thisbody wrote:
I'm not familiar with this guy, but  I will say that anyone trying to make a serious argument one way or another loses self respect and listeners to his argument when he or she backs said arguments by references to "licking the sweat off a mans balls". Just saying.

One should choose their words  wisely. It matters.

Louis Rossmann makes some great points:

cut and paste from a grocery another source, morningnewsbeat.com 

The Hill reports that "fifty of Twitter’s leading 100 advertisers have stopped advertising on the site as of Nov. 21, according to a recent report from the left-leaning media watchdog Media Matters for America … The 50 companies that halted advertising on the platform accounted for more than $750 million in spending on Twitter in 2022 and almost $2 billion overall since 2020."

The story points out that the abandonment of Twitter by these companies - which include Chevrolet, Chipotle, Ford, Jeep, Merck and Novartis, as well as a number of "quiet quitters" that stopped or slowed down their ad spend there but didn't make a big deal about it - coincides with Elon Musk's $44 billion purchase of the social media site, which has raised concerns about content moderation.

The Hill writes that "Musk laid off about half of Twitter’s workforce in his first week, claiming he had 'no choice' amid the company’s poor financial condition. Several hundred more employees resigned in mid-November when Musk gave them an ultimatum — commit to a 'hardcore' work environment or leave.

"The billionaire has also made changes to the social media platform itself, unsuccessfully attempting to roll out a paid subscription service for Twitter’s blue check verification and reinstating former President Trump’s account. Musk has also indicated that he plans to reinstate other suspended accounts in the near future."

KC's View:

It seems to me that the concerns about Twitter's policies are well-founded. After all, the company currently seems to be managed by someone who, while admittedly brilliant and innovative, also has all the impulse control of a third grader who has consumed way too much sugar. This has led to an environment in which he seems to have sacrificed strategy in favor of visibility - Musk seems willing to do anything for a headline, even if it means giving air to things like hate speech and anti-semitism.

To be clear, Twitter is now Musk's company, and he can do anything he wants with it. He paid for the privilege. In fact, way over-paid for the privilege. But that means companies that traditionally have done business with Twitter can do what they want to do, too. (I've gotten a number of emails suggesting that Musk is making progressives crazy. This may be true, but he's also offending a far larger constituency - people who decry hate speech and anti-semitism. At least, I think it is a far larger constituency.)

Musk currently is taking on a more formidable opponent - Apple.

The Wall Street Journal reports that "Apple and its Chief Executive Tim Cook have the ability to hold great sway over Twitter’s potential success, as the iPhone maker is a major advertiser and tightly controls the software on its App Store.

"In a string of tweets accusing Apple of stanching free speech and claiming that the tech giant had threatened to kick the Twitter app off the iPhone, Mr. Musk introduced a new wrinkle in Apple’s efforts to maintain control over software distribution, acting as a megaphone for critics who say the company holds too much power through its App Store.

"By calling attention to Apple’s role as a gatekeeper for the App ecosystem, Mr. Musk is picking up the mantle in the yearslong fight developers have waged against Apple and its fees. Mr. Musk could bring new focus to the company from lawmakers and regulators around the world, including politicians who have expressed concern that Silicon Valley is silencing conservative voices."

And the New York Times writes:

"Mr. Musk has been poised to confront Apple since taking over Twitter. His business plan is predicated on shifting its revenue from a dependence on advertising to a greater reliance on subscription sales. But any new subscription revenue will be subject to Apple’s practice of taking as much as a 30 percent cut.

"Mr. Musk’s complaints also come at a pivotal time for Apple. There’s a push in Congress during the final months of the year to advance a series of antitrust laws. Among the bills under consideration is the Open App Markets Act, which seeks to give developers more control over their apps and allow them to skirt the fees that Apple and Google charge."

Seems to me that while Musk wants to do what he wants with Twitter, he really doesn't want other companies to enjoy the same privilege.

One of the things that Musk wrote on Twitter (natch) was that Apple “has mostly stopped advertising on Twitter," and then he asked, "“Do they hate free speech in America?”

Memo to Musk: Not advertising on Twitter is every bit as much about free speech as advertising on Twitter. I exercise free speech on MNB every day when I choose - freely - what to say and what not to say.

(Quick memo to anyone pulling their ads from Twitter: You can find a non-toxic, civil, content-moderated home here on MNB. Just sayin'.)

I'm no expert, but it seems to me that Apple's 30 percent cut on App Store revenues is the company's margin - it gets to set the terms based on what it thinks the market will bear, in the same way that every retailer sets margins based on what seems appropriate and acceptable. Now, Apple's market power may give it an unfair advantage, and it is possible that in the long run it will have to reduce its App Store margins. But it also is ironic that Musk seeks regulatory redress in a way that he almost certainly would resist if it were aimed at him and Twitter.

If I were running a brand, I'd stay as far away from Twitter as possible. The potential for collateral damage is just too great.

It is like the old joke about why it never makes sense to wrestle with a pig - you both end up filthy, but the pig enjoys it.

 Lazy8 wrote:

I'm not 100% sure what you pointing to as it relates to twitter?  But the law is fairly clear between what is free and hateful/unlawful speech. 
What twitter, Meta...are making  are business decisions on what types of things they want on their platforms.  And those business decisions will either increase or decrease demand.

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:
Freedom of speech is as much an issue of culture as it is of law (by which I mean politics). It's possible—even, dare I say it, necessary—to separate the two, something both the left and right find unthinkable.

"We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people." —JFK

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:

Wait. This is the internet and you're not supposed to be rational. 
It mandates hyperbole, name-calling, and lengthy snarky diatribes on subjects that the writer has little practical knowledge of. And that's just the entrance fee.

 thisbody wrote:

umm.. it sounds like you are misrepresenting this in the same way as Musk is attempting: as a free speech issue. It's not. The managers at Google and Apple are simply in a position where they need to take action to avoid getting hit by massive fines for facilitating a platform that breaches the law or to avoid suffering a loss of reputation by association.  That is not only their good right, but actually their duty.

A whole bunch of advertisers have pulled their business away from Twitter because they simply don't want their products to be associated with all the nasties trivialised in the above. It's basically just the free market in operation. Sure you can spew all sorts of hatred. That's part of free speech. But if your free speech demonstrably harms others, you can expect to be called to account. That's all part and parcel of being a responsible citizen.

If you have a problem with the laws, then attack them, not the managers of large companies fulfilling their fiduciary duties.

Attention dear readers, here is an important warning: We are all going to die!

“Apple and Google need to seriously start exploring booting Twitter off the app store,” said Alejandra Caraballo, clinical instructor at Harvard Law’s cyberlaw clinic. “What Musk is doing is existentially dangerous for various marginalized communities. It’s like opening the gates of hell in terms of the havoc it will cause. People who engaged in direct targeted harassment can come back and engage in doxing, targeted harassment, vicious bullying, calls for violence, celebration of violence. I can’t even begin to state how dangerous this will be.”

Do you hear? Horrible! Someone on the Internet might be saying things!

Quickly! Go to your safe spaces and lock the door!

I don't know how bad it will be when people can say things on the Internet!

At this point, it may be permitted to point out that all of the examples mentioned are already forbidden in themselves and will be prosecuted by the police.

So if the esteemed Ms. Snowflake appeals to Apple and Google instead of the public prosecutor's office, I think it's perfectly clear which way the wind is blowing here. And it smells like a hazardous waste dump.

I could laugh myself to death about "clinical instructor", already. Was it children's day and everyone was allowed to think up titles to play with or what?


(Source.)

 thisbody wrote:

Heh. Welcome to RadioParadise, which is already in progress.

 thisbody wrote:
Voting on 'free speech'   Perhaps 'free speech' is not really free but more like 'free trade'.   

The proper name would freer trade.    See the USA as an example.  The USA trumpets "Free Trade" but actually practices Neo-Mercantilism or in some instances, Corporate Fascism, if you prefer.  

An act of agression against corporate media?   Huh!?!!  Do not worry about corporate media; they will do as well as always have, i.e., on average, piss poor from an investment perspective.

I see many of Musk's gestures as an act of agression against Elon Musk.    For a billionaire who is essentially a welfare state baby, he should be a little careful.  

 Steely_D wrote:
..is clearly OT on this thread.

 thisbody wrote:

You had me at "This guy's got to be really crazy," and it calls into concern the entire Tesla car and Powerwall and Starlink and SpaceX and whatever.

 westslope wrote:
The (mainstream-) media use it as their source(s) for their intended news. Very selectively of course, all their interpretive sovereignty included to keeping us all in line.

Bummer:
Elon's latest quorum (after the one on Trump), asking for "amnesty" of folks banned. Can it be true? This guy's got to be really crazy, asking users to vote on free speech...
This can only be viewed as an act of aggression against corporate media (who are in the foremost domain of inf0rmation cens0rship).

What We Lose if We Lose Twitter — Foreign Policy
Twitter’s destruction would be a geopolitical catastrophe not only for the United States but also for the democratic world.

———- ————-

Must admit I am intrigued by Twitter and spend time on it in an effort to better understand it.   It is fascinating to see how Twitter has become a medium for media agenda setting and how the platform is being used by many journalists.

How  1 1/2 paragraph exchanges will advance "democracy" escapes me for now.