Jump to content
UnevenEdge

Elon Musk now owns Twitter, apparently trying to run it into the ground


Jman

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, André Toulon said:

Omfg, ok MD....I think we're at the point where I have to give you the same warning I have to give others.

At this point, I'm pretty much the only one that still wants you around....that has not turned out well for previous users. When you start to entertain me, it's grits for you.

Hold up, I want my punching dummy to stay.

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Master-Debater131 said:

 

Looks like Musk killed another wing of the global censorship racket.

At least for now, Im sure they will rebrand and be right back at trying to censor views they dont like.

Boycotts are anti-free speech?

And it has nothing to do with him telling advertisers to fuck off if they don't agree with him

What is free speech again? The meaning seems to keep changing. I think it's "Right wingers not facing consequences for their actions" yeah?

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Raptorpat said:

Please explain how boycotts are censorship rather than protected speech.

A boycott is protected speech, and its something we see all the time. The Left have weaponized boycotts to great success, and the Right finally learned how to do the same with Bud Light.


But this, this isnt a boycott. This is a cabal of companies who were wielding their collective power to try and silence any speech they did not agree with. In the 2020 election HP, through this very group, said that any mention of the Hunter Biden Laptop must be suppressed. Think its a legitimate story that should be investigated? You no longer have advertising dollars on your website.

Lets put it this way, lets say that Visa, MasterCard, AmEx and Discover all no longer agrees with the Democratic platform so they decide that they will wield their immense power to shut anything related to the Democratic party out of their systems. No more fundraising, no more paying volunteers with credit, no more access to pretty much anything in this country anymore.

Thats not a boycott, thats censorship. They, using their vast power, have just decided for everyone that the speech of the Democratic party is no longer allowed. Thats exactly what we see with groups like this. They wield their immense power to freeze out any speech that they might disagree with.

 

I am consistently amazed that the same group of people who constantly rail against billionaires and these mega corporations rush to defend them in cases like this. Is it OK for these mega corps to wield their massive power to influence speech and politics, or isnt it?

  • Haha 1
  • D'oh 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Master-Debater131 said:

A boycott is protected speech, and its something we see all the time. The Left have weaponized boycotts to great success, and the Right finally learned how to do the same with Bud Light.


But this, this isnt a boycott. This is a cabal of companies who were wielding their collective power to try and silence any speech they did not agree with. In the 2020 election HP, through this very group, said that any mention of the Hunter Biden Laptop must be suppressed. Think its a legitimate story that should be investigated? You no longer have advertising dollars on your website.

Lets put it this way, lets say that Visa, MasterCard, AmEx and Discover all no longer agrees with the Democratic platform so they decide that they will wield their immense power to shut anything related to the Democratic party out of their systems. No more fundraising, no more paying volunteers with credit, no more access to pretty much anything in this country anymore.

Thats not a boycott, thats censorship. They, using their vast power, have just decided for everyone that the speech of the Democratic party is no longer allowed. Thats exactly what we see with groups like this. They wield their immense power to freeze out any speech that they might disagree with.

 

I am consistently amazed that the same group of people who constantly rail against billionaires and these mega corporations rush to defend them in cases like this. Is it OK for these mega corps to wield their massive power to influence speech and politics, or isnt it?

Only a paragraph in and I can already tell this is going to be brilliantly incoherent.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Master-Debater131 said:

A boycott is protected speech, and its something we see all the time. The Left have weaponized boycotts to great success, and the Right finally learned how to do the same with Bud Light.


But this, this isnt a boycott. This is a cabal of companies who were wielding their collective power to try and silence any speech they did not agree with. In the 2020 election HP, through this very group, said that any mention of the Hunter Biden Laptop must be suppressed. Think its a legitimate story that should be investigated? You no longer have advertising dollars on your website.

Lets put it this way, lets say that Visa, MasterCard, AmEx and Discover all no longer agrees with the Democratic platform so they decide that they will wield their immense power to shut anything related to the Democratic party out of their systems. No more fundraising, no more paying volunteers with credit, no more access to pretty much anything in this country anymore.

Thats not a boycott, thats censorship. They, using their vast power, have just decided for everyone that the speech of the Democratic party is no longer allowed. Thats exactly what we see with groups like this. They wield their immense power to freeze out any speech that they might disagree with.

 

I am consistently amazed that the same group of people who constantly rail against billionaires and these mega corporations rush to defend them in cases like this. Is it OK for these mega corps to wield their massive power to influence speech and politics, or isnt it?

They’re private companies that don’t want to be associated with a platform that allows misinformation and bigotry. They don’t have to advertise on Twitter if they don’t want to 

And yes MD sometimes billionaires use their money in evil ways like when they buy politicians and insert massive amounts of $$ to PACs that unfairly fuck with elections.  Not wanting to advertise on Twitter isn’t that. Musk is a billionaire. He’ll live. Besides the companies didn’t ceensor Musk or Twitter they and Musk can say wtf they want within the terms of use doesn’t mean companies must advertise or post on his platform 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Master-Debater131 said:

A boycott is protected speech, and its something we see all the time. The Left have weaponized boycotts to great success, and the Right finally learned how to do the same with Bud Light.


But this, this isnt a boycott. This is a cabal of companies who were wielding their collective power to try and silence any speech they did not agree with. In the 2020 election HP, through this very group, said that any mention of the Hunter Biden Laptop must be suppressed. Think its a legitimate story that should be investigated? You no longer have advertising dollars on your website.

Lets put it this way, lets say that Visa, MasterCard, AmEx and Discover all no longer agrees with the Democratic platform so they decide that they will wield their immense power to shut anything related to the Democratic party out of their systems. No more fundraising, no more paying volunteers with credit, no more access to pretty much anything in this country anymore.

Thats not a boycott, thats censorship. They, using their vast power, have just decided for everyone that the speech of the Democratic party is no longer allowed. Thats exactly what we see with groups like this. They wield their immense power to freeze out any speech that they might disagree with.

 

I am consistently amazed that the same group of people who constantly rail against billionaires and these mega corporations rush to defend them in cases like this. Is it OK for these mega corps to wield their massive power to influence speech and politics, or isnt it?

You think it takes a "cabal" (lol holy shit) to recognize how much of a shitshow Elon's Twitter is and jump ship? Really?

And now it's clear:

16 minutes ago, Master-Debater131 said:

I am consistently amazed that the same group of people who constantly rail against billionaires and these mega corporations rush to defend them in cases like this. Is it OK for these mega corps to wield their massive power to influence speech and politics, or isnt it?

This is because you don't understand the difference between having a negative opinion of someone and wanting to take that person's rights away.

I don't want "billionaires" to suffer. I want them to face consequences when they do bad things. Someone like Elon or Trump we can relish the suffering of on the basis of them being uniquely terrible people, and the suffering is largely self-inflicted out of bumbling ineptitude.

Unlike you, most people are capable of having multiple, complex thoughts and emotions that are often punctuated by additional context.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, [classic swim] said:

She was so proud to bring up Bud Light. 

I'm stunned she used cabal in that context. Stupid shitsnacker calls people antisemitic for not supporting genocide before using cabal the way Bucket used "shekels".

Quote

The term is sometimes employed as an antisemitic dog whistle due to its evocation of centuries-old antisemitic tropes.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabal

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, André Toulon said:

Omfg, ok MD....I think we're at the point where I have to give you the same warning I have to give others.

At this point, I'm pretty much the only one that still wants you around....that has not turned out well for previous users. When you start to entertain me, it's grits for you.

HERE WE GO!!!!!! giphy-downsized-large.gif

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Master-Debater131 said:

A boycott is protected speech, and its something we see all the time.

1 hour ago, Master-Debater131 said:

But this, this isnt a boycott.

If the whole purpose of a boycott is that a group withholds their collective purchasing power as a means of protest, what is the legal distinction between collectively refusing to buy Bud Light/Yuengling and collectively refusing to buy advertising space? Where is the line between a legal boycott and an illegal boycott?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Raptorpat said:

If the whole purpose of a boycott is that a group withholds their collective purchasing power as a means of protest, what is the legal distinction between collectively refusing to buy Bud Light/Yuengling and collectively refusing to buy advertising space? Where is the line between a legal boycott and an illegal boycott?

I literally explained the difference in that post :|

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Master-Debater131 said:

I literally explained the difference in that post :|

If they are both doing the same thing - collectively withholding their purchasing power as a means of protest - where is the line drawn that makes it all-american in on instance but evil censorship in the other? Is it the scale of the purchasing power? Is it different when it's business-to-business instead of business-to-consumer?

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm confused how MD even thinks Musk has a leg to stand on here.. the dude literally told these companies to "go fuck themselves, I don't want you to advertise here."

Is it even a boycott at that point?

  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Master-Debater131 said:

 

Looks like Musk killed another wing of the global censorship racket.

At least for now, Im sure they will rebrand and be right back at trying to censor views they dont like.

Kindly explain to everyone why someone who no longer wants to spend THEIR money on some asshole's spurge-site should be sued by said asshole to the point where they have to go out of business. 

Melon Husk IS in the censorship racket. The only 'free speech' he encourages is all the shit -isms that make mouth breathers pant. Want to pass around absolute fake news, anti-Semitisms, and tote the greatness that is being a shitheel? Musk is right there to comment, repost, and add to the algorithm. Call out a MAGAt for being a lemming? Banned from a site that supposedly was no longer going to ban anyone because 'free speech'. 

Don't fall for this garbage. He isn't in to you, you aren't going to get a check in the mail, the dude doesn't even pay taxes because he thinks you should pay for all his shit for him. 

  • Thanks 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Free Speech is only free if Elon Musk likes it.   He’s the only one allowed to use his purchase power to beat companies into submission and how dare anyone defy him. 
 

MD seed nothing wrong with this. GARM was the villain for wanting responsible reporting and getting companies to agree with its mission.  MD sees nothing wrong in forcing companies to do business with Musk.  

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know why she propped that up the way she did.

It’s still really, really funny to go into mid 2024 talking about it like it was a big triumph. Shitty beers were free at the liquor locker, it wasn’t the Boston Tea Party.

Edited by [classic swim]
There were more comments.
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Twitter (I refuse to call it X) just isn't the same anymore since Elon's takeover. A lot of my followers have either stopped tweeting or deactivated their accounts and tweets that would've gotten 100K+ likes are now receiving only 30K to 50K likes, which is not a good metric in the world of social media. This means more people have left Twitter behind.

Even my tweets, which were never viral in the first place, aren't receiving much engagement like they used to. I used to receive between 30 to 50 likes, with the occasional 100+ likes, but nowadays, I don't even break 10 likes.

As annoying as Twitter could be, it did change the world and was an icon during the 2010s, but Elon has effectively destroyed Twitter and I don't ever see it bouncing back to its glory days.

Slightly off-topic, Reddit is in the process of self-destructing. First it started with the API and third-party apps drama and now there are rumors Reddit may start to paywall some subs. Really? Paywall some subs? It's enough paywall as it is online, but I guess since Reddit went public, their focus is on profit by any means necessary.

Unchecked capitalism is really destroying the fun in life.

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Elon's daughter, who cut ties with him because he refused to accept her transition, has been calling him out in light of how he's been painting her as "his child lost to the woke mind virus"

More recently she has called out Walter Isaacson on his biography of Musk for framing her as a villain despite not interviewing nor even reaching out to her for the book.

The thread is on, well,Threads

https://www.threads.net/@vivllainous/post/C-jgBWQxyRs

Some highlights below

bafkreiapspvikcik3ekexcbp6z5jncbwrhede5x7ehkosvnqvda3vnc62m.jpg

bafkreihjvwnht5p6r4anr5qwtrotbjeq4m42uek6gzwoemeqdfaney6tze.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Elon has been having a meltdown accusing Brazil for overstepping their legal bounds when he is literally refusing to comply with multiple parts of their constitution including not complying with a judicial request to suspend multiple X users involved in an attempted right wing coup and removing all legal representatives of his platform from Brazil when they are required for that platform to be allowed in Brazil.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, matrixman124 said:

Elon has been having a meltdown accusing Brazil for overstepping their legal bounds when he is literally refusing to comply with multiple parts of their constitution including not complying with a judicial request to suspend multiple X users involved in an attempted right wing coup and removing all legal representatives of his platform from Brazil when they are required for that platform to be allowed in Brazil.

it would seem that 'rule of law' is struggling everywhere. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...