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 Says Apple Has 'Fully Resumed' Advertising on Twitter
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Inaccurate - more like 25%. But in the end - the funding is not the only issue - its the influence of government office holders on outlets. PBS toes the party line for the Democrats and the connections and influence we have seen with the government and Facebook, Youtube, MSNBC, CNN, and up to now - Twitter - shows our media is integrated with the government.
Taxpayers Provide More Than 25 Percent of NPR's Funding, Analyst Says
One analyst argues that NPR's $166 million budget is actually made up of more than 25 percent of taxpayer dollars and that its member stations across the country hauls in another 40 percent of public funds.
Browning starts his analysis with NPR's roughly 900 member stations across the country, which provide 40 percent of the organization's annual revenues. Browning says that money amounts to 20 percent of taxpayer dollars for the Washington-based NPR.
Revenues for the local NPR affiliates stem from a number of sources, including 5.8 percent from federal, state and local governments, 13.6 percent from universities, and 10.1 percent from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, or CPB.
But Browning noted that the federal government provides 99 percent of CPB's funding and asserted that more than 10 percent of the university funding is fueled by tax dollars based on the assumption that three out of four university-supported stations are publicly funded.
That adds up to 25 percent of taxpayer money for the NPR member stations.
your incorrect amount is irrelevant. a simple "yes" will do.
You obviously have no idea what fascism is.
Showing up to protest sounds like exercising 1st amendment rights to me, if it turns violent then arrest them. That's his style, make up stories and embellish to support his narrative. His behavior in Portland, Charlottesville, DC on the 6th with extreme right wing groups shows who he is, more participant than reporter. Then of course the number 1 goto in right wing world, playing the angry victim.
Last edited:
The information released last week shows that staff at Twitter "handled" all the requests of the Biden campaign to stop the spread of the Russian collusion er, I mean misinformation I mean fabricated oh obviously real as verified by CBS News two years later Hunter Biden laptop. Going so far as to use tools developed to stop child pornography to stop the spread of the story, banning a major news outlet from its platform and banning users for spreading what turned out to be a totally true and verifiable story.
So everyone is so upset that Apple is again advertising on a platform that has for all intents and purposes used its ability to interfere with the free spread of information that was pertinent to the election not because they did THAT, but because of Musk.
Dunno, seems like people yell the loudest when you get closer to the truth. The term "HANDLED" was used by the staff at Twitter on multiple occasions in response to the Biden campaign when blocking the laptop story. A story that included ties to the individual running for office. Users were blocked and users banned for spreading what turned out to be verifiable information.
And people are all wrapped up in Kanye West and his idiotic behavior when all he's become is food for more hilarity on South Park.
I'm glad Apple decided to continue advertising on Twitter. I'm not happy with the shenanigans they're pulling in China with Air Drop, but at least this is a start.
So everyone is so upset that Apple is again advertising on a platform that has for all intents and purposes used its ability to interfere with the free spread of information that was pertinent to the election not because they did THAT, but because of Musk.
Dunno, seems like people yell the loudest when you get closer to the truth. The term "HANDLED" was used by the staff at Twitter on multiple occasions in response to the Biden campaign when blocking the laptop story. A story that included ties to the individual running for office. Users were blocked and users banned for spreading what turned out to be verifiable information.
And people are all wrapped up in Kanye West and his idiotic behavior when all he's become is food for more hilarity on South Park.
I'm glad Apple decided to continue advertising on Twitter. I'm not happy with the shenanigans they're pulling in China with Air Drop, but at least this is a start.
Of course, the tweets that they "HANDLED" for the Biden campaign according to Taibbi were nude pictures of Hunter from the laptop that were obvious violations of the TOS. Not stories about the laptop. I'd call that a completely normal, expected response. But somehow that's evidence of a conspiracy.
Just because Elon tells you something doesn't mean it's true.
the anti-elon people in this thread demonstrate the truth of this tweet.. they have been ideologically subverted.
Last edited:
And yet you are talking about a PRIVATE COMPANY, in which thanks to Citizens United, "corporations are people, too!" and are granted their 1A rights. This has nothing to do about "freedom of speech" as Musk has shown complete cognitive dissonance about, but is about what a private company will allow to be shown on their platform. That is NOT freedom of speech.
BL.
Freedom of speech or expression as a fundamental human right and concept is different from that ideal being enshrined in law.
The Constitutionally protected right to speech is to be free from being stifled by the government "Congress shall make no law".
It is generally that certain rights like freedom of expression, freedom of travel, of religion, of self-defense, and self-determination are not universally protected by law. At least in the US, but are generally considered fundamental rights granted each human being.
So while Twitter or any Corportation censoring users is not a violation of the Constitution, it does violate the ideals that make up the basic building blocks of human dignity.
Can Twitter, or Facebook, or Google censor what's on their platform legally? At the present, yes they can. Same as this web site can delete my posts if they wish. They are not a government entity and can do so.
Is it considered bad form to do so if it runs afoul of the posting rules as posted? Or if one of those above listed entities, do it at the behest of one political candidate over the other in an effort to sway elections in their supposed favor?
You bet it is. Just because it's not illegal doesn't mean it passes the smell test. For the most part, people who aren't brainwashed by their political "tribe" see this and find it unsavory. Kinda like Apple turning off Air Drop only in China at the request of China during political uprisings. It stinks, and everyone knows it.
Thank you. Because of this post, and what Musk did to Kanye West, you just that this thread thread, and everyone supporting Musk, be held in abeyance.
BL.
Free speech has never meant forcing private companies to post speech that they disagree with or simply don't want to post. Funny how people continually promote violating the free speech of others in the name of free speech.
This is patently incorrect and demonstrates gross ignorance of corporations and the Citizens United decision. Corporations have always been recognized as a person in some purposes.
For example corporations have enjoyed long standing protections under the 1st, 4th and 14th Amendment. Citizens United merely clarified and restored the 1st Amendment rights for corporations and unions that were legislated away in 2002 regarding making expenditures in support of or in opposition to candidates.
Like the decision or not does not matter but at least get the facts straight.
Last edited:
So let me get this straight, you have the gall to post a link from Fox News with material that comes from another right-wing media source in a discussion about objectivity and truthfulness of news sources. And I'm supposed to take you seriously?? Lol K. The guy's analysis is laughable if you look at how he arrives at this number. He attributes public money going to universities and tax deductions taken by individual donors in order to arrive at his figure. What’s also funny is that even with the guy’s pro-defund-NPR agenda, he only manages to manufacture a figure as high as 25%.Inaccurate - more like 25%. But in the end - the funding is not the only issue - its the influence of government office holders on outlets. PBS toes the party line for the Democrats and the connections and influence we have seen with the government and Facebook, Youtube, MSNBC, CNN, and up to now - Twitter - shows our media is integrated with the government.
Taxpayers Provide More Than 25 Percent of NPR's Funding, Analyst Says
One analyst argues that NPR's $166 million budget is actually made up of more than 25 percent of taxpayer dollars and that its member stations across the country hauls in another 40 percent of public funds.www.foxnews.com
Browning starts his analysis with NPR's roughly 900 member stations across the country, which provide 40 percent of the organization's annual revenues. Browning says that money amounts to 20 percent of taxpayer dollars for the Washington-based NPR.
Revenues for the local NPR affiliates stem from a number of sources, including 5.8 percent from federal, state and local governments, 13.6 percent from universities, and 10.1 percent from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, or CPB.
But Browning noted that the federal government provides 99 percent of CPB's funding and asserted that more than 10 percent of the university funding is fueled by tax dollars based on the assumption that three out of four university-supported stations are publicly funded.
That adds up to 25 percent of taxpayer money for the NPR member stations.
If the biggest criticism you have about my news sources is that one of my secondary news sources gets negligible funding from public monies, then I would appear to be doing pretty damn good. Meanwhile you appear to believe Fox News and the American Thinker are objective and trustworthy news sources. 🤣
Where does the rest of your news come from? Murdoch's mouthpieces and the Babylon Bee?
Last edited:
Painting fascism, intolerance, and rhetoric encouraging persecution as simply "other ways of thinking"("unpopular speech"), and portraying blatant criminals as victims of censorship and "leftist" political ideology
-Those are some of the reasons well-functioning societies can only work with limits on free speech.
I didn't say I didn't like the decision. What I am saying is that one can not claim "freedom of speech" and grandstand on that with what Musk is doing, yet turn away, plug their ears, and scream as loud as they can when they get called out on their duplicity and hypocrisy when Musk did the same exact thing to West. Musk's actions completely undermine the argument being made for "freedom of speech".
No-one here supporting Musk has yet to address or reconcile that issue with their stance. The only thing that can be said is that "Musk can do that because Twitter is a PRIVATE COMPANY," which undermines the entire argument of freedom of speech altogether.
BL.
The first amendment would also include to right to not be compelled to make speech. If Musk doesn't want West on Twitter, the platform he owns, posting swastikas that's his right.
Exactly. One in this case is either pro-Musk, or for full freedom of speech. Anything less is a crock. So it makes one wonder which side of that ledger the Musk supporters in this thread lie.
BL.