Elon Musk: Officially a fraud and piece of shit. Official or unofficial war criminal?

[Nice Guy Eddie 13522]

3 minutes ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

He sold $16B in Tesla stock at the end of last year, so he can buy a lot more TWTR if he wants. 

But he doesn't really need that much more to control Twitter if he wants. Unless he just wants to take them fully private.

I don't understand his view that Twitter needs to align to free and open speech. They're not the govt and they're not a public square. Besides there are plenty of other apps/websites that do allow that so why attempt to change twitter.

I do like Elon's idea (I'm sure he's not the first person who had it) where there is a cost to tweet or have the paid members' tweets prioritized in the replies.  One this brings in revenue to Twitter and two, it makes it costly for spammers or tweet farms to operate.

[Fudge Nuggets 19211]

17 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

If he joins the board, he would pretty much have to stop tweeting about Twitter business. After all, he would have access to insider info which would prevent him from tweeting.

I laughed. Since when has he given any fucks about SEC rules?

[Vegas64 677]

1 hour ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Elon couldn't join the board. That was never going to happen so I don't know why anyone got excited about it. why?

1. He broke SEC laws in not disclosing that he was buying more than 5 percent of Twitter. By doing so, he delayed the general public from knowing the world's richest man was acquiring Twitter stick in large chunks. He probably made $150 million by breaking the law. Note: Some of you may disagree with this law but it's still the law. 
   1. Elon will soon be settling lawsuits with any person or fund that sold Twitter stock from the time he failed to disclose until he announced it. I know he can afford it.
2. If he joins the board, he would pretty much have to stop tweeting about Twitter business. After all, he would have access to insider info which would prevent him from tweeting.

It's also possible the SEC told Twitter Elon wasn't allowed on the board due to his continued disregard of securities law.

I like how Elon behaves but he would have been a horrible Twitter board member not to mention that he would have gotten bored of them at a certain point anyway. In this manner, Elon can put proxies on the board and still have a say in exec decisions.

Someone said something today that is actually a lot more clever of Elon if true. He initially screwed up by filing the wrong papers (the non-activist investor easier papers). He famously ignores his general counsel and securities team, so that isn't surprising of a mistake. He filed the paper work to be a passive investor, people called him on it, and now after his nomination to the board was announced Musk refiled the more comprehensive form required of activist investors. Is it possible that Musk went along with Twitter’s offer just to give cover for his refiling?

[Pig Bellmont 8724]

51 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

I laughed. Since when has he given any fucks about SEC rules?

He’s lost a few shareholder lawsuits at Tesla regarding tweets and other public statements, right? He cares bc there are consequences for breaking his fiduciary duties to investors 

[WBT 20653]

1 hour ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I don't understand his view that Twitter needs to align to free and open speech. They're not the govt and they're not a public square. Besides there are plenty of other apps/websites that do allow that so why attempt to change twitter.

He either thinks it would be good for business or he's a true believer that it's the right thing to do.

[TKthunder2 4997]

1 hour ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I don't understand his view that Twitter needs to align to free and open speech. They're not the govt and they're not a public square. Besides there are plenty of other apps/websites that do allow that so why attempt to change twitter.

Neither are TV stations and yet the FCC strictly enforced who can own those, recently Disney had to omit FOX, Fox Sport, Fox News from its takeover to get FCC approval because the government didn’t want 1 company controlling 50% or the main broadcast networks, cable news or sports networks, but somehow Facebook and Twitter despite having a stranglehold on the market, have less regulations and are able to declare what is truth via their “fact checking” services and suspend users that they disagree with. I’m all for free market, but we have antitrust rules to protect the public against monopolies that overstep.

[We’reTexas 1473]

23 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

Someone said something today that is actually a lot more clever of Elon if true. He initially screwed up by filing the wrong papers (the non-activist investor easier papers). He famously ignores his general counsel and securities team, so that isn't surprising of a mistake. He filed the paper work to be a passive investor, people called him on it, and now after his nomination to the board was announced Musk refiled the more comprehensive form required of activist investors. Is it possible that Musk went along with Twitter’s offer just to give cover for his refiling?

I’m not sure I follow this, but his initial 13G filing was eye-raising given his history. It was also strange that his initial filing was 9.2%. The filing threshold is 5% and there’s an amendment requirement for the acquisition of 1% of outstanding shares - we now know he just busted it, but at face value he would have somehow had to have moved 5% of Twitter in one day. When Twitter’s CEO announced the board seat, he mentioned discussions had been going on for weeks. It’s pretty clear he should have always had to file a 13D, and those negotiations should have been disclosed. 
 

Edit: He did this in his personal capacity, so he couldn’t rely on TSLA counsel. But presumably at this point he knows this and is staffed up. Given he stopped at 9%, I assumed he did so on advice to avoid becoming a Section 16 filer. 

Edited April 11, 2022 by We’reTexas

[Foosters 17883]

47 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

Neither are TV stations and yet the FCC strictly enforced who can own those, recently Disney had to omit FOX, Fox Sport, Fox News from its takeover to get FCC approval because the government didn’t want 1 company controlling 50% or the main broadcast networks, cable news or sports networks, but somehow Facebook and Twitter despite having a stranglehold on the market, have less regulations and are able to declare what is truth via their “fact checking” services and suspend users that they disagree with. I’m all for free market, but we have antitrust rules to protect the public against monopolies that overstep.

What are you proposing? 

[Guest Lobo]

Did people really think Elon Musk joining the Twitter board was gonna somehow course-correct their disastrously incorrect interpretation of the 1st Amendment?  

His long play here is quite clever and it remains impossible some of y'all are this stupid.  

[Nice Guy Eddie 13522]

7 minutes ago, Lobo said:

Did people really think Elon Musk joining the Twitter board was gonna somehow course-correct their disastrously incorrect interpretation of the 1st Amendment?  

His long play here is quite clever and it remains impossible some of y'all are this stupid.  

the 1st amendment doesn't apply to Twitter so there is no interpretation.

[Vegas64 677]

55 minutes ago, We’reTexas said:

I’m not sure I follow this, but his initial 13G filing was eye-raising given his history. It was also strange that his initial filing was 9.2%. The filing threshold is 5% and there’s an amendment requirement for the acquisition of 1% of outstanding shares - we now know he just busted it, but at face value he would have somehow had to have moved 5% of Twitter in one day. When Twitter’s CEO announced the board seat, he mentioned discussions had been going on for weeks. It’s pretty clear he should have always had to file a 13D, and those negotiations should have been disclosed. 
 

Edit: He did this in his personal capacity, so he couldn’t rely on TSLA counsel. But presumably at this point he knows this and is staffed up. Given he stopped at 9%, I assumed he did so on advice to avoid becoming a Section 16 filer. 

"On Monday morning Elon Musk filed a Schedule 13G disclosing that he owned 9.2% of Twitter Inc., which was a fun surprise. Part of the fun was that a 13G is a form that is used by passive investors who do not plan to meddle with the company’s management, and that doesn’t sound like Elon Musk. Activist investors are supposed to use the more detailed Schedule 13D. But Musk checked the passive investor box. 

Part of the fun was that Musk’s 13G seemed to be late? It seemed to say that Musk acquired 5% of Twitter’s stock on March 14, and under the rules he would have 10 calendar days — until March 24 — to file the 13G (or 13D). But he filed it on April 4, 11 days late.

On Tuesday afternoon Elon Musk filed a Schedule 13D disclosing that he owns 9.1% of Twitter. So! This does not necessarily prove that he should have filed a 13D in the first place, or that his intentions were activist-y all along. Between Monday morning and Tuesday afternoon, various things changed."

Based off the above, the interest in joining the board could have been a clever way to right-size, is the fun conspiracy theory at least.

[StruggleBus 3922]

On 4/6/2022 at 6:51 PM, fattyflattie said:

Believe me, I’m familiar.  I worked for a international co based out of Netherlands for better half of a decade.  They LOVED how it is here because they can cut dead weight so easily. 

Like it should be. Companies shouldn't be forced to retain fucktard employees. 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13522]

12 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

"On Monday morning Elon Musk filed a Schedule 13G disclosing that he owned 9.2% of Twitter Inc., which was a fun surprise. Part of the fun was that a 13G is a form that is used by passive investors who do not plan to meddle with the company’s management, and that doesn’t sound like Elon Musk. Activist investors are supposed to use the more detailed Schedule 13D. But Musk checked the passive investor box. 

Part of the fun was that Musk’s 13G seemed to be late? It seemed to say that Musk acquired 5% of Twitter’s stock on March 14, and under the rules he would have 10 calendar days — until March 24 — to file the 13G (or 13D). But he filed it on April 4, 11 days late.

On Tuesday afternoon Elon Musk filed a Schedule 13D disclosing that he owns 9.1% of Twitter. So! This does not necessarily prove that he should have filed a 13D in the first place, or that his intentions were activist-y all along. Between Monday morning and Tuesday afternoon, various things changed."

Based off the above, the interest in joining the board could have been a clever way to right-size, is the fun conspiracy theory at least.

As stated, Twitter has already said that they've been in talks with Elon to serve on the board so there was nothing passive in his buys. I get that Elon fanboys or anti-SEC peeps love his wink-wink "paperwork mistakes" but do we want a system where everyone ignores security rules and laws?

[Guest Lobo]

22 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

the 1st amendment doesn't apply to Twitter so there is no interpretation.

Tell that to all the constitutional law scholars we have on the site

Edited April 11, 2022 by Lobo

[We’reTexas 1473]

18 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

"On Monday morning Elon Musk filed a Schedule 13G disclosing that he owned 9.2% of Twitter Inc., which was a fun surprise. Part of the fun was that a 13G is a form that is used by passive investors who do not plan to meddle with the company’s management, and that doesn’t sound like Elon Musk. Activist investors are supposed to use the more detailed Schedule 13D. But Musk checked the passive investor box. 

Part of the fun was that Musk’s 13G seemed to be late? It seemed to say that Musk acquired 5% of Twitter’s stock on March 14, and under the rules he would have 10 calendar days — until March 24 — to file the 13G (or 13D). But he filed it on April 4, 11 days late.

On Tuesday afternoon Elon Musk filed a Schedule 13D disclosing that he owns 9.1% of Twitter. So! This does not necessarily prove that he should have filed a 13D in the first place, or that his intentions were activist-y all along. Between Monday morning and Tuesday afternoon, various things changed."

Based off the above, the interest in joining the board could have been a clever way to right-size, is the fun conspiracy theory at least.

Matt Levine is great, but he tends to get things wrong when he plays securities lawyer. What I was saying is the below tweet indicates Musk had been discussing a board seat for weeks. That type of discussion would resulted in a 13D obligation from the outset and would have needed to be disclosed. Musk just has a shitshow of a personal staff, it seems. 
 

 

[TKthunder2 4997]

18 minutes ago, Foosters said:

What are you proposing? 

Nothing on this board, nice try

Just pointing out how many forms of old legacy media have massive amount of regulations and bureaucracy while other new media has very few.  The reason they avoided government intervention was because it was decentralized/user generated and not centralize/corporate run, but they more they inject corporate oversight/editorializing the less valid their original positions on why they are able to avoid government regulations becomes.  Saying “go start your own platform if you don’t like it” is extremely disingenuous because unless you can fund it 100% privately, the deep DEEP pockets of Twitter/Facebook could just infiltrate your company and completely dismantle it the moment you have any modicum of success.  I don’t care either way as I haven’t sent a tweet or used Facebook for anything (other than looking up old photos) in over a decade, but I do find this whole area fascinating.

[Vegas64 677]

27 minutes ago, We’reTexas said:

Matt Levine is great, but he tends to get things wrong when he plays securities lawyer. What I was saying is the below tweet indicates Musk had been discussing a board seat for weeks. That type of discussion would resulted in a 13D obligation from the outset and would have needed to be disclosed. Musk just has a shitshow of a personal staff, it seems. 
 

 

I agree with you, which is why the conspiracy theory is a clever ruse of "I want to be on the Board (despite not wanting to be on the Board, because why would he?), so let me re-file to the 13D" and then once that filing is done allowing for him to be a pest and activist investor, saying "Nah, changed my mind."

[Neonmoon 38130]

1 hour ago, TKthunder2 said:

Neither are TV stations and yet the FCC strictly enforced who can own those, recently Disney had to omit FOX, Fox Sport, Fox News from its takeover to get FCC approval because the government didn’t want 1 company controlling 50% or the main broadcast networks, cable news or sports networks, but somehow Facebook and Twitter despite having a stranglehold on the market, have less regulations and are able to declare what is truth via their “fact checking” services and suspend users that they disagree with. I’m all for free market, but we have antitrust rules to protect the public against monopolies that overstep.

 

9 minutes ago, TKthunder2 said:

Nothing on this board, nice try

Just pointing out how many forms of old legacy media have massive amount of regulations and bureaucracy while other new media has very few.  The reason they avoided government intervention was because it was decentralized/user generated and not centralize/corporate run, but they more they inject corporate oversight/editorializing the less valid their original positions on why they are able to avoid government regulations becomes.  Saying “go start your own platform if you don’t like it” is extremely disingenuous because unless you can fund it 100% privately, the deep DEEP pockets of Twitter/Facebook could just infiltrate your company and completely dismantle it the moment you have any modicum of success.  I don’t care either way as I haven’t sent a tweet or used Facebook for anything (other than looking up old photos) in over a decade, but I do find this whole area fascinating.

FCC regulates TV and radio because of the Communications Act of 1934. It was given the power because communication frequencies are scarce and the airways are public by nature. The FCC broke up an NBC radio monopoly. In National Broadcasting Co. v. United States (1943), the Supreme Court upheld the breakup and ruled that, because of the scarcity of frequencies, the FCC could regulate broadcasting in the “public interest, convenience, and necessity.”

The FCC did regulate content through the Fairness Doctrine that required broadcasters, as a condition of monopoly over frequencies, to provide programming in the public interest, to discuss controversial issues, and to give time to opponents for prevailing views. However, since conservatives viewed the Fairness Doctrine an attack on the First Amendment, under the Reagan Administration, the Fairness Doctrine as revoked. 

Currently, broadband is not classified as a telecommunications service and until it is, the FCC has no power to regulate it under Title II of the Communications Act. Funny enough, President Obama tried to get the FCC to reclassify broadband service as a utility like telecommunications back in 2014, but there were some large opponents of net neutrality that came to power in 2016. 

(side note: As a former oil and gas professional, I chuckle when you argue that "start your own platform" is disingenuous because of the cost associated with it, when right to capture has been telling poor landowners to drill their own well for over a century if they didn't want big oil stealing their minerals. Especially when it costs 3 million to drill a well, and around $100,000 to build a twitter website)

 

 

[wildcat09 29376]

38 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

As stated, Twitter has already said that they've been in talks with Elon to serve on the board so there was nothing passive in his buys. I get that Elon fanboys or anti-SEC peeps love his wink-wink "paperwork mistakes" but do we want a system where everyone ignores security rules and laws?

You talk as if we don't already have that system.

[Satchel 6948]

New YorkCNN Business — 

Tesla CEO Elon Musk, who recently became Twitter’s largest individual shareholder, has decided not to join the social media company’s board.

Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal tweeted the news Sunday night.

“Elon’s appointment to the board was to become officially effective 4/9, but Elon shared that same morning that he will no longer be joining the board,” Agrawal said in the tweet. “I believe this is for the best. We have and will always value input from our shareholders whether they are on our Board or not. Elon is our biggest shareholder and we will remain open to his input

[Vegas64 677]

6 minutes ago, Satchel said:

New YorkCNN Business — 

Tesla CEO Elon Musk, who recently became Twitter’s largest individual shareholder, has decided not to join the social media company’s board.

Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal tweeted the news Sunday night.

“Elon’s appointment to the board was to become officially effective 4/9, but Elon shared that same morning that he will no longer be joining the board,” Agrawal said in the tweet. “I believe this is for the best. We have and will always value input from our shareholders whether they are on our Board or not. Elon is our biggest shareholder and we will remain open to his input

Welcome to Monday morning. Would you like some afternoon coffee, sleepyhead?

[Captainant 27727]

3 hours ago, Pig Bellmont said:

there are consequences for breaking his fiduciary duties to investors 

 

[Pig Bellmont 8724]

39 minutes ago, Captainant said:

 

 

https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2018-226
 

Quote

Settlement Requires Musk to Step Down as Tesla’s Chairman; Tesla to Appoint Additional Independent Directors; Tesla and Musk Agree to Pay $40 Million in Penalties

That’s a laughable slap on the wrist?

 

For context: “U.S. District Judge Alison Nathan on Friday approved the regulator’s plan to pay the money to Tesla shareholders who lost money during a short-lived run-up in the company’s stock price after Musk claimed on Twitter he was thinking about taking the company public. Tesla shares fell the next day.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-25/tesla-musk-40-million-sec-fine-distribution-plan-is-approved

Edited April 11, 2022 by Pig Bellmont

[Captainant 27727]

11 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

 

https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2018-226
 

That’s a laughable slap on the wrist?

 

For context: “U.S. District Judge Alison Nathan on Friday approved the regulator’s plan to pay the money to Tesla shareholders who lost money during a short-lived run-up in the company’s stock price after Musk claimed on Twitter he was thinking about taking the company public. Tesla shares fell the next day.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-25/tesla-musk-40-million-sec-fine-distribution-plan-is-approved

Considering that musk owns around 172,600,000 shares of Tesla for a total value of around $20,000,000,000... Yeah I'd call a $40M fine a slap on the wrist. The fine is a total value of 0.2% of his position in TSLA. 

[Pig Bellmont 8724]

9 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Considering that musk owns around 172,600,000 shares of Tesla for a total value of around $20,000,000,000... Yeah I'd call a $40M fine a slap on the wrist. The fine is a total value of 0.2% of his position in TSLA. 

lol ok. Yes, he’s still a billionaire, but that settlement had some teeth in the board room, too. And the ordeal did also change how he tweets about Tesla. But whatever- I don’t disagree Elon is a dick. I do think that SEC case was more significant than you do, and so does Elon- or why wouldn’t he have joined the Twitter board?
 

He wants to have special treatment, run his mouth, and not have to be dragged into a multi year federal investigation costing millions. 

[wildcat09 29376]

9 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

lol ok. Yes, he’s still a billionaire, but that settlement had some teeth in the board room, too. And the ordeal did also change how he tweets about Tesla. But whatever- I don’t disagree Elon is a dick. I do think that SEC case was more significant than you do, and so does Elon- or why wouldn’t he have joined the Twitter board?
 

He wants to have special treatment, run his mouth, and not have to be dragged into a multi year federal investigation costing millions. 

The bigger problem for Elon if he joined the board is that he could get sued if he acted like, well, Elon.

[TKthunder2 4997]

9 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

 

FCC regulates TV and radio because of the Communications Act of 1934. It was given the power because communication frequencies are scarce and the airways are public by nature. The FCC broke up an NBC radio monopoly. In National Broadcasting Co. v. United States (1943), the Supreme Court upheld the breakup and ruled that, because of the scarcity of frequencies, the FCC could regulate broadcasting in the “public interest, convenience, and necessity.”

The FCC did regulate content through the Fairness Doctrine that required broadcasters, as a condition of monopoly over frequencies, to provide programming in the public interest, to discuss controversial issues, and to give time to opponents for prevailing views. However, since conservatives viewed the Fairness Doctrine an attack on the First Amendment, under the Reagan Administration, the Fairness Doctrine as revoked. 

Currently, broadband is not classified as a telecommunications service and until it is, the FCC has no power to regulate it under Title II of the Communications Act. Funny enough, President Obama tried to get the FCC to reclassify broadband service as a utility like telecommunications back in 2014, but there were some large opponents of net neutrality that came to power in 2016. 

(side note: As a former oil and gas professional, I chuckle when you argue that "start your own platform" is disingenuous because of the cost associated with it, when right to capture has been telling poor landowners to drill their own well for over a century if they didn't want big oil stealing their minerals. Especially when it costs 3 million to drill a well, and around $100,000 to build a twitter website)

Your first paragraphs are a great summary and illustrate the points I would expound on in a thread about legislation to remedy the issue.

I think your take on O&G drill your own well is apt but your estimate that making a second Twitter is wildly off base.  The hosting fees alone to scale to even 1% of Twitter would cost that much and that before we go into cloud security user marketing and fraud prevention.  You would likely operate at significant loses until you were able to scale to any sort of size to even be mentioned as a competitor of Twitter and again without public capital it’s an effort likely restricted to a very select group of individuals.  Platforms powered by user generated content is extremely different than O&G from where I’m sitting because with an unlimited budget you can harvest/sell your own oil, but the same isn’t true for a Twitter competitor, you could make a platform better by leaps and bounds better than Twitter in every way but without user adoption you can’t generate revenue.

 

I could go on but this is probably the wrong thread for that.  Back to the Elon fanboy love/hate fest.

[MonkeyDoughnut 10353]

16 hours ago, Pig Bellmont said:

lol ok. Yes, he’s still a billionaire, but that settlement had some teeth in the board room, too. And the ordeal did also change how he tweets about Tesla. But whatever- I don’t disagree Elon is a dick. I do think that SEC case was more significant than you do, and so does Elon- or why wouldn’t he have joined the Twitter board?
 

He wants to have special treatment, run his mouth, and not have to be dragged into a multi year federal investigation costing millions. 

"Twitter gave Musk a seat on the board on the condition that he not own more than 14.9% of the company’s outstanding stock, according to a regulatory filing."

Musk isn't a fan of being told what he can and can't do. He just put the existing board members on notice.

[clapclapclap 9000]

 

[F250 28814]

47 minutes ago, clapclapclap said:

 

The Heritage Foundation put out a paper with a similar sentiment. Everyone wants these platforms to be managed to their own benefit and they want the government to enforce it.

 

 

[Fudge Nuggets 19211]

On 4/11/2022 at 1:39 PM, Nice Guy Eddie said:

As stated, Twitter has already said that they've been in talks with Elon to serve on the board so there was nothing passive in his buys. I get that Elon fanboys or anti-SEC peeps love his wink-wink "paperwork mistakes" but do we want a system where everyone ignores security rules and laws?

Not everyone ignores rules and laws. Only the mega rich. 

[52-80 19230]

13 hours ago, F250 said:

The Heritage Foundation put out a paper with a similar sentiment. Everyone wants these platforms to be managed to their own benefit and they want the government to enforce it.

 

 

Hilarious turn of stance when the same people who parroted “twitter is a private platform they can police it any way they see fit”, are now alarmed a private individual is buying his way into ownership of said platform and *might* police it his way

[52-80 19230]

Love or hate him elon is the most entertaining man in business

[wildcat09 29376]

2 hours ago, 52-80 said:

Hilarious turn of stance when the same people who parroted “twitter is a private platform they can police it any way they see fit”, are now alarmed a private individual is buying his way into ownership of said platform and *might* police it his way

This isn't nearly the insightful take you think it is.

The point wasn't that a social media company can't be criticized for how it polices its platform, it was that how it polices its platform isn't a first amendment issue.

[Brisketexan 105275]

16 hours ago, F250 said:

The Heritage Foundation put out a paper with a similar sentiment. Everyone wants these platforms to be managed to their own benefit and they want the government to enforce it.

 

 

This is what's fascinating to me.

Twitter, Facebook, etc., aren't just passive fixtures like a telephone pole or a corkboard that you then staple a missive to.  They are intensely developed complex mechanisms to disseminate information in very specific ways to very specific and constantly changing audiences.  That process happens via an incredible amount of work, algorithm development, and management strategies, funded by investor capital.

And these misguided "free and open internet" jackholes literally want to hijack all of that work for their own benefit.

There IS a free and open internet.  If you want to develop a similar platform, with similar functionality and reach, there is literally NOTHING stopping you from doing so ("start your own website, you have our blessing.")  MySpace may well have told Facebook just that....so Facebook went out and build a better mousetrap, and now MySpace is an empty husk.  So, go ahead and start Truth Social.

The problem the "free and open internet" people have is not with any actual restriction on what they can say.  Their problem is that if you build a platform that supports their bullshittery.....it turns out that not many eyes want to engage with that platform.  These people are ACTUAL socialists (functionally seize the means of production and force them to work at the behest of the State), and ACTUALLY anti-free market (sorry your platforms and ideas suck and get no traction -- it's because your product/ideas suck, the market has spoken).  Nobody is demanding that PornHub start hosting children's cartoons.  And if they did, PornHub would tell them to get fucked, because that isn't PornHub's business model..  PornHub is a business; it will display the content that the business chooses in order to maximize the business's profitability and value.  It will not be forced to display content that is contrary to that goal, and PornHub and PornHub alone gets to decide what content it thinks furthers that goal.

Again, supposed free-market capitalist champions of the American Way want to hijack platforms that cost literally billions of dollars to develop and maintain, and REQUIRE those platforms to disseminate their garbage.  Fuck that shit.  You want the benefit of disseminating your message on a platform that people actually want to use?  Then 1) fucking develop a platform that does that, and 2) try a fucking message that isn't shit.  You have our blessing.

Edited April 13, 2022 by Brisketexan

[52-80 19230]

14 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

This isn't nearly the insightful take you think it is.

The point wasn't that a social media company can't be criticized for how it polices its platform, it was that how it polices its platform isn't a first amendment issue.

You don't get to dictate what the point is, which has nothing to do with any amendment.

[Brisketexan 105275]

1 minute ago, 52-80 said:

You don't get to dictate what the point is, which has nothing to do with any amendment.

If Elon wants to buy a controlling stake in Twitter and make it "Elonitter" and change the content rules, he's free to do so.  Time will tell whether that's a good or bad business decision.

That's the way it works.  But the bitching about a "free and open internet" is a fucking lie.  It IS free and open.  Anyone is free to develop the new Twitter and disseminate functionally any content they want (stuff like kiddie porn being the exception).  Want to build a platform where you disseminate all of the wingnuttery you like?  Go for it.  It's been done, actually -- go to Gab or Truth Social.  The problem is NOT that anyone is restricting the freedom of those sites to disseminate such content.  It's that it has turned out that most people just won't tune in for such idiocy.  So, instead of having their ideas prevail, this crowd wants to force other more successful sites to disseminate their garbage to an audience that, by its decision NOT to tune into Gab and Truth Social, has already said it doesn't particularly want to consume that content.

Socialism.  That's what these people are demanding.

[52-80 19230]

5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Again, supposed free-market capitalist champions of the American Way want to hijack platforms that cost literally billions of dollars to develop and maintain, and REQUIRE those platforms to disseminate their garbage.  Fuck that shit.  You want the benefit of disseminating your message on a platform that people actually want to use?  Then 1) fucking develop a platform that does that, and 2) try a fucking message that isn't shit.  You have our blessing.

Who is the "you" this is addressed to?  If it is Elon, then he is literally paying billions of dollars for this platform, through the free market where its ownership stake is traded.  And hes doing this without anybodys blessing

[wildcat09 29376]

3 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

You don't get to dictate what the point is, which has nothing to do with any amendment.

I don't get to accurately describe what I and people like me were actually arguing in prior conversations about this topic? That's weird. 

[Brisketexan 105275]

Just now, 52-80 said:

Who is the "you" this is addressed to?  If it is Elon, then he is literally paying billions of dollars for this platform, through the free market where its ownership stake is traded.  And hes doing this without anybodys blessing

No, it's not Elon.  It's all the bros on the Twitter pages cited above, etc., who bitch and bitch and bitch about how there isn't a "free and open internet."  They are lying, and they are actual socialists.

If Elon wants to buy Twitter and change its content rules, he is free to do so.  And if and when Elon owns it, the rule will be the same: nobody can force him to disseminate content that he does not want his site to disseminate.  If someone wants a site that WILL disseminate their chosen content, then they are free to develop one -- build your site and methodology, get investors to support it, and launch it.  If it's something people want to view, it will succeed.  If not, tough shit.

[52-80 19230]

Just now, wildcat09 said:

I don't get to accurately describe what I and people like me were actually arguing in prior conversations about this topic? That's weird. 

Its weird you think each post is a reference to you (and other people "like you"). 

I made a commentary that some people who celebrated Twitter's privately-owned, arbitrary mute/ban/promote decisions, are now alarmed at the *possibility* of new private-ownership's arbitrary decisions.  That's funny. 

Whether you choose to identify with those people and be offended is your prerogative.

[52-80 19230]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

No, it's not Elon.  It's all the bros on the Twitter pages cited above, etc., who bitch and bitch and bitch about how there isn't a "free and open internet."  They are lying, and they are actual socialists.

If Elon wants to buy Twitter and change its content rules, he is free to do so.  And if and when Elon owns it, the rule will be the same: nobody can force him to disseminate content that he does not want his site to disseminate.  If someone wants a site that WILL disseminate their chosen content, then they are free to develop one -- build your site and methodology, get investors to support it, and launch it.  If it's something people want to view, it will succeed.  If not, tough shit.

1-hundid percent agreed.

[Brisketexan 105275]

Just now, 52-80 said:

Its weird you think each post is a reference to you (and other people "like you"). 

I made a commentary that some people who celebrated Twitter's privately-owned, arbitrary mute/ban/promote decisions, are now alarmed at the *possibility* of new private-ownership's arbitrary decisions.  That's funny. 

Whether you choose to identify with those people and be offended is your prerogative.

No, people get to bitch about those decisions.  People are consumers, consumers get to bitch.  Whether the enterprise listens to and responds to their bitching is another question.  But the one constant is that the government generally can't force the enterprise to do what a  particular subgroup of consumers want.

Just ask Randy Taylor.....

 

[wildcat09 29376]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

If Elon wants to buy a controlling stake in Twitter and make it "Elonitter" and change the content rules, he's free to do so.  Time will tell whether that's a good or bad business decision.

That's the way it works.  But the bitching about a "free and open internet" is a fucking lie.  It IS free and open.  Anyone is free to develop the new Twitter and disseminate functionally any content they want (stuff like kiddie porn being the exception).  Want to build a platform where you disseminate all of the wingnuttery you like?  Go for it.  It's been done, actually -- go to Gab or Truth Social.  The problem is NOT that anyone is restricting the freedom of those sites to disseminate such content.  It's that it has turned out that most people just won't tune in for such idiocy.  So, instead of having their ideas prevail, this crowd wants to force other more successful sites to disseminate their garbage to an audience that, by its decision NOT to tune into Gab and Truth Social, has already said it doesn't particularly want to consume that content.

Socialism.  That's what these people are demanding.

I'm not even conceptually opposed to regulating social media platforms in ways akin to how we used to regulate TV and radio. I'm sympathetic to arguments that they're the modern day public square and they depend on infrastructure that has been developed with substantial government investment. But I can think of a lot of practical problems that would need to be worked out and can't think of any solutions to many of those problems that would be preferable to how shit works currently. 

The conservatives who bitch about current moderation practices though are largely incoherent in their critiques and have nothing to contribute to actually improving how anything works. All they want to do is generate public pressure to force Twitter and Facebook to be even more friendly to conservative propaganda.  

[Anastasis 23481]

I will never not rep the jimmy dean audio clip.

[elfenix 34331]

^^ it really just gets better the more you listen

[Brisketexan 105275]

8 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I'm not even conceptually opposed to regulating social media platforms in ways akin to how we used to regulate TV and radio. I'm sympathetic to arguments that they're the modern day public square and they depend on infrastructure that has been developed with substantial government investment. But I can think of a lot of practical problems that would need to be worked out and can't think of any solutions to many of those problems that would be preferable to how shit works currently. 

The conservatives who bitch about current moderation practices though are largely incoherent in their critiques and have nothing to contribute to actually improving how anything works. All they want to do is generate public pressure to force Twitter and Facebook to be even more friendly to conservative propaganda.  

This.

If we decided to treat internet platforms as a utility, and regulate them the way we used to regulate the airwaves......I am 5,0000% confident that the current crop of "conservatives" would HATE it.  Because network news was never, ever going to broadcast an insane FB post about how Fauci is actually currently in Gitmo, and the Fauci you see is a body double (as just one example of the nuttery out there).

The problem these folks have with the marketplace of ideas is that their ideas suck and not many people actually WANT to consume them, so they want to FORCE those ideas to be shoved onto people's screens.

[Vegas64 677]

Brisket, Captain, I don’t know where you people come from or if you test your posts…the quality of your posts. Yalls posts are very delicious.

[Captainant 27727]

4 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

If Elon wants to buy a controlling stake in Twitter and make it "Elonitter" and change the content rules, he's free to do so.  Time will tell whether that's a good or bad business decision.

That's the way it works.  But the bitching about a "free and open internet" is a fucking lie.  It IS free and open.  Anyone is free to develop the new Twitter and disseminate functionally any content they want (stuff like kiddie porn being the exception).  Want to build a platform where you disseminate all of the wingnuttery you like?  Go for it.  It's been done, actually -- go to Gab or Truth Social.  The problem is NOT that anyone is restricting the freedom of those sites to disseminate such content.  It's that it has turned out that most people just won't tune in for such idiocy.  So, instead of having their ideas prevail, this crowd wants to force other more successful sites to disseminate their garbage to an audience that, by its decision NOT to tune into Gab and Truth Social, has already said it doesn't particularly want to consume that content.

Socialism.  That's what these people are demanding.

For real lmao. Shaggy and Surly exist because people didn't like HornsFans and their absurd over-moderation. Rather than bitch and moan and self-victimize over how mistreated they were for having different ideas, blacklab and imma and the admin team built their own site and the degenerates audience followed. Ain't nobody gonna stop you from building your own shit (and paying for it to run too). Never ceases to give me a chuckle to see people so confidently incorrect about 1A issues.

 

Now on the other hand, if we wanna talk about a free and open internet I'd LOVE to talk more about Net Neutrality so that ISP's don't have the power to arbitrarily shut down/impede access to competing businesses over the internet

[kevwun 15856]

I was gonna mention that earlier.  Where was all of the free internet talk when the big ISP's shoved that down our throats?  Ted Cruz is fine with taking AT&T's money when they want to fuck over their customers.

Edited April 13, 2022 by kevwun