Twitter and Musk

[El OchoCinco]

Again, why the extreme to make a point? No, private companies cannot implement whatever TOS they want. That's why laws exist. There is nothing nefarious about Musk believing that anyone should be able to talk in the public square. He is against garbage hiding behind avatars and pseudonyms spewing nonsense, and he's got a point. It won't be easy to find a solution but I'm pretty he's got a good idea about how to do it.
All this nonsense about his supposed right wing ideas is as bad as the nonsense he received about his left wing ideas with electric vehicles.

Exactly what restrictions do you think exist for a company in creating their own ToS?

I can start a social media platform and say the ToS are I moderate all content and you will be banned if I find your post offensive or insulting other members. Then I decide to ban any posts that have science in them. WHat law stops me from doing this?

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

And the 20 or more other advertisers who have dropped Twitter. I guess they are all competitors of Musk as well. Coupled with the world's largest representative of advertisers, IPG Mediabrands, urging all companies drop Twitter.

Twitter is in transition for sure.

All these advertising clowns virtue signal by not advertising on Fox too. Meanwhile, Fox dominates and all the lefty fluffy networks are in financial trouble.

As I have said before, it is just a bullshit social media company. I don't care whether it survives or not. Same with Facebook. But I think all this weak-kneed - the sky is falling- stuff from the Musk haters is kind of lame. Those Musk haters include the Biden Administration and the DOJ.

We get it. Elon announced that he leans Republican now, so you and your ilk are required by your handlers to hate on him.

 

[Cuddles]

Exactly what restrictions do you think exist for a company in creating their own ToS?

I can start a social media platform and say the ToS are I moderate all content and you will be banned if I find your post offensive or insulting other members. Then I decide to ban any posts that have science in them. WHat law stops me from doing this?

I took it too mean "too lax" of a TOS letting in violent speech or pedo shit being posted. Hasn't stopped 4chan, a place w/probably the loosest TOS short of the dark web.

Hell, hasn't stopped the feds from going after legal speech under obscenity charges either

 

[El OchoCinco]

I took it too mean "too lax" of a TOS letting in violent speech or pedo shit being posted. Hasn't stopped 4chan, a place w/probably the loosest TOS short of the dark web

I was responding to VicBee that said "No, private companies cannot implement whatever TOS they want. That's why laws exist."

 

[Cuddles]

I was responding to VicBee that said "No, private companies cannot implement whatever TOS they want. That's why laws exist."

That's what I mean, there's probably laws against posting child porn (or hosting content on private servers) or copyrighted content so twitter has to abide by law restrictions

 

[El OchoCinco]

That's what I mean, there's probably laws against posting child porn (or hosting content on private servers) or copyrighted content so twitter has to abide by law restrictions

that is a ridiculous argument because those things were already illegal anyway so ToS does not need to address them. You dont need to say posting child porn is not allowed as per ToS because it is already illegal. No one is saying musk wants to have child porn on twitter.

Musk can say he will have open discussion determined by him and ban whoever he wants. In that sense a company can make whatever tos it wants for you to participate.

 

[Cuddles]

that is a ridiculous argument because those things were already illegal anyway so ToS does not need to address them. You dont need to say posting child porn is not allowed as per ToS because it is already illegal. No one is saying musk wants to have child porn on twitter.

Musk can say he will have open discussion determined by him and ban whoever he wants. In that sense a company can make whatever tos it wants for you to participate.

I'm taking the extreme position as an example of a TOS that has to abide by the law. Are you seriously saying twitter's TOS does not address illegal content? So if twitter decided the TOS they want is a free for all and illegal content was posted, they won't get a takedown request under legal threat?

In any case, Bee's position wasn't of a more restrictive TOS coming head to head w/the law, but a looser one doing so

 

[VicBee]

I'm taking the extreme position as an example of a TOS that has to abide by the law. Are you seriously saying twitter's TOS does not address illegal content? So if twitter decided the TOS they want is a free for all and illegal content was posted, they won't get a takedown request under legal threat?

In any case, Bee's position wasn't of a more restrictive TOS coming head to head w/the law, but a looser one doing so

No, my thought was with regards to businesses refusing to serve people of color or sexual preference and such.

 

[El OchoCinco]

I'm taking the extreme position as an example of a TOS that has to abide by the law. Are you seriously saying twitter's TOS does not address illegal content? So if twitter decided the TOS they want is a free for all and illegal content was posted, they won't get a takedown request under legal threat?

In any case, Bee's position wasn't of a more restrictive TOS coming head to head w/the law, but a looser one doing so

You dont need a ToS to ban child pornography for it to be not allowed on a site is my point. Just because ToS does not address child pornography does not make it suddenly wrong, a site does that to cover their ass so they cannot be sued or arrested.

Musk can change ToS because offensive posts is a subjective definition. He can decide what is offensive to twitter that is not already illegal.

 

[nrstrader]

It is just so disturbing to see these Jacobin assholes cry and bitch over someone wanting to create a platform for legit dialog.

There is a large segment of people who have lost the entire idea that implicit in the concept of open dialog is the reality you might be utterly wrong in what you think. The epistemological certainty many people have today is devastating to our society because they only real thing we have going for us is being open minded enough to stumble on unique solutions to problems.

You can't be open minded in thought and closed minded in language. We have done a terrible job as a society educating people on the philosophical implications of language itself.