Elon Musk | Doer of things on X and sad little man

AlPistacho said:
I don’t understand the motive for a question where the answer is very obvious and I’ve answered it.

Do you think right or wrong is not determined by the action but by who does it or who it favours? Because that’s the vibe I get, I guarantee replace Hunter Biden with with me one of the Trumps children and you’d be supporting my comments about the Twitter files.
Click to expand...

You didn't answer any of the questions at all, you just ejaculated some pseudo-intellectual false equivalence. If you would like me to make it clear, if something is false then I believe it should not be published by a news outlet or distributed on social media regardless of whether it's about Biden, Trump, your granny or Vladimir Putin. Particularly in the run up to a democratic election. It's the reason we have libel laws - if you want free speech then you also have a responsibility to act honestly when exercising it.

If you're presented with evidence that a story is likely not true in whole or in part and you either continue to spread it or don't try to stop it's spread (if you are in a position to) then you become complicit. So it becomes a binary choice, if I have a fake nooz story where I have reason to suspect it is not true and being spread to influence an election, should I try to suppress it or not. You're either supporting disinformation or it's suppression, there is no middle option.
 
do.ob said:
Am I missing something or is he trolling precisely the same people he hopes will buy the cars made by his other company?




Just do your own research buddy.
Click to expand...

You are not, which is why this is so weird. It was a topic of discussion at Christmas dinner this year as multiple families are looking to buy a car on the next year or so. Every one of them was interested in an EV but had ruled out Tesla as an option due completely to Musk.
 
TwoSheds said:
You didn't answer any of the questions at all, you just ejaculated some pseudo-intellectual false equivalence. If you would like me to make it clear, if something is false then I believe it should not be published by a news outlet or distributed on social media regardless of whether it's about Biden, Trump, your granny or Vladimir Putin. Particularly in the run up to a democratic election. It's the reason we have libel laws - if you want free speech then you also have a responsibility to act honestly when exercising it.

If you're presented with evidence that a story is likely not true in whole or in part and you either continue to spread it or don't try to stop it's spread (if you are in a position to) then you become complicit. So it becomes a binary choice, if I have a fake nooz story where I have reason to suspect it is not true and being spread to influence an election, should I try to suppress it or not. You're either supporting disinformation or it's suppression, there is no middle option.
Click to expand...
Ex Twitter CEO:
"Straight blocking of URLs was wrong, and we updated our policy and enforcement to fix," adding, "Our goal is to attempt to add context, and now we have capabilities to do that."[84] In March 2021, Dorsey told Congress, "It was literally just a process error. This was not against them [the Post] in any particular way."

It’s acknowledged that the news was not fake.
 
AlPistacho said:
Intentionally stopping people from finding out there’s a lion in the next room is not different to leaving adverts telling people there’s a nice dinner in the next room. Both are wrong, both have the same objective.

The Russian campaign influenced more people Vs Twitter one off action. But what would concern you more? Democracy being undermined by a hostile state or by a company in your own country and possibly even one of your own government agencies?
Click to expand...

You seemingly failed to notice the difference between actions by public/state agents against what privately owned companies do. The latter, as you put it, undermine democracy all the time by exercising their rights to do so, AKA choosing what to publish/promote and what not to. CNN/CBS/MSNBC/FOX/BreitBart/NY Times/NY Post/Adult Swim do it. And Facebook/LinkedIn/Twitter/The Caf do it too, as long as they keep themselves within the boundaries of the law.

States or public companies are a different story, since they are usually unable to fiscalize/prosecute themselves and they are funded by everyone's resources independent of their ideology. Therefore, their actions must be scrutinized more and be as transparent/impartial as possible. When they fail to do that in the context of an election (usually in order to promote themselves as incumbents), that's what we call political interference and what we consider a felony. Interfeering in foreign elections is an even bigger deal since it concerns international/diplomatic affairs and can be used for belicist purposes, as we have seen throughout this year.

So, TLDR, no. It's not the same.
 
Last edited:
Trump: people are saying
Musk: no one seems to realize
Escobar: it's been reported
 
You’re all being too harsh on Escobar. How is he supposed to read what’s actually true when his lips are so firmly attached to Elons dick.
 
Escobar said:
Yeah, funny the Washington Post did not objectively write about it, right? If you google it though, you find articles on why some were banned
Click to expand...
Post some useful links to the information, or don't bother posting.
 
Escobar said:
Yeah, funny the Washington Post did not objectively write about it, right? If you google it though, you find articles on why some were banned
Click to expand...

Stop dancing around trying (and failing fwiw) to be clever, and provide a reliable source for him being doxxed by accounts he banned.

You’re acting like it’s clear and obvious so it should be difficult.
 
75pcha.jpg
 
Poor Escobar. It would have been less time and much easier just to read the news and then update his post to reflect that but oh no, he dodged and dodged.
And now :lol:
 
Last edited:
Pogue Mahone said:
Seriously, though. His strike rate with attempts at edgy humour is remarkable. He’s defying the monkey typewriter theory. It shouldn’t be possible to make that many attempts at being witty and get it wrong every single time.
Click to expand...

Actually, you may be into something here.
 
Raoul said:
He didn’t found PayPal either. He became a part of it through its merger with X.
Click to expand...
PayPal essentially was a 50-50 merge of X (Elon’s company) and Peter Thiel’s Confinity with Musk as biggest shareholder and first CEO.
 
I don't think he's always been moronic, surely?

the success and fame must have gone to his head or something
 
Revan said:
PayPal essentially was a 50-50 merge of X (Elon’s company) and Peter Thiel’s Confinity with Musk as biggest shareholder and first CEO.
Click to expand...

Yeah but the company PayPal existed pre Musk and was founded by Thiel and a couple of other guys. Therefore it would be inaccurate to say it was founded by Musk. He simply landed into its orbit through a merger.
 
Raoul said:
Yeah but the company PayPal existed pre Musk and was founded by Thiel and a couple of other guys. Therefore it would be inaccurate to say it was founded by Musk. He simply landed into its orbit through a merger.
Click to expand...
And was sacked for being a shit CEO
 
Tarrou said:
I don't think he's always been moronic, surely?

the success and fame must have gone to his head or something
Click to expand...
Or maybe he simply was? Why wouldn’t he? People need to let go of the idea that rich people have to be smart. They don’t. Their wealth is not the consequence of a meritocracy. It’s mostly luck and lack of morals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.