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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Last edited:
Sankari said:
Hardcore Trump supporters still haven't realised that Musk didn't buy Twitterx for their personal convenience, and he has no shame about picking favourites.


But hey, at least he's allowing the kind of advertisements they prefer.

Click to expand...


This is the Tweet, it isn't an ad.

I reported the Tweet by the way so see if anything happens, the reference to David Lane is what should make it bannable.
 
Last edited:
Tony Edwards said:
I dont think his backers would be happy if he did.
Click to expand...

He has literally said he has no choice but to obey the laws of the countries Twitter operates in.


This isn't some new thing.

It's funny how in every single thread as soon as there's a bit of nuance so many of you seem to struggle, everything must be black and white for you to cope.
 
Last edited:
Roar87 said:
He has literally said he has no choice but to obey the laws of the countries Twitter operates in.
Click to expand...

Musk had previously criticised Dorsey for doing similar, that’s why he’s getting grief for using the same reasoning he criticised Dorsey for using.

Also Dorsey had some subtle digs at Musk recently, pointing out that when he was in charge they regularly denied requests from Indian and Saudi governments.
 
Last edited:
Roar87 said:
He has literally said he has no choice but to obey the laws of the countries Twitter operates in.


This isn't some new thing.

It's funny how in every single thread as soon as there's a bit of nuance so many of you seem to struggle, everything must be black and white for you to cope.
Click to expand...
Weird how he's said that for some things, and actively fought against it in other instances where the subject is one he approves of.

Twitter used to actively fight to ensure most of the requests from governments were legally sound, under musk it seems like it's fighting to slow down legally sound requests against people he admires/are useful to him, whilst pretty much any other request is just waived through.

Admittedly this could be in part because he's no longer got any legal experts for anything other than the USA given he dumped most/all of the local twitter teams that used to actually know the local laws and deal with non US law enforcement.
 
imtoooldforthis said:
Musk had previously criticised Dorsey for doing similar, that’s why he’s getting grief for using the same reasoning he criticised Dorsey for using.

Also Dorsey had some subtle digs at Musk recently, pointing out that when he was in charge they regularly denied requests from Indian and Saudi governments.
Click to expand...
IIRC under Dorsey Twitter had a reputation of going to bat for it's users if there was a question about the legal basis of a request by for example in many instances requiring that a "local" court confirmed the request rather than just complying blindly with an illegal request from a dictator (as has happened a few times with regards to Turkey since the champion of $8 speech took over).
 
Twitter under Jack Dorsey ran the company as a subsidiary of the FBI, as well as according to Jack, big corporate advertisers.

imtoooldforthis said:
Musk had previously criticised Dorsey for doing similar, that’s why he’s getting grief for using the same reasoning he criticised Dorsey for using.

Also Dorsey had some subtle digs at Musk recently, pointing out that when he was in charge they regularly denied requests from Indian and Saudi governments.
Click to expand...

He criticised the previous Twitter regime for complying with all manner of FBI requests, taking down random Tweets for "misinformation" - that isn't obeying the law because the US doesn't have that law, that's actually against the 1st amendment in the US. What has Dorsey said about Indian and Saudi government requests? Any links?
 
Roar87 said:
Twitter under Jack Dorsey ran the company as a subsidiary of the FBI, as well as according to Jack, big corporate advertisers.

He criticised the previous Twitter regime for complying with all manner of FBI requests...
Click to expand...
Have you got credible (ie - not from biased outlets) sources for these statements?
 
Last edited:
visibleman said:
Have you got credible (ie - not from biased outlets) sources for these statements?
Click to expand...

www.telegraph.co.uk

Twitter acted like a 'subsidiary' of FBI, leaked emails show

It is claimed that FBI agents routinely asked executives to silence joke accounts on the pretext of fighting disinformation
www.telegraph.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk

reason.com

The FBI paid Twitter $3.4 million for processing requests

The latest Twitter Files installment shows the FBI paid Twitter millions of dollars to cover the costs of processing the agency's requests. Yikes.
reason.com reason.com
 
Last edited:
Roar87 said:
www.telegraph.co.uk

Twitter acted like a 'subsidiary' of FBI, leaked emails show

It is claimed that FBI agents routinely asked executives to silence joke accounts on the pretext of fighting disinformation
www.telegraph.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk

reason.com

The FBI paid Twitter $3.4 million for processing requests

The latest Twitter Files installment shows the FBI paid Twitter millions of dollars to cover the costs of processing the agency's requests. Yikes.
reason.com reason.com
Click to expand...

Thats not really the story you are claiming it is.

Matt Taibbi, one of a handful of reporters to whom Elon Musk appears to have been granted access to Twitter's corporate records and emails, posted a series of screenshots of emails that he said showed "constant and pervasive" contacts between Twitter and the FBI, "as if it were a subsidiary" of the Federal agency.
Click to expand...

Is not the same as 'Twitter under Jack Dorsey ran the company as a subsidiary of the FBI'

Nor is Twitter making the FBI pay for services rendered.
 
Tony Edwards said:
Thats not really the story you are claiming it is.



Is not the same as 'Twitter under Jack Dorsey ran the company as a subsidiary of the FBI'

Nor is Twitter making the FBI pay for services rendered.
Click to expand...
The really stupid thing about the FBI pay story is that US law requires US law enforcement to pay for any costs associated with processing legal requests, in part to put law enforcement off fishing expeditions, but mainly to ensure that companies are not out of pocket for complying with law enforcement orders.

So if the FBI presented a court order to Twitter, or Facebook, or Truth Social requiring information about a user the FBI from memory had to pay the costs associated with getting that information (I can't remember if there is a statutory amount).

It's basically the same as if the FBI required a wiretap on someone's phone, they had to pay the telecoms company it's going rate for the time it too to connect that wiretap.
 
Werewolf said:
The really stupid thing about the FBI pay story is that US law requires US law enforcement to pay for any costs associated with processing legal requests, in part to put law enforcement off fishing expeditions, but mainly to ensure that companies are not out of pocket for complying with law enforcement orders.

So if the FBI presented a court order to Twitter, or Facebook, or Truth Social requiring information about a user the FBI from memory had to pay the costs associated with getting that information (I can't remember if there is a statutory amount).

It's basically the same as if the FBI required a wiretap on someone's phone, they had to pay the telecoms company it's going rate for the time it too to connect that wiretap.
Click to expand...

Yes. I wonder how much Musk has taken from the FBI so far. I doubt he charges the Saudis though.
 
Werewolf said:
The really stupid thing about the FBI pay story is that US law requires US law enforcement to pay for any costs associated with processing legal requests, in part to put law enforcement off fishing expeditions, but mainly to ensure that companies are not out of pocket for complying with law enforcement orders.

So if the FBI presented a court order to Twitter, or Facebook, or Truth Social requiring information about a user the FBI from memory had to pay the costs associated with getting that information (I can't remember if there is a statutory amount).

It's basically the same as if the FBI required a wiretap on someone's phone, they had to pay the telecoms company it's going rate for the time it too to connect that wiretap.
Click to expand...

I think you're missing the point of the story, firstly it's the scale of the payments rather than just that money is exchanging hands, and secondly the FBI was asking Twitter to remove Tweets, a lot of which were just jokes being made by obscure accounts - which Twitter would then comply with. Laws weren't being broken, it was the FBI silencing private citizens via Twitter without a court order and without even a good reason. An obvious first amendment breach.
 
Roar87 said:
I think you're missing the point of the story, firstly it's the scale of the payments rather than just that money is exchanging hands, and secondly the FBI was asking Twitter to remove Tweets, a lot of which were just jokes being made by obscure accounts - which Twitter would then comply with. Laws weren't being broken, it was the FBI silencing private citizens via Twitter without a court order and without even a good reason. An obvious first amendment breach.
Click to expand...

Didnt Trump ask for tweets to be romoved as well?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom