Elon Musk Buys Twitter

[Orange Joe]

Obviously he works for pfizer, they literally posted a response to the video. Also, the video isn't relevant to this thread, so why are you still talking about it?

I'm confused, it's like I'm trying to debate with a flat earther. There's a video that gets released and then pfizer "reponds" to said claims but you think they are somehow seperate? What else would Pfizer be responding to? Why are you trying to completely deny it is legitmate instead of actually worring about what they are saying/have been doing?

So you don't understand the issue of making this statement without proof he works their? Can pfizer only refute claims from people that work their?

it's ironic how the flat earther comment is sooooo spot on..... for you.....

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

I'm confused

That's the first thing you've said that I actually believe. Now, I'm not sure we would agree on the things you are confused about... but we can ceretainly agree that you are confused.

[Hypasonic]

You're the flat earther here though. We keep telling you that Project Veritas is a lie and a scam but you won't listen and keep snubbing the evidence.

I mean I find it hilarious that people believe what big pharma are doing, even in the announcement where they said they "Pfizer has not conducted gain of function or directed evolution research" they then say: " In a limited number of cases when a full virus does not contain any known gain of function mutations, such virus may be engineered to enable the assessment of antiviral activity in cells."

Which totally goes against what they literally stated.
But it's fine, it's not as if they have a history of:
https://recordinglaw.com/the-most-ex...story-and-why/

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

I mean I find it hilarious that people believe what big pharma are doing, even in the announcement where they said they "Pfizer has not conducted gain of function or directed evolution research" they then say: " In a limited number of cases when a full virus does not contain any known gain of function mutations, such virus may be engineered to enable the assessment of antiviral activity in cells."

Which totally goes against what they literally stated.
But it's fine, it's not as if they have a history of:
https://recordinglaw.com/the-most-ex...story-and-why/

Actually, it doesn't go against what they said...you just don't understand what they are saying. We'll chalk it up to that confusion that we both agree you are suffering from.

[tehdang]

And I applaud you for being the one to finally take a stand against "Big Edutainment". Now that we've got Sesame Street locked down... maybe you'd like to comment on Elon Musk privately meeting exclusively with Republicans.

They were the injured party during the last administrative team of Twitter, so I'm sure there's plenty to talk about.

Now that we know the past intense degree of cooperation between the legislative and executive branches and Twitter, there will be better FOIA penetration on any future emails.

You didn't address my point.

I lost interest with the Daddy Musk aside. Maybe take it up with people that regularly use 'groomer' and 'fascist,' since that's where it ends.

[Orange Joe]

Which totally goes against what they literally stated.
But it's fine, it's not as if they have a history of:
https://recordinglaw.com/the-most-ex...story-and-why/

Do you even know what you linked here?

protip it has nothing to do with big pharma lying about drug side effects.

[Edge-]

I'm confused, it's like I'm trying to debate with a flat earther. There's a video that gets released and then pfizer "reponds" to said claims but you think they are somehow seperate? What else would Pfizer be responding to? Why are you trying to completely deny it is legitmate instead of actually worring about what they are saying/have been doing?

No, I think you're not reading what's being written. Explicitly.

It's not very cute. The posts are all clear, please let me know where Pfizer confirmed the individual in the video was an employee.

- - - Updated - - -

Now that we know the past intense degree of cooperation between the legislative and executive branches and Twitter, there will be better FOIA penetration on any future emails.

Wild that you've literally linked Taibbi reporting on multiple instances of Twitter telling legislative or executive branch actors they were not taking action against many of the accounts flagged, but you're still here repeating this lie.

You'd figure if they were actually cooperating they would have banned every account flagged? And not just like, some of them that actually violated Twitter's Terms of Service?

[Cthulhu 2020]

I lost interest with the Daddy Musk aside. Maybe take it up with people that regularly use 'groomer' and 'fascist,' since that's where it ends.

You mean you lost interest the moment that I got you to double down on undoubtedly trusting Elom, then demonstrated he definitively is taking you for a ride and cherry picking info to push a one sided narrative? Cute.

Funny how you always tend to "lose interest" when someone proves you are without an ounce of doubt, a hypocrite. Can't you just admit you're wrong for once?

[Jastall]

They were the injured party during the last administrative team of Twitter, so I'm sure there's plenty to talk about.

Now that we know the past intense degree of cooperation between the legislative and executive branches and Twitter, there will be better FOIA penetration on any future emails.

I lost interest with the Daddy Musk aside. Maybe take it up with people that regularly use 'groomer' and 'fascist,' since that's where it ends.

"Intense cooperation" being sending complaint emails and being told to get bent by Twitter most of the time? What do we call it when the CEO says to vote Republicans and meets with officials from that party then?

Statements do not become true merely because you endlessly repeat them.

[Dontrike]

They were the injured party during the last administrative team of Twitter, so I'm sure there's plenty to talk about.

You couldn't be more wrong. You can try, but you will not succeed. Conservative views is what Twitter loves, it gives them the most hate clicks, and the most money. You're just upset that racists keep getting banned because you worship them.

[Endus]

Now that we know the past intense degree of cooperation between the legislative and executive branches and Twitter, there will be better FOIA penetration on any future emails.

This remains a completely baseless delusion. The files you mentioned showed no untoward "cooperation" whatsoever. You're making this shit up out of essentially nothing. It's just partisan slander, because you don't have any valid avenues of criticism.

[Cthulhu 2020]

This remains a completely baseless delusion. The files you mentioned showed no untoward "cooperation" whatsoever. You're making this shit up out of essentially nothing. It's just partisan slander, because you don't have any valid avenues of criticism.

I have to wonder if @tehdang has ever asked himself "Why hasn't Elom shown the communications between Twitter and Trump's white house?"

Knowing all we know about the kinds of corruption Trump has asked of others, one would have to wonder the kinds of things the White House demanded of Twitter. Would probably look a lot worse than the Biden campaign (who had no authority at the time) reporting posts for ToS violations.

But of course he'd never question that, as anything Trump and Elon do cannot be wrong, even when in direct violation of both ethics and laws.

[tehdang]

You mean you lost interest the moment that I got you to double down on undoubtedly trusting Elom, then demonstrated he definitively is taking you for a ride and cherry picking info to push a one sided narrative? Cute.

Funny how you always tend to "lose interest" when someone proves you are without an ounce of doubt, a hypocrite. Can't you just admit you're wrong for once?

We can discuss the broader issues involved, or you can insinuate junk with "daddy Musk." Given that these political current events turn back around again every few months to few years, I am prepared to wait and give you a fresh start next round. What you do with the next opportunity is up to you.

"Intense cooperation" being sending complaint emails and being told to get bent by Twitter most of the time? What do we call it when the CEO says to vote Republicans and meets with officials from that party then?

Statements do not become true merely because you endlessly repeat them.

They were dutiful to the government most times, and the exceptions are interesting to look at.

And as I mentioned earlier, Republican candidates and pundits were victim to shadowbans and content visibility action, so I don't fault the rapprochement. This is all provided that one political party doesn't continue to gain private audience throughout the future, which is denied to the other political party.

[Breccia]

and as i mentioned earlier, republican candidates and pundits were victim to shadowbans

*warning: Conspiracy theory detected*

[Darththeo]

And as I mentioned earlier, Republican candidates and pundits were victim to shadowbans and content visibility action, so I don't fault the rapprochement. This is all provided that one political party doesn't continue to gain private audience throughout the future, which is denied to the other political party.

Blame the corporations that don't want to pay for ads on sites that support some things Republicans were saying (whether they personally agreed or not).

[Cthulhu 2020]

We can discuss the broader issues involved, or you can insinuate junk with "daddy Musk." Given that these political current events turn back around again every few months to few years, I am prepared to wait and give you a fresh start next round. What you do with the next opportunity is up to you.

Alright, so let's discuss the broader issue. Why do you think Musk is withholding emails between the Trump White House and Twitter, while blowing up the messages between Twitter and the Biden campaign? If you're worried about government interference in Twitter, why are you more interested in communication between TWO PRIVATE ENTITIES (Biden campaign and Twitter) and not between government and private entity (Trump WH and Twitter)?

Your concern seems to be government collaboration with Twitter to silence people. We know communications between Trump WH and Twitter exist, Matt Taibbi has confirmed they exist, and even that the Trump administration had more communications with Twitter.

Once you've finished answering this serious question, seeing as how I've not talked down to you and any kind of deflection or refusal to answer the above questions will be taken as your admittance to no contest, what is your answer to Elon Musk meeting secretly off the record with Congressional Republicans while leaving Democrats out?

[Jastall]

They were dutiful to the government most times, and the exceptions are interesting to look at.

And as I mentioned earlier, Republican candidates and pundits were victim to shadowbans and content visibility action, so I don't fault the rapprochement. This is all provided that one political party doesn't continue to gain private audience throughout the future, which is denied to the other political party.

What exceptions exactly? Your points would be more salient if they weren't so vague as to become mere allusions. Exactly what Republican was shadowbanned and how do you figure that or those examples was or were unfair?

And your second paragraph is a fancy way to say "it's ok that bad things happen now because it happened before". Discounting that the fact it even happening before is very debatable at the best of times, that sort of statement just makes you seem like a hypocrite who is offended, not by Twitter taking sides, but by it taking the wrong side and that things have been set right now that the boss is in your camp. It's not a principled stand, but mere partisanship.

[Dontrike]

We can discuss the broader issues involved, or you can insinuate junk with "daddy Musk." Given that these political current events turn back around again every few months to few years, I am prepared to wait and give you a fresh start next round. What you do with the next opportunity is up to you.

What the hell did this even mean? "Next round," "comes back around?" You made a non statement that meant pretty much nothing.

And as I mentioned earlier, Republican candidates and pundits were victim to shadowbans and content visibility action,

If only you had proof of this that wasn't your ass.

[Santti]

If only you had proof of this that wasn't your ass.

Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if it was true. Hell, it probably is true. They are horrible people. Of course you'd shadowban or just outright ban them. He just thinks acting against cunts is political persecution.

[Edge-]

They were dutiful to the government most times, and the exceptions are interesting to look at.

Even in the examples you linked the action vs. inaction is about 50:50, with every action being directly related to a violation of their Terms of Service. They're not making up reasons to ban the account because the government flagged it, they checked and found out that it was a ban evading account that they would have banned regardless of who reported it.

I still don't see how you can honestly come to this conclusion.

And as I mentioned earlier, Republican candidates and pundits were victim to shadowbans and content visibility action, so I don't fault the rapprochement

Has it ever occured to you that Republican candidates and pundits were also more likely to violate or get very close to violating Twitter's Terms of Service? Because every time they were, there was an offending tweet, or series of tweets, in clear violation of Twitter's Terms of Service.

They weren't banned for being conservative. They were banned because they couldn't follow the rules they agreed to.

This is all provided that one political party doesn't continue to gain private audience throughout the future, which is denied to the other political party.

What "private audience" are you talking about?

The direct line to Twitter that the Republican party also has, and uses?