Posted on 04/27/2022 5:19:34 AM PDT by Kaslin
New Twitter owner Elon Musk is vowing to reform the social media platform. "Free speech is the bedrock of a functioning democracy, and Twitter is the digital town square where matters vital to the future of humanity are debated," Musk said in a statement after his $44 billion bid to buy the company was accepted.
Many, many conservatives hope Musk succeeds. But as much as Twitter needs freer speech, it also needs to tell the world precisely what it has been doing for the last few years. That is why it should conduct a full and comprehensive audit of all the instances in which it has suspended users, banned users, reduced the visibility of tweets, and in other ways censored or suppressed information on its platform for political reasons.
How many times have you heard that this or that person you might follow on Twitter has been suspended for a day, warned, or outright thrown off the platform? And for what reason? And how do you even know when you don't see a tweet that, absent Twitter suppression, you would have seen?
We all know the most famous, most outrageous examples of Twitter suppression. For example, at this very moment, Twitter has locked out the humor site Babylon Bee for declaring transgender Biden administration official Rachel Levine "Man of the Year."
Most important, we know what Twitter did in the Hunter Biden laptop case, when, at the height of the 2020 presidential campaign, Twitter locked the account of a major newspaper, the New York Post, for publishing a story detailing suspicious business dealings of the Biden family. Twitter demanded that the Post remove the story. Twitter blocked users from sharing the story. And all on the false premise that the laptop information was hacked or inaccurate or somehow Russian disinformation. Meanwhile, Twitter did not censor the statements of those who made the false Russian disinformation claim.
After the election, when it became impossible for all but the hardest-core ideologues to deny that the laptop was real, then-Twitter chief Jack Dorsey admitted the company had made a mistake. "We recognize it as a mistake that we made, both in terms of the intention of the policy and also the enforcement action of not allowing people to share it publicly or privately," Dorsey told the Senate in late November 2020.
But Dorsey, who is no longer CEO, never explained just how Twitter came to make the decisions that it made. Who made them? Through what process? How did Twitter decide to silence some accounts while leaving others untouched? Who, specifically, did it censor, and when?
While Musk looks forward, moving to ensure free speech and "make Twitter better than ever," he needs also to look backward, to reveal to the public what Twitter has been doing for the last several years to limit speech and censor viewpoints.
Meanwhile, some on the left are freaking out about the possible end of Twitter censorship. They liked it the way it was. Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren pronounced the sale of Twitter "dangerous for our democracy." Former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich is denouncing the deal. The actresses Mia Farrow and Jameela Jamil say they will leave. The director and actor Rob Reiner is angry at the prospect that Musk might restore former President Donald Trump to Twitter.
"The question for all of us is," Reiner tweeted, "will [Musk] allow a criminal who used this platform to lie and spread disinformation to try to overthrow the U.S. government to return and continue his criminal activity? And if he does, how do we combat it?" For his part, Trump says he will not return to Twitter, that he will stay with his own site, Truth Social, although there is some skepticism about that.
In a truly delicious irony, some on the left are worried that if Musk takes control of Twitter, the platform might censor some users. Imagine that! On his MSNBC program Monday, host Ari Melber painted a scary picture of what Twitter under Musk might be like.
"If you own all of Twitter or Facebook or what have you, you don't have to explain yourself," Melber said. "You don't even have to be transparent. You could secretly ban one party's candidate or all of its candidates, all of its nominees. Or you could just secretly turn down the reach of their stuff and turn up the reach of something else, and the rest of us might not even find out about it until after the election."
Melber said it all with an entirely straight face, as if that is not precisely what Twitter has been doing in recent times, except that it favored the side he favors.
So now Musk begins the task of taking over Twitter. There are a lot of changes that need to be made to ensure fairness. And he will no doubt face fierce resistance from inside the company he has just purchased. But the thing that needs to be done first is to go fully public -- institute real transparency -- by revealing precisely how, and how often, Twitter suppressed legitimate political speech these last few years.
“Free speech is the bedrock of a functioning democracy.....”
To a liberal those words are like holy water on a vampire.
The bedrock of a functioning democracy is TRUTH. May Elon Musk experience freedom through CHRIST.
For the Lord is the Spirit, and wherever the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. ~ 2 Corinthians 3:17
I wish Elon Musk well.
It is time to totally expose the maggots who run that platform.
I’ve used it since 2009. There was a time it was actually useful. If you dug deeply, you could find some interesting unfiltered news.
On Twitter, I’ve been suspended and threatened a number of times. Have also had private messages frozen and then deleted because of the URL that I sent. They labeled it “Fringe Minority” - “Unacceptable View”.
The link was to a interview with Edward Dowd
Edward Dowd on Future Recession, Shocking Findings in the CDC Covid Data, and Democide (Mar 10, 2022)
They gave me 2 options, remove the Direct Message or block the user that I had sent it to.
I did neither. I hit Control-Shift-Delete, cleared my browser cache, rebooted my system, and in 1/2 hour when I logged back into Twitter, my DM had been removed.
I’m agnostic concerning Mr. Musk. I am reserving judgment until I see exactly what he does with the septic system called Twitter.
I do enjoy reading the manic opus’ from the almost suicidal moronic Twitter reprobates worried that “Democracy” is in jeopardy. Good, we don’t need no stinking democracy, anyway. I prefer a Constitutional Republic rather than flash mob rule.
I do worry that one or more of the mentally retarded software engineers will sabotage the code as they are sashaying out the door. Remember what the Clintonista’s did as they were leaving the White House…
What makes York think he’s entitled to know that?
Twitter’s a private company and they’re free to censor anyone they want. It may have been a bad business decision but they don’t owe us anything.
I think I’m going to demand KFC’s chicken recipe.
I’ve never had a twitter account.....fb or Instagram either for that matter and yet somehowmy life goes on.....maybe even better than some who think they can’t live without those platforms.
I am tempted to create a twit account but I think like you I’ll wait and see.
And also like you, the sheer anxiety this is creating for lunatic libs is just too delicious to ignore.
It proves one thing though....they’re all a bunch a freakin’ wimps just like I thought.
“Twitter’s a private company and they’re free to censor anyone they want. It may have been a bad business decision but they don’t owe us anything.”
Twitter is a PUBLIC company until Musk takes it PRIVATE.
“I do worry...”
Not very easy at this point, due to the code lock down, not to mention the Bread Crumbs that anyone signing in leaves.
Also, some accounts have already been restored, including Babylon Bee (which was the reason Musk bought Twitter) and Tucker Carlson. Others have ‘tested’ the system by posting ‘hoorible’ things like “Vaccines don’t work” and have not yet been banned. I suspect what’s going on now is an attempt by the Fascists there to not get on Elon’s bad side, with the hope that he doesn’t look at back at their earlier work.
...so, so far, so good.
🤙
Nothing that happens in TWATTER matters outside of TWATTER. No account, no FB account, very little social media for that matter means my home looks good, my yard is clean and well tended and communication with my wife is superb. Social Media, for the most part, is garbage for the brain.
There is never going to be any audit. That could expose liability which would materially affect the value of the company. Ain’t gonna happen outside of a court order.
“What makes York think he’s entitled to know that?”
Because it could well be a violation of Federal election laws. They’re called “in kind contributions” and they must be reported to the FEC. Failure to do so is a felony and can get you serious prison time.
So there’s that.
L
Yeah...I don’t get it! Do you really want to know how Meathead’s meat head operates? I didn;t think so!
A Twitter “Truth Commission” - sounds like a plan.
So you think Jim needs to report to the FEC if he zots a pro-Biden poster during the election cycle?
What's the difference?
Currently it's a public company, but for now, they are free to censor anyone. Even now that should be if, and only if, they don't take a single penny of government money.
IMHO, Twitter, Facebook, and others should be treated like a utility company. They may be private, but it's unthinkable to defend a private electric company if they cut off the electricity to someone's house because of their yard sign in support of this politician or that issue.
.
“Twitter’s a private company and they’re free to censor anyone they want.”
Actually, they are in violation of the law. As a publisher they cannot censor. They are simply not being held accountable as a publisher.
That “private company” excuse is not true. Can your utility company not provide you service because of your demographic?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.