Twitter adopts 'poison pill' to prevent Elon Musk takeover

[Shooter McGavin 618]

1 hour ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

I edited.  No its a private business on private property

speech laws dont apply

then I would go over to them and be like dude/dudette this is a weed store chill or take your nonsense elsewhere this isnt the place

 

Which is what twitter has done for years, and Musk is continuing.  It's not stopping free speech, it's regulating what you what talked about in your store, or in twitter's case, on their platform.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,471]

Just now, Shooter McGavin said:

Just getting you to understand "private company gibberish"

I think there is a difference, cause when a social media company (all of them) act as a public forum, they are a modern day town hall, I think its different

also when the govt is actively working behind the scenes to tell a private company what can and can't be published on their website, to me thats complete BS, and does violate the 1st

If Elon is taking zero direction (which I doubt) from outside sources, I would be fine with him as the primary business owner making that decision

 

[TimHauck 3,187]

5 minutes ago, Strike said:

There's like 5 of you who argue in almost every thread.  Most of us just want spirited, intelligent debate/discussion. 

Us, lol

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,471]

2 minutes ago, Shooter McGavin said:

Which is what twitter has done for years, and Musk is continuing.  It's not stopping free speech, it's regulating what you what talked about in your store, or in twitter's case, on their platform.

I look at it like this, Verizon can't censor what me and you text to each other, and they as a company are not liable for anything you and I scheme up using their service.  I think Twitter/facebook/IG etc should be the same

[Sean Mooney 2,035]

8 minutes ago, Strike said:

There's like 5 of you who argue in almost every thread.  Most of us just want spirited, intelligent debate/discussion. 

I'm all for it. I've had good conversations with guys like RLLD and Voltaire (even though we clearly disagree on some things). I can focus on just discussing things with the people who want to just have those intelligent debates

[Shooter McGavin 618]

14 minutes ago, Strike said:

Most of us just want spirited, intelligent debate/discussion. 

I don't know who the "us" in, but I believe you're on the team that lies, throws around baseless accusations, accuses people of vile behavior, and changes all arguments to appear as though they "won".  Correct if I'm wrong, but I'll remember this desire for intelligent debate the next time this happens.

[Strike 5,895]

Just now, Shooter McGavin said:

I don't know who the "us" in, but I believe you're on the team that lies, throws around baseless accusations, accuses people of vile behavior, and changes all arguments to appear as though they "won".  Correct if I'm wrong, but I'll remember this desire for intelligent debate the next time this happens.

The guy who's been banned 10 times from a site that NEVER bans anyone is accusing the guy who's never even been suspended of bad faith?  GTFO of here......

[MDC 7,696]

2 minutes ago, Strike said:

The guy who's been banned 10 times from a site that NEVER bans anyone is accusing the guy who's never even been suspended of bad faith?  GTFO of here......

The mods here have said they don’t ban anyone who isn’t reported. So the fact that Shooter has been banned says more about the people who reported him than it says about Shooter.

[Shooter McGavin 618]

13 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

I look at it like this, Verizon can't censor what me and you text to each other, and they as a company are not liable for anything you and I scheme up using their service.  I think Twitter/facebook/IG etc should be the same

Legally Verizon can censor texts, I believe, but there are laws in the telecommunications act of 1996 that make it illegal for voice calls or emails.

You might think that other platforms should not censor people, but that's up to them to decide, not you.  If someone wants to create an app and call it "MagaRoolz" and ban anyone who likes Biden, they can do that.

[Shooter McGavin 618]

5 minutes ago, Strike said:

The guy who's been banned 10 times from a site that NEVER bans anyone is accusing the guy who's never even been suspended of bad faith?  GTFO of here......

I was banned because digby didn't like me.

Again, I'm here for honest intellectual debate.  If you are too, let's see it.

[Strike 5,895]

3 minutes ago, MDC said:

The mods here have said they don’t ban anyone who isn’t reported. So the fact that Shooter has been banned says more about the people who reported him than it says about Shooter.

Disagree.  I've been reported repeatedly, if only by Peenie.    Never banned.  Never suspended.  Because even if someone reports you, you have to have done something wrong for Mike to action on it.  To be banned repeatedly says a lot about the banned person.  Coming back after the owner of a site has said they don't want you here says even more.

[Strike 5,895]

1 minute ago, Shooter McGavin said:

I was banned because digby didn't like me.

Again, I'm here for honest intellectual debate.  If you are too, let's see it.

As I said above, Mike doesn't ban people just because someone doesn't like them.  I can be honest and say if that were the case I'd have been banned a long time ago.  And you've been banned a bunch of times.  If you can't even admit these well known basic facts about your account history why would I engage you in a more serious discussion?

[Mike Honcho 5,381]

1 hour ago, KSB2424 said:

I was making an analogy.  JFC. 

:whoosh:

Sorry, I read what Shooter's post and your's response too quickly. Saw his 'free speech' and then your 'first amendment" reply and didn't read it thoroughly enough to get it was an anology...carry on., 

[Shooter McGavin 618]

4 minutes ago, Strike said:

As I said above, Mike doesn't ban people just because someone doesn't like them.  I can be honest and say if that were the case I'd have been banned a long time ago.  And you've been banned a bunch of times.  If you can't even admit these well known basic facts about your account history why would I engage you in a more serious discussion?

I've had 2 accounts banned, others suspended, and it was probably over a bunch of insults.  One time I can remember I got banned for telling digby I hope he catches fire on a bus and has to fall into a puddle of aids to put it out, banned after that one.  So who's lying?  BTW I'm sure you've insulted people here before, just didn't get under someone's skin to report them.  I haven't been suspended since digby left.

[MDC 7,696]

6 minutes ago, Strike said:

Disagree.  I've been reported repeatedly, if only by Peenie.    Never banned.  Never suspended.  Because even if someone reports you, you have to have done something wrong for Mike to action on it.  To be banned repeatedly says a lot about the banned person.  Coming back after the owner of a site has said they don't want you here says even more.

Mods have also said they will re-ban posters who’ve been banned once and have aliases reported. So it’s possible Shooter was banned one time for a legit reason and got banned another 9 just for being here whike under the original ban.

I have no idea why he was first banned admittedly. You’re right they seem to ban almost no one but probably would if folks kept getting reported.

[iam90sbaby 2,720]

GOAT

 

[Mike Honcho 5,381]

1 minute ago, MDC said:

Mods have also said they will re-ban posters who’ve been banned once and have aliases reported. So it’s possible Shooter was banned one time for a legit reason and got banned another 9 just for being here whike under the original ban.

I have no idea why he was first banned admittedly. You’re right they seem to ban almost no one but probably would if folks kept getting reported.

Moderators????

[Strike 5,895]

3 minutes ago, MDC said:

Mods have also said they will re-ban posters who’ve been banned once and have aliases reported. So it’s possible Shooter was banned one time for a legit reason and got banned another 9 just for being here whike under the original ban.

I have no idea why he was first banned admittedly. You’re right they seem to ban almost no one but probably would if folks kept getting reported.

You've been banned too IIRC, yes? 

[Strike 5,895]

3 minutes ago, Shooter McGavin said:

I've had 2 accounts banned, others suspended, and it was probably over a bunch of insults.  One time I can remember I got banned for telling digby I hope he catches fire on a bus and has to fall into a puddle of aids to put it out, banned after that one.  So who's lying?  BTW I'm sure you've insulted people here before, just didn't get under someone's skin to report them.  I haven't been suspended since digby left.

Whatever.  You've been banned more than twice.  You're just trying to minimize the number because 5-10 makes you look worse than you already do.  If you've been banned that's Mike telling you he doesn't want you here.  And yet you can't stay away.  That's on you, not those who did or didn't report you.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,471]

15 minutes ago, Shooter McGavin said:

Legally Verizon can censor texts, I believe, but there are laws in the telecommunications act of 1996 that make it illegal for voice calls or emails.

You might think that other platforms should not censor people, but that's up to them to decide, not you.  If someone wants to create an app and call it "MagaRoolz" and ban anyone who likes Biden, they can do that.

yes they wouldn't be considered a public utility, I guess thats how I view it

The electric company can't cut me off for saying things they don't like

Edison is a private company

[Strike 5,895]

5 minutes ago, MDC said:

Mods have also said they will re-ban posters who’ve been banned once and have aliases reported. So it’s possible Shooter was banned one time for a legit reason and got banned another 9 just for being here whike under the original ban.

I have no idea why he was first banned admittedly. You’re right they seem to ban almost no one but probably would if folks kept getting reported.

Unlikely.  Mike doesn't read this forum.  Shooter has acknowledged he's a banned alias repeatedly and he's still here.  If what you're saying is true his current alias would be banned too.

[Shooter McGavin 618]

3 minutes ago, Strike said:

Whatever.  You've been banned more than twice.

 

  42 minutes ago, Strike said:

Most of us just want spirited, intelligent debate/discussion. 

 

Here's your chance to back up what you just said.  I told you've I've been banned twice, you dont believe me, prove me wrong.

This is the opposite of intelligent debate.  This is lying and instigating.

[Strike 5,895]

3 minutes ago, Shooter McGavin said:

 

  42 minutes ago, Strike said:

Most of us just want spirited, intelligent debate/discussion. 

 

Here's your chance to back up what you just said.  I told you've I've been banned twice, you dont believe me, prove me wrong.

This is the opposite of intelligent debate.  This is lying and instigating.

Tracking down how many times you've been banned is not intelligent debate OR discussion.   Quit acting like a 10 year old.  FFS.

[Shooter McGavin 618]

1 minute ago, Strike said:

Tracking down how many times you've been banned is not intelligent debate OR discussion.   Quit acting like a 10 year old.  FFS.

When someone tells you something about themselves, don't tell them they're wrong unless you can prove it.  But sure I'm the 10 year old.

[Hardcore troubadour 15,825]

I’m the only one that admits I’m an a-hole. The rest of you are severely lacking self awareness.  

[Strike 5,895]

20 minutes ago, Shooter McGavin said:

I've had 2 accounts banned, others suspended, and it was probably over a bunch of insults.  One time I can remember I got banned for telling digby I hope he catches fire on a bus and has to fall into a puddle of aids to put it out, banned after that one.  So who's lying?  BTW I'm sure you've insulted people here before, just didn't get under someone's skin to report them.  I haven't been suspended since digby left.

Didn't you wish someone would assassinate Trump?

[Shooter McGavin 618]

2 minutes ago, Strike said:

Didn't you wish someone would assassinate Trump?

I don't think so.  As MDC said, I you don't get banned for saying something controversial, you get suspended or banned for being reported, and people reported me when I called them out on their sh1t or made fun of them.  We used to do this all the time back in the day.  I said way worse stuff then.

[Strike 5,895]

Just now, Shooter McGavin said:

I don't think so.  As MDC said, I you don't get banned for saying something controversial, you get suspended or banned for being reported, and people reported me when I called them out on their sh1t or made fun of them.  We used to do this all the time back in the day.  I said way worse stuff then.

You don't think so?  LOL.  Hey, @Voltaire , I know you're pretty knowledgeable about who got banned for wishing presidents were murdered.  Can you confirm if Gutterboy is in the club? 

[MDC 7,696]

26 minutes ago, Strike said:

You've been banned too IIRC, yes? 

No, I play by the rules.  

[Mike Honcho 5,381]

Well this really has turned into a spirited, intelligent debate/discussion. 

[Shooter McGavin 618]

Just now, Mike Honcho said:

Well this really has turned into a spirited, intelligent debate/discussion. 

[Strike 5,895]

1 minute ago, Mike Honcho said:

Well this really has turned into a spirited, intelligent debate/discussion. 

Yep. That's what happens when engaging with some of these yahoos.  They head down irrelevant tangents that have nothing to do with the thread.  Maybe that's why Mike bans them even though they keep coming back. 

[Shooter McGavin 618]

29 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

yes they wouldn't be considered a public utility, I guess thats how I view it

The electric company can't cut me off for saying things they don't like

Edison is a private company

There are laws about denying utility service.  There are no laws protecting one's twitter account.

[Shooter McGavin 618]

54 minutes ago, Shooter McGavin said:

I don't know who the "us" in, but I believe you're on the team that lies, throws around baseless accusations, accuses people of vile behavior, and changes all arguments to appear as though they "won".  Correct if I'm wrong, but I'll remember this desire for intelligent debate the next time this happens.

didn't take long

[Horseman 2,683]

1 hour ago, Sean Mooney said:

I'm all for it. I've had good conversations with guys like RLLD and Voltaire (even though we clearly disagree on some things). I can focus on just discussing things with the people who want to just have those intelligent debates

Focus, maybe.  Intelligent, not a chance.  

[Horseman 2,683]

53 minutes ago, MDC said:

The mods here have said they don’t ban anyone who isn’t reported. So the fact that Shooter has been banned says more about the people who reported him than it says about Shooter.

This only makes sense if the Mods don't review what is reported, which would be stupid.  But, Gutter is a confirmed RAT too so the argument doesn't hold water.

[Shooter McGavin 618]

Before Elon Musk bought Twitter, slurs against Black Americans showed up on the social media service an average of 1,282 times a day. After the billionaire became Twitter’s owner, they jumped to 3,876 times a day.

Slurs against gay men appeared on Twitter 2,506 times a day on average before Mr. Musk took over. Afterward, their use rose to 3,964 times a day.

And antisemitic posts referring to Jews or Judaism soared more than 61 percent in the two weeks after Mr. Musk acquired the site.

These findings — from the Center for Countering Digital Hate, the Anti-Defamation League and other groups that study online platforms — provide the most comprehensive picture to date of how conversations on Twitter have changed since Mr. Musk completed his $44 billion deal for the company in late October. While the numbers are relatively small, researchers said the increases were atypically high.

[Horseman 2,683]

25 minutes ago, Shooter McGavin said:

When someone tells you something about themselves, don't tell them they're wrong unless you can prove it.  But sure I'm the 10 year old.

Horseman hot-wife confirmed.   

Man you suck at this.  

[MDC 7,696]

Just now, Horseman said:

This only makes sense if the Mods don't review what is reported, which would be stupid.  But, Gutter is a confirmed RAT too so the argument doesn't hold water.

My point was that many Geeks self included say things that could technically get you banned all the time. The mods only review and therefore ban anyone if they’re reported by another Geek. So Gutter getting banned doesn’t have anything to do with his conduct. It means other Geeks report him. I don’t know whether he reports anyone else.

What time is your HOTWIFE getting oiled up?  

[Shooter McGavin 618]

2 minutes ago, Horseman said:

Gutter is a confirmed RAT too so the argument doesn't hold water.

Talk is cheap, that's the saying.  Your talk is less than cheap, it's worthless.  All you have to do is provide the links.  You can't. 

Time for Life Lessons for Life Losers.

Life Losers argue like little children.  Don't do that.

If you want to be a man, when you make a claim you back it up with facts.   That's call "proof".

Introduction - Statement of Fact - Confirmation (Proof)

Refutation - Conclusion

 

Learn It - Live It - Start Winning