Elon Musk Buys Twitter

[Edge-]

Legacy blue checks will be removed soon. Those are the ones that are truly corrupt.

Official Elon tweet.

Hmm? Legacy blues are the truly corrupt? Hey you can make arguments in many ways, but saying just paying $8 is less or the true meaning is silly.

I read but idk how much true that Elon is trying to change that you can only do so many tweets and likes, just overall interaction to be limited if you don't have a blue check mark. Basically you have to pay to tweet.

I love it cause I hope this collapse the site more. I hope most of all this is his desperation since he is losing so much money.

I'm just waiting for Twitter employees to read about this new policy. And then Elon to backpedal as actually that'd be an immense timesink to do without any actual return on investment. Then he'll just direct them to sleep in their offices and find another way of doing it.

The memelord shall not be questioned. He's got the best memes.

Speaking of, is Twitter still acting as an unlicensed hotel? Has he started paying any of the rents he's months behind on? Most people get evicted after a few months of delinquency and I think it's been longer for Twitter.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Here's something I ponder about: We know that Republicans were abusing the report function and effectively threatening Twitter to take certain negative tweets about them down. But a lot of what I see is requests from when Trump was president. Did we KNOW about Trump's abuse of Twitter? Was it one of those blatantly corrupt things that we saw every day in the Trump Megathread, and the very next day some new horrible thing happened and we forgot about it? I could have sworn that was something that happened.

Either way, it seems Elon's acquisition of Twitter, funded by Saudis, the right, and probably Russian money, was very much a political move. And it's a 44 billion dollar mistake that's back firing on them. If Republicans don't win in 2024, I wonder how much hot water Musk is going to find himself in from his "donors".

[Breccia]

Did we KNOW about Trump's abuse of Twitter?

I don't think so, no. And I did look. But the ShitShow thread is 4000+ pages and change, so I'll avoid saying "definitely no chance at all".

The issue isn't that it was missing, well maybe somewhat. The issue is, of course, the Twitter files are choosing to ignore that and instead present the FBI's use of the "report post" button as illegal while Trump was calling them directly with demands.

[tehdang]

The validity of the Twitter Files is all but completely gone up in smoke.

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1623774472971993088

Guess you're going to have to find some new line of non-thinking @tehdang

Jonathan Turley is not a former employee of Twitter, thus the Twitter Files are all citing made-up nonsense? What kind of non-thinking are you engaged with: you aren't allowed to have opinions about the Twitter Files unless you worked for Twitter, or people invited by House committees are not allowed to testify unless they have first-hand knowledge?

Again, every tweet you've linked has not shown this.

I've noticed that our opinions differ on what it means and what it shows, and remarked upon your repetition of the same sticking points. Now unless there's something more to how your thinking goes that you haven't explained yet, I think we're at an impasse. I'm apparently as unpersuasive to you as you are to me.

You mean waste time finding...nothing. Because that was all you posted; nothing.

It sounds like you have no reason to look up what I was quoting! Excellent use of your deduction!

[unfilteredJW]

Jonathan Turley is not a former employee of Twitter, thus the Twitter Files are all citing made-up nonsense? What kind of non-thinking are you engaged with: you aren't allowed to have opinions about the Twitter Files unless you worked for Twitter, or people invited by House committees are not allowed to testify unless they have first-hand knowledge?

I've noticed that our opinions differ on what it means and what it shows, and remarked upon your repetition of the same sticking points. Now unless there's something more to how your thinking goes that you haven't explained yet, I think we're at an impasse. I'm apparently as unpersuasive to you as you are to me.

It sounds like you have no reason to look up what I was quoting! Excellent use of your deduction!

"I'll continue to believe my made up fiction, nanny nanny boo boo, stick your head in doo doo."

[Breccia]

you aren't allowed to have opinions about the Twitter Files unless you worked for Twitter

The fuck is this relevant to? Opinions aren't evidence. You've been lying and trolling for weeks but at least most of your posts were coherent English. This means less than nothing because it makes less sense than if you'd literally posted nothing but whitespace.

Still haven't commented on Trump threatening Twitter, by the way, further proof you don't have a concern about government overreach. You have an agenda that doesn't fit the facts.

[Edge-]

Jonathan Turley is not a former employee of Twitter, thus the Twitter Files are all citing made-up nonsense? What kind of non-thinking are you engaged with: you aren't allowed to have opinions about the Twitter Files unless you worked for Twitter, or people invited by House committees are not allowed to testify unless they have first-hand knowledge?

Not at all.

It's that his knowledge is no different than ours, and consequently his opinion is of no greater significance as it relates to matters of the internal workings or policies of Twitter than ours. He has no special or inside knowledge and his expertise on the inner workings of Twitter is that of, "Some Jackoff with an account.", meaning I'm as much of an expert as he is when it comes to questions of policy decisions or the internal working of Twitter.

He has an opinion on Twitter. I have an opinion on Twitter. Everyone has an opinion on Twitter. So what.

I've noticed that our opinions differ on what it means and what it shows, and remarked upon your repetition of the same sticking points.

And a whole lot of people think the earth is flat. Do their numbers add weight to their theory, or does that mean there are just a bunch of people who hold onto a thoroughly disproven and debunked belief?

I'm apparently as unpersuasive to you as you are to me.

I'm happy to be persuaded, and have been on a range of topics on this forum over the years. I'm not perfect or all knowing, and when presented with actual data and facts that contradicts one of my views I am more than happy to re-evaluate my position on the matter and change it if my prior beliefs were in error.

You haven't done that, because you haven't actually linked anything that supports your claims.

And the past two days of hearings should make that abundantly clear as Republicans fail to actually prove their claims, instead threatening vague charges which they will not specify, asking why their personal accounts were banned, and admitting that Twitter isn't bound by the First Amendment. I mean, did you see Laura Ingraham painfully trying to get Rep. Clay Higgins to specify what charges the former Twitter executives were facing that he kept talking about actually were? And listen to Higgins stumble about for a few minutes talking about everything except what specific charges they may be brought up on, despite his repeat threat to them during the hearing that they were likely to charged with crimes?

Which sure sounds a lot like a member of Congress using their position as a member of government to threaten private citizens and should be of grave concern if he is threatening them with charges but does not actually have evidence to support charging them with any crimes. Not that he can as a Representative, but I'm not sure if he's aware of that or not.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Jonathan Turley is not a former employee of Twitter, thus the Twitter Files are all citing made-up nonsense? What kind of non-thinking are you engaged with: you aren't allowed to have opinions about the Twitter Files unless you worked for Twitter, or people invited by House committees are not allowed to testify unless they have first-hand knowledge?

The rest of the hearings have definitively proved that not only did Twitter not received "direct orders" from Democrats to delete tweets, simple report button usage, but it was in fact Republicans who were demanding Twitter take down tweets they didn't like.

What say you @tehdang? Do you think that Donald Trump, MTG, and others demanding Twitter take down tweets, and following through, is a bad thing? Please tell us @tehdang that you're not just some partisan hack who blindly licks the boots of Republicans.

@tehdang you claimed you trusted Elon, but it has been shown that he is pruning what information was put into the Twitter files, and yet you claimed he had no reason to do this. Do you admit you were wrong, or are you just going to double down?

[Dontrike]

Jonathan Turley is not a former employee of Twitter, thus the Twitter Files are all citing made-up nonsense? What kind of non-thinking are you engaged with: you aren't allowed to have opinions about the Twitter Files unless you worked for Twitter, or people invited by House committees are not allowed to testify unless they have first-hand knowledge?

I've noticed that our opinions differ on what it means and what it shows, and remarked upon your repetition of the same sticking points. Now unless there's something more to how your thinking goes that you haven't explained yet, I think we're at an impasse. I'm apparently as unpersuasive to you as you are to me.

It sounds like you have no reason to look up what I was quoting! Excellent use of your deduction!

This can be boiled down to "I'm going to ignore Republicans, whom I worship, forcing twitter to do the very thing I think dems are doing. If I put my head in the sand enough then no one can tell me or my gods Trump and Elon that we're wrong."

[postman1782]

Jonathan Turley is not a former employee of Twitter, thus the Twitter Files are all citing made-up nonsense? What kind of non-thinking are you engaged with: you aren't allowed to have opinions about the Twitter Files unless you worked for Twitter, or people invited by House committees are not allowed to testify unless they have first-hand knowledge?

I've noticed that our opinions differ on what it means and what it shows, and remarked upon your repetition of the same sticking points. Now unless there's something more to how your thinking goes that you haven't explained yet, I think we're at an impasse. I'm apparently as unpersuasive to you as you are to me.

It sounds like you have no reason to look up what I was quoting! Excellent use of your deduction!

So far, the Twitter files have shown that the Trump Administration is the ones that have violated the first amendment by demanding Tweets be taken down, because the only thing that the Biden Campaign requested taken down, was revenge porn dick pics of Hunter Biden. Which while it is against Twitter ToS, is also illegal in all 50 states. Johnathan Turley has literally been wrong about everything as far as anything legal.

[Shadowferal]

It sounds like you have no reason to look up what I was quoting! Excellent use of your deduction!

Again...nothing. Your imagination versus the facts...you fall in line well with the right-wing. But then a poor attempt at gaslighting was all you had anyway.

[Breccia]

Again...nothing. Your imagination versus the facts...you fall in line well with the right-wing. But then a poor attempt at gaslighting was all you had anyway.

Oh, I want to add to that.
@tehdang only one poster here has any reason to make your point: tehdang. If someone were to come here with, oh I don't know, a video from Project Veritas or something equally incredible, and that poster says "it's real info, look it up yourselves" the correct answer is "no".

As an example, or sixty examples, remember when your chosen leader Trump brought court cases with no evidence? At no point did the judges rule "we should go find the evidence, because there is reasonable cause" because there wasn't any. The rulings were "you don't have even a shred of evidence, so get out of my courtroom also we're fining you sometimes".

If your argument is "look up what I was quoting" the response is "why didn't you quote that instead?" If what you're quoting isn't good enough, then you're admitting you're quoting garbage.

Intentionally posting something that has no validity, solely to get responses, is trolling. You are admitting trolling. Please post constructively.

[Strange One]

Jonathan Turley is not a former employee of Twitter, thus the Twitter Files are all citing made-up nonsense? What kind of non-thinking are you engaged with: you aren't allowed to have opinions about the Twitter Files unless you worked for Twitter, or people invited by House committees are not allowed to testify unless they have first-hand knowledge?

I've noticed that our opinions differ on what it means and what it shows, and remarked upon your repetition of the same sticking points. Now unless there's something more to how your thinking goes that you haven't explained yet, I think we're at an impasse. I'm apparently as unpersuasive to you as you are to me.

It sounds like you have no reason to look up what I was quoting! Excellent use of your deduction!

"Waa i'm a little bitch that cant prove my points, but i'll keep lying because I cant admit i'm wrong."

[Paranoid Android]

The fuck is this relevant to? Opinions aren't evidence. You've been lying and trolling for weeks but at least most of your posts were coherent English. This means less than nothing because it makes less sense than if you'd literally posted nothing but whitespace.

Still haven't commented on Trump threatening Twitter, by the way, further proof you don't have a concern about government overreach. You have an agenda that doesn't fit the facts.

Oh no! This is what this person does here. To be fair this is what this person and conservatives are these days. The fweeelings are now facts and you cand have discussions these days. It's very tiring.

Idk why people engage this person. The constant of them trying to say 1+1=3 and that you should value their opinion is too much for me. Directed to many, not just you Breccia.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Everyone remember Elmo's tantrum where he was wondering why his statistics of interaction were so low? When the engineer told him there was no bug, he fired the engineer?

If I'm getting this right, it turns out Elmo found out that the system he designed, where blocks against your account will discourage you from appearing in the algorithm except to followers, has turned against him.

Time to go block a few accounts, like libsoftiktok. Why didn't I already have them blocked you ask? They never appeared in my timeline, so I didn't have a reason to. But if I can suppress evil, hell yeah gonna fill up my block list.

[Edge-]

Everyone remember Elmo's tantrum where he was wondering why his statistics of interaction were so low? When the engineer told him there was no bug, he fired the engineer?

If I'm getting this right, it turns out Elmo found out that the system he designed, where blocks against your account will discourage you from appearing in the algorithm except to followers, has turned against him.

Time to go block a few accounts, like libsoftiktok. Why didn't I already have them blocked you ask? They never appeared in my timeline, so I didn't have a reason to. But if I can suppress evil, hell yeah gonna fill up my block list.

I enjoy that he's apparently responding to promotional tweets from brands to try to boost visibility and shit. Fucking rofl.

[Breccia]

If I'm getting this right, it turns out Elmo found out that the system he designed, where blocks against your account will discourage you from appearing in the algorithm except to followers, has turned against him.

It's like some spoof version of the Terminator. It was sent back in time to kill its own creator.

[Cthulhu 2020]

For anyone wondering where this is coming from:



Elon's "Free speech" Twitter was designed in a way that it wouldn't need constant human moderation, that if enough people block certain accounts, those accounts lose visibility. Elom is now discovering that that "might" be a problem as it creates effective social DDOS vectors. That's his idea of free speech. Suppressing speech of people who are blocked a lot. Which includes himself, and he thought he'd not be a target of this system why?

IT'S ALMOST AS IF ELOM'S DUMB IDEAS WERE DUMB.

[Edge-]

Rofl, he's gonna put blocking behind a paywall.

Fuckin watch.

[postman1782]

Rofl, he's gonna put blocking behind a paywall.

Fuckin watch.

Well, he put posting behind it, and is now removing the original verified users, so I am not surprised.