The ongoing Elon Twitter saga: "insert demographic" melts down

Status
Not open for further replies.
Caracus2k said:
Are you suggesting that alone would not have been enough for significantly more coverage if it was Trumps son and not Bidens?

Anyway not specific to the laptop story but lying about your drugs history on a gun purchase declaration relating to a firearm (that later gets tossed in the trash with the secret service trying to cover up the whole purchase of daid gun) is a felony in the US.... so there is that
Click to expand...

Are powerful Dems threating investigations into how Ivanka and Jared made between $172 and $640m while working in the WH and how Jared has just managed to get $2b from the Saudi sovereign wealth fund? Is it the top talking point of left leaning press and are Dem politicians screaming about it on network TV? Because those would seem more concerning than Biden's son being a junkie, getting a job in Ukraine off daddy's name and avoiding taxes. Now if he'd worked in the White House then yes, his father should have serious questions to answer but he didn't. So to answer your question, no the coverage isn't the same for Hunter Biden and Trump's children.
 
Interesting Wikipedia seems to have killed the page for "Rosemont Seneca Bohai" and bizarrely the Google result just lists CIA with a redirect to Hunter Biden.
 
VincentHanna said:
What is the point? That the cesspit that is twitter needs less censorship? When I occasionally do look at it, it looks to me that people can pretty much say what they want on it already.
Click to expand...

I have one friend who's been suspended for anti-vaxx rubbish. But he's showing himself to be a really negative person who said recently that he "can't wait" till Mariupol is "bombed the **** out of".

He has just been down the alt right path for so long now he's beyond help. But the point is he has been censored. I don't know what Musk will want, but there is some dangerous stuff on Twitter. Maybe he wants people to say whatever they want and for people to make their own minds up.

In that case is it right that August Ames was allowed to be targeted, she ended up committing suicide after a Twitter argument. Is that the kind of "free speech" he wants?
 
Colonel_Klinck said:
It had nothing to do with their legal standing. It had to do with their platform being used to swing an election with potentially hacked documents again. Facebook were far more culpable in 2016 than Twitter but neither company wanted to be seen to be used like that again. Considering even 19 months later we still have no ideas how much of that story is even true IMO they did the right thing. No major news org would touch it, even Fox News wouldn't IIRC.
Click to expand...

There is no requirement for Twitter, or any social media platform to pre-emptively take down material unless its formally requested to do so.

Social media isn't like FOX, CNN, and the other media companies. Social media have a legal exemption i.e. they aren't publishers. They shouldn't have editorial power over what is being displayed. But they are exercising editor power, which is why I think their exemption should be either removed, or them told to abide by the exemption they were given.

From the tweets of both Musk and Dorsey I'm hoping they are heading back to the early Internet philosophy of de-centralisation and the promotion of information exchange.
 
Raymond Lin said:
This would just mean the idiots who think free speech is absolute start crossing the line by doing things like making death threats and saying stupid things that are actually illegal without knowing free speech doesn’t cover that and get themselves into trouble.
Click to expand...

I dont see any issues with that.... People going to have to learn to communicate again.
Guess the police are gonna be recruiting soon.
Have to work out if its real or just "i'm going to kill all of you on OCUK" nonsense...
 
Raymond Lin said:
This would just mean the idiots who think free speech is absolute start crossing the line by doing things like making death threats and saying stupid things that are actually illegal without knowing free speech doesn’t cover that and get themselves into trouble.
Click to expand...

Bring on the lawsuits and jailtime with ruined futures for many.
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
This would just mean the idiots who think free speech is absolute start crossing the line by doing things like making death threats and saying stupid things that are actually illegal without knowing free speech doesn’t cover that and get themselves into trouble.
Click to expand...

A death threat is an actual threat to do something, it’s not “free speech” in the sense of expressing a view or opinion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom