DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Twitter Accepts Elon Musk’s Offer to Buy Company in $44 Billion Deal

Next thing you know you are going to call for the banning of books!
Or perhaps pass tax laws that are directly targeting companies to punish them for making statements that the government doesn't agree with.

Headline.....

Brilliant Businessman Obviously Didn't Fact Check Contract Details Before Insane Offer. Claims It's Not His Fault

..... details at 11:00.

lol!

I thought they also withheld information from him that they needed to produce to close the deal.

No, I'll never be a GOPer in the Trump, DeSantis ilk. But I will lend you a trailing purple tag. [/purple]

JC.

If you disagree with twitter's, facebook's, instagram's algorithms or censorship, you can choose not to use them.

I don't get why people care who owns them, it's like Walmart. I don't care for their stores, so I avoid them whenever possible. That's not to say that on rare occasion I don't go in and pick up something for the sake of convenience.

I feel that the degree of caring stems from the fact that these services have become de facto 'utilities' and you are seeing ownership of these services construct their algorithms to effectively mute half the conversation.
Yes, it is their right to do so as long as it isn't a result of them being asked to do so by the government or any political party, but it is still a disenfranchisement of a large sector of the population.

Interesting.

I get that, but it's not like what they do is not known, so at what point do you take your business elsewhere. Someone will fill the void.

Just look how we went from MySpace > Facebook > Instagram (Yes FB is still around, but I think the younger generation see it like the Elks Lodge, a place Grandma and grandpa hang out.)

Trump slams Elon Musk as "another b------t artist" at Alaska rally

Former President Donald Trump dug into Elon Musk over his effort to buy Twitter during a rally in Alaska Saturday, going so far as to call Musk "another b------t artist."

Driving the news: According to statement filed with the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission on Friday, Musk will try to bail on his $44 billion agreement to buy Twitter on the grounds that the social media company hasn't met its contractual obligations.

Back in May, Musk said that he would reverse Twitter's permanent ban of Trump if the deal was successful.

What they're saying: Trump told rallygoers that one of the priorities of a Republican Congress would be to stop "left-wing censorship" before going on to plug his own struggling social media app, Truth Social.

"Sign up now for Truth Social, it’s hot as a pistol,” Trump told the audience.

“Elon is not gonna buy Twitter. Where did you hear that before? From me,” Trump added.

"He’s got himself a mess," he said, later adding, "he's got a pretty rotten contract, I looked at his contract."

Trump recounted that Musk had recently told him that he'd never voted Republican. "I didn’t know that. He told me that he voted for me, so he’s another b------t artist."

https://www.axios.com/2022/07/10/do...3Ui7u0V9AKuZfgCvgpwSa8QQY1y27OFYTbQO7DCU

I would actually allow Trump back on Twitter just to watch the ensuing feud between him and Elon. Trump may have met his match for saying crazy crap out loud.

i agree.

at the end of the day, these are corporations like any other corporation, in any industry here in the US. the moment we all went to create an account and agreed to the ToS was the moment we agreed to use THEIR platform based on THEIR rules. i thought we called that the free market. if that's not the case, or shouldn't be allowed, then that means Purp needs to pay me restitution for all those prison sentences i served in DT. i did NOT get 3 hots and a cot, was not allowed to shower, AND i didn't have commissary privileges.

but since he makes the rules, i can either follow them or go to another message board. that's no different than any other social media platform.

especially since there ARE social media platforms that operate - or market themselves - as a true free speech platform. and the last time i checked, Trump has an app that everyone who wants open ended speech on a social media platform can use. and there ARE different social media platforms, no one is entitled to a social media app just because it's the most popular. you still gotta click agree on the ToS like any other app.

to use government to limited the authority of a corporation to regulate its own business use to be called socialist commie libby libtard marxist policies. all of a sudden people on the right are all for it.

I don't think anyone has ever called the sort of regulation that prevents unfair application of rules as being "socialist commie libby libtard marxist policies", though it still wouldn't surprise me (CEOs would complain). It's the same sort of regulation that broke up Ma Bell, created rules for utilities, etc...

except there isn't any unfair applications of rules, and social media apps aren't utilities. they are corporations who provide a platform to those who agree to their ToS.

a lot of the people whining about being "silenced" are the ones who clearly didn't read the ToS. and it's the free market version of "ignorance of the law is no excuse of breaking it".

so conservatives need to practice what they preach. if you don't like something, don't use it, and go somewhere else. nobody is stopping conservatives from making Truth Social or any other "free speech" social media app from becoming a major player. again, no one is entitled to use an app just because it's more popular than another.

They only support government interfering with business when it suits their purposes. Otherwise, they call it socialism and say hands off.

Yeah, to slam Twitter for not "allowing free speech" and then to praise DeSantis for the way he handled Disney is at best hypocritical.

It happens all the time. Trump called for boycotts of well over 20 companies/corporations just while he was president then he and his family practically did commercials for Goya. All based on political views and statements. All the while they were calling the dems snowflakes. Trump's the biggest snowflake of all. It's hilarious.

It cracked me up that he was pimping a Hispanic food brand after denigrating pretty much all things Hispanic.

Interesting how?

We need to circle back to my first post in this where I stated:

"I feel that the degree of caring stems from the fact that these services have become de facto 'utilities' and you are seeing ownership of these services construct their algorithms to effectively mute half the conversation.
Yes, it is their right to do so as long as it isn't a result of them being asked to do so by the government or any political party, but it is still a disenfranchisement of a large sector of the population."


At a certain point, a commercial entity becomes so pervasive and so ubiquitous that it essentially becomes what is considered a utility.
Now, I'm not arguing that they are in fact utilities, but they are getting quite close to it.

What would be bad is if all of these services were acting in this manner at the behest of a government agency or political party.... THAT would absolutely, 100%, be a 1A violation of everyone.

As for the "just go start a new service" is a gross oversimplification. Just as not just anyone can go start a telephone company, not just anyone has the ability and skills, much less capital, to go start a global software venture. It's like telling an amoeba to just go eat a whale.

To add to your points:

These providers get legal protection from what you say on their platforms, and for blocking certain content. To me this means the government is involved, which in turn does lend some 1A, 5A and 14A questions.

Along with the idea of starting one's own service, even if you have the capital for datacenters and the the skill pool you still need to be able to set up peering agreements. Most of these companies have large scale peering agreements to help the flow of information. Without these you might be behind a tier 2 provider and be bottle necked.

but there ARE already services out there. Trump already started one called Truth Social. Gab, Gettr, Telegram, and Rumble have all been around even before Truth for people complaining about twitter to use.

and on top of that, you haven't proven any disenfranchisement. this goes back to the bigger picture of people complaining about something that isn't really happening.

What does feeling disenfranchise mean?
a feeling in a person or group of having no power or opportunities, or of not being represented in the political system: A sense of disenfranchisement, isolation and desperation has pushed people to the edge

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/disenfranchisement

so are there conservatives using twitter? yes. are there big policial conservative figures using twitter? yes. are they being represented in the political system? lmao, duh.

so, you can't make a valid argument that conservatives are being disenfranchised because your feelings don't line up with the facts, you can't make the argument that these social media platforms are utilities or even becoming one, so i'm really struggling to understand what your issue is with these corporations, who are just like any other corporation.

because if any of that is true, well this is the most popular browns board, or one of. and i've been suspended - disenfranchised - god knows how many times based on your logic. Purp needs the hammer dropped on him so that swish doesn't get suspended from a popular browns message board anymore.

do you agree?

and just to really clarify this:

Utilities mean useful features, or something useful to the home such as electricity, gas, water, cable and telephone. Examples of utilities are brakes, gas caps and a steering wheel in a car. Examples of utilities are electricity and water.

https://www.yourdictionary.com/utilities

so even you trying to equate a social media app to a utility is very flawed. a utility is the INTERNET. social media apps do not prevent you from using the internet. social media apps are no different than this very message board.

Actually, didn't Ajit Pai go so far as to say the internet was itself a free market service vs a public utility? I think the transitive property there would mean Twitter is not a utility then either, which bolsters your point.

Ajit Pai did more to harm the internet than anyone in our internet history. What a pure scumbag.

imma look into that more. thats a good point, so i really want to find out where the internet stands as a service. not just him but by others.

I'd say with world as interconnected as it is, and the amount of things that are being turned digital (IE: newspapers, utility billing, banking, etc), I can see where in the near future, connectivity to the internet may become a necessary public service, whether that is through cellular or hardwire.

I agree with you, and I think most people should. If I recall correctly, people wanted to establish net neutrality based upon the fact the internet was a "utility" but he said "No, no, no, it's a free market service."

It will just be another Parlor where people can spread lies and hate unchecked. That's all anyone was trying to cancel in the first place. It could simply be that people don't understand what terms of service agreements mean.

? What does this even mean? It was anti-cancel culture dudes wanting government to hop in and save the day, like purp who just liked this tweet.

Instead of government, some billionaire bought a private company, fired some people, and…….

Oh I’m sorry, what exactly happens now? Other than a billionaire buying another business, what exactly happens now?

like, is government now gonna step in and regulate twitter because elon owns it? no?

are all the conservatives who claimed they're being canceled getting their accounts back? no?

did purp or memphis get a tax break from this? no?

so like i posted months ago, this was a billionaire buying a private business, that has next to nothing in real world effects on anything, yet the right wingers are back on the the elon savior nonsense.

They don't really care about anything other than they feel someone pwnd the libs. When in fact most of us could care less.

The part your missing is that nobody cares if you care or not.

Most don't care. Only the very far left. But when a certain portion of society thinks anyone who doesn't walk lock step with their views are all the same, that's where they think they accomplished a lot more than they did. They didn't. I doubt if anyone cares what you or Memphis thinks either but that doesn't stop you from expressing it. So in reality you're not being any different than I am. A mirror can be a helpful tool.

if we want to have a more meta conversation about our royalty class and their business ventures, im all for it.

i just really hope people arent going back to the idea that Elon actually cares about free speech. thats the kind of stuff i push back on.

They don't seem to understand that billionaires pander as much as politicians and can change on a dime.....

and now we have a scenario where we can no longer tell the difference between government and business. the US is created a system where they're one in the same. and for all the wrong reasons.

but to be fair Pit, because thats the reality, maybe we do need to care more. 2022 is the year of billionaires throwing hissy fits, and i think we have to come to terms with the fact that these guys have real influence in our real time political discourse.

Kanye certainly helps prove that. i think its pathetic, but a reality nonetheless.

I certainly do care but outside of expressing my concern and voting, if that even actually helps, I feel it's beyond my control. I think it's counterproductive for me to obsess over things that are beyond my control. But watching our elections and the very fabric of democracy crumbling before our very eyes is beyond disturbing.