Elon Musk Is Officially Purchasing Twitter for $44 Billion

[BaldiMac]

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.

No, what would be misinformation would depend on whether or not it is misinformation. Not the messenger.

2. You are assuming it is actual misinformation and propaganda.

Misinformation and propaganda is by definition 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".

Most of that is what Twitter has been trying to do. They've certainly gotten it wrong some of the time.

As far as "at the users request", that would be self defeating. Propaganda works. The very people who are likely to be influenced by misinformation and propaganda would be likely to opt out of warnings and moderation.

 

[dk001]

No, what would be misinformation would depend on whether or not it is misinformation. Not the messenger.


Misinformation and propaganda is by definition misinformation and propaganda.


Most of that is what Twitter has been trying to do. They've certainly gotten it wrong some of the time.

As far as "at the users request", that would be self defeating. Propaganda works. The very people who are likely to be influenced by misinformation and propaganda would be likely to opt out of warnings and moderation.

1. That was a good laugh and a nice dodge.

2. Another nice non-answer.

For the last item, another dodge. You apparently are trying to justify behavior like Twitter, FB, and others exhibit. I don't agree with what they do nor how they do it. If you prefer it "filtered" for you by other groups that is your choice.

 

[BaldiMac]

1. That was a good laugh and a nice dodge.

2. Another nice non-answer.

I asked if you believe that large, influential communication platforms should promote misinformation and propaganda. You replied by questioning whether misinformation and propaganda is misinformation and propaganda. That's a dodge.

For the last item, another dodge. You apparently are trying to justify behavior like Twitter, FB, and others exhibit. I don't agree with what they do nor how they do it. If you prefer it "filtered" for you by other groups that is your choice.

No dodge. I am certainly trying to justify large platforms moderating misinformation and propaganda, among other dangerous speech.

 

[dk001]

I asked if you believe that large, influential communication platforms should promote misinformation and propaganda. You replied by questioning whether misinformation and propaganda is misinformation and propaganda. That's a dodge.


No dodge. I am certainly trying to justify large platforms moderating misinformation and propaganda, among other dangerous speech.

I asked for clarification from your post "I don't believe there is any positive social value in promoting misinformation. #973" I am wondering what is misinformation. Far too much of what I have seen censored is based on some agenda or a whim and was never actually verified prior to censoring.

I understand your position. What I don't understand is what is " misinformation " and how it would be determined.

 

[BaldiMac]

I asked for clarification from your post "I don't believe there is any positive social value in promoting misinformation. #973" I am wondering what is misinformation. Far too much of what I have seen censored is based on some agenda or a whim and was never actually verified prior to censoring.

I understand your position. What I don't understand is what is " misinformation " and how it would be determined.

You want me to look up a word in the dictionary for you? Okay.

mis·in·for·ma·tion| ˌmisənfərˈmāSH(ə)n | noun false or inaccurate information, especially that which is deliberately intended to deceive: nuclear matters are often entangled in a web of secrecy and misinformation.

 

[dk001]

You want me to look up a word in the dictionary for you? Okay.

mis·in·for·ma·tion| ˌmisənfərˈmāSH(ə)n | noun false or inaccurate information, especially that which is deliberately intended to deceive: nuclear matters are often entangled in a web of secrecy and misinformation.

Once again you deflect. "Who" or "What Group" determines what is misinformation?
With this question it leads us back to the beginnings of the conversation.

 

[BaldiMac]

Once again you deflect.

I didn't deflect. I answered the question you asked directly.

"Who" or "What Group" determines what is misinformation?

I already answered that question the first time you asked. Why are you repeating it?

With this question it leads us back to the beginnings of the conversation.

Why won't you answer the question that I asked? Do you believe that large, influential communication platforms should promote misinformation and propaganda?

 

[A MacBook lover]

You want me to look up a word in the dictionary for you? Okay.

mis·in·for·ma·tion| ˌmisənfərˈmāSH(ə)n | noun false or inaccurate information, especially that which is deliberately intended to deceive: nuclear matters are often entangled in a web of secrecy and misinformation.

So if several doctors say the vaccine is dangerous, is that misinformation? They are doctors?

What about if say, the inventor of mRNA, said the vaccine was dangerous? He certainly has the credentials. Is that misinformation?

This is why democrats are so angry at people like Elon and Joe Rogan. They perceive credentialed viewpoints / research that doesn’t fit their point of view as misinformation. They don’t mind it when Joe Rogan says it, but when they bring a credentialed scientist to discuss, that’s when the pitchforks come out. Funny, isn’t it?

In every field, even down to the the basics of relativity, scientist will always be in disagreement. Even now, there is a religious following to Einstein theory of relativity, people religiously insisted on its validity.

Sometimes they agree, but there is a word called ‘controversial’ in science.

Take one topic, climate change (formally mislabeled ‘global warming’), controversial because scientists disagree.

Calling opposing research ‘misinformation’, which in itself is fine, but removing it all together, suspending accounts - now you’re the dictator

 

[A MacBook lover]

Peak clown world right here. Saying FDA’s own news as misleading

 

[BaldiMac]

So if several doctors say the vaccine is dangerous, is that misinformation? They are doctors?

What about if say, the inventor of mRNA, said the vaccine was dangerous? He certainly has the credentials. Is that misinformation?

This is why democrats are so angry at people like Elon and Joe Rogan. They perceive credentialed viewpoints / research that doesn’t fit their point of view as misinformation. They don’t mind it when Joe Rogan says it, but when they bring a credentialed scientist to discuss, that’s when the pitchforks come out. Funny, isn’t it?

In every field, even down to the the basics of relativity, scientist will always be in disagreement. Even now, there is a religious following to Einstein theory of relativity, people religiously insisted on its validity.

Sometimes they agree, but there is a word called ‘controversial’ in science.

Take one topic, climate change (formally mislabeled ‘global warming’), controversial because scientists disagree.

Calling opposing research ‘misinformation’, which in itself is fine, but removing it all together, suspending accounts - now you’re the dictator

I'm not discussing politics with you because its pointless. I asked about misinformation and propaganda. Not political disagreements.

 

[A MacBook lover]

I'm not discussing politics with you because its pointless. I asked about misinformation and propaganda. Not political disagreements.

Um…ok?

 

[dk001]

I didn't deflect. I answered the question you asked directly.


I already answered that question the first time you asked. Why are you repeating it?


Why won't you answer the question that I asked? Do you believe that large, influential communication platforms should promote misinformation and propaganda?

You deflected as my question was never actually answered.

You did not answer it. You posted a very general answer that in itself is actually no answer at all. Hence why I asked again based on you previous post.

You never asked me that question. However, to answer that question, who or what determines what is misinformation and propaganda? Then again our media has been doing it for years - spewing misinformation and propaganda. So agree or not it is apparently allowed.

The problem is that in current society, m&p is directly influenced by money, politics, and power. So we come back to; are you discussing todays society or the actual basic definition?

 

[BaldiMac]

You deflected as my question was never actually answered.

You did not answer it. You posted a very general answer that in itself is actually no answer at all. Hence why I asked again based on you previous post.

I answered it directly. You just want me to answer differently.

You never asked me that question.

I did. In the same post where I answered your question.

However, to answer that question, who or what determines what is misinformation and propaganda? Then again our media has been doing it for years - spewing misinformation and propaganda. So agree or not it is apparently allowed.

The problem is that in current society, m&p is directly influenced by money, politics, and power. So we come back to; are you discussing todays society or the actual basic definition?

I'm not interested in discussing who specifically would be doing the moderation. It's irrelevant to my question and will only result in partisan nonsense. I asked a simple, straightforward question without any political slant.

 

[dk001]

I answered it directly. You just want me to answer differently.


I did. In the same post where I answered your question.


I'm not interested in discussing who specifically would be doing the moderation. It's irrelevant to my question and will only result in partisan nonsense. I asked a simple, straightforward question without any political slant.

Sorry - try again.

Once more: Who decides what is misinformation and propaganda? I don’t care who/what does the moderation, I am more interested in defines it. The majority of contested censoring appears to be politically, corporate, or power defined instead of factual definition.

 

[BaldiMac]

Sorry - try again.

Once more: Who decides what is misinformation and propaganda? I don’t care who/what does the moderation, I am more interested in defines it. The majority of contested censoring appears to be politically, corporate, or power defined instead of factual definition.

If you’re going to continue to ignore my answer and refuse to answer my question, then there’s no point in continuing the conversation. Thanks for engaging.

 

[dk001]

If you’re going to continue to ignore my answer and refuse to answer my question, then there’s no point in continuing the conversation. Thanks for engaging.

I’m okay with calling it quits as I am still awaiting the answer to the initial question I asked. Sorry, but I cannot honestly answers yours without knowing your definition.

Prost!

 

[djstile]

And where do you think that came from?

I don't think - I know the first recorded example of Freedom of Speech or expression was in 1644 in the unlicensed book Areopagitica by John Milton where he is quoted, "Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties." This was in response to the English Parliament requiring the licensing of printers and thereby refused a license to Milton on his essay on the right to divorce.

The concept of freedom of speech is not a United States concept. It is a concept that long predates the United States and is just codified in the US Constitution.

 

[djstile]

The 1st Amendment is extremely permissive, which I think is a good thing. But if people think having “free speech“ on a private platform means that it needs to be as permissive as the 1st Amendment, I just point out that that isn’t a viable option.
If they disagree with that, they need to give an real-world example of an establishment or service that has that policy.

We can argue and disagree with where the line is, but just because someone wants to push the line further towards the “permissive“ side doesn’t mean that they are necessarily some greater defender of free speech.
Some of the alternative services, such as Truth Social, that some in this thread have promoted, are more restrictive of speech in some areas that the 1st Amendment protects than Twitter is.

And just because I am making this argument doesn’t mean I agree with the decisions that Twitter has made in the past. If I were in charge, I probably wouldn’t have taken down the nypost story about the Hunter Biden laptop.

My free speech rights mean I’m not required to give a platform to speech I don’t want to promote.

Again, I'm merely pointing out that a person can make the statement "I believe in the freedom of speech" without referring to the US Constitution in many ways. A lot of people get this wrong. The concept of freedom of speech and expression long predates the United States. A lot of people automatically reply with "the 1st amendment doesn't apply to private businesses" as though it's some kind of "gotcha" they saw on CNN.

The concept of freedom of speech / freedom of expression ≠ The 1st Amendment of the US Constitution.

 

[Jensend]

Again, I'm merely pointing out that a person can make the statement "I believe in the freedom of speech" without referring to the US Constitution in many ways. A lot of people get this wrong. The concept of freedom of speech and expression long predates the United States. A lot of people automatically reply with "the 1st amendment doesn't apply to private businesses" as though it's some kind of "gotcha" they saw on CNN.

The concept of freedom of speech / freedom of expression ≠ The 1st Amendment of the US Constitution.

There are fundamental differences between restrictions of government control of speech (1st Amendment being one example, and one of the strongest in the world) and private spaces.

Here's a recent Musk Tweet:

Like I said, my preference is to hew close to the laws of countries in which Twitter operates. If the citizens want something banned, then pass a law to do so, otherwise it should be allowed. - Elon Musk

I think that's a bad policy. Let's say I put the permissiveness of a policy on a scale of 0-10, with the 1st Amendment being the most permissive at 10, and put Twitter at a 6. And Truth Social is also a 6, but a different 6.

I think that's a much better place to be than having both a country's policy and Twitter both being at level 8.

And I don't think both being at level 10 in tenable for a service that people from all walks of life want to use. There are current services that are close to level 10 of free speech, and they tend to have less variety of speech than level 6 services. They tend to get overrun by overt racism and antisemitism.

Maybe Twitter can be closer to an 8 than a 6.

But if I think it's untenable that Twitter can be a 10 and be a service that a wide variety of people will still want to use, it doesn't mean that I somehow don't believe in freedom of speech.

 

[firewood]

Trusted experts such as doctors or journalists. Do you believe that large, influential communication platforms should promote misinformation and propaganda?

Doctors and journalists have killed millions. Consider the ones employed by WWII Germany or currently by the RU.

Yes. Because unless you have never ever changed your mind about anything, stuff that you used to consider misinformation actually turns out to be true. Same applies to everybody.

 

[BaldiMac]

Doctors and journalists have killed millions. Consider the ones employed by WWII Germany or currently by the RU.

Yes. Because unless you have never ever changed your mind about anything, stuff that you used to consider misinformation actually turns out to be true. Same applies to everybody.

When words have no meaning, discussion is impossible.

 

[H2SO4]

Hmm, what exactly are all the Tesla cars I see on the road then? What up with all those rockets I see that deliver astronauts to the ISS then land the booster back on terra firma for reuse? I'm pretty sure there are real tunnels being dug in Vegas as well.

While FSD isn't ready for prime time, yet, it is really foolish to label his collective accomplishments as "vapourware".

What have you done today to better the world?

Watch what he says at 05:10. lol. lolol. It's truly hilarious that people belive the crap this guy comes up with.
Oh, search out the other videos, (that include all the theory and calculations you need), that debunk his BS.

 

[dk001]

Elon Musk accuses Twitter of withholding data, says may withdraw bid

Elon Musk threatened Monday to withdraw his bid to buy Twitter, accusing it of failing to provide data on fake accounts, in the latest twist in the Tesla

insiderpaper.com

 

[webkit]

Elon Musk accuses Twitter of withholding data, says may withdraw bid

Elon Musk threatened Monday to withdraw his bid to buy Twitter, accusing it of failing to provide data on fake accounts, in the latest twist in the Tesla

insiderpaper.com

Given all of the attention the buyoiut plan received, I'm surprised there haven't been concerns raised by the SEC and/or advertisers and/or shareholders regarding Twitter's fake/spam account percentage claim.

 

[Shirasaki]

When I think about fighting spam bots and authenticating Humans, Elon musk is not the name that pops up in my head. Instead, I’d believe a startup to do so than any megacorp existing today.