MUSK BUYS TWITTER!
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
Where did I say I was in favor of Elon banning Kanye? I don't think Elon should have done that.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Why didn't you say so? You had plenty of opportunity.
So you now understand how user agreements work?
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Elon Brings One of America's Most Prominent Nazis Back to Twitter
Neo-Nazi Andrew Anglin has been reinstated to Twitter under Elon Musk’s new policies for the platform. The founder of the white supremacist website The Daily Stormer had been banned from Twitter since 2013.
Anglin has publicly indicated that the goal of his operation and adherence to white nationalist ideology is to “ethnically cleanse White nations of non-Whites and establish an authoritarian government. Many people also believe that the Jews should be exterminated.” Anglin is a staunch supporter of Nazi ideology and regularly espouses Holocaust denail. In 2018, Anglin wrote that he “[hates] women. I think they deserve to be beaten, raped and locked in cages.”
Almost immediately upon having his account reinstated, Anglin tweeted a response to rapper Ye praising Hitler and denying the Holocaust on Alex Jones’ show. “Saying you love Hitler is not even a big deal,” Anglin wrote, “no one cares about that. The man died 80 years ago.”
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Good. ALL voices should be heard, especially those from despicable people.
For instance, TOL management allows YOU a voice here.
way 2 go
Well-known member
Who?
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
You're the one who posted that tweet including "Content moderation around the issues of child exploitation has gotten better under Elon musk, not worse and now Twitter has the data to back that up". In response to anna's post also no less. What was the point of that if you didn't agree with it?
Or was your gif a case of confession through projection?
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
It took you long enough to criticize him for it...
Should any sort of extremist rhetoric be barred from social media platforms in your opinion?
I think the only speech that should be allowed is speech that is approved of by Democrats and only by the Republicans whom Democrats approve of. Don't you?
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Well of course not. What a silly question.
When you've lost even Sebastian Gorka
I've been wondering how long it would take the noobs and rubes to figure this out.
“Twitter files [are] underwhelming so far. Just revealing what we already knew: Twitter was staffed by democrats who did the bidding of Democrats,” Free Beacon reporter Joe Simonson wrote.
Far-right Twitter rival Gab went a step further by attacking Musk. “Elon dropped this total nothingburger Hunter Biden story, which revealed nothing new whatsoever beyond what we have all known for years now,” the company wrote on Telegram, “to distract from the fact that he suspended the biggest cultural superstar of a generation for going on a podcast to say he loves everyone.”
Right-Wingers ‘Deeply Underwhelmed’ by Musk’s Twitter Drop
“Elon dropped this total nothingburger Hunter Biden story,” the far-right Twitter rival Gab wrote.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
You cannot go wrong if you have your legal counsel examine the pertinent case law and set your policy directly according to it, because case law has intricately delimited the fine line between protected and non-protected speech. Libel and slander, and falsely yelling Fire in a crowded theater, and bomb threats, and menacing, intimidating, and threatening, and other things made explicit in case law in this country, are not protected, so indisputable cases of those things should be censored if you're not an irresponsible business. You cannot go wrong with such a policy, since you know ahead of time the result of any legal dispute which comes before a law court will be in your favor.
It isn't like this is unknowable. On the other hand, what about your advertisers? Will they approve of your policy, if all it does is toe the line drawn clearly in case law? Or are they woke, and they demand you censor other things too, and not just the things that cross the line into ambiguous irresponsibility? Do they stop doing business with you, or will they not even consider, as a matter of policy, doing business with you? because your censorship policy is wrong (in their eyes)? If your policy is just openly (as in, publish it) toeing the line drawn clearly in case law, then your advertisers are just subject to the law, rather than you being subject to their bizarre, amateur, juvenile, and un-Constitutional political ideologies.
Your legal counsel should examine this proposal and tell you whether it makes sense, then you just don't have to worry about woke advertisers because you only care about the actual law, and that's a very easy to defend position, no matter who you're dealing with, if you're dealing with someone who says they believe in the rule of law. If they believe in the rule of law, they'll respect your policy when it's 100% based on the actual law.
toe the line - Wiktionary, the free dictionary
