Elon Musk Buys Twitter

[Ivanstone]

Arguably, although I would note that even setting up a dedicated industrial research facility was in fact groundbreaking. In that way, he did not merely "hog" other inventions, he paved the way for them.

As I said above, there's a difference between usefully appraising the work of others and being a raging dickhead about it. Edison (and Musk) were definitely the latter.

[Drutt]

Yep. He is worried. Twitter won't be the first company bankrupted by Facebook. Citizen Zuck may look like a dork. However, he is a ruthless dork.

He's also competent, unlike Musk.

[Draco-Onis]

Arguably, although I would note that even setting up a dedicated industrial research facility was in fact groundbreaking. In that way, he did not merely "hog" other inventions, he paved the way for them.

He patented everything that came out of those research facilities and oftentimes screwed the inventors out of pay. The only thing groundbreaking was the amount of greed and abuse of the patent system done by Edison.

[Sorshen]

He's also competent, unlike Musk.

Eh, idk about that, he's kind of a miss in recent years, his metaverse is a huge money furnace with hilarious results. If anything, he'll burn some billions on a twitter competitor as well.

[fwc577]

Did Elon Musk buy Reddit? Because it's down for me.

[Masark]

Did Elon Musk buy Reddit? Because it's down for me.

Down for everyone for about 3 hours now.

https://www.redditstatus.com/

[Edge-]

https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...ia-1234697898/

Shit, Elom is getting outplayed by other social media companies!

FIGHTING TO SURVIVE in the crowded ecosystem of far-right social media companies, the pro-Trump platform Gettr has in recent weeks held high-level deliberations on the oddest of business pivots: remaking the site to add an online clearinghouse for human sperm.

But it’s not just any sperm. The proposal would see the company expand to include a marketplace for semen from men who haven’t taken any of the vaccines against Covid-19.

Three sources familiar with the matter, and a fourth briefed on the situation, describe serious, repeated discussions about creating the online anti-vax semen market, in which unvaccinated men would self-advertise and sell sperm to the highest bidder. Two of the sources say stakeholders have gone so far as to explore possible “testing requirements” to ensure specimens came from unvaccinated donors.

Some staff have also expressed skepticism internally about the feasibility of the plan, noting restrictions of semen sales in other countries and other hurdles. All four sources spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe these deliberations, with one adding that “it’s just so embarrassing, man.”

Or maybe not. This might be a cautionary tale for how much worse it could be given the world of right-wing grifters.

[Edge-]

https://www.techdirt.com/2023/03/15/...1st-amendment/

I won't quote any of this because it includes a lot of quotes within and honestly that's kinda annoying to format.

TLDR: Those "coercive" government emails that Republicans keep saying violate the First Amendment? Yeah, they absolutely do not and now we've got a ruling to back that up.

@tehdang I'd be curious for your take on this. This largely seems to validate the arguments myself and others have been making throughout this thread.

[Dontrike]

@tehdang I'd be curious for your take on this. This largely seems to validate the arguments myself and others have been making throughout this thread.

I'm sure it'll be along the lines of "It's clear the government bribed those courts to do it, it's just another leftist plot."

[Edge-]

https://www.businessinsider.com/elon...ices-eu-2023-3

In which Elom is faced with the difficulties of running a global social media company that needs to be in compliance with various international laws, and is running afoul of those laws having laid off all the compliance teams at Twitter.

Ooph, who know running a social media company could be so hard?

[Jastall]

https://www.techdirt.com/2023/03/15/...1st-amendment/

I won't quote any of this because it includes a lot of quotes within and honestly that's kinda annoying to format.

TLDR: Those "coercive" government emails that Republicans keep saying violate the First Amendment? Yeah, they absolutely do not and now we've got a ruling to back that up.

@tehdang I'd be curious for your take on this. This largely seems to validate the arguments myself and others have been making throughout this thread.

I wouldn't be surprised if the next argument/excuse is that it violates the spirit of the First Amendment or something. Either that or the old reliable of blaming activist judges.

[Edge-]

I wouldn't be surprised if the next argument/excuse is that it violates the spirit of the First Amendment or something. Either that or the old reliable of blaming activist judges.

The Judge makes some good points about how not all government speech is speech to compel, and how just because the interests of the government and a private entity align doesn't mean that the private entity is de-facto carrying out the orders of the government. Just that the two happy to coincidentally align in a happy little accident.

[Breccia]

I wouldn't be surprised if the next argument/excuse is that it violates the spirit of the First Amendment

If so, they can suck the spirit of my dick.

Trump should already know that approach won't work. He lost the Caroll defamation case on this, and he lost the NAACP case on this. Both are being appealled but he still knows that "a government official said it, therefore, it's government speech" hasn't worked yet.

Furthermore, judges (especially appeals court judges) aren't really in a situation where "he didn't break the letter of the law, but he broke the spirit of the law, so we find him guilty" really works. Otherwise running a green light would be a crime, because you went through an intersection without stopping, which is what a red light prevents. Or, it could invalidate self defense. "I understand you killed the man trying to burn you and your family to death, and the evidence against the dead guy is uncontested. But you still killed someone without asking them first, which is the spirit of murder, so I'm going to give you 40 to life for protecting your family, your home, and yourself."

Considering Twitter told the FBI "no" at least once, and wasn't shut down/taxed into nothingness/sold off to Elon Musk as scrap oh shit that one happened/employees weren't arrested, this was not a First Amendment case. They pressed the Report Post button, and because Trump was breaking the rules, Twitter blocked him.

Yes, they might try it. I mean, look at what Team Trump has already tried. They might try arguing that Twitter is a foreign asset and silencing him was an act of war, for all I know. Trump's crazy and his lawyers are incompetent. But they'll be even more deplorable for trying, and it had better not work.

[tehdang]

https://www.techdirt.com/2023/03/15/...1st-amendment/

I won't quote any of this because it includes a lot of quotes within and honestly that's kinda annoying to format.

TLDR: Those "coercive" government emails that Republicans keep saying violate the First Amendment? Yeah, they absolutely do not and now we've got a ruling to back that up.

@tehdang I'd be curious for your take on this. This largely seems to validate the arguments myself and others have been making throughout this thread.

If you'll look back on my posts on the issue, I didn't make the case that Twitter's actions violated the constitution. Your link really seems focused on that potential aspect.

[Edge-]

If you'll look back on my posts on the issue, I didn't make the case that Twitter's actions violated the constitution. Your link really seems focused on that potential aspect.

I mean, they seem to fairly clearly line up with what the judges describe as standard communications between a government body and private entity though, which is my point. Not potentially coercive or having any implication of an order to them, simply routine emails from one professional to another.

That's what I'm getting at, which has been my contention this whole time that you've continually argued against.

[tehdang]

I mean, they seem to fairly clearly line up with what the judges describe as ...

Judges view the actions in contrast to possible legal violations. I don't afford them particular insight into concerning but not illegal or touching on illegal action. I don't generally afford judges (as a class) particular insight into cultural or political issues involving ordinary citizens, tech companies, and the government. I'm rather taking this to be an appeal to authority.

[Taifuu]

Judges view the actions in contrast to possible legal violations. I don't afford them particular insight into concerning but not illegal or touching on illegal action. I don't generally afford judges (as a class) particular insight into cultural or political issues involving ordinary citizens, tech companies, and the government. I'm rather taking this to be an appeal to authority.

You were not asked about judges as a position or to provide cultural input; the question was your thoughts on the judges' ruling since it THIS case that we are discussing. Your post does not make any sense. Please elaborate and maybe provide some sort of evidence or reasoning behind your thoughts. You know, like you're actually interested in legitimate discourse.

[Twdft]

Your post does not make any sense.

TBH 90% of the time I have no clue what they are talking about. It might be simply the constant weaseling around, not answering any direct questions, deflecting and bringing up stuff that's not even remotely connected to the current arguments.

At this point I wouldn't be surprised if they are an chatgpt experiment.

[tehdang]

You were not asked about judges as a position or to provide cultural input; the question was your thoughts on the judges' ruling since it THIS case that we are discussing. Your post does not make any sense. Please elaborate and maybe provide some sort of evidence or reasoning behind your thoughts.

The poster asked for a comment on a link with legal rulings and legal analysis relating to constitutionality. I never thought there was anything meritorious to claiming Twitter had done something unconstitutional or illegal in their actions. So my comment is simply that the article confirms what I already thought about the legal basis. Whatever standards judges can form and enforce in legal vs illegal government speech has no real bearing on when Americans judge if they want the FBI suggesting or pressuring tech companies to action their social media accounts.

You know, like you're actually interested in legitimate discourse.

Asked and answered, in my view. If you have some particular point from the article that you need further elaboration on, please feel free to articulate it.

[unfilteredJW]

TBH 90% of the time I have no clue what they are talking about. It might be simply the constant weaseling around, not answering any direct questions, deflecting and bringing up stuff that's not even remotely connected to the current arguments.

At this point I wouldn't be surprised if they are an chatgpt experiment.

Said poster weasels and makes up new definitions for words so it’s always problematic reading their posts, what with all the lies and misinformation they are allowed to post on the forums.