Free Speech

Gatekeepers Very Afraid That Elon Musk Will Remove the Gates From Twitter

$43 billion takeover bid reveals knowledge-class anxieties over free expression

|

News Thursday morning that the outspoken serial tech entrepreneur Elon Musk has offered to buy Twitter and take it private has surfaced widespread anxieties within the knowledge-class industries that free speech and even societal peace will be jeopardized if the Tesla CEO lifts content restrictions from journalists' favorite social media platform.

"I am frightened by the impact on society and politics if Elon Musk acquires Twitter," wrote Max Boot, columnist for The (Jeff Bezos–owned) Washington Post, on Twitter. "He seems to believe that on social media anything goes. For democracy to survive, we need more content moderation, not less."

Boot is a longtime apocalyptic troll—past lowlights include declaring that "I would sooner vote for Josef Stalin than I would vote for Donald Trump," and advocating the Federal Communications Commission go after Fox News to forestall "the plot against America." But his anxiety about allegedly unfettered free speech is revealingly common in media, academia, Silicon Valley, and the government.

"For somebody with a lot of money to just come in and say, 'Look, I'm going to buy a part of this company, and therefore my voice as to how your rules are adopted and enforced is going to have more power than anybody else's' — I think that's regressive after years of [Twitter] trying to make sensible rules," University of California, Irvine, law professor and former United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression David Kaye was quoted in Vox on Tuesday. "Twitter has stepped away from this idea of it being the free speech wing of the free speech party, and being a more realistic custodian of speech on the platform."

Those "realistic" and "sensible" rules Twitter has adopted include banning thousands of political provocateurs (including then-President Donald Trump in 2021), suspending entire news organizations for publishing stories that turned out to be largely true, creating warning labels for COVID-19 "misinformation," strengthening filters for allegedly threatening speech, and so on.

"After all that, bringing Musk onto the board seems like a big step backward," former Reddit CEO Ellen K. Pao wrote last week in The Washington Post. "Musk calls himself a 'free-speech absolutist,' but like many 'free speech' advocates, he willfully ignores that private companies are free to establish some limits on their platforms."

At the core of these objections is the notion (misguided, in my view) that social media platforms, once they achieve a certain ubiquity, should be treated less like private companies, and more like utilities—subject to robust government regulation in the name of both the greater good and the protection of historically disadvantaged minorities.

"Musk's appointment to Twitter's board shows that we need regulation of social-media platforms to prevent rich people from controlling our channels of communication," Pao wrote. "For starters, we need consistent definitions of harassment and of content that violates personal privacy….If platforms continue to push for growth at all costs — without such regulations — people will continue to be harmed. The people harmed will disproportionately be those who have been harmed for centuries — women and members of marginalized racial and ethnic groups. The people who benefit from unrestricted amplification of their views will also be the same people who have benefited from that privilege for centuries."

The notion that unfettered speech hurts minorities hardest, therefore justifying protections against hate speech, is belied both by the history of the gay civil rights movement in America (as spelled out in Reason by Jonathan Rauch), and also by the experience in 1930s Germany, as Jacob Mchangama, author of the recent Free Speech: A History From Socrates to Social Media, explained in February to Nick Gillespie.

But those Hitler analogies can be just too tempting to fact-check. "Today on Twitter feels like the last evening in a Berlin nightclub at the twilight of Weimar Germany," tweeted City University of New York journalism professor Jeff Jarvis, who has otherwise spent much of the last two decades celebrating the "death of the gatekeeper."

Musk, love him or hate him, makes for an odd authoritarian. An immigrant who built a fortune on clean-energy companies, an entrepreneur who (along with competitors) showed what nongovernmental industry can accomplish in space, the pot-smoking former Saturday Night Live host has shown zero interest in running for public office or recruiting jack-booted thugs to enforce his preferences. And yet it's not just silly lefties like Robert Reich comparing the guy to actual evildoers.

"The world's richest man — someone who used to be compared to Marvel's Iron Man — is increasingly behaving like a movie supervillain, commanding seemingly unlimited resources with which to finance his mischief-making," Felix Salmon wrote in Axios.

Added former Chicago Tribune metro editor Mark Jacob: "Elon Musk is bad news. He should start his own platform, maybe Oligarch Social, and leave Twitter alone."

Perhaps ironically, the social-media-as-public-utility mindset is being embraced not just by a growing number of left-of-center knowledge-class professionals, but by some of their antagonists in the nascent trad-con right. "Twitter should be a public utility controlled by a rightly-ordered state," Harvard law professor Adrian Vermeule tweeted today. "Short of that, I'm not sure I care which particular billionaires use it as an ideological playpen."

Populism of all ideological flavors tends to treat not just government but constitutional principles as instruments, to be used bluntly against ideological opponents. Twitter may have had some libertarian, anything-goes roots, but in the Trump era especially the company has become both the professional plaything and ideological piñata of the white-collar left.

Reich, helpfully, laid out the stakes this morning: "Trump must never be allowed back on Twitter."

NEXT: The Feds Will Return More Than $1 Million in Marijuana Money That California Cops Stole From Armored Cars

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I love the part where the fiduciary board is going to meet with the employees for input instead of the shareholders they owe due diligence.

    1. This is the end result of "Stakeholder Capitalism" which is the end result of people needing to relabel Communism, which is the end result of Communism's utter inability to provide anything other than heaps and heaps of dead bodies and misery.

      1. Ding, ding, ding.
        Someone knows history.

      2. All of it in testament to the grand thinking of Marx and Engels.

    2. Where's Jeff to explain why this is better.

      1. Elbows deep in an industrial sized tub of Haagen Dazs?

        1. Maybe elbows deep into Tony.

          1. I just discovered that it’s possible to laugh and dry heave at the same time.

          2. Can’t it be both?

    3. I wonder if the shareholders can sue for that move.

      1. See my comment to Longtobefree below. I don't believe they can sue, but they can vote to remove and replace the board.

        1. Depends on how far into "rejecting" the deal they go. Just rejecting the deal because they promise they can do better is fine. Rejecting the deal and adding expensive poison pills to the executive andboard contracts now, probably not so fine.

          1. Here's how it goes down. Musk offers them more than Twitter is really worth. The value of the stock inflates. The board rejects the offer. Musk sells his share for the now inflated price. The stock goes down in value. Musk uses the money he made from the stock sale and his original capital and buys up shares. He now makes a LOWER offer. If they again reject it, the process repeats until stockholders throw the board out OR until they accept his bid. It's a hostile takeover in real time. This should be fun to watch.

            1. Musk just said he has a Plan B. Musk will end up owning Twitter.

            2. I’m certainly enjoying the whole spectacle. The right people are hurt and angry.

              1. A nice bit o' satire from the Babylon Bee:
                https://youtu.be/rFNCsSBnYVg

            3. the best thing will be when trump is back on twitter. get your popcorn.

            4. Today's Sinfest cartoon features a Twitter Twit.

    4. Gatekeepers Very Afraid That Elon Musk Will Remove the Gates From Twitter

      Nah! The Federal pursestring holders for Musk will see to it this will never happen.

      1. They should be more afraid that the same folks pushing for a four day work week and "life balance" will now have to work regular hours and report to a boss instead of making lame excuses. Just the removal of layer after layer of fact checking overwatch squads will improve Twitter's bottom line. While "healthy at any weight" is viewed as a liberal virtue, sloppy overweight companies waste money and become bloated on their own image.

    5. They need to determine the level of severity inherit in Musk's self-evidently violent act of spending money to make a purchase.

    6. So true! And they call TRUMP a "threat to Democracy?" You can't make this stuff up.

      1. Great. There weren't enough antichoice National Socialist Trumpanzees impersonating libertarians, now they're adding fake objectivists to the failed election-reversing coup--at a magazine with no Capitol Police guarding it.

    7. I love the part where the fiduciary board is going to meet with the employees for input instead of the shareholders they owe due diligence.

      Like many high tech companies, the assets of Twitter consist mainly of three things: a brand name, a user database, and a collection of employees. If the majority of Twitter's employees decided to quit, the value of the company would drop substantially.

      Now, arguably, Musk has the resources to deal with a mass exodus of current Twitter employees should he take the company private. But for now, the board really does have a fiduciary duty to take the views and preferences of employees into account to some degree.

  2. Great article. Recalls the Reason that got my attention in the late 90's. More of this please.

    1. It’s refreshing compared to one of Welch’s earlier takes about conservative speakers:

      https://mobile.twitter.com/mattwelch/status/1102654202545913857?s=12

      1. Yeah, is that the red wedding comment? Because that comment left me with quite a bit less respect for anything he says about free speech.

        1. Yep. Welch is a lefty hack playing at libertarianism.

      2. I wonder.... all these people objecting to Musk's Twitter takeover; what party do they affiliate with?

        1. Probably a bunch of less-than-worthless scum-sucking piece of Democrat fecal matter.

        2. The CCP. But, you knew that already, right?

    2. It is refreshing, but also leaves one wondering when they will revert to form.

  3. So if they turn down the offer, can Musk sue as a shareholder saying they ignored their fiduciary duty?

    1. I don't believe so. If the shareholders believe the board has ignored their fiduciary duty they can vote to remove the board and replace them with the people, but beyond that Musk's only other option is to acquire more shares or garner proxy votes for a hostile takeover.

      1. *replace them with *other* people

        1. You had it correct the first time. Shareholders can replace the NPCs on the board with people.

      2. Here's what may be a curveball for you: How about criminal RICO charges? It would be one thing if it were a strike and the board were negotiating on behalf of shareholders to get employees back to work and the company making money again, but this is essentially the board and the employees conspiring on how to use shareholder funds while telling shareholders to fuck off. And really, given various employees' associations with BLM, Antifa, etc. very much is a case of using shareholder funds to support effectively criminal endeavors.

        I admit a bit of a reach or a pipe dream (especially given the likelihood of whomever brings the charges winding up fired and/or the target of an angry mob), but filing RICO charges against Big Oil for not telling investors about climate change loudly enough would seem like a pipe dream to me as well.

        1. climate change is 100% fear mongering fiction.

        2. It's not RICO, dammit!

          Humor aside (and even though it really isn't RICO), the Board turning down a tender offer is not automatically a dereliction of fiduciary duty. They could honestly believe that remaining as a publicly-traded company is in the shareholders' best long-term interests (even if selling might be better in the short-term).

          It's not even binding - the Board can recommend against accepting a tender offer but they can't stop individual shareholders from selling or Musk from buying. The most the Board can do is switch it from a negotiated buy-out to a hostile take-over.

          1. I admit to IANAL. I only suggested RICO as, unlike the Big Oil 'conspiracy', this actually seemed to be the cookie-cutter case for RICO where low-level footsoldiers were committing actual, no-shit crimes of arson and extortion/intimidation (CHAZ) orchestrated or organized by an overarching, non-criminal (largely) authority.

            Like, if it suddenly became a thing on Twitter to burn Teslas as a way to fight capitalism, it would seem like prima facie RICO even if the narrow legal definition didn't support it.

        3. It would actually be a greater violation of fiduciary duty if the board did NOT shop around & accepted Elon's offer outright, in the event they think they can get more than ~$55/share...

          This sort of thing rarely-if-ever starts and ends with acceptance of the first offer posed... Unless the company is a complete turd (Say it's really worth $20/share but the buyer doesn't know that) & the board is more than happy to cash out....

          1. "This sort of thing rarely-if-ever starts and ends with acceptance of the first offer posed..." Because there's a conflict of interest. In most takeovers, the first thing the new owner does is fire the board from what are usually highly-paid part time jobs. Many of the board members don't own enough stock to benefit more from selling their stock at a higher price than they lose with the job. But aside from the financial considerations they lose power, and leftists like the Twitter board want power more than money in the first place.

      3. Coincidentally, I identify as a highly paid member of Twitter’s board of directors. If they deny me my seat, they are goddamn Nazi racist bigots who are all literally Hitler.

    2. Musk, or anyone, can sue anyone else at any time. Whether or not they deemed to have standing by a particular court, or whether the lawsuit goes anywhere, are entirely different questions.

  4. So if they take the offer, does the class action suit become moot?

    1. No because the class action is solely about an alleged injury that occurred between Mar 24 (when Musk's ownership apparently crossed the 5% line) and Apr 4 (when his ownership stake was formally disclosed). The alleged injury is that they could maybe have sold their shares during that short window for a few bucks more than they actually got. Management taking this new offer has nothing to do with the "losses" alleged to have already occurred.

      1. What's their legal theory that Musk owed them a duty to disclose?

        1. SEC regulation. I forget the paragraph number but it's expressly spelled out in the code. When Musk crossed the 5% line, he had (again I don't remember the exact number) days to publicly file a particular form saying so.

          1. Ten days. (I read an article about it, I certainly wouldn't have even known that was a thing, otherwise.) I dunno how actual damages would be counted though, how does anyone figure out what the stock prices would have been if he had announced on time?

            1. If that's Business days, then he disclosed well within the timeline. If it's calendar days, he technically missed it by one day, but he couldn't have filed on a Sunday.

              1. As I recall the prior article, his duty to disclose triggered on Mar 24 (which presumably meant that he crossed 5% on Mar 14?) but I can't find that original article so please excuse my fallible memory.

                1. I looked at the documents and ran the numbers - He crossed the 5% mark on 3/14 - so legally he had to file with the SEC by 3/24 and did not do so until 4/4 (and he continued to purchase shares between 3/24 and 4/4).

  5. This video is from 2017 Syria, but is yet another lie by Ukraine bots:

    Ukrainian ATGM operators are almost supernaturally good. https://t.co/tPvxlr9kyA

  6. All the worse people are mad about this. That's how I'm certain it's a fantastic idea.

    1. ^this

    2. Shows a dearth of critical thinking on your part.

      1. On the one hand, yes it does. On the other hand, if you lack the time or resources to do a deep critical dive into a complex issue, the mental short-cut "Robert Reich is wrong" is astonishingly reliable.

        1. On the other hand, if you lack the time or resources to do a deep critical dive into a complex issue, the mental short-cut "Robert Reich is wrong" is astonishingly reliable.

          ^

        2. He’s not merely “wrong.” He’s a mendacious lefturd apparatchik pushing an asinine pile of bullshit that would gag a maggot.

          -jcr

        3. If Robert Reich and Max Boot are against something - that's a good indication that it's good for society.

          1. As well as , if they support something , it must be bad for society.

        4. That rule of thumb also works for Paul Krugman.

      2. How so, Tony?

      3. "all the scumbags who want to control what I say and think are against it, so it's probably good" has been 100% accurate in my experience

      4. So it shows an abundance of critical thinking on his part.

      5. ^ one of those "worse" people. good timing Tony.

      6. WaPo, owned by billionaire Bezos, calling Musk out as a billionaire with an improper influence in the media is another tell for you raspy.

        1. I know, right?
          Every declaimation of the purchase appearing in Bezos' WaPo, Bloomberg or the Sulzberger's New York Times, needs the disclaimer "We are being enormous hypocrites" printed above.

      7. When a fascist like Reich proposes fascist policies, it is self-evident to any non-fascist that those are bad policies.

    3. The Democrats are so upset. This must be a great idea.

      1. Berlin, 1933. (There were no libertarians then, only looters of slightly varying persuasions)

  7. "For democracy to survive, we need more content moderation, not less."

    This from a guy whose employer claims "democracy dies in darkness"

    On the other hand, the actions of that paper clearly show democracy can be murdered in daylight.

    1. If Democracy = Mob Rule, the Mob sets the Rules.

    2. "for democracy to survive, we need less democratic methods of doing things"

      1. "Censorship and book burning will save free speech!"

      2. We had to destroy democracy in order to save it.

        1. Reich called for internment camps following the election. We remember, as does Pepperidge Farms.

    3. Another term that is being allowed to be definition changed. Censorship is not content moderation, it is censorship.

      1. To be fair, censorship is when the government does it.

        1. When a government bureaucracy coerces a company into censoring it's political opponents there is no practical difference.

        2. No, illegal censorship is when the government does it. When private citizens (or corporations) do it on their own, it's still censorship, just not illegal.

          1. So any content moderation at all is equivelent to censorship?

            That's a disturbingly broad definition of censorship.

            1. Does this work for you:
              Content moderation is what you do to other peoples speech.
              Censorship is what other people do to your speech.
              Better for you?

            2. Yes, "content moderation" is a synonym for "censorship". That doesn't automatically make it bad. Or more precisely, censorship is bad but in certain circumstances a lack of censorship is much worse. In my view, it depends a lot on the expectations of the community consenting to the local rules. If we all agree ahead of time that spam is bad and want the site owner to block spam, that's acceptable censorship.

              This, by the way, is why government censorship is universally bad. We peons cannot realistically consent to the rules when government imposes them by force.

            3. Lol. So, any book not available in the local school library is equivalent to banned?

              That’s a disturbingly broad definition of banned.

            4. Typical. Something is explained to you, then you distort it through obtuse reductionism. This is a lot of why you’re regarded as a retarded Marxist here.

            5. So any content moderation at all is equivelent to censorship?

              No, not "any" content moderation. But suppression of speech based on political ideology on platforms that purport to support free speech and liberal values is indeed censorship.

    4. This from a guy whose employer claims "democracy dies in darkness"

      It was once a warning. Now it's a rallying call.

      1. The USSR, East Germany, and other socialist countries were "democracies". That's the kind of "democracy" that WaPo and NYT want to create.

    5. For some reason, the word "Orwellian" keeps popping into my mind.

    6. Oh, the irony of posting a comment about this article in a moderated comment section!

      The Post still takes journalistic ethics seriously. More noise is not more light.

      As for the suggestion that Max Boot speaks in apocalyptic hyperbole, let's not forget that Trump's base is not just eagerly awaiting the end of the world, but hoping to precipitate it. Because the Bible tells them so.

      1. Puff puff give motherfucker.

        1. Hi R Mac. Afraid I don't know the hip 50's lingo. What are you trying to communicate?

            1. It was puff, puff, pass where I lived in the 80s. "Give, motherfucker" seems awfully agressive for potheads.

              1. Not when Keith David is saying it.

      2. Which moderated comment section?

        1. What do you think happens when comments are flagged?

          1. In my experience, nothing.

            And moderation in this context usually means that someone approves each comment before it appears publicly.

            They will sometimes delete spam comments and things like doxxing and potentially illegal stuff.

            1. Nevertheless, they say "We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time." So that's that.

              1. If you get Bezo's cock any further down your throat, you are going to choke...

              2. That's the usual CYA legalese. What matters is what they do. Not what they say the have the right to do.

              3. Yes, they reserve that right. Theoretically, that would allow them to censor messages based on political viewpoint. But they don't actually censor based on political viewpoint.

                For all their numerous faults, Reason even tolerates massive criticism, even insults, of their staff.

            2. Like Buttplug’s child porn links.

          2. Nothing, they don't even remove the bots. It's a useless button. They've allowed outright calls for genocide that have been flagged and not removed.

            1. I know Nardz is unhinged and potentially dangerous, but saying all “leftists” should die doesn’t qualify as genocide imo. More like political mass killings.

              1. He’s not wrong. If your kind won’t leave in peace, it’s going to get real fucking bad for you.

          3. Well, for decades we've dreamed that it might actually signal someone somewhere to review the thing, but we've learned that all it does is hide it from view of the person who flagged it.

            Moderation, *snerk!* We don't even have a preview button.

          4. Hi Mary!

      3. So, they both suck then. We knew this already.

      4. I think calling this comment section "moderated" is ... optimistic. I'm pretty sure Reason has as many job openings as positions in its "moderation department", and has for a while.

        1. It’s nice to give leftists the beatdowns they deserve.

      5. The end of you faggots' world, sure.

        1. They can’t come to an end soon enough.

    7. "For democracy to survive, we need more content moderation, not less."

      This is one of the most horrifying things I have read since I started posting here. And that includes realizing that Rob Misak doesn't believe the Holocaust happened.

      1. Yeah, you leftists really hate Jews.

      2. This is one of the most horrifying things I have read since I started posting here.

        Yet, it comes from people with your political views.

        And that includes realizing that Rob Misak doesn't believe the Holocaust happened.

        Well, and that shows how screwed up your priorities are. I mean, Misek is stupid and uninformed, but his erroneous historical beliefs don't actually harm anybody.

        You, Nelson, on the other hand, advocate policies that keep millions in poverty, promote racism, and promote wars and imperialism.

        1. "Yet, it comes from people with your political views."

          I don't think a libertarian said that.

          "but his erroneous historical beliefs don't actually harm anybody."

          I didn't say it harmed anyone. I said it was horrifying.

          "You, Nelson, on the other hand, advocate policies that keep millions in poverty, promote racism, and promote wars and imperialism."

          You'll have to actually tell me what policies I "advocate" for that do any of those things. I am an unabashed capitalist, which does the opposite of keeping people in poverty. I oppose affirmative action, so I guess if you wanted to be dishinest you could say I promote racism. I am adamantly opposed to military adventurism and deploying US troops for purposes other than self-defense (and no, fighting them over there before we have to fight them over here isn't self-defense).

          You are very good at unfounded accusations, not so good at detailed or principled discussion.

          1. I am an unabashed capitalist, which does the opposite of keeping people in poverty.

            Based on your prior posts, you're about as "capitalist" as Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden.

            You are very good at unfounded accusations, not so good at detailed or principled discussion.

            I'm not attempting principled discussion with you. I'm expressing my contempt for you.

      3. Orwell rolls in his grave.

    8. In the past tabloid journals with headlines such as “Male Woman Impregnates Self” were relegated to the checkout line in the super market.

      Is there an equivalent way for Twitter to handle well crafted lies about the plumbing of our elections?

      1. Twitter has the right to delete whatever they want from their website, for whatever reason they want. Same with kicking undesirable people off.

        Every single social-media site is private property (a separate matter from whether the corporations that own said property are 'publicly traded'). They don't have to be fair. They just have to abide by whatever contracts govern their business - and there is no contractual agreement between a business and it's nonpaying guests (as there is no consideration changing hands).

        Unless there suddenly exists a *government owned* social-media site (something like 'publicforum.us' or 'speakoutamerica.gov' - which because it is government owned cannot restrict citizen speech), the First Amendment only protects the corporation that owns a particular site from being forced to transmit speech they disagree with by the government.

        Someone posting on reason.com should understand this concept.

        1. Every single social-media site is private property (a separate matter from whether the corporations that own said property are 'publicly traded').

          They operate on public infrastructure, publicly regulated infrastructure, with public subsidies, subject to special legal exemptions, subject to a corporate charter, and subject to anti-trust law.

          They don't have to be fair. They just have to abide by whatever contracts govern their business

          And they have to abide by the rules that Congress sets for operating under the numerous legal constraints and frameworks that apply to them.

          Someone posting on reason.com should understand this concept.

          Actual libertarians understand that we don't live in a libertarian society; that Congress can and does frequently restrict what people can do with private property in ways that are incompatible with libertarianism and with the US Constitution as originally envisioned.

          1. "They operate on public infrastructure, publicly regulated infrastructure, with public subsidies, subject to special legal exemptions, subject to a corporate charter, and subject to anti-trust law."

            This describes almost all (if not all) businesses in America. You'll have to be a lot more specific in your complaints.

            "And they have to abide by the rules that Congress sets for operating under the numerous legal constraints and frameworks that apply to them."

            Again, every business in America.

            "Actual libertarians understand that we don't live in a libertarian society"

            Really? None of us realized that before now.

            His point is that libertarians should be able to distinguish between private companies being able to create rules for their products as long as they don't violate the law (a good thing) and government censorship (a bad thing).

            If there was an appetite for a social media site that allowed absolute free speech, the market would provide it. I believe Reddit and 8chan still revel in free, uncomfortable speech on their platforms. Truth Social is a thing, right? I'm sure there are others, but I don't even use the well-known ones that cultural conservatives complain about, so their unrestrained competitors are largely unknown to me.

            1. His point is that libertarians should be able to distinguish between private companies being able to create rules for their products as long as they don't violate the law (a good thing) and government censorship (a bad thing).

              And my point is that there is no such thing as "private companies" in the libertarian sense in the US today. Therefore, it makes no sense to analyze Twitter in those terms.

              And people like you and Dave_A actually understand that; you aren't even attempting to engage in honest debate.

        2. Are you saying he really is Batman?

          1. Shit wrong place for this reply.

        3. Here's a crazy thought, they have to abide by the rules they set down, and those rules cannot change based on color of skin, sex, sexual preference, creed. Otherwise they are in violation of their own terms of service, not to mention, shitty people, and hypocrites. Someone posting about the topic at reason.com should understand this.

        4. and this is why musk wants to buy the company to reform it and restore free speech. he's not advocating for government intervention, but want to solve the problem himself. twitter is not violating the 1st amendment, but they are certainly not allowing free speech. twitter hates free speech and i hope that musk succeeds. i would favor as close to zero moderation as possible.

    9. By "democracy" Noo Yorkers mean Tammany Hall.

  8. I bailed at Max Boot.

  9. It's times like this that I wish I were a trillionaire, because I'd buy companies like twitter, implement my vision of the company with an iron fist, and if anyone complained, employees protested, or some other backbone provider cut off my access, I'd fire everyone, turn off the lights, chain the doors locked and DOD wipe every hard drive in every storage system in the company.

    1. If you were a trillionaire, and a backbone provider cut off your access, why wouldn't you just buy the backbone provider?

      1. Anyone who did that without CIA/NSA blessing would get hammered with an anti-monopoly suit.

        1. That's why I'd hold out for being a quadrillionaire. Build a Dyson Sphere and make sure the CIA/NSA was on the wrong side.

          1. Don't forget Joe Kennedy's SEC

      2. 3d chess

    2. You would not stay a trillionare very long if you flushed money down the toilet like that.

      Elon behaves like Bruce Wayne trying to hide being Batman when interacting with the general public...

      But he does seem to have a knack for actually *making money* by producing useful products (cheap spaceflight & high tech cars) when he's actually working...

      Since having fun being 'America's Class Clown' is less viable if you are broke, mission #1 has to be 'avoid becoming broke'...

      1. But he does seem to have a knack for actually *making money* by producing useful products (cheap spaceflight & high tech cars) when he's actually working...

        Yes, and they guy is smart. But keep in mind that his money mostly comes from government, either directly or indirectly. Neither his electric cars nor his space flight company would be feasible in an efficient, rational market.

      2. Are you saying he really is Batman?

  10. You have to laugh.
    All the fascists in a panic because the truth might not get suppressed.

    1. There are a lot of people who think liberty is a very bad thing.

      1. Like every democrat.

    2. "Truth".

      1. Submissive.

      2. Truth.

      3. Exactly. We all know Hunter’s laptop is completely innocent, the Russians got Trump elected, Fauci never sent money to Wuhan, Covid came from bats, and all the global warming models have perfectly predicted the climate. Stop spreading disinformation you jackals!!

      4. Lets put it this way. All those on your side, which dominate twitter and are in bed with the govt narrative, pushed every lie by big pharma, and every piece of misinformed, anti-science, inaccurate information.

        The AHA links got cited as "dangerous" by twitter because they mentioned myocarditis as a possible side effect in the young. The fucking AHA. This was considered "dangerous" to the truth

        Lab leak got flagged as dangerous and misinformation. Now we have an abundance of evidence that this was likely the case. The govt was working hand in glove with big tech to get anything not on the side of the narrative censored.

        So yes. You are on the side of the actual fascists. And it has come out time and time again that what you pathetic fucks try to label as "the truth" and call a conspiracy theory...we keep finding out a few months later that it was actually: the truth.

        As stated above, the people howling about this is a perfect indicator of who the real enemy of free speech is. "Liberals" should be fucking embarrassed about how far they have gone from their principles.

        1. Shitlunches never had any principles.

        2. Yawn, more nonsense conspiracy theories...

          The misinformation related to 'myocarditis' is the idea that the minute risk of myocarditis makes the vaccines dangerous & justifies refusal.

          Reality is that you are more likely to get myocarditis from natural infection, and that the variety that occurs as a rare vaccine side-effect is treatable/non-life-threatening.

          1. The misinformation related to 'myocarditis' is the idea that the minute risk of myocarditis makes the vaccines dangerous & justifies refusal.

            Your totalitarian mindset comes through again; in fact, I don't have to "justify" refusal. It's my body and I determine what goes into it.

            Furthermore, for young people, the risk of myocarditis from the vaccine actually appears to be higher then the risks from COVID-19.

    3. You seem to know "the truth" when you see it. What is it? Did you discover it on Twitter?

      1. Seek Jesus for your answers. Pilate asked the same question.

  11. Those "realistic" and "sensible" rules Twitter has adopted include banning thousands of political provocateurs

    That would be ONE way of describing it... another would be censoring solid, well-done journalism. Another would be censoring non-political scientists who were questioning narratives built by the federal government... at the request of the federal government, etc. I could go on. But not everyone banned was simply sending trollish mean tweets.

    1. How did Twitter censor journalism? I can read whatever published materials I want, no matter what Twitter does or doesn't ban. How low do you want Twitter to go? Do you want it literally to have NO guardrails?

      1. Chad_yes.jpeg

      2. Do you want it literally to have NO guardrails?

        Nice try, Nanny Stater. Twitter does have an age requirement. The users are not children.

      3. They are pissed that Twitter - along with all of the non-tabloid media - looked at the crap Rudy Giuliani tried to pull with the NY Post and 'A USB drive containing the supposed contents of Hunter Biden's laptops'...

        And said 'Bullshit, we aren't allowing that on our property'....

        If you actually believe that what Rudy gave the Post is genuine, unaltered material fresh from Hunter's laptops (that Rudy never had access to, because the FBI already had them in an evidence room), you have to be the most gullible person on Earth...

        1. They are pissed that Twitter - along with all of the non-tabloid media - looked at the crap Rudy Giuliani tried to pull with the NY Post and 'A USB drive containing the supposed contents of Hunter Biden's laptops'...

          Except it was his laptop he left at the computer store, and it was the content of his laptop, and Twitter and the other media outlets censored it as "Russian disinformation."

          A year and half later, they're finally admitting, "Well, yeah, that stuff was on his laptop."

        2. And the point, fuckwit, is that the Democrat-voting media provided the Biden administration with in-kind support to avoid bad press hurting his campaign.

        3. If you actually believe that what Rudy gave the Post is genuine, unaltered material fresh from Hunter's laptops (that Rudy never had access to, because the FBI already had them in an evidence room), you have to be the most gullible person on Earth...

          So you are saying that Rudy had no access to Hunter Biden's laptop and fabricated the contents out of thin air? That's absurd.

          Can you name a single leaked fact/email from Hunter Biden's laptop that has been shown to be false?

          Can you name a single leaked fact/email from Hunter Biden's laptop that Hunter Biden has unequivocally denied?

          1. Is this idiot a new 50 center, or has it been around before? I seem to recall the name and the stupidity they all repeat the same talking points, so it's hard to say.

      4. Translation: guardrails are gorilla-faced guards whose job it is to tie Lady Liberty to railroad tracks.

  12. For democracy to survive, we need more content moderation, not less.

    Fuck Max Boot.

    1. In a just world Max Boot would be hit by a bus.

      1. Of course Boot is wearing a fedora in his Twitter bio.

      2. Get him to say he will testify against the Clinton's, the bus would be on the way shortly

      3. Perhaps when Elon take over Twitter, you'll be able to coordinate Max Boot's murder there.

        1. Poor troll.

          1. Whose sock is this?

            1. The IP is registered to Fredrick B. Irving. G-men lack creativity.

              1. I'll bite. Who's Frederick B. Irving?

                1. Check his initials.

                2. That would be the F....B....I. That's not slow on the uptake, that's just wanton refusal to think.

      4. In an honest world his first name would be Jack.

    2. Max Boot has always lived up to his name.
      He did when he was a National Review neocon and he is as New York Times "liberal".

    3. Once a upon a time, Max Boot was a semi regular contributor in conservative publications. Then Trump came along and broke him.

      I used to read his column. The guy is NOT who he was. Even if you disagreed with this take on the war in Iraq back in the day, you would notice that he wasn't a partisan hack that he is now.

      1. Probably because Boot's main thing has ALWAYS been getting the US involved in foreign wars. If he didn't seem like a partisan hack, it's because the GOP and him happened to be traveling in the same direction at the time over that one issue.

        Trump's desire to get the US out of the Middle East and crapping all over John McCain and the Bush family was what made dickheads like Boot, Jennifer Rubin, and Bill Kristol move over to the Democrats.

        1. Boot has two major agendas it seems. Settling old world grudges with the "czar" and regime change in the middle east to aid...well you know. Neocon to the tee...large authoritarian govt to meet these ends is fine..as well as young American kids from the South getting their bodies blown apart so Boot and Rubin and the rest can create their "Vienna 1925" world for them and their friends. This is why he fit in so well at NR.

        2. Boot is just another zionist shill for israel. He along with the other zionist neo-cons like Perle, Kristol, Wolfowitz, the entire lot of them including Chaney got America into a twenty year quagmire in the middle east.
          Guess who benefited the most from it. Sure as hell wasn't the American people.

      2. Partisan hackery seems to pay more.

  13. "After all that, bringing Musk onto the board seems like a big step backward," former Reddit CEO Ellen K. Pao

    You have been banned from '/r/FreeSpeech'. You may not post to '/r/FreeSpeech'. You may still view posts in /r/FreeSpeech, but you cannot contribute. Thank you for participating in /r/FreeSpeech.

    1. Why are you summarizing Ellen Pao's reign as CEO of Reddit?

    2. I should mention her net worth is roughly $150M

  14. Can you imagine the shrieks and screams if the Trump/Reich roles were reversed. Imagine Trump stating "Robert Reich must not be allowed to spread his communist plans on twitter. They are dangerous to Democracy"

    1. "Th-that's different because fuck you!"

      1. I never thought I'd see the movie "Idiocracy" play out in real time.

    2. Adbusters, the people behind Occupy Wall Street, were telling people the other day to let the air out of the tires of SUV's and leave a flyer on the windshield telling the owner that this would continue to happen if they didn't switch to a more 'carbon friendly' vehicle.

      So, attempting to intimidate SUV owners into buying new vehicles by threatening to repeatedly vandalize their property until they do. This is the literal definition of terrorism.

      Twitter is okay with it.

      1. Posted the flyer on how it was done. Nothing to see there.

        It is for the cause. You can't have change without adding Climate to the name.

      2. I guess they're limiting their target to SUV owners and not truck owners because they're worried the latter might actually kill them and dump their body in the woods if the owner caught them doing it.

        To be fair, it's a legitimate concern.

        1. To be sure.

        2. I need to start working on a list of good dumping sites in my area.

        3. A lot of truck owners also own firearms.
          Just sayin'

      3. Just sold my SUV this weekend and bought my first pickup truck. Yeah, Don't mess with it.

      4. You'll notice they aren't trying that in any right to carry state.

      5. If I catch some snotty little SJW letting the air out of my tires, I will dislocate every one of his joints from the shoulder to his fingers.

        -jcr

        1. Beat him until he refills the tires with a bicycle pump.

  15. "Musk's appointment to Twitter's board shows that we need regulation of social-media platforms to prevent rich people from controlling our channels of communication,"

    But she never had a problem with Zuckerberg or Dorsey. Fuck Ellen Pao.

    1. Rich people own every channel of communication we have. ISP, phone, tv, radio, newspapers, social media, all owned by rich people.

      1. And it has ever been thus. It wasn't poor people who owned newspapers. It wasn't poor people who could afford to hire town criers. It wasn't poor people who could afford to be patrons of minstrels, painters or sculptors. Despite all that, electronic communication channels are the least rich-dominated that we have so far.

    2. The problem isn't rich people. It's rich people with the wrong politics. Especially libertarians. You know, evil people like Musk or the Koch brothers. They're the worst because, get this, they think people should be left alone to their own devices! You know, not asking permission and obeying orders! They're so infantile! People need to be controlled!

    3. If you fuck Ellen Pao eventually she sues you.

    4. In a just world, Pao would be destitute after paying every red cent she had to Kleiner-Perkins for smearing them.

      -jcr

    5. Fuck Ellen Pao.

      You really don't want to; you'll be embroiled in a gender discrimination lawsuit the moment you pull out.

  16. "Musk's appointment to Twitter's board shows that we need regulation of social-media platforms to prevent rich people from controlling our channels of communication," Pao wrote.

    Well, Ellen Kung Pao and I can agree very strongly on part of this.

    1. BTW, this proves again that the Silicon Valley Elite aren't interested in free speech... at all, let alone half a dozen other rights Americans enjoy. When the most powerful corporations on the planet that deal almost exclusively on communication and messaging on a global scale, having almost all of them hostile to free speech should be getting a lot more attention than it does.

      1. Some times life comes at you fast and sometimes it takes you a really, really, reeeeeally long time to realize that 'protection for blocking and screening of offensive material' isn't about ensuring free speech.

        1. It only pertained to scat porn.

      2. I think many of the original Silicon Valley elite prized this stuff heavily. They are largely gone now, like the Old Gods who decided to leave the mortal world to the humans without interference.

        Dorsey, Musk, and others are part of that middle vanguard that still has a foot in the mortal realm. They won't actively criticize their compatriots, but I know for a fact that behind the scenes they were trying to wage a battle for free speech.

        The problem was that for every Silicon Valley billionaire, there are HUNDREDS of silicon valley millionaires who are standard liberals with lots of option cash to throw around. And as soon as the Millennials started joining these companies en masse, they really changed how these companies operated.

        When I was at [unamed tech company] circa 2005, the leftist nutjobs merely bitched and moaned about the deplorables on internal mailing lists. They certainly out-numbered the conservatives, but they never thought about stopping dissent. But by 2015 that had changed. If you voiced a conservative viewpoint on internal mailing lists someone would ALWAYS respond "That makes me uncomfortable" and you got a visit from HR. And once the arguments were purged from the work space, the next step was enforcing their viewpoints on the masses.

        A single CEO can't run their company wholesale. They didn't realize that the new wave of lefties handling operations were not Liberal, but fascists until it was too late. Dorsey and others didn't realize they had lost control of their company until it was too late.

        1. When I was at [unamed tech company] circa 2005, the leftist nutjobs merely bitched and moaned about the deplorables on internal mailing lists. They certainly out-numbered the conservatives, but they never thought about stopping dissent. But by 2015 that had changed. If you voiced a conservative viewpoint on internal mailing lists someone would ALWAYS respond "That makes me uncomfortable" and you got a visit from HR. And once the arguments were purged from the work space, the next step was enforcing their viewpoints on the masses.

          Like I've said before, it wasn't necessarily the advent of social media as it was the release of the first iPhone that heralded the eventual death of free speech on the internet. Bear in mind that Millennials have largely been indoctrinated in HEAVY cultural marxism by Boomer and later even more radical Gen-X college professors.

          It's a lot easier for radical leftists in tech--people who are already incredible wierdos to begin with, and with a massive grudge from not being popular in high school--to coordinate a censorship campaign and manufacture consensus when people are online all the fucking time now with their smartphones. Sarah Jeong's "The Internet of Garbage" is basically one of their main holy books.

          1. "It's a lot easier for radical leftists in tech--people who are already incredible wierdos to begin with, and with a massive grudge from not being popular in high school--to coordinate a censorship campaign and manufacture consensus when people are online all the fucking time now with their smartphones."

            The funny thing is that in my experience it isn't the socially awkward nerds who are doing the worst stuff.

            If you think some MIT/caltech/Carnegie/Stanford engineer is affecting this censorship you are wrong. That kid likely has lefty leanings, but he is busy building machine learning systems, open source software, and distributed compute systems. But his VP hired people to moderate content- and then later train the ML systems that automatically moderate content. They then hired someone from Harvard Business School to run business operations. And they convinced the COO to hire a Diversity and Inclusion Czar, and a Clinton-admin lobbyist for the company PAC.

            When I say that the Silicon Valley elites lost control, this is what I mean- they were always interested in the tech. They had a blind spot for lefty authoritarians, and those millennials snuck in and became the community managers, and moderators, and later the dev managers, hr managers, and bizops vps. Trump wasn't banned by some dude with an MS in Computer Science. He was banned by some Harvard or Yale graduate who was Director of Community Integrity and spent his senior year interning in Pelosi's office.

          2. I read an article the other day saying we are basically raising our kids to be autistic. The imposition of screens in lieu of humans makes kids more responsive to artificial intelligence and lessens their ability to interact with actual humans. While not all children exposed to screens become what would be a seriously medically limited person, those who are in tech and are highly successful, are often dysfunctional when it comes to responding to emotions and people in general They don't like the unpredictability of people. The child who has to have his sandwiches sliced diagonally and who pitches a fit when they are not cut that way becomes an adult who cannot stand humans.

      3. Part of the problem is you have "defenders of free speech" dutifully shoving their head up their ass and screeching "private company".

        1. To be sure.

    2. Did this bitch say this line with a fucking straight face?

      Let me guess, her solution to keep "rich people" from controlling channels of communication, as if that isn't exactly who owns the channels right now, would be to give the government control?

    1. This is the article/podcast I was mentioning in the previous comment. Everyone should watch this.

  17. I'm waiting for Apple, Google, Paypal and Amazon to deplatform Twitter like they did to Gab...

    1. I ran a website for 15 + years managed by GoDaddy. Once I learned that they too deplatformed conservatives, I closed my GoDaddy account. Funniest part is that Im not a conservative, just your average gay Latinx, social justice liberal.

      1. Thank you. We need more people like you who understand that even if you disagree with conservatives it's important that their opinions - EVERYONE's opinions are heard.

        "I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It" - source unclear (Voltaire?)

        1. IIRC its from a biography of Voltaire

      2. just your average gay Latinx, social justice liberal.

        YOU AND ME BOTH!

        1. Aren’t we all?

          1. Some of us are above average.

        2. LatinX : someone with the strength of 10 latinas, or 6 latinos

          1. AS opposed LatinX40, who is only allopathically latin.

      3. So... they lack a magazine of their own?

  18. As a public company any content moderation policies are subject to oversight by the board and shareholders. A private company would have zero oversight and that would be worse.

    1. Fucking idiot.

    2. lol

    3. Why do they need oversight?

      1. Because a very small group of companies has the ability to stop freedom of speech.

        1. And most of them are using that ability to an unprecedented degree.

          1. But the people that are supposed to be overseeing the companies are the ones allowing and even encouraging them to do it (eg, Twitter)

        2. If that was the case you wouldn't know about it. The fact that you know about it means there's plenty of new outlets that are not under their control.

        3. And are being pushed to do so by the "oversight" that exists now.

    4. "... for me and my elite betters." Finished That For You.

    5. I see you made your choice

    6. As a public company any content moderation policies are subject to oversight by the board and shareholders. A private company would have zero oversight and that would be worse.

      Thought experiment.

      A company subject to shareholders, all of whom are hostile to free speech.

      A company not subject to shareholders, with the owner a free speech absolutist.

      Choose wisely.

      1. A private corporation will still have a board and shareholders.

        1. My corporation never did.

          1. Because you're probably a tiny Subchapter S mom-n-pop. You STILL needed executives in place for the incorporation, even if they happened to be your spouse and lawyer.

            If you have shares then you have shareholders. If you're large enough to distinguish owners from employees, then you have a board. Even if you don't call it that. A public corporation just means the shares are publicly traded.

        2. Not necessarily.

        3. It depends on how many people own the private corporation, and how they choose to manage it. If its owned by one person (as Twitter would be, at least for a while, under Musk's offer) it would not necessarily have a board, and Musk could just run it himself as CEO (or a CEO he appoints)

      2. The classic "democracy vs. monarchy" argument.
        With monarchy you occasionally get a wise and principled leader.
        With democracy you're guaranteed to get someone who is mainly seeking power.

        1. Perhaps we would be better off just selecting someone at random.

      3. "all of whom are hostile to free speech"

        Well, that isn't an extreme characterization at all.

        1. How? Why is Twitter run the way it is? Clearly free speech is not valued there.

    7. I was wondering how Shrike would come out against free speech here.

      1. Since you have called me Shrike before, is that a general name you use for people you don't agree with?

        1. You know who you are. Don't lie.

          1. Yes. I'm the same person I've been since I came here. I've never hidden who I am or what I believe.

            If I disagree with someone, I don't pretend they are someone else in a pathetic attempt to ... I actually don't know what you think it would accomplish.

            Why would you want to accuse me of being someone I'm not?

            And who is Shrike?

        2. So you’re Kiddie Raper in disguise? I’m not surprised.

    8. No. And no. That's not what "public company" and "private company" mean.

  19. Boot is a longtime apocalyptic troll—past lowlights include declaring that "I would sooner vote for Josef Stalin than I would vote for Donald Trump," and advocating the Federal Communications Commission go after Fox News to forestall "the plot against America."

    The solution isn’t to break up tech giants, as many on the left want, or to repeal Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, as many on the right want. Breaking up the big companies would simply splinter the public discussion even further and make it even harder to police hate speech, lies and calls for violence. Repealing Section 230, which limits Internet companies’ liability for their users’ posts, would force them to crack down even more on controversial speech. - Max Boot

    So, what you're saying is that when Max Boot says, "With anti-trust free speech will go to to ground and without S230 internet companies will be forced to crack down on controversial speech." he might be framing the situation as an apocalyptic lose/lose false-dichotomy for his own self-aggrandizement? Huh.

  20. I had long since stopped posting anything or following anybody on Twitter; I originally used it as a short bulletin board for local weather conditions.

    A few weeks ago, some twitter news reminded me of my account, so I tried to delete it; nope, you gotta inactivate it and wait 30 days. One of the few policies which was actually useful, because a couple of weeks later, Musk bought his 9.2% stake and I figured maybe it would be worth keeping. I have high hopes. He can't make it any worse.

    1. He can't make it any worse.

      That depends on the person's point of view. People who feel that tolerance means not tolerating intolerance are likely pissing their pants.

    2. Just post that Trump won the 2020 election and they will handle everything else.

      1. Amen!

    3. I joined Twitter just so I could cancel it.

    4. I'm waiting to see if he makes some changes. If so, I may go back. I left after they banned Trump. Figured the worst thing I could do to them, is deny them any add revenue or data about my browsing habits.

      1. Did Reason install a pouting Trumpanzee magnet or is this the only place left that lets us mute them instead of booting them out?

      2. Did Reason install a pouting Trump catamite magnet or is this the only place left that lets us mute them instead of booting them out?

  21. I wonder what Nardz thinks.

    Ha ha ha ha!

    1. Ideas!

  22. "Musk calls himself a 'free-speech absolutist,' but like many 'free speech' advocates, he willfully ignores that private companies are free to establish some limits on their platforms."

    Which is why he's buying it himself, and not just demanding that government regulate it on his behalf. Do these clowns know what the fuck they're even talking about?

    1. It's kind of like the "can't shout fire" argument. Usually when someone says "I believe in freedom of speech but you can't shout fire in a theater" what they really mean is "I don't believe in freedom of speech"

      1. When someone says "fire in a theater", I ask them to state the facts of the Schenk case. That usually ends the conversation.

        1. Thanks for the reference. I had to google it but now I'm more informed thanks to your reference.

        2. Exactly. The case was actually about restricting political dissent.

          1. Thrown in jail for passing out anti-draft leaflets on a street corner. You know, the public square, where content needs to be moderated...

            1. Yes, and overturned by the same court more than 50 years ago in Brandenburg.

              So not only are they saying something that was never really law (the theater comment is in a footnote, having nothing whatsoever to do with the case being decided), they’re quoting a shitty case that was overturned in 1969.

            2. Or like the gentleman who was handing out jury nullification pamphlets in front of the court house.

      2. What about a play about a fire breaking out in a theater? Is that allowed in a theater, or will the actors have to shout "fire" in an open air amphitheater instead?

        1. I think you will find that it was actually FALSELY yelling fire in a theater.
          Yelling fire when there actually IS a fire is considered a good thing.

        2. You have to be dramatic, and yell "conflagration!"

    2. Yet Facebook Google and Twitter have been caught colluding with the dnc and the federal government to be pro progressive propaganda... But that's not fascism thats private company

    3. No one at Reason has ever gone to Facebook's 'about regulation' page in which they beg the government to repeal/replace section 230 and take a more active role in content management.

      As (I think) mad.casual said, Facebook (and the tech companies in general) are asking the government to pull its hair and slap its ass, and Reason can only respond by saying, "Hot!".

      1. Facebook doesn't really want to be regulated, they want their *competition* to be regulated, and are willing to subject themselves to the same regulation to get it because they know they have the resources to be able to moderate content to any degree required, even pre-publication (while still publishing in a timely manner) while any startup competition won't be able to.

        Regulation is simply their way of pulling the ladder up behind them

        1. Bingo, just more regulatory capture. I've come to the conclusion in four and a half decades on this planet, and in this country, when a corporation calls for more regulations of it's industry, it's not out of altruism but to stifle competition. I would vote for the candidate that truly spoke out and explained the evils of regulatory capture, and how it is far closer to fascism than capitalism.

    4. No. They just make mouth noises and hope it's convincing through volume of flow.

    5. His rhetoric is ignorant, though. Twitter exercising discretion is Twitter exercising first amendment rights. Free speech means I don't have to platform anyone on my property I don't want to.

      Sure, he can buy Twitter and have a very expensive platform to say whatever he wants, something he already had before spending tens of billions of dollars.

      If he wants to liberate Twitter to host Covid lies, election lies, child porn, beheading videos, and God knows what else, then Twitter will become less valuable, presumably.

      1. Isn't that what Twitter is doing right now? Almost all the official news has been lies for years now you fucking idiot.

        1. It's possible that all the mainstream sources of information are lying to you in a global coordinated conspiracy. Or it's possible that the handful of rightwing blogs you get your information from are lying to you. Who can possibly say which is more likely?

          1. They've been caught multiple times dipshit. You've even tried defending them, asshat.

            1. That gets memory holed. Tony will never be honest. Debating their kind is a waste of time. Just need to dispose of them.

          2. It's possible that all the mainstream sources of information are lying to you in a global coordinated conspiracy.

            They aren't lying and they aren't engaging in a conspiracy; the people making up "mainstream sources of information" are simply ignorant and stupid. If they weren't stupid, they wouldn't be going into journalism.

      2. When Tony calls someone ignorant, it’s like Michael Moore calling them a fat-ass.

        -jcr

    6. The looter press will be calling libertarians 1st and 2nd Amendment absolutists any day now. This is an offer to wager to folks in Nevada.

  23. If nothing else Musk is shining a 200+ Billion dollar light at the slimy censorship of the social media giants.

    1. It's been beautiful watching them pull their masks off so fast it takes their face with it because the glue can't release quickly enough.

      1. I love seeing progs suffer.

  24. Love it

    https://twitter.com/mcuban/status/1514617987206066182?t=_P9j5d0Vko43UjNm4h8h0A&s=19

    Want to see the whole world lose their shit ? Get Peter Thiel to partner with Elon and raise the bid for Twitter

    1. One of the 'Other Tweets' below that thread indicated that Musk has also offered to buy CNN+ for twenty-eight bucks.

      1. CNN+ sent a letter agreeing before realizing a troll had posted that.

      2. That's like $28 for every person who voted in the 2016 election!

      3. Ridiculous overpay.

      4. Did you see that Chris Wallace is having a cow about how bad CNN+ is doing, and that Discovery is vastly scaling back investment in it.

        1. I hope he walks with no payday and is forced to retire. That would serve him right.

  25. If he does buy it then he's free to do with it as he wishes. If he wants to throw open the gates and let anything and everything go on it, so be it.

    While I think social media can definitely play a hugely negative part in society it's up to the owners to do with it as they see fit (so long as it fits within existing laws of course.)

    I would honestly think it would trend down though after a bit. I think the company would hemorrhage workers who don't care to be a "free speech bastion" like he envisions. People might get tired of the racism, etc. that would flow unfettered, etc. Or maybe not. Guess time will tell.

    1. haha right. That's what will happen. Sure.

    2. Who are these racists waiting in the wings?

      1. DNC, antifa, BLM, California

        1. That fellow on the subway in NYC had a little something to say about everyone. His rant was already on Twitter though, so nothing to fear there.

          1. It's amazing he rants about killing whites in his social media posts (which somehow didn't get moderated, hmm wonder why?) and the feds just charge him with terrorism. So, no hate crime charges?

            1. I believe that's due to what legally constitutes a hate crime. Personally I am not a fan of hate crime (or most other) escalators.

              But unless you self-induce an abortion in Texas, you can't be charged with a crime if what you did doesn't violate the law.

              1. Try again. All you have to do is show that your crimes were inspired by hatred towards another person. They've used tweets and other social media plenty of times as proof of racial motivation against white defendants. Keep covering for a corrupt system.

                1. It’s all he knows.

                2. "All you have to do is show that your crimes were inspired by hatred towards another person."

                  For better or for worse, that is not what a hate crime is.

                  1. Harry Anslinger really hated crime... AND vice too.

            2. In the street video the guy rants about everyone. Asians, whites, blacks, hispanics, indians and anyone else that walks by. Sounds like a nut job, but racist as all get out.

      2. The ones that are currently being censored.

        I do wonder if social media's evolved sense of responsibility has left us blind to the true ugliness that lurks beneath its bans.

        Open the floodgates and let people decide that social media is a such a cancer that they switch it off and go outside. Maybe that's the solution.

        1. The true ugliness is from your side, blatantly cancelling and silencing anyone who steps out of line. Seems to be someone else did that? Who was it again?

          1. By "steps out of line" are you referring to continuous attempts by failed politicians to undermine American democracy? Do you mean brain-addled idiots spreading vaccine conspiracy theories that make people stupid and dead?

            Sorry about rules existing in life?

            1. Yeah, right idiot. And those are both free speech moron. Even if you don't like them. You are defending it because your side is making the rules. That is some good totalitarianism there. Keep defending actual fascism, while you label everyone else fascists.

            2. Tony you support the most evil things to ever exist in this world. It is a testament to the tolerance of conservatives that you have been allowed to live.

              1. Tricky Prickears Slimestoppers== > Ah, the veiled threat to resort to initiation of force as confession of inability to argue with Tony is itself a confession that the scribbler is a superstitious sockpuppet incapable of inference--NOT a libertarian.

        2. Or maybe people will learn to just ignore what they don't care for like adults or at least what were once considered adults.

    3. I would honestly think it would trend down though after a bit. I think the company would hemorrhage workers who don't care to be a "free speech bastion" like he envisions.

      Seems like an effective way to clean house.

      1. Considering the market consolidation of social media, there really can't be a huge pool of open jobs for them to find if they quit en masse. I'm also betting the majority won't actually have the balls to do so, instead they'll just whine about it.

    4. Like the unfettered racism spewed by your subway shooter?

      1. Let's not focus on skin color or ideology. Instead we should focus on the proliferation of guns in our society.

      2. That was "all over the map", according to NBC News.

      3. Try him under the new anti-lynching
        law.

        1. Hilarious. 😀

    5. You really hate free speech, don't you Tony.

      1. You didn’t know that free speech is now tyranny?

    6. Because there is no racism now? You haven't read the blm posts then

    7. I guess only the "correct" kind of racism is allowed, which is what we have now.

    8. Yes they would likely lose a lot of employees, but they would also gain many more who would be proud to work for a company dedicated to free speech

    9. I think the company would hemorrhage workers who don't care to be a "free speech bastion" like he envisions.

      You know what? For the first time ever, I actually agree with something you said. I think that too.

      Of course, I also think it wouldn't have any problems hiring new ones. So, y'know, kind of a wash, really.

    10. "it's up to the owners to do with it as they see fit (so long as it fits within existing laws of course.)" I'm sure you don't see the colossal contradiction in that statement. Utter nonsense.

  26. https://twitter.com/EddieZipperer/status/1514635446365659137?t=eB6VE2YwKTi_Xp6HaKANVg&s=19

    Please update me on what’s happening at the Twitter all-hands meeting!

    Gifs only.

    [Thread]

    1. A dumpster, on fire, floating down a flash flood. Nice.

  27. The Stalinist freakout over this is the best part. If nothing else, thank you so much for this Elon.

    1. This. There's no way they're going to accept his offer, but the trolling level is super-mega-expert. Every fascist had exposed himself, loudly and psychotically. They're on every platform actively saying free speech is vad for democracy. It's fucking glorious.

      I think Musk may have even out-trolled Trump on this.

  28. Perhaps ironically, the social-media-as-public-utility mindset is being embraced not just by a growing number of left-of-center knowledge-class professionals, but by some of their antagonists in the nascent trad-con right. "Twitter should be a public utility controlled by a rightly-ordered state," Harvard law professor Adrian Vermeule

    Who? You guys had to seriously reach for that one.

    Just about everyone on the right I've seen comment about this is cheering Musk on, even the ones who hate his guts because they see him as a government welfare sponge.

  29. The solution isn’t to break up tech giants, as many on the left want, or to repeal Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, as many on the right want.

    You mean as many on the left want. Yes, the right complains about 230, but so does the left. So you have the left wanting to:

    Break up the tech companies.
    Force them to censor more.
    Adjust/repeal/modify Section 230.

    Where the right is primarily concerned with section 230, and as best as I can tell, wants section 230 eliminated or adjusted so tech companies can be sued when they arbitrarily ban speech from the internet, or unperson people who've built a livelihood around a particular platform.

    While I concede that the right's proposed solution probably wouldn't work, and may in fact make things worse, the sense I get is their intentions are more aligned with my own: Re-free the internet, make it more amenable to free speech, less censorious, and make Trillionaire tech ceos who have a red phone on their desk to Washington more accountable, and a little less likely to hit the "off" switch when someone says "Women are women".

    The left, on the other hand has intentions which are directly at odds with anything libertarian or liberty-oriented.

    So be careful who you're clamoring for an "alliance" with.

    1. Or enforce 230 as written. For example if YouTube starts creating content and say that they are editors as they have, then they become liable for the content that is left up. One hypothetical is a crazy person posted videos of his drive from New Mexico to New your saying that he's driving there to shoot people based on race, then you tub now share liability of prior knowledge of the attack.

      1. "For example if YouTube starts creating content and say that they are editors as they have, then they become liable for the content that is left up."

        That is not how 230 is written. 230 as written specifically distinguishes between a company's content that it produced, and content that it hosts but is made by others. It is specifically allowed to produce content, edit that content, and publish it, and that doesn't affect what so ever its right to moderate as it sees fit, and the fact that content created by others isn't their liability.

        It's fine if you don't agree with how it is written, but it is written that way.

        1. If that was the case then no newspaper would be liable for things written in the op Ed's, or things written by freelance writers

          1. Again, you just are spouting things you wish to be true.

            OpEds are paid. The newspaper pays people to produce that content. They solicit it, review the content and edit it and publish it. They exercise PRIOR RESTRAINT.

            Section 230 protects newspapers too. If they have a comments section, or a forum, or an automated classifieds all that content is protected, regardless of whether they also get the Publisher treatment for their OpEds.

    2. What about pornography? That's protected by the First Amendment, so should social media platforms be prohibited from banning porn?

      There are restrictions a private company can sensibly place upon their platforms. Especially when "conservative" platforms like Truth Social have the most restrictive rules around.

      1. Make up a rating system; allow all or only subsets of users to rate posts. Slashdot has a pretty good rating and meta-rating system.

        Allow curated subsets, with people choosing the gatekeepers they trust to feed them the echo chamber they want.

        There is no need to ban porno or obscenity or wrongthink.

        The only thing which :has to" be banned is by court order, such as proven defamation.

        1. "There is no need to ban porno or obscenity or wrongthink."

          Sorry but this essentially renders online sites to the richest. If I create a site for libertarian conversations, I reserve the right for my servers to not host liberal bullshit or commies.

          I think that there are serious challenges created by the tech elites- but that is largely caused BY the government who has steadily eroded competitive pressures against them. Trying to solve it by forcing some upstart company to allow any and all content will forever reserve these spaces to exactly the rich elites you wish to neuter.

      2. “Especially when "conservative" platforms like Truth Social have the most restrictive rules around.”

        Cite?

      3. What about pornography? That's protected by the First Amendment, so should social media platforms be prohibited from banning porn?

        No.

        One wonders how Youtube was one of the most beloved platforms on the planet and managed to keep porn off its site. I wonder how they did that before they started banning anything which ran counter to a political ideology? It's a puzzlement.

        As Baldric might ask, "How did the one state of affairs become the other state of affairs?"

        1. If you can decide that some speech is harmful and can be censored, you are not a "free speech absolutist," and plenty of other things are fair game, like lies about a pandemic that get people killed.

          1. The lies Fauci, Cuomo etc dished out?

            1. You're a nice person but you're reading the wrong blogs.

              1. I'm not a nice person. And you are an obvious dupe who laps up whatever is fed to you by the self appointed elite.

              2. Fauci admitted he lied, multiple times. Cuomo lied and it's well documented, lied about deaths and forcing nursing homes to take COVID infected patients in, not to mention his lies about his sexual harassment. It's all well documented. If you left your echo chamber for two minutes you would realize how idiotic you look defending these liars. You won't do this of course because you embrace your ignorance, and show it every single day when you post.

                1. I don't think you'll find anyone here who doesn't believe Andrew Cuomo is a total scumbag.

                  1. Your party turned on him. So you are now allowed to think that.

          2. Tony misspelled gets. Red Chinese germ warfare kills, yammering not so much.

    3. I believe the proper solution is to allow users to sue when the company violates their own terms of service; when the company markets itself as "for free speech" or a means to keep in touch with the world or participate in the marketplace of ideas, but effectively violates that by arbitrarily banning users.

      The problem is, the US judicial system makes that impractical. The cost of such a lawsuit is prohibitive and there is no way to recover those costs by winning. Loser pays would solve that problem.

      As long as I'm wishing, there are a lot higher priorities.

      1. THIS! Companies should choose either publisher or platform. And be held to that.

        1. I don't give a crap about that publisher / platform distinction. All I want is for them to be held accountable when they violate their own terms of service or advertising claims.

          I worked at a company ages ago which implemented ISO-9000. As I remember it, it was very simple: you documented what you did (your processes), your customers had full access to it, and auditors showed up once or twice a year to verify you followed your own documentation. That's all I want: hold the companies to what they claim they do.

          1. Companies can change their terms of service at will.

    4. "Where the right ... wants section 230 eliminated or adjusted so tech companies can be sued when they arbitrarily ban speech"

      So if a company doesn't allow anything and everything, it is "arbitrarily ban[ning] speech"? There are no standards that are acceptable?

      Or, more specifically, any standard whatsoever is fair game for a lawsuit?

      1. Yeah that's what's happening. Fuck you're a good little stooge aren't you?

      2. Here's a hint, if history is any indication, you will be among the first against the walls.

      3. I don't think that the required standard should be absolute free speech, with any deviation (banning pornography, or banning doxxing people, or any other behavior considered "undesirable") worthy of legal action.

        The tsunami of lawsuits by grievance trolls determined to punish those who they hate would make viability for any social media company impossible.

        The government is required to protect free expression. Companies are not. And capitalism and free markets depend on that difference.

  30. "We must restrict your freedoms, for Democracy." sounds an awful lot like authoritarian rule.

    Restriction of freedoms 'for Democracy' when the entity enforcing those restrictions isn't a political or government entity really seems like a bit of an oxymoron argument.

    Then again this fits the whole mindset that America 'must' spread democracy all over the world, by force if necessary. With the same effect it seems...some love it and think it's the greatest thing ever, and those affected most negatively by it oppose it vehemently.

    1. To ensure your future, some freedoms must be sacrificed. You are so like children.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Np1A4AGpqSo

    2. It's like adding 'Peoples Democratic Republic' to a country's name.

      It means 'Autocratic Socialist Dictatorship'.

  31. Both the left and the right are crapping their pants over the idea of a social media platform that can't be controlled by the right thinking people in government.

    I say both sides, because the right is just as earnest in its attempt to demolish Section 230 and have the government regulate what can or cannot be said on large social media platforms. They differ from the left only in what content they want censored.

    I would love an environment where there are hundreds of viable social media choices, including Truth Social, but the network effect means that only a tiny handful will become huge, and hugeness does not mean the First Amendment does not apply. Platforms get to make their own rules, with places like Truth Social actually having some of the strictest rules around. No porn, no criminal collusions, no trolling, etc. Alex Jones wasn't permabanned because he was a conservative, he got banned for repeated violations of user conduct rules.

    The problem is that a segment on the right (not all of them) want to engage in divisive hateful speech, and sometimes the platforms overreact. The problem with the left is that they want to police political speech, and sometimes the platforms sees that as a way to get congress off their backs.

    Sometimes the best solution to bad speech is good speech, not getting the government involved.

    1. The problem is that a segment on the left (all of them) want to engage in divisive hateful speech

      1. I have a couple questions:

        1) What constitutes "the left"?
        2) Is there any "middle" or "moderate"? Or are there only two groups?
        3) To clarify, you are saying that zero people on "the left" oppose "divisive hateful speech"? They all not only support it, they all engage in it?

        1. A couple of real if somewhat sarcastic responses:
          1) Walk onto any college campus with a shirt that says "Kyle Rittenhouse is innocent! YES!" and the mob beating you up will constitute the left.
          2) Any "middle" or "moderate" has gone into to hiding because anything less than 100% agreement with the narrative will result in a mob as in 1 above.
          3) Yes. Anything less than 100% agreement with a leftists position results in cries of racist, sexist, homophobe, transphobe, etc. This is the start, with escalation taking several forms, but among them being doxing (see Nicholas Sandman), physical assault (see Andy Ngo), firing from job (see Lt. William Kelly), harassing innocent people from a bar (see Thor Benson). These are but a few of the most egregious examples. You've been missing them because you want to miss them.

          1. I don"t agree with the far left in general and their economic policies specifically. I live in a college town and have attended presentations from a wide variety of speakers (UD opens most, but not all, of theirs to the public although Covid has changed things a bit).

            I am the one pushing back against the socialist presenters, those in favor of "free speech zones", and those who believe in "microagressions" (to name a few). Are there always a few wingnuts yelling stupid things at me? Absolutely. But they are a small minority that usually gets pushback from the crowd itself without me having to point out their hypocrisy. Most people don't agree with me, but they do it in a reasonable way. They don't threaten me, dox me, or try to silence me. And I've gone to about a dozen talks in the last decade, so it isn't that I got lucky with a good crowd.

            You believe that most peoplw are violent, unreasonable, and intolerant leftist partisans. That just isn't true. There are plenty of people who reject extremists regardless of their "team". Most people don't have the black-and-white worldview you describe above.

            1. Your party is ruled by them.

              1. I'm an independent. I don't have a party.

            2. Well since you all of a sudden know what the far left is, do you all o sudden know what the left is? It seems so. I live within commuting distance to Pittsburgh, so I have attend several presentations and observed the aftermath of many more. I was in the law enforcement ranks during the 2009 G20 conference. I have saw first hand the shouting down of speakers. There is ample film coverage of violence by the party of tolerance. There is documentation of everything that I listed as examples. Is every leftist violent? No I would say that is an over generalization. Would I say I agree with every conservative on every issue? No again for the same reason. When you try to diminish another person’s argument by absurdist reductionism reflexively I counter it with specificity. I listed several specific examples but ‘hand wave away’. Then you presume to know what I believe.
              As a thought experiment picture in your mind Washington DC on January 6 (you know the date time and place when you ‘believe’ democracy almost died) and pick and date during the last summer when Portland OR was having mostly peaceful demonstrations. Then picture both 24 hours later same place and say which one you could more easily identify as having been the site of violence. That is the difference in what frames my beliefs. And then tell me where ‘most’ of the protesters that reject extremists are.

              1. You're making my point for me. Both Portland and January 6th were riots. Neither were supported by moderates. But the argument is that everyone on the left is like the Portland rioters (from the right wing) or everyone on the right is like the Jan. 6th rioters (from the left wing). That sort of extreme view is wrong.

                There are more people in the middle (center-right, center, and center-left) than either extreme. There are more independents (44%) than Republicans (27%) or Democrats (29%). Standing with your back to one wall and saying everyone you see it the "other" is dishonest and extreme. I don't care if it is the right wall or the left wall.

                1. I am not making a point for you. Washington DC suffered damages in the range of a couple hundred bucks for velvet ropes to be be put back in place and to replace a bottle of booze and a podium. Portland OR suffered damages into the millions over an extended period. 24 hours after January 6th there was no "rioters" in DC. For the last 24 months Portland has been a riot zone. The comparison is so dystopian as to be beyond belief...except for the "Boffseyedz" comparison you are trying to see. You say moderates supported neither, yet interviews belie your point (and that is from both sides). But only one of them embraced violence and destruction. I've also never said anything about seeing everyone else as the "other". Again that is you trying to tell me what I believe. I have stated that moderates have gone into hiding. I have stated that anything less than 100% conformity results in attacks from liberals. (Full disclosure, this is not a solely liberal phenomena but is more prevalent from the left. If you desire references they are available upon request, but will be requested in turn.) My back is not to any wall. I stand where I stand, and there is room all around me. That I do not turn to the direction that you do to observe a candle burning and call it a fire because there is a forest fire in the other direction is not an indication of blinders but and indication of relative relations between the volumes involved.

    2. "I say both sides, because the right is just as earnest in its attempt to demolish Section 230 and have the government regulate what can or cannot be said on large social media platforms. They differ from the left only in what content they want censored."

      Dude, this is such a dishonest take, I don't even know where to begin. A few GOP senators and a small minority on the right are in favor of removing Section 230 protection, or more accurately, removing it's protection from platforms that miss-use it.

      A super majority on the left support censorship online and in general. The Dem president actually said, out loud, that he sent user names to FB so they could be banned!!! All the censorship online all slants one direction and there is zero doubt which way that is.

      Comparing the right and the left on this topic is NOWHERE near the same. While the right has their issues, comparing them to the Democrats right now is non-sense.

      1. Well those "few" GOP senators and that "small" minority on the right are pretty damned noisy and are taking up all the oxygen in the room.

        Just look right here on the Commentariat. Section 230 is hated by self-confessed conservatives.

        1. "Well those "few" GOP senators and that "small" minority on the right are pretty damned noisy and are taking up all the oxygen in the room."

          The commenting community at Breitbart and Reason and some Youtubers like Tim Pool aren't exactly sucking up all the oxygen in the room. The Net neutrality proponents (who tried to prevent ISPs from doing to its customers what SM is doing to its users) got 10 times the coverage and attention.

          1. That's the TDS-addled asshole brandyshit still trying to justify his idiocy.

      2. Sadly, I have to agree with Brandybuck. The right is not even trying to control or disavow their fringe on this topic. While I'm going to do my best not to tar everyone with the same brush, that conspicuous silence does make it hard to give them the moral high ground.

        1. What morality? Government benefits predicated on following contract and not being politically biased? Next up it isnt fair tax exempt charities can't use their funds for politics?

    3. The problem is that a segment on the right (not all of them) want to engage in divisive hateful speech, and sometimes the platforms overreact.

      This is true. But it seems to me that many on the left are also engaging in a lot of divisive and hateful speech, which is often tolerated if not promoted on social media.

      1. Painting with the broad brush of racism against whites will get you updoots and retweets, sometimes even a book deal.

        Painting with the broad brush of racism against blacks will get you banned and doxxed. Potentially worse.

        Theoretical "violence" (not violence) against anyone in the LGBT community (which is just normal criticism of their mental problems) is considered hate and will get you banned.

        Actual threats of violence against conservatives has been allowed to stand without bans or even removal in some cases.

        To both sides this is absurd

    4. How is the government involved?

      1. Government has admitted to working with several companies to censor dissenters:
        https://reason.com/2021/07/21/biden-is-trying-to-impose-online-censorship-by-proxy/
        https://www.newsweek.com/biden-administrations-admission-theyre-flagging-content-facebook-sparks-furor-1610257

        "We are in regular touch with these social media platforms, and those engagements typically happen through members of our senior staff, but also members of our COVID-19 team," Psaki said.

        That should answer your question.

        1. He already knew that. Although he’s probably not allowed to know that he knows.

    5. "The problem is that a segment on the right (not all of them) want to engage in divisive hateful speech" Please define "hateful speech".

      1. "divisive hateful speech"

    6. Both Left and Right euphemism coiners insist on the initiation of force. Back in the 1930s they called themselves socialists with various modifiers.

  32. Leftists: Twitter is a private company, they can moderate how they want.

    Musk: Im going to buy all of Twitter and open it up to as a free speech platform.

    Leftists: Elon is Hitler. Moderating how HE wants isn’t acceptable.

    Fuck off, leftists. Go find another host to infect.

    1. They should all go look for one underwater. I'd be happy to supply weight belts.

    2. Do you think it would be a good idea for Hitler to be in charge of Twitter?

      1. Do you think it's good that Big Brother is in charge of Twitter?

        1. But he's not. It's a corporation with a board of directors and CEO.

          1. Yes, like IG Farben.

            1. So of all the corporations with tentacles in government, you decide to start caring the moment Trump gets kicked off of Twitter.

              What a fucking cult you people are.

              1. How long have you been following everything I say about this? Do you have a mic in home, or a back door to my desktop?

                1. I'm for burning Twitter to the ground. My extensive sociological research has clearly indicated that it is a cancer on humanity. It is, after all, an advertising company posing as a speech platform, so we might have known.

                  But there are far worse examples of corporate-government collusion. The petroleum industry owns half of Congress and is destroying the planet. I'm just curious why you don't pick on them.

                  1. Again, how do you know I DON'T pick on them? How long have you had me under surveillance? Or are you psychic?

                  2. Twitter is a cancer on humanity. Prove it.

                    Oh my God! An advertising company. The horror!!!

                    The petroleum industry is destroying the planet. Prove. It.

                    1. The first is more of an opinion. The second I thought was manifestly obvious. The third: Google "climate change" and read the Wikipedia article that pops up. The proof is all there. You're welcoem.

                    2. Tony, keep your climate religion out of here.

      2. No. But a very good idea for a free speech advocate like Elon Musk to be in charge. 95,345,168 times better than current management.

        Next question? These are easy.

        1. This world doesn't need anymore free speech advocates. Speech is not threatened.

          Once some Putinesque fascist gets in charge, then it will be threatened. Right now any retarded halfwit can post his every brain fart to the entire planet. Speech has never been more free. You're worried about something that isn't real. I suspect that's not a new thing for you.

          1. By the same token, you shouldn't care if Musk buys Twitter.

            1. I encourage him to buy Twitter, as I believe he will run it into the ground.

              1. Tony, business expert that he is, displays his expertise by insisting that one of the most successful businessmen in history will run a company into the ground.

                Don't worry, he will be along next to explain how Tesla didn't completely change the game on electric cars, and spacex didn't completely change the game on orbital launch.

                Because for Tony, like most religious zealots, it isn't enough to disagree with a specific action. No, you have to attack the person and ad hom them into next winter. Go to his previous posts and see how he does this for any strong personality who dares to cross the orthodoxy. It is as reliable as a Swatch, and just as plastic and transparent.

                1. The most successful businessman in history pumped and dumped Dogecoin.

                  1. Tony Translation: "Oh yeah I guess I did make an utterly stupid statement, so I better change the subject..."

                2. "Tony, business expert that he is, displays his expertise by insisting that one of the most successful businessmen in history will run a company into the ground."

                  I'm still curious as to what makes Twitter worth this much money. Perhaps it's more for the soapbox it gives a particular ideology than any actual revenues.

                  1. They almost broke even last year. Since Musk doesn’t plan on running off over half of potential users, maybe he can pull it into the black.

          2. Wake up, Tony. We're at the, "Okay, censorship is happening, but it's a GOOD thing," phase.

            I know it's hard, but please keep up.

            1. Yes, censorship is happening. Censorship is always happening. But since it's not happening because of a rule or law passed by government, your civil rights aren't implicated.

              Go whine that a department store won't let you take a shit in the shoe section. Rules exist in life.

              1. Who said civil rights are implicated?

                Elon Musk buying Twitter has nothing to do with civil rights. Yet YOU and your team are the ones who seem upset about it. Odd.

              2. If censorship in the private sector is happening, isn't the appropriate response to take private sector action to rectify that situation? Like, for example, what Musk is doing?

                1. No, private actors are free to censor. That's part of free speech too.

                  1. So to repeat, since the censorship is happening on a private platform (Twitter) and a private person (Musk) is doing something about it (attempting to buy the company) isn't that the appropriate response? Or are you just so torn up inside you can't see it?

                    1. As I said, I am in favor of Elon Musk buying Twitter and inevitably ruining it. I think Twitter is a much greater threat to civilization than Elon Musk. If he ruins Twitter, I'll become one of his fanboys.

                    2. @Tony

                      Tony, business expert that he is, displays his expertise by insisting that one of the most successful businessmen in history will run a company into the ground.

                      I take it you find Tesla and SpaceX failures as Overt implies, hmm?

          3. “You’re worried about something that isn’t real. I suspect that’s not a new thing for you.”

            Haha. Hey tony, how many trannies has Dave chappelle gotten killed?

            Too funny. Damn, dude.

      3. I would not be opposed because I can choose to leave and ignore it.

      4. Oooh, Godwin's Law! What else do you got?

      5. There already was a socialist in charge. He still makes cameo appearances at Sinfest.

  33. The pants wetting is hilarious.

  34. Since when did this stupid bird app become the center of the free speech debate?

    1. Fucked if I know. I have (and plan to have) exactly zero social media accoints and somehow I can still express myself.

      1. Yet you seem okay that others get censored for expressing themselves.

        1. No, I don't think Twitter or Facebook having the right to create standards is censorship, since detailed, nuanced, and controversial issues are available to anyone who doesn't use social media. You are conflating a non-absolutist position on free speech with censorship and it is a factually deficient claim.

  35. "He seems to believe that on social media anything goes. For democracy to survive, we need more content moderation, not less."

    And if we can ban certain popular candidates from running, democracy will be even more fortified.

  36. Musk is the Acid Test to the argument that privately owned entities have the right to pick and choose who says what on their online debates. Statist authoritarians on the left celebrated Trump getting tweaked and deleted on Twitter. They proclaimed it was perfectly ÒK to control the narratives. If Elon goes long and scores a controlling interest he might just do that himself. Trump Tweets are like fingernails down the chalkboard and even the thought of Orange Man's return is causing the antifas and SJW's to crap their pants like Joe Biden in confession. Win, lose or draw we will get to see who is standing where on this one.

    1. Tony's having a panic attack in this very comment thread.

      If everyone is allowed to speak his woke ideology will be held to ridicule and he can't bear that. It's success is completely dependent on crushing dissent.
      And there's hundreds of thousands just like Tony and they're all loosing it. I hope Musk wears a bullet proof vest.

      1. If I'm agitated it's because there is a sea of morons out there having an incoherent bitch fit because a treasonous former president was banned from somebody's property. Because that horrendous fat fuck isn't being given a free platform to spread his filth. For that reason and no other. I'm offended by fascist cults. Quite right.

        My woke ideology gets plenty of criticism. I swear to fuck, you people do nothing but whine about how censored you are on every available website, podcast, and TV show.

        1. Yea, but call Rachel Levine a man and your Depends undergarment overflows.

          1. I can tell you've done some serious good-faith learning on the subject of transgender people.

            1. Dace is right, though. You seem incapable of acknowledging that.

            2. We’ve learned that it’s a serious mental illness.

        2. How did you know I banned Obama from my property? And as much as I don’t like Obama, he’s not fat. So let’s not call him that.

          Racist.

  37. At the core of these objections is the notion (misguided, in my view) that social media platforms, once they achieve a certain ubiquity, should be treated less like private companies, and more like utilities—subject to robust government regulation in the name of both the greater good and the protection of historically disadvantaged minorities.

    Bullshit. Nobody gets their electricity cut off for "being a TERF". (Yet, anyway.) They really do not want social media to be like a utility.

  38. "...Reich, helpfully, laid out the stakes this morning: "Trump must never be allowed back on Twitter.""

    Reich should be tarred and feathered.

  39. I wonder how many minutes it will take Elon to figure out all the things he wants to censor once he takes over. I'm guessing "mean tweets about Elon Musk" is first on the chopping block.

    Free-speech absolutist. How did a below-average internet goon get so much money?

    1. I know its a foreign concept to you lefties, but its called having a job and "producing something".

      Despite what you wish were true, all things dont actually come from the benevolent govt.

      1. But Elon Musk's wealth does, largely.

        He's never invented a damn thing. He made a good bet once. And he used his billions to make pew pew spaceships.

        The point is that it shouldn't be surprising when a very rich person is a moron. Most of them are, at least along some dimensions. Elon did not make billions of dollars being a philosopher.

        1. It shouldn't be surprising when a moron thinks that highly successful people can be morons.

          1. By successful you mean rich. Do you think all rich people are geniuses? What about Paris Hilton?

            1. I've never met her nor seen her SAT scores.

              1. Wanna see mine?

                1. I do... due to the fact that I don't believe you made it past grade 10.

                2. I'll go. I never took the SAT, but my ACT composite score was 33, which put me in the 96th percentile. My last Stanford-Binet IQ score was 128.

                  1. I was a 33 ACT and a 1450 SAT, if memory serves.

                    1. It doesn't, lying pile of lefty shit.

                    2. Call me when it’s perfect and we can talk.

        2. How do you feel about Biden growing up in a middle class family and spending his entire life in politics, not having any specific large inheritance, and now being a multi-millionaire. A neurosurgeon working a full career wouldnt end up with as much money as Biden has as a govt leach.

          More importantly, how do you feel about everyone surrounding him also, despite many of them not having any significant talent, also all being multi millionaires. Being on the boards of international energy companies despite having 0 qualifications for it while raking in millions.

          1. Life long government bureaucrats. Now that's a subsidy for idiots if there ever was one.

          2. Joe Biden is worth less than $10 million. He has a long history of being one of the poorest members of Congress and taking the damn Amtrak home and back. If this is a con, it's the longest con ever. I respect lifelong public servants, even if you don't.

            1. Forbes says he made 17 million in the 4 years he was out of office alone.

              But he's worth less than 10?

              So he had his entire career in the govt up until a few years ago. And managed to essentially accumulate zero net worth. But almost all of his supposed net worth can be accounted for by the money he made in his 4 years out of office?

              That pass the smell test to you?

              1. Tony was deliberately lying to you, so don't expect an answer now that you called him out on it.

                "Biden graduated with a Bachelor of Arts in political science and a minor in English in 1965...
                In 2017, Biden and Jill earned $11.1 million in fees and royalties from speaking engagements and book sales..."

                https://finty.com/us/net-worth/joe-biden/

                1. Whereas Trump makes money the honest way, by grifting his cult.

                  1. Aside from your obvious deflection, care to provide proof of your claims, anyway?

                    In any case, you were wrong about Biden's net worth and had to bring up Trump. What does he have to do with what Biden did?

                  2. The fact that Trump earned most of his money by choosing the right parents and fooling prople into believing his name was a valuable brand has nothing to do with Biden's wealth.

                    Biden is, by any reasonable standard, a rich man. He wasn't when he got elected at 29, but he is now. Did a lot of that come from speaking fees that were increased as he gained stature and visibility in government? Absolutely. That"s how speaking fees work.

                    If you have even a small amount of visibility, relevance, and reputation in your area of expertise, the fees you can get seem crazy to the average person. Now imagine you have been the chair of the Foreign Affairs committee in the Senate and the Vice President of the United States (one of only 49 in the entire history of the country). The fee you can command at that point is mind-boggling.

                    An Olympic gold medallist with a redemption story and a happy ending can get $2k-$5k per speech. Working 30 days in a year will get you $100k without breaking a sweat. Now imagine two people who can command fees many times higher than that. Making over $11 million in speaking fees alone wouldn't be hard to do, and that's without including any book royalties.

                    Joe Biden is fabulously wealthy by any reasonable definition. Just his earning potential as a speaker would make him a shit-ton every year without including his wife's income and any investment income they might have. Don't pretend Joe Biden is just an average Joe. He made his money himself, but that doesn't mean that he is somehow not rich. He is. Very.

                2. "Tony was deliberately lying to you, so don't expect an answer now that you called him out on it."

                  Face it: shatbag Tony is stupid. Entirely too stupid to purposely lie. The pile of shit is not capable of constructing a purposeful lie; he simply spouts bullshit hoping others are stupid enough to accept it.

              2. Of course, given that he was the former vice president, and like all famous politicians, he made lots of money on books and speaking gigs. Also, I don't know how to break this to a libertarian, but it's OK to be rich, even if the Bidens aren't exactly Obama rich.

                1. Doesn't change the fact that you were wrong about Biden's net worth being less than $10 million. Again, you were wrong, Tony. Own up to that and repent.

            2. The Big Guy always gets his cut.

            3. Also...

              Maybe, just maybe, Ol' Joe's image of being the workin class, ridin the rails guy, down to earth guy is something he wanted to sell you. Maybe he desperately didnt want you seeing his family members being appointed to the boards of foreign companies and taking in millions of dollars for access to him. Or his wife raking in millions in speech fees despite not a single person giving a fuck about her or what she has to say.

              Maybe getting filthy rich with foreign money (and of course some domestic) used to buy access to him really would hurt his "aw shucks! im just a workin man from Scranton!" image.

              I respect a lifelong public servant. I just haven't seen one in government yet.

              It sure has been a con, and of course the simpletons have bought into it.

              1. Or maybe you can readily discover all of their sources of income over many decades via Google.

                They aren't even that rich!

                1. I was going to reply to you, but I realize that you are not even worth replying to. I pity you to some degree. I acknowledge that you are persistent enough to have gotten a rise from me and several other people just for your deliberate obtuseness and anti-normal stances. Still for that to be the entirety of your life you deserve pity. I only have a small amount to offer.

                  1. But you did reply to me.

                    1. You were still wrong about Biden's net worth.

          3. Wouldn't you say it takes some brains and talent to get a gig like that? The proof is in the pudding, as they say.

        3. Next time just post "I am an idiot". It's the same point and saves us time. Thanks in advance.

        4. Philosophers never make billions of dollars. Identifying that and avoiding it is step one to being a successful person.

          1. Define success to Aristotle. "How many monopoly money cnotes does Socrates have? Hmmm? Ill hold tge world hostage for one meelleeeooon dollars! Hahahahaha!"

            How long will monopoly money feed your dick envy?

            Not as long as everyone envies aristotle.

            "Truth exists independently of you and your beliefs."

            How much money did hitler have?

            Pssst incedently our best spy in ww2. Seems guy just really really hated those damned british bastards.

            1. Stuff it up your ass, steaming pile of shit.

            2. You're fooling yourself if you think any of those philosophers were rich.

        5. And he used his billions to make pew pew spaceships

          The first private carrier to take humans into orbit, and the first fully reusable megalift rockets in human history. Starship is paradigm shifting. Literal rocket science on a level that Nasa failed to achieve.

          But look at this urban ghetto hick handwave it away. It was the same thing with oil processing and upgrading. He didn't understand that you just don't take it from the ground and stick it in your car. He also didn't understand that solar didn't make electricity at night.

          1. And that's not even counting him being at the helm of Tesla, during its meteoric rise in jumping from a few bucks a share to 1000 a share. And making electric cars actually popular/trendy for the first time in history.

            Obama couldn't sell the chevy Volt (and oh did he try!) to the most diehard liberals despite the fact that they would throw their children in a volcano for him. They hate Elon but will STILL pay 10% over MSRP and line up for years for the privilege to drive one of his Teslas.

          2. Solar makes electricity at night, just not on earth.

            Next, how can anyone be an urban ghetto 'hick'? Do you know common english at all?

            Lastly, where do you suppose all the exhaust from musks rockets go?

            Ill tell you where, you're eating it. Do you think you have tge first clue how fked up some of those chemicals are?

            Lemmy tell you about zantac.
            Nasa launchpad workers all realised they were all developing severe acid indigestion. After they offending chemical, zantac added it to their acid reducer formula to make people addicted to zantac. Turns out it also causes gastro intestinal cancer. And note, that wasnt even from ingesting the stuff that those launchpad workers all died now from cancer. That was just from proximity to the soot long after a launch. You wanna suck musk off but do you honestly think you have the first clue?

            1. Lemme tell you, asshole, that you really should fuck off and die.

          3. I've literally edited books on subjects ranging along the entire oil supply chain. Tell me more about how Obama said 57 states but Trump is genius.

            Elon Musk can have done interesting things while being an emotionally stunted crypto bro. Edison was a lot like that. People are complicated, and there's no reason to worship any of them.

            1. “I’ve literally edited books on subjects ranging along the entire oil supply chain.”

              That sounds like a shitty job.

              So Elon Musk’s plan was to create new and interesting companies, and he’s stupid.

              Your plan is to edit books while spending decades screeching on the internet for progressive democrats to give you equality, and that’s smart. How’s that turning out for you, by the way?

              1. Just fine, thanks, though I have moved on from my editing days. I never did get around to being a drooling sycophant, but perhaps one day I'll try it.

                1. Or perhaps you did, but never realized it.

                  1. The closest I've ever come to being a sycophant was during Lady Gaga's Monster Ball tour.

                    1. I’m sure that beats editing shitty books for a living.

      2. When i was very young, mom and dad taught me money doesnt grow on trees. As it turns out, it is printed out of thin air....

        So i figured it out for myself that the goal here is not to get a job but rather to theorize new and cheaper weapons of mass destruction (:

        I won and i have a pretty big hand in the current value of our currency. Yes, ive been quite upset for quite some time now.

        1. It's a shame you didn't stay young so you could claim your stupidity and assholishness is a product of immaturity, asshole.
          Stuff your head up your ass and take a deep breath.

    2. Elon Musk is definitely smarter than you.

      1. I think musk needs free speach so people become fearful enough think it would be a good idea to try and escape to mars but not sure he's considering such topics like, "oligarchs planning to kill us all and flee to mars and re-settle a depopulated earth." And musk isnt the only one worth mentioning in that regard. Bezos literally simultaniously flaunts bioreaserch and space colonization ambitions. It's really an either or issue with no one with two brain cells connecting the dots behind why you cant do both at the same time. And is it that they're the damned fools we think they are for it or is it really their primary objective.

        Why cant you do both? Firstly, we cant even do the first one. Not only is zero gravity environment highly toxic but its also impossible to repeoduce in it. This revelation jas been intentionally supressed since the 80s when we learned about it. Not only does a human fetus gestate inside out in zero gravity every living thing on earth also similarly mutates this way. No tests have shown that a centrifugal force could be used instead either. Note here that we're already under the effects of centrifugal as part of our evolved dependence on gerotropic forces but also in the opposite direction of how it would be supposed to use centrifugal force to replace geotropic influences. This all but completely proves that not only are we completely dependent on gravity but also that we're completely dependent on an exact degree of it. Any mars colony is already knowingly doomed for failure with whatever pupulation there only having a chance to grow up to hate and resent their own homeworld that knowingly sent them off to mutate in space.

        So not only is a mars colony already doomed to mutate and fail we also have the second point to address about why you dont try to do both of these things at the same time. The plain fact is that we have to re engineer ourselves from the atomic level all the way through our entire genome but we also have to completely fear that field of study entirely. Because of space ambitions. Its much easier to use a field of study to re-engineer the entire phenorypical human genome to instead use that feild of study to anonymously kill us all instead.

        Think of it like a murder investigation. You need to find a weapon and a motive. Here we have a weapon, geneticists. And over here we have a motive, space exploration. With actual space exploration just being the actual ulterior motive of trying to have a ww3 summer home while you wait for a chance to take the whole earth for yourself.

        But musk is a fool. Any war that could depopulate the eath could also wipe out a mars colony. On top of that, its in the population of the earths best interests to kill a bunch of murderous oligarchs on mars first so no one tries some shit to depopulate the earth.

        With nowhere to run, earth could possibly first complete the kind of genetic research necessary to one day leave the earth. But its an either or endeavor.

        Boys go to venus to measure their penis, girls go to mars because they were raised on candy bars.

        1. "I think..."

          Not the least possibility, asshole. Fuck off and die.

    3. Musk is a bit erratic, but he has built highly successful companies based on his belief in what the market of the future would be, not what it looked like at the time.

      People think that Tesla is a car company, but that isn't where its value is. It is a battery company that makes a profit on its proof-of-concept product. Sure, these days they also have some pretty valuable tech properties, but in the beginning he made a battery that could last twice as long as anyone else's and put a car around it.

      Which he then used to make lighter (and therefore cheaper) space vehicles. Which he then made reusable, all for a fraction of the cost of the Space Shuttle. Now he runs the highest-volume space delivery company in the world (governmental or otherwise).

      He is a brilliant capitalist and predicted the market of the future and has dominated it. Whether you think he's the next coming of the Absolutist Free Expression Messiah or a delusional, megalomaniacal internet troll, you can't take what he has accomolished and built away from him.

      1. Musk definitely has a better mindset than both you and Tony, that's for sure. I'll grant that you're a bit better minded than Tony though.

        1. What's the deficiency in my mindset? I built a company that I sold my interest in for enough money that I can do whatever I want for the rest of my life.

          Elin Musk makes more money in a day (or less) than I did when I sold. I sold, he didn't. He wants to keep pushing the future of technology forward, I wanted to do something for the rest of my life that pays me nothing but makes me feel happy and like I'm doing something valuable. We are nothing alike, except for the minimal similarity of building a business from scratch. That makes Elon Musk a richer, more historically important, more relevant (in the grand scheme of things) than I am or ever will be.

          All of that does not, however, mean that he has a "better mindset" than me.

    4. He got a lot of extra money through some kind of bullshit ‘carbon credits’ provided by you democrats.

      1. Compared to what he makes just by owning two of the most innovative, future-relevant companies in the world, carbon credits are a rounding error.

    5. Sinfest cartoons include a Tony character.

  40. Why are fgts and dykes afraid of free speach? For the same reason you can't even cite abc's own coverage of obiden's afghan pederast heroin cartel on abc's own website. Homos and lezbos depend on mass psychosis and denialism for perpetuating their demographics. It has nothing to do with a 'broader issue fallacy' of national security, as a slime bag like trump would have you think, and everything to do with the hard core illegal narcotic trade. While politicians like bush dable a bit, slime fgts like harvey milk CEO that shit. Heroin not only helps fagts build their demographic, it also provides a source of income. First you'll fk anyone on heroin, then you'll fk anyone for heroin. Dope is the core fundimental principle of the lgbt movement and their primary recruiting tool. Just look how they use it to try and build their sk namblanese kpop culture.

    Heroin honey trapping is a world wide foreign policy. Communist intel and capitalist intel deploying it alike. Afghanistan being the primary source of it all. Nam made enough junkies under frank lucas to literally engulf weak minded nations like canada and sk, with the philippines being the only nation in oceana notably resisting. It's mostly the catholic mafia under jesuit networks on behalf of lgbt pretense though.

    1. Nice try, Shrike. Better than your Akbar attempt. If you want to pull off parody properly though, you might not want to sound like a Daily Kos strawman. And study OBL.

      1. Deflection by string of adhoms and likening to partisan bias. Do you have a real challenge or are you just another deflective fgt foaming at the mouth.

        1. Are you able to type complete words?

      2. Explain fgt, why would trump deflect obidens demogoging of his handling of covid by pivoting to obiden's handling of his afghan pederast heroin cartel heroin epidemic? Hmm? With such low hanging fruit like the millions of dead from afghan heroin, why try some rediculous shit like swine flu? Covid is an act of god. All the empty chairs at your fgt dinner table are empty because of jHoes dope habit, but tgen swine flu? Jhoes afghan pederast heroin cartel heroin epidemic is the leading cause of death. Thx to obiden, the whole world has us to point the finger at for why their children are dead or in ruins. But then swine flu? There's no excuse for why he would do that. He could have had a lynch mob waiting outside for jHoe following that debate but instead he decided to show how big of a junky fgt he is also. Note, if you're not saying the same thing, that makes you a junky fgt.

        To hell with trump. Republicans can do better. How about james woods? Theres a guy you could win with.

      3. Even a stupid slime fgt like you could see a james woods ticket has some serious possibilities.

        1. TDS-addled assholes like you can't see anything.
          Fuck off and die; make the world a better place.

    2. "Why are fgts and dykes afraid of free speach?"

      Why do TDS-addled piles of shit constantly lie, TDS-addled pile of shit?

  41. I agree with "Elon Musk is definitely smarter than you" by commenter Brian. I've been active on Boot's comment section and it is remarkable.

    People are advocating for suppression of speech as "democratic" ... which sadly, it apparently is. People who have probably never accomplished much in their public lives, except commenting, fear a person who has accomplished more for humanity than 10,000 of them rolled together.

    Elon Musk is a genius.

    1. Just how many kock sukrs does musk employ n e way? Or does he just outsorce PR to the church of scientology. Have to wonder.....

      1. How many TDS-addled piles of shit are wasting their time proving to be TDS-addled steaming piles of sht, TDS-addled asshole?

    2. But he's never actually invented anything.

      1. As has been pointed out he's made a heck of a battery. He made a re-usable space ship. He made a driveable electric car. He made billions of dollars. 3 of those things he made were his inventions. I'll let you ponder that, or wantonly ignore reality as you usually do.

        1. He invented Zip2. Everything else was a collaborative effort he merely funded.

          I have big ideas too. Some of them even involve pew pew spaceships. What I don't have is a hundred billion dollars to throw at my hobbies.

          I'll respect him when he practices some genuine noblesse oblige. Just build an architecturally interesting mansion, at least. Otherwise I don't reserve respect for people for having lots of money. Lots of very terrible people have lots of money.

          1. He invented Zip2. Everything else was a collaborative effort he merely funded.

            Collaborative effort means he was heavily involved in bring forth his ideas. Don't downplay what Musk has done, Tony. If you had his level of intelligence, you'd have the money to get where he got to. But you've clearly shown you don't.

          2. True. Soros has billions and he’s terrible.

  42. Fascists really hate it when you take away their power to be fascists.

    1. All socialists hate anything that reduces the initiation of force.

  43. Dancing on the head of a pin.

    Nobody, not private nor government should be allowed to violate the constitution.

    Wherever the public go to communicate it must be free or is in violation of the constitution.

  44. look at the demonazis striving to maintain their worldly status ..... Xi/putin are jealous ........ and hitler would be proud of them

  45. The blatant hypocrisy of the left is just staggering.

    “I think that's regressive after years of [Twitter] trying to make sensible rules.”

    What sensible rules? No one knows what they are. Putin and the Ayatollah are allowed to tweet but not Trump or the Babylon Bee.

    This one just cracks me up.

    “Musk's appointment to Twitter's board shows that we need regulation of social-media platforms to prevent rich people from controlling our channels of communication," Pao wrote.

    Pao works for the Washington Post which was an independent newspaper until it was purchased Jeff Bezos, the second richest person in the world! How is that any different than Musk buying Twitter. How about Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook? These people are too stupid or dishonest to recognize the utter hypocrisy of their own reporting.

  46. While it is true that Musk is an immigrant, he was a fabulously wealthy immigrant, financed by his family's South African diamond mines. To make it seem like he made it from scratch is misleading. It is the same false narrative that overlooks the enormous benefits from getting hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars from the parents, upon which the fortunes of people like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Betsy DeVos, Donald Trump and Bill Gates are founded.

    Also misleading is the claim of Twitter "suspending entire news organizations for publishing stories that turned out to be largely true." The author has the nerve to suggest that banning Trump has some relationship to banning truth. Trump is by far the biggest liar in US political history. [Claims to be 6'3" tall, claims to weigh 240 pounds, claimed he would present a tax plan the rich would hate, claimed his inauguration crowd was larger than Obama's, claimed he would present a Republican replacement for Obamacare and then did not do it during his entire four years, etc.]

    Also misleading is the link is to the laughable "Hunter Biden laptop" story, which prosecutors have had for years, without any proof that the laptop belonged to Hunter, or that it was not the subject of tampering, or that it contains any illegal content. Hunter supposedly traveled thousands of miles to leave off an Apple laptop computer at a store just set up, and not licensed to repair Apple computers, which just happened to be the shop owned by a friend of Rudy Giuliani. Instead of emails, it has pdfs of emails, the very format one would use to create emails on one computer and transfer them to another. Trump's prosecutors had the laptop for 2 years, and found no basis for a prosecution of Hunter Biden.

    Even though it might be a good idea to have Musk change the rules at Twitter, to support that idea with one false statement after another is disappointing to read in a magazine called "Reason."

    1. Howard Hughes likewise inherited a fortune from his father who had built a very successful Oil Toolbit Company in TExas.
      Howie,,,,like Elon,,,,,was no slouch.
      Howard Hughes would grow a TX toolbit company into an Oilfield Giant, an Aviation Company, a Movie Studio, a News Agency, a Giant Defense Industry Contractor, AND , somehow,,,,,squeeze the Mob out of Las Vegas.......Oh did I mention "Real Estate Development"?.....The LV suburb city, Summerlin,,,,,is named after Howard Hughes grandmother.

    2. Your embrace of misinformation is a persuasive testament that the political establishment and/or their designated minions should not be allowed to determine what political views are allowed on social media.

    3. "Also misleading is the link is to the laughable "Hunter Biden laptop" story, which prosecutors have had for years ..."

      What's "laughable" is the way supposed "skeptics" such as yourself cling to the fiction that the "prosecutors" are anything other than a gang of corrupt thugs. Instead you 'skeptics' obediently regurgitate whatever government agit-prop you consume in the WaPO and NYT.

    4. If you had the intelligence of Musk, you would find a way to get to where he is right now. But apparently you lack such intelligence.

      Twitter repressed information that turned out to be true, that is actual fact. An example is how masks and lockdowns turned out to be largely ineffective and stopping COVID-19. Your ad hominem attacks on Trump does not change this.

      The New York Times would also like to have a word with you in regards to Hunter Biden and his laptop.

      Seek Jesus and repent.

    5. "...Also misleading is the link is to the laughable "Hunter Biden laptop" story, which prosecutors have had for years, without any proof that the laptop belonged to Hunter, or that it was not the subject of tampering, or that it contains any illegal content..."

      I believe you were the asshole who posted this the day the NYT admitted it was true and "a story".
      You remain:
      Full.
      Of.
      Shit.

    6. BTW, why do lefty shits who truly believe all gov't propaganda adopt screen names like this lefty shit?

  47. Twitter has proven beyond any reasonable doubt....that it is worthless.....Twitter's only function is to obtain "advertizing revenues" by bombarding its clueless users with "useless ads".
    Trump uses twitter.....Journalists/politicians/pundits all apparently have religious devotion to Twitter......I rest my case.
    I have never used Twitter and never will.
    The owners of Twitter are billionaires,,,,and its not my fault.
    Twit is the root word of Twitter.
    Got it? Good.

  48. On real clear politics the headline was "... remove Gates from twitter", and I wondered, are there some establishment Twitter people who worry Musk would remove Bill Gates from Twitter? (smile emoji)

    Anyway, the point I actually wanted to make, I agree with the article although the discussion of some wishing to treat these platforms more like "utilities" seemed a bit odd. The author associated that as being the perspective of those who support more censorship. However, I believe the "utilities" perspective is the one associated with the free speech side. The concept being, your power company or water utility can't shut off your service simply because they don't agree with your political views.

  49. While anyone even remotely conservative/libertarian must agree that if Musk buys Twitter he has the absolute right to change it's corporate policies...

    'Largely true' and the NY Post's Hunter Biden story don't belong in the same sentence together.

    What *is* true, is that the FBI is investigating Hunter for tax fraud (not bribery, as the Trump narrative claims) and has several of his laptops.

    Separately, it is also true that Rudy Giuliani gave the NY Post a USB drive (not a hard-drive from one of the laptops that the FBI has) which he claims contains data belonging to Hunter Biden. And that *some* of that data - but none of the supposedly scandalous items - verifiably does belong to Hunter.

    However, that does not make what the NY Post/Giuliani put forward 'mostly true' - or even likely true.

    Especially since mixing fake data into a sea of innocuous real data is *exactly* how someone would fake this sort of thing.

    1. You're lying. And you know you are lying. And you know you are being lied to ... but you enjoy the lies and are happy to go along with them.

      The FBI itself is a criminal gang, not some neutral and magisterial finder of facts and source of information.

    2. The New York Times would like to have a word with you, Dave. They admitted the veracity of the Post's laptop story, one and a half years after it was initially reported. There's no use to the damage control you're spouting out.

    3. Can you name a single statement by the NY Post that has either been disproven or even been denied by Hunter Biden?

      1. furthermore, the bidens have never denied that the laptop is real, belongs to perv boy, and that the content is real. they know it's real and so does everyone else. the entire biden family is a depraved group of criminals.

  50. Twitter is not a social media platform. It's a narrative control device.

  51. Say what you will about Elon Musk, but I am glad I am alive to watch him in action. He likes to stir the shit, and I think it's great. This must be what it was like to see Howard Hughes in his heyday.

  52. I would love to see Musk buy Twitter, and then shut it down for 90 days to "reset". Liberal heads will explode, and this will be a major trigger event for them. Unfortunately, I don't think there is a chance in hell that the Biden administration will let this happen. The Left considers Twitter their own private echo chamber, and they will do whatever needs to be done to block this.

  53. It's the entitlement mentality again. Leftists feel like they own Twitter and are outraged at the thought of corporate resources not being directed against their political enemies.

  54. These same people already basically told us that they were obligated to steal the 2020 presidential election in order to "save democracy". A little censorship is just icing on the cake.

    1. You can't say they didn't at least make a Good Faith effort to burn down the Reichstag.

  55. Before you start slammign ignorance, you shoudl start by cleaning up your own.

    If "social media" gets treated like a "utility", then all their censorship would end.

    PG&E doesn't get to cut off the power to Nazis, Commies, or BLM members, so long as they pay their bills.

    Same for AT&T back in the "Ma Bell" days.

    What's behind the Left's screaming is that they have their authoritarians running the show, and they don't want that to stop. That's it

  56. Ha ha the pro-censorship crowd is the same ones screaming "BAKE THE CAKE!"

  57. But will our laws be enforced. I'm saying no in thsi case. Think of it as a BLM riot (there were many) vs a Stop the Steal riot (there was only one). If a similar "poison pill" which is illegal since it is not acting in the interest of the shareholders was passed by lets say the Wa Po to prevent a Bezos takeover would the law be enforced?

  58. If Musk got control of Twitter, a number of Twitter employees would quit in protest and a number of Twitter users who had been banned would return. Win-win.

  59. It’s a bit disconcerting that I’m not seeing any libertarian takes taking a particularly critical look at Elon possibly taking over Twitter. From what he’s been saying, including in his TED chat last week, it doesn’t seem to me like his stated plans are really that much different from what Twitter is already doing. He’s proposing an edit button, which Twitter has said is already in the works. He’s proposing to open source the platform, which sounds a lot like bluesky. Some tweaks around verified accounts and Twitter Blue (a kind of lesser-tier blue check for Twitter Blue members and cut the price from $3 to $2). Get rid of bots and scams, which doesn’t seem like a new struggle, but shows there will still be moderation and makes you wonder how new management might change the definition of a “bot” or “scam” to try to more aggressively target them.

    Then there’s the “free speech” line which everyone is seizing on. “Free speech” is a term that people define in radically different ways. Is Elon particularly pro-free speech if you discount his self-descriptions? How will he define the term? One analog is the Tesla-bitcoin saga. Bitcoin is held out as this libertarian project that’s open source and supposedly censorship-resistant and anybody can participate anywhere however they want, sort of like free speech for money. So Telsa buys a bunch of bitcoin and then says you can buy Teslas with bitcoin, but then a few weeks later Elon decides, no, you actually can’t use bitcoin until it reaches some seemingly arbitrary level of green-ness. In a sense he censored bitcoin as a form of payment for Teslas because some people were using this open system in a way he didn’t like.

    So, maybe he’s holding back some plans, but from his statements it seems to me like his plan is kind of do the stuff Twitter is already doing with some tweaks and be more “free speech,” but as that term is defined by Elon.

    1. "...So, maybe he’s holding back some plans, but from his statements it seems to me like his plan is kind of do the stuff Twitter is already doing with some tweaks and be more “free speech,” but as that term is defined by Elon..."

      So if your unproven assumption is correct, it might not change? In that case, who cares?

    2. So, maybe he’s holding back some plans, but from his statements it seems to me like his plan is kind of do the stuff Twitter is already doing with some tweaks and be more “free speech,” but as that term is defined by Elon.

      Yes, so? What's your point? Given the shitshow that Twitter is right now, that can only be an improvement.

  60. Didn't see this above:
    Twitter Employee Undergoes Therapy Over Elon Musk Takeover
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFNCsSBnYVg

  61. Max Boot is worse than a troll, he's an idiot, a neocon, a shill for the Zionists, and a waste of oxygen. Let him continue though to spew his mental trash in the WaPo ( owned by billionaire Jeff Bezos) . Hopefully the WaPo will go the way of CNN.
    The reason why MUsk created such a meltdown among the liberal dunces is that he would free it up to allow all voices to be heard and not just those who only regurgitate the accepted narrative. But we can't have that. All must dutifully regurgitate the only carefully accepted narrative in order to keep our democracy.
    Just remember this: democracy dies in darkness, as has been said.
    Nowhere has there been more support for darkness than been by those who loudly chatter against freedom of speech. And no group has been so malignant, so abhorrent of free speech than the leftists.
    Like all tyrannies, it always begins with attacks on free speech.

  62. The Berlin Wall fell. The Tech Wall will fall, too.

  63. We know what kind of drugs Iron Man likes to take...

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.