Soldato
I guess you are correct, 136 against, 127 for.. A very slim majority but a majority none the less, I stand corrected, thank you.
Last edited:
The ongoing Elon Twitter saga: "insert demographic" melts down
- Thread starter Energize
- Start date
- Status
Caused by 1500 accounts/bots like Elon said. Most likely caused by the same people/astroturfers that have been influencing twitter employees to censor opposing views or what they deem as "misinformation" aka Biden laptop
People in here are daft, everything is viewed through a left/right extreme viewpoint
Even if that was the case...so what?
If Twitter in its previous ownership wanted to have a banner at the top stating that Donald Trump was a ****, so what?
Elon who is its latest owner literally suggested that everyone should vote Republican on the eve of the midterms.
IT DOES NOT MATTER IF THOSE THAT OWN OR RUN TWITTER ARE POLITICALLY BIASED
They are not the government. It is privately owned social media platform, that people are free to use or not use.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2018
- Posts
- 13,316
No. That is just the Tories and no majority there. But passing by a large majority of 400 to 175 is the figure you want.
Well a majority or Tories voted against if that is what you mean.
Last edited:
Well, it clearly foes matter to a lot of people which is why Elon has set out to change that.
There is a big difference between the ower having and espousing political views and the company/platform itself being biased or openly promoting one mainstream party over the other.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,417
Why do people think that the laptop of the SON of the President, WHO DOESNT EVEN HOLD A GOVERNMENT POSITION, would have been so crucial?
Were you bothered that Jared Kushner, the son of a president who WAS in government got $2 billion from the Saudis?
Excuse the shouting, but I can't get bold, italics etc to work when posting from my mobile.
But it does not matter. Twitter does not matter. It is just a website.
If conservatives don't like it and are so sure that their viewpoints are popular, they can find another platform to promote their agenda.
Instead, they all just cried like babies that Twitter didn't like them, erroneously claimed it had something to do with free speech (which it 100% does not), and had to get Big Daddy Elon to buy it.
Well that's clearly false, if it didn't matter and was just a website then why is there so much drama over this, why are prominent journalists covering it, why is this thread nearly at 300 pages?
Twitter does matter, it has an outsized influence on discourse, it's used by activists, it's been manipulated by fringe groups, state actors etc. it played a huge part in the Arab spring. To claim it doesn't matter and is just a website is incredibly naive.
That's clearly false too, just look at the text messages from the court docs posted earlier, free speech was a big factor in motivating this takeover.
Soldato
It's funny how you'll never bring that up when there's one of the users on your side that say "twitter doesn't matter, stop talking about it etc etc", but when someone you disagree with says the same thing you're quick to jump on it.
No, you mean Elon's misunderstanding of free speech was a big motivating factor in the takeover.
and no, it doesn't matter in the context of "free speech" or political bias. As a company, they can decide what content gets shown (within the law), and if you didnt like it you were free to not use their services (which they were providing for free).
As i said, if they wanted to have "Donald Trump is a ****" at the top of every page on Twitter, then that would be fine and nothing could have stopped them.
You don't properly understand the concept of free speech, and neither does he.
Last edited:
What misunderstanding are you referring to?
No one said they couldn't, you asked if they wanted to have one then so what? You don't seem to understand that there is a big difference between the owner espousing personal views and the company, if Twitter were to have been so openly biased politically with such a banner they'd have trashed shareholder value and the board/execs would be likely sacked.
They'd also likely have the FCC going after them + app stores would not be happy about the use of profanity on the top of every page. You're just talking nonsense here, you don't seem to be able to think through basic real-world consequences.
This is just more empty waffle unless you can actually back it up with something, what have I said re: free speech that you believe is incorrect?
Last edited:
You just said "free speech was a big factor in motivating this takeover."
Therefore you seemingly agree with what he has said about free speech and twitter.
Which means you do not understand it.
I think what you and so many others fail to understand, is that a platform like Twitter grew organically into what it was, and wasn't "biased" due to some grand anti-conservative conspiracy.
If the ideas that Twitter blocked were popular to a majority of the population (and therefore by extension advertisers), then it would be those ideas that would be favoured, or Twitter wouldn't have lasted 5 minutes before being usurped by a platform that did cater to those ideas.
Last edited:
It was, we know this from the court docs.
Again, WTF are you referring to specifically? I've asked you this already. Instead of vaguely referring to him why not just be clear and quote what it is you're thinking of that Elon has said? I'll be happy to let you know if I agree with it or not, don't just assume my position for me and then argue against it, especially if you're unable to answer when asked what it is you're even referring to.
No, that doesn't appear to be true, the moderation policy seems to have been biased and that's going to change.
Last edited:
Mazing
So no answer to the questions then, Elon doesn't understand free speech and I don't either but you can't explain what you're referring specifically/basing that on?
Just back to the mindless Jono trolling...
Actually there is one thing that you said that was interesting -
"No, that doesn't appear to be true, the moderation policy seems to have been biased and that's going to change."
In what way do you think it was biased? Do you think it was biased in that the moderation policy was built to benefit left wing politics, regardless of any sort of business consideration?
Last edited:
No, you don't get to dodge my questions twice in a row and then demand I answer yours... answer mine first please then I'll answer yours.
Soldato
Guys, you're arguing with the user that shared Elon's tweet which was a tweet about CT nonsense and the Pelosi attack. Dowie shared that on here. Dowie instantly believed it because Elon posted it and it matched what dowie wanted to be true.
This is the user you're arguing with.
This is the user you're arguing with.
Yet more lies by Apex...
Why are you guys never able to argue against things I've actually said or done?
The truth of course is the complete opposite; I literally called out Elon's sharing of fake news/conspiracy stuff in this thread:
Apex, please do go ahead and back up your claim, the fact is you can't because you made it up!
Here's a simple suggestion for future reference, if you're going to claim I've said something then go to the post and press "quote" it would save a lot of silliness. Secondly trying to slander a user with some made-up accusation related to something else is irrelevant to the merits of another argument, it's pretty desperate.
Last edited:
It would help if people that were claiming that Twitter was biased can substantiate their belief with actual evidence, as numerous studies report the exact opposite.
e..g.
There was never, ever any systematic bias against right wing politics. It ia just that right wing posters were more likely to use misinformation, spread hate speech, incite violence, or post illegal content.
In fact, right ring political tweets seemed to get more visibility, so if there was any bias it negativity impacted left wing parties and viewpoints
www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/oct/22/twitter-admits-bias-in-algorithm-for-rightwing-politicians-and-news-outlets
e..g.
There was never, ever any systematic bias against right wing politics. It ia just that right wing posters were more likely to use misinformation, spread hate speech, incite violence, or post illegal content.
In fact, right ring political tweets seemed to get more visibility, so if there was any bias it negativity impacted left wing parties and viewpoints
www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/oct/22/twitter-admits-bias-in-algorithm-for-rightwing-politicians-and-news-outlets
Soldato
Happy Thanksgiving! Should have taken the 3 months and not clicked yes for “hardcore Twitter”
- Status