Is Musk setting the Bird free , or is he putting him
back in his cage ???
It's only based on whose perspective it is .
"Elon is not going to fix some problems. I am absolutely sure of this. He has no idea what he's in for,"Twitter’s new owner promoted a leak of documents on his personal account, just the latest sign that the tech billionaire continues to steer the platform in a direction more favorable to conservatives and libertarians. The internal company discussions, which predate (1)>>Musk’s ownership, offer insight on the dissent and confusion inside Twitter as it responded to the (1.2)>>New York Post’s reporting on Hunter Biden’s files in the closing weeks of the last presidential campaign. Since Elon Musk Took over Twitter , hes' been pushing , poking the 'establishment ' to a point that the left wing media is having a meltdown . If Twitter somehow survives this, he then has to deal with the shitload of liability that the non GDPR compliant, unsecured website will bring him. If Twitter just crashes, and that's it, it would be a blessing in disguise for Elon. Free speech is free speech. Even ignoring the political angle, valid information, ideas and perspectives during the pandemic were shut down. Many of them proven correct. Removing ideas from discourse is pretty unconscionable. That being said, it boggles my mind people have a strong opinion about this either way.So let's go ELON !Even if this is the case what's the problem? Or whno people can say words. Apple has mostly stopped advertising on Twitter. Because Elon wants to reinstate many of the suspended accounts that crossed certain old twitter policies. Elon Musk (the richest person in the world) bought up enough Twitter stock to become the single largest shareholder. As a result, Twitter offered him a seat on the board of directors of the company which would have allowed him some sway over the company but not any authority to make direct decisions. For instance (2)>>Musk suggested that anyone could get a verified (blue checkmark) account and that Twitter should add an edit button. However Twitter clarified that even if he joined the board of directors he would not do it. (3)>>Under Musk any free speech if even so called hate speech has to be defined . Example, Elon Musk has suspended Kanye West’s (aka Ye) Twitter account after the latter posted antisemitic tweets and violated the platform’s rules. In a reply to Mega founder Kim Dotcom, Musk clarified that Ye’s account was suspended for “incitement to violence” and not because of the music artist posting an “unflattering” picture of the Tesla CEO. (3.1)>>Yet , Twitter abounds with all kinds of "hate" speech , but again it's FREE SPEECH . Another problem is However, one important aspect of Musk’s acquisition of Twitter has received less attention: The acquisition’s relevance to national security. Not only has Musk brought on a number of investors to help finance the deal, including entities with links to China, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia (see Table 1), but one of his other companies, Tesla, is increasingly dependent on the (4)>>Chinese market and the goodwill of the Chinese government. Under Musk Twitter faces a roller coaster ride.I don’t understand why Twitter doing anything is tantamount to anything. social media company, one of the lowest used. I don’t understand what Hunter Biden has to do with anything, he’s not the person that ran for president.For Musk’s revelations must be the start of a national campaign to expose the entire picture of the unholy collusion between partisan government censors and Big Tech. Consider that Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg recently admitted to podcaster Joe Rogan the (5)>>FBI warned the company in the fall of 2020 to watch out for Russian disinformation schemes. “The FBI came to us, some folks on our team, and was like ‘hey, just so you know, you should be on high alert. We thought there was a lot of Russian propaganda in the 2016 election, we have it on notice that basically there’s about to be some kind of dump that’s similar to that.’” Musk gave the scoop to the independent journalist Matt Taibbi, whose report was published on Twitter itself (in a somewhat confusingly ordered thread).The thread contains fascinating screenshots of conversations between various content moderators and company executives as the laptop story debacle was unfolding. But given how massively (6)>>Musk hyped the revelations, the results are a tad disappointing, and mostly confirm what the public already assumed: A (still unidentified) employee or process flagged the story as "unsafe" and suppressed its spread, and then Twitter moderators devised a retroactive justification—violation of a "hacked materials" policy—for having taken such an extraordinary step. It’s great to know Twitter is getting rid of lots of moderation policies at the same time it will have only the kind of lawyer who will work for Elon Musk. That’s a recipe for success??? Elon Musk announces literally anything that will keep him in the news cycle. Stay tuned for more from the world's premier pretend engineer.
NOTES AND COMMENTS :
(1)>>Musk’s ownership. His Twitter ownership is back by leveraged Tesla shares. If Twitter crashes, his creditors get his Tesla shares. If Tesla crashes, Twitter's debt becomes even more difficult to service and his creditors may demand even more Tesla shares. Basically, if anything crashes, Elon is fucked. If everything, by some miracle, survives, then Twitter is still stuck with its insane debt service obligations, and basically acts like an anchor around Elon's neck, since it'll keep Twitter from turning any serious profits.And given his management of Twitter so far, there is a possibility, albeit remote, that large stakeholders might be able to argue Elon managed Twitter in bad faith as the CEO - which could let them "pierce the vail", to go after Elon's personal wealth directly, in the event of a bankruptcy of Twitter.Oh, and none of this even touches upon what kind of impact this might have on Elon's management/ownership of SpaceX. All those deals are private. All we can reasonably infer is that SpaceX isn't turning a profit (because if it were, Elon and the other investors would be taking it public so they could get their return on investment). For all we know, the Twitter deal is backed with SpaceX shares, too. Or there could be stipulations in SpaceX's charter, or Elon's contract, that could see him lose control of SpaceX if Twitter goes sideways. (1.2)>>New York Post’s reporting on Hunter Biden’s files in the closing weeks of the last presidential campaign. First, the left lied that the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop was about Russian disinformation.Now, the left is spinning the contents of the laptop as being about Hunter’s privates.The truth has always been about the Big Guy’s cut and their illegal international $$$ scheme.Musk, who has vowed to turn Twitter into a bastion of free speech, has previously insisted full disclosure was needed to determine why the social media giant decided to block the bombshell report in the weeks leading up to the 2020 election.He has been teasing the release of internal files about the decision for several days, arguing that the “public deserves to know what really happened.”The thing to understand about the Hunter Biden laptop story was that it was SUPPOSED to be the Trump campaign’s “October Surprise.” Mainstream media and social media were supposed to take the bait and focus on the appearance of scandal for the last weeks of the election. Trump got impeached the first time for trying to condition congressionally-approved military aid to Ukraine on Zelenskyy announcing an “investigation” of Biden corruption. He wanted the appearance of corruption, so he could wrap the media’s attention around it.Attempts to address the 2020 Hunter Biden laptop story censorship shenanigans will never gain sufficient traction, because the entire liberal political/media class believes any and all actions to hurt Trump's re-election odds were justified.Most of the mainstream media either refused to acknowledge the laptop story, or claimed it was Russian disinformation, well into this year. (2)>>Yet , Twitter abounds with all kinds of "hate" speech , but again it's FREE SPEECH . The White House is free to make the argument that Twitter should police “misinformation” and “hate speech” on its platform. But it has no legal basis to say that Twitter must do so. The vast majority of speech popularly thought of as “misinformation” or “hate speech” is protected by the First Amendment.The First Amendment’s free speech clause is a prohibition on government censorship. The government cannot punish Twitter — a private company — because it refuses to censor offensive speech. The corollary is that Twitter is not bound by the First Amendment when it makes content moderation decisions, and the public, including government officials, are free to criticize those decisions. In fact, Musk said that’s why he bought Twitter. He thought the company was overzealous in censoring speech on a platform that, in his view, is akin to “the town square of the internet.” Unlike most of us, he had the means to do more than complain about it — he bought the whole damn company. In recent weeks Musk restored Donald Trump’s Twitter account and reversed the account suspensions of Jordan Peterson and The Babylon Bee. Twitter similarly stopped enforcement of its COVID-19 misinformation policy.Musk may not be the best — or most consistent — messenger for free speech. And you may not agree with his interpretation of free speech.(2)>>Musk suggested that anyone could get a verified (blue checkmark). lmao Twitter built the "this mf paid for twitter" meme right into its paid Twitter Blue subscription if you click a blue checkmark on a user's profile, it'll show you if they were given one as an actual notable user or it'll show you that this mf paid for twitter. Musk had initially promised that paid verification would be a completed feature by Nov. 7. Or at least, he threatened the employees tasked with the mission that they had to finish building the system by that date or be fired. To try to address the problem, Musk and his Twitter skeleton crew implemented a secondary gray checkmark system for governments, companies, and notable entities—but that became a whole separate can of worms. The gray badges were scrapped after just a few hours, then brought back again. For now, the gray “official” mark remains on some accounts on the site like the New York Times (though curiously not the White House), but it’s unclear from this new announcement if that is set to change yet again.Yup, and every single social media company responded to this by rolling out brand safety features that use algorithms to analyze the content of a poster and make sure that ads are only placed next to the most squeaky clean of content.(3)>>Under Musk any free speech if even so called hate speech has to be defined . Elon seems to have no concept of free speech. To "define what is hate speech " ? its a big question on Twitter , just when a certain opinion is hate speech ? Musk shared a chart that appeared to show hate speech impressions, which he described as the number of times the tweets were viewed, dropped through the end of November. Yup, and every single social media company responded to this by rolling out brand safety features that use algorithms to analyze the content of a poster and make sure that ads are only placed next to the most squeaky clean of content.I've found way too often that "Free Speech" is defined as being nothing more than an echo chamber.Twitter has been a toxic waste pit for a long time now. I've been using Twitter since before and after the acquisition, And I don't see how he's done anything against free speech. He's made it illegal to impersonate people on the app which was already a rule before he had taken control of it. he's just enforcing it. Meanwhile, Musk is now able to remake Twitter in his own image - but he didn’t understand that making ham-fisted changes was just going to ruin the balance and upset it for almost everybody else.(3.1)>>Yet , Twitter abounds with all kinds of "hate" speech , but again it's FREE SPEECH . The former owners were shareholders, the former executives meanwhile understood that the company had to walk a fine line in content moderation between chaos and expression - and that it wasn’t possible to please everyone. They may not have managed to make it profitable but they at least were learning to navigate the politics and social issues.This is the thing that gets me. Twitter is already one of the least moderated major social media sites we have. So, what exactly is his plan for making it less moderated? I have a feeling, based upon his past behaviors, that it's going to amount to him amplifying the voices friendly to him and his pet issues. Also, homophobic and racial slurs will be totally cool because we all know he's that kind of free speech "absolutist," and it'll become an even more abusive space than it already is. (4)>>Chinese market and the goodwill of the Chinese government. Elon Musk says 'China rocks' while the U.S. is full of 'complacency and entitlement'. Now, Russian and Chinese state-backed Twitter accounts have taken up the same free speech argument, demanding the platform reinstate them, remove labels that identify these accounts as linked to Beijing or Moscow, and allow them to post more freely, including on hot-button topics like the war in Ukraine. Chinese accounts also jumped on the bandwagon. While Beijing blocks Twitter for its domestic audience, the country's officials and state media have repeatedly used the platform to spread propaganda and attack other users who criticize the Chinese Communist Party. In August 2020, Twitter began labeling these accounts as state-affiliated, and since then, there has been a significant drop in engagement, including likes and shares, of those accounts, according to an analysis by the China Media Project, a research group at the University of Hong Kong. (5)>>FBI warned the company in the fall of 2020 to watch out for Russian disinformation schemes. Twitter’s former leadership did indeed take orders from Joe Biden’s campaign in taking extraordinary steps to bury The New York Post’s bombshell report on the international influence-peddling scheme that Biden ran with his son serving as a sort of bag man. That sort of collusion would have been scandalous enough, but the FBI’s involvement in suppressing the story makes this ugly incident the single most significant and wide-ranging violation of First Amendment rights in American history. A former Twitter executive said the company was warned about foreign attempts to meddle in the 2020 election using a so-called 'hack-and-leak' strategy, it was reported . It comes amid fallout from the Elon Musk-promoted Twitter 'exposé' that was apparently meant to show proof that the platform - which he recently acquired for $44 billion - worked in tandem with Democrats to tip the scales in the 2020 election.It was centered around correspondences mainly between top employees at Twitter about the site's suppression of the infamous Post story published in October 2020.The published emails show Twitter employees going back and forth trying to justify their censorship of the story under the site's hacked materials rules. It appears that many top officials at the platform were hesitant about whether Hunter Biden's laptop was accessed through unscrupulous means. It may as well have been. The FBI could have cleared Trump of any wrongdoing in his calls for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to investigate Biden since the laptop contained clear evidence of pay-to-play, but it didn’t. It let him twist in the wind.The FBI knew the Hunter Biden story was true—it had his laptop, after all—but was in the months before a presidential election actively pressuring social media companies to censor it.The FBI was essentially conducting a disinformation campaign against social media companies, using them to censor a story that it knew to be completely true in an obvious effort to influence the election by protecting the preferred candidate from a damaging exposé on his likely corruption in the waning days of the campaign.In so doing, the FBI violated the First Amendment rights of not only The New York Post as a journalistic entity, but also the free speech rights of every single person who wanted to share the Post’s story but could not.(6)>>Musk hyped the revelations. I think he has some stupid world view that sees Twitter as a free market for ideas. It’s something someone who is naive, rich, and white enough would believe because they could escape any eventuality. Our online social fabric has been woven to support extremes, because they evoke the greatest emotional response, to give voice to pseudo intellectuals in unmerited positions of checkmark authority, and the most trendy, hot take popular pop opinions.If he thinks innovation or moderate opinions are going to come from that recipe, he’s delusional. Unless he’s going to manipulate the algorithm somehow. There are plenty of social media sites that prove that the best ideas do not necessarily rise to the top—including and especially this one. Lol.I ran a sub once and it was a certifiable nightmare. There were so many competing interests; it was difficult to balance them all. And you can’t. And you’re constantly in the position to have to make some decision on moral or philosophical grounds and you have to be good at logical reasoning or you will just run the based on emotion and fuck everything up. And even if you feel like you’re logically sound, there will be someone overly emotional that challenges you.So to imagine doing that for all of Twitter sounds like a personal nightmare.
