Musk Offer Proves How Elites Are Terrified of Free Speech

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
104,846
58,275
1
Nothing like making it blatantly obvious. Wonder if @Nittany Ned2 is starting to understand who the authoritarians are yet???

The arrogance of the left is off the charts. They alone need to SAVE DEMOCRACY by acting like the CCP.... Hilarious. These people are genuinely sick. Sick Nazi wannabes.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2022/04/15/why-elon-musk-has-rattled-them/

We stand here on the edge of tyranny… Elon Musk wants to buy Twitter. That, roughly speaking, has been the commentariat reaction in recent days as the world’s richest man has launched a takeover attempt of the social-media giant, citing his concerns about its censorious policies as his main motivation.

Musk revealed last week that he had become Twitter’s largest shareholder, with a 9.2 per cent stake. Now he’s offered to buy the whole company for a cool $43 billion, a nice premium on its current worth. As it stands, Twitter’s board is resisting and America’s great and good have gone berserk.

The Washington Post’s Max Boot was swift out of the blocks. ‘I am frightened by the impact on society and politics if Elon Musk acquires Twitter’, Boot tweeted. ‘He seems to believe that on social media anything goes. For democracy to survive, we need more content moderation, not less.'

On an even more demented note, Robert Reich, veteran of the Clinton and Obama administrations, essentially argued that Musk buying Twitter would put us on a fast track to fascism; that Musk’s vision for an ‘uncontrolled’ internet was ‘the dream of every dictator, strongman, demagogue and modern-day robber baron’.


Reich wasn’t the only one gripped by this interesting idea that dictators love free speech and that more of it online will bring the Third Reich back. New York University journalism professor Jeff Jarvis had this poetic response to Musk’s bid: ‘Today on Twitter feels like the last evening in a Berlin nightclub at the twilight of Weimar Germany.’
https://www.spiked-online.com/2022/04/15/why-elon-musk-has-rattled-them/
 

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
20,514
23,636
1
Nothing like making it blatantly obvious. Wonder if @Nittany Ned2 is starting to understand who the authoritarians are yet???

The arrogance of the left is off the charts. They alone need to SAVE DEMOCRACY by acting like the CCP.... Hilarious. These people are genuinely sick. Sick Nazi wannabes.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2022/04/15/why-elon-musk-has-rattled-them/

We stand here on the edge of tyranny… Elon Musk wants to buy Twitter. That, roughly speaking, has been the commentariat reaction in recent days as the world’s richest man has launched a takeover attempt of the social-media giant, citing his concerns about its censorious policies as his main motivation.

Musk revealed last week that he had become Twitter’s largest shareholder, with a 9.2 per cent stake. Now he’s offered to buy the whole company for a cool $43 billion, a nice premium on its current worth. As it stands, Twitter’s board is resisting and America’s great and good have gone berserk.

The Washington Post’s Max Boot was swift out of the blocks. ‘I am frightened by the impact on society and politics if Elon Musk acquires Twitter’, Boot tweeted. ‘He seems to believe that on social media anything goes. For democracy to survive, we need more content moderation, not less.'

On an even more demented note, Robert Reich, veteran of the Clinton and Obama administrations, essentially argued that Musk buying Twitter would put us on a fast track to fascism; that Musk’s vision for an ‘uncontrolled’ internet was ‘the dream of every dictator, strongman, demagogue and modern-day robber baron’.

Reich wasn’t the only one gripped by this interesting idea that dictators love free speech and that more of it online will bring the Third Reich back. New York University journalism professor Jeff Jarvis had this poetic response to Musk’s bid: ‘Today on Twitter feels like the last evening in a Berlin nightclub at the twilight of Weimar Germany.’

https://www.spiked-online.com/2022/04/15/why-elon-musk-has-rattled-them/
These people are deluded, lying , shytbags
 

fairfaxlion2

Well-Known Member
Oct 12, 2014
7,945
6,037
1
My unpopular opinion on this:
* there is nothing wrong with Twitter trying to stop a takeover attempt
* there is nothing inherently wrong with a platform like Twitter deactivating accounts or removing posts for whatever reason. Moderators can do that on any message board-type platform since the beginning of the internet. It happens on this site too, and nobody thinks anything of it.
* Musk is crazy for wanting to buy an overvalued company that has failed to make any money on a regular basis
* the barrier to entry for a Twitter competitor is so low, that its shelf-life is unpredictable. One day it will be in the dustbin of internet history with AOL, askjeeves, and myspace
 

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
104,846
58,275
1
My unpopular opinion on this:
* there is nothing wrong with Twitter trying to stop a takeover attempt
* there is nothing inherently wrong with a platform like Twitter deactivating accounts or removing posts for whatever reason. Moderators can do that on any message board-type platform since the beginning of the internet. It happens on this site too, and nobody thinks anything of it.
* Musk is crazy for wanting to buy an overvalued company that has failed to make any money on a regular basis
* the barrier to entry for a Twitter competitor is so low, that its shelf-life is unpredictable. One day it will be in the dustbin of internet history with AOL, askjeeves, and myspace

No argument on any point. In my mind, Musk has already made his point and BIGLY I might at. All he is doing now is solidifying it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1Hammers1

psu skp

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Nov 7, 2016
7,341
14,756
1
50 yard line after dark
278676881_733159844340964_741403551406917090_n.jpg
 

fairfaxlion2

Well-Known Member
Oct 12, 2014
7,945
6,037
1
No argument on any point. In my mind, Musk has already made his point and BIGLY I might at. All he is doing now is solidifying it.
I agree. And I think Musk is an interesting guy who clearly knows what he is doing in general. But anyone can make miscalculations, even very successful people. He has had his share of very stupid ideas to go along with the good ones (i.e., a vision of using up all of Earth's resources to enable the colonization of Mars). His recent statement that Twitter is vital to the future of civilization is just completely stupid on its face. One can easily imagine a civilization where Twitter does not exist, and it is basically the same as a civilization where Twitter does exist.
 
Last edited:

PSUEngineer89

Well-Known Member
Aug 14, 2021
4,189
6,746
1
I agree. And I think Musk is an interesting guy who clearly knows what he is doing in general. But anyone can make miscalculations, even very successful people. He has had his share of very stupid ideas to go along with the good ones (i.e., a vision of using up all of Earth's resources to enable the colonization of Mars). His recent statement that Twitter is vital to the future of civilization is just completely stupid on its face. One can easily imagine a civilization where Twitter does not exist, and it is basically the same as a civilization where Twitter does exist.
No more censorship.

Perhaps that is Musk's point.

We cannot have anymore censoring if we are to be free.

Far too many liberals are too stupid to do anything but believe what they are told.

They certainly can't think for themselves.
 

fairfaxlion2

Well-Known Member
Oct 12, 2014
7,945
6,037
1
No more censorship.

Perhaps that is Musk's point.

We cannot have anymore censoring if we are to be free.

Far too many liberals are too stupid to do anything but believe what they are told.

They certainly can't think for themselves.

The answer is just creating a competing platform without politically-driven moderators. Someone will do it. Just let the markets work. Twitter will become irrelevant. And no, the platform created by Donald Trump is not the one that will succeed in supplanting them. That one will fail completely

The only problem is, it is undesirable/impossible to have a successful internet message system with absolutely no censorship. It would quickly become a complete cesspool of filth and scams. It's like a lawn full of weeds.
 

PaoliLion

Well-Known Member
Nov 2, 2003
11,561
5,787
1
No more censorship.

Perhaps that is Musk's point.

We cannot have anymore censoring if we are to be free.

Far too many liberals are too stupid to do anything but believe what they are told.

They certainly can't think for themselves.

You don’t spent $45B because you‘re pissed off that Twitter is “censoring” Donald Trump - that’s just what you wankers want to think.

These companies are all private companies and you desperately want the government to step in and regulate the shit out of them. Do you know how to spell “hypocrite”?

The truth is that the authoritarian right doesn’t believe in free speech, what it believes in is “the right to spread misinformation and propaganda” - you know why we know this, because you fvckers are running around trying to put the clamps on what schools can teach, advocating things like “don’t say gay”, trying to suppress the right to vote, etc. The right advocates for highly repressive, authoritarian government.

we see you
 

psu skp

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Nov 7, 2016
7,341
14,756
1
50 yard line after dark
You don’t spent $45B because you‘re pissed off that Twitter is “censoring” Donald Trump - that’s just what you wankers want to think.

These companies are all private companies and you desperately want the government to step in and regulate the shit out of them. Do you know how to spell “hypocrite”?

The truth is that the authoritarian right doesn’t believe in free speech, what it believes in is “the right to spread misinformation and propaganda” - you know why we know this, because you fvckers are running around trying to put the clamps on what schools can teach, advocating things like “don’t say gay”, trying to suppress the right to vote, etc. The right advocates for highly repressive, authoritarian government.

we see you
Congratulations, not one thing you posted is factually accurate. From "don't say gay" to us wanting the government to regulate private companies more than they are already and so on.

Just throwing around words like authoritarian, repressive, and propaganda doesn't hide the fact that today's Democrats (and the left historically) support all of those things. Hence, your attacks on the 2nd Amendment, 1st Amendment, private citizens (you celebrate when they are locked up without due process) to your support of lockdowns, mandates, targeting parents who go to school board meetings as terrorists and so on.

You're not fooling anybody, Bro.
 

PaoliLion

Well-Known Member
Nov 2, 2003
11,561
5,787
1
Congratulations, not one thing you posted is factually accurate. From "don't say gay" to us wanting the government to regulate private companies more than they are already and so on.

Just throwing around words like authoritarian, repressive, and propaganda doesn't hide the fact that today's Democrats (and the left historically) support all of those things. Hence, your attacks on the 2nd Amendment, 1st Amendment, private citizens (you celebrate when they are locked up without due process) to your support of lockdowns, mandates, targeting parents who go to school board meetings as terrorists and so on.

You're not fooling anybody, Bro.

What are you, fvcking 8 years old? Go back to the kiddy pool
 

PaoliLion

Well-Known Member
Nov 2, 2003
11,561
5,787
1
You are the one that behaves like an 8 year old on this board. Look in the mirror.

When you start losing an argument you throw a temper tantrum, just like a child.

Since SKP didn’t do a very good job of making an argument, why don’t you take it on crackerjack. I’m open to a debate if someone were to put forward a thoughtful POV. However, he doesn’t strike me as a particularly high IQ individual and he was spraying nonsense, which isn’t worth my time.
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
22,081
5,261
1
My unpopular opinion on this:
* there is nothing wrong with Twitter trying to stop a takeover attempt
* there is nothing inherently wrong with a platform like Twitter deactivating accounts or removing posts for whatever reason. Moderators can do that on any message board-type platform since the beginning of the internet. It happens on this site too, and nobody thinks anything of it.
* Musk is crazy for wanting to buy an overvalued company that has failed to make any money on a regular basis
* the barrier to entry for a Twitter competitor is so low, that its shelf-life is unpredictable. One day it will be in the dustbin of internet history with AOL, askjeeves, and myspace

Musk is crazy for wanting to buy an overvalued company that has failed to make any money on a regular basis

He is not doing this to make money.

He did not start SpaceX and Tesla to make money. He thought both companies had a roughly 10% chance to survive. He could have taken his millions from the Paypal sale and comfortably lived off the interest of very safe investments for the rest of his life. That is not the way he is wired.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PSUEngineer89

fairfaxlion2

Well-Known Member
Oct 12, 2014
7,945
6,037
1
Musk is crazy for wanting to buy an overvalued company that has failed to make any money on a regular basis

He is not doing this to make money.

He did not start SpaceX and Tesla to make money. He thought both companies had a roughly 10% chance to survive. He could have taken his millions from the Paypal sale and comfortably lived off the interest of very safe investments for the rest of his life. That is not the way he is wired.

That 10% chance of working (risk) is exactly why you make money. Of course he started SpaceX and Tesla to make money.
 

Op2

Well-Known Member
Mar 16, 2014
6,417
4,411
1
You don’t spent $45B because you‘re pissed off that Twitter is “censoring” Donald Trump - that’s just what you wankers want to think.

These companies are all private companies and you desperately want the government to step in and regulate the shit out of them. Do you know how to spell “hypocrite”?

The truth is that the authoritarian right doesn’t believe in free speech, what it believes in is “the right to spread misinformation and propaganda” - you know why we know this, because you fvckers are running around trying to put the clamps on what schools can teach, advocating things like “don’t say gay”, trying to suppress the right to vote, etc. The right advocates for highly repressive, authoritarian government.

we see you
The two options are as follows:

1. Determine what is misinformation and propaganda and then prevent its spread.
2. Let people say what they want.

#2 is preferable and the reason is the word "Determine" in #1. Who gets to determine? And how is it decided who gets to determine?

The column in the OP in this thread is good, but an even better one is linked to in it. I'm referring to the one by Batya Ungar-Sargon. She makes the point that the problem isn't WHICH billionaire gets to determine what can and can't be said but rather that ANY billionaire, or anyone in general, gets to determine what can and can't be said.
 
  • Like
Reactions: m.knox

Op2

Well-Known Member
Mar 16, 2014
6,417
4,411
1
The two options are as follows:

1. Determine what is misinformation and propaganda and then prevent its spread.
2. Let people say what they want.

#2 is preferable and the reason is the word "Determine" in #1. Who gets to determine? And how is it decided who gets to determine?

The column in the OP in this thread is good, but an even better one is linked to in it. I'm referring to the one by Batya Ungar-Sargon. She makes the point that the problem isn't WHICH billionaire gets to determine what can and can't be said but rather that ANY billionaire, or anyone in general, gets to determine what can and can't be said.
Here's another way of putting it. There are two things:

1. Setting up the rules of the game
2. Playing the game

If you have two sides, each side only get to do one of the two things.

So if you have one piece of cake and two kids want it and they have to share, what do you do? You let one of the kids cut it into two pieces and then let the other kid determine which piece he gets. You can't let one kid do both because if you did, the kid would cut one big piece and one small piece and then take the big piece.

Well when it comes to free speech the two things are as follows:

1. Determine whether or not someone gets to be a decider on free speech
2. Pick the person that gets to be decider

If you let someone do both, they're going to say, yes, someone should be the decider, and I pick Person X to decide. That's why you never see anyone say "We need someone to decider what can and can't be said, and the decider should be someone on the other side of the political fence from me." Instead, they always want to do both.
 

PaoliLion

Well-Known Member
Nov 2, 2003
11,561
5,787
1
The two options are as follows:

1. Determine what is misinformation and propaganda and then prevent its spread.
2. Let people say what they want.

#2 is preferable and the reason is the word "Determine" in #1. Who gets to determine? And how is it decided who gets to determine?

The column in the OP in this thread is good, but an even better one is linked to in it. I'm referring to the one by Batya Ungar-Sargon. She makes the point that the problem isn't WHICH billionaire gets to determine what can and can't be said but rather that ANY billionaire, or anyone in general, gets to determine what can and can't be said.

I have another solution - make people liable for disinformation. You can sue someone for slander, why can’t Fox News be liable for spreading falsities?
 

Op2

Well-Known Member
Mar 16, 2014
6,417
4,411
1
I have another solution - make people liable for disinformation. You can sue someone for slander, why can’t Fox News be liable for spreading falsities?
Okay, so you've decided that people should be sue-able for disinformation. The next step is to determine who gets to determine what is and what isn't disinformation. Since you got to choose the first part, someone on the other side of the political fence gets to choose the next part. Fair?

Or are you instead going to tell me that YOU get to decide who is in charge of determine what is and what isn't disinformation? IOW, you want to be the one to cut the cake into two pieces AND you want to decide which piece you get.
 

PaoliLion

Well-Known Member
Nov 2, 2003
11,561
5,787
1
Okay, so you've decided that people should be sue-able for disinformation. The next step is to determine who gets to determine what is and what isn't disinformation. Since you got to choose the first part, someone on the other side of the political fence gets to choose the next part. Fair?

Or are you instead going to tell me that YOU get to decide who is in charge of determine what is and what isn't disinformation? IOW, you want to be the one to cut the cake into two pieces AND you want to decide which piece you get.

There’s already a legal definition of defamation. Just allow news organizations and political parties to be sued when the defamation damages the population, a political party, or our country.

Defamation is a statement that injures a third party's reputation. The tort of defamation includes both libel (written statements) and slander (spoken statements). To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
22,081
5,261
1
I think that's only a little bit true.

He behaves largely like the industrialists of the late 1800s
He has several goals he wants to achieve. One is make the human race multiplanetary and the second is to accelerate the world's transition to sustainable energy. To him money is only useful to reach these goals. Making money to just have a lot of money is not important to him at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: psu skp

fairfaxlion2

Well-Known Member
Oct 12, 2014
7,945
6,037
1
He has several goals he wants to achieve. One is make the human race multiplanetary and the second is to accelerate the world's transition to sustainable energy. To him money is only useful to reach these goals. Making money to just have a lot of money is not important to him at all.
if these are his only two goals, and he does not care about money, why has he spent the last month trying to take ownership of twitter?
 

Op2

Well-Known Member
Mar 16, 2014
6,417
4,411
1
There’s already a legal definition of defamation. Just allow news organizations and political parties to be sued when the defamation damages the population, a political party, or our country.

Defamation is a statement that injures a third party's reputation. The tort of defamation includes both libel (written statements) and slander (spoken statements). To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.
Okay, so there's already law like that you can use when you sue. Or, if you mean let's broaden them so they could be more widely used, then while I don't think that's a good idea, if you do do it, remember it will be able to be used against anyone, not just the people you disagree with.
 

rumble_lion

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2011
22,081
5,261
1
if these are his only two goals, and he does not care about money, why has he spent the last month trying to take ownership of twitter?
I dunno, perhaps he is in the process of adding an additional goal to his list.

If this is something he has set his mind to do then I feel bad for the existing Twitter board members because he is absolutely relentless.
 
  • Like
Reactions: psu skp

Hotshoe

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Feb 15, 2012
25,626
41,549
1
You don’t spent $45B because you‘re pissed off that Twitter is “censoring” Donald Trump - that’s just what you wankers want to think.

These companies are all private companies and you desperately want the government to step in and regulate the shit out of them. Do you know how to spell “hypocrite”?

The truth is that the authoritarian right doesn’t believe in free speech, what it believes in is “the right to spread misinformation and propaganda” - you know why we know this, because you fvckers are running around trying to put the clamps on what schools can teach, advocating things like “don’t say gay”, trying to suppress the right to vote, etc. The right advocates for highly repressive, authoritarian government.

we see you
Lmao. What a dumbass. This Presidency is working hand in hand with social media companies to limit free speech. A direct violation of the 1st Amendment. This is why no one gives you the time of day. You're nothing but a commie.
 
Last edited:

PaoliLion

Well-Known Member
Nov 2, 2003
11,561
5,787
1
Okay, so there's already law like that you can use when you sue. Or, if you mean let's broaden them so they could be more widely used, then while I don't think that's a good idea, if you do do it, remember it will be able to be used against anyone, not just the people you disagree with.

defamatory statements about a group or class of people generally are not actionable by individual members of that group or class. You could defame democrats, but I couldn’t sue you for that
 

m.knox

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 20, 2003
104,846
58,275
1
The truth is that the authoritarian right doesn’t believe in free speech, what it believes in is “the right to spread misinformation and propaganda” - you know why we know this, because you fvckers are running around trying to put the clamps on what schools can teach, advocating things like “don’t say gay”, trying to suppress the right to vote, etc. The right advocates for highly repressive, authoritarian government.

we see you

LOL.. The cult has a good one in you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

mijowe

Well-Known Member
Aug 6, 2021
276
101
1
The two options are as follows:

1. Determine what is misinformation and propaganda and then prevent its spread.
2. Let people say what they want.

#2 is preferable and the reason is the word "Determine" in #1. Who gets to determine? And how is it decided who gets to determine?

The column in the OP in this thread is good, but an even better one is linked to in it. I'm referring to the one by Batya Ungar-Sargon. She makes the point that the problem isn't WHICH billionaire gets to determine what can and can't be said but rather that ANY billionaire, or anyone in general, gets to determine what can and can't be said.
Maybe it is best that Twitter make the rules for their own platform? The constitution guarantees nobody a platform on Twitter.
 

Latest posts