Elon Musk. Twitter. Babylon Bee.

[Sliceitup]

There was basically a 0% chance Musk could get out of this by paying $1 billion. The contract had a ‘specific performance’ clause which basically means he would be forced to complete the deal.

I am sure the richest man in the world would have some really good lawyers that would give him some outs. I guess it doesn't matter. He did it and it is better already.

I have not posted anything. Just watching the drama.

Well, I did post one thing. "Ban assault hammers"

If he had really good lawyers (or if he listened to those really good lawyers) he wouldn’t have signed the contract with a ‘specific performance’ clause.

[Josh]

There was basically a 0% chance Musk could get out of this by paying $1 billion. The contract had a ‘specific performance’ clause which basically means he would be forced to complete the deal.

I am sure the richest man in the world would have some really good lawyers that would give him some outs. I guess it doesn't matter. He did it and it is better already.

I have not posted anything. Just watching the drama.

Well, I did post one thing. "Ban assault hammers"

If he had really good lawyers (or if he listened to those really good lawyers) he wouldn’t have signed the contract with a ‘specific performance’ clause.

I suspect the wealthiest person in the world avails himself and his businesses of excellent legal counsel.

[Ken]

I am sure the richest man in the world would have some really good lawyers that would give him some outs. I guess it doesn't matter. He did it and it is better already.

I have not posted anything. Just watching the drama.

Well, I did post one thing. "Ban assault hammers"

If he had really good lawyers (or if he listened to those really good lawyers) he wouldn’t have signed the contract with a ‘specific performance’ clause.

I suspect the wealthiest person in the world avails himself and his businesses of excellent legal counsel.

I'm sure he has good lawyers. The better question is whether he listens to them.

[Franklin]

This being the Twitter thread, I thought I would post the latest news. Elon Musk announced that he will not let Alex Jones back on Twitter. This is to be expected because Elon Musk is a member of modern culture, and all members of modern culture are evil. No members of modern culture support free speech.

This forum is the most active forum that I am not banned from. I am also on a Muslim forum and two obscure forums. I am banned everywhere else because my views aren't popular in modern culture. I am not complaining, I don't have any real desire to interact with members of modern culture. I am just mentioning this to give an idea of the extreme intolerance of modern culture.

[Ken]

This being the Twitter thread, I thought I would post the latest news. Elon Musk announced that he will not let Alex Jones back on Twitter. This is to be expected because Elon Musk is a member of modern culture, and all members of modern culture are evil. No members of modern culture support free speech.

This forum is the most active forum that I am not banned from. I am also on a Muslim forum and two obscure forums. I am banned everywhere else because my views aren't popular in modern culture. I am not complaining, I don't have any real desire to interact with members of modern culture. I am just mentioning this to give an idea of the extreme intolerance of modern culture.

Twitter is a private company and for-profit business. The product they are actually selling is YOU and all the other users of the site. They are selling YOUR eyeballs and YOUR data to advertisers.

They are under zero obligation to open their servers to anyone who wants to post information that violates their terms of service.

Just like, for example, FOX news isn't obligated to open up a 30 minute prime-time spot for me to show slides of my last family vacation or YouTube videos of my daughter's birthday party.

None of this actually has anything to do with First Amendment rights to freedom of speech.

[RZehr]

This being the Twitter thread, I thought I would post the latest news. Elon Musk announced that he will not let Alex Jones back on Twitter. This is to be expected because Elon Musk is a member of modern culture, and all members of modern culture are evil. No members of modern culture support free speech.

This forum is the most active forum that I am not banned from. I am also on a Muslim forum and two obscure forums. I am banned everywhere else because my views aren't popular in modern culture. I am not complaining, I don't have any real desire to interact with members of modern culture. I am just mentioning this to give an idea of the extreme intolerance of modern culture.

Would you say that Alex Jones is a member of modern culture and full of evil?

[Franklin]

Would you say that Alex Jones is a member of modern culture and full of evil?

Alex Jones is a borderline case. He focuses on Right versus Left which I think misses the point. He should be promoting religion and morality instead of politics if he really wants things to improve, but of course that wouldn't be a popular program. Also I think promoting Trump is unforgivable because Trump is quite evil.

[Franklin]

Twitter is a private company and for-profit business. The product they are actually selling is YOU and all the other users of the site. They are selling YOUR eyeballs and YOUR data to advertisers.

They are under zero obligation to open their servers to anyone who wants to post information that violates their terms of service.

Just like, for example, FOX news isn't obligated to open up a 30 minute prime-time spot for me to show slides of my last family vacation or YouTube videos of my daughter's birthday party.

None of this actually has anything to do with First Amendment rights to freedom of speech.

It's quite a new phenomenon that liberals like you are promoting corporate abuse of power. I miss the old liberals who opposed war and opposed corporate abuse.

Anyway, it is Section 230 that enabled the current abuse of power. Without Section 230, Twitter would have to choose between being a platform or a publisher. If they are a publisher, then they could regulate content but would be liable for content. To avoid being liable, they would have to be a platform in which case they couldn't regulate legal speech. That is how the phone works. The phone companies can't disconnect phone calls with content they don't like just because they are private companies, and that is because they have declared themselves to be platforms to avoid liability for the content of phone calls.

[Ken]

Twitter is a private company and for-profit business. The product they are actually selling is YOU and all the other users of the site. They are selling YOUR eyeballs and YOUR data to advertisers.

They are under zero obligation to open their servers to anyone who wants to post information that violates their terms of service.

Just like, for example, FOX news isn't obligated to open up a 30 minute prime-time spot for me to show slides of my last family vacation or YouTube videos of my daughter's birthday party.

None of this actually has anything to do with First Amendment rights to freedom of speech.

It's quite a new phenomenon that liberals like you are promoting corporate abuse of power. I miss the old liberals who opposed war and opposed corporate abuse.

Anyway, it is Section 230 that enabled the current abuse of power. Without Section 230, Twitter would have to choose between being a platform or a publisher. If they are a publisher, then they could regulate content but would be liable for content. To avoid being liable, they would have to be a platform in which case they couldn't regulate legal speech. That is how the phone works. The phone companies can't disconnect phone calls with content they don't like just because they are private companies, and that is because they have declared themselves to be platforms to avoid liability for the content of phone calls.

Where we disagree is that I don’t believe there is any sort of first amendment right to publish unrestricted information on private internet portals.

The phone company is not an analogous situation because the local phone companies had monopolies and were regulated as such.

If you don’t like Twitter’s terms of service you can go to Gab, Telegram, Parler, Mastedon, Substack, or any of dozens of web publishing portals.

Do I think big tech has too much influence in our society? Yes, but mainly through the algorithms they use to push radicalizing content out to unsuspecting users, especially on Facebook and YouTube. Not because some egregious liar like Alex Jones finds himself running afoul of their terms of service. We see that here with some of the ridiculous videos that get posted by people who must be deep down one of those rabbit holes.

[Franklin]

Where we disagree is that I don’t believe there is any sort of first amendment right to publish unrestricted information on private internet portals.

Actually I didn't say anything about the first amendment, I just said that Elon Musk doesn't support free speech at Twitter. And while Section 230 violates the spirit of the first amendment, it doesn't violate the first amendment directly. So I assume that where we actually disagree is that I support the idea of free speech in general, and you don't.

If you don’t like Twitter’s terms of service you can go to Gab, Telegram, Parler, Mastedon, Substack, or any of dozens of web publishing portals.

Of course all of these are horrible because they are all the product of modern culture. And since I don't like them, I am currently developing my own free speech platform.