"the bird is freed" Elon Musk and Twitter

ozhunter on 29/10/2022 - 07:08
Last edited 29/10/2022 - 12:35 by 1 other user

Elon Musk has seemingly been undecisive on whether he is wants to buy Twitter, but it now looks like that dilemma is over.
To avoid a trial, a judge ruled that Elon Musk had until October 28 to close his acquisition of Twitter. He has done so and is now the Chief Twit. He explains why he bought Twitter

Basically he says he wants to help humanity but doesn't want Twitter to be a "free-for-all hellscape" I guess there's Gab for that 😂

I wonder if this part of the reason why Paypal will start charging users(at least in the US) a USD $2,500 fee per violation of its Acceptable Use Policy which includes misinformation?

No account reinstatements yet, but is there any account that OzBargainers are looking forward to be reinstated?

Title is a quote from the Chief Twit's twitter.

Poll: Is Elon Musk buying Twitter good for society?

Poll Options

  • 267
    Yes
  • 554
    No
  • 70
    Unsure
Internet

Related Stores

X (formerly Twitter)
X (formerly Twitter)

Comments

    • ozhunter on 29/10/2022 - 14:20
      +1

      That's probably the biggest name that people are wondering if he will get his account back. Would he really use it though, consider he has Truth Social now.

      • SBOB on 29/10/2022 - 14:27
        +5

        Of course he would.
        If twitter is the 'town square' of the internet, truth social is the equivalent of the a small pub with 3 patrons.

        • ozhunter on 29/10/2022 - 14:42

          Lool, I'll be the 4th when it's available in Australia without a vpn.

          Would he be as active though? Maybe he'll link his Truth Social in every tweet. 😁 Midterms in the US are coming up, so I'll guess we'll wait and see assuming his account is reinstated by then.

      • 900dollaridoos on 29/10/2022 - 22:14

        He's said he won't return, but if he runs again next cycle he'd be mad not to.
        Say what you will about him but the guy can market, and twitter was his best method of marketing last time.

    • trapper on 30/10/2022 - 03:20

      It will have to happen.

      The is no way Elon could keep Trump blocked and not immediately be failing in his free speech mission.

      • [Deactivated] on 31/10/2022 - 05:15
        -1

        Given people I reported yesterday are already banned…

        Absolute free speech and profit don’t mix. Hell Elon wouldn’t even be allowed to travel to half the countries he does business in if he doesn’t follow their laws.

      • [Deactivated] on 10/11/2022 - 11:38

        A couple of weeks later, Trump is still blocked but there’s no longer a way to say a public figure vs an impersonator is actually behind a particular account…

        What’s the mission again?

      • trapper on 22/11/2022 - 11:37
        +1

        Trump is now unbanned.

    • Cusack on 30/10/2022 - 21:15
      -1

      Good.

  • prodrome on 29/10/2022 - 09:12
    -8

    I'm no anti-semite. I have deleted my account.

    • Sleeqb7 on 29/10/2022 - 11:24
      +1

      What?
      Are you confusing Elon Musk with Kanye West, or am I missing something?

      • prodrome on 29/10/2022 - 11:48
        -1

        Adidas canceled Kayne West.

        Elon Musk undeleted Kanye West on Twitter.

        • SBOB on 29/10/2022 - 11:59
          +4

          No, Kanye's account was reinstated prior to elons acquisition.
          He's even tweeted he had nothing to do with it

          • prodrome on 29/10/2022 - 12:21
            -2

            @SBOB: I don't believe that - I think Musk is lying.

            • sjj89 on 29/10/2022 - 12:46
              +1

              @prodrome: Kanye was suspended, not permanently banned.
              Same with Insta/fb. He’s back on those platforms now too

            • SBOB on 29/10/2022 - 13:01
              +1

              @prodrome: So Elon is lying about Kanye's account becoming reenabled, which happened prior to his finalisation of the twitter acquisition, being not his decision of due to him.

              Talk about just believing whatever narrative you want.

              • prodrome on 29/10/2022 - 15:01
                -1

                @SBOB: I could be wrong.

                They’re both awful people … I know that much

      • michaelTito on 29/10/2022 - 22:14

        hes part of the "I Support da current thing" movement. got confused between Musk and Ye

    • [Deactivated] on 29/10/2022 - 14:21
      +1

      but how does this affect lebron legacy?

    • ozhunter on 29/10/2022 - 18:51
      +1

      So I take it you won't be going to Parler?

  • FrugalDealSeeker on 29/10/2022 - 09:17
    +6

    Rich man bad.

    • SBOB on 29/10/2022 - 09:28
      +6

      Possibly a better default position than 'rich man ido'l?

    • Ryanek on 29/10/2022 - 10:14
      +12

      Did you see his position on Ukraine? Hell yeah he's a bad man.

      • FrugalDealSeeker on 29/10/2022 - 11:00
        +12

        He also suggested China annex Taiwan and set it as a special economic zone. We all know how that worked for Hong Kong.

        • Ryanek on 29/10/2022 - 14:28
          +2

          One of the many reasons I'll never buy a Tesla

        • DashCam AKA Rolts on 29/10/2022 - 15:04
          +7

          He also called the lead rescue diver, in the Thailand cave rescue, a pedo. So there's that as well.

          • whatwasherproblem on 29/10/2022 - 17:19
            +6

            @DashCam AKA Rolts: He also won the defamation case the diver launched against him. Which is frankly absurd to me. Elon wasn't even being subtle with what he was saying and everyone knew what connotations he was trying to make, but this chief twit somehow argued that nobody should take his accusations seriously, and the judge somehow believed him.

            There really is a tiered justice system.

            • trapper on 30/10/2022 - 18:23
              +1

              @whatwasherproblem: I think it would be kind of absurd if people were actually able to successfully sue for defamation over online insults.

              Although someone did call me a fascist the other day… and I could use a bit of extra coin… himmm, maybe I could be convinced :D

              • whatwasherproblem on 30/10/2022 - 20:29
                +1

                @trapper:

                I think it would be kind of absurd if people were actually able to successfully sue for defamation over online insults.

                Why? If you can prove damages, then you can sue for anything. On the contrary, I think it would be absurd to live in the world where people can destroy people's livelihoods based on nonsense accusations and rabble-rousing, and the victim just has zero recourse whatsoever.

                And accusing someone publicly of being a child rapist is defamation per se. That is, you don't even need to prove damages in that case: it's accepted in law (and, y'know, reality) that being considered a pedo is pretty damn devastating to one's public reputation. Damages are assumed.

                Although someone did call me a fascist the other day… and I could use a bit of extra coin

                Unironically go for it, bro. If you can prove that some soy wokescold has damaged your reputation to the point of quantifiable financial damage, then you absolutely have a right to seek restitution. (And who knows? If your case somehow succeeds and sets precedent, then maybe progressives will start to be a little more careful with throwing loaded words like 'fascist' and 'Nazi' around at people they disagree with.)

                • trapper on 30/10/2022 - 21:10

                  @whatwasherproblem:

                  then you can sue for anything

                  Not successfully.

                • twjr on 01/11/2022 - 22:10
                  +1

                  @whatwasherproblem: I actually agree with most of this even if I'm keen to see the precedent set in the opposite direction. That aside, the problem is that, while the law might be fair on paper, in reality in significantly favours those with money. Defamation law is probably one of the worst examples of the unlevel playing field too.

      • cerealJay on 29/10/2022 - 18:54
        +6

        position on Ukraine

        What position on Ukraine exists that is morally sound? None of them are.

        Sending endless unlimited weapons and military equipment to Ukraine, is to invest in war. It's to escalate. Not sending weapons is also problematic. Sending them is problematic. Not sending them is problematic. There is no moral way out, yet you've decided "he bad man" because he raised an idea that doesn't involve pumping up a multi-billion dollar war machine?

        • Ryanek on 29/10/2022 - 20:03
          +1

          I'm talking about his Peace Plan Poll

          It's akin to Russia invading Alaska, killing/driving off the local population, planting their own citizens then polling the populace if they should stay with Russia.

          • cerealJay on 29/10/2022 - 21:09
            +2

            @Ryanek: I don't agree it's akin to your Alaska scenario, but I'm not committing to any argument. His first poll choice involved UN supervision and a democratic process. I'd hardly call that the ideas of a bad guy, but whatever.

          • infinite on 29/10/2022 - 22:19

            @Ryanek: Russians existed in Ukraine long before Ukraine ever existed as a state. They've openly wanted to be back as a part of Russia the entire time. Ukraine never needed to start a war with Russia for that to be the case.

            • [Deactivated] on 31/10/2022 - 05:21
              +2

              @infinite: They voted by majority even in the Russian speaking areas to join Ukraine in 1991. Russia started the war in Ukraine. So wrong on both counts.

              Something to do with oil being discovered in the Donbas.

            • twjr on 01/11/2022 - 21:55

              @infinite: Define 'Russians' and 'Ukraine'. I suspect you'll find it is a little more complicated than you are implying.

        • whatwasherproblem on 29/10/2022 - 20:47
          +2

          I actually agree, but Elon's winning move was to not get involved at all. He was already providing Ukraine with Starlink, so all he had to do was give the same vapid "Slava Ukraini!" facade of support that everyone else in the western world does, and then later when he didn't want to foot the bill for the Starlink anymore he would've had 100% success getting the US government to step in and cover the Starlink costs.

          In reality, instead Elon started inserting himself into the nonsense and gave the MSM enough rope to characterise him (fairly or unfairly) as a Russian asset. Which was only exacerbated when he then decided that he didn't want to foot the Starlink bill right as the glowies announced that they were opening investigations into his dealings.

          Elon inserting himself into the China/Taiwan thingo is more of the same. The winning move is to not be seen anywhere near anything that could be spun as partisan one way or another, but for 'some reason' this billionaire megalomaniac wants to insert himself into geopolitical affairs between foreign countries. Elon may be many things, but "good at picking battles" isn't one of them.

          • cerealJay on 29/10/2022 - 21:06
            +2

            @whatwasherproblem:

            The winning move

            I don't subscribe to the idea that life is a bunch of moves that are pre-determined as winning or losing. We're all moving along trying to figure stuff out as we go, particularly in these big ticket geo political madman hostile conflicts. I haven't looked close enough at Elon's "moves" about inserting himself here or there… he will do what he does from his position as techie weirdo. It's a good thing that not everyone is a carbon copy of a model citizen making all the right moves.

            • whatwasherproblem on 29/10/2022 - 21:36

              @cerealJay:

              I don't subscribe to the idea that life is a bunch of moves that are pre-determined as winning or losing.

              Neither do I, for the record. Perhaps "winning move" was a poor choice of phrase. What I mean by Elon's "winning move" is whatever lets him further his apparent interests (building rockets/robot cars, leading companies, coordinating missions to Mars, whatever he's got planned for Twitter, etc) without adding undue complications and torpedoing his own brand. Building rockets and negotiating billion-dollar deals gets infinitely more complicated when you've got the US government breathing down your neck because they (again, fairly or unfairly) think you're a compromised foreign asset.

              It's a lesson that Elon apparently didn't learn from the cave diving fiasco he was involved in a while back that oldmate mentioned up-thread. He could have just sat that one out (or humbly offered support to the people that were actually conducting the rescue) and he would've been fine. But his ego wouldn't be satisfied with not being the lone hero that saved the kiddies, and the rest is history. Regrettable history.

              • cerealJay on 30/10/2022 - 00:25
                +1

                @whatwasherproblem:

                cave diving fiasco

                Musk tried to help. His mini sub turned out to be impractical and wasn't used, but the Thai Navy kept it for use in future rescues, and were trained how to use it.

                Regrettable history.

                Yes, but Musk did win the defamation case over the "pedo guy" comment. Jurors took less than hour to rule in Musk's favour.

                You need to remember, those kids were trapped and it was a very bad situation. They weren't expected to all survive. People were trying to help. Musk had considerable resources and used them to quickly build a sub. The head of the rescue told him to keep working on it. So it turned out not to fit in cave, so what? He tried. It wasn't a "PR stunt" just because some grumpy diver said so.

                The diver, Vernon Unsworth, who Musk called a "pedo guy", started the insults. He said Musk can "shove the sub up his ass". Now, consider if Musk was genuinely trying to help those kids, how do you think such an attack would go down? Not without return fire. Musk should have known better, but Musk is Musk. This is why the jury took less than 1 hour to award Musk victory in that case.

                It was regrettable from the moment the diver accused Musk of a "PR stunt" with no evidence to support that except his own dislike of Musk. Then he said publicly that Musk can shove it up his ass. And somehow, you've twisted what happened into "Musk is bad guy"? I'm sorry, but that diver was the bigger idiot in that fiasco.

                • dealsucker on 30/10/2022 - 09:36
                  +2

                  @cerealJay: And its refreshing to see someone in power being himself i.e. not having a "politicially correct" filter applied to his mouth. He says what he feels like, a known devil if you will. We need more people in power like Musk

                • whatwasherproblem on 30/10/2022 - 17:18
                  +1

                  @cerealJay:

                  Yes, but Musk did win the defamation case over the "pedo guy" comment.

                  Sure, but that was a miscarriage of justice as far as I (and most) are concerned. It's not even free speech at that point: accusing someone of being a child rapist is heinous and classified as defamation per se in pretty much any first-world legal system. That Musk somehow managed to convince the jury that he was "just joking" is, itself, a joke.

                  Sure, the diver was an idiot too and sure, maybe Musk's sub may have been useful and the diver's scoffing was unhelpful. But Musk was 100% in the wrong there. You don't get to accuse people of heinous crimes just because they think your submarine idea is stupid and that you're an egomaniac.

                  • [Deactivated] on 30/10/2022 - 17:29
                    +1

                    @whatwasherproblem: 'Accidental' insults can also be due to Asperger's

                  • SBOB on 30/10/2022 - 17:41
                    +4

                    @whatwasherproblem:

                    You don't get to accuse people of heinous crimes just because they think your submarine idea is stupid and that you're an egomaniac.

                    unless you're rich….

                  • cerealJay on 30/10/2022 - 18:11
                    +4

                    @whatwasherproblem:

                    miscarriage of justice

                    Oh, so the $190 million the diver wanted in damages would have been "justice"?

                    The diver got zero dollars after the jury looked at the facts: An exchange of insults, started by the diver for no reason. Musk returned fire with an equally immature insult and promptly deleted it soon after, then apologised. Obviously there was no serious accusation in all that. It was an angry escalation of stupid insults, and any idiot can see that both sides were being children. That's why the diver got nothing. Your "miscarriage of justice" claim is a joke.

                  • trapper on 30/10/2022 - 18:40
                    +1

                    @whatwasherproblem:

                    You don't get to accuse people of heinous crimes

                    You know it's not actually illegal to be a 'pedo' …

                    • whatwasherproblem on 30/10/2022 - 20:11
                      +1

                      @trapper: He straight up called the guy a child rapist in his follow-up, man. He was even hiring private investigators and leaking stuff to journalists. From the article (emphasis mine):

                      The following month, after receiving an email from the BuzzFeed News reporter Ryan Mac, the 48-year-old tech executive emailed the journalist with a barrage of fresh allegations, claiming without offering evidence that Unsworth was a "child rapist" who married a 12-year-old and urging Mac to investigate. Mac subsequently published the email, which Musk had prefaced with "off the record."

                      James Howard-Higgins, a private eye hired by Musk to dig into Unsworth, was also tasked with feeding information surreptitiously back to the press, the new documents indicate. An email to Howard-Higgins from Jared Birchall, the head of Musk's family office, said: "We would like you to immediately move forward with 'leaking' this information to the UK press. Obviously must be done very carefully."

                      @cerealJay how is it not a "serious accusation" if Elon was emailing journalists asking them to investigate the dude? There's 'getting heated on Twitter' and then there's whatever the (profanity) Elon was trying to do. It was absolutely unhinged behaviour from rocketman. He was out to destroy this guy's entire life over a Twitter spat.

                      • cerealJay on 31/10/2022 - 13:58
                        -1

                        @whatwasherproblem: Again, you're missing the point. The diver drew first blood, completely unprovoked.

                        Try imagining the gravity of words from a rescue diver. The potential for damage to Musk was real. On CNN he publicly slammed Musk in a surprisingly toxic manner. I remember at the time thinking it was a strange thing for the diver to say, given everything going on at the time. Surely Musk had done something to this guy in the past. But no, Musk never met him, had no idea who he was.

                        In court, the diver refused to apologise and said "My insult was to the tube and not to Mr Musk personally"… LOL what a fool. He called Musk's sub a PR stunt and to shove it up his rear end. Not an insult? No wonder the jury sided with Musk, who himself apologised several times including directly to the diver in court.

                        The Buzzfeed thing was Musk still angry and lashing out - which is what angry people do when you attack them….

                        So what's the lesson? Don't publicly attack people and go after their reputation when they're trying to help trapped kids in a cave. If the person you attack is someone who gets emotional easily, and escalates words, then things get messy. Don't expect $190 million lottery win when things get messy from your own unfounded attack. Got it?

                        • [Deactivated] on 01/11/2022 - 20:37

                          @cerealJay: There's an enormous difference between telling someone to go (profanity) themselves and defaming someone. One expresses who you are, the other tries to convince other people who the other person is, at its worst this results in deranged third parties making attempts on their life.

                          Normal emotionally healthy people don't lash out by telling journalists that people that upset them are child rapists who married children. This isn't "which is what angry people do when you attack them…." and it's worrying that you think it is.

                          It's actually anti-free speech to take the actions Musk did, which amounted to more than just free speech. And it prove he's 'free speech for me' and he'll use his wealth, position and power to create consequences for anyone that dare speak against him.

                          • trapper on 02/11/2022 - 10:40

                            @[Deactivated]:

                            and defaming someone.

                            The court already ruled that there was no defamation.

                            So it may actually be defamatory for you to still be claiming it was!

                          • cerealJay on 02/11/2022 - 14:01
                            +1

                            @[Deactivated]:

                            One expresses who you are…

                            You're implying the diver is a free-loving expressionist, out for a Sunday drive. But he accused Musk of a PR stunt in a CNN interview, without any chance for Musk to respond in that forum. This could damage Musk's reputation if everyone took the diver's word as truth. Not only Musk, but the team of engineers who built the sub.

                            So Musk unleashed his own "untruth" insult retaliation. He deliberately made something up in the same manner the diver did. He also deleted the tweet soon after.

                            When kids need help, and your efforts to help are labelled a PR stunt, the insinuation is that you are scum. Only a scumbag sees profit in tragedy. When the accusations are broadcast on CNN, you're playing a dangerous game as the accuser.

                            Normal emotionally healthy people don't lash out

                            When did I say Musk was normal, or emotionally healthy? It's irrelevant what sort of character flaws Musk has. Some people lash out in arguments, which is foolish, but it's life. People make mistakes.

                            Note how the lefty press came out crying about the verdict. This is the problem with anti-free speech nutjobs. They won't be happy until every author of an emotionally heated tweet is banned from the internet, and made to pay huge fines if they use insults not on the "approved list of insults"!

                            Learn the difference between an insult, and a real accusation. BTW, the compensation amount sought was $190 million, which shows you just what an idiot the diver's legal team was. If the amount was more sensible, maybe the jury wouldn't have shut the door so quickly. The diver showed himself to be greedy, hoping for a big pay day. "Pedo guy" would have been THE BEST thing to ever happen to him if he won, and that's not how justice is meant to work.

                            • [Deactivated] on 02/11/2022 - 15:31

                              @cerealJay: I mean it was very obviously a PR stunt. If you couldn’t work that out at the time you should surely be aware of that now. The truth shouldn’t be controversial.

                              I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how suing someone or a company works. Amounts are always high vs companies or the extremely wealthy, they’re pointless if low because the intent isn’t to get a payday, it’s to convince the person to cease and apologise. When you’re worth hundreds pf billions $190m is actually extremely low. The jury can award any amount, up to the amount sought, the jury gave their reasons and the amount wasn’t one of them, so you might be better informed instead of engaging in blind idol worship.

                              It was open and shut defamation, the consideration isn’t at all how ‘greedy’ the plaintiff is, the consideration is how much is needed to stop the offending. It’s pure envy to think it is.

                              • cerealJay on 02/11/2022 - 18:34
                                -1

                                @[Deactivated]:

                                it’s to convince the person to cease and apologise

                                Musk apologised and "ceased" well before the court case. That was the whole reason he won the case: "JDart". Whatever you make of that acronym, funnily enough almost your username, it won Musk the case and made sense.

                                "Obviously a PR stunt"… no it wasn't. You could say that about anything. "Oh those volunteer fire fighters just want more donations", etc. You have deep seated bias going on in your position. You might remember those kids were stuck, and even the doctor who administered the anaesthetic, wasn't confident they would all make it. It was pretty much a last resort how they got them out. So they needed ideas and help. At least Musk did something. What did you do? Sit on your couch scratching your balls? Now on your moral high horse telling us how it is? LOL.

                                It was open and shut defamation,

                                The only thing open and shut, is your failure to present a good argument here. Musk didn't defame the guy. That was the finding, regardless of what the lefty whinge press said, that you subscribe to.

                • tonka on 02/11/2022 - 18:24
                  +1

                  @cerealJay: I've thought that Elon's Sub project should be a compulsory study for every executive team. Amazing turn around. That was probably Elon at his best I think. Companies can't get stuff like that done, it takes years. (although China has some crazy hospital building capability). That team likely worked 24x7 spent millions and the Pedo guy used it for his moment of fame.

                  • cerealJay on 02/11/2022 - 18:43

                    @tonka: We need more of that. I wish Musk and other engineers would help invent stuff to battle those huge wild fires that destroy our forests. Our current technology is basically a bucket attached to a helicopter in most cases. Or those massively impractical airliners. We need special drones that swarm to a fire in the thousands, on auto-pilot, all carrying a little bit of water… or something.

                  • cerealJay on 02/11/2022 - 19:00
                    -1

                    @tonka: Also, did you see this…

                    https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1587498907336118274

                    Stirring the pot and shaking things up. We need more of that. It's good stuff. Funny replies too… even Stephen King having a rant about it and threatening to leave Twitter. "Oh no, please don't go Mr Stephen King" LOL

      • trapper on 30/10/2022 - 03:38
        +3

        Elon is concerned about a nuclear exchange with Russia which would be the end of our world - this could literally happen at any moment.

        People these days either forget or don't seem to realise the reality of the situation. It is not possible to 'defeat' Russia in any meaningful sense.

        I am 100% on Ukraine's side and I wish they can get back all their territory including Crimea. Massive reparations would be in order too, but that is never going to happen…

        Either Putin unilaterally gives up and goes home, or there needs to be a negotiated peace.

        • Paul B on 30/10/2022 - 11:20
          +2

          Putin opposition like Kasparov warned that negotiation conceding anything to Russia will only be seen as a green light. They will buy time to rebuild military then invade another target as proven many times before. The price always goes up the longer he is power.

          • trapper on 30/10/2022 - 14:05

            @Paul B: Kasparov could well be right.

            But the literal end of our world is still far worse than any other outcome.

            • Paul B on 30/10/2022 - 14:34
              +2

              @trapper: Conceding anything to invaders makes that more likely. I don't think Musk is remotely equipped to be involved at all. He is parroting Kremlin propaganda and winking at Medvedev

              • whatwasherproblem on 30/10/2022 - 17:36
                +2

                @Paul B:

                I don't think Musk is remotely equipped to be involved at all.

                He's absolutely unqualified to be involved.

                As are most of the Twitterati blue checks, by the way. We're deep in an information-age fog of war at the moment and the majority of the information (on both sides, i.e. not just the Russian one) that people are basing their takes on is just straight-up propaganda. It's safe to assume that Elon's not privy to any more information about the conflict than the rest of us are (because why would he be?), which means that his opinions, too, are based on fictitious narratives coming from both sides.

                • tonka on 02/11/2022 - 18:30

                  @whatwasherproblem: (because why would he be?) well he does control a big chuck of the military communication. SpaceX may give him a level of security clearance as well. Not to mention that giant ring of satellites he has.

              • trapper on 30/10/2022 - 17:45
                +1

                @Paul B:

                He is parroting Kremlin propaganda and winking at Medvedev

                That is so ridiculously naive.

        • [Deactivated] on 31/10/2022 - 05:32
          -2

          He’s concerned the war is bad for his personal bottom line, his text messages revealed in the discover in the suit to force him to buy Twitter revealed that.

          A nuclear exchange is more, not less likely if people capitulate every time it’s threatened.

          Russia is absolutely being defeated, humiliated. Them using a nuclear weapon (if any are even still functional) would end them for zero advantage.

          • trapper on 31/10/2022 - 11:54

            @[Deactivated]:

            Them using a nuclear weapon (if any are even still functional) would end them for zero advantage.

            Don't be under any illusions about the Russian nukes not being functional.

            They have the largest stockpile of nuclear weapon in the world, with over 1500 actively deployed and ready to launch.

            If this escalates to WW3 we are all fu8ked, it is not possible to win.

            • [Deactivated] on 02/11/2022 - 15:41
              -2

              @trapper: They might be, but also they might not, they require maintenance for the warheads to still detonate, given how non functional the rest of their military is it’s not really out of the question they haven’t been maintained. Especially since the people pilfering the money meant to
              maintain them could make a reasonable assumption they would only be found out in a scenario where it no longer matters.

              Sure, there shouldn’t be an assumption they don’t work, but equally dangerous is the assumption that a threat of their use should be taken as if it’s actually going to happen. Ultimately it has never been the case that making concessions under threat has ever lead to a sustainable peace they always lead to the demand for more concessions. The world already conceded in 2014 and it just emboldened the Russians to take more action.

              This doesn’t end until Russia is incapable of fighting for a generation. Any concessions should be limited to not putting the internationally recognized borders of Russia under real threat or we can all give up and go home. There would be nothing stopping China from seizing Australia if they knew the US and UK would back down under a threat of nuclear war. Ultimately threatening Russia with retaliatory strikes has had them back down, while concessions saw them ramp up. It’s not good to be the first to escalate but it’s essential to not de escalate before the aggressor.

  • shaybisc on 29/10/2022 - 09:29
    +9

    As Expected, Trump's Social Network Is Rapidly Banning Users It Doesn't Like, Without Telling Them Why

    https://www.techdirt.com/2022/02/24/as-expected-trumps-socia…

    • Spaceback on 29/10/2022 - 10:14

      Anything that shines a bad light on Trump is banned.
      Trump warp speeded the vaccines and it is something that is very controversial in those circles.

      The context is important.

      I would like them to have only drawn the line where there is outright violence. For everything else, most people can decide what they want to look at. Give the users the tools to filter content and that should be enough.

      • SBOB on 29/10/2022 - 10:53
        +1

        I would like them to have only drawn the line where there is outright violence. For everything else, most people can decide what they want to look at. Give the users the tools to filter content and that should be enough.

        I think 'outright violence' is a tad too lenient. Theres plenty of 'harm' before someone gets to violence that could be called out and moderated.

        What about for users that get banned and make new accounts? Do you have a stance on that?

        • ozhunter on 29/10/2022 - 19:05
          -1

          Theres plenty of 'harm' before someone gets to violence that could be called out and moderated.

          That can basically cover any thing that someone wants it to, eg.. elections, climate change, lgbt, transgenderism, covid, vaccines. It is unexpected that he made that comment. Maybe Spaceback is more of a free speech absolutist than anyone here.

      • infinite on 29/10/2022 - 22:15
        -1

        No one had an issue with vaccine development, they had an issue with it then later on being forced on people despite never working as promised, like what the Nazi's did to the blacks and Jews leading into WW2.

    • Caped Baldy on 29/10/2022 - 10:27
      +4

      Anything they complain about is what they want. r/conservative is now a safe space for their intolerance.

      • AustriaBargain on 29/10/2022 - 14:39
        +3

        Reddit isn't a safe space for anyone. Sure trans rights activists rule the roost today, but how long until they start factionising and the "wrong" TRA factions start getting banned?

        • freefall101 on 29/10/2022 - 19:06
          +2

          Mate of mine was a moderator of a large lgbt group on reddit, the level and details of the threats meant he had to speak to the fbi (he’s a yank) a few times.

          Definitely isn’t a safe space for trans people in the sense they can be themselves openly. Might get a couple of obvious subreddits devoted to hating on people closed but that’s about it.

          • AustriaBargain on 29/10/2022 - 19:37
            +3

            @freefall101: Reddit is dead. It's not the same Reddit that you may have heard about many years ago. It's more like Tumblr now.

            • freefall101 on 29/10/2022 - 23:17

              @AustriaBargain: Don't really use it, so I don't know. But from those I know who are involved with it, it's a complete shitshow no matter what side you're on. Even my strongly anti-vax, Donald Trump supporting friends think people on Reddit who "agree" with them are a few cans short of a six pack.

            • [Deactivated] on 02/11/2022 - 15:48

              @AustriaBargain: Ultimately Reddit is extremely different depending on the subreddit. Probably no humans have enough time to moderate political subreddits effectively. It won’t really die the way Tumblr has unless something better comes along, because there’s a lot of far less controversial stuff there.

          • infinite on 29/10/2022 - 22:13

            @freefall101: The FBI investigates people for pointing out dudes in dresses are still dudes & vice-versa?

            • freefall101 on 29/10/2022 - 23:15
              +3

              @infinite: They investigate threatening to kill people because some people are so insecure about other people's gender they completely lose their minds over it.

              At least making jokes about dudes in dresses is about the peak of 1980s comedy that it doesn't really harm anyone. I think most trans people have come to terms with dealing with that one long ago, they just want to live their lives relatively normally.

              • AustriaBargain on 30/10/2022 - 00:08
                +4

                @freefall101: My problem with the trans issue is that Reddit is manufacturing consent. It's worse than Tumblr because at least Tumblr evolved that way on its own, Reddit is forcing their own agenda on people by banning anyone who doesn't bend the knee. I do think trans people should be free to live their lives as they wish, but I don't think you can force straight men into sleeping with trans women for example, or at least saying that they would out of fear of being cancelled or banned. Reddit is manufacturing this view behind the scenes even though it knows it isn't even mainstream enough to survive the front page.

                • [Deactivated] on 02/11/2022 - 15:49

                  @AustriaBargain: Some hot takes here

                  force straight men into sleeping with trans women

                  That would be advocating rape and banned by reddit.

    • ozhunter on 29/10/2022 - 14:51
      +1

      So now you're against censorship? Or you just don't like it when it happens to views you agree with?

      • cashews on 30/10/2022 - 11:31
        +4

        A social media company advertises itself as a free speech platform and bans users for speech.

      • [Deactivated] on 02/11/2022 - 15:54

        People are free to do anything legal on their own private platforms, pointing out they’re massive hypocrites doesn’t change that.

        The government has to be careful not to
        punish people for political speech. Otherwise the only real issue with platforms doing what they want is if they’re monopolies, which is a separate issue. But Twitter isn’t a monopoly (the active user base is tiny) and whatever other obscure platform definitely isn’t. There’s a bigger argument against Apple’s content policies

    • trapper on 30/10/2022 - 03:44

      Political control of any public arena is always going to work out that way.

      I mean why argue, when you can just delete the opposition.

  • iCandy on 29/10/2022 - 09:30
    +2

    I like Twitter for following independent news services and reading news MSM won’t publish. Censorship is never a good thing as the public needs both sides of a topic to make a considered decision on a topic. Far too many rely on following one side and believe they have made their own decision when they have merely followed the route espoused by MSM. If an idea is great it will survive a challenge and debate. Too many virtue signallers telling us what to think. Always research both sides of an argument.

    • ForkSnorter on 29/10/2022 - 10:27

      I like Twitter for following independent news services

      The ABC is independent. Do you follow them on Twitter? Or do you classify ABC as MSM because it's left-leaning?

      and reading news MSM won’t publish

      What news won't MSM publish? As far as I can tell, news is news. Journalists report what happens, and newspapers publish that information as is.

      Or are you talking about opinion articles?

      Always research both sides of an argument.

      When you do this, I think you should try to objectively evaluate the credibility and biases of your sources, and remember that there are not two sides to a fact.

      • Sleeqb7 on 29/10/2022 - 11:28
        +6

        What news won't MSM publish?

        My thought was things that Michael West or Friendlyjordies covers (Ripe for defamation type reporting), or things that are negative about the MSM itself.

        However given iCandy talking about "virtue signallers" it's my opinion that they're more likely talking about antivax stuff. Those things often go hand in hand.

      • pegaxs on 29/10/2022 - 12:36
        -1

        LoL @ ABC being independent and left leaning.

        The ABC is a right-wing propaganda machine for the liberal party. Always has been. If anything, even with the change in government, it's pulled back from near extreme right-wing nutbaggery and liberal party shilling to cutting back on Labor bashing by about 5~10%, which, I guess to most right-wingers, makes it a left wing news source.

        • Namesareapain on 29/10/2022 - 17:05
          +2

          You clearly have no idea what so ever.

        • iCandy on 30/10/2022 - 10:33

          Everyone except you knows ABC is left leaning.

      • iCandy on 30/10/2022 - 10:30
        +1

        Haha ABC independent.

        • ForkSnorter on 30/10/2022 - 10:35
          +1

          Evidence that it's not independent? Evidence that the sources you follow are more independent? Evidence that their independence ensures greater accuracy/impartiality?

      • iCandy on 30/10/2022 - 10:34

        If you are only getting your news from MSM then you definitely aren’t researching both sides to a story.

        • ForkSnorter on 30/10/2022 - 10:36
          +4

          It pays to read widely, but also to understand the reliability and biases of each source. Not all stories have 2 sides. Again, there are not 2 sides to a fact.

          • iCandy on 30/10/2022 - 11:01

            @ForkSnorter: You’d do well to pay attention to your own advice.

            • ForkSnorter on 30/10/2022 - 11:09
              +4

              @iCandy: I've enough experience debating conspiracy theorists and far-right extremists to know that anyone using the word "MSM" with derision is likely extremely biased, confines their reading to an echo chamber of sources (which they rarely question), and knows very little about three essential factors in any search for truth: 1. cognitive biases (e.g. confirmation bias), 2. science (empiricism and human knowledge), and 3. journalism.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join