As a regular MSNBC pundit is calling for Elon Musk to be stripped of his citizenship for trying to reintroduce free speech protections to Twitter, the new owner is outraging blue checkers by suggesting a monthly charge for verified users. Figures like CNBC’s Jim Cramer declared: “I’m not paying them anything. They should pay me.” Some of us would be willing to pay an added monthly fee to support a true free speech alternative on social media if Musk keeps his word.
Of course, for full disclosure, I would first have to get a blue check to get charged for a blue check. I have been barred from being verified for years by Twitter despite being a columnist for newspapers like USA Today and the Hill as well as a legal analyst for CBS, NBC, BBC, and now Fox over the last two decades. I have been ranked in the top five law professors on Twitter, but I was still turned down over a dozen times under multiple categories.
I have previously joked about the bar on verification and I am not sure how much the blue check honestly does for individuals. Indeed, there are some advantages. I can presumably deny prior statements since they were made by an entirely unverified person using my name for over a decade. Yet, as a long-time critic of Twitter’s censorship system, there has been a long curiosity over the denial.
Musk has indicated that he is now looking into such concerns and there may be greater transparency in the weeks to come.
However, Musk is looking for ways to reduce the dependency on advertisers and many of us would support that effort. Recently, General Motors suspended advertising on Twitter until it can evaluate the implications of Musk’s new policies. Some of us immediately criticized the action by GM over the move.
The company had no problem with supporting Twitter when it was running one of the largest censorship systems in history — or supporting TikTok (which is Chinese owned and has been denounced for state control and access to data). Twitter has been denounced for years for its bias against conservative and dissenting voices, including presumably many GM customers on the right. None of that was a concern for GM but the pledge to restore free speech to Twitter warrants a suspension.
Musk’s pledge to restore free speech protections will not be realized if these pundits and politicians can use corporations to drain the company, a repeated and successful means used in the past. Making the company more dependent on actual customers rather than these companies can reduce such pressure to resume censorship policies.
Many customers never wanted the censorship being sold by companies like Facebook and Twitter, but they lacked any alternative. Twitter can now be that alternative. We can show that there is a market for free speech but supporting Twitter in trying to reduce the dependence on corporate sponsors.
When Elon jacks up the price of using twitter and puts the money in his pocket, are MAGAs going to blame Biden for the inflation?
No. Only Democrats don’t understand the basics of inflation.
Hmmm. you totally and/or willfully misinterpreted this article. Paying for this service removes the need to be beholding to corporations who knee-jerk respond to an obnoxiously loud small minority of wokesters with no real contact with reality. I would gladly pay to keep advertisers out of the influence business.
What does it mean to be verified by a guy who spreads gay conspiracy theories about Paul Pelosi?
It is sort of like being verified by QAnon. I would trust people who are verified less than those that are not.
If you don’t like Twitter, then don’t use it. Stop being a cry baby.
Why is it a “conspiracy” theory that Pelosi is gay? Either he is or he isn’t.
sort of like hillary et al spreading lies about Trump – with the FBI and DOJ in tow as partisans?
Free Speech and less censorship may greatly help law enforcement and national security agencies. If someone provides “probable cause” of a past crime or makes legitimate explicit threats of violence, that speech is not protected.
Law enforcement and national security agencies have the name, home address and social circle. Censoring speech only drives the real threats underground.
For about 50 years accumulated in the 20th Century (that we know of) we also know that the U.S. Department of Justice maintained a “List of Constitutionally Subversive” individuals and groups. Those trying to subvert constitutional due process, like the January 6 Insurrectionists (Trump’s extreme violent wing).
While the DOJ’s past blacklists (for covert punishments) was highly inaccurate, targeting non-subversives like Christian minister Martin Luther King, Jr. King advocated the “constitutional rule of law” (non-subversive) to abolish constitutionally-subversive “Jim Crow” laws/practices by some state and local governments.
Today in 2022, any group or citizen supporting the January 6 Insurrection is correctly a “constitutionally-subversive” citizen. Censoring these disloyal Americans would make it far harder for law enforcement and national security agencies. These individuals and groups are legitimate enemies of the United States and are genuinely constitutionally-subversive.
Local police chiefs and federal agencies can also legally and constitutionally weed out their employees under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment (Disqualification Clause). Once a police officer, federal official or other government employee has sworn a constitutional Oath of Office and then supports insurrection or rebellion (betrays that oath) that government official can no longer hold government authority from local cops to military to intel agencies. This is the supreme law of the United States under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
Let them continue to talk on social media;)
“the U.S. Department of Justice maintained a “List of Constitutionally Subversive” individuals and groups. Those trying to subvert constitutional due process, like the January 6 Insurrectionists (Trump’s extreme violent wing).”
They missed the Biden Crime Syndicate and many Democrats trying to destroy the nation and the Constitution. They are too busy trying to pin subversiveness on those who have protected America and, in the process, missed Covid, started wars, and caused great harm to the American people. Those promoting the left cannot debate their claims so Twitter might place the ignorance of the left on the hot seat.
Don’t forget the Clinton crime syndicate
I don’t want to be a suicide victim.
NOT VAGUE IN THE LEAST, IN FACT CLEAR AND MANIFEST
wiseoldlawyer says:
October 30, 2022 at 6:30 AM
George, you left out the nail the left has always used to hang all that spending on. The General Welfare clause. That is vague enough to cover everything you claim to be unconstitutional from conception. I know, as you do, that a proper reading of Article 1 section 8 would conclude that the specifics that follow the General Welfare clause are intended to be its exclusive definition, but it is too late to put that toothpaste back into the tube.
Reply
George says:
October 30, 2022 at 4:55 PM
Thank you so much for your irrefutable brilliance. Words mean things. General means all, which means the whole. The Framers used defined words in the Constitution to facilitate understanding by all or the whole population. That you don’t understand, does not bear. General Welfare means ALL WELL PROCEED. Commodities and services necessary for ALL, or the WHOLE, to proceed well are water, sewer, roads, electricity, post office, trash pick-up, etc. Social Security, Medicare, cash assistance, food stamps, public housing, Obamacare, social services, public housing, utility subsidies, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, HHS, HUD, etc., constitute individual welfare, specific welfare, particular welfare, favor or charity, not “general” or all. The Constitution does not provide Congress any power to tax for individual welfare, specific welfare, particular welfare, favor or charity.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Dictionary.com
general
[ jen-er-uhl ]
adjective
of or relating to all persons or things belonging to a group or category: a general meeting of the employees.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Merriam-Webster
general
adjective
gen·er·al | \ ˈjen-rəl
, ˈje-nə- \
Definition of general
1 : involving, applicable to, or affecting the whole
re: S. Meyer
You might want to read “Prelude to McCarythism…the making of a blacklist” written by Robert Justin Goldstein and published by the National Archives in 2006. This unconstitutional blacklisting was also used against Conservatives as well. It’s a great read!
I have no love for McCarthy or McCarthyism, which is different from the man. McCarthy was correct in his statement about communists in government. Kennedy played a part in McCarthyism. Despite the possibility of reading the book, you probably do not know the entire story. To a great degree, the story is fictionalized by the general public.
We see the left using the worst parts of McCarthyism while lying to pervert our electoral process. There is no need to go further unless you define where you stand, and admit the left has promoted a type of McCarthyism for years. If you can’t do that, your adherence to free speech is BS.
Twitter under musk is making twitter more expensive to use to justify the $44 billion price he overpaid for it.
Not sure people should be paying more for Elon’s mistake.
Good news: No one will force you to pay at all (you write “more” but are you paying anything at all now?)
I am not on Twitter.
But I think the Blue Checkers status is conflated.
Why deny the good professor’s Blue Check status?
I have never had a Twitter account myself. Seems like just another unnecessary time suck, like leaving comments on websites, only a 1000 times worse. However, I do follow a few people by regularly visiting the web page equivalent of their Twitter thread. It seems Twitter is one of those services where “the users” are the product that Twitter sells to advertisers, the nation security state, or whoever. It is not worth $44b because of a subscription service used to milk Twitter addicts. Musk is only jacking up the monthly charge, because he can…. The Twitter addicts will pay whatever he wants, because they are addicts, but it is irrelevant to the bottom line. That secret contract with the NSA, now that is essential.
The key to moderation is moderating out the crazy, the spammers, the vulgar, the incoherent, etc. Twitter became a church: “this is our gospel, follow it or you are out of here”. Well, that is exactly what they did. Many of us became political infidels, and sent packing.
IMO, if anyone can handle “freedom of speech, 2.0”, Musk can.
This forum does very iittle moderation and it shows….but then this forum is run by an individual who believes in the value of free speech and bad speech being outweighed by good speech.
It is a painful process at times but if you spend much time here you quickly figure out how to separate the wheat from the chaff.
So….burdensome as it is….it works.
Some differ but make good arguments….far too many are just trolling and those are the ones you simply skip over and ignore their drivel without reading it.
What exactly does this verified status really do? That won’t stop fake news sources from paying $20 for a blue twitter account. It seems that kind of account seems more about paying for legitimacy than anything else. $20 makes you legit on the platform so anything any blue twitter poster would be legitimate? It may screen out the riff raff or it may legitimize dishonest organizations…for $20.
In the end it’s his company now and he’s entitled to run it any way he wants. It may turn into a mess or it may improve the platform a bit more. Only time will tell.
Or he may massively improve the platform by finally bringing fairness into the social media space.
Those progressives that support censorship, might want to research years ago when Facebook suspended the entire home page of the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union). The ACLU is the nation’s top legal organization with more Supreme Court cases than any other civil liberties group. Not a smart target for Facebook to pick a fight with. Facebook soon realized their blunder and reinstated the ACLU page.
How did the ACLU page end up in Facebook jail and get temporarily suspended? The ACLU committed the crime of showing a photograph of a bronze female statue in a “public” park that happened to be topless. Like a public beach, anyone including children can see statues like this.
Most censors are not adequately educated in fine art. Talk to any real art expert and there is actually a difference between fine art versus pornography but censors really have no idea where the line is. Even a U.S. Supreme Court justice didn’t understand the distinction once stating “I know it when I see it”. Apparently the censors at Facebook and Twitter don’t know either.
This was a public park where children regularly visit. It should be noted that in Washington, DC right next to the U.S. Supreme Court there are similar non-pornagraphic statues. Europe has even more fine art statues and more topless beaches but far less sexual violence than the United States. Bush Attorney General, John Ashcroft, spent over $7000 of our tax dollars to coverup a non-pornagraphic statue at the U.S. Department of Justice.
Don’t underestimate how bad censors are at their jobs. Censoring a “public” statue in a “public” park. The fact Jonathan Turley was banned from Twitter speaks volumes. Turley focuses mostly on debating issues and rarely attacks the messengers.
There are no censors qualified to be our “Nanny State” deciding what we can or can’t see. Hopefully Musk will protect free speech.
So far the charge for blue check verification is $20 a month. So free speech is worth $20 a month?
I guess if you pay twitter they better let you post anything you want. No?
Free speech does not cost $20/month.
The prestige of a blue check is what you will be paying for.
If you do not want a blue check – do not pay for one.
This Svelaz guy is really dumb. That fee is just for the checkmark.
Sarcasm. You should look it up sometime. I hear it’s hard for some to notice it.
If the free speech deniers are so convinced of their righteousness, they should have nothing to fear from any investigation. My guess is that, at some deep level of their corrupt conscience, they know full well that the game they are playing is all about power, not “protecting the fragile.” And they’ll run back into the woodwork from whence they came.
Lots of us would love to see the records opened.
But the big deal is to get to a future where everything is transparent as quickly as possible.
Musk likely has a very short time to stabilize Twitter before things get out of control.
I think GM’s threat at the moment is meaningless.
But Musk must establish quickly that twitter will remain a valuable platform for users and for advertisers.
The best way of doing so is to make transparent the processes that will be used in the future – no more vague weaponized TOS’s.
He should focus on rules that can be easily followed and evaluated as objectively as possible.
“ The best way of doing so is to make transparent the processes that will be used in the future – no more vague weaponized TOS’s.
He should focus on rules that can be easily followed and evaluated as objectively as possible.”
I agree with that view. HOWEVER…it is still entirely dependent on people actually reading the entire TOS before agreeing to the new terms IF there are new terms. Musk could just leave the majority of the TOS intact and people would still be agreeing to the same terms and conditions. We’ll have to see how that goes in the next few months.
No it is not dependent on reading the TOS.
Do you read the law ?
This is actually another point I misses.
The rules MUST be natural.
People must know them and agree with them – without ever reading them.
That is how the actual rule of law works.
Musk makes the most money by KISS and using rules most acceptable to the users. Below Svelaz, as usual, misses the point.
S. Meyer, no amount of KISS rules will replace the responsibility of people READING what they are agreeing to. It’s been proven so many times that people simlpy don’t read the TOS when they sign up to anything. They only find out they gave away certain rights or control when the entities they realize the contract they agreed to included the right for those companies to do whatever they want with their content.
Musk cannot keep it simple. Twitter and many social media companies have tried when they first came online. It turns out things cannot be kept simple for long.
Twitter probably spent hundreds of millions on censorship. That is lost money. But they end up with meatheads like you, who instead of understanding something, repeat the cr-p provided by their favorite left-wing media site.
You prove that all the time and proved it with what you call the don’t say gay bill. I decided to provide you with a video of Ron DeSantis answering the stupid claims coming from the left. You would be smart to start learning instead of remaining in your present state. Ron DeSantis is the best governor in the country.
https://www.newsweek.com/ron-desantis-dont-say-gay-bill-florida-1685788
Typical left wing nut tripe.
Have you read the criminal code in your state ?
We constantly fight over the details of the law here.
But behind those details is something you have never grasped
the law can not deviate too far from peoples expectations or we are lawless.
No one reads the law. We know it in our hearts. The only way that ignorance of the law can not be an excuse – is if nearly everyone knows the law without knowing the law.
The same is true of broad contracts. That is why in law we have such a thing as a contract of adhesion – which ALL SM contracts are.
We READ individual private contracts.
We do not and will not read much of anything else.
The Correct TOS is one no one has to read, that conforms to the expectations of 90% of people.
The most important reason the TOS must be clear is the same reason the law must be clear.
When it is enforced people must believe that is not being done arbitrarily or with an agenda.
Any agenda in the TOS must be out in the open.
Truth Social has made “family friendly” their moto of sorts. Their TOS can reflect that.
But if that is their sales pitch – the TOS can not be being used to impliment a different agenda.
Twitter sold itself as the Free Speech space on the internet.
Its TOS and the application of that TOS were contrary to that expressed value.
Musk must make the sales, values, and TOS of Twitter consistent.
People must KNOW what to expect – WITHOUT reading the TOS.
Absolutely disputes will be resolved by the TOS – but like the law, people must NOT feel like the TOS is being used as a secret weapon for a specific ideology.
The details matter, but the purpose of the details is actually to constrain Twitter from using the TOS politically not the other way arround.
Just as the details in the law are to protect the people – Not to empower the government.
You and I get into this all the time – you keep trying to make the law REACH to cover conduct you do not like.
The opposite is ALWAYS true – The law must be read NARROWLY specifically to prevent anyone – left or right from reaching to punish those they do not like.
I expect Musk to succeed – he has a track record of success. People who succeed as he has tend to continue to do so.
He also knows how to take risks – which is also necescary for the kind of success he has had.
But I do have some concerns. Musk is NOT a people person. He has aspbergers, he may be one of the most functional people on the world on the spectrum. But it is still an issue and the issue is understanding people – not things, and SM is about people 200%.
I do not want to pretend to know for sure what he will do. I also do not know how big a risk he can afford to take.
I do know that if he succeeds – the rest of SM will HAVE to follow.
Markets rule. When something succeeds in the market nearly everyone MUST follow.
Conversely Svelaz does not understand people outside his bubble.
He thinks everyone outside his bubble is Richard Spensor.
He should actually spend some time on Parlor or Truth – it would not take long to realize they are not the bitter cesspools he thinks.
That people get along.
I have only been on Truth briefly,
But both are more pleasant and less verbally violent by far than here or twitter.
LOL!! Told you so.
“ Many customers never wanted the censorship being sold by companies like Facebook and Twitter, but they lacked any alternative. ”
Well, they ARE still private companies who are entitle to run their business as they see fit. Musk has every right to charge users for access the platform. But Turley is not being honest about alternatives. There have always been alternatives. Parler, Gab, Truth social, etc. Does Turley have a Truth social account?
GM has every right to decide who they wish to advertise with. That is also part of free speech. Criticizing GM over it’s decision to exercise it’s free speech rights flies in the face of Turleys own “principles” of free speech.
Before you start “Telling us all so”
You should wait for the dust to settle.
Right now the left is in a massive panic because god forbid Musk might not censor the crap out of things they do not like.
Lots of froth and foam is being sprayed right now, with little meaning.
Advertisers can choose where they wish to advertise. And they can engage in virtue signaling.
But in the end they are looking to sell products.
Some producers can afford to exist – even thrive in a blue or red silo – but broad market businesses can not.
We have already seen major corporate advisors telling big players to stay the F away from controversial issues.
They are lose lose propositions. And that is playing out in the marketplace over the long run.
Some on the right are cheering that Musk is going to bring in some new wave of censorship free internet.
But ultimately the answer to that depends on the market. I highly doubt Musk will fund Twitter losing massive amounts each year.
You keep saying that companies can do whatever they want. That is only true to the extent that those owning them do not have to give a damn about making – or even losing lots of money.
Ultimately nearly all businesses have to focus on the bottom line.
My actual expectation out of Musks Twitter takeover is TWO fold.
First he will ultimately find the balance of “content moderation” that results in the largest active userbase
next he will likely do something different and unexpected with Twitter to dramatically increase its value.
Though I have no idea what that is.
I do expect massive changes in content moderation, as well as dramatic cuts in Twitter staff.
He will say, and maybe mean that is “free speach” but those will occur because Twitters censorship regime is expensive.
Free or Freer speech is free.
Right now Twitters is in turmoil, no one know what Musk will do. The left is presuming catastrophe, the right is presuming a comeuppance for the left.
My GUESS and that is all that it is, is that Twitter will get mostly if not entirely out of the business of deciding what is true and what is false.
That is just stupid and costly, and inevitably will make Twitter look bad, because it is hard to impossible to actually do.
But Twitter WILL have rules regarding acceptable speech.
I also think Musk will make all of that far more transparent. The rules will be known ahead of time. There will be a more robust appeals process,
and the rules will grow increasingly stable and hard to change over time.
Essentially Twitter will have a KNOWN contract with users.
Ultimately the left will be the loser in all of this – not only will they no longer be able to crush those they do not like,
but because if Musk is successful – ALL Social Media will have to follow.
There is a very interesting discussion of going ons at Meta right now. Meta is a Public corp – and shareholders have rights – including a right to profit. But Zuckerberg controls 54% of voting stock – only about 13% of all stock. Zuckerburg is spending Billions with nothing to show trying to move to a new paradigm. And Wallstreet is revolting. There is a discussion of the possibility of shareholder lawsuits against Zuckerburg.
If Musk is successful with Twitter the Rest of SM will have to follow – or face the wrath of shareholders in court.
Those of you on the left do not grasp that even when the left indoctrinates Wall street, Democrats getting most of their donations, with the financial community drowning in woke. The bottom line is still what the MARKET wants. And Woke brokers, and woke hedge funds will punish woke businesses, if woke does not profit.
Anyone can profit in a niche market with any set of values. You can find loyal customers to support any view.
But you can not hold a nationwide diverse market with strong left or right positions.
You cite GM – I do not know what GM has purportedly done.
I do know that GM sells Pickup Trucks and Electric Cars – which market does it want to offend ?
In the long run – GM is going to maximize sales, not maximize any ideology.
It is remotely possible that Musk might be willing to do as Bezos is with WaPo and fund losses forever as a public service.
But Twitter is far larger than WaPo and the losses may be beyond Musks ability to absorb.
John, I think everyone’s eye is looking at the wrong place. Politics is a tiny part of the Twitter universe where one makes money with simple alterations to the platform. In the past, entrepreneurs wanted a way to earn one penny for each financial transaction. That one penny is big money.
I think Musk bought Twitter to diversify and create a new cash cow. People wrongly focus on what he paid. That is almost irrelevant if Musk was looking for a cash cow with a reward of many multiples. If he believed Twitter would provide the multiples, it didn’t mean that much if he paid $20 Billion more than Twitter was worth. That would mean he won many multiples minus one multiple. The reason to offer more than its poorly managed value was to stop a fight that could deny him the purchase. Given a chance to invest in that $44Billion without voting rights, I would have done so recognizing I could lose it all or have a many multiples-investment on a distinct portion of the money used for such gambles.
I am not going to try to get into Musks mind.
I do not know if he saw value no one else sees – obviously Twitter is incredibly badly managed.
I do not know if he sees a mars shot in Twitter.
I would have bet against every single thing he has done so far being as successful as they have been.
I am not going to bet he can not make Twitter into 10 times what it is.
But I also do not know that is what he seeks to do.
It is entirely possible this is a Bezos buys WaPo move – a public service purchase by the richest man in the world.
It could be his way of reshaping politics.
I do not know.
And I do not think Elon knows.
But I am not betting against him.
“I am not going to bet he can not make Twitter into 10 times what it is.”
John, that is how some people make money. I can think of numerous ways to monetize Twitter and that is why if given the chance I would have placed my bets with Musk, even at the overpriced figure of $44Billion. As said before, we are dealing with multiples so another $20 Billion doesn’t matter.
“ Right now the left is in a massive panic because god forbid Musk might not censor the crap out of things they do not like.
Lots of froth and foam is being sprayed right now, with little meaning.”
That’s just pure exaggeration. It’s not as bad as the right wants to portray it. Hyperbole is the name of the game right now.
“ My actual expectation out of Musks Twitter takeover is TWO fold.
First he will ultimately find the balance of “content moderation” that results in the largest active userbase
next he will likely do something different and unexpected with Twitter to dramatically increase its value.
Though I have no idea what that is.”
You mean the right balance of censorship that results in the largest active user base.
Musk will not risk alienating the majority of it’s users by allowing the current crop of users that populate sites like 4chan or parler or any of those cesspools. They have already flooded twitter with heavy racist trope and rhetoric.
If musk wants to add value to twitter he will have to censor a lot of that even though it is still free speech that is offensive. Twitter may lose it’s “luster” by being compared more to Parler or 4chan or any of the other lesser platforms.
“ You cite GM – I do not know what GM has purportedly done.”
GM is Musk’s competitor. They are more likely pulling ads because Musk owns Tesla. They would be supporting their competitor.
“ Essentially Twitter will have a KNOWN contract with users.”
Twitter has ALWAYS had a known contract with users. It’s always been there. It’s the responsibility of users to READ their contract BEFORE agreeing. That is always going to be the problem.
” They have already flooded twitter with heavy racist trope and rhetoric.”
Most likely that is a tantrum from the left trying to get at Musk.
Nope. That was from right-wing nut jobs testing twitter’s new management to see how far they can push it until they are banned. Leave it to the racist right-wing nut jobs to start their favorite pastime.
Elon will have to act fast before twitter turns into a cesspool like 4chan or Parler. Only time will tell.
You are making things up. You don’t know. The prior comment was an opinion. You stated your opinion as fact.
Show the evidence for your fact. You can’t. Your opinion is almost always wrong. Accept it.
“ You are making things up. You don’t know. The prior comment was an opinion. You stated your opinion as fact.”
That ‘s because IT IS fact.
https://thehill.com/policy/technology/3709609-racist-antisemitic-tweets-quickly-spread-after-musk-twitter-takeover/amp/
Yes, we are going to beleive WAPO ?
Sorry you left wing nuts find racism in everything.
That is because deep down they are racists.
The Democrat progression:
Slave owners
Jim Crow
Cultural genocide of blacks
The new plantation, entitlements to keep them down
(some will also add, supporters of black genocide. They have a point.)
Show me the fact. Are you that dumb that you don’t know what a fact is?
“Musk will not risk alienating the majority of it’s users”
Correct, but the majority of twitter users are not woke left wing nuts desperate for “safe spaces”
You do not understand that though those like you have taken over the institutions – you are a small majority of people.
Massive majority’s of people do not care about right/left they do not care much about censorship – unless it happens to them.
All they want is peace and quiet. This is always the left’s achiles heel. They constantly play uproar.
“Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism, but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice; all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things. All governments which thwart this natural course, which force things into another channel, or which endeavour to arrest the progress of society at a particular point, are unnatural, and to support themselves are obliged to be oppressive and tyrannical.”
Adam Smith
This is actually self evidently true – if it was not rising standard of living would not be possible.
But this applies beyond government. The largest market for social media is among those who want peace.
That does not mean they can not cope with diverse ideas. Even bad speech.
What they do not want is to be constantly dealing with change – change to the TOS, people getting banned for unclear reasons.
Simple rules easy to follow.
The left does not want peace, they want domination. They want constant change for changes sake.
They are terrorists – the ideology of the left today is inherently about the merits of victimhood and the evils of everyone else.
Ignoring the logical failures, this is an ideal that can not actually work.
“ The left does not want peace, they want domination. They want constant change for changes sake.
They are terrorists – the ideology of the left today is inherently about the merits of victimhood and the evils of everyone else.”
It’s convenient to ignore the fact that the right is just as bad or worse. Religious zealots also want domination. The right does not want peace either. They want to dictate how others should live. They are the first to cry victimhood or persecution depending on the grievance of the day. Don’t pretend that isn’t an issue. The right is had one of their own attack Paul Pelosi because of all the wacko conspiracy theories floating around that this poor right wing idiot believed with all his heart. He’s no different than all those right-wing “protesters” on J6. They constitute the majority of the right wiling to use violence and intimidation to force others to onto their beliefs.
” Religious zealots also want domination.”
I assume you are talking about Christians. We do not see Christians trying to dominate. They offer their feelings and their prayers. A few might go too far, but that is true in every large group. You will have to prove your contention, but you can’t.
“The right does not want peace either. They want to dictate how others should live.”
Another stupid statement. It is the right that is calling for more freedom for the individual and the left that acts like fascists. Again, you have nothing to prove your contentions. Your opinion is not fact and most of the time it is stupidity.
“right is had one of their own attack Paul Pelosi “
The more you talk, the stupider you sound. The attacker is crazy so one shouldn’t ascribe any politics to his craziness, but that is what leftists do. OK, then look to his history. He’s a leftist. Look to Paul Pelosi and start wondering what actually happened. You can’t do that because your mind is filled with junk.
…I was wrong. I thought you couldn’t get any stupider, but you did.
“ The attacker is crazy so one shouldn’t ascribe any politics to his craziness, but that is what leftists do.”
No, he was heavily influenced by right-wing talking points and rhetoric. The same wacko claims about Pelosi and the left. It was the politics of the right that led this right-wing nutty to violently assault the speakers husband. No amount of excuses will change that.
“ Another stupid statement. It is the right that is calling for more freedom for the individual and the left that acts like fascists.”
More freedom for what? To be racist and bigoted? It sure looks like that is what they want.
“ You have several multimillion-follower accounts basically declaring open season on trans people,” Caraballo said. “They’re immediately taking glee and joy in the fact of bullying trans people on the site, and they think that, that’s going to be OK now because Elon’s in charge.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/far-right-figures-appear-to-be-testing-twitter-s-boundaries-for-anti-lgbtq-speech/ar-AA13AVVt?cvid=c05d042bc47c4d0e971d0a5102de6e8d
Yep. They are practically salivating at the prospect of being able to be the racists and bigots they always were.
“No, he was heavily influenced by right-wing talking points and rhetoric.”
That would be why the LGBTQIA+ banner is on his school Bus ?
And the BLM one is beside it ?
That would be why he has been a leftist all his life ?
That would be why the web pages attributed to him were not posted until after he was in jail and were taken down almost immediately ?
All you have are his rantings to the police which are pretty much the rantings of every schitzophrenic that ever was.
I would note that the right is not alone in attacking Pelosi.
As noted AOC face a hostile townhall in her own district for Selling out.
You think Pelosi is popular ?
“The same wacko claims about Pelosi and the left. It was the politics of the right that led this right-wing nutty to violently assault the speakers husband. No amount of excuses will change that.”
All we know for sure is what he said to the police – maybe. I would prefer to have video of that – police often lead people, and people with mental issues are easily lead.
“More freedom for what? ”
Less government is more freedom – tautology.
“To be racist and bigoted? It sure looks like that is what they want.”
All that is, it the evidence of your own disconnect from reality.
We live in the least racist moment in time, in the least racist country in the world.
I am pretty sure that you claimed not to be some child ignorant of the past.
But you are doing your best to convince me you were born yesterday.
The Republican party is so racist and Bigoted that the Democrativ party is hemoraging minorities to it.
A few years ago we were all told demographics was destiny – that the GOP was doomed, that Democrats would be the party of the minority majority. Today that is laughable. Obama received 96% of the black vote. Today 3-+% of black males are indentifying as republican,
Republicans have near parity with Democrats among hispanics.
So the party that minorities are moving to – that is the racist party ?
You do not live in the real world.
The only time Republicans talk about racism is when democrats try to force CRT Racism onto their kids.
And then it is because YOU are the racist.
““ You have several multimillion-follower accounts basically declaring open season on trans people,” Caraballo said. “They’re immediately taking glee and joy in the fact of bullying trans people on the site, and they think that, that’s going to be OK now because Elon’s in charge.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/far-right-figures-appear-to-be-testing-twitter-s-boundaries-for-anti-lgbtq-speech/ar-AA13AVVt?cvid=c05d042bc47c4d0e971d0a5102de6e8d”
Ah, MSN is some much more reliable than WaPo ? Really ?
Look we all know that all you have to do is say there are only two sexes – and you are automatically labeled as a bigot and a bully.
We also already know those of you on the left lie about all of this all the time.
ala Jussie Smolet.
So why are you to be beleived ?
There are 3 things that “the Right” and most sane people want regarding Trans people.
Quit sexualizing kids.
Keep “trans males” out of bathrooms that have children and girls in them.
And quit trying to obliterate actual women with MTF trans.
Dress however you want – no one cares.
If you are an adult – get whatever surgery or hormones or whatever you want so long as YOU pay for it – no one cares.
Further you have a massive definitional problem.
Given that you can not define what a man is, what a woman is, what gay is, what Trans is – being “its how I identify”.
Then what is the difference between a Peodophile and a trans person ?
So long as it is merely “how I identify” – parents are unlikely to allow people who “identify” as trans near their kids, and rightly so.
Whether you like it or not, none of the above is bigotry.
I have noted my wife is a public defended. A significant portion of her clients are sex offenders. Many of which should not be classified as sex offenders. But many of them are people who should never be allowed near children. And if all they need to do to gain access to children is to identify as the opposite sex – they will.
Separately from that we KNOW that anorexia and Bulimia in girls spiked with increasing SM driven anxiety and depression,
and then disappeared rapidly – with a corresponding massive spike in FTM Trans in girls.
People who are not MORONS will grasp that there is a huge problem with anxiety and depression in girls – and that it is driven by SM.
And that things like Anorexia, Bulimia, and nt FTM Trans are Symptoms.
Are there actually people who are “trans” ? Probably – we have enough historical evidence of this – though I would note that crossdressing and Trans are completely different things. Regardless, the fact that something exists, does not mean everyone who has self diagnosed as Trans is.
And given that there are no objective criteria – leave kids alone!
You will likely call the above Bigoted.
Actually it is called REALITY.
By calling it Bigoted – you make a moron of yourself.
“Yep. They are practically salivating at the prospect of being able to be the racists and bigots they always were.”
No, that is just your fevered nightmare.
Among other things – they are not racist now, They were not before, and even if you actually were right – I want the actual racists out in the open.
If as you are idiotically claiming they are flooding back – all that prooves is that censoring them accomplished nothing.
A drug-addled, illegal alien bum who admires BLM and the “pride” movement, and who lives in *Berkeley*, was influenced by “the politics of the right?!”
Pathological dishonesty is too tame to describe the delusions of the Left.
“It’s convenient to ignore the fact that the right is just as bad or worse.”
The left and right are driven by different ideologies.
Actually conservatism is not an ideology.
“Religious zealots also want domination.”
All two of them. Beat that straw man to death.
We have had religion forever.
Humans are intrinsically religious – please read Johnathon Haidt on moral foundations.
The left is not immune and is in fact as deeply religious as muslims or evangelicals.
The lack of a god does not mean it is not a religion.
“The right does not want peace either.”
Are there a few right wing nuts that wish to dictate how you live – certainly.
But by the numbers – that problem is AGAIN inherently on the left.
BTW that is OBVIOUS. If you want more government – that means you want more dictating how others live.
That is tautological.
One of the most fundimental right left distinctions is on the size of government.
And this is becoming more pronounced with the ongoing political re-alignments.
Neocons are leaving the GOP and returning to democrats.
While Republicans are increasingly libertarian.
Again are their republicans who want more govenrment – yes,
Are there democrats who want less – yes.
But these are by far the exception not the rule,
and this is also a trend. Republicans are INCREASINGLY in favor of less government
Democrats increasingly in favor of more.
So you clearly lose that argument.
You are tautologically wrong.
“They want to dictate how others should live.”
Addressed – your wrong.
“They are the first to cry victimhood or persecution depending on the grievance of the day. Don’t pretend that isn’t an issue.”
I am not pretending – it is not an issue.
Your off in lala land.
“The right is had one of their own attack Paul Pelosi because of all the wacko conspiracy theories floating around that this poor right wing idiot believed with all his heart.”
Yup, DePape is the founding and sole member of the Berkeley chapter of the proud boys.
Sorry Svelaz – if you actually cared about facts, you could easily find out that you are full of BS.
But it is better to just laugh at you. How many drug addicted, homeless, living in a School Bus in Berkeley . BLM supporting,
LQBTQIA+ Proudboys do you know ?
Do you need the list of Trans, Gay, Green, mass shooters over the past decade ?
Only left wing nuts try to make political hay of schitzophrenics.
Bill Ayers is a political terrorist.
Alex McKinley, and David DePape are just broken people.
“He’s no different than all those right-wing “protesters” on J6.”
Except that he lives in Bekeley,
in a school bus.
with LGBTQIA+ and BLM signs,
is drug adicted,
with a long criminal and mental health record
Other than just about everything in his entire life he is just exactly like the
current and former police of military J6 protestors who have never gotten in trouble in their lives.
Yea, there exactly the same.
“They constitute the majority of the right wiling to use violence and intimidation to force others to onto their beliefs.”
Rand Paul really beat the schiff out of his neighbor.
How is Andy Ngo still on the streets after beating Antifa protesters into the hospital repeatedly ?
How is Zeldin still on the Ballot in NY after shooting up Hochuls home ?
And what of those right wing actors that hauled around Joe Biden’s severed head on stage ?
https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rights/476438-the-real-threat-to-civil-rights-trump-haters/
“ If you want more government – that means you want more dictating how others live.
That is tautological.
One of the most fundimental right left distinctions is on the size of government.”
That’s not true. The size of the government is irrelevant. It’s who controls government. The right seeks to USE government regardless of size to control how other people should live. They always call for ‘small government” or “limited government” but still pass laws dictating how others should live or who should they be. The multiple anti-LGBTQ laws and anti-CRT laws are a few examples. Just because government is small doesn’t mean they don’t dictated how one can live. The right does this all the time when they have a very heavy influence on government no matter what size it its.
“ They are the first to cry victimhood or persecution depending on the grievance of the day. Don’t pretend that isn’t an issue.”
I am not pretending – it is not an issue.
Your off in lala land.”
Sure you’re not pretending. You’re just being in willful denial. They are always the first to cry victim whenever things don’t go their way. That is when CRT is brought up. Suddenly they whine and moan about persecution or victimhood. It’s pretty sad when you can’’t see it for what it is.
Government is FORCE.
Its purpose is to accomplish via FORCE or threat of force what can not be acocmplished without FORCE.
If FORCE is not necescary to accomplish something – then govenrment is not necescary.
More government means more FORCE
More FORCE means less liberty.
This is not some trick. It is reality. It is how it is.
Smaller government means LESS interferance in your life.
This is a tautology a statement that is true by virtue of its logical form alone
The only means by which you can have more govenrment without more intrusion on your personal life is if that government is more inefficient.
It is wasteful in its use of FORCE.
“That’s not true.”
BZZT Wrong.
“The size of the government is irrelevant.”
BZZT Wrong.
“It’s who controls government.”
BZZT Wrong.
Absolutely guaranteed whatever power you give to government will ultimately be weilded by the people you would least prefer.
Regardless, you are pushing the “no true scottsman fallacy” – or in government the “if I ruled the world”.
Statism has never worked. Socialism has never worked.
For every additional 10% of GDP government spends, the rate of increase in standard of living declines by 1%.
Regardless, it is a tautology that bigger government means less freedom, it also means less prosperity.
“The right seeks to USE government regardless of size to control how other people should live. ”
That has happened and when it does I oppose it.
“They always call for ‘small government” or “limited government” but still pass laws dictating how others should live or who should they be.”
On rare occasions.
“The multiple anti-LGBTQ laws and anti-CRT laws are a few examples.”
Bad examples. Almost no parent wants their kids sexually indoctrinated.
Nor do they want their kids taught they are racists and can do nothing about that.
CRT is a vile anti-historic ideology with strong links to marxism.
While I beleive in free speech. It is very hard for me to resist requiring people who spout marxist or semi marxist nonsense not to be forced to wear a dunce cap. No ideology or anythign even close to it has done so much damage to people anywhere it was even mildly adopted.
“Just because government is small doesn’t mean they don’t dictated how one can live. The right does this all the time when they have a very heavy influence on government no matter what size it its.”
It is very hard for small government to successfully dictate how you live.
I do not understand why this is hard for you to understand.
“ They are the first to cry victimhood or persecution depending on the grievance of the day. Don’t pretend that isn’t an issue.”
I am not pretending – it is not an issue.
Your off in lala land.
“Sure you’re not pretending. You’re just being in willful denial.”
Nope, live in the real world, see the real world as it is.
You have failed so many times regarding your ability to accurately perceive the real world,
there is really no question here. Your the one pretending,. your the one in denial, your the one projecting.
“They are always the first to cry victim whenever things don’t go their way.”
What there supposed to roll over and get trampled on ?
Regardless, the right does not cry victim, the oppose – vigorously, and if you keep it up by force.
You keep ranting about that – eventually it is going to be true if you keep pushing.
It is not “crying Victim” to bare your teeth.
“That is when CRT is brought up.”
Fighting actual evil is not crying victim.
“Suddenly they whine and moan about persecution or victimhood.”
That is pretty much NOT what they do.
They get their act together, go to school board meetings and tell the schools who is ultimately in charge.
Again baring your teeth is not crying victim.
It is a warning – be warned.
This country was created by people who had been pushed too far.
Keep pushing and you will have an actual insurrection.
“It’s pretty sad when you can’’t see it for what it is.”
No goading bears is actually dangerous.
It is something children who do not know better do.
The left constantly rants about right wing violence that does not exist.
That does not mean the right is incapable of violence.
It just means you have not YET pushed them to the point of justified violence.
I would note – the loudest of the woke are leaving.
But the majority even on the left will stay.
Just as there was no great rush out of the US when Trump was elected.
Most people do not like change particularly as it is close to them.
But their general response is to do nothing – unless it directly effects them.
The TOS BS that you have been spouting for ages is DELIBERATELY unclear.
The purpose of the language is to make it easy to get rid of people they do not want.
Musk MUST change that. Everyone must KNOW the conduct that will get them booted.
And the overwhelming majority must find those rules acceptable.
That means the rules must be clear, and unbiased.
Today they are not inherently biased, they are just sufficiently broad to allow biased application.
That will not fly.
“ The TOS BS that you have been spouting for ages is DELIBERATELY unclear.
The purpose of the language is to make it easy to get rid of people they do not want.”
No it’s not. It’s pretty clear. The problem is people don’t take the time to read it. Either because of ignorance or laziness.
The terms make it very clear what they say about content moderation and their rules for what will be banned or not.
It’s still ultimately the responsibility of the person wanting to join to fully understand what it is that they are agreeing to. Twitter or any other SM platform is NOT responsible for making sure people READ the rules. All they are required to do is POST the rules and they ARE clear.
Here are a couple of examples from Twitter’s TOS.
“ Under this policy, you can’t glorify, celebrate, praise or condone violent crimes, violent events where people were targeted because of their membership in a protected group, or the perpetrators of such acts. We define glorification to include praising, celebrating, or condoning statements, such as “I’m glad this happened”, “This person is my hero”, “I wish more people did things like this”, or “I hope this inspires others to act”.
Violations of this policy include, but are not limited to, glorifying, praising, condoning, or celebrating:
violent acts committed by civilians that resulted in death or serious physical injury, e.g., murders, mass shootings;
attacks carried out by terrorist organizations or violent extremist groups (as defined by our terrorism and violent extremism policy); and
violent events that targeted protected groups, e.g., the Holocaust, Rwandan genocide.”
“ Violence: You may not threaten violence against an individual or a group of people. We also prohibit the glorification of violence. Learn more about our violent threat and glorification of violence policies.
Terrorism/violent extremism: You may not threaten or promote terrorism or violent extremism. Learn more.
Child sexual exploitation: We have zero tolerance for child sexual exploitation on Twitter. Learn more.
Abuse/harassment: You may not engage in the targeted harassment of someone, or incite other people to do so. This includes wishing or hoping that someone experiences physical harm. Learn more.
Hateful conduct: You may not promote violence against, threaten, or harass other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, caste, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease. Learn more.
Perpetrators of violent attacks: We will remove any accounts maintained by individual perpetrators of terrorist, violent extremist, or mass violent attacks, and may also remove Tweets disseminating manifestos or other content produced by perpetrators. Learn more.
Suicide or self-harm: You may not promote or encourage suicide or self-harm. Learn more.
Sensitive media, including graphic violence and adult content: You may not post media that is excessively gory or share violent or adult content within live video or in profile or header images. Media depicting sexual violence and/or assault is also not permitted. Learn more.
Illegal or certain regulated goods or services: You may not use our service for any unlawful purpose or in furtherance of illegal activities. This includes selling, buying, or facilitating transactions in illegal goods or services, as well as certain types of regulated goods or services. Learn more.”
As you can see they are pretty specific and they include further explanation of what they mean by certain terms and content. There is no ambiguity in their policy. What IS evident is that it is very tedious specific and long. Which is why so many people just either skim over it or just don’t read it at all and click on “ I AGREE”.
It’s unclear to some because some don’t have the patience or comprehension skills to understand what it is that they are agreeing to.
Long pointless rant meaning nothing.
AGAIN, you are correct no one reads TOS.
Just like no one reads they criminal code.
They should not have to.
If they must – our legislators or those running Twitter FAILED.
Just another example of left wing nut failure.
Many on the right are demanding those on the left read the bill before passing it.
The right answer is DO NOT PASS IT.
We need less legislation – not more.
In the real world a very small number of rules that most everyone knows without ever having read is all that is necescary.
More than that inherently reduces standard of living.
We are here to live and enjoy our lives – to “live long and prosper” – we are not here to waste our time reading rules, and laws, and contracts.
The more complicated you make life – the poorer you make all of us.
Musk will with near certainty radically reduce the rules, and content moderation – because it is extremely costly and delivers little or no value.
Each of us is capable of making our own choices regarding what is true and what is not – and we each pay the consequences for poor choices.
“ They should not have to.
If they must – our legislators or those running Twitter FAILED.”
No. You’re making excuses for people who are supposed to be responsible for THEIR choice. Failing to read the TOS and understand it is THEIR fault. It’s not twitter’s responsibility to make sure people understand. They are not their mommy or daddy. You of all people should understand that. You said it yourself __”we each pay the consequences for making poor choices”. Don’t blame the TOS for people failing to take responsibility for failure to understand or not read the rules.
“No. You’re making excuses for people who are supposed to be responsible for THEIR choice. Failing to read the TOS and understand it is THEIR fault. It’s not twitter’s responsibility to make sure people understand. They are not their mommy or daddy. You of all people should understand that. You said it yourself __”we each pay the consequences for making poor choices”. Don’t blame the TOS for people failing to take responsibility for failure to understand or not read the rules.”
You are so full of Schiff.
Do you understand the law – TOS’s are contracts of adhesion – they are just short of no contract at all.
There is a reason no one reads the TOS – because it does not matter.
There is no ability to negotiate – that is again why it is a Contract of Adhesion.
If you actually religiously enforced the TOS – everyone would be kicked off.
That is a FAILURE on THEIR part.
As I noted – YOUR posts here violate the Twitter TOS that YOU provided.
You do not beleive that – because until NOW those enforcing the TOS would be biased in favor of YOU.
But in any objective enforcement – YOU are in violation. – So did YOU FAIL ?
It is not Twitter’s responsibility to make people understand.
It is Twitter’s responsibility to have CLEAR TOS’s that are not arbitrary and Subjective.
Frankly it is their responsibility – just as it is of legislators,
To have a TOS that 96% of people will comply with without ever having read or thinking about.
That is actually how the world works.
No one is going to Read TOS’s because they have no choice.
No one is going to read them – because they are aribtrary and subjective and no one is going to try to actually comply with them.
People are just going to hope not to be targeted.
If you do not understand that is a dangerous and poor business model.
Then maybe we should have Musk put Alex Jones in charge of enforcing Twitters TOS.
I am sure given the terms he can boot all the blue checks inside of a week.
You keep this idioctic argument up.
Have you read your states criminal law ?
I am sure you have not.
Then how do you know you have not committed a serious crime ?
The answer is that we all KNOW what is in the law – without ever reading it.
Do we know the details ? No, but that never should matter.
The details will matter ONLY when we actually do something wrong,.
Or when we are falsely accused.
When either of those occur – YOU had better hope your states criminal law is not as bad as Twitters TOS – or your screwed.
Svelaz – you do not understand contracts at all.
You are still ranting nonsense. Equally importantly, Should Musk decide tomorow – which he wont, because he is not the idiot that you left wing nuts are, to enforce the same Twitter TOS you are citing – except targeting those on the Left,
Everyone here know you would be crying foul.
As an easy example – David DePape is with near certainty suffering from severe mental health issues.
That makes him a member of a protected class. Musk could decide CORRECTLY tomorow that posts by those on the left trying to connect DePape to the right are both defamatory as well as predjudicial and harmful to DePape – which they most certainly are.
There are many facts about this case that are still in dispute, but lets presume that everything favorable to the left is true.
It is CLEAR that all the tweets amplifying the connections of DePape to the extreme right are pushing the legal system to treat DePape as a terrorist rather than as a person with mental health issues. We already have both the SF DA and the DOJ filing charges.
We are NOT seeing the same thing with those who attacked Lee Zeldin’s family. We did not see that with the man who attacked Rand Paul.
And we certainly do not see that when ordinary people with mental health issues commit similar crimes that just do not make the news.
So Musk would be perfectly justified based on THIS TOS to deplatoform everyone on the left that is trying to Tie DePape to the right.
The POINT which you will with certainty miss – is that the TOS is clearly garbage, because it essentially allows Twitter to ban almost anyone for almost no reason.
I do not think that Twitter should be using this TOS at all – it is NOT contra your claim at all clear. It is highly subjective, and laden with implied not explicit values – as should be self evident from how easily I was able to use it to target those of you on the Left.
Lets actually implement your idiocy.
Fine everyone who has EVER violated YOUR TOS is Banned from Twitter.
As I noted with left wing DePape remarks – I doubt there is a single person whose twitter history does not violate the TOS.
So we ban then all – Twitter no longer has any users, and the issue is done.
Paler, Gab, Truth will thrive and the Problem is solved.
You do not seem to grasp that YOU do not want the TOS to be meaningful. You claim people should read it and abide by it – but that is NOT what you want. If people did actually read it and really understood it – NO ONE would join Twitter.
I know you THINK it is clear and does not target you – but that is nonsense.
The TOS is just the means Twitter is using to selectively target small portions of its userbase.
The TOS does not actually target them – it targets everyone, because no one can truly comply.
AI is not anywhere near the ability to do this – and may never be, but lets presume for the moment it was.
Lets presume that we could have an AI enforce Twitters TOS without any bias across Twitters entire user base.
And that it did so a politically.
Women are an Actual protected class, contra the left Trans people are NOT.
Every single MTF Trans person is disparaging to women.
So the AI would have to ban pretty much everyone espousing pro MTF Trans posts.
I can go on and on.
I beleive there is a recent editiorial on Vantify Fair that has stirred up lots of emotion.
It is proposing a Covid amnesty.
It is increasingly self evident that the experts and all those that echoed them – most of the left were WRONG about Covid.
Alex Berneson – an actually respected reporter who made the mistake of following the facts and evidence was permanently banned from Twitter for disinformation – he sued and eventually was re-instated – and the lawsuit was the first to expose the coordination between government and twitter to ban people.
Regardless, my real point is that Berneson was RIGHT and everyone Twitter relied on was actually WRONG.
The current president of the United states repeatedly spread disinformation about Covid – so did the CDC,
So did myriads of posters here – who likely echoed that on Twitter.
A really good AI would ban you all for spreading disinformation.
But I am sure you will miss the point.
Thank you for showing me how bad Twitters TOS is.
The word “glorify” does not EVER belong in a TOS.
It is highly subjective.
The words protected group do not belong.
That inherently means some people are more equal than others.
Anything you bar, you must bar for ALL, or you can not bar at all.
The TOS provisions you cited mean that you can not post about someone who defended themselves.
Thank you for demonstrating how abysmally BAD the Twitter TOS is.
The language you cite as “clear” is trivial to weaponize against anyone you want.
It would be trivial to ME to demonstrate how YOU posting here CONSTANTLY violate this TOS.
“ The word “glorify” does not EVER belong in a TOS.
It is highly subjective.
The words protected group do not belong.
That inherently means some people are more equal than others.
Anything you bar, you must bar for ALL, or you can not bar at all.
The TOS provisions you cited mean that you can not post about someone who defended themselves.”
You’re missing the point here. It is THEIR rules. Obviously you don’t like them because YOU understand what it’’s saying. These are THEIR rules and if you don’t agree with them don’t sign up. But because so many idiots and people simply DON”T read any of it and AGREE to the terms they are to blame for being subjected to the rules they stupidly agreed to. People can’t legally complain when the wording is so clear. At the end of these kinds of agreements ther’s always this, “I have READ and UNDERSTAND the terms and conditions and I AGREE to abide by them as a condition to use this social media platform. Then they click on “I AGREE”.
The millisecond that is done they fully give up their right to control their content and let the platform dictate what they can and cannot post.
A LOT of people simply don’t get it that they are at fault for agreeing to the terms once they sign up.
Your missing the point – “THEIR Rules” do not work – they are an invitation to arbitrary and capreciaous conduct and the destruction of shareholder value.
As I have repeated before – one of the Huge Problems you face is that if Musk is successful – meaning that he can get Twitter to buck the trand of decline in shareholder value that other big SM companies are facing.
YOU HAVE LOST.
Twitter did not belong to the woke idiots who wrote the TOS. It did not belong to the Board of Directors.
It belongs to shareholders. And they invest with the expectation of Profit. Manage can pull all the woke nonsense they wish
IF IT LEADS TO PROFIT.
If it does not – then it is corporate MALFEASANCE.
The ACTUAL Owners of corporations, seek PROFIT. The means to profit know to nearly everyone is to satisfy Customers.
You keep pretending that your TOS exists in a take it or leave it vaccum. IT does not.
If it is harmful to customers – it is ERROR.
In the near future Musk will likely prove you correct or Wrong.
If Twitter is more valuable with more free speech – the Woke managment he replace committed MALFEASANCE.
They placed their values above shareholders profits.
Your argument has the tinest bit of merit at the time someone signs up for Twitter.
It has no merit afterwards.
If after being on Twitter for a year Twitter changes the TOS, you are no longer dealing with a freely established agreement.
Twitter is now saying – in order to continue to access YOUR account, that YOU have invested time in, in order to access YOUR past tweets, YOUR followers – YOU must now agree to new Terms or you LOSE everything YOUR built.
There is a reason they call these contracts of adhesion and that they have very little legal weight.
Next, in all contracts – where one party drafted the contract and the other party does not have the power to modify the agreement ALL terms are read as most favorable to the non-drafting party.
YOU provided Twitters TOS – Contra your claims that TOS was NOT even close to clear. The language was typical social justice warrorior rot,
It is actually mostly legal nonsense. Much like CRT only not quite as bad. Regardless. the most important fact is that it is NOT clear,
and that means terms that are NOT clear will be read as void.
But lets presume that it is clear – now you have a different problem. Twitter is NOT government. It is obligated to apply whatever portions of the TOS are actually enforceable uniformly. It Twitter does not universally enforce a term – the term becomes void.
The easiest way to understand this is do you think that you can write a contract that bars discrimination and then discriminate ?
Last, you claim the contract is binding – if so – then it is binding two ways.
A twitter user who has been deplatformed for violating the TOS then has the right to challenge that deplatforming in court.
They are then entittled to discovery – they are entitled to KNOW that they were actually deplatformed for violating the TOS – not for some other reason. They are entitled to KNOW that far more egregious violators of the same provisions are being subject to the same penalties.
Not just on a right/left basis but throughout Twitters user base.
Contracts are ultimately enforced by the law.
Svelaz is lawless and dumb, a bad combination. His position depends on the costs and time involved to restrain a lawless entity. Svelaz wants to rule with force until he gets hit in the nose and then he will resort to the rule of law even though he has no understanding of what the rule of law is.
Svelaz, the really deep thinker, says that GM has the right to not advertise on the new Twitter as an example of free speech and yet he criticizes those that complain about GM doing so. Hey deep thinker, isn’t it free speech to be critical of GM?
Now I leave you all with the next 1000 comments by the obviously very busy Svelaz, the president of the Get a Life Club.
Hullbobby,
“ Svelaz, the really deep thinker, says that GM has the right to not advertise on the new Twitter as an example of free speech and yet he criticizes those that complain about GM doing so.”
You’re very confused. I didn’t criticize those that complain about GM doing so. Which post are you referring to? Could it be that you skimmed past my posts and “read” it and thought I did?Show me the post and I’ll correct it.
By the way thanks for reading all my posts.
I don’t read them all, who has the time to read 1000 moronic posts a day, but the ones that I do read are such partisan garbage that I find myself replying too often.
So which comment says I criticized about those who complain about GM leaving twitter’s advertising deal?
Should I start calling you a liar now or later?
Seems those that got rich off of Propoganda are screaming the loudest!
“I’m not paying them anything. They should pay me.”
— Jim Cramer, Reporter
“Bye-Bye,”
— Elon Musk, Canceller of the ex-checkers
Hey, Cramer you think too highly of yourself.
The Bird is free don’t let the door hit you in the a$$
The Bird is free, and so is Cramer’s advice. Sometimes free advice can be a killer.
https://twitter.com/search?q=jim%20cramer%20twitter%20meta&src=typed_query
S. Meyer: “Sometimes free advice can be a killer.”
+++
Yes. Cramer has done a blubbering apology for encouraging investment in Meta [Facebook] which is plummeting into the depths and taking wealth with it.
I would want Meta to die for no better reasons than election meddling and being a catspaw for seditious government censors, but it also seems Kramer erred in calling it a great investment.
Young, Biden’s executive order is doing things similar to Zuckerberg in getting out the vote. There is no stopping trash from being trash. I think Zucks has a large estate in Hawaii with walls all around it.
Seriously? The “guru of wealth” can’t cough up a couple of tenners!
There’s a reason he’s a “guru of wealth”. He’s very tight fisted with his wealth.
Musk is also the owner of Tesla. That might be a factor in GM’s decision.
I use twitter a lot and I’m all for this. Soon (within weeks) after I joined twitter my account was suspended for a month. My crime, that landed me in Twitter jail? I wrote a post which said “R’s better hope Trump lays off on the big belly burgers and buckets of KFC. That man is working himself hard towards a stoke or heart attack and without him R’s are leaderless, rudderless up schit creek w/out paddles” and some snowflake MAGAt got his/her panties all in a twist over that and reported me. So hell yeah. If this new twitter version of musk’s means I can say whatever the hell I want? I say bring it. I’m ready.
I don’t think it will be what you think it will be. The fee is to compensate for dependence on advertisers for revenue. It is all still dependent on what changes are made to the TOS and if there will be exceptions to those who pay.
The problem with that is that Musk will be creating two types of free speech. Speech that is moderated and speech that is not for a fee. He would be limiting the speech of those who won’t pay so they wouldn’t truly be able to exercise free speech unless they pay for it. Being able to exercise free speech should be free or should it be free only because you paid a fee?
Essentially Musk is floating the idea of making free speech a commodity by charging a fee to be able to fully express yourself if that is ultimately his goal.
“Musk will be creating two types of free speech.”
You are wrong again. There is the same right to speak with or without the fee. The charge is for verification of one’s identity.
” Speech that is moderated and speech that is not for a fee.”
You are making things up again and have a poor understanding of what Musk is presently doing.
Is there somewhere Musk has stated his purposes as you described them or is that just your mind reading ?
There is one and only one real world semi violation to the law of supply and demand.
And that is prestige goods. SOME People will pay more for something that is a visible symbol of prestige.
The only necessary value to what they are paying more for is that it says they are among the elite.
My Guess is that Musk is saying to Blue Checks – if you want prestige, you are going to have to pay for it.
Frankly he should leave blue checks alone and introduce, bronze, silver, gold and platinum checks.
and let people pay for those.
At the same time this is not the most important thing he must do.
He must QUICKLY stabalize Twitter. He can afford to lose lots of left wing nuts – but only if he brings back more active users than he loses.
There will be a large left flight, and most of them will eventually come back.
Regardless, he MUST preserve the size of the user base.
GM can say whatever it wants – if there are users – they will advertise.
Politics will ultimately take a back seat to progress.
I would further note that Musk can make more radical changes – if he can afford the losses necessary to fund Twitter until things stabalize.
But Twitter is not WaPo. Losing Billions is not the same as losing millions.
Over the long run I would expect Musk will make radical changes – that is just who he is.
“ Is there somewhere Musk has stated his purposes as you described them or is that just your mind reading ?”
Nah, just spitballing on what he may intend to do.
“ SOME People will pay more for something that is a visible symbol of prestige.”
What does that “prestige” really bring to the table? Paying more so people will take you more seriously? It’s useless. No “coveted” check mark will be a guarantee that tweets will be deemed credible.
“ He must QUICKLY stabalize Twitter. He can afford to lose lots of left wing nuts – but only if he brings back more active users than he loses.”
I agree he needs to do that. But losing lots of left-wing nuts risks being unbalanced by a surge of right-wing nuts who have a penchant for racist and bigoted fantasies when it comes to twitter. In fact they are already out in force by posting the N-word copiously.
A lot of those active users WERE right-wing nut jobs who were banned or censored in the past. More coming back will increase the risk that Musk will have to revert to more aggressive “content moderation”. If he loses control he’s not going to be able to regain it without doing what twitter previously did.
If you are just spitballing – I would suggest seriously thinking about the cost.
Free speech actually is Free. Moderated speech is what is expensive.
Musk could keep the entire Twitter content moderation as is,
But charge extra for those who want their feed curated.
Lets see how many wokesters are willing to pay for a “safe space” ?
“ Musk could keep the entire Twitter content moderation as is,
But charge extra for those who want their feed curated.”
So twitter’s current content moderation is ok? Huh? I though the whole point of Musk taking over was so content moderation is minimized to the least possible level.
Are you suggesting fines of some kind?
I am suggesting that if you want safe spaces the cost to provide them should fall on you.
This is a common flaw the left misses
You can get people to agree to almost anything for free.
When they have to pay the real costs – amazingly they become conservatives.
A surge of people from the right would BALANCE twitter which like most social media and nearly all our institutions lean precariously to the left.
There are only two things preventing us from tipping into the same socialist nonsense that has destroyed so much of the world for half of the 20th century,
The first is market forces. No matter what wokesters beleive – even wokersters on Wall street.
The markets just do not like it. People vote all the time with their wallet and that is the most important voting of all.
The 2nd is that in the real world the left wing nuts are a really a small percent of people even though they control lots of institutions.
It should be obvious to normal people that Content moderation for the most part is unnecessary if people need others to tell them what is true and what is not, they are capable of that on their own.
It is odd that the left thinks toddlers can choose their gender, and teens can choose to surgically alter their bodies.
But adults are somehow unable to determine on their own what is true and what is not ?
More coming back will only require change if even more leave.
So long as Twitters actual user base changes are net positive there is good reason to NOT move to content moderation.
Twitter has a massive staff for a fairly simple task. Enormous resources and cost are devoted to content moderation.
That cost is only justified if it results in significantly more users than it costs.
Truth also engages in content moderation. They are open about their goals – Family Friendly. That is the audience they are going after.
You keep ranting that twitter can do as it wishes – is that still true ?
Can musk decide to make it a right wing haven ? If that is what he wants ?
Or which I expect can he restructure it to be profitable and efficient – which with near certainty means LESS moderation ?
Regardless, though most have not thought that far, the real danger for the left is that if Twitter is more successful under Musk – and Musk has a track record of failing until he succeeds, then the rest of big SM will be forced by the market, by shareholders, by advertisers to follow.
Niche markets can do as they please.
This is a most reasonable suggestion for everyone. Of course, the guilty will scream and deny the truth.
Past generations fought and died for the right to free speech. And people now complain about paying $4.95 a month? Jeez…..
Think about it. Free speech, available for $19.99 a month. All the free speech you want…but it will cost you. Apparently free speech won’t be…free. Oh the irony.
You got things wrong. There is no $19.99 charge for posting. The charge is for verifying one’s name with a blue checkmark.
It will be for those posting who want a blue check mark.
What does verification accomplish? Credibility? Better influence? I guess buying credibility or influence is easier than earning it.
This is what you said: “Free speech, available for $19.99 a month. All the free speech you want…but it will cost you. Apparently free speech won’t be…free. Oh the irony.”
You won’t admit you were wrong so you continue blabbing, in part repeating what others already said. It doesn’t correct what you said. You were wrong and say very little that has meaning.
Musk is not proposing that Free Speech costs money.
He is proposing that Blue Checkmarks cost money.
I would suggest he is going about it wrong.
He should leave the blue checks alone and introduce bronze, silver, gold, and platinum checks
providing those with some value add at an additional cost.
People will pay for status – even left wing nuts.
John, I think he is doing something of that nature presently. He stated the $19,99 would not only be for the blue checkmark but for additional services as well. At that point, I believe he will split up services by price, and the $19.99 charge for only the blue check mark might fall to a dollar.
“ Musk is not proposing that Free Speech costs money.”
No, But he is proposing that people can buy their credibility or legitimacy for $19.99 a month. That would be for the privilege of making sure a tweet is deemed more important than all the others for a fee.
Maybe, rather than charge a fee why not have anyone be able to EARN the “coveted” blue check mark by using a poster’s consistent verifiable tweets instead of buying an illusion of credibility?
That would actually put more value on the check mark than simply buying credibility and “prestige”. But that would rob Musk of an obvious need for a better revenue stream.
” is proposing that people can buy their credibility or legitimacy for $19.99 a month”.
You still don’t get it. He is selling verification of a users name and prestige.
“Maybe, rather than charge a fee why not have anyone be able to EARN the “coveted” blue check mark by using a poster’s consistent verifiable tweets instead of buying an illusion of credibility?”
You are freaked out that Twitter will have a lot more people telling you that you don’t know what you are talking about. Musk is interested in profits, not your continuous foolish rantings.
Yes, Musk is talking about selling prestige.
If you do not want to be part of the grubby masses – pay 4.99/m for a blue check.
Or maybe 19.99 for a platinum one.
Sounds great to me. People pay extra for prestige all the time.
With respect to your “earn” it idea – that MIGHT be arguably of merit except that any objective means to do that would be expensive.
One of the likely driving factors for Musk moving towards free speech is lower cost.
Daren posted just a bit about the cost of content moderation here.
What Twitter was doing is FAR more expensive.
I doubt Musk could verify the tweets of blue checks for 19.99/m
I have no problem with you concept. But only the left thinks it is easy.
Just look at Covid – Nearly everything people were banned for has ultimately proven true.
Some of us are very good at accuracy. Some of us are very bad.
But so long as humans end up making the decision or controlling the criteria, you will have bias and error.
It has been said Musk is considering reducing the working force from 7,500 to 2000. Many of those are involved in censorship. That can be a savings of 250 to 500 million dollars a year.
Censorship is expensive
The perfect recommendation. Full disclosure of what was happening at Twitter is the worst fear of the former management and board of the company. Also the fear of some in government.
Meh.
Musk can have it and do whatever he wants. I’m sure as heck not giving money to that outfit.