by gabbar ➕follow (1) 💰tip ignore
« First « Previous Comments 36 - 75 of 1,802 Next » Last » Search these comments
The guys (foreigners) who run google and Twitter don’t give a shit about your free speech nor privacy rights.
Neither does that twerp Zuckerberg.
A pox on all of them.
I bet he's going to sell all his shares.
I bet he's already bought options to sell
I don't see why people think Twitter matters as a company. They have a terrible reputation, nobody that matters go to platforms that engage in censorship, their userbase is a bunch of low grade morons, and it's a propaganda outlet.
Let's see, but I bet this was just a plan to make a quick buck. Purchase the stock, give people hope the company will reform, buy options to sell, sell the stock, and profit as the stock reverts.
Truth, that is the main problem of government and governmental corporations. They don't like. They will go to extreme extent to undermine truth because truth will impact their money and power.
gabbar saysTruth, that is the main problem of government and governmental corporations. They don't like. They will go to extreme extent to undermine truth because truth will impact their money and power.
This is exactly why we have the First Amendment.
Unfortunately, it covers only lawmaking by the government, not quasi-monopolies and other corporations squashing free speech.
Ceffer saysSo much for Saint Musk:
Let's wait and see how this pans out. If he is able to buy Twitter, it may be one of the best things to happen in 2022.
After the official rejection of the offer comes in Twitter is probably going to dip pretty hard.
gabbar saysTruth, that is the main problem of government and governmental corporations. They don't like. They will go to extreme extent to undermine truth because truth will impact their money and power.
This is exactly why we have the First Amendment.
Unfortunately, it covers only lawmaking by the government, not quasi-monopolies and other corporations squashing free speech.
So stock values drop over the refusal of one shareholder to sell to Musk.
Shaman saysSo stock values drop over the refusal of one shareholder to sell to Musk.
Can that one shareholder block the sale?
that will open them up for lawsuits violating their fiduciary duty
mell saysthat will open them up for lawsuits violating their fiduciary duty
True, the board legally must act in the best interests of shareholders. Elon is offering quite a premium over the market price, which does clearly is in the interest of shareholders. I think their only counter-argument is bin Talal's, that the stock is really worth more than what the market is pricing it at. But how can the board plausibly claim to be smarter than the stock market?
Cenovitch and Poso suggested the Ape Army get ready to intervene, GME style.
Speaking of FAGAT, I remember all the Libertarian Articles in the 90s and early 2000s about how freedoming the Pacific Coast was, esp. in Tech. LOL!
It's sad cause it was true back then. Golden times, glad I could be part of it.
Patrick saysgabbar saysTruth, that is the main problem of government and governmental corporations. They don't like. They will go to extreme extent to undermine truth because truth will impact their money and power.
This is exactly why we have the First Amendment.
Unfortunately, it covers only lawmaking by the government, not quasi-monopolies and other corporations squashing free speech.
If private business is able to curtail 1A rights then it should be free to discriminate based on anything not just by what a person says.
Decentralizing Tech out of the SFBA is key. Elon should move most of Twitter's Operations to Tulsa and Lubbock. Joe six-pack Tech wouldn't mind those places, esp. if they are savvy to save up and succeed or start a family. Karen Purplehair would hate living there.
Plenty of private businesses don't allow firearms on their premises.
Musk said "I have sufficient assets" when he was asked whether funding had been secured for the potential purchase.
AmericanKulak saysDecentralizing Tech out of the SFBA is key. Elon should move most of Twitter's Operations to Tulsa and Lubbock. Joe six-pack Tech wouldn't mind those places, esp. if they are savvy to save up and succeed or start a family. Karen Purplehair would hate living there.
If they kept the SF salaries, they would droves of people going for the jobs in Tulsa or Lubbock. You could live like God.
SAN FRANCISCO, CA—A growing number of left-leaning voices are concerned about a dangerous increase in free speech if Elon Musk buys Twitter. Early reports confirm that this is because they would have to debate their opponents, instead of just banning them.
"Any statement that I don't like is literally incitement, promoting violence, and an existential threat to worldwide democracy" tweeted one user named Resist_The_System90210. "I never had to debate a real person, as Twitter just buries them in the 'additional replies, including those that may contain offensive content' to protect me!"
Don Lemon called out the widespread misunderstanding about so-called "free speech" on his "Don Lemon Tonight" segment: "There are obviously limits to free speech. You can't yell 'fire' in a theater, or claim that you can still catch and spread COVID even if you have the vaccine, or talk about the laptop proving that Joe Biden's son leveraged his Dad's position to make a fortune for the family - free speech is more like speech that I already agree with and won't hurt prevailing liberal narratives."
One commenter disagreed, however, on the grounds that Twitter was already an unbiased bastion of free speech principles. "If Elon takes over Twitter, he'll let literal Nazis like Donald Trump and Gina Carano say whatever they want! I won't be safe!"
At time of publishing, left-wing Twitter users were relieved to find that Elon was outbid by a CCP-connected Chinese oligarch.
There are many reasons to be skeptical of Musk's motives and, even if pure, his ability to restore free speech to Twitter. Way too many powerful interests need this censorship. But the panic reveals so much. My @getcallin show yesterday covered all this:
callin.com/episode/elon-musk…
Elon Musk Provokes Liberal Panic. Plus, reluctantly: “groomer” discourse | The Glenn Greenwald...
As the war um Ukraine ushers in an unprecedented censorship regime, liberal hysteria explodes over the possibility of free speech. Plus: is there validity, malice or both in the “groomer” debates?
How dumb do you have to be to believe that journalists - who work at Bloomberg and the Bezos-owned WPost or Comcast or CNN - are worried about billionaires controlling media?
They're only petrified that the wrong billionaire, one who may not censor for them, might reign.
Social media was heralded as an innovation that would liberate individuals from centralized control by the state and oligarchical power over their speech.
It has become the exact opposite: the most powerful tool of information control and speech constraints ever devised.
Censorship of conservatives gets most attention because it's so common, but censorship of anti-establishment leftists is also frequent: any dissident can be banned.
Pretending this is about bots or spam is fraudulent. This censorship is about control of political information.
You're allowed to spread any lies, propaganda and disinformation you want if it advances the Ukrainian cause (i.e., the US/NATO cause), but will be instantly banned if you say anything that challenges that on the ground of "Russia disinformation." This is all explicit.
Throughout the COVID pandemic, you weren't allowed to question the efficacy of cloth masks. You weren't allowed to interrogate the origins of the virus. You weren't allowed to debate vaccines or lockdowns. No dissent from Fauci/WHO was allowed.
The censorship is 100% political.
Let's put it this way:
On Google/YouTube, Facebook and Twitter, you are free to say the 2000 and 2016 elections were stolen and fraudulent. You can't say that about 2020.
Before the 2020 election, you weren't allowed to post reporting on the Biden emails.
It's all ideological.
Everyone knows they are lying. Nobody cares about Twitter censoring bots or spam. That's not what this is about.
The social media censorship people care about is 100% ideological: banning dissent on COVID, the Biden emails, culture war debates, etc. That's what's at stake.
In US culture, we're inculcated from childhood that censorship is bad. So of course nobody -- especially journalists -- wants to say: "I favor censorship."
That's why they need euphemisms like "content moderation": to pretend it's about bots, abuse, etc. rather than ideology.
Yesterday was a flagship day in corporate media. It was the day they were forced to explicitly state what has long been clear: they not only favor censorship but desperately crave and depend on it.
Even if Musk doesn't buy Twitter, never forget what yesterday revealed.
These journalists are not dumb. They are trained dogs. They are following the orders of their masters who are following the order of their masters and so on to the head of the snake.
« First « Previous Comments 36 - 75 of 1,802 Next » Last » Search these comments
patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,290,802 comments by 15,416 users - Blue, FuckTheMainstreamMedia online now