Elon Musk Becomes Twitter’s Largest Shareholder…

[Ingomike]

Something smells a lot like semantics when you're arguing against it being against the law and then agreeing with another post about the abuse of power being against the law. I'm not talking about one specific part of the issue, but the issue as a whole. Twitter suppressing the story, along with Government collusion and abuse of power seems a little bit like it might be against the Constitution, if nothing else.

At the end of the day, to me, the law that is broken is the racketeering laws. The whole scheme of election fraud has been carefully built to create plausible deniability. I am over the whole queensberry rules for conservatives while the left runs amuck.

The well meaning like KLB and jamil are always pointing out this or that, when we suggest ways to clean up the mess, as being unconstitutional or unlawful. What would Washington do? Would he and his brethren sit on his hands while the republic fails? Or would they default to helpless because constitutional scholars told them they could not clean up the mess.

As it stands now we sit on our hands arguing over what the constitution allows to combat those flaunting the constitution at every turn.

 

[Shadow01]

if the right is unwilling to play the game in the gutter, it’s over.

 

[jamil]

So you are talking about some other context.

I guess I don't understand your position then. Does it have to be illegal to care? IANAL, so I don't know what the legal issues are with what Twitter did. But it looks to me like you're trying awfully hard not to care. This doesn't seem like you though. So I'd like to make sense of it. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

I think we're talking about the claim from Musk that Twitter interfered with the election. Is anyone going to be arrested? Probably not. By definition, they did interfere. By a legal definition? I don't think that's the standard to which it must rise before we may be legitimately concerned or upset. And it certainly does not require the legal definition to say the words "election interference".

 

[wtburnette]

if the right is unwilling to play the game in the gutter, it’s over.

We need to clean out the gutters, not get down in them.

 

[Ingomike]

We need to clean out the gutters, not get down in them.

I have cleaned a lot of gutters, the farm type in animal barns, and never did figure out how to clean them without getting dirty…

 

[jamil]

Something smells a lot like semantics when you're arguing against it being against the law and then agreeing with another post about the abuse of power being against the law. I'm not talking about one specific part of the issue, but the issue as a whole. Twitter suppressing the story, along with Government collusion and abuse of power seems a little bit like it might be against the Constitution, if nothing else.

Probably the worst part is banning the white house press secretary for referring to a story in a major publication! And then after the fact, trying to make up some **** about applying their policy against spreading leaked documents, knowing ***damn well that pointing to a major news publication is not that.

Did they ban the twitter users that pointed to articles about Trump's leaked tax documents? Selective application of policies clearly puts them at odds with Section 230. And maybe what they did isn't illegal, per se. But I think they broke the **** out of 230.

 

[bwframe]

We need to clean out the gutters, not get down in them.

Exactly! We cannot lower ourselves to their level. We have to be better than them.

Jan 6th is a perfect example of that. Too many of "us" participated in **** that we should have been fighting off.

.

 

[jamil]

Is it semantics to say that the First Amendment only applies to the government?

I asked if people were talking about a law or something else. Since election interference is an actual crime, that is a distinction worth noting. It has to do with the actual interference with people trying to vote.

Is it against the law for Democrats to collude with publicly traded social media companies to **** over their opposition? I dunno. I think it should be if it's not already. Like I said, is legality the standard which should determine whether we should be concerned or upset? How do laws get changed? Let me ask this. Should it be illegal?

There is pretty damning evidence that elements within the government were working with social media, including Twitter. That would make Twitter an agent of the government, and would be unconstitutional.

 

[jamil]

Call it what you will. Even if it's simply a First Amendment issue, or abuse of power, or whatever you want to call it, in my mind I lump it in with election interference because that was the net result.

It does not have to rise to the level of illegality for you to use the term. Twitter interfered with the election. It's okay to be upset with that. The Democrats would certainly be upset if things were flipped, and rightly so.

 

[indyblue]

The problem is neither the DNC nor Biden and his campaign were agents of the government at the time.

This is what makes the situation so frustrating and sticky. The left sure has some ingenious ways of gaming the system to their advantage while keeping their hands clean.

Do they have some mob bosses giving them ideas?

 

[jamil]

At the end of the day, to me, the law that is broken is the racketeering laws. The whole scheme of election fraud has been carefully built to create plausible deniability. I am over the whole queensberry rules for conservatives while the left runs amuck.

The well meaning like KLB and jamil are always pointing out this or that, when we suggest ways to clean up the mess, as being unconstitutional or unlawful. What would Washington do? Would he and his brethren sit on his hands while the republic fails? Or would they default to helpless because constitutional scholars told them they could not clean up the mess.

As it stands now we sit on our hands arguing over what the constitution allows to combat those flaunting the constitution at every turn.

Leave jamil out of it. I'll push back on you guys when you start making wild ass claims about CIA raids and **** without any evidence other than a partisan general who has plenty of reasons to lie. It's another thing altogether to be dismissive of clear evidence that Twitter colluded with Democrats to help them win an election by defrauding (there, I used another term often associated with the legal system generically) the American people. If that's not illegal, it ought to be. If the twitter dump just goes on as, "meh", an injustice will be served.

 

[KLB]

At the end of the day, to me, the law that is broken is the racketeering laws. The whole scheme of election fraud has been carefully built to create plausible deniability. I am over the whole queensberry rules for conservatives while the left runs amuck.

The well meaning like KLB and jamil are always pointing out this or that, when we suggest ways to clean up the mess, as being unconstitutional or unlawful. What would Washington do? Would he and his brethren sit on his hands while the republic fails? Or would they default to helpless because constitutional scholars told them they could not clean up the mess.

As it stands now we sit on our hands arguing over what the constitution allows to combat those flaunting the constitution at every turn.

How do you mean to stop something that isn't actually against a law? The forbidden topic?

Saying something is election interference isn't suggesting a way to clean up anything. Did it suck that Twitter, Facebook, etc. did what they did? Hell yes. It wasn't illegal though. If your solution is to make it illegal, Then advocate for that.

We like to talk about using the right terms and phrases, yet it's OK for us to just throw words around? I just think it is best to stick to reality when making accusations.

 

[jamil]

if the right is unwilling to play the game in the gutter, it’s over.

Now I disagree with this. Not just for ethical concerns, but also because the right can't get away with playing that game. The general public already thinks the worst of the right. The left can get away with it. The right can't. Hell, the right can't even get away with things they didn't actually do. Remember that Russian collusion that never actually happened? Yeah, the right didn't get away with that, did they now? That dogged Trump his whole term. And where is he now? Had that been a democrat, nothing.

But I if we're not talking about breaking laws then, yeah. Republicans should impeach Biden. It won't get anywhere. But I want to see it happen anyway.

 

[KLB]

Leave jamil out of it. I'll push back on you guys when you start making wild ass claims about CIA raids and **** without any evidence other than a partisan general who has plenty of reasons to lie. It's another thing altogether to be dismissive of clear evidence that Twitter colluded with Democrats to help them win an election by defrauding (there, I used another term often associated with the legal system generically) the American people. If that's not illegal, it ought to be. If the twitter dump just goes on as, "meh", an injustice will be served.

Who's being dismissive? Most of what I replied to Mike fits here too. You want it to be illegal, advocate for it. Until it is, you really don't have a foot to stand on.

For the big story that many are referring to, the bigger culprit was big media. Does anyone thing that Twitter would have been squashing the story if ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, NYT, WAPO, etc. had been running the story? There is obvious collusion in the "news" they report, but how do we stop that? The .gov can't tell them what they have to report.

 

[jamil]

How do you mean to stop something that isn't actually against a law? The forbidden topic?

Saying something is election interference isn't suggesting a way to clean up anything. Did it suck that Twitter, Facebook, etc. did what they did? Hell yes. It wasn't illegal though. If your solution is to make it illegal, Then advocate for that.

We like to talk about using the right terms and phrases, yet it's OK for us to just throw words around? I just think it is best to stick to reality when making accusations.

Wasn't it? Do we know there was nothing illegal about it? Again, IANAL, but are you so certain that there are no legal remedies for this?

Even if there aren't, knowing this was the case at twitter, Republicans really need to push against other platforms because we know they're ****ing doing it too. 230 reforms I think are necessary.

Now about the terms. Yes. I can say Twitter interfered in the election. That is in every way, albeit perhaps not in a legal way, reality. They interfered. With an election. I'm going to keep saying that because that is a proper way to describe what they did. Saying it doesn't fit the legal term is just dismissing a whole lot of meaning that those words convey.

 

[jamil]

Who's being dismissive? Most of what I replied to Mike fits here too. You want it to be illegal, advocate for it. Until it is, you really don't have a foot to stand on.

For the big story that many are referring to, the bigger culprit was big media. Does anyone thing that Twitter would have been squashing the story if ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, NYT, WAPO, etc. had been running the story? There is obvious collusion in the "news" they report, but how do we stop that? The .gov can't tell them what they have to report.

This is yet more dismissive. Of course those networks were colluding with each other. We're talking about the information dump on Twitter and what that suggests about how Twitter interfered with the election. And from that knowlege, I AM advocating for laws to change if what they did was actually legal. And I'm not certain that all the did was even legal. But it is certainly reasonable for people to be upset about it either way.

There's no reason why putting "interfered" and "election" together in a sentence is inaccurate. Both have definitions outside of the legal world that are completely appropriate to use here. Twitter. Interfered. In the election.

 

[KLB]

Wasn't it? Do we know there was nothing illegal about it? Again, IANAL, but are you so certain that there are no legal remedies for this?

Even if there aren't, knowing this was the case at twitter, Republicans really need to push against other platforms because we know they're ****ing doing it too.

Now about the terms. Yes. I can say Twitter interfered in the election. That doesn't mean I'm saying they broke the law. But they interfered. I'm going to keep saying that because that is a proper way to describe what they did. Saying it doesn't fit the legal term is just dismissing a whole lot of meaning that those words convey.

If you think it was illegal, please share the law you think was broken. IF the .gov ordered Twitter to say or remove speech, sure. Twitter controlling speech on their platform to fit a narrative that they agree with is not that.

 

[KLB]

This is yet more dismissive. Of course those networks were colluding with each other. We're talking about the information dump on Twitter and what that suggests about how Twitter interfered with the election. And from that knowlege, I AM advocating for laws to change if what they did was actually legal. And I'm not certain that all the did was even legal. But it is certainly reasonable for people to be upset about it either way.

There's no reason why putting "interfered" and "election" together in a sentence is inaccurate. Both have definitions outside of the legal world that are completely appropriate to use here. Twitter. Interfered. In the election.

So please share the law that says a company has to report something. Or how about the law that says they have to report it a certain way.

I will also ask again, are misleading ads interfering with an election?

 

[jamil]

I have cleaned a lot of gutters, the farm type in animal barns, and never did figure out how to clean them without getting dirty…

So are you advocating that republicans do all the stuff you accuse democrats of doing? You gonna do Kraken on them? Rig voting machines? Change zip codes of democrat voters then pick those undeliverable ballots up from the post office and fill them out? I'm just trying to figure out what "dirty" means. Which side of the law are you advocating that "we" operate on?

 

[jamil]

So please share the law that says a company has to report something. Or how about the law that says they have to report it a certain way.

I will also ask again, are misleading ads interfering with an election?

We're talking about twitter. Right? Let's stick with Democrats colluding with social media, the defacto public square, to delete speech harmful to Democrats, ban government officials for pointing to stories in major news outlets that are damaging to democrats. And government bureaucrats colluding with social media to help Democrats. Can we stay with that?

I am unsure, you know, me not being a lawyer and all, that any of that is illegal, per se, other than government using social media as agents to limit free speech. It is indeed election interference nevertheless, and should be illegal.