Elon Musk Buys Twitter

[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.

[Cthulhu 2020]

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 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?

So you're going to play the hurt victim card to not explain why every single one of your opinions in this thread is massively hypocritical at its core. I asked you nicely about the heart of the issue, without any "daddy Musk". You and I both know that Musk is pruning the information he gives you, and you addressing that undermines every single argument you've made in this thread.

Got it.

You're too easy.

Are you offended at the idea that you fell for propaganda? Or do you not care and are just too proud to admit that you know you're being manipulated?

[solinari6]

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.

I don't think that was an improper suspension. It wasn't that he posted the picture, it was that he made the picture his profile picture. Twitter has very strict rules about what you can put in your profile pic and header (no porn and no graphic violence) because that picture will show up to everyone you tweet replies to. It's possible that they can convince twitter that the image isn't graphic ENOUGH to warrant a suspension, but if they want to say they don't want dead animals in profile pictures, that seems reasonable to me.

[Edge-]

I don't think that was an improper suspension. It wasn't that he posted the picture, it was that he made the picture his profile picture. Twitter has very strict rules about what you can put in your profile pic and header (no porn and no graphic violence) because that picture will show up to everyone you tweet replies to. It's possible that they can convince twitter that the image isn't graphic ENOUGH to warrant a suspension, but if they want to say they don't want dead animals in profile pictures, that seems reasonable to me.

I wouldn't even count that as "graphic" in general, at most you see an amount of blood that you'd bleed after a papercut.

Either way, I'm mostly just enjoying watching the same Republicans that Elon has been appealing to showing that they give zero fucks about his efforts to make Twitter more of a Republican safe-space shit on him publicly as if this too was directed by him. Who could have ever imagined they'd have no qualms turning on him on the dime.

[Breccia]

It's possible that they can convince twitter that the image isn't graphic ENOUGH to warrant a suspension, but if they want to say they don't want dead animals in profile pictures, that seems reasonable to me.

I think that's what it's going to boil down to. It's hard to argue that the picture doesn't specifically show death. The question, then, is "gory".

Ted Cruz isn't doing his friend any favors, however, when he says his friend was aiming for the balloon and missed. If he's not taking it seriously, why should Twitter care enough to reverse the ban?

- - - Updated - - -

I wouldn't even count that as "graphic" in general

Twitter spelled out the rules in the ban notification. Graphic violence = death + gory, in one example at least. And that deer is 100% dead.

- - - Updated - - -

The ban has been reversed on Musk's direct say-so.

Wait, that was after Ted Cruz asked, right? That sounds like direct government pressure! Quick, @tehdang denounce this!

[Edge-]

The ban has been reversed on Musk's direct say-so.

Wait, that was after Ted Cruz asked, right? That sounds like direct government pressure! Quick, @tehdang denounce this!

https://twitter.com/MattMackowiak/st...82310688698368

How dare political actors pressure a private entity to cave to their demands by publicly shaming and targeting them. Clearly this is gross government overreach and should be thoroughly investigated as we cannot be certain there was not additoinal behind-the-scenes pressures here.

That political staff or politicians are making requests of Twitter and Twitter is GRANTING THEM and CHANGING THEIR POLICY as a result is a clear abuse of power and should worry anyone who cares about the First Amendment.

If we're to take the posts of some here at face-value.

Because personally, /whatever.

[Jastall]

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.

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 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?

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 by a glorified "look at our ToS". If the big news is that some FBI agents were potentially slightly overzealous about a few tweets and get rebuffed, yeah I won't faint at the idea. Sorry but not really sorry. You got far bigger problems RE your surveillance state.

And as others have said, I do expect you to also clutch those pearls of yours at the mere idea of Twitter changing their decision because Cruz -as government as it gets- asked them to and the head honcho said OK. Surely the end of the First Amendment is nigh if such intolerable overreach is allowed.

[Kathranis]

It's almost like you forgot the history of governments using law enforcement to correct their citizen's speech.

You say this and yet you're mum on Republicans constantly trying to block freedom of expression, ban books, ban lesson plans in schools -- even in universities.

Twitter fact checking and blocking people who consistently and maliciously spread harmful lies is not government overreach.

You're really just an incredibly disingenuous person, aren't you?

[Endus]

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.

It might be, if this had happened, but it didn't, and nothing in the Twitter files suggests it had. You're imagining up a fake conspiracy out of cobwebs and delusion.

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.

The "utter rejection" is that you're making all this shit up. Literally no evidence of any "sending of agents" or even any pressure applied to push a message.

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 isn't about what's in our minds. It's about what's factually evidential. That's where your claims fall apart completely.

- - - Updated - - -

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 by a glorified "look at our ToS".

Specifically, for there to be "pressure", there has to be at least an implication of some action that will be taken in response if the target doesn't comply. Without that implication (or overt threat), it's just an open request, not "pressure" in any useful sense.

Unless literally all reports of misconduct by all private citizens also count as "pressuring Twitter", which is an incredibly useless and objectively stupid use of the word.