Welcome to Thunderdome

Leisher wrote: ↑Tue Nov 15, 2022 3:51 pm Cuban was my vote

Early 2000s Cuban was insufferable. He's gotten better.

My cousin was at the show where Elon showed up. She says more boos that cheers, and he had to leave the stage. Dunno, haven't watched any videos of it.

Of all the places in the country for Elon to go onto a stage, I would have offered San Fran as the least smart place.

GORDON wrote: ↑Mon Dec 12, 2022 10:55 pm Of all the places in the country for Elon to go onto a stage, I would have offered San Fran as the least smart place.

Right?

Half the crowd was probably people he fired or knew people he fired.

Why is the second richest man even visiting that shithole?

GORDON wrote: ↑Tue Dec 13, 2022 10:42 am Why is the second richest man even visiting that shithole?

He made his whole company work there.

Maybe it was life model decoy.

I just remembered a thing that happened. Didn't Trump get in trouble for blocking people on Twitter, because..... something something free speech on an official government forum? Someone help me remember.

GORDON wrote: ↑Tue Dec 13, 2022 11:27 am because..... something something free speech on an official government forum? Someone help me remember.

Yes.

https://www.npr.org/2019/07/09/73990656 ... tter-follo

Then isn't that a precedent that Twitter banning conservatives IS a violation of the 1A?

GORDON wrote: ↑Tue Dec 13, 2022 1:46 pm Then isn't that a precedent that Twitter banning conservatives IS a violation of the 1A?

No. Trump was preventing particular people from seeing/hearing a thing that he was saying. And the courts ruled that as an elected official, he cannot do that.

They have so far ruled that banning people from platforms for TOS violations is not.

Seems kinda fuzzy. We've been told Twitter is a private company and not subject to 1A, except for when it is.

TheCatt wrote: ↑Tue Dec 13, 2022 1:59 pm They have so far ruled that banning people from platforms for TOS violations is not.

What about when they ban people even though they have not violated the TOS, which the "Twitter files" are proving they did with many accounts?

It's going to get interesting if this goes to trial. I kind of side with the corporation being able to control "their" world, but it does open up a whole can of worms regarding if we actually have free speech if speech is controlled via all major platforms.

Thib would def have been banned if he'd said his COVID position, on twitter. That's a pretty loose "violated TOS."

GORDON wrote: ↑Tue Dec 13, 2022 3:29 pm Thib would def have been banned if he'd said his COVID position, on twitter. That's a pretty loose "violated TOS."

No doubt. They banned a LOT of people, including doctors and scientists, for saying anti-Covid narrative things.

Hell, we were considered "a bit nutty" because even though most of us here got the shots, we were openly skeptical of the science and messaging.

Once the Covid vaxes started becoming publicly disgraced, "Let's move on" or whatever it was trended (That was the "We all make mistakes, let's put it past us" campaign created to absolve cancel culture of its crimes against Covid vax skeptics.) and then was quickly dropped.

Now nobody that was beating the Bible of Covid vaxes even mentions Covid anymore. It's completely verboten on left wing Twitter.

Meanwhile, I'm now seeing Covid vaxes for kids being advertised on TV like any other medication. (Another prediction by skeptics that came true...)

I hope twitter gets taken to court, over something. A lot of people were running it based on their personal politics and feelings, with massive double standards.

GORDON wrote: ↑Tue Dec 13, 2022 2:03 pm Seems kinda fuzzy. We've been told Twitter is a private company and not subject to 1A, except for when it is.

that's not twitter being subject to 1A, that's Trump being subject to it, and therefore his behavior on various platforms.

GORDON wrote: ↑Tue Dec 13, 2022 4:39 pm I hope twitter gets taken to court, over something. A lot of people were running it based on their personal politics and feelings, with massive double standards.

I just don't see that's there much to litigate, as least criminally. Maybe there's some civil stuff, not a lawyer.

TheCatt wrote: ↑Wed Dec 14, 2022 8:43 am I just don't see that's there much to litigate, as least criminally. Maybe there's some civil stuff, not a lawyer.

Agree completely.

The real "smoking gun" from the released Twitter files to date are less what's in them and more people's response to them.

People on the right are being vindicated.
People on the left are calling it a non-issue and don't care.

If it had been vice versa, the reactions would be reversed. The people trying to divide the country are succeeding and this whole thing is proof.

I really wish MSM outlets acted the same when their folks and the opposition's folks do stuff like this. It would really help make them credible and unite people. As it stands the headline is an immediate eye roll because of the clear and open warfare declared on Musk by the political left and their MSM allies. To be fair though, at least they aren't hiding their bias.

That being said, bad look for Musk. I wouldn't even have a problem with this if he had not specifically said he wouldn't touch it. I still think Sweeney is probably morally and ethically wrong for tracking a private businessman's flights because there is a security risk. If someone was tracking one of my daughters I would happily put two bullets in the back of their skull and call it a day. However, if Musk was a government official, which I think Sweeney also does, I would get it more because "taxpayer funds".