Elon Musk $44 Billion Twitter deal

I have to say the Biden team requesting certain right wing accounts censored over the Hunter Biden laptop scandal, during a Presidential election, Actor James Wood considering legal action, not against Twitter, as they’re protected by Section 230, but government led agencies, who are not, could be in clear breach of the 1st Amendment requesting Twitter silence certain views.

Originally Posted by Mick

I have to say the Biden team requesting certain right wing accounts censored over the Hunter Biden laptop scandal, during a Presidential election, Actor James Wood considering legal action, not against Twitter, as they’re protected by Section 230, but government led agencies, who are not, could be in clear breach of the 1st Amendment requesting Twitter silence certain views.

If it's the Biden campaign doing it, who weren't in power anyway, wouldn't be in breach. Especially if they complained but didn't use any threats.

If the White House did it then maybe but again it depends if it was a request or not. Political campaigns are always complaining to the media about coverage for example but that doesn't amount to using state power to silence someone.

Originally Posted by Damien

If it's the Biden campaign doing it, who weren't in power anyway, wouldn't be in breach. Especially if they complained but didn't use any threats.

If the White House did it then maybe but again it depends if it was a request or not. Political campaigns are always complaining to the media about coverage for example but that doesn't amount to using state power to silence someone.

Both Biden’s campaign and the White House asked for tweets to be removed.

https://www.businessinsider.com/twit...2-12?r=US&IR=T

Twitter in 2020 granted requests from both President Donald Trump's White House and candidate Joe Biden's campaign to remove content, according to a thread published Friday by independent journalist Matt Taibbi.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by ianch99

You literally do not read posts do you? I certainly did not equate "Katie Hopkins to a neo-Nazi"

Well it was in the same post, who in your reply to me were you referring to then?

Originally Posted by ianch99

People like Katie Hopkins, Tommy Robinson and Steve Bannon may be posting again

Never knew neo-nazis were your thing, takes all sorts I guess.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Well it was in the same post, who in your reply to me were you referring to then?

God, this is tedious.

I said:

Other notable unbanned are Andrew Anglin, one of America’s most notorious neo-Nazis. The creator of the white supremacist website The Daily Stormer who had been banned from the social media platform for nearly a decade.

A neo-Nazi, got it yet?

I also linked to a Daily Mail article where they think people like Katie Hopkins, Tommy Robinson and Steve Bannon may be unbanned and posting again.

Not neo-Nazis, understand?

[Ramrod]

A decent explanation of the sequence of events:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-ne...-emails-story/

[ianch99]

Here's a good example of Musk unbanning someone who really should not have a platform on social media:

Andrew Tate Is Back on Twitter. Here's Why He's Still Banned Almost Everywhere Else

Andrew Tate is back on Twitter. After first being banned from the platform in 2017, the social media personality -- who's been banned from most other platforms for misogynistic comments -- had his Twitter account restored on Friday. He's since amassed 1.5 million followers.

The short story is that 35-year-old Tate is a self-help personality who revels in misogyny. Purporting to extoll wisdom to men that helps them "escape the matrix," Tate has falsely claimed that women bear some responsibility for being sexually assaulted and that they have no "innate responsibility and honor."

After social media platforms blocked him, a spokesperson for Tate told Bloomberg: "Banning Andrew Tate from these platforms might seem the answer, but it isn't that simple. Removing Tate's voice doesn't allow for a kinder hate-free society."

That's not how TikTok sees it.

"Misogyny is a hateful ideology that is not tolerated on TikTok," a company spokesperson said. "We've been removing violative videos and accounts for weeks, and we welcome the news that other platforms are also taking action against this individual."

Says Roose: Tate is an "example of what these [social media] regulations have been put in place to address."

Others may want everyone, including impressionable children, to hear this kind of bile:

Back in 2017, he was kicked off Twitter when, criticizing the #MeToo movement, he said that rape victims "bear some responsibility" for putting themselves in a position to be assaulted, a false claim that seeks to exonerate the perpetrators of violence against women. Speaking about married women who make money via OnlyFans, a subscription service known for sexually explicit content, Tate said they owe their partners money since they're a man's property. Explaining why he'd never let a woman drive his car, he claimed that women "have no innate responsibility or honor."

but I for one, do not and he is just one of many ...

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Here's a good example of Musk unbanning someone who really should not have a platform on social media:

Andrew Tate Is Back on Twitter. Here's Why He's Still Banned Almost Everywhere Else



Others may want everyone, including impressionable children, to hear this kind of bile:



but I for one, do not and he is just one of many ...

There's just as many left wing, CRT, Antifa, Trans activist nut jobs on there as well. What's your point?

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Pierre

There's just as many left wing, CRT, Antifa, Trans activist nut jobs on there as well. What's your point?

Which of these "nut jobs" has Musk unbanned recently? Again, if you read the posts, you would know what my point is.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Which of these "nut jobs" has Musk unbanned recently? Again, if you read the posts, you would know what my point is.

They weren’t banned, that’s the point. Twitter was happy let the left-wing nut jobs on Twitter, but summarily banned anyone on the right. All he is doing is redressing that anomaly.

I’ve read your posts.

You want people you don’t like banned. It doesn’t (or shouldn’t) work that way. As long as they are not breaking the law ( or site rules) by what they post, anyone should be free to post anything.

Originally Posted by Pierre

They weren’t banned, that’s the point. Twitter was happy let the left-wing nut jobs on Twitter, but summarily banned anyone on the right. All he is doing is redressing that anomaly.

I’ve read your posts.

You want people you don’t like banned. It doesn’t (or shouldn’t) work that way. As long as they are not breaking the law ( or site rules) by what they post, anyone should be free to post anything.

Andrew Tate was breaking Twitter’s Site Rules

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article...witter-account

He was permanently suspended from Twitter in 2017 for violating its terms of service but reportedly had snuck back onto the platform using different accounts.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Andrew Tate was breaking Twitter’s Site Rules

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article...witter-account

Yes, well Twitter played fast and loose with their site rules. Banning Dave Rubin, Jordan Peterson etc for matters of opinion, yet taking no action against those threatening to Murder and Rape JK Rowling.

I’m sure Musk will revise the site rules so that as long as the law is not broken, people will be able say what they want, and that will be a good thing.

Out of curiosity what rules did he break, the article you cite does not say.

[Mr K]

Who needs social media when you've got CF?

Has Mr Musk made a bid for the site yet ?

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Mr K

Who needs social media when you've got CF?

Has Mr Musk made a bid for the site yet ?

He can't afford it

---------- Post added at 20:49 ---------- Previous post was at 20:45 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

They weren’t banned, that’s the point. Twitter was happy let the left-wing nut jobs on Twitter, but summarily banned anyone on the right. All he is doing is redressing that anomaly.

I’ve read your posts.

You want people you don’t like banned. It doesn’t (or shouldn’t) work that way. As long as they are not breaking the law ( or site rules) by what they post, anyone should be free to post anything.

Again, your reading fails to match reality. I said people who post hateful and damaging content should not be given a platform to do so. You may be content with men proclaiming women bear a responsibility for being raped and are a man's property, but I am not.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by ianch99

I said people who post hateful and damaging content should not be given a platform to do so

Define that.

Tell me who decides what that is

Tell me who decides who polices that.


Three easy questions.