Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
What he believes does actually make a difference (irrespective of congressional action that is moving in that direction) because he can willing make Twitter comply with first amendment law and precedent. Let's call it a perk of ownership.
Musk is going to turn over ownership of Twitter to the government?
 
I can hear the screams of all the leftist designers on Twitter that support every possible thing that is current.

They've(sorry, pronouns) already expressed their concern prior to this purchase once they got wind of the possibility that Elon Musk could buy Twitter.

Even today... Omg.. I'm going to delete my Twitter account. While I have deactivated my own Twitter account over the years because of the the before-mentioned "We support the current thing"-crowd. I think I'll see what the fuss is all about this time.

I would have inserted all the memes - I won't. To protect the innocent.
 
Elon Musk loves the environment so naturally he wants to lift up conservative voices.
 
Musk is going to turn over ownership of Twitter to the government?
Of course not. I did not say that -- you did. Are you disagreeing with yourself? What he can do, however, is make sure Twitter is run in accordance with 1st amendment principles. He is going to own Twitter after all. There is no need for people to feel threatened or overwhelmed though. This is a good thing.
 
Per the news release I cited, he will wholly own the entity owning Twitter.

Presumably to create that entity - perhaps an LLC or similar - he has secured financing, and committed to kicking in $21Bn of his own money.

From https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/com...ught-by-elon-musk-for-2444-billion/ar-AAWzEHr
Depends what the contract is with those that put up the majority of the money... maybe it is simply a loan? I can't see any specifics. The BBC phrase it interestingly.

Edit: Sorry, missed the end of your post, below the link. So it's purely debt, in his name. Fair enough.
 
Of course not. I did not say that -- you did. Are you disagreeing with yourself? What he can do, however, is make sure Twitter is run in accordance with 1st amendment principles. He is going to own Twitter after all. There is no need for people to feel threatened or overwhelmed though. This is a good thing.
You said:

What he believes does actually make a difference (irrespective of congressional action that is moving in that direction) because he can willing make Twitter comply with first amendment law and precedent. Let's call it a perk of ownership.

The first amendment only applies to the government. So, in order to comply with it the asset would first need to be owned by the government.
 
I know what I mean, that's why I said it. Do I feel threatened by you? Not particularly. I was a bit overwhelmed trying to understand your point.
I genuinely had no idea of what you were saying -- that is all. I get it now that you are feeling overwhelmed by the argument. It's not a novel argument though. Just look at the debate surrounding Section 230 of the Communications and Decency Act and scholarly review of remarks made by Justice Thomas and you will see it being discussed in legal circles and in the news. It is complicated stuff and I can understand how laymen can feel overwhelmed by it though.
 
That's the point and problem with all of this -- there will NEVER be agreement about key things here.

It's literally impossible to solve this issue of "who is good, who is bad, what is true, what is not, what's ok behavior, what is not". It won't get solved under Elon -- it will just get shifted

A place that is mostly a "free for all" -- will not be a place most people want to hang out anymore.
Posts that break the law or encourage breaking the law - that should be pretty agreeable.
 
Of course not. I did not say that -- you did. Are you disagreeing with yourself? What he can do, however, is make sure Twitter is run in accordance with 1st amendment principles. He is going to own Twitter after all. There is no need for people to feel threatened or overwhelmed though. This is a good thing.
Twitter has always been run in accordance with first amendment principles. That is freedom from government interference in free speech.
 
By ‘free speech’ he actually means ‘hate speech’, of which there’s already more than enough of that on Twitter! Time for me to give up the platform I think.

Ah good old greed is alive and well in America, where if you are rich enough you can control all social media. Can’t wait to see how the platform meltdowns after this disaster.
 
Well, I hope Elon can make Twitter censorship-free. If he does that, he will be my hero.

I don't care for the platform and barely use it, but for sure it has a huge influence on our politics and society. So Hopefully, the crazy censorship will end and free speech will be restored.

This is what America is supposed to be about. We need to hear all voices, even the ones we despise and disagreed with. Censoring who we don't like means eventually will come to the ones we like.
 
You said:

What he believes does actually make a difference (irrespective of congressional action that is moving in that direction) because he can willing make Twitter comply with first amendment law and precedent. Let's call it a perk of ownership.

The first amendment only applies to the government. So, in order to comply with it the asset would first need to be owned by the government.
Yes but any company can set its own policy as long as those policies comply with law. Complying with the 1st Amendment law is not illegal.
 
I think I would say the only real content that should be blocked/removed is child abuse images, doxxing/harassment, and fraudulent/malware content.

I don't think we need social media to unilaterally decide that a NY Post story about Hunter Biden's business dealings is off-limits for sharing.
Bingo. So basically anything that is against the law.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MacNeb
Bye Bye.

What a weird thing to say? I mean did you have faith in the Board of directors then? Did you know who any of them were... apart from Jack Dorsey who jumped ship a while back?
I’m mostly just being hyperbolic, for now. I’ll see how it all plays out, but in general I think Musk is kind of an a***ole and thus I’m not a big fan of the move.
 
Yes but any company can set its own policy as long as those policies comply with law. Complying with the 1st Amendment law is not illegal.
You can't comply with something that doesn't apply to you. It would be sill to claim you are complying because it can't be tested.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.