The Musk Twitter Files

[britbox]

Anybody else following these disclosures? Opinions?

 

[britbox]

Day 1:

 

[britbox]

99.73% of Twitter staff were Dem donators. Makes sense when you consider the output. But rather worrying when you consider the recruitment protocol. (or as @Moxie would ascribe - inclusion and diversity).

 

[britbox]

Following demographic patterns and to avoid systemic bias, Musk needs to appoint white Christian terrorists to around 40% of the staff positions.

 

[Kieran]

Following demographic patterns and to avoid systemic bias, Musk needs to appoint white Christian terrorists to around 40% of the staff positions.

I’m not a Twitter user - I never understood it, in terms of trying to navigate the threads - and it’s more suited to opinionated, argumentative sorts, so that rules me out too , but I must say, I don’t understand the reaction to Musk. Twitter was always owned by billionaire ideologues, so is it that people are angry because although he’s allegedly also a billionaire ideologue, he’s also representing an ideology that they don’t like? I can only imagine the BS he discovered there when he took over. Twitter should have been sanctioned for the Hunter Biden controversy. There’s been talk about Russian involvement in elections, but what about Twitter involvement? That was blatant, obviously effective, and the same people who alleged Russian involvement just shrugged?

 

[tented]

I’m not a Twitter user - I never understood it, in terms of trying to navigate the threads - and it’s more suited to opinionated, argumentative sorts, so that rules me out too , but I must say, I don’t understand the reaction to Musk. Twitter was always owned by billionaire ideologues, so is it that people are angry because although he’s allegedly also a billionaire ideologue, he’s also representing an ideology that they don’t like?

Twitter was a publicly-traded company prior to Musk purchasing it (i.e., people held stock in it), at which point it became a privately-owned business, therefore no longer on the stock exchange. In other words, it wasn’t always owned by billionaire ideologues — but it is now.

I can only imagine the BS he discovered there when he took over. Twitter should have been sanctioned for the Hunter Biden controversy. There’s been talk about Russian involvement in elections, but what about Twitter involvement? That was blatant, obviously effective, and the same people who alleged Russian involvement just shrugged?

This is where things get complicated. First, contrary to popular belief, the First Amendment does not guarantee all speech is legal. Free speech — an environment in which everyone is free to say anything — doesn’t exist.

Second, a social media company is allowed to establish its own rules, which users agree to when becoming members. By being a member of Tennis Frontier, you have to agree to its Terms and Rules. @kskate2 and I don’t allow users to accuse tournaments of draw fixing, for example. Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc. are allowed to determine what they will and will not allow; becoming a user doesn’t guarantee the right to say whatever you want.

Third, one need look no further than Fox News and MSNBC to see prominent examples of what they will and will not report. The irony is when one of them accuses a social media company of not allowing something which the other wants it to allow. MSNBC would not hire me to give me a platform to discuss how great Trump is, and Fox News would not hire me to create a program discussing how great Biden is. They are companies which establish their own rules and procedures, and decide what they will and will not cover. For them to criticize a social media company for doing the exact same things they do is laughably hypocritical.

 

[Kieran]

Twitter was a publicly-traded company prior to Musk purchasing it (i.e., people held stock in it), at which point it became a privately-owned business, therefore no longer on the stock exchange. In other words, it wasn’t always owned by billionaire ideologues — but it is now.

Good point, brother! I wasn’t aware of the hierarchy in Twitter, I just remember that Jack Dorsey (a leftist billionaire) ran it.

This is where things get complicated. First, contrary to popular belief, the First Amendment does not guarantee all speech is legal. Free speech — an environment in which everyone is free to say anything — doesn’t exist.

I understand this.

Second, a social media company is allowed to establish its own rules, which users agree to when becoming members. By being a member of Tennis Frontier, you have to agree to its Terms and Rules. @kskate2 and I don’t allow users to accuse tournaments of draw fixing, for example. Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc. are allowed to determine what they will and will not allow; becoming a user doesn’t guarantee the right to say whatever you want.

The rules were ideologically drafted to exclude posters saying certain things that contradict far-left ideology, for instance, relating to trans issues.

Third, one need look no further than Fox News and MSNBC to see prominent examples of what they will and will not report. The irony is when one of them accuses a social media company of not allowing something which the other wants it to allow. MSNBC would not hire me to give me a platform to discuss how great Trump is, and Fox News would not hire me to create a program discussing how great Biden is. They are companies which establish their own rules and procedures, and decide what they will and will not cover. For them to criticize a social media company for doing the exact same things they do is laughably hypocritical.

Twitter isn’t a news platform. It’s a public forum where news is publicly shared, but they decided to block news that would negatively affect Biden’s election campaign. Zuckerberg has confessed to doing the same thing at Facebook. They both suppressed the story to help Biden…

 

[tented]

The rules were ideologically drafted to exclude posters saying certain things that contradict far-left ideology, for instance, relating to trans issues.

Again, a company is allowed to establish their own rules, including biases. I could create a Federer fans website, and draft policies which exclude contributors from praising Nadal and Djokovic.

Twitter isn’t a news platform. It’s a public forum where news is publicly shared, but they decided to block news that would negatively affect Biden’s election campaign. Zuckerberg has confessed to doing the same thing at Facebook. They both suppressed the story to help Biden…

It’s not a “public forum” in any traditional sense — especially now that it’s privately owned. As such, it can decide to block or promote whatever it wants. That’s them exercising free speech.

 

[Kieran]

Again, a company is allowed to establish their own rules, including biases. I could create a Federer fans website, and draft policies which exclude contributors from praising Nadal and Djokovic.

This was always the defence, but while it deliberately overlooks its influence by saying that, it also uses its influence to affect the election. I think if you want external influences removed from your elections - and ours too - we should all keep social media companies neutral. Being run by ideologues is not ideal - as the people complaining about Musk suddenly realise. They didn't mind it when the ideologues agreed with them..

 

[tented]

This was always the defence, but while it deliberately overlooks its influence by saying that, it also uses its influence to affect the election.

And so does MSNBC. And so does Fox News. And so does CNN.

I think if you want external influences removed from your elections - and ours too - we should all keep social media companies neutral. Being run by ideologues is not ideal - as the people complaining about Musk suddenly realise. They didn't mind it when the ideologues agreed with them..

In other words, run by the government, by proxy through legislation written by non-neutral politicians, forcing them to be neutral.

 

[Kieran]

And so does MSNBC. And so does Fox News. And so does CNN.

Twitter isn’t a news organisation. It’s a public platform exercising its biases to influence your election. Imagine how you’ll feel if they’d have done that to help elect Trump.

In other words, run by the government, by proxy through legislation written by non-neutral politicians, forcing them to be neutral.

No government interference - imagine a public forum interfered with by Democrats or Republicans. And not forcing them to be neutral - they can be neutral by their own means if they’re consistent and fair in their judgments. Maybe they ought to have both sides of the divide at the table, rather than just the side that thinks it’s an offence to say a man can’t be a woman?

 

[tented]

No government interference - imagine a public forum interfered with by Democrats or Republicans. And not forcing them to be neutral - they can be neutral by their own means if they’re consistent and fair in their judgments. Maybe they ought to have both sides of the divide at the table, rather than just the side that thinks it’s an offence to say a man can’t be a woman?

Great idea! But try sending a tweet to the now-privately-owned Twitter suggesting it, and see if Musk enacts such a policy.

 

[Kieran]

Great idea! But try sending a tweet to the now-privately-owned Twitter suggesting it, and see if Musk enacts such a policy.

I don’t use Twitter brother, but if I did, I suppose I’d get the same reaction I’d have gotten if I tweeted that same thing before Musk took over..

 

[tented]

I don’t use Twitter brother, but if I did, I suppose I’d get the same reaction I’d have gotten if I tweeted that same thing before Musk took over..

I know you don’t. I meant it metaphorically.

People are biased by nature, and they also happen to run companies, bringing their biases to work. Ideally, things would be “fair and balanced”, but we see how that has worked out for Fox News ...

 

[Kieran]

I know you don’t. I meant it metaphorically.

People are biased by nature, and they also happen to run companies, bringing their biases to work. Ideally, things would be “fair and balanced”, but we see how that has worked out for Fox News ...

Well, almost all news agencies are “Fox News” but it’s a pity that social media is also biased, politically, and to the extent that they affect an election in this way. At least Twitter might restore some balance, given that almost all of them seem to be biased in favour of the same agenda…

 

[Moxie]

99.73% of Twitter staff were Dem donators. Makes sense when you consider the output. But rather worrying when you consider the recruitment protocol. (or as @Moxie would ascribe - inclusion and diversity).

I'll thank you to leave me out of it until, and if, I decide to join this conversation. I'd especially appreciate your not presuming my comments beforehand.

 

[britbox]

Good point, brother! I wasn’t aware of the hierarchy in Twitter, I just remember that Jack Dorsey (a leftist billionaire) ran it.

I understand this.

The rules were ideologically drafted to exclude posters saying certain things that contradict far-left ideology, for instance, relating to trans issues.

Twitter isn’t a news platform. It’s a public forum where news is publicly shared, but they decided to block news that would negatively affect Biden’s election campaign. Zuckerberg has confessed to doing the same thing at Facebook. They both suppressed the story to help Biden…

The files indicate that Dorsey wasn't even aware of half of things going on until after they had been enacted.

 

[britbox]

And so does MSNBC. And so does Fox News. And so does CNN.



In other words, run by the government, by proxy through legislation written by non-neutral politicians, forcing them to be neutral.

Do you think it was a mistake not upholding an old doctrine that required networks to give airtime to opposing views? It seems from the outside, this has led to an almost irreconcilable division amongst many Americans.

 

[Kieran]

The files indicate that Dorsey wasn't even aware of half of things going on until after they had been enacted.

I saw him on Joe Rogan and that seemed to be the case, but the organisation reflected his political preferences. He came across as a nice bloke, actually…

 

[britbox]

I saw him on Joe Rogan and that seemed to be the case, but the organisation reflected his political preferences. He came across as a nice bloke, actually…

I think founders of these companies sometimes get run over by the magnitude of the beast they built - and lose their handle on it, regardless of their job title. There is an interesting episode in Black Mirror that seems to "mirror" that scenario (pardon the pun).