch as you have to seek it out rather than having it arrive unsolicited, so there's no "network abuse" aspect to consider)
Straw man. No one is suggesting Twitter should not moderate for illegal content. Musk is contending that Twitter moderates a lot more than that and in ways that deliberately suppress opinions that don't kowtow to the progressive/liberal viewpoint in the US. And he's right.
The people being banned are not banned because others "disagree with them", they are banned for using hateful and inciting language.
The guy who Musk recently referred to (the one Rogan and Tim Pool discussed on his show) used the 'N' word, and signed off with "#HitlerWasRight")
They also ban those that post dangerous and conspiratorial bollocks because the right-wing that read it believe the crap, then start drinking bleach and horse dewormer.
If those people weren't so stupid, and were able to think critically, then they wouldn't need to be banned, but if that was the case, stations like Fox News would cease to exist.
I left Quora because of their insane censorship of anything that may hurt someones feelings, but that's their choice.
In the right wings twisted definition of "woke", Quora ticks all the boxes, so I didn't leave because I thought they favoured the right-wing.
If you have guests in your house, are there limits on what they can say? However racist or illegal or rude?
Will you let anyone into your house to rant about any old bollocks, or are you into "censorship" too?
I have no idea why you got 6 thumbs up (so far) what you are saying is patently and demonstrably wrong.
"The people being banned are not banned because others "disagree with them", they are banned for using hateful and inciting language."
Yes that does happen too (and rightly so), however people have been banned for less. For example :-
Dr Robert Malone for saying that perhaps you don't want to vaxx your young children (particularly boys) because of the additional risk of myocarditis. (additional to the risks of getting it after catching Covid)
Anyone famous enough saying masks don't work (in 2020).
Anyone posting about the Hunter Biden laptop story from the New York Post, just before the election. I'm also not a fan of Trump, but I think if this had been allowed to run it could well have changed the outcome of the election (it does really stink of corruption, I'm surprised no one seems to care now - especially considering what's happened since in Ukraine). If this had swung the election that would have been correct (although distasteful) because people have a right to know. If this stuff it suppressed, that's censorship.
Read it. READ IT AND UNDERSTAND IT JACKIE WEAVER.
There are countless examples of this kind of thing, from people daring to suggest that eating meat is not actually a big problem for climate change. Reasonable people who have reasonable views just get banned for breaking "community guidelines". People I follow on Substack now. YouTube is worse.
People who point out that the vaccine is non sterilising, seems to wane in effectiveness almost completely after a few months and could _perhaps_ even make things worse because of OAS (go look it up). These aren't conspiracy theories, they are well recognised medical experiences that we've known about for decades.
I could go on. But is there any point?
And it's actually worse than what you might think, because often they just "twiddle the knobs" and shadow ban you without actually telling you.
If someone says something rude or racist in my house I'll politely ask them to tone it down. I don't put a muzzle on them.
ah the "horse dewormer" argument. That's like saying that porridge oats are "horse food". Ivermectin has been given to hundreds of millions of people as an anti parasite for a number of decades and is safer than paracetamol. Some poor countries have been doing quite well with it as a prophylactic treatment. But yeah, go ahead and ban any mention of it. That's censorship.
What you've just done there is illegal. I won't pursue it though, as I assume you are just trying, in a very awkward way, to make a point. (you ARE just trying to make a point, aren't you?) I never said there are no limits to my support of free speech. Obviously if stuff is illegal it should be moderated. However, someone saying things like "That Hunter biden laptop story is interesting, here's a link" or "lockdowns don't actually seem to work" or even (horror of horrors!!) "Can anyone show me strong evidence that facemasks work" ...
well, people should be able to say stuff like that. Which have all been very much not allowed in the past couple of years.
Which is patently wrong, and I don't get how more people don't seem to be able to see that.
Anyway, I got the popcorn out and the mini dogpile happened and the libtards hit the downvote button. As predicted.
Very decent of you Steve. Yes, I am clearly making a point - there are limits on what you can say, and some things are unacceptable and should be blocked by Twitter - note that's blocked, as in "you can't say that here", while censored means "you can't say that anywhere". Important distinction, try to remember it. Governments can censor, Twitter can't.
Now we've all agreed on the principle that some content should be blocked, all we need to do is agree where the limits are. And given that you could go to twitter right now and post "Can anyone show me strong evidence that facemasks work" without getting blocked - honestly, try it, you really can - I'm just not sure what exactly you're so animated about.
Where should the limits sit, and who decides them?
So picking something intentionally controversial.
Russia: Ukraine has a neo-Nazi problem.
Bbc: Claims about Ukrainian Nazis are baseless.
Azov Regiment: We wear the 2nd SS Panzer Division's insignia and Black Sun emblem because we love Kiev cake and puppies.
Also controversial, prior to Russia's invasion, the OSCE reported increased shelling from Ukraine into Donbass.
So what gives? Azov hasn't changed it's insignia since people pointed out that nazi symbols aren't a good look. The Ukrainian government didn't force Azov to re-brand, so is presumably ok with one of their elite regiments wearing nazi iconography.
The Bbc describing a well-documented use of nazi symbols as being 'baseless' is puzzling. Being a neo-Nazi apologist or sympathiser isn't a good look for the UK state broadcaster.
This isn't uniquely Bbc problem, apparently other news orgs also disallow mention of Azov's nazi brand.
> Where should the limits sit, and who decides them?
The publishing company decides. As it's been this way for over a hundred years this shouldn't come as a surprise.
Standards vary, which is why Trump can block any criticism of Trump from his twitter-clone. As censorship goes that's a pretty extreme example, I wonder why the right-wingers never cite it?
Re. your specific example, I'll take a citation for the BBC "baseless" statement please. They did describe claims the Ukrainian Government had been "overrun by Nazis" as "baseless", which given Zelinksy is jewish seems reasonable. But that's very different to your claim.
I'm well aware of the Azov battalions history, but their political wing received less than 5% of the vote in the last election, just as the BNP pulled almost 2% in the 2014 UK election. Both are fringe groups, neither country has been "overrun by Nazis". No doubt Russias Nazi supporters would be classed as the same if they ever have a free election.
> Very decent of you Steve. Yes, I am clearly making a point - there are limits on what you can say, and some things are unacceptable and should be blocked by Twitter - note that's blocked, as in "you can't say that here", while censored means "you can't say that anywhere". Important distinction, try to remember it. Governments can censor, Twitter can't.
Governments can't censor, because you can always "go elsewhere" (another country). It turns out censorship doesn't actually exist, isn't that cool.
Of course, in practice, moving is hard and takes you out of your social network - but then, that also applies to Twitter.
"Governments can censor, Twitter can't."
If you can't say it on Twitter, LinkedIN, Facebook, etc. etc. because they all have similar left leaning policies, then effectively that is censored. You could shout it out of your front door, but only a handful of people are going to hear you, unless the media are reporting on it. Censorship doesn't have to be absolute.
The Hunter Biden laptop story is a perfect example. Banned from every platform and virtually none of the TV news or newspapers (call them mainstream media) reported on it. This was an *important* story, which has turned out to be true, but was censored for political reasons. This was not dictated by the government.
Why do Twitter et. al get to decide what's "true" and what's "false"?
On the facemask thing, plenty of high profile people were blocked for saying such things. It's probably OK to say it now because... Covid isn't top of the news any more? I don't know? What are the rules today?
China uses censorship. There are no avenues to criticise Xi - they are all blocked. By contrast when Trump was blocked on Twitter, he set up his own version and carried on.
You seem to want to force Twitter to carry content they find offensive: "my house, my rules unless the government says so". Not very small-state of you.
It's become the public square, not a private house. If ALL the main platforms censor you, then effectively you've been silences. NO ONE uses Truth Social. No one. Does Trump actually censor anti-Trump stuff on there? That would be ironic, but would not surprise me. I can't stand the man and disagree with 90% of that he says, but I will still fight for his right to say most of it.
Probably if you say certain biological facts about trans people, Twitter would not like it and find it offensive (this is the whole overly woke left wing thing). I've had trans friends, bless em. I was the only person in the office who called her a her, and everyone else was completely horrible it about (behind her back). But I'm not kidding myself that she was biologically female. Even though just to be polite I'll call her her, and if she wants to wear a dress I really don't care. I'm just awkwardly trying to say what J.K.Rowling has already said far more eloquently. Has she been banned from Twitter? Actually, no apparently. But that's a fine line isn't it. Can a woman have a penis? Should I even go there?
And the whole China argument. Just because we're not doing it like China, then it's not censorship? That's silly. They are one of the most extreme about it, but there are varying degrees of censorship. What Twitter is doing is pretty light in comparison, but it can still affect elections, so it does matter.
Why do Twitter et. al get to decide what's "true" and what's "false"?
Because it's their platform. Just like Truth Social is Trump's (and that also decides what to allow and what not to allow).
Regarding the Hunter Biden laptop story, I see it repeatedly mentioned as having legs on here (by the usual suspects), but can't find anything on the Wiki entry that actually shows that. Do you have a link (that isn't from the NYP, Fox, or Truth Social)?
"You know, one of those people who loves free speech, as long as people are saying the things that you agree with, but are happy to have things censored if they don't agree with it. "
You mean those liberals angry at Kaepernick taking the knee? https://www.thenation.com/article/society/republicans-cancel-culture-kaepernick/
Or that Liberal DeSantis is banning books down in Florida, even maths books? https://edition.cnn.com/2022/04/17/us/florida-math-textbooks-critical-race-theory/index.html
Or those liberals continually trying to ban gay marriage? https://www.losangelesblade.com/2022/05/04/ben-shapiro-if-we-had-a-supreme-court-theyd-overturn-obergefell/
Or left-wing-socialist site "Truth Social" that bans people that poke fun at its owner, or criticise Trump? https://mashable.com/article/trump-truth-social-free-speech-bans
Or communist Trump repeatedly calling for journalists and others who are "mean to him" to be fired https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/2020/09/06/trump-attacks-cancel-culturebut-tried-recently-to-cancel-these-people/?sh=5e797bf34b2a
I could go on and on, but is that enough "Liberals" for you for now?
Kaepernick ... NO. That's horrible. But people should be entitled to their opinions. But if people want to be angry about that, then have at it. But objecting to EVERY footballer doing it now, just because they are too cowardly not to. You see that a lot on Twitter actually. And they kind of have a point, don't they? And let's be honest BLM didn't turn out so great with the whole stealing all the money and defunding the police thing. (Seattle is now pretty much fucked because of them for example)
Don't get me started on Critical Race Theory. All white people should feel guilty? What's that doing in a maths book? But it's CNN so it's probably BS and should have been written in crayons. I must admit I only read the first few paragraphs and forgot who I'm supposed to be hating now. I'm probably biased as I love De Santis because he bucked the trend and stopped doing lockdown and masking (which I don't think worked) and vaccine mandates, which I think is truly abhorrent (even though I've had a couple of stabs myself, I don't think you should mandate it ever)
All your other examples, well I can sum that up easily with "two wrongs don't make a right". Is Trump really censoring people on Truth for saying things he doesn't like? Doesn't surprise me, which is why I never set up an account on there (even though a bit curious). Probably a bit like GETTR which is far too RIGHT wing for me. I just want something that respects the middle ground, and doesn't either lean left or right. Is that too much to ask?
"You know, one of those people who loves free speech, as long as people are saying the things that you agree with, but are happy to have things censored if they don't agree with it."
That more accurately describes modern-day Republicans and the far right more than any other group.
"That more accurately describes modern-day Republicans and the far right more than any other group."
Please forgive the source being the mail but I just read someones post on another forum which sourced this-
Seems your comment doesnt stand the test of time. Currently says 11 hrs.
So far, so normal. Borrow money, buy Twitter, load it with debt. Then trust you can take it public again later for more than you paid for it. Which could be problematic given Twitter, like Tesla was already grossly overvalued based on revenue, profit etc.
But Musk works on a different timescale, so 3 years probably means a decade, or never. See FSD Tesla taxis, semis, cybertrucks etc for more info. Then again, Musk is a software guy, and developing a messaging app is a lot easier than FSD. Plus there's a lot of fat that can probably be trimmed, like their $15m a year chief censor. Moving Twitter away from California would also cut payroll and other overheads a lot as well.
But who would buy shares of a now-debt-ladden Twitter 2.0?
What's there to gain?
I guess that's Musk being Musk, selling chickens before the eggs have been hatched.
Maybe this is a test of his messianic properties.
Can he sell a future IPO of a company he has yet to buy and take private?
It'd be like most IPOs. Insiders get to cash out after the bell, or privately before. Investors would have to decide based on the prospectus. Or Musk's reality distortion field kicks in, and fans who've forgotten about Solar City flock to buy shares.
But I think it's unlikely I'd invest. On the plus side, there's probably a lot of fat that could be cut from Twitter, on the minus, it's just a messaging app for a fickle fanbase.
To watch the screaming, shouting, and carrying on. Frankly, the entertainment value of this nonsense is mostly due to the fact that I don’t do Twatter, ArseBook, or pretty much any ‘social network’ that isn’t El Reg or usenet. Some of us simply couldn’t care if Elon the Bond supervillain Musk bought Twatter; frankly, I don’t think that he could make it much worse. And that if he were to pry ArseBook out of the Zuck’s hands, anything he did would be an improvement. If Elon bought it to crank the price up and then dump it, that’s a _good_ idea, especially if it sheds a few thousand/million users in the process. Even better would be if he couldn’t dump it because he’d lose money thanks to the number of users who bailed from the platform. It would be hilarious if his buying it was what killed it…
Where’s my bowl of popcorn?
My sympathies are very much with your views. The problem is that anyone who has to promote anything is forced to sup with these devils with quite short spoons. An example, any indie author has to have a presence on all the antisocials to promote their wares.
Politicians, in particular have to be on them even if they are diametrically opposed to most political anti social types.
It seems that Linkedout is now becoming important for when you are looking for a job in our august profession.
I do wish that people would be less interested in the narcissistic rantings of the Musk Ox and where he indulges in his shopping habits.
This is all about the Musk Ox versus Suckerberg and I hope it damages them both.
Unfortunately we'll end up worse off no matter what happens.
Nothing to do but enjoy the popcorn.
Maybe with a beverage like BOOMCHICAPOP's Popcorn Ale since ElReg won't give us a popcorn icon.
has been to embarrass big companies. And even that is now waning (I've thrown a few shitballs at shit companies that have left them for all to see).
My memory was that it was a thing to allow people to SMS to forums, and as such unique.
If it's not doing that anymore, what's it for ?
If you've got what you think is a decent plan to make a business bigger and more profitable, you wouldn't try to reduce your own stake in that business, you would try to increase it.
Just a hint to the Musk-dazzled who don't understand the basics......... he's trying to reduce his own risk here and get the investment banks take on more of it - a sign he feels his own plans could possibly backfire.
"a hint to the Musk-dazzled who don't understand the basics......... he's trying to reduce his own risk here and get the investment banks take on more of it - a sign he feels his own plans could possibly backfire"
Or he's simply hedging his bets and not biting off more than he can chew, while throwing a bone at the banks who will anyway underwrite most of his loans not only to Twitter but also Tesla, SpaceX etc.
It is a terrible platform for "discussion" compared to Facebook - and Facebook's success isn't because it offers a better platform for discussion it is because it claimed a "keep in touch with distant relatives and casual friends" niche that's far larger than the "people who want to engage in 'discussion' with strangers on the internet over hot button topics" niche.
I guess he's hoping that ordinary conservatives who feel they would now be able to say whatever they want will join Twitter in droves, but the failure of Gab, Parler, and Trump's site to attract conservative masses demonstrates there just isn't a big market for that.
Ordinary conservatives were never being silenced for saying conservative things like "outlaw abortion", "cut taxes" or even modern republican party things like "Trump is the second coming of Jesus". They were being silenced for stuff like posting photos of democratic politicians with a bulleye over them and a photo of an AK-47, with a statement about using the second amendment. That being allowed will only attract the type of people who want to post stuff like that, it isn't going to attract ordinary conservatives and would drive away a lot of the niche audience currently using Twitter. If he ends up replacing Twitter's Hollywood niche with a Proud Boys niche, I'd like to see him try to take that public!
There's Censorship', with a capital C. And then there are things that amount to censorship, such as ideas not being heard because they don't result in more advertising revenue for the platform.
Engagement as it is currently measured - what a platform can show an advertiser - can favour tweets that cause argument or outrage. The fabric of the platform as currently funded does not favour constructive conversations and bridge building. Not ideal.