Elon Musk Buys Twitter

[Breccia]

The Republican government. Under Trump. Who didn't just request a review on certain accounts or the removal of revenge porn posted in specific tweets, but specifically requested that Twitter censor users for being mean to Trump and otherwise not violating their rules.

I follow three people on Twitter. One is Teigen. I'll remind those of you who forgot that:

Lolllllll no one likes you

That tweet went to court. Why? Trump blocked her...and because Trump himself claimed that Twitter was his public office official word, due to his public office, he couldn't do that.

Trump can't block users from his Twitter feed, federal judge rules
-- May 23, 2018

The ruling was basically a plain text printout of the First Amendment, circled in Sharpee so Trump could find it.

Near as I can tell, the case was appealed unsuccessfully in 2019, and SCOTUS refused to hear it on the grounds of (a) Trump was kicked off Twitter and (b) Trump was kicked out of the White House and (c) fuck you fatty, we're set for life.

*ahem*

But.

You cited something from 2020. Which means, it had already been ruled on, and already lost its appeal. Not only was Trump trying to use his government and massive fatass weight on Twitter, he was trying to do so despite having lost multiple court cases on the grounds that what he was doing was unConstitutional.

There is no parallel with the Hunter Biden case. Which, again, was Trump's DoJ.

Now, I believe every response to @tehdang from now on should be to ask him about this very specific issue. It won't matter if I do it, he's too much of a coward to face me in the ring, but maybe if literally everyone else asks he'll either be forced to respond, or scuttle into the shadows like Gollum.

[Edge-]

https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...ip-1234675969/

In interviews with former Twitter personnel, onetime Trump administration officials, and other people familiar with the matter, each source recalled what could be described as a “hotline,” “tipline,” or large Twitter “database” of moderation and removal requests that was frequently pinged by the offices of powerful Democrats and Republicans alike.

Weird that none of these requests from Republicans were a part of the Twitter Files?

Boy, today seems like a major self-own for the Republicans on the committee who thought this was going to be disastrous for Democrats and Twitter. Just about every narrative they've been spinning since Elon and Taibbi started their misinformation campaign was thoroughly debunked. All the while evidence and examples of Republicans engaging in the very behavior they claimed Democrats and the FBI were engaged in were repeatedly shared.

This is a very familiar position for Republicans, to have their entire narrative blow up in their faces in a monumental own-goal, and similar to past instances we see that they're happy to reject reality and continue to push their dishonest narratives and misinformation. It really does help when you have a media ecosystem that's happy to create and support an alternate reality for you.

But real, if anyone is still buying into the "Twitter Files" bullshit at this point it's purely because they agree with the conclusions, not because they've actually reviewed any of the evidence.

[tehdang]

If there had been compulsion, don't you think the twitter files had contained -that- instead of the completely milquetoast "evidence" you keep riding until you're raw?

I'm not alleging actual compulsion. The emails from Twitter employees to each other showed that they felt the pressure. One cited a "sustained (If uncoordinated) effort by the IC [intelligence community] to push us to share more information and change our API policies. They are probing and pushing everywhere they can..."

So I guess my primary takeaway here is to wonder why people are trying to explain away the evidence, instead of drawing conclusions from the evidence. If smacks of narrative over analysis.

You say this and yet other things in the world exist that I wish you'd talk about instead.

Thanks for the whataboutism.

You'll have to explain to me how said pressure was anything close to significant given that, again, most requests were denied or just explained away

As much as this is an admission that the facts show pressure was felt and rather expected, I accept it. You can set your own subjective standards for what constitutes "significant" or why impacts on your civil liberties must meet your bar to be worthy of attention. I'm aware of others that don't consider "stop and frisk" to be a "significant" infringement on your civil rights. After all, it's just a few minutes delay. I don't really endeavor in this forum to persuade others to abandon their current subjective feelings on the interaction between government and your speech online.

some FBI agents were potentially slightly overzealous about a few tweets

Let me just rephrase things a little to match your tone. Maybe a couple FBI offices and a few dozen FBI agents and their supervisors got a little overzealous in their mission, and maybe an FBI director should acknowledge that this maybe causes pressure to be felt to comply and maybe should direct the field offices to pull resources from identifying the line between truth and disinformation in American's speech online. The backlash is just directed towards acknowledging wrong and choosing more appropriate missions for agents.

My only surprise is the amount of people that first indicated that nothing wrong was done, and a portion slowly changed to admitting wrong and downplaying the impact. Don't mistake surprise at the Left embracing FBI overreach for "clutching pearls."

I asked you nicely about the heart of the issue, without any "daddy Musk".

I equally nicely asked to give it a week to let the sycophancy subplot fade. You may still be interested in my opinion on some specific allegations at that time. You may still be denying "[I] never even said anything "daddy Musk," in which case you'll have had the time to review your post to the contrary. Or you may still be going on about "you're so desperate to play the butthurt," which isn't a really civil way to solicit someone's opinion. In any case, the choice is up to you.

[Edge-]

I'm not alleging actual compulsion. The emails from Twitter employees to each other showed that they felt the pressure. One cited a "sustained (If uncoordinated) effort by the IC [intelligence community] to push us to share more information and change our API policies. They are probing and pushing everywhere they can..."

So why haven't those been linked? Searching for the term doesn't turn up much, this is the top result - https://theacru.org/2022/12/23/twitt...style-society/

(exact same article without the links to the tweets is on TownHall.com, another bastion of accurate and totally non-partisan information)

Which doesn't actually provide a citation for that text. But even taking it at face value in that paragraph, is it surprising that the IC wanted more access to information on Twitter? Isn't that...what they've done with every communications platform from the telephone to the first emails?

This is a natural part of the dance, dude. Law enforcement/IC wants more information, private companies push back as much as they can. This happens all the time, but because this is the first time many conservatives have paid any attention to this suddenly it's NEW AND TERRIFYING rather than literally the same behavior that's been happening for decades and happens in developed nations all over the world.

Again, your own links often disprove you when you share them, and you otherwise don't seem to share much in the way of evidence to support your claims. Likely because they keep getting thoroughly debunked.

[Breccia]

So I guess my primary takeaway here is to wonder why people are trying to explain away the evidence, instead of drawing conclusions from the evidence. If smacks of narrative over analysis.

Saying that it was people following the usual channels and usual rules is not "explaining it away". It's you being wrong and us shoving it in your face.

Thanks for the whataboutism.

You clearly don't know what whataboutism means. Please don't use big shiny words if you don't know what they mean.

As much as this is an admission that the facts show pressure was felt and rather expected, I accept it.

Nope. You were insinuating that it was improper pressure. None such existed, as everyone on these forums and the Republicans in Congress have shown. This is not the point you claim it is, and you know it. You are trolling.

Maybe a couple FBI offices and

**LOUD ANNOYING BUZZER**

Warning: the above contains an unhealthy level of conjecture and lethal amounts of conspiracy theory. Should only be used internally, as in, shove this back in the ass you pulled it out of, because that's where this excrement belongs.

embracing FBI overreach

None such existed. You are lying.

I equally nicely asked to give it a week

You said you wanted to engage in a topic, that offer was accepted, you fled like Trump in tax season. That's trolling. You are a troll.

Oh...and I believe Edge- plus some others had some very specific points you were very specifically asked about, most of which were about Republicans and Trump doing the same, if not far further, than what you said the FBI did and what you said was wrong. Because you refuse to answer, your posts have no merit and no standing here. You are not a genuine poster. You are a troll.

[Cthulhu 2020]

I'm not alleging actual compulsion. The emails from Twitter employees to each other showed that they felt the pressure. One cited a "sustained (If uncoordinated) effort by the IC [intelligence community] to push us to share more information and change our API policies. They are probing and pushing everywhere they can..."

So I guess my primary takeaway here is to wonder why people are trying to explain away the evidence, instead of drawing conclusions from the evidence. If smacks of narrative over analysis.

Thanks for the whataboutism.

As much as this is an admission that the facts show pressure was felt and rather expected, I accept it. You can set your own subjective standards for what constitutes "significant" or why impacts on your civil liberties must meet your bar to be worthy of attention. I'm aware of others that don't consider "stop and frisk" to be a "significant" infringement on your civil rights. After all, it's just a few minutes delay. I don't really endeavor in this forum to persuade others to abandon their current subjective feelings on the interaction between government and your speech online.

Let me just rephrase things a little to match your tone. Maybe a couple FBI offices and a few dozen FBI agents and their supervisors got a little overzealous in their mission, and maybe an FBI director should acknowledge that this maybe causes pressure to be felt to comply and maybe should direct the field offices to pull resources from identifying the line between truth and disinformation in American's speech online. The backlash is just directed towards acknowledging wrong and choosing more appropriate missions for agents.

My only surprise is the amount of people that first indicated that nothing wrong was done, and a portion slowly changed to admitting wrong and downplaying the impact. Don't mistake surprise at the Left embracing FBI overreach for "clutching pearls."

I equally nicely asked to give it a week to let the sycophancy subplot fade. You may still be interested in my opinion on some specific allegations at that time. You may still be denying "[I] never even said anything "daddy Musk," in which case you'll have had the time to review your post to the contrary. Or you may still be going on about "you're so desperate to play the butthurt," which isn't a really civil way to solicit someone's opinion. In any case, the choice is up to you.

Today it was confirmed that the Trump led White House repeatedly ordered Twitter to delete tweets. You seem unconcerned about Republican government overreach. Why? Is it because you're a hypocrite?

Also, why didnt musk include any Republican communications in the Twitter files? Are you afraid that you have in FACT been deceived by musk?

- - - Updated - - -

HOLY SHIT these Twitter hearings are backfiring stupendously on the GOP. They were hoping for some big gotcha reveal on Hunter's laptop and instead their own corruption and lawlessness is being laid bare.

The Twitter Files are officially conspiracy now and anyone who uses them as a serious topic of discussion and not derision should be ignored or made fun of.

GOP in shambles

[Endus]

I'm not alleging actual compulsion. The emails from Twitter employees to each other showed that they felt the pressure. One cited a "sustained (If uncoordinated) effort by the IC [intelligence community] to push us to share more information and change our API policies. They are probing and pushing everywhere they can..."

So, no actual pressure, no source for the claims, and you're still just making shit up.

So I guess my primary takeaway here is to wonder why people are trying to explain away the evidence, instead of drawing conclusions from the evidence. If smacks of narrative over analysis.

Because what you're linking is not evidence that supports your conclusion. We're not explaining away the evidence, we're pointing out that the evidence does not support the conclusions you're claiming to draw from it.

[Breccia]

HOLY SHIT these Twitter hearings are backfiring stupendously on the GOP. They were hoping for some big gotcha reveal on Hunter's laptop and instead their own corruption and lawlessness is being laid bare.

In addition to everything you've mentioned, we now have multiple Twitter employees saying under oath that there was no government interference. It would completely neuter the Party of Trump talking points, if they had any balls to begin with.

If they're really upset about attempted interference, they need to specifically call out Trump, who was cited personally and directly. If you don't call out Trump for lodging a complaint, then you can't call out Trump's FBI either, because your problem isn't that it was done, only who did it, and that makes you a hypocrite.

I, personally, have no problem with someone hitting the "report post" button. I do it all the time.

[Edge-]

Why won't Elon and Matt Taibbi release the emails from the Trump White House asking Twitter to specifically remove Crissy Teagan's tweet calling Trump a "Pussy ass bitch"?

Why are they protecting Republicans who tried to force Twitter to bow to the demands of the government?

[postman1782]

Why won't Elon and Matt Taibbi release the emails from the Trump White House asking Twitter to specifically remove Crissy Teagan's tweet calling Trump a "Pussy ass bitch"?

Why are they protecting Republicans who tried to force Twitter to bow to the demands of the government?

The alluded to the Trump administration doing it, but I can guarantee Elon Musk didn't want to actually release those emails because that would destroy their entire narrative.

[Jastall]

I'm not alleging actual compulsion. The emails from Twitter employees to each other showed that they felt the pressure. One cited a "sustained (If uncoordinated) effort by the IC [intelligence community] to push us to share more information and change our API policies. They are probing and pushing everywhere they can..."

So I guess my primary takeaway here is to wonder why people are trying to explain away the evidence, instead of drawing conclusions from the evidence. If smacks of narrative over analysis.

Thanks for the whataboutism.

As much as this is an admission that the facts show pressure was felt and rather expected, I accept it. You can set your own subjective standards for what constitutes "significant" or why impacts on your civil liberties must meet your bar to be worthy of attention. I'm aware of others that don't consider "stop and frisk" to be a "significant" infringement on your civil rights. After all, it's just a few minutes delay. I don't really endeavor in this forum to persuade others to abandon their current subjective feelings on the interaction between government and your speech online.

Let me just rephrase things a little to match your tone. Maybe a couple FBI offices and a few dozen FBI agents and their supervisors got a little overzealous in their mission, and maybe an FBI director should acknowledge that this maybe causes pressure to be felt to comply and maybe should direct the field offices to pull resources from identifying the line between truth and disinformation in American's speech online. The backlash is just directed towards acknowledging wrong and choosing more appropriate missions for agents.

My only surprise is the amount of people that first indicated that nothing wrong was done, and a portion slowly changed to admitting wrong and downplaying the impact. Don't mistake surprise at the Left embracing FBI overreach for "clutching pearls."

I equally nicely asked to give it a week to let the sycophancy subplot fade. You may still be interested in my opinion on some specific allegations at that time. You may still be denying "[I] never even said anything "daddy Musk," in which case you'll have had the time to review your post to the contrary. Or you may still be going on about "you're so desperate to play the butthurt," which isn't a really civil way to solicit someone's opinion. In any case, the choice is up to you.

That's another quite self-serving interpretation of what I said coupled with the sorts of whataboutisms that you denounce in literally the line above your response to me.

After the revelations of Snowden and co, the American surveillance state being rather nosy is everything but surprising. In terms of overreach, sending polite emails to Twitter about disinformation and complying with their answers regardless is less than limp-wristed. If you want to count that as undue pressure and my words as an admission of grave wrongdoing, you do you boo can't stop you. But I do think you know that's not what I meant.

The backlash, also, hardly seems to exist. Even Fox News barely seems to push the story seriously. It's a big pile of mundane stuff built up as a huge scandal by people desperate for a political win.

It's also becoming patently obvious that you fixate on the FBI in particular all of a sudden, rather than previously going on about the government in general or Biden's campaign, because otherwise the narrative completely falls apart given recent events. Everything you post is about wrapping things to serve this narrative. Just like with your accusations of partisanship elsewhere, it all reeks heavily of projection when you accuse others of doing so and I'm tiring of this boring dance.

[Cthulhu 2020]

The one sided narrative presented by Matt Taibbi was insanely obvious the moment I read the very first Twitter Files. Every single Twitter File after the first only confirmed it for me more. Matt Taibbi made an error in confirming that both the Biden Campaign AND Trump White House had sent requests to Twitter, as well as saying that both sides used it, and we know that wasn't the narrative Elon was trying to cultivate. It immediately created doubt in the seemingly one sided narrative Elon was putting forward. Every single Twitter File after the first was predicated under an assumption of government abuse and information pruning.

Turns out Elon was the one pruning information for people to consume.

You know, for as much as conservatives HATE being oppressed, they sure do like corporate oppression. They just go insane over government oppression. Why is government oppression worse than corporate oppression? It isn't, but they've convinced you that it is.

- - - Updated - - -

That's another quite self-serving interpretation of what I said coupled with the sorts of whataboutisms that you denounce in literally the line above your response to me.

After the revelations of Snowden and co, the American surveillance state being rather nosy is everything but surprising. In terms of overreach, sending polite emails to Twitter about disinformation and complying with their answers regardless is less than limp-wristed. If you want to count that as undue pressure and my words as an admission of grave wrongdoing, you do you boo can't stop you. But I do think you know that's not what I meant.

The backlash, also, hardly seems to exist. Even Fox News barely seems to push the story seriously. It's a big pile of mundane stuff built up as a huge scandal by people desperate for a political win.

It's also becoming patently obvious that you fixate on the FBI in particular all of a sudden, rather than previously going on about the government in general or Biden's campaign, because otherwise the narrative completely falls apart given recent events. Everything you post is about wrapping things to serve this narrative. Just like with your accusations of partisanship elsewhere, it all reeks heavily of projection when you accuse others of doing so and I'm tiring of this boring dance.

Yes it is rather CURIOUS that Elon is trying to create doubt in the FBI. What could the FBI be doing that would make Elon want to smear their credibility? Could it be the fact that Kushner met with Elon at the world cup, along with a bunch of Saudi princes? Man, who does Jared have a vested in making sure gets in the White House again, hmm I wonder...

[Edge-]

I was deeply curious what "respectable" conservative media were saying about the hearings, actually. I can't be bothered to go to Breitbart, but I figured that The National Review would have some good examples of the kinds of wins Republicans had in this hearing. Literally every other outlet seems to have multiple stories about just how disastrous things went for Republicans overall, with both articles on specific exchanges and broader commentary and analysis about the hearing as a whole.

Imagine my shock when this is the only article I can seem to find on it: https://www.nationalreview.com/news/...ovid-opinions/

Which is summed up in their literal opening line -

Representative Nancy Mace (R., S.C.) blasted former top Twitter official Vijaya Gadde during a Wednesday hearing for presiding over the company’s censorship of alternative medical perspectives.

Because literally nothing new was learned nor confirmed. Just that, again, Twitter made mistakes as they navigated a complex, politically fraught pandemic for the first time (like the rest of us!) and that not every decision was perfect in retrospect. Though again, I think that Twitter, at the time, choosing to "trend blacklist" an account (i.e. it can still post and its posts can still be seen, they just can't trend as if anyone is owed Twitter's algorithm determining that they should be trending, lol, it's a fuckin algorithmic decision most of the time and not based on actual popularity) that, per the article itself -

Bhattacharya and his co-authors advocated for protecting the most vulnerable communities (e.g. the elderly and autoimmune) while permitting the vast majority of the general public to return to normalcy.

Which we know also was a pretty good idea that we didn't just unleash the hounds, especially in the US!

Fairly disappointing. How about Fox News?

Fairly boring article about a temporary power loss in the hearing room: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/twi...alting-hearing

OH MAN CLAY HIGGENS (is he related to this guy? He keeps talking about the "biden crime family laptop") SAID TWITTER EXECS COULD GO TO JAIL - https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hou...l-fbi-responds

Though I don't see that in the article nor in the clip in the embedded Tweet. Beyond that, again, just some dude monologuing and not any actual new information. No interesting responses to questions confirming or sharing new information, just a monologue. Boring again like the National Review article.

An article about the upcoming hearing, so nothing here either - https://www.foxnews.com/politics/for...ning-house-gop

And that's it that I could find online. There are a lot more video segments but I'm not watching that.

Honestly, it's still day 1 so there's a long ways to go, but if this is indicative of how the rest of the hearings will go then this is going to be a ton of fun.

[Xyonai]

I wonder if they'll summon enough self awareness to realize they're looking like idiots and try to back out of more hearings, or if they'll double down on acting like unhinged weirdos on national TV?

I also wonder how y'all feel about rhetorical questions.

[Breccia]

I wonder if they'll summon enough self awareness to realize they're looking like idiots and try to back out of more hearings

No.

They were elected to be circus clowns, they won't back off after one pie in the face. I mean, what's the House going to do this term, anyhow? They're caucus-blocked by the Senate.

I also wonder how y'all feel about rhetorical questions.

DUDE.

[Biglog]

Still waiting for Elon to step down as CEO as he promised after he lost in the Twitter poll 2 months ago. There is no possible way they couldn't have found a replacement by now, but that's been his excuse. That's the reality of the right today though - they love voting if they win, but ignore the results and pretend it didn't happen if they lose.

[Orange Joe]

Still waiting for Elon to step down as CEO as he promised after he lost in the Twitter poll 2 months ago. There is no possible way they couldn't have found a replacement by now, but that's been his excuse. That's the reality of the right today though - they love voting if they win, but ignore the results and pretend it didn't happen if they lose.

You can't find a replacement if you don't look.....

[Belize]

Still waiting for Elon to step down as CEO as he promised after he lost in the Twitter poll 2 months ago. There is no possible way they couldn't have found a replacement by now, but that's been his excuse. That's the reality of the right today though - they love voting if they win, but ignore the results and pretend it didn't happen if they lose.

Why would anyone want to take over as CEO?

Twitter was profitable once 4 years ago, and has since hemorrhaged a lot of its advertising revenue, with no signs that right wing trolls paying for checkmarks is anywhere close to making up that revenue.

Add to that that Twitter has become an incredibly toxic asset to attach your name to thanks to Lord Twittard Musk and it's no wonder why resumes to take over aren't exactly flying in.

[Endus]

Why would anyone want to take over as CEO?

Twitter was profitable once 4 years ago, and has since hemorrhaged a lot of its advertising revenue, with no signs that right wing trolls paying for checkmarks is anywhere close to making up that revenue.

Add to that that Twitter has become an incredibly toxic asset to attach your name to thanks to Lord Twittard Musk and it's no wonder why resumes to take over aren't exactly flying in.

CEOs get salary, regardless of profit. No one should want to buy Twitter, but the CEO position still pays millions.

[Edge-]

Why would anyone want to take over as CEO?

Twitter was profitable once 4 years ago, and has since hemorrhaged a lot of its advertising revenue, with no signs that right wing trolls paying for checkmarks is anywhere close to making up that revenue.

Add to that that Twitter has become an incredibly toxic asset to attach your name to thanks to Lord Twittard Musk and it's no wonder why resumes to take over aren't exactly flying in.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/12/14/ftxs...0-an-hour.html

Would $1,300 per hour, plus expenses, be enough for you to consider taking the job? Even for a year? Or a few months? That's $2.6M annually if he were to work a full year, plus expenses of course.

Because that's what the dude trying to figure out how deeply fucked FTX is getting paid as their current CEO.