What's new
By:
Filters

Musk and Twitter

tracyb said:
i think the point is that its out right lying and slander at this point. misrepresenting the truth, for an agenda is illegal and shouldn't be allowed.


they can go ahead and discriminate all they want. but call it what it is. its not fact checking or whatever excuse they choose to push their agenda. kinda like how you can joke about anything, as its a joke. but you try to push that joke as fact and damages can be shown, you are legally liable.

wasn't that a larry flint case of something?
Click to expand...
And how is that any different than the news, tabloids, etc? What you're talking about is the government deciding what is and isn't the truth and acting based on that. It's a blatant violation of the First Amendment.

The Flynt case was overturned on prosecutorial misconduct because the DA tried to railroad him on obscenity charges. None of the cases against Flynt on First Amendment grounds ever went anywhere. The only one that ever did was a civil suit that ended up in the SCOTUS where the issue was personal jurisdiction, which they upheld. The original suit was over defamation, but that part of the case had nothing to do with it's escalation to the Supreme Court.

87manche said:
it got real murky when governments starting using social media as official notifications.
Click to expand...
Not murky at all. Government choosing to use a private business' service doesn't make it a public service.
 
WaterH said:
The only exception to this rule would be something like pedophiles or bomb building classes.
Click to expand...
Orly? Because we need to control what people might do?

JMT-80-Black-with-jig1.jpg
 
Motorcharge said:
And how is that any different than the news, tabloids, etc? What you're talking about is the government deciding what is and isn't the truth and acting based on that. It's a blatant violation of the First Amendment.
Click to expand...
The difference is that the tabloids are just about the only people churning out quality reporting and investigative journalism these days. :flipoff2::flipoff2::flipoff2::flipoff2::flipoff2::flipoff2::flipoff2::flipoff2::flipoff2::flipoff2::flipoff2::flipoff2:
 
Pocahontas said:
By problem with Twitter is the slant. You are either a publisher and liable for what is published. Therefore open to lawsuits and all the other bs that comes with being a publisher or you are a public forum where you aren't liable for anything posted but you cant sensor/delete any of it because you disagree with it.

I have no problem with them 'fact' checking stuff and putting little pop-ups saying xyz is propaganda. Once you start deleting people that are critical of you you become a publisher and and open yourself to that world.
Click to expand...
This is the whole point that Motorcharge isn't getting. You don't get to play both sides. They are. But lying about why they are deleting it because it's "fake news" or "fact checked" when in fact it's the truth they are deleting because they don't like it.

This whole Elon on the board thing is going to create bigger waves that anyone can imagine if he does what he talks about all the time.
 
MattS said:
This is the whole point that Motorcharge isn't getting. You don't get to play both sides. They are. But lying about why they are deleting it because it's "fake news" or "fact checked" when in fact it's the truth they are deleting because they don't like it.

This whole Elon on the board thing is going to create bigger waves that anyone can imagine if he does what he talks about all the time.
Click to expand...
I get your point, it's just not an excuse for government regulation.
 
Motorcharge said:
I get your point, it's just not an excuse for government regulation.
Click to expand...
100% agree. Maybe all it takes is musk or some other rich guy to get on the board of all these places and then we can get back to normal.
 
Motorcharge said:
I get your point, it's just not an excuse for government regulation.
Click to expand...

The regulation already existed. If you slander someone, you get sued. it was the tech giants that got it “not to” apply to them because they say they don’t publish it. If you have a public board and anybody can post anything, that’s fine. But if you control what’s being posted, you’re a publisher. It’s that simple.
 
WaterH said:
The regulation already existed. If you slander someone, you get sued. it was the tech giants that got it “not to” apply to them because they say they don’t publish it. If you have a public board and anybody can post anything, that’s fine. But if you control what’s being posted, you’re a publisher. It’s that simple.
Click to expand...
Show me the exact law you're referring to. All I've seen anyone do in this argument is point to a completely unrelated law and try to justify it's use to railroad a private company they don't like under the guise of fairness without any regard for the inevitable disastrous consequences it would have for the rest of the internet and likely free speech in general.
 
Motorcharge said:
I'm surprised the FTC hasn't opened their worthless mouths yet. Every time he tweets anything remotely business related they jump all over his ass saying he's not allowed to talk about it like it's not blatantly a violation of his First Amendment rights.
Click to expand...
this is how they killed off john macafee finally :sadpanda:

www.bbc.com

John McAfee charged with fraud over cryptocurrency

The businessman is accused of promoting cryptocurrency to his followers to inflate prices.
www.bbc.com

horseshit, basically saying "anything he mentioned was an illegal pump and dump" when mcafee was discussing crypto no different than anybody else. Turns out, his 20+ years of poking the bear and this is the shit they take him down on.

:shaking: at least they didn't have to pass a full blown income tax just to get him, ala capone.
 
Motorcharge said:
Show me the exact law you're referring to. All I've seen anyone do in this argument is point to a completely unrelated law and try to justify it's use to railroad a private company they don't like under the guise of fairness without any regard for the inevitable disastrous consequences it would have for the rest of the internet and likely free speech in general.
Click to expand...
Certainly, you know you can sue over slander. I believe it’s “section 230” that protects “internet providers” from liability of third party posters. As long as they allow anybody to post, I agree with it. But if they are just promoting the posters they agree with, they should be part of any lawsuit that results from it. Otherwise all they have to do is find some deadbeat with no money to say what they want.
 
I give it a month. Trump will be back. They simply don't have a legal/lack of following their "rules" reason to have him gone. And I have read from many many places that they need him back for the $$$ that's probably the angle that musk will use. He creates buzz and that's what they make money on. Not a leftist echo chamber.
 
MattS said:
I give it a month. Trump will be back. They simply don't have a legal/lack of following their "rules" reason to have him gone. And I have read from many many places that they need him back for the $$$ that's probably the angle that musk will use. He creates buzz and that's what they make money on. Not a leftist echo chamber.
Click to expand...

Yeah? pfft.

Musk bought in for the extra revenue stream. :lmao:
 
Thumping said:
Plans? We don't need no stinking plans. :laughing:
Click to expand...
I think it’s hilarious that it’s already being asked… 45 is the most brilliant real estate investor ever - living rent free in so many heads.
 
Last edited:
DavidVanVorous said:
One might argue that the users have a say but do they really?

It becomes a proxy battle...folks using twitter and folks owning stock in twitter are not necessarily synonymous. As with the one between Packard and Carly Fiorina when Packard took exception to the direction Fiorina was taking HP only the stock holders have a vote.
Click to expand...
That's a risk when you take your company public. I think you and me are on the same page in the reverence for the quality and innovation the HP founders brought to the measurement industry, but after it was public, the primary responsibility was to shareholders, so cheezy printers and run of the mill PC's it was. My company is privately held, one dude owns the whole damn thing, so if I need a decision made it happens very rapidly, not always to my liking, but no debates, no board of director bullshit, just a yes or no...or that's a dumb idea lets do it this way. I wouldn't have it any other way.

Steve Wynn built his empire on Junk Bonds through Michael Milken who did jail time over the whole deal, (much like fall-guy Michael Cohen), and took Mirage Resorts public and was able to expand the Golden Nugget and Mirage to Treasure Island, Bellagio, and some other smaller operations in other areas. But he had to sell shares to get the capital to expand, (no tears shed, the fucker lived like a Sultan), but Kirk Kirkorian of MGM came in, bought controlling interest, and Big Steve was out. He later said he'd never relinquish corporate control again, but of course did the same thing with Wynn Resorts, and was out on his ass (with half a billion or whatever), after getting handjobs from the spa staff.
 
So I listened to an interesting podcast yesterday that basically Elon has Twitter by the balls and they have to do whatever he says. Because he owns so many shares that he can basically walk and tank their stock. And since the board get paid when the stock goes up they can't do anything but what he says if they want to keep making money. But it's not only him able to do this. That Blockrock and other large investment firms have been doing this for years to companies and that is why a lot of them are the way they are. I knew they have influence but I had no idea it was total control kind of influence. If you have 50 mins it's an interesting listen.

 
MattS said:
So I listened to an interesting podcast yesterday that basically Elon has Twitter by the balls and they have to do whatever he says. Because he owns so many shares that he can basically walk and tank their stock. And since the board get paid when the stock goes up they can't do anything but what he says if they want to keep making money. But it's not only him able to do this. That Blockrock and other large investment firms have been doing this for years to companies and that is why a lot of them are the way they are. I knew they have influence but I had no idea it was total control kind of influence. If you have 50 mins it's an interesting listen.
Click to expand...
that's an interesting and important point.
 
rockota said:
that's an interesting and important point.
Click to expand...
It’s what’s destroying the manufacturing in this country. Buy a large share of stock, make the company shed people close facilities. Sell the good portion of the business and on to the next to destroy. They have been doing this with paper mills in my area. Sad. Once those things go away they are never coming back.

The stock market imo is the biggest problem in this country. Too many people making way too much money shuffling numbers around destroying company’s ect. Basically shitting on the people who actually do the work, actually produce a product, provide a service.
 
MattS said:
So I listened to an interesting podcast yesterday that basically Elon has Twitter by the balls and they have to do whatever he says. Because he owns so many shares that he can basically walk and tank their stock.
Click to expand...
That is a very one sided view of it. On the other side of that equation are other investors who see opportunity and if he walks and the stock tanks, they will be very happy to snap up the bargain, wait for the collective memory of Musk's involvement to fade away, and ride the stock back up to reasonable valuations. I would much rather buy Twitter stock after Musk walks than after he has bought in.
 
Fuzzydog said:
That is a very one sided view of it. On the other side of that equation are other investors who see opportunity and if he walks and the stock tanks, they will be very happy to snap up the bargain, wait for the collective memory of Musk's involvement to fade away, and ride the stock back up to reasonable valuations. I would much rather buy Twitter stock after Musk walks than after he has bought in.
Click to expand...
Sure. But say it takes 5 years. If you are only being paid when the stock is rising do you think some greedy board member or investment group is going to want to play the long game? I doubt it. If he walked it's a real possibility it spirals right into bankruptcy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Back Refresh