Elon Musk Bought 9.2% of Twiter

Cookie_ said:
Caught me lacking on not being clear with a broad statement.

Twitter can be an excellent source of citizen news and ground level reporting.

When you get down to the individual user level and the sort of discourse it incentives, it's pretty shitty.
Click to expand...

As I explained before, Twitter specifically is amazing due to the speed in which information can flow from a front line reporter.

The problem with the company is they ran an entire "fact check" office that specifically targeted conservatives, and then throttled those accounts or kicked them off the platform even when that account was right. During the Floyd riots we saw how Twitter amplified incitement and hate speech from the sitting VP. But all we got were complaints about 45.

The blueanons were able to run amok with impunity.

Don't agree with the medical orthodoxy and have data to back up your position? Deplatformed.

Most of these people with blue checks aren't "journalists" they stopped being journalists forever ago and just masquerade as them.

So if we can put those people in their place, then good. The issue is there are thousands of them. On the conservative side...well they've already throttled everyone that has a different point of view so you don't see much of that. Not that I look for either side. My feed is pretty curated to what I do for work, yet the liberal crap bleeds over.

Example of trash put out by a news organization:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1587498106018582528
 
Last edited:
Devildoc said:
Musk and Co. already taking it to the White House:

White House deletes tweet flagged by Twitter that credited Biden for Social Security payment increase

Just a week ago any criticism or challenge of that tweet would have been taken down.
Click to expand...
I love though that military just sent out guidance the other day stating no official channels are allowed to delete tweets without prior approval, and a detailed post of why it was deleted.

I guess that’s only for the lower echelons of the government…

Edit to add:

New Army social media policy pushes stricter rules

“The guidance also calls for…transparency when posts are removed…”
 
ThunderHorse said:
The problem with the company is they ran an entire "fact check" office that specifically targeted conservatives, and then throttled those accounts or kicked them off the platform even when that account was right. During the Floyd riots we saw how Twitter amplified incitement and hate speech from the sitting VP. But all we got were complaints about 45.

The blueanons were able to run amok with impunity.

Don't agree with the medical orthodoxy and have data to back up your position? Deplatformed.
Click to expand...
Not just Twitter either. My site frequently got taken down over political content that leftists didn't like. Our satire site got taken off completely.
One of the things we got hit with was a community standards violation for "promoting or glorifying serial killers" or some such. The meme? It was Jeffrey Dahlmer saying "no one tells me who I can have for dinner." It was directed at President Biden's remarks about who could invite people to Thanksgiving dinner during COVID. It was political. in no way was it "glorifying" Dahlmer.

...we made that post two years ago.

And meanwhile, Netflix literally made an immensely-popular docu-drama about Dahlmer. But yeah, take down our page over a two-year-old political meme.

That "violation" was immediately followed by another "violation" for "sharing an intimate image." The "intimate image?"

1667412332185.png

The common thread in both of these issues is that it was anti-Biden political content.

"What about the appeal process?"

LOL
 
Marauder06 said:
Not just Twitter either. My site frequently got taken down over political content that leftists didn't like. Our satire site got taken off completely.
One of the things we got hit with was a community standards violation for "promoting or glorifying serial killers" or some such. The meme? It was Jeffrey Dahlmer saying "no one tells me who I can have for dinner." It was directed at President Biden's remarks about who could invite people to Thanksgiving dinner during COVID. It was political. in no way was it "glorifying" Dahlmer.

...we made that post two years ago.

And meanwhile, Netflix literally made an immensely-popular docu-drama about Dahlmer. But yeah, take down our page over a two-year-old political meme.

That "violation" was immediately followed by another "violation" for "sharing an intimate image." The "intimate image?"

View attachment 40887

The common thread in both of these issues is that it was anti-Biden political content.

"What about the appeal process?"

LOL
Click to expand...

The irony in all of this is simply delish.....
 
NWS uses Twitter to gets reports from their Storm Spotter Network, computers are set to read a specific hashtag. That was the only reason I had an account. Didn't follow anyone, yet my feed was filled with Liberal Political stuff, so I followed Trump, still got twice as many Liberal Tweets. I deleted the account when they deleted Trump.
 
As described above, it's actually really easy to get authorization to do a side gig while on active duty. In the Army, it usually just takes a commander's approval (DA4187 or a unit-specific form) and a legal review. Where most people get into trouble is they either don't get permission in the first place, or they're doing something like running a pornography business, which reflects poorly on the service and runs contrary to good order and discipline.

I got permission to run Havok Journal while I was stationed at West Point. The legal review was... I'll just say it was "thorough..." :) but it was fair, and it was done in a timely manner. The three-star signed off on it, bam done. When I moved on to my next assignment I had to get another review from my gaining unit, because it was a different chain of command. It took longer because the unit was less-familiar with "outside employment" rules but at the end of the day they had no objection either.

I make money off of Havok Journal. It's in the low-hundreds of dollars, but it's not nothing. I run it to make money. The Army knows I run it to make money, and they gave me permission to do it while on active duty. This is very common. Just like everything else in the military, if you know what the rules are, and you follow them, there's probably a way for you to do any legit activity that you want.

Things like what Amlove is doing serve a legit purpose for the military. We should be encouraging more of it.
 
BloodStripe said:
It’s very well documented that the USG has paid off journalists for a long time (DOD used to even staff someone at the NYT) to suppress stories.
Click to expand...
Happy for them. Not sure the purpose of your post other than to highlight trash. If that's the point, got it. Governments have suppressed the press since Jesus walked. Doesn't make it right or lawful.
 
Cookie_ said:
Caught me lacking on not being clear with a broad statement.

Twitter can be an excellent source of citizen news and ground level reporting.

When you get down to the individual user level and the sort of discourse it incentives, it's pretty shitty.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I am picky about the feeds I follow and try to avoid reading replies, doing that I’ve been very impressed with the info I’ve been able to access.
 
Marauder06 said:
As described above, it's actually really easy to get authorization to do a side gig while on active duty. In the Army, it usually just takes a commander's approval (DA4187 or a unit-specific form) and a legal review. Where most people get into trouble is they either don't get permission in the first place, or they're doing something like running a pornography business, which reflects poorly on the service and runs contrary to good order and discipline.

I got permission to run Havok Journal while I was stationed at West Point. The legal review was... I'll just say it was "thorough..." :) but it was fair, and it was done in a timely manner. The three-star signed off on it, bam done. When I moved on to my next assignment I had to get another review from my gaining unit, because it was a different chain of command. It took longer because the unit was less-familiar with "outside employment" rules but at the end of the day they had no objection either.

I make money off of Havok Journal. It's in the low-hundreds of dollars, but it's not nothing. I run it to make money. The Army knows I run it to make money, and they gave me permission to do it while on active duty. This is very common. Just like everything else in the military, if you know what the rules are, and you follow them, there's probably a way for you to do any legit activity that you want.

Things like what Amlove is doing serve a legit purpose for the military. We should be encouraging more of it.
Click to expand...
RackMaster said:
@Marauder06 I completely agree WRT to @amlove21 and others like him. With the lagging recruitment for both our countries, it's probably the best way to reach the younger generations. And significantly cheaper than advertising budgets.
Click to expand...
I'd be very leery of partnering with social media (Youtube, Facebook, Tictok, etc). You guys every hear of ESG scores or throttling? Imagine you're on a platform you make money on, as a side gig. The platform then decides it doesn't want you covering certain topics. If you follow along and don't rock the boat everything should stay the same. If you don't the platform will use an algorithm to punish you by suppressing views, ad revenue, subscribers, etc.

Pair these factors with some of the shenanigans/behaviors we saw last year and the year before. Threaten someone's success or earnings and you essentially have platforms hijack someone else's credentials to pass off or bury information.
 
I'd be very leery of partnering with social media (Youtube, Facebook, Tictok, etc). You guys every hear of ESG scores or throttling? Imagine you're on a platform you make money on, as a side gig. The platform then decides it doesn't want you covering certain topics. If you follow along and don't rock the boat everything should stay the same. If you don't the platform will use an algorithm to punish you by suppressing views, ad revenue, subscribers, etc.
Click to expand...
That’s exactly what happened to us. We went from several hundred thousand views a month to tens of thousands to thousands, to our satire site, Article 107 News, getting deplatformed entirely on Facebook, the source of most of our views.

I’ve always been a “run your business how you want” kind of guy. Sucks to be me if I’m posting things on a social media platform that the platform doesn’t like. But now I’m learning that what I always kind of suspected was true: big media was, and is, working hand in glove with leftists in the government to suppress speech they don’t like.

And that is a different thing entirely.
 
Marauder06 said:
That’s exactly what happened to us. We went from several hundred thousand views a month to tens of thousands to thousands, to our satire site, Article 107 News, getting deplatformed entirely on Facebook, the source of most of our views.

I’ve always been a “run your business how you want” kind of guy. Sucks to be me if I’m posting things on a social media platform that the platform doesn’t like. But now I’m learning that what I always kind of suspected was true: big media was, and is, working hand in glove with leftists in the government to suppress speech they don’t like.

And that is a different thing entirely.
Click to expand...
It's what's so terrifying. You're looking at this a lot more rationally than many others would. I always wonder what would happen to the fame addicts if their platforms dropped off the web. Money and influence are a hell of a thing, and I'm seeing our populace has been tainted by these digital worlds.

There is utility in the digital, but it seems it's coming at a great cost.
 
Another interesting angle, coming out of the now verified fact that big tech colluded with the government to suppress stories (HKIA, Hunter Biden, etc.). Which, by the way, I’m excited to see the depositions of Jenn Psaki and Nina Jankowicz and that whole group. I digress.

So, these ‘private companies’ are protected by US Code 230 cause they’re ‘private businesses’, right? So they can moderate what they want, they’re a collection point not a publisher, blah blah blah. Know when they’re not protected?

When they act on behalf of the government to do things that are illegal for the government- like suppress free speech. At that point, they become ‘state actors’ and aren’t protected by 230.

Now, naturally, the government will allege, “Hey, Jack! We didn’t *direct* you to sensor free speech! We just sent the FBI to your place of business to tell you to ‘watch out for disinformation’! You acted all on your own!”

Kinda like… a mafioso shows up at your store.

“Boy, this is a real nice place here. It would be a shame if someone… you know… ruined it. Anyway, rent’s due on the first.”

No one was threatened! That business paid all on their own.
 

Similar threads

Bypass
  • Locked
Yeah, it's all a coincidence.
Replies
16
Views
3K
Salt USMC
Salt USMC
Marauder06
Combined/Joint SOF Panel at West Point--Your Thoughts?
Replies
5
Views
3K
Gunz
Gunz
RackMaster
INSIDE THE PAINSTAKING RECOVERY PROCESS OF A MEDAL OF HONOR MARINE
Replies
10
Views
3K
Xenophon
Xenophon
Red-Dot
Interesting article on JTAC's
Replies
2
Views
4K
Grunt
Grunt
Red Ryder
Kony 2013: U.S. quietly intensifies effort to help African troops capture infamous warlord
Replies
16
Views
3K
pardus
pardus
Back
Top