from the fine-I'll-start-my-own-social-media-company-with-blackjack-..... dept.
Twitter has just accepted Elon Musk's offer to buy the company.
Twitter accepts buyout, giving Elon Musk total control of the company
On April 25th, Twitter's board of directors accepted Musk's offer of $54.20 per share, or $44 billion, for total control of the company. It was the same price he named in his initial offer on April 14th. Upon completion of the transaction, Twitter will become a private company.
Additional coverage on Reuters, The New York Times, NPR and The Wall Street Journal.
From The Wall Street Journal:
The Wall Street Journal reported Twitter and Mr. Musk had reached an agreement to value Twitter at $44 billion.
The takeover, if it goes through, would mark one of the biggest acquisitions in tech history and will likely have global repercussions for years to come related to how billions of people use social media.
Is this the end for Twitter? Will it become a bastion of unfettered free speech, will it become a dumpster fire (you can bookmark this just in case), or will it be "meet the new boss, same as the old boss"?
Related Stories
Over at ACM.org, Samuel Greengard speculates Elon Musk buying Twitter is more about freedom to control speech:
The press has mostly accepted Musk's statement that the $44-billion acquisition is a "free speech" crusade that will create wonderful online town squares brimming with democratic ideas! It's 1998 naivete revisited. The Internet will bridge the digital divide! It will end oppression and censorship! It's the dawn of a new era for world freedom!
This isn't 1776, or even 1976. No one assembles at a town square to politely share ideas and debate philosophies. The Federal Communications Commission's imperfect but beneficial Fairness Doctrine is now buried deep in history. Today's online world, while delivering an appearance of democratization, has introduced hidden traps and limitations that we can't see.
It's no secret that algorithmic engines run (and rule) the Internet—and Twitter. They amplify, magnify, and even distort ideas. They introduce biases and, too often, they discriminate. They also manipulate our minds—and our thinking.
[...] Make no mistake, there will be a line; actually, lots of lines. What's more, even if Musk somehow accomplishes the seemingly impossible task of ensuring that everyone on the platform is verified, there's no way to guarantee that this will stop abuse—or that there will be any real penalty for the offenders.
[...] Yes, Twitter will wind up with different rules, results and outcomes—and it may be the better or worse for it. Along the way, some people will cheer, and others will jeer. But framing the discussion as a "free speech" issue is entirely disingenuous. This is simply a billionaire attempting to etch his world view into an algorithm—even if he brands himself a swashbuckling digital freedom fighter.
Previously
After Musk's Twitter Takeover, an Open-Source Alternative is 'Exploding'
Elon Musk has just bought Twitter
The pressure on Twitter to talk publicly about how it monitors and removes spam accounts continues to mount.
Reports from CNN and The Washington Post reveal an 84-page whistleblower complaint alleging that Twitter isn't motivated to track the true number of spam accounts and hid security vulnerabilities from federal regulators.
The complaint comes from Twitter's former security chief, Peiter Zatko. Zatko is a well-known ethical hacker with the alias "Mudge." He told the Post that he "felt ethically bound" to report his serious concerns to government agencies. He alleges that he was fired for pushing disinclined Twitter executives to address major security problems—which his complaint suggests "pose a threat" to Twitter "users' personal information, to company shareholders, to national security, and to democracy."
Zatko alleges that Twitter execs were more invested in covering up those vulnerabilities, including cherry-picking and misrepresenting data on spam accounts and security threats to regulators and Twitter's board members.
Previously:
Judge Orders Twitter to Give Elon Musk Former Executive's Documents
Elon Musk Pulls Deal to Buy Twitter
Twitter Reportedly Will Give Musk the Full "Firehose" of User Data
Elon Musk Accuses Twitter of Thwarting His Due Diligence, Threatens to Walk Out of Deal
Twitter Users React to Elon Musk Putting Buyout Deal 'on Hold'
Musk Buying Twitter Is Not About Freedom of Speech
After Musk's Twitter Takeover, an Open-Source Alternative is 'Exploding'
Elon Musk has just bought Twitter
Elon Musk Isn't Joining Twitter's Board of Directors After All
Elon Musk Will Join Twitter's Board of Directors
(Score: -1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 26 2022, @01:11AM (6 children)
He's been cumming in his pants since he got the news.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 26 2022, @01:16AM
And you have been peeing in yours.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 26 2022, @03:08AM (4 children)
Yes, finally a website where he won't be banned for calling various emergency workers pedos for not accepting his help.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 26 2022, @04:06AM (1 child)
"groomers." Come on, keep up with the times.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 26 2022, @04:18AM
"minor attracted persons." Minus ten from your social justice credit score for punching down and marginalizing the oppressed.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday April 26 2022, @06:35PM (1 child)
Pretty sure Rogan is BOYCOTTING Twitter and not banned from it. Somehow that is not cancel culture, of course.
As for options for what Musk might do with Twitter:
This won't happen but if he really is buying this thing for the FREE SPEECH then he could decentralize the whole thing.
That's really the only way to guarantee free speech on Twitter but it won't happen because I'm pretty sure he doesn't give a flying fuck about free speech on Twitter.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 26 2022, @09:40PM
Sorry, I meant Musk. Indefinite pronoun.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 26 2022, @01:25AM (72 children)
The ACLU have an interesting take. [aclu.org] Interesting because they never called out the threats to free speech or democracy caused by Twitter censoring the nypost Hunter Biden story or a Bezos owned WaPo running anti-democratic op-eds. [townhall.com]
And what suddenly happened to the "private companies can do what they like" arguments [nitter.net] that the pro-censorship lobby repeated for years?
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 26 2022, @01:30AM
They were hypocrites drunk on their own power. And now that a tiny piece of it has been taken away, even though not much will change on the platform, they are screeching.
(Score: 5, Touché) by epitaxial on Tuesday April 26 2022, @01:52AM (9 children)
The FBI has had the laptop for what, three years now? I'm sure we'll hear news about it soon...
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 26 2022, @02:20AM (4 children)
Yes, you will! [house.gov]
(Score: 2) by epitaxial on Tuesday April 26 2022, @02:53AM
tl;dr
Tom Rice says hurry up and find dirt already
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday April 26 2022, @06:22PM (2 children)
OH MY GOD!!!! Republicans wrote a mean letter to Merrick Garland?!!?!?!?! What next?
They would Tweet about it but the Jewish Space Laser would burn up all the copies while they were still in the tubes!
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2022, @12:30AM (1 child)
Thought you'd never ask. [dailymail.co.uk]
(Score: 2) by epitaxial on Wednesday April 27 2022, @09:03PM
You're linking to one of the world's worst tabloids as a source of news?
(Score: 2, Funny) by sgleysti on Tuesday April 26 2022, @02:52AM (3 children)
Also, people complain about Trump, but we still haven't gotten to the bottom of Hilary's emails.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 26 2022, @03:07AM
I thought they were printed out and were stuffed in those cardboard boxes with all those top secret papers that were taken to Mar a Lago.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday April 26 2022, @11:22AM
Nor are we supposed to until the information is deemed FOI releasable. At issue was sloppy handling of state secrets. Secret secrets.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday April 26 2022, @06:24PM
Don't worry, all the classified ones have been printed out and stored at Mar-a-Lago.
They'll get to the bottom of it any minute now!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 26 2022, @01:52AM (2 children)
That crowd tends to overlap almost 1:1 with the Rules-for-the-but-not-for-me crowd
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 26 2022, @02:24AM
thee gruddammit
(Score: 3, Touché) by driverless on Tuesday April 26 2022, @02:31PM
What do you mean "will it become"?
(Score: 2, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 26 2022, @02:00AM (1 child)
It's interesting that nobody called out the threats to free speech and democracy caused by centralized censorship of the entire internet, other than a few independent news sites. This went to show that the entire organized Left is a honeypot run by someone opposed to free speech and democracy. Nobody stayed true to their supposed values.
It has come out that they were taking orders from the State Department, the National Security Council, and the Queen of England, and the CIA declared a national security interest in these companies having a monopoly on all online communications. [zerohedge.com]
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Tuesday April 26 2022, @03:19AM
No. What it shows is that people tend to have tunnel vision. They focus on the stuff they know that interests them. And I acknowledge that this is just as true of me as of everyone else. There's probably no way around that problem. Most folks aren't technically knowledgeable, so they don't think about the implications of things related to technology. So you have smart people clicking on malware links in their email, and not realizing that they're doing anything dangerous.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 26 2022, @02:28AM (53 children)
Oh shut the fuck up with your goddam "but but his laptop !" bullshit. It's the "but but her emails !" thing all over again. The way you trumptards cling desperately to every tiny bit of irrelevancy to take your whataboutism to the next level is pathetic.
You kept screaming that Trump was being "censored", while every single word he spoke, no matter how infuriatingly false or downright ridiculous was being instantly grabed by every news media in existence and broacasted in a loop, day in and day out, by every country in every language on the entire fucking planet. I'd sure like to be "censored" like that !
Trump lost. Get over it, losers.
(Score: 2) by epitaxial on Tuesday April 26 2022, @02:59AM
Help I'm being censored!
says the man whose house contains a room dedicated to holding press and media briefings.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 26 2022, @03:54AM (6 children)
There is nothing irrelevant about Hillary's emails, or Hunter's laptop.
You silly sonsabitches insisted on impeaching a sitting president over bullshit that couldn't be proven. Biden's laptop is most definitely provable. Hillary's transgressions are less provable, but just as certain. You're a partisan shill, no less than Trump's kids are.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Tuesday April 26 2022, @06:28AM (5 children)
That's rich, talking about what's provable...was impeachment "unprovable", or did all the Republicans just cover their ears and say "la la la can't hear you"?
You can prove things all you want but when going into the trial you know the vote will be along party lines...fucking hell.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 4, Informative) by tangomargarine on Wednesday April 27 2022, @02:40PM (4 children)
Oh right, I forgot they refused to even hear witnesses. That was the most mind-boggling part of the whole thing.
--
"We can't appoint a new Supreme Court justice a year before an election, that would be wrong. However when it's *our* guy in power we are totally justified doing the exact same thing a *month* before the election!"
"Dr. Ford's testimony about being sexually assaulted was very compelling, however we decided in advance we didn't care, so go away and we'll appoint him anyway."
"Sure, bring the second impeachment charges. We'll consider them. Oops! He's out of office now, so case dismissed!"
Trump weaseling around saying he would accept the election results if he lost the first time around, when he won...called it, then he threw a royal tantrum the second time around. People died in the Capitol insurrection, in the clearest case of presidential treason in decades. And he got away with it.
--
Four years of collective madness. And since they wouldn't convict him on impeachment charges, he's free to run again.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2022, @03:57PM (3 children)
Waitwaitwait ...
Ford's testimony?
That was in conflict with the facts as far as they could be ascertained, that had no corroboration, that didn't match anything except the dreadful fever dream that obviously anybody that the republicans like must be a caricature of evil?
Yeah, if that's the best you have you can sit down again. Thanks for your very valuable contribution.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday April 27 2022, @04:26PM (2 children)
Oh good, I see you're just as compassionate about rape as you are the rest of your politics.
Calling rape victims liars is a pretty bad look since Me Too.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2022, @04:40PM (1 child)
I suppose you can't find room in your gigantic heart for those implausibly accused?
You see, here's the thing. For rape victims to be called liars, they a) have to be actual victims of rape and b) have to be called liars.
Ford:
a) claims to be a victim of rape, but the case is very far from being plausible - maybe she is, but if so we'd expect better evidence
b) someone might be calling her a liar, I'm just calling her unsupported by corroborating sources
I think the straw fell out of your strawman. Wanna try that again?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2022, @09:20PM
And the rape-of-a-minor charge from the week before the election, which was quietly withdrawn that weekend. The withdrawal was somehow missed by the mainstream press.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 26 2022, @06:07AM (38 children)
Biden was (still is?) a crackhead. He was on crack. It's very obvious that he can hardly put a coherent sentence together ... wait a minute, I think that's something crack might cause, no?
Yet he gets a 600K/year job for something that he had no experience in. It's very obvious to anyone that's not on crack that his dad probably had something to do with that. It's not rocket science.
Yet CNN and the mainstream media tried to pretend that this was impossible, they tried to avoid covering it, downplay it, etc...
The only question I really have is why isn't Joe Biden in jail?
(Score: 2, Informative) by tangomargarine on Tuesday April 26 2022, @06:25AM (37 children)
I'm sorry, what? He was vice-president for 8 years! That's literally infinitely more political experience than Trump had!
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 26 2022, @06:46AM (36 children)
It was Hunter Biden that got the 600K/year job with no prior experience.
You aren't even familiar with the context.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday April 26 2022, @02:55PM (35 children)
After a search, the president makes around $400k a year. You never said "Hunter" in the entire post, then switched to talking about Joe at the end? I think you share in the blame for confusing me here.
Yeah okay, I missed this clue.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 26 2022, @03:05PM (33 children)
Because everyone knows that it was his son that got that job and that was on crack. Or at least everyone should know the context unless you literally live under a (left wing?) rock?
Seriously, are you so ignorant that you don't know these basic things about our president and his son? Where have you been this whole time?
I partly blame the mainstream media for your embarrassing ignorance.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 26 2022, @03:29PM (32 children)
Here
"Through Decades Of Addiction, Hunter Biden Says His Family Never Gave Up On Him"
https://www.npr.org/2021/04/05/983385027/hunter-biden-says-his-family-never-gave-up-on-him [npr.org]
Yet he gets a 600K/year job as an oil consultant/board member (? or some such nonsense, he isn't qualified to be a consultant on anything) at a Ukrainian gas company with zero prior experience only after Joe Biden becomes vice president and had influence over whether they would get billions of dollars in U.S. spending.
You tell me that Joe Biden had nothing to do with Hunter Biden getting that job and I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
Yet I remember CNN saying, Oh no, the Biden's are so honest, they have nothing but integrity. Yeah right.
At one time CNN even said something to the extent, it is well known that family members of political leaders tend to have better jobs than regular people (with the same qualifications), as if that's OK and doesn't indicate any conflicts of interest. It's not OK.
I guess the point is that issues aren't discussed in a bubble. They are discussed within a context. Within the context of what's going on. For a reader to be so ignorant on such a substantial and important subject (ie: our president and his son) that they needed the context spelled out and spoon fed to them to understand what's being said is embarrassing on the part of the reader (and the media outlets the reader gets information from - most likely the mainstream media).
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday April 26 2022, @06:46PM (31 children)
You can keep ranting on this topic if you want, but I never denied it happened.
Okay, you can stop saying this! You've already posted this sentiment 4 or 5 times now.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 26 2022, @07:07PM (30 children)
So the relevant question now is why is Joe Biden president when where he belong is in jail.
Someone that's obviously a criminal gets to be president of the U.S.
Where is the outrage?
(Score: 3, Informative) by tangomargarine on Tuesday April 26 2022, @08:24PM (29 children)
"If we threw everybody in jail who broke a law the Capitol would be empty"
People love to bring up things like this and act like they're exactly as bad as things like the insurrection. Which Trump wasn't punished for either.
okay now I know you're just trolling
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 26 2022, @10:14PM (28 children)
So you defend Joe Biden using his political power to personally benefit his son? You think that's excusable? You're fine with him being president after that and facing no consequences?
Yet I'm the one trolling.
At least we know where you stand.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday April 27 2022, @02:21AM (11 children)
Nepotism is a reality of the world. It's not a good thing, but I'm not going to say Biden can't be president just because of that one thing. That's like saying "well he told a lie at some point in his life so he can't be president."
And comparing showing favoritism to your son while hiring, that probably isn't even illegal, is a completely false equivalence to Trump's insurrection.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2022, @04:09AM (4 children)
Trump didn't call for an insurrection.
Besides it was a riot at best. And Trump wasn't behind it.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2022, @04:55AM (2 children)
Yeah, Trump totally didn't post two months of incendiary lies about the election allegedly being stolen to stoke outrage among his base. And despite sham audits from the right, you still can't find evidence of the alleged election fraud. You're even less credible than OJ Simpson pledging to hunt for the real killers.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2022, @05:31AM
So the most you can do to claim that Trump was behind the riot is to criticize his belief that there was election fraud.
Stating his opinion that there was election fraud does not make him responsible for the riot. Otherwise anyone can be responsible for the actions of someone else just for stating an opinion.
What Biden did was much worse.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2022, @09:33PM
- 2000 Mules - US 2020 Election Fraud at a Glance [electionfraud20.org]
Guess how the left will be reviewing that movie! Well, they won't... they'll have their thumbs in their pockets, because nobody will ever hear of it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2022, @09:24PM
Considering Trump and especially considering the typical Trump activist, if that was an insurrection, it was certainly a half-assed one. Couldn't even find a cop car to burn. Either Trump supporters are all actual patriots, or the other side isn't.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2022, @04:19AM (5 children)
When a politician puts the interests of his son before the nation I really don't see how you can downplay that. Then you deflect the subject onto something else as if two wrongs make a right even to the extent that Trump may have been wrong.
At least I got you to state your position. Your position is a hard sell.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2022, @04:51AM (4 children)
Funny how your side didn't apply that standard to Trump threatening to withhold Congressionally authorized military aid from Ukraine unless Zelenskyy investigated Biden.
As for nepotism, Trump did that, too. That's what got Ivanka her position in the White House and how Jared Kushner appointed as a senior advisor to make policy recommendations for the Middle East. Neither was qualified. But your side was okay with that.
Suddenly pretending to care about ethics now is laughable. What's it like to be such a hypocrite?
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2022, @05:44AM (3 children)
While I agree it's important to note that there is a difference between Trump openly appointing people he trusts vs Biden secretly using his policy decision making power to get his son a job.
Biden's policy decisions should be based on the public interest not on whether this company will hire his son. Then Biden lies and denies having anything to do with his son getting that job. At least Trump does what he does in the open.
Trump was elected to appoint who he saw fit. That's within the scope of what he was elected to do. He can find people that think like him to appoint.
Biden was not elected to make policies and determine taxpayer spending based on whether his son gets a job. That needs to be determined based on the public interest.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 28 2022, @08:22PM (2 children)
This is why yoy don't devate with trumpers, they are insane and will just use your arguments to confidently spew some rhetoric to sway opinions, even if only sowing the slightest seed of doubt. After enough tiny seeds the human brain says "heeyyyy, I've seen so many claims of conservatives/trump/beerboofer being persecuted there MUST be something there." Because that is how human brains operate.
All this thread is done is give the above AC maga twit more of a platform to spew trolling lies. Just call their mothers rodents and their dads alcoholics, maybe lob a few cows at the Qtards.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 28 2022, @09:55PM
So let me get this straight: discourse is no longer considered a meaningful approach to the public debate.
What is next? Total devolution? Civil war?
Will your next post come from a hardened bunker in the antiTrump Separatist lands?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 29 2022, @01:56PM
The democrats claim to be populist but they try to control the narrative, and censor free speech, at the institutional level. No different than what they do in socialist countries.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2022, @04:46AM (15 children)
You mean like how Trump used his political power to threaten to withhold military aid authorized by Congress to Ukraine unless Zelenskyy had Biden investigated? There is literally zero disagreement about what was said during that phone call; everyone agrees that Trump threatened to illegally withhold aid unless Zelenskyy had Biden investigated. Congress authorized the aid for Ukraine. Trump did not have legal authority to withhold aid from Ukraine. But he attempted the quid pro quo anyway. That got Trump impeached, but all Republicans except Romney voted to not hold Trump accountable.
So you want Biden removed from office but you're okay with Trump being above the law.
Got it.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2022, @05:56AM (11 children)
You can argue that an investigation into Biden is in the public interest. For instance if Biden did use his decision making power to get his son a job the public ought to know. It's in the public interest to know.
Biden tying taxpayer funding to his son getting a job is not in the public interest.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2022, @06:58AM (10 children)
Most of the world's autocrats aren't cartoonishly evil like Kim Jong-Un. Instead, they operate their regimes with a facade of democracy while ensuring that they win those elections. They rig elections and intimidate voters. But autocrats also tend to use criminal investigations and prosecutions to intimidate, discredit, and even imprison their political opponents.
It's an abuse of power for a president to request or order an investigation into his political opponents. A president can request that certain types of crimes be prioritized or deprioritized, but it's not acceptable to request an investigation into a specific individual. Those tactics are common in non-democratic regimes but have no place in a democracy like the United States.
There's a valid public interest in knowing whether Donald Trump and other White House officials had a role in planning and organizing the January 6 insurrection. But it would be inappropriate for Joe Biden to use his authority as president to request such an investigation or try to coerce people into carrying out an investigation. That would be an abuse of power.
The public interest in an investigation of the Bidens is irrelevant. Presidents don't get to use the powers of their office to target their political opponents.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2022, @12:11PM (3 children)
"It's an abuse of power for a president to request or order an investigation into his political opponents."
It can be, depending on if there was reasonable suspicion. I would say there is strong reasonable suspicion that Biden is guilty.
A: It wasn't really proven that Trump did any such thing. I would say that, given the circumstances, he probably did, and he probably shouldn't have, but it wasn't really proven any more than it was proven that Obama illegally spied on Trump (which I would also say he probably did). But your side gets a pass.
And most of the conspiracy theories against Trump never panned out (ie: Russian collusion, etc...). They threw so many accusations against Trump that never panned out. Even Robert Mueller did not find any evidence of collusion, they were just throwing blanket accusations at him.
B: I never gave Trump a pass on anything. My issue is with the fact that you give Biden a pass. When confronted with something that Biden did wrong you do your best to deny it and when you can no longer deny it you just give him a pass and deflect the conversation. It's like right and wrong don't matter to you. Even to the extent that Trump was wrong on something that doesn't excuse Biden. Our current president is Biden. He is a criminal and belongs in jail. Stop changing the subject and address why is it that a criminal is our current president and why are you OK with it?
"But ... but ... but ... TRUMP!!!!" is not an appropriate response. Again, even to the extent that Trump was wrong two wrongs don't make a right. Don't change the subject. Address the issue.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 28 2022, @02:33AM (2 children)
Yes, the surveillance of Carter Page was improper, and the Steele Dossier should not have been treated as a credible source. This was an infringement on Carter Page's civil liberties and was unacceptable. The Steele Dossier has now largely been debunked, and it should not have been treated as a credible without verifying the allegations it contained.
However, Obama did not order this surveillance. Biden didn't order it, either. It was a decision made by career officials within the FBI, not political appointees. Saying that Obama ordered the surveillance, which you did, is a lie.
It is always improper for a president to use his authority against his political opponents. It's irrelevant whether Hunter Biden and Joe Biden are criminals. Trump was wrong to attempt to use his position to coerce a foreign leader to investigate his political opponents for him.
You claim that you don't give Trump a pass, but that's exactly what you're doing in your post. You're desperately trying to say that Trump was justified in threatening to withhold military aid from Ukraine unless there was an investigation into the Bidens. Trump's quid pro quo was an abuse of power and was in defiance of Congress, who had authorized the military aid.
And yes, Trump is relevant here. Specifically, your position on Trump is very relevant. You are giving Trump a pass while demanding that Biden be jailed. It shows that you're not sincere in wanting elected officials to behave ethically. Instead, your position is about politics, supporting Trump while opposing Biden.
If the FBI determines that Hunter Biden engaged in criminal behavior, he should be prosecuted. If the FBI obtains compelling evidence that Joe Biden used his authority to coerce Ukraine, he should be impeached, convicted, and prosecuted. None of that has happened. But if there is substantial and compelling evidence of crimes, yes, the Bidens should be held accountable.
Unlike you, I have no problem holding the Bidens and Trumps to the same standard. You, on the other hand, want Biden in prison while giving Trump a pass for his many crimes. Your post contains false information and should be modded troll like most of your other posts have been. It is most certainly not insightful.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 28 2022, @05:44AM (1 child)
It took a whole lot of evidence to convince you that maybe Joe Biden is in fact guilty (and your side tried to downplay it as much as possible) but it didn't take a lot of evidence to convince you that Trump is guilty.
The NYP posted an article about the laptop and they got silenced. Heck, various social media outlets silenced anyone discussing the issue for almost a year. Joe Biden automatically gets the benefit of the doubt.
Yet Donald Trump falsely gets accused of collusion with Russia with absolutely zero evidence and he must be guilty until substantial exonerating evidence is presented.
Biden is innocent until proven guilty.
Trump is guilty until proven innocent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 28 2022, @01:54PM
(another example would be claiming Trump was behind the capital riots and calling it an insurrection because he stated the elections were stolen. But but but ... it was Trump, so he is automatically guilty of the riot (strikethrough) insurrection).
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2022, @12:19PM (5 children)
"Instead, they operate their regimes with a facade of democracy while ensuring that they win those elections."
It's rich that your side would be the ones to say that when it is your side against election integrity measures.
Not saying the election was rigged. What I am saying is that the government holds the burden of putting strong election integrity measures in place to ensure the integrity of the elections.
Yet you want mail in ballots. You don't want people presenting ID before voting. You claim it has something to do with discriminating against minorities from rural locations when most people that live in rural locations are white and various polls have shown that most minorities favor ID checks. You're the one being racist by claiming that certain minorities are somehow unable to obtain an ID, what, they don't know how?
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday April 27 2022, @02:30PM (2 children)
Yeah, because your stringent voter ID laws disenfranchising your opponents is so full of integrity. And it's been proved that voting fraud is NOT a problem of any consequence, only a convenient excuse for you Republicans to screw with the vote. The irony of Trump's "stolen election"...this is a regular Republican tactic, loudly accuse the Dems of doing what they themselves are doing way worse. And in the Trump era, usually without a single shred of evidence.
Ah right, you're *that* AC. It has already been explained to you that the lower working class sometimes cannot afford to just take the day off to vote or obtain ID, the ID centers are miles away and they may not have a car, fees to obtain the ID, etc., etc. Yet you still take this line of bull argument that "it's because you think they're dumb because you're a RACIST!"
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2022, @03:32PM (1 child)
"And it's been proved "
It has not been proven. Without the election integrity measures necessary to detect fraud how can it be proven? Is it that you want to remove all election integrity measures exactly so that we can't detect and hence prove fraud if there is fraud?
The burden is on the government to provide the necessary election integrity to prove to me that there is no fraud. Not the other way around. They hold that burden because we pay taxes. They owe it to us to ensure elections are secure.
"It has already been explained to you that the lower working class sometimes cannot afford to just take the day off to vote or obtain ID,"
So they work, what, 12 hours a day 7 days a week? They have such full time jobs and can not afford to take a day off even and are never given a day off? They can't afford an ID even? This isn't a reasonable explanation. There may be some edge cases that this is true but, by and large, this makes no sense.
"the ID centers are miles away and they may not have a car,"
So make them closer. If they need a Taxi I wouldn't mind the government paying for it even. Pay them to vote and force their employer to give them a day off if that's what's needed. Don't remove the requirement for an ID. Election integrity is too important for that.
You demand an ID for just about everything else but not to vote. You need an ID to buy alcohol, cigarettes, to have a bank account (oh, these people have full time jobs but don't have an ID, how are they working and getting paid, what, under the table? do they not pay taxes?), most if not all landlords require an ID to rent out their place (they want to know who they are renting to), Food stamps & welfare need an ID, they work so they would be entitled to Social security or unemployment which needs ID, do they not have cell phone plans (that also usually requires an ID), picking up prescriptions, if they work how are they getting to work if they can't find transportation? Do they take an Uber, that requires ID, no?, etc...
Here is a list
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/24-things-that-require-a-photo-id [washingtonexaminer.com]
but they don't need one to vote.
"fees to obtain the ID",
So make them free.
You literally haven't addressed anything.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 28 2022, @12:22AM
In other words, the only election security you care about is voter ID laws and perhaps making it harder to vote by mail. For years, Democrats proposed bills that would ban voting machines from being connected to the internet, promote use of paper ballots, provide bug bounties for the software on voting machines, and many other proposals. They were all rejected by Republicans, either claiming they're unnecessary or an attempt for the federal government to seize control of elections from the states. In other words, you wanted to make sure that states had the rights to run elections that aren't secure. After blocking all those bills, your side has the audacity to claim that there was election fraud, sometimes alleging things like voting machines being connected to the internet that your side refused to ban.
The real difference here is that banning voting machines from being connected to the internet or promoting the use of paper ballots doesn't make it harder for Democrats to vote. That's your real goal.
Many Democrats have actually supported voter ID requirements within the past year. See https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/23/us/politics/democrats-voter-id-laws.html [nytimes.com] and https://www.npr.org/2021/08/28/1031164994/democrats-are-now-open-to-new-voter-id-rules-it-probably-wont-win-over-the-gop [npr.org]. From the NYT article:
Requiring government issued photo IDs isn't enough for Republicans, who want to further restrict the types of photo IDs that are accepted. That's all the evidence necessary to show that Republican demands for photo IDs isn't about election security. If it was about election security, Republicans would accept all of those forms of government-issued photo identification. They won't, because their goal is to make it hard for people to vote, particularly for people who are more likely to vote for Democrats.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2022, @11:59PM (1 child)
Let's review some history from 2020: https://thehill.com/homenews/house/482569-senate-gop-blocks-three-election-security-bills/ [thehill.com].
Or from 2019: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/07/us/politics/election-security-mitch-mcconnell.html [nytimes.com]
Republicans repeatedly blocked election security measures. Then they had the audacity to argue that the 2020 election should be invalidated because of election fraud. Moreover, one of the frequent allegations was that voting machines were connected to the internet; Democrats sought to ban exactly that, but Republicans blocked the ban.
It's looking a lot like your side blocked election security bills so you'd have an excuse to try to discredit the 2020 election if Trump lost.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 28 2022, @01:27AM
I don't really think Trump won that race. Sure there were issues but not enough to change the outcome of an election.
Also I don't claim that the Republicans are perfect either. I genuinely want strong election integrity laws regardless of who wins.
I didn't and wouldn't vote for Trump. Nor Biden. While I tend to lean conservative I'm not thrilled with either party.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 28 2022, @05:49AM (2 children)
"There is literally zero disagreement about what was said during that phone call"
I imagine you're not going to hold Trump to the same standard of evidence as you would Obama. I wonder if this is just another case of since it's Trump he must automatically be guilty unless he is proven innocent.
Oh, but Obama is innocent until proven guilty.
We don't really know what was said during the phone call. Just like we don't know the extent that Obama may or may not have been involved in investigating Trump. We can only really speculate but don't require much more proof to condemn your side but much less proof to condemn the other side.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 28 2022, @02:29PM (1 child)
That is a lie. There is a transcript of the conversation. Trump did not dispute the transcript, instead describing his phone call as "perfect."
Actually, we have a pretty good idea. Specifically, William Barr appointed John Durham as a special counsel to investigate the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation. The court filings from Durham's investigation don't link Obama with any surveillance of Trump or his campaign.
Durham was appointed by William Barr in May 2019. He was elevated to special counsel in December 2020 so the investigation would continue after Trump left office. This investigation has lasted for just about three years, so a year longer than Mueller's investigation. No evidence has been presented linking Obama to surveillance of the Trump campaign.
The standard here is that we need evidence. We have that evidence of Trump's phone call to Zelenskyy, and Trump doesn't dispute the content of the transcript. In fact, Trump encouraged people to read the transcript, describing his phone call as "perfect." Although it's not a word-for-word transcript, Trump described it as an "exact" transcript. Not only do we have evidence, but Trump agrees with the evidence.
Meanwhile, you have exactly zero evidence that Obama ordered surveillance of the Trump campaign. Your allegations against Obama aren't taken seriously because you literally have zero evidence to support them. Meanwhile, there is strong evidence of Trump's conversation with Zelenskyy, evidence that Trump agrees is accurate.
Your lies have been exposed and debunked. Give up already, troll.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 28 2022, @03:58PM
"Both documents should be treated with caution. A footnote in the five-page reconstructed transcript says it is not verbatim, and its text contains ellipses.
Similarly, a footnote in the Office of Legal Counsel memo says it is a rewritten version and that “we have changed the prior version to avoid references to certain details that remain classified.”"
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/25/us/politics/ukraine-phone-call-transcript.html [nytimes.com]
"Zelenskiy, when asked in the open, has said he never felt "pushed" by Trump."
https://www.npr.org/2019/11/07/775456663/who-was-on-the-trump-ukraine-call [npr.org]
So saying that Trump tied funding to the investigation is not proven. Ukraine did get their funding, right?
As I said, it does appear Trump did try to ask if Biden should be investigated. He probably shouldn't have.
I was kinda of tired when I posted but you make some good points. I marked your comment as insightful. After doing some more reading it's not clear that Trump tied aid in exchange for an investigation but it does appear he may have suggested that there should be an investigation. He probably shouldn't have.
I would say the extent that Obama interfered with the investigation into Trump is also unclear.
"The Trump White House pointed to an article on the conservative Federalist website that said during the transition in early 2017, Obama intervened in the FBI’s investigation of national security adviser Flynn’s contacts with a Russian diplomat. According to secondhand notes from someone who wasn’t in the room, in a meeting with Comey, Obama indicated that the FBI "should look at things and have the right people on it.""
https://www.npr.org/2019/11/07/775456663/who-was-on-the-trump-ukraine-call [npr.org]
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 26 2022, @03:10PM
So, it's obvious to anyone that you don't even know what that laptop is purported to have shown. You have ZERO knowledge on this subject or else what I said would have made perfect sense. You've done zero digging and the mainstream media absolutely failed you. Yet all these left wing ignorant idiots want to comment on stuff they know absolutely nothing about.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 26 2022, @08:11AM (3 children)
Not to mention . . .
[Oh, shit, am I mentioning it, again?]
What about the damn aristarchus journal entries we should have had since January? Yeah, what about those?
.
We got authoritarian censorship here enough not to worry about what Melon Usk might do to us, we have already done it to ourselves. #Freearisarchus, and bring him back. Rescind the Perma-ban, and stop with the stupid Spam mods! How stupid are the admins, that TMB looks like a giant in comparison?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 26 2022, @12:28PM
What about the fact that aristarchus was doxing people. Why would he do that I wonder?
Shows your character that you would try to defend this person.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday April 26 2022, @02:14PM (1 child)
(Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 26 2022, @11:27PM
Aristarchus chose nothing. He was banned from this site by tryants! No evidence presented, no public trial, no community input. Something of a British Star Chamber, if you know what I mean.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday April 26 2022, @06:47PM
Oh haha, I actually thought he was joking!
The "whatabout her emails" one was so on the nose I thought it was a joke and gave it a +1 funny!
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2022, @12:32PM
It's not BS.
Biden clearly used his political decision making power to help his son get a job. Yet you still defend him and want us to just shut up about it. You want to silence those that disagree with your political party and that dare to criticize the establishment.
What Biden did was wrong. I will not shut up about it.
(Score: 5, Informative) by stretch611 on Tuesday April 26 2022, @06:41AM (1 child)
Let me employ a conservative approach to this... WHATABOUTISM...
All the news on Hunter Biden and so far the only crime he has done is tax evasion... Which he paid the fines and settled it with the IRS.
What about Jared (wish he was a Trump) Kushner?
From the New York Post [nypost.com]; which is a conservative outlet no less.
Not to mention at the time of scrutiny for MBS when it was revealed that he killed Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi, a US resident no less, after being lured to the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. Where was Kushner then... on whatsapp privately discussing ways to make the whole scandal blow over quicker.
While the conservative media is whining about an alleged $10 million payment to Hunter Biden, they say nothing of an actual $25 million fee to Kushner... and that $25 million is not a one time fee but a recurring annual one.
Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 26 2022, @04:10PM
You are aware of what Kushner's Affinity Partners does? [reuters.com]
None of this is relevant to the fact that Twitter attempted to bury the Hunter Biden laptop story, even the details are misdirection, but let's review. [nytimes.com]
This is how stupid the NYT thinks it's readers are...
"Sweetheart deals" indeed! [nypost.com] Echos of "I did not have sexual relations with that woman".
(Score: 4, Insightful) by SomeGuy on Tuesday April 26 2022, @01:25AM (24 children)
Well, at least it wasn't bought up by Donald Trump.
BTW, this should be another reminder that people/companies/the world should never become too dependent on any one piece of technology. But you don't care do you?
Tomorrow's news:
Elon Musk has left feedback: "Item not as described. Requesting refund. Don't trust this seller!"
Historically, getting bought up is indeed a common way for a technology product to die off, even if intentions were good. So go for it!
So is he going to change the name? Any bets on wacky new names?
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Fluffeh on Tuesday April 26 2022, @02:30AM (20 children)
Who claims to have "billions and billions" which seems to be questioned at every turn as to whether he has it or doesn't have it - but even what he claims to have is a very small sliver of what this purchase was worth.
I am pretty sure that with the wrong sort of majority owner there will be a mass exodus to another platform. I don't know if Elon will cause that or not, but I think someone as polarizing as Trump would cause enough fragmentation to significantly devalue the company, and I suspect that they know that too.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Tuesday April 26 2022, @03:27AM (15 children)
The thing is, this was a complete stock purchase, he's taking it private. So why should they care if Elon causes the company to tank?
I've no particular belief that he will cause it to tank. I'm not sure why he bought it, but I suspect that it was to shape public opinion about something. He may not care about anything else.
P.S.: He won't make it wide open and unregulated. That would yield cause for criminal proceedings in several countries. Probably including the US. (It's illegal to engage in prior restraint of speech, but it's not illegal to punish afterwards. See libel, slander, obscenity, etc.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday April 26 2022, @04:05AM (14 children)
We can demonstrate that Elon was frustrated with censorship, on multiple occasions. That frustration, alone, probably wouldn't be enough to prompt buying the company. I think, and I hope, that he's looking at a bigger picture. He claims to be a free speech advocate, and can clearly see that Big Tech does not allow free speech. The man purportedly means to fix that.
The real test will be, whether you can post derogatory material about Musk, Tesla, and SpaceX. If that sort of stuff is censored, then 'meet the new boss, same as the old boss'.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 26 2022, @06:15AM (6 children)
Well, at least it might introduce an outlet that would let you discuss other things that you won't otherwise be able to discuss.
Don't like Tesla? Their car broke down and they don't want to allow you to affordably fix it? Post it on Facebook.
Don't like Facebook? You can blast Facebook on Twitter.
So now you need both a Facebook and a twitter account to have true free speech. You have to pick and choose which social media outlet to use based on what you plan to say.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by drussell on Tuesday April 26 2022, @05:36PM (5 children)
WOW!!!
You really don't understand what free speech actually is, or how the system works, do you?!!
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday April 26 2022, @08:12PM
That's actually slightly closer to reality than their previous understanding and all it took was Musk buying Twitter so in the end we all win!
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 26 2022, @11:48PM (2 children)
My comment was meant to be tongue and cheek.
Your sarcasm detector isn't working right.
(Score: 2) by drussell on Wednesday April 27 2022, @05:15AM (1 child)
It's not the least bit funny, though...
I think your sarcasm may be misplaced, as your country begins to smoulder and burn...
I really don't think you're grasping how seriously distressing the current "situations" are! Oy vey!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 28 2022, @08:33PM
Please elaborate on the distressing issues. There are many so I'm curious what your take is.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 27 2022, @01:17AM
Ask aristarchus, you hypocrite, you!
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday April 26 2022, @06:22AM
I'll admit, if I were filthy rich, I would be tempted to buy up a company that annoyed me just to shut them down. "But sir, that won't stop somebody else from just filling their shoes." "I don't care; I'm cranky and done with these fuckers, and it's possible the next one will be easier to deal with."
Or just Oracle it: buy the competition and watch them all immediately quit. Then don't seem overly concerned about it.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 26 2022, @12:31PM (2 children)
The question is going to be whether he is committed enough to free speech to unlock unpopular accounts and allow criticism of his interests. Well have to wait and see.
(Score: 2) by looorg on Tuesday April 26 2022, @01:26PM
This is what I am wondering to. How many actual changes will there be? How long will he keep Twitter before unloading it on someone else? Will there be any large changes to the userbase? As in will the downtrodden return and will the liberal elite flee to some new place of twatting?
Also it's kind of interesting that the company was just weeks ago, at least on the surface, all about keeping Musk away but now all of a sudden they fold and let him take them over.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 26 2022, @09:35PM
It's just possible that he is quite serious.
Bear in mind that he spent much of his formative years in a hopelessly unfree society, in which freedom of speech was out of the question, and hasn't shown much sign of liking that. In fact, kind of the opposite.
Sure, the proof of the pudding is in the eating and all that, but there's a reasonable case to be made here that he actually means it.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday April 26 2022, @01:09PM (1 child)
I think the new boss is just cagey enough to let that stuff slide, until it really matters.
I suspect the new boss didn't like how the old boss was shaping things, and probably wanted to take control well ahead of 2024.
By the way, after Twitter censored TheRump, he started his own alternative communication platform - or rather: tried to and failed spectacularly. It was the best kind of failure, fast and sure, clearly demonstrating a lack of capability and thereby inability to generate anything of value though the endeavor.
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://news.stanford.edu/2023/02/17/will-russia-ukraine-war-end
(Score: 3, Funny) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday April 26 2022, @03:27PM
YUUUUUGE difference between Elon and Trump. YUUUUUGE I say!
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 1) by liar on Tuesday April 26 2022, @02:02PM
I'm curious as to how this may interact with the interests of China, where I hear he has business interests. https://www.forbes.com/sites/alanohnsman/2022/04/25/could-elon-musks-twitter-deal-give-china-influence-over-the-site/ [forbes.com]
Noli nothis permittere te terere.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 26 2022, @06:02AM
"I think someone as polarizing as Trump would cause enough fragmentation to significantly devalue the company, and I suspect that they know that too."
Agree or disagree with him one of Trump's videos that Youtube removed got like over five million views in one day IIRC.
https://rumble.com/vwyrwl-donald-j.-trump-interview-with-full-send-podcast.html [rumble.com]
So Trump may bring in a lot of viewers as well.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by stretch611 on Tuesday April 26 2022, @06:13AM (2 children)
With that being said, the big question will be how long before Trump is back on twitter?
He and Musk are friendly (as friendly as Trump gets to someone that is richer than him.)
Musk has promised to make twitter "open to free speech" i.e. no rules (at least no rules that harm Musk; Surely no one that works at any of Musk's companies will be allowed to tweet something negative without losing their job.)
Trump says he won't rejoin twitter and only use 'TRUTH' social instead. [foxnews.com] {WARNING: link to Faux "news"}
Of course with the likely complete failure of 'TRUTH' and the unrelentless urge of Trump to always be in the spotlight, this will never last long.
And here is the sentiment of a different tech billionaire... Interesting question. Did the Chinese government just gain a bit of leverage over the town square? --Jeff Bezos [twitter.com]
Who has a point as long as Musk wants to keep selling cars in autocratic countries like China.
Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday April 26 2022, @08:14PM
So Musk has said he definitely won't reinstate Trump. And Trump has said he definitely will not rejoin Twitter.
So I fully expect both of those to occur by the midterms at the latest!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 26 2022, @10:10PM
Remarkable display of intellectual dishonesty, even by Bezos standards. In what sense did Twitter offer the same degree of free speech as "the town square" before Musk's acquisition? If you angered a member of the blue-check squad, your Twitter days were numbered.
Twitter was most decidedly NOT the town square.
(Score: 2) by inertnet on Tuesday April 26 2022, @07:25AM (2 children)
For some it will be Glitter, for others Bitter.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by liar on Tuesday April 26 2022, @02:07PM (1 child)
Perhaps Fritter?
verb intransitive To occupy oneself idly or without clear purpose, to tinker with an unimportant part of a project, to dally, sometimes as a form of procrastination.
Noli nothis permittere te terere.
(Score: 2) by arslan on Wednesday April 27 2022, @03:52AM
I've always thought of it as Critter - on account of various thingies that post their thought bubble ramblings on it.