• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories
  • You may need to edit your signatures.

    When we moved to Xenfora some of the signature options didn't come over. In the old software signatures were limited by a character limit, on Xenfora there are more options and there is a character number and number of lines limit. I've set maximum number of lines to 4 and unlimited characters.

Cont: Musk buys Twitter II

dudalb said:
I don't think you can have lower opinion of Musk then I do.
His now openly rooting for Putin just does the impossible: Made my opinion of musk even lower.
Click to expand...

Did you accidentally quote me while replying to someone else?
 
Babbylonian said:
You do understand that nobody is arguing against Musk having the right to do what he likes with his property, right? We're discussing the rank hypocrisy of his claim to be all about unfettered free speech while his actions frequently give lie to that claim.

It's possible you need to do some homework, reading through this thread and its prequel.
Click to expand...

And, more immediately, the question that was asked was whether Musk's changes to what is now X has made things better or worse for Free Speech in the west. It's been unanimously negative responses, though Samson clearly does want to try to argue that unbanning certain people means that it's not worse for Free Speech in every way, at the least.

Whether dudalb will actually read this summation is uncertain, of course.
 
dudalb said:
TeiX is not the government. What don't you understand about that?
I despise Twist for doing that, but think trying to use the power of the state to force them to put the jounalist back on is a case of the cure being worse then the disease.
Click to expand...

I don’t think YOU understand the point. Samson is trying to argue that Musk’s takeover of Twitter has brought back free speech. So it is Samson’s claim that fails to understand free speech and it is HIS premise you are denying, not catsmate’s.

If we can all accept that, then we can move on to the weak form of free speech argument that Samson is presumably trying to make which is whether or not Musk is more permissive with what people can say than before.

On those grounds people are pointing out that on the one hand, people like Alex Jones are free to spread their ********, while people on the other side are arguing that some journalists who upset Musk will get kicked off and also Musk will capitulate to certain demands by, say, the Indian and Turkish governments to disallow content that opposes them.
 
angrysoba said:
I don’t think YOU understand the point. Samson is trying to argue that Musk’s takeover of Twitter has brought back free speech. So it is Samson’s claim that fails to understand free speech and it is HIS premise you are denying, not catsmate’s.

If we can all accept that, then we can move on to the weak form of free speech argument that Samson is presumably trying to make which is whether or not Musk is more permissive with what people can say than before.

On those grounds people are pointing out that on the one hand, people like Alex Jones are free to spread their ********, while people on the other side are arguing that some journalists who upset Musk will get kicked off and also Musk will capitulate to certain demands by, say, the Indian and Turkish governments to disallow content that opposes them.
Click to expand...
Here is the issue for me.
I have a friend who went down the Alex Jones rabbit hole, but I maintain the friendship with no effort. Sandyhook and so on.
On the other hand I consider the replatforming of Graham Linehan as paramount to my understanding of the universe.
 
The true tragedy of this is that the glorified dopamine machine that is Twitter is considered a battleground for free speech. READ A BOOK PEOPLE!

And get off my lawn.
 
jeremyp said:
https://x.com/mtaibbi/status/1758230628355485979?s=20

Matt Taibbi has published a conversation he had with Elon Musk on Twitter. Musk is censoring him because he uses Substack.

Yay free speech.
Click to expand...

Lol! Poor old Taibbi. I actually find it funny when people like him and Bret Weinstein suck up so hard to Musk only for him to drop a big load on them. Musk, like Trump, and as we have seen with Tucker Carlson, like Putin, seem to enjoy ritual humiliation.
 
dudalb said:
TeiX is not the government. What don't you understand about that?
I despise Twist for doing that, but think trying to use the power of the state to force them to put the jounalist back on is a case of the cure being worse then the disease.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:
Sigh. You appear to be, as usual, spewing pseudo-libertarian straw everywhere.
In addition to attributing to me thing I haven't said.
 
angrysoba said:
Lol! Poor old Taibbi. I actually find it funny when people like him and Bret Weinstein suck up so hard to Musk only for him to drop a big load on them. Musk, like Trump, and as we have seen with Tucker Carlson, like Putin, seem to enjoy ritual humiliation.
Click to expand...

i do appreciate he points out his choice to repeatedly decline to criticize musk. maybe that’s how he got that twitter files gig?

hey samson, is it free speech to ban “journalists” once they’ve outlived their usefulness? he broke the twitter files and did everything he was told without criticism, isn’t that what free speech is all about?
 
So I'm getting ads for dick pills with hardcore pornograpy in them now. Yes, you might say those ads are catered to my browsing habits but it is still hardcore pornograpy
 
dirtywick said:
well this might be too stupid but then I think of john baron and we’ll maybe it’s not so stupid since it’s something that happens and elon is that guy. anyway apparently elon has an alt that he uses to praise and defend himself. and he is an alex jones listener. and he’s been going after folks who exposed it.

here is a summary of the evidence that it’s true.. this is the footage of jones show with icke that’s almost two hours long and don’t really expect people should watch it
Click to expand...

I'm, not sold on this.
I heard the conversation, and it sounds almost entirely (but not quite) like Musk.

I mean, it would be a very Trumpy thing to do, and I'm not putting it past Musk to do so, but if he did, I doubt he would be that good at it.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
I'm, not sold on this.
I heard the conversation, and it sounds almost entirely (but not quite) like Musk.

I mean, it would be a very Trumpy thing to do, and I'm not putting it past Musk to do so, but if he did, I doubt he would be that good at it.
Click to expand...

i'm not sold on it either but musk has a way of proving this stuff right
 
He's going to launch his own email service X-Msil

Apparently Gmail is woke and needs to be destroyed.
 
Elon complaining he can't use his new laptop PC without creating a Microsoft account online first.
Does the tech guru seriously not know how to create a local account on a PC?

He's hinting at creating a new X OS to take down Windows and Ma OS and strike another blow for freedom.

The Blue Tickers are wetting themselves over it.
 
dirtywick said:
must be bari weiss or matt taibbi, but musk ordered them full access to user data
Click to expand...
Interesting. The FTC order involved appears to be a result of this complaint from 2010.
Protecting your Twitter profile
Not everyone has to see your Twitter updates. Keep your Twitter updates private and approve your followers by protecting your profile . . .
Protected account owners control who is able to follow them, and keep
their updates away from the public eye
Click to expand...

Contrary to the statements above, Twitter has engaged in a number of practices that, taken together, failed to provide reasonable and appropriate security to: prevent unauthorized access to nonpublic user information and honor the privacy choices exercised by its users in designating certain tweets as nonpublic. In particular, Twitter failed to prevent unauthorized administrative control of the Twitter system by, among other things, failing to:

a. establish or enforce policies sufficient to make administrative passwords hard to guess...

Between January and May 2009, intruders exploited the failures described above in order to obtain unauthorized administrative control of the Twitter system. Through this administrative control, the intruders were able to: (1) gain unauthorized access to nonpublic tweets and nonpublic user information, and (2) reset any user’s password and send unauthorized tweets from any user account.
Click to expand...
The order was in response to Twitter's security being breached by a hacker who gained unauthorized access to user's accounts. However it is being interpreted as an absolute guarantee that user's tweets will not be viewed by any party other than those they designate, not just 'the public eye' as stated in Twitter's documentation.

But then there's this:-

Elon Musk’s ‘Twitter Files’ ignite divisions
It was billed as a bombshell: Elon Musk, after rifling through his new company’s internal files, would finally expose how Twitter engaged in “free speech suppression” in the critical run up to the 2020 election...

A handful of screenshots from 2020, posted over the course of two hours Friday evening in a disjointed, roughly 40-tweet thread, show the San Francisco company debating a decision to restrict sharing of a controversial New York Post story about the son of then Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden...

Musk and Taibbi both tweeted that they would reveal more information in a second chapter Saturday. Musk also said on the Spaces that he shared the documents with another Substack writer, Bari Weiss...

Musk chose Bari Weiss, a former New York Times columnist, as one of the writers invited inside the company to go through documents.
“Please give Bari full access to everything at Twitter”...

At a November 2020 congressional hearing, then-Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey said the company had erred in limiting the article’s spread under its policy against the dissemination of hacked materials, a 2018 rule that aimed to discourage the unauthorized exposure of private information. Dorsey said that the company considered feedback and changed its policy on hacked materials.

“We made a quick interpretation, using no other evidence, that the materials in the article were obtained through hacking, and according to our policy, we blocked them from being spread,”
Click to expand...
This puts a completely different slant on it. Musk authorized Bari Weiss to 'go through documents' relating to Twitter's decision to restrict sharing of a New York Post story, the exact opposite of what the FTC order was supposed to be about. Nowhere was it ever suggested that random users' private tweets would be exposed. On the contrary, it was about Twitter censoring users' tweets.

We can understand why the FTC might want to invoke this order in such a peripheral manner, after all they are simply protecting the President. Oh wait, they are supposed to be an independent organization? :boggled:

The truth is, this flap isn't about Musk violating the privacy of Twitter X users, it's about the government trying to suppress talk of an alleged connection between Hunter Biden and the President. IOW, suppressing free speech. I hate to say it, but Musk was right!
 
Last edited:
Roger Ramjets said:
The truth is, this flap isn't about Musk violating the privacy of Twitter X users, it's about the government trying to suppress talk of an alleged connection between Hunter Biden and the President. IOW, suppressing free speech. I hate to say it, but Musk was right!
Click to expand...

Nah. The actual main underlying concern at the time had much more to do with trying to address hostile foreign powers screwing with US elections and the US more generally, especially when it involved criminal actions in play. Hence the whole temporary restrictions on the spread of material that was strongly suspected to have criminal hacking involved. As it stands, the Hunter Biden hard drive still looks rather likely to have been a politically motivated criminal hack and dump operation, for a number of reasons.

The whole authorized to go through the stuff was little more than the result of long lasting right wing screaming about how their free speech was being censored and how they're the poor victims who were having their 1st Amendment rights violated. Pants on Fire false pretenses, of course. An actual witch hunt.
 
Last edited:
Roger Ramjets said:
Interesting. The FTC order involved appears to be a result of this complaint from 2010.
The order was in response to Twitter's security being breached by a hacker who gained unauthorized access to user's accounts. However it is being interpreted as an absolute guarantee that user's tweets will not be viewed by any party other than those they designate, not just 'the public eye' as stated in Twitter's documentation.

But then there's this:-

Elon Musk’s ‘Twitter Files’ ignite divisionsThis puts a completely different slant on it. Musk authorized Bari Weiss to 'go through documents' relating to Twitter's decision to restrict sharing of a New York Post story, the exact opposite of what the FTC order was supposed to be about. Nowhere was it ever suggested that random users' private tweets would be exposed. On the contrary, it was about Twitter censoring users' tweets.

We can understand why the FTC might want to invoke this order in such a peripheral manner, after all they are simply protecting the President. Oh wait, they are supposed to be an independent organization? :boggled:

The truth is, this flap isn't about Musk violating the privacy of Twitter X users, it's about the government trying to suppress talk of an alleged connection between Hunter Biden and the President. IOW, suppressing free speech. I hate to say it, but Musk was right!
Click to expand...


Wow, this is Stockholm Syndrome level - is Musk holding your family hostage?
Leave 2 double spaces in your reply, and we will send help.


seriously - Musk didn't know how Twitter worked when he bought it, and instantly fired everyone who did, having to rehire some when things started to fall apart.
And you think the reasonable assumption is that the FTC did something wrong?

You are in a cult, man.
But it's not too late to get out.
 
Elon Musk is suing OpenAI, the makers of ChatGPT, arguing it has breached the principles he agreed to when he helped found it in 2015.

The lawsuit - which has also been filed against OpenAI boss Sam Altman - says the firm has departed from its original non-profit, open source mission.

It says instead of trying to "benefit humanity" - as it was set up to do - it is focusing on "maximising profits" for major investor Microsoft.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-68445981.amp
 
Andy_Ross said:
Elon Musk is suing OpenAI, the makers of ChatGPT, arguing it has breached the principles he agreed to when he helped found it in 2015.

The lawsuit - which has also been filed against OpenAI boss Sam Altman - says the firm has departed from its original non-profit, open source mission.

It says instead of trying to "benefit humanity" - as it was set up to do - it is focusing on "maximising profits" for major investor Microsoft.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-68445981.amp
Click to expand...

So he's pissed that an organisation that he resigned from the board of some seven years ago (because he was developing a for-profit, proprietary rival) is no longer a non-profit.


What a tit he does be.
 
Andy_Ross said:
Elon Musk is suing OpenAI, the makers of ChatGPT, arguing it has breached the principles he agreed to when he helped found it in 2015.

The lawsuit - which has also been filed against OpenAI boss Sam Altman - says the firm has departed from its original non-profit, open source mission.

It says instead of trying to "benefit humanity" - as it was set up to do - it is focusing on "maximising profits" for major investor Microsoft.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-68445981.amp
Click to expand...


As I understand it, the full text of just about every corporate mission statement includes a boilerplate final clause, something like "...and to conduct any other legal business." Just to forestall this kind of second-guessing.

Could this be a special case where that clause was omitted?
 
The Great Zaganza said:
seriously - Musk didn't know how Twitter worked when he bought it, and instantly fired everyone who did, having to rehire some when things started to fall apart.
Click to expand...
This is true.

And you think the reasonable assumption is that the FTC did something wrong?
Click to expand...
Which doesn't mean this isn't.

The FTC took an order purportedly imposed to prevent criminal hacking, and used it to stifle legitimate free speech. Surely you can see how wrong it is for a government organization to specifically block tweets about news articles which are embarrassing the government?


You are in a cult, man.
But it's not too late to get out.
Click to expand...
It's a sad world we live in where the cult members accuse those outside it of belonging to a cult. So ironic that people who purport to be 'liberal' suddenly become the opposite when people are saying things they don't like about their leader. Free speech doesn't mean "only speech I agree with".

My position has been clear from the start. I want to hear it all, no matter appalling or 'inaccurate' it might be. I think we are in a better position knowing what people really think than not. The way to counter bad speech is with good speech, not censorship. You try to put a lid on it and it only encourages them to try harder, this time with a valid gripe.
 
Aridas said:
The whole authorized to go through the stuff was little more than the result of long lasting right wing screaming about how their free speech was being censored and how they're the poor victims who were having their 1st Amendment rights violated.
Click to expand...
What's the best way to allay such fears? That's right, let a disinterested 3rd party go through the material to see if they have anything to worry about.

But for some people that's not the issue. All they are worried about is that it might hurt their cause. What if the auditors do reveal a bias against conservatives? That would be bad, so let's squash any attempt to find out! Because they don't care about the truth any more than the 'other side' does. They have their agenda, and any facts that threaten to get in the way of it must be suppressed.

And now the 'other side' does have something to be worried about.
 
kookbreaker said:
Musky went and bragged about traffic on Twitter during the Super Bowl. Turns out most of it was those bots he said he would get under control.

https://boingboing.net/2024/02/17/x...wl-press-release-celebrates-fake-traffic.html
Click to expand...

According to 5th Column, 64% of X accounts are 'potentially' bots. However 75% of those accounts predate Musk's purchase of Twitter.

In other news, last year 5th Column also determined that 85% of accounts engaging with fake pro Hamas accounts were also fake. According to Cyabra,
In the first two days of the war (October 7-9) Cyabra has analyzed 2 million posts, pictures, and videos across Facebook, X (Twitter), Instagram, and TikTok. The analysis identified tens of thousands of fake profiles spreading disinformation and propaganda, as well as gathering sensitive details about their targets.

In just two days, the fake profiles posted over 312,000 pro-Hamas posts and comments. Some posted hundreds of times every day...

Posts containing pro-Hamas propaganda actually used pro-Israel hashtags, such as #IStandWithIsrael or #Israel in order to gain higher exposure and reach new audiences.

The frequent posting and clever utilization of hashtags played a crucial role in the fake profiles’ propaganda going viral, resulting in over 371,000 engagements (replies and shares) and over 531 million views...

The fake profiles that took part in the conversation were created beforehand, some over a year ago, but were made active only when the war started.
Click to expand...

So bots are a problem all over. I see YouTube is now full of videos made by bots, with AI voices and clips scraped off other (often also fake) videos. Sadly these videos often get comments from real people who don't realize they are responding to a bot.

Hopefully Musk will find a way to reduce the number of bots on X. No doubt the solution will also use AI - bots fighting bots!
 
Roger Ramjets said:
My position has been clear from the start. I want to hear it all, no matter appalling or 'inaccurate' it might be. I think we are in a better position knowing what people really think than not. The way to counter bad speech is with good speech, not censorship. You try to put a lid on it and it only encourages them to try harder, this time with a valid gripe.
Click to expand...
Alas, Musk doesn't subscribe to this. But that doesn't deter fanboys from chanting a free speech mantra.
 
Roger Ramjets said:
What's the best way to allay such fears?
Click to expand...

I'd go with not lying them into existence in the first place.

Roger Ramjets said:
That's right, let a disinterested 3rd party go through the material to see if they have anything to worry about.
Click to expand...

Sure. Do we have any actually good reason to believe that that was actually on the table? I think not. Again, a witch hunt is what was going on. The Twitter files was all about something that had already been reviewed ad nauseum, as I recall, and the problem was that right wingers weren't getting the answers that they wanted to hear.

Roger Ramjets said:
But for some people that's not the issue. All they are worried about is that it might hurt their cause. What if the auditors do reveal a bias against conservatives? That would be bad, so let's squash any attempt to find out! Because they don't care about the truth any more than the 'other side' does. They have their agenda, and any facts that threaten to get in the way of it must be suppressed.

And now the 'other side' does have something to be worried about.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

At last check, that issue's been examined ad nauseum even without said Twitter files. Really short version? Right wingers were generally being given advantages and left wingers are the ones who were being disadvantaged even then. As you say, though, there's long been an agenda in play and any facts that threatened to get in the way were ignored in favor of the Republicans are the victim narratives.
 
Last edited:
Aridas said:
I'd go with not lying them into existence in the first place.
Click to expand...
Too late for that. The lies are already out there and Twitter X can't stop them. 45% of the US wants these lies to be true. Another 45% wants a different set of lies to be true. Only about 10% are interested in the truth, wherever that sits.

But if you want to know how the Twitter situation arose, look no further than those people who wanted to ban Trump from Twitter. One guess as to which side they were on...

Sure. Do we have any actually good reason to believe that that was actually on the table? I think not. Again, a witch hunt is what was going on. The Twitter files was all about something that had already been reviewed ad nauseum, as I recall, and the problem was that right wingers weren't getting the answers that they wanted to hear.
Click to expand...
Assuming you recall correctly, those previous reviews obviously didn't do the job.

BTW guess who are the most followed accounts on X?

#1. Elon Musk with 170 million followers
#2. Barack Obama with 132 million

#9. Donald J Trump 87 million

Unfortunately 70% of Musk's followers 'may be' bots, while Obama 'only' attracts 40%. So in terms of 'real' followers, Obama is probably the most 'popular' X account.

Hmm, seems X is not the den of MAGAts some people would have us believe (but even if it is, so what?).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom