Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Elon Musk Is Officially Purchasing Twitter for $44 Billion
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Still, around 45% to 51% of voters chose the Republican presidential candidates in elections this century including over 74 million in the 2020 election. I just don't see how that could be considered a "significant minority." You might as well then call democrats a significant minority too.
He’s pretending to be independent, which we all know he’s not.
And, since ‘the right’ has such a large physical and online presence, it makes you wonder if those votes are accurate.
But of course, our elections are secure - unless Trump wins, then they cheated.
I never said they can't do it...my argument was that yes, moderation can be censorship. If I don't like a platform, I simply do not use it.
Like I said, you are just arguing over the word "significant". We can agree to disagree on what we each consider significant. You brought up the 2020 election. I consider 7 million people to be a significant number.
You seem awfully sure about something you know nothing about.
More partisan nonsense.And, since ‘the right’ has such a large physical and online presence, it makes you wonder if those votes are accurate.
But of course, our elections are secure - unless Trump wins, then they cheated.
Last edited:
Another really great post about all this:
Anchors Away » Mike Industries
“The public markets are going to say a lot about us, but always remember, things are never as good or as bad as they say.” It was a few days before our IPO at Twitter in 2013, and our captain was …
mikeindustries.com
Another really great post about all this:
Anchors Away » Mike Industries
“The public markets are going to say a lot about us, but always remember, things are never as good or as bad as they say.” It was a few days before our IPO at Twitter in 2013, and our captain was …mikeindustries.com
One point it makes and yet misses; Elon does great when it comes to end product business design and this has nothing to do with his personal actions. Mostly.
The article mixes his personal behavior with his business behavior - they are very different - pretty much 180 from each other. You can't really compare the two. Call it a pseudo-split personality (Home vs Office)
You may not like Elon however he likely has an end vision that will fix Twitter. Time will tell.
Wow. 40 Pages in this thread reference the impact of Elons Twitter purchase. Very impressive.
I just… I just can’t wait to see the changes he makes. I really am a supporter of his beliefs and can appreciate he truly is a visionary, similarly to my appreciation like Tim Cook. I can see why these two power-houses are leaders in the tech industry. They have my vote anytime for support.
I just… I just can’t wait to see the changes he makes. I really am a supporter of his beliefs and can appreciate he truly is a visionary, similarly to my appreciation like Tim Cook. I can see why these two power-houses are leaders in the tech industry. They have my vote anytime for support.
Elon Musk (or Tesla) plus politics pretty much guarantees significant activity!
I really did. The fact that you're yet again ignoring it doesn't make it any less true.
It’s really funny that you yourself have just claimed something with absolutely no evidence provided and unwittingly disproved your own point. If you believe this to be the case, provide evidence.
It’s actually hard to quantify how many of the trending topics are conservative vs. liberal. As I write this, #3 is RoeVSWade; #9 is RoeOverturned; #11 is Senator Warren. All of those are interpretative.
What we do know is that conservative publications (NY Post, Babylon Bee), influencers (Lindell, Posobiec, etc.), and politicians (Trump, Greene) have all been banned or locked out of their accounts or otherwise silenced. This is undeniable.
In many cases, I’ve also found conservative hashtags are taken over by leftist opposition but they are trending because of participation by the left, not the right. That’s fine, because that is the game, but that hardly qualifies then as conservatives trending.
Neither can you. I’ll be waiting for all your metrics that prove conservatives are spreading misinformation.
What you are actually saying is that “Misinformation = not mine (yours) but someone else’s opinion which = right to censor.” And that is tantamount to Leftist fascism. 😉
You’re welcome.
Perhaps you could have kept reading the thread. I provided evidence of my claims when requested.
Sure. But they weren't banned because they were conservative. And none of them were silenced.
I didn't claim that. You're just searching for a gotcha by arguing a strawman.
Nice deflection. Post it in the response if you have it or quote it. Otherwise, it doesn’t exist.
LOL. Laughable. Of course they were. Are you saying the NY Post Hunter Biden article got them suspended because it was too liberal? Are you saying Trump was suspended when plenty of Democrats have called people to rise up (not that Trump ever said this, I’m just making a point). You’re hilariously in denial here.
You claimed conservatives had been banned for posting “disinformation,” by which you meant “stuff you disagree with,” which is in itself a straw man argument to discredit any conservative opinion.
Again, you’re welcome.
(Still waiting for your evidence. If you have it, reply to this post.)
It was two posts below the post you quoted.
No. Twitter admitted it was a mistake.
45 was suspended because he repeatedly broke Twitter rules. Feel free to look up their explanation.
No, I claimed that when Twitter moderates misinformation a lot of conservative complain they are being discriminated against. Is that not obvious?
Similarly, when Twitter made a push to eliminate bots, conservatives claimed that they were losing followers.
Your link goes to more posts that contain absolutely no evidence of conservative dominance on Twitter. Again, post it here or we’ll assume you’re just deflecting because you don’t have any.
I’ve posted evidence of conservative bans/silencing.
Oh, so it’s okay if they ban a crucial news story during one of the most consequential elections in history as long as they admit it was a mistake. I see your POV. 🤡
(But seriously, no, I don’t buy it— this was obviously a very considered and biased policy move by Twitter and corporate media outlets during a major election. Claiming it was a mistake is a sly legal move.)
Oh, I did. And you know what? It’s even weaker than I thought it would be.
Here’s what 45 was banned for—
What Twitter rules are broken here exactly? Their assumption is all based on context. It’s very flimsy.
Meanwhile, here are Leftist accounts that have called for violence/insurrection in the past two days and are still up—
Kind of funny how that works, huh?
I don’t think you’re getting it. It’s only “misinformation” in your eyes and in some Twitter employees’ eyes. To everyone else, it’s just another opinion and protected free speech.
Actually, in the past week, Obama has LOST followers and Republican representatives have GAINED them, likely Twitter trying to bury evidence of bias before the sale.
Again, you’ve provided no evidence of your claims (quite the opposite), no understanding of free speech vs. misinformation, and until you do, it will be difficult to take your opinion seriously.
That said, I’ll do my best to keep responding if you’d like to continue.
I like debate— and free speech. 😉
You forgot the ruminating about assassinating Supreme Court justices.
Attachments
Since I never claimed conservative dominance on Twitter, I don't need to provide evidence.
We are all aware that conservatives have been banned and conservative posts have been moderated. What we disagree on is whether they were moderated because they were conservative or because they broke the rules.
No, it wasn't okay. But again, I disagree that that it was a crucial story.
I certainly get that you want force private companies to promote misinformation put out by your favored political party. And, again, "protected free speech" doesn't apply to communications on private platforms.
Correlation is not causation.
I did provide evidence of my claim. You simply made up something and then claimed that I didn't provide evidence of the thing you made up.
and guess what. Privacy is not required either, but it’s a value proposition that pulls people to buying apple products.
Just as free speech is a value proposition. Sure, it doesn’t apply to private companies, but they are free to model their platform from that.
It’s clear this is a valuable proposition, as it’s making Twitter and Truth social the top two sought after apps right now.
People against a company modeling their business like this, are like the people who were against apple for privacy.
“ You shouldn’t need privacy if you don’t have anything to hide “
Who or what defines misinformation?
Personally I am all for letting Elon try and see what happens.
Trusted experts such as doctors or journalists. Do you believe that large, influential communication platforms should promote misinformation and propaganda?
Sure. The current system doesn't work, so trying something different could be beneficial. I just don't believe that opening the system up to more misinformation and propaganda has any likely social benefit.
1. - In regards to a topic like ... say COVID, what would be misinformation would depend on the Government, the Agency, the Doctor, and/or the Company that employs the Doctor. There needs to be a better method of distinguishing between News/Opinion/Rumor.
2. You are assuming it is actual misinformation and propaganda. If there is going to be any filtering, make it clear, concise, easily understood, and at the users request. I don't need hit/miss algorithms or potentially sketchy/biased reviewers trying to predetermine what is "misinformation".