What is rich is saying that without specific proof (real)
Also something that only D tries
Elon Musk | Owner of X and right wing man-child
- Thread starter Pogue Mahone
- Start date
What is rich is saying that without specific proof (real)
Also something that only D tries
So he wants to take on onlyfans as well.
I really do hope this entire thing just goes down the shitter and he loses all his money.
I really do hope this entire thing just goes down the shitter and he loses all his money.
I think people are obsessing a bit too much over this. Bottom Line: If he messes around with what was previously free, a new service will spring up (whether Dorsey's new project or another) and the world will gradually jump to the new platform, leaving Elon and his incel empire behind on Twitter.
I think there have been a great many claims in this thread (and others on this forum generally) where posters aren't held to specific proof. Probably because we're living in a time where one person will adduce some "facts", the opponent will question the source of those facts, and nothing of note can be accomplished. But in any case, https://theintercept.com/2022/10/31/social-media-disinformation-dhs/
Is it really a controversial statement that the current United States government hasn't made extensive efforts to police discourse on social media? I don't think it is, with the exception of my using the word "police". If I used the word "regulate" I doubt I'd find any pushback.
Ok, so regulation then. What are those regulations?
Ah shit here we go again
Yeah, this is why I can't be bothered. @WI_Red. But reading the article I linked should answer part of your question.
Hes just throwing ideas around at this point isn't he?
I reckon he bought it by mistake on a total whim and now he needs to squeeze 44bn out of the company somehow. Hes doing that by talking shit on twitter and seeing what sticks. The 'pay for blue tick' is probably dead in the water but there'll probably be dozens of alternative wacky ideas in the next couple of months.
He should have bought truth social or some other crap to experiment with
I reckon he bought it by mistake on a total whim and now he needs to squeeze 44bn out of the company somehow. Hes doing that by talking shit on twitter and seeing what sticks. The 'pay for blue tick' is probably dead in the water but there'll probably be dozens of alternative wacky ideas in the next couple of months.
He should have bought truth social or some other crap to experiment with
That article states that the efforts by DHS stepped up in 2018 and even more so in 2020. Pretty sure that was not the “current US government”, but the work does appear to be continuing and possible expanding.
I would hope we would agree that it is critical that social media content is monitored for potential threats, and that if content is posted that it is removed, correct? Clearly there needs to be transparency and defined guidelines. Things like COVID disinformation had real, deadly, consequences and there should have been real efforts to combat it, not just foisting that on Twitter to do (poorly).
Has he even paid for Twitter yet? I imagine there will be decades of litigation fighting him to cough up the cash when he walks away from it in six months.
No clue to be honest but I had assumed so with him taking control.
Yes, he already paid and no longer has control of the $. Twitter shareholders down the anyone who owned a share or a fraction of a share will (or have, I don't have any shares to be able to confirm) receive their $54.20 per share in the coming days.
I strongly disagree with the bolded. The covid example is a good reason as to why. I don't want to derail the thread, but I think it is glaringly obvious that many positions taken by governments re: covid (vaccines preventing transmission, for example), were incorrect. I don't think that most of the speech we're talking about on social media rises to the level of a threat that requires government intervention, and I don't trust governments to act in good faith when policing it in any case.
Oh you are one of those...
Wait till its Eloff on his ppv pageI'm back on Elon's side.
He’s certainly getting a lot of free press.
For some things I would agree any press is good press. But in this case, everyone knows Twitter exists, so there’s not much gain there.
This idea seems poorly thought out. Sure, there are people who get paid to post essentially advertisements, but Twitter doesn’t see anything from those, it’s kind of cheating the system where Twitter makes the advertising revenue.
But for those that don’t do that, they’re providing free content for Twitter, that generates their ad revenue. And Twitter is served by people knowing they can quickly find the real Steven King and comment on his post, or a post about him.
I googled Eloff and you seemingly like them pretty.
But on a serious note, the worry with this PPV is that it could be a way to make access to general and specialized news more costly and more difficult for the average people. Interestingly these free speech people are also big on making information costly.
You said it yourself, rhe government, not only Ds or Rs. Goverments will always try to control the narrative and the information in any platform. Nothing new and nothing to single out a party.
Also, parties might receive temptative to punish them in elections while a pivate company, if powerful enough like we had been seen, are left unaccountable. And honestly, goverments are lobbied from the private companies, do yes musk move is dangerous as murdoch is dangerous as well as wapo with bezos is dangerous too. And all of them ate dangerous for the influence that they have to goverments, not the other way around
I agree with almost all you've said there, especially the points re: murdoch, bezos etc. That's part of my point though. When I read the Washington Post saying that Elon Musk owning twitter is a danger to democracy, I can't help but laugh at the sheer hypocrisy.
The part I'd contest is the bolded. As you said, governments will always try to control information. I don't think they will always do so with their citizens interests in mind.
And I guess what underlines it all is the revolving door between government and private actors of high influence. At some point it becomes difficult to tell where one ends and the other begins.
Do you think creating a subscription plan is a victory of free speech to the peasants over the nobility?
You could not have picked a worse topic as an example to engage with me on if you truly believe that vaccine preventing transmission of COVID was an incorrect position. If you believe that we have no common ground to base any discussion on.
Jesus fecking Christ how is shit like this still being repeated?
I assume he's talking about the possibility that vaccines in themselves don't actually do much to prevent transmission. Which might actually be true. Maybe. But that's just a thing, it doesn't actually mean anything when you consider the fact that vaccines most definitely prevent people from getting ill, which is what makes them infectious in the first place. Basically, it's hiding behind something that doesn't mean what the speaker implies it does.
Vaccination absolutely reduced transmission of the original variants of COVID. The data is less firm on delta and its subvariants though, although the vaccine definitely reduces infection still.
But reduction and prevention are not the exact same things so I assume that's what Bebe means. Though I wonder why that's relevant, as in, who said that vaccines completely prevented transmission?
It reduced infection, which reduced transmission. As far as I know it's not clear that it reduced transmission for someone who was vaccinated and then had an infection, versus an unvaccinated person who had an infection. It's weasely to make a big point out of it, which is what I think he's doing.
That is not what I took Bebe's statement to mean, as they stated that the government took that incorrect position. The only people I heard claim that the government took this position were those using it as a strawman to attack.
You think social media content should not be monitored at all? The last president basically incited a coup (albeit a very low IQ one) through social media. The ability of social media to negatively impact the young and interpretable is enormous and if Covid has proven anything it's that disinformation can have a huge impact on society and societal problems.
Hell, a very significant part of the US population still think the election was fraudulent because of social media.
The data suggests vaccination does reduce transmission by a vaccinated person who in infected:
Effect of Covid-19 Vaccination on Transmission of Alpha and Delta Variants | NEJM
Ok, we are getting off topic and I have already blatantly violated my personal ban on discussing COVID and COVID vaccinations on here.
Where do the reptilians fit into this? Are they on the government side or the private actor illuminati side, with Tupac and Elvis?
I'll take my leave from the thread after this post, I've derailed it enough already. Happy to continue the discussion over private messages on here.
I appreciate the exchange we've had. I have to disagree that the "vaccines prevent infection" was a strawman; it was repeatedly and routinely touted by official offices in addition to the mainstream US news outlets.
I agree that the vaccines reduced transmission, or at least I have no reason to think they did not. Reduction is of course, not the same as prevention. And they certainly did not prevent infection, which was the claim in spring/summer 2021.
I appreciate the exchange we've had. I have to disagree that the "vaccines prevent infection" was a strawman; it was repeatedly and routinely touted by official offices in addition to the mainstream US news outlets.
I agree that the vaccines reduced transmission, or at least I have no reason to think they did not. Reduction is of course, not the same as prevention. And they certainly did not prevent infection, which was the claim in spring/summer 2021.
Locks don't prevent burglaries. I am a pedant.
This is some seriously pedantic shit, do you genuinely believe any piece of media was trying to state that vaccines would have a 100% prevention rate against covid? How could they possibly even claim that, given the vaccine stats were there for all to see?
Elon’s reply to AOC is the first thing he’s ever said or done that’s raised a smirk out of me.
For the record I am still deeply in love with AOC.
For the record I am still deeply in love with AOC.
He is 12yo again, with Twitter to pester neighbors and rockets to escape his room. He is real life Aladar Mezga.
https://apnews.com/article/joe-bide...rus-pandemic-46a270ce0f681caa7e4143e2ae9a0211
That is precisely what was being said. Dr. Fauci said the same, as did countless others. I am absolutely with you in questioning how those claims were possibly made, but they were made nonetheless.
Ok, now I'm done.
Probably why you should take health advice from health officials instead of politicians.
Also when Biden says 'protected' it is up to interpretation whether he actually means 100% immunity. And I certainly don't remember Fauci saying anything close to that.
Last edited:
Smoking doesn't cause lung cancer. I remain a very deep thinker.