5 ms·

I don't think so, but to indulge my own cranky theories: Perhaps Elon Musk's takeover attempt was done at the behest of the US government to take control of the

I don't think so, but to indulge my own cranky theories: Perhaps Elon Musk's takeover attempt was done at the behest of the US government to take control of the platform under the cover of "censorship". Musk himself indicated he wanted to make the platform more miserable for the "extremes" on both the left and right (both perceived as being anti-government) - leaving you with the establishment consensus unharmed in the middle.

incomingpain 5y ago
That's a cool idea. Largely speaking you can see Elon's point of view. He was on Babylon Bee's show. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvGnw1sHh9M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvGnw1sHh9M 2.4 million views in last 3 months. In this video they in detail discuss the problem with political banning. 2 months later, Babylon Bee got banned off twitter for a joke. Clear political banning and violation of section 230.
- everforward 5y ago
  > Clear political banning and violation of section 230. This has been posted a bunch of times, and it's wrong. Section 230 doesn't prohibit political bannings. It doesn't actually prohibit any banning at all. This is the relevant section (from https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230). > (2) Civil liability > No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of— > (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or > availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, > lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise > objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; Even banning for constitutionally protected speech is explicitly allowed. Whether that's a good thing or not is a separate conversation, but nothing presently in section 230 would prevent Twitter/Facebook/etc from banning an entire political party.
- spamizbad 5y ago
  Babylon Bee doesn't threaten the national security establishment. The "Far left" and "Far right" - yes. The idea is you won't get banned for making jokes about trans stuff, but you'll instead get banned for saying something bad about US global hegemony. It's not a culture war issue so nobody is going to care that you got censored.
- weeblewobble 5y ago
  For the record Babylon Bee is not banned, they can unlock their account any time by deleting a Tweet that jokingly gives a "man of the year award" to a real individual transwoman by name.
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    So they aren't banned, just the one tweet is. Sounds good, but the reality is that unless and until they recant that one tweet, then they are banned.
    - weeblewobble 5y ago
      They don't really have to recant it, just delete it. It's a pretty mean tweet anyway, not sure why its worth defending
  - jaywalk 5y ago
    "They're not banned! They are free to continue tweeting as soon as they abandon their principles and bow down to Twitter's arbitrary rules!"
    - weeblewobble 5y ago
      It's not an arbitrary rule, it's spelled out in their Terms of Servoce
      - jaywalk 5y ago
        The fact that it's in the ToS doesn't mean it's not arbitrary.

incomingpain 5y ago

That's a cool idea. Largely speaking you can see Elon's point of view. He was on Babylon Bee's show. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvGnw1sHh9M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvGnw1sHh9M 2.4 million views in last 3 months. In this video they in detail discuss the problem with political banning. 2 months later, Babylon Bee got banned off twitter for a joke. Clear political banning and violation of section 230.

everforward 5y ago
> Clear political banning and violation of section 230. This has been posted a bunch of times, and it's wrong. Section 230 doesn't prohibit political bannings. It doesn't actually prohibit any banning at all. This is the relevant section (from https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230). > (2) Civil liability > No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of— > (A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or > availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, > lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise > objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; Even banning for constitutionally protected speech is explicitly allowed. Whether that's a good thing or not is a separate conversation, but nothing presently in section 230 would prevent Twitter/Facebook/etc from banning an entire political party.
spamizbad 5y ago
Babylon Bee doesn't threaten the national security establishment. The "Far left" and "Far right" - yes. The idea is you won't get banned for making jokes about trans stuff, but you'll instead get banned for saying something bad about US global hegemony. It's not a culture war issue so nobody is going to care that you got censored.
weeblewobble 5y ago
For the record Babylon Bee is not banned, they can unlock their account any time by deleting a Tweet that jokingly gives a "man of the year award" to a real individual transwoman by name.
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  So they aren't banned, just the one tweet is. Sounds good, but the reality is that unless and until they recant that one tweet, then they are banned.
  - weeblewobble 5y ago
    They don't really have to recant it, just delete it. It's a pretty mean tweet anyway, not sure why its worth defending
- jaywalk 5y ago
  "They're not banned! They are free to continue tweeting as soon as they abandon their principles and bow down to Twitter's arbitrary rules!"
  - weeblewobble 5y ago
    It's not an arbitrary rule, it's spelled out in their Terms of Servoce
    - jaywalk 5y ago
      The fact that it's in the ToS doesn't mean it's not arbitrary.