Amid Twitter buyout, Musk says free speech is simply "that which matches the law."
Read the whole story
Read the whole story
Elon Musk, Twitter’s next owner, provides his definition of “free speech”
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
Upvote
15
(15
/
0)
... parrots only bots to no human capacity for rational independent thought.
That's enough talking points for a BINGO, isn't it?
Upvote
10
(11
/
-1)
Which party is going after corporations for disagreeing with laws that that party passes or is banning books from libraries or is going after teachers who show support for their LGBTQ students?
Citations for "the Left is openly pushing to change the 1st amendment", please.
(Maybe turn off OANN and FNC.)
Upvote
19
(20
/
-1)
"The Left" understands that Musk declaring Twitter is a town square does not make it one, and courts have already ruled so. There are groups agitating to reinterpret the First Amendment, but none of them are "The Left."
"The Left" also understands once Musk owns Twitter, he will assertively enforce his private property rights over that platform.
I suspect you got a C in civics class last year.
Upvote
19
(20
/
-1)
I haven't seen your card, but you might need a false statement about Section 230 for an actual Bingo.
Upvote
7
(8
/
-1)
Fancy Internet Person
Ars Praefectus
https://www.reuters.com/business/musk-t ... 022-04-29/
Business genius's plan is to cut pay, charge for use of tweets.
I'm sure CNN will be thrilled to pay to reference hard-"R" racist tweets from NuTwitter.
Business genius's plan is to cut pay, charge for use of tweets.
I'm sure CNN will be thrilled to pay to reference hard-"R" racist tweets from NuTwitter.
Upvote
13
(13
/
0)
That's the second thing. You skipped the lay-off step. 2B is outsourcing.
Third step is a decline in benefits. It is possible buying a lower grade of coffee for the break rooms might be part of that step, but it's in there.
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
So musk wants to screw over the 99.99% of users to cater to the 0.01%
Typical billionaire.
Typical billionaire.
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
Another drive by from a new account, Hunter Biden, "town square", and it has a sick 1984 reference to boot. This post hit all the hollow talking points in one go.
edit: dropped the bingo reference, got beat to it
Upvote
9
(10
/
-1)
He referred to "George Orwell," whose actual name was Eric Blair, and was born in India.
So, yes. I will check the "ironic bigotry" box and call Bingo.
Upvote
6
(7
/
-1)
... all that sounds completely insane. What the hell were these banks thinking in lending him over $25B with plans like "charge 3rd party websites to embed tweets"?
Also, I see his plan to deal with moderation is to just fire all the moderators. That will definitely do it. As will firing all the people responsible for Twitter's algorithms (aka: the only ones who even somewhat understand how it works). Yes, these are great ideas for growth.
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
Hey, don't forget screwing over most of his employees. That's what capital is for, after all...
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
Fancy Internet Person
Ars Praefectus
They're thinking that if/when he fucks it up, he's going to owe them still.
The banks don't care if he kills Twitter, not if it gets them an even bigger stake in Tesla.
Upvote
11
(11
/
0)
I think both Musk and Right wing power brokers, are more interested in Election gains, than going 4chan.
The "Free speech for all" rhetoric is just a smoke screen, for letting right wing play their misinformation games, and again the Right Wing Power brokers will know that as well.
So it will be more about anti-Democrat conspiracy theories and other nonsense to try and sway voters.
If Twitter still shuts down Johnny Racist, there won't be much complaint from the Right as long as they can tell all the Hunter Laptop, and "stolen election" stories all day, every day...
But yeah we will have to wait and see, but I'm not optimistic enough to think that Twitter just collapses and becomes irrelevant, with no harm, no foul.
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)
Wait, wait, wait. If there's a direct linear relationship between number of posts on the forum and being a weirdo, doesn't that imply that people who get banned after a single post are the normal ones?
I shudder to think.
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
And, technically, how would they even go about doing that? I mean, sure, you could invoice large news organizations which have embedded tweets you want to be compensated for, and technically it might be possible to block embeds from a site refusing to pay. Or, heck, if you want to get all the embed money, make it a whitelist instead of a blacklist and make them pay up in advance to get the ability to embed.
But he also says he wants to charge people for quoting tweets (which would almost certainly be what websites would switch to, if charged for embeds), and I just don't see (a) how he could reliably figure out who is doing that, (b) how quoting a tweet you're commenting on wouldn't represent fair use, and (c) even if it isn't fair use, how Twitter would have the rights to charge for it, given that the copyright belongs to the creator, not to Twitter:
[url=https://twitter.com/en/tos:7sffehee said:
And while they may be able to charge for embedding under the right to sublicense (IANAL), how can Twitter have any right to sue for a quote, given that their right to that quote is explicitly non-exclusive?
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
Fancy Internet Person
Ars Praefectus
And, technically, how would they even go about doing that? I mean, sure, you could invoice large news organizations which have embedded tweets you want to be compensated for, and technically it might be possible to block embeds from a site refusing to pay. Or, heck, if you want to get all the embed money, make it a whitelist instead of a blacklist and make them pay up in advance to get the ability to embed.
But he also says he wants to charge people for quoting tweets (which would almost certainly be what websites would switch to, if charged for embeds), and I just don't see (a) how he could reliably figure out who is doing that, (b) how quoting a tweet you're commenting on wouldn't represent fair use, and (c) even if it isn't fair use, how Twitter would have the rights to charge for it, given that the copyright belongs to the creator, not to Twitter:
[url=https://twitter.com/en/tos:p639z83i said:Twitter Terms of Service[/url]"639z83i]You retain your rights to any Content you submit, post or display on or through the Services. What’s yours is yours — you own your Content (and your incorporated audio, photos and videos are considered part of the Content).
By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through the Services, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense)
And while they may be able to charge for embedding under the right to sublicense (IANAL), how can Twitter have any right to sue for a quote, given that their right to that quote is explicitly non-exclusive?
They're stupid ideas that suggest he has no relevant knowledge for managing Twitter, much less making it radically more profitable (which is what he's claimed to the bankers financing this).
Upvote
11
(11
/
0)
Lol, what a dumbass. How will he attract and retain competent employees for less pay? It's a worker's market, especially in highly desirable fields such as software engineering.
Upvote
11
(11
/
0)
Fancy Internet Person
Ars Praefectus
Maybe he'll bring on James Damore and other aggrieved guys like him.
I'm sure they'd be happy to work for less if they can do bigotry at work.
Upvote
11
(11
/
0)
... says Psychophant, a longtime proven avowed enemy of free speech, member of the right-whinger brigade who are the only ones here who have ever called for the end of free speech. He also apparently fails to grasp this unintentional irony in his failed attempt at satire.
Upvote
19
(19
/
0)
Sure there's some, but how many, especially for low pay? And I'm guessing Twitter already pays less than Facebook, which pays higher salaries than just about anyone else because of the stink of the company. Parler and Truth have problems attracting competent engineers, now Musk wants to replicate that while cheaping out on pay. Ridiculous.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
It's my impression that Facebook pays much more than just about anyone else, because otherwise they wouldn't be able to attract enough skilled employees. I have a friend who more than doubled his salary moving to Facebook, though to be fair he's in a highly specialized field (not software). Also, I get a lot of recruiter spam from them for software engineering roles promising very high salaries.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
To be fair, as I read that article, the pay cuts are only for the people at the top of the pile (directors and executives), which shouldn't affect retention of any software engineers.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
The only way to protect the free speech of bigots is to suppress the speech of people who don't support bigots
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)
In other words:
"By "free speech," I simply mean that which matches the law. I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law."
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
No no no they're the excessively normal weirdos.
Like Gregory in Abbott Elementary.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
I’m guessing he plans to suck up the “engineers” at Truth Social when they become available.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
I wouldn't put any stock in that, pay cuts at the board level only save him $3M/year which is peanuts if he wants Twitter to be profitable. Layoffs and pay cuts for the rank and file are a high probability, they just aren't saying it out loud.
What really floored me was this:
That's just....... well,........ Bizarre? Thick? Weird? Most buyouts have some sort of conditions attached that allow the potential buyer to back out once they've seen the books. I know Twitter is a public company so it's finances are largely open, but still.
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
He can still backout, he just has to pay the breakup fee (1 billion).
Small fraction of his wealth.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
Is that really surprising? He didn't buy Twitter as a good investment opportunity. He bought it so that he could force an existing audience to join a Reich-wing safe space.
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)
Pretty much the first thing agreed upon once a board accepts the opportunity to negotiate is the break-up fee, which is the price to look at the company's books.
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)
https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/987/boycotts
When the goal is purely economic and not political, they can be struck down. If Facebook organized a boycott of Twitter in order to harm their competitor, that can be struck down.
When they have political ends (e.g. users attempting to force more socially equitable policies on Twitter, rather than to attack on behalf of a competing platform) they enjoy Free Speech protections.
Upvote
13
(13
/
0)
International trade is different from a boycott and the government can absolutely regulate that. A boycott is simply a group of people making their feelings known and refusing to do business with an entity that runs contrary to their morals. You're wanting it to be regulated that people can't make decisions to not support a business based on their own feelings, or rather they can't make that position known publicly because it might hurt their bottom line. Your opinion would be more welcome in North Korea than the United States.
Upvote
11
(11
/
0)
I guess I'm required by the Psychophant Act to eat at Chik'fil'a every meal of every day now.
Upvote
9
(10
/
-1)