SuzukiSavage.com - Print Page

SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl
General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Elon taking on Bot's girl
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1667436427

Message started by pg on 11/02/22 at 17:47:07

Title: Elon taking on Bot's girl
Post by pg on 11/02/22 at 17:47:07

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently tweeted “Lmao at a billionaire earnestly trying to sell people on the idea that “free speech” is actually an $8/mo subscription plan”.

In response, Musk quickly shot back “Your feedback is appreciated, now pay $8”.

;D ;D ;D

Musk would then follow up his tweet by tweeting out a screenshot of an AOC t-shirt being sold for $58 on the congresswomen’s official site:

;D ;D ;D

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/11/feedback-appreciated-now-pay-8-elon-musk-calls-dopey-aoc-pair-tweets/

Best regards,

Title: Re: Elon taking on Bot's girl
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 11/02/22 at 18:38:40

Sheza Nidiot

Title: Re: Elon taking on Bot's girl
Post by Eegore on 11/02/22 at 19:09:51

Free speech doesn't apply to Twitter. AOC is confusing a private company with public services that have a direct nexus to Federal controls or funds.

Title: Re: Elon taking on Bot's girl
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 11/02/22 at 20:06:59

Not the problem.
She's such a dumbitch she thinks not having someone shut your words down means you don't have to pay a fee for access to the platform where you actually have freedom of speech.
You can intellectualize all you want, but when government is using the social media to promote Their propaganda and crush opposing views, that is WRONG.

Title: Re: Elon taking on Bot's girl
Post by Eegore on 11/02/22 at 21:18:17

You don't have freedom of speech protections on Twitter no matter how much Musk want's to pretend you do. This is incorrectly interpreting Twitter as a company that has to follow the 1st Amendment.

They are both not worth listening to in my opinion in regards to the 1st Amendment but Musk definitely has the upper hand since he is free to charge whatever he wants for the service he now owns.

As I understand it the whole $8 is pointless anyway. If I want to impersonate somebody else and workaround the system all I have to do is pay $8. So for $80 I can verify 10 duplicitous accounts and get $100's in return profiting those accounts.

"You can intellectualize all you want, but when government is using the social media to promote Their propaganda and crush opposing views, that is WRONG."

Using Twitter is completely voluntary. Do I think Twitter should have gone another route? Yes I do. But do I think my opinion should impact a private company I have no stake in? I don't. They own it, they can go buddy up with Uncle Sam all they want.

Title: Re: Elon taking on Bot's girl
Post by WebsterMark on 11/03/22 at 04:10:41

Using Twitter is completely voluntary. Do I think Twitter should have gone another route? Yes I do. But do I think my opinion should impact a private company I have no stake in? I don't. They own it, they can go buddy up with Uncle Sam all they want.

My best response is that’s a very narrow minded, bordering on pathetic, point of view.

It’s as if you’re saying the company that makes the soap boxes people stand on when they talk on the corner, won’t sell it to certain people unless they meet their criteria. And that criteria is controlled by a government agency who could destroy the soap box company if it doesn’t do what it says which is to deny a soapbox to individuals in the opposite political party currency in charge.

You’re not grasping the idea that in society today social media plays an enormous role. You can’t shrug that off. As I said before, we intrude on private companies all the time such as to prevent monopolies from forming.

You can’t say “Verizon is not my problem so if they want to join up with AT&T and every other communications company and manipulate the market according to what they see fit, that’s fine.” You would never accept that. You may think you do, you may think you would, but you wouldn’t.

Twitter, and Facebook are not little family owned bakeries that refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple when there are a 100 bakeries that do the exact same nearby. Facebook very well could have swung the balance in favor of Biden based on a request/demand/threat from the FBI. That matters because size matters which is another way of saying influence matters.

Title: Re: Elon taking on Bot's girl
Post by Eegore on 11/03/22 at 08:18:05

It’s as if you’re saying the company that makes the soap boxes people stand on when they talk on the corner, won’t sell it to certain people unless they meet their criteria. And that criteria is controlled by a government agency who could destroy the soap box company if it doesn’t do what it says which is to deny a soapbox to individuals in the opposite political party currency in charge.

This assumes Twitter will be destroyed if they don't engage in the program they built and approached the government with. I don't think that is true.

"You’re not grasping the idea that in society today social media plays an enormous role. You can’t shrug that off. As I said before, we intrude on private companies all the time such as to prevent monopolies from forming.

You can’t say “Verizon is not my problem so if they want to join up with AT&T and every other communications company and manipulate the market according to what they see fit, that’s fine.” You would never accept that. You may think you do, you may think you would, but you wouldn’t."

What you describe is illegal and not a free speech issue. What Twitter is electing to do is not illegal or monopolization. They are just a better product and that should not limit their choices because you don't like the current Administration. Either way Twitter is not responsible for maintaining your 1st Amendment rights on their platform, so "free speech" is categorically the wrong argument to make.

"Facebook very well could have swung the balance in favor of Biden based on a request/demand/threat from the FBI. That matters because size matters which is another way of saying influence matters."

Facebook was the single thing, by the Trump Campaign's own admission, that was responsible for his victory in 2016. They ran AI ads non-stop that would revise in real time to adjust for the demographic it displayed in. So yeah Facebook absolutely swung the favor of a Presidential candidate but since it was in Trump's favor it was fine. But if it's in Biden's favor it's not superior strategy, it's stealing an election.

Again you assume the FBI is making threats and Twitter is not doing this by choice. If this is true then Musk won't change the format or the cooperation methods because the Government will "destroy" Twitter.

I don't care how big a company is, if they are a private company that wants to work with the Government there is nothing illegal about that. You don't like it, go join another social media group, start your own, complain, whatever but pulling the "free speech" card every time a company kicks you off their private property is nonsense. Nobody has a Constitutional right to use Twitter. Twitter therefore is not part of your free speech protections so the Government is not infringing on your rights, that don't exist, on that platform.

Title: Re: Elon taking on Bot's girl
Post by Serowbot on 11/03/22 at 08:35:56

Your girl's Ann Coulter.

I WIN!... ;D

Title: Re: Elon taking on Bot's girl
Post by WebsterMark on 11/03/22 at 10:25:58

Facebook was the single thing, by the Trump Campaign's own admission, that was responsible for his victory in 2016. They ran AI ads non-stop that would revise in real time to adjust for the demographic it displayed in. So yeah Facebook absolutely swung the favor of a Presidential candidate but since it was in Trump's favor it was fine. But if it's in Biden's favor it's not superior strategy, it's stealing an election.

This is where you’re missing the point. The FBI went to Facebook and told them the laptop story was a Russian plot to interfere with the election when they knew the laptop story was true. They did this because the people at the top of the FBI did not want Trump re-elected and the more people who knew the truth would improve Trump’s odds of winning. That’s not even in the same ballpark as running targeted ads. Do you see that?

Title: Re: Elon taking on Bot's girl
Post by WebsterMark on 11/03/22 at 10:27:56

4355425F47525F44300 wrote:

Your girl's Ann Coulter.

I WIN!... ;D

So you like them pretty but dumb. That’s cool.

Title: Re: Elon taking on Bot's girl
Post by Eegore on 11/03/22 at 10:37:20

"This is where you’re missing the point. The FBI went to Facebook and told them the laptop story was a Russian plot to interfere with the election when they knew the laptop story was true. They did this because the people at the top of the FBI did not want Trump re-elected and the more people who knew the truth would improve Trump’s odds of winning. That’s not even in the same ballpark as running targeted ads. Do you see that?"

It's in the same ball park as comparing monopolizing company mergers with one company working with the government being equal to infringing on our 1st Amendment.

I understand you think the FBI should not make Trump look bad by using Facebook. What I don't understand is how what the FBI did is infringing on our 1st Amendment rights. Primarily because those rights don't exist on Facebook.

Title: Re: Elon taking on Bot's girl
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 11/03/22 at 11:00:42

The conservative views were squashed, under the guise of Doing Good by eliminating misinformation.
One side's views were not allowed.
The government's official lines were not allowed to be challenged, because the platforms of what was sold as the place for people to stand around and have the watercooler chat. The tech platforms created a back door for the government people to scrub the views that opposed their official lines. When the same people are screaming about how much of a threat to Ahr Dmokkrusee the conservative ideas are cheer it on?
It's NOT right.

Title: Re: Elon taking on Bot's girl
Post by WebsterMark on 11/04/22 at 04:29:37

I understand you think the FBI should not make Trump look bad by using Facebook.

Make Trump look bad? Seriously? The FBI told a private company to delete comments made from individuals because that would have damaged their preferred candidates chances in the election. That is not using Facebook to make Trump look bad?

Are you are you suggesting that if the FBI reviewed any and all publications dispersed by private companies to determine if the content aligned with the current Director’s political goals before it was published, that would be OK because they are private companies?

Title: Re: Elon taking on Bot's girl
Post by Eegore on 11/04/22 at 05:29:44

"Make Trump look bad? Seriously? The FBI told a private company to delete comments made from individuals because that would have damaged their preferred candidates chances in the election. That is not using Facebook to make Trump look bad?"

I would say that is using Facebook to make Trump look bad. If the FBI "told" FB to do this under penalty that is different than requesting it.

"Are you are you suggesting that if the FBI reviewed any and all publications dispersed by private companies to determine if the content aligned with the current Director’s political goals before it was published, that would be OK because they are private companies?"

I am saying that if Facebook chooses to do this it is not an infringement on our 1st Amendment rights because we have no Constitutional right to use Facebook and Facebook has no obligation to protect our 1st Amendment on their platform. If they choose to work with the FBI we can not take them to court for doing that. If they choose to let the FBI edit their content we can not sue Facebook for infringing on our 1st Amendment. Free speech is the wrong argument to make against Facebook and Twitter.

If a private company requires a user agreement to voluntarily use their property and that agreement says anything you do on their property becomes theirs to use and distribute then You have agreed to let them share that specific information with the FBI. This isn't implied consent, this is You stating You read the agreement and... imagine this...agreed.

I understand people addressing if the FBI is forcing companies under penalty to let them censor content. That, if coercion or force is used, is a violation of 1st Amendment protections. The problem thus far is people that I have interacted with claim the FBI "TOLD" private companies what to do, but aren't offering evidence. So they switch from saying the FBI is wrong because they don't have proof to telling private companies what they should do with their business.

The way I see it is if the FBI will "destroy" companies that don't comply then Twitter won't do anything different so they aren't destroyed.

Title: Re: Elon taking on Bot's girl
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 11/04/22 at 08:59:12

I'm pretty sure one of the articles I linked said the government was given a backdoor and could erase what they wanted.

I'm not going hunting for it

Title: Re: Elon taking on Bot's girl
Post by Eegore on 11/04/22 at 09:11:55

If the FBI had this ability they didn't use it very well. Twitter staffed people to manage this project and .

The thing about "backdoor" claims is that it pisses people off, so it's an overused term in my opinion to rile people up. Anytime any organization wants access to something they call it "backdoor" this and "backdoor" that.

As usual it comes down to personal definitions. Backdoor access, to me, means the FBI can access information on Twitter using FBI staff and resources. They have access.

If the FBI needs Twitter to compile and hand over information, they do not have backdoor access.

Title: Re: Elon taking on Bot's girl
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 11/04/22 at 09:20:19

That would be the definition I agree with. A backdoor means you can go in without help and do what you want,

Title: Re: Elon taking on Bot's girl
Post by WebsterMark on 11/04/22 at 14:58:00

Title: Re: Elon taking on Bot's girl
Post by Eegore on 11/04/22 at 16:10:49

I disagree with you on this Eegore. When the FBI applies pressure to social media companies by telling them to censor content under the false pretense that the information is fabricated to effect an election in one direction (when in fact they did that to effect the election in another direction) and the effect of that is people using this platform as a means to express themselves, having been told this was a means to publicly do so, are forbidden to do so, is a 1st Amendment case.

It may be when you take the case against the FBI because the FBI has a responsibility to protect the 1st Amendment. Taking that same argument to court against Twitter would go nowhere. When Twitter does something people don't like they conveniently forget they have media rights, protected under the 1st Amendment. But they remember those media rights all the sudden when FOX news is on TV.

If Twitter chooses to work with the government there is no legal recourse. But if the government forces Twitter to work with the government then there is legal recourse as long as proof evident standards are met. I'm not sure why people have such a hard time understanding they have no right to use Twitter, and Twitter has no obligation to allow anyone - of any political affiliation - to use their medium.

Title: Re: Elon taking on Bot's girl
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 11/04/22 at 16:49:47

Still not about legalities.
It's the fact that someone chose to crush the voices of everyone who engaged in Wrong speak
And the GOVERNMENT asked them to.
So, two bad actors.
Government and tech.
It's
FUKKING
WRONG

Title: Re: Elon taking on Bot's girl
Post by Eegore on 11/04/22 at 20:43:29

"It's the fact that someone chose to crush the voices of everyone who engaged in Wrong speak"

True but it was on their property, that every single user agreed to. Not your property, not public property, their property.

You have no rights or privileges in regards to Twitter. None. Why would anyone expect that?

"And the GOVERNMENT asked them to."

Twitter actually approached the GOVERNMENT themselves with the program, but yeah the GOVERNMENT asked them to censor certain posts, and Twitter chose to coordinate.

Where is the line where we say its not

FUKKING
WRONG

for a private company to work with the GOVERNMENT by choice?

Title: Re: Elon taking on Bot's girl
Post by MnSpring on 11/05/22 at 17:10:26

0E2E2C24392E4B0 wrote:

"... it was on their property,
... Not your property,
..not public property,
.their property.

Would that be kinda like a 'baker' of cakes' ?

Title: Re: Elon taking on Bot's girl
Post by Eegore on 11/05/22 at 19:30:41

Would that be kinda like a 'baker' of cakes' ?

Kinda, but like Webstermark pointed out, it is unlikely cake bakers can change the outcome of presidential elections.

Title: Re: Elon taking on Bot's girl
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 11/06/22 at 03:26:42

19393B332E395C0 wrote:

It's wrong
For government to use them to crush the voices of everyone who engages in WrongThink.
It's wrong to play along with it.

Just because you CALL something Mis or Dis information, that doesn't make it so.
And even If it's incorrect, the answer is not to cut out your tongue, but to have the conversation.

Don't you see what tyranny you are agreeing with?

Title: Re: Elon taking on Bot's girl
Post by Eegore on 11/06/22 at 04:52:30

"Don't you see what tyranny you are agreeing with?"

Don't you see I am not agreeing with it?

Again, like almost every conversation we have, acknowledging the law is not equal to agreeing with it. Acknowledging Twitter has no obligation to protect your rights is not equal to agreeing with their operating procedures.

I just think if people are going to pull out the "Free Speech" card, it should be accurate and actually apply to free speech.

Title: Re: Elon taking on Bot's girl
Post by WebsterMark on 11/06/22 at 05:11:52

I think what you’re failing to see is when social media platforms become so prevalent, so widespread that the government intervening in what gets published in order to affect an election in a manner that they want, is the same as if the government directly censored information. It’s a subtle difference that wouldn’t apply to a small newspaper with a subscription 500 but it does apply to social media platforms that reach the vast majority of the population. Even if you don’t have anything to do with social media, don’t have an account etc, the fact is their presence impacts the lives of everyone else because they control so much of the information whether directly or indirectly.

I agree there are nuances in this argument that make it impossible to draw on historical examples because there are no historical examples. This is unchartered territory.

Title: Re: Elon taking on Bot's girl
Post by Eegore on 11/06/22 at 07:30:24

I'm not saying that there isn't a direct and effective influence due to the astronomical impact social media has on today's society. I am saying that there aren't current laws that require private companies protect your rights no matter how many times people complain about Twitter violating their free speech because they voluntarily went to the government.

Or how it was claimed on here before that Twitter was "abusing" Alex Jones by not letting him use their property. Abuse? Get real.

Title: Re: Elon taking on Bot's girl
Post by WebsterMark on 11/06/22 at 15:13:57

7F5F5D55485F3A0 wrote:

Did the FBI ask Twitter to remove his posts claiming they were fabricated by Russia because they felt it would help their preferred candidate win an election? Otherwise, that’s not a valid comparison.

Title: Re: Elon taking on Bot's girl
Post by Eegore on 11/07/22 at 05:19:44

"Did the FBI ask Twitter to remove his posts claiming they were fabricated by Russia because they felt it would help their preferred candidate win an election? Otherwise, that’s not a valid comparison. "

If comparing corporate monopolization and mergers is valid then incorrect free speech assessments and abuse should be valid. I think believing that Social media companies have an obligation to protect your rights, or that it its "abuse" if they kick you off their services is part of this problem.

The issue is with the FBI, or the US Government in general and it has to do with the legal and voluntary actions of private companies. Not the illegal actions of public services.