It's almost as if these people don't actually believe that Twitter is a "private company" that can do "whatever it wants". All their caterwauling does is prove that they actually believe that Twitter is the modern-day equivalent of the public square, and plays a vital, societal role in free speech and free expression.
To do that, you have to start out that way. I registered my own domain name - my own name - in my own name, about 20 years ago. The ship sailed for me a long time ago, so there's little reason to try to fight it.
You think MiniTru actually has an audit trail?!?Better solution: track all of the platform changes so that anyone caught trying to sabotage the platform gets canned.
Elon could even bring in Trump as a consultant to do it.
Put that on Pay-per-view and he'd recoup a big chunk of his investment right away.
Heck, Musk might even lobby for exactly that, as the owner of Twitter. He could move Twitter off of its current position, squarely straddling the fence of platform-vs-publisher, enact platform-only policies, and then create a competitive advantage over all of the other social media platforms.
"Siri: show me the psychological projection of gun control proponents."People are disgusting. If it wasn't for Elon, we'd be relying on Russians to get our astronauts to and from the ISS right now.
Agree, but I'm a kinder, more inclusive, person. Labels change, and I don't want anyone to feel left out. Left, right, or jerking in a circle - ALL stupidity should be mocked and ridiculed out of existence equally!
All political bat **** craziness should be mocked and ridiculed. But this thread is kinda pointed more at bat **** crazy lefties who think twitter being owned by a billionaire is somehow more destructive to democracy than if Musk left them to their utopian platform.
It was already owned by billionaires. that's one of the "funny" parts.
Isn't Vanguard more like a trustee than a stock owner? They manage funds for investors. It is the investors who own the stocks. Unless I'm missing something?
The question was, whether Twitter was already owned by billionaires, and my point was that Twitter isn't really already owned by billionaires. It's mostly fund managers. I own some shares in Vangard funds. So sure, I technically own portions of the stocks that make up their funds, and I'm sure the tech fund has some Twitter shares. I suppose it would have strengthened the point if I'd have used a few more words to explain the difference. I mean I'm doing it here anyway.
Blackrock and Vanguard (which both own shares of each other) together control more than what they own and or manage are far beyond benign fund managers.
journal-neo.org
milvetsandpatriots.com
listverse.com
geopolitics.co
I'm not sure I agree with this part. I mean, yes, with a conventional loan you would need a large downpayment to purchase, which is a sticking point for some people, but when it comes to the monthly payment, in many cases, the rental payment would by higher than the mortgage payment for the same property. With a 30 yr. FHA loan, the downpayment requirement is substantially less.
I quoted that. The FHA payment is high because of the lack of down payment and rates are way up and still rising. That near 20% of closings are going to corporate entities is for sure pushing up prices for the people. Rental rates will be closer to payments as rates rise.
I'm glad I refinanced when I did, going from a 30 year fixed (FHA at just over 3%) to a 15 year fixed (FHA at just under 3%).
Agreed on the first point. The outrage over a billionaire owning Twitter is... selective, shall we say.
Yep. I can’t name a conservative I know who is outraged that Elon Musk bought twitter. All my progressive coworkers are quite upset by it. They’d be just fine with it if George Soros bought it. Or maybe even Bill gates.
They'd probably be over the moon if Zuckerberg had bought it.
