Big Tech/Social Media Censorship. Musk: Blackmailing Advertisers Can ***** Off.

[BillStime]

What a mess.

 

 

[BillStime]

LMAO - you can't make this up...

 

 

 

 

[ChiGoose]

1 hour ago, Doc said:

 

The only one deflecting is you.  Dems, Joke included, were up-in-arms over JK's murder and demanded Trump take swift and severe action against MBS.  Then when Joke becomes President, not only does he not do that, he begs them for oil and gives MBS immunity.  How much of a kick in the teeth is that for you/Dems?  Or is it excusable because it's different when you're President?

 

Twitter moderation is no worse than before Elon bought it.  It's just that you guys have every reason to complain about it now.

A lot of Dems were pissed at him giving MBS immunity. As I stated, it’s in accordance with precedent and the law but I would have made an exception for MBS and not done it. I don’t expect to agree with everything the president I voted for does because I’m not in a personality cult.

 

Twitter’s moderation policy had problems before Musk but at least Twitter had a policy. Musk decides by fiat and applies new rules retroactively. And all the people who were originally cheering because he was going to do free speech suddenly forgot all of that and now fall in line with whatever decision he makes because it upsets people they don’t like, regardless of how stupid the decision is. 
 

 

[Buffarukus]

5 minutes ago, BillStime said:

LMAO - you can't make this up...

 

 

 

 

 

im to lazy to get a twitter profile started. billstime do what you do best and start a thread about how under privledged i am!! twitter must implement mail in voting!!!!! 😂🤣

[Buffarukus]

26 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

Twitter’s moderation policy had problems before Musk but at least Twitter had a policy. Musk decides by fiat and applies new rules retroactively. And all the people who were originally cheering because he was going to do free speech suddenly forgot all of that and now fall in line with whatever decision he makes because it upsets people they don’t like, regardless of how stupid the decision is. 
 

 

 

twitter had a policy.

 

they just didnt use it. banned people without any reason. used political bias to create their policy. arbitrarily enforced it at some faceless nameless "moderators" discretion and shadow banned users who without warning without their knowledge which they then lied about.

 

and you act like a new owner making mistakes is somehow worse!!? the guy is in a response right above you in your pals billstime response having a user vote on and  apologized on a mistake. imagine not lying and silence but acknowledging and apologizing. yeah what a tyrant. never seen a touch of that from the old regime 

 

again, noone wanted unabated free speech. thats 4chan. they wanted a equal playing field with transparency. applied to all and stopping with the heavy handed moderation.

 

 

threats, doxing and alot more i dont think most users want. only full bore libertarians wanted what your saying. yet you keep suggesting everyone "flipped" their opinion on it. no THATS DEMS! shutup. private company. dont like it leave. build your own. where is THAT opinion? seem to be hearing alot for people who said all that.

 

regardless how you twist it. it seems already alot better and the guy hasnt even gotten started with upgrades and such.

 

please explain what the old system had that is better?

Edited December 19, 2022 by Buffarukus

[ChiGoose]

25 minutes ago, Buffarukus said:

 

twitter had a policy.

 

they just didnt use it. banned people without any reason. used political bias to create their policy. arbitrarily enforced it at some faceless nameless "moderators" discretion and shadow banned users who without warning without their knowledge which they then lied about.

 

and you act like a new owner making mistakes is somehow worse!!? the guy is in a response right above you in your pals billstime response having a user vote on and  apologized on a mistake. imagine not lying and silence but acknowledging and apologizing. yeah what a tyrant. never seen a touch of that from the old regime 

 

again, noone wanted unabated free speech. thats 4chan. they wanted a equal playing field with transparency. applied to all and stopping with the heavy handed moderation.

 

 

threats, doxing and alot more i dont think most users want. only full bore libertarians wanted what your saying. yet you keep suggesting everyone "flipped" their opinion on it. no THATS DEMS! shutup. private company. dont like it leave. build your own. where is THAT opinion? seem to be hearing alot for people who said all that.

 

regardless how you twist it. it seems already alot better and the guy hasnt even gotten started with upgrades and such.

 

please explain what the old system had that is better?

If Elon had come in, replaced the content moderation policy and/or staff with something more akin to what Twitter’s conservative critics wanted, that would have been fine and likely wouldn’t have resulted in a ton of actual blowback.
 

Instead, he came in like a bull in a china shop, making decisions on a whim with little thought to downstream implications and likely exposing himself to hundreds of millions of dollars in legal liabilities (on top of the $1 billion per year debt service cost his overpriced purchase requires).

 

For a business that relies almost entirely on ad revenue, his chaotic and fickle actions fostered an environment hostile to advertisers who quickly began suspending their ad buys.

 

He changed his mind on a content moderation committee before it could even get off the ground and decided to make moderation policies on a whim. Even reportedly applying them retroactively to posts that were not in violation of the rules at the time they were posted. At some points, he left moderation decisions to unscientific twitter polls, which is crazy considering how much he complains about the bots on Twitter.

 

Because he slashed the legal department and moderation team, the new policies appear to be written by amateurs with little consideration to vagueness or how they will be interpreted. And even then, he declares the new rules mean something they don’t actually say, leading to more confusion about what the actual policy is. 
 

It’s a maddeningly dumb way to run a business. Which is reflected in how his mismanagement of Twitter is currently contributing to the destruction of the value of Tesla.

 

”But it’s a private company, he can do what he wants” is a pointless retort. Of course it’s a private business and he can do what he wants. But we’re still free to point out how bad those decisions are for the company. 
 

All of this could have been avoided with a thoughtful approach to the challenges Twitter was facing, including the moderation policy.

 

And despite the obviousness of it all, people just reflexively defend whatever decision he makes because they were so mad at the old regime and they prefer “owning the libs” to basically anything else. 

[Orlando Tim]

6 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

I’m not saying that. We don’t know what the FBI knows about it. There is an ongoing investigation into Hunter so we shouldn’t expect them to say anything about it.

 

In fact, we have zero evidence that the FBI said the laptop might be misinformation and good evidence that it didn’t. 

What are you saying ChiGoose? You spend a ton of time telling us what you don't mean, likely because being clear and concise is impossible 

[Buffarukus]

1 hour ago, ChiGoose said:

If Elon had come in, replaced the content moderation policy and/or staff with something more akin to what Twitter’s conservative critics wanted, that would have been fine and likely wouldn’t have resulted in a ton of actual blowback.
 

Instead, he came in like a bull in a china shop, making decisions on a whim with little thought to downstream implications and likely exposing himself to hundreds of millions of dollars in legal liabilities (on top of the $1 billion per year debt service cost his overpriced purchase requires).

 

For a business that relies almost entirely on ad revenue, his chaotic and fickle actions fostered an environment hostile to advertisers who quickly began suspending their ad buys.

 

He changed his mind on a content moderation committee before it could even get off the ground and decided to make moderation policies on a whim. Even reportedly applying them retroactively to posts that were not in violation of the rules at the time they were posted. At some points, he left moderation decisions to unscientific twitter polls, which is crazy considering how much he complains about the bots on Twitter.

 

Because he slashed the legal department and moderation team, the new policies appear to be written by amateurs with little consideration to vagueness or how they will be interpreted. And even then, he declares the new rules mean something they don’t actually say, leading to more confusion about what the actual policy is. 
 

It’s a maddeningly dumb way to run a business. Which is reflected in how his mismanagement of Twitter is currently contributing to the destruction of the value of Tesla.

 

”But it’s a private company, he can do what he wants” is a pointless retort. Of course it’s a private business and he can do what he wants. But we’re still free to point out how bad those decisions are for the company. 
 

All of this could have been avoided with a thoughtful approach to the challenges Twitter was facing, including the moderation policy.

 

And despite the obviousness of it all, people just reflexively defend whatever decision he makes because they were so mad at the old regime and they prefer “owning the libs” to basically anything else. 

 

a totally currupt biased, lying, social media site wasnt stepped into and running at peak performance? strange. 

 

i get what your saying about smart leadership and coming in prepared but twitter sounds like a very hard place to not make mistakes. free speech isnt exactly add friendly. dems just enjoy the problems because they don't like the man.  I'm not sure why that is. noone cared much about mistakes in his other endeavors. all of a sudden elon became enemy #1. hmm. 

 

for a guy who can't get advertisers I'd say he's doing a pretty good job getting eyeballs in the platform. all press is good press some would say. people screaming their leaving and can't take their eyes off it. im in the mind to thank him for exposing what he did. champion a place that has non biased free speech debates and good independent journalism that isnt suppressed ect. wasnt going to EVER get that then. so i wish him luck and will support his company if he proves it. 

 

when it comes to defending him regardless what he does. its because we want him to succeed. mistakes happen, big deal. getting a transparent free speech platform is a good thing regardless. 

 

the other side seems bitter

[BillsFanNC]

 

[ChiGoose]

1 hour ago, Orlando Tim said:

What are you saying ChiGoose? You spend a ton of time telling us what you don't mean, likely because being clear and concise is impossible 

Actually it’s because people here just pretend I believe whatever evil liberal fantasy they want me to regardless of the words I use. 
 

In this specific example, someone with a history of making ***** up claimed I believed something I have never espoused or even implied. 
 

I clarified that I did not believe that totally made up fantasy he claimed I believed in and explained what I did actually believe in regards to that particular situation.  
 

Apparently that’s not enough for people. So I guess everyone can just go ahead and believe I said whatever they want regardless of the text of the actual words I wrote. 

[Orlando Tim]

2 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

Actually it’s because people here just pretend I believe whatever evil liberal fantasy they want me to regardless of the words I use. 
 

In this specific example, someone with a history of making ***** up claimed I believed something I have never espoused or even implied. 
 

I clarified that I did not believe that totally made up fantasy he claimed I believed in and explained what I did actually believe in regards to that particular situation.  
 

Apparently that’s not enough for people. So I guess everyone can just go ahead and believe I said whatever they want regardless of the text of the actual words I wrote. 

Dude when you spend so much time saying what you don't mean people will read between the lines, especially on a topic where the question is ethics not whether it is coercion or just lying. 

[ChiGoose]

3 minutes ago, Orlando Tim said:

Dude when you spend so much time saying what you don't mean people will read between the lines, especially on a topic where the question is ethics not whether it is coercion or just lying. 

Then stop reading between the lines and just read the actual lines. 
 

I even answered the morality question. It would be bad for the FBI to force Twitter to censor legal content. But that never happened so why are people even talking about it?

[BillStime]

 

[BillsFanNC]

8 hours ago, Orlando Tim said:

Dude when you spend so much time saying what you don't mean people will read between the lines, especially on a topic where the question is ethics not whether it is coercion or just lying. 

 

Not only does chigoose constantly hand wave around explaining what he didnt really mean. He also has the unique talent of telling us what conservatives actually mean when they speak.

 

I'm sure that it's the "former Republican" in him that provides this unique insight.

 

[BillStime]

👆🤡

👇🎯

 

Sound familiar?

 

 

[Orlando Tim]

9 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

Then stop reading between the lines and just read the actual lines. 
 

I even answered the morality question. It would be bad for the FBI to force Twitter to censor legal content. But that never happened so why are people even talking about it?

You answered A morality question that is not even in play so you did not have to answer whether the FBI should have been discussing Russian Disinformation when the laptop information was released since they knew it was real. The reason the story was not the biggest story before the election is directly caused by the intelligence community lying about it 

[ChiGoose]

1 hour ago, Orlando Tim said:

You answered A morality question that is not even in play so you did not have to answer whether the FBI should have been discussing Russian Disinformation when the laptop information was released since they knew it was real. The reason the story was not the biggest story before the election is directly caused by the intelligence community lying about it 

There is no evidence they were discussing the laptop. 
 

I also answered this earlier but you may have missed it. 
 

Good:

1. The FBI warns companies that there may be cyberattacks and/or release of hacked materials prior to the election.

 

Fine:

2. The FBI tells companies that the laptop does belong to Hunter, some of its contents are real but not all of it has been verified

 

Bad:

3. The FBI tells companies that they shouldn’t post anything about the laptop

4. The FBI somehow forces companies not to post anything about the laptop. 
 

All of the evidence points to scenario 1 as the one that played out. In which case, I believe the FBI acted appropriately. 
 

Scenario 4 is basically impossible and there’s no evidence that scenarios 2, 3, or 4 happened. 

Edited December 19, 2022 by ChiGoose

[Orlando Tim]

10 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

There is no evidence they were discussing the laptop. 
 

I also answered this earlier but you may have missed it. 
 

Good:

1. The FBI warns companies that there may be cyberattacks and/or release of hacked materials prior to the election.

 

Fine:

2. The FBI tells companies that the laptop does belong to Hunter, some of its contents are real but not all of it has been verified

 

Bad:

3. The FBI tells companies that they shouldn’t post anything about the laptop

4. The FBI somehow forces companies not to post anything about the laptop. 
 

All of the evidence points to scenario 1 as the one that played out. In which case, I believe the FBI acted appropriately. 
 

Scenario 4 is basically impossible and there’s no evidence that scenarios 2, 3, or 4 happened. 

Have you not seen the list of posts they asked to have flagged? 

[SoCal Deek]

Unbelievable! So the FBI, knowing that the laptop is in fact real, preemptively warns these ‘social media’ companies about fake news so that when the anti-Biden story breaks it gets squashed. No election interference going on there at all….right? Apparently the tshirt wearing liberal information police can’t also then ask the FBI for confirmation? Nope! Just squash the story. And the FBI, that knows the story’s squashed doesn’t contact these woke millennials to say “actually, that one’s real”? Come on people! 

[BillsFanNC]

Perhaps it's accounts such as this that the FBI should have been flagging because they actually fall under the umbrella of promoting domestic terror?

 

But sure...let's flag Bily Baldwins tweets instead.