Elon Musk. Twitter. Babylon Bee.

[Ken]

That's not how online ads and marketing work.

Only because they choose not to do it that way. But they easily could if they wanted.

Real time data and real location tracking is much more valuable and therefore marketable to advertisers. I live right by a pub but I never go there. Ads from bars are wasted on me. I'm sure Google and Facebook know this.

Sure, but they aren't ENTITLED to this data which represents a complete invasion of privacy. And we have been living in an advertising culture for 200 years without it and have somehow survived. I'm glad Apple turned off the tap.

[Neto]

https://www.dailybonnet.com/elon-musk-b ... lf-pastor/

[temporal1]

[url]ttps://www.dailybonnet.com/elon-musk-buys-menn ... lf-pastor/[/url]

Neto .. precious!

[temporal1]

Dr Shiva has a challenge for Elon Musk: “If Elon Musk is serious” .. (about 20min mark)

^^Add to the above posts, P.5-6, regarding THE INTERCEPT report:

“They are NOT going to get away with this, we caught them”| Redacted with Natali and Clayton Morris / -24min

Description:

"Today we bring you an update on the story about the U.S. government's direct portal to censor Facebook and Twitter.

The doctor who exposed this portal through litigation is named Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai.

Today he comes to Redacted to tell us what was left out of this story and how he thinks government sources might have published only part of it in order to get ahead of it.

This means that the media is helping the government to hide its involvement with social media and this is the proof.
Are you surprised?

You can read all of the details involved in Dr. Shiva's lawsuit right here: https://winbackfreedom.com "

“Dr.SHIVA’s Historic First Amendment Lawsuit to Win Back Freedom:
First Case in U.S. To Show Government MADE Twitter Silence Political Speech”
https://vashiva.com/first-amendment-twi ... n-lawsuit/

[Josh]

Note how now the government is threatening to go after Musk’s Twitter because he dared to allow free speech. Democrats and the liberals consider free speech their worst enemy.

[Bootstrap]

Note how now the government is threatening to go after Musk’s Twitter because he dared to allow free speech. Democrats and the liberals consider free speech their worst enemy.

By "free speech", do you mean selling advertisers your cell phone number, together with information to help them target you, without your knowledge or consent? I guess that's a form of speech, but I don't think that's what the Constitution was trying to protect.

I think you are referring to the FTC's concerns about privacy and security, that's the only thing I can find in recent news. As far as I know, there are two consent decrees with Twitter. One involves security, they have to make sure hackers can't easily get at your private data. The other involves selling private data without your consent - Twitter asked people to provide their cell phone numbers for two-factor authentication, then sold these numbers to advertisers, which is why I now get spam texts on a cell phone number I had carefully kept private.

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/pr ... rgeted-ads

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/pr ... -establish

Twitter has now laid off 50% of their work force, including most of their high level executives. The executives responsible for privacy and security quit. So the FTC is concerned about whether they will have the know-how and desire to protect security and privacy for their users.

[temporal1]

Note how now the government is threatening to go after Musk’s Twitter because he dared to allow free speech.
Democrats and the liberals consider free speech their worst enemy.

Josh,
i know you don’t often watch videos .. ?? ..
did you view the above 24min video, and/or read the article about Dr Shiva’s 1st Amendment lawsuit?

boot,
ditto.

[Just trying to get an idea if there’s a common place of discussion on this.]

To repeat my view (esp since the 2020 election) -
with heaps+heaps of lib propaganda (considered routine, with much of it paid via pilferng the Public Treasury)
AND staggering collusion revealed between lib gov and social media, actual elections are so compromised as to be secondary -
if not useless.

It seems -
following 9-11-2001 and the establishment of DHS / THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY -
government over reach has been as never before - in privacy, communications, AND military involvement.

Honestly, a few people were wise enough to foresee these things - at the time DHS was put in place. Post 9-11.
Most, like me, could see changes being made, but no real foresight to see what was to come.

To repeat, who can question such noble words like, “THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY?”
It’s what anyone would want, right?!

[Ken]

Note how now the government is threatening to go after Musk’s Twitter because he dared to allow free speech. Democrats and the liberals consider free speech their worst enemy.

Wrong. It has absolutely nothing to do with free speech.

Twitter was already under FTC consent decrees for violations of data privacy that long preceded Musk's acquisition of Twitter. He is just being reminded that they continue to remain in effect despite the new ownership.

Do you think billionaires should be entitled to violate data privacy laws just because they overpaid for a new tech toy and are flailing around for new ways to monetize their investment? Do you think Musk should be above the law just because he is extremely rich and makes a lot of noise?

[Josh]

Note how now the government is threatening to go after Musk’s Twitter because he dared to allow free speech. Democrats and the liberals consider free speech their worst enemy.

By "free speech", do you mean selling advertisers your cell phone number, together with information to help them target you, without your knowledge or consent? I guess that's a form of speech, but I don't think that's what the Constitution was trying to protect.

I already get tons of junk calls. So do lots of other people. The FTC seems completely uninterested in putting a stop to this.

I think you are referring to the FTC's concerns about privacy and security, that's the only thing I can find in recent news. As far as I know, there are two consent decrees with Twitter. One involves security, they have to make sure hackers can't easily get at your private data. The other involves selling private data without your consent - Twitter asked people to provide their cell phone numbers for two-factor authentication, then sold these numbers to advertisers, which is why I now get spam texts on a cell phone number I had carefully kept private.

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/pr ... rgeted-ads

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/pr ... -establish

Twitter has now laid off 50% of their work force, including most of their high level executives. The executives responsible for privacy and security quit. So the FTC is concerned about whether they will have the know-how and desire to protect security and privacy for their users.

This is entirely political, Boot - the left doesn’t like what Musk is doing, so they called in political favours from a left wing administration that also doesn’t like what Musk is doing.

[Bootstrap]

Note how now the government is threatening to go after Musk’s Twitter because he dared to allow free speech. Democrats and the liberals consider free speech their worst enemy.

By "free speech", do you mean selling advertisers your cell phone number, together with information to help them target you, without your knowledge or consent? I guess that's a form of speech, but I don't think that's what the Constitution was trying to protect.

I already get tons of junk calls. So do lots of other people. The FTC seems completely uninterested in putting a stop to this.

Well, they did sue Twitter and obtain a consent decree to stop them from selling this data. That sounds like a way of showing interest.

I think you are referring to the FTC's concerns about privacy and security, that's the only thing I can find in recent news. As far as I know, there are two consent decrees with Twitter. One involves security, they have to make sure hackers can't easily get at your private data. The other involves selling private data without your consent - Twitter asked people to provide their cell phone numbers for two-factor authentication, then sold these numbers to advertisers, which is why I now get spam texts on a cell phone number I had carefully kept private.

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/pr ... rgeted-ads

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/pr ... -establish

Twitter has now laid off 50% of their work force, including most of their high level executives. The executives responsible for privacy and security quit. So the FTC is concerned about whether they will have the know-how and desire to protect security and privacy for their users.

This is entirely political, Boot - the left doesn’t like what Musk is doing, so they called in political favours from a left wing administration that also doesn’t like what Musk is doing.

Musk fired 50% of Twitter before he was even sitting firmly at his desk. That's his right as the owner of a private enterprise. But it has nothing at all to do with the government. And the executives responsible for privacy and security seem to have quit because they didn't think they could protect users, which is what their job is.

In a private company that Musk owns, he can call the shots and fire whoever he wants. He doesn't ask the government before doing that. I wish the rules about privacy and security were stronger, but even a private company does need to obey the law.