Elon Musk is a nice chap

[james_s]

West clearly has a mental illness. He needs help, not ridicule. The problem is getting him to see that and accept help. It's not going to end well.

If he does turn out to have NPD which I suspect based on his behavior, it is essentially untreatable. Personality disorders involve fundamental differences in the low level wiring of the brain which occurs at an early age, 1-2 years old. The people that have it will very rarely accept that they have any kind of problem, their difficulties with personal relationships are always blamed on external causes and they seem to create their very own version of reality in their head to fit the way they feel, which they then perceive as the absolute truth. It's widely assumed that the vast majority of people with any of the cluster B disorders are never properly diagnosed because believing they are the sane ones, they so rarely seek any kind of mental health services. They are impulsive and completely self absorbed, they do not care or likely even comprehend the impact of their behavior and actions on others.

Personally I'm going to continue to ridicule him, it's not like he's ever going to know anyway so what I say about him isn't going to have any impact on him.

[TimFox]

He has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, but apparently that was by a Jewish doctor.
(I don't need to make stuff up anymore.)

[james_s]

OK, let's go with Jeffery Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy, Ted Bundy, or for an Oz touch, David & Catherine Birnie, Ivan Milat, & perhaps, John Wayne Glover.
(The "Duke" would be horrified that his name was given to two different serial killers in separate countries.)

What "good things" did any of them do?

I don't know, I never met any of them, a few of them I've never even heard of. Maybe they did a good deed for somebody at some point in time? It's not beyond the realm of possibility. It's also possible that some or all of them were cold blooded sociopaths that were also not smart or motivated enough to contribute anything useful to society.

[Zero999]

West clearly has a mental illness. He needs help, not ridicule. The problem is getting him to see that and accept help. It's not going to end well.

If he does turn out to have NPD which I suspect based on his behavior, it is essentially untreatable. Personality disorders involve fundamental differences in the low level wiring of the brain which occurs at an early age, 1-2 years old. The people that have it will very rarely accept that they have any kind of problem, their difficulties with personal relationships are always blamed on external causes and they seem to create their very own version of reality in their head to fit the way they feel, which they then perceive as the absolute truth. It's widely assumed that the vast majority of people with any of the cluster B disorders are never properly diagnosed because believing they are the sane ones, they so rarely seek any kind of mental health services. They are impulsive and completely self absorbed, they do not care or likely even comprehend the impact of their behavior and actions on others.

Personally I'm going to continue to ridicule him, it's not like he's ever going to know anyway so what I say about him isn't going to have any impact on him.

I thought he had bipolar disorder not NPD. He only started acting like this fairly recently.

[Buriedcode]

Musk Just opened up the -HunterBiden-twitter-dirty laundry  files

He's so desperate to divert attention away from his dire leadership, he'll try anything.

[wraper]

Musk Just opened up the -HunterBiden-twitter-dirty laundry  files

He's so desperate to divert attention away from his dire leadership, he'll try anything.

Twitter was violationg first amendment on behalf of democrats (government is not allowed to impede with free speech). Twitter employees were not even sure what rule to apply to block that information. Nothing to see there... Democrads good, Musk bad . Not to say your argument is just nonsencical, he gets attention to himself, not diverts it.

[John B]

Perhaps the Americans can confirm, my understanding is that there are specific prohibitions on the US government using corporations and external entities to violate the constitution and 1st amendment by proxy.

Surely this is a tad more important than digs at Musk, even if he did want to draw the news cycle onto something else?

[vad]

Twitter was violationg first amendment on behalf of democrats (government is not allowed to impede with free speech).

You are confusing public company with the government. To the same extent you can claim that Fox News “violated” the 1st on behave of Republican administration when Trump was POTUS, and CNN “violates” it on behalf of Democratic admins.

[james_s]

I thought he had bipolar disorder not NPD. He only started acting like this fairly recently.

Maybe he does, I'm not a psychologist and couldn't properly diagnose him remotely even if I was. I do think it's clear that he has narcissistic traits, that can come in many forms.

[james_s]

Twitter was violationg first amendment on behalf of democrats (government is not allowed to impede with free speech). Twitter employees were not even sure what rule to apply to block that information. Nothing to see there... Democrads good, Musk bad . Not to say your argument is just nonsencical, he gets attention to himself, not diverts it.

The First Amendment does not apply to Twitter which is a corporation, not a branch of the government. The amendment protects an individual against prosecution for speech, it does not prevent a company from controlling what you say on their platform. For example Dave can ban any topic he wants here and the Constitution would do nothing to prevent that, even if he was based in the USA.

I am generally a proponent of free speech, but the first amendment applies to specific circumstances, and Twitter is not one of those.

[John B]

The issue is that the DNC and biden staff sent communications to twitter staff instructing them to censor speech, hence the claim is infringing on the 1st amendment by proxy.

[SiliconWizard]

Twitter was violationg first amendment on behalf of democrats (government is not allowed to impede with free speech). Twitter employees were not even sure what rule to apply to block that information. Nothing to see there... Democrads good, Musk bad . Not to say your argument is just nonsencical, he gets attention to himself, not diverts it.

The First Amendment does not apply to Twitter which is a corporation, not a branch of the government. The amendment protects an individual against prosecution for speech, it does not prevent a company from controlling what you say on their platform. For example Dave can ban any topic he wants here and the Constitution would do nothing to prevent that, even if he was based in the USA.

Yep absolutely right, and that's how fantastically twisted the system can become when those rules are themselves twisted - while still being, technically, followed.

Once the government directly influences private corporations and censors free speech through them, then the government *is* violating the first amendment, but hiding behing a private corporation, it all looks legit. That is this part that is disgusting.

Otherwise I agree with such private platforms to do whatever they want, and if we don't like what they do, we can use other platforms.
But once governments have power over those platforms, then they are able to violate constitutions without much consequence. That's pretty bad. But that's absolutely expected: the opportunity is there, and they just seize it. The only way of preventing them from seizing the opportunity is to impeach them.

[vad]

Yep absolutely right, and that's how fantastically twisted the system can become when those rules are themselves twisted - while still being, technically, followed.

Once the government directly influences private corporations and censors free speech through them, then the government *is* violating the first amendment, but hiding behing a private corporation, it all looks legit. That is this part that is disgusting.

Otherwise I agree with such private platforms to do whatever they want, and if we don't like what they do, we can use other platforms.
But once governments have power over those platforms, then they are able to violate constitutions without much consequence. That's pretty bad. But that's absolutely expected: the opportunity is there, and they just seize it. The only way of preventing them from seizing the opportunity is to impeach them.

I am sorry, what government are you referring to? Many Twitter’s content restrictions were implemented when Trump was the president, and his administration was the US federal government. Are you suggesting that Trump should have been impeached because of some decisions that Twitter’s board of directors and C-level execs made back then?!

[RJSV]

   Folks:. Argue if you will, (and I genuinely wish a happy Holiday, these winter months).
   I've found, over and over, until my head (almost) literally explodes, THAT THE people quite near to me and my life seem like they will NEVER 'debate' in any realistic way...:
   Name calling, smears and innuendo.  It's like a smug, conceit and I'm not implicating anyone on the eevblog more like street neighbors, and some of (my) relatives.
Almost never, do I come away with any sense of accomplishment.
   One fella, local, wouldn't react at all well, to my candid remarks (ignorant viewer of Thom Hartmann, is a good example.  In my opinion, the worst, gossipy, rumour pusher, seemingly just overjoyed to 'slander', and employ false trademarks like they were the only method of 'fair' discourse.
   There's ways, for me, of evaluating media things...but these days a dreaded sense, a caution...DONT CRITICISE these folks.
   I've even started using their catch-phrase, of verbal 'smears' of character: ...'You People...'.
Level-headed rationality is nowhere to be found, trying to 'debate', just gets the comeback:
   "Well, ...Mr. Smith is even worse...".  Never to debate, in real, legitimate terms.

   That's soooo 7th grade.

[RJSV]

Mr. TRUMP, by the way, was part of the reason that this whole movement to 'patrol' the truth started.  Harmful 'fake' this and that,...now MUST be countered...with heavy censorship.
   
   Hell, I ain't even a Trump, (or HANNITY, lol) fan...just alarmed at the ease that that, supposed, SMEAR got put on me. (Asked too many questions).

[RJSV]

At any rate, the gist of this, from what I've been hearing, on some of the more conservative channels, that folks are declaring how 'ridiculous' some claims are, (thus dangerous and requiring 'censorship'), but nowhere in the protestations are the actual claims actually addressed.  They are not.  It's a dismissal, while stating "no need to explore THOSE 'crazed' conspiracy (nuts)."
   But why, remind us readers, that (twitter) censorship or suppression happened or increased significantly under TRUMP ? 

[james_s]

The issue is that the DNC and biden staff sent communications to twitter staff instructing them to censor speech, hence the claim is infringing on the 1st amendment by proxy.

Ok, but the DNC does not have authority to demand that, they can only send a request, which the staff of Twitter can choose to abide by if they wish. Shady perhaps, but not a violation of the 1st Amendment, unless you can prove that somebody acting on behalf of the government was forcing Twitter to censor something.

[RJSV]

Yes, OK, but now we are getting back to that thing where a person cannot speak one word, without a chorus of "PROVE IT !".

[RJSV]

...plus a chorus of 'eye rolling'...to the degree that people must be getting 'eye cramps'.
Meaning the claim is made that such and such is SO ridiculous as to merit immediate dismissal, (with attendant eye rolls and saying '0hhh here we go...another conspiracy theory...' to be dismissed, of course.

[tszaboo]

Twitter was violationg first amendment on behalf of democrats (government is not allowed to impede with free speech). Twitter employees were not even sure what rule to apply to block that information. Nothing to see there... Democrads good, Musk bad . Not to say your argument is just nonsencical, he gets attention to himself, not diverts it.

The First Amendment does not apply to Twitter which is a corporation, not a branch of the government. The amendment protects an individual against prosecution for speech, it does not prevent a company from controlling what you say on their platform. For example Dave can ban any topic he wants here and the Constitution would do nothing to prevent that, even if he was based in the USA.

I am generally a proponent of free speech, but the first amendment applies to specific circumstances, and Twitter is not one of those.

While the first amendment is still mostly uphold in the US, the issue is really that corporations have become stronger than the US government. If the woke propaganda decides to shut you down, then you are done. You loose your job, and become a pariah. And they can do this just after accusations, no due process, or after a single tweet or other social media post that they don't like. And not just for the individuals, they do this to companies. Look up ESG score. The score is worse, if you don't follow the ideology. And it is applied to you, and your subcontractors and customers, so in B2B, to other companies that do business with you. You don't like The Twitter Corporation? Downgrade their ESG. Next time they apply for a loan or want to rent servers or whatever, they are going to be turned down. Or they will loose their income because companies are not going to advertise on the platform. Or de-list their app from the app store. Sounds familiar?
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/TWTR/sustainability/?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAMSudgQvn0oF6wLiy1s2jTEn3rWB068r7_DP9g2pSduFZjsq4JlnSlQmIQSlB7_IWi_LiWkpWGmTNxBhj_YUB6fStPVI3SdHikeJRMoSvJgH-s3TAYVy8E0MsXM7-Mvuwnfdgl5pDhMqU7xrzqfFeME1KL55jtR1RF_2iMNASWkX Updated before the acquisition, I'm sure now it would get a much lower score. High is good, low is bad.
ESG is applied by companies like Blackrock, who own everything.
It doesn't really matter what the US government places into the law anymore, while systems like these are let to exist.

[wraper]

Twitter was violationg first amendment on behalf of democrats (government is not allowed to impede with free speech).

You are confusing public company with the government. To the same extent you can claim that Fox News “violated” the 1st on behave of Republican administration when Trump was POTUS, and CNN “violates” it on behalf of Democratic admins.

It's you who are confusing something. It would be so be if they did it themselves. But they were doing so while being instructed by members of democratic party.

[Ranayna]

Musk Just opened up the -HunterBiden-twitter-dirty laundry  files

He's so desperate to divert attention away from his dire leadership, he'll try anything.

Twitter was violationg first amendment on behalf of democrats (government is not allowed to impede with free speech). Twitter employees were not even sure what rule to apply to block that information. Nothing to see there... Democrads good, Musk bad . Not to say your argument is just nonsencical, he gets attention to himself, not diverts it.

Have you looked at some of the posts that were deleted? It's possible to do that with the wayback machine. I did, and am not surprised that they were deleted.

[Zero999]

Twitter was violationg first amendment on behalf of democrats (government is not allowed to impede with free speech).

You are confusing public company with the government. To the same extent you can claim that Fox News “violated” the 1st on behave of Republican administration when Trump was POTUS, and CNN “violates” it on behalf of Democratic admins.

Government pressure has been applied to Twitter to suppress information, so the "It's a private company." argument doesn't hold.

Musk Just opened up the -HunterBiden-twitter-dirty laundry  files

He's so desperate to divert attention away from his dire leadership, he'll try anything.

Twitter was violationg first amendment on behalf of democrats (government is not allowed to impede with free speech). Twitter employees were not even sure what rule to apply to block that information. Nothing to see there... Democrads good, Musk bad . Not to say your argument is just nonsencical, he gets attention to himself, not diverts it.

Have you looked at some of the posts that were deleted? It's possible to do that with the wayback machine. I did, and am not surprised that they were deleted.

There have also been many posts which are just as bad, yet have not been deleted.

[vk6zgo]

Twitter was violationg first amendment on behalf of democrats (government is not allowed to impede with free speech).

You are confusing public company with the government. To the same extent you can claim that Fox News “violated” the 1st on behave of Republican administration when Trump was POTUS, and CNN “violates” it on behalf of Democratic admins.

It's you who are confusing something. It would be so be if they did it themselves. But they were doing so while being instructed by members of democratic party.

At the time, the Democratic Party were not the govt, so were no different to any other pressure group, & the 1st amendment stuff doesn't apply.
The fact that there was so much internal discussion does not look like anyone "instructed" them.
What Twitter might, quite wisely, have worried about was the possibility of getting sued.
Even in the USA, slander is a thing.

[Ranayna]

There have also been many posts which are just as bad, yet have not been deleted.

I know there is quite a bit of porn on Twitter. As long as that is not against twitter rules (and i assume it is not, since there is so much of it), and it is posted with consent of the involved persons, they do not need to be removed.

But there is a major difference with the links i found: it is quite obvious that the pictures where not posted by the involved persons themselves. The posters mostly had Chinese looking handles. Those posts should definitely be removed, when they are reported.

Combined with the fact that Biden was not "the government" when the posts were removed, i have no bloody idea why this is such a big topic.
Do you want to tell us that removing involuntary distributed private pictures is something "left" or "woke"? I can't imagine what kind of hell would have broken loose if similar pictures of a Trump family member would have been leaked.