Current Affairs Elon Musk

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm not a fan of the guy but happy he's bought Twitter. Sick of the hypocritical blue tick mafia on there. Very toxic place. And tbh I do believe in free speech. Only way to combat ideas you don't like is with words, not censorship.

It's funny to see some of the people who were previously saying that "Twitter is a corporation, free speech doesn't apply, they can do what they like". Now saying that this shouldn't be allowed to happen...

Well it's Elon's corporation now. Guess he can do what he likes.
 
moyeslovechild said:
I'm not a fan of the guy but happy he's bought Twitter. Sick of the hypocritical blue tick mafia on there. Very toxic place. And tbh I do believe in free speech. Only way to combat ideas you don't like is with words, not censorship.

It's funny to see some of the people who were previously saying that "Twitter is a corporation, free speech doesn't apply, they can do what they like". Now saying that this shouldn't be allowed to happen...

Well it's Elon's corporation now. Guess he can do what he likes.
Click to expand...
I agree.
 
moyeslovechild said:
I'm not a fan of the guy but happy he's bought Twitter. Sick of the hypocritical blue tick mafia on there. Very toxic place. And tbh I do believe in free speech. Only way to combat ideas you don't like is with words, not censorship.

It's funny to see some of the people who were previously saying that "Twitter is a corporation, free speech doesn't apply, they can do what they like". Now saying that this shouldn't be allowed to happen...

Well it's Elon's corporation now. Guess he can do what he likes.
Click to expand...
Genuine question, where do you draw the line though?
If you set no limits, then you are asking for trouble and the whole site becomes more of a free-for-all than it is now.
 
LostLegend said:
Genuine question, where do you draw the line though?
If you set no limits, then you are asking for trouble and the whole site becomes more of a free-for-all than it is now.
Click to expand...
I think musk has said it won't be a complete free for all, it seems to me he just wants less censorship.

It did seem wild to me that they could ban the sitting POTUS, I am not defending trump and it may have been justified but he waa still the president, just highlighted how much power they have.
 
DuuuncanHadaPigeon said:
I think musk has said it won't be a complete free for all, it seems to me he just wants less censorship.

It did seem wild to me that they could ban the sitting POTUS, I am not defending trump and it may have been justified but he waa still the president, just highlighted how much power they have.
Click to expand...
I thought of it in much the same way a restaurant could refuse to serve someone they deemed unacceptable.
 
moyeslovechild said:
I'm not a fan of the guy but happy he's bought Twitter. Sick of the hypocritical blue tick mafia on there. Very toxic place. And tbh I do believe in free speech. Only way to combat ideas you don't like is with words, not censorship.

It's funny to see some of the people who were previously saying that "Twitter is a corporation, free speech doesn't apply, they can do what they like". Now saying that this shouldn't be allowed to happen...

Well it's Elon's corporation now. Guess he can do what he likes.
Click to expand...

If he does what he likes, it's not going to work as a business but the value plummeting isn't a bad thing I guess
 
LostLegend said:
Genuine question, where do you draw the line though?
If you set no limits, then you are asking for trouble and the whole site becomes more of a free-for-all than it is now.
Click to expand...
It's definitely a difficult line and I'm not saying that it should be a free for all. That isn't going to happen either as there needs to be a level of content moderation in order for the advertisers to stay on side (something YouTube went too far on and destroyed the best parts of the platform). But I definitely do think that they went too far. An example, I am 100% pro Vax but there was and is so much censorship and bans giving out on the vaccine issue. There was people getting censored and banned for pushing the lab leak thing and that's now an accepted possibility, as well as posting things that question vaccine efficiency. The argument should be allowed to take place and I do think it's a Chineselike situation if any opposing thought is censored because the powers that be decide it. I'm not so bothered about the vaccine thing but just always thought it sets a dangerous precedent that such a large platform decides an issue is settled and can't be debated.
 
Last edited:
Jebus_lives said:
I thought of it in much the same way a restaurant could refuse to serve someone they deemed unacceptable.
Click to expand...
You must know that is a poor analogy.

Twitter is much more than a restaurant, it is a source of information (good and bad) for millions/billions of people. By banning the President you set a dangerous precedent, what if there was a national emergency and Twitter or a smartphone may be people's only source of information.

Then there is the hypocritical nature of it, the leader of the Taliban was on twitter whilst a president was banned...
 
DuuuncanHadaPigeon said:
You must know that is a poor analogy.

Twitter is much more than a restaurant, it is a source of information (good and bad) for millions/billions of people. By banning the President you set a dangerous precedent, what if there was a national emergency and Twitter or a smartphone may be people's only source of information.

Then there is the hypocritical nature of it, the leader of the Taliban was on twitter whilst a president was banned...
Click to expand...
The POTUS account wasnt suspended.
 
DuuuncanHadaPigeon said:
You must know that is a poor analogy.

Twitter is much more than a restaurant, it is a source of information (good and bad) for millions/billions of people. By banning the President you set a dangerous precedent, what if there was a national emergency and Twitter or a smartphone may be people's only source of information.

Then there is the hypocritical nature of it, the leader of the Taliban was on twitter whilst a president was banned...
Click to expand...
By keeping him on there, you set a dangerous precedent.

And they didn't ban the office of President, they banned Trump.
 
DuuuncanHadaPigeon said:
I think musk has said it won't be a complete free for all, it seems to me he just wants less censorship.

It did seem wild to me that they could ban the sitting POTUS, I am not defending trump and it may have been justified but he waa still the president, just highlighted how much power they have.
Click to expand...

He wasn't president when he was banned. They couldn't legally ban him until Biden took office, this was all reported on beforehand.

He was banned for the January 6th insurrection.
 
Wizard said:
He also wasn't President anymore. He was kicked off after January 6th when he called people storming the Capitol patriots and inciting an uprising.
Click to expand...
Connor said:
He wasn't president when he was banned. They couldn't legally ban him until Biden took office, this was all reported on beforehand.

He was banned for the January 6th insurrection.
Click to expand...
He was banned Jan 9th, inauguration was Jan 20th.

www.bbc.com

Twitter 'permanently suspends' Trump's account - BBC News

The social media giant bans the US president "due to the risk of further incitement of violence".
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

→ Log in 🔑 Register
🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top