UltraMega

The government doesn't tell twitter what to do. The people who run twitter do, the CEO and staff. It's definitely within their right to disallow disinformation on twitter if they want to. They could even ban all pictures of cats, or all pictures of fish, or all mentions of math or the sky. It's twitter, it's not a news company. Do you understand the distinction? But ok, you think authoritarian leaders should be able to use twitter to spread their propaganda. That totally explains your stance on all of this. I don't agree that twitter should be forced to host propaganda for authoritarian leaders, but I accept that you do and we are not going to agree on that.

Your analogies don't make any sense and do not at all reflect the context of what you're trying to debate. The US is not a game of monopoly and if it were, we'd all be totally screwed. Nothing illegal happened. Period. If you think otherwise, SITE YOUR INFORMATION. You keep filling the air with total nonsense. Can you provide just one quote from the article? Just one?

Do you expect me to take your word for it? Weren't allowed to do what exactly? What did they do that was illegal? You're not really saying anything that makes any sense. Trying to prevent voter fraud is not illegal. Again, please quote the part of the article that you think supports your argument. None of what your claiming is true or accurate which is why I must insist you quote your sources on this.

I did not say you are laughable, I said your response (your argument) is laughable because you clearly didn't read or at least didn't understand the article you posted. Posting a link to an article that you think says something in support of your stance when it actually says the opposite is indeed laughable to me. I'll ask you again if you can quote a part of the article that you think is agreeing with you. Here is a quote from the article you posted that pretty much sums up the point of the whole thing: After that quote the article goes on to say it was a bipartisan effort to keep the election from bring tampered with. So I guess what was actually an unorganized common interest among citizen to keep their election from corruption is seen as a big conspiracy to actually corrupt the election to those who wanted Trump to win. Go figure

That doesn't have anything to do with any of this at all. It's an irrelevant thing to say here. I asked you twice about your thoughts on if Putin should be able to post that there are Nazis in Ukraine to build support for his false flag operation and you did not answer. If you cannot address that point, I will take that as you conceding in this debate. There should be a common sense limit to how easy social media makes it for dangerous and easily falsifiable information to flow on their platforms and while it will probably never be perfect, I think the line is drawn in a logical place right now. But again, if you believe the lies you're never going to be happy about them being taken down.

Ensuring a free and fair election is illegal? Quote the part of the article that you think supports your argument. Seriously man, your response is laughable. The article you posted is fully in support of the idea that nothing was stolen and everything was fully legal and fair. You're completely misunderstanding the point of it, if you even read it.

Dude... Did you even read the article you posted? If so, you clearly didn't understand it. It's not arguing anything in support of your stance at all. It's saying that business and people made ensuring a free and fair election was a top priority so that it would be harder to claim it was stolen.

Sure. I'm not defending Bill Clinton and it's not like two wrongs make a right either.

I made this comparison video: Gives a small but measurable gain here.

It's hard to take someone who takes a mountain of evidence against something and sticks with the one person who keep saying the same lie over and over. You have a ton of evidence to look over, you ignore all of it and circled back to claiming it's not a lie. I don't want to debate that with you because you are clearly hopelessly far from accepting reality and labeling everything you don't want to accept as "establishment spin" which is a totally meaningless thing to say in a debate since I could claim the exact same thing about your side of the argument as well. Not only that, but I don't want to have a political debate. I'm happy to debate the merits of twitter exercising their free speech rights but I don't want to try to convince you that Trump is a liar. If you don't see that by now, likely you never will. You could walk in on him banging your wife and still belief him when he said he didn't do it at the rate you're going. My opinion is just based on verifiable facts plus some common sense. Actually though, I guess I can think of an example that isn't political if you need one. He lied about having sex with those porn stars up until he couldn't deny it anymore.

Again, meaningless opinion that does nothing to further the debate. I don't agree at all that Musk "poured his heart" into a last stich effort to save the nation at all, but I don't want to debate purely subjective opinions either. Musk is not a rocket scientist, he's a CEO. He's a smart guy, sure, but he's not doing the rocket science. He hired engineers who do that. If anything, I credit him with getting rich enough to start making successful engineering teams. He seems to be good at hiring the right people. Musk got rich from real estate and paypal, not rockets. On a side note, while looking stuff up about Musk I learned that his father impregnated his stepdaughter and he lied about it until DNA proved otherwise. Just thought that was an interesting fact. I also didn't know that Musk describes him father as "a terrible human being". I know we all like to think we're not like our parents... but

And infact they are. If you want to go tell people that Musk poops his pants, no one is going to stop you... unless you do it with the intent to harm his business and then, unless it were true, Musk could claim defamation. Twitter exercising their own first amendment rights and choosing not to spread misinformation on their platform does not stop people from saying whatever they want. It just stops them from tweeting about it. Believe it or not, there are other forms of communication out there besides twitter. I mean what the first amendment says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. I think it's clear enough on your own but if you want me to explain the first amendment to you, Wikipedia is probably better for that. Rather than debate reality with you, since it will almost certainly devolve into a political debate even though reality is not subjective... I'll just post some links. Veracity of statements by Donald Trump - Wikipedia Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election - Wikipedia Veracity of statements by Donald Trump - Wikipedia US election 2020: Fact-checking Trump team's main fraud claims - BBC News Senate Report on Russian Interference Suggests Trump Lied to Mueller - Rolling Stone How Many Times Has Trump Lied - TrumpReporter.net If you want to continue this debate, I think you should address this specifically: Putin told his people that there are Nazis in Ukraine that are coming to kill them and that's why he had to invade. If Putin were saying this on twitter, would you argue twitter has no right to block that?

This is the exact same point you made already. Being a successful business man does not grant you special rights nor does it entitle someone to more control over society than someone else. No one is debating his politics. I simply pointed out that he does have a side and that seems to align with his monetary goals. No one is debating his actual political stance at all.

This is purely your opinion, it has no basis in fact nor does it further the debate at all. I am not deciding anything. I, like the people who run twitter, go off of the verifiable facts. 2020 United States presidential election - Wikipedia But it sounds like you're arguing that the people spreading misinformation should be allowed to decide what is misinformation or not. I think part of your argument is that "it's a slippery slope" which you said in your last post. I don't agree, I don't think it's a slippery slope at all. Drawing the line at verifiable false information that has real world negative consequences in a big way seems to be a pretty reasonable place to draw the line for a company like twitter. Twitter is not suppressing important political information. It's suppressing verifiable lies spread by politicians. I think the only next logic step in your debate would be to argue that the lies are actually true and therefore twitter got it wrong. Clearly you think the lies are true, but all real evidence says otherwise. You don't have to agree with twitter, but unless you can make a fact-based argument for why the lies are actually true that is going to counter the plethora of facts saying otherwise that countless people have already looked into deeply, then I don't think your argument has anywhere to go except in circles.

Being good at business and having bad or selfish intentions for society are absolutely not mutually exclusive at all. Being rich is in no way an argument for why someone should be allowed to do something, especially if we are debating moral grounds.

I don't think you addressed my question at all. Simply saying "it suppresses" something is not an argument for why verifiably false information should be allowed to remain on twitter, especially things that lead to real world problems. The point is to suppress the misinformation. Simply acknowledging that the misinformation has indeed been suppressed does nothing to further your point. On top of that, Elon has stated very publicly (on twitter infact) that he does side with one party and it is indeed the one that will keep his taxes lower. There is no question about this, he said it himself. That is simply not true. You keep using the term Free Speech to mean that social media companies cannot exercise control over their own platform, but that isn't what Free Speech means in the slightest. You sight the constitution. This is the first amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Again, it's only about ensuring no legal consequences. It has absolutely nothing to do with forcing a platform like twitter to host false information from public officials. If someone gets banned from twitter, that doesn't mean they can't still say whatever they want, it literally only means they cannot tweet. When twitter bans something, that is twitter exercising their free speech by choosing what they want they deem acceptable to be on their platform, or not to be. Your argument is basically saying that a politician should have the ability to use social media platforms say anything they want whenever they want and basically take away the free speech rights of the business itself by giving precedent to a public official instead of the business owners. Basically you are saying a politician should be able to hyjack a business and take control away from it's owners anytime they have a disagreement over what's true. Putin told his people that there are Nazis in Ukraine that are coming to kill them and that's why he had to invade. If Putin were saying this on twitter, would you argue twitter has no right to block that? If it were true that half the country believes the big lie propagated by the former president, which I am not saying it is or isn't, then it's only because he himself told them to believe in the lie. He is the literal source of the disinformation in this case and his position is why he has been able to spread misinformation so effectively. To argue that it suppresses anyone's voice who believes in the lie is to completely ignore the fact that the person in question is the source of the disinformation in the first place. We live in a world now where people can literally hear recordings of the former president in his own voice asking officials to directly change the voting numbers to ensure a win for him in places he would otherwise lose while he didn't know he was being recorded and still people think twitter is breaking the first amendment by deciding not to facilitate the spread of misinformation. Again, this is the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Point out to me the part that says a politician can say whatever they want on twitter. I think your whole argument is little more than "I believe the lie so I think the source of the lie should be able to keep spreading the lie using social media platforms, despite those businesses having explicit intent to stop the lie from spreading, no matter how much real-world violence and civil unrest it causes." and then misusing the first amendment to back that stance. I enjoy a good debate which is why I'm willing to talk about this with you, but your arguments are poor and rely on misinterpretations of the first amendment, the law, and a belief in the kind of misinformation that is trying to be slowed down in the first place. The foundation of your stance doesn't make for a compelling argument in the slightest. Fundamentally the way you want politicians to be able to control social media is how it works in China.

So what do you do when the president himself is spreading dishonesty? Kind of a conundrum. I think the main flaw in your argument is that twitter is not a news company. If they were, then blocking people who spread disinformation instead of reporting on it would be, well... awkward to say the least, but it's twitter. If they decided they didn't want anyone to post about cake, or the color green, they could do that because twitter is just a social media company, not a news agency. I think your argument is also predicated on a belief that twitter has blocked things that are true. If you believe the big lie then sure, it would seem like twitter is acting unfavorably but all real evidence tells us that those things are infact, lies. I wouldn't expect to be able to convince you that those things you believe to be true are actually lies here, but lets say twitter has no stake in picking sides and they just go off of the available and verifiable information that all says the things they blocked are infact lies. I'm not going to blame twitter for siding with what by all verifiable accounts appears to be the truth. More than that though, to get back to Musk's involvement, it seems his main party affiliation motives are mostly about being a very rich man and wanting to pay less taxes. I don't think he cares about the truth or making twitter better for anyone except himself. Trying to skirt the edge of a political discussion here, but I think just talking about the taxes is probably OK and Tax breaks plus market manipulation seem to be Musks real goals here. He's using his money and influence to move stocks and currencies around while he's able to influence their value while at the same time choosing a political stance best able to line his pockets even further. You're telling me this is the guy we can trust?

How do you see twitter and free speech as being related? Free speech is not about allowing anyone to have an unchecked access to mass communication, it's about not having legal consequences. Do you think a company like twitter should have any obligation, moral or otherwise, to try to curb disinformation? If you want to have this discussion, avoid making it political and don't say things like: "you are slave to (socialistic) propaganda". You can say you are a slave to propaganda" and debate that idea, but don't make it a one-sided political discussion please.

AMD’s new driver runs some games way faster with RX 6000 GPUs | TechRadar WWW.TECHRADAR.COM Frame rate boosting RSR tech also got a nifty improvement with this beta driver Always happy to get more performance but it makes me wonder, why didn't this happen sooner? Download: AMD Software Preview Driver May 2022 Release Notes | AMD

https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/intel-raptor-lake-caches-confirmed-through-leaked-cpu-z-screenshot.html It would seem Intel may have gotten some pressure, or inspiration, from the 5800X3D.

Musk has shown great willingness to use his money and influence to manipulate markets. I don't know how this could translate to a trust worthy person to run any kind of media platform.

What makes Musk more trustworthy than "the establishment"?

Definitely agree that the for profit nature of news, combine with the need to click bait everything is a major issue, if not the largest issue in the media world today.

Ya know, I hope you're right. I don't really care what happens to twitter, I think twitter is going to suck either way and I don't really care about Elon's political beliefs. I just care that more and more he seems like a giant troll and the less control he has over anything that has the potential to manipulate society, the better, and I would feel that way even if he had a neutral stance on relevant issues, but he has made it clear that if he did own twitter, he would want to get rid of all or most of the regulations that put some limits to the amount of disinformation that twitter spreads. Fake News Spreads Faster Than Real News, and Don't Blame Bots WWW.INVERSE.COM It might be a bigger problem than we thought. I don't think it's a free speech issue to want to limit the way easily disproven false information spreads online, it's just common sense. Free speech means you can't be legally prosecuted for saying whatever you want right up to things like yelling bomb on an airplane, it does not mean media companies have to spread whatever info anyone in the world wants to put out there. If we lived in a world where fake news didn't spread faster than the truth, maybe it wouldn't matter but since the real-world effects are so tangible, I really wouldn't hope for anyone who doesn't see this stuff as a problem but instead would want to profit from it to ever be in-charge of it.

I am not an Arma player, but after watching the trailer and a gameplay video of this, I think the graphics are actually a little disappointing. The lighting looks like a pretty basic GI and the asset quality is kinda meh. Bohemian Interactive might have benefited from using some photogrammetry but it doesn't look like they did.