forbes Elon Musk Says Twitter Deal ‘Cannot Move Forward’ Until CEO Proves Fake Account Numbers

[Andrew]

Quote

Elon Musk doubled down Tuesday and said his $44 billion bid to buy Twitter “cannot move forward” until the company proves that fewer than 5% of accounts on the platform are fake, the latest road bump in a series of difficulties for one of the tech world’s most hotly followed acquisitions.

Elon Musk Says Twitter Deal ‘Cannot Move Forward’ Until CEO Proves Fake Account Numbers

WWW.FORBES.COM

---

“My offer was based on Twitter’s SEC filings being accurate,” Musk said.

 

I called this over a week ago.

 

 

Now he's going to wait until everyone has forgot about it, then he's going to dump that $45 billion loan he took out into Tesla stock, then announce that the Cybertruck has started to ship with the Tesla Roadster going into production next year*

 

*Will actually get delayed to probably 2027.

[UltraMega]

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.

[pio]

4 hours ago, UltraMega said:

 

 

Fake News Spreads Faster Than Real News, and Don't Blame Bots

WWW.INVERSE.COM

---

It might be a bigger problem than we thought.

 

Not trying to get too terribly political here, as this is a VERY touchy subject.  However I love how that article blames the people for spreading fake news, but no mention at ALL of the news outlets that profit off the false headlines and outrage stories and that push those stories out to the masses.  No mention at all of the owners of those outlets either that push the stories to their writers, cough cough AP, cough cough cough.  That was a pretty decent read though, so thank you for sharing.  I just think they dropped the ball on putting blame on the people, and not the authors of the stories.  This is why I usually read as many sources as I can about a story, and make up my own decision on how I think the story actually goes based on the various sources I read about it.  For actual news sources, I've really enjoyed the "AllSides" app as it shows literally all sides and leaves it up to the reader to determine which is true and which is not.

 

And of course Elon wasn't going to buy Twitter.  It was a "win" for one side, but of course it wasn't real.  If you all have been paying attention, nobody has really "won" any of these partisan stories.  It always ends like this, with disappointment.  On both sides.  It was just more fake news (kinda).  Its a problem on both sides.  We need to return to ACTUAL journalism IMHO instead of sensationalist fictional authors.

Edited May 18, 2022 by pioneerisloud

[UltraMega]

1 hour ago, pioneerisloud said:

Not trying to get too terribly political here, as this is a VERY touchy subject.  However I love how that article blames the people for spreading fake news, but no mention at ALL of the news outlets that profit off the false headlines and outrage stories and that push those stories out to the masses.  No mention at all of the owners of those outlets either that push the stories to their writers, cough cough AP, cough cough cough.  That was a pretty decent read though, so thank you for sharing.  I just think they dropped the ball on putting blame on the people, and not the authors of the stories.  This is why I usually read as many sources as I can about a story, and make up my own decision on how I think the story actually goes based on the various sources I read about it.  For actual news sources, I've really enjoyed the "AllSides" app as it shows literally all sides and leaves it up to the reader to determine which is true and which is not.

 

And of course Elon wasn't going to buy Twitter.  It was a "win" for one side, but of course it wasn't real.  If you all have been paying attention, nobody has really "won" any of these partisan stories.  It always ends like this, with disappointment.  On both sides.  It was just more fake news (kinda).  Its a problem on both sides.  We need to return to ACTUAL journalism IMHO instead of sensationalist fictional authors.

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. 

[bonami2]

Am starting to see more and more Polestar car in Montreal / Laval --- Quebec Canada

Tesla going down Polestar is a Volvo owned company.

Kinda like the design of the polestar look like a modern Ford Taurus.

 

He just trying to divert attention from investor from the fact he boat is sinking   

 

https://www.polestar.com/

Edited May 19, 2022 by bonami2

[Storm-Chaser]

On 17/05/2022 at 18:20, Andrew said:

Now he's going to wait until everyone has forgot about it, then he's going to dump that $45 billion loan he took out into Tesla stock, then announce that the Cybertruck has started to ship with the Tesla Roadster going into production next year*

You can tell the future? You realize twitter is not disclosing it's SEC filing right? You go right ahead and buy a company that is withholding relevant information? This is ALL on Twitter and has NOTHING to do with Musk. 

 

What I do know is that since Musk announced his bid to buy twitter the mainstream media have been giving him a ton of flack, because the mainstream media works for the globalists and they want to continue with their plans to deploy socialism globally. Having an open platform to discuss truth and lies goes against a cardinal rule of socialism: censorism . I do think you will get the significant of that, sooner or later.

 

Musk is trying to buy out twitter because the world is on the edge of the apocalypse and wants to avoid total collapse of the United States. 

 

What Musk is doing is very admirable, and you should not trust the establishment for your source, ever again.

[Storm-Chaser]

15 hours ago, pioneerisloud said:

And of course Elon wasn't going to buy Twitter.  It was a "win" for one side, but of course it wasn't real. 

I agree, honest journalism is dead. 

 

However, I disagree on the twitter buyout. Musk is 100% onboard trying to buy Twitter. They are attacking him on all fronts because Twitter and the globalist elite want to keep the masses censored from the truth. Hence, all these bogus claims like he is just stroking his ego. 

 

Seriously, who "pretends" to buy a company like twitter? Is it more rational to think about Musks other business dealings. Was he just stroking his ego with rocket engines? 

 

Quote

While Twitter has made mathematical errors regarding its user base in the past—the company has previously miscounted the number of daily users it had for three years running—and Musk says he is still committed to seeing the deal through, the setback has fueled speculation the billionaire might be trying to secure a better deal or have an excuse to walk away, though he faces a termination fee of $1 billion if he does.

 

[UltraMega]

1 hour ago, Storm-Chaser said:

You can tell the future? You realize twitter is not disclosing it's SEC filing right? You go right ahead and buy a company that is withholding relevant information? This is ALL on Twitter and has NOTHING to do with Musk. 

 

What I do know is that since Musk announced his bid to buy twitter the mainstream media have been giving him a ton of flack, because the mainstream media works for the globalists and they want to continue with their plans to deploy socialism globally. Having an open platform to discuss truth and lies goes against a cardinal rule of socialism: censorism . I do think you will get the significant of that, sooner or later.

 

Musk is trying to buy out twitter because the world is on the edge of the apocalypse and wants to avoid total collapse of the United States. 

 

What Musk is doing is very admirable, and you should not trust the establishment for your source, ever again.

What makes Musk more trustworthy than "the establishment"? 

[bwalker36]

1 minute ago, UltraMega said:

What makes Musk more trustworthy than "the establishment"? 

 

 

Nothing lol, I don't trust anyone or anything I don't know personally.  And even then I'm still a trust but verify kind of guy.  

[UltraMega]

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.

[Storm-Chaser]

23 minutes ago, UltraMega said:

What makes Musk more trustworthy than "the establishment"? 

He wants to promote free speech vis a vi the constitutional amendment #1 and he is using $21B of his own money to help stop this assault on our freedoms. That's an investment in preserving the life of this great nation, for one. 

 

The "establishment" wants to censor you and take away competing world views so you are slave to (socialistic) propaganda, then they start telling you what to do and what to believe. These people have infiltrated our government on every level and are now turning all of the systems that help keep America running against the very people whom they are supposed to help. 

 

[Storm-Chaser]

1 hour ago, bwalker36 said:

a trust but verify kind of guy.  

Very important especially now in the fake news era. Always verify. 

[UltraMega]

24 minutes ago, Storm-Chaser said:

He wants to promote free speech vis a vi the constitutional amendment #1 and he is using $21B of his own money to help stop this assault on our freedoms. That's an investment in preserving the life of this great nation, for one. 

 

The "establishment" wants to censor you and take away competing world views so you are slave to (socialistic) propaganda, then they start telling you what to do and what to believe. These people have infiltrated our government on every level and are now turning all of the systems that help keep America running against the very people whom they are supposed to help. 

 

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. 

Edited May 19, 2022 by UltraMega

[Storm-Chaser]

41 minutes ago, UltraMega said:

How do you see twitter and free speech as being related?

Well for one, when you ban your own president from a social media platform just because you don't like his policy, that's censorship 101. 

 

41 minutes ago, UltraMega said:

Do you think a company like twitter should have any obligation, moral or otherwise, to try to curb disinformation? 

Yes, absolutely.  There is no reason to have dishonestly spread through our economy like that. Every company should be stepping up and helping stop the lies (their future actually depends on it, whether they know it or not). Might as well try to fight propaganda on all fronts, or that's at least my take on it. EDIT: Companies should abide by the constitution in just the same way a citizen should. 

 

41 minutes ago, UltraMega said:

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. 

Okay fair enough. 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 19, 2022 by Storm-Chaser

[UltraMega]

1 hour ago, Storm-Chaser said:

Well for one, when you ban your own president from a social media platform just because you don't like his policy, that's censorship 101. 

 

Yes, absolutely.  There is no reason to have dishonestly spread through our economy like that. Every company should be stepping up and helping stop the lies (their future actually depends on it, whether they know it or not). Might as well try to fight propaganda on all fronts, or that's at least my take on it. EDIT: Companies should abide by the constitution in just the same way a citizen should. 

 

Okay fair enough. 

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? 

Edited May 19, 2022 by UltraMega

[Storm-Chaser]

15 minutes ago, UltraMega said:

 

More than that though, to get back to Musk's involvement, it seems his main party affiliation motive 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? 

TBH Musk could care less about his money. He's been known to couch surf and doesn't have a permanent home. 

 

IMHO George Soros is the master manipulator of them all (except for one????)

18 minutes ago, UltraMega said:

So what do you do when the president himself is spreading dishonesty?

Because you are suppressing the political voice of the citizens that voted him into office (half the country). the Herein lies the very essence of the problem.  Plenty of people / governments over the years have claimed this is right or this is wrong and forced people to bend to their will (communism). An open society like our republic simply cannot make those judgements, because they have potential for abuse. Elon is not siding with anyone here, he is merely creating or fostering / hosting an environment where free speech is upheld as opposed to people being banned because they have certain conservative beliefs. The censorship only goes one way, if you look it the issue close enough, you will see that I am correct. 

 

 

[Storm-Chaser]

54 minutes ago, UltraMega said:

So what do you do when the president himself is spreading dishonesty?

You start banning free speech and you erode a little more of the constitution every time. It's a very slippery slope.  Next thing you know the WHO is going to run into town and tear up the original. Equal rights for all, not just people that "think" he is being dishonest. But I'm curious to know, how was Trump dishonest? Trump loves this nation

 

As far as I can tell, it's the democrats who are taking guns and violating the first amendment, while they rail against republicans.

This is called master manipulation and this is how evil operates. I'm trying to get this out without  us having to go political. 

[Storm-Chaser]

3 hours ago, UltraMega said:

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.

Well for one, it's twitter that is withholding SEC filing and delaying the purchase.  I don't know exactly what caused this but it usually means they are hiding something. 

 

The guy is worth 200B, he's obviously doing something right.

[UltraMega]

1 hour ago, Storm-Chaser said:

Because you are suppressing the political voice of the citizens that voted him into office (half the country). the Herein lies the very essence of the problem.  Plenty of people / governments over the years have claimed this is right or this is wrong and forced people to bend to their will (communism). An open society like our republic simply cannot make those judgements, because they have potential for abuse. Elon is not siding with anyone here, he is merely creating or fostering / hosting an environment where free speech is upheld as opposed to people being banned because they have certain conservative beliefs. The censorship only goes one way, if you look it the issue close enough, you will see that I am correct. 

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. 

 

1 hour ago, Storm-Chaser said:

You start banning free speech and you erode a little more of the constitution every time.

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? 

 

Quote

Because you are suppressing the political voice of the citizens that voted him into office (half the country).

 

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. 

Edited May 19, 2022 by UltraMega

[UltraMega]

54 minutes ago, Storm-Chaser said:

Well for one, it's twitter that is withholding SEC filing and delaying the purchase.  I don't know exactly what caused this but it usually means they are hiding something. 

 

The guy is worth 200B, he's obviously doing something right.

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. 

Edited May 19, 2022 by UltraMega

[Storm-Chaser]

14 minutes ago, UltraMega said:

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's true, he has flipped into a conservative due to seeing what wickedness is coming. This bid for twitter is really a desperate measure to save our freedoms. TBH. 

 

How come you get to decide what is mis formation and what is not? With all due respect, you (as in everyone) should have a voice, and be able to have differing political view for fear of retribution. That's why we live in a constitutional republic. You go off the rules and the train goes off the tracks. You don't get to play God anymore than I get to play God?!

 

The fact that twitter is actually suppressing very important political information is treason. 

 

 

[Avacado]

Lets keep this off Musks politics, it always has a way of, um, heightening emotions. 

 

Edited May 19, 2022 by Avacado

[Storm-Chaser]

50 minutes ago, UltraMega said:

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

Mean's he's pretty damn effective at his job, for starters. The guy designs rocket engines for crying out load. You know, the expression, "it's not rocket science", Elon actually does that in real life. I would say he is a very successful businessman, wouldn't you say? 

 

His cars can do low 9s in the 1/4mile when tuned and gutted. That's beating out engines with twice as much horsepower with ease. 

 

Never before have people railed against him like this. And lets not forget the point here : freedom of speech must be upheld at all costs. You can see this as a perfect example, they are trying every tactic available to stop the twitter deal from going through including slander in the media.

 

I predict in a week or so they will come up with enough ideas to halt the sale. So Musk wont get the platform, which is too bad. They will sabotage his plans. 

 

 

Edited May 19, 2022 by Storm-Chaser

[UltraMega]

3 minutes ago, Storm-Chaser said:

That's true, he has flipped into a conservative due to seeing what wickedness is coming. This bid for twitter is really a desperate measure to save our freedoms. TBH. 

This is purely your opinion, it has no basis in fact nor does it further the debate at all. 

 

4 minutes ago, Storm-Chaser said:

How come you get to decide what is mis formation and what is not? With all due respect, you (as in everyone) should have a voice, and be able to have differing political view for fear of retribution. That's why we live in a constitutional republic. You go off the rules and the train goes off the tracks. You don't get to play God anymore than I get to play God?!

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. 

 

7 minutes ago, Storm-Chaser said:

The fact that twitter is actually suppressing very important political information is treason. 

 

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. 

[Storm-Chaser]

1 minute ago, UltraMega said:

But it sounds like you're arguing that the people spreading misinformation should be allowed to decide what is misinformation or not. 

Neither. They should both be treated equal.