Elon Musk Becomes Twitter’s Largest Shareholder…

[jamil]

No. Drudge and Twitter function as aggregates.

Difference to me is you have more control in Twitter over content presented and its more RT.

Twitter also makes news. What we’re reading on it now is news about how Twitter execs used it to favor Democrats over Republicans. That’s news.

 

[DadSmith]

Elon Musk releases a trove of emails detailing the internal debate at Twitter over censorship of the Hunter Biden laptop story

Billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk did as he promised and revealed on Friday a trove of emails detailing the internal debate at Twitter over the censorship of the Hunter Biden laptop story ahead of the 2020 election. Musk tweeted an announcement about the emails, and after a delay, the...

www.theblaze.com

 

[DadSmith]

James Woods to sue DNC over collusion with Twitter to censor Americans' speech: 'Scratch a liberal, and you will find a fascist every time' | Blaze Media

Elon Musk on Friday released a revelatory series of insights into the efforts of Twitter's prior regime to interfere in the 2020 election.One of the insights Musk shared via investigative reporter Matt Taibbi was that the Democratic National Committee demanded that Twitter censor 75-year-old...

www.theblaze.com

 

[BugI02]

I don't see that this really qualifies as "election interference". They controlled information on a platform. They did not stop people from voting. Is running an ad with false or misleading information "election interference"?

What if suppressing inconvenient information that might alter how people would vote is done at the express request of one party to an election or the executive or legislative branch (or all 3)

 

[BugI02]

Let's call for the Mods to post user online time!

Twitter also works on a computer.

Hmmm, I coulda sworn a smart phone IS a computer and that twitter only works on internet connected devices

Is there a smoke signal app or something that I don't know about?

 

[BugI02]

News is just new information that has a wide importance attached. Doesn’t matter were we get it from.

So, you would stand by that even if the source was the Gateway Pundit?

 

[mmpsteve]

I don't see that this really qualifies as "election interference". They controlled information on a platform. They did not stop people from voting. Is running an ad with false or misleading information "election interference"?

The line is crossed when .gov agencies are the ones controlling the platform or conspiring with insiders to control content, if that proves to be the case here. Their delegated powers do not include controlling information on platforms. That smells a little like .... Abuse of Power, which I'd like to think is against the law.

.

 

[BugI02]

Can we agree that a fair analogy is that twitter is equal to TV or maybe a steaming network?

I might be forced to agree with THAT assessment

 

[Scott58]

I don't see that this really qualifies as "election interference". They controlled information on a platform. They did not stop people from voting. Is running an ad with false or misleading information "election interference"?

In this case it is. If I can silence your voice in favor of my own and be dishonest about it and lie a be deceitful and use the power of the government to do it we have a serious problem. This may be the worst thing I've heard in my lifetime.

 

[foszoe]

Hmmm, I coulda sworn a smart phone IS a computer and that twitter only works on internet connected devices

Is there a smoke signal app or something that I don't know about?

So when you said phones you also meant computers. Excellent!

 

[Cameramonkey]

The part that disturbs me most is the alphabet agencies involvement in the suppression of information. That candidates or surrogates ask media not to publish stories seems common and I cannot see where that is against the law.

BUT, I cannot believe it is legal for supposedly non political government agency to be involved in telling a private company what to do or not do, particularly to advantage one candidate over another. I believe the federal code makes election interference by the agencies illegal. That is what heads should roll over...

Smells like a violation of the Hatch act to me...

 

[BugI02]

So when you said phones you also meant computers. Excellent!

Sure. I can make a FaceTime call on my laptop, too

It is possible to use all sorts of devices in stupid ways for which their design isn't optimal

 

[bwframe]

 

[jamil]

James Woods to sue DNC over collusion with Twitter to censor Americans' speech: 'Scratch a liberal, and you will find a fascist every time' | Blaze Media

Elon Musk on Friday released a revelatory series of insights into the efforts of Twitter's prior regime to interfere in the 2020 election.One of the insights Musk shared via investigative reporter Matt Taibbi was that the Democratic National Committee demanded that Twitter censor 75-year-old...

www.theblaze.com

I guess i need to read more about the details of the suit to figure out what his standing is.

 

[jamil]

So, you would stand by that even if the source was the Gateway Pundit?

Well. I did say news. So the information would kinda need to be true.

 

[KLB]

The line is crossed when .gov agencies are the ones controlling the platform or conspiring with insiders to control content, if that proves to be the case here. Their delegated powers do not include controlling information on platforms. That smells a little like .... Abuse of Power, which I'd like to think is against the law.

.

That I agree with. That is possibly breaking an actual law, not what we want the law to be.

 

[KLB]

Part of the twitter information drop included conversions between democrats and Twitter executives to remove damaging tweets to democrats. Is that illegal? I think it should be. But it’s fair to call it election interference even if colluding with social media to help one party over another isn’t illegal.

So you are talking about some other context.

The part that disturbs me most is the alphabet agencies involvement in the suppression of information. That candidates or surrogates ask media not to publish stories seems common and I cannot see where that is against the law.

BUT, I cannot believe it is legal for supposedly non political government agency to be involved in telling a private company what to do or not do, particularly to advantage one candidate over another. I believe the federal code makes election interference by the agencies illegal. That is what heads should roll over...

I agree. Is a .gov agency is found to have made demands of information being removed, that might be illegal. It seems like it would definitely run afoul of the First Amendment.

Sure seems unlawful to suppress information that would swing an election, but what do I know...

What law would that be? Suppressing information during elections is as old as elections themselves.

 

[wtburnette]

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.

 

[KLB]

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.

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.

 

[wtburnette]

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.

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.