Elon Musk Buys Twitter

[Benggaul]

No rules changed at twitter since musk took over. Not a single one.

Let's not forget that multiple studies have also shown that "right-leaning views are being singled out and censored!" was found to be absolute bullshit and the reality was pretty much the opposite.

[Dontrike]

I don’t think both sides are the same — that’s was you suggesting I do.

Or it was you quite literally equating them by using "both sides" not once, but twice.

I've seen some very hateful language from both sides. Politics, as we all know, can bring out the worst in people.

Again, on Twitter, I’ve seen this kind of hate from both sides. Hate is not exclusive to one side.

However, on Twitter, yes, I’ve seen/experienced hate speech from both sides, on a regular basis.

And a third time. What is this "hate speech" used by the left. You haven't posted any proof, much like I knew you wouldn't.

Has that increased since the takeover? Not from my personal perspective

Then you're either keeping your head in the sand or close your eyes while using it.

[Forogil]

No rules changed at twitter since musk took over. Not a single one.

Is that you Musk? (Since that is one of his many inaccurate talking point.)

Reality check:

• Were parody accounts banned without warning before?
• If the rules didn't change why were 62 000 accounts reinstated?

However, the rules don't matter if the people overseeing them are laid off.

Musk also claims that hate speech has declined - https://www.socialmediatoday.com/new...witter/645482/ independent sources has seen that the opposite is true.

[Orange Joe]

Is that you Musk? (Since that is one of his many inaccurate talking point.)

Reality check:

• Were parody accounts banned without warning before?
• If the rules didn't change why were 62 000 accounts reinstated?

However, the rules don't matter if the people overseeing them are laid off.

Musk also claims that hate speech has declined - https://www.socialmediatoday.com/new...witter/645482/ independent sources has seen that the opposite is true.

So what rules changed then? besides adding that parody accounts most be clearly labeled?


didn't a couple of those people get banned almost immediately after coming back for the same reason they were banned in the first place?

[Forogil]

So what rules changed then? besides adding that parody accounts most be clearly labeled?

I don't keep track of them.

You are the one that falsely claimed that no rules were changed - so you list all the rules and check that were are unchanged; and then explain how the rules matter if the people overseeing them are laid off.

[gondrin]

That one, yeah.

Ya'll jumped from that to slavery. WTF LUL? So stupid.

As I posted in another thread, traditions are good for a family to have. Not a nation. Not a society. Same ideals behind the tradition of having the President being natural born is the same one that banned workers from Asia from getting work in the US. It is the same ideals that stated slavery was a good thing. It is the same ideals that stated women weren't allowed to vote or work. It is the same ideals you see in place that state that transgender people cannot use the bathroom of their sexual identity. Because of traditions.

If you want to have a tradition in your family or with friends that state you will go out to dinner once a week and pick at random who will pay for it, great. But when it comes to something more than that, especially with something with as much potential of abuse, as an political office such as the Office of the President, yeah, not so much.

Someone else posted a fine example of this. Someone born here, leaves a couple of months after they were born and comes back at the age of 40 can become president even though they have never lived in this country. Someone not born here but has lived for pretty much their entire life from the age of a few months old cannot.

[Orange Joe]

I don't keep track of them.

You are the one that falsely claimed that no rules were changed

So you don't know of any changes but can say I made a false claim..... lol

Not sure thats how this works.

https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-an.../twitter-rules

There you go. no changes. Same rules as they were.

[Lenonis]

Democrat. It's what I registered as with my county, and as said in another post, despite disliking Biden, I plan to vote for party cause no one will challenge him.

You can call yourself whatever you like. Your opinions and postings are definitely in the conservative column on the balance. We are perfectly capable of reading what you like and as the saying goes "when someone tells you who they are - believe them."

- - - Updated - - -

Again, on Twitter, I’ve seen this kind of hate from both sides. Hate is not exclusive to one side.

Do you think it's equal?

If not - what is your point in constantly BotH SIdeS?

[DarkTZeratul]

So you don't know of any changes but can say I made a false claim..... lol

Not sure thats how this works.

https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-an.../twitter-rules

There you go. no changes. Same rules as they were.

I'm not sure how linking their current rules is proof that they're identical to their old rules, but here's one big example: intentionally misgendering or dead naming trans people is no longer a rules violation:
https://techcrunch.com/2023/04/18/tw...dering-policy/

[Kathranis]

I've seen some very hateful language from both sides. Politics, as we all know, can bring out the worst in people.

Yeah, but not often I see leftists making personal attacks against people for inalienable traits, which is usually where the line for hate speech is drawn. Unless you count calling people crazy or stupid a form of ableism, but that's generally an argument that comes from progressives.

P.S. "both sides" lul

So since you won't elaborate on your political views, based on everything you say, I guess I'm gonna peg you as an "enlightened centrist" who takes right-wing positions while posturing as a Democrat, maybe because you think it makes you sound more reasonable or maybe because you bristle at being associated with the other hogs feeding at the GOP trough.

Either way, at best it makes you look naive, at worst intellectually dishonest. I'd respect you more if you'd have some convictions and actually say what you believe with your chest.

[Forogil]

So what rules changed then? besides adding that parody accounts most be clearly labeled?

So you don't know of any changes but can say I made a false claim..... lol

Because they change one rule your claim is false; I didn't bother to find the rest.

Not sure thats how this works.

https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-an.../twitter-rules

Your claim was false, and once you made a statement it's on you to prove that it is true.

But if I bother I can see that the rules differ in several places compared to the rules early on October 20th 2022 (Musk completed the deal on October 22nd):

Violence: You may not threaten violence against an individual or a group of people. We also prohibit the glorification of violence. Learn more about our violent threat and glorification of violence policies.

replaced by:

Violent Speech: You may not threaten, incite, glorify, or express desire for violence or harm. Learn more.

Violent & Hateful Entities: You can’t affiliate with or promote the activities of violent and hateful entities. Learn more.

And

Terrorism/violent extremism: You may not threaten or promote terrorism or violent extremism.

gone

Abuse/harassment: You may not engage in the targeted harassment of someone, or incite other people to do so. This includes wishing or hoping that someone experiences physical harm.

Account Compromise: ...

Note: we may need to change these rules from time to time in order to support our goal of promoting a healthy public conversation. The most current version is always available at https://twitter.com/rules.

The parody change isn't listed there; but if we compare https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-an...ntities-policy we see lots of changes:

Impersonation

You can’t pose as an existing person, group, or organization in a confusing or deceptive manner.

Impersonation

You may not pose as an existing person, group, or organization to mislead others about who you are or who you represent. Accounts that violate this policy will misrepresent their identity by using at least two elements of another identity, such as the name, image, or false claims of affiliation with another individual or organization in their profile or tweets.

And the entire part about parody account is new.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not sure how linking their current rules is proof that they're identical to their old rules, but here's one big example: intentionally misgendering or dead naming trans people is no longer a rules violation:
https://techcrunch.com/2023/04/18/tw...dering-policy/

Obviously it's proof that the rules aren't changed, since it doesn't say that the rules may be changed from time to time :-)

(The old rules had that disclaimer.)

[D Luniz]

everytime someone tosses out a "both sides"
its always neglecting one side has small group that has no larger influence in the group (and often that group is trying to push them out)
while the side the "both sides" apologist is trying to defend with that claim is controlled by those bad actors, while the rest of the people will quietly go along with them

I have two cups of skittles, one has 3 red skittles, the other is all red skittles but 3 skittles
technically both sides, but they are NOT the same

(Im literally holding and eating a cup of skittles as I typed this...deal with it)

[Pannonian]

Thats Thee definition for conservative.......

Not necessarily disagreeing with you, as it is true, but what i meant with reactionary is an even worse form of conservatism. Agree with it or not, but a lot of conservatives (and right now i speak about conservative lower c ) think that preserving tradition is better for society than change. It's the intent. They want to hang on to tradition as they deem it better for society.

Reactionaries are worse - they cling on to tradition because they want to push back against any kind of progress - not because they think its better for society, but because they hate progress/cannot keep up with a changing world. They are just destructive. Holding on to tradition just to spite progress (why does it have to be a month!) is the poltitical equivalent to a toddlers tantrum. And yes, by now a lot of US-conservatives are in that camp too.

[Karreck]

Again, on Twitter, I’ve seen this kind of hate from both sides. Hate is not exclusive to one side.

What is an example, that you have seen, of hate speech coming from the "Left" and/or Liberals on Twitter?

[Cthulhu 2020]

I’d argue that the rules, before Musky took over, were much stricter, and did seem to show bias censoring towards people who had more right-leaning views.

I do agree with Musky — we need it to be fair to have open, honest conversations with a site as big as Twitter, which reaches so many around the globe.

If you believe people were banned from Twitter for anything short of hate speech, then you spent too much time listening to whining Nazis complaining about "being banned for free speech" without actually reading what they got banned for saying.

When pushed on the tweets for which they were banned for, it's somehow always hate speech despite them claiming what they said wasn't so bad.

But therein lies one of entire problems.

These people believe that speaking of eradication of other human beings is just "normal free speech". And entertaining their ridiculous claims of normalcy is abhorrent. We get it, you don't like being called a bigot or nazi. But stop carrying water for bigots and nazis and that won't happen.

- - - Updated - - -

I've seen some very hateful language from both sides. Politics, as we all know, can bring out the worst in people.

"Both sides"

lol

I saw a youtube on this. Conservatives whine that being called racist and bigot and nazi is very hurtful.

Meanwhile they advocate for violence and eradication.

That "enlightened centrists" and "Democrats, not radical leftists" think these things are even remotely equivalent is everything wrong with modern discourse. The belief that lashing out to label racists as racists is somehow in any way even remotely as abhorrent is the violence that these racists advocate for.

- - - Updated - - -

One thing that I think is hilarious is that all of these "overseas independent reporters" that certain people get their information from are so called TERFs, and yet they're not even feminists. These anti trans sources are trying really hard to push the submission and ownership of women and it's insidious how much former feminists are accepting these ideas suddenly since it's presented along side anti trans sentiments.

It's really sad to watch women speak out against their own rights on twitter when it's wrapped in a guise of protecting their identity as women.

- - - Updated - - -

"The middle ground fallacy exists where one believes the truth exists between two extreme points," when in reality one side simply wants to exist in peace and the other side wants their eradication.

People will falsely tell themselves they're being "rational" and "unbiased" by taking a stance in between those two extremes, because "both sides" can be "uncivil" and thus falsely believe that a lack of civility somehow makes them less deserving of consideration on the whole.

If one person wants to cut off your two arms, the person who has two arms at stake will rightfully be upset. And then some third party like CNN will come along with the enlightened centrist fallacy and say "Well why don't we cut off just one arm? And you need to stop being so hostile towards the person who wants to take both of your arms and show some decorum."

- The Insidious Violence of Civility Politics

[NED funded]

One calls out people for being terrible the other calls out people for existing. Herp derp both sides.

For existing. I wish this kind of exageration wasnt so common.

People disagreeing with your pet peeve social issue doesnt mean they literally want to wipe out an entire group

[Kathranis]

People disagreeing with your pet peeve social issue doesnt mean they literally want to wipe out an entire group

You'd be surprised how many people on the right literally advocate killing.

[Elegiac]

For existing. I wish this kind of exageration wasnt so common.

People disagreeing with your pet peeve social issue doesnt mean they literally want to wipe out an entire group

The "pet peeve social issues" being disagreed with have to do with being able to exist as one's authentic self without being denied the same rights and privileges as others, so you're not actually refuting their point.

[Endus]

For existing. I wish this kind of exageration wasnt so common.

People disagreeing with your pet peeve social issue doesnt mean they literally want to wipe out an entire group

When those social issues are LGBTQ+ rights and freedoms, or racial/ethnic equity, , or religious freedoms (including freedom from Christian oppression) it's literally about their existence in society.

There is no "exaggeration" in play, here.

If you're pushing to deny trans healthcare and passing laws to keep trans people out of the bathrooms designated for the gender they express, you're actively endorsing genocide. That's the term for such laws. It's actively being perpetrated right now in the USA. That's not alarmism or exaggeration; it's just a plain fact.

- - - Updated - - -

If one person wants to cut off your two arms, the person who has two arms at stake will rightfully be upset. And then some third party like CNN will come along with the enlightened centrist fallacy and say "Well why don't we cut off just one arm? And you need to stop being so hostile towards the person who wants to take both of your arms and show some decorum."

- The Insidious Violence of Civility Politics

What needs to be acnowledged more often is that these hateful positions are, themselves, inherently "uncivil". If you're advocating for excluding trans girls from school sports (just to pick an issue, we could do this with anything like this), you're being an abusive and bigoted ding-dong to those trans students and the entire trans community. You threw the first abusive rhetorical "punches". People calling you a bigoted fuckwad shithead and making you run away from the school sport grounds are just responding in kind, in defense of innocents. You're not being treated with any greater incivility than you brought with you into the situation, intentionally. You're a sadistic shithead who gets off on hurting innocents and who's too chickenshit about it to pick a target who might hit back. You lost all chance of being respected when you opened your shitty mouth and shat that vocal diarrhea out in public. Now you'll be treated like the hateful abuser you've demonstrated yourself to be.

The same way if you hit your kid at that sport event and other parents dragged you off them and held you down, even if you got injured in the process. You're the instigator, the aggressor, here. Fuck off with your victim complex.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Who said all traditions are good? Not me lol

But you still haven't managed to find an answer for why that particular tradition is good.