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.
Elon Musk Is Officially Purchasing Twitter for $44 Billion
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This was for midterms, as the chart is labeled. If anything, Democrats were likely to be the incumbents in areas where these employees live.
Moderation is part of the free speech rights of the moderator. It is an essential part of free speech, just not from the government.
How about when you get brigading with hundreds of harassing replies? What if the replies are vaguely threatening (I know where you live)?
There are places with minimal moderation. I can assure you they are not some utopian free speech ideal where the best ideas naturally rise to the top.
Hahahahahaha. So is he going to get Twitter kicked off of app stores? I’m sure that will be great for his investment.
If there are 4 billion internet users in the world... and Twitter has around 400 million users...
Is Twitter really the "digital town square" if only 1 in 10 internet users actually use it?
🤔
Is Twitter really the "digital town square" if only 1 in 10 internet users actually use it?
🤔
That's certainly how it was set up. However, things have changed a whole lot since then. Arbitrary borders have become more important than voters. 250 years ago, a rural, slave-holding South negotiated rules that no longer make sense.
A gerrymandered House and an unrepresentative Senate are a poor representation of the people's choice.
Except there is no cabal. Yes, sometimes experts are wrong. Sometimes they lie. That's where critical thinking and following a variety of independent sources come in. You're going with the throw the baby out with the bathwater argument.
Moderation is part of free speech. It allows us to expand beyond our own expertise.
The problem with no gatekeeping is that propaganda works and is designed to spur engagement. Without a gatekeeper it will continue to dominate online discourse.
People that think “free speech” means “no moderation” are exactly as incorrect as folks saying “free markets” means “no government rules or intervention.”
It’s difficult to be this “wrong” about things, but some seem to be trying.
It’s difficult to be this “wrong” about things, but some seem to be trying.
Twitter is a hellscape for harassment now, is it not?
I think it's funny that people keep saying they don't post on social media by posting on social media (this forum).
Like giving a loaded weapon to a 3-year old. What could go wrong...
You are being disingenuous. As I'm sure you know, the public square itself shifted into newspapers about 1866, with the invention of the Walter rotary press. We still call it the public square because that's what we call the place, real or virtual, where we hash out ideas. If it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, its a duck. Twitter is huge in journalism and politics. Its the new public square.
Darth Tulhu
macrumors 68020
The Information Age and Communications Revolution brought about by the Internet has exposed the second edge to the "Freedom of Speech" sword in America.
Now we have the "freedom to lie" at a grand scale, to the point where people don't trust verifiable facts because they instead trust the individuals who provide the "facts".
These people do so regardless of that individual's credentials, personal history, etc., and because no one has the time to fact-check EVERYTHING.
So what is happening is everyone is sticking to what they want to hear and to what confirms their personal biases, and no one BELIEVES or TOLERATES one another anymore.
It is a complete communications breakdown. This is a prelude to... you guessed it... WAR. We all saw how a few words by someone "trusted" can result in violence, on Jan. 6 2021. We saw it in the 1940's. And were seeing it now in the Ukraine.
Some in the world want ACTUAL freedom: "It does ME no harm that my neighbor worships many gods, or no god, shares my sexual preferences or not, shares my moral values or not, or wants to be altruistic or not, etcetera, etcetera."
Others in the world say they want freedom but instead want to IMPOSE THEIR god, THEIR sexual preferences, THEIR moral values, etcetera, on EVERYONE, and are more than willing to engage in violence, usually because their god "says" they should do so.
American "conservatives" and the Taliban BOTH are recent examples of this, ironically despite both claiming to be "enemies" of each other.
And history tells us that true "believers" like them end up WINNING, because you cannot stamp out violence with love and goodwill.
Now we have the "freedom to lie" at a grand scale, to the point where people don't trust verifiable facts because they instead trust the individuals who provide the "facts".
These people do so regardless of that individual's credentials, personal history, etc., and because no one has the time to fact-check EVERYTHING.
So what is happening is everyone is sticking to what they want to hear and to what confirms their personal biases, and no one BELIEVES or TOLERATES one another anymore.
It is a complete communications breakdown. This is a prelude to... you guessed it... WAR. We all saw how a few words by someone "trusted" can result in violence, on Jan. 6 2021. We saw it in the 1940's. And were seeing it now in the Ukraine.
Some in the world want ACTUAL freedom: "It does ME no harm that my neighbor worships many gods, or no god, shares my sexual preferences or not, shares my moral values or not, or wants to be altruistic or not, etcetera, etcetera."
Others in the world say they want freedom but instead want to IMPOSE THEIR god, THEIR sexual preferences, THEIR moral values, etcetera, on EVERYONE, and are more than willing to engage in violence, usually because their god "says" they should do so.
American "conservatives" and the Taliban BOTH are recent examples of this, ironically despite both claiming to be "enemies" of each other.
And history tells us that true "believers" like them end up WINNING, because you cannot stamp out violence with love and goodwill.
Last edited:
Those would be your own strawmen. I just said experts you trust.
That has nothing at all to do with objective truth.
So you think that private companies should be able to do what the want. Because the first amendment only applies to the government. But private companies shouldn't be able to do what they want because the government is too incompetent to control there speech. Which would be illegal because of the first amendment.
Wow. That's some crazy logic.
No, he's not. Just read the OP. One of his primary objectives is to eliminate spam.
And then there's firing people for organizing a union.
Labor board orders Musk to delete a 3-year-old anti-union tweet
Elon Musk's tweets have once again come under fire from federal regulators.
House district maps tend to be gerrymandered either way depending on which party is in power in a particular state. I agree that it is a problem. You still seem to miss the fact that the Senate is not supposed to be representative of the people, however. If it was, then there would be no need for us to continue to have a bicameral legislature. However, I think it's a strong argument that getting rid of the Senate would be getting rid of an important piece of checks and balances. Both the states' and the people's interests are important, are due consideration, and need to be balanced against each other.
Corporate media and major social media companies are practically in lockstep with each other on what information should be allowed, but there is no cabal. Okay. But, to be fair to your argument, I think it's highly unlikely that they are centrally organized (although it can appear as such when multiple outlets have the same parent; see Sinclair Broadcast Group). It is however exceedingly obvious the level of ideological groupthink at play, since when one jumps, the others all look at how high and then try to replicate it.
Emphasis mine; this is literally at odds with:
You can't in one breath say "use critical thinking" and in another say "moderate free speech." These two positions are really at odds and not compatible. The current state of moderation (sadly) obviates the need for critical thinking.
I don't believe anyone in this thread is truly in support of not moderating people from speech illegal under any federal or state statutes, or obvious targeted harassment (read: actual harassment, not the "a bunch of people disagreed with and debated my public opinion on the internet and I didn't like it"); obviously those should be moderated. But again, the fact that humans aren't perfect is the exact reason the level of moderation you argue for is wholly unacceptable. There is nothing "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" about my position. All ideas should be challenged, good or bad, for good ideas are capable of being flawed, and bad ideas (e.g. Nazism) are obviously flawed. With restricted discussion, that's hard to do.
The problem is that the gatekeepers (the ones I mentioned above) are verifiably spreading their own propaganda at times. What you want now creates a future situation that when the people with whom you agree are no longer in control of gatekeeping information, and your ideological opposition is, then they can and assuredly will do the exact same thing to their own tune, and they will be justified via precedent. The escalating nonsense of Senate rule changes between D and R debated upthread is a good example of this.
If we were to go with the public square analogy (using your description above), I'd say that the entire internet is now the public square. Anyone can setup their own website to express themselves.
Twitter is the megaphone or the soapbox or the stage. You don't let the town drunk dominate the microphone.
Sure it is by any reasonable definition.
Right, keep telling yourself that.
Was the Hunter Biden story misinformation? No. But it was censored at a crucial moment by Twitter. It's a very good example.
I dunno... I found many links to many stories about the "mysterious Hunter Biden laptop" on Twitter during that time.
The story was certainly out there if anyone cared to read it.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Ahh, yes- reviewed the posts-- you are right. Awesome what happens when responses fly during a free debate.
Not a silly argument at all. Both Democrats and Republican state representatives are currently trying to gerrymander, quite heavily this year as it happens (The Democrats were winning on their redistricting until quite recently, actually).
We the people elect these representatives and since both sides do it, well- there you are. I'd say the constituents support it.
It does make you wrong. It's called living in a republic. I quote from the State of CT General Assembly definition:
...a republic is a representative form of government that is ruled according to a charter, or constitution, and a democracy is a government that is ruled according to the will of the majority. Although these forms of government are often confused, they are quite different.
We live in a republic, where national elections are decided by the electoral college to give each state leverage over the system. It was designed this way for a reason, because the founders knew that the "will of the majority" could be easily manipulated by a foreign power. (That is the actual reason, look it up.)
Is it really dumb? I'd suggest you examine why this system was implemented. It would be a good history lesson for you.
I'm not sure you have a legal case there. The state gov't of Florida granted Disney's special governing status and they can revoke it at will.
But far more often by Republicans. And Republicans are against eliminating gerrymandering. It's not a problem to be dismissed as "both sides".
I didn't miss the fact. I disagree with the current system. Demographic changes in the country have resulted in the Senate being out of balance. We're a decade or two away from 70 senate seats being controlled by 30% of the population. And the Senate now has complete control of SCOTUS appointments.
No, they're not at odds. You use critical thinking to choose who you allow to moderate the information you consume. Otherwise, you have to be an expert in everything. For example, I spend time researching which doctor I choose to care for me. Then I trust that doctor to decide which information I need to know to make an informed decision. Maybe get a second or third opinion if needed.
I don't know which gatekeepers you are referring to, but the answer is simple. Choose different gatekeepers. Twitter makes that easy by allowing you to choose who you follow.
No, it doesn't. What I want now is a situation that has existed for 250 years in the US. The danger to the future is the promotion of propaganda, lies and misinformation propelled by user engagement instead of objective journalism.
The problem these days is that many mainstream journalists have lost any pretense at objectivity and have become activists for the topics they cover. Therefore, it is difficult to "trust" one of these so-called experts, even if they are quite familiar with the topic they are covering.
Overall the media has lost much of the public trust by becoming too biased, therefore leading a good percentage of the public to look for alternative sources of news.
Liberals moving out of Twitter is a possibility. But consider this; most people are middle ground and don't swing left or right all that far. They are far less likely to leave. So by liberals leaving, they just risk going to an isolated echo chamber. It's better if everyone just try to get along.
Advertisers who want to appeal to as large a customer base as possible decide good vs. bad speech. That’s why even though it’s completely legal to say the N word, social media companies will censor you for typing it because their advertisers don’t want to be associated with that. Same with anti-LGBT speech. Now if Elon says screw that it’s my company all legal speech is allowed as he said in his latest tweet, then that 44B valuation will evaporate as people leave and twitter becomes another 4chan.