Pedo guy megalomaniacal manchild officially owns Twitter

[legend]

6 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

Both should be "real shit", but since the first one involves Musk, many people ITT applaud the actions taken in Brazil. 

 

When the government can determine without any sort of trial or due process what is misinformation and what is not, abuses will absolutely take place.  

 

It's plausible there is a bit more context to these.

[skillzdadirecta]

On 8/30/2024 at 6:42 PM, mclumber1 said:

Or would it be ok because it would be against people you (rightfully) disagree with?

I guess if you frame Nazis simply as "people you disagree with" this point would stand. Their whole ideology is based in hate and we've seen what happens when that ideolgy as allowed to fester. This isn't a difference of political leanings... this is basically good vs evil at a certain point. Or in a less moral context, social vs anti-social. For me the problem comes from when we start treating ALL ideas as having equal merit when they truly don't for any number of reasons. Only folks in a position of priviledge who seem to be unaffected by the consequences of this type of thinking can afford to see the world this way. 

[skillzdadirecta]

22 minutes ago, legend said:

 

It's plausible there is a bit more context to these.

There is a fuck ton of more context here and "free speech" absolutists are full of shit for the comparison. Musk is INTENTIONALLY allowing misinformation of a certain type to spread on his platform and unlike America, a lot of foreign countries are standing for it because they absolutely know here this shit can head. Americans do too, but we're stupid.  Like he's deliberately doing shit like THIS

 

Elon Musk shares fake news claiming UK rioters will be sent to ‘detainment camps’ – POLITICO

WWW.POLITICO.EU

---

The X owner pushed a made-up headline from a far-right British party on his platform, before deleting it.

 

Why wouldn't ANY country see this as a national securty threat? As @Greatoneshere I don't think there has to be a choice between Free speech and curbing provable misinformation. We can do both. It's a false choice and always has been.

[Jwheel86]

1 hour ago, Jwheel86 said:

 

What is the mechanism for rules making, enforcement, and due process? The details are where these things die. 

 

 

Does your something, executed badly (this is America we're talking about here), only make the problem worse by giving political ammo to the far right populists in your game of whack a mole? 

 

[legend]

6 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

There is a fuck ton of more context here and "free speech" absolutists are full of shit for the comparison.

 

Just to be clear in case it wasn't, I was deliberately understating the matter  

[Jwheel86]

6 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Why wouldn't ANY country see this as a national securty threat? As @Greatoneshere I don't think there has to be a choice between Free speech and curbing provable misinformation. We can do both. It's a false choice and always has been.

 

Howww, give me procedures, rules, enforcement. This all sounds good in practice but the details is where you lose me. What government agency do you want going through Twitter slapping the equivalent of DMCAs on Chud the Checkmark?

[chakoo]

31 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

Both should be "real shit", but since the first one involves Musk, many people ITT applaud the actions taken in Brazil. 

 

When the government can determine without any sort of trial or due process what is misinformation and what is not, abuses will absolutely take place.  

what a shit understanding of the situation in Brazil. The fault is not of the government but of X flaunting the laws of a country. X closed their offices and pulled out all legal representation in the country is what lead to the ban. X seems to have no issues with following restrictions pushed by more authoritarian countries.

[mclumber1]

24 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

I guess if you frame Nazis simply as "people you disagree with" this point would stand. Their whole ideology is based in hate and we've seen what happens when that ideolgy as allowed to fester. This isn't a difference of political leanings... this is basically good vs evil at a certain point. Or in a less moral context, social vs anti-social. For me the problem comes from when we start treating ALL ideas as having equal merit when they truly don't for any number of reasons. Only folks in a position of priviledge who seem to be unaffected by the consequences of this type of thinking can afford to see the world this way. 

 

Not all ideas have equal merit.  You have the absolute right, and I would argue duty, to fight back against evil ideas like Nazism or communism.  The line has to be drawn somewhere, and that line should be government action, especially if that action involves actually silencing speech and/or criminal prosecution.  

[mclumber1]

3 minutes ago, chakoo said:

what a shit understanding of the situation in Brazil. The fault is not of the government but of X flaunting the laws of a country. X closed their offices and pulled out all legal representation in the country is what lead to the ban. X seems to have no issues with following restrictions pushed by more authoritarian countries.

 

The laws of the country are flawed. 

 

Obviously I'm speaking from a very America-centric perspective here, and many on this board disagree with me.  I will agree that Twitter as it exists today is a cesspool with a hypocritical owner who is more than willing to lick the boots of certain dictators in the Middle East, but opposes dictators in South America. 

[Kal-El814]

1 hour ago, Jwheel86 said:

Does your something, executed badly (this is America we're talking about here), only make the problem worse by giving political ammo to the far right populists in your game of whack a mole? 

 

I'm sorry but, "what if Republicans get the reins of power and do bad things with well intentioned legislation," is no argument. Why start social welfare programs, someone will abuse them. Why house the homeless and feed the hungry, someone will just use those for a free ride. Why bother setting up PPP loans and stimulating the economy through the pandemic, some bad faith actors will take advantage of them. Why bother with student loan forgiveness, some people paid their loans off the right way. And so on and so on.

 

I'm not big brained enough to sit here and be able to craft effective policy myself. But the fact that things could be worse is not a compelling enough reason to maintain the status quo in many instances and this is one of them. Speedrunning the destruction of public faith in the fourth estate because attempting to tap the brakes might not be so good is just facile.

 

1 hour ago, mclumber1 said:

 

Both should be "real shit", but since the first one involves Musk, many people ITT applaud the actions taken in Brazil. 

 

When the government can determine without any sort of trial or due process what is misinformation and what is not, abuses will absolutely take place.  

 

This is also no argument.

 

The government can determine if food is safe to eat, water is safe to drink, if planes are safe to fly, if drugs are safe to take, etc. Those examples are relevant because even though we absolutely have problems with all of those things, it would absolutely be worse without legislation and restrictions. Nobody pooped out the way those industries are regulated but the fact that they are flawed is an argument to work out the kinks, not to throw the baby out with the bath water.

 

20 minutes ago, Jwheel86 said:

Howww, give me procedures, rules, enforcement. This all sounds good in practice but the details is where you lose me. What government agency do you want going through Twitter slapping the equivalent of DMCAs on Chud the Checkmark?

 

I don't know why we're pretending that there aren't templates for how other industries work. Government employees aren't stationed in every restaurant and food processing plant, but they're all expected to adhere to relevant health codes. G Men aren't working on every American construction site and factory, they're still expected to adhere to relevant work safety standards.

 

You don't need fleets of government agents trolling Twitter all day long, if they're not operating under whatever local laws are applicable based on where they operate, they'd be subject to financial or criminal liability.

 

Twitter and Meta have the money to acquire resources to moderate the content on their platforms. They choose not to because it's in their financial interests to behave that way. That should be changed.

 

14 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

Not all ideas have equal merit.  You have the absolute right, and I would argue duty, to fight back against evil ideas like Nazism or communism.  The line has to be drawn somewhere, and that line should be government action, especially if that action involves actually silencing speech and/or criminal prosecution.  

 

Painting Nazism and communism with the same evil brush is a lot, but whatever.

 

And again, I find tit difficult to accept that you actually believe the latter. I have a second amendment right to bear arms and a first amendment right to speech. If I walk up adjacent to your property on a public easement with guns I'm authorized to own and I start screaming about how I'm going to start blasting because I love America so much... seems like a bit of a fucking stretch that you'd want no vector for government action to be taken.

[Kal-El814]

“Tit” lol, I’m not editing that.  

[mclumber1]

6 minutes ago, Kal-El814 said:

Painting Nazism and communism with the same evil brush is a lot, but whatever.

 

And again, I find tit difficult to accept that you actually believe the latter. I have a second amendment right to bear arms and a first amendment right to speech. If I walk up adjacent to your property on a public easement with guns I'm authorized to own and I start screaming about how I'm going to start blasting because I love America so much... seems like a bit of a fucking stretch that you'd want no vector for government action to be taken.

 

Well considering that communism was such a shit show that ended up through both malfeasance and incompetence killing more people that the Nazis, I think it's fair to shit on that ideology just as much as Nazism, albeit for different reasons. 

 

I suppose you'd have that right to scream such thoughts, and there is little I could do (or for that matter, the police) until you start brandishing the firearm.

[Uaarkson]

Huge difference between screaming actual physical threats and taking legal action to silence “misinformation”

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

21 minutes ago, Kal-El814 said:

I'm sorry but, "what if Republicans get the reins of power and do bad things with well intentioned legislation," is no argument.

It’s ridiculous when you consider what is in project 2025 that wants to classify all LGBTQ content as “obscene” and thus subject to regulation under the widely upheld as constitutional comstock act. 
 

It’s not a matter of “oh ho if we do then we they get power they’ll do it!” It’s literally “this is what we will do when we take power, fuck you, and by the way don’t try to call us a bigot because that’s probably obscene too because words have no meaning for us, but they absolutely have meaning and apply to you”

 

People to willing to fight the last battle without looking past their nose

[skillzdadirecta]

1 hour ago, mclumber1 said:

 

Well considering that communism was such a shit show that ended up through both malfeasance and incompetence killing more people that the Nazis,

How many people has Capitalism killed? Or Western Style Democracy? Or Libertarianism? Would you paint them with the same brush, comparitively, as the Nazis? Any system that is made up by humans has the potential to be abused and used for selfish reasons. There are some systems, however, where that isn't the byproduct, it's the feature.  

 

 

[Spork3245]

 

[Jwheel86]

1 hour ago, Kal-El814 said:

I don't know why we're pretending that there aren't templates for how other industries work. Government employees aren't stationed in every restaurant and food processing plant, but they're all expected to adhere to relevant health codes. G Men aren't working on every American construction site and factory, they're still expected to adhere to relevant work safety standards.

 

 

Who do you think put the letter in the windows of every restaurant, your local health department. Every regulated industry has government inspectors who do site visits and have civil authority to shut down if things are in violation. There are 3 ways to do what you're suggesting: A government agency with civil authority to order a platform to do xyz, make it a crime enforced by US Attorneys (does that mean the States can also regulate platforms via State AGs and local DAs?), or make it something that individuals can sue civilly in court. All 3 of these options sucking is why abortion is a winning issue even in red states. No one trusts the government to regulate those issues well. 

 

1 hour ago, Kal-El814 said:

The government can determine if food is safe to eat, water is safe to drink, if planes are safe to fly, if drugs are safe to take, etc. Those examples are relevant because even though we absolutely have problems with all of those things, it would absolutely be worse without legislation and restrictions.

 

Those industries are all regulated by experts with hard science expertise. "Is bridge safe?" is something that can be determined to high degree of objectivity through the scientific method that expert engineers can fight about it. Misinformation is way more fluid, and lacks the political societal buy in. If I yell fire in a crowded theater, it probably doesn't matter if the local DA is a democrat or republican, I'm probably getting charged. If I shit post that a COVID vaccine has micro chips in it, odds are the local Chud DA will say based while charging anyone who refuses to not dead name someone. 

 

We as a society are not in a place where this can be done in good faith. 

[legend]

1 hour ago, Uaarkson said:

Huge difference between screaming actual physical threats and taking legal action to silence “misinformation”

 

Stay with me now, but perhaps there is a huge difference between deliberate lies and misinformation to cultivate higher revenue, and expressing opposing views.

[Uaarkson]

 

1 minute ago, legend said:

 

Stay with me now, but perhaps there is a huge difference between deliberate lies and misinformation to cultivate higher revenue, and expressing opposing views.

Who gets to decide what is misinformation? Still haven’t heard a satisfactory answer to that, and if we do legislate against it, does that mean it is now illegal for me to stand on a street corner with a sign saying the moon is green?

[Uaarkson]

Y’all are failing to see the dangers of regulating speech because you’re emotional about the current state of political discourse. But it’s okay, I get it 

[Reputator]

4 minutes ago, Uaarkson said:

 

Who gets to decide what is misinformation? Still haven’t heard a satisfactory answer to that, and if we do legislate against it, does that mean it is now illegal for me to stand on a street corner with a sign saying the moon is green?

 

It's going to be the Great Truth Counsel of Elders. Maybe nine individuals that sit on a bench, and OHH! Maybe they can be appointed by the President! An incorruptible band of very smart, very cool individuals who can arbitrate what is truth.

[Ominous]

A lot of people don't want to see / share / discuss the truth. Trying to hide the lies only makes them say "see...THEY don't want you to know the truth."  It's breeds more nuts and validates their point of view to many. 
 

But also...fuck the be nice to them and don't mock them shit....these folks are beyond help and trying to have a rational debate will never work either. Best you can do is keep others from following them down their LSD rabbit hole. 

[SuperSpreader]

1 minute ago, Ominous said:

fuck the be nice to them and don't mock them shit....

 

This. We must bully them back to their holes. Fuck 'em. It's ok if they're miserable.

[Ominous]

1 minute ago, SuperSpreader said:

 

This. We must bully them back to their holes. Fuck 'em. It's ok if they're miserable.

Can I do that with my father in law when he talks about capital gains tax? "Hey Gramps, your estate is gonna take an L when we sell your stamps and Trump coins, so make sure you keep receipts so I can write this off as a L like Trump did in 2020 and 2024". 

[SuperSpreader]

2 minutes ago, Ominous said:

Can I do that with my father in law when he talks about capital gains tax? "Hey Gramps, your estate is gonna take an L when we sell your stamps and Trump coins, so make sure you keep receipts so I can write this off as a L like Trump did in 2020 and 2024". 

 

Only if you call him a little bitch after

[Kal-El814]

51 minutes ago, Jwheel86 said:

Who do you think put the letter in the windows of every restaurant, your local health department. Every regulated industry has government inspectors who do site visits and have civil authority to shut down if things are in violation. There are 3 ways to do what you're suggesting: A government agency with civil authority to order a platform to do xyz, make it a crime enforced by US Attorneys (does that mean the States can also regulate platforms via State AGs and local DAs?), or make it something that individuals can sue civilly in court. All 3 of these options sucking is why abortion is a winning issue even in red states. No one trusts the government to regulate those issues well. 

 

I don't think so. Abortion is a winning issue not because regulating it is hard and bad insomuch as it is that access to it is standard reproductive care for something like 60% of the American public. This is borne out by research data showing that American objection to it is highly correlated with religious affiliation. Liberals and Democrats, the political / ideological affiliations most in favor of abortion rights, tend to be the ones most in favor of broader government regulations in general. In fact, people have taken both the Obama and Biden administrations to take for not doing more to pass stronger legislation in favor of abortion protections, so... this seems like a miss to me.

 

53 minutes ago, Uaarkson said:

Who gets to decide what is misinformation? Still haven’t heard a satisfactory answer to that, and if we do legislate against it, does that mean it is now illegal for me to stand on a street corner with a sign saying the moon is green?

 

This is just begging the question. For shit like the election conspiracy, team Trump knew they were engaging in misinformation at the time. Giuliani is on the record saying he knew he was lying and that doing so was his first amendment right. Again, what the hell are we actually talking about here; how are we conflating people on the former President's legal and campaign teams KNOWINGLY LYING to the American public in an attempt to steal an election to an area man hollering about the moon?

[skillzdadirecta]

1 hour ago, Uaarkson said:

 

Who gets to decide what is misinformation? Still haven’t heard a satisfactory answer to that, and if we do legislate against it, does that mean it is now illegal for me to stand on a street corner with a sign saying the moon is green?

Here's the thing... The street corner is a public space. Social media platforms are private spaces run by for profit companies with the appearance of being public spaces. They are deliberately allowing and in some cases spreading misinformation to further their bottom line and it is causing REAL harm in the REAL world. I think it's prefectly appropriate for an indivdual or company or yes, even a Nation to be able to old these companies responsible when they have been PROVEN to cause harm by knowingly allowing the spread of misinformation and disinformation. This isn't about being to "emotional" to see the potential dangers, and please leave that condescending tone out of the conversation, this about seeing with our own eyes the amount of harm that leaving these companies to their own devices in the name of "free speech" has actually done. And btw... EACH of these so called champions of free speech, Musk, Zuckerberg etc. has bowed to the pressure of totaltiarian governments when it suited their purposes. Trusting these companies to self regulate isn't cutting it. I'm no policy wonk so I have no idea how you implement it, but I do know SOMETHING needs to be done, because what's happening now isn't working and will only get worse as advances with A.I. improve.

 

54 minutes ago, SuperSpreader said:

 

This. We must bully them back to their holes. Fuck 'em. It's ok if they're miserable.

Yeah because this works SO well now 

[Jwheel86]

2 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Here's the thing... The street corner is a public space. Social media platforms are private spaces run by for profit companies with the appearance of being public spaces. They are deliberately allowing and in some cases spreading misinformation to further their bottom line and it is causing REAL harm in the REAL world. I think it's prefectly appropriate for an indivdual or company or yes, even a Nation to be able to old these companies responsible when they have been PROVEN to cause harm by knowingly allowing the spread of misinformation and disinformation. This isn't about being to "emotional" to see the potential dangers, and please leave that condescending tone out of the conversation, this about seeing with our own eyes the amount of harm that leaving these companies to their own devices in the name of "free speech" has actually done. And btw... EACH of these so called champions of free speech, Musk, Zuckerberg etc. has bowed to the pressure of totaltiarian governments when it suited their purposes. Trusting these companies to self regulate isn't cutting it. I'm no policy wonk so I have no idea how you implement it, but I do know SOMETHING needs to be done, because what's happening now isn't working and will only get worse as advances with A.I. improve.

 

 

Are countries with these restrictions fairing any better than the US at keeping the right wing populist movement down? 

[skillzdadirecta]

Just now, Jwheel86 said:

 

Are countries with these restrictions fairing any better than the US at keeping the right wing populist movement down? 

I actually have no idea. I would argue that regulating what these social media platfroms allow in the name of "free speech" goes beyond politics. How many people have tried to justify their obvious harassment of other citizens, public and private as "freedom of speech". And again, these companies routinely limit free speech when it suits them.

[Kal-El814]

2 hours ago, Jwheel86 said:

Are countries with these restrictions fairing any better than the US at keeping the right wing populist movement down? 

 

Boiling down a complicated issue to correlation equalling causation on one specific measure of freedom is silly, come on now.

 

Also I better not go through the cop thread here and see anyone complaining about when police officers lie to suspects. Wouldn’t want state agents to have their freedoms restricted! Without a Ministry of Truth who could even determine if they were lying, after all.

[SuperSpreader]

33 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

Yeah because this works SO well now 

 

Punch a Nazi

[skillzdadirecta]

3 minutes ago, SuperSpreader said:

 

Punch a Nazi

So limiting "free speech" is

 

 

But physical Assault is

 

?

[Reputator]

28 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said:

I actually have no idea. I would argue that regulating what these social media platfroms allow in the name of "free speech" goes beyond politics. How many people have tried to justify their obvious harassment of other citizens, public and private as "freedom of speech". And again, these companies routinely limit free speech when it suits them.

 

Advertisers do a better job of limited hate speech than any government entity ever could.

[Jwheel86]

8 minutes ago, Kal-El814 said:

Boiling down a complicated issue to correlation equalling causation on one specific measure of freedom is silly, come on now.

 

 

We're on the verge of electing the first black female President, while most of Europe is electing fascists or making deals with the far left to keep the fascists out. 

[skillzdadirecta]

Just now, Reputator said:

 

Advertisers do a better job of limited hate speech than any government entity ever could.

Do they? How?