So, Elon did it!

Status
Not open for further replies.
So did he spent his 6 billion yet to end world hunger? 😅

A guy like him doesn't use 46 billion to give everyone 'free speech'. Don't know his motivation but he probably knows the good bits are hidden under tons of crap talk.

Twitter does serve a purpose for underpaid journalists to easily fill some blanc space with anyone's ramblings 👍

This lounge is my social media 😊
 
Forums>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>all other forms of social media. As old man as that may make me sound
 
I disagree "no one has a problem with it". Plenty of people have a problem with how Twitter is used to manipulate public sentiment.


It's crazy the things you can change when you own a public sentiment changing machine. :)

Sorry. The sarcasm didn't come through. I'm well aware a lot of people have problems with it. My joke missed. The difference now is just that a different group is complaining.

A constitutional amendment to change requirements for presidents is not on the table any time soon. There are other ways to potentially make it happen, but they would spark a civil war.

It's not happening.

And, I don't think he cares anyway.

Again....I'm not convinced that he isn't a Bond villain. Looking at a lot of what he does, I think it's still a bit of a toss-up. If forced to bet, though....I feel a lot more confident based on what I know about him compared to someone like Bezos or Gates. Bezos leans that way in my estimation, and Gates just flat out is a Bond villain and always has been.

I do think that a lot of the specific fears are being blown out of proportion. It'll be months before we see the effects of anything he might do, and probably a year or two before we have a real impression of whether or not it's an improvement.
 
Why? It's very easy to quickly go from "free speech for all!" to "well, except for the stuff I don't agree you should post...like boobs and dicks".
I recently produced a podcast for Futurati Podcast with guest Philip Rosedale. He started second life.

He had a problem with hundreds of flying dicks bombarding peoples avatars.

Freaking hilarious.

No matter how bad my day is going I can always say at least I wasn’t attacked by hundreds of flying dicks today.
95A1CF7C-FB2B-4BD5-9972-F79CDD730DC9.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Right there with you. I imagine the so-called "metaverse" will be a big turning point in all of this. Meta/Facebook, Microsoft and others are trying to push the idea of a parallel universe within VR goggles but you're not gonna convince people to prefer these experiences over real life. Concerts in VR/metaverse? No thank you.
I dunno - we have seen about all ages in recent years walking around in the phone universe, completely powerless to unplug. When glasses or contacts become available that blend the real world and virtual it will be the end of humanity as we know it.
There are 5+ billion of the 7 on the planet with cell phones- some don’t have homes, a method of transportation, a job, income or food but they are jacked in.
 
That, and "let me say things purposely designed to piss people off, without consequences"....
That, and bullying. Putting some sort of limitation on that is another of what I see as the main functions of moderation. However ineffective and problematic it may be, it's probably better than none. Do you really want to wake up every day to hundreds of vile messages because you stood up to some jerk with a bunch of followers? Only people who don't mind that sort of cesspool would hang out there, tilting it progressively more and more toxic.
 
I'm thinking now about the trolls from companies who compete with Fractal, who send people on this forum to lie about stuff. So Fractal rightly takes down BS posts of that nature, but a "free speech absolutist" would just say, hey, you just hire a lawyer, that's your recourse.

That's a great idea; that way everyone would end up bankrupt! Yay!

Not to be pithy, but lies have consequences.

Look at DiMarzio and Kinman. According to Kinman, DiMarzio reverse engineered some of Kinman's noise supression / cancelling tech, filed it in US patent court, and Kinman, this tiny tiny company in Australia, was quoted $50,000.00 just to begin defending themselves in court, which they could not afford. They were not allowed to represent themselves and couldn't afford an attorney, so the court found in DiMarzio's favor. In a world like that only those with means have any benefit of this kind of free speech. It's more like a bullying tactic. If anyone can lie about anything, and no one is there to moderate, and you can only fight it by mortgaging your house and giving up years of your life, only the least scrupulous win.
 
The thing about free speech in America is that everybody wants to scream all day long about their ability to say whatever they want, but nobody seems to remember the built-in exceptions to free speech, like for example not "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater." If your speech results in harm to body or property in a way a reasonable person could predict, then you've broken the law. Let's also not forget about Slander (speech) or Libel (written) attempts to defamate someone's character by spreading lies about them in ways that might not physically harm a person or property but instead reputation and/or ability to generate income, which is still illegal.

It will be interesting to see how this goes. For example, if somebody posts some believable deepfake of Trump or Biden diddling a toddler and it goes viral, or other proven-false claims like for example that the 2020 election was "stolen," and those postings result in real legal consequences, will Twitter be held legally responsible for knowingly providing the microphone to those people? If so, will they be cool with being fined into oblivion or will Elon conceed and realize that "some" censorship is a legal necessity?
 
Last edited:
I think he made a mistake but we'll see.

It's one thing to say you're going to allow free speech on the platform but actually implementing it will be difficult. One problem is the company is located in San Fransisco. That means your staff is going to be VERY liberal and they won't be willing participants.

Another problem is absolute free speech where many speakers are anonymous is a recipe for chaos. Some policing is necessary and then you get right back into the issue of what speech is allowed and who decides that.

He's a smart guy so maybe he can figure it out but it's not something I would've done. Personally I think people are souring on social media. I know I am. There are days where I don't even want to come to this forum because of all the negativity (case in point the FM3 bass amp thread).
True words. I don't have any social media anymore other than this forum and it has its moments. I think this is a pretty healthy family we have here but there's always going to be that guy once in a while. Like that one family member at a holiday you wished wouldn't have been invited.
 
The thing about free speech in America is that everybody wants to scream all day long about their ability to say whatever they want, but nobody seems to remember the built-in exceptions to free speech, like for example not "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater." If your speech results in harm to body or property in a way a reasonable person could predict, then you've broken the law. Let's also not forget about Slander (speech) or Libel (written) attempts to defamate someone's character in ways that might not physicall harm a person or property but instead reputation and/or ability to generate income, which is still illegal.

It will be interesting to see how this goes. For example, if somebody posts some believable deepfake of Trump or Biden diddling a toddler and it goes viral, or other proven-false claims like for example that the 2020 election was "stolen," and those postings result in legal consequences, will Twitter be held legally responsible for knowingly providing the microphone to those people if real, significant negative consequences come from those things? If so will they be cool with being fined into Oblivion or will Elon conceed and realize that "some" censorship is a legal necessity?

Yup. The irony is we literally have more access to projecting our views (hence free speech) than
at any time in human history. Literally! Lack of free speech is not an issue unless you live under a
despot in Russia (and hello, China, among others). This is why it is such a cesspool of near infinite
speech, and you have to wade through shit and trash and used condoms to approach finding any
sort of value and/or useful data.

Everyone has access to a platform to project their views---informed and educated or not. Once upon
a time you needed some kind of qualifications to gain access to the microphone or printing press. Now
you just need a username and log in data. Maybe not even that if you factor in the Disinformation Bots
and Popular Opinion Borgs.

Good times!!
 
Do you really want to wake up every day to hundreds of vile messages because you stood up to some jerk with a bunch of followers? Only people who don't mind that sort of cesspool would hang out there, tilting it progressively more and more toxic.
This is exactly how I, and 95% of the people I know see it now... it can't go any lower.
 
Forums>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>all other forms of social media. As old man as that may make me sound
So that is you in The Simpsons shouting at the cloud? 🤪
 
nobody seems to remember the built-in exceptions to free speech, like for example not "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater." If your speech results in harm to body or property in a way a reasonable person could predict, then you've broken the law. Let's also not forget about Slander (speech) or Libel (written) attempts to defamate someone's character by spreading lies about them in ways that might not physically harm a person or property but instead reputation and/or ability to generate income, which is still illegal.

A great number of news people, politicians and leaders would be locked away forever if those laws are enforced again.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom