Twitter employees terrified free speech might break out on the platform.

PM: Twitter employees react to Musk

Why is the left so terrified of free speech?

Is it so terrible to be exposed to ideas with which you do not agree?

104 thoughts on “Twitter employees terrified free speech might break out on the platform.

  1. “Why is the left so terrified of free speech?”

    The LIES you people base your politics on and incessantly spread on poorly managed social media are not “ideas.” They are LIES.

    And, ahem, it is YOU people who are purging actual ideas wherever you can. Using, for example, the government to suppress “divisive concepts.”

    Liked by 1 person

    1. No one I know has tried to purge divisive concepts from social media or the marketplace of ideas, but I do object to authority figures(teachers) indoctrinating children, who are not their equals, with such ideas in the classroom.

      That is not at all the same thing.

      Like

        1. I have many times.

          Telling children that they are guilty for, or oppressed by, the acts of previous generations. That any minority child is due more than a color blind society going forward.

          That confusion over gender creates an obligation on others.

          That they somehow have a right to what was created by others.

          That some opinions cannot be stated in a public forum.

          Like

    2. Beg to differ but it is you guys that are spreading the lies and suppressing rebuttal. Since you bring up the devisive concepts lies as an example, no one said you can’t spout that trash at all but saying you can’t teach that trash to young children is different. No one said you can’t politic on the race card but teaching white children they are oppressors and black children they are victims is insanely stupid and a LIE but I expect nothing less vile from the likes of left wing extremist pigs anyway.

      Like

    3. Interesting that anything you disagree with is a “lie” that cannot be spoken. And that you seek to silence them instead of refuting them.

      If they are so easily refuted, why must they be censored?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. LIES are statements of fact that are not true. Your ascribing a misuse of that word to me is just another LIE.

        And, as you are wont to do, you dishonestly frame the issue. The “left” is NOT “terrified of free speech.” That is your silly spin in what is, in reality, a serious question – What is the role of objective reality in informing the way people think?

        What is actually troubling is the ability of malign actors to flood the “marketplace of ideas” with disinformation. Rather late in the game, the management of Twitter woke up to that serious issue with the mounting evidence that Donald Trump, Russian and other foreign agents, conspiracy theory lunatics, and automated bots overwhelming the “airwaves” with LIES, stoking every division, and exacerbating every wound real or perceived was doing great harm to our nation. And, in the time of Covid, disinformation was killing people in the thousands.

        The damage done by unmoderated “free speech” on these giant social media platforms is palpable. Twitter now probably stepping back from its baby steps to literally “keep it real” is going to be a bad thing. That is what is troubling “the left” if by “the left” you mean people who want a functioning democratic form of government.

        Finally, a small point of order – this is not a “free speech” issue. Twitter is NOT the government. Its past attempts to slow the spread of disinformation on its for-profit service was entirely legal and constitutional.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. RE: “What is the role of objective reality in informing the way people think?”

          What are the options?

          Like

          1. “What are the options?”

            Thinking based on falsehoods is inherently bad, even dangerous, so I am not sure what you are asking. Reality is a cruel mistress. Ignore her at your peril.

            But, if the question is what can be done by a for-profit media company to keep it real, that question is relatively easy. Responsible media answered this question a long time ago. They have editorial policies that involve . . .

            1. Fact checking BEFORE publication and
            2. Clearly labeling opinions as such.
            3. Sanctions to punish those who fail to live up to their journalistic standards.

            That is why you almost NEVER see provable falsehoods in WAPO, NYT, The Guardian, NPR, CBS, ABC, NBC, or any other reality-based journals. And, when such outlets do make errors, they correct them. You may not like their choices of what to cover, but you will not find them spreading disinformation as they do so.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. “That is why you almost NEVER see provable falsehoods in WAPO, NYT, ”

            That was satire, right?

            Of course the real problem is not the things they publish that turn out to be false(like the Russia collusion hoax), it is the true things they suppress(like Hunter Biden’s laptop)

            That is the real value of open forums available to the public. Even if some of what is expressed turns out to be wrong, that they make it harder for the MSM to ignore an issue to death.

            Like

          3. RE: “Thinking based on falsehoods is inherently bad, even dangerous…”

            I see. Maybe we should kill the miscreants.

            Like

          4. “That was satire, right?”

            Uh, no. It is the simple truth. They do their best to avoid falsehoods and when they fail, they own up.

            Your continuing to refer to the “Russia collusion hoax” shows how damaging disinformation can be. Here is a hostile foreign power putting its thumb on the scales of our democracy with the help of members of Team Trump and you seem to believe that reporting on this important fact is part of a hoax.

            Hunter Biden’s laptop received a huge amount of coverage in media you despise. But, honest media did not spread the LIES about what was on it that you are so eager to believe. There is ZERO evidence of criminal behavior by Joe Biden on it. The disinformation that you have absorbed leaves you referring to our President as the leader of the “Biden Crime Family” which is exactly what malign actors want you to be doing.

            Liked by 1 person

          5. What, other than the claim it was Russian disinformation, did the MSM reveal about Hunter’s laptop, before the election?

            Certainly, Russia preferred Trump defeat the warmongering madwoman. That was only sane, but even after a $5million investigation, Mueller could not find wrongdoing by Trump or his campaign,

            As far as Manafort sharing polling data, so what? Polling data can be shared, or even published, at will. It’s not like he was threatening to withhold foreign aid to get a prosecutor in a foreign country fired.

            Like

          6. “It’s not like he was threatening to withhold foreign aid to get a prosecutor in a foreign country fired.”

            Or doing the same to digging up dirt on a political rival.

            The hypocrisy continues to flow.

            Like

          7. RE: “A serious discussion with you is clearly not possible.”

            You are the one who claimed the “role of objective reality in informing the way people think” is a serious question. But when asked to elaborate, you had nothing to offer.

            Like

          8. “But when asked to elaborate, you had nothing to offer.”

            I am not confused about what is real. You very obviously are. Your standard for “truth” is not that a statement of fact matches reality but what “many people” are saying. You really seem to believe that you people can have any “fact” you want to support your opinions.

            As for your comment that had nothing to offer, I offered what responsible journals have always done. You just did not want to hear it. I suspect that is because your favored sources do not have anything remotely like journalistic standards.

            Liked by 1 person

          9. RE: “I offered what responsible journals have always done.”

            Yes, your answer was non-responsive.

            I asked, “What are the options for assuring that objective reality informs the way people think?”

            Your answer: “People should expose themselves to common journalism.”

            But whether common journalism is a vehicle for objective reality was not the question. In effect, your response was to tell people to believe what they are told (to believe). That’s the opposite of being informed by objective reality.

            Like

          10. Uh, what was on Hunter Biden’s laptop that did not get reported before the election? That would be nothing because there is nothing much on it. If there had been, the Trump campaign would not have sat on it for months hoping to create an “October surprise.” Nor would they have restricted access to one very friendly newspaper. As a result of those shenanigans, there was some reporting that the provenance of the laptop was fishy and that is because the provenance of the laptop was and still is exactly that – fishy.

            Your referring to Hillary Clinton as a “warmongering madwoman” and using that absurd characterization as a reason to justify Russian meddling in our election really shows where your mind is. It is not a pretty picture.

            Liked by 1 person

          11. The major network news programs spent, since Oct 2020, a combined total of less than 26 minutes on the laptop issue, and 3/4 of that time was spent dismissing the laptop, hardly any mention was made of the contents prior to the election.

            Newsbusters.

            You’re going to have to define meddling.

            Other countries have always tried to influence UA voters, and so long as they do so openly, there is nothing wrong with that. We certainly try to influence elections in other countries.

            Like

          12. So all those meticulous minutes cataloging more time than NY Post or right wing MSM evidently.

            Why blame media you don’t even read for what they did not write, while ignoring sites you do?

            Family Trump had the laptop for months and said nothing. Post journalists didn’t even want to be on the byline and quit.

            Your folks had the computer, the HD, the MSM and nothing…really? (NY Post and FOX are MSM.)

            So what is the beef?

            Liked by 2 people

          13. The FBI had the laptop before Giuliani had it. It would have been better had they acted on it so Giuliani waited as long as possible for them to bring it out.

            But that does not justify the dearth of coverage by the big three.

            Like

          14. “But that does not justify the dearth of coverage by the big three.”

            Ever the victim. FOX is huge. Not big enough for you?

            NYPost, WSJ not big enough either?

            It seems pretty evident that not only do you demand private companies to report as you see fit, but that your own den of right wing propaganda disappoints.

            Will you ever come to the conclusion that freedom of the press does not mean all should jump on the campaign stage or, as Hannity did, send texts to Meadows to see where he could lie correctly to help overturn the election.

            TASS and FOX, birds of a feather and all red.

            IMHANEO

            Liked by 2 people

          15. Did I say they should be prosecuted for their bias?

            But if the Koch’s came along and bought them and gave them a conservative bias, would you be OK with that?

            Musk is buying Twitter to make it unbiased, why is that a problem?

            Like

          16. “The FBI had the laptop before Giuliani had it.”

            And why didn’t they do anything with it? Because there was nothing there to be done?

            And if Giuliani, the paragon of legal strategies, had ANYTHING provable, then why not release it? Again, because there was NOTHING there.

            I’m not sure which is more palpable here; the hypocrisy or the desperation.

            Liked by 1 person

          17. “The major network news programs. . .”

            The premise of the silly article you linked to is that NBC, ABC and CBS suppressed news of a scandal. What scandal? There was NOTHING on the laptop that was scandalous. I have noted before that the real problem you people have is that not every news organization got sucked in to creating an October surprise out of nothing.

            I have challenged you several times with the question – what of any significance found on the laptop was not widely reported? The result is always the same – no reply.

            Liked by 1 person

          18. “The Big Guy’s kickback is more than enough.”

            Laughable. Or more accurately, pitiful.

            The reference to the “Big Guy” was in connection with the discussion of a possible business venture that he might lend his name and prestige to. The “kickback” was about what share of the equity “the Big Guy” would get in return for taking part. And this was AFTER Biden left office and was a private citizen. So, what is the scandal?

            Cherry-picked words out of thousands of messages (e.g., “the Big Guy”) that can be used to fool the weak-minded is NOT a scandal. The real scandal is that so many right-wing outlets tried desperately to do exactly that – fool the weak-minded. Looks like they succeeded with you. Or are you just dishonest?

            Liked by 2 people

          19. “So, delaying payment . . .”

            Delaying payment? From whom? The deal discussed never took place. The “Big Guy” never got paid.

            What a shithead you are! I mean that most sincerely. Take it as a compliment. It makes you the ideal Trump/Putin apologist.

            Liked by 1 person

          20. So, you think that was the only deal the Big Guy got a piece of the action?

            The emails reveal their standard operating procedure. Hunter made that quite clear.

            You elected a criminal and you just don’t want to face it.

            Liked by 1 person

          21. “ You elected a criminal and you just don’t want to face it.”

            No, you elected him also. We all did because as a citizen you participated in the election and peaceful transfer of power that has spotlighted America for over two centuries.

            It is the “me v. The Enemy” promoted by conservatives in the spell of the Trump Crime Family that has and wants to continue to tear down our democratic republic and replace it with an oligarchy. Legally or not.

            Liked by 2 people

          22. “You elected a criminal and you just don’t want to face it.

            Well, there you go again confirming how accurate my impolite epithet really was. You are determined to stick to your slanders without any regard for evidence or the complete lack of it. Doubly laughable since your hero – Mr. Trump – clearly is a criminal and has been for decades.

            Liked by 1 person

          23. Your cite is 18 months out of date.

            There is $5.2 million that appears on Biden’s tax return that does not appear on his financial disclosure report.

            The source is hidden behind an S-corp.

            Like

          24. Trumps money laundering, tax evasion, stealing from charities, bribes, fraudulent loans…the usual.

            Why?

            Have you seen his returns?

            Where is the graft you are so adamant about, BTW?

            Liked by 2 people

          25. Again, what about Trump’s actions would excuse influence peddling by Biden?

            And don’t forget that while Biden was out of office from 2017 to the primary election, he was the presumptive 2020 nominee. That is a pretty strong bet on future influence to be bought.

            The combination of Hunter’s claims of paying 10% to the Big Guy and $5.2 million in undisclosed income is pretty suspicious.

            Like

          26. Your one-sided attack on the Biden’s while giving a pass to the Trump clan/organization/crime family is so hypocritical that it is disgusting.

            Still no PROOF, as needed in a court of law, to justify your continued accusations of corruption by the Biden’s. LOTS and LOTS of court cases pending for the Trump’s. With PROOF. Go figure.

            Liked by 1 person

          27. Biden released his personal returns, which simply show the income coming from the S-Corps. The source of the income to the S-Corps and their expenses have not been released.

            SO effectively he relased nothing.

            Like

          28. You got it backwards. He released a helluva lot more than his predecessor.

            Yet it it OK by you.

            The Mickey Mouse song is entering my mind at full blast again. H-Y-P… You know the rest.

            Like

          29. Again, how does anything Trump may, or may not, have done, excuse what Biden does.

            It’s not a contest.

            But all Biden has to do to clear things up is to release those S-Corp returns.

            Like

          30. Until YOU admit that TFG (and his cronies) has had as many if not more problems with corruption then you ASSERT Biden has, nothing you says about Biden matters. You give Trump a pass ALL ALONG, but attack Biden with speculation and innuendo.

            Goose/Gander. Take your pick. But until you have VERIFIABLE proof about the Biden’s, while ignoring and in some cases endorsing the actions of TFG, et. al, you should stop.

            Liked by 1 person

          31. “Your cite is 18 months out of date.”

            Uh, it is the same tax years and the same filings being “analyzed” as the last time you spread this smear about unexplained income while President Biden was a private citizen. This is not a new story but provides a good example of how incestuous right-wing media has become.

            Liked by 1 person

          32. “What in Trump’s return make Biden’s graft OK?”

            What graft?

            Despite many years of searching including the criminal attempt to extort manufactured evidence from Ukraine, a full-bore Congressional investigation of Hunter Biden, and review of tens of thousands of private Hunter Biden emails none of you people can even name – let alone prove – a single crime – large or small – committed by Senator, Vice President, private citizen, or President Biden. Literally everything you have has been pulled entirely out of your ass without a scintilla of evidence or detail.

            But that does not stop lying liars from continuing the constant refrain of “graft” and “corruption.” Just today you again referred again to Vice President Biden’s role as a messenger for government policy to the government of Ukraine as if it was somehow corrupt even after the evidence that it was not has been made available to you countless times.

            Such behavior is both childish and uncivil.

            Liked by 1 person

          1. Well, for a start, global temperature has not risen for 20 years.

            The Biden CDC placed equity ahead of age in the distribution of vaccines when they were scarce and desperately needed by the elderly.

            There are many other issues you claimed were lies that have been proven true.

            Like

          2. “Well, for a start, global temperature has not risen for 20 years.”

            I could not make this stuff up if I tried. Your attempt starts with an easily disproven LIE.
            Global temperature HAS been moving upward and during the most recent decades it has increased even faster.

            https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature

            As for your second attempt, just as lame.
            My challenging your white victimhood umbrage at vaccine distribution policy is hardly the same as lying about those policies.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. There’s your problem, you cite a lie as proof.

            Here is NOAA’s Global mean Temp over Land and Water compared to the 20th century average.

            NOAA

            Note that it has been flat the last 20 years, and that the entire range for the value is less than 1 degree C in 140 years.

            Like

          4. “There’s your problem, you cite a lie as proof.”

            Not too funny! I have already provided the same data from the same source. When I provide it, it is a lie. When you provide it, it is the truth.

            The chart shows that the increase has slowed in the last twenty years. Your statement (“global temperature has not risen for 20 years.”) is FALSE. And you cite this false statement as proof that I am a liar?

            Liked by 1 person

          5. The amount of increase the chart shows over the last 20 is very close to flat, and less than 10% of the known measurement error.

            If I say the temperature rise is flat for 20 years, and NOAA shows a rise of .02C plus or minus .2C you think that is a lie?

            The fact is that there has been no measurable change for 20 years, in spite of increasing CO2.

            The lie is that there is an existential threat from fossil fuel use, and that is simply ridiculous when measured against reality.

            Like

          6. LOL!

            Now it is “very close to flat.”

            Well, yes that is a little more accurate. But as the NOAA website points out that is in part due to the effect of an La Nina cooling effect in the last year of the period.

            From NOAA whom you also cited. . .

            “Despite a late-year La Niña event that cooled a wide swath of the tropical Pacific Ocean, 2020 came just 0.04˚ Fahrenheit (0.02˚Celsius) shy of tying 2016 for warmest year on record.

            The 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 2005.”

            Liked by 1 person

  2. There have been attempts to silence speech since words were first spoken I would imagine. Speech is a conduit for ideas. Ideas are threatening to many.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. RE: “There have been attempts to silence speech since words were first spoken I would imagine.”

      I imagine so, too. I read a story once about a soldier in Caesar’s army in Britain who was punished for learning to read. The soldier was punished because knowledge itself was thought of as a possession that belonged to a class above the soldier’s rank.

      Like

  3. I hope Elon Musk is sincere about wanting to rehabilitate free speech on Twitter. I have no reason to think he isn’t, but it is difficult to imagine what a free-speech version of Twitter might look like.

    Ultimately, free speech depends on the audience for speech itself. The law can establish a few basic rules (if only imperfectly), but it is those who hear what speakers say who must be tolerant in a way that allows speech to be free.

    Like

  4. If QAnon can make Americans believe that JFK Jr is alive and coming to Texas to give a speech, imagine what the Russian FSB can make them believe. The plagues we’ve suffered because of misinformation will be amplified a hundred fold if Twitter becomes a totally open forum.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. So, people who agree with you are always right, and the rest of us are too stupid to decern the truth, thus it is necessary for those wo agree with you to restrict what we can read?

      It seems you have little confidence in your ability to prevail in the marketpllace of ideas.

      Like

      1. …”you have little confidence in your ability to prevail in the marketpllace of ideas.”

        Considering to day’s GOP has NOTHING wrt ideas on governing, this comment is milk-out-the-nose hysterical.

        The GOP has ZERO ideas to even bring to the marketplace, yet you accuse others of not being able to prevail.

        As far as restrictions on who can read what, I present to you the “idea” of divisive concepts” which NO ONE has been able to identify. You claim to, but you fail, BIGLY, in your attempts.

        …”the rest of us are too stupid to decern the truth”

        Based on some of the posts here, it appears to be true. Misinformation plays a daily role on this forum and people such as yourself and Mr. Roberts SUPPORT the lies, half-truths, and misinformation. Defending them with phrases such as “for discussion purposes” or “he didn’t really mean what he said” or “he misspoke”, ad nauseum.

        Liked by 1 person

          1. “Facts that you don’t like are not lies.”

            Name an actual truthful, supportable fact that either Len, Adam or myself has ever labeled a lie. I pay close attention and I do not believe you can do this.

            On the other hand, when one of us states that President Biden won the election of 2020 fair and square you people come back by repeating the Big Lie so let me suggest to you that “Facts that you don’t like are not lies.”

            Liked by 1 person

      2. If you think giving Russia and China and ISIS a megaphone to the American public is a good idea then, yes, I question your ability to discern the truth. I do believe the majority of the American public is smart enough not to fall for their propaganda, but if only 1% believes there are child sex rings in pizza parlors or that Mike Pence should be hung, we have a problem. You say you want free speech, but what you really want is the ability for anyone and everyone to be able to shout “fire” in a crowded theater. That is freedom without responsibility and, from everything I’ve read here, that is exactly your philosophy.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. Would you rather people withhold the truth when the theater is, in fact, on fire?

          The remedy for misinformation is correct information, supported by fact and logic, not suppression.

          As far as fringe conspiracy theories go, they are more likely to be believed if you try to silence them than if you report them and then show they are wrong. Suppression of a belief by the government and/or MSM for many people is evidence they may be true.

          Like

          1. IF the theater really is on fire, I would prefer a competent manager leading all of the people safely outside rather than a hysterical usher screaming “FIRE.” The point is, on social media, there are a lot more people screaming “fire” than there are fires. I have a far greater chance of being killed in a stampede from a false fire than being killed by a real fire. I don’t want ISIS to have the ability to scream “fire” inside my theater. I’d expect to be trampled before sane people could come along to explain there was no fire. And, at that point, the people who had trampled others to get outside would swear they saw a fire and to say there was no fire would be a “hoax.” I believe it was Mark Twain who said, “It’s way easier to fool a man than to convince a man he has been fooled.”

            Liked by 2 people

          2. “The remedy for misinformation is correct information, supported by fact and logic, not suppression.”

            Space lasers, bamboo slivers, hacked counting machines, Antifa attacked the Capitol, groomers, The Big Lie, vaccine hoaxes, …all disproven and still the heart and soul of many, if not most, Republicans.

            And this despite mountains of evidence showing them all to be lies.

            Your theory is sketchy at best.

            The old adage of a “lie travels half way around the world while truth is just putting on its shoes” has been proven, thank you.

            Trump and his Russian partners know that if you repeat a lie enough, it will always sow doubt. And doubt is what is destroying our democratic institutions to the delight of most Republicans.

            Still, free speech is about government suppression, not private. You might stand on a street corner to rant about toxic immigrants and taxes and you have a right to do so without government interference. But don’t stand on my roof with a bullhorn.

            Liked by 2 people

          3. “Suppression of a belief by the government and/or MSM for many people is evidence they may be true.”

            So the way I read this, the debunking of false claims WITH proof of the falsehoods is considered “suppression”. ‘Splains a lot.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. Yet when the debunking happens, YOU and Mr. Roberts and Mr. Smith continue to spout the lies, falsehoods and misinformation.

            Who is preventing the opposition form speaking? No one. What is happening is lies are being called lies, mistruths are identified as such, and misinformation is debunked. But the hard core believers, such as the three mentioned above, refuse to believe the truth.

            It’s not a free speech issue; it’s an issue with honesty and the truth and the right wing glitterati and its minions (the 3 above named come to mind) refuse to believe the truth and do everything they can to find “facts” that back their assertions. Counterfactual nonsense is the coin of the right wing realm.

            Liked by 1 person

          5. The list is long an illustrious.

            Every time a theory of yours or JTR’s is put to bed, you go find something that supports it that again has to be debunked. The BIG LIE comes to mind.

            Liked by 1 person

    2. Well liberalisms attempts to convince the public that fairy dust, unicorns and money trees are real in addition to believing boys can really be girls seems much more dangerous but no one is trying to prevent you from saying it. Just not to little undeveloped minds.

      Like

        1. True, 1/10th of 1% of the population has a physical disorder that confuses their sexuality. For that very small number of people, medical intervention may be justified if it can be shown to be helpful.

          But that is a tiny fraction of the number of people who are confused for non-medical reasons.

          Like

          1. “But that is a tiny fraction of the number of people who are confused for non-medical reasons.”

            Last time I checked disorders in the brain are thought of as medical conditions. You seem to be channeling the bigotry that says people choose to have such issues.

            Liked by 1 person

  5. I read your link. Where did it say that Twitter employees, or anyone for that matter, were worried about “free speech”.

    I got the distinct impression that most just don’t like Musk and his reputation as a volatile chief.

    Did you just write what you thought liberals were worried about and not what was in the article?

    Liked by 2 people

    1. The employees were distraught about the changes Musk has ordained. Those pertain to free speech and transparency.

      Twitter’s staff has become accustomed to sitting on their Mount Olympus and ruling on what may and may not be said, answerable to no one.

      Now they’re tripping over theor feet of clay.

      Like

      1. Your bullshit has been called.

        Are Twitter employees “the Left” or is it that people who do not see things your way are “the Left?”
        Is anybody actually “terrified?”

        And what are you so angry about? Do you miss Dear Leader’s insane tweets that much?

        Liked by 1 person

          1. Again, laughable.

            The link is evidence that some Twitter employees are “distraught.” It says nothing about whether they are left, right or center. It certainly is NOT evidence to support the claim you started with – “the left is terrified of free speech.”

            With that said, thanks for the link. Personally, I find a couple of the steps that Musk is talking about to be good ideas. ”

            “I also want to make Twitter better than ever by enhancing the product with new features, making the algorithms open source to increase trust, defeating the spam bots, and authenticating all humans.”

            These are good ideas.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. They’ve been good ideas for years, why does it take Musk buying the platform to make them happen?

            Could it be because these shortcomings empowered the Twitter High Priests to influence the conversation?

            Like

          3. “Could it be because these shortcomings empowered the Twitter High Priests to influence the conversation?”

            Uh, that would be a big fat NO! It was market forces that rewarded Twitter for allowing those things to continue. You know. The free market which you idealize.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. “You don’t have a free market with section 230 protection.”

            Always a “but” when market forces produce a less than optimum outcome. So predictable.

            In any case, it WAS the chance to increase profits, not “corrupt” behavior by Twitter employees that let bots, conspiracy nuts, and Russians run amok on Twitter.

            Liked by 1 person

      2. “The employees were distraught about the changes Musk has ordained”

        The headline on your fox business link say the employees are too distraught to speak. So how on G-d’s Green (for now) Earth do you know this? Could they just be upset about the company they have been loyal to being taken over by someone they don’t think has the companies best interests at heart. How would your former employees have felt if you sold your practice to someone they didn’t believe in?

        Your speculations grow more off the wall each day.

        Liked by 1 person

    1. “Elon Musk
      @elonmusk
      ·
      52m
      By “free speech”, I simply mean that which matches the law.

      I am against censorship that goes far beyond the law.

      If people want less free speech, they will ask government to pass laws to that effect.

      Therefore, going beyond the law is contrary to the will of the people.”

      You can’t get more clear than that. Twitter, according to Musk, should follow the same concept pf free speech as the Constitution requires of the government.

      Like

      1. Why? Would you let people stand on your roof and rant, or should they stand in their own roofs.

        Take away the liability protection now enjoyed by platforms, which you have advocated, would put a huge crimp on free speech in private venues.

        Maybe that would stop gangs from advocating violence, too.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. If my roof were the de facto public square and I allowed people of certain points of view to use it, then I would feel obligated to extend the same platform to those I disagree with, as I do here.

          Like

          1. And if he called your neighbor a whoremonger, you would have to answer to your neighbor.

            This analogy is but so useful.

            Look, the right wing bitches about social media and its biases. Yet, they don’t want or can’t or are incapable of setting up their own social platforms. So they demand that all others toe the line.

            Trump won’t even use his own Truth Social. Other conservative sites are either failing or have only their own extremists vomiting conspiracies.

            Why is that, I wonder?

            Liked by 1 person

      2. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

        I don’t see anything in here concerning a PRIVATE company.

        Like

        1. I didn’t say the way Twitter suppresses speech was unlawful, I said it was wrong.

          What Musk is doing is to voluntarily hold his private company to the same standards as we hold government, and good for him for doing so.

          Like

          1. It was also wrong for private companies to dump their waste and pollute our ecosystem. But you are OK with that, because it is a Market-thing.

            The truth of the matter is I don’t give a rat’s patootie who owns Twitter. I don’t “do” social media (short of this forum). However, some of the speculative comments you have made concerning the employees (they must ALL be “lefties”) and their true feelings of being taken over by someone they don’t believe is good for the company appear to be way off base and, perhaps, a sign of losing touch with reality. -IMO

            Liked by 1 person

  6. And after further review, I wonder why the FL GOP, led by GOV DeSantis, is working so hard to prevent a private company from speaking abut about things they disagree with. I guess corporations have free speech as long as it is ONLY money being donated to political campaigns. But if they disagree with a law that is passed, they are told to shut up or we will take away your benefits.

    Wait until the bill comes due for the taxpayers of Florida.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s