I guess we can finally put a price on "free speech."
Free speech has no relevance to corporate products/services. They can control/censor any speech on their platforms that they choose. None of that is a violation of anyone's "free speech".
So what are those then, Pravda? It appears to me that it is a vehicle for propaganda.
He's got to find something to spend his $23B salary from Tesla on, hasn't he? (sic) I'm not and have never have been a Twitter user but personally, I hope he fails miserably. IMHO, he has more than enough on his plate with Tesla, Space X, The boring company, and his brain implants/android.
As if Hunter Biden's laptop has any bearing on any of you. You all wish to live in the world of conspiracy when right before your eyes crimes were committed by the very people you think actually want "free speech". Stare in your own mirrors if you want to witness "delusion".
He's got to find something to spend his $23B salary from Tesla on, hasn't he? (sic) I'm not and have never have been a Twitter user but personally, I hope he fails miserably. IMHO, he has more than enough on his plate with Tesla, Space X, The boring company, and his brain implants/android.
Would be interested to know the business rationale for Musk taking over Twitter, which is basically an advertising company. As more electric vehicle manufacturers enter the fray is he looking to diversify his portfolio to be more insulated from the ups and downs of that market? The demand for critical components is only going to get worse as more players enter that market.
Musk definitely has an outsized ego, but I cannot see anyone taking on 46 billion in debt to make a point about their own personal definition of “freedom of speech.” Would Warren Buffet do it? I don’t think so. Where’s the business payback?
I've never accepted claims of altruistic motivations at face value when billionaires are trying close a deal. Musk is particularly effective at convincing people what's he's doing is "for humanity" but when did people become so naive? I mean, did anyone really believe Google created Android as an "open" platform because of "don't be evil"? Google got so much "street cred" from tech geeks for that altruistic "open platform" messaging, before they created their own app store and closed services. I find it hilarious right now they're running ads day and night to rehab their image as a "defender" of your "privacy."
Exactly my sentiments. I remember a time when the internet truly was "free". Back when technical schools like MIT, Georgia Tech, and research institutes like Xerox PARC were creating online communities where anything and everything was shared in pursuit of knowledge and new experiences. Free from the speculation and market value manipulation of investors because, at the time, there was no money to be made.
Now I listen to the stories being woven by billionaires like Musk and politicians and all I see are people looking to make money or gain influence. People who understand well how to manipulate others for personal gain. Invest, create a convincing narrative, pump the stock, then dump it before the narrative runs its course, and make a profit. None of which has anything to do with the ideals the internet was built upon.
I'm all for seeing Twitter go private. Musk is as good as anyone. His previous passion endeavors have turned out pretty well. Twitter needs some big changes that will never happen as they have an ad business that can't be disrupted without tanking the stock price. If it were private it could take short term loss.
I guess we can finally put a price on "free speech."
Free speech has no relevance to corporate products/services. They can control/censor any speech on their platforms that they choose. None of that is a violation of anyone's "free speech".
Just because it isn't constitutionally protected free speech, doesn't mean it isn't free speech. Besides, that is debatable. When a company restricts speech because the government is threatening to regulate them, that is the government indirectly restricting speech through big tech and should be against the constitution.
I just read the article. Summary without all the sensationalism or fanfare: Couple had issues/concerns with curriculum at a private school. Filed two complaints. Couple claims school took no action about the curriculum or complaints. School denied re-enrollment to the couples children after the complaint (did not expel students - just denied re-enrollment.)Couple sued the school over issues of inclusiveness and alleged racial bias.
Private businesses (private school) have a right to not do business with troublesome customers. Who do you think was "censored" or lost their right of free speech?
Did you have some other agenda with posting the article link?
Comments
https://www.npr.org/2022/04/21/1093875411/university-school-milwaukee-lawsuit
Now I listen to the stories being woven by billionaires like Musk and politicians and all I see are people looking to make money or gain influence. People who understand well how to manipulate others for personal gain. Invest, create a convincing narrative, pump the stock, then dump it before the narrative runs its course, and make a profit. None of which has anything to do with the ideals the internet was built upon.
Couple had issues/concerns with curriculum at a private school. Filed two complaints. Couple claims school took no action about the curriculum or complaints. School denied re-enrollment to the couples children after the complaint (did not expel students - just denied re-enrollment.) Couple sued the school over issues of inclusiveness and alleged racial bias.
Private businesses (private school) have a right to not do business with troublesome customers. Who do you think was "censored" or lost their right of free speech?
Did you have some other agenda with posting the article link?