𝕏 / Twitter / X, the Social Media Platform Formerly Known as Twitter / "MUSK OWNS TWITTER"

[derpi]

Yes and I'm moderably drumk

An enviable state! Please have a good drunk for the rest of us.

 

[The Ugly One]

1. The sperging that is on the surface unrelated to Elon buying twitter
I will state this bluntly, There is a concerted effort by Republicans at all levels of society to seize power and implement their will, permanently. This involves the capture or suppression/neutering of all Institutions, Elected Offices, Churches, Financial Markets, Courts etc etc. This effort is being lead by Religious zealots, Extremist Ideologues and right wing/general business interests and is finding massive success on both the State and Federal level. This movement's most powerful weapon besides their reserves of cash, political influence and literal weapons is their ability to influence and propagandize their followers and supporters through media both legacy and social. Look at Christopher Rufo, he has admitted in still public tweets that he was stirring up the CRT panic as part of the culture war and despite these tweets being public Media institutions are STILL parroting the narrative he inserted. This media is obviously has the power to make or break people, this is where Tucker Carlson, Musk and Twitter come in.

Clearly, you and I have the same fantasies, but sadly, I hate to tell you this, nothing of the sort is happening.

I've said this before and I'll say it again. The first amendment prevents the government from interfering with your free expression. That doesn't apply to private entities like businesses.

For instance, if you went into a Starbucks and called the barista a "nigger kike," you'll get kicked out, and there's nothing illegal about it. You're on their property, at their business, and if you want to be in the space they own, you have to follow their rules.

It would be illegal for them not to do something about it. Under the Civil Rights Act, businesses are public spaces, public spaces aren't allowed to discriminate, and allowing people to create a hostile environment for a protected category is discrimination. You might be able to let one crazy customer should "nigger kike!" as a one off, but if you allow someone to sit in your business and say, "Niggers and kikes are welcome here," you're breaking the law.

If you think this makes it sound like the Civil Rights Act abrogated the First Amendment, it's because it did.

 

[Matt Damon]

The first amendment prevents the government from interfering with your free expression. That doesn't apply to private entities like businesses.

Wow, what a wholly original thought that no one had considered before.

 

[PointOfNoReturnPoint]

Clearly, you and I have the same fantasies, but sadly, I hate to tell you this, nothing of the sort is happening.




It would be illegal for them not to do something about it. Under the Civil Rights Act, businesses are public spaces, public spaces aren't allowed to discriminate, and allowing people to create a hostile environment for a protected category is discrimination. You might be able to let one crazy customer should "nigger kike!" as a one off, but if you allow someone to sit in your business and say, "Niggers and kikes are welcome here," you're breaking the law.

If you think this makes it sound like the Civil Rights Act abrogated the First Amendment, it's because it did.

It gives them legal precedence to do so SHOULD it ever go to court. Their is a law in my state to be able to kick someone out of an AutoZone parking lot for whatever reason. Yeah you can work on your car in the parking lot of a car parts store...but they need some law to refer to for it to hold up. Abrogation of freedom of speech isn't happening when freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.

 

[Bani]

allowing people to create a hostile environment for a protected category is discrimination. You might be able to let one crazy customer should "nigger kike!" as a one off, but if you allow someone to sit in your business and say, "Niggers and kikes are welcome here," you're breaking the law.

I'm not disbelieving you, but would you mind providing some case law precedent for this?

In any case, the first amendment does have exceptions- this shouldn't be news to anybody. Inciting imminent lawless action, child pornography, true threats, and copyright infringement are all examples of such exceptions. I'd argue that the Disney Corporation's copyright fuckery did more damage to the first amendment than the Civil Rights Act did.

It gives them legal precedence to do so SHOULD it ever go to court. Their is a law in my state to be able to kick someone out of an AutoZone parking lot for whatever reason. Yeah you can work on your car in the parking lot of a car parts store...but they need some law to refer to for it to hold up. Abrogation of freedom of speech isn't happening when freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.

Life has consequences. If you say something retarded, people might not want to hang out with you anymore. It is impossible to eliminate all of the non-legal consequences that could potentially arise from a person's speech or expressions. If a law were to be put in place barring private entities from responding to citizen's expressions in certain ways, it would by an infringement on the business owners' rights, wouldn't it? And how would you even litigate something like that, anyway?

 

[Random Internet Person]

It's really interesting that people are all for "free speech" until it's speech they don't like or agree with.

Just like police and watching people get arrested.

 

[Rich Evans Ayypologist]

the funny thing with all these celebs yelling YOU COULD HAVE FED THE NEEDY is that they're probably completely oblivious to the misery that has been going on due to the ethiopian civil war or the rohingya and myanmar's genocide attempt against them, two of the most clear and discrete groups of needy people smooshed right up alongside the impending winter crisis in afghanistan. They started squawking over the Uighurs about 5 years late to the ball-game. anytime you see that blithe "feed the poor," it's such a cover for being oblivious to who is actually suffering

I've said this before and I'll say it again. The first amendment prevents the government from interfering with your free expression. That doesn't apply to private entities like businesses.

bro they've been told it a million times and they're still never going to get it. if they don't leave the comfort of the basement and never go into a starbucks to utter niggerkike, they're never going to realize both that social ostracization exists and that it's totally legal to socially ostracize a based warrior just tryna save the west and crush some tradpuss

I'm not disbelieving you, but would you mind providing some case law precedent for this?

Here's the text of the 1964 Civil Rights bill. You'll want to look on p3, Title II. Racial slurs will fall under the discrimination clause. No court not huffing paint would argue that a racial slur doesn't constitute discrimination.

If you think this makes it sound like the Civil Rights Act abrogated the First Amendment, it's because it did.

boy will this 1995 ruling also not be up your alley if you don't like abridgement of freedom of speech. pharoah, pharoah, let nick jr play pornography-o

 

[Homo neanderthalensis]

44 billion dollas /400 million users = $100
Retard elon and his other co-investors/buyers just paid $100 for every user on a site filled mostly with fake followers.

 

[PillCosby]

"Violently insane" as that person supports getting their cock chopped off in a basement somewhere.

4th link- that person has no idea how stocks operate. At all.

 

[Nick Gars]

I've said this before and I'll say it again. The first amendment prevents the government from interfering with your free expression. That doesn't apply to private entities like businesses.

For instance, if you went into a Starbucks and called the barista a "nigger kike," you'll get kicked out, and there's nothing illegal about it. You're on their property, at their business, and if you want to be in the space they own, you have to follow their rules. A website is similar-- when you sign up for Twitter, you agree to their terms of use. They're a business and you're using the webspace they pay to maintain, so they can ban you for whatever reason they like. It's a natural consequence of private businesses now being the main vehicle for public discourse. They want money, and if they decide certain patron behavior is bad for their brand or public image, they're legally entitled to remove those patrons.

Notice that a lot of protests regardless of political affiliation are held on public property; there's a reason for that. They know that the government has less control over what they say than a private business would.

I definitely don't agree with Twitter's moderation policies, which is why I don't use it. The lesson here is not to patronize businesses whose practices you disagree with.

I don't disagree and fully understand. I expect such an outcome in the Starbucks example, much like I do on Twitter. Josh is well within his right to ban my ass if I step out of line or fedpost, it's his company.

My primary point of contention is that a good deal of the problem users and the platform itself constantly claim to be a "platform of free speech and 'trusted information'" when that is blatantly false and the ones claiming as such are lying fucks. People with no standards acting like moral arbiters of society. It's less about the legality of it, and more the blatant unchecked hypocrisy.



Of course there is an argument to be made that a platform that claims to be a "trusted source of info", "a place of discourse", has direct and immediate effects on the news cycle, public elections, and general flow of information, shouldn't necessarily be given those same protections, but I'm not a law maker and I know that's a very tricky argument to even implement without really fucking up the Internet landscape. While I do think that shit hole needs to be held to a higher standard, the standard they pretend they hold themselves to, I'm very aware it would be used against us here.

 

[Random Internet Person]

 

[draggs]

I've said this before and I'll say it again. The first amendment prevents the government from interfering with your free expression. That doesn't apply to private entities like businesses.

For instance, if you went into a Starbucks and called the barista a "nigger kike," you'll get kicked out, and there's nothing illegal about it. You're on their property, at their business, and if you want to be in the space they own, you have to follow their rules. A website is similar-- when you sign up for Twitter, you agree to their terms of use. They're a business and you're using the webspace they pay to maintain, so they can ban you for whatever reason they like. It's a natural consequence of private businesses now being the main vehicle for public discourse. They want money, and if they decide certain patron behavior is bad for their brand or public image, they're legally entitled to remove those patrons.

Notice that a lot of large protests regardless of political affiliation are held on public property; there's a reason for that. They know that the government has less control over what they say than a private business would.

I definitely don't agree with Twitter's moderation policies, which is why I don't use it. The lesson here is not to patronize businesses whose practices you disagree with.

No.

The point of Starbucks is to sell coffee and snacks.

The point of an internet platform open to the public for discussion is for the public to discuss.

Muh private company stops being a consideration when the platform functions, as was its stated intent, as a forum of public discussion, particularly political discussion, and influences the body politic. The proscription of certain individuals from participating creates a two-tiered system of rights, where the proscribed are disadvantaged from exercising their rights as a result of discrimination.

If you are prevented from participating on Twitter, you are at a disadvantage compared to those who are, which again is a two-tiered system of the ability to exercise your right to free expression and influence politics, which is anathema to a free society. Twitter functions as a common carrier of speech, it has no right to discriminate.

 

[PointOfNoReturnPoint]

I'm not disbelieving you, but would you mind providing some case law precedent for this?

In any case, the first amendment does have exceptions- this shouldn't be news to anybody. Inciting imminent lawless action, child pornography, true threats, and copyright infringement are all examples of such exceptions. I'd argue that the Disney Corporation's copyright fuckery did more damage to the first amendment than the Civil Rights Act did.


Life has consequences. If you say something retarded, people might not want to hang out with you anymore. It is impossible to eliminate all of the non-legal consequences that could potentially arise from a person's speech or expressions. If a law were to be put in place barring private entities from responding to citizen's expressions in certain ways, it would by an infringement on the business owners' rights, wouldn't it? And how would you even litigate something like that, anyway?

Thanks for agreeing with what I said...

 

[Chinggis Khan]

I don't know what fake quote you are talking about, I am talking about the "We will make their talking points toxic" post.

The narrative you are repeating (that you appear to acknowledge you don’t fully understand) is that he is admitted that he is willfully sowing mistrust to promote school choice. This isn’t true and these are two separate quotes.

A) yes it’s true that people don’t trust public schools anymore due to CRT
B) due to the performance of public schools, school choice is a good idea

Frankly I think Rufo is a genius, turning something literally nobody knew about into this hotbutton culture war issue that has payed dividends.

Once again you are repeating talking points that are envogue with the left (“le critical race theory doesn’t exist!”) . The controversy of critical theory spans decades. You can go back to Pat Buchanan in the late 90s talking about, and promoting private schools due to it. I took classes literally titled “critical theory” in the late 2000s and it was controversial then.

The only thing recent is that schools are now teaching k-6 and moms are going to their school boards to complain and organize board take overs.

I have never once heard of Christopher Rufo until you mentioned him. What you are doing, whether you are cognizant of it or not, is straight out of Alinskys Rules for Radicals “pick your target, freeze it, polarize it”. It’s much easier to attack people than ideas.

You do realize talking like this totally shits on your credibility? Once again, you live in a reality that is a total invention, you are a walking husk of a man where original ideas, could, and should be. I might as well be talking to an AI generated from the latest buzzwords from CNN

 

[PillCosby]

View attachment 3221467

Imagine George Takeis face when he has a dick in his ass and the other guy is holding his old hips shooting hot ropes up his ass. That is the real face of George Takei. Just a constantly butt fucked Asian with his eyes buggin out.

 

[Bani]

I don't disagree and fully understand. I expect such an outcome in the Starbucks example, much like I do on Twitter. Josh is well within his right to ban my ass if I step out of line or fedpost, it's his company.

My primary point of contention is that a good deal of the problem users and the platform itself constantly claim to be a "platform of free speech and 'trusted information'" when that is blatantly false and the ones claiming as such are lying fucks. People with no standards acting like moral arbiters of society. It's less about the legality of it, and more the blatant unchecked hypocrisy.



Of course there is an argument to be made that a platform that claims to be a "trusted source of info", "a place of discourse", has direct and immediate effects on the news cycle, public elections, and general flow of information, shouldn't necessarily be given those same protections, but I'm not a law maker and I know that's a very tricky argument to even implement without really fucking up the Internet landscape. While I do think that shit hole needs to be held to a higher standard, the standard they pretend they hold themselves to, I'm very aware it would be used against us here.

I wholeheartedly agree with that. Of course social media sites are going to advertise themselves as venues for fair public discourse and the dissemination of trusted information. It benefits their bottom line to do so! It's like how every skincare product says, "#1 dermatologist recommended" on the label, or how every newspaper claims to be the most reliable.

I'm honestly not sure if ANY social media platform run for-profit is fully capable of being the "democratized source of information" Twitter purports to be. It has too many conflicts of interest in that area.

 

[SaidNoOneEver]

I've said this before and I'll say it again. The first amendment prevents the government from interfering with your free expression. That doesn't apply to private entities like businesses.

For instance, if you went into a Starbucks and called the barista a "nigger kike," you'll get kicked out, and there's nothing illegal about it. You're on their property, at their business, and if you want to be in the space they own, you have to follow their rules. A website is similar-- when you sign up for Twitter, you agree to their terms of use. They're a business and you're using the webspace they pay to maintain, so they can ban you for whatever reason they like. It's a natural consequence of private businesses now being the main vehicle for public discourse. They want money, and if they decide certain patron behavior is bad for their brand or public image, they're legally entitled to remove those patrons.

Notice that a lot of large protests regardless of political affiliation are held on public property; there's a reason for that. They know that the government has less control over what they say than a private business would.

I definitely don't agree with Twitter's moderation policies, which is why I don't use it. The lesson here is not to patronize businesses whose practices you disagree with.

There's also a strong argument to be made that free speech is a civil right. Private companies get sued/prosecuted every day for violating people's civil rights.

 

[PillCosby]

I laughed out loud when I saw this on front page. Amazing. I haven't used Twitter for 11 years but I might now. Where will all of the troons and lefties go?

They will stay on Twitter. They might delete for a few days, but they need a group of people that will tell them they don’t look like a bad ventriloquists doll. Then they will triumphantly return to “stand against hate!”

 

[Meat Target]

The Bezos Baizuo Blogspot:


We are in the midst of a War on Noticing.

 

[Bani]

If you are prevented from participating on Twitter, you are at a disadvantage compared to those who are, which again is a two-tiered system of the ability to exercise your right to free expression and influence politics, which is anathema to a free society. Twitter functions as a common carrier of speech, it has no right to discriminate.

If a company is one of your only choices for a certain purpose, that's the result of unmitigated corporate consolidation. Twitter can get away with treating its customers like shit because it's part of an oligopoly, and that's the real source of the problem.