Elon Musk is Siding With Woke Marxist Organizations

Marxist has become in the 21st century what Fascist was in the 20th century. A meaningless term applied to those you politically disagree with regardless of their relation in thought to the original bearers of the title.

a reply to: ntech

If you could show that the government forced Twitter into doing something they didn't want at threat of punishment you would have a case... against the government. It wouldn't change the fact that Twitter is not a government entity.

a reply to: CriticalStinker
Never thought about that, plausible explanation! Good that I never was registered there. Would dislike it to be simulated in a 3D simulation because of stupid things I say on the internet.

And if, it's going to be as a tinfoil head lol.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: ntech

If you could show that the government forced Twitter into doing something they didn't want at threat of punishment you would have a case... against the government. It wouldn't change the fact that Twitter is not a government entity.

Wikipedia Hunter Biden laptop

On October 19, 2020, a group of 51 former senior intelligence officials, who had served in the Trump administration and those of the three previous presidents, released an open letter stating that the release of the alleged emails "has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation," adding:

We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails, provided to the New York Post by President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, are genuine or not and that we do not have evidence of Russian involvement – just that our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant role in this case.[57][58]

During an interview with Fox News on October 19 2020, Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe said the laptop was "not part of some Russian disinformation campaign" and accused Adam Schiff of mischaracterizing the views of the intelligence community by describing the alleged emails as part of a smear campaign against Biden.[59] Schiff's spokesman accused Ratcliffe of "purposefully misrepresenting" the congressman's words.[60] Ratcliffe had previously made public assertions that contradicted professional intelligence assessments.[61][62][63] Several security officials criticized Ratcliffe for appearing to pre-judge its outcome.[64] The FBI has publicly stated they had "nothing to add" to Ratcliffe's remarks in response to a request for more information made by Sen. Ron Johnson.[65] The New York Times reported days after the Post story that no solid evidence had emerged that the laptop contained Russian disinformation.[66] An FBI probe seeking to determine whether the laptop was used as part of a foreign intelligence operation is still ongoing.

The accuracy of the Hunter Biden laptop story resulted in increased scrutiny of Twitter and Facebook limiting the spread of the story by conservatives, who argued that their actions "proves Big Tech's bias"

Joan Donovan, the research director of the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy at Harvard University, said that "This is arguably the most well-known story the New York Post has ever published and it endures as a story because it was initially suppressed by social media companies and jeered by politicians and pundits alike".

NY Post article on Biden "collucing" with big tech.

Proof of Government Collusion reveled in Covid lawsuit.

TPV also provides a quick review of Operation Mockingbird, a CIA operation in which journalists were recruited and paid to distribute fake news stories and CIA propaganda. Interestingly, the Mockingbird op was launched in 1948, the same year the U.S. Information and Educational Exchange Act (aka the Smith-Mundt Act) became law, which forbade the U.S. government from pushing propaganda onto the U.S. population.

This anti-propaganda law was repealed in 2013 by then-President Barrack Obama. So, since July 2013, the U.S. government and CIA have been legally permitted to propagandize U.S. citizens.

a reply to: ntech

Where's the proof that Twitter was threatened by the government?

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: ntech

If you could show that the government forced Twitter into doing something they didn't want at threat of punishment you would have a case... against the government. It wouldn't change the fact that Twitter is not a government entity.

Twitter acted as an arm of the US Government when it colluded with the USG to censor free speech covered under the 1st Amendment.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

I was still adding info to the original post. Sorry. See the Post article.

a reply to: Creep Thumper

Once again, even if you could proof the government coerced Twitter into doing something against their will, all it means is that the government did something in violation of the Constitution. Twitter is still a private entity.

Microsoft hasn't been revoked due to the work they've done for the government. Nor has countless government contractors. The majority of farmers in this country are subsidized by the US government. Should we revoke their Free Speech because it could be argued their government employees?

What is the line where a private entity should lose their First Amendment rights?

a reply to: ntech

That IS an interesting point of discussion ntech.

We know that those in government seek to use their position of political power to benefit themselves and those positions they purport to uphold. Hence they seek to wield that influence at every possible opportunity. The question here as I see it though is, is this administration or agencies like DHS seeking to ''influence'' or to ''direct'' these media companies in this effort to censor. I don't think that the government has the power to ''direct'', or insist on any of this. More so, I think it is merely attempts to influence or actually only act as consultants for an orchestrated approach to corporate actions.

I think that it is the corporations that are in control, not the government, the government being simply an agency of those corporations and not the other way around with the government controlling the corporations. Hence these decisions to censor are not directions from government but rather decisions based on how best to continue supplying the best selling product they have to offer. That product being this reputed ''free speech''. We should know by now that it isn't, but only a product designed to attract as many consumers as possible without alienating to much of it's profit making base.


Edit to add, thanks for that link, it is good information. Thanks.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

At the point when they are blocking and otherwise obstructing the free speech of others at the behest of the Federal govt, their officials, and employees. At that point they became a arm of the government. And in turn violated free speech rights.

Big Tech should have considered Government information as a poisoned apple. Now they should be wide open to slander and libel suits. Along with criminal charges as well.

Lawyers be like. I smell PUNIES!

a reply to: Xcalibur254

What is the line where a private entity should lose their First Amendment rights?

The real line was crossed, not in private entities losing their First Amendment rights but rather the important line here was when were those rights extended to corporate person-hood. We could go all the way back to '' Santa Clara vrs Southern Pacific to find the sand being smudged on that one ending up with The Citizens United case in, what was it, 2010?

a reply to: ntech

If the government didn't force those companies to delete any posts then those companies were just exercising their Free Speech.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Don't get me wrong, Citizens United was a terrible decision. But that's the world we live in. Twitter's Free Speech is just as valid as yours and mine.

Elon Musk fires entire Twitter board and makes himself sole director

Marxist Organisation much, eh?

Good one.

I actually think this is a smart move, the left would have a stroke if he unbanned a bunch of controversial figures right before the midterms. He has to be somewhat neutral, it can't look like he's simply using Twitter for political reasons. I've never really used Twitter and I never will, but it's certainly much better off in the hands of Musk, that much I know.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Klassified

I guess we will see how fair he can be. He can hate all he wants so long as he is fair in following the rules.

yes

and punishment for breaking said rules,

should also be fair and merciless.

i was going to wait a few months to see how its changed, before i joined anyway.

a reply to: xuenchen

The Canadian Gov. Oh that's entirely possible as well. What times we are in.

a reply to: schuyler

The issue is Free Speech for everyone. Which part of the topic confuses you?

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Thanks for sharing your opinions. I have a different perspective. It does seem you're unaware of the discussion on Twitter being a public square. Many people have referred to it as this, the new Public/Town Square, and that Free Speech must therefore be protected on the platform. This includes Elon Musk himself.

In a tweet, Musk said the reason he “acquired Twitter” is to preserve the “digital town square, where a wide range of beliefs can be debated in a healthy manner.” Musk said there is “great danger that social media will splinter into far right and far left echo chambers that generate more hate and divide our society.”

www.dailydot.com...

And:

"Free speech is the bedrock of a functioning democracy, and Twitter is the digital town square where matters vital to the future of humanity are debated," Elon Musk said in a statement announcing the deal.

www.msn.com...

There have been major conversations on this matter as well that you may have missed out on. With Pool again:


Twitter was publicly owned and was made private solely so that Elon could "fix" the company, then he plans to make it public again. His ability to run the company how he wants is not the issue. It is a matter of Free Speech, fairness and balance culturally. Rather than Globalist corporate powers controlling the public space, the news, the flow of information, and public sentiment. That is far too much power to be concentrated into the hands of those who are all ready far too powerful (and quite corrupt ("You will own nothing, and you'll be happy.")

Besides which, we have the freedom to discuss what Elon does, and to disagree, and to decide what to do with our business. Is it up to me as to whether I decide to pay for the checkmark or not, or to support the site at all. He has earned my support with his promises. If he goes back on his word, as he seems to be, I will call him out on his lies.

a reply to: Ohanka

I'm sure the word is misused by some but some of us are simply trying to articulate what they are in a word. Every word gets criticized. I was recently told that "only Trumpers say woke" anymore. I can say the Left but this can be unintentionally vilifying for old school liberals who are Center Left. This is a far left movement that either calls itself--or used to call itself--woke. Whatever. We need simple words in order to have a dialogue and you can't please everyone.

What do you prefer?