James105

I'm not American but I just saw bits on the news with mild amusement with regards what happened on that day. Compared to the scale of the violence during the BLM riots that were incited by the media (and this kind of incitement to violence was acceptable on Twitter) it was a kids tea party. If the media can get you to believe that that was an attempted coup then America has far bigger problems than whether or not Elon Musks jet should be allowed to be tracked on Twitter.

Why is the left having a breakdown because they cannot track musks jet live on Twitter and have to use a different site? The hill to die on regarding freedom of speech was when a sitting president got banned from the platform, even if you did not agree (or even hated) his views and what he stood for. If you did not do that then you forfeit your right to complain about freedom of speech as you effectively only care about freedom of speech that is speech you agree with, which is the opposite of what is meant by freedom of speech.

This just take snapshots of sites at random times. It may have missed the hateful tweet he (possibly) made and deleted. I am not prepared to take his word about his innocence as like most journalists, they have the tendency to make up the facts that support whatever narrative they are trying to support. Twitter have the info, and as mentioned you would need to ask them why he got banned.

I asked why it is in the public interest as I am struggling to understand why the left is having a temper tantrum because they can't use Twitter to see where his private jet is currently located and have to use an alternative site to get this info. Where did I say I supported banning anything. Stop creating straw men, it's pathetic.

Did Musk or Twitter specifically say that whoever this person is was suspended for doxxing? Perhaps he already deleted his hateful tweet or whatever it was that got him suspended. I believe there are more things that people can receive a suspension for than just doxxing. Anyway, I don't work for Twitter - you would need to ask them if you care about this person so much.

Did Musk specifically state the reasons for their suspension was this? I haven't seen that. They must have broken some rule though hence they got banned. They are just in shock as they were allowed to be as hateful as they wanted against anyone who didn't agree with the narrative and now they find themselves on the same playing field as everyone else and are having a big old cry about it. But anyway, why is it in the public interest to have live tracking of his jet on a public platform and why is this a first amendment issue?

Regardless of whether the information is available or not, Elon Musk, the owner of a private platform said it was not allowed on his private platform and would lead to suspensions. He is allowed to make his own rules on his own platform. "Journalists" decided they would do it anyway, broke the rules and have received the suspensions they were promised. If you don't like it, start your own platform with your own money and make it so that sharing and tracking of peoples locations in their private vehicles is allowed. I have no idea why it is in the public interest to share his jets real-time location anyway. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to why this should be something he is forced to allow on his platform?

You are suggesting that some of those 43% are bots? So it could actually be higher than 57%?

Where exactly did I say he should be compelled to do anything? Is reading so difficult nowadays? Actions (or inactions) have consequences, and not speaking out against censorship and banning of a sitting presidents account led to the eventual takeover of Twitter by Musk, which has in turn led to whoever had his account suspended for whatever reason. People harping on about free speech now should have done so earlier, especially in coming to the defence of someone's right to say something whose opinion they disagree with. Crying about it now is too late.

Maths is difficult I know, but that poll says that 57% of people are in agreement with Musk suspending these accounts.

If people like Jack Sweeney had spoken out against Twitter when Twitter was banning accounts that also did not breach it's rules (Trump being a quite famous example) then maybe his account would not be suspended now.

It's equivalent and referred to as doxxing. Twitter has for years suspended accounts that did not actually breach any of it's rules, an actual sitting president being one of them. If Elon Musk posted any of those peoples private addresses you mention then I agree he should have his account suspended. Do you have any evidence he has done that? He is not spreading conspiracy theories, he is sharing his opinion, which I do not believe is a breach of Twitters rules.

Is he not allowed to change his mind once he realised just how unhinged the "be kind" brigade are? If these "journalists" do not like the rules that a private platform sets they can always go and start their own platform, can they not?

If I posted your private address on here (a public forum) would you like it to: a) be deleted or b) be kept online as its free speech If I kept doing it even though it's against the rules do you think my account should be suspended or should I continue to be able to do it because of free speech?

I read what you posted here. If the snippet isn't clear enough then perhaps do better? Besides, I have read about Roth. He endorsed allowing under 18 year olds to use a gay hook up app in a paper he wrote with the reasoning that they use it anyway. Most normal minded people who care about the safeguarding of children would advocate tighter verification standards for something like Grindr rather than allowing them in its shark infested waters. If Roth is a user of that app (and the fact he is writing a paper on it suggests he is) and he wants kids to be on it, then what conclusions are people supposed to draw from what he wrote exactly? Musk is right on this.

Right, so just because Qanon are against child exploitation then Musk supports Qanon? This is your point? Does that mean everyone who is against child exploitation is also a Qanon supporter? Where do you stand on child exploitation - with Qanon or against them?

I didn't say you specifically said they would, but one of their ex employees did here: https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/11/08/1062886/heres-how-a-twitter-engineer-says-it-will-break-in-the-coming-weeks/

They were clearly stealing a living as evidenced by the fact no-one has noticed they are no longer working there. Any sign of any of those predications coming true that Twitter would fall over without them? Nope.

Good grief, people are unhinged and obsessed with this man. 'Follow the white rabbit' to anyone who has seen the Matrix means following an unlikely clue that leads to the truth, no matter how disconcerting it may be. I have no idea who Qanon is or what they stand for but if someone was referring to following white rabbits I would assume they were referring to that scene in the Matrix, or perhaps even the book where it refers to following an opportunity to an extraordinary situation. I really think you need to find a less obsessive hobby than regurgitating leftist propaganda that your fellow obsessives have literally made up from thin air.

Twitter is not censoring the leftist halfwits on Twitter and freedom of speech appears to be making a return on the platform which everybody (left and right) should be applauding. I think the point that was being made is that leftists are losing their censorious minds that people with differing opinions (note: a differing opinion does not equal hate speech) are allowed to disagree without being censored. I appreciate this is a scary time for far leftists as this leaves their ridiculous views open to challenge and mockery, but as was so often said in the time of great censorship by the left: "twitter is a private platform and can set its own rules, if you don't like it start your own platform etc etc..."

Yes, well there are conditions in there that would prevent them from granting permission (such as WWIII starting) but in normal times it is granted 100% of the time hence the reason I was able to leave when I wanted within 3 months of handing in my notice. So whilst "technically" they "could" but in reality they will not.

Yes. You can leave the military (in the UK) any time you like. No they cannot refuse you, and I have no idea why you would think that would be the case. Obviously it might be different in WWIII and people men get drafted to defend the country but not in normal times.

The military (and I was once in the military) are not allowed to strike. If they have a gripe about how much they are being paid, then they can either accept it or leave and seek new opportunities that have better pay. Which is exactly what I did. I didn't wait until there was a conflict in the world and try and seek to blackmail the government by withdrawing my services, I simply moved on. Yes, there is a shortage of nurses, but qualified nurses take advantage of this by quitting the NHS and then starting as an agency nurse with the NHS paying up to £2,500 per shift (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/11/11/nhs-pays-2500-shift-agency-nurses/). Which goes back to the age old problem with the NHS of not managing their enormous budget effectively. The solution to this cannot be to blackmail the public by effectively letting them die by not providing healthcare as they have withdrawn their services so they can get a bit more money. Just like the military if someone enters a trade that provides an essential public service (helping people not die with a treatable condition for example) then they should accept that being able to strike for better pay is off the table. Personally I'd prefer to see a solution that does give nurses better pay, but paid for by the immediate cessation of hiring agency nurses and offering the agency nurses a better deal to be employed by the NHS again along with all the other employed nurses.

There is a small sporting event on at the moment where the games (50% of the quarter finals and 100% of the semi finals) kick off at 2am. So there is that.

I had no idea that nurses were forced to work against their will and had no right to seek out alternative employment that offers better pay and conditions. On that basis I would support the right of nurses to strike until they gained the right to be able to leave their jobs and look for alternative employment as that does sound unfair to me. Even private sector workers who have had and will continue to have pay freezes over the last few years have the freedom to look for other jobs.