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

Kermit Jizz said:
They are very correct, the first amendment does not apply to social media platforms.

AND SINCE TWITTER IS A PRIVATE COMPANY, THEY CAN PLATFORM WHOEVER THEY WANT! KARAMA'S A BITCH, NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER


Almost like this is why people were saying for a decade the consolidation of public discourse under the ownership of billionaires is bad. SUCKS TO SUCK NOW DON'T IT NIGGER
Click to expand...
It definitely does for him
Collections Agent said:
The way they're treating someone who legit just went "free speech, stop censoring people, just don't break the law" and started treating him like a supervillain fascist is NOT coming across well for them.
Click to expand...
They are nothing short than holier than thou monsters
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Cardef1121, Your Girlfriend's Dad and Irrational Exuberance
Collections Agent said:
The way they're treating someone who legit just went "free speech, stop censoring people, just don't break the law" and started treating him like a supervillain fascist is NOT coming across well for them.
Click to expand...
Reminder that these people are melting down in pants-shitting hysterics because some people they don't like might not get banned from Twitter.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Feels
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, Factual OST Aficionado, make_it_so and 18 others
Kermit Jizz said:
Sorry for late but I had to address this. The part you're leaving out is that the state of twitter was a dystopian nightmare before Elon bought it. At worst, nothing changes and we're in the same dystopian nightmare we were several days ago. But there is a slimmer of hope for improvement, so of course people will be happy.
Click to expand...
I addressed this in my other posts. Twitter is a hellscape, there's very little worth saying in 256 characters so it encourages idiotic talking points and bumper sticker politics and burning it to the ground is an acceptable outcome and would probably benefit society more than saving it.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, Muskcarpone, PantySniffer69 and 11 others
PointOfNoReturnPoint said:
"put up with" Nigga close your eyes.
Click to expand...
Eh yo
And I got salt from white Mexican sanchez who according to IMDb is 5’11 EE891848-F8CD-4B47-8CFB-2C5E0BE40241.jpeg
494B5E54-B186-4069-8253-C7AD69BDA4C5.jpeg5D8F1488-A20C-40DD-9871-1041E37F6788.jpeg
 
  • Informative
Reactions: mr.moon1488
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: DopeAddictKittenV2, spiritofamermaid, Factual OST Aficionado and 4 others
Nick Gars said:
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.
Click to expand...
There is also a huge difference between a place like Twitter or Facebook and a place like this. We have maybe a few hundred or even a few thousand users, the big social media companies can pretty much control the narrative. I understand the Starbucks example but I do think big tech companies have way too much power over what people have to say. Imagine if the electric company could jack up the price on families for, I dunno, being the "wrong" race or religion. That's exactly the kind of thing that Jack Dorsey's brainchild does to anyone who expresses an opinion to the right of Joseph Stalin.

Also if someone claims to be "fighting disinformation," they're probably promoting their own disinformation in its place. Whatever happened to the days of the internet where people would just laugh off shit like "proof that dinosaurs built the pyramids" instead of having a raging, hair tearing fit over it?

Marissa Moira said:
A true centrist, my heart swells with pride

moderatecentrist.jpeg



Why only troll one group of people when you could troll two?
Click to expand...
As much as I love this idea, I'm not sure I trust him to stay true to such a mission.

Maybe the platform will collapse upon itself as a $44 billion turd.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, der rademacher, Nick Gars and 1 other person
Marissa Moira said:
A true centrist, my heart swells with pride
View attachment 3224064

Why only troll one group of people when you could troll two?
Click to expand...
We'll see what he means by far right. It's such a loaded term at this point, could mean retards who literally want the 4th reich and all that encompasses or it could just mean you think grooming children is bad.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, Factual OST Aficionado, make_it_so and 1 other person
Duke Nukem said:
There is also a huge difference between a place like Twitter or Facebook and a place like this. We have maybe a few hundred or even a few thousand users, the big social media companies can pretty much control the narrative. I understand the Starbucks example but I do think big tech companies have way too much power over what people have to say. Imagine if the electric company could jack up the price on families for, I dunno, being the "wrong" race or religion. That's exactly the kind of thing that Jack Dorsey's brainchild does to anyone who expresses an opinion to the right of Joseph Stalin.

Also if someone claims to be "fighting disinformation," they're probably promoting their own disinformation in its place. Whatever happened to the days of the internet where people would just laugh off shit like "proof that dinosaurs built the pyramids" instead of having a raging, hair tearing fit over it?


As much as I love this idea, I'm not sure I trust him to stay true to such a mission.

Maybe the platform will collapse upon itself as a $44 billion turd.
Click to expand...
When corporations become large enough, they always start to draw more government regulation and scrutiny - and that's a policy traditionally pushed by the left.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Garm
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back