Government efficiency commission

[Overlander]

So what has he done wrong? Allowing free speech for both sides? Lol

I don't see any examples of left winged views not being allowed

You are wallpapering right over the issue, which is that "allowing" and "allowed" are not the right words.

Musk is promoting and amplifying one side's views.

Just like Trump's alleged bullet wound, the distinction between these two things only matters because of exactly how Musk uses HIS version of the story. And HIS version of the story is simply untrue.

Would you have an issue if musk was amplifying the other sides views?

As an alleged “purveyor of free speech”, he shouldn’t be parroting either side.

[jfish26]

So what has he done wrong? Allowing free speech for both sides? Lol

I don't see any examples of left winged views not being allowed

You are wallpapering right over the issue, which is that "allowing" and "allowed" are not the right words.

Musk is promoting and amplifying one side's views.

Just like Trump's alleged bullet wound, the distinction between these two things only matters because of exactly how Musk uses HIS version of the story. And HIS version of the story is simply untrue.

Would you have an issue if musk was amplifying the other sides views?

To a lesser degree, yes. I would still be critical of the hypocrisy. But, I do not believe that the views on the other side of Musk's are nearly as dangerous, when amplified, as Musk's views.

[Sparko]

Those Blood Diamonds didn't dig themselves

[randylahey]

You are wallpapering right over the issue, which is that "allowing" and "allowed" are not the right words.

Musk is promoting and amplifying one side's views.

Just like Trump's alleged bullet wound, the distinction between these two things only matters because of exactly how Musk uses HIS version of the story. And HIS version of the story is simply untrue.

Would you have an issue if musk was amplifying the other sides views?

As an alleged “purveyor of free speech”, he shouldn’t be parroting either side.

Does he not have the right to free speech for himself? Especially against those who attack us all for using free speech

[randylahey]

Fish you had zero problem when people were being silenced and censored, despite them doing nothing wrong. Speaking out against things you disagree with is exactly why we have free speech, and how this country was founded. The freedoms you enjoy in this country began with free speech, and in the beginning were also attacked and punished by tyrannical leaders

Fish you also have zero examples of musk censoring or silencing leftist voices. He is just giving everyone a fair platform to speak, and exposing that other platforms did not.

[KUTradition]

giggle

[randylahey]

Fish right now you are openly campaigning against free speech. Im going to give you this benefit of the doubt, because I know you are just too deeply ingrained with your political team. Being able to openly speak out about things you disagree with is exactly why we have the 1st amendment

Musk making the move to acquire Twitter gave power back to the people. A powerful internet tool for voices to be heard. And that's exactly why the "political ruling class" hates it, and wants you to hate him

They don't want the people to have a platform to discuss the corruption occuring within our government

[randylahey]

giggle

"I have nothing reasonable or logical to add, so I say this to try to dismiss logic" - KUtradition

You've overused it

[KUTradition]

https://theintercept.com/2022/11/29/elo ... tifascist/

[KUTradition]

giggle

"I have nothing reasonable or logical to add, so I say this to try to dismiss logic" - KUtradition

You've overused it

you wouldn’t know logic if it bit you on the ass

[KUTradition]

stomp your feet, randi

it’s cute

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

Why do we engage randy?

[KUTradition]

https://newrepublic.com/post/169234/elo ... ounts-spam

[jfish26]

Fish you had zero problem when people were being silenced and censored, despite them doing nothing wrong. Speaking out against things you disagree with is exactly why we have free speech, and how this country was founded. The freedoms you enjoy in this country began with free speech, and in the beginning were also attacked and punished by tyrannical leaders

Fish you also have zero examples of musk censoring or silencing leftist voices. He is just giving everyone a fair platform to speak, and exposing that other platforms did not.

If you do not understand that pushing specific preferred things up makes non-preferred things smaller by comparison, I'm not sure how to process the rest of this. I would just note that a platform that pushes preferred things up is inherently not "fair" - WHICH IS FINE. There is NO requirement that a social media platform be "fair."

What is not fine is pushing preferred things up, and telling us that the platform is "fair."

[KUTradition]

imagine holding such a person in high regard, putting them on a pedestal seemingly beyond reproach

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... stosterone

[jfish26]

Fish right now you are openly campaigning against free speech. Im going to give you this benefit of the doubt, because I know you are just too deeply ingrained with your political team. Being able to openly speak out about things you disagree with is exactly why we have the 1st amendment

Musk making the move to acquire Twitter gave power back to the people. A powerful internet tool for voices to be heard. And that's exactly why the "political ruling class" hates it, and wants you to hate him

They don't want the people to have a platform to discuss the corruption occuring within our government

I think you might have missed this, bumping to the top of your box.

Pulled. Because a lie.

How is it a lie when Zuckerberg himself says word got word that Facebook was being pressured by the government so censor certain things because it didn't support their narrative. Elon musk revealed the same things at Twitter.

I think it's just hard for you to admit that you are getting lied to by the people you so strongly support and campaign for

Do we need to revisit the threads where you refuse to simply explain in your own words what the first amendment does and does not do? Because that is kinda the price of admission to be taken seriously if you want to discuss "censorship."

[randylahey]

Articles written deliberately to smear someone and twist people's words to fit a narrative are not proof of anything

[jfish26]

Articles written deliberately to smear someone and twist people's words to fit a narrative are not proof of anything

A truthful article is only a “smear” to someone who doesn’t like the truth.

[Overlander]

Articles written deliberately to smear someone and twist people's words to fit a narrative are not proof of anything

Holy


Fucking


Shit