Elon Musk to buy Twitter

[Mac Mickmanus]

The question is : What is free speech ?

Is it accepting some people have a different opinion to you and allow them to air that opinion or if someone has a different opinion to you, do you call them a Racist , Nazi , homophobe and call for them to be silenced ?

[Slip]

7 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

The question is : What is free speech ?

Is it accepting some people have a different opinion to you and allow them to air that opinion or if someone has a different opinion to you, do you call them a Racist , Nazi , homophobe and call for them to be silenced ?

This at least seems on the surface to be a fair question Mac.  what you are really suggesting though is that nazis, racists and homophobes should be allowed to encourage violence towards others by way of their "free speech".  That seems the opposite of freedom to me.

[Jingthing]

10 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

The question is : What is free speech ?

Is it accepting some people have a different opinion to you and allow them to air that opinion or if someone has a different opinion to you, do you call them a Racist , Nazi , homophobe and call for them to be silenced ?

But racists, Nazis, and homophobes all do exist and in large numbers too.

I guess a truth like that couldn't stand on Truth Social.

Edited April 29, 2022 by Jingthing

[Chomper Higgot]

31 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

The question is : What is free speech ?

Is it accepting some people have a different opinion to you and allow them to air that opinion or if someone has a different opinion to you, do you call them a Racist , Nazi , homophobe and call for them to be silenced ?

Why did you link these particular forms of ‘Hate’ to your question about free speech?

 

 

[Mac Mickmanus]

16 minutes ago, Slip said:

This at least seems on the surface to be a fair question Mac.  what you are really suggesting though is that nazis, racists and homophobes should be allowed to encourage violence towards others by way of their "free speech".  That seems the opposite of freedom to me.

Well IMO, they should be allowed to air their views and then other people can explain to them how and why their views are misguided .

   But that wasnt my point .

My point was if if a person made the suggestion (for instance) that people who were born males but identify as Females, they shouldn't participate in Woman's sport (because they have an unfair advantage) , some people just reply by calling them homophobic , which they arent at all 

[Slip]

5 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Well IMO, they should be allowed to air their views and then other people can explain to them how and why their views are misguided .

   But that wasnt my point .

My point was if if a person made the suggestion (for instance) that people who were born males but identify as Females, they shouldn't participate in Woman's sport (because they have an unfair advantage) , some people just reply by calling them homophobic , which they arent at all 

That was most certainly not the point you were making in the post I replied to Mac.  My opinion on your hypothetical point is of course, off topic.  That doesn't necessarily mean I disagree with you on that, just that it doesn't fit into the boundaries of this conversation.

[Mac Mickmanus]

18 minutes ago, Slip said:

That was most certainly not the point you were making in the post I replied to Mac.  My opinion on your hypothetical point is of course, off topic.  That doesn't necessarily mean I disagree with you on that, just that it doesn't fit into the boundaries of this conversation.

I certainly wasn't suggesting that people should be allowed to encourage violence against anyone or any group , violence  wasn't even mentioned by me , you was the one who bought that topic into the discussion .

  There are some people that if they disagree with your opinion, they will just call you a "nazi" and suggest you should be silenced .

  

[ozimoron]

1 minute ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

I certainly wasn't suggesting that people should be allowed to encourage violence against anyone or any group , violence  wasn't even mentioned by me , you was the one who bought that topic into the discussion .

  There are some people that if they disagree with your opinion, they will just call you a "nazi" and suggest you should be silenced .

   Like if you think that Children shouldn't read books that contain racial slurs or pornographic images , then you are a Nazi trying to ban books, that sort of thing 

You're leaving out a lot of the story.

 

For the past few years, conservatives have been waging an insidious and disingenuous campaign to whitewash racism and oppression from American history and censor material that would examine the more sordid parts of America’s past and present.

Almost as soon as it was first published in 2019, conservatives attacked The 1619 Project – the Pulitzer Prize-winning historical reevaluation that seeks to place slavery and racism at the centre of American history and institutions.

 

https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2022/2/11/conservative-book-bans-are-part-of-gops-fascist-turn

[onthedarkside]

More off-topic comments and posts, having nothing to do with Musk's purchase of Twitter, have been removed, including some flames and comments on moderation.

 

[Slip]

22 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

I certainly wasn't suggesting that people should be allowed to encourage violence against anyone or any group , violence  wasn't even mentioned by me , you was the one who bought that topic into the discussion .

  There are some people that if they disagree with your opinion, they will just call you a "nazi" and suggest you should be silenced .

  

Yes there are.  It seems to me that you want to discuss them rather than the issues.  Your argument about 'silencing' people really doesn't hold water.  I would hope that you would not espouse any nazi, racist or such views.  On that basis no one would call you a nazi.  No one on either side should use such lables without reason, but unfortunately there are a number of politicians throughout the world at this very time who are using just such language.

 

Edited April 29, 2022 by Slip
'your/you're', sorry.

[Mac Mickmanus]

10 minutes ago, Slip said:

Yes there are.  It seems to me that you want to discuss them rather than the issues.  Your argument about 'silencing' people really doesn't hold water.  I would hope that you would not espouse any nazi, racist or such views.  On that basis no one would call you a nazi.  No one on either side should use such lables without reason, but unfortunately there are a number of politicians throughout the world at this very time who are using just such language.

 

I really don't find that to be a case . 

There are a vociferous few who regularly label people as being nazis , just for having a different opinion to them .

  Like, people who think that sportsmen shouldn't take the knee , "its because they are a racist nazi"

   Some people seem to spend a considerably amount of their time hunting nazis on the internet and their day isn't complete without finding some  

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

I really don't find that to be a case . 

There are a vociferous few who regularly label people as being nazis , just for having a different opinion to them .

  Like, people who think that sportsmen shouldn't take the knee , "its because they are a racist nazi"

   Some people seem to spend a considerably amount of their time hunting nazis on the internet and their day isn't complete without finding some  

Wild exaggeration not to be taken seriously.

[thaibeachlovers]

10 hours ago, coolcarer said:

Yea right, let them spread their hate speech that leads directly to the harm of others and then prosecute them after the fact, then let them come back and do it again and again. Do you see where your floored logic shines through?

 

There is no such thing as free speech otherwise as evidenced before their would be kill lists and murder contracts on anyone you disagree with and it would be perfectly for this to be the norm, a contract killers paradise

LOL.

So who decides what is acceptable- the woke, the PC, the busybodies looking to be offended?

 

Why should everyone suffer because of the current minority woke desire to make everyone conform to THEIR  version of what is acceptable?

 

I'm not saying that private companies like twit and f b and this forum can't regulate what is said on their platforms, but it shouldn't be government poking their political noses into everyone's private business. That leads to such as McCarthyism.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, ozimoron said:

it's almost as if Russian astroturfers don't exist and aren't rife on social media. Twitter estimates a high proportion of bots on its network and Musk has vowed to removed them or "die trying".

Exceptionally easy to avoid if like me one doesn't go on sites such as twit or f b.

Far as I know, it's not compulsory to do so.

Even on this forum it's quite easy to avoid certain poster's hate posts if one chooses to do so, with the use of the ignore function.

[heybruce]

9 hours ago, Longwood50 said:

No you are wrong.  

Right wingers are about "free speech" not propaganda and certainly not censorship.  

If you look it is liberal organizations such as FB who censor conservative commentary.  

I challenge you. 

NAME ONE SOCIAL MEDIA THAT HAS CENSORED A LIBERAL POST. NOT YOU OPINION GIVE ME FACTS.

 

Give an example of a social media post of a liberal opinion you think should have been censored.

[heybruce]

8 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

Zee Russian bots? Are they the same Russian bots that lead to the Brexit vote and Trump getting elected? Every time you hardcore lefties lose a vote or lose an attempt to stifle the voice of the opposition it's alway comes back to Zee Russian Bots. Been watching too many Bond movies I think. 

Did you really not know about this?

 

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jan/19/twitter-admits-far-more-russian-bots-posted-on-election-than-it-had-disclosed

 

https://www.newsweek.com/full-list-russian-twitter-bots-banned-election-meddling-probe-700703

 

https://www.vox.com/2018/10/19/17990946/twitter-russian-trolls-bots-election-tampering

[heybruce]

 

8 hours ago, JonnyF said:

I'm not aware of any fact free far right echo chambers. Plenty of far left ones though. One less since Musk bought Twitter.

 

Given that Twitter allowed The Taliban to have an account but banned the POTUS tells me the platform could not get any worse than it was under previous ownership. It would take a particularly extreme member of the liberal mob to support such a stance.

 

Personally I am not a fan of the platform anyway (or Trump) but I detest politically biased censorship pretending to be neutral. 

 

https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/08/17/why-has-twitter-banned-trump-but-not-the-taliban/

Oh good, I look forward to your examples of fact free left wing echo chambers.

 

You can also tell us what your description of liberals as "weeping onto their Lattes/Avocado toast" is based upon.  However I suspect you won't.

 

I hate to tell you this, but the Taliban is more honest than Trump.  The Taliban make it clear that they want to overthrow western forms of government. 

 

Trump gave a long, loud rant about a fictitious stolen election, told his followers to march to the Capital and fight, did nothing to denounce or call off the ensuing violence for hours, then insisted he never called for an insurrection.  No doubt he will do it again as soon as he has the right platform.

 

 

Edited April 29, 2022 by heybruce

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Well IMO, they should be allowed to air their views and then other people can explain to them how and why their views are misguided .

   But that wasnt my point .

My point was if if a person made the suggestion (for instance) that people who were born males but identify as Females, they shouldn't participate in Woman's sport (because they have an unfair advantage) , some people just reply by calling them homophobic , which they arent at all 

You know about this because neither side of the conflicting views have been censored.  How does this apply to free speech?

[heybruce]

3 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

I really don't find that to be a case . 

There are a vociferous few who regularly label people as being nazis , just for having a different opinion to them .

  Like, people who think that sportsmen shouldn't take the knee , "its because they are a racist nazi"

   Some people seem to spend a considerably amount of their time hunting nazis on the internet and their day isn't complete without finding some  

People are allowed to think that sportsmen should not take the knee and express that view.  It's actively attempting to deny the right of sportsmen to take a knee that is unacceptable.

 

Freedom of speech allows one to express views, including the view that other views are wrong.  Only speech that can reasonably be assumed to lead to violence or other serious crimes should be banned.

[Scott]

Off-topic, troll, baiting posts removed along with replies.  

 

[JonnyF]

7 hours ago, heybruce said:

 

Oh good, I look forward to your examples of fact free left wing echo chambers.

 

You can also tell us what your description of liberals as "weeping onto their Lattes/Avocado toast" is based upon.  However I suspect you won't.

 

I hate to tell you this, but the Taliban is more honest than Trump.  The Taliban make it clear that they want to overthrow western forms of government. 

 

Trump gave a long, loud rant about a fictitious stolen election, told his followers to march to the Capital and fight, did nothing to denounce or call off the ensuing violence for hours, then insisted he never called for an insurrection.  No doubt he will do it again as soon as he has the right platform.

 

 

Oh I see, this is awkward. You appear to be one of those people who thinks a Terrorist organization that publicly beheads innocent hostages on live TV with no trial and assists in atrocities like 911 has more of a right to a voice on a platform like Twitter than the POTUS.

 

[metisdead]

A post containing profane content has been reported and removed.

[coolcarer]

9 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL.

So who decides what is acceptable- the woke, the PC, the busybodies looking to be offended?

 

Why should everyone suffer because of the current minority woke desire to make everyone conform to THEIR  version of what is acceptable?

 

I'm not saying that private companies like twit and f b and this forum can't regulate what is said on their platforms, but it shouldn't be government poking their political noses into everyone's private business. That leads to such as McCarthyism.

 

Your post I responded to was in the context of violence not political correctness. The law decides what is acceptable. Thought that was pretty obvious in Elons statement. 
 

By “free speech”, I simply mean that which matches the law. 

I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law. 

If people want less free speech, they will ask government to pass laws to that effect.

Therefore, going beyond the law is contrary to the will of the people.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1519036983137509376?s=21&t=SXBr6C1Rzr_77r_F_e6lXw

Edited April 30, 2022 by coolcarer

[onthedarkside]

A comment on moderation post has been removed.

 

[mtls2005]

I'm wondering where everyone was when he went all "Pedo guy"?

 

I recall many here clamoring for his scalp.

 

He was found not to have defamed Mr. Unsworth.

 

Musk testified that "Pedo Guy" was an insult, and not a statement of fact.

 

Handy that.

 

Amazing how the right-wing neo-fascists are so excited about this development. Musk is nothing if not mercurial. He can turn on a dime, with some wine and herb, so don't hitch that boat up too tightly.

[Chomper Higgot]

4 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Oh I see, this is awkward. You appear to be one of those people who thinks a Terrorist organization that publicly beheads innocent hostages on live TV with no trial and assists in atrocities like 911 has more of a right to a voice on a platform like Twitter than the POTUS.

 

You are making an accusation based on nothing but your own assumptions.

 

 

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Oh I see, this is awkward. You appear to be one of those people who thinks a Terrorist organization that publicly beheads innocent hostages on live TV with no trial and assists in atrocities like 911 has more of a right to a voice on a platform like Twitter than the POTUS.

 

I see, you are attempting to deflect by being offensive.

 

I asked you to prove your claim about fact free left wing echo chambers and the origins of your peculiar avocado toast comment.

 

I think that Twitter, as a business, has a right to establish terms of use and enforce them.  I think Twitter decided Trump's tweets were intended to incite violence.  I agree.  I assume inciting violence violated the terms of use.

 

I don't know why Twitter allows the Taliban an account.  I've never had a Twitter account and don't know what is and isn't allowed.

Edited April 30, 2022 by heybruce

[Longwood50]

7 hours ago, heybruce said:

Give an example of a social media post of a liberal opinion you think should have been censored.

This is actually both:  Twitter blocked the New York Posts Twitter account because of its reporting on the Hunter Biden laptop and its authenticity., 

Here Twitter allowed a blatant characterization that Trump is a White Supremicist despite overwhelming evidence that he has gone out of his way to assist minorities in the past.  One major example is his demand and lawsuit against Miami Dade County forcing them to allow Jewish and Blacks into the his Mar Lago golf club. 

https://www.chron.com/neighborhood/katy/opinion/article/Trump-insisted-on-including-Jews-blacks-at-Palm-9702222.php

[Longwood50]

16 hours ago, Slip said:

Oh, stop clutching your pearls in faux outrage.  The whole free speech thing is deliberately misrepresented by the right as it is.  Anyone from the left who indulges in hate, racism, or lies is generally no more welcome on the left than those on the right who do it.

It is not faux outrage.  Whenever a liberal does not like what a conservative says they suddenly resort to name calling with "racist" being the most common.  

There are two aspects to the "free speech" bias.  Posts that are conservative in nature get banned or labeled as "false news" while inherintely false posts by liberals go without scrutiny.  Secondly here are the accounts of politically affiliated  people who are permanently banned from Twitter.  Please identify the "liberals" in this group. 

Roger Stone, Alec Jones, Laura Loomer, Jacob Wohl, Steve Bannon, Lin Wood, Donald Trump, Michael Flynn, James O'Keefe, Mike Lindell, and Majorie Taylor Green. 

By contrast Twitter still allows prominent members of the Taliban.  I guess being a conservative is more vile, than being a terrrorist. 

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

1 hour ago, Longwood50 said:

Roger Stone, Alec Jones, Laura Loomer, Jacob Wohl, Steve Bannon, Lin Wood, Donald Trump, Michael Flynn, James O'Keefe, Mike Lindell, and Majorie Taylor Green. 

By contrast Twitter still allows prominent members of the Taliban.  I guess being a conservative is more vile, than being a terrrorist. 

 

Twitter's stance on the Taliban related accounts is debatable... No one's arguing what the Taliban is about. But according to news reports on the subject, the people holding those Twitter accounts have been very careful to NOT make any tweeted comments with content that would get them banned under Twitter's content policies, because they want to remain on the platform.

 

But at the same time, it's not hard to understand why Twitter would have banned the accounts of the others you mention above who repeatedly peddled false and unproven "stolen election" claims on Twitter despite being warned against doing so, and various among them ultimately advocated and supported the overthrow of a legally elected U.S. president through various means, including efforts to find a way to nullify the election and the violent January attack on the U.S. Capitol aimed at preventing the confirmation of Biden's election, aka, insurrection.

 

Twitter Permanently Suspends Trump, Citing 'Risk Of Further Incitement Of Violence'

...

"For years, Twitter has been under pressure from critics to limit the reach of Trump's falsehood-laced tweets. Calls for Trump to be banned from Twitter have also been long mounting.

 

Yet officials at Twitter stood by his account, since the platform generally gives wide berth to accounts from world leaders whose posts have public value.

 

That all changed following the violent riots that overtook the Capitol earlier this week after a deluge of posts attempting to sabotage the result of the presidential election."

 

https://www.npr.org/2021/01/08/954760928/twitter-bans-president-trump-citing-risk-of-further-incitement-of-violence

 

Twitter permanently suspends Steve Bannon account after talk of beheading

 

(CNN Business)Twitter permanently suspended an account belonging to former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon after he suggested Thursday morning that Dr. Anthony Fauci and FBI Director Christopher Wray should be beheaded.

 

His comments were made in a video posted to his Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter accounts. Bannon falsely claimed President Trump had won reelection, despite several key states still being too close to call, and said that he should fire both Fauci and Wray.

 

He then said he would go further: "I'd put the heads on pikes. Right. I'd put them at the two corners of the White House as a warning to federal bureaucrats. You either get with the program or you are gone."

 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/05/tech/steve-bannon-twitter-permanent-suspension/index.html

 

And the Capitol insurrection led to a revised Twitter policy against repeated and deliberate election misinformation:

 

MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell has been banned from Twitter

 

(CNN Business) Mike Lindell, the CEO of MyPillow, was banned from Twitter Monday night, according to a Twitter spokesperson.

 

Twitter made its decision based on a new policy it enacted after the Capitol insurrection whereby people who repeatedly share election misinformation can be permanently banned.

 

"The account you referenced has been permanently suspended due to repeated violations of our Civic Integrity Policy," the spokesperson told CNN.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/26/business/mypillow-ceo-mike-lindell-intl-hnk/index.html

 

While I realize the Taliban issue makes a nice attempted political talking point, I'm assuming that Twitter actually enforces their Twitter policies against what people do and say via their Twitter accounts, and not merely on the basis of who they are or what they represent outside of Twitter.

 

 

Edited April 30, 2022 by TallGuyJohninBKK