Elon Musk Claims Apple Has 'Mostly Stopped' Offering Ads on Twitter and Is Making Moderation Demands

[freediverx]

Let’s be real. The left doesn’t like any speech that disagrees with their viewpoint and they want to shut it down.

"The left" wants to reduce hate speech, malicious disinformation, and death threats. Meanwhile "the right" is forbidding schools from teaching history if the facts shine an unflattering light on white people (slavery, racism, etc.)

Not exactly equivalent, now is it?

 

[project_2501]

Stopping advertising is hating free speech?

What a clown Musk is.

 

[vipergts2207]

You see a persecution complex from me saying that the political lines have changed? That's a weird thing to say. Maybe you're just trying to bait people?

It's fairly obvious that the political lines are being redrawn over the last 10 years. People who were left of centre, whose values haven't changed, are now considered far right by vast swathes of people. If you've voted for the left for your entire life, but you're skeptical of gender ideology, you're labeled as far right.

This far left pro censorship, pro gender ideology, racially obsessed identity politics that has come out of academic institutions and leaked into everyone's daily life is not simple left vs right politics. It's new, and I don't believe you can seriously pretend otherwise.

You can just look at a whole bunch of people in the public eye who used to all get along and where it felt like everyone had more or less the same values, and watch them fall hard on either side of this new political divide.

Both sides have gotten more polarized. But while the left becoming more polarized has been for universal healthcare, better wages, and for trans people to be allowed to exist, the right becoming more polarized has meant pretending there’s not an issue with how many police departments treat African Americans, pretending that trans people can’t exist, and pretending that CRT in K-12 education is happening. This polarization is not in equal magnitude nor quality. How is it possible that the former POTUS and Republican frontrunner in 2024 just dined with a known anti-Semite?

 

[hans1972]

And it introduces an interesting question surrounding the pending legal fight with EU and Epic: does banning Twitter off the AppStore constitute an effective silencing of a source of information and communication?

EU is not concerned about this from a freedom of speech perspective, but from an anti-completive perspective.

Many European countries has laws putting very strict regulations on social media companies to censure and restrict content on their platforms.

The Network Enforcement Act of Germany obliges social media platforms with more than 2 million users to remove clearly illegal content within 24 hours and all other illegal content within 7 days. Up to €50 million in fines.
The deleted content must be stored for 10 weeks for purpose of criminal prosecution and the companies has to report to the German government transparency reports on every complaint they have received from users and others about content.

What the EU commission is worried about now is if Twitter has the resources to censor and remove content which is illegal in the EU (which is a lot).

 

[thettareddast]

Sorry, but that’s an extreme view. A person nor a company are under any obligation to assist you in making your speech, nor should they be. If you can’t find someone willing to help facilitate, then go stand on the street corner. The right wanted money to be speech and corporations to be people. Congrats, you made your bed now lie in it.

Ha suck it libs.
No wait, not like that!

This is a pragmatic view. I’m not sure if you understood it, because assisting or facilitating speech isnt relevant to the argument.

The argument is people should be talking about how private corporations should deal with popular vs unpopular speech. Not what is “free speech” in legal context.

Nobody is going to court over it. Twitter isnt standing at trial versus private account owners, so the lay attempts at interpreting law w.r.t. speech is getting lost in the weeds.

 

[steve09090]

That is your choice.

But Apple doesn't have that right to ban. Like you don't have right to ban what I have to say.

Of course it does. In the exact same way as a company has the right to remove anyone that doesn’t align with their own moral code. They have been banning any kind of hate speech since… Apple. Why should they allow themselves to be a Speakers Corner for the world?

Let's apply same logic to Tim Cook body of work

1. His production lined killed 3 people.
2. Apple CM has been caught several times using child labor
3. Apple CM has several riots and protests
4. Apple allowed CM/Chinese government TJ force student work as labor in China.

So while apple has brilliant in making money. Could same thing be said of Tim Cook is mentally ill since he obvious have split personality?

That’s a stupid analogy. These companies are ones contracted by Apple. Yet apple have actually done these analysis to find child labour etc. They are the ones that are stopping/reducing child labour in their contractors company.

They have also banned several companies from their supply chain for that reason.

 

[ApplesAreSweet&Sour]

I don’t get what’s so difficult to grasp?

Wouldn’t forcing Apple and other businesses to comply with whatever Twitter needs to be profitable and put their ads on Musk’s say-what-you-want-no-consequences-above-anything platform be the most communist thing to ever happen to corporate America?

Except that it would be a sort of bastardized communism where it’s not the users of Twitter or Americans profiting off Twitter, but one individual, it’s owner, Elon Musk.

You’re literally calling upon Apple and hundreds of advertisers to put aside their own interests and just submit to Musks interests so that he can make his latest project a success.

Advertisers don’t have to answer to us and assist us in propagating whatever we want to say. It’s their businesses and their money.

Whatever reasons they have to pause their ads on Twitter are as legitimate as the money they make.

If you want to force them to submit to Musk then stop drinking Cola, driving Fords, eating Flaming Hot Cheetos, buying iPhones, etc.

The AppStore and the Apple ecosystem is all Apple’s capital, not Musks or ours.

 

[webbuzz]

Apple - as any sentient company - doesn’t „hate free speech“. It’s Twitter that is freeing hate speech.

That platform has been toxic for some time. Right now it’s pure acid. Any single trend that is shown to me gives me the creeps in the first three Tweets displayed.
If I was in charge of a billion dollar company, I wouldn’t want my ads to show up sandwiched between this kind of content.

There are limits to free speech.
No one has the right to scream „Fire“ in a crowded room when there is no flame.
And no one has the right to publicly harass another being because, you know ‚free speech‘.
My own freedom ends where the other person‘s begins. If we can’t agree on that, we’re not a society anymore but a pile of selfish egomaniacs.

Here are a couple of articles for you.

https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/...hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/

https://www.theatlantic.com/nationa...g-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/

 

[thettareddast]

What is it that you want to say but feel you can't?

The left doesn't like speech that causes people actual harm - like incitement to hatred and violence, like spreading libel, like calling "fire" in a theatre, bullying, ... the usual stuff that most sensible democracies either discourage or penalise in law.

Lets put left vs right distraction by the wayside, and steer this back to the topic: should these things be allowed speech on Twitter (and elsewhere)? Why or why not?

Ill remind you incitement to violence is already a breech of existing ToS.

 

[bigandtasty]

Apple wants nothing to do with Twitter anymore. It's simple as that.

View attachment 2120304

Totally BRO. Now that the truth has to come out and the lies and BS has to stop.... You Had me at.... BRO

 

[sir1963nz]

You gave no facts. So you are just slurring Twitter with the word Nazi.

Since you are unbiased, can you name some left wing fascists?

I agree. But somehow all the bad attributes get attributed to the right and the left is considered all rainbows and unicorns. Can you name an evil left wing ideology?

The concurrence of beliefs? What in the world is that? Where do you even get that the right wing tends to focus on racial purity? That’s just a slur. Would you agree with this statement, World War Two was a battle between the left wing United States, right wing Nazi German, and the right wing Soviet Union? Was I wrong in categorizing any of those countries?

ROTFLMAO... The USA only got into the war once Japan attacked. Up until then it was happy to sit on the sidelines and sell weapons at a big profit.

No, the USA did NOT win WWII, as much as they like to think they did.

 

[vipergts2207]

Their view is perfectly rational and not extreme in the slightest.

Not directed at me, but I'm not on the right, nor am I American, and I don't think a platform like Twitter should censor just for one side of politics. Why should it?

Because corporations are people and money is speech. At least in America, maybe not where you’re from. This means Apple is a person and using resources such as by hosting an app is speech. Apple cannot and should not be compelled to make speech. However if you feel differently then send me $200 so that I can make speech with it. I demand it from you, just like Musk demands it of Apple.

 

[msackey]

Tesla doesn't advertise on Twitter. Or anywhere else for that matter.

That must mean that Tesla and its CEO hates free speech

https://twitter.com/x/status/1129924410339495937

Maybe someone can retweet what Musk tweeted himself and ask him, "So is Tesla against free speech since it doesn't advertise anywhere including Twitter?"

Elon -- smh. If he were not born into privilege, his antics wouldn't have such great effect. Elon Musk is a prime example of how an idiotic sociopath can have such great effect on societies and it's not because he's smart; it's because he has money and from that, power.

 

[mrr]

Musk has gone off the deep end.

 

[project_2501]

 

[bigandtasty]

Care to elaborate? While this story was posted in the political news section, no where in the article are the political sides of "left" or "right" mentioned. No one is telling anyone to shut anything down here. Trying to understand your comment and its relevancy here.

you disagree with that comment? Hilarious. YOU meant to say "No one is telling anyone to shut anything down ANYMORE". You're welcome

 

[vipergts2207]

I’ve donated my time and raise funds and product for my local homeless for more than a year now, I seek out the homeless to buy them meals everywhere I go. I do the stuff I preach. I just can’t get over the back and fourth on this thread. It’s legit worse than my 7 and 3 year old

Idk, just sounds like you’re wasting time here like everyone else.

 

[HorstBockman]

Free speech is a principle that supports the rights of anyone to articulate their opinion without fear of retaliation or censorship.

Yes, but with limits that you aren't acknowledging exist.

The first amendment limits the US governments ability to curtail free speech.

The 1A covers more than just speech, but with regard to speech, the government can't restrict it in public venues... but again with limits. In private venues, the government has no say either, but with limits.

Only dorks with bad arguments try to silence people.

Everyone is free to ignore you for any reason they choose--perhaps they would choose to do so because of your insulting ignorance.
It's illegal to incite a riot or other crimes anywhere in the U.S., through speech or other means, whether in public or private. It's illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire. Any "speech" involved in the perpetration of fraud or other crimes is illegal everywhere.

Potential advertisers are free to choose to support a private platform like Twitter... or not to support it. As owner of Twitter, Musk can choose to allow/disallow any speech or users he wishes. Section 230 of the US civil code means he doesn't have to worry about being responsible for users inciting criminal behavior, spreading disinformation, or hate speech on the platform. But users and advertisers are free to go elsewhere if he doesn't effectively handle this crap.

 

[msackey]

He won't be a billionaire for long after he craters two of his three companies that made most of their money from liberals and those who advertise to them.

In some ways, I really hope he loses out on being a billionaire. Maybe that will shut him up some. SMH. Maybe not. But at least he'll have less power. Well...maybe not, as I think back to who became president and even though he was rich, he's certainly not in the top several hundreds.

 

[steve09090]

Foxconn factory (i.e., forced labor) employees literally being beaten with batons today, and Apple is more concerned with taking a stand against mean words from randos with 5 followers on Twitter. I guess they'll do anything for that sweet ESG score.

How do you know that?

Their view is perfectly rational and not extreme in the slightest.

Not directed at me, but I'm not on the right, nor am I American, and I don't think a platform like Twitter should censor just for one side of politics. Why should it?

Its not about what side of politics it is (whatever that means these days), it’s about the content and the hate and incitement.

Apples loss IMO, the virtue signalling on display by the giant corporations here including Apple is beyond hypocritical.

You don’t support virtues?

"The left" wants to reduce hate speech, malicious disinformation, and death threats. Meanwhile "the right" is forbidding schools from teaching history if the facts shine an unflattering light on white people (slavery, racism, etc.)

Not exactly equivalent, now is it?

Whilst these are 2 cherry picked examples. You’re also right.

But I have never seen it as a left v right view. It’s more about the quality of the person that represents those views. There are people on the so-called right that support "real education" and there are people on the so-called left that evoke hate speech. It’s not a left v right wing view.

 

[imnotthewalrus]

A plethora of comments later, I will say this: get a life, people!

 

[thettareddast]

To state the obvious, because Elon has enabled and encouraged hate speech on the site. Bringing back banned accounts with racist accounts and those inciting violence.
Apples terms and conditions state there need to be clear moderation rules that are enforced.
Elon is making this up as he goes. There are no rules. Only his whims. One second he says all speech is allowed, permanent bans are bad. Until someone made fun of him. Suddenly new rule. That’s not allowed. Permanently banned!
Just one of countless examples of his thin skin since he owns the platform. He bought it so no one can censor his rants.
And btw, Elon did not found Tesla, and he even lied about holding his son as he died. The guy has absolutely no scruples.

Some facts need to be separated from fiction.

Inciting of violence is not brought back. Its still against policy. The amount that slips under the net existed preMusk and covered all spectrum.

What accounts are to you racist? And by which dictates shouldnt they exist?

The notion that Elon bans people who made fun of him — or, as previously suggested, on an ‘enemy list of the right’ — is so preposterous you should be embarrassed to have written that.

The most obvious and easy refutation of that is: have you seen Twitter recently??? Like, right now. Have you?

Tesla is another subject. But very welcome for you to explain what founding really means - who did it and what they contributed to tesla where it stands today.

 

[vipergts2207]

This is a pragmatic view. I’m not sure if you understood it, because assisting or facilitating speech isnt relevant to the argument.

The argument is people should be talking about how private corporations should deal with popular vs unpopular speech. Not what is “free speech” in legal context.

Nobody is going to court over it. Twitter isnt standing at trial versus private account owners, so the lay attempts at interpreting law w.r.t. speech is getting lost in the weeds.

No, I fully get it. Since corporations are people and money is speech then they should have full control over the speech on their platforms up to and including complete censorship of one side. Anything else is compelling speech. If you’re ok with compelling speech then you can send me $200 as well.

 

[project_2501]

Yes, but with limits that you aren't acknowledging exist.


The 1A covers more than just speech, but with regard to speech, the government can't restrict it in public venues... but again with limits. In private venues, the government has no say either, but with limits.


Everyone is free to ignore you for any reason they choose--perhaps they would choose to do so because of your insulting ignorance.
It's illegal to incite a riot or other crimes anywhere in the U.S., through speech or other means, whether in public or private. It's illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire. Any "speech" involved in the perpetration of fraud or other crimes is illegal everywhere.

Potential advertisers are free to choose to support a private platform like Twitter... or not to support it. As owner of Twitter, Musk can choose to allow/disallow any speech or users he wishes. Section 230 of the US civil code means he doesn't have to worry about being responsible for users inciting criminal behavior, spreading disinformation, or hate speech on the platform. But users and advertisers are free to go elsewhere if he doesn't effectively handle this crap.

I was around in the 1990s UK when there was a rise of "Islamic extremism" amongst a disaffected youth. It became a real problem due to the scale.

What I saw amongst my peers was uneducated idiots who had been knocked back in life suddenly being told they were supreme intellects, scholars of jurisprudence, great historians .. because they parroted snippets of arabic they didn't really understand, used words like "jurisprudence" and replied like answering machines with prep-prepared lines in arguments.

I'm seeing that again today amongst the new far right.

The same tired ignorance masquerading as expertise.

 

[steve09090]

A plethora of comments later, I will say this: get a life, people!

I want an iPad Calculator made by Apple. And I am free to say that. 😂.