Elon Musk and Twitter Reach Deal for Sale (3 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.

 

[DaveXA]

Do you think that Musk saying something stupid on X somehow negates how free speech on has vastly improved since he bought Twitter?

Twitter has turned into a cesspool. Considering X has lost nearly 2/3rds its value since Musk purchased it...Musk couldn't have managed to fork it up worse.

You haven't said much about the Twitter Files that showed the coordination between the government and Twitter and the vast censorship. After seeing how bad it was, its silly to try to link Musk's stupid post to Musk somehow failing to improve free speech on X.

Silly rabbit...lol.

 

[MT15]

Twitter has turned into a cesspool.

Absolutely. The hate speech is off the charts.

 

[DaveXA]

Absolutely. The hate speech is off the charts.

Yeah, hence why I deleted my account there. It was a useful platform before Musk tanked it.

 

[SaintForLife]

I think that Musk saying something fundamentally anti-free speech aptly demonstrates that his version of “free speech” is viewpoint specific - which isn’t actually free speech.

I wasn’t talking about X - I was talking about Musk. I haven’t seen quantitative analysis of the relative degree of free speech on the platform. I don’t necessarily think it needs to be a free speech platform, as I have said on numerous occasions. And that applies the same to pre-Musk Twitter as it does to X.

So you think it matters more about what he said then how X policies have changed? I know you said you weren't talking about X, but since X's free speech is much improved it shows that Musks stupid statement about Israel doesn't negate his overall outlook on free speech.

You can find an awful lot of people on both sides of the aisle political making similar statements about Isreal which I disagree with.

You don't think it needs to be a free speech platform? Huh? Why wouldn't we want every platform to support free speech?

 

[DaveXA]

So you think it matters more about what he said then how X policies have changed? I know you said you weren't talking about X, but since X's free speech is much improved it shows that Musks stupid statement about Israel doesn't negate his overall outlook on free speech.

You can find an awful lot of people on both sides of the aisle political making similar statements about Isreal which I disagree with.

You don't think it needs to be a free speech platform? Huh? Why wouldn't we want every platform to support free speech?

As opposed to chaos and hate speech being allowed? Lol. A lot of sites, this one included, aren't exactly free speech. And it's actually better that way.

 

[SaintForLife]

Absolutely. The hate speech is off the charts.

Translation: speech from people I hate politically

 

[MT15]

Translation: speech from people I hate politically

No, try again. Actual hate speech. It’s no longer against the rules to threaten someone because you don’t like what they say on Twitter. But only if you’re a right wing nut job. Others get the boot.

Calling Twitter free speech is a joke. And the joke is on you for believing Musk’s BS.

 

[DaveXA]

Translation: speech from people I hate politically

Nope, political posts I can tolerate. Bigoted, misogynistic, and such not so much.

 

[superchuck500]

So you think it matters more about what he said then how X policies have changed? I know you said you weren't talking about X, but since X's free speech is much improved it shows that Musks stupid statement about Israel doesn't negate his overall outlook on free speech.

You can find an awful lot of people on both sides of the aisle political making similar statements about Isreal which I disagree with.

You don't think it needs to be a free speech platform? Huh? Why wouldn't we want every platform to support free speech?

Because businesses are allowed to create and curate the environment they want and have invested in? Your idea that every platform must be a certain way and must host all speech is compelled content regulation. It’s as contrary to free speech and the first amendment as anything you think it solves - worse actually.

Musk often says he believes things that are contrary to free speech - that’s a fact. I’m happy for you that you think X is better now when it comes to its moderation choices. Whether it’s sustainable as a business remains to be seen but it’s his company, he can do what he wants.

 

[SaintForLife]

Because businesses are allowed to create and curate the environment they want and have invested in? Your idea that every platform must be a certain way and must host all speech is compelled content regulation. It’s as contrary to free speech and the first amendment as anything you think it solves - worse actually.

Musk often says he believes things that are contrary to free speech - that’s a fact. I’m happy for you that you think X is better now when it comes to its moderation choices. Whether it’s sustainable as a business remains to be seen but it’s his company, he can do what he wants.

You are leaving out the biggest component which is the government pressuring the business to censor people's posts online which is against the 1st ammendment. There isn't a problem with the business censoring the posts if there isnt any government interference.

Of course a business has a right to allow what they want on their website, but that's totally separate from the government angle.

 

[SaintForLife]

No, try again. Actual hate speech. It’s no longer against the rules to threaten someone because you don’t like what they say on Twitter. But only if you’re a right wing nut job. Others get the boot.

Calling Twitter free speech is a joke. And the joke is on you for believing Musk’s BS.

Do you usually need to protected from hearing things that you disagree with?

 

[superchuck500]

You are leaving out the biggest component which is the government pressuring the business to censor people's posts online which is against the 1st ammendment. There isn't a problem with the business censoring the posts if there isnt any government interference.

Of course a business has a right to allow what they want on their website, but that's totally separate from the government angle.

We went over this during the discussion of the Twitter files and I’m not doing it again - go back and review it if you want. I don’t think I agree with describing the events as government coercion and I don’t think Twitter thought they were being coerced. To the extent you think it was, I agree that shouldn’t happen except in those very narrow applications where it has been found to be allowable. And I think most reasonable people who understand and value the first amendment agree.

 

[MT15]

Do you usually need to protected from hearing things that you disagree with?

Why do you hate the First Amendment?

 

[SaintForLife]

We went over this during the discussion of the Twitter files and I’m not doing it again - go back and review it if you want. I don’t think I agree with describing the events as government coercion and I don’t think Twitter thought they were being coerced. To the extent you think it was, I agree that shouldn’t happen except in those very narrow applications where it has been found to be allowable. And I think most reasonable people who understand and value the first amendment agree.

Well there are 4 federal judges that have said the Biden administration violated the 1st ammendment with the censorship. Hopefully SCOTUS rules the same.

That's fine about not rehashing the discussion, but here are other examples of companies saying they only censored because of the Biden administration's actions. There are plenty of other examples about Twitter in the truth cops thread.

 

[SaintForLife]

Why do you hate the First Amendment?

I'm advocating for the 1st ammendment. You don't seem to he an absolute 1st ammendment supporters since you support censorship under the guise of stopping misinformation or hate speech.

 

[superchuck500]

Well there are 4 federal judges that have said the Biden administration violated the 1st ammendment with the censorship. Hopefully SCOTUS rules the same.

That's fine about not rehashing the discussion, but here are other examples of companies saying they only censored because of the Biden administration's actions. There are plenty of other examples about Twitter in the truth cops thread.

Certainly in the case of the pandemic, the evidence is pretty clear about the executive branch's active interventionism on moderation at twitter, facebook and youtube. I suspect it is because there is established caselaw that holds that the executive branch has expanded power in the face of a compelling public-health or national-security threat. Was it coercion? I think I can agree with you (and the district judge and 3-judge panel at the 5th Cir.) that it was. Was it justified under public-health emergency law? I don't know, I think it's a matter of degree relative to the threat. To many of us, Covid didn't seem that much of a compelling emergency - but to national public health officials, Covid deaths in the first part of 2021 had reached 4,000 per week and it was clear that vaccination was the best path forward. To the extent that it rules on the case, I think the Supreme Court will have to reconcile those competing interests.

I don't think the degree of intervention was anywhere near the same on the election information concern - it was more a sharing of threats anticipated by the intelligence community, but even at that level is that a genuine national-security threat that authorizes intervention by the executive branch? I think official notice of a generic nature ("the intelligence community has identified 'hack and dump' is happening, be advised" ) does not violate 1A but specific contact beyond that should be curtailed.

There are First Amendment violations by every administration - that's why we have the process to file legal action to check it. Remember this (below)? It was also a First Amendment violation that brought lawsuits that were settled with agreements from the government to change policy.

In Partial Settlement of Civil Rights Suits on Behalf of Demonstrators Attacked at Lafayette Square by Trump Administration, Federal Government Agrees to Change Demonstration Policing Policies

Military-Grade Weapons Were Used Against Black Lives Matter Protesters Without Warning in June 2020

www.acludc.org

I agree with you that executive branch intervention, in a truly activist posture, into the flow of public information at a national level is concerning. At the same time, however, urging twitter to take down what was argued as vaccine misinformation isn't the same as jailing publishers or something clearly deeply problematic - and all of the information detailed in the Missouri v. Biden case was widely available online and in print, without any suppression effort by the administration. The effort was geared toward combatting amplification, not outright suppression.

But I agree with you in principle that if there's going to be intervention (as opposed to mere notice), the government better have a damn compelling case. The information age and social media presents a new context for these competing concerns and I, too, am curious to see how the SCOTUS resolves it - hopefully they will rule on it (though I'm not sure of the posture at this moment).

 

[SaintForLife]

Certainly in the case of the pandemic, the evidence is pretty clear about the executive branch's active interventionism on moderation at twitter, facebook and youtube. I suspect it is because there is established caselaw that holds that the executive branch has expanded power in the face of a compelling public-health or national-security threat. Was it coercion? I think I can agree with you (and the district judge and 3-judge panel at the 5th Cir.) that it was. Was it justified under public-health emergency law? I don't know, I think it's a matter of degree relative to the threat. To many of us, Covid didn't seem that much of a compelling emergency - but to national public health officials, Covid deaths in the first part of 2021 had reached 4,000 per week and it was clear that vaccination was the best path forward. To the extent that it rules on the case, I think the Supreme Court will have to reconcile those competing interests.

Covid was definitely an emergency to me, but the Biden Administration was getting social media to censor true information in many instances.



Virality Project emails were found in the TwitterFiles describing “stories of true vaccine side effects” as actionable content.

Though the Virality Project reviewed content on a mass scale for Twitter, Google/YouTube, Facebook/Instagram, Medium, TikTok, and Pinterest, it knowingly targeted true material and legitimate political opinion, while often being factually wrong itself.

VP routinely framed real testimonials about side effects as misinformation, from “true stories” of blood clots from AstraZeneca vaccines to a New York Times story about vaccine recipients who contracted the blood disorder thrombocytopenia.

There are other examples in that thread.

I don't think the degree of intervention was anywhere near the same on the election information concern - it was more a sharing of threats anticipated by the intelligence community, but even at that level is that a genuine national-security threat that authorizes intervention by the executive branch? I think official notice of a generic nature ("the intelligence community has identified 'hack and dump' is happening, be advised" ) does not violate 1A but specific contact beyond that should be curtailed.

There was quite a bit of intervention on the election. It's all in the truth cops thread.

There are First Amendment violations by every administration - that's why we have the process to file legal action to check it. Remember this (below)? It was also a First Amendment violation that brought lawsuits that were settled with agreements from the government to change policy.

In Partial Settlement of Civil Rights Suits on Behalf of Demonstrators Attacked at Lafayette Square by Trump Administration, Federal Government Agrees to Change Demonstration Policing Policies

Military-Grade Weapons Were Used Against Black Lives Matter Protesters Without Warning in June 2020

www.acludc.org

It's good that they changed the policy based on that violation. When you compare that to the Biden Administration it's the complete opposite.

The 5th Circuit after all vacated each of district court Judge Terry Doughty’s ten orders on social media contacts but one, and “tailored” the remaining 6th provision to a single paragraph:

Defendants, and their employees and agents, shall take no actions, formal or informal, directly or indirectly, to coerce or significantly encourage social-media companies to remove, delete, suppress, or reduce, including through altering their algorithms, posted social-media content containing protected free speech. That includes, but is not limited to, compelling the platforms to act, such as by intimating that some form of punishment will follow a failure to comply with any request, or supervising, directing, or otherwise meaningfully controlling the social-media companies’ decision-making processes.

After the 5th Circuit ruling, in other words, only government action against protected free speech remained barred by this injunction. The Biden administration just told the world “grave and irreparable harm” would result from such limitations.

...Doughty’s injunction leaves room for every government agency to communicate with platforms as much as they want, even in ways that free speech advocates might find uncomfortable, like “deleting, removing, suppressing, or reducing posts.” The sole caveat is that these posts not be “protected free speech.” This underscores the fact that the Biden administration is going to the Supreme Court specifically to seek permission to meddle with and/or suppress legal expression.

Truth Cops: Leaked Documents Outline DHS Plan To Police Disinformation

THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY is quietly broadening its efforts to curb speech it considers dangerous, an investigation by The Intercept has found. Years of internal DHS memos, emails, and documents — obtained via leaks and an ongoing lawsuit, as well as public documents — illustrate an...

madaboutpolitics.com

I agree with you that executive branch intervention, in a truly activist posture, into the flow of public information at a national level is concerning. At the same time, however, urging twitter to take down what was argued as vaccine misinformation isn't the same as jailing publishers or something clearly deeply problematic - and all of the information detailed in the Missouri v. Biden case was widely available online and in print, without any suppression effort by the administration. The effort was geared toward combatting amplification, not outright suppression.

But I agree with you in principle that if there's going to be intervention (as opposed to mere notice), the government better have a damn compelling case. The information age and social media presents a new context for these competing concerns and I, too, am curious to see how the SCOTUS resolves it - hopefully they will rule on it (though I'm not sure of the posture at this moment).

I agree and it's definitely a slippery slope. What will they try to censor this election cycle? Considering how much of a threat yall think Trump is, would you want him or any other President's administration to keep going further and further with the censorship?

The government has a huge censorship complex and when they weren't pressuring social media companies to censor they also have "researchers"(operatives) who are funded by the government and acting as government cutouts doing a lot of the work that the government isn't able to do legally.

 

[samiam5211]

I used to like browse twitter when i was in public places like standing in line at a store or something.

I can't do that anymore. Even when you are scrolling the top trends, every 5 -10 posts you get some type of porn.


I wonder what the value of Twitter/X is today?

Spaces if the only good thing Elon added to twitter.