With the Musk allowing evil villains back on the platform I won't even click a T*****r link now. The less traffic to show advertisers the better.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Executive Phil Schiller Deactivates Twitter Account
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Musk announced he will not allow Alex Jones back. Guess Musk has now "gone woke" and the stans no longer like him. 
I think leaving because Musk took it over is narcissistic. Narcissism is bad. I might have a contempt for narcissistic behavior in all its forms.
And that birtherism is legitimate when it happens to white guys and racist when it doesn't isn't a demonstration of anything except that you see things through a particular lens.
Ah, I never said it was legitimate, I said it was not racist:
1. Ted Cruz was born in Canada. John McCain was born in the Canal Zone. In this case, the debate is over their eligibility, not a lie made up about their birthplaces. Obama was not born in Kenya.
2. Unless you can prove that the questions over Cruz's and McCain's eligibility were due to their race (and there is no evidence that it was), racism is not involved. It is petty and political, but their eligibility was not questioned because they are white. If that were the case, then yes, it would be racist.
3. Birtherism was spawned by the same people who consistently accused Obama of being a Muslim, emphasizing his Arab middle name, and a clear case of "othering". Obama was black, had a "foreign"-sounding name, ergo, he's a foreigner, and a lie was made up about where he was born. The fact that you see the debate over Cruz and McCain as being identical to the racist lies about Obama only reveals the lens through which you see reality (a foggy, scratched lens at that).
Last edited:
Can you name a forum (In the broad sense of the word) on the internet that doesn’t moderate any legal speech and is successful? And does it have a wider variety of speech than Twitter?
Me: House is on fire, and all of the neighbors gather on my lawn to watch it burn down.
Also me: Wow, I've never had so many visitors at once.
What’s wrong with fascist propaganda? It’s stupid and ignorant and easily proven false - so what threat is it to thinking people?
What’s disinformation? Saying the CV19 vaccine might not stop transmission was disinformation in 2021 but is widely believed now.
What’s wrong with lies? We allow lies in every form of media in the world. Why should someone decide what is a lie for us?
BLM brought insane violence across the country. They were never banned.
Free speech is free speech. Let’s promote it on every platform.
Well, I don't buy stuff from easily triggered woke people with mental issues. I hope he got his emotional support iPod Nano pet before they discontinued it.
Not having searched the whole internet I cannot.
I don’t know what you mean by legal speech? Or successful?
Twitter was successful before it started to ban misinformation and people it didn’t like politically. So… is Twitter pre heavy moderation an example?
Surf monkey…lots of things are making sense now about your other activities.
When you are not team red or team blue this all seems overly dramatic.
Fascist propaganda and incitement to violence are facts? Incitement to violence is an incredibly hard legal definition to prove. But hard partisans see it everywhere. Because they are partisans who dehumanize their fellow citizens and then slap themselves on the back because their team won the day! I know…those dumb MAGA people and those California Liberals are just the worst. Or maybe…they just disagree in complicated ways and a platform like Twitter can handle all of them disagreeing without trying to decide who is right or who belongs. Just like adults have always done in every media for as long as had freedom.
By legal speech, I mean it’s fine if your example removes CSAM and copyright infringement. I’m talking about a platform that leaves up all speech that they don’t have a legal obligation to remove.
I am sure they were all happy that Kyle whacked the Pedo and Woman Assaulter. A lot of people were.
Its nice that he stepped aside and let someone else get a turn to talk, so many people were censored on that platform in the past it became as useless to them as it is useless to him now except in this case he is actually free to say whatever he wants to, which was definitely not the case a few months ago.
Not sure why that pleases you in any way?
personal feelings aside does it actually help you day to day in any real meaningful way? Most likely not. waste of energy and sentiment that'll not affect you 1 way or the other.
^^
I see a LOT of hate central to 1 person above here. That's your right. We all may disagree - or I may disagree without knowing your reasons, but I cannot debate what's ideal since neither of us know one another's reasons.
Interestingly enough, we have a forums to discuss, share ideas and debate. The level of maturity in which that occurs, with moderators - makes Macrumors a great place to do all of this. I sincerely feel the level for 1 decision that affects another's ability to do all of these and showing dislike seems unfair and unfounded IF any of us wanted to participate and was restricted EVEN if our views/comments are divisive/unpopular/etc.
Don't get me wrong, personally I'm not nor ever will be nor ever have been a fan of Trump and similar goons he's pardoned. But ... their right to discuss things is a right we all share. That said it's quite entertaining to see his posts and get immediately shut down with facts and links. The issue of all the negativity on both sides is too many memes to discredit doesn't help one side or another, neither does using 'fact-check' with incorrect facts to discredit him didn't help either, only emboldened.
Interesting, seems a lot of people choose their thought process as:
Person 1 is "irritable to me."
Many stating they dislike him.
Lots of factual statements showing of this/that/that,
Many want to cancel or remove him from their sphere of favourite debatable forum.
So Person 1 should be completely silenced.
Yet not thinking .. "I'm a person and should have rights to talk. Legally converse with others not insight hatred violence or any racial discrimination" 'Why doesn't person A whom i really dislike not have the same rights, allowed to talk, and with the same legal restrictions on said platforms of choice? Would I like it if my voice is silenced? "
And right there ... that last sentence is never considered for what Musk is trying to instate and maintain for EVERYONE. They just see headlines here rhetoric and spew verbatim what they here/see/convince to think of, not think for themselves.
I'm not sure if anyone remembers their history here but does anyone recall what the 'right for peaceful protest' used to mean prior to 1935? I'm pretty much seeing any protest more than 5 ppl in USA/Canada is considered a NON-peaceful protest unless the citizens completely and overwhelmingly outnumber any police force above 40/50:1 and only 1 since 1960 comes to mind and it was a VERY peaceful protest. My point of this is, dialogue is still a form of debate/agreement/sharing ideas/views and disagreements and of course protest.
I'm of the mind that shutting out an oppositions voice means you have no idea the moves they plan to make against your own. letting them converse at the very least shows their thinking 1 way or another, even if slight of hand you have something to go on.
When did the party of "lawww and order" switch to coincidental extrajudicial vigilante justice?
You don't need to censor the word Twitter, Elon won't make money off you writing it out. Don't worry.