Elon Musk Says Apple Has 'Fully Resumed' Advertising on Twitter

[vipergts2207]

ok it's a discussion, not an education. do your own research.

Lol it's not even a discussion. You made an empty, meaningless remark that you offered absolutely zero support for, even when given the opportunity to do so:

not really surprised that you think this.

And asked a question that doesn't make any sense to me and that you failed to clarify, even when given the chance to do so:

or not build a website for him? I just want to see how far your freedom goes..

If you think the fact that you have nothing but empty remarks to make is any skin off my back you're sadly mistaken.

Edit: Actually, I believe I managed to figure out what you're talking about. I assume this is what you're referring to?

Conservative justices signal support for web designer opposed to same-sex marriage

Conservative members of the Supreme Court on Monday signaled support for a Colorado web designer who claims the First Amendment shields her from having to provide services for same-sex weddings in …

thehill.com

Discussions tend to flow better when one is forthright rather than ambiguous and cagey...

 

[ackmondual]

Glad to hear that Apple came back to their senses. Supporting free speech for everyone is more important than making the elite comfortable.

Well, "free speech" according to his criteria. Advertisers were asked when he fired moderation teams, only to have their posts deleted (nm how folly it is to disregard the group of people who are giving your business money)

 

[4743913]

Anyway, it will be interesting to see how many business ads return to twitter now that apple has bent the knee...

 

[A MacBook lover]

Another day of loving Twitter! And loving Elon! Lots of love to spread ❤️

 

[Jumpthesnark]

I favor regulation of all social media companies to mandate free speech or publish their algorithms or that they remove current protections and have to moderate their content and be responsible for it.

I find this highly ironic. Government regulation of private companies' speech policies? That sounds like exactly what the First Amendment was meant to protect against.

This is not a dig against you. Rather it illustrates the very thorny problem that exists. How do we regulate private companies whose very product is speech?

There are laws that affect legacy media, there are FCC regulations that regulate broadcast speech. But with social media, the publishers are everyone who presses the "tweet" or "post" button. The decision over whether to publish something that is defamatory or libelous has been outsourced to the users of each platform. That's why we all have to agree to TOS before posting to various sites (including this one). So if someone complains about hate speech, etc., there is recourse.

Companies like Twitter, Facebook and Youtube need advertising dollars, and for that they need to maintain a service that will be comfortable enough to the general public that they will attract a wide swath of advertisers. So it's in the interest of these services that they are not turned into unregulated hellscapes of toxic speech. That would chase away most users and advertisers.

That or they could go all in, and host a platform that is overwhelmed with misinformation, lies, threats, bots, doxxing, racism, homophobia, antisemitism, etc., creating a space that is just for the worst of the worst. Sadly, I'm sure that's a big enough market to attract some advertisers.

 

[vipergts2207]

I find this highly ironic. Government regulation of private companies' speech policies? That sounds like exactly what the First Amendment was meant to protect against.

This is not a dig against you. Rather it illustrates the very thorny problem that exists. How do we regulate private companies whose very product is speech?

There are laws that affect legacy media, there are FCC regulations that regulate broadcast speech. But with social media, the publishers are everyone who presses the "tweet" or "post" button. The decision over whether to publish something that is defamatory or libelous has been outsourced to the users of each platform. That's why we all have to agree to TOS before posting to various sites (including this one). So if someone complains about hate speech, etc., there is recourse.

Companies like Twitter, Facebook and Youtube need advertising dollars, and for that they need to maintain a service that will be comfortable enough to the general public that they will attract a wide swath of advertisers. So it's in the interest of these services that they are not turned into unregulated hellscapes of toxic speech. That would chase away most users and advertisers.

That or they could go all in, and host a platform that is overwhelmed with misinformation, lies, threats, bots, doxxing, racism, homophobia, antisemitism, etc., creating a space that is just for the worst of the worst. Sadly, I'm sure that's a big enough market to attract some advertisers.

It goes beyond ironic and well into the territory of hypocrisy and as you said, violating the very right these people purport to want to protect.