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
If it helps, I did puree a fairly large amount of chives with some black garlic in olive oil to use as a garnish, and had two baby turnips I will cook with the potatoes for the soup.
Small flavor-profile adjustment for the turnips.
Small flavor-profile adjustment for the turnips.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
Did any one else see "The Bad Guys" over the weekend? I admit I laughed loud a few times, but came close to dozing off. Apparently there are ten books in this series, but I don't see how they can build a movie franchise.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
You have to scare the shit out of the artichokes right before grilling them or the artichrome isn't as powerful.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
I like my tacos de papas made withe potatoes that still have a little bit of texture to them, but the standard version uses mashed potatoes. Discuss.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
I still laugh at the Chopped episode where Amanda Freitag, who is an accomplished chef with a great palate, got all whiny about someone who didn't "properly" clean the choke out of an artichoke before grilling it into submission. I am diligent about cleaning my artichokes, but wholly moly was she whiny about it.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
You may have friends who happen to be homosexual, but you are far from a friend to homosexuals. Just like people can have a friend who is Black while still holding all kinds of racist notions.
You are a person who thinks it is "indoctrination" to tell children that gay people exist. Who thinks it is "indoctrination" if a teacher answers honestly a child who asks about their "two dads" in relation to other peoples' "mom and dad". Who thinks that what Rowling does is merely "saying that there are two biologically distinct genders" (this is conservative/TERF propaganda. She says a hell of a lot more than that).
You would support a Twitter where it's OK for people to say that gay people are pedophiles who are grooming children through the schools. Where it's OK for your friends to be told this again and again, with their only recourse to be to block any particular person who does. And you're OK with your friends having to see these comments again and again, because unblocked accounts will fling them everywhere.
You're fine with a "town square" where it's OK for people to be overtly hostile to your friends because of who they are. I don't know how well that works for your friendship with individuals, but it definitely shows that you care more about bigots being able to express bigotry than you do about the targets of that bigotry being able to express... anything.
Are you a bigot? It doesn't matter.I don't care what you personally feel; you're helping bigots, and that's all I need to know. You may not be transphobic, but you're fine with questioning the right of trans people to be trans.
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
How?
The Constitution of the United States is:
1) a piece of paper that can't arbitrate anything;
2) completely absolute in that no speech, whatsoever, can be abridged (which the courts have allowed exceptions from);
3) as it pertains to free speech, only intended to restrict the actions of the government (what are the first five words of the First Amendment?); and
4) only applicable to the United States, and Twitter is a global service.
Upvote
12
(12
/
0)
Nice, that's been on my "when it hits streaming/Redbox list".
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
You are so funny. My wife. Cook? That is so not why I married her. Cooking is my passion and my emotional release, and she is happy to give it to me. My cooking may well be why she married me. Actual quote: "How do you cook Mexican food better than my mama? You are too white to do this so well."
I am still working on birria, though.
On more than one occasion, I have had two wives look at me a really expensive restaurant and say "you make this better."* I shrug. Often their company is paying so I am okay with the comparative opportunity.
*not at the same time. That, would be really, really, super weird, even for me.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
I never mentioned any objection to what Elon may or may not do with Twitter.
My stance with him is the same as the current leadership - do whatever the F you want, doesn't affect my life one bit.
So no, actually, I haven't proven shit for you, because you don't really have a point that's not just mindless drivel and regurgitated talking points that have little to no basis in reality.
Seriously, are you even thinking critically or reading any of the responses to you? Or are you just looking to be outraged about something?
My stance with him is the same as the current leadership - do whatever the F you want, doesn't affect my life one bit.
So no, actually, I haven't proven shit for you, because you don't really have a point that's not just mindless drivel and regurgitated talking points that have little to no basis in reality.
Seriously, are you even thinking critically or reading any of the responses to you? Or are you just looking to be outraged about something?
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
No.
Conservatives don't complain about Twitter's (imagined) anti-conservative bias. They don't just say Twitter shouldn't have such an (again, imagined) bias. They make a bunch of factual statements that are incorrect.
They claim Twitter is a "town square" (it isn't), and by that justification (which is false), that it should by governmental decree be required to allow "free speech" (which would violate the First Amendment). That is, they believe that Twitter is a public entity, and that this public entity should behave in a certain way, and if they don't then the power of government should be used to compel Twitter to behave this way.
That is their argument. And it's bullshit.
We say that keeping bigots in check is the most effective way to ensure that marginalized people can have a voice. Musk doesn't care about the voices of marginalized people. Or more to the point, he cares about the voices of bigots more than those they are bigoted against.
That's the difference. They want to compel Twitter, by government action if needs be, to be a certain way. We want Twitter to be a certain way because it's good for everybody (except the bigots). But we don't want the government to compel Twitter to do it; we want the government to allow Twitter to be able to do it.
And who are you to make that determination? Are you one of the people she's being bigoted against? If not, why do you get to decide that for them? Why is your reasoning better than theirs? If Rowling makes Twitter a hostile environment for trans people, shouldn't that matter?
You do not get to tell other people how they're being oppressed. Well you can, but we get to tell you that you're a piece of shit for doing so.
I'm sure you could go back to the 1950s and 60s and find someone who said that segregation was fine. After all, Black people could still drink water, go to the bathroom, and eat at a restaurant. They just had to do it in different places. What's the harm?
Other white people probably though that this person might be "disagreeable" but considered their statements to be a legitimate point of debate. Something worthy of discussion.
Do you agree with that conclusion, that Black people should endlessly have to defend their right to equal treatment just because a white person demands they do so? If not, why not? It's not particularly different from what Rowling says about trans people.
... Did you think that this article was in support of your position?
That social media algorithms will disfavor certain kinds of content is well known. Post LGBTQ+ stuff on YouTube and you're probably never going to make the front page of anyone who isn't already into that sort of thing. Post anything remotely racy on YouTube and you get demonitized. Etc.
It should also be noted that deprioritization and shadow banning aren't the same thing. A proper shadow ban means that nobody can see your stuff. Deprioritization merely means that the algorithm won't recommend your content to as wide an audience, or perhaps at all. The difference is important.
The important thing to note here is that your article seems clear on one thing: the left is far more often a victim of "shadow banning" than the right. The cases the article talks about where there was evidence of specific algorithmic manipulation were almost always targeting either the left or people whom the left cares about: institutionalized body shaming on TikTok, sex workers being unpersoned, BLM people being targeted for deprioritization, etc. These are leftists or their allies.
The article makes it clear that the right imagines that these kinds of things happen to them, but that article presents no evidence of it.
If your goal was to get me to believe that Twitter shadow bans conservatives specifically, you failed. At best, the article shows that Twitter has depriotization algorithms, and they mostly seem directed at keeping up the appearance of Twitter as a "family friendly" site (ie: no sex stuff, make LGBTQ+ less prominent, etc). Conservatives showing their ass are unaffected, or at least there's no evidence that they are affected.
Also, if you want to convince me that Elon Musk of all people gives a flying fuck about any of that when targets the left or their allies, you're going to have to do better than that.
Upvote
17
(17
/
0)
That little bubble with the quotes in the corner is how you respond to people. It's easier to build a strawman and respond in generalities. Rowling wasn't just making an out of context comment regarding sex. She was using it to marginalize trans people. You also appear to support Desantis supporting laws marginalizing LGBTQ people's simple existence. You painted such a simple concept as left wing indoctrination of children. You claim to not be a bigot but you seem to greatly support bigots and not support the people they target or their allies.
You appear to be making the argument that bigotry is subjective and therefore shouldn't be moderated. As has been said and you keep dodging, it's a zero sum game, you can either support bigots or support their targets. Sitting back is allowing bigots to rub their excrement everywhere at the expense of decent people and the people they hate.
Upvote
14
(14
/
0)
Scary Devil Monastery
Ars Scholae Palatinae
No, it's the new alt-right word for "I shat on the floor and now I'm not allowed back in the pub no more! People I don't even know are pointing and laughing at me! I'm being marginalized! It's a conspiracy, I tell you!!"
...the worst bit of it is that it isn't even a joke. When the Very Fine People tried to coup the election on jan 6 a number of them did indeed shit on the capitol floor. The alt-right are sending their best, and THIS is indeed their best;
Argument is dead against these people. They can't be reasoned with and they view "debate" as nothing more than an attempt to sling stormfront one-liners and straw men at people.
Seeing as they've chosen to devolve from civilization to savagery I think it's time we stopped holding the door open. Cast these fucking dimwits out. Drive them away from any place reasonable people gather. Yeet them into the damn sun.
Upvote
10
(11
/
-1)
No, it's the new alt-right word for "I shat on the floor and now I'm not allowed back in the pub no more! People I don't even know are pointing and laughing at me! I'm being marginalized! It's a conspiracy, I tell you!!"
...the worst bit of it is that it isn't even a joke. When the Very Fine People tried to coup the election on jan 6 a number of them did indeed shit on the capitol floor. The alt-right are sending their best, and THIS is indeed their best;
Argument is dead against these people. They can't be reasoned with and they view "debate" as nothing more than an attempt to sling stormfront one-liners and straw men at people.
Seeing as they've chosen to devolve from civilization to savagery I think it's time we stopped holding the door open. Cast these fucking dimwits out. Drive them away from any place reasonable people gather. Yeet them into the damn sun.
I often wonder if the loss of "frontier" (globally) means there's nowhere for the nuts to go anymore to live their fever dreams.
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
Scary Devil Monastery
Ars Scholae Palatinae
No, it's the new alt-right word for "I shat on the floor and now I'm not allowed back in the pub no more! People I don't even know are pointing and laughing at me! I'm being marginalized! It's a conspiracy, I tell you!!"
...the worst bit of it is that it isn't even a joke. When the Very Fine People tried to coup the election on jan 6 a number of them did indeed shit on the capitol floor. The alt-right are sending their best, and THIS is indeed their best;
Argument is dead against these people. They can't be reasoned with and they view "debate" as nothing more than an attempt to sling stormfront one-liners and straw men at people.
Seeing as they've chosen to devolve from civilization to savagery I think it's time we stopped holding the door open. Cast these fucking dimwits out. Drive them away from any place reasonable people gather. Yeet them into the damn sun.
I often wonder if the loss of "frontier" (globally) means there's nowhere for the nuts to go anymore to live their fever dreams.
Fortunately there is now a way to allow this fevered horde of grievance addicts to turn their backs and leave us liberal leftist scum behind forever;
The frustrated call to yeet these gormless fuckwits into the sun has come up before. I'm ever so pleased to have found the solution.
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
You'd just have to circulate a few very carefully worded posts on Gab and Parler first:
No, it's the new alt-right word for "I shat on the floor and now I'm not allowed back in the pub no more! People I don't even know are pointing and laughing at me! I'm being marginalized! It's a conspiracy, I tell you!!"
...the worst bit of it is that it isn't even a joke. When the Very Fine People tried to coup the election on jan 6 a number of them did indeed shit on the capitol floor. The alt-right are sending their best, and THIS is indeed their best;
Argument is dead against these people. They can't be reasoned with and they view "debate" as nothing more than an attempt to sling stormfront one-liners and straw men at people.
Seeing as they've chosen to devolve from civilization to savagery I think it's time we stopped holding the door open. Cast these fucking dimwits out. Drive them away from any place reasonable people gather. Yeet them into the damn sun.
I often wonder if the loss of "frontier" (globally) means there's nowhere for the nuts to go anymore to live their fever dreams.
Fortunately there is now a way to allow this fevered horde of grievance addicts to turn their backs and leave us liberal leftist scum behind forever;
The frustrated call to yeet these gormless fuckwits into the sun has come up before. I'm ever so pleased to have found the solution.
"10,000 geez? FaKeNeWz!!!"
"aCELERatioN is TOTALY a BiG SPaCe madeup, wake up PPL!"
"My dad's friend's dog's brother went on spinlaunch and it cured him of hemorhoids!"
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
I learned that Tucker Carlson apparently admires a murderer; he was the sole member of the “Dan White Society” to list it under his college yearbook photo. He probably just made it up, like so many other things.
(Not new news, but it was new to me this weekend.)
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
Scary Devil Monastery
Ars Scholae Palatinae
You'd just have to circulate a few very carefully worded posts on Gab and Parler first:
No, it's the new alt-right word for "I shat on the floor and now I'm not allowed back in the pub no more! People I don't even know are pointing and laughing at me! I'm being marginalized! It's a conspiracy, I tell you!!"
...the worst bit of it is that it isn't even a joke. When the Very Fine People tried to coup the election on jan 6 a number of them did indeed shit on the capitol floor. The alt-right are sending their best, and THIS is indeed their best;
Argument is dead against these people. They can't be reasoned with and they view "debate" as nothing more than an attempt to sling stormfront one-liners and straw men at people.
Seeing as they've chosen to devolve from civilization to savagery I think it's time we stopped holding the door open. Cast these fucking dimwits out. Drive them away from any place reasonable people gather. Yeet them into the damn sun.
I often wonder if the loss of "frontier" (globally) means there's nowhere for the nuts to go anymore to live their fever dreams.
Fortunately there is now a way to allow this fevered horde of grievance addicts to turn their backs and leave us liberal leftist scum behind forever;
The frustrated call to yeet these gormless fuckwits into the sun has come up before. I'm ever so pleased to have found the solution.
"10,000 geez? FaKeNeWz!!!"
"aCELERatioN is TOTALY a BiG SPaCe madeup, wake up PPL!"
"My dad's friend's dog's brother went on spinlaunch and it cured him of hemorhoids!"
"The spinlauncher is powered by liberal tears!"
"This thar machine yeets ye right thru the pearly gates, no rapture needed!"
"What doctors covered up about the magical dong-growing machine!"
And barring all else we can fight fire with fire and rent Trump's name to plaster on the damn thing. They'll turn up in droves. Bigly.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
I’ve only had a real taco de papa once; smallish red potatoes that were quite firm and iirc an olive tapenade. I liked it. Seemed more Spanish than Mexican, except for the tortilla.
Here in Austin, we have a wide variety of the Tex-Mex “breakfast taco”, most of which are scrambled eggs plus something - bacon, sausage, potato, etc., but sometimes potato plus whatever. Never seen mashed potatoes in one, but there’s enough varieties, it wouldn’t surprise me.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
I'd suggest what we really need is a law that forbids the grooming of bigots, but the Constitution actually already does that. When applied by someone other than Clarence Thomas or Samuel Alito, that is.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
I mean shadowbanning is absolutely a thing. I was shadowbanned by a website comment section on Disqus at one point due to some internal error (and yes, it was an error, I contacted the website and they reinstated me and had no idea why I had been banned). It's frustrating because you can still read and reply to comments, when you are logged in everything looks normal, but if you go to the website without logging in (or while logged in as a different user), none of your posts are there.
I get the point (people can't evade bans they don't know about) but it is very frustrating, especially if you honestly have no idea why you were banned.
That said, the alt-righters complaining about shadowbanning know 100% why they were banned, and their entire complaint is bullshit.
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
Jeremy Hamblin (TheQuartering) claims to be shadowbanned all the time. Which pisses me off, because if it was true I'd never see his tweets. But because he once responded to a thread I was in, I now get recommended his tweets all the time.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
Scary Devil Monastery
Ars Scholae Palatinae
Facts don't really matter.
If people of color are multiple times as likely as white people to die to excessive force courtesy of police officers, are sentenced twice as hard as white people for the same crimes, are more likely to be judged guilty in court than white defendants, are extremely disproportionately represented in the poverty and disadvantaged housing bracket and thus born to a crippled credit rating from the start...that's surely not "racism", right?
And that's just how they view people with a different skin color. When it comes to LGBTQ we can add the naked bigotry of christian doom cults as frosting to that shitcake.
When you hold up a mirror to these people they lose their shit completely. And that might be at least part of why they reject factual reality with such unholy fervor. And why you'll never get the vast majority of the alt-right to own up to the fact that they view every demographic but their own as lesser.
In at least Clarence Thomas's case he really ought to retire, given that his actual wife is loud and vociferous stakeholder in many of the cases brought before the court he presides in - at least all the ones where the attempt has been made to undermine constitutional power.
I'm pretty sure that if the topic of actual slavery were to hit SCOTUS at some point he would, by now, try to pass it off to states rights.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
Alaska's still there.
No, it's the new alt-right word for "I shat on the floor and now I'm not allowed back in the pub no more! People I don't even know are pointing and laughing at me! I'm being marginalized! It's a conspiracy, I tell you!!"
...the worst bit of it is that it isn't even a joke. When the Very Fine People tried to coup the election on jan 6 a number of them did indeed shit on the capitol floor. The alt-right are sending their best, and THIS is indeed their best;
Argument is dead against these people. They can't be reasoned with and they view "debate" as nothing more than an attempt to sling stormfront one-liners and straw men at people.
Seeing as they've chosen to devolve from civilization to savagery I think it's time we stopped holding the door open. Cast these fucking dimwits out. Drive them away from any place reasonable people gather. Yeet them into the damn sun.
I often wonder if the loss of "frontier" (globally) means there's nowhere for the nuts to go anymore to live their fever dreams.
The problem it has is something like 1 woman for every 3 men and that doesn't suit their trad views.
They love the cowboy myth until they discover most cowboys died single.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
I don't see how this follows.
How does repealing Section 230, make hosts immune to posted content as long as the don't moderate?
Upvote
0
(1
/
-1)
It doesn't. Repealing 230 leaves them liable for user content whether they moderate or not.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
Absent 230, if they moderate, they are a publisher, and user comments would be considered the website's speech the same way an editorial in the NYT is considered NYT's speech.
If they don't moderate, they have liability for any illegal content they host, but AFAIUI they wouldn't have liability for civil issues.
Upvote
-1
(1
/
-2)
Can Musk make it any more obvious that this is completely political and which side he will tilt "free speech":
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1521183425914417158
"Same org that covered up Hunter Biden laptop story..."
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1521183425914417158
"Same org that covered up Hunter Biden laptop story..."
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)
Base on which law?
Based on the Wiki Entry, before Section 230, there were conflicting rulings:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230
"Section 230 was developed in response to a pair of lawsuits against Internet service providers (ISPs) in the early 1990s that resulted in different interpretations of whether the service providers should be treated as publishers or, alternatively, as distributors of content created by its users."
It doesn't appear that lack of moderation, was a get out of jail free card before 230.
Upvote
4
(5
/
-1)
https://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/tcom1996.txt
Facebook would be subject to the same liability as e.g. Comcast for what they choose to air, who can see it, etc.
Upvote
-1
(0
/
-1)
That is Section 230. So it doesn't represent the before 230 state, which was a state of ambiguity that 230 was added to resolve.
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)
Because they're "people you disagree with?" (/s)
I'm so tired of the right, globally.
It's been nice living a substantial portion of my life where women weren't legally treated as incubators.
I can hardly wait for what's next.
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
No, that's the Communications Decency Act of 1996, of which 230 is a part. Repealing 230 doesn't repeal the rest of the CDA.
Upvote
0
(1
/
-1)
See my edits. I admitted that my understanding of the "lack of moderation" approach might have been unclear. And it seems that prior to 230, there were different, conflicting interpretations of publisher and distributor.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
And it looks like soon many states will require them to be incubators.
I want a different timeline.
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)