Elon Musk says he would reverse Twitter's permanent Trump ban(axios.com)
axios.com
Elon Musk says he would reverse Twitter's permanent Trump ban
https://www.axios.com/2022/05/10/elon-mask-twitter-permanent-trump-ban
29 comments
Im just waiting for the moment it becomes clear this is another Musk pump and dump.
I knew it. It's a boneheaded move. I plan to delete my twitter account soon.
Deleted mine last week. As I was hovering over that 'deactivate' button I had to ask myself why it was so hard to press that button? And then realized that that hesitation is called "addiction"... and pressed it because it was imperative that I do so. I'm in twitter detox. But mostly I feel a lot better being outside of the outrage machine.
Good work. Now do Facebook.
Never had Facebook
Sadly, still stuck with this hell infested cesspool that FB really is, to keep in touch with family.
The net effect of this will quite possibly be a Twitter full of Muskovites, crypto nuts, and alt-right loonies. Seems like a good way to burn 44 billion dollars.
The left wing loves Trump’s twitter presence. Complaining about him gives them something to do. They’ll use the site more than they currently do if he’s on the platform.
When I realized that Musk is essentially going to turn twitter into 4Chan I deactivated my account.
Time to short TSLA. I know billions have been lost betting against TSLA but if the educated liberals that LOVE Tesla connect their support to money that is then used to unmuzzle Trump they are gonna dump the cars and the stock... right at the time a lot of other manufacturers have credible alternatives. A man cannot serve 2 masters and this Twitter escapade, while interesting has already damaged Tesla.
I've heard this argument before, but what if what ends up happening is that the MAGAs decide that they want to buy Teslas? Sure the MAGA tribe has made fun of EVs in the past, but if the tribe decides that they can own the libs by buying them they'll forget all of that.
What a funny turn about that would be. MAGAs buying EVs to own the Libs. That would be funnier than the loaded gun pointed at my dick craze from a few years ago.
Link to Musk's interview with the Financial Times: https://youtu.be/VfyrQVhfGZc?t=1120 . Twitter discussion starts at 18:40.
Here's the full answer, imo seems levelheaded: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VfyrQVhfGZc&t=1520s
[deleted]
Damn it Elon, you don’t get stuck in re-litigating the past, it’s pointless and doomed to failure.
Trump violated the rules a lot for years building up to finally getting banned… and he deserves the ban. Being important and famous doesn’t change the fact he deserves his ban. Anything you do to undermine this undermines the validity of ALL bans no matter how justified and appropriate each ban was.
Trump violated the rules a lot for years building up to finally getting banned… and he deserves the ban. Being important and famous doesn’t change the fact he deserves his ban. Anything you do to undermine this undermines the validity of ALL bans no matter how justified and appropriate each ban was.
It's interesting that Democrats seem to general favor limiting corporate power yet are completely onboard with permanent bans.
It's useful to consider how this would have played out if large platforms were present during other parts of history. Many of the speeches given civil rights protesters incited some violence, often not the fault of the orator, but would it have triggered a ban?
It's easy to advocate for permanent corporate bans when the people on your side control the company, but will that always be the case? How will your stance change if the Murdoch family buys FB and bans anyone that posts about a BLM protest if it contains any violence whatsoever?
It's useful to consider how this would have played out if large platforms were present during other parts of history. Many of the speeches given civil rights protesters incited some violence, often not the fault of the orator, but would it have triggered a ban?
It's easy to advocate for permanent corporate bans when the people on your side control the company, but will that always be the case? How will your stance change if the Murdoch family buys FB and bans anyone that posts about a BLM protest if it contains any violence whatsoever?
As far as I'm concerned, let a thousand platforms bloom. If the government steps in and prevents that from happening, then we have a problem.
This wasn’t about a side. A lie is a lie is a lie. He got banned for persisting in an objective falsehood. Oh by the way said falsehood was causing irreparable damage to our democracy.
He wasn’t banned because of who he was. He was banned because of what he did.
Clinton lied, Bush lied about Iraq WMDs, CDC lied. Shall we delete their accounts?
A falsehood like the emails on Hunter Biden's laptop that implicated Joe Biden in a Ukrainian money laundering scheme? A story that got countless people and news outlets banned for daring to discuss? A story that we were told was "Ze Russians" manipulating us, and a story that of course turned out to be true.
I feel so protected knowing I wasn't allowed to discuss that story during election season. Not that I would have voted for the ineffectual Trump anyway, but still..
I feel so protected knowing I wasn't allowed to discuss that story during election season. Not that I would have voted for the ineffectual Trump anyway, but still..
The Ministry of Truth will determine what is true. Or is it Homeland Security's new Disinformation Governance Board? so easy to get the two confused
Trump was banned for inciting violence, not for lying. Here were the grounds for the ban: https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio...
I find the rationale weak, Biden objectively has incited magnitudes more violence on twitter by constantly tweeting about how Putin is destroying the global economy and criticising Putin's war, something likely to "incite violence". Far far more than violence than we saw in 2020. It's just that people including Twitters administration are broadly sympathetic with him and supportive of violent resistance.
What Trump got banned for is not inciting violence, but for being an asshole. You can ban any president you please if the standard is "inciting violence" because they'll do hundreds of things in their term that incites violence no matter what they do. It's not the case that twitter will ban everybody who incites violence, they just reserve the right to selectively ban anybody who does.
I find the rationale weak, Biden objectively has incited magnitudes more violence on twitter by constantly tweeting about how Putin is destroying the global economy and criticising Putin's war, something likely to "incite violence". Far far more than violence than we saw in 2020. It's just that people including Twitters administration are broadly sympathetic with him and supportive of violent resistance.
What Trump got banned for is not inciting violence, but for being an asshole. You can ban any president you please if the standard is "inciting violence" because they'll do hundreds of things in their term that incites violence no matter what they do. It's not the case that twitter will ban everybody who incites violence, they just reserve the right to selectively ban anybody who does.
If the Murdoch family buys FB and bans anyone who posts about a BLM protest.. I would happily make a social media startup. We both know that will never happen.
But this is not a question of politics. It is a question of integrity of which Trump has none.
But this is not a question of politics. It is a question of integrity of which Trump has none.
> re-litigating the past, it’s pointless and doomed to failure.
If re-litigating the past is pointless…
> Trump violated the rules a lot for years building up to finally getting banned
…then why was his past behavior relevant when banning him for what was allegedly a single action?
Also…
> Anything you do to undermine this undermines the validity of ALL bans
That’s the point. Many were not valid.
If re-litigating the past is pointless…
> Trump violated the rules a lot for years building up to finally getting banned
…then why was his past behavior relevant when banning him for what was allegedly a single action?
Also…
> Anything you do to undermine this undermines the validity of ALL bans
That’s the point. Many were not valid.