Twitter under Musk....

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
icowden

icowden

Squire
deptfordmarmoset said:
Free speech....
Click to expand...


It just illustrated that the guy isn't familiar with what free speech is:-

At Liberties, we work to safeguard the right to freedom of speech both online and offline. Although freedom of speech is a wide-ranging basic human right, it is not unlimited. Most of our rights have to be balanced against each other, which means one person cannot claim free speech protection to incite hatred against others or put them in danger. That’s why hate speech and child pornography are not protected as free speech. Other limitations, such as copyrighted material or personal information, define free speech narrowly and proportionately. Copyright protection serves mostly the interest of the creator. No one can publish Harry Potter under their own name or make it into a movie without the permission of the author, but simple quotations or using material for the purpose of education is usually excepted from copyright protection. The right to privacy also limits free speech. In most cases, it is forbidden to publish sensitive private information – the right to keep your health record private overrules free speech interests, for example. This balance can only be decided on a case-by-case basis.
Click to expand...

It means that you should be allowed to express your opinion, not that your opinion should make you immune from the consequences. So yes Musk is free to call someone a paedo - doesn't mean he won't be successfully sued.
 
Rusty Nails

Rusty Nails

Country Member
Marina Hyde is a genius. This quote from the article by her completely summarises, better than I ever could, my own disillusionment with this particular forum.

"If you spend your day caught up in online fighting, it’s preferable to tell yourself you’re involved in consciousness-raising for your cause. An alternative view is that you are simply obsessively polarising your particular debate, to the point where compromise – boring, unfashionable, yet historically always necessary – becomes a more distant possibility."

.....and the Real Tennis analogy.
 
winjim

winjim

Welcome yourself into the new modern crisis
Rusty Nails said:
Marina Hyde is a genius. This quote from the article by her completely summarises, better than I ever could, my own disillusionment with this particular forum.

"If you spend your day caught up in online fighting, it’s preferable to tell yourself you’re involved in consciousness-raising for your cause. An alternative view is that you are simply obsessively polarising your particular debate, to the point where compromise – boring, unfashionable, yet historically always necessary – becomes a more distant possibility."

.....and the Real Tennis analogy.
Click to expand...

But if you say you don't really fancy a pointless argument then you're accused of living in an echo chamber.
 
FishFright

FishFright

Well-Known Member
Craig the cyclist said:
To be fair, that is probably why you will never have £50m to spend on stuff from Amazon while on the beach.

Lots of mega rich business types are in it for the business/deals/next big thing, not the cash. Celebrity types are more cash orientated, but Alan Sugar, Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Jef fBezos are more about the business side of things.
Click to expand...

Ooh is it spot the odd one out ?
 
icowden

icowden

Squire
dutchguylivingintheuk said:
possibly think it's more likely something like this:

View: https://twitter.com/hillelneuer/status/1518736198361100290
Click to expand...


I'm not keen on that chart.

Lets take twitter. Lets say they have donated $9 to republicans and $1 to democrats. That's still going to put them at the top - it doesn't follow that they have purchased much influence.

Of lets say that 500 employees have donated $1 to democrats but one employee has donated $10,000,000 - it still shows as a bias towards democrats.
 
dutchguylivingintheuk

dutchguylivingintheuk

Veteran
icowden said:
I'm not keen on that chart.

Lets take twitter. Lets say they have donated $9 to republicans and $1 to democrats. That's still going to put them at the top - it doesn't follow that they have purchased much influence.

Of lets say that 500 employees have donated $1 to democrats but one employee has donated $10,000,000 - it still shows as a bias towards democrats.
Click to expand...
As with all stats, you can lie a lot and still sounds credible by tweaking the numbers. it's about donations so it generally rules out the voters that just voted democrats because ''it's not trump'' because they generally or not willing to sponsor the democrats but you point of one person spending 10.000.000 still stands although it sounds very unlikely across all big companies in that list. Especially since rumors/conspiracy's/accusations also are associated with these companies calling them left-wing(= mostly democrat in the us) you can play it all down as above but it's more likely that there is at least some sort of reality in them.
 
Milzy

Milzy

Well-Known Member
Fab Foodie said:
I can't help thinking that Elon Musk is 'The man who fell to earth...'

Having made gazillions from posh lecky cars, space rockets and stuff, he now wants Twitter under his wing to allow more 'free speech' (sic).

Will people desert in droves or will it become (as I fear) a magnet for the righteous right?
Click to expand...

He will save humanity. Less WOKE BS which is used as a weapon against the working classes & Donald Trump back reinstated. Less like China, Northern Korea & Russia. Happy days.
 
D

Deleted member 28

Guest
Mugshot said:
You people? I don't think any one here is trying to buy it for several billion, you'd be better off asking Musk why it's so important to him.
Click to expand...

It's not important to me but you lot have 4 pages worth of interest in it already?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

matticus
Free Speech collides with Cycling Twitter
Replies
9
Top Bottom