Elon Musk now owns 9.2% of twitter...update.. will soon be the sole owner as Board of Directors accepts his purchase offer

[fskimospy]

This looks like wishful thinking. Twitter was becoming this cesspool before the election and most people were not abandoning it. It was only after the election and the mob storming the Capitol that they banned trump and 70,000 QANON accounts, and more people didn't start using it after the cleanup. If anything Twitter engagement is down since the cesspool purge.

Failed attempts to start competing GQP friendly platforms tell us nothing about how less moderation would affect twitter.

If you attempted to start an even better moderated Twitter competitor, it would also fail, because of network effects.

Have you considered an alternate explanation that Twitter’s moderation policies reflect the desires of its users?

People really seem to struggle with the idea that maybe these Twitter clones failed because they didn’t offer something the market wanted.

 

[fskimospy]

That makes no sense. GQP and Trump, got more votes in 2020 than in 2016, so they were obviously more popular than before, not less popular. More Votes = More popular, not less popular.

The difference was that Joe Biden didn't have Clinton's baggage and more people were willing to vote Biden than for Clinton.

So to be clear you’re saying Trump was more popular in the popularity contest he lost than in the popularity contest he won?

 

[K1052]

Hard to believe that he could only obtain limited bank financing off Twitter due to not really having a plan. Wait no its not.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1518568196512563201

 

[Heartbreaker]

So to be clear you’re saying Trump was more popular in the popularity contest he lost than in the popularity contest he won?

I think you need to stop playing games.

He obviously gained in popularity because he gained more votes. You can't dispute this, so you shift back to losing the election.

He can be, both more popular than before, and still lose the election, which was the case.

Because he was facing a much less divisive opponent. You could see it before the election where there were lots of voters who weren't republicans, that just didn't like Clinton.

If he won the election, but with less votes, I bet you would still be arguing that he lost popularity...

 

[Heartbreaker]

Hard to believe that he could only obtain limited bank financing off Twitter due to not really having a plan. Wait no its not.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1518568196512563201

Reuters is also reporting that the Twitter board is going to accept:

Musk gets Twitter for $44 billion, to cheers and fears of 'free speech' plan

Elon Musk clinched a deal to buy Twitter Inc for $44 billion cash on Monday in a transaction that will shift control of the social media platform populated by millions of users and global leaders to the world's richest person.

www.reuters.com

 

[fskimospy]

I think you need to stop playing games.

He obviously gained in popularity because he gained more votes. You can't dispute this, so you shift back to losing the election.

He can be, both more popular than before, and still lose the election, which was the case.

Because he was facing a much less divisive opponent. You could see it before the election where there were lots of voters who weren't republicans, that just didn't like Clinton.

I think you need to take a step back and think about why what you're saying is obviously wrong.

Let's use a simple example - let's say in an election I win I get 10 votes and my opponent gets 9. I win with 52% of the vote!

In a following election I get 20 votes and my opponent gets 980. I lose with 2% of the vote. Would you say I became more popular because I doubled my number of votes or less popular because I went from winning by 2% to losing by 98%? I would say I became less popular.

 

[K1052]

Reuters is also reporting that the Twitter board is going to accept:

Musk gets Twitter for $44 billion, to cheers and fears of 'free speech' plan

Elon Musk clinched a deal to buy Twitter Inc for $44 billion cash on Monday in a transaction that will shift control of the social media platform populated by millions of users and global leaders to the world's richest person.

www.reuters.com

When somebody who clearly has no idea what they are doing barges into your business and demands you accept above market price in cash what does one usually do?

 

[ponyo]

Hard to believe that he could only obtain limited bank financing off Twitter due to not really having a plan. Wait no its not.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1518568196512563201

Your reading and conclusion are wrong.

His type of financing is actually good for Twitter. And Elon is doing it his way including making all banks and financial firms who wanted on the deal to sign their commitment on 4/20.

 

[Brovane]

But town squares are public property and Twitter is very clearly private property. The reason you can’t restrict speech in the town square is because the government owns and controls it.

Is your difference of opinion on the two just that you believe the government can seize private property if it’s used for discourse?

If a local government forces the owner of a shopping center to allow free speech "solicitation" in it's designated common areas. I don't see that as the government seizing private property.

 

[K1052]

Your reading and conclusion are wrong.

His type of financing is actually good for Twitter. And Elon is doing it his way including making all banks and financial firms who wanted on the deal to sign their commitment on 4/20.

Not being able to lever up Twitter to finance the buy and getting told so by the banks when you ask is not "part of the plan" or whatever.

Worship is unhealthy and skews a person's perception of reality.

 

[brycejones]

If a local government forces the owner of a shopping center to allow free speech "solicitation" in it's designated common areas. I don't see that as the government seizing private property.

Yet SCOTUS has ruled that requiring companies to provide access to Union Organizers for informational meetings is in effect seizing private property. So yeah I don't think your view would stand up to review.

 

[fskimospy]

If a local government forces the owner of a shopping center to allow free speech "solicitation" in it's designated common areas. I don't see that as the government seizing private property.

So you think shopping centers should be forced by the government to host KKK recruitment drives in their common areas?

 

[K1052]

If a local government forces the owner of a shopping center to allow free speech "solicitation" in it's designated common areas. I don't see that as the government seizing private property.

what

 

[Brovane]

what

You have never seen this sign before?

 

[fskimospy]

what

Apparently the government forcing you to use the property you own and maintain at your own expense to promote other people's ventures is just them being neighborly. It's totally not seizing your property.

 

[K1052]

You have never seen this sign before?
View attachment 60611

There is no context connected to this image so I cannot comment upon it.

 

[K1052]

Apparently the government forcing you to use the property you own and maintain at your own expense to promote other people's ventures is just them being neighborly. It's totally not seizing your property.

Truly remarkable how some people are totally unable to connect the dots here.

 

[fskimospy]

There is no context connected to this image so I cannot comment upon it.

SCOTUS has affirmatively ruled there is no federal constitutional right to use other people's private property to speak but said state's might be able to view their constitutions differently.

What this amounts to in California is you can solicit people in parking lots and the parking lot owner can't stop you, but that's about it. Shopping centers with communal areas have to put up a sign that says 'no soliciting' that for all intents and purposes bars it. (you can't be with 30 feet of any retail entrance or exit, which in basically every shopping center means you can't do it) Even then, there are tons of restrictions on it, a lot of which approximate Twitter's terms of service that it bans people for now anyway.

11.08.020 Limitations on soliciting in public places.

library.qcode.us

 

[Brovane]

So you think shopping centers should be forced by the government to host KKK recruitment drives in their common areas?

There is no context connected to this image so I cannot comment upon it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins

the U.S. Supreme Court held that the California Constitution protects "speech and petitioning, reasonably exercised, in shopping centers, even when the centers are privately owned." The central theme of the court’s ruling was that Pruneyard shopping center, because of its open public gathering areas, had become the modern equivalent of the “Town Square.”

 

[Heartbreaker]

I think you need to take a step back and think about why what you're saying is obviously wrong.

Let's use a simple example - let's say in an election I win I get 10 votes and my opponent gets 9. I win with 52% of the vote!

In a following election I get 20 votes and my opponent gets 980. I lose with 2% of the vote. Would you say I became more popular because I doubled my number of votes or less popular because I went from winning by 2% to losing by 98%? I would say I became less popular.

Still playing games.

You can't claim he lost people, when he actually gained 10 million more votes than last time. Yeah, Twitter really drove Negative 10 Million people away from him.

He got 10 million more votes, despite being impeached for gross misconduct, despite his epic bungling on COVID pandemic.

But sure, he lost popularity because of Twitter.

The difference was that Joe Biden wasn't as tainted as Clinton (by years of GQP misinformation), so more people were willing to get out an vote for Biden. This tipped on Biden being a stronger candidate, not on Trumps change in popularity that gained Trump 10 Million MORE votes.

 

[fskimospy]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins

the U.S. Supreme Court held that the California Constitution protects "speech and petitioning, reasonably exercised, in shopping centers, even when the centers are privately owned." The central theme of the court’s ruling was that Pruneyard shopping center, because of its open public gathering areas, had become the modern equivalent of the “Town Square.”

I guess I missed the part of that decision where the government forced the pruneyard shopping center to publish their speech for them.

 

[fskimospy]

Still playing games.

You can't claim he lost people, when he actually gained 10 million more votes than last time. Yeah, Twitter really drove Negative 10 Million people away from him.

He got 10 million more votes, despite being impeached for gross misconduct, despite his epic bungling on COVID pandemic.

But sure, he lost popularity because of Twitter.

The difference was that Joe Biden wasn't as tainted as Clinton (by years of GQP misinformation), so more people were willing to get out an vote for Biden. This tipped on Biden being a stronger candidate, not on Trumps change in popularity that gained Trump 10 Million MORE votes.

I asked you a pretty simple question - was I more popular in the election I got 52% of the vote in or the one I got 2% of the vote in? You seem to be claiming the latter and I just want to make sure I understand your position because that sounds crazy to me.

Your confusion seems to be based on the fact that Trump's divisiveness made turnout super high, but higher turnout does not equal increased popularity. This is actually the same mistake Trump made - he bet that by mobilizing his base he would win but he didn't understand that actions you take to mobilize your base also mobilize the other guy's.

 

[Brovane]

I guess I missed the part of that decision where the government forced the pruneyard shopping center to publish their speech for them.

Has the government seized property by forcing a shopping center to allow "free speech" in open public gathering areas?

 

[fskimospy]

Has the government seized property by forcing a shopping center to allow "free speech" in open public gathering areas?

I think the answer is yes and the vast majority of states agree with me. To a limited extent California does not though, yes.

Regardless that case has no application here because what you want is for the government to force Twitter to speak, not for it to permit others to speak and that's obviously a huge constitutional violation that no court would ever permit.

Essentially what you're arguing is that Ralph's should have to broadcast their solicitation using its PA system.

 

[K1052]

SCOTUS has affirmatively ruled there is no federal constitutional right to use other people's private property to speak but said state's might be able to view their constitutions differently.

What this amounts to in California is you can solicit people in parking lots and the parking lot owner can't stop you, but that's about it. Shopping centers with communal areas have to put up a sign that says 'no soliciting' that for all intents and purposes bars it. (you can't be with 30 feet of any retail entrance or exit, which in basically every shopping center means you can't do it) Even then, there are tons of restrictions on it, a lot of which approximate Twitter's terms of service that it bans people for now anyway.

11.08.020 Limitations on soliciting in public places.

library.qcode.us

The restrictions that state courts subsequently found to be allowable wrt Pruneyard pretty much seem to gut the affirmative right on private property.