Musk Purchase Twitter?
- Thread starter Katrina
- Start date
I totally agree! I know that people can take things too far that goes beyond free speech, but disinformation wasn't always one-sided from what I saw.
I've never had an account and I don't take much notice of it. I suspect I'll take even less notice if Elon Musk's takeover is agreed. I think any platform controlled by an individual is potentially problematic regardless of owner.
I just read that Trump doesn't want to return to Twitter. Let's see how long that lasts when election time comes though?
Maybe Trump will be unbanned and free speech here we come 🙂
Ohhhhhhhhhhhh flip - that's right he has his own website now LOL
Its not that different from a Forum Owner... Which YOU ARE. The difference is, Twitter is just one encompassing database. And you can speak to the world with your own microphone. That's literally it.
The problem isn't "individual" ownership. Its the people above or below him. Do THEY believe in "X"? For example let's start at the top:
- There was a person on the board that wanted Trump gone. Same with Alex Jones.
Continue to bottom:
- Many staff members hates the right, so the board doesn't care what they do. So, many people got banned for "wrong think," and shadow banned for whatever reason, most of the time its because of political "wrong think." Or wrong think in general.
The middle:
- Some shareholders are people who want something back, like banning voices they don't like... I don't like this stock exchange. Honestly. It used to be: You bought shares, you make money. End of story. The problem is some idiot thought it was a great idea to exchange stock for bans.
- Shareholders include Saudi Arabia. Blackrock, etc. Mostly people who wants to destabilize a country or countries with leftist ideologies. China is in this list because they are on the platform hurting U.S. discourse.
He won't care. The reason why the platform "failed" is because they're not out of alpha or beta. Like a game staggered launch, where alpha is to get feedback, beta is usually a marketing ploy, and testing stability of servers.
That's how I see this "failure." Many people got Truth Social all wrong. Let them iron out the early bugs, issues, and whatnot. Once they do, the floodgates opens, then the influx of users start to flood Truth Social.
Trump can move a platform, like he did for Twitter. Without Trump, Twitter would've died in post-election 2016.
It's a valid point but I make a point of ensuring all the forums I own are run by committee. It's not perfect but it ensures no decisions of any magnitude are taken until there's a consensus of opinion.
Then, you're chained to their opinion. But you're allowed to have this "council" system. It's your decision.
I meant "YOU ARE" with the assumption that you are the owner of the site and administrate as such. That's my bad, I'm sorry. I own 5 forums, and I make my own determination(s).
I try to make decision(s) for the best being of the site. If you step out of line, you have 3 strikes in being disciplined. I believe in 3 strikes.
But, Social Media is censoring content THEY DON'T like. That's the issue. Not "single owner" businesses.
That Section 230 law is going to change how sites are run. I don't want to change it, because then we Forum Owners will be affected. Just like GDPR crawled down to us. There are trolls, losers, people who like to take advantage of laws.
I KNOW ...YOU love that law, I see your posts on TAZ.
I want to focus, and zero on this part. Let me put it this way: There's a wrestling forum that I was a part of until I pissed them off enough to be intentionally banned...
Administrator/Owner does not make his own opinions. He relies on his moderators to carry out his moderation policies.
And I brought this up on another thread (and I mean a political thread), these moderators will listen to lefties as a majority rule. So, rules are not moderated evenly.
So, let's say someone argues with you and calls you racist. The mods will align with their ideology because they want to ociscise the other side. I posted a long post about the confirmation of the black judge, and the whole "groomer" issue. Guess what? I was called a racist, and transphobic. So, I played their game. I played it HARD to make a point, but they only focused on the original posts. After I got banned the owner trashed me, scolded me, and amended the rules to ban any more transphobic comments.
Based. on. a. single. thread. There was a thread complaining about the transphobic comments, which I never made!
That is EXACTLY what we have on Twitter.
Last edited:
I don't know. Free speech comes with a lot of consequences. Think about it, they can't allow illegal stuff like racist groups spouting offensive remarks or have people passing around misinformation that could get people hurt or killed. So at what point is it free speech? It's going to be regulated one way or another.
Err, currently left on twitter is only siding with islamic groups despite the recent Spain issue that happened during easter. None of the twitter was pointing it out in fact twitter left sided with islam. Nobody is going to buy this "racist groups spout offensive stuff" logic anymore. We all know left sides with islam and rest of the world with their religions sides in another category. "Color" based racism is already out of the window even in the right leaning social media sites but "religion" based racism thrives on facebook and twitter which left controls.
At the moment is woke generation that allows saying things and others get shut up and can't say jack all. If we mention something we end up hiding and trying not to get hunted down and killed, woke generation is changing the lifestyle and language
So you don't ban spammers until the committee puts it to a vote? See what I mean by that...you're probably banning people based on a unilateral decision because spam has entered your forum according to how you have defined spam.
Affiliates
