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

[52-80 19183]

lmao.  college newszines or bust.

[Brisketexan 105158]

7 minutes ago, Cajun said:

Great false choices Brisket.  You’ve really honed your game.

But since you brought Iran into this…

You're the one complaining about "censorship."  So, do private sites get to moderate their content or not?  And might that even be a good idea?

[wildcat09 29355]

8 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

So, another person who doesn't understand the issue at all.

You just shepherded an enterprise through a multi-year, multi-billion dollar development and marketing exercise to position it as a strong social media platform.  It works as designed, to generate revenue and shareholder value.

Knowing that, answer the following: should your privately developed platform, your business that you created, be forced to allow and host communications that expressly and plainly call for the rape, murder, and eventual extermination of all jews?  Yes or no.

Secondary question: if you decide that it's a good business decision not to allow Nazi murder proponents to communicate such things on your platform, not only might that be your decision to make, but might it actually be a pretty good decision, objectively?  Yes or no.

Nobody actually believes that internet forums or social media platforms should be fully unmoderated. Some people just believe that they shouldn't be subject to moderation.

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

9 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Secondary question: if you decide that it's a good business decision not to allow Nazi murder proponents to communicate such things on your platform, not only might that be your decision to make, but might it actually be a pretty good decision, objectively?  Yes or no.

Yes. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Especially when we've left The Oligarchs to define the term Nazi.

[Brisketexan 105158]

1 minute ago, Billy Pilgrim said:

Good on Musk for trying to allow a forum for reasonable discourse.

The devil sure lives in the "reasonable discourse."

Is it reasonable discourse to amplify coordinated disinformation campaigns about COVID vaccines containing tracking chips?  Is it reasonable discourse to make false claims about election fraud to undermine the entire democratic process, and inspire people to violent action?

We're not talking about people arguing about whether the Capitol Metro project connect remains a good idea or not after recent cost projections, or whether the administration's energy policies are an economic negative or not.  That sort of discourse has never been the problem.  Flat-out lies and hate speech are the problem.  And yes, any human moderated system won't always get those right -- it will miss shit that shouldn't be allowed on the platform, and it will shut some posts down that shouldn't be.  But the policy as a whole for most sites is broken down that way; they DO try to allow for reasonable discourse.  They've just decided that "reasonable discourse" doesn't include flat-out lies and such.

['stache 21821]

11 minutes ago, Wally Fairway said:

Dude, really?

Bezos has the dick shaped spaceships, Elon has the ultra-cool ones with rockets that land on the space pad or even on floating barges. I mean that is certainly awesome.

I thought they were both dick shaped, my bad. Still don't understand what he's selling that makes him wealthier than Bezos.

[52-80 19183]

1 minute ago, 'stache said:

I thought they were both dick shaped, my bad. Still don't understand what he's selling that makes him wealthier than Bezos.

also, bezos makes his money selling cloud computing services, not books cds and diapers

[wildcat09 29355]

5 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Yes. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Especially when we've left The Oligarchs to define the term Nazi.

Is Elon not an oligarch? If not, why not?

[Brisketexan 105158]

6 minutes ago, Cheeseweasel said:

Yes. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Especially when we've left The Oligarchs to define the term Nazi.

Cool.  So, should Surly allow all posts, of anything?  Because I have some Scentsy to sell, and who are you to impinge on my freedom to engage in my business?  Also, I am going to fill your DM inbox with promotions for my wonderful products, because saturation is my marketing plan.  And if you don't buy my products, then I'll troll all your posts, and call for people to beat the shit out of you.

And Surly should allow that, because sunshine and all.

 

Bullshit, sunshine is NOT the best disinfectant.  Allowing people to use your site to market shit -- whether it be Scentsy or hate -- results in both a higher consumption of the product being sold (marketing works) and it makes the site much less attractive for the kind of users you want to attract.  It's bad business, and it's bad for society.

Immamac doesn't allow anyone to post "kill all the dirty jews" here, and I'm glad he doesn't.  And except for Chad Briscoe, no Scentsy sales pitches, either.

Edited April 14, 2022 by Brisketexan

[babysdaddy 2725]

1 hour ago, Neonmoon said:

That is a funny contradiction, but again, it has nothing to do with the opinion article written by Robert Reich. In reading comprehension, it is important to read thing in context and understand the entire article, not just cherry pick quotes to make up your own narrative. 

Reich argued Elon does not care about free speech, the purported reason Musk wants to buy/control twitter. He specifically mentioned the Donald Trump example because Musk opposed the removal of Donald Trump, arguing on Twitter that is was against free speech to do so. Reich listed multiple examples of Musk contradicting his position that Twitter uphold the rights to free speech, arguing if he actually cared about free speech and not power, he would not have blocked people that criticized him or sued them for their words. 

You didn't understand the argument of the article, or didn't read it, and cherry-picked a quote to support a narrative that you created for yourself. 

 

I'm embarrassed for you that you've resorted to defending Robert Reich

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Is Elon not an oligarch? If not, why not?

He's a benevolent dictator. 

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Cool.  So, should Surly allow all posts, of anything?  Because I have some Scentsy to sell, and who are you to impinge on my freedom to engage in my business?  Also, I am going to fill your DM inbox with promotions for my wonderful products, because saturation is my marketing plan.  And if you don't buy my products, then I'll troll all your posts, and call for people to beat the shit out of you.

And Surly should allow that, because sunshine and all.

 

Bullshit, sunshine is NOT the best disinfectant.  Allowing people to use your site to market shit -- whether it be Scentsy or hate -- results in both a higher consumption of the product being sold (marketing works) and it makes the site much less attractive for the kind of users you want to attract.  It's bad business, and it's bad for society.

Immamac doesn't allow anyone to post "kill all the dirty jews" here, and I'm glad he doesn't.  And except for Chad Briscoe, no Scentsy sales pitches, either.

Da fuck you talking about?

[52-80 19183]

4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Cool.  So, should Surly allow all posts, of anything?  Because I have some Scentsy to sell, and who are you to impinge on my freedom to engage in my business?  Also, I am going to fill your DM inbox with promotions for my wonderful products, because saturation is my marketing plan.  And if you don't buy my products, then I'll troll all your posts, and call for people to beat the shit out of you.

And Surly should allow that, because sunshine and all.

 

Bullshit, sunshine is NOT the best disinfectant.  Allowing people to use your site to market shit -- whether it be Scentsy or hate -- results in both a higher consumption of the product being sold (marketing works) and it makes the site much less attractive for the kind of users you want to attract.  It's bad business, and it's bad for society.

Immamac doesn't allow anyone to post "kill all the dirty jews" here, and I'm glad he doesn't.  And except for Chad Briscoe, no Scentsy sales pitches, either.

Make Hornfans.com great again

[Cajun 11719]

9 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

You're the one complaining about "censorship."  So, do private sites get to moderate their content or not?  And might that even be a good idea?

When “moderation” equals muting people just for having a different point of view, well, that’s censorship.  Sorry.

When you’re publicly traded & you play that game thinking no one can touch you and then you find out how very wrong you were?  
 

Delicious.

[High Plains Drifter 11050]

24 minutes ago, Cajun said:

We were past “unbelievable” when censorship started to be celebrated bro.  Find anew descriptor.

 

So, let me make sure I'm clear on what you are saying: we shouldn't be concerned about the US becoming an oligarchy because twitter limits what its users can tweet?

If twitter "censoring" its users is really that big of a concern to you, then you should be really concerned about musk buying it.

 

 

17 minutes ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

Did you just start paying attention today? 
 

Why do you care what Elon does with Twitter?

 

 

 

No. I have posted in this thread previously I believe. I have certainly posted about musk somewhere.

 

Why does anybody care about anything?

 

 

 

[Brisketexan 105158]

Just now, Cheeseweasel said:

Da fuck you talking about?

Content moderation is content moderation.  You either agree with allowing private (that is, non-governmental) sites to moderate their content, or you don't.

And many of those sites will have policies that ban things like shitposting, hate speech, and dissemination of demonstrably false information.  Others will have even more stringent policies -- nothing off topic, at all.  So if you go to the discussion board on "Favorite cross stitch patterns," you best not discuss your favorite jello salad recipe, that doesn't belong on that board and your post will be deleted.  That's content moderation too.

[Foosters 17858]

2 minutes ago, Cajun said:

When “moderation” equals muting people just for having a different point of view, well, that’s censorship.  Sorry.

When you’re publicly traded & you play that game thinking no one can touch you and then you find out how very wrong you were?  
 

Delicious.

When did you become a snowflake?

Private business dude. Fuck off.

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

Content moderation is content moderation.  You either agree with allowing private (that is, non-governmental) sites to moderate their content, or you don't.

And many of those sites will have policies that ban things like shitposting, hate speech, and dissemination of demonstrably false information.  Others will have even more stringent policies -- nothing off topic, at all.  So if you go to the discussion board on "Favorite cross stitch patterns," you best not discuss your favorite jello salad recipe, that doesn't belong on that board and your post will be deleted.  That's content moderation too.

You straw-manned the shit outta that one. Well done.

[Cajun 11719]

7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Cool.  So, should Surly allow all posts, of anything?  Because I have some Scentsy to sell, and who are you to impinge on my freedom to engage in my business?  Also, I am going to fill your DM inbox with promotions for my wonderful products, because saturation is my marketing plan.  And if you don't buy my products, then I'll troll all your posts, and call for people to beat the shit out of you.

And Surly should allow that, because sunshine and all.

 

Bullshit, sunshine is NOT the best disinfectant.  Allowing people to use your site to market shit -- whether it be Scentsy or hate -- results in both a higher consumption of the product being sold (marketing works) and it makes the site much less attractive for the kind of users you want to attract.  It's bad business, and it's bad for society.

Immamac doesn't allow anyone to post "kill all the dirty jews" here, and I'm glad he doesn't.

Boy, interesting the examples you leave out in this post.  Speaks volumes Brisket.

[Cajun 11719]

1 minute ago, Foosters said:

When did you become a snowflake?

Private business dude. Fuck off.

Private publicly traded business.  
 

Right back at ya.

[clapclapclap 9000]

19 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

lmao

This is an employee of the gazillionaire Jeff Bezos owned Washington Post.  (For those who don't immediately recognize the max hypocrisy.)

[Brisketexan 105158]

2 minutes ago, Cajun said:

When “moderation” equals muting people just for having a different point of view, well, that’s censorship.  Sorry.

What about the point of view of "I think Cajun is a jew-lover, and all jew-lovers should be gassed along with the jews?"  That's a "different point of view."  If someone wants to post that, should Immamac allow it, lest he be deemed a "censor?"

Again, none of the policies that anyone is talking about are about "different points of view."  If you think the Biden energy policy is great, or sucks, you can talk about it till you turn blue.  But if you say that it's the admin's policy because it helps support their secret space alien baby blood consumption, and Biden has already murdered and consumed 500 babies this year, that's not a "different point of view."  That's an insane lie, and no reasonable, responsible person should give you a platform to spread that.  You can still think it and say it, but I don't have to give you a platform to do it.

[Brisketexan 105158]

3 minutes ago, Cajun said:

Boy, interesting the examples you leave out in this post.  Speaks volumes Brisket.

Does it?  What examples am I leaving out?

Should Immamac be required to allow posts saying "don't get any vaccines, they contain secret microchips and they are wired to explode inside your brain when Soros gives the signal?"  Or how about "the Biden admin is illegally occupying the White House because the election was stolen, and we should kill him when we get the chance" -- should Surly allow that post?

[Ghost of LL 15539]

7 minutes ago, Cajun said:

Boy, interesting the examples you leave out in this post.  Speaks volumes Brisket.

Do you have a cogent point to make?  Because I'm certainly not seeing it.

And what exactly is it that you want to say on Twitter that you're not currently allowed to say?

[Foosters 17858]

5 minutes ago, Cajun said:

Private publicly traded business.  
 

Right back at ya.

Lol a company being publicly traded does not mean it's now subject to the protections of the first amendment.

[clapclapclap 9000]

Love the sudden CR concern for US oligarchy, when about a dozen funds basically control Wall Street.  Most of them have been pushing the leftist ESG and similar ideals onto the companies they invest in.  Activist investors getting seats on the boards of companies like Exxon to force commitment to green energy goals like reduced fossil fuel use.  A significant factor in the energy companies no longer aggressively pursuing expanded drilling opportunities.  That's just one example in one industry, plenty of more examples across the spectrum.

We already basically have an oligarchy in the US.  

Edited April 14, 2022 by clapclapclap

[elfenix 34322]

 

6 minutes ago, Cajun said:

Private publicly traded business.  
 

Right back at ya.

do you think being publicly traded makes a company not a private entity?

[Moby Ric 2058]

 

[Cajun 11719]

Just now, elfenix said:

 

do you think being publicly traded makes a company not a private entity?

 

Just now, elfenix said:

 

do you think being publicly traded makes a company not a private entity?

Do you think being publicly traded prevents Musk from doing what he’s doing?

[52-80 19183]

5 minutes ago, clapclapclap said:

This is an employee of the gazillionaire Jeff Bezos owned Washington Post.  (For those who don't immediately recognize the max hypocrisy.)

FTR I personally like the Post, and current Twitter, and have no feelings against Bezos.  But I do find all the hypocritical reflexive pearl-clutching hilarious

[Cajun 11719]

2 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Lol a company being publicly traded does not mean it's now subject to the protections of the first amendment.

Woooosh!

[Foosters 17858]

2 minutes ago, clapclapclap said:

Love the sudden CR concern for US oligarchy, when about a dozen funds basically control Wall Street.  Most of them have been pushing the leftist ESG and similar ideals onto the companies they invest in.  Activist investors getting seats on the boards of companies like Exxon to force commitment to green energy goals like reduced fossil fuel use.  A significant factor in the energy companies no longer aggressively pursuing expanded drilling opportunities.

We already basically have an oligarchy in the US.  

Sudden?

 

[Cajun 11719]

3 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Do you have a cogent point to make?  Because I'm certainly not seeing it.

And what exactly is it that you want to say on Twitter that you're not currently allowed to say?

I have never and will never use Twitter.

 

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

12 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Content moderation is content moderation.  You either agree with allowing private (that is, non-governmental) sites to moderate their content, or you don't.

You asked if certain opinions should be allowed to be published. Then you spun that into therefore everyone should be able to slander everyone and spam.

Again, nice strawman.

[Foosters 17858]

Just now, Cajun said:

Woooosh!

 

1 minute ago, Cajun said:

 

Do you think being publicly traded prevents Musk from doing what he’s doing?

There's the Cajun we know

[Vegas64 676]

2 hours ago, 52-80 said:

and before anyone throws questions, yes - 'securities fraud'.  matt levine is a former investment banker and lawyer.  the theme of his articles is that while the term implies outright fraudulent behavior, its been used in many lawsuits to cover literally any action that ultimately impairs market value.  i didn't make it up.

"everything is securities fraud" is his occurring joke, which I guess could be true.

[wildcat09 29355]

Anyone want to actually bet whether Elon actually buys Twitter? 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13515]

I would be surprised if this offer really goes through. Not that Elon couldn't come up with the money or that the board couldn't approve, I just believe they will come to some other agreement.

[elfenix 34322]

1 minute ago, Cajun said:

 

Do you think being publicly traded prevents Musk from doing what he’s doing?

do you post anything other than non-sequiters?

 

 

[Brisketexan 105158]

1 minute ago, Cajun said:

I have never and will never use Twitter.

 

You should.  There are lots of attractive women who post naked pictures there.

That's the primary purpose of the internet, right?

[Trey3216 15348]

6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Does it?  What examples am I leaving out?

Should Immamac be required to allow posts saying "don't get any vaccines, they contain secret microchips and they are wired to explode inside your brain when Soros gives the signal?"  Or how about "the Biden admin is illegally occupying the White House because the election was stolen, and we should kill him when we get the chance" -- should Surly allow that post?

Should people be called science deniers if they believe a subset of the population absolutely should not get the vaccine because the risks of side effects from the vaccine far outweigh the risks of the virus?? 

 

Well, they were.  On here, and on Twitter.  And actual doctors who do actual research and made those comments were given the cancellation treatment.  

 

And they were right for publishing their data and for fighting to show its relevance.  

[Cajun 11719]

1 minute ago, Foosters said:

 

There's the Cajun we know

Are you not entertained?

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

Anyone want to actually bet whether Elon actually buys Twitter? 

He's driving the stock price up. Regardless, he wins.

[Cajun 11719]

1 minute ago, elfenix said:

do you post anything other than non-sequiters?

 

 

Straw men and false choices - cool

Non sequiters - not cool

Got it!

[wildcat09 29355]

1 minute ago, Cheeseweasel said:

He's driving the stock price up. Regardless, he wins.

Worse case scenario for him, he sells his stock back to Twitter and profits enough to cover his eventual settlement costs to resolve the shareholder suit that was just filed against him. 

[Immaculate Vibes 114]

11 minutes ago, clapclapclap said:

Love the sudden CR concern for US oligarchy, when about a dozen funds basically control Wall Street.  Most of them have been pushing the leftist ESG and similar ideals onto the companies they invest in.  Activist investors getting seats on the boards of companies like Exxon to force commitment to green energy goals like reduced fossil fuel use.  A significant factor in the energy companies no longer aggressively pursuing expanded drilling opportunities.

We already basically have an oligarchy in the US.  

Yep. Larry Fink might be the most powerful man in the world outside of J Powell. 
 

We like the oligarchs when they push what we like, hate them when they push what we don’t like. 

[Cajun 11719]

6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

You should.  There are lots of attractive women who post naked pictures there.

That's the primary purpose of the internet, right?

I let Surly curate that for my in PIHB forum.

What, no good?

[Vegas64 676]

33 minutes ago, 'stache said:

I thought they were both dick shaped, my bad. Still don't understand what he's selling that makes him wealthier than Bezos.

Bezos lost half is fortune in a divorce in case you were asleep in 2019 or else who would still be wealthier (or close), I think.

Elon knows better than to marry again and he's attracted to weirdo junky types like Grimes anyways who have so much cognitive dissonance because they are supposed to be New Left and Progressive and want to eat the rich and guillotine Musk types that their hypocrisy keeps them from marrying them, but not having rich little surrogate babies.

Edited April 14, 2022 by Vegas64

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Worse case scenario for him, he sells his stock back to Twitter and profits enough to cover his eventual settlement costs to resolve the shareholder suit that was just filed against him. 

And keeps his name in the papers. He's an evil genius and people don't appreciate it. I look forward to him building an evil lair and selling tickets.

[Ghost of LL 15539]

14 minutes ago, Cajun said:

I have never and will never use Twitter.

 

So honest question--what the fuck do you even care?