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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ibdancin

Well-known member
Feb 9, 2018
2,624
1,217
113
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.

Exactly. They have done it to MOST companies because the concentration of power is in the hands of a few tech companies.
 

dorndawg

Well-known member
Sep 10, 2012
6,164
3,119
113
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.
1669826963760.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: mstateglfr

AssEndDawg

Member
Aug 1, 2007
3,179
34
48
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.
Android is an open source phone operating system. The Google implementation ties it to their store, but anyone can download the Android code and make it do whatever they want. This is why all the piece of **** clone phones use an Android base. Same with Chrome and Chromium... they are essentially the same browser but Chrome is Goggle's implementation and Chromium is the open source version.

This makes Android both powerful and dangerous. If you can see and modify the code you can add all sorts of things. And bet money the Chinese have...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dawgg

mstateglfr

Well-known member
Feb 24, 2008
12,650
2,618
113
Good one glfr, because he certainly hasn't made any money.................
I was clearly referring to what has so far happened with Twitter. Anyone interested in making money with the business the thread is about, wouldnt do what he is doing.
He has run off advertisers, he has comically failed to implement a user fee, he has fired so many people that the government is concerned the company cant comply with agreed upon processes, and the company is currently estimated to be worth a fraction of what he paid.

So yes- my comment about anyone wanting to make money wouldnt do what he is doing is on point.
Maybe that will change with time and he will pull the plane out of its current nosedive. As of now though?
 

AssEndDawg

Member
Aug 1, 2007
3,179
34
48
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
This will probably be overruled by the Supreme Court. Not because they think Apple should be able to "censor" speech (they don't censor speech, they have rules about what they allow on their platform, but whatever) but because the Supreme Court knows that ANYTHING they do that affects the concept of Corporate Personhood will have far reaching effects that they don't want to deal with. If Corporations don't have the same rights as you and me then they aren't "people", and if they aren't "people" then they shouldn't be allowed to do things like preventing their insurance dollars from paying for contraception (Hobby Lobby case), using their money to steal elections (Citizens United) and so on and so forth.
 

johnson86-1

Well-known member
Aug 22, 2012
11,585
1,719
113
Your own words.

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.

I didn't criticize Apple, I just pointed out that if they are pulling advertising because they want more censorship based on political positions that is them not supporting free speech. That's just tautological.

Reality doesn't have anything to do with what I want. If reality creates a potential perception issue for companies that want to withdraw advertising for reasons other than Twitter not engaging in view-point discrimination, or lets Twitter falsely accuse them of doing that, the answer is not to pretend reality isn't reality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ibdancin

Ibdancin

Well-known member
Feb 9, 2018
2,624
1,217
113
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.

The NFL stopped airing the National Anthem due to declining numbers. Since all the executive videos and releases, Disney posted a $1.5 billion loss in its streaming division. They released a movie and it posted the worst return in the history of Disney. The last I looked it lost over 124 Million dollars.

This isn't 20 years ago.
 

johnson86-1

Well-known member
Aug 22, 2012
11,585
1,719
113
This will probably be overruled by the Supreme Court. Not because they think Apple should be able to "censor" speech (they don't censor speech, they have rules about what they allow on their platform, but whatever) but because the Supreme Court knows that ANYTHING they do that affects the concept of Corporate Personhood will have far reaching effects that they don't want to deal with. If Corporations don't have the same rights as you and me then they aren't "people", and if they aren't "people" then they shouldn't be allowed to do things like preventing their insurance dollars from paying for contraception (Hobby Lobby case), using their money to steal elections (Citizens United) and so on and so forth.
Corporations are not people and the supreme court doesn't think they're people. Corporations are basically legal agreements for people joining as a group for some purpose or another and people joining in groups don't presumptively lose their individual rights just because they are voluntarily associating with other people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ibdancin

Trojanbulldog19

Well-known member
Aug 25, 2014
8,116
3,424
113
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.
It's the point that it's hypocritical to not buy one brand of car because you don't like something about the owner or created but then buy one from a company that had actually been involved with the nazis.

I'm not the one that has the problem and will buy from most companies. My grandfather wouldn't buy anything Japanese made till the day he died after fighting in WW2 in the pacific.
My favorite thing about Elon is how people from both sides of the aisle are completely willing to flip on certain things or ignore them to love or hate him. It's encouraging that someone who has both left and right ideals can be so widely loved and hated.

- Elon doesn't want to limit speech on Twitter and is letting most cancelled people back on.

- Elon was extremely anti lockdown and thought covid was overblown.

- Elon is singlehandedly trying to kill fossil fuels and with Tesla and Solar City. He believes climate change is the greatest threat to human civilization to the point we need to populate Mars.

- Tesla has made billions off of carbon credits and government subsidies for EVs and solar.

- Elon is also as beholden and supportive/reliant on China as anyone. He will always support Xi and the CCP because without China Tesla goes poof.

A pro China climate change activist is now supported by the right and bemoaned by the left because of a social media platform that up until this year was just a place Musk posted memes. Fascinating to watch.

I personally believe in free speech and free markets. Twitter and FB can censor whoever they want as a business. If you don't like it, buy those mother17ers out and flip the script.
Elon is what we like to call the middle. Which is great.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PooPopsBaldHead

Ibdancin

Well-known member
Feb 9, 2018
2,624
1,217
113
I was clearly referring to what has so far happened with Twitter. Anyone interested in making money with the business the thread is about, wouldnt do what he is doing.
He has run off advertisers, he has comically failed to implement a user fee, he has fired so many people that the government is concerned the company cant comply with agreed upon processes, and the company is currently estimated to be worth a fraction of what he paid.

So yes- my comment about anyone wanting to make money wouldnt do what he is doing is on point.
Maybe that will change with time and he will pull the plane out of its current nosedive. As of now though?
Just the opposite.

Twitter usage has increased under him. monthly active usage is around 44% higher.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PhredPhantom

mstateglfr

Well-known member
Feb 24, 2008
12,650
2,618
113
Not true. It was stopped from reaching those levels. It had zero to do with extremism and more to do with free speech.
Hate to toss reality your way, but GAB currently exists. Its active. It hasnt been shut down. If more people want to use it, they can. Whats stopping GAB from reaching the levels of major social media sites is there arent enough racists, supremacists, qanon believers, and alex jones followers to make it a larger site.
 

Ibdancin

Well-known member
Feb 9, 2018
2,624
1,217
113
This will probably be overruled by the Supreme Court. Not because they think Apple should be able to "censor" speech (they don't censor speech, they have rules about what they allow on their platform, but whatever) but because the Supreme Court knows that ANYTHING they do that affects the concept of Corporate Personhood will have far reaching effects that they don't want to deal with. If Corporations don't have the same rights as you and me then they aren't "people", and if they aren't "people" then they shouldn't be allowed to do things like preventing their insurance dollars from paying for contraception (Hobby Lobby case), using their money to steal elections (Citizens United) and so on and so forth.

No, they have already voiced opinions. Some have indicated they are monopolies saying “the concentrated control of so much speech in the hands of a few private parties” is troubling.

Free Speech is the backbone of the USA. They have lost at every level. Justices on the SCOTUS have already been making comments.
 

ckDOG

Well-known member
Dec 11, 2007
7,745
1,640
113
Corporations are not people and the supreme court doesn't think they're people. Corporations are basically legal agreements for people joining as a group for some purpose or another and people joining in groups don't presumptively lose their individual rights just because they are voluntarily associating with other people.
That nuance doesn't change the point.
 

ckDOG

Well-known member
Dec 11, 2007
7,745
1,640
113
No, they have already voiced opinions. Some have indicated they are monopolies saying “the concentrated control of so much speech in the hands of a few private parties” is troubling.

Free Speech is the backbone of the USA. They have lost at every level. Justices on the SCOTUS have already been making comments.
Are property rights no longer part of that backbone? Or just when you disagree with the property owner?
 

Boom Boom

Well-known member
Sep 29, 2022
1,338
792
113
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?
You tell me, how accurate have his predictions been?

And no. Elon is not so involved as to conduct interviews and pick hires.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dawgg

mstateglfr

Well-known member
Feb 24, 2008
12,650
2,618
113
It's the point that it's hypocritical to not buy one brand of car because you don't like something about the owner or created but then buy one from a company that had actually been involved with the nazis.

One situation is not liking the person currently in control. The other situation is about the people that were in control 80 years ago.
This, to me, seems fundamentally different. This is why I asked you how long until a company is 'free' from something done in their past. Are they ever free from their past or is nobody allowed find someone currently objectionable and instead buy a competitors product, if that competitor had an objectionable incident at any point in their past?

If someone says 'I dislike Putin and Russia because of what they are doing right now, and I support America!' should they be attacked with examples of America's atrocities thru the centuries and told they are hypocritical?
 

Ibdancin

Well-known member
Feb 9, 2018
2,624
1,217
113
Hate to toss reality your way, but GAB currently exists. Its active. It hasnt been shut down. If more people want to use it, they can. Whats stopping GAB from reaching the levels of major social media sites is there arent enough racists, supremacists, qanon believers, and alex jones followers to make it a larger site.

LOL!!! WOW. I posted what happened. It's easily verifiable. Nobody stated that it did not come back. What was stated, and I will be crystal clear, is that those companies sough to destroy it by killing financing, pull them off line (happened... literally lost their platform, servers..etc), and by labeling them via media. When they came back the damage was done.

This is the same tactic being pushed right now on twitter right now. The threat of removal from Apple. the media slamming Musk. The media saying he is allowing "name your label" back on Twitter...etc...etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cantdoitsal

Walkthedawg

Well-known member
Oct 3, 2022
369
608
93
I wish Twitter would freaking implode, and somehow drag the entirety of social media down with it. It would be a bummer to Musk.. but better for the world.

Then maybe that idiotic Tic Tok fails, then Facebook, then every other damn mind numbing crap.

I want to absolutely throat punch anyone that says “hashtag ______” at the end of a sentence in normal conversation.

this world has become unquestionably worse with social media. Unquestionably. No ifs ands or buts. Social media failing wouldn’t stop the flow of information… it would stop idiots from asking me if I had heard Pete Davidson and Kim Kardashian broke up. It would stop idiots from asking me if I had seen the new Tic Toc challenge.

I haven’t seen it and no I don’t give a ****.

“But why are you not on Facebook!?? I can’t contact you!!!” No. No. That thing you are staring at that actually startles you when it rings? When it actually does what it’s meant to do? You can use that. You can do that instead of spy on me on Facebook and spam me with pictures of your dog sleeping or whatever grotesque crap you cooked that you think you did a good job on.

Anyone who can’t go through the trouble of at least sending me a text message.. I don’t think I want to be contacted by them anyway.
 

Ibdancin

Well-known member
Feb 9, 2018
2,624
1,217
113
Are property rights no longer part of that backbone? Or just when you disagree with the property owner?
Property rights is not at issue here. It's not part of the case and if it was, it would be rejected. The court are seeing this "space" as the public square. In the 1980s, they ruled as such when malls allowed "speakers" at events saying they had to allow others as well.

Now, for your scenario to work, property rights would be applied to Apple's brick and mortar to some degree.
 

mstateglfr

Well-known member
Feb 24, 2008
12,650
2,618
113
LOL!!! WOW. I posted what happened. It's easily verifiable. Nobody stated that it did not come back. What was stated, and I will be crystal clear, is that those companies sough to destroy it by killing financing, pull them off line (happened... literally lost their platform, servers..etc), and by labeling them via media. When they came back the damage was done.

This is the same tactic being pushed right now on twitter right now. The threat of removal from Apple. the media slamming Musk. The media saying he is allowing "name your label" back on Twitter...etc...etc.
What you describe is whats happened to 4chan, 8chan, etc. You are going to have to look real hard to find sympathetic ears for your complaint.
In the end, the site still exists and if more people want to use it, they can.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dawgg

jethreauxdawg

Well-known member
Dec 20, 2010
7,971
6,109
113
You tell me, how accurate have his predictions been?

And no. Elon is not so involved as to conduct interviews and pick hires.
Well the Tesla board clearly views him as an integral part of the company. I’m gonna give them credit for knowing what’s going on.
Don't be intentionally dense. Of course he didn’t sit in on the interview for low level engineers. He put the people and processes in place for them to be hired. Acting like he hasn’t made SpaceX is absurd.
If the employees were making Tesla and SpaceX successful despite Musk, why aren’t those people in charge of their own companies?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cantdoitsal

johnson86-1

Well-known member
Aug 22, 2012
11,585
1,719
113
That nuance doesn't change the point.
It makes the point incorrect. The court won't be worried about corporate personhood. The only way for them to rule against the tech oligarchs will have to be antitrust based (yes, they can control their platform but since they have market power they can't make the consumer worse off by censoring based on political view points) or contract/fraud based (they pretend or imply or represent they are politically neutral but they engage in view point discrimination) or to come up with some hook that makes their platform effectively a public square and limited to similar time/place/manner, but not viewpoint discrimination, as government entities (not sure how they can do this without just legislating from the bench).
But corporate personhood or people losing rights just because they are part of a corporation won't be involved in the analysis.
 

aspendawg

Member
Sep 10, 2009
338
7
18
If you think that Elon can build a phone and compete with Apple and/or make a dent in their revenue enough to hurt them and that Apple isn't the one holding most of the leverage here.....Well, my friend then I have got a deal for you!!! I got a bridge for sale in Looxahoma, MS and it's a smoking once-in-a-lifetime deal. Guaranteed returns of 40-50% over the next 5 years please DM me for details.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Dawgg

jethreauxdawg

Well-known member
Dec 20, 2010
7,971
6,109
113
I wish Twitter would freaking implode, and somehow drag the entirety of social media down with it. It would be a bummer to Musk.. but better for the world.

Then maybe that idiotic Tic Tok fails, then Facebook, then every other damn mind numbing crap.

I want to absolutely throat punch anyone that says “hashtag ______” at the end of a sentence in normal conversation.

this world has become unquestionably worse with social media. Unquestionably. No ifs ands or buts. Social media failing wouldn’t stop the flow of information… it would stop idiots from asking me if I had heard Pete Davidson and Kim Kardashian broke up. It would stop idiots from asking me if I had seen the new Tic Toc challenge.

I haven’t seen it and no I don’t give a ****.

“But why are you not on Facebook!?? I can’t contact you!!!” No. No. That thing you are staring at that actually startles you when it rings? When it actually does what it’s meant to do? You can use that. You can do that instead of spy on me on Facebook and spam me with pictures of your dog sleeping or whatever grotesque crap you cooked that you think you did a good job on.

Anyone who can’t go through the trouble of at least sending me a text message.. I don’t think I want to be contacted by them anyway.
1669829022256.gif
 

johnson86-1

Well-known member
Aug 22, 2012
11,585
1,719
113
No, they have already voiced opinions. Some have indicated they are monopolies saying “the concentrated control of so much speech in the hands of a few private parties” is troubling.

Free Speech is the backbone of the USA. They have lost at every level. Justices on the SCOTUS have already been making comments.

Troubling does not mean that there is a remedy under current law or that the straightforward remedy will be effective and constitutional.
 

Ibdancin

Well-known member
Feb 9, 2018
2,624
1,217
113
What you describe is whats happened to 4chan, 8chan, etc. You are going to have to look real hard to find sympathetic ears for your complaint.
In the end, the site still exists and if more people want to use it, they can.
As Johnson pointed out. Parler was another. As pointed out in hearings, they are so powerful that if the company wants your tech, they can take it by crushing you.

Also, I don't care about sympathetic ears.
 

AssEndDawg

Member
Aug 1, 2007
3,179
34
48
Corporations are not people and the supreme court doesn't think they're people. Corporations are basically legal agreements for people joining as a group for some purpose or another and people joining in groups don't presumptively lose their individual rights just because they are voluntarily associating with other people.
You are kidding right? Corporate Personhood is a bedrock core of the American system. Yes, the Supreme Court does think Corporations are people and they said so directly in the Citizens United case. Without the concept of Corporate Personhood a LOT would change in the US. Probably for the better. So, I hope they do this.
 

Boom Boom

Well-known member
Sep 29, 2022
1,338
792
113
Well the Tesla board clearly views him as an integral part of the company. I’m gonna give them credit for knowing what’s going on.
Don't be intentionally dense. Of course he didn’t sit in on the interview for low level engineers. He put the people and processes in place for them to be hired. Acting like he hasn’t made SpaceX is absurd.
If the employees were making Tesla and SpaceX successful despite Musk, why aren’t those people in charge of their own companies?
Maybe. Or maybe he makes them money, and they don't care about the rest. Or maybe he controls the board. Talented grifters can he good for the business too. How much of Teslas success can be attributed to the car itself, and how much to Elons obvious lies about self driving that snookered so many? I don't know.

At some point he hired someone who's at least competent, that's true. There are people below him doing good work. But let's not celebrate that low low bar as something marvelous.

SBF made a lot of money too, btw. He's an idiot too.

Probably because they didn't inherit the proceeds from a south African diamond mine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dawgg

Boom Boom

Well-known member
Sep 29, 2022
1,338
792
113
You are kidding right? Corporate Personhood is a bedrock core of the American system. Yes, the Supreme Court does think Corporations are people and they said so directly in the Citizens United case. Without the concept of Corporate Personhood a LOT would change in the US. Probably for the better. So, I hope they do this.
The SC cares about advancing a radical conservative agenda. They don't care about corporate personhood, nor about being consistent in their rulings.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dawgg

AssEndDawg

Member
Aug 1, 2007
3,179
34
48
The best part of this conversation is all the "free speech" advocates saying that Twitter (a large tech corporation) should be able to do and say anything they want with their platform but that Apple (a large tech corporation) should not be able to do and say what it wants with their platform. I makes no sense at all. Twitter has rules, if you don't follow them they will ban you. Apple has rules, if you don't follow them they take you off the store. The rules are written, they are clear, this is easy. Twitter currently is not following the rules, they have been warned, and if they don't comply they will be delisted from the store. This is freedom of speech in action.

I expect all you right wingers on this thread to come out strong for Net Neutrality because you have been making a pro net neutrality argument all day today. Call your congressman/congresswoman!
 

Boom Boom

Well-known member
Sep 29, 2022
1,338
792
113
The best part of this conversation is all the "free speech" advocates saying that Twitter (a large tech corporation) should be able to do and say anything they want with their platform but that Apple (a large tech corporation) should not be able to do and say what it wants with their platform. I makes no sense at all. Twitter has rules, if you don't follow them they will ban you. Apple has rules, if you don't follow them they take you off the store. The rules are written, they are clear, this is easy. Twitter currently is not following the rules, they have been warned, and if they don't comply they will be delisted from the store. This is freedom of speech in action.

I expect all you right wingers on this thread to come out strong for Net Neutrality because you have been making a pro net neutrality argument all day today. Call your congressman/congresswoman!
Ivermectin, all the way down. That's modern conservatism.
 

Ibdancin

Well-known member
Feb 9, 2018
2,624
1,217
113
Troubling does not mean that there is a remedy under current law or that the straightforward remedy will be effective and constitutional.

Yeah, but there is. Like I said. 1980s and Malls. Public Square. sec 230
You are kidding right? Corporate Personhood is a bedrock core of the American system. Yes, the Supreme Court does think Corporations are people and they said so directly in the Citizens United case. Without the concept of Corporate Personhood a LOT would change in the US. Probably for the better. So, I hope they do this.

Courts are viewing this as a public square.
 

jethreauxdawg

Well-known member
Dec 20, 2010
7,971
6,109
113
Maybe. Or maybe he makes them money, and they don't care about the rest. Or maybe he controls the board. Talented grifters can he good for the business too. How much of Teslas success can be attributed to the car itself, and how much to Elons obvious lies about self driving that snookered so many? I don't know.

At some point he hired someone who's at least competent, that's true. There are people below him doing good work. But let's not celebrate that low low bar as something marvelous.

SBF made a lot of money too, btw. He's an idiot too.

Probably because they didn't inherit the proceeds from a south African diamond mine.
People who act like he’s a bumbling idiot that falls into success are foolish. Has he had some advantages, sure, but dude makes the most of his opportunities and creates a lot of his own success.
 

turkish

Member
Aug 22, 2012
822
136
43
For the life of me, I can’t understand why leftists are so aggressive in their desire to convince people that Musk is spending his money poorly.
 

Boom Boom

Well-known member
Sep 29, 2022
1,338
792
113
People who act like he’s a bumbling idiot that falls into success are foolish. Has he had some advantages, sure, but dude makes the most of his opportunities and creates a lot of his own success.
From his wiki bio:
He moved to California in 1995 to attend Stanford University, but dropped out after two days to instead pursue a business career, co-founding the web software company Zip2 with his brother Kimbal; the startup was acquired by Compaq for $307 million in 1999. The same year, Musk co-founded the online bank X.com, which merged with Confinity in 2000 to form PayPal. eBay bought PayPal in 2002 for $1.5 billion.

In 2002, Musk founded SpaceX, an aerospace manufacturer and space transport services company, and is its CEO and chief engineer. In 2004, he was an early investor in the electric vehicle manufacturer Tesla Motors, Inc. (now Tesla, Inc.). He became its chairman and product architect, eventually assuming the position of CEO in 2008. "

Let me assure you, even that is charitable. He profited off his brothers work, bought his way into Tesla. That's pretty much it. He's not an imbecile, but he's no genius. He's SBF.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dawgg

mstateglfr

Well-known member
Feb 24, 2008
12,650
2,618
113
Yes he spoke briefly about it at the 2022 Ron Baron conference. Skip to 41:45 of that interview if you want to hear him talk about that specifically.
Here’s a link:


Thanks for the video.
While talking about something else, he did briefly mention paypal and that he could create a better version.
Shortly after, he then said that a social media platform needs to be a net positive and if its filled with antisemitism and racism, he wont be able to get 80% of Americans to use it. I look forward to seeing how he manages to keep those things off a platform without restricting content.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dawgg

ckDOG

Well-known member
Dec 11, 2007
7,745
1,640
113
Yeah, but there is. Like I said. 1980s and Malls. Public Square. sec 230


Courts are viewing this as a public square.

Pruneyard supports that States can grant additional affirmative rights not guaranteed by the US Constitution so long as it does not infringe on Federal rights. In this case it was incremental rights granted by the State of California. It's not a blanket ruling for all shopping malls in the US. Even if it were applied here, Pruneyard still leaves the door open for Twitter to flag content, disassociate with it, claim it is fake news, etc. Do you think that's going to fly with the folks that view twitter as a public square? I don't think the people screaming the loudest will be satisfied with anything short of being able to say what they want without a challenge from the property owner "bc muh rights".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.