Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
And businesses rarely want to be tied to crazy conspiracy theories. Which is why they started to leave after Musk took over. I should find a source but I think it may be as high as 50%.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Fox news: Trump will be reinstated to Twitter
- Thread starter PoetPhilosopher
- Start date
Fair enough.I said "if", indeed.
I’m just a bit sick of that particular argument, if you get me?
This incessant need to be for “free speech” without even a hint of nuance. It doesn’t bode well and indeed I used to use such an argument. But no one in society should be above reproach or above consequences.
Nothing good comes from such “extremism.”
The hate speech laws in the EU are stricter than in the US.
We are not speaking of hate speech laws. We are speaking of opinions.
The Twitter criteria were very arbitrary.
I do know that some woman was censored for tweeting "I will date white Anglo-Saxon Protestants only".
Is it considered hate speech?
I don't think so. And yet it was not considered an appropriate tweet by the previous management.
We are not speaking of hate speech laws. We are speaking of opinions.
The Twitter criteria were very arbitrary.
I do know that some woman was censored for tweeting "I will date white Anglo-Saxon Protestants only".
Is it considered hate speech?
I don't think so. And yet it was not considered an appropriate tweet by the previous management.
My point is not that previous Twitter moderation was good. It was inconsistent and lack transparency. My point is merely that EU laws aren't more permissive of free speech than US ones, for better or worse.
Whilst not hate speech, it is cringe. That person just announced to the world that one is a bigoted piece of trash. Not a crime per se but I don’t see many companies jumping at the chance to endorse such a message in 2022We are not speaking of hate speech laws. We are speaking of opinions.
The Twitter criteria were very arbitrary.
I do know that some woman was censored for tweeting "I will date white Anglo-Saxon Protestants only".
Is it considered hate speech?
I don't think so. And yet it was not considered an appropriate tweet by the previous management.
If only for PR reasons. And indeed any action taken by users of any platform can be used against said platform on a legal level. Which is pretty much why all companies err on the side of caution and don’t like publicly endorsing free for all social media platforms. They can be sued otherwise and have been in the past.
Actions have consequences in the real world. Who would have guessed, amirite?
And you older guys have the audacity to call my generation lacking in responsibility
Lmao!!!!
Last edited:
Secret Chief
nirvana is samsara
In other news...I've binned my twitter account.
And smoosh it into the ground with astonishing speed?
I appreciate the acknowledgement of Musk in his endeavour to drive one of the most recently profitable social media platforms into the ground in record speed. But I don’t wish that to happen on the sites I actually bother to visit, truth be told
exchemist
Veteran Member
Yes. In our household we've adopt the word covfefe to mean decaffeinated coffee.
But actually I think Trump has become more mad now and this would be showcased to the world if he were to return to Twatter. But Twatter may have folded, or been reincarnated in greatly shrunken form, by the time he comes to use it again in any case.
Meanwhile Trump has a dilemma, because he has sunk his own money into his rival (and notably unsuccessful) channel for sycophancy and disinformation. His channel only survives at all because that is where he pours out his ravings to the followers of his personality cult - it is its sole purpose.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I hadn't thought about that. I don't think that he will be able to help himself.
Secret Chief
nirvana is samsara
RF is demonstrably open to a broad range of political opinions.
Yes, although other things can happen under capitalism, such as hostile takeovers, which is what's happened to Twitter.
Twitter's banning of Trump triggered Musk's buyout and self-destruction of Twitter. Musk doesn't seem to care about the amount of money he's losing on this deal; it appears he did it purely out of spite and revenge over Twitter banning Trump.
From a purely capitalistic point of view, the banning of Trump may have caused worse damage to Twitter than if they had not banned him at all. If, as you say, it's just about money, then it appears that the former leadership of Twitter made an incredibly bad and short-sighted decision which led to their company's demise. Does that sound like a wise business decision? Do they think it was worth it?
My wife was lamenting seeing Trump's face again on the news yesterday, wishing they would stop giving him a platform. I disagreed. At this point, as Subduction Zone implied, Trump is relatively powerless to do damage to any part of America but himself and the Republican party, which he does regularly, so give the man a microphone.
For example, he just destroyed his defense against a litigant who had accused Trump of sexual impropriety, which he denied in a defamatory way, leading to this lawsuit. The defense was that Trump was the sitting president at the time doing his job, and that his speech was protected. Then he opened his mouth again. From source:
E. Jean Carroll, who credibly accused Trump of raping her in the 1990s, has been pursuing a defamation claim against him since 2019. After going public with her story, Carroll became the victim of a verbal attack by Trump, who claimed Carroll was lying and that they never even met. This prompted Carroll to sue Trump, claiming he defamed her after his false utterances harmed her reputation.
Trump’s lawyers have managed to delay justice in this case by arguing that Trump was the President of the United States acting within the scope of his employment when he made the statements, and so his speech was protected. In a recent court filing, Trump’s legal team went as far as describing it as being essential to Trump’s ability “to maintain the trust of the American people.”
Everything changed, however, when Trump decided to repeat the same problematic statements last month on Truth Social. Trump called Carroll’s case a “complete con job” and insisted he never met her. He repeated his claim that “it is a Hoax and a lie” before reminding us: “And, while I am not supposed to say it, this woman is not my type!”
Actually, Trump was “not supposed to say” anything of this. By doing so, he just blew up his whole defense that he was protected from defamation because he made the statements while President. Repeating these statements in October 2022 while a private citizen kicked open the door to liability.
.Trump’s lawyers have managed to delay justice in this case by arguing that Trump was the President of the United States acting within the scope of his employment when he made the statements, and so his speech was protected. In a recent court filing, Trump’s legal team went as far as describing it as being essential to Trump’s ability “to maintain the trust of the American people.”
Everything changed, however, when Trump decided to repeat the same problematic statements last month on Truth Social. Trump called Carroll’s case a “complete con job” and insisted he never met her. He repeated his claim that “it is a Hoax and a lie” before reminding us: “And, while I am not supposed to say it, this woman is not my type!”
Actually, Trump was “not supposed to say” anything of this. By doing so, he just blew up his whole defense that he was protected from defamation because he made the statements while President. Repeating these statements in October 2022 while a private citizen kicked open the door to liability.
Last edited:
Whenever I listen to this man, I think he is blessed by God. I don't want to sound like someone excessively patronizing him, but he sounds like a man who succeeded thanks to his passion and commitment.
Unlike other tycoons, obsessed with a self-destructive profit maximization that eventually leads them to their demise. I have seen them.
So no material things make him take decisions. But the thirst for justice and the desire to re-establish equity (the law id equal for all).
You don't need to be a theist (he is not) to behave as a Christian should, in my humble opinion.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I am not so sure about that. Twitter gets roughly 90% of its money from ads. Trumps speech was threatening to drive advertisers away. Advertisers tend not to like wild and harmful conspiracy theories. Before Musk even took over advertisers were beginning to leave over fears of an end to moderation.
Although Twitter is a site for free speech the ultimate power still lies with those that fund it.
True, although it can be said that advertisers try to avoid controversy whenever they can, which would include (but not be limited to) wild and harmful conspiracy theories. Taking a principled stance against Trump's presence on Twitter may be ethical, and it may have the effect of signaling corporate responsibility. However it was still a controversial decision which has directly led to the near demise of Twitter.
Ultimately, the advertisers who pulled out likely don't care about the fate of Twitter, as there are other platforms and venues on which they can advertise. But my point here is that they don't appear to be completely disinterested bystanders solely interested in profits. Their actions seem motivated more by optics, PR, and politics - which may still have a peripheral effect on their bottom line, but not necessarily. Even companies which people hate (such as Dow Chemical) are still in business, so I'm doubtful as to how much they really care about or affected by public opinion.