Just in time for Presidential Inauguration: Musk to Censor Twitter/X for Negativity.

[Yellowtail]

6 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Another evidence free quote from you. Now that is dumb.

Well, that didn't take long, here you go mind-reader.

 

 

[placeholder]

2 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Well, that didn't take long, here you go mind-reader.

 

 

I cited evidence to support my claim. Maybe you've got a better explanation of why people reverse their opinions instantly when Trump reverses his.

[Yellowtail]

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

It's a private site. So it has a right to regulate speech in any way it likes.

Quit deflecting. The question was not whether it has the right. The question was:  Do you think people on X should be able to say anything they like or not? 

 

Do you think the government should be colluding with social media to control speech? 

[placeholder]

3 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Quit deflecting. The question was not whether it has the right. The question was:  Do you think people on X should be able to say anything they like or not? 

 

Do you think the government should be colluding with social media to control speech? 

What deflecting? What don't you understand about the fact that if X has the right to regulate speech then that means X members don't have the right to say anything they like? What other possible interpretation could there be of what I said?

 

As for the "collude" question...the government certainly has the right to advise. Just not the right to compel.

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

I cited evidence to support my claim. Maybe you've got a better explanation of why people reverse their opinions instantly when Trump reverses his.

No, you did not. 

 

I see nothing wrong with people changing their opinions when presented with a bit of evidence, do you? 

 

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

What deflecting? What don't you understand about the fact that if X has the right to regulate speech then that means X members don't have the right to say anything they like? What other possible interpretation could there be of what I said?

 

As for the "collude" question...the government certainly has the right to advise. Just not the right to compel.

I was asking for your opinion. Maybe you can google it and post a link. 

[placeholder]

Just now, Yellowtail said:

I was asking for your opinion. Maybe you can google it and post a link. 

I have no idea what you are on about. Do I have to preface every opinion I post with "My opinion is../"

What is there about" It's a private site. So it has a right to regulate speech in any way it likes." that makes it not an opinion? Clearly there are people who disagree. People who cheered Musk on because speech was regulated on Twitter. They had a different opinion. Your comment is bizarre and inane.

[Yellowtail]

2 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I have no idea what you are on about. Do I have to preface every opinion I post with "My opinion is../"

What is there about" It's a private site. So it has a right to regulate speech in any way it likes." that makes it not an opinion? Clearly there are people who disagree. People who cheered Musk on because speech was regulated on Twitter. They had a different opinion. Your comment is bizarre and inane.

I know banks have the right to foreclose on recent widows that are delinquent with their mortgage payments.

 

I don't think banks should foreclose on recent widows that are delinquent with their mortgage payments. 

 

See the difference?  One is my opinion. 

[placeholder]

5 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I know banks have the right to foreclose on recent widows that are delinquent with their mortgage payments.

 

I don't think banks should foreclose on recent widows that are delinquent with their mortgage payments. 

 

See the difference?  One is my opinion. 

Well, some people, mainly right wingers, think that Twitter didn't have that right.

[placeholder]

Just now, placeholder said:

Well, some people, mainly right wingers, think that Twitter didn't have that right.

If you wanted to ask me should private websites practice censorship, that what you should have asked.

[placeholder]

20 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

No, you did not. 

 

I see nothing wrong with people changing their opinions when presented with a bit of evidence, do you? 

 

What evidence were they presented with? Does Trump reversing himself count as evidence? And after being a central focus of MAGA, just an alleged bit of evidence should be enough? It is to laugh.

[Yagoda]

5 hours ago, placeholder said:

I wrote he's censoring or downgrading his critics. What is unclear about that?

How

[SiSePuede419]

You don't understand.

Authoritarian, Fascists or Nazis (same, same) don't believe the rules apply to themselves.

Freedom of speech (for themselves).

Support Law and Order (until the policeman tells them they can't take a <deleted> on Nancy Peloski s desk--then they bash the policeman over the head trying to violently hurt them with a Nazi, Confederate or Trump flag (same, same).

They believe in Capitalism until a corporation puts a Trans spokesperson on a beer commercial then all of a sudden the FREE MARKET no longer works and people must be told which brands are "WOKE!!!!!1!1!"

They claim they support the troops but don't care if their cult leader lies them into war DON'T LET THE SMOKING GUN BE A MUSHROOM CLOUD (horse<deleted> they knew Saddam had zero nuclear capabilities).

 

If it weren't for HYPOCRISY these nihilists would have no moral values at all. 😭

[OneMoreFarang]

15 hours ago, John Drake said:

First, he removed the blue check mark verification of accounts that disagreed with him on H1Bs.

Next, he changed his personal account so that only people with those blue check marks could reply to him.

Now, he is censoring people for being "negative," as defined by Elon Musk.

Elon makes Jack Dorsey look like Thomas Jefferson.

 

 

 

German Chancellor Scholz reaction to Musk: "Don’t feed the troll"

That sums it up nicely. 

[wombat]

I guess it depends on what the owner of X defines as negativety ?

[jesimps]

16 hours ago, brewsterbudgen said:

Most decent-minded people have already switched to Bluesky.

I'm a decent-minded person and I haven't, nor has anyone that I know.

[Woke to Sounds of Horking]

Eel's grandmother's from Moose Jaw!!

[oxo1947]

16 hours ago, John Drake said:

First, he removed the blue check mark verification of accounts that disagreed with him on H1Bs.

Next, he changed his personal account so that only people with those blue check marks could reply to him.

Now, he is censoring people for being "negative," as defined by Elon Musk.

Elon makes Jack Dorsey look like Thomas Jefferson.

 

Could you just point to the post you put up protesting when it was the other way around (I am having a hard job finding them)-----not only on X-- but as also admitted by the owner on Facebook  ---& not just anyone but a complete ban on  someone who was going to be running for POTUS-----

[Thingamabob]

16 hours ago, brewsterbudgen said:

Most decent-minded people have already switched to Bluesky.

Decent-minded ? A touch vainglorious methinks.

[impulse]

While I'm basically against censorship skewed to either side, it'll be fun watching the lefties get a dose of it this time around.

 

See how they like them apples...

 

[brewsterbudgen]

19 minutes ago, Thingamabob said:

Decent-minded ? A touch vainglorious methinks.

Unlike Musk? 🤣

[mrfill]

So free speech only applies when they agree with you Elon?

[soalbundy]

16 hours ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

X is a private company. If leftists cant play by the rules (which are primarily about not encouraging violence) they will be removed. A simple enough concept.

He doesn't like honesty either.

[Yellowtail]

13 hours ago, placeholder said:

Well, some people, mainly right wingers, think that Twitter didn't have that right.

Another lame post lacking evidence 

[Yellowtail]

13 hours ago, placeholder said:

What evidence were they presented with? Does Trump reversing himself count as evidence? And after being a central focus of MAGA, just an alleged bit of evidence should be enough? It is to laugh.

What it is and what it is supposed to do has been covered quite a bit in the non legacy media. 

 

Raw Story didn't cover it? 

 

[Yellowtail]

2 hours ago, SiSePuede419 said:

You don't understand.

Authoritarian, Fascists or Nazis (same, same) don't believe the rules apply to themselves.

Freedom of speech (for themselves).

Support Law and Order (until the policeman tells them they can't take a <deleted> on Nancy Peloski s desk--then they bash the policeman over the head trying to violently hurt them with a Nazi, Confederate or Trump flag (same, same).

They believe in Capitalism until a corporation puts a Trans spokesperson on a beer commercial then all of a sudden the FREE MARKET no longer works and people must be told which brands are "WOKE!!!!!1!1!"

They claim they support the troops but don't care if their cult leader lies them into war DON'T LET THE SMOKING GUN BE A MUSHROOM CLOUD (horse<deleted> they knew Saddam had zero nuclear capabilities).

 

If it weren't for HYPOCRISY these nihilists would have no moral values at all. 😭

 

That you don't understand that boycotting Bud Lite is a perfect example of how the free market is supposed to work is amusing.

 

Why should a moron that takes a dump on Nancy's desk be treated significantly different from rioters in a federal courthouse? 

 

 

 

 

[Yellowtail]

2 hours ago, jesimps said:

I'm a decent-minded person and I haven't, nor has anyone that I know.

Do you have a cat? 

[SiSePuede419]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

Why should a moron that takes a dump on Nancy's desk be treated significantly different from rioters in a federal courthouse

Whataboutism.

 

Something something Black Lives Matter.

 

Classic KGB propaganda technique. 🕵️‍♂️ Also, Billionaires funding boycotts is not "Free Market" capitalism, it's a distortion or corruption of the system. 

 

1. Power Imbalance: When billionaires fund boycotts, their financial power can overshadow grassroots efforts, making it harder for smaller voices to be heard. This raises ethical questions about democracy and equity in the marketplace.

 

2. Distorted Free Market: Large-scale financial backing can create artificial market pressures that don’t reflect the genuine preferences of the broader consumer base.

 

3. Public Manipulation: If billionaire-funded boycotts rely on misleading campaigns or heavy propaganda, they could manipulate public sentiment, undermining the principle of informed consumer choice.

[Yellowtail]

5 minutes ago, SiSePuede419 said:

Whataboutism.

 

Something something Black Lives Matter.

 

Classic KGB propaganda technique. 🕵️‍♂️

 

Classic Marxist diversion. 

 

That you don't understand that boycotting Bud Lite is a perfect example of how the free market is supposed to work is amusing.

 

Why should a moron that takes a dump on Nancy's desk be treated significantly different from rioters in a federal courthouse? 

[placeholder]

15 hours ago, Yagoda said:

How

Look on the first page if this topic. I posted 2 links.