Twitter adopts 'poison pill' to prevent Elon Musk takeover

[edjr 6,586]

Twitter won Beenhidden the election. Now it’s Drumpfs turn

[TimHauck 2,870]

2 hours ago, Strike said:

No it's not.  They have rules that apply to both sides now.  Before they had rules but only enforced them against one side and went beyond those rules against that side as well. 

The owner previously said the below, and now is going on and on about how “Trump must win” to save democracy.  Not quite politically neutral if you ask me.  Yeah yeah “these are his opinions,” but for all intents and purposes he is x/twitter.

 

[Strike 5,541]

1 hour ago, TimHauck said:

The owner previously said the below, and now is going on and on about how “Trump must win” to save democracy.  Not quite politically neutral if you ask me.  Yeah yeah “these are his opinions,” but for all intents and purposes he is x/twitter.

 

Twitter being politically neutral is not the same as Elon being politically neutral.  HTH.

[TimHauck 2,870]

43 minutes ago, Strike said:

Twitter being politically neutral is not the same as Elon being politically neutral.  HTH.

A distinction without a difference, IMO.  You are of course welcome to your own opinion.

[5-Points 3,528]

1 hour ago, TimHauck said:

A distinction without a difference, IMO.  You are of course welcome to your own opinion.

There is clearly a difference whether you choose to admit it or not. 

Twitter, under Jack Dorsey, was quite a different social media site than it is under Elon Musk. That is the difference. 

There is freedom of expression allowed by all sides now. Whereas there was mass suppression of conservative expression in 2020. 

You can refuse to admit it, or say you didn't see it, but that doesn't make it true. It just make you suspect. 

[TimHauck 2,870]

26 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

There is clearly a difference whether you choose to admit it or not. 

Twitter, under Jack Dorsey, was quite a different social media site than it is under Elon Musk. That is the difference. 

There is freedom of expression allowed by all sides now. Whereas there was mass suppression of conservative expression in 2020. 

You can refuse to admit it, or say you didn't see it, but that doesn't make it true. It just make you suspect. 

This post has nothing to do with my point.  I didn’t say anything about old Twitter.  All I’m saying is that it is hypocritical IMO for Musk, as the celebrity owner of the site (seen by many as the face of it), to say it needs to be “politically neutral,” but then make many posts in support of Trump.

And several of his pro-Trump posts also relate to X itself so aren’t just personal opinions, such as when he tried to fear monger people into believing that Harris will ban X if she wins.

[Dizkneelande 1,100]

36 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

There is clearly a difference whether you choose to admit it or not. 

Twitter, under Jack Dorsey, was quite a different social media site than it is under Elon Musk. That is the difference. 

There is freedom of expression allowed by all sides now. Whereas there was mass suppression of conservative expression in 2020. 

You can refuse to admit it, or say you didn't see it, but that doesn't make it true. It just make you suspect. 

Zuckerberg can fund Democrat activists in swing states to the tune of $400 million and Bezos can buy the WaPo but, Elon can’t wear a MAGA hat. You should understand the rules by now. 

[5-Points 3,528]

2 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

This post has nothing to do with my point.  I didn’t say anything about old Twitter.  All I’m saying is that it is hypocritical IMO for Musk, as the celebrity owner of the site (seen by many as the face of it), to say it needs to be “politically neutral,” but then make many posts in support of Trump.

And several of his pro-Trump posts also relate to X itself so aren’t just personal opinions, such as when he tried to fear monger people into believing that Harris will ban X if she wins.

His opinions are his. Your opinions are your's. You are both allowed to express those opinions on his social media site. 

Why is it hypocritical for him to express his political views on a site that he allows you to express your political views? 

You make no sense. 

[TimHauck 2,870]

Just now, Dizkneelande said:

Zuckerberg can fund Democrat activists in swing states to the tune of $400 million and Bezos can buy the WaPo but, Elon can’t wear a MAGA hat. You should understand the rules by now. 

Again missing the point.  Have Zuckerberg and Bezos said they need to “upset the far left and the far right equally”?

[5-Points 3,528]

1 minute ago, Dizkneelande said:

Zuckerberg can fund Democrat activists in swing states to the tune of $400 million and Bezos can buy the WaPo but, Elon can’t wear a MAGA hat. You should understand the rules by now. 

I understand them. But much like Elon, I refuse to play by them. It makes them so mad.

 

[TimHauck 2,870]

3 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

His opinions are his. Your opinions are your's. You are both allowed to express those opinions on his social media site. 

Why is it hypocritical for him to express his political views on a site that he allows you to express your political views? 

You make no sense. 

So when he says that Harris/Walz will ban X (stated as fact and not as an opinion), you don’t think he’s speaking on behalf of the company?

[edjr 6,586]

1 hour ago, TimHauck said:

A distinction without a difference, IMO.  You are of course welcome to your own opinion.

how politically neutral was twitter before Elon bought it?

[TimHauck 2,870]

8 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

His opinions are his. Your opinions are your's. You are both allowed to express those opinions on his social media site. 

Why is it hypocritical for him to express his political views on a site that he allows you to express your political views? 

You make no sense. 

Also this would be fine IMO if Musk was not a celebrity universally seen as the face of twitter.  Same way if Zuckerberg or Bill Gates say something it is attached to their companies.

He could at least put the “opinions are my own and do not reflect any positions of X as a company” line in his bio or something.  Instead, he literally links to a Trump fundraising group.

[TimHauck 2,870]

1 minute ago, edjr said:

how politically neutral was twitter before Elon bought it?

Again idiots missing the point 

[5-Points 3,528]

Just now, TimHauck said:

So when he says that Harris/Walz will ban X, you don’t think he’s speaking on behalf of the company?

No. I think he spent a considerable amount of his own personal wealth to purchase what he believed to be, or should be, a free speech platform and any attempt to ban X is an attempt to ban freedom of speech. 

In short, as an African American, he cares more about the U.S. Constitution than do Democrat politicians and their voters. 

[5-Points 3,528]

3 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Also this would be fine IMO if Musk was not a celebrity universally seen as the face of twitter.  Same way if Zuckerberg or Bill Gates say something it is attached to their companies.

He could at least put the “opinions are my own and do not reflect any positions of X as a company” line in his bio or something.  Instead, he literally links to a Trump fundraising group.

He didn't make the rules. He's just playing the game as it is today. 

Can't cry about it now if you didn't cry about it then. 

[edjr 6,586]

5 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Again idiots missing the point 

You should try out for NHL goalie with these deflections

[Dizkneelande 1,100]

8 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Again missing the point.  Have Zuckerberg and Bezos said they need to “upset the far left and the far right equally”?

NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WAPO, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, Politico, Rh Atlantic, The Guardian, Reuters, NPR, AP, PBS, Rolling Stone and, all their affiliates including daytime and nighttime talk, multiple celebrities, most of the Dems in Congress, the President, the Vice President, the current VP candidate, multiple former Democrat Pols, several athletes most of academia, NGOs, the teachers unions and I’m leaving out dozens of others have called Trump a threat to democracy and literal Hitler. Something that doesn’t even exist in our representative republic. You can go phuck yourself. 

[McBonokon 13]

2 minutes ago, Dizkneelande said:

 I’m leaving out dozens of others have called Trump a threat to democracy and literal Hitler

His running mate...

[TimHauck 2,870]

7 minutes ago, Dizkneelande said:

NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WAPO, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, Politico, Rh Atlantic, The Guardian, Reuters, NPR, AP, PBS, Rolling Stone and, all their affiliates including daytime and nighttime talk, multiple celebrities, most of the Dems in Congress, the President, the Vice President, the current VP candidate, multiple former Democrat Pols, several athletes most of academia, NGOs, the teachers unions and I’m leaving out dozens of others have called Trump a threat to democracy and literal Hitler. Something that doesn’t even exist in our representative republic. You can go phuck yourself. 

Again missing the point.  Have   NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WAPO, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, Politico, Rh Atlantic, The Guardian, Reuters, NPR, AP, PBS, Rolling Stone and, all their affiliates including daytime and nighttime talk, multiple celebrities, most of the Dems in Congress, the President, the Vice President, the current VP candidate, multiple former Democrat Pols, several athletes most of academia, NGOs, the teachers unions and I’m leaving out dozens of others said they need to “upset the far left and far right equally”?

[TimHauck 2,870]

10 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

He didn't make the rules. He's just playing the game as it is today. 

Can't cry about it now if you didn't cry about it then. 

 

9 minutes ago, edjr said:

You should try out for NHL goalie with these deflections

By continuing to bring up the whataboutism of old twitter, you seem to be acknowledging that new twitter has a bias too, so thanks for agreeing with me.  But old twitter never said they need to “upset the far left and far right equally.”

Musk, quite literally does make the rules. And he can do what he wants.  But because of his celebrity status, things he says are typically interpreted as also being the opinion of the company he owns (that’s why you see some libs with those dumb bumper stickers on their Teslas).  So it’s hypocritical for the owner of the site to say it needs to be “politically neutral” while also being Trump’s #1 fan.

[5-Points 3,528]

19 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

 

By continuing to bring up the whataboutism of old twitter, you seem to be acknowledging that new twitter has a bias too, so thanks for agreeing with me.  But old twitter never said they need to “upset the far left and far right equally.”

Musk, quite literally does make the rules. And he can do what he wants.  But because of his celebrity status, things he says are typically interpreted as also being the opinion of the company he owns (that’s why you see some libs with those dumb bumper stickers on their Teslas).  So it’s hypocritical for the owner of the site to say it needs to be “politically neutral” while also being Trump’s #1 fan.

You continue to fail to recognize that a company can maintain political neutrality while the owner of said company can express his/her political opinions. 

It's understandable, given nobody on the left has ever been able to pull it off. They always run their companies based on their personal political views, to include refusing service to those who openly hold opposing political views. 

However, Musk isn't that guy. He will allow you to express your political views on his platform, even if he disagrees with them. 

That is the juxtaposition that you can't wrap your head around because it's completely foreign to you. You're used to the suppression of opposing views so you can't fathom that not being the norm. Musk isn't normal, if you haven't noticed. 

[TimHauck 2,870]

25 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

You continue to fail to recognize that a company can maintain political neutrality while the owner of said company can express his/her political opinions. 

It's understandable, given nobody on the left has ever been able to pull it off. They always run their companies based on their personal political views, to include refusing service to those who openly hold opposing political views. 

However, Musk isn't that guy. He will allow you to express your political views on his platform, even if he disagrees with them. 

That is the juxtaposition that you can't wrap your head around because it's completely foreign to you. You're used to the suppression of opposing views so you can't fathom that not being the norm. Musk isn't normal, if you haven't noticed. 

Musk & X is a unique situation though, you can’t really compare him to random lib CEO’s.

1) There are few (maybe no other) CEO’s as outspoken as him

2) He owns a social media company, so the way we hear what he has to say is usually through the company he owns.

Probably the only comparison is Zuck, but even he doesn’t really talk that much.

Again, if Musk made it clear that his opinions did not represent the company, that would be one thing.  But when he makes political statements like accusing the Presidential candidate he opposes of wanting to ban his company, then he is speaking for that company whether you want to admit it or not.

[Strike 5,541]

4 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Musk & X is a unique situation though, you can’t really compare him to random lib CEO’s.

1) There are few (maybe no other) CEO’s as outspoken as him

2) He owns a social media company, so the way we hear what he has to say is usually through the company he owns.

Probably the only comparison is Zuck, but even he doesn’t really talk that much.

Again, if Musk made it clear that his opinions did not represent the company, that would be one thing.  But when he makes political statements like accusing the Presidential candidate he opposes of wanting to ban his company, then he is speaking for that company whether you want to admit it or not.

I don't care if he speaks for the company or not.  That was never his issue with Twitter before he bought it.  His issue was with Twitter censoring conservative points of view.  Nothing hypocritical unless he starts censoring libs. 

[5-Points 3,528]

10 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Musk & X is a unique situation though, you can’t really compare him to random lib CEO’s.

1) There are few (maybe no other) CEO’s as outspoken as him

2) He owns a social media company, so the way we hear what he has to say is usually through the company he owns.

Probably the only comparison is Zuck, but even he doesn’t really talk that much.

Again, if Musk made it clear that his opinions did not represent the company, that would be one thing.  But when he makes political statements like accusing the Presidential candidate he opposes of wanting to ban his company, then he is speaking for that company whether you want to admit it or not.

Well of course, if he's speaking, as the owner of a company, being worried about the banning of his company, he's speaking on behalf of his company. 

You don't think he should be able to do that? 

 

[5-Points 3,528]

7 minutes ago, Strike said:

I don't care if he speaks for the company or not.  That was never his issue with Twitter before he bought it.  His issue was with Twitter censoring conservative points of view.  Nothing hypocritical unless he starts censoring libs. 

Which Musk hasn't done. So his whole argument is invalid. Yet he persists.

[TimHauck 2,870]

12 minutes ago, Strike said:

I don't care if he speaks for the company or not.  That was never his issue with Twitter before he bought it.  His issue was with Twitter censoring conservative points of view.  Nothing hypocritical unless he starts censoring libs. 

Well when he spoke for his company, he said people should vote for Trump if they still wanted to be able to use X.  That is the exact opposite of being “politically neutral.”  HTH

 

5 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

Well of course, if he's speaking, as the owner of a company, being worried about the banning of his company, he's speaking on behalf of his company. 

You don't think he should be able to do that? 

 

I absolutely think he should be able to do that.   I just don’t think he should say the company is being politically neutral before doing so.

[TimHauck 2,870]

6 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

Which Musk hasn't done. So his whole argument is invalid. Yet he persists.

Except for that time he suspended all those journalists who posted articles about how he suspended the guy that tracked his plane after specifically saying he would not ban the guy that tracked his plane.

[5-Points 3,528]

9 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Except for that time he suspended all those journalists who posted articles about how he suspended the guy that tracked his plane after specifically saying he would not ban the guy that tracked his plane.

Wow. You have a hard on for a guy who suspended a guy for live tweeting the whereabouts of his private plane that his family flies on? Seriously?

Given the multiple recent attempts on Trump's life from batshit crazy leftists, I'd say his concerns were warranted. 

[TimHauck 2,870]

17 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

Wow. You have a hard on for a guy who suspended a guy for live tweeting the whereabouts of his private plane that his family flies on? Seriously?

Given the multiple recent attempts on Trump's life from batshit crazy leftists, I'd say his concerns were warranted. 

You’re having a hard time comprehending here.

I don’t care that he suspended him.

I care that he did it after he specifically said he wasn’t going to.

You know, kinda like how he said his company was going to be politically neutral but then he accused one candidate of wanting to ban his company (with no evidence of course).

He’s a great businessman. But he’s a giant hypocrite.

Edit:  and we still don’t know the political leanings of Crooks btw

[5-Points 3,528]

18 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

You’re having a hard time comprehending here.

I don’t care that he suspended him.

I care that he did it after he specifically said he wasn’t going to.

You know, kinda like how he said his company was going to be politically neutral but then he accused one candidate of wanting to ban his company (with no evidence of course).

He’s a great businessman. But he’s a giant hypocrite.

Edit:  and we still don’t know the political leanings of Crooks btw

And I still think you're confusing his freedom of speech with how he runs his company. 

The facts say he's capable of one without compromising the other. 

[shorepatrol 1,870]

3 hours ago, TimHauck said:

Again idiots missing the point 

Correct, you're a focking clown 

[TimHauck 2,870]

44 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

And I still think you're confusing his freedom of speech with how he runs his company. 

The facts say he's capable of one without compromising the other. 

The facts like (falsely) saying Harris is going to ban X?

You guys seem to think being “politically neutral” just means not censoring one side.  But speaking negatively of one side, particularly when doing so on behalf of the company which Musk has done, is also not being politically neutral.

That is all.

[Frozenbeernuts 2,264]

9 hours ago, Strike said:

Twitter being politically neutral is not the same as Elon being politically neutral.  HTH.

This is the answer right here. Liberals didn't have this issue when the rules of the platform favored their party. The rules of the platform favor no party in this election. They can't see that's a major W. But they typically want restrictions on speech so long as it's their party doing the censoring.

[Frozenbeernuts 2,264]

3 hours ago, TimHauck said:

The facts like (falsely) saying Harris is going to ban X?

You guys seem to think being “politically neutral” just means not censoring one side.  But speaking negatively of one side, particularly when doing so on behalf of the company which Musk has done, is also not being politically neutral.

That is all.

So Musk can't have a political stance personally? Is it just Musk who can't have a stance? Was this an issue for you when social media platforms were blatantly altering their rules to favor democrats in the last election?

[TimHauck 2,870]

4 hours ago, Frozenbeernuts said:

So Musk can't have a political stance personally? Is it just Musk who can't have a stance? Was this an issue for you when social media platforms were blatantly altering their rules to favor democrats in the last election?

Again.

He is certainly welcome to his opinion, but it becomes more than just his opinion when he speaks on behalf of the company.  And even that I wouldn’t care about if he didn’t brag about it being “politically neutral.”

And again.

By continuing to bring up old Twitter/other platforms, you guys are acknowledging a bias remains.  My issue isn’t that there’s a bias, since it’s a private company so he can do what he wants, my issue is with him specifically claiming there wasn’t going to be a bias but then having one anyway.

Man you guys are dense.

[TimHauck 2,870]

Good question here

 

 

[5-Points 3,528]

7 hours ago, TimHauck said:

The facts like (falsely) saying Harris is going to ban X?

You guys seem to think being “politically neutral” just means not censoring one side.  But speaking negatively of one side, particularly when doing so on behalf of the company which Musk has done, is also not being politically neutral.

That is all.

And you keep confusing Musk, the man, with X, the company. 

His company is politically neutral, meaning he doesn't use it to favor one side or the other. That doesn't mean he can't have, or as you seem to be struggling with, express, his own opinions. He's not preventing anyone on his platform from expressing their political views, whether he shares those views or not. 

I'm not sure why that is so difficult for you to understand. Let's try this. 

Elon = person with political views.

X = company with no political affiliation 

It ain't rocket science. That's his other company. 

 

 

 

[avoiding injuries 1,580]

11 hours ago, McBonokon said:

His running mate...

Yep. That’s why I’m voting for Vance

[TrailGuy 554]

12 minutes ago, 5-Points said:

And you keep confusing Musk, the man, with X, the company. 

His company is politically neutral, meaning he doesn't use it to favor one side or the other. That doesn't mean he can't have, or as you seem to be struggling with, express, his own opinions. He's not preventing anyone on his platform from expressing their political views, whether he shares those views or not. 

I'm not sure why that is so difficult for you to understand. Let's try this. 

Elon = person with political views.

X = company with no political affiliation 

It ain't rocket science. That's his other company. 

 

 

 

This is a complete lie.

The x algorithm pushes his content to everyone's feeds and his content is right wing maga rhetoric, often falsehoods.

I have an x account I use for sports, gambling, etc.  I don't follow musk.  I see musk tweets about how migrants are eating pets or fema ignoring flood victims.  I tell x I want to see less musk, I don't.  I block musk, still see them. Anytime I accidentally click on a musk post, I see more right wing propaganda.

So you can't say that his opinion is different from the platform.  The platform has allowed and pushed his opinion on its users.  Facts not feels.