Elon & Twitter

[ZenRockGarden]

1) How so?
2) And most users. What social media site charges users and is ad free?
3) Also eliminating a large number of users. I'm not giving my real identity to Twitter or any social media site.
4) "Free speech absolutist" means it will probably turn into a cesspool as with other such sites.

Yeah, #4 there is both the most interesting, and by far the hardest to pull off in the real world.

Just read Facebooks transparency report - it's actually full of detail and thoughtful analysis of what they deal with day-in-and day-out with various kinds of crap wafting thru their property, ranging from just-mildly-inappropriate to really-offensive-to-most-people to factually-incorrect to illegal to exploitive to bot-generated-but-not-offensive.... It is HARD to pick a simple set of easily communicated rules (and you WILL need rules if you don't want to be 4chan) and then enforce them perfectly in all cases including a fast and efficient appeals process so you don't become tik-tok where the "report" system itself is used rampantly as a bullying tool

 

[Cosmacelf]

Yeah, I think we're going to need some references to the actual cases where companies have been found to be "state actors". Alex Berenson is not someone I trust to provide accurate information.

Well, we will find out. Berenson has said he will take the govt to court on first amendment grounds. It’ll be a worthwhile case. The problem is the executive branch runs the regulatory agencies, and those agencies can put companies out of business through regulatory action. So when the White House says do X, it is understood that there is a threat of retaliation if you don’t comply.

 

[Daniel in SD]

Well, we will find out. Berenson has said he will take the govt to court on first amendment grounds. It’ll be a worthwhile case. The problem is the executive branch runs the regulatory agencies, and those agencies can put companies out of business through regulatory action. So when the White House says do X, it is understood that there is a threat of retaliation if you don’t comply.

Berenson says a lot of stuff. haha.
It wasn't clear from your post that you were just stating your opinion and that there appears to be no precedent supporting it (yet?).
Berenson doesn't even present evidence that Twitter feared regulatory action against them. Maybe Twitter just wanted to fight disinformation on their platform? After all they were fighting COVID misinformation during the previous administration when there was an explicit threat made to "strongly regulate, or close them down."

 

[Tronguy]

I did some searching and it's not an implausible case to make if executive branch (also bound by first ammendment) causes private company (thus state actor) to silence someone. Didn't find any directly related cases though.

I think your case #2 may also be a violation.

Um. FWIW, I'm a frequent reader of Techdirt, where the 1st amendment (and all the rest of them) are definitely in their wheelhouse.

I agree that item #3 is a violation if there's a plausible threat. But the foundation of the republic is that everybody is a citizen; everybody is subject to the laws (nobody being above them); but everybody gets the same rights, too.

If Joe Blow can stand on a street corner and say, "Ban that $IDIOT, Facebook!" as a public protest, so can every other elected and appointed official, because they're citizens, too. Adding the words, "If you don't, we'll get you!" pushes it over the line if it's a plausible threat. Except, of course, if some huge percentage of the electorate is about to vote in a new amendment that says, more or less, "Except for Facebook", at which point people can say that without getting sued, whoever they are.

 

[Prunesquallor]

1) How so?
2) And most users. What social media site charges users and is ad free?
3) Also eliminating a large number of users. I'm not giving my real identity to Twitter or any social media site.
4) "Free speech absolutist" means it will probably turn into a cesspool as with other such sites.

1)

Going Private: Definition, How It Works, Types and Example

Going private is a transaction or a series of transactions that convert a publicly traded company into a private entity.

www.investopedia.com

2) YouTube has a subscription option which eliminates ads. IMO this makes it one of the best Social Media sites.
3) Twitter NEEDS to lose many users. Verifiable doesn’t mean non-anonymous. It means establishing a one-to-one relationship between a person and an account and prevents one user from impersonating another.
4) Remains to be seen.

 

[Daniel in SD]

2) YouTube has a subscription option which eliminates ads. IMO this makes it one of the best Social Media sites.

It's hilarious to me that the richest man in the world is too cheap to pay for YouTube premium but thinks switching Twitter to a subscription model is a good idea.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1534196611978383361

https://twitter.com/x/status/1546715612495417344

Also, the algorithm in correct! Elon Musk could definitely make money through Audible.

YouTube premium is worth it even with my relatively meager income.

 

[Cosmacelf]

Berenson says a lot of stuff. haha.

And backs it up. He did in fact sue Twitter and won a settlement.

It wasn't clear from your post that you were just stating your opinion and that there appears to be no precedent supporting it (yet?).
Berenson doesn't even present evidence that Twitter feared regulatory action against them. Maybe Twitter just wanted to fight disinformation on their platform? After all they were fighting COVID misinformation during the previous administration when there was an explicit threat made to "strongly regulate, or close them down."

The WSJ weighed in on this just now: Opinion | The White House and Twitter Censorship

I think that's a free link. If not, here's the ending:

...evidence of a direct connection between White House pressure and Twitter censorship bolsters the argument that social-media platforms can be sued as “state actors” for restricting speech in violation of the First Amendment. Courts have been reluctant, and properly so, to allow such lawsuits to proceed without evidence linking specific demands from government officials to censorship.

Mr. Berenson has now shown that White House officials sought to conscript the platform into silencing him, and perhaps others who don’t toe the White House line on Covid. Have Biden officials pressured other platforms to censor users who express contrarian views on other topics such as climate change?

The government’s response to Covid shows the importance of robust debate, since much of the official wisdom has turned out to be wrong and did great harm. Think lockdowns. A condominium of Big Tech and government is itself a hazard to public health and democracy.

 

[JRP3]

1)

Going Private: Definition, How It Works, Types and Example

Going private is a transaction or a series of transactions that convert a publicly traded company into a private entity.

www.investopedia.com

2) YouTube has a subscription option which eliminates ads. IMO this makes it one of the best Social Media sites.
3) Twitter NEEDS to lose many users. Verifiable doesn’t mean non-anonymous. It means establishing a one-to-one relationship between a person and an account and prevents one user from impersonating another.
4) Remains to be seen.

1) I misunderstood, I thought you meant Elon would be protected from mean tweets or something.
2) YouTube is not exclusively subscription, I'd guess most users do not pay. If you mean an optional subscription along with free use then that could be viable.

It's hilarious to me that the richest man in the world is too cheap to pay for YouTube premium but thinks switching Twitter to a subscription model is a good idea.

The Technoking doesn't know about ad blockers?

 

[Daniel in SD]

Opinion | The White House and Twitter Censorship

To me what you said sounded like a statement of fact when the fact is people have tried to make this argument and no one has been successful.

Twitter may ban anyone it likes BUT if the federal government asks Twitter to ban someone, then Twitter becomes a state actor and that action would be in violation of the first amendment.

Yes, Twitter settled with Berenson but obviously a settlement is not legal precedent (and as far as I can tell the only thing he got was his account back).

 

[Cosmacelf]

To me what you said sounded like a statement of fact when the fact is people have tried to make this argument and no one has been successful.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. Most legal analysis is just opinion until adjudicated by the courts.

Yes, Twitter settled with Berenson but obviously a settlement is not legal precedent (and as far as I can tell the only thing he got was his account back).

I don’t think we know what he got from Twitter. One useful thing he got was, in discovery, all those slack messages naming WH employees who asked Twitter to ban Berenson. That will presumably act as a foundation for the lawsuit against the government. Discovery in that lawsuit may be interesting as well.

I found it interesting that he closed up his Twitter lawsuit so quickly. I am guessing that Twitter gave him some pretty incriminating information that Berenson will use against the government. I very much doubt Berenson has shared everything he got from Twitter with us.

 

[Daniel in SD]

Sorry, I should have been more clear. Most legal analysis is just opinion until adjudicated by the courts.



I don’t think we know what he got from Twitter. One useful thing he got was, in discovery, all those slack messages naming WH employees who asked Twitter to ban Berenson. That will presumably act as a foundation for the lawsuit against the government. Discovery in that lawsuit may be interesting as well.

I found it interesting that he closed up his Twitter lawsuit so quickly. I am guessing that Twitter gave him some pretty incriminating information that Berenson will use against the government. I very much doubt Berenson has shared everything he got from Twitter with us.

My prediction: Berenson is a grifter and the only thing he'll accomplish with this yet to be filed lawsuit is getting some money from gullible people.
Anyone who wants to support him can donate here: Fight social media censorship!, organized by Alex Berenson
I'll bookmark my post so I can see if I was right.

 

[Buckminster]

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

 

[bkp_duke]

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

Hypothetical here, but curious - what happens if Elon is forced to buy TWTR at the agreed-upon price, then as the new owner digs in deep and finds out there is/was significant fraud? He can't go back to the shareholders for a refund, that's not possible on a public company. Does he sue all the members of the board and the C-suite?

 

[Cosmacelf]

Hypothetical here, but curious - what happens if Elon is forced to buy TWTR at the agreed-upon price, then as the new owner digs in deep and finds out there is/was significant fraud? He can't go back to the shareholders for a refund, that's not possible on a public company. Does he sue all the members of the board and the C-suite?

Yes, I think that is possible. You’d think the current Board would want to guard against that….

 

[bkp_duke]

Yes, I think that is possible. You’d think the current Board would want to guard against that….

Problem is, none of those individuals, or collectively, have a net worth enough to "make him whole" to the tune of even a $10 discount on the purchase price. Unless my googling of their net worth is in error.

 

[AlanSubie4Life]

Upside for Elon: if it works out, maybe there will be less competition with Truth Social in future, and if it does not work out, maybe Elon can pick up Truth Social at a discount; near future fire sale is possible.

Or…why not BOTH?

He always wanted Pravda. Now he can have it.

 

[Cosmacelf]

Problem is, none of those individuals, or collectively, have a net worth enough to "make him whole" to the tune of even a $10 discount on the purchase price. Unless my googling of their net worth is in error.

They have a hefty D&O insurance policy. That’s worth something. But you are right, it is probably worth more as a threat to sue once acquired…

 

[dm28997]

getting interesting

Judge orders Twitter to give Elon Musk former executive's documents

Twitter Inc needs to give Elon Musk documents from a former Twitter executive who Musk said was a key figure in calculating the amount of fake accounts on the platform, according to a Monday court order.

www.reuters.com

 

[Knightshade]

getting interesting

Judge orders Twitter to give Elon Musk former executive's documents

Twitter Inc needs to give Elon Musk documents from a former Twitter executive who Musk said was a key figure in calculating the amount of fake accounts on the platform, according to a Monday court order.

www.reuters.com

Kinda burying the lead.

Which they do eventually get to

McCormick said in her order on Monday that she was denying Musk's request for access to 21 other people with control over relevant information.

Musk wanted access to 22 people who worked on mDAU stats. The judge only granted access to 1.


The idea he's gonna get the massive fishing expedition of discovery he hoped for is increasingly, obviously, not gonna be a thing.

 

[dm28997]

this:

Twitter Must Hand Over to Elon Musk Documents of Former Executive, Judge Rules

A judge ordered Twitter to hand over documents from a former executive potentially responsible for counting spam/bot accounts to Elon Musk. According to the assumption, he is most closely associated with this duty and can shed light on the real situation on the platform.

www.tesmanian.com