Elon Musk, Twitter’s next owner, provides his definition of “free speech”

Amid Twitter buyout, Musk says free speech is simply "that which matches the law."

Read the whole story

 

[Deleted member 817175]

So who knows what the accepted opinion on anything will be in 2083? Will incest be okay, the way it was in Egyptian times? Would sodomising children be okay, the way it was in Greek times? Would boning sheep be acceptable by 3030? Who is to say what the moral certainties of the future will be?

In the long run, the kind of moral certainty that drives the Statisticals of this world really means nothing, because they merely reflect the current prejudices of our age. That same kind of moral certainty was exactly what drove the crusades in the middle ages, and we know how that ended.

So let us all be prudent: personally, I could never be too sure about what actions are right, and what wrong. A certain amount of censorship may be inevitable, but considering the long & wrong history of censorship, we really ought to err on the side of minimum censorship. To this extent, Elon's desire to conform with the barest minimum of the law, and do little else besides, would seem like a reasonable approach.

Yes. Imagine feeling moral certainty on a question like whether sodomising children is morally okay.

The nerve of Statistical! Doesn't he know this is too complex a question for us mere mortals ever to "be too sure" on?

 

[HobbitsHaveThePower]

It amazes me the number of low post count sock puppets registered 5+years ago are coming out of the woodwork with absolutely pants on head stupid takes like how, for example, allowing someone to call a black woman an ape who needs to go back to Africa is a good thing.

Today, I was putting together another media pack for someone who is considering running a high profile report on con-men in the gaming industry, and I was going through my evidence of the years long campaign of stalking and harrasment criticising those cons in the game Shroud of the Avatar had led too... and some of the sock puppets used not only were made the day the game forums went live, and thus when everyone interested in the game was still positive about it, but some even pre-dated the game itself and were made when Reddit and other, unrelated media formats went live.

Thus the "cause" the lunatic involved in sending rape and death threats over was not only not important to the behaviour, but the awareness that he only existed to hate and try to harm people, and thus would need literally hundreds of burner accounts for some form of hatred, was so strong that he was making them near a decade in advance and assuming it would be a good thing to still be lying about who he was, if only he could hopefully hurt someone else, for years into a future he knew nothing else about, and had no intention of changing direction from, escaping or improving upon. He just wanted to be able to use sock puppets to be a foaming hateful idiot, forever and ever.

This kind of broken, empty shell, mockery of life is who these people truly are. Many of them won't even care about Elon Musk; They simply hate everyone here because they're clearly able to live a life they'll never understand, one that isn't defined by negative feelings towards everything and everyone else, and are just revelling in taking the opportunity now to use Musk to hurt them. Indeed, if they had any sort of higher intelligence they'd know that even if they believed in Musk personally, this kind of behaviour is just turning everyone against him; who wants to support a community that defines itself by being an arsehole...?

Rummaging up my historical and legal documents again, I actually found the post where I explained to my stalker that the more toxic he made himself, even myself if he stupidly thought he was gaslighting anyone about me, all he was doing was killing the thing he claimed to love by making everything around it seem hateful and abusive; and that as a mind independent from his, I might actually want him to do that because I loathed the scams he claimed to be defending. But his hatred was so deep rooted and reflexive, he couldn't stop himself, and he continued to wreck the reputation of the project and thus prove my point.

And this is what will happen with Musk and Twitter; there's hoardes of people driven only by hate desperate to get back on there, and will praise Musk for letting them do so. Whether they understand this will kill Twitter is irrelevant; they just want to be able to hate and feel powerful doing it, for however brief a moment they can. A lot of innocent people will suffer in the short term, but they don't care about them. Or Twitter. Or even themselves. They simply can't exist without their precious inferiority complex, and lashing out against the world that genuinely is better than them.

 

[Deleted member 817175]

Musk's idea of strongly validating that every user is a unique individual is a good way to stop that kind of crap, since it would be impractical for a business to afford to hire one person per spam account, or to be constantly starting and deleting accounts.

Yes, it's an excellent idea, we need to make sure everyone knows who Publius is so that he can't spout off irresponsible ideas without consequences.

Anonymity in the town square is Stalinism. Free speech requires you identify yourself so we can harass and dox you.

 

[Wheels Of Confusion]

Guy who canceled a customer's Tesla order because "he was rude" has thoughts on censorship at a private non-governmental business.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... rs-model-x

I thought freedom of speech was not freedom from consequences.

Are you capable of thought deeper than a sound bite? This is an honest question.

You wouldn't listen to anything more.

This is just more of "when we do it, it's honorable; when they do it, its horrible."

Actually it's being cited as evidence that Elon Musk is a retaliatory bastard who exercises whatever power he acquires in ways that protect him from criticism, thus undermining his entire spiel about "Free Speech" principles.

 

[PentyPesu]

Guy who canceled a customer's Tesla order because "he was rude" has thoughts on censorship at a private non-governmental business.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... rs-model-x

I thought freedom of speech was not freedom from consequences.

True which is why the poster was pointing out how Elon is nothing more than a hypocrite. He demands no consequences for speech until he dislike the speech directed at him. Alex Jones' website says the same thing in its ToS, yet when he was banned from Twitter he decried it as censorship.

That whooshing sound was the original poster's point clearly going over your head.

 

[Deleted member 817175]

Has it ever occurred to you that Elon Musk is trolling you people? Let's be honest, there is not much point in arguing with leftards masquerading as "liberals" (aka libtards) anymore. Everything has to be compliant with their ideology (and everyone not agreeing with them is obviously a "bigot") and they don't even try to present an objective argument anymore.

I mean, just try to ask a libtard a simple question like "if gender is a social construct, why do we separate sports and prisons by gender (under the assumption gender has a basis on biological reality)?" and watch the screamy insults fly. And that's before you touch subjects at the core of their ideology like reverse discrimination (aka diversity quotas aka "diversity") or anti-meritoctacy (aka equality-of-outcomes aka "equity").

So, what Elon Musk is doing is taking control of the digital equivalent of the town square while trolling the libtards who are butthurt of the fact (but can't do anything about it).

Meh, works for me.

Trolling "works for you" because you are a troll.

Have you leftards (libtards) ever stopped and wondered why you bring the inner asshole to so many people? To the point that some people voted for Donald Trump just to spite you? PROTIP: Nobody likes a leftard trying to convince people they are "bigots" for not going along with their agenda. They may give you a pass IRL to avoid causing a stir like they gave religious nuts a pass 60 years ago, but really, you guys are insufferable to anyone not sharing your ideology.

The alternative would be learning to spell

I made a typo in a link, thanks for citing it as proof I can't spell (PROTIP: nobody likes twats either)

and read which is clearly of little interest to you.

Going off topic a bit, but whatever, it's 14th page already so I will say it: If we started separating sports and prisons by sex (not gender), I wouldn't give two shits about gender, since I would consider gender a pointless self-chosen honorific. But no, libtards seriously want to put men like William Thomas in women's sports, and also want to put convicts who are men in women's prison. And anyone disagreeing is "transphobic".

Anyway, in which safe space are you people going after Elon Musk acquires Twitter?

Don't fuck around. I've been here long enough to remember the days when you were claiming you weren't really alt-right at all, just that you're ESL and learned some bad slang words from reading Breitbart that you didn't realize were offensive.

Uncle Elon will be creating your safe space soon, don't worry.

 

[HobbitsHaveThePower]

So who knows what the accepted opinion on anything will be in 2083? Will incest be okay, the way it was in Egyptian times? Would sodomising children be okay, the way it was in Greek times? Would boning sheep be acceptable by 3030? Who is to say what the moral certainties of the future will be?

In the long run, the kind of moral certainty that drives the Statisticals of this world really means nothing, because they merely reflect the current prejudices of our age. That same kind of moral certainty was exactly what drove the crusades in the middle ages, and we know how that ended.

So let us all be prudent: personally, I could never be too sure about what actions are right, and what wrong. A certain amount of censorship may be inevitable, but considering the long & wrong history of censorship, we really ought to err on the side of minimum censorship. To this extent, Elon's desire to conform with the barest minimum of the law, and do little else besides, would seem like a reasonable approach.

Yes. Imagine feeling moral certainty on a question like whether sodomising children is morally okay.

The nerve of Statistical! Doesn't he know this is too complex a question for us mere mortals ever to "be too sure" on?

No you see, the fact that individual taboos moved around, but there has never, ever been a society that believed in a complete moral and verbal free for all, that all of them had very clear moral codes with their own unique taboos just proves that something, something Libertarian free speech is the logical position to take today.

Never mind that the closer we get to such a society today, the close to absolute species destroying catastrophe we get, either through ignoring a deadly pandemic or economic and environmental collapse, or warmongering for imaginary beliefs, that just proves the logic of allowing everyone to say and do whatever they feel like without regard to social expectations. No one has the right to say I can't bugger up whoever and whatever I want!

 

[terrydactyl]

What Musk seems to be ignorant of is Brandolini's law, aka the bullshit asymmetry principle,

"The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude larger than is needed to produce it."

Unless of course, Musk likes to push bullshit.

 

[Deleted member 817175]

So who knows what the accepted opinion on anything will be in 2083? Will incest be okay, the way it was in Egyptian times? Would sodomising children be okay, the way it was in Greek times? Would boning sheep be acceptable by 3030? Who is to say what the moral certainties of the future will be?

In the long run, the kind of moral certainty that drives the Statisticals of this world really means nothing, because they merely reflect the current prejudices of our age. That same kind of moral certainty was exactly what drove the crusades in the middle ages, and we know how that ended.

So let us all be prudent: personally, I could never be too sure about what actions are right, and what wrong. A certain amount of censorship may be inevitable, but considering the long & wrong history of censorship, we really ought to err on the side of minimum censorship. To this extent, Elon's desire to conform with the barest minimum of the law, and do little else besides, would seem like a reasonable approach.

Yes. Imagine feeling moral certainty on a question like whether sodomising children is morally okay.

The nerve of Statistical! Doesn't he know this is too complex a question for us mere mortals ever to "be too sure" on?

Right? And yet, at some point in time, this was widely accepted and taken for granted by the most advanced civilization of the age! If you haven't already done so, read, for example, Plato's dialogues!

Every generation has its own values and taboos, and almost any evil you can think of, no matter how horrible, was once considered normal behavior at some place and time.

So what are the odds that the our generation has finally uncovered eternal and immutable moral truths? have some perspective, and do not overate the prejudices of our time.

Imagine that, this is a subject on which I am right and Plato is wrong.

There are other subjects on which he is also wrong.

 

[Wheels Of Confusion]

The blogger *was* being rude and disrespectful.

So? That's his Free Speech. Surely Elon doesn't want him to face any consequences that aren't enshrined in law, right? Like he says?

 

[gsgrego]

Guy who canceled a customer's Tesla order because "he was rude" has thoughts on censorship at a private non-governmental business.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... rs-model-x

I thought freedom of speech was not freedom from consequences.

Are you capable of thought deeper than a sound bite? This is an honest question.

You wouldn't listen to anything more.

This is just more of "when we do it, it's honorable; when they do it, its horrible."

No. it is called "context". In this case your inability to tell that this example has nothing to do with talking about consequences of speech and everything to do with musk lashing out at even the most tame of criticism. The point here you cannot seem to grasp is that mush only argues in favor of him not getting repercussions for his speech.

 

[gsgrego]

Guy who canceled a customer's Tesla order because "he was rude" has thoughts on censorship at a private non-governmental business.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... rs-model-x

I thought freedom of speech was not freedom from consequences.

Are you capable of thought deeper than a sound bite? This is an honest question.

You wouldn't listen to anything more.

This is just more of "when we do it, it's honorable; when they do it, its horrible."

Actually it's being cited as evidence that Elon Musk is a retaliatory bastard who exercises whatever power he acquires in ways that protect him from criticism, thus undermining his entire spiel about "Free Speech" principles.

Then epic fail.

The blogger *was* being rude and disrespectful. Conclusions without any effort at first hearing the other side. That's a customer I'd support firing.

Musk didn't call for removal of his post, not his blog. He merely and simply opted to not do business with him.

Did you even read what the blogger wrote?

And what does it matter if it was rude or not? Did the man say anything illegal? Nothing you said changes the fact that this points out exactly how much of a liar musk is.

I always find it interesting to see what right wingers label as rude. As this is deemed acceptable while you guys call a polite yet annoyed letter from a disappointed customer rude.

https://people.com/politics/ted-cruz-mi ... y-reports/

 

[PentyPesu]

Guy who canceled a customer's Tesla order because "he was rude" has thoughts on censorship at a private non-governmental business.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... rs-model-x

I thought freedom of speech was not freedom from consequences.

True which is why the poster was pointing out how Elon is nothing more than a hypocrite. He demands no consequences for speech until he dislike the speech directed at him. Alex Jones' website says the same thing in its ToS, yet when he was banned from Twitter he decried it as censorship.

That whooshing sound was the original poster's point clearly going over your head.

No, it's the thump of the poster's point falling flat on its face.

Musk hasn't called for an end to his speech, nor silencing of same. He opted to not do business with a customer who clearly had no interest in resolution. It's called firing the customer, and is a perfectly legitimate (and ethical) response to a customer complaining in such an entitled fashion.

So consequences are okay as long as they are ones you like.

Also, Donald Trump has not been silenced by being banned from Twitter. He's still showing up on TV, in newspaper interviews, press releases, at political rallies, etc. For someone who has supposedly been silenced, he sure seems quite capable of speaking to millions of people.

And I'll just say, I'm fine with a company firing a customer. I've dealt with that on many times. No one here is claiming that Elon and Tesla didn't have the right to stop doing business with that person. But Elon declares himself a "free speech absolutist" while not actually living up to his supposed ideals. And that is what is being called out.

 

[Chemical Tribe]

Meanwhile musk is encouraging racist and sexist attacks on the twitter board members/staff.

If he talks like a duck and walks like a duck...

Musk has been clear about what he is.

Has it ever occurred to you that Elon Musk is trolling you people?

Nobody owes anyone respect.

Well finally. A right winger being honest that you really are just a pos human being. Bye.

I think he's the one who blames San Francisco's issues on the left, unaware that he's full of shitty right wing talking points.

 

[Random_stranger]

Elon Musk says free speech up to the point of the law, don't like it, change the law

So we go to change the law. Nope . Can't do that , it as it ifringeses on free speech


See the problem here?

If restrictions on speech were popular, it would be easy to reform the first amendment.

Instead, it's one of the most popular amendments among voters/the American public, and changing it would lead to worse outcomes because it would essentially break up the United States as it exists. The likely end state of armed conflict in the US would probably not be a tolerant progressive society.

Society has always largely self policed speech to a higher degree than the government. The first amendment LIMITS THE GOVERNMENT. The entire idea being government restrictions should be limited in scope.

Elon Musk saying all speech except what is prohibited by the government is allowed on their platform is very much a change in the social contract.

If you don't believe me go to your local VFW branch wearing a nazi uniform and saying Heil Hitler (all 100% legal activities when it comes to restrictions by the government).

Nuance can exist in the world one can believe both of these statements at the same time
1) The government having more power to restrict speech is dangerous.
2) Elon Musk turning twitter into 4chan is gross and not good for society.

The post I was replying to was about changing the laws around speech presumably to allow government to punish entities like Twitter.

When you're Ron DeSantis you can just make laws as you want to punish corporations for speech you don't like.

Depends - looks like there will be a lawsuit and it may never happen due to bond obligations, etc.

BUT, if it happens as presented, and you look who wins and who loses:
-Disney gets out of a $1B-2B bond
-largely democratic county tax payers see a tax increase of $2K+

-possible long-term effects: the county won't maintain the roads / infrastructure as Disney wants

Depending on how important that 3rd point is long-term (i.e. I'm sure Disney is aware of global warming, what will happen to FL, etc), it's a actually 1) a HUGE tax break for Disney 2) a "screw-you" to DeSantis' opponents and 3) (most imporant to DeSantis) he gets to be the hero to GQP cult members because he stuck it it to the "woke" Disney.

 

[dobrien75]

Has it ever occurred to you that Elon Musk is trolling you people? Let's be honest, there is not much point in arguing with leftards masquerading as "liberals" (aka libtards) anymore. Everything has to be compliant with their ideology (and everyone not agreeing with them is obviously a "bigot") and they don't even try to present an objective argument anymore.

I mean, just try to ask a libtard a simple question like "if gender is a social construct, why do we separate sports and prisons by gender (under the assumption gender has a basis on biological reality)?" and watch the screamy insults fly. And that's before you touch subjects at the core of their ideology like reverse discrimination (aka diversity quotas aka "diversity") or anti-meritoctacy (aka equality-of-outcomes aka "equity").

So, what Elon Musk is doing is taking control of the digital equivalent of the town square while trolling the libtards who are butthurt of the fact (but can't do anything about it).

Meh, works for me.

Trolling "works for you" because you are a troll.

Have you leftards (libtards) ever stopped and wondered why you bring the inner asshole to so many people? To the point that some people voted for Donald Trump just to spite you? PROTIP: Nobody likes a leftard trying to convince people they are "bigots" for not going along with their agenda. They may give you a pass IRL to avoid causing a stir like they gave religious nuts a pass 60 years ago, but really, you guys are insufferable to anyone not sharing your ideology.

The alternative would be learning to spell

I made a typo in a link, thanks for citing it as proof I can't spell (PROTIP: nobody likes twats either)

and read which is clearly of little interest to you.

Going off topic a bit, but whatever, it's 14th page already so I will say it: If we started separating sports and prisons by sex (not gender), I wouldn't give two shits about gender, since I would consider gender a pointless self-chosen honorific. But no, libtards seriously want to put men like William Thomas in women's sports, and also want to put convicts who are men in women's prison. And anyone disagreeing is "transphobic".

Anyway, in which safe space are you people going after Elon Musk acquires Twitter?

Don't fuck around. I've been here long enough to remember the days when you were claiming you weren't really alt-right at all, just that you're ESL and learned some bad slang words from reading Breitbart that you didn't realize were offensive.

And I 've been here long enough to know you are a performative neonazi:
https://www.reddit.com/r/historydaved/

Funny how everyone can grow troll-ish when dealing with annoying ideologues pushing an agenda, right?

Uncle Elon will be creating your safe space soon, don't worry.

(and with that, we can roll the ponies err... credits)

Um, I'm not sure this is the zinger you thought it was going to be

 

[gsgrego]

LOL. Spot on as always.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46DBT_6KSzg

Why is it that all right wingers sell snake oil?

 

[scrimbul]

I am not sure we can take Musk either literally or seriously at this point. While Twitter is not the platform for nuanced discussion of complicated topics, his comments in various media appear to lack even a basic grounding in the topics on which he's opining.

Wealthy people demonstrating a lack of expertise on subjects they are opining on to the point they expose that they absolutely do not deserve the amount of wealth or decision-making power over that wealth ot by extension the people they manage that they have at that time is not a new phenomenon.

Extremely hard to punish without waiting for said individual to self-immolate or die of natural causes preferably due to social and financial self-immolation, though.

However it is true that very few libertarians learned anything since 2016, January 6th 2021, or the low retention of Gab, Parler and most other social media.

It would be hard, but not at all impossible, to take a back-to-basics approach to be an alternative to Twitter:

Literally the bar is 'Don't be Gab, Parler or Truth Social and have a narrow feature set that is more focused than the competitors rather than shooting for the moon as an entire platform at once'

You don't have to beat or even threaten Twitter the first five years or so and staying off the news could be a good thing. Appearing boring and inoffensive, but inclusive and welcoming rather than trendy outrage could eventually catch on with people who have actual money. Just not fuck-you money.

 

[gsgrego]

LOL. Spot on as always.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46DBT_6KSzg

Why is it that all right wingers sell snake oil?

Gross generalization aside, but I agree. JP's sponsorship choices baffle me. Disagree with his general ideology or not, but someone with 3.3M subscribers need not stoop to such sponsorship choices.

Sorry but no. If you are pushing snake oil cures for money that you know don't do anything then your opinion is not worth listening to.

 

[PentyPesu]

LOL. Spot on as always.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46DBT_6KSzg

Watched for a bit. Saw an edgelord trying way too hard to troll people then got bored and closed the video.

Is trash like that really the best that the right can offer? Try-hard attempts to "troll the libs?"

 

[gsgrego]

LOL. Spot on as always.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46DBT_6KSzg

Watched for a bit. Saw an edgelord trying way too hard to troll people then got bored and closed the video.

Is trash like that really the best that the right can offer? Try-hard attempts to "troll the libs?"

To be fair, have you seen the quality of the left's commentary on this forum? Equally trolly

Not even close.

 

[nimelennar]

LOL. Spot on as always.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46DBT_6KSzg

Why is it that all right wingers sell snake oil?

The same reason that phishing e-mails, and other scams don't make the (fairly minimal) effort to look as authentic as possible. They're aiming for a particular audience, and turning away people who might ask the wrong questions isn't a bug, it's a feature.

 

[Derecho Imminent]

more freeze peaches:
A federal judge in New York on Wednesday rejected Elon Musk’s request to terminate a settlement agreement with the Securities and Exchange Commission that he claimed was being abused to silence his speech.

“Musk, by entering into the consent decree in 2018, agreed to the provision requiring the pre-approval of any such written communications that contain, or reasonably could contain, information material to Tesla or its shareholders. He cannot now complain that this provision violates his First Amendment rights. Musk’s argument that the SEC has used the consent decree to harass him and to launch investigations of his speech is likewise meritless,” Liman said.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/elon-musks-bi ... d=84355265

 

[PentyPesu]

LOL. Spot on as always.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46DBT_6KSzg

Watched for a bit. Saw an edgelord trying way too hard to troll people then got bored and closed the video.

Is trash like that really the best that the right can offer? Try-hard attempts to "troll the libs?"

To be fair, have you seen the quality of the left's commentary on this forum? Equally trolly

 

[XMPKDG]

This is the genius that thinks tunnels are immune to floods.

https://www.indy100.com/viral/elon-musk ... her-floods
https://gizmodo.com/elon-musk-proves-ye ... 1848835670

 

[Shice]

Ugh. If I had any any real alternative to Starlink available at the moment, I'd be seriously considering cancelling it. And by "real alternative," I mean other than 56k dialup, or paying $300-400/month for cellular data, or a 1.5mbs down/0.5mbps up aging WiMax-based "rural broadband" service (which was nice, when it first became available over a decade ago, but the company providing it seems to have taken an attitude of "well, we got our government funding to roll out the network, and we have the reliable income from people who haven't had any better options until recently, so why would we invest any money in upgrading speeds?"), or older satellite internet services like Xplornet which would be slower & more expensive than just using cellular data... without counting the $900 installation fee.

It's also kind of funny to see Musk touting the "free speech absolutism" aspect of Starlink - so does that mean they'll stop using carrier-grade NAT/explicitly blocking inbound connections so you can actually host content directly on Starlink connections...? Yeah, not holding my breath there.

That said, honestly part me of is kind of looking forward seeing to Musk get a hard lesson in basic realities that practically every regular denizen of Usenet learned 20+ years ago. Namely, that a social network based on "free speech absolutism" will at best it will only appeal to the portion of the population that's OK with having to be in "flame warrior" mode constantly - and at worst/more likely, will just turn into a large scale version the *chan sites. Admittedly, that's also the part of me that already sees Twitter as a cesspool that seems to be 1 part "hold my beer" response to someone saying "there's no possible way you could create a social network that's worse than the nastiest corners of Usenet's alt.* hierarchy back in the day" - and one part ridiculously over-engineered replacement for RSS feeds.

My parents just cancelled Starlink and went back to 6 mbps DSL because Starlink couldn't compete with it for reliability. It was OK for a while, but got much worse over the past several months. Based on the times when the service would get flaky, I think they're severely oversubscribiing their satellites. It was an incredibly disappointing experience, especially considering how damn expensive the service is and how much the fanbois overhyped Starlink. With Musk behaving like an far-right man child, I'm sure my parents are glad to no longer support him as well.

I'd be happy to have any terrestrial broadband available here, even DSL - but sadly it's not an option. Haven't noticed any decline in speed/reliability, though I'm probably in an area with low enough population density that that's not likely to happen in the foreseeable future. Though even before his latest antics, I already wasn't crazy about helping to fund (as I've seen it described elsewhere) "Elon Musk's grand plan to irrevocably ruin the night sky."

 

[wastrel]

So as usual, freeze peach.

Fine dessert after whirled peas.

 

[slymenstra hymen]

I watched the Rogan episode when Tim Pool was on with Vijaya Gadde and my takeaway was he was ill equipped to debate the very real issues at Twitter. It could have been a good episode but Pool is an absolute moron and a grifter so it wasn't to be.

Seeing Saagar blame Gadde for Pools ineptitude is just sad.