Elon Musk and Twitter Reach Deal for Sale (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

    SaintForLife

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Oct 5, 2019
    Messages
    5,137
    Reaction score
    2,455
    Location
    Madisonville
    Offline
    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.




    If Musk does what he claims he wants to do it will be a big improvement and good for free speech.
     
    So you are saying that there is widespread government censorship? And Twitter and Rumble are the only ones who haven’t “complied”? So, if it’s truly government censorship, there wouldn’t be an option to not comply, right? How can you refuse to comply with government censorship?

    Do you ever think these things through on your own?
    Because government censorship of protected speech is illegal and the government knows that so they try to make it seem like they were just making suggestions.

    The courts have said pressuring social media companies to censor is a violation of the 1st ammendment as the Biden administration got caught doing. That case is at the Supreme Court now.
     
    He could be the best, but what does his race have to do with his qualifications?

    We should look to have the most qualified doctors whatever their race is.

    Who has said that it does?

    Should all black doctors have to deal with being under suspicion for not being qualified because of their race?
     
    Last edited:
    Shapiro is an idiot, but how did you get that someone being concerned with race being a factor with which doctors operate or treat you, instead of their qualifications, is racist?

    Would you be okay with a doctor operating on you that was less qualified, but was a minority?

    Wouldn't you want whoever you can find who is most qualified operating on you no matter what their race is?

    It’s the patent presumption that minority doctors are per se less qualified - it’s right there in the words!

    What do you consider “qualified” for a surgeon? The medical world considers board certification to be the primary qualification - beyond that it’s a question of experience and techniques but not of “qualifications”.
     
    There is a (IMO) a deliberate mis-characterization of DEI.

    Basically it sets up a false scenario where race should be the driving factor in hires, over qualifications. In most industries that I'm familiar with that is never the case.

    DEI is basically saying that diversity, equity and inclusion are important factors in a company, but it never takes the place of qualifications.
     
    I disagree. It's all about which social media companies have complied with the government censorship.

    That seems unlikely. Companies exist to make money - they generally pursue policies to make money.

    I really think applying Occam's razor in daily life would be beneficial for most people.
     
    It’s the patent presumption that minority doctors are per se less qualified - it’s right there in the words!

    What do you consider “qualified” for a surgeon? The medical world considers board certification to be the primary qualification - beyond that it’s a question of experience and techniques but not of “qualifications”.
    Here's a good template I found for Doctors:

    Castle Connolly evaluates several criteria when selecting Top Doctors, including professional qualifications, education, hospital and faculty appointments, research leadership, professional reputation and disciplinary history. Where available, we include outcomes data in our research. We also ask doctors in our survey to consider not only the training and clinical skills of the physicians they nominate, but also interpersonal skills such as listening and communicating effectively, demonstrating empathy, and instilling trust and confidence.


    I would look at complication rates, how long they have been in the field, how many surgeries they have performed, inhospital mortality rates, and readmission within 30 days for the same diagnosis for surgeons.

    That's the kind of things we should be looking for when choosing doctors. Race shouldn't have anything to do with it.
     
    That seems unlikely. Companies exist to make money - they generally pursue policies to make money.

    I really think applying Occam's razor in daily life would be beneficial for most people.
    You said:

    It means Disney is comfortable that instagram will continue to try to clean up child exploitation and will protect their brand from being associated with child exploitation and they are not confident that the same can be said of X.

    I posted:

    Meta, Instagram’s parent company, found that 500,000 child Instagram accounts had “inappropriate” interactions every day, according to an internal study in 2020 quoted in legal proceedings.

    ...Account owners who report explicit images or potential predators to Instagram are typically met with silence or indifference, and those who block many abusers have seen their own accounts’ ability to use certain features limited, according to the interviews and documents. In the course of eight months, The Times made over 50 reports of its own about questionable material and received only one response.


    Does that sound like Instagram is doing a good job at continuing to try to clean up child exploitation and will protect their brand from being associated with child exploitation?
     
    You said:

    It means Disney is comfortable that instagram will continue to try to clean up child exploitation and will protect their brand from being associated with child exploitation and they are not confident that the same can be said of X.

    I posted:

    Meta, Instagram’s parent company, found that 500,000 child Instagram accounts had “inappropriate” interactions every day, according to an internal study in 2020 quoted in legal proceedings.

    ...Account owners who report explicit images or potential predators to Instagram are typically met with silence or indifference, and those who block many abusers have seen their own accounts’ ability to use certain features limited, according to the interviews and documents. In the course of eight months, The Times made over 50 reports of its own about questionable material and received only one response.


    Does that sound like Instagram is doing a good job at continuing to try to clean up child exploitation and will protect their brand from being associated with child exploitation?

    Those are two different questions, right?
    No, it does not sound like Instagram is doing a good job of cleaning up child exploitation, although I couldn't tell from that article if those inappropriate interactions where happening in DM's or on public spaces (it's behind a paywall). I'll assume public spaces, but it does make a difference for an advertiser - if it's through DM's, there's little chance of an advertiser being placed next to an inappropriate comment.

    For the second question, is the brand being protected from being associated with this content -- well since this is the first time I've heard of it, it does not seem to be a brand issue yet.

    I also haven't seen where Disney is at risk of having their advertisements next to an inappropriate interaction, which was a concern on X.

    I assume if Instagram starts to get associated with inappropriate interactions with children. Or Mark Zuckerberg inserts himself into Instagram's daily life and starts posting weird stuff. Or if engagement drops, or if in any other way Disney believes that it's brand will be hurt by being on Instagram, or no longer sees the benefit of advertising there, they will stop advertising there.
     
    Those are two different questions, right?
    No, it does not sound like Instagram is doing a good job of cleaning up child exploitation, although I couldn't tell from that article if those inappropriate interactions where happening in DM's or on public spaces (it's behind a paywall). I'll assume public spaces, but it does make a difference for an advertiser - if it's through DM's, there's little chance of an advertiser being placed next to an inappropriate comment.
    It wasn't happening in DMs. It was all publicly posted

    For the second question, is the brand being protected from being associated with this content -- well since this is the first time I've heard of it, it does not seem to be a brand issue yet.
    It's been happening since at least 2021. I saw an article from 2022. It's not surprising that you haven't heard of it before because reporters tend to focus on Musk since he bought Twitter.

    WASHINGTON — A new legal filing about child exploitation on Meta's Facebook and Instagram apps alleges a 2021 internal company estimate found as many as 100,000 children every day received sexual harassment, such as pictures of adult genitalia, on the platforms.

    This was revealed in newly unredacted portions of a complaint from the attorney general of New Mexico in an ongoing lawsuit against the social media giant over the company's steps to protect children online as the platforms exploded in popularity with young people.

    Also included in the complaint is a description of a 2020 Meta internal company chat, in which one employee asked a colleague: "What specifically are we doing for child grooming (something I just heard about that is happening a lot on TikTok)?"

    "Somewhere between zero and negligible," the colleague responded. "Child safety is an explicit non-goal this half."

    I also haven't seen where Disney is at risk of having their advertisements next to an inappropriate interaction, which was a concern on X.

    I assume if Instagram starts to get associated with inappropriate interactions with children. Or Mark Zuckerberg inserts himself into Instagram's daily life and starts posting weird stuff. Or if engagement drops, or if in any other way Disney believes that it's brand will be hurt by being on Instagram, or no longer sees the benefit of advertising there, they will stop advertising there.
    We'll see.

    I seached Media Matters website for child exploitation and nothing came up.
     
    Here's a good template I found for Doctors:

    Castle Connolly evaluates several criteria when selecting Top Doctors, including professional qualifications, education, hospital and faculty appointments, research leadership, professional reputation and disciplinary history. Where available, we include outcomes data in our research. We also ask doctors in our survey to consider not only the training and clinical skills of the physicians they nominate, but also interpersonal skills such as listening and communicating effectively, demonstrating empathy, and instilling trust and confidence.


    I would look at complication rates, how long they have been in the field, how many surgeries they have performed, inhospital mortality rates, and readmission within 30 days for the same diagnosis for surgeons.

    That's the kind of things we should be looking for when choosing doctors. Race shouldn't have anything to do with it.

    DEI in the corporate world isn't quotas and it isn't affirmative action - and I think you, Musk, Shapiro, etc. seem to misunderstand what corporate DEI is. Fundamentally, the idea is that diversity benefits the organization and its ability to deliver successful experiences to its stakeholders - and that corporate America (and no doubt industries like hospitals) has long held conscious or latent biases that have held organizations back from broadening their base of success. When efforts are made to value diversity, it brings greater equity to those that may have formerly suffered that conscious or latent bias, and enhances inclusion . . . all in the name of improving overall success, not reducing it. And it didn't materialize out of the liberal ether, there has been study and analysis of how long-standing demographic biases can actually result in organizations having less qualified staff and less satisfaction among stakeholders rather than more.

    Only the largest of organizations likely have forced metrics, but when the organization commits to diversity, it can look at position candidates with broader criteria. You presume that each can be indexed and whichever person has the highest score should get the job - regardless of race. But reality is far more nuanced than that, and what may appear slightly better on one column may not really matter when the position is filled and working. Committing to diversity causes the organization to be more conscious of a bigger picture and seek an additional check against institutional biases - and in the name of greater success, not lesser.

    I'm sure that in some methods and organizations, their DEI efforts may have resulted in simply shifting biases, but the problem with the viewpoint that Musk and Don Jr. and others have is insisting on this notion that DEI necessarily means that less capable minority candidates are in positions that more qualified white or male candidates would have held but for DEI. Not only is this wildly obtuse and provincial, it's patently racist. It fails to allow for what the whole purpose is in the first place - it aims to reinstitute those biases on the premise that they led to more qualified people in positions (because those people were white and/or male and therefore more qualified).

    Musk isn't saying "DEI can lead to lesser candidates getting important jobs" - he's saying that the very existence of DEI at an airline or at a hospital means that your life is at risk. It's disgusting.
     
    Last edited:
    Because government censorship of protected speech is illegal and the government knows that so they try to make it seem like they were just making suggestions.

    The courts have said pressuring social media companies to censor is a violation of the 1st ammendment as the Biden administration got caught doing. That case is at the Supreme Court now.
    One court said it might be. Quit acting like it’s a done deal.

    And I would like you to read your first sentence out loud to yourself, and slowly. Maybe it will dawn on you. lol
     
    The courts have said pressuring social media companies to censor is a violation of the 1st ammendment...
    No, "courts" have not. Only one court has ruled that and that decision is now at the Supreme court, so the issue has not been settled yet by "the courts."

    What we have here is a case of premature declaration.
     
    Last edited:
    There is a (IMO) a deliberate mis-characterization of DEI.

    Basically it sets up a false scenario where race should be the driving factor in hires, over qualifications. In most industries that I'm familiar with that is never the case.

    DEI is basically saying that diversity, equity and inclusion are important factors in a company, but it never takes the place of qualifications.
    This is exactly right. DEI efforts are logistically focused on expanding the diversity of the applicant pools through intentional outreach and inclusion in the application and consideration process. The focus is not on hiring to meet quotas, because quotas aren't necessary. When you make an effort to create a more diverse applicant pool, you get plenty of diverse applicants that are very well qualified, so you can hire a more diverse group of people without having to lower your qualification standards for anyone.

    A diverse person may get a slight advantage at getting into medical school, but they have to pass the same standards as everyone else to get a medical licenses. The same is true of attorneys and every other profession.

    It's not like there's a general contractor's test for straight white men and then a different test for everyone else. There's not one test that straight white men have to pass to get their commercial pilots license and then a different one for everyone else.

    DEI is about giving a more diverse pool of people a shot at consideration. Once they get that shot, they still have to meet the qualifications to get selected. The reason we lack diversity in America is not because only straight white men are qualified, ti's because single white men still dominate the consideration pool for reasons that have nothing to do with being qualified.

    Pardon me while I take out my axe. Guess what group is almost universally intentionally excluded from DEI efforts and it's unabashedly admitted out loud?
     
    Last edited:
    No, "courts" have not. Only one court has ruled that and that decision is now at the Supreme court, so the issue has not been settled yet by "the courts."

    What we have here is a case of premature declaration.
    Swing and a miss. You probably should stick to posts talking about me misspelling a word.


    JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. – Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey announced today that the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana granted his motion to block top officials in the federal government from continuing to violate the First Amendment rights of millions of Americans. The judge’s ruling is 155 pages long and includes 721 footnotes.

    In the order, the Court recognized the States’ evidence of unconscionable federal censorship activities. The judge specifically found:

    “[V]irtually all of the free speech suppressed was conservative free speech.”

    At least 22 times, the White House engaged in “unrelenting pressure” against tech companies. “White House Defendants engaged in coercion to induce social-media companies to suppress free speech.” “The White House Defendants made it very clear to social-media companies what they wanted suppressed and what they wanted amplified. Faced with unrelenting pressure from the most powerful office in the world, the social-media companies apparently complied.”

    “[T]he Hunter Biden laptop story was real, and not mere Russian disinformation,” and the “FBI’s failure to alert social-media companies” to this fact “is particularly troubling” after the FBI had falsely suggested to social-media companies that the Hunter Biden laptop story was fake. “After the Hunter Biden laptop story broke on October 14, 2020, [FBI agent Laura] Dehmlow refused to comment on the status of the Hunter Biden laptop in response to a direct inquiry from Facebook, although the FBI had the laptop in its possession since December 2019.”

    Facebook suppressed information at the demand of the White House, the FBI, and other federal agents even though the information “did not violate Facebook’s policies” and thus ordinarily would not have been suppressed. “Facebook noted that in response to White House demands, it was censoring, removing, and reducing the virality of content discouraging vaccines ‘that does not contain actionable misinformation.’”
    Former White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki issued a “threat of ‘legal consequences’” to social media companies “if they do not censor misinformation more aggressively.”

    After President Biden accused social media companies of “killing people,” Facebook emailed the Surgeon General to say “it’s not great to be accused of killing people” and to say Facebook was “keen to find a way to deescalate.” Social media platforms then met with the Surgeon General. “After the meetings with social-media platforms, the platforms seemingly fell in line with the Office of Surgeon General’s and White House’s requests.”

    The “motivation” of Dr. Anthony Fauci and other defendants was specifically “a ‘take down’ of protected free speech.”

    The Department of Homeland Security “met with social-media companies to both inform and pressure them to censor content protected by the First Amendment.” It then “expanded the word ‘infrastructure’ in its terminology to include ‘cognitive’ infrastructure, so as to create authority to monitor and suppress protected free speech posted on social media.”

    DHS “Defendants believe they had a mandate to control the process of acquiring knowledge.”
    DHS helped create a pseudo-private organization “to get around unclear legal authorities, including very real First Amendment questions.”

    Federal defendants did not just censor speech directly; they also caused social media companies to change their policies. They “used meetings, emails, phone calls, follow-up meetings, and the power of the government to pressure social-media platforms to change their policies and to suppress free speech.”

    Although much of the past suppression involved COVID and elections, federal officials “have also shown a willingness to do it with regard to other issues, such as gas prices, parody speech, calling the President a liar, climate change, gender, and abortion” as well as political criticism about “the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the return of U.S. Support of Ukraine.”



     
    JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. – Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey announced today that the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana granted his motion to block top officials in the federal government from continuing to violate the First Amendment rights of millions of Americans. The judge’s ruling is 155 pages long and includes 721 footnotes.

    Why did Missouri's AG file that case in the Western District of Louisiana and not in the federal court in his own state? Was he judge shopping?

    Nevermind, did 2 secs of digging and found my answer. Yes he was and he got his desired judgement for the time being. Also, it was just a preliminary injection, not a final ruling of any sort.

    ===============
    Terry Alvin Doughty (born January 16, 1959) is the Chief United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. Nominated by President Donald Trump, Doughty served as a judge on the Fifth Judicial District Court in Louisiana from 2009 to 2018.
    ===============


    1709075378471.png
     
    Last edited:
    And SFL scolds everyone else. He doesn’t seem to read what he posts.

    And, do you wanna know why the WH doesn’t have to worry about this injunction? Because they aren’t coercing any social media companies anyway. It’s not hard to quit doing something you’re not doing, is it? 😁
     
    Why did Missouri's AG file that case in the Western District of Louisiana and not in the federal court in his own state? Was he judge shopping?

    Nevermind, did 2 secs of digging and found my answer. Yes he was and he got his desired judgement for the time being. Also, it was just a preliminary injection, not a final ruling of any sort.

    ===============
    Terry Alvin Doughty (born January 16, 1959) is the Chief United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. Nominated by President Donald Trump, Doughty served as a judge on the Fifth Judicial District Court in Louisiana from 2009 to 2018.
    ===============


    1709075378471.png
    Missouri v. Biden was filed by the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana on May 5, 2022. The Court granted their motion for discovery on July 12, 2022, clearing the way for Missouri and Louisiana to gather documents and depose witnesses from the Biden Administration.
     
    Missouri v. Biden was filed by the attorneys general of Missouri and Louisiana on May 5, 2022. The Court granted their motion for discovery on July 12, 2022, clearing the way for Missouri and Louisiana to gather documents and depose witnesses from the Biden Administration.
    This is all performative political nonsense anyway. You should be able to recognize that.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom