LOCKED - Dawg Student. I think Elon Musk needs some help

[mstateglfr]

The only thing he doesn't like is fake accounts. Your butt hurt is showing just like the Hollywood Left and others are showing because people y'all don't like are now able to use a platform where their voices are no longer silenced and their audience isn't artificially shrunk.

He doesnt like fake accounts, which means he does want to censor, but he wants there to not be censorship on the platform. Gotcha, thats super clear.***

I am not butt hurt now that some racists and conspiracy theorists, along with whoever else, are back on twitter. I dont use twitter, so this doesnt impact me directly or really even indirectly. Its not like I am now inundated with tweets that my sensitive eyes cant handle.
I genuinely could not care less that Trump is allowed back on twitter. Not a bit of me cares.

Discourse in our society broke down well before this. Everyone has their own version of the truth and sticks to it even when presented with a total lack of substance and facts to back up those truths. Let twitter become 4chan/8chan/whatever it now is for all I care. Or let it become actually worth the amount of money he bought it for. Either way is cool by me, I am not actually rooting for one or the other to happen because I am not pathetic.

 

[NTDawg]

Damn some of y’all need some hobbies

 

[mstateglfr]

3- Next is the monopoly of Big Tech. The whole "build your own" was flat out proven you can't with a company called GAB. Big tech got together and deplatformed them. Google can crush any company within that sphere, They did it with them. They even threatened banks and more to defund GAB... and they did it.

PayPal and Stripe cut off service to the social network, and credit card companies followed a year later. The social network has also been blacklisted by the Apple App store and the Google Play store, hampering its ability to reach consumers on smartphones. Google and Mozilla, creator of the Firefox web browser, also banned a Gab commenting extension from their browsers.

Anyone not familiar with GAB, read this for an overview- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gab_(social_network)
GAB was not built to be a large social media player. It exists to feed a small extreme segment of the population.

 

[horshack.sixpack]

You are a 17ing idiot.

He was spot on. Apple choosing not to advertise is called free market economy. It will either hurt them or help them, or maybe they don't care and don't want to be associated with a crazy dude. Related note, I saw an explanation by a former SpaceX employee who basically said that they had built guardrails to properly keep them from Elon's crazy and the make sure that his input didn't mess up what they were doing. A whole system of people built to placate Elon while isolating the company from his harm. They asserted that Twitter simply did not have the time to do that in that Elon just bought them and started "running" it. They have no idea, and maybe no way, to marginalize his input so they are screwed.

 

[goindhoo]

His recent fight with Apple, where he accuses them of not supporting free speech because they chose to not advertise as much as they used to on Twitter is straight up hilarious. That literally is Apple supporting free speech by choosing how to use its advertising dollars.

that’s a good way to spin it, but the fact is Apple pulled advertising because Twitter decided to stop selective censorship and allow free speech. So when you advertise on platforms that supports selective censorship and pull those dollars when censorship is removed, that is not supporting free speech.

 

[vandaldawg]

I didn't see or hear much 'canceling the Republican voices' though.
I can't say I ever heard of someone complaining that they were banned from Twitter for claiming trickledown economics actually works. I haven't heard of someone saying they were banned for claiming the private sector and free markets will provide the best path towards prosperity. I really can't remember a time when someone was banned for advocating whatever trade policy the Republican party supports(I genuinely can't remember since there are so many competing voices from that side with varying views).
It seems those who have been banned were largely in a general group that I would classify as 'hateful rabblerousers'. Spittin hate across the platform, lobbing out baseless theories that are dangerously believed by others, and more.

Now perhaps all that should exist on Twitter. Cool, let it all exist on Twitter, it's Musk's company so he can do whatever. Let Twitter become a large version of Parler. Like I said, I could not give a 17 if it does.
But if Twitter goes to a model of 'all content is allowed' then nobody should be surprised if some brands choose to take their advertising dollars elsewhere, least of all Musk. Of course, some other advertisers will then come in and want to market to whatever user bases then use Twitter so maybe it'll be a wash.



As for a new phone, I don't think it's as easy as you claim. Massive global companies have come and gone in the phone dept. He will really make an entirely new phone and operating system to stand alone from ios and Android? That seems...not very well thought out and more of an emotional decision.
Of course this guy did buy twitter for $44 billion and then do everything he could to try and get out of the deal, so he has a recent track record of following thru on poorly thought out ideas.
What carriers would put that phone in their stores?...or would he just create a phone company too?

You'd be left with advertising like this:





That and dick pills. Whatever advertises on Tucky.

 

[horshack.sixpack]

that’s a good way to spin it, but the fact is Apple pulled advertising because Twitter decided to stop selective censorship and allow free speech. So when you advertise on platforms that supports selective censorship and pull those dollars when censorship is removed, that is not supporting free speech.

Advertising has NOTHING to do with free speech. How in the world do you associate PAID advertising with FREE speech? Good grief we need forced Civics course for our entire country! No matter your current national status you either become, or stop, being an American based on your ability to pass.***

 

[johnson86-1]

That guy is the poster child for the idea that you can be both smart and a total moron at the same time.

His recent fight with Apple, where he accuses them of not supporting free speech because they chose to not advertise as much as they used to on Twitter is straight up hilarious. That literally is Apple supporting free speech by choosing how to use its advertising dollars.

Everyone gets to spend their money how they want. I just can't even imagine spending 44 billion to pick the fights and controversy he has created in the last month. Anyone interested in their legacy wouldn't do what he has done. Anyone interested in bettering the world wouldn't do what he has done. Anyone interested in making money wouldn't do what he has done.
Dumb smart people are gonna do dumb things.

God, you're insufferable. If Apple is pulling ads because Twitter is no longer censoring speech on its platform based on domestic politics, then that is Apple not supporting free speech. While twitter is much less important than a lot of its users think, it is still important both as a platform for speech and because our generally worthless journalists spend 90% of their time on it and their coverage is shaped by what twitter decides to censor.
People can use their speech or spending to support or attack free speech. Plenty of journalists basically complain that there's not more censorship of speech because they (correctly) think the free flow of information reduces their power as gate keepers. It's not a hard concept.

 

[johnson86-1]

You say that, but Republicans were all cancel culture about Twitter a couple of years ago when Trump got banned and said they were leaving for Truth Social. They didn’t. They are still on Twitter, and that’s as easy as downloading an app. I really hope this doesn’t happen because all of us Gen Xers and Millennials are going to have to show Boomers how to use their new phones****

Missing just a little bit of context here. A lot left for Parler and the tech oligarchs banded together to destroy Parler. Truth Social came later.

 

[mstateglfr]

that’s a good way to spin it, but the fact is Apple pulled advertising because Twitter decided to stop selective censorship and allow free speech. So when you advertise on platforms that supports selective censorship and pull those dollars when censorship is removed, that is not supporting free speech.

Thats a good way to spin it, but the fact is companies decide where to spend advertising based on how they want their product to be viewed and where it will be most effective. Some companies may not want to be associated with chaos, or leftist views, or right wing views, etc etc.

 

[johnson86-1]

Advertising has NOTHING to do with free speech. How in the world do you associate PAID advertising with FREE speech? Good grief we need forced Civics course for our entire country! No matter your current national status you either become, or stop, being an American based on your ability to pass.***

I think you'd pass overall based on your prior comments, but you probably don't want this subject matter on that test. Free speech is not the same thing as the first amendment. Free speech is a value and the first amendment is a tool to protect and promote that value. Generally, the idea is that the way to respond to speech/ideas you don't like is with speech you do like and to try to be persuasive, not to use social, economic, or government pressure to shut down speech you don't like.

So yes, if you take it as given that Apple is pulling advertising dollars because there is more free speech on twitter and Twitter is not going to censor ideas like "sex is an issue of bioligy, not a social construct or something that somebody can change at will", then that is Apple not supporting free speech. They are using their economic clout to try to reduce the exchange of and competition of ideas and to try to influence others to engage in the suppression of ideas.

 

[horshack.sixpack]

Missing just a little bit of context here. A lot left for Parler and the tech oligarchs banded together to destroy Parler. Truth Social came later.

"banded together to destroy". Please provide some, any, proof of that. It was started by an idiot grifter who just keeps finding new ways to take money from people and once the grift had run its course it crashed. Unfortunately it took some poor suckers down with it who really believed the BS.

 

[goindhoo]

Thats a good way to spin it, but the fact is companies decide where to spend advertising based on how they want their product to be viewed and where it will be most effective. Some companies may not want to be associated with chaos, or leftist views, or right wing views, etc etc.

I agree and Apple decided to stop supporting a company that changed their policy to stop selective censorship and allow free flow of information.

 

[mstateglfr]

God, you're insufferable. If Apple is pulling ads because Twitter is no longer censoring speech on its platform based on domestic politics, then that is Apple not supporting free speech. While twitter is much less important than a lot of its users think, it is still important both as a platform for speech and because our generally worthless journalists spend 90% of their time on it and their coverage is shaped by what twitter decides to censor.
People can use their speech or spending to support or attack free speech. Plenty of journalists basically complain that there's not more censorship of speech because they (correctly) think the free flow of information reduces their power as gate keepers. It's not a hard concept.

Ok, so using your logic, any company that is advertising on Twitter will continue to have to do so indefinitely, at the current rate or higher, otherwise they will be seen as not supporting free speech. Lets remember that Musk said Apple isnt advertising as much, which means they still are advertising.
Basically, you want to force companies to continue to advertise on a platform or else risk being accused of hating free speech, or supporting silencing, or whatever else. In your world, a company shouldnt be able to look at a place they are advertising, recognize it has changed, and therefore adjust their advertising on said platform.


This is where that cancel culture term gets used, misused, and misunderstood. Advertisers pull expected ads from TV shows, radio shows, and other mediums of communication all the time because they dont want to be associated with something said or a position that someone holds on that show/site. This is nothing new and it happens to people on the left as well as on the right. If Apple pulled advertising from Twitter because they dont want to be as heavily associated with Twitter as before, that isnt wrong of them- its Apple doing the same thing countless companies have done in the past when advertising on radio shows and tv shows.
It is probably imbalanced and rightleaning shows are hit harder by advertisers pulling ads, but perhaps that should be looked at as a group seems to continually say more controversial and offensive things that advertisers dont want to be associated with.

 

[horshack.sixpack]

I think you'd pass overall based on your prior comments, but you probably don't want this subject matter on that test. Free speech is not the same thing as the first amendment. Free speech is a value and the first amendment is a tool to protect and promote that value. Generally, the idea is that the way to respond to speech/ideas you don't like is with speech you do like and to try to be persuasive, not to use social, economic, or government pressure to shut down speech you don't like.

So yes, if you take it as given that Apple is pulling advertising dollars because there is more free speech on twitter and Twitter is not going to censor ideas like "sex is an issue of bioligy, not a social construct or something that somebody can change at will", then that is Apple not supporting free speech. They are using their economic clout to try to reduce the exchange of and competition of ideas and to try to influence others to engage in the suppression of ideas.

I just see it differently. Like most companies of their size, Apple will advertise when they think it is better for their company and shareholders. They will not advertise when they think it is not. Elon has enough crazy (and other characteristics that lots of people don't like) associated with him that it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that Apple simply does not want to be complicit/associated with/supportive of a platform being run the way he runs it. That likely includes his treatment of employees and others, bat**** crazy posts, etc.

 

[mstateglfr]

I agree and Apple decided to stop supporting a company that changed their policy to stop selective censorship and allow free flow of information.

I agree, because Apple doesnt want to be associated with the expected content that is no longer censored.

We can go back and forth over this- it really is just a fundamental difference in how we look at what is happening. You and others want to blame Apple for not continuing to advertise at the level they previously were and tie that decision to Apple not liking free speech, and I think a company shouldnt be expected to advertise and be associated with words/views/comments the company may not agree with or finds damaging to their brand.

 

[Boom Boom]

If people think Musk couldn’t make a phone that rivals iPhone, have they seen his other ventures? My mind is still blown by the reusable rockets landing on floating platforms. But that’s probably a lot easier than making a neat phone.** There’s also that little car hobby of his. That idea seems to have some wheels though.

Have you? He bought his way in to Tesla, and his pet project part of it, self driving. Is nothing but a grift. His tunnel ventures are a giant grift. SpaceX is cool, but his own employees say it works despite him, not because of him.

Clearly what Elmo will do is buy rights to some crappy knockoff phone, claim he's upgraded it to awesomeness, and sell it to the rubes who someone still haven't seen through his crap.

 

[onewoof]

Thats a good way to spin it, but the fact is companies decide where to spend advertising based on how they want their product to be viewed and where it will be most effective. Some companies may not want to be associated with chaos, or leftist views, or right wing views, etc etc.

Apple pulled ads because they like many others wanted to try to punish Twitter for reinstating voices that didn't align with the extreme left.

It's that simple. They all collectively put Musk and others in their burn book. Because they know what voices should be allowed

 

[horshack.sixpack]

I agree, because Apple doesnt want to be associated with the expected content that is no longer censored.

We can go back and forth over this- it really is just a fundamental difference in how we look at what is happening. You and others want to blame Apple for not continuing to advertise at the level they previously were and tie that decision to Apple not liking free speech, and I think a company shouldnt be expected to advertise and be associated with words/views/comments the company may not agree with or finds damaging to their brand.

Example: "After Musk closed a leveraged buyout deal on Oct. 28 and appointed himself CEO, a spike of anti-Black racist and antisemitic hate speech flooded the platform, partly because of raids that were coordinated by users on online chat platform 4chan."

 

[Trojanbulldog19]

That's fine. Speaking for myself

When you create own electric vehichles, provide these vehicles and jobs for thousands of people
no matter who they are

Create your own space program and revolutionize how it works & let ordinary people be a part of it, no matter who they are

Do this all with your own money

we might listen and care exactly what you think of Elon Musk.

I admit people who are not Democrats have latched on to Elon Musk for their own reasons but at least somebody is speaking for ordinary people and not telling them that they are stupid or backwards because they don't believe everything the curent government is telling them

The status quo cannot stand Elon Musk because they cannot control him. They used to all sing his praises, and talk about how great he was until he showed everyone how hypocritical they were.

Like that batshit crazy Milano. "I'll show him I'll sell my Tesla and get a VW! " yeah the car company created by the nazis.

That's the thing that awoke him was the Covid time period and people saying what is and what isn't misinformation. Who decides what is and what isnt misinformation. Who can control the narrative. Many right wing people were censored and told they were spreading misinformation, but according to whom? The liberal medium in charge? So it's only okay for that group to have their information or their narrative? Used to that was called an opinion and people could do their own research to decide if they wanted to follow that. Now one group has their version of the truth and wants to squash any other view points. I bet if I get on Facebook or former twitter and posted something from the conservative side of things it would be flag for misinformation.

 

[johnson86-1]

I just see it differently. Like most companies of their size, Apple will advertise when they think it is better for their company and shareholders. They will not advertise when they think it is not. Elon has enough crazy (and other characteristics that lots of people don't like) associated with him that it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that Apple simply does not want to be complicit/associated with/supportive of a platform being run the way he runs it. That likely includes his treatment of employees and others, bat**** crazy posts, etc.

So yes, if you take it as given that Apple is pulling advertising dollars because there is more free speech on twitter and Twitter is not going to censor ideas like "sex is an issue of biology, not a social construct or something that somebody can change at will", then that is Apple not supporting free speech. They are using their economic clout to try to reduce the exchange of and competition of ideas and to try to influence others to engage in the suppression of ideas.

 

[ckDOG]

People have a romanticized ideal of free speech, but virtually nobody on the planet truly wants it. Philosophers and the founders of this country believed in free speech and self-regulation of it via the marketplace of ideas. That sounds great and works when the participants have a little act-right, but it turns out that people are *** holes and are good at mucking up a good idea. Thus, we set censorship rules (yes, even the government has the authority to do this) to keep the Karens/crypto bros/Nazis from ruining an otherwise educational time. Every single one of us believes in censorship to some extent.

These censorship rules change over time as social norms change or when large internet-based communications services change in ownership. In the meantime, I'm hearing the gripes from either side pretty loud and clear - not really buying that anyone's voice is being drowned out in this. I think I've heard every batshit crazy gripe, hot take, and idea under the sun on that damn website. It is for sure a net promoter of thoughts that I have never previously been exposed to.

There's a disruption of norm right now with change, but all will get hashed out and balanced out eventually via middle-ground censorship rules, a competitor communication service, or boycott. In the meantime, y'all gotta chill about what is said and not said on the twitter machine. Remember, it's a free service where you're the product, not the customer. Often forgotten in the twitter drama.

 

[Boom Boom]

Discourse in our society broke down well before this. Everyone has their own version of the truth and sticks to it even when presented with a total lack of substance and facts to back up those truths.

Not everyone. Don't tar one side with the sin of the other. (Not that the other side is perfect of have some lesser degree of that sin.)

As for Elmo, he's just an idiot that lucked into money. Hopefully this will finally disabuse the ignorant of their belief in superior billionaires.

 

[johnson86-1]

Ok, so using your logic, any company that is advertising on Twitter will continue to have to do so indefinitely, at the current rate or higher, otherwise they will be seen as not supporting free speech. Lets remember that Musk said Apple isnt advertising as much, which means they still are advertising.
Basically, you want to force companies to continue to advertise on a platform or else risk being accused of hating free speech, or supporting silencing, or whatever else. In your world, a company shouldnt be able to look at a place they are advertising, recognize it has changed, and therefore adjust their advertising on said platform.

I would love to see the contorted logic you use to come up with this.

This is where that cancel culture term gets used, misused, and misunderstood. Advertisers pull expected ads from TV shows, radio shows, and other mediums of communication all the time because they dont want to be associated with something said or a position that someone holds on that show/site. This is nothing new and it happens to people on the left as well as on the right. If Apple pulled advertising from Twitter because they dont want to be as heavily associated with Twitter as before, that isnt wrong of them- its Apple doing the same thing countless companies have done in the past when advertising on radio shows and tv shows.

I never said anything about it being right or wrong, I said if it's because they are concerned Twitter won't censor with the same leftish balance, that is them not supporting free speech. And I'm pretty sure I didn't use the term cancel culture.

It is probably imbalanced and rightleaning shows are hit harder by advertisers pulling ads, but perhaps that should be looked at as a group seems to continually say more controversial and offensive things that advertisers dont want to be associated with.

Only if you are insistent on being blinded by partisanship and define "people with penises are men" as more controversial and offensive than "your daughter is bigoted for not wanting my daughter in the locker room with her just because my daughter has a penis and is attracted to women."

 

[mstateglfr]

Like that batshit crazy Milano. "I'll show him I'll sell my Tesla and get a VW! " yeah the car company created by the nazis.

That's the thing that awoke him was the Covid time period and people saying what is and what isn't misinformation. Who decides what is and what isnt misinformation. Who can control the narrative. Many right wing people were censored and told they were spreading misinformation, but according to whom? The liberal medium in charge? So it's only okay for that group to have their information or their narrative? Used to that was called an opinion and people could do their own research to decide if they wanted to follow that. Now one group has their version of the truth and wants to squash any other view points. I bet if I get on Facebook or former twitter and posted something from the conservative side of things it would be flag for misinformation.

I stumbled upon this Milano thing because google pushed an article that was just a recap of tweets making fun of her.
Is VW as a brand never going to be a 'good' company due to their founding 80 years ago? I am not saying they should or shouldnt be- like most things, I dont give enough of a 17.

I will say that it seems like a car company could be 'good' now, in spite of its origins 80 years ago. And similarly, what was a 'good' car company 80 years ago may be awful now. Things change in 8 decades.
If VW now is doing things Milano likes, such as I dont know- rehoming stray dogs from Syria and using only gender neutral pronouns in all workplace settings, then should really not consider the brand due to their history from 8 decades ago? At what point can a brand be released from baggage, or is it never OK to release that brand from baggage? Is there never enough 'good' things that VW could do to offset its initial history?


This is a general qustion and a specific one.
Its general because though its about VW, there are many companies/brands in a similar position. I am curious what your view is since this impacts many brands and industries.
Its specific because I really dont think I ever heard people bring up Nazis starting VW as a way to shame someone who owned a VW until this Milano incident. Ive been driving for 25 years and have known countless people that owned VW(and Audi) cars- none ever mentioned being harassed for owning a VW due to the Nazi connection from decades ago. Is this burn a new one or has it been going on for years and I have just been oblivious to it? Basically, if Milano had said 'I am going to buy a Nissan' or 'Toyota here I come;, would everyone have jumped on the fact that both those companies made vehicles for the Imperial Japanese Army 80 years ago? Were they just going to attack her regardless of which brand she named or is everyone's concern about VW genuine?
Ill be honest here- it seemed like a bit of a 'gotcha' moment and they would have tried to find something offensive about any brand she mentioned.

 

[CochiseCowbell]

Damn some of y’all need some hobbies

Threads like these always amuse me. Some folks post in these "discussions" yet rarely, if ever, participate in sports related topics. It's simply interesting, and possibly very telling.

 

[mstateglfr]

I would love to see the contorted logic you use to come up with this.

Your own words.

If Apple is pulling ads because Twitter is no longer censoring speech on its platform based on domestic politics, then that is Apple not supporting free speech.

You criticize Apple for advertising less and say they support censorship as a result of advertising less. Therefore, any company that is advertising on Twitter will continue to have to do so indefinitely, at the current rate or higher, otherwise they will be seen as not supporting free speech.
This means you want to force companies to continue to advertise on a platform or else risk being accused of hating free speech, or supporting silencing, or whatever else.

It really isnt difficult to understand. This is the natural result of your view.

 

[AssEndDawg]

Dude they are saying they will pull Twitter from the app store.

To which Musk said fine do it. I'll make my own phone and 100 million Republican Americans will buy it and get rid of their iPhones.

It's never been about the advertising. The woke mob tries to win these chess games. Can't with Musk.

First, Apple has a Terms of Service which ALL of us who write apps that go into the app store understand. Those Terms of Service have to be followed or you get delisted. period. End of discussion. Part of that includes, among other things, moderation of your userbase. Apple does not want to be associated with neo-Nazis or white supremacists. Their free speech allows this. Apple isn't saying, "we don't like you Twitter so we are delisting you", they are simply saying, "follow the rules that YOU AGREED TO and that everyone else has to follow or you will be taken off the store".

Second, no.... no Republicans won't change phones. And no, no Elon won't just create his own phone. Republicans didn't switch to Truth Social, they didn't switch to the "anti-woke" bank, they don't actually do anything. Mainly because the "Republicans" you are referring to are a TINY population of the actual Republican Party. Most Republicans could give a **** about Elon. And Elon can't just build his own phone. Mainly because he is actually having money problems, now I'm not saying he can't afford to eat out tonight, but he leveraged his Tesla stock to buy Twitter and then the stock market tanked. He doesn't have the money or the credit to start a phone company. But also because there are only so many resources available that can actually build these highly technical devices and Apple and Samsung have them all covered up. At most he could do what other idiots have done, buy cheap Chinese phones and try to repackage them, like the "Freedom Phone" the last right-wing attempt to take over something.

The fact that you think 100 million "Republicans" would do anything in lock-step shows how out of touch you are. Elon is screaming into the wind and Twitter will remain but it is a shell of what it was, which was already a shell of what people thought it was.

 

[onewoof]

First, Apple has a Terms of Service which ALL of us who write apps that go into the app store understand. Those Terms of Service have to be followed or you get delisted. period. End of discussion. Part of that includes, among other things, moderation of your userbase. Apple does not want to be associated with neo-Nazis or white supremacists. Their free speech allows this. Apple isn't saying, "we don't like you Twitter so we are delisting you", they are simply saying, "follow the rules that YOU AGREED TO and that everyone else has to follow or you will be taken off the store".

Second, no.... no Republicans won't change phones. And no, no Elon won't just create his own phone. Republicans didn't switch to Truth Social, they didn't switch to the "anti-woke" bank, they don't actually do anything. Mainly because the "Republicans" you are referring to are a TINY population of the actual Republican Party. Most Republicans could give a **** about Elon. And Elon can't just build his own phone. Mainly because he is actually having money problems, now I'm not saying he can't afford to eat out tonight, but he leveraged his Tesla stock to buy Twitter and then the stock market tanked. He doesn't have the money or the credit to start a phone company. But also because there are only so many resources available that can actually build these highly technical devices and Apple and Samsung have them all covered up. At most he could do what other idiots have done, buy cheap Chinese phones and try to repackage them, like the "Freedom Phone" the last right-wing attempt to take over something.

The fact that you think 100 million "Republicans" would do anything in lock-step shows how out of touch you are. Elon is screaming into the wind and Twitter will remain but it is a shell of what it was, which was already a shell of what people thought it was.

Apple hasn't responded to why they will pull Twitter though. They answer to no one on this. It's their whim.

I promise you if Apple plays the woke mob card on Musk they will lose millions of Republican customers. They also know they will. They are above all else about the almighty dollar. It's just fun to see them put in check. They can't pull Twitter. Even though they want to threaten it. They can't.

 

[dorndawg]

 

[jethreauxdawg]

Have you? He bought his way in to Tesla, and his pet project part of it, self driving. Is nothing but a grift. His tunnel ventures are a giant grift. SpaceX is cool, but his own employees say it works despite him, not because of him.

Clearly what Elmo will do is buy rights to some crappy knockoff phone, claim he's upgraded it to awesomeness, and sell it to the rubes who someone still haven't seen through his crap.

Are you discrediting Elon’s impact on Tesla? Seriously? Also, the people at spaceX that claim they are successful despite Elon, did Elon hire them?

 

[horshack.sixpack]

First, Apple has a Terms of Service which ALL of us who write apps that go into the app store understand. Those Terms of Service have to be followed or you get delisted. period. End of discussion. Part of that includes, among other things, moderation of your userbase. Apple does not want to be associated with neo-Nazis or white supremacists. Their free speech allows this. Apple isn't saying, "we don't like you Twitter so we are delisting you", they are simply saying, "follow the rules that YOU AGREED TO and that everyone else has to follow or you will be taken off the store".

Second, no.... no Republicans won't change phones. And no, no Elon won't just create his own phone. Republicans didn't switch to Truth Social, they didn't switch to the "anti-woke" bank, they don't actually do anything. Mainly because the "Republicans" you are referring to are a TINY population of the actual Republican Party. Most Republicans could give a **** about Elon. And Elon can't just build his own phone. Mainly because he is actually having money problems, now I'm not saying he can't afford to eat out tonight, but he leveraged his Tesla stock to buy Twitter and then the stock market tanked. He doesn't have the money or the credit to start a phone company. But also because there are only so many resources available that can actually build these highly technical devices and Apple and Samsung have them all covered up. At most he could do what other idiots have done, buy cheap Chinese phones and try to repackage them, like the "Freedom Phone" the last right-wing attempt to take over something.

The fact that you think 100 million "Republicans" would do anything in lock-step shows how out of touch you are. Elon is screaming into the wind and Twitter will remain but it is a shell of what it was, which was already a shell of what people thought it was.

Imagine marketing a white label Chinese "Freedom Phone" to "patriots" without any consideration to what cyber risks are embedded in that thing. I can only imagine the Chinese trying to make sense of the data they got from those users...somewhere there's a Chinese cyber engineer going "Man, I thought Xi was crazy!"

 

[dorndawg]

Some of yall acting like it'd be easier for Elon to drop a phone and OS, versus Apple dropping a Twitter clone.

 

[ckDOG]

Apple hasn't responded to why they will pull Twitter though. They answer to no one on this. It's their whim.

I promise you if Apple plays the woke mob card on Musk they will lose millions of Republican customers. They also know they will. They are above all else about the almighty dollar. It's just fun to see them put in check. They can't pull Twitter. Even though they want to threaten it. They can't.

This is dramatic. If republicans were going to stick it to Apple due to "wokeness", they'd have done it a long time ago. Shelf this next to the NFL boycott.

Again, twitter is not real life.

 

[AssEndDawg]

Apple hasn't responded to why they will pull Twitter though. They answer to no one on this. It's their whim.

I promise you if Apple plays the woke mob card on Musk they will lose millions of Republican customers. They also know they will. They are above all else about the almighty dollar. It's just fun to see them put in check. They can't pull Twitter. Even though they want to threaten it. They can't.

Apple isn't playing the woke mob card, that's just plain stupid. And Elon "says" Apple hasn't responded but I honestly don't believe him. You see, apple communicates through their Developer system. That system is tied to a single email address in a company, no matter how big that company is. I've delt with the Apple Developer network since it was created and I can assure you that if they have issue with an app they are telling the holder of the developer account. Now, there is a fair chance that person doesn't work at Twitter anymore and Elon is too stupid to figure out where the account emails are going.

If anything, Apple is being MORE than fair to Twitter because of their size and notoriety. I can promise you if one of my apps were breaking the TOS it would be immediately shut off. I certainly wouldn't be getting warnings. You cannot have crowd sourced, unmoderated systems on the Apple store. Period. It is simply not allowed. It never has been. Just like you can't sell pornography on Apple apps. It is a rule.

And no, Apple won't "lose millions of Republican customers". It's just stupid to say that. I imagine they will lose tens, or hundreds.... maybe. Republicans love to talk about retaliation but it simply never happens. Apple will enforce its TOS just like it always does and Elon can scream into the wind all he wants. He can either follow the rules or Twitter will disappear and people will cry for a day or two and then keep using their iphones to download the next thing that catches their attention. Elon has zero leverage here.

Oh, and just for arguments sake, let's say that even 10,000 Republican's leave iPhone. It's a product, so you already paid Apple for it. But even the add on cash, I don't think they would mind. Apple currently has $48.3 BILLION in cash on hand just in the US. So.... I don't think they are going to cry all that much.

 

[The Peeper]

Anyone interested in making money wouldn't do what he has done

Good one glfr, because he certainly hasn't made any money.................

 

[mcdawg22]

Missing just a little bit of context here. A lot left for Parler and the tech oligarchs banded together to destroy Parler. Truth Social came later.

I guess my bigger point, and this applies to left right up down. We as Americans love to get on a soapbox and say we are done with something so easily. But when the rubber hits the road and we are inconvenienced in the slightest bit we say aw **** it. It happened with Twitter, the NFL, Home Depot, whatever the Twitter woke mob was mad about last month, and the Outback Bowl.

 

[AssEndDawg]

Some of yall acting like it'd be easier for Elon to drop a phone and OS, versus Apple dropping a Twitter clone.

Actually Apple probably couldn't do that either. Odd little fact about Apple, they don't have hardly any programmers and the ones they have are OS developers. Apple is all about hardware, not software. They have zero app developers in house. I've been to Cupertino twice to visit with them and they laugh about how people come to them with ideas and want help programming apps and it is something they know nothing about. Now, could Apple take a favored developer and fast track their app, sure thing. But Apple won't be writing a Twitter clone themselves.

 

[mcdawg22]

Apple isn't playing the woke mob card, that's just plain stupid. And Elon "says" Apple hasn't responded but I honestly don't believe him. You see, apple communicates through their Developer system. That system is tied to a single email address in a company, no matter how big that company is. I've delt with the Apple Developer network since it was created and I can assure you that if they have issue with an app they are telling the holder of the developer account. Now, there is a fair chance that person doesn't work at Twitter anymore and Elon is too stupid to figure out where the account emails are going.

If anything, Apple is being MORE than fair to Twitter because of their size and notoriety. I can promise you if one of my apps were breaking the TOS it would be immediately shut off. I certainly wouldn't be getting warnings. You cannot have crowd sourced, unmoderated systems on the Apple store. Period. It is simply not allowed. It never has been. Just like you can't sell pornography on Apple apps. It is a rule.

And no, Apple won't "lose millions of Republican customers". It's just stupid to say that. I imagine they will lose tens, or hundreds.... maybe. Republicans love to talk about retaliation but it simply never happens. Apple will enforce its TOS just like it always does and Elon can scream into the wind all he wants. He can either follow the rules or Twitter will disappear and people will cry for a day or two and then keep using their iphones to download the next thing that catches their attention. Elon has zero leverage here.

Oh, and just for arguments sake, let's say that even 10,000 Republican's leave iPhone. It's a product, so you already paid Apple for it. But even the add on cash, I don't think they would mind. Apple currently has $48.3 BILLION in cash on hand just in the US. So.... I don't think they are going to cry all that much.

Wasn’t the freedom phone an Android with a program in it to bypass the stores? I think the regular phone retailed for $299 but the Freedom Phone listed for $699.

 

[Ibdancin]

Anyone not familiar with GAB, read this for an overview- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gab_(social_network)
GAB was not built to be a large social media player. It exists to feed a small extreme segment of the population.

Not true. It was stopped from reaching those levels. It had zero to do with extremism and more to do with free speech. Just like with Twitter, before Musk and after Musk, there are always going to be people to that push one way or the other to the extreme. I used it to show the power concentrated.

All of that side steps the whole response. That is that a few major tech companies control speech. If Google wanted to, right now, they could go to the platform ON3 is on and absolutely BK it or demand posters or even teams be excluded until they comply to what they deem is needed. That is NOT FREE MARKET. That is Monopoly in action.

As the 5th clearly ruled

the platforms argued for "a rather odd inversion of the First Amendment" that "buried somewhere in the person’s enumerated right to free speech lies a corporation’s unenumerated right to muzzle speech."

"Today we reject the idea that corporations have a freewheeling First Amendment right to censor what people say,"


There would have been no case at the 5th had this not been an issue