What is the big deal about Elon Musk wanting to buy Twitter?

Maybe they think he might just bend it to his own purposes?—which of course no one else would do, be they nut or otherwise.

I can’t shed much light, but I thought this cartoon was funny:

https://theweek.com/political-satire/1012613/just-buy-twitter

Good one ( ͡⚆ ͜ʖ ͡⚆ ) @Jeruba

@ wolfie—I wish he’d buy FB and IG as well I’d love to see Zuck and Musk duke it out

Some people are business leaders and buy things others are . . . .
a conman and sell things . . . I wonder Putin is still interested but he has other ISSUES !

@SEKA, who do you think would come out on top in that contest? I’d put my nickel on Musk.

Twitter is a cesspool so as far as I’m concerned, it has nowhere to go but up. It’s hard to imagine how any change couldn’t make it a little better.

Seawulf just wants Musk to buy twitter so his lord and savior ex-president asshole and all the antivaxxers he loves will be unbanned.

I don’t see the big deal. He doesn’t own other social media platforms as far as I know, so it’s not like he’s interfering with competition.

Social media has a scary amount of power already. If we want to do something about we better get cracking in creating laws or we need to start educating people better to not believe everything they read. Might be nice to also teach people if they read something that makes them feel overly angry or excited in the political realm, maybe that’s a clue that it might have a lot of bullshit in the copy.

Disinformation, is one of the 3 greatest threats we have
Twitter is directly involved in the Disinformation threat, as you mentioned.
Twitter was giving a voice to some very evil men in the last few years.
Now obviously, there’s still a few million more evil people on it, but they went after the Big Fish. And clamping down on those Big Fish resulted in less overall chaos in America.
One Third of Americans are prone to believing conspiracy theories. That is a toxic time bomb. And so Elon Musk’s potential takeover of Twitter could really end up destroying America. I’m not saying it will or would for sure. I’m just saying it’s within the realm of good possibility.

@Kraigmo , it seems like there’s a missing step.

> And so Elon Musk’s potential takeover of Twitter could really end up destroying America.

That “so” implies “therefore.” But what’s the connection? Why does this follow from what precedes it? Please explain what you see as the chain of events.

@Jeruba , Well take the conspiracy lies Trump made about the election for example.
Under Trump’s storyline, Biden committed a coup and the American Republic became illegitimate. Millions of people believed this.
If Trump’s election claims were true, the January 6th insurrection would have been justified.
Although people within that Cult would never recognize it themselves as a cult, most of us outside of the cult realize… it’s basically a cult. And that’s just one guy! His lies ended up killing people, both guilty and innocent.
Now obviously, even if Twitter didn’t exist, I’m sure the story would have unfolded anyway because Trump was President and had lots of other avenues to spread his lies, such as talk show hosts. But that series of events from November 2020 thru January 2021 prove just how gullible and mob-like, one-third of Americans are. Maybe even one third of all Earthlings.
Obviously, Twitter isn’t the end-all, be-all of this danger. Nor of preventing this danger.
But it is a huge component.
QAnon was all over Twitter prior to being banned.
People such as General Mike Flynn sent out toxic tweets regularly that fed into that Cult. Twitter gave these evil messages and evil messengers power.
Social Media on phones is what made disinformation a deadly threat. Prior to social media on phones, it was a funny little sideshow in the far, small reaches of American culture.
People had to subscribe to obscure magazines like “Spotlight” to get their conspiracy theories. And prior to Smartphones, social media was on computers…. but stupid people for the most part didn’t use computers much. But when social media landed on phones in 2007 or so, the danger became real.
Now, such conspiracy theories are all over the place.
We are approaching an age where something akin to the Salem Witch Hunts come back on a global scale, affecting billions of people, instead of hundreds of people.
When the internet first arrived to the common masses, I thought it would bring in an age of new enlightenment.
I couldn’t have been more wrong. I had no idea just how stupid so many people are. The level of stupidity is a danger greater than any nuclear threat we ever had during the Cold War, including the Cuban missile crisis.
We were all far better off when small groups of men in New York curated our news for us. I used to think that was a bad thing. But what we have now is far, far worse.
And so, the “cancelling” of people on Twitter and Facebook and social media is over all, a good thing. Such cancelling is being done by the companies themselves, not the legal authorities. And Elon Musk would ostensibly bring the free-for-all back to Twitter, giving power to the Evil and the Stupid, once again.

@Kraigmo, thanks very much for your explanation. The missing link, then, seems to be your expectation that Musk would throw Twitter wide open again. Is that presumed to be a given?

@Jeruba , I do expect that. Elon Musk said at a TED conference:
“I don’t know if I have all the answers here, but I do think that we want to be just very reluctant to delete things and just be very cautious with permanent bans; Time-outs, I think, are better than permanent bans.”
Why is he saying that?
We should give Time-outs to Trump and QAnon, under Elon’s plan.
That would kick in the kill shot scenario that I was talking about.

When a billionaire wants something its’ to make money. I always say follow the money. If Musk wants lies to be peddled it’s because it’s going to make him money. So you would have to look and see what lies profit him. Of course, it can also be money and power. Just think if he were to use Twitter to make or break politicians. Twitter has proven that there are a lot of twits who can easily follow a rumor and do the bidding of other foolish or rich twits. He has money but he can’t run for President being he isn’t a naturalized American. But just think of all the strings he can pull politically to give himself more power and money.

When a billionaire or the powerful talk about free speech they are mostly talking about themselves and those who can benefit them financially or give him unchecked power.

@Caravanfan Once again you have no idea of me or my views. But you have no problem ascribing your own beliefs as facts. Carry on Dr. Hope your diagnoses are as shoddy.

@Kraigmo But here’s the problem with your belief that Twitter is “saving” us. They banned people that said the Russia collusion was a hoax. They banned them for spreading “disinformation”. Yet we now know it WAS a hoax. So their suppression, based on nothing other than what they wanted people to believe, was the disinformation. Likewise, people started talking about the Hunter Biden laptop story when the NY Post first broke it. They got banned on Twitter, again, because it was “disinformation”. And now, after Biden has been elected POTUS, it finally comes out as true. Had that information been put out initially, he would likely have lost. So the Twitter view again was the disinformation, they suppressed other views, and they potentially changed the trajectory of this nation, and not in a good way IMHO.
I fail to understand the view that censorship is somehow good. Yes, there are idiots out there. Yes, there are conspiracy theories out there. But these people still have a right to their beliefs and the right to express them. And when the censors suppress the truth because they don’t like what it says, they become the exact thing you are saying will destroy this country.

He’s manipulating the stock price and making a fortune on the moves – both up and down.

Twitter owners have their own sentiments and beliefs about how the company should exist. When one party seeks to dominate, nothing unusual with power plays. Even if Musk offers to pay a trillion in cash, he can still get rejection?

But what’s the big deal with twitter’s treatment of news on Hunter? Oh wait. Could it be trump fans are still losing sleep for losing? Sad.

The argument that the idiot and misanthrope are entitled to a forum does not require Twitter to facilitate either. More to the point, it had become increasingly apparent that Twitter’s indifference to whatever passed through its gates threatened the operation with the certainty of legal restrictions enacted in the public good. Indeed, there is a viable argument that Twitter functions as a major instrument in the promulgation of the literal impression of America as the land of idiots and kooks. To wheel out the New York Post as the beacon for freedom of information misses the point that the reason Biden’s kid’s computer got no traction had nothing to do with suppression or censorship, but rather the appearance of the story in a rag distinguished for bogus sensationalism. If I have a wall on my barn where I allow people to post whatever they choose, I can be held legally culpable for what I tolerate to appear on that wall.

^^There you have it. GA.

@HP Elon Musk wants to make the Free Speech platform that Twitter touts an actual Free Speech platform. It has become a bastion of censorship, and censorship by people that really have no authority at all. It has created an environment where some average Joe gets to decide, unilaterally, what is truth and what isn’t, what they want to allow to be heard and what they don’t. You are apparently good with that. You ridicule the NY Post wholeheartedly and, to be fair, they don’t always get things right. But they did with the Laptop story. Everything they stated was verified to be correct. But the facts are that the Post was 100% right and Twitter censored people who asked questions about it or speculated on the ramifications of the story. They called it misinformation. And what we find is that the actual misinformation was the unilateral decision by Twitter as to what was right and what was wrong…what was true and what was false.

You are correct, though. Twitter has no requirement to sell the company to Musk. However they are running a risk if they don’t as well as if they do. If they sell it, the people that want censorship will no longer have the say that they do today so they will lose their power to push a narrative the same way. If they don’t sell, they have to answer to the stock holders to explain why they passed on what was an obviously over inflated price for the company…an offer that would have made many people a whole lot of money. To defend themselves, they would have to have some plan in their pocket, other than wild dreams, to make the kind of money Musk is offering and then some to make up for the loss. And the only reason any normal company would not take the deal he is offering is because they have something else they value more. In this case it would look like censoring people is more important than making money. And that would cause their stock to crash.

But you bring us back to the original question. Apparently to you, the big deal is that you just plain don’t like Elon Musk.

@seawulf575 These things are not protected under free speech law so Elon Musk can’t change the laws. The laws existed before any social media ever existed. I know I feel like I have free speech ability. I can say things online because I don’t go around breaking rules. Well, maybe obscenity sometimes and insults may fall into fighting words but if I get cut off on some social media (like fluther) for it, I’m not going to mistake that for living in China or Russia. Absolutely not the same. But then again I don’t make my whole life about being able to say absolute garbage online. I live an actual life. The following was from Freedom Forum Institute. They made it short and sweet.

Obscenity
Fighting words
Defamation (including libel and slander)
Child pornography
Perjury
Blackmail
Incitement to imminent lawless action
True threats
Solicitations to commit crimes
Some experts also would add treason, if committed verbally, to that list. Plagiarism of copyrighted material is also not protected.

(I also read an article where Twitter made a new rule that would prevent Musk or anyone from doing a hostile takeover for a year. Apparently, it also shoots them in the foot).

The big deal also includes that HE can do whatever and ALLOW whatever to be said on his platform.
One thing to consider is that it would have another outcome should millions of rude people join and air their greviences in a bad way, and that result may end up gathering all those people in one area to identify who they are, where they live, and what they intend to do ,good or bad. ( put on a threat list?)

It could rid all the other social sites of those offensive members.

If I’m not mistsaken, the problem with the laptop was the provenance. It was in the hands of Rudy Giuliani between Hunter Biden and any official, so there’s that…...

@seawulf575. You should not assume that I dislike Musk, nor that I care one way or another who buys or sells twitter. My issue is with the allegation that people prohibited from utilizing my property as bullshit megaphone have no grounds to cry censorship. They are free to peddle that nonsense through the New York Post , FOX or the other outlets vulnerable to the ludicrous inventions of their ilk.

@Pandora So when Twitter allowed people to spew all about Trump colluding with Russia, that IS protected? When they allowed people rant about how much of a conspiracy theory Hunter’s laptop was, how it was Russian disinformation, that IS protected? See, here’s the problem…not a single opinion against Russia Collusion or the Laptop violates any laws at all. The opinions ARE protected under the free speech laws. They are not inciteful, they are not libelous, they are not solicitations for crimes…none of it. They are opinions. Yet they were readily branded as misinformation while the REAL misinformation was allowed to flow.

In the end, ALL opinions should be allowed. That is how we get to the truth on things. If I told you that the world was flat and then punished you if you argued against it, would that be fair? And it sounds like that is what Elon Musk is trying to get to with Twitter. So why is it so important to censor opinions?

@Inspired_2write “The big deal also includes that HE can do whatever and ALLOW whatever to be said on his platform.” Isn’t that what Twitter is doing now? They are only allowing certain things and censoring the others. And as we can see they are often wrong in big ways. So if it is a big deal for Elon Musk, why isn’t it a big deal for the current Twitter? That is why I asked this question in the first place. He wants to buy the company and everyone is losing their minds over it. Yet what I can glean as the issue (that he would push an agenda) is already being done by Twitter. So is it only that he might not push the narrative you like? Or that he would allow other opinions to be heard?

@jca2 The shop owner that originally had the laptop called the FBI initially to turn it in. They ignored it. He apparently had some time to Giuliani so he called him to give it to him, figuring HE could get it to the FBI. So there was nothing nefarious there.

Giuliani turned it over to the FBI after only having it for a couple days is my understanding. And the issue was not that he had it, but that it was claimed to be Russian Disinformation. Hunter’s business partner verified the emails were authentic and compared them to ones he had. They were the same. All this was put out in the Post story. The “narrative” tried to imply, as you are doing, that somehow Giuliani did something to make up all these things on the laptop. The problem with that is that there was zero evidence of that, there was solid evidence the laptop was genuine, but it was pushed by the media and specifically by Twitter that it was all lies and therefore something that should be censored.

This gets back to the question of why Musk buying Twitter is such a big deal. He obviously believes in free speech. People on Twitter were questioning this laptop story, some believing it and some disbelieving it. Yet Twitter personnel unilaterally determined which side was true and punished anyone that voiced an alternate opinion. That isn’t free speech…it is censorship.

Let’s look at it from another angle. What if the laptop story WAS all a lie? The FBI had the laptop, they would be able to put the truth to the story fairly easily if it was all Russian disinformation. Meanwhile, what does it hurt for people to talk about it? To question it, to voice opinions about it? You’d have some people that were just plain wrong and others that were right. So what? What is the big deal?

The fact that Giuliani had control of, said laptop, breaks the “chain of evidence” making it not admissible in court . . oh Giuliani was investigated of being an unregistered agent for a foreign government !

So it would be okay for a large outside group to buy New York Times, say Putin and some of his oligarchy friends,. because the newspaper in left biased.

@Tropical_Willie I might agree with you on the chain of custody with something like a bloody knife. However with a laptop it is impossible to alter it without leaving a “paper trail” so to speak. Every time a file is altered, there is a digital record of it. Not to mention you have a real life person verifying the veracity of the information. I think if you were to take it to court, it would be completely admissible. But really, the laptop is an example and not the point of this question.

The chain was broken it doesn’t have to do with your opinion, the “chain of evidence” was broken by a suspected foreign country’s agent.

With an advantage to Trump and Giuliani !

@Tropical_Willie By your reasoning the chain of evidence was broken when the shop keeper touched the laptop. But again, the laptop is an example and not the point of the question. Can we agree now that the NYT and most of the other liberal outlets have conceded the accuracy of the original Post story that suppressing opinions about it when it first came out was wrong? In fact saying it was a lie and disinformation was the actual lie and disinformation?

In your opinion . . .

@Jeruba I’d put my whole dollar on Musk. Even if he lost, it’d be a fight well worth watching

@Caravanfan You’re assuming that Musk will allow thumper back on. I don’t think that they like each other. Thumper is jealous of Musk because Musk is richer than he is

@seawulf575 There is a difference between opinion and stating something as a fact without real knowledge especially if the goal is to slander or undermine our government and it is used to gain people’s trust so they can incite violence. That is not protected. The goal of the provocation isn’t always clear. They could be venting or inciting violence. That is why it isn’t always so clear. Motive isn’t always clear. It is still my opinion that Twitter is full of self-absorbed obnoxious people with way too much time on their hands. Notice I said it was my opinion.

@Pandora “There is a difference between opinion and stating something as a fact without real knowledge especially if the goal is to slander or undermine our government and it is used to gain people’s trust so they can incite violence.” Exactly! So when Twitter suppresses facts such as the Laptop story when Joe Biden is running for POTUS or pushes the narrative that the sitting president colluded with Russia to cheat and win the election, aren’t they doing that exact thing? They are taking action to censor anyone with a differing opinion. They help create an air of discrimination against those that believe something other than their view of reality. So you are saying that should not be protected, correct?

And now we have Elon Musk wanting to buy Twitter outright to make it the free speech platform it was touted to be. So why is that bad? He will do away with the pushing of lies, the urging of ridicule and violence against those that they don’t like, so what is wrong with that?

Your view of provocation is interesting. It borders on saying that whether someone could be venting or inciting is determined by those that are hearing it. Yet we know that isn’t true. What is more accurate these days is that what someone means is determined by the media. Whatever story they create is what is supposed to be truth. Mika said it best when she said Musk could control what people think…and that’s their (the MSM) job.

@seawulf575
In regards to your comment:So is it only that he might not push the narrative you like?
Or that he would allow other opinions to be heard?
Opinions are welcomed but not rude , crude, racists,sexist etc remarks.
Who will make sure that is done in a respectfull manner on that site?

@Inspired_2write Who really does it on this site? I’ve seen plenty of crude, rude, etc remarks on this site. Have we all melted down because of it? So really, what is the problem with free speech? I’ve heard crude remarks made about me and others. I don’t base my self-esteem on the opinions of others online. Besides, those remarks tell everyone about the quality of the person making them.

But you seem to act like Twitter is controlling those things now. They aren’t. What they ARE doing is censoring stories and claims that would be damaging to Democrats and the left. So who is going to make sure that stops as it is?

”What they ARE doing is censoring stories and claims that would be damaging to Democrats and the left. So who is going to make sure that stops as it is?”

So Twitter is a de facto arm of of the Democrats . . ?

You make me laugh;Trump got his ass unceremoniously bounced inciting his followers with lies.

^^But…but we need to give liars, sore losers and corrupt douchebags big platforms in the name of free speech! Only with allowing free speech can we make it possible to exercise our right to fool people into attacking Capitol Hill and discredit legit election results! We need Twitter!

@mazingerz88 missed the ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

And if someone like Trump incites a riot or over throw of the government using Twitter, Twitter could be held culpable and responsible; they would be sued.

Businesses don’t want to be sued (even if the supports the GOP) it costs money or maybe put out of business!

Half a billion dollars cost in Jan 6th insurrection

@Tropical_Willie ”You make me laugh;Trump got his ass unceremoniously bounced inciting his followers with lies.” Which lies? That the Russia Collusion claim was fake? That it was pushed by the DNC and the Intelligence community? That the government had been spying on him and his campaign? Which of those were lies? Those are all true claims by Trump that were censored by Twitter. The Laptop story was censored by Twitter and was found to be true. They are censoring only things that benefit the conservatives of this nation. They are repeating and encouraging the lies.

So I’m understanding that to you, the big deal about Elon Musk taking over Twitter is that he won’t censor things you don’t like.

@mazingerz88 It’s interesting you bring up Jan 6th as an example of inciting violence. Here is what President Trump actually said. He specifically said they should peacefully and patriotically make their voices heard. Someone inciting violence does not use words like that. But that is the bit of the speech that outlets like Twitter have suppressed. So they are actually inciting violence as you are showing yourself. They are spreading lies and disinformation. Imagine if clips like this one were actually allowed on Twitter. Do you believe that so many people would have believed the lie that he was urging violence?

In a platform with Free Speech, this video could be shown to expand the information to the public. When you suppress things so that you can create a given narrative, you are actually doing evil. You are lying to people. You are inciting anger and violence. Elon Musk might make it a free speech platform. So what would the downside be? That you might hear something that doesn’t support “the narrative”?

He wont do anything until he gets his ASS sued for contributing to riots and sedition!

It is a private company and censorship is controlled by the Government !

Once again – – - free speech doesn’t mean you can yell “FIRE ! !” in a movie theater for laughs. Some GOP members of Congress and Senate don’t understand that ! They think they can yell “Overthrow the Government” without recourse like Cawthorn. His GOP followers are rethinking sending him to DC again.

To give freedom of the speech. Every pro republican tweet gets moderated and every leftest tweet can be on there.

^^^ @KRD ^^^^ In your opinion.

I’d ask for proof . . . !

@seawulf575
RE: “Who really does it on this site? I’ve seen plenty of crude, rude, etc remarks on this site.”
The moderators.
Just flag and they will come.

Question: why did Trump get banned from Twitter in the first place?

US President Donald Trump’s Twitter account is “permanently suspended…

due to the risk of further incitement of violence”, the company says.

Twitter said the decision was made “after close review of recent Tweets from the @realDonaldTrump account”.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55597840

@Inspired_2write And you just identified the difference between Fluther and Twitter. You actually have to flag someone on Fluther. On Twitter, they make their own decision as to who is rude or “lying” and then censor them based solely on their own decision. No actual checks and balances. Again, Elon Musk taking over Twitter…are you afraid he will continue this practice, but censor those on the left? Are you afraid he will NOT censor any conservatives and those on the left may actually have to defend their ideas? What is the big deal with Musk wanting to buy Twitter?

@Tropical_Willie Thank you for making my point. The claim that Trump “incited violence” is unfounded. It is an opinion. So Twitter, or at least some Twit at Twitter, unilaterally (probably because of Trump Derangement Syndrome) decided they didn’t like what Trump said, claimed it was “inciting violence” and then suspended his account. If they are that concerned about inciting violence, why didn’t they suspend the accounts of anyone that worked for BLM? Anyone that urged protests for George Floyd? After all we know exactly how violent those became. How about anyone that urges “defunding the police”? All these things incite violence.

I’m not suggesting that actual inciting of violence should be allowed. But it is not really being applied evenly as it is. Is that what the big deal is to you that Elon Musk wants to buy Twitter? That he might level the playing field?

Once again January 6, 2021 was a bunch of peaceful tourists that INVADED the proceedings to put Biden into office. With instructions from Trump and other high level Trump advisors.
Threatening death to Democrats and Mike Pence. Causing over a BILLION dollars worth of damage AND left peoples’ lives shattered’ over four Capitol Police from that day have committed suicide and you’re happy about that too.; they should have gotten out of the way so the “TOURISTS” could get to Nancy Pelosi.

It didn’t happen according to @seawulf575 !

At least 818 people have been charged in the Capitol insurrection so far.

@seawulf575 Let’s consider the idea that Trump incited violence as mere opinion. First there is the indisputable fact that violence did occur. Next, comes the point that Trump vocally called for the hooligans to march on the capitol with the notable promise that he would be there. The unsurprising, , fact that as usual he ducked out, leaving the dummies holding the bag by no means negates his central role in both the focus and fomentation of the riots. It is therefore more than reasonable to assert that minus the loud mouthed gasbag, there would be no insurrection.

Well, it’s official. Twitter is Musk’s. I guess the Golden Age of Free Speech begins now.

@HP then the question remains as to why BLM wasn’t suspended. After all, MANY of their protests ended in violence. If it wasn’t for their loud mouthed gasbags, the protests wouldn’t have turned violent.

See that is my point. Twitter, as it was before Musk, didn’t mind violence and upheaval in the country. They, in fact, tacitly urged it by censoring those that spoke out against those that caused it. Censoring speech only does one thing: it limits what people can hear, what points of view they are allowed to hear or speak.

It is apparently hard for you folks on the left to comprehend this is a bad thing since right now the narrative is being controlled so your views are the ones that are supported. Imagine for a moment if all media outlets suddenly were conservative. TV, Cable, Newspapers, Social Media…all only giving you conservative views. And worse yet, calling your views misinformation, dangerous, and cutting you off from voicing an opinion. Would the idea of censoring sound as good? Do you think it would be healthy for the world?

@seawulf575 BLM protests weren’t halted because the political right is always trying to shut down speech and demonstrations for civil rights. It can be a completely non-violent and not disruptive action or demonstration and they will find a way to be offended or use it as a political weapon. This constant shhhhh, don’t complain, don’t speak, you should not have a voice, you are not really American, eventually gets a big backlash when it’s not tolerable anymore.

Absurd. “Conservative views” Where did that lead to? Attack on Capitol Hill. Who needs “conservative views” like that?

Conservatism is voting for a douchebag like trump? America at one of its worse display of desperation for conservatives. I could puke.

@seawulf575 Again, you are equating the behavior of BLM with that of the fool. And had BLM managed to instigate the seige of the Capitol, you might have a reasonable point. There is the substantial point that BLM is a protest movement, whereas the fool in fact even now openly advocates sedition. And about your insistence that the media is biased to favor the left, let’s look at that. A more sensible analysis must conclude that it is in fact the right which has gone batshit crazy, and chosen to label the press leftist for simply reporting the fact. It is no coincidence that this accusation of leftist bias comes as conservatism purges all trace of moderation from its existence., and stridently pursues regressive and undeniably stupid and divisive strategems aimed toward defeating demographic reality.

@JLeslie But the point is not the protests. It is Twitter censoring people that support things supposedly leading to violence. @HP said Trump incited violence and used the Jan 6 events as proof of it. And that was why they would be censored on Twitter. But BLM protests have led to FAR more wide spread and costly damage than the Jan 6 protest. So when did Twitter censor anything BLM had to say or do? Or people that voiced support for them? You can say BLM didn’t cause the violence, but then, neither did Trump. He specifically called for a peaceful protest. To say his followers read between the lines is speculation and could also apply to BLM followers. There is absolutely no difference between the two from the point of view of censoring rhetoric that may or may not lead to violence. To argue anything difference is to support selective censorship. To support censoring anyone that has an opinion you don’t like. And that is a view of ignorance. Those that have that view either can’t support their views with facts or are entirely afraid they might hear something that makes them think they might be wrong. Either way it is ignorance. And is bad for society as a whole.

@HP your statement shows you only want to suppress people with views you don’t like. You can’t even admit that BLM protests have led to billions of dollars in damage, many, many direct deaths, and the destruction of many lives and livelihoods…mainly minorities. You can’t admit to the damage their “protests” caused because you can’t get past Trump. That is the ignorance of which I speak. And it is the view that keeps things divisive in the world.

@mazingerz88 Okay, where have “leftist views” gotten us? Many cities destroyed through “peaceful protests”. People killed or injured. Far more than the “Conservative Views”.

^^You are Fox News brainwashed. Just tragic. Have a feeling you will vote for trump again. Also think if trump admits to you he incited that Jan. 6 violence, you won’t believe him. Desperation to win and Fox News brainwashing drive what used to be reasonable conservatives to trump fanaticism.

@mazingerz88 ten more GA s.

@mazingerz88 your entire answer is completely wrong. To start with I don’t watch Fox News. So every other assumption you made is false. But here’s the part that is so great about it and what is also so good about Elon Musk buying Twitter: You are perfectly allowed to say it. It is your opinion. It should be allowed for you to voice your opinion. Funny how the old Twitter didn’t have that same attitude, isn’t it? If Musk just decided to make Twitter a “conservatives only” outlet (the polar opposite of the old Twitter) and you made a comment like that, it would be censored for being hate speech. It would be considered spreading disinformation. So the question still remains. What is the big deal about Elon Musk buying Twitter?

^^I hope you get the satisfying answer that you are seeking for in this thread.

^^ He doesn’t lie either

The “big deal” is about a single individual’s grasp on the world’s loudest megaphone. It would be a big deal regardless of the individual acquiring it. The tiresome notion that Twitter prior to Musk was simply another left serving slave platform for right wing censorship is hogwash. Musk or no Musk, Twitter was and will remain distinguished as the outstanding outlet for wing nuts, conspiracy kooks, and all the rest of the cognitively challenged plaguing
the society with silly drivel. Any implication of Twitter as a liberal only platform with Musk as its supposed salvation is ridiculous

And don’t fool yourself. If you think Musk the salvation from leftist domination and the knight destined to level the playing field, you miss the fundamental reality of both Twitter and the dilemma it engenders. Regardless of whichever political or philosophical bias you might believe the platform serves, or who controls it, SOMEONE will be forced willingly or not to both monitor AND REGULATE it. What you regard as leftist censorship of conservative views is self deception. That fool Trump FORCED Twitter to suspend his lying ass. Twitter had no choice.

@HP, did the NY Post also FORCE Twitter to ban their account for putting out the story on Hunter’s laptop? After all, it was all lies, disinformation and fake news. At least that was the story on why they were banned. And anyone that said it was fake news and disinformation was okay because that was what Twitter said was true. Yet we now know that the TRUE fake news and disinformation was that the NY Post was wrong. So how do you reconcile that to yourself and your view of Twitter being so unbiased?

But your answers do point out an answer to the original question. Elon Musk buying Twitter isn’t any big deal, right? So why is there so much angst about it?

^^What made you think there is so much angst about it?

Exactly right. Who says it’s a big deal? If you or I had bought it, the news would still be sensational, though the sensation would be about some nobody turning up with forty billion dollars. I contend that with Trump, Twitter would be forced to shut the clown out regardless of who owned the platform, just as any reputable newspaper would cease publishing ludicrous letters in its editorial section when obviously the product of a deranged mind.

@mazingerz88 Because I watch the news and read all sorts of things. People have stormed off Twitter just because the deal went through. I have seen the video footage of the Twitter employees melting down at the news. I have worked at companies that were bought out and that never happened. Uncertainty about what the new owners would do, yes. Tears and carrying on, no. Those reactions show extreme angst.

@HP and that attitude about censoring is exactly what is wrong with social media (and MSM too) these days. They believe that it is wrong for someone to voice an opinion they don’t like. When someone speaks out about things I don’t like, I have several options: I can ignore them or I can debate them. Neither of these is wrong since I have the ability to voice an opinion as well. On a platform like Twitter, the users let everyone know who they are (ideologically) and what they think. New ideas are brought up and can be questioned. Those ideas that aren’t backed by facts will quickly be seen to be hooey…Even things Trump says. But also let me point out that many things Trump has said that the media was quick to claim were the product of a deranged mind were later proven to be true. Trump says a whole lot of things, some are very smart, some are completely asinine, some seem to make no sense at all. But as a politician, that is better than many since he has no qualms about speaking his mind…you know what you are getting with him. And in an honest, open discussion you can make an fully informed decision about him without the bias applied by the biased media. This goes for all people.

And there you have the basic problem which has beset the country since its founding. It’s the Achilles heel of freedom, and the reason that like it or not, Twitter WILL be regulated regardless of whether you or I believe it to be censorship. Simply put, as the founders of the country fully understood, the people must have the wherewithal to govern themselves. On the one hand, freedom of speech and open dissemination of information is indispensable in attainment of that goal. But here’s the deal. Comes a guy like Trump. A man so blatantly, openly and undeniably defective, that he is literally breathtaking in his visible malignant inadequacies. There will never be a simpler test regarding the people’s capacity for self governance than the appearance of this wart of a human being whose primary renown is based on undisguised mastery of every loathsome vice you care to name. Foremost in this arsenal of defects is an avowed and dependable open contempt for the truth. And yet this man can openly LIE regarding his election to the highest office in this country and utilize Twitter to incite a substantial portion of his dumber than shit fellow citizens to storm the capitol and terrorize the fucking government. THIS is why Trump is beyond dangerous, and why Twitter will be regulated. Trump is PROOF that there is a dangerous proportion of our people who are literally too stupid to govern themselves.

^^Some Americans will ignore or worse, even allow somebody to “burn the country to the ground” because hey, at least this somebody speaks his mind. Sad.

And the very fact that the insurrection took place puts the lie to @seawulf575 ‘s lofty perception “that those ideas that aren’t backed up by facts will QUICKLY be seen to be hooey”. Some people will ignore facts while others stubbornly defy them though those facts peril their very destruction. And then there are those who don’t know recognize a fact even as it spits in their face.

@HP so your answer to someone so horrible as Trump, someone who lies about everything is to create a narrative that is rife with lies and that censors anyone that disagrees with it and say that is necessary? Do you really believe that? Nazis in Germany did.

@HP and Twitter and the rest of the MSM and social media censoring the Hunter Laptop story and spreading a lie puts proof into my statement. Again, you are believing lies and using those lies as a basis for your own truth. Wake up!

. . .” social media censoring” does not exist ! Twitter is a private company and NOT THE GOVERNMENT.

They can control who and what is said on their platform. Especially if the person is inciting a insurrection.

The company could be held culpable in the overthrow of the Government.

@seawulf575 Again, I neither approve nor believe any invention necessary regarding Trump. The truth alone is more than despicable. What inventions do you believe exceed the actual proven and verified facts? And if you keep dragging out Biden’s kid’s laptop as the supposed proof that Trump is unfairly persecuted by the press, you cannot possibly believe yourself vindicated in the comparison. Look at my list above, and tell me which word of it is either exaggerated or untrue. And I again emphasize that Twitter had no choice in booting Trump’s lying seditious ass off its platform. Had they not done so, after the storming of the Capitol, they would have been shut down as a threat to national security. It’s you who needs waking up.

^^”But, but, but…if only the truth about Hunter’s laptop were exposed by Twitter, CNN and MSNBC before the election, Saint Trump would have won it by a landslide and Saint Trump the Conservatives’ White Saviour would not have to resort to spewing more lies and executing an insurrection and being downright more pathetic than usual. It was such a big deal, Hunter’s laptop.” ~~~

@HP Your statement of “Comes a guy like Trump. A man so blatantly, openly and undeniably defective, that he is literally breathtaking in his visible malignant inadequacies. ” says it all. Not a fact in the bunch, just an opinion that you then go on to treat as a fact. Even the claim of an insurrection was false. Not a single person was arrested for sedition or insurrection. Not one. Yet you don’t mind spreading that lie. Imagine if Fluther censored you for that because it is a lie? After all you are blatantly, openly and undeniably defective in your claims. You are spreading disinformation. But the problem is obvious: you are don’t mind censorship as long is it is done to people you don’t like. You apparently don’t have the wit to understand that puts the decision of what is true and what isn’t into someone else’s hands. Those same people could suddenly decide what you are saying is wrong and block you. And THAT is why you are worried about Musk taking over Twitter.

I suggest you buy a dictionary and read the definitions of both insurrection and sedition. You might then explain EXACTLY how either word regarding the Capitol riot is not RIGHT ON THE MONEY. It is YOU who willy nilly accuse me of lying, such as implying that I claim the crowd of dummies and the dummy in chief arrested for sedition. I made no such claim The riot was by all means an INSURRECTION, and the behavior of the idiot responsible SEDITIOUS. And rather than label my statement of Trump as opinion, I defy you to explain a single word of it either but unfounded or false. Go ahead embarass yourself again. And you should pay attention before flinging accusations. There is not a single word in my rant supporting the idea that I am the least bit worried concerning Musk’s acquisition of twitter. In fact I have explained EXACTLY why I am not worried as well as why it is guaranteed that you will show up here in the future whining about Musk as mainstream leftist censoring free speech. Because he will either monitor and restrict that speech or be compelled legally to do so. Meanwhile, read what I am saying, and stop making assumptions regarding either my motives or veracity. I don’t accuse you of deliberately lying. I do however fault both your logic and cognitive viability.

I suggest you get a newspaper and read what every single person that was arrested was charged with. Not a single one of them. So why is it that they committed an insurrection and acts of sedition and were charged mainly with varieties of trespassing charges?

As for your statement about Trump, I offer you one of my own. Trump is one of the most canny and caring presidents we have had in a long time. He was the victim of SEDITIOUS efforts by the Democrats and operatives within the government with full support of a biased media. He was maligned throughout his presidency.

Now show me one word of my factual statement that was not true. What? It’s all not true? Based on what? Your opinion that differs from mine? Huh. imagine that. And that gets us back to the original question about Elon Musk buying Twitter. Conversations like this one SHOULD be allowed to occur. People have different views on things. But if you cut off one side of a conversation you are forcing society to stagnate and be able to only have one view…the view those in power want you to have. I remember when I was accused of being a Russian agent, a spam bot, and an idiot because I dared to suggest the Russia Collusion story was a hoax that was created by Hillary and the DNC and pushed by a complicit media. And yet….all those that wanted to brand me all those things were wrong. The Russia Collusion story has now been proven to be a hoax, perpetrated by Hillary, the Dems, the operatives inside the government, and the complicit media. So the “True Story” was the misinformation. Ditto all that for the Hunter Laptop story. Ditto that for the “Very Fine People” claim that Trump was a racist. All of those things were lies that were created. Many people on Twitter were banned for even suggesting Hunter’s laptop was a real thing. The Charlottesville Lie (Very Fine People) was created and pumped into our society by the media. Yet on every one of these things, when I showed proof and logic, I was counted by the lies that were being presented as truths. Do you really not see the problem with censorship? Do you really not see the danger to our Democracy from it?

I think eleven of them were charged with seditious acts. My count might be off. It did take a while to get that indictment on the books, I’m not sure why. Maybe gathering evidence.

@JLeslie Indeed they were. And that there was an insurrection on 6 January is also more than merely an “opinion”. It is an out and out fact.

@HP What I don’t know is if any were convicted yet.

@seawulf575 As pointed out above your newspaper is a bit out of date. And your insistence that the riot on 6 January was not an insurrection is also fake news. And I don’t for a minute dispute the fact that any issue be discussed on any platform, and again there’s not a shred of evidence you can find disputing that fact.

Since no one has actually shown if anyone was charged with insurrection or sedition (what a surprise) I COULD claim you are all talking out of your hat. But, as usual, I do my homework. @JLeslie was correct that there were 11 people charged with seditious conspiracy. The interesting thing I noticed was that in each case there were numerous superseded indictments filed. That is interesting because those are normally filed after a grand jury refuses to indict a defendant and the prosecutor then coughs up new evidence or new charges to get it going again. So on the claim of no seditious charges I was wrong.

However that then brings to mind the other questions that follow this: How many people were actually arrested for the Jan 6 protest? I counted 756. So under 1.5% of those that were charged with any crime were charged with seditious conspiracy. 120,000 people showed up for the protest. So that means that 0.009% of the protesters were charged with seditious conspiracy. Given those numbers, to claim the Jan 6th protest was an insurrection is idiotic. It was a protest with a few bad players.

^^Trump fanatics will only call the attack on Capitol Hill an insurrection if they were Hillary supporters.

Apparently the moderators didn’t like me adding another entry showing my citations for my last entry. So I’ll try it again:

https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/capitol-breach-cases

https://www.newsweek.com/exclusive-classified-documents-reveal-number-january-6-protestors-1661296

See if they will allow you to print out the definitions for insurrection and instigation. Apparently they are unhappy with google’s.

I just printed some on the other thread in answer to your challenge since you don’t like actually researching things. But you won’t like what I found.

I read them. And I noticed that you neglected the primary definitions for both. And as you have probably noticed I fully understand and am capable of ACCURATELY employing this language we use. Don’t waste your time and embarrass yourself challenging that competence, I guarantee that I will wipe the floor with YOU. The mods will soon CENSOR this. So read it quickly before researching the words wipe and floor.

Nice try. I cut and pasted the entire description. I didn’t miss the primary definition. What I DID do was capture the definition of the VERB, not the NOUN which was the first definition. I wasn’t talking about a person that is a censor, I was talking about the action to censor. But then, That would be too much like ACCURATELY employing this language we use.