ADVERTISEMENT

Musk/Twitter Document Dump

It's not his company. It's not a 'private' company and never was.

It's a publicly owned company of shareholders.

I can't believe you all have gotten away with this 'private company' argument.

What the heck point are you trying to make?
 
I guess you're right. That's all we heard was Russian Collusion, but the investigation had nothing to do with it. Nothing at all.

But you know what? I'll bet if they did find collusion, suddenly, it would be ALL about collusion.

Who are you fooling?
I thought you were a lawyer. Apparently not.
 
If you are (SAY) a Professor Goldberg and have a thread to discuss your latest research paper, do you want a string of antisemitic remarks in reply? If your profile picture shows you to be a person of color, do you want KKK remarks in reply? If you follow Elon because you like Telsa, do you want to see his unhinged conspiracy theories?

I don't follow anyone who was, to my knowledge, banned. They are just exiting the rat-infested ship that is on fire.
Pearl clutching bs from a bunch of pansies wanting to take their ball & go home. What you want is to have free reign & not be challenged or have challenging viewpoints that aren’t aligned with your views. If your true goal is to use science to help people, educate the world, & improve society you can ignore a few dumbfvcks. Or if you truly can’t take it, well you know…
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
Twitter is been permanently ruined.

Half of the academic and research community that I follow (followed) have fled the platform, and many others are contemplating an exodus.

I also follow some political pundits and many of those have fled also.

Mastodon and Post seem to be two emerging alternatives.
Good 👍. You’re an idiot and I assume most of the people you get your “information” from are as well. Good riddance to all of you.
 
This is so bad and our liberal brethren don’t give a shit.

The FBI needs blown up and start over.
You mean the fbi that is still being led by a republican?

Pathetic conservatives just have panties in a twist over a nothing burger
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Crayfish57
Lol this is rich. You were clueless about blm, riots, grift, etc. You refuse to acknowledge them. Hell you probably don’t even read about them. Ignorant. Willfully ignorant. Makes little difference
It's a fair question. Do you have any actual info about the person who supposedly doxxed Elon? Any reason to think it's a leftist nutjob? Or just assumptions?
 
  • Like
Reactions: anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
I'm not sure what to make of this whole thing--this is a new, evolving area of free speech thought and jurisprudence. Twitter and FB are currently thought of as private forums, but I think that could change and I think the arguments that they have morphed into "traditional public spaces" is worthy of consideration.

But can't we assume that if the FBI was meeting with Twitter and making requests, the FBI, at least, thinks Twitter was influential, contra your suggestion that they are not?
Take away the federal immunity for web sites like Twitter and Facebook and much of the disinformation would go away immediately.
 
I don’t know about that. Defamatory stuff yes. Other stuff I’m not so sure about. Possibly.
Take away the federal immunity for web sites like Twitter and Facebook and much of the disinformation would go away immediately.
 
Last edited:
Are you equating CBS' decision to VOLUNTARILY hold the story with hundreds of posters who were banned, shadow banned, etc. INVOLUNTARILY, and the CEO of Twitter perjuring himself in Congressional testimony, by testifying it never happened?
Did you know that as many as a dozen FBI agents all were hired by Twitter after
President DJT took office?

Treason!
Gallows!
Jeez. This post is a Gish Gallop -- impossible to evaluate. This guy is all over the place. He wrote:

1. "CBS' decision to VOLUNTARILY hold the story"

2. "hundreds of posters who were banned, shadow banned, etc. INVOLUNTARILY"

3. "the CEO of Twitter perjuring himself in Congressional testimony, by testifying it never happened"

4. "as many as a dozen FBI agents all were hired by Twitter after President DJT took office"

Gish Gallop. Look it up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: outside shooter
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/12/15/media/twitter-musk-journalists-hnk-intl/index.html. Oh Elon, what happened to all that free speech you were promising?

Funny how both sides are hypocrites. Elon banning people, who happen to be his biggest critics, for supposed doxxing.

Meanwhile, leftists were pushing for bans on Trump and other right wingers are now complaining about their own bans, despite historical low fact, highly political tweeting.

This country is a shit show.
 
I don’t know about that. Defamatory stuff yes. Other stuff I’m not so sure about. Possibly.
I don't necessarily disagree, but the Sandy Hook case seems to indicate a significant broadening of what constitutes "defamation."

Historically, the elements of "defamation" were:
the following:
  1. A false statement of fact;
  2. Publication of the statement to a third party;
  3. That the statement concerns the plaintiff and tends to harm his or her reputation; and
  4. Fault amounting to at least negligence or, in the case of a public figure, actual malice, which is knowledge that the statement is false or reckless disregard as to its falsity.

But many/most of Alex Jones' statements did not seem to concern the parents who sued but instead were about the shooting, the shooting victims and witnesses. The parents' lawsuit alleged false statements caused them emotional distress but I don't recall what statements of Jones they claimed to have harmed the parents' reputations.

If Sandy Hook is now representative of the current breadth of defamation law, it seems like a lot of the disinformation and hyperbole in internet discussions could lead to more defamation lawsuits than previously.
 
I don't necessarily disagree, but the Sandy Hook case seems to indicate a significant broadening of what constitutes "defamation."

Historically, the elements of "defamation" were:
the following:
  1. A false statement of fact;
  2. Publication of the statement to a third party;
  3. That the statement concerns the plaintiff and tends to harm his or her reputation; and
  4. Fault amounting to at least negligence or, in the case of a public figure, actual malice, which is knowledge that the statement is false or reckless disregard as to its falsity.

But many/most of Alex Jones' statements did not seem to concern the parents who sued but instead were about the shooting, the shooting victims and witnesses. The parents' lawsuit alleged false statements caused them emotional distress but I don't recall what statements of Jones they claimed to have harmed the parents' reputations.

If Sandy Hook is now representative of the current breadth of defamation law, it seems like a lot of the disinformation and hyperbole in internet discussions could lead to more defamation lawsuits than previously.
I don't necessarily disagree, but the Sandy Hook case seems to indicate a significant broadening of what constitutes "defamation."

Historically, the elements of "defamation" were:
the following:
  1. A false statement of fact;
  2. Publication of the statement to a third party;
  3. That the statement concerns the plaintiff and tends to harm his or her reputation; and
  4. Fault amounting to at least negligence or, in the case of a public figure, actual malice, which is knowledge that the statement is false or reckless disregard as to its falsity.

But many/most of Alex Jones' statements did not seem to concern the parents who sued but instead were about the shooting, the shooting victims and witnesses. The parents' lawsuit alleged false statements caused them emotional distress but I don't recall what statements of Jones they claimed to have harmed the parents' reputations.

If Sandy Hook is now representative of the current breadth of defamation law, it seems like a lot of the disinformation and hyperbole in internet discussions could lead to more defamation lawsuits than previously.
Most of these cases are more like I don’t like mike pegram. Under the handle Mcmurtry66 I post defamatory shit about him in a video on YouTube. Mike goes to sue google. Google has immunity and doesn’t have to disclose Mcmurtry66. Lift immunity in that sense and google may have liability issues and will have to disclose who Mcmurtry66 is who will certainly have potential liability for the defamatory remarks.

What interests me more are people posting false information on social media that I rely upon that’s injurious. That my kid relies upon. Tort liability against the platform. causation. Proximate cause. Foreseeability. Reasonableness.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
According to my link there was some pretty stark dips in revenue during 2020 and early 2021.

Side topic. Its interesting that the high water mark in revenue every year for them is Q4. Guess that is because kids have less schooling during the holidays and more time to use social media. More down time at work too? Or Twitter charges more for ad space in Q4 knowing that overall consumer spending typical peaks in Q4?
Another thing:

Elections generate discussion.

Three out of four years are election years.

Non-primary elections and runoffs generally occur in the fourth quarter.
 
Southern Ukr north through Mariupol is 85% Russian speaking, the Donbass is 90%+ Russian speaking.
Literally all are Orthodox Christian. Same for Crimea.

The Ukr military( what is left of it) continue to use artillery and mrl systems against civilian population in Donbass, as they have for 8-10 years.
Quite a bit of Ontario speaks English. Plus, Ontario has several kinds of ores, grain and forests.

Surely, you're not suggesting that kind of thing is enough to justify invasion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: outside shooter
I don't necessarily disagree, but the Sandy Hook case seems to indicate a significant broadening of what constitutes "defamation."

Historically, the elements of "defamation" were:
the following:
  1. A false statement of fact;
  2. Publication of the statement to a third party;
  3. That the statement concerns the plaintiff and tends to harm his or her reputation; and
  4. Fault amounting to at least negligence or, in the case of a public figure, actual malice, which is knowledge that the statement is false or reckless disregard as to its falsity.

But many/most of Alex Jones' statements did not seem to concern the parents who sued but instead were about the shooting, the shooting victims and witnesses. The parents' lawsuit alleged false statements caused them emotional distress but I don't recall what statements of Jones they claimed to have harmed the parents' reputations.

If Sandy Hook is now representative of the current breadth of defamation law, it seems like a lot of the disinformation and hyperbole in internet discussions could lead to more defamation lawsuits than previously.
"Sandy Hook" represents two cases litigated under two different states' laws--CT and TX. Neither case involved a broadening of defamation law, let alone a significant one.

Jones repeatedly and falsely stated that the parents engaged in a hoax, faking the deaths of their young children. That clearly harmed their reputation, and in fact, led to people harassing them and threatening them because of this harm to their reputation.

No decision expanded the law, either, because in each case Jones was defaulted by the judge for discovery violations.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
This might be a discussion for its own thread. It is quite possible America has always been this way, but social media/internet makes it all so visible.

Bingo. I honestly think there is less actual REAL division in this country than there was in prior generations. But what division there is from wingnuts gets amplified and repeated to such an extreme.... that we all sit around thinking that the country must be ready to go to civil war or some such ridiculousness.

Good luck getting a protest march together in 2023. People are burnt out on political division, by and large.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcmurtry66
Wait....I had to do a double take here. Are youp somehow attempting to claim the BLM movement wasn't a left/ progressive social movement?

That would defy common sense.
It wasn't a dem/liberal movement. It was a race movement. In fact, a blm protest in NY was against dem covid policies. Kind of goes against this thought that blm was puppeteered by dems.

GOP attacked it and dems defended their right to protest (but not their right to damage property or commit crimes) but that doesn't make blm a dem movement
 
Most of these cases are more like I don’t like mike pegram. Under the handle Mcmurtry66 I post defamatory shit about him in a video on YouTube. Mike goes to sue google. Google has immunity and doesn’t have to disclose Mcmurtry66. Lift immunity in that sense and google may have liability issues and will have to disclose who Mcmurtry66 is who will certainly have potential liability for the defamatory remarks.

What interests me more are people posting false information on social media that I rely upon that’s injurious. That my kid relies upon. Tort liability against the platform. causation. Proximate cause. Foreseeability. Reasonableness.
Jean Carroll publicly accused Trump of bad things that Trump denies.

Ordinarily, Trump would be the plaintiff contending that Carroll defamed him.

But, instead, Carrol is suing Trump for defamation, claiming that Trump's statements saying her accusations were "a Hoax and a lie" defamed her.


That seems like a broadening of the definition of defamation.

Was it previously possible for an accuser to bring a lawsuit claiming the other guy committed defamation by denying the first guy's accusations?
 
It wasn't a dem/liberal movement. It was a race movement. In fact, a blm protest in NY was against dem covid policies. Kind of goes against this thought that blm was puppeteered by dems.

GOP attacked it and dems defended their right to protest (but not their right to damage property or commit crimes) but that doesn't make blm a dem movement

I didn't use the word Democrat..... but basic understanding of political ideology would have you understand that it was a progressive movement. Plenty of progressives have a lot of their own problems with the Democratic party, just like hard- right conservatives do with the Republican party.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC and mcmurtry66
Jean Carroll publicly accused Trump of bad things that Trump denies.

Ordinarily, Trump would be the plaintiff contending that Carroll defamed him.

But, instead, Carrol is suing Trump for defamation, claiming that Trump's statements saying her accusations were "a Hoax and a lie" defamed her.


That seems like a broadening of the definition of defamation.

Was it previously possible for an accuser to bring a lawsuit claiming the other guy committed defamation by denying the first guy's accusations?
I don’t know much about defamation stuff. This all sounds like a money grab. Wasn’t trump a fed ee at the time. Immunity. Regardless of that what did he say that was false. How do we know it was false at this point. This all sounds dumb
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC
I didn't use the word Democrat..... but basic understanding of political ideology would have you understand that it was a progressive movement. Plenty of progressives have a lot of their own problems with the Democratic party, just like hard- right conservatives do with the Republican party.
Defund the police. Cori bush etc. the stuff blm was crying for mirrors that of progressives. To claim it’s not left is disingenuous. Or stupid
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DANC and jet812
I didn't use the word Democrat..... but basic understanding of political ideology would have you understand that it was a progressive movement. Plenty of progressives have a lot of their own problems with the Democratic party, just like hard- right conservatives do with the Republican party.
It wasn't about left or right, progressive or conservative ideology. It was about race
 
  • Haha
Reactions: DANC
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT