Elon Musk Is Officially Purchasing Twitter for $44 Billion

[BaldiMac]

And who decides what is good speech vs. bad speech? Who does the "separating"?

You act like that's a hard question. Trusted experts such as journalists. As you've said, we've been doing it for 250 years.

Sorry, but this concept of free speech is over 250 years old, and it has only been in recent memory that we've begun to emphasize "feelings" over objective truth.

And you don't see how the policies that you are promoting contribute to that. Objective truth became marginalized when the propagandists and liars were given equal access to the megaphone.

In this new digital world, social media is in fact the new town square. We have allowed private companies to impose their own biases on the ability of people to communicate their ideas online. I am glad to see that with Twitter at least, that will stop. And the writing is on the wall for the other social media guys.

If you want to have your discourse in a moderated forum, well, here we are.

Private companies imposing their biases is free speech. What you claim to support! Choosing what you communicate to the world is free speech. Forcing people or companies to promote your speech is not.

 

[icanhazmac]

Trusted experts such as journalists.

Using expert and journalist in the same sentence is one of the funniest things I have ever heard! Had I not already bestowed my "winner of the internet today" to @webbuzz you would have certainly got it. Great honorable mention though.

 

[Pirate!]

I can only see it as a good thing if he is able to get rid of it extremely limit the number of bot postings.

But one thing that of crazy to me is how one single person can be able to finance something like this. I haven’t seen details in how the financing will work, but everything is pointing to it going to just one guy (who has the collateral to back it). It’s pretty disgusting one person can achieve such wealth. Does he really work that much harder than everyone else in the planet? At what point do you stop being greedy and egotistical and say, you know what, maybe it’s time I share some of this with my employees, at least (could be through shares, cash, better working environments, etc)?

 

[transpo1]

Seems like you mistranslated there. The post that you responded to didn't say anything about returning him to office democratically.

It's not the people's choice when districts are gerrymandered to insure a political advantage within states and the House of Representatives. It's not the people's choice when in a 50-50 Senate the Democrats represent 40% more voters than the Republicans. It's not the people's choice when a Senate that lopsided has full control over appointments to the Supreme Court. It's not the people's choice when the Supreme Court doesn't represent the people. It's not the people's choice when Republicans have controlled the presidency for 12 of the last 30 years despite only winning the popular vote once. It's not the people's choice when the people are deliberately misinformed.


Or like Desantis actually and plainly violating the first amendment in Florida.

I don’t think you understood my post. You expressed a fear of an authoritarian gov’t under Trump and I told you why it is unlikely to happen.

And it is the people’s choice to gerrymander because they elect the representatives who do it.

We live in a representative republic, not a pure democracy. A pure democracy would be heavily open to manipulation by foreign powers. The electoral college ensures that states that would otherwise be ignored during an election have a say. Otherwise, they wouldn’t have ratified the Constitution.

It is the people’s choice under each county and under each state that elects Senators and the President. So you are wrong that count.

So it is the people’s choice according to the Constitution, despite what you may think and your grievances against the system. The Founders built it like this for a reason and they were much smarter than you or I.

If you want to eliminate the power of each state, then good luck keep the United States of America.

Oh, and how exactly did DeSantis violate the 1st Amendment? Please tell us.

 

[BaldiMac]

Using expert and journalist in the same sentence is one of the funniest things I have ever heard! Had I not already bestowed my "winner of the internet today" to @webbuzz you would have certainly got it. Great honorable mention though.

Sounds like you choose to follow the wrong "journalists".

 

[transpo1]

It means concentrating power into the hands of a few is a bad idea.

Power has already been concentrated in the hands of a few. It was just the “few” that you preferred, and who overstepped their bounds to censor legitimate discourse.

Now, we may find ways to restore that discourse and you don’t like it.

Free societies need free, open, and rigorous debate.

 

[turbineseaplane]

The more I think about it...
What an immensely sad way to use such a large amount of money

Think of the incredible amount of really truly useful and helpful things that could be accomplished with 44 billion dollars.

This man is already the richest in the world and doesn't need to "make even more".

When even that sort of person can't be counted upon to do much beyond "worry about making even more money", or "go after silly pet projects and acquisitions, etc" ... it really shows how distorted and broken the current implementation of capitalism really is.

No amount is ever "enough" and market forces really ever come together to incentivize helping the broader society or world as a whole

How depressing

 

[thadoggfather]

It’s totally sad when people living in the “free world” screech about freedom of speech ostensibly being restored of all things to get upset about - get a long overdue grip on reality, frail beings. But I also unequivocally welcome their right to exercise screeching to their hearts content or discontent

Shows their ideas are garbage and the only way they’ve won the narrative war up until this point is both fake narrative and heavy suppression of dissent in response to the fake narrative. It’s all slowly coming undone

Also sad they are “worried” about a billionaire having too much power but at the same time have no gripes whatsoever with Gates, Soros, Buffet, Bezos, Bloomberg, Slim and others having their hand so far up media puppets ports

I’m done taking their arguments seriously insofar as they are acting in good faith when making them

Screeching seems like a constant/given anyways, I’ll take it if that’s the cost of freedom is people being mad about freedom. It’s beginning to sound like beautiful music to my ears

 

[transpo1]

I am betting most who say they will quit won't. Though it would be a good thing if they did.

Musk has encouraged his worst critics to stay on Twitter and I hope they do. I’ve stayed on despite all the crap I’ve had to go through.

 

[transpo1]

The more I think about it...
What an immensely sad way to use such a large amount of money

Think of the incredibly amount of really truly useful and helpful things that could be accomplished with 44 billion dollars.

This man is already the richest in the world and doesn't need to "make even more".

When even that sort of person can't be counted upon to do much beyond "worry about making even more money", or "go after silly pet projects and acquisitions, etc" ... it really shows how distorted and broken the current implementation of capitalism really is.

I’d say that the goal of free speech is a worthy one for $44 billion.

Much more than that has been wasted on far worse…

 

[transpo1]

Everyone seems to be arguing over a network that's essentially on its way out, here is its current ranking where you'll find it way down near the bottom of the list.

From Statista - Most popular social networks worldwide as of January 2022, ranked by number of monthly active users (in millions)

View attachment 1996759

It appears that Musk has a personal agenda here with his throw away money and wants his own personal political playground. Those choosing to stay can be his pawns on a dying network but it's hard to see how it can be salvaged at this point. Look at AOL, MySpace and the trend FB is going, none of them have ever come back.

Journalists are addicted to Twitter and it feeds the news cycle. I doubt it will ever “end.”

And Musk has shown that he is interested in profitability so I bet he will be very interested in finding ways to make more money with it.

 

[transpo1]

It's only one sided if the two sides of the coin are "truth" and "lies". How terribly mean of them to block misinformation.

It’s only your opinion that what has been blocked is misinformation. One man’s truth is another’s misinformation. We need free and open discourse in a free society— it’s essential.

 

[thadoggfather]

It’s only your opinion that what has been blocked is misinformation. One man’s truth is another’s misinformation. We need free and open discourse in a free society— it’s essential.

For arguments sake - Let “lies” be spread. Lies are protected speech this is all just a sideshow to justify censoring of ideas and ram indoctrination down everyone’s throat. If you feel defamed that’s what we have courts for.

Some anonymous partisan doob isn’t gonna be the de facto filter for what I decide i can read and what is reality that’s absurd. I’m not 5. And I don’t need Twitter daddy to nurture me.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Great post

"We subsidize billionaires and their companies to the tune of billions of dollars when we should be investing in things that would improve our communities like healthcare, childcare, housing and education.

No pun intended, but this isn’t rocket science.

Children are going hungry, people are sleeping on the streets, working class folks are graduating with a degree in one hand and debt in the other.

It’s time to stop idolizing these billionaires and start prioritizing the poor and working poor of this nation."

 

[BaldiMac]

I don’t think you understood my post. You expressed a fear of an authoritarian gov’t under Trump and I told you why it is unlikely to happen.

No, I didn't. That was a different poster.

And it is the people’s choice to gerrymander because they elect the representatives who do it.

What a silly argument. You can use that reasoning to justify any decision by politicians. Politicians often make decisions that are against the preferences of their constituents.

We live in a representative republic, not a pure democracy. A pure democracy would be heavily open to manipulation by foreign powers. The electoral college ensures that states that would otherwise be ignored during an election have a say. Otherwise, they wouldn’t have ratified the Constitution.

True.

It is the people’s choice under each county and under each state that elects Senators and the President. So you are wrong that count.

All you did here was shift the definition of "the people" from what I was using (majority of the country). You choosing to use a different definition doesn't make me wrong.

So it is the people’s choice according to the Constitution, despite what you may think and your grievances against the system. The Founders built it like this for a reason and they were much smarter than you or I.

If you want to eliminate the power of each state, then good luck keep the United States of America.

The founders also built the constitution to adapt because they knew that things change. The idea that you get more political power because you live if a place with small borders or a place where no one wants to live is just dumb.

Oh, and how exactly did DeSantis violate the 1st Amendment? Please tell us.

The whole Disney thing. Government retribution specifically to discourage political speech is a clear violation of the first amendment.

 

[ZBoater]

You act like that's a hard question. Trusted experts such as journalists. As you've said, we've been doing it for 250 years.

LOL!!! You mean like Anthony Fauci or Brian Stelter? Ummm, no thanks.

And you don't see how the policies that you are promoting contribute to that. Objective truth became marginalized when the propagandists and liars were given equal access to the megaphone.

Ummmm, no. Objective truth became marginalized when a small minority yelled loud enough that their feelings were hurt. Well, guess what? They are still a minority.

Private companies imposing their biases is free speech. What you claim to support! Choosing what you communicate to the world is free speech. Forcing people or companies to promote your speech is not.

Well, on this one we kind of agree. A private company should be allowed to do whatever they want. The First Amendment applies to the government, not private companies.

The problem is that we have evolved to the point where private companies dominate the virtual town square. And our government is too incompetent to do anything about it. So, Elon's new private company will do it. He is a free speech absolutist. So those of us who value free speech and are not hurt by words will have a digital space to speak our minds. And those who don't like it are free to use to block feature.

 

[icanhazmac]

Sounds like you choose to follow the wrong "journalists".

I don't think so, but comparing which journalists we like is probably not constructive.

My point is I would not consider any journalist, regardless of how much I enjoy their work, as an expert on what language is good speech versus bad speech. Journalists might be considered experts in writing, research, etc but I would never appoint them as arbiter of what language is permitted.

 

[BaldiMac]

It’s only your opinion that what has been blocked is misinformation. One man’s truth is another’s misinformation. We need free and open discourse in a free society— it’s essential.

Nope. Truth is truth. Misinformation is not.

 

[ZBoater]

Nope. Truth is truth. Misinformation is not.

When I was growing up, we didn't have "misinformation". We had lies.

 

[BaldiMac]

I don't think so, but comparing which journalists we like is probably not constructive.

My point is I would not consider any journalist, regardless of how much I enjoy their work, as an expert on what language is good speech versus bad speech. Journalists might be considered experts in writing, research, etc but I would never appoint them as arbiter of what language is permitted.

Never claimed we should allow any one journalist as a arbiter of good and bad. But a trusted expert such as a journalists or doctors is important to help determine what information deserves to be promoted. For example, a trusted journalist who does extensive research on boats could moderate what information is important on the topic of boats.

 

[Madhatter32]

Nope. Truth is truth. Misinformation is not.

It is unfashionable to say such things today in polite company. Most people like their own truths, even in the face of contrary evidence, I think.

 

[BaldiMac]

When I was growing up, we didn't have "misinformation". We had lies.

Point taken. Misinformation is a bigger umbrella that also covers things that are true, but presented out of context in order to deceive.

 

[VulchR]

Power has already been concentrated in the hands of a few. It was just the “few” that you preferred, and who overstepped their bounds to censor legitimate discourse.
...

First, there is no good reason to make a bad situation worse. Second, you have no idea which people I would prefer to run Twitter. I actually don't give a toss, as long as the company is not at the whims of just one person. The whole point of democracy is crowd-sourcing wisdom. Hard to do that on the scale of a company as big and impactful as Twitter when the company is owned by one rich person.

 

[cylack]

You know this is a horrible move when lots of GQP’ers are praising it. Most liberal folks will move over to Counter Social and Twitter will just become another Parler.

 

[Stratus Fear]

It's not the people's choice when in a 50-50 Senate the Democrats represent 40% more voters than the Republicans.

The idea that you get more political power because you live if a place with small borders or a place where no one wants to live is just dumb.

This is why the House of Representatives exists. The Senate exists to represent state interests. People already have their representation in the House.

Nope. Truth is truth. Misinformation is not.

The problem is that we have a cabal of people gatekeeping what is misinformation and sometimes lying about what is actually misinformation, or in some cases, being correct in the now and being wrong when new information is uncovered down the road and then lying about that. This is why free speech is important. Nobody should be gatekeeping information or speech, simply because humans both individually and as a collective are not reliable in being neutral and truthful. I doubt you would want right-leaning people taking over social media companies and imposing their own views of the truth on speech, either. I certainly wouldn't.