Cont: Musk buys Twitter II

Elon Musk's mother has encouraged people to commit voter fraud.
The Democrats have given us another option. You don’t have to register to vote. On Election Day, have 10 fake names, go to 10 polling booths and vote 10 times. That’s 100 votes, and it’s not illegal. Maybe we should work the system too.
Click to expand...

Thankfully, a community note has been added to the tweet:
This is, in fact, illegal.
Click to expand...
 
alfaniner said:
X, or Twitter, or TwiX, or Xitter

I considered starting a new thread with this title, but figured I'd get blowback or merged since there are so many threads already. TwiX is my preferred name for it. I believe I came up with it independently.
Click to expand...
You, me, Rudolph, Sally and several hundred people.
 
Samson said:
Why not just focus on your fields of interest for updates you will never find in msm?
That is my read X only modus.
Excellent for finding ex middle eastern voices like Elica Le Bon as one specific example I found recently.
Where else?
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:
So you want to avoid anything that's different from your right-wing, homophobic, transphobic echo chamber?
 
On that note Mary Trump continues her vendetta.

"Mary Trump, a trained psychologist and chronicler of Trump family scandals, took to her Substack on Saturday to dish on the details of Trump's connection with Elon Musk, the owner of the social media company once called Twitter.

Mary Trump referred to Musk as Trump's "new owner," and explained how she believes her uncle has always traded money for influence."

https://www.rawstory.com/trump-musk-devils-bargain-end-democracy/

She is obviously informed on Trump, but conflated Musk buying Twitter/X with his support for Trump.
These are completely unrelated.
 
Samson said:
She is obviously informed on Trump, but conflated Musk buying Twitter/X with his support for Trump.
These are completely unrelated.
Click to expand...

If you're specifically citing that article, the quote would seem to be -

"In exchange for Donald’s willingness to throw Musk the keys to the federal government, Musk is throwing a considerable fortune, as well as the weight of Twitter’s influence, behind the Republican candidate. For him, it’s a safe bet because he knows, if Donald is elected, he’ll do anything Musk wants him to do," Mary Trump said. "It is, of course, a devil’s bargain that continues to be made by others, including the aforementioned Vladimir Putin."
Click to expand...

Nothing about buying Twitter there, so it doesn't look like the conflation that you're claiming is actually there.

Following the link in the Raw Story article leads us to where one can figure out where the new owner claim comes from, either way. Mary Trump's substack.

Donald's New Owner

That also pokes at things like -

In his column for the Philadelphia Inquirer this week, Will Bunch asked an important question: “What does the world’s richest man want from Pennsylvania… and America?”

Is it hyperbole to say that the Tesla and SpaceX founder is frantically trying to buy the election on behalf of Donald Trump? This week, the Musk-funded America PAC tweeted (after Musk stole the @America handle from another user) photos of his minions right here in Philadelphia handing out $47 in cash to voters, part of a maybe-legal-but-sketchy-anyway scheme to spread pro-Trump dollars around in critical swing states.

Musk is literally giving money to voters to support Donald, which is yet another reason that no one individual should be allowed to amass the kind of mind-boggling fortune Musk now controls. But that is a conversation for another time.
Click to expand...

Musk, literally buying votes for Trump and stealing handles for political purposes.

Musk buying Twitter IS mentioned, for what it's worth, but not like you are claiming.

When Musk bought Twitter for $44 billion (a considerable over-payment that didn’t make any sense at the time), he stated that “for Twitter to deserve the public trust, it must be politically neutral, which effectively means upsetting the far right and the far left equally.” Although that sounded noble, Musk was lying about his intentions.

A couple of weeks ago, he posted this on Twitter :

Very few Americans realize that, if Trump is NOT elected, this will be the last election. Far from being a threat to democracy, he is the only way to save it!

This is an egregious lie. Musk’s intentions, however, are crystal clear.
Click to expand...

Samson, was your claim also an intentional lie? Or did you merely get duped yet again?
 
Last edited:
I see it this way.
Musk bought Twitter.
Media Matters attacked him from the left of the political spectrum, and succeeded in devaluing his purchase.
He moved to the right, where squats Donald Trump.
I am far less analytical than you, function of time or intellect, could be either.
I do appreciate your analysis.
 
Samson said:
I see it this way.
Musk bought Twitter.
Media Matters attacked him from the left of the political spectrum, and succeeded in devaluing his purchase.
He moved to the right, where squats Donald Trump.
I am far less analytical than you, function of time or intellect, could be either.
I do appreciate your analysis.
Click to expand...

Your order and linkage is messed up, though.

Musk bought Twitter under far right nonsense pretexts. He was already pandering to the far right before then and him buying Twitter was strongly related to that.

His pandering to the far right included making a lot of bad for business structural changes that favored unsavory and deeply problematic groups as he pandered to far right nonsense and those who benefited included Nazis. This was evident to anyone paying any attention and raised general levels of concern about Musk's actions. Media Matters was just one group that poked at that a little, with something that very few would care about at all if it weren't for Musk's words and actions. Telling truths uncomfortable to Musk is not covered in Musk's version of free speech (which, again, is actually controlled speech), as he's proved time and again. Musk and his followers have done far, far more to attack Media Matters and it has consistently been done very, very dishonestly, like you've done over and over. Media Matters had nothing to do with Musk moving anywhere, it just had a tiny hand in exposing Musk, very much including the reaction.

He's likely on Trump's side because he thinks that he can use Trump to his advantage, more than anything else.
 
Last edited:
Media matters did not attack from the left. They attacked from reality using facts. The facts were that companies like IBM do not like having their adverts alongside Nazi propaganda, particularly after all the negative stories about the Nazis use of Hollerith machines. It’s one thing to say Nazis are allowed to say what they want, however vile. It’s a very different thing to give money to a company that amplifies the voices of Nazis.
 
Speaking to both above,
I am a simpleton.
Musk has allowed voices that Jack Dorsey chose to eliminate.
 
Wudang said:
Media matters did not attack from the left. They attacked from reality using facts. The facts were that companies like IBM do not like having their adverts alongside Nazi propaganda, particularly after all the negative stories about the Nazis use of Hollerith machines. It’s one thing to say Nazis are allowed to say what they want, however vile. It’s a very different thing to give money to a company that amplifies the voices of Nazis.
Click to expand...

Well, there's also another aspect in play underlying all this -

Results confirm that conservatives have lower sensitivity than liberals, performing worse at distinguishing truths and falsehoods. This is partially explained by the fact that the most widely shared falsehoods tend to promote conservative positions, while corresponding truths typically favor liberals. The problem is exacerbated by liberals’ tendency to experience bigger improvements in sensitivity than conservatives as the proportion of partisan news increases.
Click to expand...

It's no surprise that Samson's made as big a deal as he has about how great it is to allow lying and how people should be determining what's a lie and what's not for themselves. Especially in moments of time like now, lies and deceptions greatly benefit the right overall, in part because they've been duped over and over and don't want to accept that and in part because of the cynical advantages that such brings to what they see as their side. Given their actions, Musk and Trump are not actually defenders of free speech and western civilization, but are the opposite.
 
Last edited:
Samson said:
Speaking to both above,
I am a simpleton.
Musk has allowed voices that Jack Dorsey chose to eliminate.
Click to expand...

Which says little about why and nuance.

On a broad scale, what censorship Twitter engaged in under Dorsey had everything to do with the profitability of the company, which very much includes civility and legal matters, and not with politics.

With that said, right-wing "voices" did indeed have action taken against them more often in raw numbers - because, overall, they acted much more badly and broke the rules much more. It would likely carry a far more truthful nuance to say that Musk restored access to and reduced moderation of a lot of unrepentant rule breakers and bullies, rather than your chosen turn of phrase. Sure, it might be nice for the bullies, but it's bad for business, bad for civil discussion, and bad for those they seek to bully. It undermines free speech and undermines democracy in practice, rather than upholds them.
 
Last edited:
Wudang said:
Media matters did not attack from the left. They attacked from reality using facts. The facts were that companies like IBM do not like having their adverts alongside Nazi propaganda, particularly after all the negative stories about the Nazis use of Hollerith machines. It’s one thing to say Nazis are allowed to say what they want, however vile. It’s a very different thing to give money to a company that amplifies the voices of Nazis.
Click to expand...

certain entities maintaining access to lie and manipulate others, even fraud itself, is a huge part of the right wing "free speech" agenda, which by default kind of leaves those who argue for things like transparency and honesty being labelled as the left. and so, with something like media matters or garm who are accurately reporting how the website is functioning, it becomes some kind of leftist plot to harm the right because they are coming down on the side of transparency and honesty instead of maintaining the facade.

when you really get down to it, it's really more about how the right shouldn't be held accountable for anything. they frame it as a free speech issue, as if they have a right to do what they're doing so there shouldn't even be any social accountability, let alone legal, when what they're doing is repeatedly breaking the social contract and often the law as well. to not be able to lie and defraud people is a violation of their free speech rights, it's actually the left that's a problem for trying to enforce some kind of standards.
 
Does anyone here mistrust their own ability to filter material from X, or are you concerned for those you consider feeble minded?
I can understand concern for youth, but it is youth the so called far right believe are being indoctrinated into anti west sentiment by the so called far left.
I am thinking of Gaza and gender and critical race theory and a belief that outcomes can be made equal amongst other issues.
People who challenge that list are universal in their praise for the new X. Maybe Greg Lukhianoff, Jonathan Haidt, Michael Shellenberger? Heather Mac Donald etc are all nutters, but they make sense to me.
 
Does anyone here mistrust their own ability to filter material from X, or are you concerned for those you consider feeble minded?
I can understand concern for youth, but it is youth the so called far right believe are being indoctrinated into anti west sentiment by the so called far left.
I am thinking of Gaza and gender and critical race theory and a belief that outcomes can be made equal amongst other issues.
People who challenge that list are universal in their praise for the new X. Maybe Greg Lukhianoff, Jonathan Haidt, Michael Shellenberger Heather Mac Donald etc are all nutters, but they make sense to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom