Elon Musk to buy Twitter

[Chomper Higgot]

8 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Isn't twitter supposed to be a universal social media platform for everyone above the ages of 13? Similar to Facebook.

 

As such then I see no justification for normalizing hate speech, inciting violence, suicide, rape, extreme gore, child abuse, self harm etc

 

For people who want to associate with that sort of content perhaps platforms such as Telegram are better suited?

I’m sure Twitter’s legal advisors agree.

[KanchanaburiGuy]

35 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Isn't twitter supposed to be a universal social media platform for everyone above the ages of 13? Similar to Facebook.

 

As such then I see no justification for normalizing hate speech, inciting violence, suicide, rape, extreme gore, child abuse, self harm etc

 

For people who want to associate with that sort of content perhaps platforms such as Telegram are better suited?

If it's......... 

 

"a universal social media platform for everyone above the age of 13"............

 

........... then they SHOULDN'T filter out speech just because they don't happen to like it! (Ergo: "Universal") 

 

If you don't want to see speech of that sort, you're supposed to SELF-filter. You SELF-filter by not reading it; blocking those you see using it; or finding a different site that's more to your liking. 

 

Personally, I think concerns that certain topics and behaviors will become "normalized" by being discussed on a social platform like Twitter........... are totally misplaced. 

 

The problem isn't the open discussion. The problem is that those reading it have received such poor education and guidance from their parents, guardians, mentors, teachers, and schools.......... that they can't keep what they're being exposed to in proper perspective.......... which then allows them to become susceptible to it! 

 

Parents, et al., want to shirk their responsibility to teach their kids on how to deal with and protect themselves from these many real-life intrusions.......... and then expect supposedly "open" social media platforms to make up for their deficiencies, by protecting their "precious little babies" from harm! 

 

(These "precious little babies" grow up, of course, and become adults who don't know how to cope! So the adults insist on being "protected," too!) 

 

Personally, I think we'll be much better off investing our time in solving the RIGHT problems............not just continuing to put bandaids on the wrong problems! 

 

Cheers! 

Edited May 11, 2022 by KanchanaburiGuy

[Bkk Brian]

13 minutes ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

If it's......... 

 

"a universal social media platform for everyone above the ages of 13"............

 

........... then they SHOULDN'T filter out speech just because they don't happen to like it! (Ergo: "Universal") 

 

If you don't want to see speech of that sort, you're supposed to SELF-filter. You SELF-filter by not reading it; blocking those you see using it; or finding a different site that's more to your liking. 

 

Personally, I think concerns that certain topics and behaviors will become "normalized" by being discussed on a social site like Twitter........... are totally misplaced. 

 

The problem isn't the open discussion. The problem is that those reading it have received such poor education and guidance from their parents, guardians, mentors, teachers, and schools.......... that they can't keep what they're being exposed to in proper perspective.......... and they then become susceptible to it! 

 

Parents, et al., want

Don't be ridiculous, parents are not with their children 24/7 and young people cannot be expected to self filter unless they themselves feel responsible enough to do so, which is highly unlikely for those that are vulnerable.

 

Thankfully twitter does not agree with you: https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/media-policy

 

I can think of nothing more evil than allowing pedophiles to ply their trade just as one example, there are plenty more.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Do you have evidence that something posted on Twitter can incite violence, as opposed to those people being prepped and primed to commit violence, anyway? 

 

If you---or Twitter---can't prove that things posted on their site can actually trigger  a violent reaction........... then Twitter shouldn't ban people as if they do! 

 

"Might" and "can" are both weak arguments. Before taking away a person's voice---their so-called "Freedom of Speech"---there ought to be at least SOME proof that what they're claiming can happen........... actually CAN happen! 

 

. 

 

Now, Twitter is a business and they get to make these decisions for themselves. But as consumers of their product, it's reasonable to expect them to offer truthful answer to these questions, not just theory and hyperbole.

 

Because....... 

 

Capricious behavior now........

almost always predicts...........

capricious behavior in the future! 

 

Musk buying Twitter has the potential to alter that, perhaps radically. 

 

(And that's why discussing things that have---or could---result in major alterations in Twitter's management decisions.......... matters!) 

 

Cheers! 

Can we prove that speeches by Adolf Hitler and his propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels instigated Kristallnacht in 1938?  No.  Can we reasonably assume they had something to do with it?  Yes.

 

The line between expressing opinions passionately and without qualification versus intentionally lying to achieve an objective is difficult to define. 

 

That's why judgment based on past experience is required to determine what constitutes a call to violence.  If the platform for the offending words are privately owned, the platform owner's can decide what constitutes crossing the line.

[Chomper Higgot]

3 hours ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

If it's......... 

 

"a universal social media platform for everyone above the age of 13"............

 

........... then they SHOULDN'T filter out speech just because they don't happen to like it! (Ergo: "Universal") 

 

If you don't want to see speech of that sort, you're supposed to SELF-filter. You SELF-filter by not reading it; blocking those you see using it; or finding a different site that's more to your liking. 

 

Personally, I think concerns that certain topics and behaviors will become "normalized" by being discussed on a social platform like Twitter........... are totally misplaced. 

 

The problem isn't the open discussion. The problem is that those reading it have received such poor education and guidance from their parents, guardians, mentors, teachers, and schools.......... that they can't keep what they're being exposed to in proper perspective.......... which then allows them to become susceptible to it! 

 

Parents, et al., want to shirk their responsibility to teach their kids on how to deal with and protect themselves from these many real-life intrusions.......... and then expect supposedly "open" social media platforms to make up for their deficiencies, by protecting their "precious little babies" from harm! 

 

(These "precious little babies" grow up, of course, and become adults who don't know how to cope! So the adults insist on being "protected," too!) 

 

Personally, I think we'll be much better off investing our time in solving the RIGHT problems............not just continuing to put bandaids on the wrong problems! 

 

Cheers! 

Utter nonsense.

 

Twitter enables anonymous users to spread the messages they post to a large Twitter user base.

 

Harmful messages, absolutely do find an audience and are spread further by those who ascribe to the harmful views.

 

You perhaps need to revisit the history of broadcast harmful messaging and the consequences of broadcasting harmful messaging and precisely how harmful messaging takes hold in societies.

[Scott]

Numerous off-topic posts and reported replies removed.  Continue and face a suspension.  

[KanchanaburiGuy]

19 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

Don't be ridiculous, parents are not with their children 24/7 and young people cannot be expected to self filter unless they themselves feel responsible enough to do so, which is highly unlikely for those that are vulnerable.

 

Thankfully twitter does not agree with you: https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/media-policy

 

I can think of nothing more evil than allowing pedophiles to ply their trade just as one example, there are plenty more.

Parents don't have to be with their children 24/7. What they DO need to do is teach their children to recognize right from wrong; good from bad. They need to teach them how to tell the difference between friendliness and manipulation. They need to teach them how to spot predatory behavior. They need to teach them to automatically question rather than automatically accept. 

 

In other words, they need to go to the trouble to teach their kids to watch out for themselves; to know what that means, and how to properly respond to a "threat." 

 

But that's a lot of work and the parents, et al., don't want to have to do it. WON'T do it. 

 

Instead, rather than teach their children how to protect themselves and how to cope.......... they want the world around them to become lollipop land, where their children are "safe" from all unpleasant experiences. 

 

In a truly better world, writers would not have to edit what they write........... limit what they say.......... because the readers will have received a proper education, so they to know how to process what they read. 

 

Editing and censoring to "solve" this problem is similar to how we mistakenly try to deal with the drug problem: We try to cut off SUPPLY, when the REAL problem is DEMAND! 

 

In this case, though, it's not a supply and demand problem. In this case, it's trying to limit exposure........... when the correct solution is teaching people how to recognize what is and is not a "threat," and how to properly deal with it. 

 

.

 

"Sticks and Stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me!" 

 

Everyone has heard this little quip, I'm sure. But how many really understand what it means? 

 

It DOESN'T MEAN words are powerless to do harm. After all, we all know they can! 

 

WHAT IT MEANS IS............. I am strong enough and educated enough to NOT ALLOW MYSELF to be harmed by them! 

 

"Words can never hurt ME!" 

 

. 

 

"Give a man a fish and you can feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you can feed him for a lifetime."

 

"Give a man a fish" = Censoring an individual internet bulletin board. 

 

"Teach a man to fish" = Preparing a person to deal with all the 'bad stuff' life might throw at them........... regardless of where they occur!

 

Cheers! 

 

 

Edited May 12, 2022 by KanchanaburiGuy

[KanchanaburiGuy]

15 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Utter nonsense.

 

Twitter enables anonymous users to spread the messages they post to a large Twitter user base.

 

Harmful messages, absolutely do find an audience and are spread further by those who ascribe to the harmful views.

 

You perhaps need to revisit the history of broadcast harmful messaging and the consequences of broadcasting harmful messaging and precisely how harmful messaging takes hold in societies.

Perhaps I don't. 

 

Because I know those messages only affected those who were receptive to them. Those who were not receptive to them............ remained unaffected or were repulsed. 

 

Thus, the problem really doesn't lie on the sending end. The problem really lies on the receiving end. 

 

Fixing the wrong problem may feel good, in the short term. But it still doesn't fix the REAL problem, does it? 

 

Maybe Musk can find a way to do the latter, rather then just repeating the former. 

 

Cheers! 

[Bkk Brian]

2 hours ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Parents don't have to be with their children 24/7. What they DO need to do is teach their children to recognize right from wrong; good from bad. They need to teach them how to tell the difference between friendliness and manipulation. They need to teach them how to spot predatory behavior. They need to teach them to automatically question rather than automatically accept. 

 

In other words, they need to go to the trouble to teach their kids to watch out for themselves; to know what that means, and how to properly respond to a "threat." 

 

But that's a lot of work and the parents, et al., don't want to have to do it. WON'T do it. 

 

Instead, rather than teach their children how to protect themselves and how to cope.......... they want the world around them to become lollipop land, where their children are "safe" from all unpleasant experiences. 

 

In a truly better world, writers would not have to edit what they write........... limit what they say.......... because the readers will have received a proper education, so they to know how to process what they read. 

 

Editing and censoring to "solve" this problem is similar to how we mistakenly try to deal with the drug problem: We try to cut off SUPPLY, when the REAL problem is DEMAND! 

 

In this case, though, it's not a supply and demand problem. In this case, it's trying to limit exposure........... when the correct solution is teaching people how to recognize what is and is not a "threat," and how to properly deal with it. 

 

.

 

"Sticks and Stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me!" 

 

Everyone has heard this little quip, I'm sure. But how many really understand what it means? 

 

It DOESN'T MEAN words are powerless to do harm. After all, we all know they can! 

 

WHAT IT MEANS IS............. I am strong enough and educated enough to NOT ALLOW MYSELF to be harmed by them! 

 

"Words can never hurt ME!" 

 

. 

 

"Give a man a fish and you can feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you can feed him for a lifetime."

 

"Give a man a fish" = Censoring an individual internet bulletin board. 

 

"Teach a man to fish" = Preparing a person to deal with all the 'bad stuff' life might throw at them........... regardless of where they occur!

 

Cheers! 

 

 

What a perfect world you describe of how a responsible parent brings up their children. In this alternate universe there would be no need for Child Protection services, social services, phedophillia is non existent as is self harm and all things that go against the expected norm for a balanced upbringing.

 

Now back to reality where not all parents are so responsible and not all children even have parents due to death or being abused by them, physically, emotionally or sexually.

 

Twitter has rules and policies in place for a reason, your arguments do not in anyway even come close to challenging them.

 

 

[SunnyinBangrak]

Well it was fun while it lasted. I think Musk did a great thing once and for all exposing the bias in big tech, so it was not a waste of time and effort.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10812903/Elon-Musk-announces-Twitter-deal-temporarily-hold.html?ito=social-twitter_mailonline

[Slip]

10 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Well it was fun while it lasted. I think Musk did a great thing once and for all exposing the bias in big tech, so it was not a waste of time and effort.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10812903/Elon-Musk-announces-Twitter-deal-temporarily-hold.html?ito=social-twitter_mailonline

The "bias in big tech" that has been repeatedly debunked as right wing pearl clutching numerous times on this very thread.

[Berkshire]

20 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Well it was fun while it lasted. I think Musk did a great thing once and for all exposing the bias in big tech, so it was not a waste of time and effort.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10812903/Elon-Musk-announces-Twitter-deal-temporarily-hold.html?ito=social-twitter_mailonline

Oh dear.  TWTR market valuation is currently around $35 billion and going lower.  And Elon wants to spend $44 billion to take it private?  Not unless he's a total idiot. 

[EVENKEEL]

25 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

Oh dear.  TWTR market valuation is currently around $35 billion and going lower.  And Elon wants to spend $44 billion to take it private?  Not unless he's a total idiot. 

Too funny, You should call Musk with that bit of info, I'm sure he's appreciate it.

[Berkshire]

3 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

Too funny, You should call Musk with that bit of info, I'm sure he's appreciate it.

Elon told me it was all a ruse.  He just wanted to unload some TSLA stock....55555.

[Berkshire]

A lot of speculation going on regarding Elon and the Twitter purchase.  Elon isn't new to this.  He's been investigated by the SEC before for making false statements about taking Tesla private.  He was found guilty and fined millions.  Now he's at it again.  For all those "free speech advocates," is it ok to make false statements that can move a stock price up or down?

 

"Speculation swirled Friday over whether Musk intended the tweets as a strategy to back out of the deal or alternatively to reopen negotiations to buy the company at a lower price after its shares dropped."

"If Tesla stock sees a spike, the SEC may be able to paint a picture that Musk used a deal with Twitter to drive down Tesla prices, only to then drive it back up by backing out of that deal."

"According to the merger agreement, Musk’s acquisition company, X Holdings I, can terminate the deal without paying $1 billion if Twitter breaches certain agreements or takes a competing higher offer, or if Twitter's shareholders fail to vote for the merger."

 

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-invited-legal-scrutiny-by-tweeting-doubts-twitter-bid-211555141.html

 

[bendejo]

I'm surprised that I don't hear much skepticism regarding the future of Twitter.  Anyone can come along with a site/program that does the same thing, and suddenly huge numbers abandon Twitter for the new service.   I wonder if this possibility is cutting through Musk's arrogance and is why he's getting cold feet.  What be his worst case?  He sells Tesla to Ford, or SpaceX to Bezos?

I wonder if Zuckerberg has nightmares of his enterprise going the way of Myspace.

 

 

[Berkshire]

On 5/13/2022 at 5:55 PM, EVENKEEL said:

On 5/13/2022 at 5:28 PM, Berkshire said:

Oh dear.  TWTR market valuation is currently around $35 billion and going lower.  And Elon wants to spend $44 billion to take it private?  Not unless he's a total idiot. 

Too funny, You should call Musk with that bit of info, I'm sure he's appreciate it.

"There is no way Elon Musk is going to buy Twitter at such a ridiculous price, especially since realizing it is a company largely based on BOTS or Spam Accounts"

 

Gee, wonder who said that.....55555

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-says-no-way-elon-113043577.html

 

[bendejo]

Looks like he's found a way out without making a fool of himself looking like he made a bad initial decision:

https://www.bostonherald.com/2022/05/17/musk-doubts-on-spam-bots-could-scuttle-twitter-deal/

 

Personally, I don't care one way or the other but I would appreciate if I could read a news page without having to see that grinning-chimp countenance. 

But his rationale could underline that the online world is helpless in dealing with trolls, spamming, etc which certain bad actors will see as empowering.

 

Or perhaps it's a bargaining ploy.

 

 

Edited May 17, 2022 by bendejo

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

On 5/16/2022 at 4:01 PM, Berkshire said:

"There is no way Elon Musk is going to buy Twitter at such a ridiculous price, especially since realizing it is a company largely based on BOTS or Spam Accounts"

 

Gee, wonder who said that.....55555

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-says-no-way-elon-113043577.html

 

 

He and his minions certainly should know it!!!  ????

 

[Jingthing]

I don't doubt the brilliance of Musk but his erratic abrasive personality indicates he's rather an ass.

 

If the twit deal goes forward, I'm not at all confident that he has the right stuff to improve it.

[mtls2005]

4 hours ago, Jingthing said:

I don't doubt the brilliance of Musk but his erratic abrasive personality indicates he's rather an ass.

Could easily go the way of Howard Hughes.

 

He does love the weed and wine; plus he can afford the best designer drugs.

 

Wondering who the first actor to portray him in a fictional film will be? Maybe Tom Cruise, who definitely has a painting of himself in his "studio".

 

 

[bendejo]

12 hours ago, mtls2005 said:

Wondering who the first actor to portray him in a fictional film will be? Maybe Tom Cruise, who definitely has a painting of himself in his "studio".

Gilbert Gotfried.  Oops, RIP "Mr Too Soon."

Or Jim Carrey, circa 1990s, not the toned-down mature current version.

 

If they were casting today, they would probably pick McAvoy.  But we have to see what becomes of him, life is long.

 

 

[Jingthing]

John Malkovitch but he would need to reverse aged.

[SunnyinBangrak]

On 5/13/2022 at 5:17 PM, Slip said:

The "bias in big tech" that has been repeatedly debunked as right wing pearl clutching numerous times on this very thread.

who has "debunked" the bias claim as you state? According to top Twitter exec it is very real.

 

"A senior Twitter engineer has been secretly recorded admitting that the social media giant is “censoring the right” — and that he and his co-workers are “Commie as f...”

https://nypost.com/2022/05/17/twitter-engineer-says-commie-staff-censors-the-right/

[SunnyinBangrak]

18 hours ago, mtls2005 said:

Could easily go the way of Howard Hughes.

 

He does love the weed and wine; plus he can afford the best designer drugs.

 

Wondering who the first actor to portray him in a fictional film will be? Maybe Tom Cruise, who definitely has a painting of himself in his "studio".

 

 

Other than his having smoked a joint on the JRE, do you have any hard evidence to prove your claim that Musk is suffering from drug addictions which could be leading him to a life of isolated madness? His frequent public appearances and razor sharp mental faculty suggests otherwise.

[Bkk Brian]

Musk is contractually obligated to pay a $1 billion break-up fee if he does not complete the deal, but Twitter can sue for "specific performance" to force Musk to complete a deal and obtain a settlement from him as a result.

 

https://www.reuters.com/markets/deals/twitter-committed-elon-musks-44-billion-deal-2022-05-17/

[placeholder]

7 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

who has "debunked" the bias claim as you state? According to top Twitter exec it is very real.

 

"A senior Twitter engineer has been secretly recorded admitting that the social media giant is “censoring the right” — and that he and his co-workers are “Commie as f...”

https://nypost.com/2022/05/17/twitter-engineer-says-commie-staff-censors-the-right/

Why would anyone trust a video from Project Veritas given its history of dishonesty including misleading editing?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas#:~:text=Project Veritas unsuccessfully attempted to,Prize after uncovering the operation.

 

[SunnyinBangrak]

12 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Musk is contractually obligated to pay a $1 billion break-up fee if he does not complete the deal, but Twitter can sue for "specific performance" to force Musk to complete a deal and obtain a settlement from him as a result.

 

https://www.reuters.com/markets/deals/twitter-committed-elon-musks-44-billion-deal-2022-05-17/

This is just not true. IF, Twitters accounts were factual and accurate then yes he would be obliged to complete the deal at the previously agreed price. Yet it has come to light that Twitters own claim that real users account for 95% + of users is just not true. This figure has been used to determine advertisers fees(where Twitters revenue comes from) and by investors to value the company. Massively overstating the number of users for financial gain is fraudulent. I am surprised Twitter stock has not been suspended while a thorough investigation takes place into Twitters 95% + claim.

 

"Nearly half of President Joe Biden's 22.3 million Twitter followers are fake, a new analysis revealed on Wednesday."

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10829675/Almost-half-President-Bidens-Twitter-followers-FAKE-audit-reveals.html?ito=social-twitter_mailonline

[mtls2005]

23 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

do you have any hard evidence to prove your claim that Musk is suffering from drug addictions

I did not make any claim about "suffering from drug addictions".

 

That said, if pressed I'll use the "Pedo Guy" defense.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[placeholder]

26 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

who has "debunked" the bias claim as you state? According to top Twitter exec it is very real.

 

"A senior Twitter engineer has been secretly recorded admitting that the social media giant is “censoring the right” — and that he and his co-workers are “Commie as f...”

https://nypost.com/2022/05/17/twitter-engineer-says-commie-staff-censors-the-right/

How did you come up with the ridiculous claim that a senior engineer at Twitter a "top Twitter exec"? Engineers are not executives. Here is a link to a job description of the duties of a senior software engineer at Twitter:

https://careers.twitter.com/en/work-for-twitter/202010/8e22521c-6d5e-4c26-949b-0cc472f8bf01/585b1193-dafa-4b9b-b2f4-0361723e51d0.html/software-engineer-mid-level-sr-backend-content.html