Elon Musk and Twitter Reach Deal for Sale (2 Viewers)

[SaintForLife]

Elon Musk struck a deal on Monday to buy Twitter for roughly $44 billion, in a victory by the world’s richest man to take over the influential social network frequented by world leaders, celebrities and cultural trendsetters.

Twitter agreed to sell itself to Mr. Musk for $54.20 a share, a 38 percent premium over the company’s share price this month before he revealed he was the firm’s single largest shareholder. It would be the largest deal to take a company private — something Mr. Musk has said he will do with Twitter — in at least two decades, according to data compiled by Dealogic.

“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,” Mr. Musk said in a statement announcing the deal. “Twitter has tremendous potential — I look forward to working with the company and the community of users to unlock it.”

The deal, which has been unanimously approved by Twitter’s board, is expected to close this year, subject to a vote of Twitter shareholders and certain regulatory approvals.

The blockbuster agreement caps what had seemed an improbable attempt by the famously mercurial Mr. Musk, 50, to buy the social media company — and immediately raises questions about what he will do with the platform and how his actions will affect online speech globally.

Elon Musk and Twitter Reach Deal for Sale

Twitter agreed to be taken over at $54.20 a share, a 38 percent premium over the share price before it was revealed that Mr. Musk had been buying up the company’s stock.

www-nytimes-com.cdn.ampproject.org

If Musk does what he claims he wants to do it will be a big improvement and good for free speech.

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

You are incorrect.

Broadcasters – not the FCC or any other government agency – are responsible for selecting the material they air. The First Amendment and the Communications Act expressly prohibit the Commission from censoring broadcast matter. Our role in overseeing program content is very limited.

The Public and Broadcasting

The Public and Broadcasting TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction The FCC And Its Regulatory Authority The Communications Act How the FCC Adopts Rules The FCC and the Media Bureau FCC Regulation of Broadcast Radio and Television The Licensing of TV and Radio Stations Commercial and...

www.fcc.gov

Are you seriously claiming that the Twitter Files didn't show any government censorship? Two different federal judges said that the Biden Administration was guilty of 1st ammendment violations and it's at the Supreme Court now.

Appeals Court Rules White House Overstepped 1st Amendment on Social Media

A Fifth Circuit panel partly upheld restrictions on the Biden administration’s communications with online platforms about their content.

www.nytimes.com

so they don't force it, they just strongly recommend.. i get it.. sounds kinda familiar...

 

[superchuck500]

Obviously you approve of their campaign against X. Of course it's within their rights to do what they are doing, but let's not act like it was some kind of organic campaign against Twitter. It was a coordinated campaign by Democrat funded groups. Nobody claimed Media Matters controls Disney and Coca Cola, but they can influence them with their advertisers through their smear campaigns.

The Budweiser boycott was mostly organic from what I saw. It wasn't lead by prominent Republican groups.

Why don't they have the same type of campaigns towards Tik Tok and Facebook when they have antisemitic posts as well? Why does the left target the two social media companies that have resisted the censorship complex in X and Rumble?

Are you against the censorship online of people's social media posts? Are you aware of the vast censorship apparatus that includes government cutouts and the government? Most here won't even acknowledge it and some even deny it exists despite federal judges saying it could be the the worst 1st ammendment violation by the government in our countries history.

It's not a question of whether I "approve" of the position the companies have taken, what kind of self-absorbed notion is that? They are companies with their own prerogatives (that "get Elon Musk" isn't one of) - they can do what they want. Just like it didn't matter if I approved of the Bud Light boycott, those people can do what they want.

What I’m saying is that you and many like you see a vast leftist conspiracy at every turn but when pressed to make a persuasive case, you just turn another tangent and throw up new layers of conjecture. The actual evidence you end up having pales wildly in comparison to the accusations and characterizations you throw around in your rhetoric. This seems to be the case in every example.

Your case that there's a "campaign" against X that is coordinated by groups with ties to Democrats and that is somehow a conspiracy to blackmail Musk into a specific form of content moderation is just not persuasive. And even if it were, that's not censorship. I don't believe that Coca-Cola, Disney, Wal-Mart and the likes are being extorted by Media Matters or the ADL, and I think that those companies make decisions about their brand based on very utilitarian business calculations about brand risk, association, and return on investment. And I think the whole atmosphere at X is concerning and while there is certainly concerning content on other platforms, it isn't being publicly welcomed and even endorsed by the platform's very active, very public owner.

And none of that has anything to do with government - it isn't censorship of Musk's X and it isn't blackmail. This all so direct and so obvious that yes, I do think that insisting that it is instead some leftist conspiracy is dumb - when you want to look for dark conspiracies at every turn and are willing to accept leaps of both reality and logic to support it, you will find it. That's what I think you're talking about.

You also continue to insist that there is this dark, rampant government censorship of social media in general but that isn't true - it's not persuasive and doesn't hold up to any meaningful analysis. Yes, it is true that a pair of FBI officials contacted social media companies to "alert" them to be mindful of possible foreign misinformation intended to influence the election . . . and the timing of the alert was such that they considered it relevant when making decisions about the Hunter Biden story. There was no direct influence about the story, but I have even stated that I agree that it is problematic if that was their intent. Twitter and Facebook both changed their policy on the Hunter Biden story within a few days, and it was widely available elsewhere. That isn't government censorship and it is a basic misuse of terms to insist that it is.

Yes, it has also been shown that the Biden administration was in contact with social media companies about vaccine information in an attempt to persuade them to be active with moderating vaccine misinformation. First, this is clearly in what the administration deemed to be the public interest - the public health expert and medical consensus was clearly that improving vaccination rates improves the nation's response to the pandemic and reduces the overall harm. This wasn't some personal or political interest of the President or the White House - this was pandemic-response and the Supreme Court has held on multiple occasions that the executive branch has quite a bit of latitude when it comes to emergency management in a public health crisis.

That said, I agree that if the government officials were actually using threats (coercion) to compel the social media companies to take action, that's clearly censorship. Whether it's justified as a public-health response is up to the courts, but I get that argument 100%. Except the evidence made public, at least as far as I can tell, shows only an attempt to convey the government's position that it is a national health crisis in pandemic response. I think it should have been done publicly - a public notice to social media explaining the basis . . . and that isn't censorship.

But so what else do you have? You talk about "the government censoring people's online posts" but that has not happened, full-stop. Nothing close to that has happened, and those two examples have been criticized and reviewed. To be clear, I am absolutely against government censorship of First Amendment protected material, which includes what is likely all or very, very close to all of social media. I 100% said it's a bad idea and wrongheaded for anyone to use their role in government in either the executive or legislative branch to weigh in on the ongoing question of moderation on X and the corporate brand response to it.

Social response, however, including response by individuals, companies, and public-interest NGOs isn't censorship.

 

[superchuck500]

In today’s episode of “Leftist Conspiracies Everywhere!”:

 

[MT15]

Not to mention Musk, the self-styled champion of “free speech” has caved to authoritarian governments more than once when they have asked him to censor their opponents. Since Musk took over Twitter has acceded to some 80% more censorship requests from foreign governments than it used to. Mostly from right wing authoritarian governments.

He has an agenda, it’s not hard to see it if you can look honestly. The right wing in this country loves to accuse its opponents of doing what they do. It’s nearly constant.

 

[efil4]

In today’s episode of “Leftist Conspiracies Everywhere!”:

Where have I heard that "organic" term used recently?

Hmmm....

 

[Neworleansfan]

The ADL, FBI, CIA, and NFL blackmailed TIME magazine so that Taylor Swift could be named 2023 person of the year. I might’ve missed some initials.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

The ADL, FBI, CIA, and NFL blackmailed TIME magazine so that Taylor Swift could be named 2023 person of the year. I might’ve missed some initials.

BLM, ISW, and MMfA. lol

 

[MT15]

BLM, ISW, and MMfA. lol

DNC, duh.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

DNC, duh.

OMG how did I miss that? TBF, I'm not sleeping well lately, FWIW.

 

[LA - L.A.]

The ADL, FBI, CIA, and NFL blackmailed TIME magazine so that Taylor Swift could be named 2023 person of the year. I might’ve missed some initials.

BLM, ISW, and MMfA. lol

DNC, duh.

OMG how did I miss that? TBF, I'm not sleeping well lately, FWIW.

FYI. Buried deep in the new MBA's for the WGA and SAG in fine print are clauses that forced every content producer across all medium to make Swift not just person of the year. Under seal, it's also preordained that Swift will be named person of the century in 2100 and person of the millennium in 3000. An attempt was made to get her named Person of the Earth for Eternity, but AMPTP balked at that. That's already been reserved by the RNC, FOX and OAN for Donald Elon Musk-Trump, a yet to be created GMO(ffspring). This is all untrue of course...psst...had to say that to CMA due to an NDA. Keep it on the DL.

 

[superchuck500]

Elon is big mad at Bob Iger.

 

[efil4]

Elon is big mad at Bob Iger.

sooooo does Iger go @$#$ himself or now its to be fired? So confused.

 

[superchuck500]

sooooo does Iger go @$#$ himself or now its to be fired? So confused.

I find it sort of funny that Musk says Walt Disney must be turning in his grave over what Iger has done to his company.

It's pretty hard to dispute that Iger steered Disney into the 21st Century with a series of moves and acquisitions that has Disney owning some of the most profitable entertainment franchises ever, well positioning the company for the streaming era with a video platform that's in just about every household, and keeping the parks among the nations top tourist destinations. He's one of the powerhouse CEOs of American enterprise. The idea that adopting policies of inclusion and anti-discrimination somehow sour that success is utter nonsense - the board doesn't give a crap about that and probably supports it.

But it's also sort of funny that Musk is presenting himself as speaking on Walt's behalf - when there's a fairly strong record that in the interwar years, Walt Disney - if not antisemitic himself (there are different takes on this) - had fairly enthusiastic association with anti-Semites, and outright Nazis.

 

[SaintForLife]

We need to check with Media Matters and see if this would constitute a campaign to get advertiser to stop advertising on Facebook and Instagram.

Facebook and Instagram content enabled child sexual abuse, trafficking: New Mexico lawsuit

Meta enabled child sexual abuse, served up explicit content, and failed to disrupt trafficking on its platforms, New Mexico's attorney general said in a suit.

www-cnbc-com.cdn.ampproject.org

 

[MT15]

We need to check with Media Matters and see if this would constitute a campaign to get advertiser to stop advertising on Facebook and Instagram.

Facebook and Instagram content enabled child sexual abuse, trafficking: New Mexico lawsuit

Meta enabled child sexual abuse, served up explicit content, and failed to disrupt trafficking on its platforms, New Mexico's attorney general said in a suit.

www-cnbc-com.cdn.ampproject.org

You know, Chuck typed out a pretty long and serious answer to your posts in this thread and you haven’t even acknowledged it.

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

also, l have no doubt Facebook/insta will work to remedy it for sake of advertises. but you'll just turn around and call it violating free speech. all moosk had to do is say he'd work on trying to eliminate advertisements from appearing next to that kind of stuff, but instead he doubled down and told them to F off.
and i think you are stunning m assuming we are all fans of Zuck. I'd like for you to show us why you think that

 

[superchuck500]

We need to check with Media Matters and see if this would constitute a campaign to get advertiser to stop advertising on Facebook and Instagram.

Facebook and Instagram content enabled child sexual abuse, trafficking: New Mexico lawsuit

Meta enabled child sexual abuse, served up explicit content, and failed to disrupt trafficking on its platforms, New Mexico's attorney general said in a suit.

www-cnbc-com.cdn.ampproject.org

While we're at it, I'd like to get your acknowledgment and condemnation of a couple of things that have happened recently that should surely draw the ire of any free-speech, First Amendment defender.

First, United States Senator J.D. Vance (R-OH) sent a letter (link below) yesterday to the Attorney General demanding that DOJ charge Washington Post journalist Robert Kagan with inciting an insurrection under the federal criminal code, 18 U.S.C. for a recent column in Post where Kagan laid out various premises upon which Trump and his supporters have promised to act in ways that Kagan believes amount to dictatorship, perhaps even unconstitutional dictatorship, and discusses possible ways in which these impulses can be resisted . . . none of which involves violence or insurrection, and none of which has actually happened or been organized. Vance goes on to claim that Kagan's wife, Victoria Nuland - who has been with the State Department and US diplomatic apparatus since 1993 except during the Trump administration and has served in such roles as US ambassador to NATO under George W. Bush and assistant Secretary for European Affairs under Obama - is compromised by her relationship with her journalist husband and her security clearance should be reviewed based on her alleged inability to judge the best interests of the United States.

You certainly agree that Vance's letter is wildly inappropriate and a patent demand for the Justice Department to violate the First Amendment?

Second, a week ago Donald Trump claimed that because MSNBC "uses free government airwaves", the government should "come down hard and make them pay" for what he calls illegal political activity - because the network is always criticizing him. Not only is this concerning from an academic standpoint about the nature of First Amendment protection for the press, it is also alarming that the presumptive nominee for the Republican nomination thinks that being broadcast over the air (which MSNBC is not, by the way) somehow comes along with content limitations beyond the First Amendment and that the government (i.e. the executive branch that Trump is trying to become the chief of) should punish a media outlet for its content.

We should note that Trump has a well-documented history of outright rejection of the First Amendment, primarily because he hates that people can say negative things about him and he would like to use both executive power and legal process to squelch such content . . . but for the pesky First Amendment. This is not the first time that he has called for punitive action against a media outlet or reporters, and he has complained at length about the legal standard in NYT v. Sullivan, which most consider to be a bedrock of First Amendment protection for the press in the United States.

Just want to make sure that a free-speech warrior such as yourself condemns these demands about what the government should do regarding these examples of content in the public discourse.

https://www.vance.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/120623_RobertKaganInsurrection.pdf

Truth Social

Truth Social is America's "Big Tent" social media platform that encourages an open, free, and honest global conversation without discriminating on the basis of political ideology.

truthsocial.com

 

[efil4]

While we're at it, I'd like to get your acknowledgment and condemnation of a couple of things that have happened recently that should surely draw the ire of any free-speech, First Amendment defender.

First, United States Senator J.D. Vance (R-OH) sent a letter (link below) yesterday to the Attorney General demanding that DOJ charge Washington Post journalist Robert Kagan with inciting an insurrection under the federal criminal code, 18 U.S.C. for a recent column in Post where Kagan laid out various premises upon which Trump and his supporters have promised to act in ways that Kagan believes amount to dictatorship, perhaps even unconstitutional dictatorship, and discusses possible ways in which these impulses can be resisted . . . none of which involves violence or insurrection, and none of which has actually happened or been organized. Vance goes on to claim that Kagan's wife, Victoria Nuland - who has been with the State Department and US diplomatic apparatus since 1993 except during the Trump administration and has served in such roles as US ambassador to NATO under George W. Bush and assistant Secretary for European Affairs under Obama - is compromised by her relationship with her journalist husband and her security clearance should be reviewed based on her alleged inability to judge the best interests of the United States.

You certainly agree that Vance's letter is wildly inappropriate and a patent demand for the Justice Department to violate the First Amendment?

Second, a week ago Donald Trump claimed that because MSNBC "uses free government airwaves", the government should "come down hard and make them pay" for what he calls illegal political activity - because the network is always criticizing him. Not only is this concerning from an academic standpoint about the nature of First Amendment protection for the press, it is also alarming that the presumptive nominee for the Republican nomination thinks that being broadcast over the air (which MSNBC is not, by the way) somehow comes along with content limitations beyond the First Amendment and that the government (i.e. the executive branch that Trump is trying to become the chief of) should punish a media outlet for its content.

We should note that Trump has a well-documented history of outright rejection of the First Amendment, primarily because he hates that people can say negative things about him and he would like to use both executive power and legal process to squelch such content . . . but for the pesky First Amendment. This is not the first time that he has called for punitive action against a media outlet or reporters, and he has complained at length about the legal standard in NYT v. Sullivan, which most consider to be a bedrock of First Amendment protection for the press in the United States.

Just want to make sure that a free-speech warrior such as yourself condemns these demands about what the government should do regarding these examples of content in the public discourse.

https://www.vance.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/120623_RobertKaganInsurrection.pdf

Truth Social

Truth Social is America's "Big Tent" social media platform that encourages an open, free, and honest global conversation without discriminating on the basis of political ideology.

truthsocial.com