Elon Musk Buys Twitter

[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?

[Cthulhu 2020]

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.

As the video I linked a couple of pages ago pointed out, Republicans tend to be the main demographic of wild conspiracy theories and openly violent rhetoric. Twitter was banning people for COVID misinformation, as well as hate and violent speech. Republicans just happened to hold a monopoly on all of those things.

This continued vaccine denial BS coming out of the Twitter files is just Elom trying to "prove" that Republicans weren't actually wrong about the COVID conspiracy theories (even though he's failed miserably) and thus why vaccination misinformation is spreading so much more virulently on Twitter.

But hey, if Republicans are so much more anti vaccine, guess Darwin wills out the next few elections for us huh? They believe vaccines kill people so won't get them. Let em keep believing that I say.

[Corvus]

In what should come as a surprise to no one, Elon is helping spread pro-Russian disinformation on twitter. He somehow thinks almost 3000 NATO soldiers have died in Ukraine and somehow it hasn't been noticed or reported on.

[Edge-]

In what should come as a surprise to no one, Elon is helping spread pro-Russian disinformation on twitter. He somehow thinks almost 3000 NATO soldiers have died in Ukraine and somehow it hasn't been noticed or reported on.

"He's politically neutral, he's not picking a side."

"There's no complex policy issues at play on social media, this is all very cut, black and white."

Seriously though, how his seemingly intentional use of his platform for misinformation isn't triggering more seriously.

[tehdang]

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).

I'm not even talking about who's to blame for what happened, or whether Elon would be absolutely justified in blowing Republican concerns off for purely economic concerns. That's a whole other can of worms.

Alright, so let's discuss the broader issue.

Let's circle back to it in a week.

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

Maybe "daddy Musk" is your primary argument in this serious conversation, and I'm doing you an injustice by asking you to suppress it to move on to secondary issues for you. Time will tell.

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.

See the early sections of the same Twitter files I referenced earlier in the thread. The first cluster were on shadowbanning/content visibility, before moving on to the FBI/Congressmen/other government agencies' interactions with Twitter.

I also don't consider injured parties asking for some information or policies or whatever moving forward to be anything close to hypocrisy. The Republicans involved aren't predestined to also start a secret back-channel relationship spanning years. Elon isn't fated to do the same "Search Blacklist" "Trends Blacklist" "Notifications Spike" or "Do Not Amplify" steps without notifying the user.

[Edge-]

See the early sections of the same Twitter files I referenced earlier in the thread. The first cluster were on shadowbanning/content visibility, before moving on to the FBI/Congressmen/other government agencies' interactions with Twitter.

Why didn't Elon and Taibbi release any communications from Republicans to Twitter? Does that strike you as curious at all?

We know they communicated and requested that misinformation similarly be taken down.

The Republicans involved aren't predestined to also start a secret back-channel relationship spanning years.

"secret back-channel relationship"?

This is the kind of ignorance I'm talking about. There's nothing "secret" or "back-channel" about it. These are standard professional communications, including many which are likely subject to FOIA requests so they inherently can't be secret. This is taking your ignorance and turning it into malicious misinformation.

These are the same kinds of emails that Republican staffers send Twitter. And Twitter likely receives from state-level law enforcement at times. And state level politicians. There's a reason that large corporations often have specific arms dedicated to government relations (spanning local, state, and federal) and compliance.

Elon isn't fated to do the same "Search Blacklist" "Trends Blacklist" "Notifications Spike" or "Do Not Amplify" steps without notifying the user.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/16/tech/...ess/index.html

I mean, he did have that moment where he was banning press for sharing publicly available information. In violation of the sites policies, much as the actions you complain were partisanly motivated previously were taken.

https://www.theverge.com/2023/1/25/2...odi-censorship

Or there's his apparent caving to the Indian government an censoring a BBC documentary which was not publicly reported by Twitter.

Though FYI, Twitter retains its policy of creating and maintaining "secret" (because yes, everything Twitter does behind the scenes is "secret") lists of "deboosted" users under Elon as well.

So Elon is fated to do the same thing considering

1. He hasn't changed Twitter's policies on the topic

2. You must have missed this reporting: https://futurism.com/elon-musk-twitt...ssages-twitter

Which goes into how Elon is ignoring policy and he and Ella Irwin, his seeming #2 at Twitter, have been banning users on questionable grounds and facing significant backlash on it.

[Breccia]

This

I'm not even talking about who's to blame for what happened, or whether Elon would be absolutely justified in blowing Republican concerns off for purely economic concerns. That's a whole other can of worms.

And this

Let's circle back to it in a week.

the latter of which is in response to you saying

We can discuss the broader issues involved

Yesterday. Literally yesterday.

Refusing to discuss the issue which you brought up yourself, and refusing to discuss other aspects of the same issue -- ones that put it into a more realistic light with full context and not Trump's talking points -- is disingenuous. Please post constructively.

I also don't consider injured parties asking for some information or policies or whatever moving forward to be anything close to hypocrisy.

You are not an "injured party" if you refuse to follow your side of the contract you signed.

The Republicans were not injured by people spamming disinformation or asking for violence being banned. That is a lie. You are lying.

Also, you don't know what they were discussing. It took place behind closed doors. A "back channel" as it were. So that discussion you are talking about, is conjecture. You're guessing. You're writing Elon Musk fan fiction.

The Republicans involved aren't predestined to also start a secret back-channel relationship spanning years.

The Democrats didn't either. The FBI didn't either. So this is completely irrelevant, yet more Elon Musk fan fiction.

Let's also not forget, the Twitter Files are not a reliable source of factual information.

Over the past two weeks, Musk has been releasing internal documents to a handpicked group of journalists who are digging through them and posting excerpts on Twitter.

Musk and his allies promote these tweet threads — dubbed the "Twitter Files" — as bombshell revelations proving that Twitter intentionally muzzled conservatives because of their political views. That's a long-running claim by Republicans who are convinced social media companies censor them, despite ample evidence to the contrary. Twitter's internal researchers, for example, have found its algorithms favor right-leaning political content.

Link number one

Link number two.

Take Twitter's decision right before the 2020 presidential election to briefly block users from sharing a New York Post story alleging shady business dealings by then-candidate Joe Biden's son, Hunter, in Ukraine.

The article was based on files from Hunter Biden's laptop, which the Post said it got from Trump's private attorney, Rudy Giuliani, and former Trump adviser Steve Bannon. At the time, it was unclear whether that material was authentic. After being burned by the Russian hack and leak of Democratic National Committee emails in 2016, tech companies were on edge over the possibility of a repeat — and so Twitter decided to restrict the Post story.

Citing its rules against sharing hacked material containing private information, the company showed a warning to anyone who tried to post a link to the article saying it was "potentially harmful." It also suspended the New York Post's own Twitter account until it deleted its tweets about the story. (Facebook was alarmed by the article, too, but didn't go as far as Twitter. It allowed the link to be posted, but limited distribution of those posts while its outside fact-checkers reviewed the claims.)

Twitter's aggressive stance immediately created a huge backlash across the political spectrum. The company was slammed for taking a heavy-handed approach to a story that, while controversial, was being reported by a major news outlet, and for offering little justification for its decision. Within days Twitter reversed the block and changed its policies on hacked materials. Soon after, then-CEO Jack Dorsey said the company had made a mistake.

That's all been publicly known and widely reported on over the past two years. The material shared by Musk paints a more vivid picture of the scramble inside Twitter to figure out what to do — but does not fundamentally alter that picture.

And it does not show any evidence that there was government involvement in the move to block the New York Post story, despite assertions by Musk and others.

So no, there is no evidence of back-channels, of government interference, of 1st Amendment violations. Either you're saying there was, in which case, you are outright lying and promoting a conspiracy theory, or you're simply suggesting that and about to go "whaaaaaaaat? I never said there was" in which case you're posting irrelevant Elon Musk fan fiction.

There are sites to post your fan fiction. This is my favorite, there's some pretty good stuff there if you look hard enough. This is not a fan fiction posting site. Please post constructively, on topic, and stop spamming, trolling, lying, and going off-topic. None of that is welcome here.

[Edge-]

So no, there is no evidence of back-channels, of government interference, of 1st Amendment violations. Either you're saying there was, in which case, you are outright lying and promoting a conspiracy theory, or you're simply suggesting that and about to go "whaaaaaaaat? I never said there was" in which case you're posting irrelevant Elon Musk fan fiction.

There are sites to post your fan fiction. This is my favorite, there's some pretty good stuff there if you look hard enough. This is not a fan fiction posting site. Please post constructively, on topic, and stop spamming, trolling, lying, and going off-topic. None of that is welcome here.

This hilarious bit on the Hunter Biden story: We literally knew that Twitter voluntarily took it down in an overabundance of caution months before Elom bought Twitter.

We know this because Twitter executives said so in front of Congress. Under oath. Under penalty of perjury.

Which, I assume if the "Twitter Files" disproved, would result in a fairly expedient prosecution for lying to Congress under oath?

[Jastall]

See the early sections of the same Twitter files I referenced earlier in the thread. The first cluster were on shadowbanning/content visibility, before moving on to the FBI/Congressmen/other government agencies' interactions with Twitter.

I also don't consider injured parties asking for some information or policies or whatever moving forward to be anything close to hypocrisy. The Republicans involved aren't predestined to also start a secret back-channel relationship spanning years. Elon isn't fated to do the same "Search Blacklist" "Trends Blacklist" "Notifications Spike" or "Do Not Amplify" steps without notifying the user.

There's precious little to see. You threw the email and said that's evidence, then dodged everyone who pointed out this looks far, far more like completely standard communications where the FBI/Biden campaign's requests were denied far more of than not, rather than any sort of shadowy cabal of evil democrats telling Twitter who to ban. And if you're telling me all communications between any arm of the government and any company should be public, then boy do you open one helluva can of worms. Using that sort of standard even Costco has a "secret back-channel relationship" with all branches of the Canadian government. I know, I help write some of those mails to the municipal and sometimes provincial government myself.

Your second paragraph is a big ball of assumption supported by little but your bias. Weren't the Biden campaign also "injured parties asking for information" when they contacted Twitter? What makes them shadowbanning masterminds while the Republicans meeting Elon are assumed to be merely asking innocent questions?

Elon's also already been heavy with the banhammer on some topics, as Edge documented above. But again, it seems you'd just ignore that for the sake of your argument and or/ because they're people you don't like so it doesn't count.

[Breccia]

We know this because Twitter executives said so in front of Congress. Under oath. Under penalty of perjury.

Well, I guess it's time for tehdang to be subpoena'd. He clearly knows something of immediate prosecutorial need!

Nah, just kidding. I don't think anyone would think tehdang has any subpoenas.

[unfilteredJW]

Well, I guess it's time for tehdang to be subpoena'd. He clearly knows something of immediate prosecutorial need!

Nah, just kidding. I don't think anyone would think tehdang has any subpoenas.

He’d lie though, as evidenced by his constant changing of word meaning and outright misinfo they spread on this forum.

And then he’d throw a tantrum and scream NO U! when shown over and over again how much of a empty sac hypocrite he is.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Let's circle back to it in a week.

What's happening in a week? Very likely nothing. You banking on me forgetting that you're being hilariously hypocritical?

Maybe "daddy Musk" is your primary argument in this serious conversation, and I'm doing you an injustice by asking you to suppress it to move on to secondary issues for you. Time will tell.

Never even said anything "Daddy Musk". But I take it you admit you're a massive hypocrite because you already admitted in one post that you believe Elom unconditionally and think he has no reason to lie or alter the data set, only to be proven wrong that he is in fact doctoring a narrative.

But I take it you don't want to address that since I trapped you into doubling down on your Elon beliefs, only to reveal that I knew all along that Elon was doctoring and cherry picking the data.

Kind of embarrassing for you...

But we both know that every single argument you've made in this thread is rendered null and void with the knowledge that a one-sided narrative is being presented to you through the Twitter files. That's why you're so desperate to play the butthurt "wah wah I got insulted so I won't talk to you" card. The very foundation of your arguments in this thread are built on sand. You ask yourself, why has no major media outlet picked up these Twitter Files stories? This is why. Because any station with an ounce of integrity sees them for what they are, a sham. The fact that you believe them so ardently shows just how willing you are to lap up one-sided information that fits your desired narrative.

[Kathranis]

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.

It's almost like one political party has an inclination to spread harmful misinformation.

[Dontrike]

See the early sections of the same Twitter files I referenced earlier in the thread. The first cluster were on shadowbanning/content visibility, before moving on to the FBI/Congressmen/other government agencies' interactions with Twitter.

Don't need a conspiracy theory to understand that a bunch of racists and fascists got banned from a service because they didn't follow the rules, and not because the Depp State went after them.

[Edge-]

https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1622957424004194306

So Senator Steve Daines has been temp banned for posting a photo of himself, his wife, and their kill on a hunting trip. Not exactly gory or anything, curious.

Hilarious that, rather than use the existing backchannels to connect to Twitter directly and have someone review what appears to be an improper suspension, Republicans would rather just vaguely tweet about it publicly and hope that SOMEONE does SOMETHING.

Meanwhile, a polite email asking Twitter if the action was intentional or if it was their system simply being overactive would take moments and resolve the issue expeditiously.

[Breccia]

Hilarious

I found this part the funniest:

"If you don’t like hunting, fine, don’t go. But don’t censor others who disagree."
-- Ted Cruz, whose Tweet was cited

And it's here where I point to the "DeSantis makes learning about America's systemic history of racism illegal" thread and the "drag queens" thread and clear my throat noisily. Because there remains a giant gap between "private company enforces contract signed with customer" and "government makes something illegal".

EDIT: Actually wait, I'm not done making fun of this. Dude was making a recently dead animal, which he killed, his profile picture. I mean, surely an elected official had other, better shots? Him in a suit in front of a flag, maybe?

[tehdang]

There's precious little to see. You threw the email and said that's evidence, then dodged everyone who pointed out this looks far, far more like completely standard communications where the FBI/Biden campaign's requests were denied far more of than not

I consider it chilling to the culture of free speech and the civil rights of individuals for FBI agents to pressure social media companies to ban and censor users. I'll note that such activities aren't countered or met by questioning what actions were taken or whether there was literal compulsion. The FBI has no business doing this. It's overreach and it's a shame this wasn't exposed by the previous management of Twitter--to give Americans an idea of what their tax dollars were funding. A grandmother with 17 followers is posting a joke about the election day online, so it's up to her government to contact the social media company to very kindly think about removing the speech from their platform. Thank you FBI agents for your vigilance in counteracting disinformation online, but be vigilant because there's a teen with incorrect opinions on the Russian invasion of Ukraine that will post in mere minutes! Twitter must be notified!

I've read utter rejection of this entire argument. Just dismissed out of hand. Civil liberties were never concerned and the FBI is an innocent actor in all this. They're empowered to just send agents to the country's newspapers and magazines to tell them what's truth and disinformation, in this line of argument.

So I'm not exactly going to waste time digging deeper into tangential questions when the whole controversy simply doesn't exist in your mind and the minds of others. It's sort of like telling the Supreme Court that its rulings on the chilling of speech are silly since no speech was actually banned or prosecuted in many cases, and then questioning the Supreme Court on why the bad actors are actually bad and why openness in documentation is a key factor. Alright, we disagree, but much of what you're going on about doesn't matter much because you rejected or otherwise dismissed the core contention.

What's happening in a week? Never even said anything "Daddy Musk".

You'll have opportunity to ask me my opinion for what's on your mind, and this time choosing not to drop in the daddy Musk angle to poison the discussion. If you think this is all about sycophancy, then go right on believing it without my input.

It's almost like one political party has an inclination to spread harmful misinformation.

It's almost like you forgot the history of governments using law enforcement to correct their citizen's speech. The people have squandered the confidence of the government to engage in proper speech. Would it not in that case be simpler for them to dissolve the people and elect another?

[Edge-]

I consider it chilling to the culture of free speech and the civil rights of individuals for FBI agents to pressure social media companies to ban and censor users.

Again, this did not happen.

The FBI has no business doing this.

Might be a mystery to Republicans, but there absolutely is business doing this.

The FBI and other agencies often work with private entities as part of their investigative or crime-prevention efforts. This means that individuals at the FBI and Twitter (or other companies) might exchange emails with a regularity allowing them to build a professional rapport. This is absolutely nothing more than a professional courtesy email, simple as that.

It's overreach and it's a shame this wasn't exposed by the previous management of Twitter--to give Americans an idea of what their tax dollars were funding.

Still curious why only Democratic and FBI communications were released.

Doesn't that strike you as curious? Almost as if they're trying to create a specific narrative rather than report the truth?

They're empowered to just send agents to the country's newspapers and magazines to tell them what's truth and disinformation, in this line of argument.

Again, in things that never happened.

This isn't just willfully misrepresenting facts, but rather this seems to be actively creating pure fiction. Unless you're talking about the "FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY" document sent around to multiple social media companies which...still has nothing to do with this fiction you've spun up where the FBI was sending agents to every newspaper in the country's offices or something.

[Breccia]

The FBI has no business doing this.

They didn't.

You are lying. You have been lying for quite some time.

The fact that you refuse to bring up any counterpoints at all mean you are not posting in the spirit of a discussion, you are trolling.

Stop lying. Stop trolling. Please post constructively.