The ongoing X and Elon Musk Transgressions Thread

[DownInFlames]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

Who's making that argument?

Nobody. That’s why it’s weird that you’re pointing out it’s a private company. Nobody is saying they shouldn’t give bad people a platform, just that it’s a ####ty thing to do.

[2Stonedbirds]

It's equally as weird that no one seems to remember the justification for their banning in the first place.

[KelVarnsen]

He’s just mad he was wasn’t invited to the circle jerk watch party earlier today

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

It's equally as weird that no one seems to remember the justification for their banning in the first place.

That a publicly-traded company has a fiduciary obligation to its shareholders and if there is some sentiment against it, negatively impacting the company value, the company responds accordingly?

And now that it’s privately owned, Musk can make whatever decisions he wants, to whatever adverse effect it brings.

But we’re still all free to criticize it.

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by Wormius

That a publicly-traded company has a fiduciary obligation to its shareholders and if there is some sentiment against it, negatively impacting the company value, the company responds accordingly?

And now that it’s privately owned, Musk can make whatever decisions he wants, to whatever adverse effect it brings.

But we’re still all free to criticize it.

They had their TOS as well, right? So either way they did what they felt was right.
Again, criticize away.

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

Who's making that argument?

Well, you indirectly implied that anyone having objections with the likes of any toxic sludge like Alex Jones re-joining the platform should remember that it's a private company, and as such should acquiesce to that reality. Excellent meme, btw. Totally captured the essence of it.

You then wanted to qualify Elon's position by reminding people that Trump, Jones, et al were banned in accordance with private policies, even though the platform was publicly traded and decisions were made with respect to shareholders.

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

It's equally as weird that no one seems to remember the justification for their banning in the first place.

Are you reading this thread?

Originally Posted by Yamer

Not really, because it was publicly traded from 2013-2022 and only again became private when Musk acquired the platform.

Also, big thanks for continuing to quote me in your signature without linking to the original context of that comment.

[Reggie Dunlop]

I guess Ramaswamy used the Spaces session to audibly impersonate a Lt. Frank. Drebin scene.

https://www.mediaite.com/news/hot-mi...el-better-now/

[DownInFlames]

Vivek’s hot, streaming piss is a perfect accompaniment to what was coming out of Jone’s mouth.

[jammies]

It's not that Twitter is enabling the worst among us to spew their noxious mouth-flatulence, the problem is that the owner of the platform is citing free speech as twitter's core value while trying to apply his own arbitrary standards to discourage and censor the speech of others he disagrees with and promoting the speech of those he agrees with.

If he would just shut up and step back from active interference in the discourse, he could plausibly claim he is only making decisions on the basis of his love of free speech. It's the hypocrisy that gives him the lie. He doesn't want the free exchange of ideas, he wants his ideas to be reinforced by the algorithms and behavior of his sycophants.

[Ozy_Flame]

Elon is the very embodiment of someone going the wrong way of "just because you can, doesn't mean you should".

It seems to be a dying mantra among the free speech absolutists these days.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by jammies

It's not that Twitter is enabling the worst among us to spew their noxious mouth-flatulence, the problem is that the owner of the platform is citing free speech as twitter's core value while trying to apply his own arbitrary standards to discourage and censor the speech of others he disagrees with and promoting the speech of those he agrees with.

If he would just shut up and step back from active interference in the discourse, he could plausibly claim he is only making decisions on the basis of his love of free speech. It's the hypocrisy that gives him the lie. He doesn't want the free exchange of ideas, he wants his ideas to be reinforced by the algorithms and behavior of his sycophants.

The odd part though is I cannot imagine any company advertising on Twitter now, I doubt Only Fans and Porn Hub would see it as a moral or economically viable platform for sales right now, let alone any kind of mainstream company, and it's not just my feed, I thought it might be something I was doing but lots of users are reporting the same thing, endless violence and snuff clips and general weirdness, this is going to be a really really quick death spiral for the company which leaves Musk just paying billions and billions a year or closing it down

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

The odd part though is I cannot imagine any company advertising on Twitter now, I doubt Only Fans and Porn Hub would see it as a moral or economically viable platform for sales right now, let alone any kind of mainstream company, and it's not just my feed, I thought it might be something I was doing but lots of users are reporting the same thing, endless violence and snuff clips and general weirdness, this is going to be a really really quick death spiral for the company which leaves Musk just paying billions and billions a year or closing it down

I've mentioned this before, but I've been on the platform for over 12 years and I have never seen anything in my feed that I didn't personally want to be there. The only time I see anything extreme or outside of my comfort bubble is when I actively look for it. Perhaps you might be on the "For You" tab, which is useless. I never switch from the "Following" tab and I don't seem to have any issue.

[DoubleK]

As unsavory as Elon can be at times, if this is true, it's completely unacceptable by the US govt.

Starlink has the potential to provide high speed internet to people who don't have it. This decision by the FCC impairs the ability of lots of rural folks to access high speed internet, the type of people who traditionally vote Republican. . .

The "digital divide" just got wider.

[timun]

Do even a modicum of digging on FCC commissioner Brendan Carr. The guy is a Republican boob.

If Musk believes that providing satellite internet to 600,000 rural Americans is worth the expense he's free to fund it himself. The FCC didn't deny permission to build out their satellite system, they just didn't cut Musk an $885M cheque.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

So many ads. Seems to be getting worse. And so many for watches. I don’t even own a watch or have shopped for one in like 30 years, maybe longer. What a site.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

So many ads. Seems to be getting worse. And so many for watches. I don’t even own a watch or have shopped for one in like 30 years, maybe longer. What a site.

Watches? you are getting way more bougie ads than me, I have an endless stream of the kind of cheap tat that you see at the very bottom of an Alibaba page, 5 dollar cell phone car holders or some kind of magnetic game that looks to be worth about a buck 50

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Watches? you are getting way more bougie ads than me, I have an endless stream of the kind of cheap tat that you see at the very bottom of an Alibaba page, 5 dollar cell phone car holders or some kind of magnetic game that looks to be worth about a buck 50

In fairness, they aren't ads for nice watches.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by jammies

It's not that Twitter is enabling the worst among us to spew their noxious mouth-flatulence, the problem is that the owner of the platform is citing free speech as twitter's core value while trying to apply his own arbitrary standards to discourage and censor the speech of others he disagrees with and promoting the speech of those he agrees with.

If he would just shut up and step back from active interference in the discourse, he could plausibly claim he is only making decisions on the basis of his love of free speech. It's the hypocrisy that gives him the lie. He doesn't want the free exchange of ideas, he wants his ideas to be reinforced by the algorithms and behavior of his sycophants.

The fact that there is an algorithm sorting and promoting discourse would suggest that free speech would not be possible on that platform. But that may be irrelevant because this idea of true consequence free "free speech" is imaginary and likely never has, or will exist. To that point you'll never have an online platform were ideas are debated without interference or bias.

[MoneyGuy]

I hate the ads but more so because you can’t make them go away. I click on the x and ‘I don’t want this ad’ or whatever the wording is but the same ad comes up every time I log in. A local realtor’s ad is the biggest offender. I know the guy and it’s pissing me off.

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

I hate the ads but more so because you can’t make them go away. I click on the x and ‘I don’t want this ad’ or whatever the wording is but the same ad comes up every time I log in. A local realtor’s ad is the biggest offender. I know the guy and it’s pissing me off.

if it makes you unhappy, why are you on X?