/townhall/ - Townhall

>https://www.techdirt.com/2022/04/15/elon-musk-demonstrates-how-little-he-understands-about-content-moderation/
There are a lot of additional problems that aren't really addressed there.  I am aware of many of the ins and outs beyond what is commonly straw manned, as one is forced to adhere to a variety of rules beyond just the ones that you yourself would like to implement.  Laws.  Ad servers.  Payment processors and the like.  Different countries for multinational corporations.  I had to consider these same things myself when running my own site.  "everything that is legal goes" is a lofty ideal but not reality.

Is Musk really that naive?  Possibly.  I think he's really talking to the ideals rather than the minutiae.

If Twitter drops the arbitrary deranking and shadow banning, stops imposing "hate speech" regulations with double standards, drops the overt and hypocritical political biases, and stops playing favorites, then maybe they'll have a chance at gaining back the many millions of people who got sick of the B.S. and left.  Or, they can keep playing political games and fade further into irrelevance.  There's a common false dichotomy that the alternative to Twitter is Gab/Parler/etc., and these sites not being as popular proves that Twitter is righteous and just, or some such nonsense.  In reality, most of the people who left, no longer use anything like Twitter, and that's the real market share that's up for grabs.  "If Twitter makes any changes, then the trolls will come back." is the usual refrain from the blue check Left.  However, if Twitter makes changes, people who are avoiding Twitter-like services entirely may also consider using the service again, which means more revenue across the board.

If you care about numbers and engagement, then increased numbers of any type is objectively a good thing.  If you are a shareholder, then this is also objectively a good thing.  If you are an ideologue who cares about preserving the facade of ideological purity on Twitter, then this is a very, very bad thing.

Put simply, in the quest to please the neon-haired weirdos, Twitter alienated the normal people who make up the bulk of the population.  And Musk must have some notion that this is a numbers game that Twitter is playing incredibly poorly and which he can improve, even by very simple changes.  which the board refuses to entertain.  very strange from a company that supposedly cares about profits...

So is Elon doing it for Clout?  probably.  If he is, I really don't care.
Is Elon doing it to stick it to the haters?  maybe.  If he is, I really don't care.
Is Elon trying to save Western civilization and defend free speech (or his concept of it) by liberating Twitter from the Cult?  possibly.  It would be interesting if he did, but I personally think Twitter is already too far gone even if he had some measure of success.

>>10834
Is Twitter's board violating its fiduciary obligation to Twitter's shareholders by adopting a poison pill instead of putting Elon's offer to the shareholders?

>>10834
Perhaps of interest, if Elon succeeds in his takeover attempt:
https://graymirror.substack.com/p/the-twitter-coup

>>10835  Yes.  Not consulting the shareholders is a major problem.  There are also other options they seem to be avoiding for fear of simply losing control, nevermind the shareholders' thoughts on it, or how that would impact the finances of the company.
>>10836  I think the Stalinist comparison is appropriate.

Elon's a salesman. Is there a single thing he does that can't just be described as exactly what any other unscrupulous salesman would do?

>>10838
Probably not. But is this even unscrupulous?

>>10839
Honestly I don't know what "this" is, but if it isn't something that an unscrupulous salesman wouldn't do, then I'm not surprised.

At a fundamental level, Elon Musk and his supporters are simply wrong about what the normal social media user wants in terms of content in general and content moderation specifically.

If you have "anything arguably legal goes" as a rule, then anybody who's Jewish, LGBT, disabled, or whatever the hell else on these platforms are immediately going to be harassed off of them entirely in not too long. If you're not a marginalized minority yourself but just happen to be somebody who opposes anti-Semitic conspiracy theories or otherwise feels unhappy about the proliferation of incitement to hatred, then you're going to be forced out too. And if you're the "Average Joe" who thinks that maybe you can stomach a lot of factually false garbage and bigoted bullying as long as you get to share funny images of cats plus check to see how the Dallas Cowboys are doing, you're going to have your own metaphorical oxygen choked off too eventually, because you're "in the way" of the 1/6 to 1/3 of politically extreme Americans who want to scream out their prejudices.

Would it be nice to have free inquiry and an open exchange of ideas, including outright neo-Nazis and outright neo-Stalinists along with other insufferable types? Yes. Yes, that would be good for democracy if it can be properly managed. Unfortunately, though, the dynamics of social media amplify the most shrill and least well-thought voices. That's just how it is.

Anyone who's looked into, say, the Rwandan Genocide or other ethno-religious and socio-economic internal conflicts in the recent past can see that words matter. Rhetoric becomes reality. Being constantly told that certain peoples are inferior means that, eventually, the call to "cut down the tall trees" will be answered by some.

Helpful story: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/04/rwanda-shows-how-hateful-speech-leads-violence/587041/

As far as specific censorship of right-wing conservatives, goes, well, as long as they want to publicly foam out hatred at minorities and go on about the evil Jewish-homosexual banking plus media conspiracy to replace white Christians with non-white immigrant offspring... like... they're going to get pushback. It's not rocket science. If you throw feces at people, they will get angry at you. If the right-wing online types don't enjoy their reputations, maybe they should act better and thus earn better reputations?

Put simply, if embarking on a quest to please the MAGA-hat or red-star-cap wearing weirdos, Twitter will alienate the normal people who make up the bulk of the population. Musk's goals are futile. If he succeeds, he will shatter the company.

This is really weird because even among the other major shareholders nobody involved seems like your typical "activist investor" but instead they're all these weird... moral crusaders except with a lot of money and opposing hills they want Twitter to die on.

Probably because Twitter Inc is a garbage fire of incompetent corporate governance and Elon is just the ideal bucket of grease to throw on the flames whose big idea is "let's gut all of our revenue streams!"

Anyways, the consensus among investors seems to be that this is already a garbage fire and Musk using it to stroke his ego isn't anything that money managers generally want to have to deal with. Maybe he actually has the money this time. Maybe he got it from a Saudi Prince again, or maybe one of the banking partners helping him navigate the acquisitions extended a line of credit to him (which would open up a lot of ethical questions but they have lawyers for a reason). It's possible. He hasn't provided any proof of financing, just his word. He doesn't usually give any proof though so the breach of protocol isn't proof of maleficence. Except this is Wall Street and your word isn't worth the toilet paper it's written on.

So. Maybe hold? If he isn't lying this time then you get a 10% premium and you get out. Except that also bakes in a price ceiling. If he buys it and in the unlikely event it goes up then you're out. If corporate learns from the experience and prices go up they won't go past what he's offered. If the deal falls through for any of the myriad reasons it could then Twitter will probably miss their impractical quarterly targets and their biggest shareholder is probably going to completely divest himself at the same time. Musky makes a pretty penny for declaring his purchases late therefore keeping prices good and declined, while everybody who didn't sell at $48 gets royally fucked by this traveling circus. Classic price manipulation and insider trading stuff but he has lawyers for a reason.

So I tried to be objective above. Time for my hot takes.
Because realistically? From my perspective? Just Tesla has done 6 major buy-outs. Solar City did 8 under Musk. So right off the bat the man has presided over more than a dozen buy-outs. This one included partnership with multiple well established brokerage firms. All of these people *extremely* well versed in the proper protocol and regulation for major stock movements simply forget to file mandatory disclosure paperwork? And despite a deal that *nobody* on Wall Street takes seriously Twitter prices jump 25%? If this goes in any way besides another "oopsie poopsie I accidentally sold all of my stocks *before* disclosing that I wasn't going through with the acquisitions! I totally said I was going to buy Twitter for $43B but wouldn't you know it I made another oopsie and forgot to sign anything saying I actually would! What a gullible lovable fool I am! Well I'm afraid I have no choice but to take my 25% profits and remind you that you have to prove intent and I'm just so gosh darned clumsy! It is lucky for such clumsy people like me that the maximum penalty for malfeasance is a fraction of a percent of what I ended up making or I'd be in a lot of trouble!" Because. Like.
>“As a result, I am offering to buy 100% of Twitter for $54.20 per share in cash, a 54% premium over the day before I began investing in Twitter and a 38% premium over the day before my investment was publicly announced,” he wrote. “My offer is my best and final offer and if it is not accepted, I would need to reconsider my position as a shareholder.”
He sure seems aware of how much twitter was worth when he bought it versus when he disclosed that he bought it versus now. Considering that he's approaching how he wants to handle the governance grievances he's brought up the way a burned out stoner talks about getting pizza stains out of the couch, he is extremely aware of the dollars and cents involved. The more I think about this the more obvious it is. Like, the $10B of Tesla he sold a bit before this is a lot more consistent with what he's invested so far than the financing for further acquisitions everybody seems to be speculating about. Like. The deal wasn't accepted. Twitter has killed it on their side to boot and he said he was just going to sell all his stock if that happened. But now he's hyping twitter driving up the price? Proposing absolute deal killers like paying the board $0? Oh yeah I bet the board members will jump all over that juicy offer! He couldn't sell when it hit $50 earlier because he hadn't announced his offer of $54.20 yet, but maybe he can get it to $50 again before he says "they weren't negotiating in good faith so I divested myself entirely and I'm putting this mess behind me."


So yeah. Sorry for the stream of consciousness but I like to research my positions and considering that you wads do research like you're working for a "think tank" I may as well drag you along on the journey kicking and screaming. If it's anything but pain for anybody involved then I would be absolutely shocked, but some of you wads are ok so I don't mind it being painful for both of us~♥

>>10841
These kinds of narratives always confuse me, as it's like people who say this don't actually use Twitter, or have seen what it's been like the past few years.

If you're the average joe wanting to share funny images and see how the Cowboys're doing, you're already having "your own metaphorical oxygen choked off". They're already harassed for being "in the way". They're already hassled by the 1/6 to 1/3rd politically extreme Americans who want to scream out their prejudices.

What you're talking about is the current default state of Twitter.
The thing about making it 'anything goes' is, it at least levels the playing field.
No longer would a certain political section get to dominate the dialogue, spout their narrative unchallenged, put up patently false information and bully anyone who disagrees or even questions it into submission.
That's certainly a large improvement.

>>10841
Actually...
>As far as specific censorship of right-wing conservatives, goes, well, as long as they want to publicly foam out hatred at minorities and go on about the evil Jewish-homosexual banking plus media conspiracy to replace white Christians with non-white immigrant offspring... like... they're going to get pushback. It's not rocket science. If you throw feces at people, they will get angry at you. If the right-wing online types don't enjoy their reputations, maybe they should act better and thus earn better reputations?
I guess this rather explains things.

You've a major particular political bias, and so you're unwilling to extend a fair hand to your political rivals.
You view anyone censored as a evil racist conspiracy theorist.
Unfortunately, this is exactly the issue with Twitter. People like yourself've dominated the space, and ensured nobody on the right can really have a say without being harassed or outright banned.

>>10846
>>10847
My "major political bias" is that I believe in reality over fantasy.

And my sense of a "fair hand" is that when conservatives tell me that they hate people who happen to be Jewish, LGBT, disabled, et al I actually believe them.

Serious questions:

Is it possible to have non-bigoted conservatives on social media, in general?

Or will they always insist on "no enemies to the right" and will only accept being someplace if neo-Nazis, Klansmen, and the like are brought in with them?

Not to mention regular, garden-variety conservatives who believe in ableism, anti-Hispanic racism, transphobia, and so on and scream "Anti-right-wing censorship!" when they get in trouble for calling somebody an ethnic slur or whatnot, must they come in too if other conservatives are let in?

If, for the sake of argument, the shoe was on the other foot and political liberals stated that they were only going to join a platform if members of the revolutionary Marxist group the New Black Panther Party saying "You have to be willing to kill white babies if need be!" were let in with them, how would you feel?

>>10850
>My "major political bias" is that I believe in reality over fantasy.
Generalizing an entire swath of the population isn't "reality".
You've made an assumption and applied it to an entire group without a care about whether or not it actually applies.

>Is it possible to have non-bigoted conservatives on social media, in general?
It's not possible to have no bigots, anywhere.
'Conservative' is not the sole factor. There is simply no means to censor far enough that you get rid of everyone, all the time, who might be bigotted.

>Or will they always insist on "no enemies to the right" and will only accept being someplace if neo-Nazis, Klansmen, and the like are brought in with them?
Nobody says that.

>Not to mention regular, garden-variety conservatives who believe in ableism, anti-Hispanic racism, transphobia, and so on and scream "Anti-right-wing censorship!" when they get in trouble for calling somebody an ethnic slur or whatnot, must they come in too if other conservatives are let in?
While I'm sure that's 'regular' to your twisted view of reality, that's not to anything else.

In any case; As I said, censorship online is largely impossible, from an absolute perspective.
You'll never have 0.

>If, for the sake of argument, the shoe was on the other foot and political liberals stated that they were only going to join a platform if members of the revolutionary Marxist group the New Black Panther Party saying "You have to be willing to kill white babies if need be!" were let in with them, how would you feel?
I hold the principle of free speech.
I'd be fine with them being let in.
Their arguments are easy to refute, and it's always better to see such behavior than hide it away and assume that they're gone.

Besides; You can't get arguments for things you don't know about. Not easily, anyway. Hearing their arguments makes for good understanding of how to refute them.

I finally read about this Musk/Twitter thing.

Musk believes that by allowing some change in content rules, making the company private, and getting rid of ads, he can unlock major growth.  So he is planning a hostile takeover of Twitter using yet-unidentified sources of funding.

Sometimes I think he just does stuff to mess with stock prices for...reasons.

It is done.  Let the gnashing of teeth commence.

>>10867
Lot of the artists I follow on Twitter are freaking out, and for the life of me I can't really tell why.
I don't see how it's going to significantly change.
At best, he might lighten the rules some. Though even that's based on an assumption, and not anything he's actually said as far as I can tell.
The main thing he's been vocal about planning to do is be transparent about deranking, and switch away from an add-based model. Neither of which seem particularly horrible.

>>10867

It allows us to put to bed the Idea that Musk is a genius

>>10867
Wall Street seems to be waiting until the check clears before they call it a done deal. Once that's done it won't really be fun speculating anymore and the 24 hour news cycle will once again become a thing.

Unless the check bounces. That would be pretty sensational. He might make it bounce just for the attention.

Does anyone use Twitter enough to have experienced its moderation?  As I guess that's the big deal Mr. Musk will fix.

>>10874
I've seen 3 people get week-long automated bans for jokes/sarcasm.  In context, the tweets were clearly rule-compliant, but in isolation they were kinda sus and must have tripped the auto-ban algorithm.

>>10875
I see -- nuance-deaf algorithms.  Feels like that's just part of social media in general nowadays.  Even if you hire humans, they probably only get, like, 3.5 seconds to make a call, so there's going to be a random element.  Will Musk change that somehow, do you think?

>>10854
You'll never have no bigotry same as never having no death threats, no child pornography, no credit card fraud, no rape threats, and so on, but it's still a cause worth fighting for.

I also think it's rather stupid to pretend that we're talking about ""arguments"" as bigotry isn't based on logical reasoning. It never actually is, being entirely created from mere emotion. It's more akin to loudly farting or throwing a piece of garbage at somebody. "Your synagogue deserves to be burned down" isn't making some kind of intellectual point for you to ponder; it's just an attack. Same thing for aggressively misgendering somebody on purpose or trying to coerce banking information out of them to ruin them. You don't actually learn anything from reading such material. You just feel sickened that it's out there.

At any rate, I think that the whole "My Free Speech Is In Danger From Minorities Stealing It" quasi-debate is something used by Musk for cheap activist applause, and he's likely to make popular minor changes that promote Twitter (such as allowing for editing of messages) instead of unpopular major changes (such as allowing conservatives to post antisemitic conspiracy theories).

>>10878
>You'll never have no bigotry same as never having no death threats, no child pornography, no credit card fraud, no rape threats, and so on, but it's still a cause worth fighting for.
Sure.
That wasn't the question, though.
You asked if it were possible.
>>10850
>"Is it possible to have non-bigoted conservatives on social media, in general?"

If you agree with me that it's impossible, why'd you ask the question?
Nobody ever said you shouldn't try to end bigotry. There's many a means you can do so, that are perfectly reasonable.

>I also think it's rather stupid to pretend that we're talking about ""arguments"" as bigotry isn't based on logical reasoning.
Declaring something as the case does not make it so.
Demonstrating flawed logic to be flawed, besides, is an argument.
Saying "You're wrong" or "You're illogical" isn't going to convince anyone. Censoring simply hides it from the surface so it can fester, unchallenged, below. Especially with the easy ammunition of your evident fear of the argument, and claims of demonstrable oppression.

> "Your synagogue deserves to be burned down" isn't making some kind of intellectual point for you to ponder
No prior statement ever suggested it was purely such declarations as these that were being discussed.

Nonetheless; You can certainly argue against such a declaration, besides, both on moral grounds and pragmatic grounds.
Hell, the simple "why" is usually enough to refute such individuals.

>At any rate, I think that the whole "My Free Speech Is In Danger From Minorities Stealing It"
Nobody said that.
Why do you keep making things up?

>>10890
It's not anywhere near fair, let alone practical or just, for us minorities to be demanded to spend 24 hours a day and 7 days a week educating bigots online.

At some point, it has to be accepted that we want to live our lives as normal, and this means respecting our human right of cutting out toxic people spreading toxic values in toxic ways. They're a right to their viewpoints. But not a right to force me against my will to engage with them.

At some point, my ability to say "Please leave me alone" (and anybody else's right to do exactly the same) has to be respected in order for there to be civilization.

>>10902
>It's not anywhere near fair, let alone practical or just, for us minorities to be demanded to spend 24 hours a day and 7 days a week educating bigots online.
Nobody's asked you to.

>At some point, it has to be accepted that we want to live our lives as normal, and this means respecting our human right of cutting out toxic people spreading toxic values in toxic ways.
No such right exists, nor does such an expectation that everyone around you must say only the things you approve or otherwise be kind to you constitute 'normal' lives.
People say mean things to me all the time.
People say things I don't agree with all the time.
People insult my beliefs, the beliefs of my loved ones, the origins of my family,my race, my nationality, my religious beliefs, and so on, all the time.
I've no right whatsoever to demand they be silenced for my particular desire.

>But not a right to force me against my will to engage with them.
Nobody is.
You can leave the computer.
You can use the block button.
You can close the tab.
You can simply talk to other people.

>At some point, my ability to say "Please leave me alone" (and anybody else's right to do exactly the same) has to be respected in order for there to be civilization.
You can say that all you like. Sure.
As far as 'respected' though, no, certainly not.
When you voice your opinions in public, people've got a right to respond as they believe.
You not wanting that to be the case is not something anyone needs concern themseves with. Not in so far as enforcement is concerned, anyway. In terms of the potential censorious nature it displays, perhaps, but it's no violation of your rights for someone to remain just because you want them to go away.
Frankly, it spits in the direct face of the idea of rights. And is contradictory besides.

If I told you I don't want you in this thread, would you just leave?
Would you be violating my rights if you decide instead to stay?

>>10905
It's simply amazing to me that you and people like you unashamedly hold to a double standard.

I as a minority member am not just expected but outright demanded that I spend 24 hours a day and 7 days a week subject to abuse and harassment by strangers: I'm ordered that I must listen to such types and actively engage with them no matter what the cost to me, no matter how I might prefer to ignore them or otherwise cut them out of my life.

And yet you as a conservative have not just the ability but the expectation that you be catered to by others and have others walk on eggshells such that they don't offend your sensibilities: you outright demand the ability to cut off anybody in any context no matter what in terms of the reasonableness of how they push back against you, and that demand is always met.

What makes your political tribe such Goddamn superiors?

Why can't I have the right to freely choose in terms of individual expression and personal association the right to live in a community of my choosing, deciding to not engage and otherwise ignore certain others? What makes it so evil and wrong if I merely happen to choose to turn my interest away from people that I don't care about? Why is that such an unforgivable crime, to not engage?

Why can only you have that right?

Why aren't we equal?

>>10925
>It's simply amazing to me that you and people like you unashamedly hold to a double standard.
And it's simply amazing to me that individuals as you think insults and dismissals function as arguments.

I've not given a single double-standard here. Regardless of your assertion.
It's frankly very likely why said assertion had no argument behind it.

>I as a minority member am not just expected but outright demanded that I spend 24 hours a day and 7 days a week subject to abuse and harassment by strangers:
I find it thoroughly hard to believe you go through your life 24 hours a day getting harassment. Even with the internet.

> I'm ordered that I must listen to such types and actively engage with them no matter what the cost to me, no matter how I might prefer to ignore them or otherwise cut them out of my life.
Nobody said that.
This is just yet another strawman.
I had, in fact, explicitly said the opposite, contrary to your dishonest claims;
>>10905
>"Nobody is. You can leave the computer. You can use the block button. You can close the tab. You can simply talk to other people."

>And yet you as a conservative have not just the ability but the expectation that you be catered to by others and have others walk on eggshells such that they don't offend your sensibilities:
Of course I don't. What an absurd claim. Genuinely, now, I've never come across such a laughably out-of-the-world statement as this.
The idea that conservatives are somehow treated with kids gloves in this day and age, as though anyone gives a damn about offending them. Where do you even come up with such a thing?

No. I've been called every single thing in the book, and more. Not for "far right" beliefs, either. Simple things will get me branded a nazi, a racist, whatever sort of attacks I may get. People'll wish death upon me for my political beliefs. To the point I've even had, here, on townhall, someone say they'd shoot me outright and somehow claim 'self defense' purely because of political beliefs they pinned to me, not ones I even held.

Nobody has asked you to walk on eggshells, nor is such a thing I've ever expected.
If anything, I expect the opposite. I expect a pile of hatred and vitriol for simply saying I'm right of center.

> you outright demand the ability to cut off anybody in any context no matter what in terms of the reasonableness of how they push back against you, and that demand is always met.
What demand are you even talking about?
I've made no such demand.
I can leave, to be sure. I can take a step away. But that's true of anyone. Nor is that something I must demand of anyone.

>What makes your political tribe such Goddamn superiors?
Where did I ever even make such a suggestion?
The only person to claim my 'tribe' was superior seems to be you.
I think my 'tribe' is effectively normal.
If one engages with a sweeping brush, I'd say it's got as many flaws as any other.

>Why can't I have the right to freely choose in terms of individual expression and personal association the right to live in a community of my choosing, deciding to not engage and otherwise ignore certain others?
I've never said anything against such a stance.
In fact, I've explicitly said the opposite.
Again;
>>10905
>"Nobody is. You can leave the computer. You can use the block button. You can close the tab. You can simply talk to other people."

>What makes it so evil and wrong if I merely happen to choose to turn my interest away from people that I don't care about?
I've never said it was. Again;
>>10905
>"Nobody is. You can leave the computer. You can use the block button. You can close the tab. You can simply talk to other people."

>Why is that such an unforgivable crime, to not engage?
At no point was it suggested to be.
Again;
>"Nobody is. You can leave the computer. You can use the block button. You can close the tab. You can simply talk to other people."

>Why can only you have that right?
You do.

>Why aren't we equal?
As far as rights go, yes, yes we are.

>>10943
I wish that you'd at least have the honesty that you think of yourself as superior to me and other people, hence why you want special privileges from social media that you won't let me have.

>>10959
I have never, at any point, suggested anyone should have special privilages on social media.

This is flatly a lie. You made it up.
I have no idea why you'd lie about something so patently untrue and easily demonstrable, but you've made a single line reply, so I suppose you're not really making much attempt at rationality at this point besides.

>>10974
Admittedly, this is a problem for me arguing with a conservative in the first place, it's like wrestling with a pig: you get muddy and unhappy, but they love it.

>>10982
>make up shit never said
>get called out for it
>"CONSERVATIVES BAD IM JUST WRESTLING WITH PIGS O WOE IS ME WHY DO I EVEN TRY"

Look, I'm all for you stepping away if you have no arguments or can't engage without such behavior.
But must you announce said inability with a plethora of degrading remarks?

>>10985
Must you continue to be a nuisance with no actual argument, just right-wing ideology? I can wing that right back. At any rate, I hope that you see reality outside of the tiny bubble your head is in at some point.

>>10992
You whine about a lack of arguments what you've refused to engage with mine thus far.
Instead you accuse me of things I've not done.
Of beliefs that I do not hold.

What makes you the arbiter of truth so divine and all-knowing that you can dictate to other people what they actually think?

>>10994
>What makes you the arbiter of truth so divine and all-knowing that you can dictate to other people what they actually think?

I'm not a conservative, so I don't think of myself as superior to others. Try again. Unlike you supposed exalted, wonderful types who know that God has chosen you to be the perfect elite in rule over anything, I'm just another person. That's all.

>>10998
Again you go and ascribe belief to me.
You claim not to consider yourself 'superior', yet evidently you regard yourself as an almighty seer of all.
How else do you claim to somehow know what I belive, in spite of my repeated explicit claims to the contrary?

You know fuck all about me. Yet you insist you know me more than the person who's lived that entire life.
How the fuck isn't that a superiority complex at play?

>>11006
Again, I'm not a conservative, and so I don't share in that belief of my inherent exalted wonderfulness and superiority that conservatives hold to. Sorry not sorry. I'm just another human being.

>>11011
And again, you're ascribing beliefs to me when I've directly started the opposite.

Your only defense is your extreme hatred and bigotry towards anyone you regard as conservative.
As though anyone you deign to apply that label to is exactly the same, and equally guilty of the worst fantasies in your mind.

I am just a human being too, yet you deign to treat me as filth for exceptionally minor differences in opinion that you use to justify your wild fantasies of what you think I actually believe.

I can only hope you don't exhibit these delusions in the real world as you may well genuinely be a danger to both yourself and others.

>>11014
Again, I'm just another human being. Not a superior kind of masterful agent from outer space who's always right about everything and can never do wrong. That's life.

>>11015
Then why do you repeatedly dictate to me what my beliefs actually are, in spite of what I have said?

>>11017
I'm not a conservative. So I don't think that I'm superior to others. I don't know how else to say this.

>>11020
Why do you dictate what I belive?

>>11024
Why do you dictate what I believe?

>>11026
I don't nor have I ever stated I did.

>>11026
So can you answer the question?

Or will you simply concede that I don't believe I or any other group is superior to anyone else, nor do I want a different set of rights for any group of people.

>>11027
>>11035
At some point you need to accept the fact that I'm just another person and not superior to others, not being a conservative I don't share in their complexes about being better human beings with better lives and so on.

>>11039
So why do you dictate to me my beliefs despite me explicitly saying the opposite of them?

You can't answer this question, and it's exceptionally telling. You know full well what you are doing is dishonest

>>11041
Has it ever occurred to you that I might not even care if somebody else <not you, talking generally> is better than me?

>>11046
That would be weird considering your repeated harping on it. But alright. That's fine.

Why do you deign to dictate to me my beliefs in spite of my statements, though?

>>11048
I'm not one of them, so it doesn't matter to me what their complexes are.

>>11052
One of what? Are you even responding to what I am saying now? Or is there some conversation going on in your head that I don't know about?

>>11057
I'm not one of you, one of them, whatever, so I'm tired of the claims of awesomeness and superiority and elite status to where I don't care anymore.

>>11062
>I'm not one of you, one of them, whatever,
I know?
This was never at issue.

>, so I'm tired of the claims of awesomeness and superiority and elite status to where I don't care anymore.
No such claim was ever made.

Why do you think you know my beliefs better than I do?
Can you please answer the question?

>>11064
What are you even on about at this point?

>>11066
Same thing I have been for ages.

You claim I view myself as superior to minorities, despite me saying otherwise.
You claim I want different rights for minorities, despite me saying otherwise.

Why is your assumption of my beliefs more credible than my statements of them?

What did I say!? He's tanking the deal just as it comes time to sign his name on the cheque, and the next thing we'll know the money will be all gone!

>>11103
How so?

>>11104
Because he suspended the sale?

It's pure speculation for the most heavily romanticized, least likely scenario. I had a freaking essay analyzing it but I deleted that because all I really care about is how money moves, not the personalities involved. If Musky Husky *really* wants to buy Tweetie Bird then I guess he can? I don't know why he would but he can. But if it were me this would all be an extremely public very dramatic pump-and-dump. That's a more fun scenario for me to envision but in reality it's just a publicity stunt to drive down the $44b figure. Which if Twitter weren't fucking dead already (financially) would blow up in his face? That's the broad consensus on the Street at least (reflected by share price). It's just boring.

Oh hey, a great video about it all!

Wish I had a billion dollars.

I'd basically disappear from most social media platforms.

Whats the point of auto generated names anon when people use avatars?

>>11354
Lackadaisical Donkey, it is the way this site works.  Every time you enter a new thread, your identity starts over.  I think it keeps ponies from getting angry, but reasons and purposes are mostly none of my business, so I doubt any of us can really say.

What a surprise, looks like he backed out of the deal like everyone knew he would.

This is going to be quite interesting to watch.

Elon clearly believes that Twitter isn't giving him correct information about bots, and feels he shouldn't have to pay full price for Twitter.

Given that, it feels like no matter what, Elon gets Twitter.

Scenario 1 - Elon is wrong, and Twitter manages to force him to buy twitter for an extra sum of money. Elon owns Twitter.

Scenario 2 - Elon is right, and Twitter's stock plummets enough for Elon to make another, far cheaper, offer. Elon owns Twitter.

Scenario 3 - The deal is mediated outside of court. Elon owns Twitter.

The only way I see Elon not owning Twitter is if he really didn't want to own Twitter in the first place, which like... granted, it's possible, but I just don't see it. Elon is continuing to hold his position that he should own Twitter, and should get it for a cheaper price due to bots.

God it would be so funny if they forced Elon to buy Twitter and he just shuts it down

>>11396
I think looking even slightly into it gives a very strong impression that yes, he really never did intend to actually OWN Twitter. Everything he does is a big show with no substance, and this is just the latest razzle dazzle to get the nerds talking about him. But it looks like he made a mistake somewhere and got himself stuck.

My bet is he pays the measly billion in penalty and washes his hands of the whole thing, while telling everyone he was the bigger man.

Twitter will be obliged to prove that their human users are greater than 95% of their accounts.  I don't know if users are allowed to have more than one account, as well.  I don't know how you do that but to require all users to pass a test.  I guess Twitter was negligent in not administering more tests before making the 95% claim.

>>11399
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that was part of their deal, meaning they aren't obliged to do anything of the sort.

Wasn't Musk's stated goal with buying Twitter to get rid of all the bots anyway?

>>11400
The deal assumes a value based off the number of active human users.
If that number is significantly below 95%, the estimated value is incorrect.

>>11399
>>11401
Did they get in writing that the deal was based on the number of human users? I was under the impression that the deal was about censorship and free speech.

This is contract law, after all. If it isn't in writing then it doesn't matter. Delaware Courts in general and the judge assigned in particular have a long history of requiring exceptional circumstances before allowing parties to deviate from an agreed upon contract.

>>11400
Yes, Mr. Musk was going to make Twitter private to get rid of bots and allow free speech.  Musk needs to know how many of the accounts are bots to value Twitter financially.

>>11402
>Did they get in writing that the deal was based on the number of human users?
In what they call an SEO filing.  I don't know exactly which one is being referenced (https://investor.twitterinc.com/financial-information/sec-filings/default.aspx).

That's just the general idea I get from the various news articles (eg. https://www.protocol.com/musk-twitter-bots-proof).

I definitely recommend watching that video I posted. I think it has most of the important information.

>>11402
>I was under the impression that the deal was about censorship and free speech.
While that's certainly an aspect to it, as I understand, Musk still wants to generate a profit off of it.

I doubt he's the only one going in, either. While he's the 'face' of the deal, there's doubtless backers behind him. And they definitely don't want to see an investment wasted. Not for this price.

>>11403
I meant in the contract that Mr Musk signed with Twitter
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1418091/000119312522120474/d310843ddefa14a.htm

They signed a contract in April. The ink is dry. The specific contents of that contract are the only thing a court will care about unless the contact specifies otherwise.

>>11407
So there is a conflict between the text of the contract Mr. Musk has agreed to and Mr. Musk's impression that his purchase of Twitter is contingent on proof that 95% of accounts are controlled by humans directly.  You assert this conflict will be resolved in Twitter's favor by the legal system.

>>11408
Mr. Musk has an uphill fight. This is civil law, not criminal law, the burden of proof is different. As the plaintiff, the burden of proof still lies on Twitter Inc, but this is a contract dispute. Twitter has a baked in advantage in the form of the signatures on the contract. The contract isn't obliging Twitter to maintain a 20:1 user to bot ratio; the contract is a bill of sale. The facts going in to the court room before arguments have been made are that Musk is not carrying out a contract he signed. Mr. Musk's case depends on an interpretation of the contract which leaves a lot of his success or failure up to the skill of his lawyers and the patience of the judge, and it opens up the floor to the plaintiff's own interpretations. A judge who does not want a long trial would be justified in saying "you should have thought of that before you signed the contract." Considering that the judge scheduled 4 days in the next months, it indicates that she does not intend to look at more than the literal wording of the contract itself, which makes no mention of bots or users.


Also I looking at the contract under Article I the definition of "Company Material Adverse Effects" we have three sections that are immediately relevant in the rather long list of things that this contract does not consider Material Adverse Effects:
>(iii) general economic, regulatory or political conditions
>(viii) any changes in the market price or trading volume of the Company Common Stock, any failure by the Company or its Subsidiaries to meet internal, analysts’ or other earnings estimates or financial projections or forecasts for any period
>(ix) any matter disclosed in the Company SEC Documents filed by the Company prior to the date of this Agreement


The contract specifically defines:
>“Company Material Adverse Effect” means any change, event, effect or circumstance which, individually or in the aggregate, has resulted in or would reasonably be expected to result in a material adverse effect on the business, financial condition or results of operations of the Company and its Subsidiaries, taken as a whole
When we consider
>(vii) any action taken pursuant to the terms of this Agreement or with the consent or at the direction of Parent or Acquisition Sub
What he would have to prove is that the number of bots on twitter is a circumstance which has or will result in financial damage to the company. Specifically, it cannot be the revelation of the number of bots that causes the adverse effect as that is a consequence of the consummation of the agreement and thus not a Company Material Adverse Effect. So along with arguing that the bot issue is not relevant to the contract, Twitter would also have the defense that the number of bots is status quo. Twitter has always operated with as many bots and the effect they have on Twitter's business has not changed in any significant way, and only the revelation of the number of bots has had a significant financial effect on the company but regardless Musk himself has no knowledge of the number of bots on twitter or their effect on the business. They could further argue that they are defended from the requests for information mandated in section 6.4 by the exceptions listed in 6.4 (i) cause significant competitive harm to the Company or its Subsidiaries if the transactions contemplated by this Agreement are not consummated. The company could argue that under section 6.4 (iii) a pattern of behavior during the consummation of the agreement frees them from their section 6.4 access to information obligations.

Now Musk still has a case. Everything I've said implies that he does not but you already think he does so I haven't wasted my time explaining it. His legal team has an SEC filing from May, after the merger agreement, that clearly states the number of bots which is almost certainly false simply due to how vaguely bots are defined and the role they play in the architecture of the site. The bot issue itself goes to the roots of how the company delivers it's product (personal information) to it's customers (advertisers) which does not fall into the various market forces and capitalization exclusions. Section 7.2c states "(c) no Company Material Adverse Effect shall have occurred and be continuing." Now there is the issue that section 8.1d(i). termination of the agreement by the parent specifies that Musk may cancel the contract for failures of section 7.2a or 7.2b with no mention of section 7.2c, I think any reasonable person would rationalize that section 7.2c should be included as it's existence is heavily implied by section 7.2b such that exceptions in 7.2b are nonsensical without 7.2c. He could argue the damages in 6.4 (i) are self inflicted because the deal would not be consummated and so they would not be by competitive activity and that the rationalization is being applied retroactively following his reaction to failures by the company itself to respond to their 6.4 general obligations which comes back to section 8.d(i) and termination under a failure to uphold section 7.2(b). The simple failure to comply with a request under section 6.4 should be sufficient to terminate the agreement never mind material adverse effect, stock price, moon phase filing dates or bot ratios. They could argue that the demand to force merger is unreasonable considering the ambiguity if obligations by both parent and company have been carried out.



So that's where I think this case is going to be mostly decided. Basically how well the judge slept the day before and if one of the attorneys has cramps.

Anybody wanna spin me on what the heck that was about? Because I have no idea.

Elon Musk
Champion of free speech.

>>11699
Supporting free speech, and being opposed to stochastic terrorism, are not mutually exclusive positions.

>>11700
Twitter calssifies identifing suspended Twitter accounts as doxxing?  Or is it more, doxxing is stuff Musk doesn't care for?

>>11701
Twitter gave a 7-day ban to anyone who linked to the ElonJet site that published the real-time location of his private plane.

Am I the only one who finds it sus as hell that some IRA looking motherfucker forces the vehicle carrying the infant son of the richest man on earth to a halt, jumps on the bonnet of the car, and all he gets is a camera shoved in his face and a "do you know this man?" on Twitter? The more I think about this the more everything feels off. Our PLA friend should be a statistic smeared thin across downtown LA, not a footnote in a story about flight trackers.

I know LA is such a safe city that nobody would ever consider something bad might happen, and Mr Elon comes from the kind of country where things like that just don't happen, and that he's always gone through pains to have a minimal public profile so he wouldn't have a reason to feel any sort of vulnerability, but it still seems rational to have some security present while his two year old goes out on the town alone, if he can afford it.

>>11702
Oh, I see.  Protecting personal information a person considers confidential seems....good?  Presumably the rules are consistently applied.

That Elon Musk and those who follow him define the term 'free speech' as 'what I personally dislike should be censored and what I personally like should be celebrated' with no higher ethical principles involved whatsoever is really useful information, honestly.

If you're a sincere and informed observer of the world, it's going to be pretty clear in the U.S. context by now (in 2022) that neither the activist political right nor the related left counterpart believes in 'free speech' either in the legal sense (as in 'governments shouldn't censor except when there's no other option') or the moral sense (as in 'authoritative actors outside the state should be the same, maximum space being allowed for expression').

And businesses certainly don't care either, given that obviously they just want to enhance their bottom lines.