Elon Musk buys Twitter

[-:Undertaker:-]

Elon Musk buys Twitter

$44bn buyout makes Elon Musk the sole owner of the company and has appointed himself as CEO after sacking existing CEOs

1586059953311137792

Great news that the left-wing stranglehold over the company is now gone and freedom of speech will now be allowed.

Looking forward to 'misgendering' aka calling a bloke a bloke without being penalised for telling the truth. Similarly posting demographic statistics on crime rates shouldn't be a banning offence either, and nor should criticising locking down the world for a flu or the worthlessness and stupidity of face masks. Neither should Russophiles in the media be slurred with mandatory tags against their names for pointing out the failing of the Ukraine's 'democracy', like George Galloway has been.

Twitter has disgraced itself in recent years on all of these subjects - and we're now in the upside down world where the Ayatollah of Iran has a Twitter account, but a former U.S. President is still banned.

[dbgtz]

Elon Musk is forced to buy Twitter after threat of a lawsuit*


Great news that the left-wing stranglehold over the company is now gone
This never happened
and freedom of speech will now be allowed. it was never not allowed


Looking forward to 'misgendering' aka calling a bloke a bloke without being penalised you don't get banned for this
Similarly posting demographic statistics on crime rates shouldn't be a banning offence either
you don't get banned for this
nor should criticising locking down the world for a flu or the worthlessness and stupidity of face masks
you don't get banned for this
Neither should Russophiles in the media be slurred with mandatory tags against their names for pointing out the failing of the Ukraine's 'democracy', like George Galloway has been
it's not a slur if it's true, also get out of here with your Russian sympathising crap


and we're now in the upside down world where the Ayatollah of Iran has a Twitter account, but a former U.S. President is still banned.


apply a bit of thought to this and it's not really hard to understand why

[-:Undertaker:-]

Elon Musk is forced to buy Twitter after threat of a lawsuit*

This never happened it was never not allowed


you don't get banned for this

Yes you do.

https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/hateful-conduct-policy


you don't get banned for this


I've seen countless accounts over the years have to resort to innuendos when discussing race and crime statistics, for fear of being banned.

you don't get banned for this

Yes you do.

https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/medical-misinformation-policy


it's not a slur if it's true, also get out of here with your Russian sympathising crap

The fact you react to any criticism of the government of the Ukraine like this is exactly why Musk is right to buy Twitter.


apply a bit of thought to this and it's not really hard to understand why

No go on.

I really do find it hard to understand why the Ayatollah of Iran is allowed on Twitter and the 45th President of the United States of America is not.

[RichBoiSam]

A huge W for the racists and liars/ignorant who love spreading misinformation. It's never about freedom of speech, if it's factually true or an opinion which doesn't hurt others, it's allowed. If you're celebrating the fact that hate and misinformation will probably be allowed, you have issues. Full grown adults throwing their dummies out of the pram because they can't be racist, it was quite embarrassing tbh.

If you're going to celebrate Musk buying Twitter, it should be his promise to clean up the spam bots and scams however they're currently just promises and as every government has proven, promises aren't always reality! It will just end up becoming a toxic Reddit.

[-:Undertaker:-]

RichBoiSam;

What racists and which instances of racism?

[Seatherny]

A huge W for the racists and liars/ignorant who love spreading misinformation.Full grown adults throwing their dummies out of the pram because they can't be racist, it was quite embarrassing tbh.




This is why Dan loves it. And if a adult fails to understand why Trump is banned from Twitter, then that person is nothing ... butin the simplest of terms, STUPID.

[dbgtz]

Yes you do.

https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/hateful-conduct-policy



Yes you do. this is an anti harassment policy, freedom of speech is not freedom to harass


https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/medical-misinformation-policy please point to me where you get banned for criticising lockdowns or mask use





The fact you react to any criticism of the government of the Ukraine like this is exactly why Musk is right to buy Twitter.
Do explain to me why Ukrainian democracy will be restored by being invaded by Russia





No go on.

I really do find it hard to understand why the Ayatollah of Iran is allowed on Twitter and the 45th President of the United States of America is not.
the simple reason is Trump violated the t&cs of the service, it's kind of as simple as that. There's probably more to it but you should just read the reasoning behind it... Surprised you aren't empowered by Twitters right to refuse service to someone, seem to be fine for those bakers to refuse the gay couple after all

[dbgtz]

RichBoiSam;

What racists and which instances of racism?


also on this musk just offed a load of the moderation, naturally this will allow racists and other quite crappy things through.

Saviour of freedom of speech Musk also just banned people who have a parody account of him god bless freedom of speech

[-:Undertaker:-]

This is why Dan loves it. And if a adult fails to understand why Trump is banned from Twitter, then that person is nothing ... butin the simplest of terms, STUPID.

Well three of you so far have replied to this thread and not a single one of you have been able to explain the logic behind the 45th President of the United States being banned from Twitter while the mad mullahs in Iran, Pakistan and crackpot nations are given free reign to spew their propaganda. I'm waiting.


this is an anti harassment policy, freedom of speech is not freedom to harass

You're telling me that if I rightly call someone a man who is a man but who pretends to be a woman, that that isn't freedom of speech but harassment?


please point to me where you get banned for criticising lockdowns or mask use

https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/medical-misinformation-policy


Do explain to me why Ukrainian democracy will be restored by being invaded by Russia

Where have I stated that I support the Ukraine being invaded by Russia?

You know, it's possible to hold two beliefs at the same time - that Russia invading is bad, and that the Ukrainian government is corrupt/dodgy.


the simple reason is Trump violated the t&cs of the service, it's kind of as simple as that. There's probably more to it but you should just read the reasoning behind it... Surprised you aren't empowered by Twitters right to refuse service to someone, seem to be fine for those bakers to refuse the gay couple after all

I've always supported Twitter's right to ban anyone - I'm just happy that now the shoe is in the other foot.


also on this musk just offed a load of the moderation, naturally this will allow racists and other quite crappy things through.

Saviour of freedom of speech Musk also just banned people who have a parody account of him god bless freedom of speech

But Twitter already allows racism - so long as it is directed against white people. Just look at Dr Shola and Diane Abbott being given free rein.

[Seatherny]

Well three of you so far have replied to this thread and not a single one of you have been able to explain the logic behind the 45th President of the United States being banned from Twitter while the mad mullahs in Iran, Pakistan and crackpot nations are given free reign to spew their propaganda. I'm waiting.





A) If one criminal is not jailed for any reason, it does not mean every other criminal should be able to walk free. Tony Blair is not in jail. Does this mean we should release every other murderer? The 45th POTUS is a crackpot who still denies the result of every election he loses.

[-:Undertaker:-]

A) If one criminal is not jailed for any reason, it does not mean every other criminal should be able to walk free. Tony Blair is not in jail. Does this mean we should release every other murderer? The 45th POTUS is a crackpot who still denies the result of every election he loses.

Sir Tony Blair, as much as I dislike him, is not a criminal. It's babytalk politics to pretend that he is.

[Seatherny]

Sir Tony Blair, as much as I like him, is not a criminal. It's babytalk politics to pretend that he is.

Oh yeah, if I order someone to murder you because I think you are hiding weapons when in fact I just want your laptop and money, I am not a criminal.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Oh yeah, if I order someone to murder you because I think you are hiding weapons when in fact I just want your laptop and money, I am not a criminal.

What laws did Sir Tony Blair break?

I was as much against the Iraq war as you were, but no laws were broken and the war was legal.

[Seatherny]

What laws did Sir Tony Blair break?

I was as much against the Iraq war as you were, but no laws were broken and the war was legal.

Lying to parliament for oil and money? A lie which ruined a whole country? A lie which killed hundreds, if not millions of people?

Legal in your eyes, a terrorist attack in other peoples eyes. Say the war was legal to the millions of innocent people who lost loved ones. Shameful. UK and USA are nothing but modern day terrorists. Both countries love to create wars so we can sell weapons and make billions. It's all about money and you are just blind.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Lying to parliament for oil and money? A lie which ruined a whole country? A lie which killed hundreds, if not millions of people?

Legal in your eyes, a terrorist attack in other peoples eyes. Say the war was legal to the millions of innocent people who lost loved ones. Shameful. UK and USA are nothing but modern day terrorists. Both countries love to create wars so we can sell weapons and make billions. It's all about money and you are just blind.

Well no, it was legal in the eyes of the law even if you and I may have disagreed with the premise of the war.


The Sovereign has the power to declare war, as an exercise of the royal prerogative, without the approval of Parliament. Before or after the start of previous wars, there had normally been debate in Parliament; however for the first time a vote was held, allowing Parliament to signify its position in regards to a declaration of war even though it was, "purely symbolic" and "not binding on the government". The debate was held on 18 March 2003, and lasted from midday to 10 pm, at which time the two Parliamentary votes were held.

The Labour and Conservative parties were both committed to approving the invasion, but a quarter of Labour MPs voted against the invasion. The Liberal Democrats, who had one in twelve of the MPs in parliament, also opposed the invasion.

If the vote had been lost, many Labour ministers would have resigned, including the Prime Minister Tony Blair, who suggested in his speech that he would resign if the vote was not passed.

By 412 votes out of a possible 650, with just 149 disapproving in a de facto Confidence Vote, Parliament made clear it approved of military action.

Even without Parliament signalling its approval on the matter, the war still would have been legal as war is a power of the Crown exercised by the PM.

[Seatherny]

Well no, it was legal in the eyes of the law even if you and I may have disagreed with the premise of the war.



By 412 votes out of a possible 650, with just 149 disapproving in a de facto Confidence Vote, Parliament made clear it approved of military action.

Even without Parliament signalling its approval on the matter, the war still would have been legal as war is a power of the Crown exercised by the PM.

lol, delusional for sure.

[LUCPIX]

K, be it for its meme value or a sealed contracted that is gonna last for a long time, there's a whole lotta people exploiting the "twitter is dead" fling by creating new accounts at KOO, Twitter's newish Indian clone. It's all commencing with a mindless but fun Brazilian user raid of sorts...


We are particularly benefiting ourselves (in a humorous bias) from it, specially 'cause KOO reads in the same way as our particular slang for... "*******". Now no-one can get their minds off of it.

[dbgtz]

You're telling me that if I rightly call someone a man who is a man but who pretends to be a woman, that that isn't freedom of speech but harassment? you seem to be misunderstanding or ignoring the "repeatedly targeting" part

https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/medical-misinformation-policy I don't want the URL I want you to quote where in that page it says you get banned for criticising mask use and lockdowns.





Where have I stated that I support the Ukraine being invaded by Russia?

You know, it's possible to hold two beliefs at the same time - that Russia invading is bad, and that the Ukrainian government is corrupt/dodgy. Because you defend a man who has basically blamed Ukraine, and you yourself have just effectively blamed Ukraine. It's entirely irrelevant to the invasion. And at the end of the day, your initial point was that Galloway was, and I believe the word was, "smeared" because he was marked as working for Russian government-owned media, which at the very least was true.




I've always supported Twitter's right to ban anyone - I'm just happy that now the shoe is in the other foot. It's not really on the other foot it's just at risk of becoming a cesspit like 4chan





But Twitter already allows racism - so long as it is directed against white people. Just look at Dr Shola and Diane Abbott being given free rein.

Where is evidence of this? Have you ever tried reporting it?