Elon & Twitter

[sunwarriors]

Yeah, nobody uses Twitter since Musk took over.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1638033646287220736

Wouldn't it be more relevant to see what it was prior to Musk or the recent trend line? (unless there was a link in your post? I didn't want to click on it to give twitter my view). I'm suspicious of any metrics anyone posts honestly since you know what they say about statistics (or you don't maybe). Also, use != $$.

I'm waiting for more concrete info like Twitter moving to TX, employee count down to 1000, Elon throws in the towel on Twitter, etc...I don't think I've seen anything conclusive that Twitter is doing great just yet or has turned the corner on being a buyout success.

 

[JohnSnowNW]

Wouldn't it be more relevant to see what it was prior to Musk or the recent trend line? (unless there was a link in your post? I didn't want to click on it to give twitter my view). I'm suspicious of any metrics anyone posts honestly since you know what they say about statistics (or you don't maybe). Also, use != $$.

I'm waiting for more concrete info like Twitter moving to TX, employee count down to 1000, Elon throws in the towel on Twitter, etc...I don't think I've seen anything conclusive that Twitter is doing great just yet or has turned the corner on being a buyout success.

Well, Twitter was actively keeping bad actors off the platform, and now it's a free-for-all.

So, I'm not sure the statistics are particularly relevant as a comparison. Besides it's free to use, so...

 

[philw1776]

Twitter was suppressing free speech. Government via former FBI folks employed at Twitter censored any speech that contradicted the state's Covid narrative, described the Hunter Biden laptop contents, questioned the 2020 election validity. Yes many were wackadoodle but many others were not. Wackadoodle claims are still free speech and most posts contradicting state media narrative were suppressed.

 

[bo3bdar]

Twitter was suppressing free speech. Government via former FBI folks employed at Twitter censored any speech that contradicted the state's Covid narrative, described the Hunter Biden laptop contents, questioned the 2020 election validity. Yes many were wackadoodle but many others were not. Wackadoodle claims are still free speech and most posts contradicting state media narrative were suppressed.

"Suppressed". As the meme goes, "You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means."

Not amplifying crazy stories is not remotely being "suppressed." I never used Twitter and I never will, and the fact that I've heard about ALL of these stories before suggests that "suppressed" is about as far from reality as you can get.

There is endless whining about conservative viewpoints being censored, and yet somehow I still constantly hear about these non-stories. Google searches show that literally every media group has covered these stories. So yeah, "censored" and "suppressed" do not mean what you seem to think they mean.

 

[advocate8]

Sure. God doesn’t have to explain himself. Even when claiming maximal transparency.

"Suppressed". As the meme goes, "You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means."

Not amplifying crazy stories is not remotely being "suppressed." I never used Twitter and I never will, and the fact that I've heard about ALL of these stories before suggests that "suppressed" is about as far from reality as you can get.

There is endless whining about conservative viewpoints being censored, and yet somehow I still constantly hear about these non-stories. Google searches show that literally every media group has covered these stories. So yeah, "censored" and "suppressed" do not mean what you seem to think they mean.

Yes to all this and, yawnnnn, how many times must it be pointed out that Twitter was and is a private company and therefore can make whatever rules it wants about its content.

 

[Doggydogworld]

Twitter was suppressing free speech. Government via former FBI folks employed at Twitter....

Sorry, but this is a huge reach. Former government employees are not lifelong secret agents any more than Franz von Holzhausen is secretly working within Tesla on behalf of former employers VW, GM or Mazda.

If you've spent time in Silicon Valley you know there's no shortage of high tech employees eager to combat Covid misinformation and election lies. They don't need help from "Big Government" to go overboard. And despite Elon's promises of transparency and bombshells, the cherry-picked "Twitter Files" excerpts have shown none of the government censorship or First Amendment violations he claims. For example, Matt Taibbi himself said:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1598833927405215744

"Suppressed". As the meme goes, "You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means."

Not amplifying crazy stories is not remotely being "suppressed."

Twitter went way beyond "not amplifying". They fully suppressed the Hunter Biden laptop story mentioned above, and even locked the NY Post out of Twitter for a while over it. And much the same with Covid, election lies, etc. The question is whether they were following orders from the government.

And even if Twitter acted on its own, as all evidence indicates, it raises Section 230 issues. Fox and MSNBC are 100% free to ignore and/or slant stories. It's not illegal, even when done on behalf of government (e.g. President Trump calling directly into Fox). But social media companies supposedly provide a "town square" and do not exercise editorial control. Supposedly.

@advocate8
Yes to all this and, yawnnnn, how many times must it be pointed out that Twitter was and is a private company and therefore can make whatever rules it wants about its content.

Not under Section 230.

 

[Crutonius]

Sorry, but this is a huge reach. Former government employees are not lifelong secret agents any more than Franz von Holzhausen is secretly working within Tesla on behalf of former employers VW, GM or Mazda.

If you've spent time in Silicon Valley you know there's no shortage of high tech employees eager to combat Covid misinformation and election lies. They don't need help from "Big Government" to go overboard. And despite Elon's promises of transparency and bombshells, the cherry-picked "Twitter Files" excerpts have shown none of the government censorship or First Amendment violations he claims. For example, Matt Taibbi himself said:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1598833927405215744

Twitter went way beyond "not amplifying". They fully suppressed the Hunter Biden laptop story mentioned above, and even locked the NY Post out of Twitter for a while over it. And much the same with Covid, election lies, etc. The question is whether they were following orders from the government.

And even if Twitter acted on its own, as all evidence indicates, it raises Section 230 issues. Fox and MSNBC are 100% free to ignore and/or slant stories. It's not illegal, even when done on behalf of government (e.g. President Trump calling directly into Fox). But social media companies supposedly provide a "town square" and do not exercise editorial control. Supposedly.


Not under Section 230.

Which part of section 230 requires a private company to share pictures of Hunter Biden's penis?

Curiously Matt Taibbi didn't mention that dick Pics were most, if not all, of what they took down.

 

[JRP3]

Not under Section 230.

Does section 230 prevent websites from choosing what content to provide?

"Section 230 allows for web operators, large and small, to moderate user speech and content as they see fit."

Section 230

47 U.S.C. § 230 The Internet allows people everywhere to connect, share ideas, and advocate for change without needing immense resources or technical expertise. Our unprecedented ability to communicate online—on blogs, social media platforms, and educational and cultural platforms like Wikipedia...

www.eff.org

 

[thx1139]

"Suppressed". As the meme goes, "You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means."

Not amplifying crazy stories is not remotely being "suppressed." I never used Twitter and I never will, and the fact that I've heard about ALL of these stories before suggests that "suppressed" is about as far from reality as you can get.

There is endless whining about conservative viewpoints being censored, and yet somehow I still constantly hear about these non-stories. Google searches show that literally every media group has covered these stories. So yeah, "censored" and "suppressed" do not mean what you seem to think they mean.

Dont you know if right wing conspiracy theories arent front page news and lead news on all newscasts then it is "Suppressed".
Hey you know what is still "Suppressed"? The ramifications and damage being done by Climate Change. Did you hear much reporting that DeSantis in Florida during his debate answered the 1 climate change question with FEMA doesnt pay the victims of Hurricanes fast enough? Didnt mention that University of Miami says 2 million Dade County residents will be displaced by Climate Change by 2060. Maybe Elon should worry about that being "Suppressed".

 

[JRP3]

Idiots on social media: "Elon Musk's worry about population is unfounded, it's based on racism. An aging population is totally not a problem."

Meanwhile Paris is going down in flames...

Meanwhile Bekasi is going up, in trash...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1637783656625483778

Yeah, we need more people on the planet, cause that will make everything better.

 

[thx1139]

Sorry, but this is a huge reach. Former government employees are not lifelong secret agents any more than Franz von Holzhausen is secretly working within Tesla on behalf of former employers VW, GM or Mazda.

If you've spent time in Silicon Valley you know there's no shortage of high tech employees eager to combat Covid misinformation and election lies. They don't need help from "Big Government" to go overboard. And despite Elon's promises of transparency and bombshells, the cherry-picked "Twitter Files" excerpts have shown none of the government censorship or First Amendment violations he claims. For example, Matt Taibbi himself said:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1598833927405215744

Twitter went way beyond "not amplifying". They fully suppressed the Hunter Biden laptop story mentioned above, and even locked the NY Post out of Twitter for a while over it. And much the same with Covid, election lies, etc. The question is whether they were following orders from the government.

And even if Twitter acted on its own, as all evidence indicates, it raises Section 230 issues. Fox and MSNBC are 100% free to ignore and/or slant stories. It's not illegal, even when done on behalf of government (e.g. President Trump calling directly into Fox). But social media companies supposedly provide a "town square" and do not exercise editorial control. Supposedly.


Not under Section 230.

Section 230 protects media organizations from being sued because of comments made by people on there sites when it causes harm to others. Without Section 230 moderation and suppression would be increased, not decreased.

 

[advocate8]

After months of deliberation I’m going to enact a personal, common-sense rule and just automatically put on ignore anyone with mars, or the moon, planets, or the cosmos or robots or spacecraft of any kind in their handle or ID image. Hero worship distorts reality way too much for me to waste time with it. Ditto any hint of political leanings, such as the words “right” or “left."
If you have outsourced your identity and thinking, I already know what you’ve got to say, really, and I’m weary of partisan political talking points.

 

[FloridaJohn]

I think something that is being lost in the Twitter antics is that he has "secretly" gained a press machine through Twitter. Tesla and subsidiaries (charging, solar, etc.) is much more into marketing now via Twitter than ever before. Everyone says that Tesla does 0 marketing/advertising but we do see some announcements and videos/pictures that are almost exclusively posted to Twitter along with their website. There has to be some $$$ being used from all of their excess profits in making these promotional "ads" and publishing them to Twitter. Except that he completely controls that medium of information sharing so he doesn't have to pay any money to the medium itself to run ads. This is something that people don't really think about as a sort of positive of the Twitter acquisition.

I don't think those posts on Twitter are being done for "free." The losses at Twitter have to be offset one way or another.

Elon Musk's SpaceX buys ad campaign on Twitter for Starlink

SpaceX has bought an advertising package on Twitter for its satellite internet service Starlink, said Elon Musk, who owns the rocket company and the social media platform that is seeing an exodus of advertisers.

www.reuters.com

 

[Doggydogworld]

Does section 230 prevent websites from choosing what content to provide?

"Section 230 allows for web operators, large and small, to moderate user speech and content as they see fit."

Section 230

47 U.S.C. § 230 The Internet allows people everywhere to connect, share ideas, and advocate for change without needing immense resources or technical expertise. Our unprecedented ability to communicate online—on blogs, social media platforms, and educational and cultural platforms like Wikipedia...

www.eff.org

Section 230 does not explicitly prevent websites from choosing content, but the entire theory behind extending Section 230 protections to social media companies was based on the claim that they only provide the "town square" and are not themselves "publishers" of the information. 230's fundamental tenet is:

"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."

Courts have generally ruled that "Publication involves reviewing, editing, and deciding whether to publish or to withdraw from publication third-party content" (Ninth Circuit, Barnes v. Yahoo). Avoid that and you're pretty safe, but if you create your own content and/or selectively allow 3rd party content you can become a "publisher" and lose immunity.

There are exceptions for pornography, sex trafficking, promoting violence, etc. That's why Craigslist no longer has personal ads, they were potentially liable for users promoting prostitution, posting revenge porn and so on. Aside from these carve-outs, however, you are not free to pick and choose content "as you see fit", no matter what EFF says.

 

[Crutonius]

Section 230 does not explicitly prevent websites from choosing content, but the entire theory behind extending Section 230 protections to social media companies was based on the claim that they only provide the "town square" and are not themselves "publishers" of the information. 230's fundamental tenet is:

"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."

Courts have generally ruled that "Publication involves reviewing, editing, and deciding whether to publish or to withdraw from publication third-party content" (Ninth Circuit, Barnes v. Yahoo). Avoid that and you're pretty safe, but if you create your own content and/or selectively allow 3rd party content you can become a "publisher" and lose immunity.

There are exceptions for pornography, sex trafficking, promoting violence, etc. That's why Craigslist no longer has personal ads, they were potentially liable for users promoting prostitution, posting revenge porn and so on. Aside from these carve-outs, however, you are not free to pick and choose content "as you see fit", no matter what EFF says.

Why exactly do you think Twitter wouldn't have this immunity in section 230? The exceptions you've listed don't seem to have much to do with Twitter.

 

[italian bread]

What Musk says and what actually happens can be two very different things.

We Asked Twitter About Hosting Antisemitism. It Responded With a Poop Emoji.

The amount of antisemitic tweets poisoning Twitter timelines has more than doubled since Elon Musk took the platform’s reins, according to a new study.

The research, published on Monday by the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, found that antisemitism spiked when the embattled billionaire took control of the site and has stayed at an elevated level ever since. The tweets mostly focus on conspiracy theories referencing Jewish figures controlling the world, Israel, and, of course, white supremacy, according to the study, one of the first to offer a comprehensive look at how and why antisemitism and hate are growing on the social media platform.
...
While Musk made several promises about reducing hate speech since taking over Twitter, it’s no secret that antisemites and racists have flourished on the platform under his control. He got rid of Twitter’s Trust and Safety Council, which advised the site on how to deal with hateful activity, and gutted the staff, which meant many of those previously responsible for moderation or safety were gone. Many high-profile neo-Nazis or conspiracists who spread hateful rhetoric were then allowed back on Twitter.
...
While Musk made claims that “freedom of speech does not mean freedom of reach” and promised that hateful tweets would be buried on the platform, the Institute for Strategic Dialogue found “no appreciable change in the average levels of engagement or interaction with antisemitic tweets before and after the takeover.”

 

[Doggydogworld]

Why exactly do you think Twitter wouldn't have this immunity in section 230? The exceptions you've listed don't seem to have much to do with Twitter.

230 does not protect publishers, it specifically gives immunity to web sites on the grounds they they are not publishers. Twitter was acting like a publisher when they suppressed the Hunter Biden laptop story as well as posts on Covid, vaccines and the 2020 election (but not, for example, when they removed obscene pics of Hunter Biden as permitted by safe harbor clauses).

Becoming a publisher for some content does not mean you lose 230 protections for everything. But Democrat and Republican politicians are both talking about more broadly stripping 230 protections from Twitter and other social media sites. So we'll see how it goes.

 

[Crutonius]

230 does not protect publishers, it specifically gives immunity to web sites on the grounds they they are not publishers. Twitter was acting like a publisher when they suppressed the Hunter Biden laptop story as well as posts on Covid, vaccines and the 2020 election (but not, for example, when they removed obscene pics of Hunter Biden as permitted by safe harbor clauses).

Becoming a publisher for some content does not mean you lose 230 protections for everything. But Democrat and Republican politicians are both talking about more broadly stripping 230 protections from Twitter and other social media sites. So we'll see how it goes.

I think you're misunderstanding this.

The First Amendment prevents the government from forcing a private entity to not say something. On the flip side it also prevents the government from requiring a private entity to say something.

Twitter was and still is a private company. They are completely within their rights to suppress or promote anything they want.

Section 230 is intended to shield comment sections from lawsuits regarding what comment or say. It has little to do with the First Amendment.

Let's say for instance that a bunch of crazy people are going on and on about Dominion voting stealing the election. Dominion is currently suing Fox News over this. They can't sue Twitter over this though because of section 230.

If section 230 was nullified then it would have the exact opposite effect you're thinking. You think it would force Twitter to allow users to say anything. In reality it would force Twitter to either lock things down to the most non offensive content possible or face a never ending barrage of lawsuits.

*Edit;
Also, I think this needs to be pointed out. This suppression you see on Twitter and social media in general has much more to do with advertiser pressure, not the government. If Elon wanted to free the bird then he'd run Twitter as a non profit and ban all advertising.

 

[Buckminster]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1638231321469423616

 

[JRP3]

Yeah he massively screwed up and is scrambling to make something of it