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

[UltraMega]

3 minutes ago, pioneerisloud said:

You already quoted it at me earlier....  

 

Let's try this again..... 

 

If me and you were to sit down and play monopoly, and we agreed to the rules as written in the instructions, everyone agrees in the game there. Now I'm starting to fall behind, and so I decided to change the rules to say only I can buy hotels for my properties. You disagree but go along with it. I then win the game. Did I cheat? 

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? 

Edited May 20, 2022 by UltraMega

[Storm-Chaser]

24 minutes ago, UltraMega said:

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. 

Sorry, missed that. 

 

Absolutely. Kim Jun Un could have his own account as well to spew his propaganda. It's up to the user to decide whether something should be censored or not, not big government. 

*up to the user to decide what he/she wants to take as truth and what to take as fiction

Edited May 20, 2022 by Storm-Chaser

[UltraMega]

Just now, Storm-Chaser said:

Sorry, missed that. 

 

Absolutely. Kim Jun Un could have his own account as well to spew his propaganda. It's up to the user to decide whether something should be censored or not, not big government. 

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. 

[Storm-Chaser]

27 minutes ago, UltraMega said:

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. 

 

I say again, you should not be trusting the establishment to package up the truth for you in a nice tidy box. 

 

As for musk, he is serious about buying twitter for the sake of free speech because he actually respects the constitution. 

[UltraMega]

Just now, Storm-Chaser said:

 

I say again, you should not be trusting the establishment to package up the truth for you in a nice tidy box. 

 

As for musk, he is serious about buying twitter for the sake of free speech because he actually respects the constitution. 

At no point have I ever said I trust whatever you think "the establishment" is, and again I could say the exact same thing to you so it's a meaningless statement in a debate like this. I simply go with reality. 

[Storm-Chaser]

1 minute ago, UltraMega said:

The government doesn't tell twitter what to do. The people who run twitter do, the CEO and staff.

Under great influence from Obama and Biden administrations. That's the whole point they are censoring the truth for money and politics.  And they don't want to let go. I have a gut feeling they will figure out a way to sabotage this buyout attempt by Musk.

[Storm-Chaser]

2 minutes ago, UltraMega said:

At no point have I ever said I trust whatever you think "the establishment" is, and again I could say the exact same thing to you so it's a meaningless statement in a debate like this. I simply go with reality. 

If you don't know what the establishment is by now, I don't think we can continue debating. This is really basic stuff. 

Edited May 20, 2022 by Storm-Chaser

[pio]

2 minutes ago, UltraMega said:

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. 

But dude, why can't Kim Jon un say whatever he wants to? He's a leader of a whole country. Authoritarian or not, he should have a voice. As should I. As should you. It is up to YOU to determine what you're reading is trustworthy or not and to check your own sources. Why does Twitter get to say who's right and who's not when they are hosting public servants who are supposed to be open with their citizens? It doesn't matter the opinion.

 

I understand they're a private company, but again, when they started hosting public servants, they quit being private. They skirted around that fact because they are indeed a private company. But you're SUPPOSED to be able to contact public officials with anything. When that's the only way to contact an official, it becomes public domain. It just hasn't been changed legally yet, which is why they get away with it. 

[UltraMega]

17 minutes ago, Storm-Chaser said:

Under great influence from Obama and Biden administrations. That's the whole point they are censoring the truth for money and politics.  And they don't want to let go. I have a gut feeling they will figure out a way to sabotage this buyout attempt by Musk.

That is your opinion, it has no basis in fact.

 

16 minutes ago, Storm-Chaser said:

If you don't know what the establishment is by now, I don't think we can continue debating. This is really basic stuff. 

I certainly have an idea what you mean when you say it, but I don't agree with the implication. 

 

13 minutes ago, pioneerisloud said:

But dude, why can't Kim Jon un say whatever he wants to? He's a leader of a whole country. Authoritarian or not, he should have a voice. As should I. As should you. It is up to YOU to determine what you're reading is trustworthy or not and to check your own sources. Why does Twitter get to say who's right and who's not when they are hosting public servants who are supposed to be open with their citizens? It doesn't matter the opinion.

 

I understand they're a private company, but again, when they started hosting public servants, they quit being private. They skirted around that fact because they are indeed a private company. But you're SUPPOSED to be able to contact public officials with anything. When that's the only way to contact an official, it becomes public domain. It just hasn't been changed legally yet, which is why they get away with it. 

Kim Whatever can say whatever he wants. He just can't tweet about it if twitter doesn't want him to.

 

 

I think what you're really trying to argue over is Section 230, which is the law that enables social media companies to take down post in the first place. The problem with that from your perspective though is that if you repeal Section 230 then social media companies would be liable for everything posted on their platforms, meaning when Trump or whoever does post things that are untrue, the people themselves would be able to be held liable for it so the same law that lets twitter take down inflammatory posts is the same law that keep someone like Trump from facing legal consequences for those same posts. By the same token, twitter could also be held liable for hosting the content so they would have to switch from an open platform where people can post anything and then maybe it gets taken down if it's problematic, to not being able to post anything until it was verified, which would essentially kill social media outright. 

 

I actually think Section 230 could be updated to help reflect the issues of the modern world. I would love to see more people held accountable for spreading harmful misinformation, but I honestly can't think of a realistic and practical way to make Section 230 any better. 

Edited May 20, 2022 by UltraMega

[pio]

1 minute ago, UltraMega said:

That is your opinion, it has no basis in fact.

 

I certainly have an idea what you mean when you say it, but I don't agree with the implication. 

 

Kim Whatever can say whatever he wants. He just can't tweet about it if twitter doesn't want him to.

 

 

I think what you're really trying to argue over is Section 230, which is the law that enables social media companies to take down post in the first place. The problem with that from your perspective though is that if you repeal Section 230 then social media companies would be liable for everything posted on their platforms, meaning when Trump or whoever does post things that are untrue, the people themselves would be able to be held liable for it so the same law that lets twitter take down inflammatory posts is the same lay that keep someone like Trump from facing legal consequences for those same posts. By the same token, twitter could also be held liable for hosting the content so they would have to switch from an open platform where people can post anything and then maybe it gets taken down if it's problematic, to not being able to post anything until it was verified, which would essentially kill social media outright. 

 

I actually think Section 230 could be updated to help reflect the issues of the modern world. I would love to see more people held accountable for spreading harmful misinformation, but I honestly can't think of a realistic and practical way to make Section 230 any better. 

What did trump say that was untrue though? You were asked that earlier and never responded. You mentioned a big lie, but then skipped over when I explained how the big lie IS the lie itself after quoting my own sources at me, not understanding the context. 

 

And what's wrong with that? I say go for it and start suing people for speech and see how that goes.  I'd laugh my butt off if that happened. Twitter shouldn't be responsible. Again, YOU are responsible for determining your own sources as true or not. Everyone, EVERYONE should be free to speak their opinion. Period. Censor certain things, sure like swears or nasty names. But opinions? Really? 

 

You're also skirting around my point that Twitter is no longer private when it's your only way of contacting local representatives. That makes it public domain, period. If they want to keep their way of business, then our representatives SHOULD move away to a platform that doesn't do that. 

[UltraMega]

3 minutes ago, pioneerisloud said:

What did trump say that was untrue though? You were asked that earlier and never responded. You mentioned a big lie, but then skipped over when I explained how the big lie IS the lie itself after quoting my own sources at me, not understanding the context. 

That's not accurate. I posted 6 links about it, and as I already said I did that to avoid debating the political side of this here. 

 

Clearly that didn't help though, as this has gotten pretty political and is also going in circles now. I think we've beaten this dead horse enough.