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.

 

[SaintForLife]

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?

Yes I agree about Vance's letter. Separate from the letter I do think Kagan and Nuland are both horrible people that have been involved is getting us into wars for decades.

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,a 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.

Those would all be 1st ammendment violations if he did any of those things. But we are talking about potential 1st ammendment violations that haven't happened.

I would ask you where is your concern is for the censorship that has happened and is still ongoing, but according to your previous reply to me you don't think it's happening.

Your two examples of censorship show you are woefully uninformed about the subject.

You:
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.

There is so much more to that than what you said and you are wrong.

@shellenberger: "We discovered that the Aspen Institute had created a workshop attended basically by all major media, including social media platforms, to basically pre-bunk in advance the Hunter Biden laptop story even though there was no evidence that it existed outside of the fact that the FBI knew they had it because they got in December 2019."


They even named the exercise "The Burisma Leak"


Then you act as if the Biden Administration only pressured social media companies to censor was for vaccine misinformation. That's laughable.

 

[SaintForLife]

Continued:




There are so many other examples especially recently. Many are posted in the Truth Cops thread that Chuck doesn't seem too interested in.

 

[samiam5211]

Former FBI officials can't violate the 1st amendment.

 

[RebSaint]

Conspiracy theories serve several functions. One, it's for the intellectually lazy who do not want to examine any topic and really think about all the complexities, nuances, and sources.

The conspiracy also allows those who peddle political ideologies and agendas to create over-powerful "enemies" which feed into xenophobia, racism, and especially antisemitism. The fact that someone had to explain to him that many of these conspiracy theories are laden with anti-Semitic ideology underscores his ignorance and refusal to examine or even read what he posts.

Those who believe conspiracy theories can shape their world view by immediately dismissing any sources or evidence by simply accusing them of being "corrupt" or being part of some larger cabal, e.g. the "corporate media." By the same token, to support their conspiracy theories, they'll turn right around and cite or point to the sources in another context they immediately dismissed or rejected.

 

[RebSaint]

Former FBI officials can't violate the 1st amendment.

He does not know how the 1st Amendment works, nor does he care.

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

He does not know how the 1st Amendment works, nor does he care.

he believes what ever Moosk Tweets..

 

[bird]

Conspiracy theories serve several functions. One, it's for the intellectually lazy who do not want to examine any topic and really think about all the complexities, nuances, and sources.

The conspiracy also allows those who peddle political ideologies and agendas to create over-powerful "enemies" which feed into xenophobia, racism, and especially antisemitism. The fact that someone had to explain to him that many of these conspiracy theories are laden with anti-Semitic ideology underscores his ignorance and refusal to examine or even read what he posts.

Those who believe conspiracy theories can shape their world view by immediately dismissing any sources or evidence by simply accusing them of being "corrupt" or being part of some larger cabal, e.g. the "corporate media." By the same token, to support their conspiracy theories, they'll turn right around and cite or point to the sources in another context they immediately dismissed or rejected.

Hey, just because I am paranoid that doesn’t mean they are not out to get me.

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

everyone believes in some type of conspiracies. but some allow a conspiracy to consume their lives and effect their mental health..

 

[brandon]

everyone believes in some type of conspiracies. but some allow a conspiracy to consume their lives and effect their mental health..

The difference is in the willingness to abandon a bad theory when presented with facts.

 

[MT15]

What isn’t clear from his wall of tweets is that the Biden Admin was reacting to Twitter allowing nude pictures of Hunter to be circulated, which is clearly against their stated policy (or was at the time), and possibly against the law, technically. They requested that Twitter follow their own policies, and the letters are cordial, polite and non-threatening.

The other instances involve vaccine misinformation. IMO these should be covered by public health considerations during a global, deadly pandemic.

So what SFL would have you believe is that people have a right to disseminate private nude photos of anyone even when the subject of those photos didn’t consent to having them made public. And if someone writes emails in a respectful way asking Twitter to enforce their own policies, they are “censoring” and “threatening” Twitter.

Meanwhile, a sitting US Senator has formally demanded that the DOJ open a criminal investigation into a person who wrote an article that was critical of Trump. And Trump himself has promised to shut down cable networks for criticism if he is re-elected as well as saying he would apply a religious test to anyone who desires to immigrate to America.

These are not the same level of threat to the First Amendment. Claiming that the Biden Admin poses a worse threat to the First Amendment than a Trump Admin, or the GOP in general for that matter, is just clown show laughable. SFL has the right to have this opinion, and we all have the right to not take it seriously, because it’s not a serious stance.

 

[zztop]

guess who is back?

 

[bird]

guess who is back?

When is he going to pay what he owes?

 

[zztop]

When is he going to pay what he owes?

probably never

 

[MT15]

Twitter is already putting ads beside Alex Jones’ tweets.

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

those companies will soon pull their money and SFL will blame Media Matters and Moosk will cry foul .

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

Moosk wants Jones back to pull users from Truth.. I'm sure he also wants to help Jones raise money to help pay for his lawsuit.. I have no doubt Moosk believes the same crazy conspiracies as Jones..
how long before Moosk Tweets something about negative Sandy Hook?

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

this is also very interesting from a year ago.

“I have no mercy for anyone who would use the deaths of children for gain, politics or fame,” wrote the Tesla CEO late on Sunday.

i guess what he really meant was unless i need users . lol

"No mercy": Elon Musk keeps Twitter ban for Sandy Hook conspiracy theorist Alex Jones

The self-described "free speech absolutist" has been inconsistent with his reinstatement policy, citing the InfoWars host use the deaths of children for his own gain while giving back Trump his megaphone.

fortune.com

 

[superchuck500]

Yes I agree about Vance's letter. Separate from the letter I do think Kagan and Nuland are both horrible people that have been involved is getting us into wars for decades.


Those would all be 1st ammendment violations if he did any of those things. But we are talking about potential 1st ammendment violations that haven't happened.

I would ask you where is your concern is for the censorship that has happened and is still ongoing, but according to your previous reply to me you don't think it's happening.

Your two examples of censorship show you are woefully uninformed about the subject.

You:
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.

There is so much more to that than what you said and you are wrong.

@shellenberger: "We discovered that the Aspen Institute had created a workshop attended basically by all major media, including social media platforms, to basically pre-bunk in advance the Hunter Biden laptop story even though there was no evidence that it existed outside of the fact that the FBI knew they had it because they got in December 2019."


They even named the exercise "The Burisma Leak"


Then you act as if the Biden Administration only pressured social media companies to censor was for vaccine misinformation. That's laughable.

I'm glad you agree that Vance's letter is a serious 1A problem - and I think we both know that he doesn't actually mean what he says in the content, it is purely performative. Like some many of his populist brethren, he's not actually attempting to govern, he's performing . . . much like a clown.

As to Trump, sure you're right that there's no action there, it's just his rhetoric. But it's consistent with a long line of rhetoric from him that did, in some accounts, lead to requests from him for action when in the White House, that were rebuffed due their being contrary to law. In most instances, "just talk" is just that but I think with a leading candidate for the presidency, a long line of consistently anti-First Amendment rhetoric has to be reckoned with - and certainly must be accounted for by anyone who considers the First Amendment to be a major priority in this country.

I will completely admit that I am not as knowledgeable about the full slate of allegations regarding the Biden administration and social media. To the extent I have mischaracterized facts or histories, I fully admit that I'm not surprised in that I haven't fully digested the entire record. I can say that there seems to be significant mischaracterization in some of the posts you cite, and the allegations made by the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana in the federal case.

First and foremost, no court has formally found that the Biden acted directly and coercively to steer moderation decisions made by social media. Yes, there is language in the district court's ruling about coercion that the Fifth Circuit panel (the most widely overturned circuit by a significant majority in recent years) endorsed but that language is applying the injunction standard of likelihood - and doesn't amount to evidentiary findings. The Supreme Court (6-3) stayed the Fifth Circuit's ruling that affirmed the district court . . . which means that they aren't in effect and preliminary findings in injunctive process that are stayed by the Supreme Court are effectively worthless.

If the "coercion" was such a "coordinated campaign" of massive proportion, why did the SCOTUS stay the rulings - which renders them void of effect? Why did Kavanaugh and ACB agree to that result? I think the Supreme Court's granting cert is a good thing and I think I would agree with you as to the primary principle which is that the government cannot coerce content moderation on social media because that is a violation of the First Amendment. BUT you have to also recognize that the executive branch is entitled to take positions about what it believes are the public interest - and to advocate for them. This has been recognized by the Supreme Court on numerous occasions and will be upheld again. While political interests are not public interest (as we are seeing in some of the rulings on immunity assertions relating to the Trump/GOP effort to overturn the 2020 election) and I would agree that taking a position on the Hunter Biden laptop story specifically is a political interest and not a public interest.

But there are other public interests at play in social media content moderation. The key is and will remain the question of coercion. The district court and Fifth Circuit primarily based their conclusions on a degree of contact - which I agree is concerning but not dispositive - and the fact that government agencies possess a presumption of authority to take punitive action (such as the court's basic conclusion that because the FBI has power to shut down a social media company, any request by the agency is coercive . . . of course those things aren't really true).

To be clear, I don't like the government having a hotline directly into social media and I think it's easy to imagine how that relationship can cross the line into government moderation and we have seen a million times that it's easy to present a political interest as a public interest. I'm with you in principle that those things are bad. But I wholly disagree that social media companies don't have their own First Amendment interests in content moderation and that if the company takes on a prerogative to advance public interest with input from NGOs in meetings that may (if in a transparent way) entertain the executive branch's position in a non-coercive way, that's entirely within that company's right. Texas and Florida, for example, have passed laws that say those companies cannot do that.

I'm very curious to see how the Supreme Court comes down on the record in the Murthy et al case.