Elon Musk makes $43 Billion offer for private buyout of Twitter (4 Viewers)

[St. Widge]

I actually feel like we have a good balance in place. The part people keep forgetting is private business isn't the government. Any of us can go outside of a government building and start screaming pretty much whatever we like at the government. When you step foot on private property, whether that property be online or physical, those same rules don't apply. The safeguard for this has always been money. If a business wants to play stupid games then they win stupid prizes.

As for Elon, Trump and Twitter allowing foreign governments or even being paid by foreign governments to push their agenda is where I have a problem. I think we are seeing collusion between the Kremlin and the far right. To me that is not a matter of free speech when foreign influence and financial transactions start taking place. So far the links are akin to a ring of fire around the main players with a ton of smoke but I think most can see exactly what is happening. It can't be by chance the Kremlin and these groups keep showing up in the same room and dancing.

Twitter has been different than things in the past. It appears Elon is willing to tank the value of Twitter, chase off all the advertisers and crater Tesla in exchange to dictate policy and politics. When the funding to that is being linked back to enemies of the state, I have a problem with that and question where the line in the sand the Justice Department has a problem with it.

To further complicate things, Elon has positioned himself in a position of need for the government with SpaceX. I have no doubt that the US Government and military view SpaceX as a huge opportunity which is likely allowing him to have a lot more rope. It's really easy to see Elon as the egotistical maniac he is, he is not attempting to hide it. This is all going to blow up at some point. Elon can't help himself and if competition comes along to compete with SpaceX it will likely end in spectacular fashion. Until then, he's going to eventually have to answer to investors of Twitter and Tesla while the government tries to keep him contained. Both companies are in prime position for a full out crash.

Yep. Elon can let whatever vile content he wants on Twitter, but if that speech has been bought a paid for by a foreign government that's when it could cross the line to criminal. I'm not sure that is what is happening, and if it is I'm not sure it can be proven, but I do think it needs to be looked at. Especially for a guy that has so much national security information. In addition, Elon has an obligation to stockholder in Tesla which can lead to civil penalties and possible criminal issues with the SEC.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

I actually feel like we have a good balance in place. The part people keep forgetting is private business isn't the government. Any of us can go outside of a government building and start screaming pretty much whatever we like at the government. When you step foot on private property, whether that property be online or physical, those same rules don't apply. The safeguard for this has always been money. If a business wants to play stupid games then they win stupid prizes.

As for Elon, Trump and Twitter allowing foreign governments or even being paid by foreign governments to push their agenda is where I have a problem. I think we are seeing collusion between the Kremlin and the far right. To me that is not a matter of free speech when foreign influence and financial transactions start taking place. So far the links are akin to a ring of fire around the main players with a ton of smoke but I think most can see exactly what is happening. It can't be by chance the Kremlin and these groups keep showing up in the same room and dancing.

Twitter has been different than things in the past. It appears Elon is willing to tank the value of Twitter, chase off all the advertisers and crater Tesla in exchange to dictate policy and politics. When the funding to that is being linked back to enemies of the state, I have a problem with that and question where the line in the sand the Justice Department has a problem with it.

To further complicate things, Elon has positioned himself in a position of need for the government with SpaceX. I have no doubt that the US Government and military view SpaceX as a huge opportunity which is likely allowing him to have a lot more rope. It's really easy to see Elon as the egotistical maniac he is, he is not attempting to hide it. This is all going to blow up at some point. Elon can't help himself and if competition comes along to compete with SpaceX it will likely end in spectacular fashion. Until then, he's going to eventually have to answer to investors of Twitter and Tesla while the government tries to keep him contained. Both companies are in prime position for a full out crash.

And that’s why I was saying target the business for mis/disinformation
Businesses are held liable for bad/harmful products all this time - that shouldn’t be any different bc it’s CNN/FOX instead of PERDUE/EXXON

 

[bclemms]

And that’s why I was saying target the business for mis/disinformation
Businesses are held liable for bad/harmful products all this time - that shouldn’t be any different bc it’s CNN/FOX instead of PERDUE/EXXON

When 60% of the country prefers confirmational bias over reality they are getting exactly what they are paying for.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

When 60% of the country prefers confirmational bias over reality they are getting exactly what they are paying for.

Most smokers know smoking causes cancer

 

[St. Widge]

And that’s why I was saying target the business for mis/disinformation
Businesses are held liable for bad/harmful products all this time - that shouldn’t be any different bc it’s CNN/FOX instead of PERDUE/EXXON

Technically they are held liable for defective products which more or less means that they are not fit for their intended purpose. And I think the stuff CNN/Fox puts out very much so is fit for their intended purposes.

 

[St. Widge]

Most smokers know smoking causes cancer

Which is why you can't win suits against tobacco companies for anything outside of false advertising (or failure to warn if someone smoked before the warning labels were put on packs).

 

[buzd]

Yep. Elon can let whatever vile content he wants on Twitter, but if that speech has been bought a paid for by a foreign government that's when it could cross the line to criminal. I'm not sure that is what is happening, and if it is I'm not sure it can be proven, but I do think it needs to be looked at. Especially for a guy that has so much national security information. In addition, Elon has an obligation to stockholder in Tesla which can lead to civil penalties and possible criminal issues with the SEC.

The Saudis definitelyfinanced a percentage of Elons purchase and likely the Russians and Chinese as well. That is public record. How does that factor in?

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

The problem with getting the FCC involved is that then there is state action and the Constitution applies. Which means that most speech outside of very specific calls for imminent violence would be protected.

And that’s one of - and certainly not the only - reason we need to an update on the pre- Industrial Revolution, landed gentry document that we hold as sacred text
It contains beautiful theories that have pretty much all been … let’s say commandeered by the financially empowered
It needs to be a document governing a democracy not an oligarchy

 

[St. Widge]

The Saudis definitelyfinanced a percentage of Elons purchase and likely the Russians and Chinese as well. That is public record. How does that factor in?

I don't think financing is a problem. The issue is proving that they paid him to influence elections, gave them secret information he had from his government contracts, etc. If foreign investment alone was enough most every company in the U.S. would be guilty of espionage/treason. In a global economy, you are going to have some level of foreign investment. Unless, of course, you choose the course of isolationism which I doubt you would.

 

[St. Widge]

And that’s one of - and certainly not the only - reason we need to an update on the pre- Industrial Revolution, landed gentry document that we hold as sacred text
It contains beautiful theories that have pretty much all been … let’s say commandeered by the financially empowered
It needs to be a document governing a democracy not an oligarchy

The document isn't really the problem in the vast majority of situations and the document is necessary as Chuck pointed out to protect us from the possibility of government abuse of individuals. Which, seems more of a risk from authoritarianism these days than it has for many, many years. The problem is those that either don't understand or ignore the document or, to a larger extent, interpret it in ways that are advantageous to them in the short term but ignore possible future consequences. All to often, SCOTUS has interpreted the Constitution to get the result they want. And, whether you or I might like it or not, really depends on who happens to be in control of the Supreme Court at the time.

And, in the end, whether you think the document is good or not, we have the ability to change that documents with amendments, but we lack the political will to do so.

But, do you really want the FCC, the government, deciding what can and can't be said on the Internet? That might sound great if you like that particular government but it could be horribly bad if the wrong people are in control of the government. I mean, 1984 and Fahrenheit were supposed to be cautionary tales about authoritarian governments.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

The document isn't really the problem in the vast majority of situations and the document is necessary as Chuck pointed out to protect us from the possibility of government abuse of individuals. Which, seems more of a risk from authoritarianism these days than it has for many, many years. The problem is those that either don't understand or ignore the document or, to a larger extent, interpret it in ways that are advantageous to them in the short term but ignore possible future consequences. All to often, SCOTUS has interpreted the Constitution to get the result they want. And, whether you or I might like it or not, really depends on who happens to be in control of the Supreme Court at the time.

And, in the end, whether you think the document is good or not, we have the ability to change that documents with amendments, but we lack the political will to do so.

But, do you really want the FCC, the government, deciding what can and can't be said on the Internet? That might sound great if you like that particular government but it could be horribly bad if the wrong people are in control of the government. I mean, 1984 and Fahrenheit were supposed to be cautionary tales about authoritarian governments.

Authoritarian governments and authoritarian businesses (ie oligarchies) are 2 spider men pointing at each other

And actually yes, I want the FCC to have guardrails like it had for a half century

 

[St. Widge]

Authoritarian governments and authoritarian businesses (ie oligarchies) are 2 spider men pointing at each other

And actually yes, I want the FCC to have guardrails like it had for a half century

The FCC has never really had much control over content other than some limited "decency" rules for broadcast networks. If you want them to suddenly start fully regulating content for broadcasts, cable, and internet then you and I just completely disagree on this issue.

I think it's short sighted to assume that the government will do the right thing with that power and not use that power to control people significantly more than any alleged control by businesses. Businesses at best have indirect control where as the government would have direct and total control over the regulation of content at the whim of the current group in power. I'm also not sure how you think giving a government that in your mind is controlled by corporations more power to regulate content would lead to less control by corporations. The gaslighting and disinformation would only become worse and be under the complete control of whoever has control of the government and that control may never end since they will more or less control what people think and who they vote for. IMO, you're asking for 1984.

 

[Sailorsaint]

The FCC has never really had much control over content other than some limited "decency" rules for broadcast networks. If you want them to suddenly start fully regulating content for broadcasts, cable, and internet then you and I just completely disagree on this issue.

I think it's short sighted to assume that the government will do the right thing with that power and not use that power to control people significantly more than any alleged control by businesses. Businesses at best have indirect control where as the government would have direct and total control over the regulation of content at the whim of the current group in power. I'm also not sure how you think giving a government that in your mind is controlled by corporations more power to regulate content would lead to less control by corporations. The gaslighting and disinformation would only become worse and be under the complete control of whoever has control of the government and that control may never end since they will more or less control what people think and who they vote for. IMO, you're asking for 1984.

1984…Russia…potato…potatoe….

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

The FCC has never really had much control over content other than some limited "decency" rules for broadcast networks. If you want them to suddenly start fully regulating content for broadcasts, cable, and internet then you and I just completely disagree on this issue.

I think it's short sighted to assume that the government will do the right thing with that power and not use that power to control people significantly more than any alleged control by businesses. Businesses at best have indirect control where as the government would have direct and total control over the regulation of content at the whim of the current group in power. I'm also not sure how you think giving a government that in your mind is controlled by corporations more power to regulate content would lead to less control by corporations. The gaslighting and disinformation would only become worse and be under the complete control of whoever has control of the government and that control may never end since they will more or less control what people think and who they vote for. IMO, you're asking for 1984.

I didn’t specify but the implication was that we needed to get back on track being an actual democracy and then put ‘smart growth’ guardrails up
I think if you boil down our arguments, your distrust of government is a tacit preference for boardrooms
And, in general, I’d take the stupidity of an electorate (IF THEY ACTUALLY ALLOWED TO VOTE ON IDEAS) over the amorality of the boardroom

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

1984…Russia…potato…potatoe….

It’s a slippery slope argument (even though Florida is acting a lot like muddy pebbles on a hill)
And it’s also an argument that doesn’t also apply the context of corporations pre-EPA or other govt agencies putting guardrails protecting against the worst of corporate amorality