Man posts tweet. Man realises tweet was stupid / wrong / contained made up content. Man deletes tweet.
That's a summary of the story. Surely that's the way things should work?
Well now you're just asking for the moon on a stick.How about man checks facts, and considers the effects of his tweet before retweeting ??
Man should also apologise [assuming there is someone relevant who has been harmed/insulted/offended]. I haven't read the two Daily Mail stories, sorry, just answering your text above.
Did Musk ever apologise to the "paedo guy"?
Well now you're just asking for the moon on a stick.
his behavior was “fueling an unhelpful perception” of the exec’s leadership.'
The story is a bit different, the way how he responded to that tweet makes clear he knows it is not a very reliable source.(he does that more often, just as deleting the tweet after a few hours) However so is the whole Pelosi story just for the elections, that's also the main discussion you saw under that thread, no one took that site seriously but there are lots of questions about the official Pelosi reading, you would assume you don't walk in by one of the best secured politician's in the us. Just as there where no signs of forced entry, and earlier reports about that attacker place him more in the left than in the far right corner.Man posts tweet. Man realises tweet was stupid / wrong / contained made up content. Man deletes tweet.
That's a summary of the story. Surely that's the way things should work?
Looking ominous for the integrity of Twitter.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy...cing-content-violations-ahead-of-us-midterms/