Mr. Surovell can tell us why we should enthusiastically agree with Elon, here.
I strongly disagree. Forcing your pronouns upon others when they didn’t ask, and implicitly ostracizing those who don’t, is neither good nor kind to anyone.
As for Fauci, he lied to Congress and funded gain-of-function research that killed millions of people. Not awesome imo.
I thought the Muskrat was such a busy person he didn’t have time for social media trolling. I’m pretty sure he’s created a fake account and has some bot trolling the world. This is a real sick person, they say every genius is a mad man…but not every mad man is a genius.
Musk was invited on stage at a Dave Chapelle gig last night in SF. Crowd started booing. Dave tried to rescue it, but the crowd kept booing. Someone posted about it on Twitter, then someone else asked if anyone has video, so someone else posted video and that account got suspended (surprise!) so here it is on YouTube.
Musk was invited on stage at a Dave Chapelle gig last night in SF. Crowd started booing. Dave tried to rescue it, but the crowd kept booing. Someone posted about it on Twitter, then someone else asked if anyone has video, so someone else posted video and that account got suspended (surprise!) so here it is on YouTube.
when a Chapelle audience is too "woke" for you, that's a problem.
It is difficult to take people seriously when they complain about Twitter having been led by a group of titled individuals with managerial responsibilities making management decisions while they simultaneously cheer the consolidation of those tasks in the hands of one man. What Musk offers is not transparency: It is caprice. His idiosyncratic whims, for which we can only take his word without any mechanism of appeal or accountability, are the content moderation policy. It beggars belief that anyone could see this as an improvement.
This mirrors the broader fiction about the takeover promulgated by Musk’s fans: that he has somehow emancipated the company and made it more democratic and accountable. But in corporate governance terms, he has simply moved from the oligarchic democracy of a publicly traded company—which, not for nothing, was required by law to disclose a great many things to the public—to a personalist dictatorship.
What he dreams of is freedom from any accountability. He’s not liberating “the people,” he’s liberating himself: taking Twitter private was about ensuring he’d not be accountable to shareholders or a board, and that he could disclose only what he wanted. In a typically brazen move, after granting ideologically captured stenographers unfettered access to Twitter’s tools to promote a message he approved of, he sent an email threatening his own staff with legal action if they ever leaked anything. Transparency indeed. Musk dreams of a world where no one tells him “no.” It’s a solipsistic dream shared by too many of his fans.
Is it just me, or does Elon's profile photo look like Conan O'Brien's? Does that mean it's all a big joke?
I thought his profile photo of him in his "Devil's champion" Halloween costume (which also gives off some Queen-of-Hearts vibes) was going more for 'Villain' than "Joke".
That said, The Joker was a villain... so maybe it can all work together.
I don't think the behavior of the drivers has much to do with the fact that Musk is a leaky sack of wet manure. I doubt that, in California, many of the drivers are fans of his MAGA agenda. They're just a-holes.
The NJ Courts have concluded that the NJ Constitution protects the right of free speech from unreasonably restrictive and oppressive conduct by private entities ( such as shopping malls). My understanding is that these holdings arise from the fact that malls have evolved beyond the strictly retail to become a public square where people gather and provides a place for exhibitions that no other space can offer. See New Jersey Coalition v. J.M.B, 138 N.J. 326 (1994).
It seems an analogous logic could be applied to social media. In the almost thirty years since New Jersey Coalition v. J.M.B was decided, it seems our society has further evolved. In short, social media has evolved to become the modern public square. I look forward to hearing the MOL community's critique and thoughts on this proposition.
A conservative activist walks into the Mall at Short Hills with a slide projector and starts showing picture of Hunter Biden naked, taken from a hacked laptop. Mall security shuts him down, telling him he can't do that here. Violation of free speech, or proper moderation of a public venue?
Follow up -- Elon Musk purchases MASH, fires 75% of the staff, invites a bunch of people who'd previously been banned from the mall for harassing other guests, and starts banning guests who dislike his management style. Champion of free speech, or example of entitled billionaire indulging his own personal tastes?
See New Jersey Coalition v. J.M.B, 138 N.J. 326 (1994).
I did. The ruling opens by saying (boldface mine): “The question in this case is whether the defendant regional and community shopping centers must permit leafletting on societal issues. We hold that they must, subject to reasonable conditions set by them. Our ruling is limited to leafletting at such centers, and it applies nowhere else.”
The opinion goes on to state: “There will be no pursuit or harassment of shoppers.” And: When it comes to speech, leafletting “is the least obtrusive and the easiest to regulate,” coming, as it does, “without megaphone, soapbox, speeches or demonstrations.”
I look forward to hearing you elaborate on the logic analogizing this decision to Twitter.
A conservative activist walks into the Mall at Short Hills with a slide projector and starts showing picture of Hunter Biden naked, taken from a hacked laptop. Mall security shuts him down, telling him he can't do that here. Violation of free speech, or proper moderation of a public venue?
Are you on the way home from the office holiday party (where you imbibed a little too much hard-egg-nog)? Apparently, your go to response is the Hunter-Biden-laptop-naked-pictures. I never mentioned the "Hunter Biden laptop" in my posting. Yet, you seem unable to resist posing this straw-man argument while misconstruing my post about the definition of the public square evolving over time.
Further, the "Hunter Biden laptop" apparently includes a pot-pourri of pictures, documents and emails. Including documents related to influence peddling. Yet, your go to response/hypothetical involves naked pictures of Hunter Biden. See note 1 below. You are better thinker than that; putting forth such a ridiculous example is what gave rise to my initial egg-nog comment.
Read the opinion (namely, New Jersey Coalition v. J.M.B, 138 N.J. 326 (1994)) and let me know whether you think the NJ Supreme Court's analysis of an evolving definition of the public square is apt.
Are you on the way home from the office holiday party (where you imbibed a little too much hard-egg-nog)? Apparently, your go to response is the Hunter-Biden-laptop-naked-pictures. I never mentioned the "Hunter Biden laptop" in my posting. Yet, you seem unable to resist posing the this straw-man argument while misconstruing my post about the definition of the public square evolving over time.
The welcoming anticipation of the MOL community’s thoughts lasted about as long as expected.
See New Jersey Coalition v. J.M.B, 138 N.J. 326 (1994).
I did. The ruling opens by saying (boldface mine): “The question in this case is whether the defendant regional and community shopping centers must permit leafletting on societal issues. We hold that they must, subject to reasonable conditions set by them. Our ruling is limited to leafletting at such centers, and it applies nowhere else.”
The opinion goes on to state: “There will be no pursuit or harassment of shoppers.” And: When it comes to speech, leafletting “is the least obtrusive and the easiest to regulate,” coming, as it does, “without megaphone, soapbox, speeches or demonstrations.”
I look forward to hearing you elaborate on the logic analogizing this decision to Twitter.
I never mentioned Twitter. Thus, there is no need to analogize to Twitter.
Apparently, you have read New Jersey Coalition v. J.M.B, 138 N.J. 326 (1994). I would greatly appreciate if you would let me know whether you think the NJ Supreme Court's analysis in New Jersey Coalition of an evolving definition of the public square is apt.
I never mentioned Twitter. Thus, there is no need to analogize to Twitter.
Apparently, you have read New Jersey Coalition v. J.M.B, 138 N.J. 326 (1994). I would greatly appreciate if you would let me know whether you think the NJ Supreme Court's analysis in New Jersey Coalition of an evolving definition of the public square is apt.
I never mentioned Twitter. Thus, there is no need to analogize to Twitter.
Apparently, you have read New Jersey Coalition v. J.M.B, 138 N.J. 326 (1994). I would greatly appreciate if you would let me know whether you think the NJ Supreme Court's analysis in New Jersey Coalition of an evolving definition of the public square is apt.
Sir, this is a Twitter thread.
No, this is a thread is entitled "Twitter is a Private Company." Perhaps, Terp can way in and let us know whether my recent posts are appropriate. Or, perhaps too tangential for Terp's interpretation of the subject matter. Terp, we await your wisdom.
My recent posting is directed at NJ law regarding the evolving public square where it impacts private companies.* My post is much more on target than say a posting focusing on Hunter-Biden-laptop-naked-pictures. Yet, no complaints for the Hunter-Biden-laptop-naked-pictures contingent. Please explain the selective nature of your complaints.
*- I interpret the phrase "private company" to mean an entity other than the government or a sub-division thereof.
I would greatly appreciate if you would let me know whether you think the NJ Supreme Court's analysis in New Jersey Coalition of an evolving definition of the public square is apt.
I have my doubts about your appreciation, but I’ll let you know anyway: No, I don’t think it’s apt, because when the N.J. Supreme Court described malls, it stressed the all-inclusiveness of their public offerings.
“The predominant characteristic of the normal use of these properties is its all-inclusiveness. Found at these malls are most of the uses and activities citizens engage in outside their homes. … Within and without the enclosures are not only stores of every kind and size, but large open spaces available to the public and suitable for numerous uses. There is space to roam, to sit down, and to talk. The public is invited to exercise by walking through the centers before the retail stores have opened for business. There are theaters, restaurants, professional offices, meeting rooms, and almost always a community table or booth where various groups can promote causes and different activities taking place within their local area. … The activities and uses, the design of the property, the open spaces, the non-retail activities, the expressive uses, all are designed to make the centers attractive to everyone, for all purposes, to make them a magnet for all people, not just shoppers.”
Visions of the future metaverse may encompass all-inclusiveness on the scale of the public square as the N.J. Supreme Court apparently thought of it. As I see it, social media, which you did mention (and which includes Twitter), involves a limited subset of those uses and therefore falls short of the court’s analysis.
Are you on the way home from the office holiday party (where you imbibed a little too much hard-egg-nog)? Apparently, your go to response is the Hunter-Biden-laptop-naked-pictures. I never mentioned the "Hunter Biden laptop" in my posting. Yet, you seem unable to resist posing this straw-man argument while misconstruing my post about the definition of the public square evolving over time.
Further, the "Hunter Biden laptop" apparently includes a pot-pourri of pictures, documents and emails. Including documents related to influence peddling. Yet, your go to response/hypothetical involves naked pictures of Hunter Biden. See note 1 below. You are better thinker than that; putting forth such a ridiculous example is what gave rise to my initial egg-nog comment.
Read the opinion (namely, New Jersey Coalition v. J.M.B, 138 N.J. 326 (1994)) and let me know whether you think the NJ Supreme Court's analysis of an evolving definition of the public square is apt.
Musk, not me, chose that example. He, Taibbi, and Weiss claimed that when the Biden Campaign (a private, not government, organization) asked Twitter to take down the Hunter Biden pics that was a first amendment violation. You can go back and look at the specific tweets they asked to take down using the wayback machine -- something Musk was too lazy to do, and which Taibbi and Weiss apparently assumed their audience was too lazy to do as well.
I'll be more serious than you deserve and make an actual point -- running an establishment as any form of public accommodation involves taking some responsibility for the health and welfare of the public you invite in. I'm not a lawyer so I can't comment on legal responsibility, but certainly as a matter of ethics I think that's pretty clear. What's less clear is how to meet that responsibility. People on social media often engage in action that is deeply harmful to others, and which at times is not confined to online behavior but goes alongside offline behavior that causes physical harm. That's a problem, and one I don't think twitter did great on even pre-Musk.
We're not talking about people who have different political beliefs here -- we're talking about stalking, intimidation, and harassment. You could point out that this isn't behavior that's exclusively the province of one political group, and I'd agree! You might then go and claim that conservatives have been disproportionately, even intentionally targeted, and I'd disagree -- the little data we actually have on this suggests that's either not true, or completely the opposite of true.
The kinds of people Musk has been inviting back on to twitter after they were banned (and if you don't want to talk about Musk, perhaps this is the wrong thread for you) have been guilty of abusive behavior. If Musk is disproportionately focusing on inviting back those guilty of such behavior from the political right, and not inviting back (or newly banning) those guilty of such behavior from the political left, that's just a sign that Musk is a partisan, not some kind of free speech champion.
tl;dr -- social media would be a much more regulated place if we were as strict about policing behavior online as we are in physical places such as malls and other public venues.
No, this is a thread is entitled "Twitter is a Private Company." Perhaps, Terp can way in and let us know whether my recent posts are appropriate. Or, perhaps too tangential for Terp's interpretation of the subject matter. Terp, we await your wisdom.
My recent posting is directed at NJ law regarding the evolving public square where it impacts private companies.* My post is much more on target than say a posting focusing on Hunter-Biden-laptop-naked-pictures. Yet, no complaints for the Hunter-Biden-laptop-naked-pictures contingent. Please explain the selective nature of your complaints.
*- I interpret the phrase "private company" to mean an entity other than the government or a sub-division thereof.
It seems an analogous logic could be applied to social media. In the almost thirty years since New Jersey Coalition v. J.M.B was decided, it seems our society has further evolved. In short, social media has evolved to become the modern public square. I look forward to hearing the MOL community's critique and thoughts on this proposition.
Correction: a "First Amendment-like" public square.
Which employees are in danger?
"Current and former employees ..." as long as you're being a stickler.
And if you're oblivious to the very prominent news about what Musk is insinuating about a former senior employee, then read something other than Elon fanzines.
Is it just me, or does Elon's profile photo look like Conan O'Brien's? Does that mean it's all a big joke?